Next Article in Journal
Spatial Equity of Urban Park Distribution: Examining the Floating Population within Urban Park Catchment Areas in the Context of the 15-Minute City
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Characteristics of the Non-Grain Production Rate of Cropland and Its Driving Factors in Major Grain-Producing Area: Evidence from Shandong Province, China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Urban Green Infrastructure: Does Species’ Origin Impair Ecosystem Services Provision?

by
Mónica Andrade
1,*,
Cláudia Fernandes
2,
António Coutinho
3 and
Albano Figueiredo
1
1
Centre of Studies in Geography and Spatial Planning, Department of Geography and Tourism, University of Coimbra, 3004-530 Coimbra, Portugal
2
Departamento de Geociências, Ambiente e Ordenamento de Território, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal
3
Centre for Functional Ecology, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2024, 13(1), 23; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010023
Submission received: 28 November 2023 / Revised: 18 December 2023 / Accepted: 19 December 2023 / Published: 22 December 2023

Abstract

:
The adverse effects of urbanized areas’ growth might be mitigated by the multiple ecosystem services that urban green infrastructure provides. However, the design and composition of such infrastructure is still a hotly debated issue, mainly considering the challenges associated with the use of exotic plant species. To assess if there is a clear association between the species’ origin and ecosystem services or ecosystem disservices, an in-depth systematic literature review was carried out based on a bibliometric approach to assess the panorama of the scientific perspective. Based on the results, a detailed analysis was performed for the urban green infrastructure of five European Mediterranean cities, where management and expansion of the urban green infrastructure might act as tools to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss. Urban green infrastructure benefits to urban areas and its composition must consider the balance between services and disservices provided by plant species. Data analysis shows that disservices are not exclusively related to exotic species, revealing that plant species selection based on their origin represents a biased approach, as it often disregards the higher capacity of some exotic species to thrive under continuous pressure and disturbance, along with relevant and highly valued cultural services provided. Since exotic species are commonly used, ecosystems formed can be seen as experiments to support decisions, allowing new approaches to planning, designing, and maintaining urban green infrastructure.

1. Introduction

Urban green infrastructure (UGI) and ecosystem services (ES) are relevant topics in current research related to urban areas. UGI is now recognized as an essential tool to reduce the impacts associated with urban expansion [1,2,3] and, more recently, to support adaptation measures to projected climate change [4,5], showing multifunctionality [6] and multiple benefits for city dwellers [7]. Despite the indisputable benefits, UGI can also be analyzed considering potential ecosystem disservices (ED) [8] related to the costs or negative consequences of their implementation and management.
The floristic composition of the UGI is a frequent trigger of the disservices debate as the choice of plant species is still much grounded on aesthetic values, prioritizing exotic species over native ones [9], and frequently dismissing the risks such as the invasive trait of some species [10], allelopathy phenomena [11], allergenic potential [12], among others [13]. Thus, species origin turned into a concept surrounded by a generalized prejudice against non-native species, adopted by conservationists, land managers, policymakers, and by countless scientists worldwide [14].
The concept of nativeness was first defined in 1835 by the English botanist Jonh Henslow, and one century later, in the late 1940s, several botanists used native and alien terms to distinguish real British plants [15]. However, the concept of biological invasion only gains emphasis after the launch of Charles Elton’s book, The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants, in 1958. Elton’s publication is seen as the starting point of increasing awareness regarding potential disservices associated with exotic plants. Since then, an anti-exotic movement has been conveying that introduced species are enemies of Man and Nature [14], and misleading concepts helped such a trend [16]. Several terms exist for the same concept (e.g., exotic species can also be called alien, introduced, and non-native species). Although the definition of such concepts related to species invasiveness is scientifically well-defined [17,18], some studies argue that there is a lack of clarification between scientists, policymakers, and citizens [19,20]. Consequently, prejudice against exotic species in public spaces may occur since this concept is automatically and erroneously associated with the concept of invasive species. There is no questioning that invasive species significantly impact the invaded habitats and that species not causing harm now may cause harm shortly, [14] as the adverse effects can vary over time. However, studies have also demonstrated that the percentage of introduced species that have revealed invasion potential is reduced [21].
Moreover, according to Lyytimäki et al. [8], the perception of services and disservices is an issue of subjective evaluation, and what is perceived as a disservice varies over time. In ES evaluations, careful cost–benefit analyses are needed to support multiple decision-making that consider regional differences, and to ensure that disservices do not outperform services. Current approaches to the management of the UGI must recognize that changes in natural systems are taking place and adopt new strategies that are more appropriate for our rapidly changing planet, especially considering changes in the suitability of native species related to climate change [14]. For instance, novel urban ecosystems (NUE) can be integrated into urban planning and designing, supported by multicriteria species selection, to play a key role in creating cities that are more resilient and better adapted to future climates [22,23,24,25].
Recently, a trend to reduce the use of exotic plants in the UGI is gaining relevance, in parallel with an increase in the use of native plants, aiming to promote conservation and connectivity between urban landscapes and the surroundings [26]. Is this a consequence of the pressure associated with more information about invasion impacts and a decision based on the species’ origin, or a strategy to improve the resilience of the UGI and urban areas considering disservices associated with exotic plants? A systematic literature review exploring this link between plant species’ origin and the UGI ES and disservices will undoubtedly inform future research and decision-support initiatives. In this context, the goals of this research were: (i) identify the ES and disservices associated with UGI performance; (ii) search for relations between the ES and disservices and plants’ origin (native/exotic dichotomy); (iii) summarize the geographic distribution of studies; (iv) asses the correspondence between published scientific results and data available for UGI conditions of target cities.

2. Materials and Methods

To achieve the goals of this work, the research was developed in two stages: (1) a systematic literature review to respond to goals (i), (ii) and (iii), and (2) a case study analysis to respond to the goal (iv).

2.1. Systematic Literature Review

The systematic literature review for data collection was conducted in June 2023, using the Scopus database. Two searches were done based on two distinct word combinations: (a) ecosystem services, urban and plant species; (b) ecosystem disservices, urban and plant species. The following search terms were included in Boolean search strategies: 1. (TITLE (ecosystem services AND urban AND plant species)) OR (ABS (ecosystem services AND urban AND plant species)) OR (KEY (ecosystem services AND urban AND plant species)); 2. (TITLE (ecosystem disservices AND urban AND plant species)) OR (ABS (ecosystem disservices AND urban AND plant species)) OR (KEY (ecosystem disservices AND urban AND plant species)). The search was limited to peer-reviewed, published, English-language articles. The PRISMA flow chart of the study is shown in Figure 1.
These searches provided 661 manuscripts. All information was imported into a free data management software—Zotero 6.0.30. Through reading the titles and abstracts, 360 manuscripts that address the topics of green spaces in urban contexts were selected to be analyzed in detail. Articles that addressed the topics of green roofs, private or residential gardens, and green walls were excluded as only public urban green spaces (UGS) were considered in the current research. A snowballing approach in the systematic review was also used to collect as many articles as possible. For this, the search platforms Google Scholar and Science Direct were also used in addition to previously identified lists of manuscript references.
This strategy yielded a total of 132 articles that explore, directly or indirectly, the link between plant species origin and potential services and disservices. Although there is a new classification of ES provided to UGI—CICES classification (see https://www.biodiversity.fi/ext/en/data-pages/cices.html (accessed on 1 October 2023)), in this analysis, we have as reference the classification that has already been recurrently used from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [27] and the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity [28], since it is the classification used in all articles consulted. All the information found is compiled in a table format (see Table S1 in Supplementary Material), with a list of the references obtained, the plant species identified, their origin (validated based on information from Kew Gardens—https://powo.science.kew.org/ (accessed on 1 September 2023)), the life form (according to Raunkiaer [29]), and listed services and disservices described.

2.2. Case Study Analysis

The results from the systematic literature review carried out in the previous Section 2.1 supported the identification of the European Mediterranean area as highly productive regarding the number of articles focused on the association between native/exotic plants and ES/ED. To assess if the results from the literature review match the reality of the UGI, six cities were selected for the countries with a higher number of studies in the European Mediterranean (Spain, Italy, Portugal), where a higher number of articles were published considering the topic of interest. Information for the two cities with a higher number of inhabitants for each country was collected, namely for Madrid, Barcelona, Lisbon, Oporto, Rome and Milan. For Italy, information for the biggest cities is not available (e.g., Milan) or is insufficient (e.g., Rome), limiting the ability to produce a comparison or proceed with a deeper analysis, which is why it was decided to remove these Italian cities from this cases study analysis. The analysis and characterization of the selected cities was conducted based on the information available on official municipal websites, compiled in Table S2 in Supplementary Material.
The collected data, namely plant species identified, their origin (validated based on information from Kew Gardens—https://powo.science.kew.org/ (accessed on 1 September 2023)), their life form (according to Raunkiaer [29]), the associated services and disservices, was compiled in Tables S3 and S4 in Supplementary Material.

3. Results

3.1. Systematic Literature Review: A Panorama of the Scientific Perspective

3.1.1. Ecosystem Services

Ecosystems are the bases that sustains life [30], providing a series of benefits to the population [31]. In recent years, scientific studies have developed quantification [32,33] and evaluation methods [34,35] focused on ES. Most of these studies focus on patches or forest areas, land use mosaics, or in UGS, like parks and leisure areas [36], describing the benefits of the most representative UGS [37,38]. Our results show that the most commonly valued ES provided by UGI are regulation ES, especially particle removal, carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration, microclimate regulation, and those of cultural nature, mainly aesthetic values (Figure 2). Such findings show that the most frequently studied ES are those that influence or have direct benefits to humans [31]. Those with indirect benefits [31,37], such as pollination [39], symbiotic associations between plants and fungi [40], among many others which ensure the sustainability of the ecosystems themselves [31,37], are scarcely considered. In addition to the fact that some of them are difficult to evaluate, the population is unaware of this indirect ES because, in most cases, they are not economically subject to valuation or accounting [31].
A growing body of literature has come to associate UGI with ES potentials [37,41,42,43]. However, the rapid and intense urbanization processes introduce changes in ecosystems and their functions, generated by the rapid rhythm of modifications related to city lifestyle and urban sprawl, create or promote disservices like allergens, biological invasions, increased prevalence of pathogens or pests, limitations to mobility and security, and increase in greenhouse gas emissions [8]. In this context, a growing awareness about maximizing the benefits of UGI emerged, pointing to the need to have coherent and specific planning adapted to each location, namely to its physio-geographic, demographic, and cultural factors [10,44,45].

3.1.2. Ecosystem Disservices

According to Lyytimäki and Sipilä [13], three main categories of ED should be considered in the study of urban ecosystems: (1) public health-related disservices, (2) economic disservices, and (3) ecological disservices. In urban areas, ecological disservices, mainly invasive species, and public health disservices, especially allergenic issues, are the ones that have raised the most significant concern in the scientific community (Figure 3). In terms of ecological disservices, it is considered that species’ invasiveness, an issue directly associated with some exotic plants, is an ED that occurs associated with UGI, which also has economic impacts since the uncontrolled propagation of a few species increases costs with UGI management. Considering public health-related disservices, the allergenicity of some plant species is the most relevant issue. There are some families (e.g., Betulaceae, Cupressaceae, Fagaceae, Oleaceae, Poaceae, Ulmaceae) that are identified as problematic, concerning allergenic problems, including those that also have the highest cross-reactivity index [46] and reaction to urban environmental pollution [47], showing that some potential ED are not related to species’ origin.

3.1.3. Geographical Distribution

At a global level, around 53% of the articles refer to plant species’ origin and are focused on the Mediterranean (17%), Temperate (15%) and Tropical (16%) climatic contexts (Figure 4). When it comes to associate plant species’ origin with the services and disservices, the Mediterranean (39%) and Temperate (33%) regions have the highest percentage of produced literature (Figure 5). Regarding the Mediterranean climatic context, plant species present the greatest correspondence with ES or ED in the countries of South Africa (20%) and South Europe (41%), particularly Spain (22%), Italy (17%), and Portugal (11%).
In the Mediterranean context, the high percentage of papers that referred to ED (70%) (Figure 6) is unsurprising, considering the high number of species introduced and the high susceptibly to invasion by exotic plants. However, in contrast to the conclusions of similar studies [48], there was a significant percentage of native species with ED associated (30%). This result can be related to the high number of studies carried out within the scope of the ED in the area of public health, and specifically to the allergenicity of the human population to some native species, such as Betula sp., Fraxinus sp., and Olea europaea, in the case of the European Mediterranean. In addition, the reported ED related to exotic plants is more common for natural and semi-natural habitats, which are generally scarce in the urban context. Though, especially for the European Mediterranean cities, the UGI exhibits a very high percentage of exotic plant species, a pattern very much influenced by the historical legacy, which explains the considerable amount of introductions across centuries.

3.2. Case Study Analysis: The Mediterranean Region

3.2.1. The Historical Legacy

The distribution of cultivated plants is strongly influenced by historical patterns [49,50,51], such as land use options (gardens, parks, or streets) [50,52,53], and lifestyle [53,54,55,56,57,58]. On one hand, there are urban landscapes that mimic the settler’s homelands [59], suggesting that places with different cultures will also have the cultivation of different plant species [60]. One the other hand, societies are open to the introduction of plants. Both processes benefited from the increasing transference of valuable plants associated to stronger fluxes of people and trade around the world [17], an exchange that had great impacts on UGI composition.
The introduction of species outside their natural context has occurred since antiquity, mostly due to the expansion of agriculture, but it was also highly promoted by the discovery and intensification of commercial maritime routes betweenAmerica and Asia [17]. Such movements generate a flow of propagules with Europe, particularly the European Mediterranean Region, which initiated and fueled these processes, and where the introduction of exotic species gained volume, speed, and area across time. Today, the high volume of propagules transferred worldwide is promoted by the increasing availability of transfer options that guarantee high speed and reach wider areas.
In the urban context, the aesthetics and ornamental characteristics prevail as an argument for introducing exotic plants. Ignatieva [61] relates the preference for exotic plant species in landscaping on a global scale with the creation of botanical gardens, promoting the emergence of the tropical landscaping concept. With the emergence of this trend, a homogeneous group of tropical species would have been selected and replicated extensively by horticulturists for cultivation in geographically distant cities [61]. In turn, this resulted in a widespread supply of a preselected group of cultivated ornamental species out of the context of the original ecosystems. Consequently, several cities ignored the local biodiversity to cultivate this group of standardized species offered as models by the botanical gardens.
The preference for using exotic species in landscaping in the 16th century is also related to the social value attributed to introduced plants. New plants from distant territories, with peculiar flowers, leaves, or fruits, captured the interest of a society that attributed great value to the “exotic” element often associated with exclusivity and social status [62]. Such interest represents a significant cultural ES, having influenced landscape professionals regarding the choice of species for the UGI.
The first botanical gardens appeared in the Mediterranean region, spreading through European regions and generating a great exchange of seeds and propagules. For this reason, it is expected that the Mediterranean region presents a wide variety of cultivated species, mainly for ornamental purposes [60], from tropical or subtropical areascapable of growing in the mild climate of this region [63]. This region has also been pointed out as the origin of the introduction of plants cultivated in other areas of the world [64].
In this context of growing introductions, urbanized areas, very different from natural and semi-natural areas in terms of abiotic conditions [65,66], are identified as highly susceptible to the entry and establishment of exotic species [67,68], either due to the fragmented and highly disturbed habitats [67,69], the intense flow of products and people [17], or even the differentiation of land use and microclimatic changes induced by the daily life of the human population [23,70], promoting the emergence of NUE [71].
The assumption of novelty in urban ecosystems [72] has caused some concerns among decision-makers about the correct course of action regarding UGS. In this regard, the European Commission recently launched two key reports to help decision-makers in the planning and management of UGS towards maximizing the provision of ES: the EU Guidance on Integrating Ecosystems and their Services into Decision-Making (2020) and the EU Ecosystem Assessment (2021) (see Table S2 in Supplementary Material). Consequently, at the national level, some countries have adopted measures in an attempt to increase the ES produced by the UGI, or at least to minimize some of the ED, such as Spain, Portugal, and Italy, countries that decree or list invasive exotic species (see Table S2 in Supplementary Material). Thus, at the local level, several European Mediterranean cities have analyzed their UGI to determine the best form of intervention in their UGS.

3.2.2. The European Mediterranean UGI

Considering the higher reference to the UGI in the Mediterranean context in the previous systematic literature review, five cities were selected to analyze their UGI composition in this specific climatic context. All the selected four cities (Madrid, Barcelona, Lisbon and Porto) have official municipal websites with relevant data regarding UGS’s characterization, planning, implementation strategies, management, and guidelines to optimize the UGI ES (see Table S2 in Supplementary Material).
According to the available data, the cities with higher values of green area per inhabitant are, respectively, Porto (54.8 m2), Lisbon (27.8 m2), Madrid (18.26 m2) and Barcelona (17.72 m2). These values are influenced by the criteria used to assume an urban area as green, and by the type of UGS considered in the assessment. Lisbon, Madrid and Barcelona count only public green areas in their data, unlike the Porto municipality which considers all UGS in the city, whether public or private. Regarding the latter, if only the public green areas per inhabitant are considered, the number reduces to 7.8 m2/inhabitant. Also, municipalities such as Porto and Barcelona account for plant specimens at the urban area level, covering large parks and central public forest areas. On the other hand, Madrid only counts the street trees, parks, and central gardens and does not include other types of UGS, which are also relevant. The variables used in the analysis and characterization of the UGI vary between cities, which means that values that would be comparable at the outset should only be regarding some variables, such as the area covered/scale, spaces typologies, and the population.
The joint analyses of these four European Mediterranean cities (see Table S3 in Supplementary Material) shows a greater prevalence of native species in the UGI of such cities, contradicting some of the consulted literature [62,73]. This result can be explained by the fact that large UGS are very often not contemplated in scientific studies, such as, for example, forest areas, where native species from different genera (Pinus, Populus, Quercus, among others) are sometimes strongly represented. Moreover, the fact that the typologies of private green spaces, whether residential or institutional, are omitted also influences these values [74]. For example, botanical gardens that accommodate mainly exotic species are not included in the consulted studies. In addition, the type of data provided also varies between cities. Madrid, Barcelona, and Porto, beyond citing the most common species, refer quantitatively to the representativeness of each one. Lisbon only lists the species present in the UGI without any information on the species’ representativeness.
As expected, closer attention is dedicated to phanerophytes, possibly due to the perennial nature of this life-form type but also because of the broader contribution to ES provision. However, ED could also be more important in such cases (Figure 7), namely damages by roots, higher costs associated with collecting organic debris, or even removal in case of risk. Examples of ED associated with herbaceous plants include the invasive Oxalis pes-caprae or the allergenicity of Amaranthus sp., Chenopodium sp., Parietaria judaica, Plantago sp., and Urtica dioica.
As suggested by the European Commission, cities must list the species integrated into the UGI with identified ED. In this sense, the results of this stage match the results of the systematic literature review, once a large part of the ED is associated with exotic species (64%), where invasion is the most worrisome and inconvenient aspect (51%), followed by species that have been associated with branch collapse (7%) and pests and diseases (5%) (Figure 8), determining higher costs with maintenance, prevention and treatment. Considering that, based on the ecological ES that UGS can provide in urban areas, and highlighting the native species’ adaptability to existing urban conditions, the Madrid and Barcelona municipalities aim to increase the use of native species in their UGI.

4. Discussion

The complexity of the UGI, as a multifunctional network providing various ES, justifies investing deeply in its study, aiming to promote interventions in the UGI that maximize the benefits (ES) and minimize potential risks (ED). The study of the services provided by the UGI has been mostly directed towards ES which is highly valued by human societies (e.g., food, CO2 sequestration, aesthetic effect, among others). But the potential disservices that UGI can generate are also catching the interest and concern of science and decision-makers (e.g., allergies, emission of volatile compounds, and invasive species, among others), promoting a better understanding of the pros and cons.
Although the composition of the UGI plays a significant role, the association between ES or ED with plant species, and their origin, is a topic that has not received full attention, as the analysis is often focused on plant communities or parts from the UGI. Studies based on a taxonomic perspective are often disregarded, which justifies the restricted selection of 132 in the literature search. Thus, the present manuscript reaches the scale of plant species, and their origin, with potential associated services and disservices, but it also verifies the match between published scientific results and data available for the UGI for five Mediterranean cities.
Considering the literature review, results show that ED can be identified for both native and exotic species. While invasion is the most cited ED for exotics, for native plants, allergenicity is the ED with the highest reference in the literature. A pattern also drawn from the analysis of the UGI of the selected European Mediterranean cities mostly focused on phanerophytes. Considering the high prevalence of exotic species in the UGI of the selected cities, a pattern very much influenced by the historical legacy, and the diversity of ES associated with natives and exotics, it seems unjustifiable to set the UGI composition based on species origin. That would neglect the ES provided by exotic species and the region’s historical legacy, restricting the action of designers, planners, and policymakers to a conceptual assumption.
The historical interest in the exotic species relegated the vast majority of native species to second place when setting the compositions of the UGI. But the use of natives is not always a second option. For different reasons, the use of natives fluctuates. It follows trends in the design and planning of the UGI, working like a pendulum that oscillates between the choice of native and exotic species, a condition that cannot be detached from the evolution that the design and function of UGS experienced over the last centuries [75]. The lower interest on natives is very much related to specific traits, particularly in the case of comparing trees. Let us compare, for example, a Quercus faginea, from the Mediterranean region, with a Jacaranda mimosifolia, from tropical climates, two robust and deciduous phanerophytes. Most likely, the Jacaranda mimosifolia will be pointed out as more attractive due to the extravagant purple flowering in spring and summer and the unusual shape of its foliage. The aesthetic value prevailed in choosing plant species for use in UGI [76,77], considering size, crown shape, types and colors of flowering, fruiting attributes, and growth speed, among others, criteria associated mostly with cultural ES. Also, some species have assumed a significant role in cultural services delivery despite related disservices, as in the case of some invasive Acacia species, with high associated cultural value, namely in Portugal, France, or Italy [78]. Perhaps, for this reason, efforts are beginning to emerge dedicated to demystifying the use of exotic species [79,80,81,82].
The use of native species is gaining relevance today, as demonstrated by data analysis from the selected European Mediterranean urban areas. But this is not a new phenomenon or exclusive to the Mediterranean region. Through his inspirational work, Burle Marx proved that it was possible to carry out landscape architecture projects with an extraordinary artistic quality using native plants, bringing this debate about the origin of species to the fore in the garden’s design. Is this representing the emergence of a new paradigm among landscape architects and designers of public spaces due to new arguments, or is it a momentum of the pendulum movement?
Ecological designers and conservationists put higher pressure to defend the use of native species in the UGI, instead of exotics, as a way of preserving biodiversity and endemic resources [83,84], benefiting from their adaptation to climatic conditions [85], ensuring higher fitness of the plants, reducing susceptibility to pests and diseases [86], and reducing maintenance efforts and costs [87]. It is this argument that some authors challenge when considering climate change impacts and the resilience of urban areas. Some studies indicate that natives are better prepared to cope with climate change [88], while others assume that exotics will outperform natives [89], reinforcing the resilience of urban areas by maintaining ES provision [90].
For some authors, the use of native plants is also assumed as a strategy to reduce susceptibility to invasion by exotic species [62,91,92,93], but even in areas where the composition is projected only for natives, and despite the higher maintenance rates, the establishment of invasive plants might occur, especially with herbaceous plants (Bidens pilosa, Digitaria sanguinalis, Soliva sessilis, etc.). Studies that correlate invasive species with ES and ED in the urban environment are beginning to emerge [77], showing that although these species generally have numerous consequences in the ecosystems [94,95,96], due to their good adaptability, they can serve, in an initial phase, as a vehicle for the recovery of degraded lands [97].
These arguments led to the emergence of new paradigms and concepts that try to find a middle ground, such as the concept of NUE. The NUE concept assumes that since exotic species are already commonly used in UGI, ecosystems already formed can be seen as experiments, producing new types of communities and new ES or ED, still to be explored and demanding further studies. The concept of NUE embraces the establishment of species, or their communities, which are generally considered for eradication [98], but acknowledging their existence and possible ES does not imply that managers no longer control invasive species or that traditional conservation and restoration practices are completely replaced [22,99,100].
There is a mismatch between ecological processes’ spatial and temporal scales and the social scales of monitoring and decision-making, which limits human understanding of ED and the integration of this knowledge into planning [101]. In this sense, UGI composition, considering changes or the creation of new UGS, must always be based on a multifactorial analysis that includes ES and ED. For that, it is increasingly evident that urban management and planning need to go beyond the traditional boundaries of the urbanized area and operate at the scale level of ecosystems [101].

5. Conclusions

UGI plays a significant role in urban areas, including mitigating the effects of climate change and adding several benefits to populations. However, the selection of plant species to be included in the UGI has generated debate. On the one hand, ecologists and conservationists advocate for the exclusive use of native species in urban environments to minimize biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation; on the other hand, some exotic species perform important cultural ES, and emerging concepts even reveal unexpected services provided by invasive species, balancing the scales between services and disservices of this species.
Disservices in urban ecosystems are not exclusive to exotic species. The results of the literature review show that invasion is an ED related to some exotic species, while the bibliography also points out that some native species are responsible for high rates of allergenicity in urban populations. The analysis of the European Mediterranean cities also reinforces these results. Likewise, those ED are considered the most prevalent in this region.
UGI plays a critical role in urban areas, providing a wide array of ES, from regulation to cultural services. However, designers and planners should also consider related ED regarding new information available. In light of the literature analyzed and current knowledge, it makes less and less sense for the choice of species to be influenced by their origin. Furthermore, understanding the complexity of UGI composition and dynamics can contribute to more conscious and relevant decision-making based on the balance between species ES and ED, regardless of their origins. In addition, it is important to consider the high heterogeneity of the UGS, and that most of them are subject to intense maintenance regimes or impose limitations on plants, performing a new combination of factors that are absent in natural habitats.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/land13010023/s1, Table S1: Results of the systematic literature review. Information based on screened studies correlating ES or ED with plant species in urban areas [102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229]; Table S2: Official municipal websites of selected cities; Table S3: Prevalence of plant species in the selected cities; Table S4: ED of the plant species pointed out on the official reports of selected cities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A., C.F. and A.F.; methodology, M.A., C.F. and A.F.; software, M.A.; validation, M.A.; formal analysis, M.A.; investigation, M.A.; data curation, M.A. and A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.; writing—review and editing, M.A., C.F. and A.F.; visualization, M.A.; supervision, C.F. and A.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Work supported by the Centre of Studies in Geography and Spatial Planning (CEGOT), funded by national funds through the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under the reference UIDP/GEO/04084/2020_UC; and by CIBIO/InBIO (Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos), funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Grant Agreement Number 857251.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Material.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ahern, J. Green Infrastructure for Cities: The Spatial Dimension; University of Massachusetts: Amherst, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mell, I. Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 2009, 162, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vargas-Hernández, J.; Justyna, Z.-W. Urban green infrastructure as a tool for controlling the resilience of urban sprawl. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 1335–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gill, S.; Handley, J.F.; Ennos, R.; Pauleit, S. Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure. Built Environ. 2007, 33, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Demuzere, M.; Orru, K.; Heidrich, O.; Olazabal, E.; Geneletti, D.; Orru, H.; Bhave, A.G.; Mittal, N.; Feliu, E.; Faehnle, M. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hansen, R.; Pauleit, S. From Multifunctionality to Multiple Ecosystem Services? A Conceptual Framework for Multifunctionality in Green Infrastructure Planning for Urban Areas. Ambio 2014, 43, 516–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kazmierczak, A.; Niemelä, J.; James, P. Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas Using Green Infrastructure: A Literature Review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lyytimäki, J.; Petersen, L.K.; Normander, B.; Bezák, P. Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ. Sci. 2008, 5, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kendal, D.; Williams, K.; Williams, N. Plant traits link people’s plant preferences to the composition of their gardens. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pataki, D.E.; Carreiro, M.M.; Cherrier, J.; Grulke, N.E.; Jennings, V.; Pincetl, S.; Pouyat, R.V.; Whitlow, T.H.; Zipperer, W.C. Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: Ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 9, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hassan, M.O.; Mohamed, H.Y. Allelopathic interference of the exotic naturalized Paspalum dilatatum Poir. Threatens diversity of native plants in urban gardens. Flora 2020, 266, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jochner-Oette, S.; Stitz, T.; Jetschni, J.; Cariñanos, P. The influence of individual-specific plant parameters and species composition on the allergenic potential of urban green spaces. Forests 2018, 9, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lyytimäki, J.; Sipilä, M. Hopping on one leg—The challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Davis, M.; Chew, M.; Hobbs, R.; Lugo, A.; Ewel, J.; Vermeij, G.; Brown, J.; Rosenzweig, M.; Gardener, M.; Carroll, S.; et al. Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 2011, 474, 153–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Chew, M.; Hamilton, A. The Rise and Fall of Biotic Nativeness: A Historical Perspective. In Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The Legacy of Charles Elton; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jarić, I.; Cvijanović, G. The Tens Rule in Invasion Biology: Measure of a True Impact or Our Lack of Knowledge and Understanding? Environ. Manag. 2012, 50, 979–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Richardson, D.M.; Pysek, P.; Rejmanek, M.; Barbour, M.G.; Panetta, F.D.; West, C.J. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: Concepts and definitions. Divers. Distrib. 2000, 6, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pereyra, P.J. Revisiting the use of the invasive species concept: An empirical approach. Austral Ecol. 2016, 41, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vilà, M.; Valladares, F.; Traveset, A.; Santamaría, L.; Castro-Díez, P. Invasiones Biológicas; Cyan, Proyectos y Producciones Editoriales, S.A.: Madrid, Spain, 2008; ISBN 978-84-00-08663-3. [Google Scholar]
  20. Shackleton, R.T.; Richardson, D.M.; Shackleton, C.M.; Bennett, B.; Crowley, S.L.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Estévez, R.A.; Fischer, A.; Kueffer, C.; Kull, C.A.; et al. Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 229, 10–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Richardson, D.M.; Rejmánek, M. Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species—A global review. Divers. Distrib. 2011, 17, 788–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Light, A.; Thompson, A.; Higgs, E.S. Valuing Novel Ecosystems. In Novel Ecosystems; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ahern, J. Novel UrbanEcosystems: New Nature(s) for the Century of the City. Proc. Fábos Conf. Landsc. Greenway Plan. 2016, 5, 60. [Google Scholar]
  24. Teixeira, C.P.; Fernandes, C.O.; Ahern, J. Adaptive planting design and management framework for urban climate change adaptation and mitigation. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 70, 127548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Teixeira, C.P.; Fernandes, C.O.; Ahern, J.; Farinha-Marques, P. Plant traits database for climate change adaptation and mitigation in Northwest Portugal. Data Brief 2022, 42, 108193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Brzuszek, R.F.; Harkess, R.L.; Mulley, S.J. Landscape Architects’ Use of Native Plants in the Southeastern United States. HortTechnology 2007, 17, 78–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  28. Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management; The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  29. Raunkiaer, C. The LifeForms of Plants and Statistical Plant Geography; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1934. [Google Scholar]
  30. Moll, G.; Petit, J. The urban ecosystem: Putting nature back in the picture. Urban For. 1994, 14, 8–15. [Google Scholar]
  31. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Willemen, L.; Verburg, P.H.; Hein, L.; van Mensvoort, M.E. Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 88, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Boyd, J.; Banzhaf, S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 616–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Johnston, R.J.; Russell, M. An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 2243–2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Haase, D.; Larondelle, N.; Andersson, E.; Artmann, M.; Borgström, S.; Breuste, J.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Gren, Å.; Hamstead, Z.; Hansen, R.; et al. A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation. Ambio 2014, 43, 413–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bolund, P.; Hunhammar, S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Priego, C.; Breuste, J.; Rojas, J. Perception and value of nature in urban landscapes: A comparative analysis of cities in Germany, Chile and Spain. Landsc. Online 2008, 7, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jansson, A.; Polasky, S. Quantifying Biodiversity for Building Resilience for Food Security in Urban Landscapes: Getting Down to Business. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stevenson, P.C.; Bidartondo, M.I.; Blackhall-Miles, R.; Cavagnaro, T.R.; Cooper, A.; Geslin, B.; Koch, H.; Lee, M.A.; Moat, J.; O’hanlon, R.; et al. The state of the world’s urban ecosystems: What can we learn from trees, fungi, and bees? Plants People Planet 2020, 2, 482–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. McPherson, G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Maco, S.E.; Xiao, Q. Municipal Forest Benefits and Costs in Five US Cities. J. For. 2005, 103, 411–416. Available online: https://academic.oup.com/jof/article/103/8/411/4598681 (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  42. Oberndorfer, E.; Lundholm, J.; Bass, B.; Coffman, R.R.; Doshi, H.; Dunnett, N.; Gaffin, S.; Köhler, M.; Liu, K.K.Y.; Rowe, B. Green Roofs as Urban Ecosystems: Ecological Structures, Functions, and Services. BioScience 2007, 57, 823–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Soares, A.L.; Rego, F.C.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q. Benefits and costs of street trees in Lisbon, Portugal. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Schwab, J. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development; American Planning Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lozanova, S. Green Roofs Mean Green Jobs; Planning Magazine April: UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pajarón, M.J.; Vila, L.; Prieto, I.; Resano, A.; Sanz, M.L.; Oehling, A.K. Cross-reactivity of Olea europaea with other Oleaceae species in allergic rhinitis and bronchial asthma. Allergy 1997, 52, 829–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sedghy, F.; Varasteh, A.R.; Sankian, M.; Moghadam, M. Interaction between Air Pollutants and Pollen Grains: The Role on the Rising Trend in Allergy. Rep. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2018, 6, 219–224. [Google Scholar]
  48. de Carvalho, C.A.; Raposo, M.; Pinto-Gomes, C.; Matos, R. Native or Exotic: A Bibliographical Review of the Debate on Ecological Science Methodologies: Valuable Lessons for Urban Green Space Design. Land 2022, 11, 1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kunick, W. Woody vegetation in settlements. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1987, 14, 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jim, C.; Liu, H. Patterns and dynamics of urban forests in relation to land use and development history in Guangzhou City, China. Geogr. J. 2001, 167, 358–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lubbe, C.; Siebert, S.; Cilliers, S. Political legacy of South Africa affects the plant diversity patterns of urban domestic gardens along a socio-economic gradient. Sci. Res. Essays 2010, 5, 2900–2910. [Google Scholar]
  52. Welch, J.M. Street and park trees of Boston: A comparison of urban forest structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1994, 29, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Martin, C.A.; Warren, P.S.; Kinzig, A.P. Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Talarchek, G.M. The Urban Forest of New Orleans: An Exploratory Analysis of Relationships. Urban Geogr. 1990, 11, 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. de la Maza, C.L.; Hernández, J.; Bown, H.; Rodríguez, M. Vegetation Diversity in the Santiago De Chile Urban Ecosystem. Arboric. J. 2002, 26, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hope, D.; Gries, C.; Zhu, W.; Fagan, W.F.; Redman, C.L.; Grimm, N.B.; Nelson, A.L.; Martin, C.; Kinzig, A. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8788–8792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Grove, J.M.; Troy, A.R.; O’neil-Dunne, J.P.M.; Burch, W.R.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Pickett, S.T.A. Characterization of Households and its Implications for the Vegetation of Urban Ecosystems. Ecosystems 2006, 9, 578–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kirkpatrick, J.; Daniels, G.; Zagorski, T. Explaining variation in front gardens between suburbs of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ignatieva, M.; Stewart, G. Homogeneity of urban biotopes and similarity of landscape design language in former colonial cities. In Ecology of Cities and Towns; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 399–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kendal, D.; Williams, N.S.G.; Williams, K.J.H. A cultivated environment: Exploring the global distribution of plants in gardens, parks and streetscapes. Urban Ecosyst. 2011, 15, 637–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ignatieva, M. Plant Material for Urban Landscapes in the Era of Globalization: Roots, Challenges and Innovative Solutions. In Applied Urban Ecology: A Global Framework; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vaz, A.S.; Castro-Díez, P.; Godoy, O.; Alonso, Á.; Vilà, M.; Saldaña, A.; Marchante, H.; Bayón, Á.; Silva, J.S.; Vicente, J.R.; et al. An indicator-based approach to analyse the effects of non-native tree species on multiple cultural ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Heywood, V.H. The nature and composition of urban plant diversity in the Mediterranean. Flora Mediter. 2017, 27, 195–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Crosby, A.W. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004; ISBN 9780511805554. [Google Scholar]
  65. Craul, P.J. Urban Soil in Landscape Design; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  66. Evans, C.V.; Fanning, D.S.; Short, J.R. Human-Influenced Soils. Agron. Monogr. 2000, 39, 33–66. [Google Scholar]
  67. Perring, M.P.; Manning, P.; Hobbs, R.J.; Lugo, A.E.; Ramalho, C.E.; Standish, R.J. Novel Urban Ecosystems and Eco-system Services. In Novel Ecosystems; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 310–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gaertner, M.; Wilson, J.R.U.; Cadotte, M.W.; MacIvor, J.S.; Zenni, R.D.; Richardson, D.M. Non-native species in urban environments: Patterns, processes, impacts and challenges. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 3461–3469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kowarik, I. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 1974–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hobbs, R.J.; Arico, S.; Aronson, J.; Baron, J.S.; Bridgewater, P.; Cramer, V.A.; Epstein, P.R.; Ewel, J.J.; Klink, C.A.; Lugo, A.E.; et al. Novel ecosystems: Theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2006, 15, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Teixeira, C.P.; Fernandes, C.O. Novel ecosystems: A review of the concept in non-urban and urban contexts. Landsc. Ecol. 2019, 35, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Hall, C.M.; Bridgewater, P.; Chapin, F.S.; Ellis, E.C.; Ewel, J.J.; Hallett, L.M.; Harris, J.; Hulvey, K.B.; et al. Managing the whole landscape: Historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 12, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kendal, D.; Williams, N.S.; Williams, K.J. Drivers of diversity and tree cover in gardens, parks and streetscapes in an Australian city. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. van Heezik, Y.M.; Freeman, C.; Porter, S.; Dickinson, K.J.M. Native and exotic woody vegetation communities in domestic gardens in relation to social and environmental factors. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kueffer, C.; Kull, C.A. Non-native Species the Aesthetics of Nature. In Impact of Biological Invasions on Ecosystem Services; Vilà, M., Hulme, P.E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cameron, R.W.F.; Blanuša, T. Green infrastructure and ecosystem services—Is the devil in the detail? Ann. Bot. 2016, 118, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Potgieter, L.J.; Gaertner, M.; Kueffer, C.; Larson, B.M.H.; Livingstone, S.W.; O’farrell, P.J.; Richardson, D.M. Alien plants as mediators of ecosystem services and disservices in urban systems: A global review. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 3571–3588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Fernandes, M.; Pereira, R.; Lopes, A.I. Flower Power: For a Critical Evocation of the “Festa da Mimosa” in Viana do Castelo (1968–1989); Coimbra, Portugal, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  79. Simberloff, D.; Von Holle, B. Positive Interactions of Nonindigenous Species: Invasional Meltdown? Biol. Invasions 1999, 1, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Corlett, R.T. Interactions between birds, fruit bats and exotic plants in urban Hong Kong, South China. Urban Ecosyst. 2005, 8, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bartomeus, I.; Sol, D.; Pino, J.; Vicente, P.; Font, X. Deconstructing the native-exotic richness relationship in plants. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2011, 21, 524–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gray, E.R.; van Heezik, Y. Exotic trees can sustain native birds in urban woodlands. Urban Ecosyst. 2015, 19, 315–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Berthon, K.; Thomas, F.; Bekessy, S. The role of ‘nativeness’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 205, 103959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Prendergast, K.S.; Tomlinson, S.; Dixon, K.W.; Bateman, P.W.; Menz, M.H. Urban native vegetation remnants support more diverse native bee communities than residential gardens in Australia’s southwest biodiversity hotspot. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 265, 109408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Guillen-Cruz, G.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, A.; Fernández-Luqueño, F.; Flores-Rentería, D. Influence of vegetation type on the ecosystem services provided by urban green areas in an arid zone of northern Mexico. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ennos, R.; Cottrell, J.; Hall, J.; O’Brien, D. Is the introduction of novel exotic forest tree species a rational response to rapid environmental change?—A British perspective. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 432, 718–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Klaus, V.H.; Kiehl, K. A conceptual framework for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2021, 52, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Galleguillos, M.; Gimeno, F.; Puelma, C.; Zambrano-Bigiarini, M.; Lara, A.; Rojas, M. Disentangling the effect of future land use strategies and climate change on streamflow in a Mediterranean catchment dominated by tree plantations. J. Hydrol. 2021, 595, 126047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Esperon-Rodriguez, M.; Rymer, P.D.; Power, S.A.; Challis, A.; Marchin, R.M.; Tjoelker, M.G. Functional adaptations and trait plasticity of urban trees along a climatic gradient. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 54, 126771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Riley, C.B.; Herms, D.A.; Gardiner, M.M. Exotic trees contribute to urban forest diversity and ecosystem services in inner-city Cleveland, OH. Wild Urban Ecosyst. Chall. Oppor. Urban Dev. 2017, 29, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. McKinney, M.L. Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation: The impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. BioScience 2002, 52, 883–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Shochat, E.; Lerman, S.B.; Anderies, J.M.; Warren, P.S.; Faeth, S.H.; Nilon, C.H. Invasion, Competition, and Biodiversity Loss in Urban Ecosystems. BioScience 2010, 60, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ellis, E.C.; Antill, E.C.; Kreft, H. All Is Not Loss: Plant Biodiversity in the Anthropocene. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e30535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Alvarez, M.E.; Cushman, J.H. Community-Level Consequences of a Plant Invasion: Effects on Three Habitats in Coastal California. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12, 1434–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Crooks, J.A. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: The role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 2002, 97, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gordon, D.R. Effects of Invasive, Non-Indigenous Plant Species on Ecosystem Processes: Lessons from Florida. Ecol. Appl. 1998, 8, 975–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Prabakaran, K.; Li, J.; Anandkumar, A.; Leng, Z.; Zou, C.B.; Du, D. Managing environmental contamination through phytoremediation by invasive plants: A review. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 138, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Starzomski, B.M. Novel Ecosystems and Climate Change. In Novel Ecosystems; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Harris, J.A. Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 599–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.S.; Hall, C.M. Introduction: Why Novel Ecosystems? In Novel Ecosystems; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Breuste, J.; Haase, D.; Elmqvist, T. Urban Landscapes and Ecosystem Services. In Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Basu, S.; Nagendra, H. Perceptions of park visitors on access to urban parks and benefits of green spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 57, 126959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Raji, I.A.; Downs, C.T. Ficus-frugivore interactions, especially in areas of land-use change, in Africa: A systematic review. Acta Oecologica 2021, 113, 103774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Splitt, A.; Skórka, P.; Strachecka, A.; Borański, M.; Teper, D. Keep trees for bees: Pollen collection by Osmia bicornis along the urbanization gradient. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 64, 127250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Dickie, I.; Bennett, B.; Burrows, L.; Nuñez, M.; Peltzer, D.; Porté, A.; Richardson, D.M.; Rejmánek, M.; Rundel, P.; van Wilgen, B.W. Conflicting values: Ecosystem services and invasive tree management. Biol. Invasions 2014, 16, 705–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. de Wit, M.; Crookes, D.; van Wilgen, B. Conflicts of Interest in Environmental Management: Estimating the Costs and Benefits of a Tree Invasion. Biol. Invasions 2001, 3, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Potgieter, L.J.; Gaertner, M.; O’Farrell, P.J.; Richardson, D.M. Perceptions of impact: Invasive alien plants in the urban environment. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. van Wilgen, B.W.; Richardson, D.M. Challenges and trade-offs in the management of invasive alien trees. Biol. Invasions 2013, 16, 721–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Qiu, J. A global synthesis of the effects of biological invasions on greenhouse gas emissions. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2015, 24, 1351–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lee, C.H.Y.; Tang, A.M.C.; Lai, D.Y.F.; Tai, A.P.K.; Leung, A.S.L.; Tao, D.K.C.; Leung, F.; Leung, S.S.M.; Wu, C.; Tong, S.C.S.; et al. Problems and Management of Acacia-Dominated Urban Forests on Man-Made Slopes in a Subtropical, High-Density City. Forests 2021, 12, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Cariñanos, P.; Delgado-Capel, M.; Maradiaga-Marín, M.F.; Benítez, G. Considerations on the allergy-risks related to the consumption of fruits from urban trees in Mediterranean cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 45, 126303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. De Lacy, P.; Shackleton, C. Aesthetic and Spiritual Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Sacred Sites. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Potgieter, L.J.; Gaertner, M.; O’farrell, P.J.; Richardson, D.M. A fine-scale assessment of the ecosystem service-disservice dichotomy in the context of urban ecosystems affected by alien plant invasions. For. Ecosyst. 2019, 6, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Gaertner, M.; Larson, B.M.H.; Irlich, U.M.; Holmes, P.M.; Stafford, L.; van Wilgen, B.W.; Richardson, D.M. Managing invasive species in cities: A framework from Cape Town, South Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 151, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Gopal, D.; von der Lippe, M.; Kowarik, I. Sacred sites as habitats of culturally important plant species in an Indian megacity. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 32, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Bigirimana, J.; Bogaert, J.; De Cannière, C.; Bigendako, M.-J.; Parmentier, I. Domestic garden plant diversity in Bujumbura, Burundi: Role of the socio-economical status of the neighborhood and alien species invasion risk. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Núñez-Florez, R.; Pérez-Gómez, U.; Fernández-Méndez, F. Functional diversity criteria for selecting urban trees. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 38, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. D’Amato, G.; Cecchi, L.; Bonini, S.; Nunes, C.; Annesi-Maesano, I.; Behrendt, H.; Liccardi, G.; Popov, T.; Van Cauwenberge, P. Allergenic pollen and pollen allergy in Europe. Allergy 2007, 62, 976–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. López González, G. Los Árboles y Arbustos de la Península Ibérica e Islas Baleares; EdicionesMundi-Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2001; Volume 2, ISBN 84-7114-953-2. [Google Scholar]
  120. Smith, E.G. Sampling and Identifying Allergenic Pollen and Moulds—An Illustrated Identification Manual for Air Samplers; Blewstone Press: San Antonio, TX, USA, 2000; 196p, ISBN 0-930961-02-1. [Google Scholar]
  121. Giráldez, P.; Aboal, J.R.; Fernández, J.; Di Guardo, A.; Terzaghi, E. Plant-air partition coefficients for thirteen urban conifer tree species: Estimating the best gas and particulate matter associated PAH removers. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 315, 120409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Battisti, L.; Pille, L.; Wachtel, T.; Larcher, F.; Säumel, I. Residential Greenery: State of the Art and Health-Related Ecosystem Services and Disservices in the City of Berlin. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lim, V.-C.; Ramli, R.; Bhassu, S.; Wilson, J.-J. Pollination implications of the diverse diet of tropical nectar-feeding bats roosting in an urban cave. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Pradhan, R.; Manohar, A.; Sarkar, B.C.; Bhat, J.A.; Shukla, G.; Chakravarty, S. Ecosystem services of urban green sites—A case study from Eastern Himalayan foothills. Trees For. People 2020, 2, 100029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wink, M.; Van Wyk, B.E. Mind-Altering and Poisonous Plants of the World—A Scientifically Accurate Guide to 1200 Toxic and Poisonous Plants; Timber Press: Portland, OR, USA; London, UK, 2008; 464p, ISBN 978-0-88192-952-2. [Google Scholar]
  126. Gaglio, M.; Pace, R.; Muresan, A.N.; Grote, R.; Castaldelli, G.; Calfapietra, C.; Fano, E.A. Species-specific efficiency in PM2.5 removal by urban trees: From leaf measurements to improved modeling estimates. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 844, 157131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Muhammad, S.; Wuyts, K.; Samson, R. Selection of Plant Species for Particulate Matter Removal in Urban Environments by Considering Multiple Ecosystem (Dis)Services and Environmental Suitability. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Capotorti, G.; Del Vico, E.; Anzellotti, I.; Celesti-Grapow, L. Combining the Conservation of Biodiversity with the Provision of Ecosystem Services in Urban Green Infrastructure Planning: Critical Features Arising from a Case Study in the Metropolitan Area of Rome. Sustainability 2016, 9, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Rossi, J.-P.; Imbault, V.; Lamant, T.; Rousselet, J. A citywide survey of the pine processionary moth Thaumetopoea pityocampa spatial distribution in Orléans (France). Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Dhyani, S.; Singh, A.; Gujre, N.; Joshi, R.K. Quantifying tree carbon stock in historically conserved Seminary Hills urban forest of Nagpur, India. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Chan, A.A.Q.; Aziz, S.A.; Clare, E.L.; Coleman, J.L. Diet, ecological role and potential ecosystem services of the fruit bat, Cynopterus brachyotis, in a tropical city. Urban Ecosyst. 2020, 24, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Yarnvudhi, A.; Leksungnoen, N.; Andriyas, T.; Tor-Ngern, P.; Premashthira, A.; Wachrinrat, C.; Marod, D.; Hermhuk, S.; Pattanakiat, S.; Nakashizuka, T.; et al. Assessing the Cooling and Air Pollution Tolerance among Urban Tree Species in a Tropical Climate. Plants 2022, 11, 3074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Muratet, A.; Pellegrini, P.; Dufour, A.-B.; Arrif, T.; Chiron, F. Perception and knowledge of plant diversity among urban park users. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 137, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Huxley, A.; Griffiths, M.; Levy, M. Dictionary of Gardening; MacMillan Reference Ltd.: London, UK, 1999; Volume 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  135. Mitchell, A. Trees of Britain and Northern Europe (Collins Field Guide); HarperCollins: London, UK, 2001; ISBN 0-00-219213-b. [Google Scholar]
  136. Boardman, W.S.J.; Roshier, D.; Reardon, T.; Burbidge, K.; McKeown, A.; Westcott, D.A.; Caraguel, C.G.B.; Prowse, T.A.A. Spring foraging movements of an urban population of grey-headed flying foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus). J. Urban Ecol. 2021, 7, juaa034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Anisimova, S. Inventory of allergenic pollen Urban dendroflora as a basis for designing healthier green infrastructure. For. Ideas 2020, 26, 452–470. [Google Scholar]
  138. Bernholt, H.; Kehlenbeck, K.; Gebauer, J.; Buerkert, A. Plant species richness and diversity in urban and peri-urban gardens of Niamey, Niger. Agrofor. Syst. 2009, 77, 159–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. del Moral, R.; Muller, C.H. The Allelopathic Effects of Eucalyptus camaldulensis. Am. Midl. Nat. 1970, 83, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Koricho, H.H.; Seboka, A.D.; Fufa, F.; Gebreyesus, T.; Song, S. Study on the ecosystem services of urban forests: Implications for climate change mitigation in the case of Adama City of Oromiya Regional Sate, Ethiopia. Urban Ecosyst. 2021, 25, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. McCarthy, H.R.; Pataki, D.E.; Jenerette, G.D. Plant water-use efficiency as a metric of urban ecosystem services. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 3115–3127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Khuroo, A.A.; Reshi, Z.A.; Malik, A.H.; Weber, E.; Rashid, I.; Dar, G.H. Alien flora of India: Taxonomic composition, invasion status and biogeographic affiliations. Biol. Invasions 2011, 14, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Green, B.J.; Levetin, E.; Horner, W.E.; Codina, R.; Barnes, C.S.; Filley, W.V. Landscape Plant Selection Criteria for the Allergic Patient. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pr. 2018, 6, 1869–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Muhammad, S.; Wuyts, K.; Samson, R. Atmospheric net particle accumulation on 96 plant species with contrasting morphological and anatomical leaf characteristics in a common garden experiment. Atmos. Environ. 2019, 202, 328–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Redondo-Bermúdez, M.d.C.; Gulenc, I.T.; Cameron, R.W.; Inkson, B.J. ‘Green barriers’ for air pollutant capture: Leaf micromorphology as a mechanism to explain plants capacity to capture particulate matter. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 288, 117809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Baraldi, R.; Chieco, C.; Neri, L.; Facini, O.; Rapparini, F.; Morrone, L.; Rotondi, A.; Carriero, G. An integrated study on air mitigation potential of urban vegetation: From a multi-trait approach to modeling. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 41, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Piccolo, E.L.; Landi, M. Red-leafed species for urban “greening” in the age of global climate change. J. For. Res. 2020, 32, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Kašpar, V.; Zapletal, M.; Samec, P.; Komárek, J.; Bílek, J.; Juráň, S. Unmanned aerial systems for modelling air pollution removal by urban greenery. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 78, 127757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Gao, T.; Liu, F.; Wang, Y.; Mu, S.; Qiu, L. Reduction of Atmospheric Suspended Particulate Matter Concentration and Influencing Factors of Green Space in Urban Forest Park. Forests 2020, 11, 950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Soulé, M.; Nyamekye, C.; Abdoul-Azize, H.T. Woody species in the urban schoolyards in West Africa Sahel cities in Niger: Diversity and benefits for green schools. Discov. Sustain. 2022, 3, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Landor-Yamagata, J.L.; Kowarik, I.; Fischer, L.K. Urban Foraging in Berlin: People, Plants and Practices within the Metropolitan Green Infrastructure. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Palliwoda, J.; Kowarik, I.; von der Lippe, M. Human-biodiversity interactions in urban parks: The species level matters. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 394–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Zappitelli, I.; Conte, A.; Alivernini, A.; Finardi, S.; Fares, S. Species-Specific Contribution to Atmospheric Carbon and Pollutant Removal: Case Studies in Two Italian Municipalities. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Garekae, H.; Shackleton, C.M.; Tsheboeng, G. The prevalence, composition and distribution of forageable plant species in different urban spaces in two medium-sized towns in South Africa. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 33, e01972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Jin, C.; Zheng, M.; Huang, L.; Qian, S.; Jim, C.; Lin, D.; Zhao, L.; Minor, J.; Coggins, C.; Chen, B.; et al. Co-existence between humans and nature: Heritage trees in China’s yangtze River region. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 54, 126748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Vara, A.; Fernández-González, M.; Aira, M.; Rodríguez-Rajo, F. Fraxinus pollen and allergen concentrations in Ourense (South-western Europe). Environ. Res. 2016, 147, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Hemmer, W.; Focke, M.; Wantke, F.; Götz, M.; Jarisch, R.; Jäger, S. Ash (Fraxinus excelsior)-pollen allergy in central Europe:specific role of pollen panallergens and the major allergen of ash pollen, Fra e 1. Allergy 2000, 55, 923–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Obispo, T.M.; Melero, J.A.; Carpizo, J.A.; Arreira, J.C.; Lombardero, M. The main allergen of Olea europaea (Ole e I) is also present in other species of the oleaceae family. Clin. Exp. Allergy 1993, 23, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Chen, G.; Lin, L.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, K. Net particulate matter removal ability and efficiency of ten plant species in Beijing. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 63, 127230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Tepanosyan, G.; Baldacchini, C.; Sahakyan, L. Revealing Soil and Tree Leaves Deposited Particulate Matter PTE Relationship and Potential Sources in Urban Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Cunha, A.P.; Silva, A.P.; Roque, O.R. Plantas e Produtos Vegetais em Fitoterapia, 4th ed.; Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian—Serviço de Educação e de Bolsas: Lisboa, Portugal, 2012; ISBN 978-972-31-1435-5. [Google Scholar]
  162. Rivera Nuñez, D.; Obón de Castro, C. La Guía Incafo de las Plantas Útiles y Venenosas de la Península Ibérica y Baleares (Excluídas Medicinales); Incafo, S.A.: Madrid, Spain, 1992; 1257p, ISBN 84-85389-83-2. [Google Scholar]
  163. Mao, Q.; Ma, K.; Wu, J.; Tang, R.; Luo, S.; Zhang, Y.; Bao, L. Distribution pattern of allergenic plants in the Beijing metropolitan region. Aerobiologia 2012, 29, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Shen, G.; Song, Z.; Xu, J.; Zou, L.; Huang, L.; Li, Y. Are Ecosystem Services Provided by Street Trees at Parcel Level Worthy of Attention? A Case Study of a Campus in Zhenjiang, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Ren, Y.; Ge, Y.; Ma, D.; Song, X.; Shi, Y.; Pan, K.; Qu, Z.; Guo, P.; Han, W.; Chang, J. Enhancing plant diversity and mitigating BVOC emissions of urban green spaces through the introduction of ornamental tree species. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 27, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Behera, S.K.; Mishra, S.; Sahu, N.; Manika, N.; Singh, S.N.; Anto, S.; Kumar, R.; Husain, R.; Verma, A.K.; Pandey, N. Assessment of carbon sequestration potential of tropical tree species for urban forestry in India. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 181, 106692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Koyama, A.; Egawa, C.; Taki, H.; Yasuda, M.; Kanzaki, N.; Ide, T.; Okabe, K. Non-native plants are a seasonal pollen source for native honeybees in suburban ecosystems. Urban Ecosyst. 2018, 21, 1113–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Orlandi, F.; Marrapodi, S.; Proietti, C.; Ruga, L.; Fornaciari, M. Ecosystem functions of fruit woody species in an urban environment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022, 195, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Fusaro, L.; Salvatori, E.; Winkler, A.; Frezzini, M.A.; De Santis, E.; Sagnotti, L.; Canepari, S.; Manes, F. Urban trees for biomonitoring atmospheric particulate matter: An integrated approach combining plant functional traits, magnetic and chemical properties. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 126, 107707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Horn, J.; Escobedo, F.J.; Hinkle, R.; Hostetler, M.; Timilsina, N. The Role of Composition, Invasives, and Maintenance Emissions on Urban Forest Carbon Stocks. Environ. Manag. 2014, 55, 431–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Laux, M.; Lv, H.; Entling, M.H.; Schirmel, J.; Narang, A.; Köhler, M.; Saha, S. Native pedunculate oaks support more biodiversity than non-native oaks, but non-native oaks are healthier than native oaks: A study on street and park trees of a city. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 853, 158603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Mitrović, M.; Blanusa, T.; Pavlović, M.; Pavlović, D.; Kostić, O.; Perović, V.; Jarić, S.; Pavlović, P. Using Fractionation Profile of Potentially Toxic Elements in Soils to Investigate Their Accumulation in Tilia sp. Leaves in Urban Areas with Different Pollution Levels. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Rötzer, T.; Rahman, M.; Moser-Reischl, A.; Pauleit, S.; Pretzsch, H. Process based simulation of tree growth and ecosystem services of urban trees under present and future climate conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 676, 651–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Pace, R.; De Fino, F.; Rahman, M.A.; Pauleit, S.; Nowak, D.J.; Grote, R. A single tree model to consistently simulate cooling, shading, and pollution uptake of urban trees. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2020, 65, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Rahman, M.A.; Armson, D.; Ennos, A.R. A comparison of the growth and cooling effectiveness of five commonly planted urban tree species. Urban Ecosyst. 2014, 18, 371–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Marchante, H.; Marchante, E. Rasgos Comunes de las Mimosas de Origen Australiano que Invaden la Península Ibérica. In Rasgos Comunes de las Mimosas de Origen Australiano que Invaden la Península Ibérica 7; Montserrat, V., Fernando, V., Montserrat, V., Fernando, V., Anna, T., Luis, S., Pilar, C., Eds.; Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Colección Divulgación (Pub.): Madrid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  177. van Wilgen, B.W.; Richardson, D.M. The Effects of Alien Shrub Invasions on Vegetation Structure and Fire Behaviour in South African Fynbos Shrublands: A Simulation Study. J. Appl. Ecol. 1985, 22, 955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Pyšek, P.; Richardson, D.M. Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2010, 35, 25–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Gaertner, M.; Breeyen, A.D.; Hui, C.; Richardson, D.M. Impacts of alien plant invasions on species richness in Mediterranean-type ecosystems: A meta-analysis. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2009, 33, 319–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Doroski, D.A.; Ashton, M.S.; Duguid, M.C. The future urban forest—A survey of tree planting programs in the Northeastern United States. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 55, 126816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Dyderski, M.K.; Gdula, A.K.; Jagodziński, A.M. “The rich get richer” concept in riparian woody species—A case study of the Warta River Valley (Poznań, Poland). Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.E.; Bodine, A.R.; Greenfield, E.J.; O’neil-Dunne, J. Urban forest structure, ecosystem services and change in Syracuse, NY. Urban Ecosyst. 2013, 19, 1455–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Millward, A.A.; Sabir, S. Benefits of a forested urban park: What is the value of Allan Gardens to the city of Toronto, Canada? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Arrington, A. Urban foraging of five non-native plants in NYC: Balancing ecosystem services and invasive species management. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 58, 126896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Casella, F.; Vurro, M. Ailanthus altissima (tree of heaven): Spread and harmfulness in a case-study urban area. Arboric. J. 2013, 35, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Kowarik, I.; Säumel, I. Biological flora of Central Europe: Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2007, 8, 207–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Sladonja, B.; Sušek, M.; Guillermic, J. Review on Invasive Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle) Conflicting Values: Assessment of Its Ecosystem Services and Potential Biological Threat. Environ. Manag. 2015, 56, 1009–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Celesti-Grapow, L.; Blasi, C. The role of alien and native weeds in the deterioration of archaeological remains in Italy. Weed Technol. 2004, 18, 1508–1513. [Google Scholar]
  189. Dang, N.; Zhang, H.; Li, H.; Salam, M.M.A.; Chen, G. Comprehensive Evaluation of Dust Retention and Metal Accumulation by the Leaves of Roadside Plants in Hangzhou among Seasons. Forests 2022, 13, 1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Takahashi, Y.; Ohashi, T.; Nagoya, T.; Sakaguchi, M.; Yasueda, H.; Nitta, H. Possibility of real-time measurement of an airborne Cryptomeria japonica pollen allergen based on the principle of surface plasmon resonance. Aerobiologia 2001, 17, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Araya, M.; Seelenfreund, D.; Buscaglia, M.; Peña-Ahumada, B.; Vera, J.; Egas, C.; Préndez, M. Assessment of Anthropogenic Volatile Organic Compounds in Leaves of Two Urban Tree Species in Santiago de Chile. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2019, 2, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Folkard, R. Plant Lore, Legends and Lyrics—Embracing the Myths, Traditions, Superstitions and Folk-Lore of the Plant Kingdom, 2nd ed.; Pantianos Classics: Wroclaw, Poland, 2017; 300p, ISBN 978-1545430750. [Google Scholar]
  193. Jim, C.; Chen, W.Y. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities 2009, 26, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. McPherson, E.G. A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Ten Street Tree Species in Modesto, California, U.S. Arboric. Urban For. 2003, 29, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Wang, H.-F.; Qureshi, S.; Knapp, S.; Friedman, C.R.; Hubacek, K. A basic assessment of residential plant diversity and its ecosystem services and disservices in Beijing, China. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 64, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Chauhan, S.; Yadav, G.; Babu, S. Ecological Networks in Urban Forest Fragments Reveal Species Associations between Native and Invasive Plant Communities. Plants 2022, 11, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Terzaghi, E.; Posada-Baquero, R.; Di Guardo, A.; Ortega-Calvo, J.-J. Microbial degradation of pyrene in holm oak (Quercus ilex) phyllosphere: Role of particulate matter in regulating bioaccessibility. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 786, 147431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Noe, S.M.; Peñuelas, J.; Niinemets, Ü. Monoterpene emissions from ornamental trees in urban areas: A case study of Barcelona, Spain. Plant Biol. 2008, 10, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Marozas, V.; Cekstere, G.; Laivins, M.; Straigyte, L. Comparison of neophyte communities of Robinia pseudoacacia L. and Acer negundo L. in the eastern Baltic Sea region cities of Riga and Kaunas. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 826–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Moser, A.; Rötzer, T.; Pauleit, S.; Pretzsch, H. The Urban Environment Can Modify Drought Stress of Small-Leaved Lime (Tilia cordata Mill.) and Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.). Forests 2016, 7, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Hausmann, S.L.; Petermann, J.S.; Rolff, J. Wild bees as pollinators of city trees. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2015, 9, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Puchałka, R.; Dyderski, M.K.; Vítková, M.; Sádlo, J.; Klisz, M.; Netsvetov, M.; Prokopuk, Y.; Matisons, R.; Mionskowski, M.; Wojda, T.; et al. Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) range contraction and expansion in Europe under changing climate. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 27, 1587–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Chikowore, G.; Chidawanyika, F.; Martin, G.D. Contributions of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) to livelihoods of peri-urban dwellers in the Free State Province of South Africa. GeoJournal 2021, 87, 4565–4578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Rojo, J.; Serrano-Bravo, M.D.; Lara, B.; Fernández-González, F.; Pérez-Badia, R. Halo-nitrophilous scrub species and their relationship to the atmospheric concentration of allergenic pollen: Case study of the Mediterranean saltbush (Atriplex halimus L., Amaranthaceae). Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 2018, 153, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Kirkby, M. A Victorian Flower Dictionary—The Language of Flowers Companion; Ballantine Books: New York, NY, USA, 2011; 187p, ISBN 978-0-345-53296-1. [Google Scholar]
  206. Marchante, E.; Kjøller, A.; Struwe, S.; Freitas, H. Invasive Acacia longifolia induce changes in the microbial catabolic diversity of sand dunes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 2563–2568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Pellissier, V.; Maurel, N.; Machon, N. Multi-scale assessment of pollination of Lotus corniculatus (L.) in a peri-urban fringe. Plant Ecol. Divers. 2013, 6, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Xie, P.; Liu, T.; Chen, H.; Su, Z. Community Structure and Soil Mineral Concentration in Relation to Plant Invasion in a Subtropical Urban and Rural Ecotone. Forests 2021, 12, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. He, M.; Ran, N.; Jiang, H.; Han, Z.; Dian, Y.; Li, X.; Xie, D.; Bowler, P.A.; Wang, H. Effects of Landscape and Local Factors on the Diversity of Flower-Visitor Groups under an Urbanization Gradient, a Case Study in Wuhan, China. Diversity 2022, 14, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Tomaskin, J.; Tomaskinova, J. Evaluation of assortment of ornamental grasses and their environmental importance in the urban landscape. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2020, 21, 1673–1682. [Google Scholar]
  211. Yan, G.; Liu, J.; Zhu, L.; Zhai, J.; Cong, L.; Ma, W.; Wang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, Z. Effectiveness of wetland plants as biofilters for inhalable particles in an urban park. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Mehraj, G.; Khuroo, A.A.; Hamid, M.; Muzafar, I.; Rashid, I.; Malik, A.H. Floristic diversity and correlates of naturalization of alien flora in urban green spaces of Srinagar city. Urban Ecosyst. 2021, 24, 1231–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Aguilera, M.A.; Pacheco, S.; Manzur, T. Human-derived effects and failure in management drive coastal urban foredune degradation and novel vegetation structure. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 311, 114843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Bernard-Verdier, M.; Seitz, B.; Buchholz, S.; Kowarik, I.; Mejía, S.L.; Jeschke, J.M. Grassland allergenicity increases with urbanisation and plant invasions. Ambio 2022, 51, 2261–2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Weber, F.; Kowarik, I.; Säumel, I. Herbaceous plants as filters: Immobilization of particulates along urban street corridors. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 186, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Gómez, V.M.R.; Olivas, O.V.; Moreno, J.T.A.; Sannwald, E.H.; Rodríguez, A.R. Functional ecohydrological differences among native and exotic grassland covers in sub-urban landscapes of Chihuahua city, Mexico. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 139, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Theodorou, P.; Radzevičiūtė, R.; Lentendu, G.; Kahnt, B.; Husemann, M.; Bleidorn, C.; Settele, J.; Schweiger, O.; Grosse, I.; Wubet, T.; et al. Urban areas as hotspots for bees and pollination but not a panacea for all insects. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Cabrera, M.; Martínez-Cócera, C.; Fernández-Caldas, E.; Sánchez, J.C.; Boluda, L.; Tejada, J.; Subiza, J.; Jerez, M. Trisetum paniceum (Wild Oats) Pollen Counts and Aeroallergens in the Ambient Air of Madrid, Spain. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 2002, 128, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  219. Tiotiu, M.D.; Brazdova, A.; Longé, M.S.; Gallet, M.D.; Morisset, M.D.; Leduc, V.; Hilger, C.; Broussard, C.; Couderc, R.; Sutra, J.-P.; et al. Urtica dioica pollen allergy. Clinical, biological, and allergomics analysis. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2016, 117, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Zefferman, E.P.; McKinney, M.L.; Cianciolo, T.; Fritz, B.I. Knoxville’s urban wilderness: Moving toward sustainable multifunctional management. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Potgieter, L.J.; Shrestha, N.; Cadotte, M.W. Prioritizing terrestrial invasive alien plant species for management in urban ecosystems. J. Appl. Ecol. 2021, 59, 872–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Cuassolo, F.; Villanueva, V.D. Exotic species in wetlands: Analysis of plant communities in natural and urban meadows in bariloche city. Ecol. Austral 2019, 29, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Schunko, C.; Brandner, A. Urban nature at the fingertips: Investigating wild food foraging to enable nature interactions of urban dwellers. Ambio 2021, 51, 1168–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  224. Sánchez-Galván, G.; Olguín, E.J.; Melo, F.J.; Jiménez-Moreno, D.; Hernández, V.J. Pontederia sagittata and Cyperus papyrus contribution to carbon storage in floating treatment wetlands established in subtropical urban ponds. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 832, 154990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Duman, T.; Schäfer, K. Partitioning net ecosystem carbon exchange of native and invasive plant communities by vegetation cover in an urban tidal wetland in the New Jersey Meadowlands (USA). Ecol. Eng. 2018, 114, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Sheergojri, I.A.; Rashid, I.; Rehman, I.U. Invasive species services-disservices conundrum: A case study from Kashmir Himalaya. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 309, 114674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Wahl, C.; Diaz, R.; Ortiz-Zayas, J. Assessing Salvinia molesta impact on environmental conditions in an urban lake: Case study of Lago Las Curias, Puerto Rico. Aquat. Invasions 2020, 15, 562–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Smith, M.; Cecchi, L.; Skjøth, C.; Karrer, G.; Šikoparija, B. Common ragweed: A threat to environmental health in Europe. Environ. Int. 2013, 61, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  229. Leong, M.; Kremen, C.; Roderick, G.K. Pollinator Interactions with Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) across Urban, Agricultural, and Natural Landscapes. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e86357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Systematic review flow diagram based on PRISMA.
Figure 1. Systematic review flow diagram based on PRISMA.
Land 13 00023 g001
Figure 2. Studies by ES type. Showing 95 studies from the total of 132 screened—data available in Table S1 in Supplementary Material. In this table, the symbol * corresponds to studies that establish the species origin, which is maintained in the processing of the data.
Figure 2. Studies by ES type. Showing 95 studies from the total of 132 screened—data available in Table S1 in Supplementary Material. In this table, the symbol * corresponds to studies that establish the species origin, which is maintained in the processing of the data.
Land 13 00023 g002
Figure 3. Studies by ED type. Showing 72 studies from the total of 132 screened—data available in Table S1 in Supplementary Material. In this table, the symbol * corresponds to studies that establish the species origin, which is maintained in the processing of the data.
Figure 3. Studies by ED type. Showing 72 studies from the total of 132 screened—data available in Table S1 in Supplementary Material. In this table, the symbol * corresponds to studies that establish the species origin, which is maintained in the processing of the data.
Land 13 00023 g003
Figure 4. Studies citing species origin by climatic regions. Showing 62 studies from the total of 132 screened—data available in Table S1 in Supplementary Material. In this table, the symbol * corresponds to studies that establish the species origin, which is maintained in the processing of the data.
Figure 4. Studies citing species origin by climatic regions. Showing 62 studies from the total of 132 screened—data available in Table S1 in Supplementary Material. In this table, the symbol * corresponds to studies that establish the species origin, which is maintained in the processing of the data.
Land 13 00023 g004
Figure 5. Geographical distribution of the studies considering ES and ED. Showing 119 studies from the total of 132 screened—data available in Table S1 in Supplementary Material. Excluded studies: those with unknown location or literature reviews. In this table, the symbol * corresponds to studies that establish the species origin, which is maintained in the processing of the data.
Figure 5. Geographical distribution of the studies considering ES and ED. Showing 119 studies from the total of 132 screened—data available in Table S1 in Supplementary Material. Excluded studies: those with unknown location or literature reviews. In this table, the symbol * corresponds to studies that establish the species origin, which is maintained in the processing of the data.
Land 13 00023 g005
Figure 6. Studies relating ED and origin of the plant species in the Mediterranean climatic context (46 studies from the total of 132 screened—data available in Table S1 in Supplementary Material).
Figure 6. Studies relating ED and origin of the plant species in the Mediterranean climatic context (46 studies from the total of 132 screened—data available in Table S1 in Supplementary Material).
Land 13 00023 g006
Figure 7. Life forms and species ED association (Table S4 in Supplementary Material, the symbol * corresponds to species native to the Mediterranean Region).
Figure 7. Life forms and species ED association (Table S4 in Supplementary Material, the symbol * corresponds to species native to the Mediterranean Region).
Land 13 00023 g007
Figure 8. ED and species origin association (Table S4 in Supplementary Material, the symbol * corresponds to species native to the Mediterranean Region).
Figure 8. ED and species origin association (Table S4 in Supplementary Material, the symbol * corresponds to species native to the Mediterranean Region).
Land 13 00023 g008
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Andrade, M.; Fernandes, C.; Coutinho, A.; Figueiredo, A. Urban Green Infrastructure: Does Species’ Origin Impair Ecosystem Services Provision? Land 2024, 13, 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010023

AMA Style

Andrade M, Fernandes C, Coutinho A, Figueiredo A. Urban Green Infrastructure: Does Species’ Origin Impair Ecosystem Services Provision? Land. 2024; 13(1):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010023

Chicago/Turabian Style

Andrade, Mónica, Cláudia Fernandes, António Coutinho, and Albano Figueiredo. 2024. "Urban Green Infrastructure: Does Species’ Origin Impair Ecosystem Services Provision?" Land 13, no. 1: 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010023

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop