A Walk on the Wild Side. Exploring the Compatibility of Biodiversity and Recreational Preferences in Urban Green Spaces

EXPLORING THE COMPATIBILITY OF BIODIVERSITY AND
RECREATIONAL PREFERENCES IN URBAN GREEN SPACES
A WALK ON THE WILD SIDE

30 ECTS points MSc. thesis in
Landscape Architecture and Green Space Management
A walk on the wild side
Exploring the compatibility of biodiversity and
recreational preferences in urban green spaces
Malene Fogh Bang (lsh744)
Sara Folvig (fwt504)
Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource
Management. Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen
Supervisor
Hans Peter Ravn
Co-supervisors
Anders Busse Nielsen
Andy G. Howe
Submitted
1st October 2015
Image credits
All photos are captured by the authors, unless
otherwise stated. All hand drawn trees by courtesy of
Anders Busse Nielsen.
Printed at:
Christensen Grafisk

This thesis investigated the compatibility of biodiversity and recreational
preferences in urban green spaces. This was addressed through an inter-
disciplinary approach which combined methods from the fields of ecol-
ogy and landscape architecture. A method for assessing biodiversity was
employed to compare biodiversity between three formal green spaces
designated for recreational use and three informal green spaces with no
designated recreational function.
Biodiversity was assessed in terms of both habitat diversity and species
diversity of vascular plants and terrestrial invertebrates. In addition,
transect diagrams were employed to assess the spatial configuration of
the areas. The results revealed that biodiversity was relatively high in
formal green spaces due to high habitat heterogeneity and diverse plant
compositions. Nevertheless, in many respects biodiversity was higher in
the informal green spaces, characterised by spontaneous vegetation of
complex structures and compositions.
The landscape qualities which were found to promote biodiversity with-
in the six case areas were compared to preferences for various land-
scape structures identified through a literature study. The comparison
revealed that biodiversity and recreational preferences are not imme-
diately compatible. It was found that the general dislike for especially
dense vegetation, spontaneous structures, and a lack of coherence
within the landscape presents a challenge for promoting biodiversity in
urban green spaces. Thus, a set of design strategies were developed for
promoting compatibility of biodiversity and recreational preferences in
both formal and informal green spaces. Finally, these strategies were
applied in small scale design interventions in each of the six case areas.
KEYWORDS
Biodiversity assessment, biotope mapping, derelict areas, invertebrates,
landscape preference, park design, recreation, vascular plants, vegeta-
tion structure, urban green space
Abstract

Dette speciale undersøgte foreneligheden af biodiversitet og rekreative
præferencer i urbane grønne områder. Dette blev grebet an ud fra en
tværfaglig tilgang som kombinerede metoder fra økologi og landskab-
sarkitektur. En metode til bestemmelse af biodiversitet blev anvendt til
at sammenligne biodiversiteten mellem tre formelle grønne områder
udlagt til rekreative formål og tre uformelle områder ikke udlagt til re-
kreative formål.
Biodiversiteten blev bestemt ud fra både habitatdiversitet og artsdi-
versitet af vaskulære planter og terrestrielle invertebrater. Dertil blev
transektdiagrammer anvendt til at undersøge den rumlige opbygn-
ing af områderne. Resultaterne viste, at biodiversiteten var relativt
høj i formelle grønne områder grundet en høj habitatheterogenitet og
varierede beplantninger. Dog viste det sig at biodiversiteten på mange
punkter var højere i de uformelle områder, som var karakteriserede af
spontan vegetation med komplekse plantekompositioner og -sammen-
sætninger.
Landskabskvaliteterne som viste sig at fremme biodiversiteten i de seks
case områder blev sammenlignet med præferencer for forskellige land-
skabsstrukturer udpeget gennem et litteraturstudie. Sammenligningen
viste, at biodiversitet og rekreative præferencer ikke umiddelbart er
forenelige. Det fremgik, at den generelle modvilje mod især tæt vegeta-
tion, spontane strukturer og en manglende sammenhæng i landskabet
gør det vanskeligt at fremme biodiversiteten i urbane grønne områder.
Et sæt designstrategier blev derfor udviklet til at fremme foreneligheden
af biodiversitet og rekreative præferencer i både formelle og uformelle
grønne områder. Disse strategier blev til slut anvendt i mindre designfor-
slag til hvert af de seks case områder.
NØGLEORD
Biodiversitetsundersøgelse, biotopkortlægning, invertebrater, landska-
bspræference, parkedesign, rekreation, restarealer, vaskulære planter,
vegetationsstruktur, urbane grønne områder
Resume

Contents
Foreword p. 8
Acknowledgements p. 9
Introduction p. 10
Aim and objectives p. 11
Structure and Method p. 12
Delimitation p. 14
Terms and definitions p. 15
// Part I
The ecological aspect
Biodiversity and its drivers p. 18
Biodiversity in ‘formal’ green spaces p. 22
Biodiversity in ’informal’ green spaces p. 22
Introduction to case studies
Selecting case areas p. 26

Presentation of ‘formal’ green spaces
Fælledparken p. 28
Enghaveparken p. 30
Mimersparken p. 32
Presentation of ‘informal’ green spaces
Stejlepladsen p. 34
Nordhavnstippen p. 36
Amagerbanen p. 38
Methodology
Urban biodiversity assessment p. 42
Habitat diversity p. 43
Species diversity p. 44
Data analysis p. 46
Results
Fælledparken p. 50
Enghaveparken p. 64
Mimersparken p. 76
Stejlepladsen p. 86
Amagerbanen p. 106
Collective results of the formal p. 118
and informal green spaces
Discussion p. 124
Limitations p. 129
Conclusion p. 129
General recommendations for p. 130
improving biodiversity

// Part II
The recreational aspect
Culture vs. nature p. 134
The recreational use of urban green spaces p. 136
The recreational qualities of wastelands p. 137
Recreational preferences p. 138

Compatibility assessment
Fælledparken p. 144
Enghaveparken p. 146
Mimersparken p. 148
Stejlepladsen p. 150
Amagerbanen p. 154

Conclusion to compatibility assessment p. 156
// Part III
Potential for compatibility p. 160
Design strategies p. 162
Proposals
Fælledparken p. 166
Enghaveparken p. 168
Mimersparken p. 170
Stejlepladsen p. 172
Amagerbanen p. 176
// Part IV
Conclusion p. 180
Reflections p. 182
References p. 186
Appendix p. 196


This thesis marks the end of five years of study in landscape architecture.
During these five years, we have studied how to plan and manage our
green surroundings to create the best possible frame for human well-
being and the environment. The human aspect of green spaces plays
a principal role in the work of a landscape architect. However, we find
there are other aspects to this profession that also deserve considera-
tion.
In the fall of 2014, we completed a small study of biodiversity in urban
roadside verges of Copenhagen. The study triggered an interest for a
theme we had not given adequate attention before: biodiversity in urban
nature. The findings of our study suggested that management traditions
and aesthetic preferences are key determinants of the degree of biodi-
versity within roadside verges. This made us wonder about the possible
extent of biodiversity in other types of urban green spaces.
In this thesis we endeavoured to bridge the field of ecology in order to
explore the possibilities for promoting biodiversity in urban green spac-
es. We set up an explorative study and merged analytical tools from the
field of landscape architecture with methods derived from the field of
ecology. Working with this methodology has been interesting and also
challenging. Insect nets, pitfall traps, and the magnifying effect of the
microscope have certainly pushed a few personal boundaries. Neverthe-
less, the interdisciplinary approach has enabled us to better understand
the factors that influence biodiversity in urban green spaces.
It is our hope that this thesis provides evidence based reflections on the
possibilities for synergies between biodiversity and recreational quali-
ties that can inspire the planning and management of both existing and
future urban green spaces.
Foreword
Malene Fogh Bang
Copenhagen, 2015
Sara Folvig

Writing a thesis is exciting and instructive when you are fortunate to
have a committed team of academic advisors who provide valuable com-
ments and great encouragement throughout.
In that regard, thank you to our main supervisor Hans Peter Ravn for
taking on two landscape architects and for guiding us in our efforts to
explore the ecological perspective on landscape architecture and recrea-
tion.
Additionally, thank you to our co-supervisor Anders Busse Nielsen for his
inspiring input and way of getting us back on track.
Finally, thank you to Andy Howe for being an excellent sparring partner
and for his immense help in the lab sorting and identifying ‘the little crit-
ters’. We hope he finds it was time well spent!

Acknowledgements


Once, man lived in harmony with nature from the understanding that all
life is connected and interdependent. As human society evolved and cit-
ies expanded people became more and more detached from their natu-
ral surroundings. The loss of affiliation with nature resulted in a loss of
the sense of responsibility for it. This generated a tendency of perceiving
nature as a product to be exploited instead of something that has value
in itself (Natursyn, 2015a; Farinha-Marques et al., 2011).
In an expanding urban environment governed by an anthropocentric
mindset the pressure on urban green spaces to provide various ecosys-
tem services, i.e. cultural, regulating, and provisioning services, is signifi-
cant. With several aspects to consider in the planning and management
of urban green spaces, biodiversity is rarely given top priority (Hermy &
Cornelis, 2000; Ejrnæs & Reddersen, 2012). Planners may be aware of
the importance of biodiversity and aspire to promote it. However, any
implication of biodiversity interfering with recreational qualities, will re-
peatedly lead to reconsiderations and a shift in focus towards user func-
tions instead of ecological values (Natusyn, 2015).
The frequent failure to accommodate biodiversity in urban green space
design is concerning, given the continuing decline of biodiversity by in-
creasing globalisation (Shochat et al., 2010). Biodiversity is an integral
underlying foundation for the various ecosystem services on which hu-
man well-being depends (Cardinale, 2012) and in addition, it has sig-
nificant intrinsic value (Mikrofonholder, 2015). In the expanding urban
environment, urban green spaces should be utilised for conserving and
promoting biodiversity. This requires an understanding of not only the
factors that promote biodiversity, but also human preferences for green
spaces. These preferences will be the determinant factor for the extent
of biodiversity in conservation efforts (Stokes, 2007).
Like many other aspects of today’s society, urban green spaces are sub-
ject to a high level of order and control (Faeth et al., 2011). As such,
the formal, designed urban green spaces which are found in cities are a
mere interpretation of nature, shaped by cultural values, and designed
to suit different recreational trends. In contrast, nature is not defined by
straight lines. It is skewed, layered, and dynamic; factors that in various
ways benefit biodiversity (Mikrofonholder, 2015). Occasionally, nature
of a spontaneous kind finds its way into the urban environment. This is
often seen on derelict land such as wastelands and landfill areas. These
areas often possess valuable ecological qualities (Bonthoux et al., 2014)
that might inspire new approaches to planning and management of ur-
ban green spaces to offer better conditions for biodiversity.
The premise for this thesis was the hypothesis that a higher level of bio-
diversity exists within informal, spontaneous green spaces than in for-
mal, designed green spaces. It was assumed that preferences for certain
landscape qualities and recreational functions of urban green spaces do
not coincide with the qualities that promote biodiversity.
Introduction

The aim of this thesis was to explore to what extent factors promoting
biodiversity and recreational preferences are compatible. In order to ad-
dress this, the thesis was structured around the following objectives:
We wanted to (1) explore whether and why informal green spaces offer
better conditions for biodiversity than formal green spaces. In a recrea-
tional context we wanted to (2) identify preferred landscape qualities in
order to (3) investigate whether the preferred landscape qualities are
compatible with factors promoting biodiversity.
As a final evaluation, we wanted to (4) examine how formal green spaces
can offer better conditions for biodiversity without compromising their
recreational values and how informal green spaces can offer better con-
ditions for recreation without compromising their ecological qualities.
Aim and objectives

Fig. 1
The three main aspects to consider in urban green spaces.
The thesis will investigate to what extent biodiversity is compatible with prefer-
ences for recreational functions and experiences. Adapted from: Habitats (2013).
Functions
ExperiencesBiodiversity


The first part of the thesis consist of empirical field research. It is initi-
ated with a brief account of the ecological factors that influence biodi-
versity according to existing research. This is followed by six case studies
set to illuminate differences in biodiversity between formal and informal
green spaces in Copenhagen. The empirical findings derived from the
case studies are evaluated in relation to the presented existing research
and a set of general recommendations for promoting biodiversity within
urban green spaces is presented.
In the second part we focus on the recreational aspect of urban green
spaces. By means of a literature study we investigate the recreational
qualities of urban green spaces in terms of recreational use and land-
scape preferences. Subsequently, we compare the empirical findings of
the case studies with the identified, preferred landscape qualities and
investigate the similarities and differences.
In part three, we examine the possibilities for synergies between fac-
tors promoting biodiversity and recreational qualities. Subsequently,
we present a set of design strategies to promote compatibility between
biodiversity and recreation in urban green spaces. Finally, we apply the
presented strategies in a set of proposals to integrate biodiversity and
recreation in the formal green and informal case areas.
The fourth and final part presents a conclusion to our findings and reflec-
tions on the study.
Structure and method


Fig. 2
Structure and flow of the thesis.
Compatibility
assessment
Design
proposals
Urban biodiversity
assessment
Part I Part II Part III
General
recommendations for
promoting biodiversity
Empiricalresearch
Recreational preferences
Evidencebaseddesign
Theoreticalresearch
Design strategies


The limited time frame made a few restrictions necessary. Firstly, the
biodiversity assessment employed for the case studies was simplified to
be manageable within a six month period spanning from April to Octo-
ber. Hence, the registration of flora and fauna was non-repetitive which
notably provides limited insight to the degree of biodiversity within the
different green spaces. Furthermore, approximately half of the area of
Fælledparken was omitted from the analysis.
As the focus of this study lies on the empirical field research, the design
proposals have a limited level of detail and take form of small interven-
tions that can be adopted in similar green spaces elsewhere. The up-
coming plans for Amagerbanen developed by Schönherr and Moe (KK,
2014), the plans for climate adaptation in Enghaveparken developed by
Tredje Natur (Tredje Natur, 2014), and the development plans for Nord-
havn (By & Havn, n.d.) will not be discussed.
Delimitation

BIODIVERSITY
Biodiversity or biological diversity is defined as “the variability among liv-
ing organisms from all sources, including, ‘inter alia’, terrestrial, marine,
and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which
they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and
of ecosystems” (UN, 1992). In this study, the term biodiversity will cover
species diversity and habitat diversity. We fully acknowledge that these
form only two levels of biodiversity which by definition encompasses
multiple additional levels of biological organisation.
FORMAL AND INFORMAL GREEN SPACES
The distinction between the terms formal and informal green spaces is
derived from Rupprecht & Byrne (2014) who have developed a global
definition and typology of the two terms applicable to this study.
The term ‘formal green space’ covers any green space that results from
human intention. All landscape elements have been designated and or-
ganised either for recreational use or cultivation and the area is man-
aged and developed accordingly.
The term ‘informal green space’ encompasses any green space that may
have human origin, but is not a direct result of human design. It is an
area where vegetation has developed spontaneously on the basis of its
former use or origin and where management is not coherent. The area
is not designated for recreation, production or cultivation. Any use is
informal and transitional in both time, space, and function.
Terms and Definitions
Human
origin
Management
Informal green space
Ecology
Conservationareas
Formalgreenspace
Fig. 3
The organisation of formal and informal green spaces according to three main
influencing factors. Adapted from: Rupprecht & Byrne (2014).


// Part I
THE ECOLOGICAL ASPECT

Biodiversity is a complex concept as it encompasses multiple, interrelat-
ed levels of biological organisation. These include; ecosystem diversity,
species diversity and genetic diversity (Alvey, 2006; Noss, 1990). Diver-
sity at ecosystem level is regulated by physiographic patterns expressed
by the spatial distribution of habitats as well as both biotic and abiotic
ecological processes such as water and nutrient cycles, climate, inter-
specific interactions, and natural disturbances (GBC, 2002a; Noss, 1990).
Diversity of species is determined by numerous factors. Most relevant
to urban environments are dispersal abilities and the degree to which
niche requirements of various species are fulfilled. These requirements
vary indefinitely between biotic factors, be it quantitatively and qualita-
tively sufficient resources such as food, shelter and nesting opportuni-
ties, or abiotic factors such as variations in temperature and moisture
(Agger et al., 1982). Genetic diversity is dependent on the interchange of
genes within species which is strongly influenced by the spatial distribu-
tion of habitats and the dispersal ability of different species (Bernhardt,
n.d.a; Agger et al., 1982).
Franklin et al. (1981) recognized three main attributes of biodiversity;
composition, structure and function. The following will present various
factors that promote biodiversity structured according to the first two
attributes, as composition and structure can be directly influenced by
human intervention in the urban environment and form the template
for ecological functions (Faeth et al., 2011).
COMPOSITION
An important driver of biodiversity is the biotic components that make
up an ecosystem (Noss, 1990). The various components are interde-
pendent; yet vegetation constitutes an essential foundation for the rest
of the biological community. Consequently, diversity of plant species is
considered a precondition for overall biodiversity (Gao et al., 2014; and
references therein). While diversity of plant species is important as a
precaution against pest and disease outbreak with potential devastat-
ing effects on ecosystems (Alvey, 2006), species diversity also includes
non-native species. These are species that occur outside their natural
range due to human-mediated introduction (Pyšek et al., 2004). There is
Biodiversity and its drivers
a tendency for an increase in non-native species towards the urban core
(Kowarik, 2008; McKinney, 2002). Urbanisation promotes biotic homog-
enisation whereby species assemblages in geographically separate cities
resemble each other. One contributing mechanism is when native spe-
cies are replaced by non-native species due to both accidental and inten-
tional importation (McKinney, 2006). With their superior adaptive skills,
robustness, and lack of natural enemies, some non-native species are
strong competitors for resources to native species and more so if they
have invasive behaviour (Alvey, 2006). The abundance of non-native
species may increase local species diversity, but on a broader scale their
competitive effect reduces native species diversity (McKinney, 2006) and
thus contributes to the worrying trend of the ongoing homogenization
of the global species pool (Wittig & Becker, 2010; McKinney, 2006).
The distribution of non-native species will also affect the large taxon of
primary consumers, i.e. herbivorous insects, with further bottom-up
implications for local food webs (Burghardt et al., 2010). Several stud-
ies have demonstrated that many non-native plant species support less
organisms compared to native species (Helden, 2012; and references
therein). Kennedy & Southwood (1984) studied twenty-eight British
trees and their associated insect fauna and asserted that among the
trees with the most associated insects the top twelve trees were all na-
tive. Especially species belonging to the genus Salix, Quercus, and Bet-
ula had particularly rich assemblages of insects. With the exception of
some species such as Ilex aquifolium and Taxus baccata, it is generally
agreed that native vegetation is essential for invertebrate diversity and
subsequently other faunal groups of higher trophic level (Helden et al.,
2012; Burghardt & Tallamy, 2013) such as insectivorous birds for whom
native vegetation was found to provide greater food supply than non-
native vegetation (Helden et al., 2012). It should not be inferred that all
non-native species are poor supporters of biodiversity nor that all native
species are equally valuable (Burghardt & Tallamy, 2013). This was for
example made evident by Helden et al.(2012) who studied insect fauna
on native and non-native trees and found that non-native species some-
times exceeded native species in associated insects. According to Smith
et al. (2006) some non-native plant species may constitute resources to



insects if they are near-native, i.e. related to native plant species at fam-
ily or genus level.
For the declining taxon of pollinating insects, native and near-native
flora comprises the most important resource; yet research suggests
that overall resource abundance is the main driver of insect populations
regardless of its native/non-native status (Salisbury et al., 2015; Bjerk-
nes, 2007). Salisbury et al. (2015) recently argued that a careful selec-
tion of non-native plant species added to a habitat can provide valu-
able resources for pollinators when native and near-native resources are
scarce, especially in very early and late season (Bjerknes, 2007).
STRUCTURE
Another significant driver of biodiversity is the spatial and temporal
structure of vegetation (Gao et al, 2012) on which species richness and
abundance strongly depend (Farinha-Marques et al., 2011; and refer-
ences therein). The spatial structure comprises both the horizontal and
vertical dimensions of vegetation.
On the horizontal level, a high complexity of vegetation types will sup-
port habitat heterogeneity and higher species diversity as more niche
requirements will be fulfilled (Agger et al., 1981; Tews et al., 2004 and
reference therein). An important part of the complexity of vegetation
types are the transition zones. These often form a particular sort of
intermediate habitats that favour many species. Studies have shown
(Magura et al., 2001; and references therein) that diversity of ground
beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) is higher in the edge zones than in the
adjacent forest structures and open grassland. The in-between condi-
tions of the stand interior and the open surface provide ideal conditions
for many species and particularly those who require habitats of different
structure in close vicinity.
In tree and shrub stands, variation in the vertical strata will also pro-
mote biodiversity. A high stand of multiple layers can contribute to plant
species richness and will furthermore enhance habitat heterogeneity for
the benefit of different organisms that forage, nest, and rest at different
heights (Gao et al., 2014; GBC, 2002b). Gao et al. (2014) found that ma-
ture, multi-layered stands had higher plant species diversity which also
was the case in mixed stands of both deciduous and coniferous species
and stands of semi-open character. Additionally, they found that young,
one-layered, and especially coniferous stands had low plant species di-
versity.
Structural complexity of vegetation will also affect diversity and distri-
bution of fauna. In a study of urban forests it was discovered that the
herb layer had a positive effect on ground beetles (Pinna et al., 2009).
The herb cover provides protection from predation and ensures fa-
vourable microclimatic conditions for the egg and larval development
of most ground beetles. Additionally, the herb cover may increase the
abundance of detritivores and herbivores which in turn may increase
predatory species (Magura et al., 2001; Morris, 2000). Along with the
understorey, herb cover is also an important provider of floral nectar.
However, this resource is often in short supply as the plants bloom early
in the season before leaf expansion. Along edges and where gaps in the
canopy allow for sun infiltration, blooming may continue and resources
be more consistent (Ulyshen, 2011).
Variations in the topography is another important structural factor that
will add to the heterogeneity of microclimates and affect both flora and
fauna in various positive ways (Bennie et al., 2008). The presence of leaf
litter, rocks, and logs will furthermore retain moisture in between rain
events and provide protection from desiccation for many invertebrate
species (Hickerson et al., 2012).
In grassland environments, structural complexity is also of significant
importance for invertebrates. Tall vegetation supports more species and
a higher abundance of individuals, however some species are charac-
teristic to shorter swards. Variation of low and tall grasses and herbs
therefore enhances microhabitat heterogeneity (Morris, 2000; Noordijk
et al., 2010). In addition, variation of fresh as well as dead strands will
also support more species as many utilize dead strands for the construc-
tion of nests (Morris, 2000).


Temporal structures are also an important attribute of biodiversity. Tree
stands become more structurally complex with age which increases fau-
nal diversity. As trees age, they tend to develop cavities that in both dry
and water filled-state provide key habitats for wildlife. Adding to this,
sap flow increases which is an important resource for many arthropod
species. Old, fallen, mature trees create gaps in the canopy and add to
the habitat- and microclimate heterogeneity and the dead or decaying
wood is essential to saproxylic species (Sörensen, 2008) among others
(Ulyshen, 2011).
Continuity of resources is an important temporal aspect of biodiversity.
In the process of natural succession, the relatively open and sun exposed
first stage is the most diverse (Rink & Herbst, 2012). Plant diversity tends
to decrease towards the climax stage, while diversity of fauna increases
(Bernhardt, n.d.b). As such, continuity of these stages is important to
sustain a large variety of organisms (Bonthoux et al. 2014). Additionally,
continuity of resources throughout seasons ensures continuous food
sources or shelter opportunity even during winter. Notably, some spe-
cies require different resources for the different stages of their lives. As
an example, some species inhabit wood debris at ground level in their
larval stage and progress upwards to the canopy layers as adults (Uly-
shen, 2011). Other species are dependent on water elements for ovipo-
sition (Williams, 1987; Hamer et al., 2012).


BIODIVERSITY IN FORMAL GREEN SPACES
Formal urban green spaces are often characterized by high habitat het-
erogeneity due to the complex spatial configuration of vegetation and
water elements. As such, they can support biodiversity despite their
primary recreational functions (Nielsen et al., 2013; Ahern, 2007; Hermy
& Cornelis, 2004). Furthermore, they often contain remnants of natural
areas or have a long history as a public green space within the urban
matrix. Continuity is therefore often a key determinant of relatively high
degrees of biodiversity in these areas (Farinha-Marques et al., 2011).
The quality of the habitats within formal urban green spaces is, how-
ever, under the control of the planners and managers and it is therefore
greatly influenced by shifting fashions in landscape architecture.
As aesthetics is a ruling aspect of design, considerations for biodiversity
may often be forfeit. Trees that provide a beautiful display of flowers in
the spring are a sight valued by many, but when the beautiful flowers
later turn into windfall fruit, the scenery is disrupted (Nassauer, 1995).
As a prevention, the choice may fall on genetically modified, sterile tree
species to avoid the ‘mess’ that otherwise constitute an important re-
source for various faunal groups (Torrance, 2010).
The limited extent of many formal urban green spaces will cause many
architects to utilize the area to its fullest extent. As a result, the lines are
often sharply drawn (Odgaard, 2014). A clean transition from extensive
lawn to a swiftly rising tree stand is a key example (Pape, 1984) of an
architectural solution that does not consider edge sensitivity of various
species.
The public pressure on formal urban green spaces means that certain
reinforcements of the landscape are considered necessary. For example,
lawns are often fertilized as a remedy against wear and tear (KK, 2013;
Faeth, 2011). However, this practice has negative effects on biodiversity
as the generous supply of nutrients to the lawns will result in monotone
swards of only a few dominant species (Falk, 1980 referenced in Müller
et al., 2013; Nordijk et al., 2010). However, some forms of wear and tear
can promote highly favourable conditions for other species. A trodden
path through vegetation or a south facing slope subject to the tear of
sledges in winter can produce just the right sort of habitat for ground
nesting bees (Natursyn, 2015b; Potts et al., 2005).
Following design, maintenance is another determining factor of the de-
gree of biodiversity in formal urban green spaces. When the vegetation
elements have finally reached the designated spatial dimensions the
goal is generally to keep that expression (Andersson, 1999). Temporal
variation of vegetation is therefore often limited in formal urban green
spaces and tends to be concentrated on the exchange of ornamental
annual plants. Trees are rarely allowed to reach old age in formal green
spaces. In general, they are removed before they potentially become a
safety risk for visitors (Thomsen, 2014; Pape, 1984). Old, veteran trees
full of cavities are therefore a rare sight and lost potential habitats for
many organisms, especially the abundant group of saproxylic insects.
BIODIVERSITY IN INFORMAL GREEN SPACES
Informal urban green spaces such as spontaneous or derelict areas,
have in many cases been found to harbour more species than other
urban green spaces and they are generally acknowledged to have sig-
nificant potential for promoting biodiversity in the urban environment
(Bonthoux et al., 2014; Farinha-Marques et al., 2011). The potential is
rooted in the specific substrates, soil conditions, varying structures, and
climate that are associated with these types of areas (Rink & Herbst,
2012; Kattwinkel et al., 2011). In fact, the high sun exposure and the
well-drained brick debris, which in many cases makes up the substrate of
these areas, often mimic natural habitats such as sandy heaths and chalk
grassland and can support rare and even endangered species (Robinson
& Lundholm, 2012).
Informal green spaces often comprise a mosaic of habitats in a pattern
shaped by the former use of the area and are often highly dynamic due
to progressing succession (Bonthoux et al., 2014, Kattwinkel et al., 2011;
Strauss & Biedermann, 2006). This both spatial and temporal diversity
of habitats creates a variety of niches for flora and fauna (Bonthoux et
al., 2014).
Biodiversity in urban green spaces


Diversity of species changes with age and in accordance with the differ-
ent stages of succession. It is found to peak within six to nine years, after
which it tends to decrease as the vegetation matures (Rink & Herbst,
2012; Rebele, 1994). The early successional stage supports particularly
diverse and complex food webs as the diverse plant communities pro-
duce a variety of food sources such as plant mass, seeds, nectar, pollen
and fruit (Swanson et al., 2010). This supports a variety of invertebrates
and especially pollinating insects due to the abundance of pollen and
nectar resources (Robinson & Lundholm, 2012).


Formal and informal urban green spaces exist on very different founda-
tions which give them relatively dissimilar expressions. Whether dissimi-
larities of landscape characteristics also result in differences in biodiver-
sity was investigated by means of six case studies.
SELECTION OF CASE AREAS
The case studies included three formal and three informal urban green
spaces in Copenhagen. The three formal green spaces each represents a
typical architectural style with certain recreational qualities.
• The traditional public park for promenading, sports, and play
• The urban garden offering quiet contemplation
• The multifunctional park for physical activities and socialising
By including different types of formal green spaces we hoped to illu-
minate the level of biodiversity across a wider range of architectural
expressions and recreational qualities. This should further enable us to
present strategies for improving biodiversity that apply to more than
one type of formal green space.
The three contrasting informal green spaces included in the study were
chosen based on their complexity and age to ensure reasonable com-
parability to the formal green spaces. These areas included an old, de-
serted railroad and two former landfill areas that all have developed
spontaneously.
Introduction to case studies
Fig. 4
The location of the six selected case areas in Copenhagen.

Nordhavnstippen
Fælledparken
Enghaveparken
Amagerbanen
Stejlepladsen
Mimersparken
200 m
N

FÆlledparken
Size: 58 ha (area of study: 32 ha)
Established: 1908-1912
Architect: Edvard Glæsel
THE LANDSCAPE GARDEN
For more than 100 years Fælledparken has provided a setting for culture,
sports and outdoor life in Copenhagen. Today, the park has approximate-
ly 11 million visitors per year (KK, 2006) of all ages and social groups who
come to enjoy a wide range of recreational activities from promenading
and relaxation to sports and play, as well as various cultural events.
Inspired by the English landscape garden, Fælledparken is characterised
by vast open lawns framed by lush, naturalistic forest plantings that fur-
thermore shield the park from the surrounding city. These framing, for-
est plantings form large and dense vegetation solids which, along with
the additional thickets and groves, create a large-scale landscape with
long sightlines to important landmarks outside the park such as church
towers (KK, 2006). The sightlines are occasionally disrupted by strate-
gically placed nodes, such as buildings or facilities, that constitute im-
portant social focal points within the park. Most of the tree plantings
present in Fælledparken today derive from the original landscape plan
and many of the trees are therefore over 100 years old.
Fælledparken has been under conservation since 1963 with the purpose
of continuing the area as a recreational green space and maintaining the
area as a park (Fredningsnævnet, 1963).

Pic. 1
One of the many sightlines in Fælledparken.
Fig. 5
Fælledparken is located at Østerbro and is enclosed by
Jagtvej, Nørre Allé and Blegdamsvej while Øster Allé in-
tersects the park. The buildings surrounding Fælledpar-
ken are a mosaic of different scales from the football
stadium ‘Parken’ and Rigshospitalet to residential areas.

Parken
Øster Allé
Blegdam
svej
Frederik V’s Vej
EdelSauntesAllé
Brumleby
Rigshospitalet
Sports fields
Café
Playground
Playground
Playground
Trianglen
Lake
Københavns
universitet
200 m
N

Enghaveparken
Size: 3.6 ha
Established: 1929
Architect: Poul Holsøe
THE URBAN GARDEN
Enghaveparken has been of significant local recreational value and the
centre of social activities for many years and continues to be so with ap-
proximately 1 mio. visitors a year (Tredje natur, 2014).
Enghaveparken has a typical neoclassical design with a strong symmetri-
cal layout. The almost quadratic park is framed by a tall hedgerow and a
line of trees. Within this frame an alley divides the park into six different
rooms; a water garden, a perennial garden, a rose garden, a sports area,
a play area, and a social area with a stage. The park has seen only a few
changes since the establishment. The original elm alleys succumbed to
the Dutch elm disease in the nineties and have since been replaced by
Tilia x europaea and Robinia pseudoacacia (Lund, 2000).
Despite the epithet ‘park’, Enghaveparken has a defined horticultural
character. The intimate scale, the various rooms and the distinct en-
closed nature indicate that this is a place where something is grown. The
water features, the lush and colourful vegetation and different garden
rooms offer the opportunity of play, contemplation and relaxation. This
is particularly valuable in a dense city environment such as Vesterbro,
which has the lowest amount of green spaces per square kilometre in all
of Copenhagen (Lund, 2000).
Enghaveparken has been under conservation since 1966. The conserva-
tion ensures that the area is maintained as a public recreational green
space and that it is managed as a park. No significant changes may be
made to either terrain or vegetation which are not in tune with the func-
tions of the park. (Fredningsnævnet, 1966).

Fig. 6
Enghaveparken is located in Vesterbro. It is enclosed by
Lyrskovgade, Ejderstedgade, Ny Carlsbergvej, and Eng-
havevej with the adjoining green space Enghave Plads.
Pic. 2
The rose garden in Enghaveparken

Enghave Plads
Sports area
Playground
Paddling pool
Perennial garden
Rose garden
Scene
Lyrskovgade
Ny Carlsberg Vej
Ejderstedgade
Enghavevej
200 m
N

Mimersparken
Size: 3.8 ha
Established: 2012
Architects: Poul Børling, Peter Holst Arkitektur & Landskab
A MODERN PLAYSCAPE
Mimersparken was established on a former DSB area previously used
for rail freight transport to the factories and industrial enterprises lo-
cated in Nørrebro. In 2008, the area was purchased by the Municipality
of Copenhagen and became a part of the urban facelifts initiated by the
Municipality of Copenhagen in cooperation with Realdania to provide
a better frame for urban life in Nørrebro (KK, 2012). Mimersparken is a
local urban playscape that offers a variety of activities such as exercise,
sports and play, and social activities.
The park is divided into different recreational zones. The western border
along the railway is intended to be soft and forest-like with trees and
shrubs, offering an escape from the urban turmoil. In contrast to this,
the eastern border is completely urban consisting largely of paved sur-
faces and different sports facilities that altogether make up the transi-
tion from park to the adjacent residential area (DAC, 2014).
Mimersparken is a typical example of a modern activity park in which
the green elements form a mere frame around a multitude of activities.
With activities spanning from relaxation and social activities to various
forms of sports and play, Mimersparken intends to embrace the diversity
and complexity of the densely populated Nørrebro and to be a park for
all social groups and a park for all generations (DAC, 2014).

Fig. 7
Mimersparken is located in the outskirts of Nørrebro be-
tween Nørrebro station and Bispebjerg station. It is sur-
rounded by the railway and a shopping center towards
the east and five story residential buildings to the west.
Pic. 3
The ‘urban edge’ of Mimersparken

Artificial turf
Nørrebro Bycenter
Playground
Sports area
Tagensvej
Bispebjerg st.
Mjølnerparken
200 m
N

Stejlepladsen
Size: 3.2 ha
A WILDERNESS BY THE WATER
Stejlepladsen is a former part of Copenhagen Harbour that was
filled up with soil, debris, and waste between 1945 and 1973, as
the area was used as a dump yard from around 1950 (Eriksen,
1996). After 1973 the area was left to itself and natural succession
set in (DN, 2012).
Up until the end of the 1980’s, Stejlepladsen was used by local
fishermen to dry both fishing nets and fish. Today, the area is still
occasionally used to handle fishing nets, but above all it is a green
space where the locals gather for the annual Midsummer’s Eve
bonfire (DN, 2012).
Stejlepladsen has been declared a valuable landscape and is in-
cluded in the important cultural environments of Copenhagen
(KK, 2011a). An application for conservation of Stejlepladsen and
the adjacent nature area of Sydhavnstippen was submitted in
2012, but the application was denied (Fredningsnævnet, 2014).

Fig. 8
Stejlepladsen is located in Sydhavnen close to the na-
ture area Sydhavnstippen and is surrounded by two
marinas, residential housing and an industrial area.
Pic. 4
Meadow and sporadic trees and shrubs in Stejlepladsen
Sydha

avnstippen
Residential area
Fiskerihavnen
Rotteøen
Sejlklubvej
Marina
200 m
N

Nordhavnstippen
Size: 9 ha
A NATURAL SANCTUARY
Nordhavnen was constructed by landfill from the late 1880’s and on-
wards in order to accommodate Copenhagen’s expanding harbour and
shipping industry (By & Havn, 2015). The majority of Nordhavnen was
filled between 1950 and 2000 (By & Havn, 2008).
Nordhavnstippen was developed during the last 40 years with the in-
tention of including the area in future harbour activities. Between the
1980’s and the 1990’s the area was more or less left to itself, until it from
1995-2000 was completely closed off as a construction site for continu-
ing landfill projects (DOF, 2015; Eriksen, 1996).
Nordhavnstippen is a large-scale, open landscape of wasteland charac-
ter with spontaneous vegetation mainly consisting of extensive grass-
land and thickets. Apart from sheep grazing in one half of the area, no
maintenance is carried out and the flora and fauna has occurred spon-
taneously. The area is included in many migration routes and is used as
both a resting and breeding area for birds. Two hundred bird species and
rare moths have been observed (By & Havn, 2008) as well as the pro-
tected European green toad (Bufo viridis) which has inhabited the two
constructed lakes at Nordhavnstippen (DN, 2015).
The area has no recreational facilities such as paths, lighting, benches,
etc. Nevertheless, the area is often used by e.g. birdwatchers, anglers,
and dog owners (DOF, 2015).

Fig. 9
Nordhavnstippen is located in the northeastern part
of the Nordhavn peninsula in Copenhagen Harbour.
The area is enclosed by Nordsøvej and Kattegat-
vej together with the industrial area of the harbour.
Pic. 5
Trodden path through the landscape at Nordhavnssippen

Industrial area
Københavns
Miljøcenter
Nordsøvej
Kattegatvej
Øresund
100 m
N

Amagerbanen
Size: 3.1 ha
Established: 1907
Abandoned: 1991
FULL STEAM ON NATURAL SUCCESSION
The original 12 km railway was established in 1907 as a private line for
passengers and freight between Amagerbro and Dragør. The railway
was shut down in 1991 from which point on all maintenance ceased
and spontaneous vegetation was allowed to cover the tracks (Petersen
2015). Today, only the northern part of the abandoned railway line can
still be seen as a green curve that runs through the urban landscape.
Amagerbanen has no specific function, but due to the long and narrow
shape it has become a local transit zone and is mainly used for dog walk-
ing.

Fig. 10
The remains of Amagerbanen are located in the
northern part of Amager. It is surrounded by Up-
landsgade and Ved Amagerbanen as well as al-
lotment gardens, residential buildings, indus-
try, and the extensive lawns of Kløvermarken.
Pic. 6
Tunnel of Prunus ceracifera enclosing the tracks of Amagerbanen

Kløvermarken
Uplandsgade
Vermlandsgade
Prags Blvd.
Ved
Am
agerbanen
200 m
N


As previously established, biodiversity is a multifaceted and complex
matter spanning levels from genes and species to habitats and ecosys-
tems (Noss, 1990; Raven, 1992), with each level containing various com-
positional, structural, and functional aspects (Noss, 1997). Often, bio-
diversity assessments focus on one specific taxonomic group (Hermy &
Cornelis, 2004, Farinha-Marques et al., 2011). However, this gives a very
limited perspective on biodiversity.
This study employed a modified version of an ecological method devel-
oped by Hermy & Cornelis (2000) to monitor biodiversity within urban
and suburban parks. The original method was developed to consider
more aspects of biodiversity and as such, it works along two lines; habi-
tat diversity and species diversity (Fig. 11). While the original method by
Hermy & Cornelis (2000) gives a relatively thorough account of biodiver-
sity, it does not consider vegetation structure, which has shown to have
significant positive relations to biodiversity (Qiu et al., 2010). The aspect
of vegetation structure was therefore incorporated according to Qiu et
Urban biodiversity assessment
Biodiversity assessment
Planar
elements
Linear
elements
Punctual
elements
Terrestrial
invertebrates
Vascular
plants
Habitat diversity Species diversity
0.3 m
2 m
8 m
4.
Upper
canopy layer
3.
Lower
canopy layer
2.
Shrub layer
1.
Herb layer
Fig. 12
The vertical distribution of the 4 layers of vegetation within a tree stand. Adapted
from: Warncke (2008).
Fig. 11
Structure of the method showing the five main biodiversity indicators.
al. (2010) to ensure a more nuanced assessment of biodiversity within
each of the six case areas.
To simplify matters, species diversity was determined for just two dif-
ferent species groups; vascular plants and terrestrial invertebrates. Re-
search shows that invertebrates are a viable indicator for biodiversity
as they are abundant, easy to sample, and sensitive to environmental
changes. Furthermore, as invertebrates constitute a lower part of the
food chain, they affect the presence of other species of higher trophic
levels (McIntyre, 2000 referenced in Jones & Leather, 2012; Willand et
al., 2011). The principle of the method was as follows:

HABITAT DIVERSITY
HABITAT UNIT INDEX
Habitat diversity was determined from a pre-determined index of habi-
tat units (see appendix 1) designed to map elements typically found in
urban green spaces in Copenhagen which are considered to have some
degree of ecological value. The index consists of 164 habitat units divid-
ed into 62 planar, 77 linear, and 25 punctual elements. Planar elements
cover features such as forest, grassland, and water bodies and are ex-
pressed in area (m2
). Linear elements possess a length/width ratio larger
than 10 and include alleys, hedges, watercourses, etc. Linear elements
are expressed in total length (m). Punctual elements are expressed in
numbers and comprise features such as single trees or shrubs with cov-
erage up to 100 m2
, after which they are defined as planar elements. The
only exception is solitary trees which are always considered punctual
elements.
BIOTOPE MAPPING
For each of the six case areas the various habitat units corresponding to
the habitat unit index were mapped in the field and subsequently digit-
ised using GIS. Thereafter, data sets displaying the distribution and total
cover of the digitised habitat units were generated. A Shannon diversity
index (H) was calculated to determine the habitat diversity for planar,
linear, and punctual elements.

=
= −∑1
ln
s
i i
i
n n
H
N N
=− =max max
max
1
ln lnH s
s
Where i is the ith
habitat unit, s the number of habitat units, ni
the area,
length or number of the ith
habitat unit, N the total area, length or num-
ber in the park.
A Shannon diversity index is not very informative on its own. Therefore
a saturation index, i.e. the ratio between the calculated diversity indices
and the maximum potential diversity was calculated. The maximum po-
tential diversity (Hmax
) is reached when all habitat units featured in the
index are present and they all have the same area, length or number
(Table 1).
Where smax
is the total number of distinguished habitat units.
The saturation index H/Hmax
x 100 expresses the diversity as a percentage
of the maximum diversity for planar, linear, and punctual units respec-
tively.
Maximum no. (s) Hmax
= ln s
Planar elements 62 4.13
Linear elements 77 4.34
Punctual elements 25 3.22
Table 1. Maximum potential Shannon diversity index (Hmax
) for the
three categories of habitat units.


The total saturation index (St
) for all habitat units combined was deter-
mined as the weighted average of the three indices for planar, linear, and
punctual elements.
+ +
= pl pl li li pu pu
t
t
S n S n S n
S
n
Where Spl
is the saturation index for planar elements, npl
the number of
planar elements, Sli
the saturation index of linear elements, nli
the num-
ber of linear elements, Spu
the saturation index for punctual elements,
npu
the number of punctual elements, and nt
the total number of habitat
units.
TRANSECT SURVEY
In order to include the important aspect of vegetation structure in the
assessment of species diversity, transect diagrams were employed. This
is an analytical tool derived from the field of landscape architecture
which is appropriate for displaying the spatial configuration of vegeta-
tion. Along these transects, the assessment of species diversity would
also be carried out.
The main criteria for the layout of the transects was that they should
intersect the most characteristic landscape elements of each case area.
In order to identify these characteristics, the data sets from the habitat
diversity assessment were used once more. Initially, all mapped habi-
tat units which were abiotic elements, e.g. gravel surface and hardened
paths, in which it would not be possible to determine species diversity
of vascular plants and invertebrates, were discarded. Subsequently, the
most frequent and abundant habitat units for each case area were se-
lected as they also represented the characteristic landscape elements of
these areas. Transects were then pre-positioned on the biotope maps
to intersect as many of the characteristic habitat units as possible. The
transects had a length of 25 m or 50 m, comprising a total of 100 m per
case area. This was appropriate both in terms of covered area and avail-
able time for registrations.
Along the transects, 3 plots of 4m2
were to be used for registration of
herbaceous vegetation and collection of associated invertebrate fauna.
The position of the plots were determined according to the frequency of
herbaceous vegetation elements. For example, if a case area comprised
more lawn than meadow the majority of the plots would be placed in
lawn. Additionally, spots within open and enclosed vegetation elements
as well as edge zones were marked out for the collection of ground
dwelling invertebrates.
Following the initial preparations, the transect survey was finally carried
out. In the field, a measuring tape was drawn out according to the posi-
tion of the transects. Subsequently, the proportions of each individual
tree or shrub of a height above 50 cm from the ground that either di-
rectly intersected the measuring tape or were situated maximum 1 m
away was noted.
SPECIES DIVERSITY
COLLECTION OF INVERTEBRATES
The collection of invertebrates took place during the course of two
consecutive weeks in late May and early June. Collections were com-
pleted on dry days with stable temperature and wind conditions. A total
of three different sampling methods were employed to attain samples
across different vertical structures.
A bottom-up sampling approach was applied to ensure that inverte-
brates in the field layer were not disturbed while collecting invertebrates
at higher levels. Hence, invertebrates were first collected from the field
layer with a sweep net. Following this, invertebrates were collected with
a beating tray by beating branches of all the woody vegetation up to 2
metres that had previously been registered along the registration tran-
sects. All collections were conducted following a standardised procedure
in each area. Branches of woody vegetation were beaten 5 times per
individual tree or shrub, while 16 sweeps were performed in each of

=
= −∑1
lni i
w
i
n n
H
N N
=
= −∑1
lni i
h
i
n n
H
N N

=
= −∑1
lni i
i
i
n n
H
N N
the 3 plots of 4 m2
. The invertebrates were quickly transferred to closed
containers by means of an aspirator to prevent loss of specimens and
subsequently frozen.
As a supplement to invertebrates collected with sweep net and beating
tray, 4 pitfall traps were placed at the marked spots within open and en-
closed vegetation as well as in edge zones. The pitfall traps were regular
plastic containers filled a quarter up with water and a drop of detergent
to break the surface tension and ensure trapping. The pitfall traps were
placed in the ground with the rim flush with the ground surface, covered
with a protective lid and left for seven consecutive days.
All collected specimens from the three different sampling methods were
counted and identified to family level by a specialist. Additionally, the
number of morphospecies within each family was noted. Due to time
limitations involved in identifying invertebrates, the taxonomic classifi-
cation of species called for a conservative approach in which differen-
tiation between species was omitted when individuals within the same
family bore near identical resemblance to one another. Consequently,
this resulted in a fairly coarse taxonomic resolution which translates as a
conservative estimate of invertebrate diversity.
To determine diversity of invertebrates a Shannon diversity index was
calculated for each pitfall trap, 4 m2
plot, and all intersected woody veg-
etation.
Where i is the ith
invertebrate species, ni
the number of individuals of the
ith
invertebrate species, and N the total number of individuals.
REGISTRATION OF VASCULAR PLANTS
The registration of vascular plants took place over two consecutive
weeks in mid June. All registered woody plants along the transects were
identified to species level following Jensen & Jacobsen (2003) and Moss-
berg & Stenberg (2014).
Within the 3 predetermined plots of 4 m2
for the registration of herba-
ceous vegetation, a 1 m2
quadrat frame divided into 25 subquadrats was
laid out end to end four times. All plants within the frame were identified
to species level, and in some cases to genus level, following Mossberg &
Stenberg (2014), Frederiksen et al. (2006), and Schou et al. (2014) and
their respective abundance was registered in terms of percentage cover.
Subsequently, two sets of Shannon diversity indices for woody vegeta-
tion (Hw
) were calculated for: all woody vegetation along each registra-
tion transect and all individual habitat units containing woody vegeta-
tion along the registration transects
Where i is the ith
plant species, ni
the number of individuals of the ith
plant species, and N the total number of individuals of all woody plant
species.
Similarly, a Shannon diversity index for herbaceous vegetation (Hh
) for
each 4 m2
plot was calculated.
Where i is the ith
plant species, ni
the cover of individuals of the ith
plant
species, and N the total cover of individuals of all herbaceous plant spe-
cies.


DATA ANALYSIS
The data was analysed by incorporating the different layers of informa-
tion on top of the transect diagrams.
For all intersected habitat units containing vegetation the previously
calculated Shannon diversity indices were applied as a curve. For the
intersected habitat units comprising herbaceous vegetation, e.g. lawn
and meadow, the diversity index incorporated in the curve was adopted
from a corresponding 4 m2
plot. For example, if a 4 m2
plot was placed in
lawn, the diversity index of this particular plot was used as a proxy for all
intersected lawns elsewhere on the transects within the given case area.
Furthermore, if two habitat units overlapped on the transect diagram,
such as when lawn was present underneath solitary trees, the highest
diversity index of the two habitat units was applied to the curve. The
distribution of vertical layers of vegetation were determined according
to Fig. 12.
In addition, the diversity indices for the collections of invertebrates ob-
tained from each individual pitfall trap and 4 m2
plot were added to the
transect diagrams in the form of bars. The diversity index for collections
sampled from woody vegetation was applied as a uniform line express-
ing the total diversity of invertebrates sampled from all woody plants
along the entire transect, as we did not obtain individual collections
from each specific habitat unit.
Consequently, the transect diagrams displayed the relation between the
spatial configuration of vegetation and the diversity of vascular plants
and invertebrates (Fig. 13).


Fig. 13
Principle of the data analysis.
Diversityindex(H)
Diversity of invertebrates sampled from
herbaceous vegetation
woody vegetation
Present vertical layers of vegetation
Diversity of invertebrates samples in
pitfall traps
Diversity of vascular plants

Fig. 14
Planar units
100 m
N

The planar elements comprised 30.5 ha of the total park area of 32 ha.
Lawn (113), sports field (115), grove (124) and multi-layered, deciduous
tree stands with a canopy cover of 30-80% (135) were the most abun-
dant units.
All linear elements amounted to 9.374 m in total. Most abundant were
path <2m not hardened (41), path >2m not hardened (43), lawn (52),
and vegetated slope 10-30% (34).
Of the 15 punctual elements cobblestone surface (2), boulders (3), veg-
etated mound (11), single tree or shrub (22), and cluster of trees and/or
shrubs (23) were the most abundant units.
HABITAT DIVERSITY
For full results see appendix 2.1.
Habitat
elements
No. of
habitat units
Diversity index (H) Saturation index
Planar 23 1.86 45%
Linear 19 1.97 45%
Punctual 15 2.31 72%
Total 57 2.02 52%
Table 2. Summarised results of the habitat diversity assessment
FÆlledparken


Fig. 15
Linear units.
Fig. 16
Punctual units.
100 m
N
100 m
N


In Fælledparken four transect of 25 m each were laid out. The transects
intersected various characteristic habitat units such as layered tree
stands, lawns, and ornamental plantings.
TRANSECT SURVEY
Fig. 17
Placement of transect A, B, C, and D.
A AA B BB
C
CC
D
DD
100 m
N


The ornamental garden with perennials (21) consisted of 11 different
species of which 4 were non-native. The non-native species were the tra-
ditional ornamental perennials Anemone japonica, Geranium himalay-
ense, Salvia nemorosa, and Rudbeckia fulgida which covered almost the
entire area. Seven annual plants had colonised the area in between the
ornamental plantings. These covered only small areas and were mainly
Capsella bursa-pastoris, Cerastium glomeratum, and Stellaria media.
The tree strand (162) was multi-layered and a mix of deciduous and co-
niferous species with an upper canopy cover >80%, including a single
standing dead tree. The dense upper canopy layer consisted of Pinus
sylvestris, Larix kaempferi, Crataegus monogyna, Taxus baccata, and Ilex
aquifolium, while only Ilex aquifolium was present in the lower canopy
layer. The shrub layer included Sambucus nigra and Taxus baccata. The
shrub layer was present in the edge which was ecotone, 3-layered, and
dominated by coniferous species. In total, 6 species were registered in
this tree stand of which only Larix kaempferi was non-native.
The invertebrates collected from the woody vegetation had a diversity
of 1.52. The 13 individuals collected were distributed between 6 species
from 5 orders. Flies (Diptera) was the most abundant order with 6 indi-
SPECIES DIVERSITY
Transect A - 25 m (Fig. 18)
For full results see appendix 3.1 for invertebrates and appendix 4.1 for herba-
ceous and woody vegetation.
viduals followed by spiders (Araneae), gastropods (Stylommatophora),
lacewings (Neuroptera), and beetles (Coleoptera) of which the latter ap-
peared most diverse.
Habitat no. Species richness Abundance Diversity index (H)
(21) 11 111.5* 1.63
(52) 8 100* 1.18
(162) 6 13 1.63
Table 3. Summarised results of the species diversity assessment for
vascular plants in each habitat unit
* Cover (%) within the 4 m2
plot. Overlap occurred.


Fig. 18
Transect A - 25 m. The diversity index of the grass strip (H=1.18) was adopted
from plot 2 in transect C (Fig. 20) in Fælledparken.
H=1.52
Diversityindex(H)
Ornamental garden,
perennials (21)
A
1
2
3
AA
Grass strip
(52)
Path
(43)
Tree stand mixed >80%,
multilayered (162)
woody vegetation
pitfall traps


The tree stand (159) was multi-layered and a mix of deciduous and co-
niferous species with an upper canopy cover of 30-80%. The moderately
dense upper canopy layer consisted of one single species; Fagus sylvat-
ica. The lower canopy layer and shrub layer were dominated by a wider
range of species such as Acer campestre, Crataegus monogyna, Ulmus
glabra, Ribes alpinum, Prunus domestica, and Sambucus nigra. In total,
8 different species were registered within the tree stand of which only
Prunus domestica was non-native. Together, the upper canopy layer and
lower shrub layer formed an ecotone, 2-layered edge towards the path.
The invertebrates collected from pitfall trap 1 placed within this tree
stand had a diversity index of 1.93. The collection comprised 77 indi-
viduals distributed between 16 species from 8 orders. With 28 individu-
als crustaceans (Isopoda) was the most abundant order closely followed
by harvestmen (Opiliones) with 23 individuals. The most diverse orders
were beetles (Coleoptera) with 8 individuals and 5 species, followed by
flies (Diptera) with 7 individuals and 4 species.
On the other side of the path was a two-layered, deciduous tree stand
(134) with a canopy cover of 30-80%. The relatively open lower canopy
layer included only Quercus robur while the non-native species Sym-
SPECIES DIVERSITY
Transect B - 25 m (Fig. 19)
phoricarpos albus constituted the dense shrub layer. The invertebrates
sampled in pitfall trap 2 placed in the edge of this tree stand scored a
diversity index of 2.44. The collection comprised 41 individuals distrib-
uted between 15 species from 8 orders. The most abundant and diverse
orders were crustaceans (Isopoda) with 13 individuals and 3 species
followed by spiders (Araneae) with 10 individuals and 3 species, subse-
quently followed by beetles (Coleoptera) with 5 individuals and 3 spe-
cies.
The collection of invertebrates sampled from all registered woody vege-
tation scored a diversity index of 3.32. The 102 sampled individuals were
distributed between 49 species from 11 orders and one class. The most
abundant order, and also the most diverse, was true bugs (Hemiptera)
with 38 individuals and 9 species followed by flies (Diptera) and spiders
(Araneae), respectively.
(52) 8 100* 1.18
(134) 2 3 0.64
(159) 8 17 1.92
plot.


Fig. 19
Transect B - 25 m. The diversity index of both grass strips (H=1.18) was adopted
from plot 2 in transect C (Fig. 20) in Fælledparken.
H=3.32
Diversityindex(H)
Tree stand mixed 30-80%
multilayered (159)
Grass strip
(52)
H=1.93
PT 1
H=2.44
PT 2
Path
(43)
Grass strip
(52)
Tree stand deciduous 30-80%
2-layered (134)
B BB
1
2
3
woody vegetation
pitfall traps


The grove (124) differed slightly from the definition by displaying a pro-
nounced edge and sporadic understorey vegetation. The moderately
open upper canopy layer consisted of Fagus sylvatica and Quercus robur.
The edge of the grove was ecotone, two-layered and consisted of Cra-
taegus x lavallei and Sambucus nigra of which the latter also appeared
sporadically in the lower canopy layer within the planting. The herb layer
varied between grass turf and patches of bare soil with sporadic leaf lit-
ter.
The lawn (113) was relatively dense as vegetation covered 80% and bare
soil 7%. The two dominating species were Poa annua and Lolium per-
enne, which covered 60% and 20%, respectively. Only small percentages
of other species were present such as Festuca rubra, Trifolium repens,
Polygonum aviculare ssp. microspermum, and Bellis perennis. The inver-
tebrates sampled from the lawn in plot 2 had a diversity of 1.73. The
collection displayed a total of 8 individuals distributed between 2 spe-
cies from 2 orders. Flies (Diptera) was the most abundant and diverse
order with 6 individuals and 5 species, while the remaining 2 individuals
belonged to the same species within the order of hymenopterans (Hy-
menoptera). Pitfall trap 3 placed on the edge of the lawn displayed a col-
lection which scored a diversity index of 2.62. The collection comprised
68 individuals distributed between 25 species from 10 orders. Most
SPECIES DIVERSITY
Transect C - 25 m (Fig. 20)
abundant and diverse were beetles (Coleoptera) with 21 individuals and
6 species followed by flies (Diptera), hymenopterans (Hymenoptera),
crustaceans (Isopoda), and earwigs (Dermaptera), etc.
The collection of invertebrates sampled from woody vegetation gained
a diversity index of 2.35. A total of 31 individuals were sampled distrib-
uted between 15 species from 6 orders. With 10 individuals true bugs
(Hemiptera) was the most abundant order, while lepidopterans (Lepi-
doptera) was the most diverse order with 6 individuals and 3 species.
(113) 11 100* 1.18
(124) 4 10 1.28
plot.


Fig. 20
Transect C - 25 m.
H=2.35
Diversityindex(H)
Grove
(124)
H=2.62
H=1.73
PT 3Plot 2
Lawn
(113)
C CC
1
2
3
woody vegetation
pitfall traps


In the deciduous and multi-layered tree stand with a canopy cover of 30-
80% the upper canopy layer consisted of Carpinus betulus, Ulmus glabra,
Acer campestre, Crataegus monogyna, and Acer platanoides. The lower
canopy layer consisted of Sambucus nigra, Ligustrum ovalifolium, Ulmus
glabra, and Acer campestre, while the shrub layer mainly included Ribes
alpinum and Crataegus monogyna. Of these 8 registered species only
Ligustrum ovalifolium was non-native. The herb layer with a diversity of
1.29 was dominated by Hedera helix which covered 55% of the registra-
tion plot. Leaf litter covered approximately 30% while seven additional
species covered smaller percentages. Among them were species such
as Aegopodium podagraria, Anemone nemorosa, Geum urbanum, and
Corydalis cava, of which the latter dominated with a cover of 7%. Of
the 8 species present in the plot only Aegopodium podagraria was non-
native, yet naturalised.
The invertebrates collected in pitfall trap 4 within this tree stand had a
order was beetles (Coleoptera) with 17 individuals and 6 species, fol-
lowed by flies (Diptera) and spiders (Araneae). The rest of the individu-
als were distributed on orders such as springtails (Entomobryomorpha),
harvestmen (Opiliones) and crustaceans (Isopoda).
SPECIES DIVERSITY
Transect D - 25 m (Fig. 21)
The invertebrates sampled from all registered woody vegetation scored
a diversity index of 2.21. The collection comprised 59 individuals distrib-
uted between 18 species from 7 orders. Most abundant was the order
lepidopterans (Lepidoptera) with 27 individuals. The most diverse order
was true bugs (Hemiptera) with 11 individuals and 4 species, followed by
beetles (Coleoptera) and spiders (Araneae).
(135) 8 25 1.97


Fig. 21
Transect D - 25 m.
Diversityindex(H)
Tree stand deciduous
30-80%, multilayered (135)
H=2.94
H=2.21
PT 4
D DD
1
2
3
woody vegetation
pitfall traps

Table 8. Summarised results for registered vascular plants in Fælledparken
Table 7. Summarised results for the collected invertebrates in Fælledparken
Samples from pitfall traps Samples from vegetation
PT 1 PT 2 PT 3 PT 4 Transect A Transect B Transect C Transect D Plot 2
Species richness 16 15 25 22 6 49 15 18 6
Abundance 77 41 68 42 13 102 31 59 8
Diversity index (H) 1.93 2.44 2.62 2.94 1.52 3.32 2.35 2.21 1.73
Transect A Transect B Transect C Transect D
Woody plants
Herbaceous plants
Plot 1
Woody plants Woody plants
Herbaceous plants
Plot 2
Woody plants
Herbaceous plants
Plot 3
Species richness 6 11 10 4 8 8 9
Abundance 13 111.50* 20 10 100* 25 106,00*
Diversity index (H) 1.63 1.63 2.15 1.28 1.18 1.97 1.29



DISCUSSION
The spatial configuration of vegetation within Fælledparken showed that
structurally more complex vegetation types promote higher biodiversity.
This was in particular evident in the tree stands, as multiple layers of
vegetation generally resulted in a higher diversity of vascular plants and
invertebrates.
It was noted that the tree stand (135) in transect D comprised the high-
est diversity of vascular plants closely followed by the tree stand (159)
in transect B. Both of these were multi-layered, moderately dense and
thereto mainly consisted of deciduous species. The large amount of na-
tive species could account for the diverse assemblages of herbivorous
invertebrates collected from the woody vegetation (Kennedy & South-
wood, 1984; Burghardt & Tallamy, 2013). In addition, the abundance
of Acer campestre, Crataegus monogyna, Ribes alpinum, and Lonicera
xylosteum in both tree stands could have contributed further to the di-
verse assemblages as these species are valuable resources for many pol-
linating insects (Halstead, n.d.; Kirk & Howes, 2012).
The small number of invertebrates collected from the tree stand (162)
in transect A suggested a negative response of invertebrate fauna to ev-
ergreen vegetation, and possibly to the species Taxus baccata and Ilex
aquifolium in particular (Helden, 2012).
The most diverse collection of ground dwelling invertebrates was ob-
tained from pitfall trap 4 placed in the multi-layered tree stand (135) in
transect D. This suggests that presence of a herb layer has significant
effects on ground dwelling invertebrates (Magura et al., 2001). Addi-
tionally, the many trodden paths within this tree stand may also have
contributed to the rich assemblage of ground dwelling invertebrates as
it increases habitat heterogeneity (Magura et al., 2001; Koivula, 2003
referenced in Noreika, 2011).
It was further noted, that pitfall trap 3 placed in the edge between the
grove (124) and the lawn (113) displayed a relatively abundant assem-
blage of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). This could be due to
the difference in adjoining habitat structures of dense shrub and open
swards (Magura et al., 2001), but it may especially be related to the open
sward which increases the activity of ground beetles (Noordijk, 2010).


The planar elements amounted to a total of 1.4 ha out of the total park
area of 3.6 ha. Gravel or sand (103), lawn (113) and playground (164)
were the most abundant units.
The linear elements comprised a total of 6.460 m. Most abundant were
the units lawn (52), path >2 m not hardened (43), sheared hedge (59),
tree row (62), and hedgerow (61).
Of the total 10 punctual elements the most abundant units were orna-
mental garden with bushes (20), ornamental garden with perennials
(21), single tree or shrub (22), and boulders (3).
HABITAT DIVERSITY
Habitat
elements
No. of
habitat units
Planar 8 1.45 35%
Linear 11 1.97 45%
Punctual 10 1.87 58%
Total 29 1.79 47%
Enghaveparken
Fig. 22
Planar units.
25 m
N


Fig. 23
Linear units.
Fig. 24
Punctual units.
25 m
N
25 m
N


In Enghaveparken two transects of 25 m and one transect of 50 m were
laid out. These intersected habitat units such as a hedgerow, ornamental
gardens, lawns, and tree rows.
TRANSECT SURVEY
Fig. 25
Placement of transect A, B, and C.
A
AA
B
BB
C
CC
25 m
N


The grass strip (52) was vastly dominated by Poa annua and Lolium per-
enne which covered approximately 80% of the plot with 60% and 20%,
respectively. Additional species such as Bellis perennis, Chaerophyllum
temulum, Plantago major, and Taraxacum spp. covered only limited ar-
eas. The collection of invertebrates sampled from plot 1 in this grass
strip scored a diversity index of 1.04. The collection displayed a total
of 4 individuals distributed between 3 species from 2 orders. True bugs
(Hemiptera) was the most diverse order with 2 individuals and 2 species
followed by flies (Diptera).
In the hedgerow (61), vegetation was most predominant in the lower
canopy layer which consisted of species such as Viburnum rhytidophyl-
lum, Staphylea holocarpa, and Viburnum farreri. In the shrub layer, only
Symphoricarpos albus was present. All five species in the hedgerow
were non-native.
The ornamental garden with bushes (120) had a shrub layer of Hyperi-
cum androsaemum and Hypericum hookerianum and sporadic leaf litter.
In the lower canopy layer Cupressus macrocarpa sp., Viburnum farreri
and Ilex aquifolium were present. Excluding the latter, all species were
non-native.
SPECIES DIVERSITY
Pitfall trap 1 was lost. The invertebrates collected in pitfall trap 2 placed
within the ornamental garden reached a diversity index of 2.52. The col-
lection comprised 226 individuals distributed between 39 species from
12 orders. The most abundant and diverse order was crustaceans (Isop-
oda) with 103 individuals and 2 species, followed by springtails (Entomo-
bryomorpha), beetles (Coleoptera), and spiders (Araneae). The rest of
the individuals were distributed between orders such as earwigs (Der-
maptera), hymenopterans (Hymenoptera), and flies (Diptera).
Invertebrates collected from all registered woody vegetation scored a
order was spiders (Araneae) with 25 individuals and 14 species followed
by flies (Diptera), beetles (Coleoptera), and springtails (Collembola).
(52) 10 100* 1.37
(61) 9 5 1.30
(120) 5 12 1.35
plot.


Diversityindex(H)
H=3.16
H=1.04
H=2.52
PT 2Plot 1
Grass strip
(52)
Hedgerow
(61)
Ornamental garden,
bushes (120)
Path
(43)
Fig. 26
Transect A- 25 m.
A AA
1
2
3
woody vegetation
pitfall traps


The plot placed in the ornamental garden with perennials (57) covered
12 species of which 6 were non-native. The dominating species were tra-
ditional, ornamental species such as Dianthus barbatus spp., Origanum
sp., Sanguisorba officinalis, and Lysimachia clethroides which covered
approximately 70% in total. A few other species had colonised a lim-
ited area, e.g. Aegopodium podagraria, Geum urbanum, and Taraxacum
spp., while bare soil constituted 24% of the plot.
The invertebrates collected in pitfall trap 3 placed between the peren-
nials reached a diversity index of 2.34. A total of 231 individuals were
collected which were distributed between 33 species from 13 orders.
The most abundant and diverse order was crustaceans (Isopoda) with
125 individuals and 4 species, followed by earwigs (Dermaptera), hyme-
nopterans (Hymenoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), and springtails (Ento-
mobryomorpha), respectively. The rest of the individuals were distrib-
uted between orders such as gastropods (Stylommatophora), millipedes
(Julida), flies (Diptera), and centipedes (Lithobiomorpha).
SPECIES DIVERSITY
Both the hedge (59) and the tree row (62) gained a diversity index of 0
as they consisted of only one species each; Carpinus betulus and Robinia
pseudoacacia, of which the latter is non-native and potentially invasive.
The collection of invertebrates sampled from the registered woody veg-
etation reached a diversity index of 2.04. It comprised a total of 9 indi-
viduals distributed between 8 species from 4 orders. The most abun-
dant and diverse order was spiders (Araneae) with 5 individuals and 5
species, followed by springtails (Collembola), beetles (Coleoptera), and
hymenopterans (Hymenoptera), respectively.
(52) 10 100* 1.37
(57) 13 111* 2.09
(59) 1 1 0
(62) 1 1 0
vascular in each habitat unit


Diversityindex(H)
H=2.04
H=2.34
PT 3
Grass strip
(52)
Tree row
(62)
Sheared hedge
(59)
Ornamental garden,
perennials (57)
Gravel surface
(103)
Fig. 27
Transect B - 25 m. The diversity of the grass strip (H=1.37) was adopted from plot
1 in transect A (Fig. 26) in Enghaveparken.
B BB
1
2
3
woody vegetation
pitfall traps


The two ornamental gardens (20) of Rosa spp. on the edges of the lawn
consisted of only one species each and as a result gained a diversity in-
dex of 0. This was also the case with the sheared hedges of Carpinus
betulus and Crataegus monogyna, respectively, as well as the tree row
of Tilia x europaea and the two solitary trees of the non-native Magnolia
kobus.
The ornamental garden (57) also consisted of Rosa spp., however the
transect intersected two different species which ensured a diversity in-
dex of 0.69.
The lawn consisted almost entirely of non-native species. It was domi-
nated by Poa annua and Lolium perenne, which covered approximately
90% of the plot with 34% and 57%, respectively. Bellis perennis, Plantago
major, Taraxacum spp., and Trifolium repens covered limited areas. The
collection of invertebrates obtained from pitfall trap 4 in the lawn scored
SPECIES DIVERSITY
Transect C - 50 m (Fig. 28)
a diversity index of 1.80. It comprised 191 individuals distributed be-
tween 27 species from 10 orders. With 110 individuals hymenopterans
(Hymenoptera) was the most abundant order, while the most diverse
orders were beetles (Coleoptera) with 28 individuals and 10 species,
and flies (Diptera) with 19 individuals and 8 species. The remaining indi-
viduals were distributed between the orders millipedes (Julida), earwigs
(Dermaptera), and crustaceans (Isopoda).
The collection of invertebrates sampled from woody vegetation reached
a diversity index of 3.12. The collected invertebrates comprised 39 indi-
viduals distributed between 26 species from 6 orders. Spiders (Araneae)
was the most diverse order with 10 individuals and 7 species, followed
by flies (Diptera) and beetles (Coleoptera), respectively.
(20) x 2 1 4 0
(22) x 2 1 1 0
(52) 10 100* 1.37
(57) 2 4 0.69
(59) x 2 1 1 0
(62) 1 1 0
(113) 6 100* 0.98
plot.


Diversityindex(H)
H=3.12
H=1.80
PT 4
Lawn
(113)
Tree
row (62)
Grass strip
(62)
Single tree
(22)
Ornamental garden,
bushes (57)
Ornamental garden,
bushes (20)
Ornamental garden,
bushes (20)
Path
(43)
Path
(43)
Sheared
hedge (59)
Fig. 28
Transect C - 50 m. The diversity of the grass strip (H=1.37) was adopted from plot
1 in transect A (Fig. 26) in Enghaveparken
C CC
1
2
3
woody vegetation
pitfall traps

Table 14. Summarised results for registered vascular plants in Enghaveparken
Table 13. Summarised results for collected invertebrates in Enghaveparken
PT 2 PT 3 PT 4 Transect A Transect B Transect C Plot 1
Abundance 226 231 191 45 9 39 4
Transect A Transect B Transect C
Woody plants
Herbaceous plants
Plot 1
Woody plants
Herbaceous plants
Plot 2
Woody plants
Herbaceous plants
Plot 3
Species richness 9 10 2 13 8 6
Abundance 21 100* 2 111* 17 100*
Diversity index (H) 1.95 1.37 0.69 2.09 1.94 0.98



DISCUSSION
Similarly to Fælledparken, the results of Enghaveparken showed a posi-
tive effect of compositional and structural complexity of vegetation on
the diversity of vascular plants and invertebrates. This especially tran-
spired in the collections of invertebrates obtained from both the woody
vegetation along transect A and from pitfall trap 2 placed in the dense
and complex ornamental garden, which reached very high diversity indi-
ces. In contrast, collections obtained from more open structures in the
park were relatively less diverse.
Surprisingly, transects A and C displayed similarly high diversity indices
for invertebrates sampled from woody vegetation. Yet, the composition
and structure of woody vegetation in these transects were different. As
transect C was severely lacking in compositional and structural complex-
ity, it could be inferred that the simple, linear elements of hedges and
the row of trees are also valuable structures for invertebrates (Smith et
al., 2005 referenced in Farinha-Marques et al., 2011). In addition, the lin-
ear elements in transect C consisted of native species, whereas only one
native species was present in transect A. The difference in native and
non-native compositions between the two transects was reflected in the
collections of wood dwelling invertebrates. The collection from transect
C comprised more orders and a more diverse assemblage of herbivores.
In contrast, the collection sampled from transect A displayed fewer or-
ders and a less diverse assemblage of herbivores. This suggests, that
the native vegetation is important for herbivorous insect orders which
consequently attracts a diverse assemblage of other invertebrate orders
(Kennedy & Southwood, 1984). It also suggests that evergreen vegeta-
tion may provide shelter for various of organisms (RHS, 2013), but it may
not support a very diverse assemblage of invertebrate orders.
The low diversity of both herbaceous vegetation and associated inver-
tebrate fauna in the lawn in transect C could be due to the short sward
and lack of structural variation which promotes a poor composition of
herbs (Noordijk et al., 2010). Interestingly, the grass strip between the
path and the hedgerow in transect A had double the amount of herba-
ceous species compared to the lawn in transect C. This shows a potential
for more diverse species compositions of grassland vegetation in areas
subject to less user pressure which could benefit grassland invertebrates
in general (Noordijk et al., 2010), but also species characteristic to edge
habitats (Magura et al., 2001).

Fig. 29
Planar units.

The planar elements amounted to 1.2 ha out of the total park area of 3.8
ha. The most abundant units were lawn (113) and meadow (116).
The linear elements came to a total of 2.421 m. The most abundant units
were path >2m not hardened (43), vegetated slope 30-60% (36), and
vegetated slope >60% (38).
Of the 5 punctual elements the most abundant units were single tree or
shrub (22), and gravel or sand surface (1).
HABITAT DIVERSITY
Habitat
elements
No. of
habitat units
Planar 3 0.66 16%
Linear 10 1.83 42%
Punctual 5 0.76 24%
Total 18 0.34 33%
Mimersparken
50 m
N

Fig. 30
Linear units.
Fig. 31
Punctual units.

50 m
N
50 m
N
50 m
N


In Mimersparken two transects of 50 m each were placed according to
the most characteristic habitat units such as meadow, lawns, and single
trees.
TRANSECT SURVEY
Fig. 32
Placement of transect A and B.
A
AA
B
BB
50 m
N


The meadow to the far left comprised both herbaceous vegetation,
but also a sporadic shrub layer of Ribes alpinum, Sambucus nigra, Rosa
canina ssp. canina, and Syringa vulgaris, of which only the latter was
non-native. The herb layer was dominated by the grass species Dactylis
glomerata ssp. glomerata, Lolium perenne, and Poa annua which in to-
tal covered 55% of the plot. Other species such as Tanacetum vulgare,
Artemisia vulgaris, and Solidago gigantea covered smaller areas, while
bare soil covered approximately 22% of the plot. Additionally, 25% were
covered by small, spontaneous woody undergrowth. Of the 8 registered
species 3 were non-native, including Solidago gigantea which was also
invasive.
The collected invertebrates from pitfall trap 1 placed in the meadow
reached a diversity of 3.07. The collection comprised 246 individuals dis-
tributed between 41 species from 9 orders and one class. With 64 indi-
viduals and 9 species beetles (Coleoptera) was both the most abundant
and diverse order, followed by crustaceans (Isopoda), flies (Diptera),
and hymenopterans (Hymenoptera). The rest of the sampled specimens
were distributed among orders such as spiders (Araneae), springtails
(Collembola), and millipedes (Julida).
SPECIES DIVERSITY
The meadow across the path was also characterised by a sporadic shrub
layer. A total of 8 species were registered including the non-native spe-
cies Amelanchier lamarckii, Rosa majalis var. majalis, and Syringa vul-
garis.
The lawn was dominated by the non-native grasses Poa annua and Lo-
lium perenne which covered approximately 70% with 23% and 47%,re-
spectively. Species such as Trifolium repens, Medicago lupulina, and
Trifolium pratense covered only small areas and mosses approximately
14%. Since the single tree in the lawn only comprised the single non-na-
tive species; Juglans nigra, it gained a diversity index of 0. The collection
of invertebrates obtained from pitfall trap 2 in the lawn comprised 71
individuals distributed between 26 species from 8 orders and one class
and scored a diversity index of 2.63. The most abundant and diverse
order was flies (Diptera) with 35 individuals and 6 species, followed by
beetles (Coleoptera) with 11 individuals and 8 species. The rest of the
collected specimens were distributed on orders such as hymenopterans
(Hymenoptera), springtails (Collembola), and spiders (Araneae).
The collection of invertebrates sampled from plot 2 in the lawn had a di-
versity index of 1.39. The collection comprised 4 individuals distributed
between 4 species from 2 orders. With 3 individuals and 3 species flies
(Diptera) was the most abundant and diverse order, followed by beetles
(Coleoptera) with just 1 individual.
Collections of invertebrates sampled from the woody vegetation com-
prised 53 individuals distributed between 24 species from 8 orders, re-
sulting in a diversity index of 2.82 The most abundant and diverse order
was beetles (Coleoptera) with 25 individuals and 10 species, followed
by hymenopterans (Hymenoptera) with 11 individuals and 4 species,
and true bugs (Hemiptera) with 6 individuals and 2 species. The rest of
the specimens were distributed between orders such as earwigs (Der-
maptera), flies (Diptera), and lepidopterans (Lepidoptera).
(22) 1 1 0
(113) 10 100* 1.45
(116) x 2 10 117.5* 1.88


Diversityindex(H)
H=2.82
H=3.07
H=2.63
H=1.39
PT 2 Plot 2PT 1
Meadow
(116)
Meadow
(116)
Lawn
(113)
Single tree
(22)
Path
(43)
Path
(43)
Fig. 33
Transect A - 50 m.
A AA
1
2
3
woody vegetation
pitfall traps


The lawn was dominated by the grasses Poa annua and Lolium perenne
which covered approximately 27% each. Additionally, Trifolium repens
covered 33%, while other species such as Artemisia vulgaris, Medicago
lupulina, Matricaria suaveolens, Arrhenatherum elathius, and Plantago
major covered only small areas, and bare soil 11%. Of the 8 registered
species, 4 were non-native.
The cluster of shrubs consisted only of Salix x smithiana and therefore
gained a diversity index of 0. This was also the result of the 3 single trees
of the species Prunus avium and Tilia cordata.
The collection of invertebrates sampled in pitfall trap 3 in the cluster
of shrubs scored a diversity index of 2.70. The collection comprised 44
individuals distributed between 21 species from 5 orders. The most
abundant order was flies (Diptera) with 15 individuals. The most diverse
orders were beetles (Coleoptera) with 13 individuals and 9 species and
spiders (Araneae) with 13 individuals and 6 species. The rest of the spec-
imens were distributed between the orders of true bugs (Hemiptera)
and hymenopterans (Hymenoptera).
SPECIES DIVERSITY
Collections obtained from pitfall trap 4 in the lawn scored a diversity
index of 2.06. The collection comprised 19 individuals distributed be-
tween 10 species from 4 orders. With 8 individuals and 6 species bee-
tles (Coleoptera) was the most abundant and diverse order, followed by
flies (Diptera), hymenopterans (Hymenoptera), and spiders (Araneae),
respectively.
The invertebrates collected from all registered woody vegetation com-
prised a total of 67 individuals distributed between 8 species from 5 or-
ders, resulting in a diversity index of 0.54. The most abundant order was
true bugs (Hemiptera) with 60 individuals and 1 species, while the most
diverse order was spiders (Araneae) with 3 individuals and 3 species, fol-
lowed by beetles (Coleoptera) with 2 individuals and 2 species. The rest
of the invertebrates were distributed between the orders of hymenop-
terans (Hymenoptera) and lepidopterans (Lepidoptera).
(22) x 3 1 1 0
(23) 1 5 0
(113) 9 100* 1.43
plot.


Diversityindex(H)
H=0.54
H=2.70
H=2.06
PT 3 PT 4
Cluster of shrubs
(23)
Single tree
(22)
Single tree
(22)
Single tree
(22)
Lawn
(113)
Lawn
(113)
Path
(43)
Fig. 34
Transect B - 50 m.
B BB
1
2
3
woody vegetation
pitfall traps

Table 19. Summarised results for registered vascular plants in Mimersparken
Table 18. Summarised results for collected invertebrates in Mimersparken
PT 1 PT 2 PT 3 PT 4 Transect A Transect B Plot 2
Abundance 246 71 44 19 53 67 4
Transect A Transect B
Woody plants
Herbaceous plants
Plot 1
Herbaceous plants
Plot 2
Woody plants
Herbaceous plants
Plot 3
Species richness 10 10 10 3 9
Abundance 23 117,50* 100* 8 100*
Diversity index (H) 1.90 1.88 1.45 0.90 1.43



DISCUSSION
In general, Mimersparken gained relatively uniform diversity results of
vascular plants across both transects as the landscape was rather mono-
tone. However, diversity of vascular plants was slightly higher for the
meadow habitat units in transect A, likely due to the structural com-
plexity of the vegetation, which furthermore could have contributed
significantly to the high diversity of invertebrates sampled from woody
vegetation along this transect (Noordijk et al., 2010; Morris, 2000). The
presence of Ribes alpinum, Sambucus nigra, and different species within
the family of Rosaceae could have been another contributing factor to
the species rich assemblage of invertebrates collected in this transect
as they are valuable resources for many insect species (Halstead, n.d.;
Leather, 1986).
In contrast, transect B showed rather insignificant results for inverte-
brates collected from woody vegetation, even though the transect in-
tersected different native species, which are found to promote rich as-
semblages of invertebrates (Kennedy & Southwood, 1984). It could be
inferred, that the young trees need time to accumulate organisms (Uly-
shen, 2011), or that the lack of structural variation along the transect re-
duce the quality of the overall habitat of Mimersparken for invertebrates
(Gao et al., 2014).
The moderately high diversity of the lawns in both transects was due
to the rather species rich composition of herbs. However, as the lawns
lacked structural variation, the collection of invertebrates sampled
from the herb layer in plot 2 was rather insignificant. Although the col-
lection scored a moderate diversity index, due to a relatively even dis-
tribution of species, it only comprised 4 individuals. In contrast, pitfall
trap 2 placed in the lawn in transect A displayed a somewhat higher
diversity of invertebrates, possibly due to the tufts of taller herbaceous
vegetation underneath the adjacent trees, which increases local habitat
heterogeneity (Noordijk et al., 2010; Morris, 2000). Still, the diversity
of the assemblage from pitfall trap 2 was not nearly as high as the col-
lection obtained from pitfall trap 1 placed in the meadow in transect
A. Once again, this appeared to be due to the structural complexity of
the meadow vegetation, yet the variations in topography that increase
microhabitat heterogeneity could also be a contributing factor (Bennie
et al., 2008). Additionally, the relatively large patches of bare soil may
have influenced the abundance of sampled ground beetles (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) as more open surfaces increase the activity of this group of
invertebrates (Noordijk et al., 2010).

A Walk on the Wild Side. Exploring the Compatibility of Biodiversity and Recreational Preferences in Urban Green Spaces

A Walk on the Wild Side. Exploring the Compatibility of Biodiversity and Recreational Preferences in Urban Green Spaces

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie A Walk on the Wild Side. Exploring the Compatibility of Biodiversity and Recreational Preferences in Urban Green Spaces

Ähnlich wie A Walk on the Wild Side. Exploring the Compatibility of Biodiversity and Recreational Preferences in Urban Green Spaces (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

A Walk on the Wild Side. Exploring the Compatibility of Biodiversity and Recreational Preferences in Urban Green Spaces