Next Article in Journal
Framework for Enhancing Urban Living Through Sustainable Plant Selection in Residential Green Spaces
Previous Article in Journal
Building Smart Urban Areas: Case Study in Pleiku City, Vietnam
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Urban Science
Volume 8
Issue 4
10.3390/urbansci8040233
urbansci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Using Morphological Characters to Support Decision-Making in Nature-Based Solutions: A Shortcut to Promote Urban Plant Biodiversity

by
Cíntia Luiza da Silva Luz
1,2,
Ricardo Reale
1,
Leticia Figueiredo Candido
3,
Daniela Zappi
4 and
Giuliano Maselli Locosselli
1,3,*
1
Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba 13418-900, Brazil
2
Laboratory of Plant Taxonomy, Department of Plant Biology, Institute of Biology, State University of Campinas, Campinas 13083-862, Brazil
3
Environmental Research Institute of the State of São Paulo, São Paulo 04301-002, Brazil
4
Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia 70910-900, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Urban Sci. 2024, 8(4), 233; https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040233
Submission received: 19 September 2024 / Revised: 19 November 2024 / Accepted: 21 November 2024 / Published: 1 December 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cities are particularly vulnerable to climate change for their intrinsic characteristics. Imperviousness, heat islands, and pervasive pollution are common urban problems that challenge the current status quo in decision-making. As an alternative, Nature-based Solutions (NbS) arose from the need to tackle environmental issues through multifunctional solutions. Plant biodiversity is at the core of NbS, but such solutions are constrained by the limited knowledge of species benefits for cities, particularly in the biodiverse Global South. In this review, we stress the potential use of morphological characters from taxonomic studies as a shortcut to assess the ecosystem services of plant species. Species description and identification keys can be translated into ecosystem services to support the use of species not yet listed in cities. Bridging the potential for ecosystem service provision and morphological characters like life form, bark, leaf phenology and morphology, and reproductive morphology based on the comprehensive literature will allow decision-makers to widen their options to promote urban biodiversity. Building a platform requires summarizing plants’ ecosystem service knowledge and subsequently validating models’ predictive power. Still, this approach holds great potential to promote urban biodiversity for more resilient and enjoyable urban environments.

1. Introduction

Climate change profoundly impacts the environment, economy, health, and well-being. It is closely linked to unprecedented population growth, deforestation, and greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in global warming and changes in precipitation regimes [1]. The vulnerability to climate change is context-dependent and varies according to local characteristics. For instance, the vulnerability of urban areas arises from significant land-use change due to urban sprawling [2]. Urban areas face challenges ranging from heat islands that exacerbate warming and heatwaves, escalating the risk of premature death associated with cardiovascular disorders [3] to droughts and floods, the leading natural hazards in cities, resulting in substantial economic losses and the risk of death [4]. Urban areas also grapple with pervasive air, water, and soil pollution that negatively affects the health and well-being of citizens. Air pollution, in particular, is recognized as one of the foremost causes of premature death worldwide [5]. Projections indicate that 68% of the global population will reside in cities by 2050 [6], leveraging the impacts on microclimate, biogeochemical cycles, and biodiversity [7]. These impacts of urbanization render cities particularly susceptible to extreme climate events, thereby influencing economic stability, public health, and overall population well-being [8].
Numerous monofunctional solutions rooted in gray engineering interventions have been proposed in the past and are still considered to address urban challenges [9,10]. However, decision-makers are aware of the complex urban environmental issues that call for multifunctional solutions [11]. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) [12] have emerged as a response to this complexity, proposing solutions inspired and supported by nature to address environmental, social, and economic challenges. Nature-based Solutions tackle these challenges through biodiversity [13,14] that leverages the ecosystem service delivery [15,16,17]. Ecosystem services comprise all the benefits that society derives from the natural processes [18], commonly categorized into (I) regulation, i.e., climate and hydrological regulation; (II) supporting, i.e., support of biogeochemical cycles, habitat provision; (III) provision, i.e., food production, wood, and fiber; and (IV) cultural, i.e., spiritual, aesthetic, and recreational, to name a few [19]. Such multifunctional services stem from forests, parks, roadside trees, green walls and roofs, and other forms of green infrastructure [19]. The urge to address the impacts of urban environmental degradation by decision-makers combined with the positive public perception of the value of green spaces has propelled initiatives to foster greener cities through extensive planting and increasing canopy cover worldwide [20].
Optimizing the benefits of these interventions depends on the selection of plant species. The choice of species usually follows criteria based on empirical knowledge or scientific evidence, only available for a relatively small set of species mostly from temperate regions of the Global North [21]. Cultural and landscape design trends also influence decision-making based on aesthetically pleasing species to the detriment of function, commonly resulting in monospecific stands along avenues and parks [22] and limiting the ecosystem services delivery to the potential of very few species. Monospecific plantations [22,23] also pose a risk to plants’ resilience, making them vulnerable to similar sources of stress, from climate change extremes [24,25] to pathogens and diseases [20], representing a significant decrease in the ecosystem services provided by plants [25]. Conversely, higher plant diversity can contribute to filling the gap in as many ecosystem services as possible to mitigate urban environmental issues while leveraging the resilience of the green infrastructure [26,27,28,29].
The urge for species-level knowledge on ecosystem service delivery to promote urban plant biodiversity has recently fostered the development of innovative tools. Tools such as the widely renowned i-Tree platform have been developed and applied in cities from the Global North [30,31]. This application has been particularly successful in temperate environments characterized by low native plant diversity [32], where detailed knowledge of biological processes driving ecosystem services at the species-level is available. However, this knowledge is still scarce in the most biodiverse areas, where plant species are a largely unexplored asset for many cities [21]. Megadiverse regions have the unique opportunity for promoting urban well-being through a vast array of species, or tools, available for diverse and functional urban greenery [17,33,34,35]. For instance, Latin America hosts more than 118,000 vascular plant species, while the Afrotropical Region, covering Sub-Saharan Africa plus Madagascar, is home to around 56,451 species. Southeast Asia has approximately 50,000 species recorded in an area covering only a quarter of the Neotropics and Paleotropics combined [36]. Tropical regions, rich in vascular plants, are home to about two-thirds of the world’s megacities (Figure 1), where biodiversity can provide many tools for developing greener cities.
The conundrum of the value of biodiversity and the challenges of knowing beforehand plants’ ecosystem services and behavior in the urban environment emerges from the lack of scientific knowledge on species-level services and resilience. Accessing this knowledge is costly, complex, and laborious, therefore this strategy may not be compatible with the timing of public decision-making [11]. Thus, the urgency in planning green infrastructure requires alternative approaches, as shortcuts to support evidence-based decision-making on urban biodiversity. For instance, the characteristics of plants that can be measured and influence their growth, survival, and reproduction [39], also known as functional traits, paved the way to theoretically and quantitatively assess ecosystem services using secondary data [15,40]. Functional traits have been used to support species choice as they can offer both a mechanistic explanation and a precise estimate of multiple ecosystem processes and functions [41]. However, trait data are unavailable for all species and are particularly underrepresented in the tropics [42,43], even considering recent input datasets [44].
Taxonomic studies are an unexplored alternative and valuable data source already available, including floristic inventories and taxonomic revisions. These studies potentially provide numerous detailed morphological characters for many plant species unknown to urban forestry. Some of these morphological characters can be directly associated with ecosystem services provision by plants [17,33,34,35] and thus offer significant potential for decision-making. The aim of this paper is not to provide an extensive review of the relationship between plant characteristics and the provision of ecosystem services—already thoroughly covered in the recent literature [45], but rather to highlight the potential of the rich array of morphological characters used in taxonomic studies to support decision-making, particularly in megadiverse countries.

2. Hidden Treasures from Taxonomic Studies

Numerous recent efforts have been directed toward compiling more than two centuries of taxonomic studies into comprehensive databases [21,39,46]. The focus has been on addressing taxonomic impediments, which refer to the lack of taxonomic information such as description, identification, recognition, and classification. It is a critical bottleneck for research, conservation, and sustainable use of plant diversity [47], and planning cityscapes. In 2012, the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) of the United Nations Convention on Biological Conservation expanded the first target to build “an online flora of all known plants” [42]. Since then, many initiatives have been launched worldwide to build online flora databases that provide detailed taxonomic and geographic information. For instance, online plant information is available for geographic areas, such as Australia, Tropical and Temperate Asia, Africa, Europe, Northern and Southern America, and the Pacific. In the future, databases of these regions will be consolidated into the World Flora Online platform [46], fostering the development of global research in diverse fields [43]. All these initiatives are now either complete or in progress mainly because a significant number of herbarium specimens are available online, owing to extensive digitization efforts worldwide [39].
Such taxonomic studies provide a wealth of morphological characteristics that serve as a foundation for species selection, enabling decision-makers to broaden their options for promoting urban biodiversity. For instance, a combination of species checklists, taxonomic revisions, and online data repositories has been used to score and rank the most suitable trees for urban afforestation in a city with over 1 million inhabitants in the highly biodiverse Amazon Forest, in Northern Brazil [48,49,50,51]. When taxonomic studies for a geographical area are unavailable, herbarium specimens offer valuable morphological data with applications beyond plant systematics, and urban areas included [49,50,51].
In a comprehensive literature review, Brown and Anand [17] provided an extensive list of characteristics, emphasizing the direct and indirect relationships between them and the provision of ecosystem services. Taxonomic studies, in particular floristic inventories, provide a wealth of information on plant life form, size, bark, vegetative, and reproductive features that are examples of morphological characters with significant and often statistically relevant association with ecosystem services (Figure 2, Table 1) [17,33,34,35]. In the following subsections, we stress the association between ecosystem services and taxonomic characters in a typical order of appearance in plant descriptions and identification keys (Table S1). Further examples of plant species are in Table S2.

2.1. Plant Life Form and Size

Plant life form and size are the most basic taxonomic parameters recorded in floristic studies, featuring first in plant descriptions. Different life form strategies translate into distinct proportions of organs and tissues in plants that modulate the provision of ecosystem services in terms of number and magnitude. Herbs generally have lower numbers of leaves and short photosynthetic stems that lack secondary growth. Their reduced body size usually translates into reduced potential for service delivery compared to other life forms at the individual level, which is why herbs are often neglected but no less important for ecosystem service provision [52,53]. The ecosystem services provided by herbs increase exponentially when planted across significant areas, forming a dense vegetation cover. Shrubs, and particularly trees, have a greater potential for provision at the individual level. Body size plays a central role by increasing the number of leaves and their total surface, as well as the bark surface and volume of woody tissues. This known positive association between body size and ecosystem services [54,55,56,57] emerges not only across the range of life forms, from herbs to trees, but also along each species’ spectrum of sizes at maturity.
Studies of urban green infrastructure point to the role of different life forms on urban thermal comfort. Although herbs are relatively small, lawns contribute to surface and air temperature reduction by increasing the albedo, providing evaporative cooling through evapotranspiration, and increasing the convective turbulence compared to the built environment [58]. Herbs may be the only alternative in limited spaces in the urban infrastructure, like in dense slums. The contribution to thermal comfort reaches a higher level with shrubs and trees due to their greater total leaf area, albedo, evaporative cooling, and energy exchanges through convective turbulence [58]. Evaporative cooling is enhanced with deep root systems of shrubs and trees that guarantee access to deep water sources. Shading further contributes to the thermal comfort in cities [59,60].
Likewise, herbs contribute to the interception of rainfall and reduction of floods by directly reducing rainfall energy, decreasing surface runoff speed, and indirectly allowing water to percolate into the soil [61]. Herbs adapted to short aquatic phases are used in sustainable drainage solutions such as rain gardens, bioswales, and bioretention systems, as their stems and leaves help to dissipate the runoff energy, slowing its flow towards low-land areas in the city [62]. Shrubs and trees take advantage of the higher leaf cover and stem size, which increases their efficiency in intercepting rainfall through throughfall and stemflow, intercepting as much as 50% of the rainfall amount depending on the precipitation volume [63]. Their course and deep root system also lead to lower soil saturation, facilitating water percolation [37].
The same logic applies to the air-filtering potential of plants. Herbs, vines, and eventually shrubs are successfully used in green fences as a barrier to reduce air pollution [64]. Green fences are commonly employed in vulnerable places such as schools alongside busy roads [65,66]. Most of these studies focus on the solid phase of air pollution [67]. Plants mitigate air pollution through passive deposition of particulate matter on leaves and stems. Trees further support air pollution mitigation by combining the well-known contribution of leaves with the less-studied influence of their bark. As trees grow, the surface for particulate matter deposition increases [68]. The mechanisms behind these ecosystem services mediated by leaves and bark will be discussed in detail in the corresponding sections.
Urban green infrastructure can also mitigate atmospheric CO2 concentrations [69,70,71,72]. There is a consensus that the role of urban forests in climate change mitigation is limited by their extension compared to natural forests. Still, urban forests are currently considered to offset urban carbon emissions [73,74,75,76]. All plant life forms contribute to carbon biomass storage in cities, and the decision of which one to use comes down to the availability of space within the urban fabric. Annual herbs allow atmospheric carbon to enter the biosphere and be transferred to the soil, whereas perennial woody species add long carbon residence time in their wood, where it is stored for decades to hundreds of years according to species longevity. The aboveground biomass productivity also depends on plant body size, as tree height and bole diameter at breast height are used as a predictor of total biomass [77,78,79,80,81,82].

2.2. Leaf Phenology

Leaf phenology contributes towards ecosystem services through annual cycles of flushing, maturity, and senescence. Such ecosystem services include thermal comfort, rainfall interception, and air pollution mitigation that depend on the presence of leaves. Leafless trees may not fully deliver the expected services during the dormancy season, limiting their contribution to the city year-round. It is not a caveat if plants shed leaves when such ecosystem services are not needed, for instance, supporting thermal comfort during the winter or rainfall interception during the dry season. However, deciduousness might increase city vulnerability during off-season extreme events, especially in the face of their recent increase in frequency and intensity [4,83]. By no means planners should avoid using deciduous plants in cities, as promoting biodiversity is known as the best strategy to increase the benefits of green infrastructure [84]. In addition, deciduousness is a strategy associated with resistance and resilience to stress [84], making deciduous species an asset to face climate change in cities.

2.3. Bark Morphology

The diversity of bark morphology influences species′potential contribution to rainfall interception [85]. One of the main mechanisms behind rainfall interception by wood species is stemflow [37]. Precipitation loses kinetic energy and reduces the flow speed on the surface of a plant’s body until it reaches the ground. Stemflow is up to 75% higher in smooth bark than in rough ones [38,85,86]. The lower stemflow in rough barks reduces surface runoff and the frequency and intensity of flooding.
The outer bark has also been effectively assessed to mitigate the concentration of airborne particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) [87,88]. The potential of PM retention in a tree’s bark can be more than tenfold higher than the potential of leaves [89]. Thus, the use of bark is gaining attention in environmental pollution studies, particularly in the urban environment, because of chronic exposure to air pollution and associated healthy outcomes [90]. Studies have highlighted the association between bark adsorption capacity and surface characteristics such as rugosity, porosity, and the presence of lenticels that increase surface area, leading to increased PM deposition [89,91,92,93]. Rough bark also increases air turbulence, leading to higher particle diffusion into the bark [93].

2.4. Leaf Morphology

Numerous morphological characters and character states can be related to different ecosystem services that plant species may deliver, particularly thermal comfort, rainfall interception, air-filtering of particulate matter, and carbon sequestration. Plants contribute to thermal comfort through shading, albedo, turbulent convection, and evaporative cooling [3,94]. Out of these processes, leaf morphological characteristics like leaf size, form, color, and thickness modulate the shading potential of species because of the reduction of heat transfer based on solar radiation reflection by plants. Leaves that bear trichomes also display greater efficiency in reflecting solar radiation by increasing the reflectance of visible, infrared, and near-infrared wavelengths [95]. This evolutionary mechanism is common in warm and xeric environments as it cools down the leaves and protects the photosystem [95,96]. An increase in leaf reflectivity and emissivity contributes to an increase in energy savings for cooling in hot-humid climates [97].
Leaves also play a role in rainfall interception by holding dynamic water storage through adsorption as precipitation water covers their surfaces, affecting the throughfall [37]. This process reduces the volume and speed of the water that reaches the permeable or impermeable underlying surface [98]. Studies show that the characteristics of the leaves are equally important to the bark in intercepting rainfall and can eventually achieve greater retention capacity [99]. Water storage and throughfall potential vary significantly with leaf area, surface roughness, and angle [100]. The greater the surface area or presence of microvilli, the longer it takes for the rain to reach the ground. Still, higher leaf area also increases water drop volumes and their kinetic energy [101], so species with small single leaves or compound leaves with small leaflets may be more effective at intercepting rainfall [99,102]. Some angiosperm species have pendulous and wax-covered leaves that also display a lower potential for rainfall interception as they hold a lower volume of water on their surface during rainfall [103]. Thus, leaf morphological diversity significantly affects the rainfall interception of plant species.
The potential of air pollution filtering is probably one of the most well-studied ecosystem services associated with leaf morphological characteristics [102,104]. Pollution retention largely depends on the interaction between particulate matter size and specific leaf morphological features [105]. The leaf characteristics that modulate airborne pollution retention are size, shape, and indumentum [106]. Overall, higher perimeter-to-surface area ratio [107], lobed margin [104], micro-roughness such as grooves and ridges on broadleaf species, high stomatal density, and epicuticular wax and its ultrastructure are all morphological features that enhance the potential of leaves to trap particulate matter in their surface [103,108,109]. Trichomes are likely the most effective morphological leaf feature for air pollution retention [110]. In contrast, glabrous leaves (i.e., leaves without any indumentum) and leaves with simpler shapes, such as elliptical or linear, comprise morphological characteristics that are less efficient for air pollution filtering [111].
Regarding CO2 sequestration, the net carbon flux in plants depends on the CO2 assimilation through photosynthesis and its release through respiration [112]. Both assimilation and respiration vary with leaf area and thickness. The leaf area plays a crucial role in the plant’s photosynthesis, as a larger leaf area offers a wider surface for light gathering and CO₂ diffusion to the mesophyll, which can result in higher biomass production and enhanced carbon sequestration [113]. In addition, thicker leaves generally contain more chlorophyll cells, increasing the efficiency of the photosynthetic metabolism [114]. Although incipient in the urban environment, these insights point to possible gains in choosing species based on leaf morphological characteristics.

2.5. Reproductive Morphology and Phenology

In urban environments, the reproductive characteristics of plants are fundamental to ecosystem services, particularly those supporting biodiversity. Plant-animal interactions constitute a fundamental component of the biodiversity that supports ecosystem services and functions [115]. Regarding plant-pollination interactions, urban environmental conditions challenge pollinator survival due to local limited biodiversity [116]. Thus, enhancing plant diversity in green areas supports pollinator conservation in cities [117]. Because pollinators have different floral preferences, increasing the species richness of flowering plants contributes to pollinator diversity [118]. However, more than just increasing species richness, one must consider floral attributes associated with pollinator attractiveness, such as inflorescence type and floral display, size, color, and shape [118,119,120]. Within these attributes, flower shape plays a significant role in pollinator preferences [89]. For instance, Lepidoptera prefers tubular flowers over disk/bowl flowers because of the difficulty in locating the nectary, whereas bees tend to visit disk/bowl flowers because they forage for pollen and nectar [118]. Floral color is another attractive feature to pollinators, especially insects [121]. Insects have innate and learned preferences for specific wavelengths [122], and learned preferences may be associated with nectar rewards [123]. Regarding seed dispersal, morphological characteristics of fruits and seeds, such as type, color, and size, correlate to frugivorous preferences [124,125].
Besides ecosystem services related to biodiversity support, it is imperative to promote cultural services [126]. Urban green areas can significantly enhance the quality of life by offering recreational spaces, reducing stress, and promoting mental well-being [127]. For example, flowers have long captivated human admiration [128], influencing our aesthetic sensibility and psychological well-being. Floral characteristics such as texture, scent, and color profoundly impact emotional responses [129]. Colorful flowers have a therapeutic effect on mental health, helping to alleviate negative emotions and excessive stress. Specifically, blue and white flowers are the most relaxing, while orange, yellow, and red flowers are known for restoring a positive mood [130,131,132,133]. Urban green spaces can offer additional cultural and recreational value in which individuals engage in traditional practices and strengthen social cohesion [124].

3. Promising Ways to Use Taxonomic Datasets

Knowledge of species performance in urban settings is still limited to a subset of species commonly planted in cities. The supply and demand dynamics further restrict the options of species available in nurseries, making the natural biodiversity currently underutilized in cities [134,135]. This limitation hampers the efforts of planners and decision-makers who are limited in their choices. As a result, many potential species for the urban environment are not listed to be planted in cities [11], contradicting the current pursuit for green-infrastructure biodiversity, a key element in the definition of Nature-based Solutions [13,14].
Addressing this issue would have been challenging in the past decades when information available from taxonomic studies was hard to compile and synthesize. However, with the modernization and digitalization of plant collections, the online availability of research papers, books, and theses, and the development of automatic tools for data extraction, including the support of AI algorithms, all this information is readily available [21,39,47] to be translated in terms of benefits to the city.
Identification keys (Figure 3) and plant descriptions (Figure 4) have many morphological characters that can help estimate the benefits of plant species. As a first step, one must compile as much information as possible to bridge the morphological characters and ecosystem services using reliable data from the literature. Some authors have given this first step in reviews and meta-analyses in the recent past, although some gaps may remain for both services and morphological characters [17,45]. Past this stage, online platforms that translate the data from plant description and identification keys into benefits could be built locally, regionally, or even globally as urban biodiversity includes alien species. Validations are still required to check for algorithm limitations and tailor them to specific local and regional needs. This approach also does not intend to replace current existing modeling-based platforms like I-Tree, particularly in precisely estimating the magnitude of the ecosystem services limited to known species in urban afforestation, but instead to further inform decision-makers on the potential of local and regional biodiversity to promote ecosystem services. Yet, this approach holds great potential for urban green-infrastructure biodiversity in promoting more resilient and enjoyable urban environments.

4. Conclusions

A vast array of morphological characteristics may derive from taxonomic studies, including floristic inventories, species checklists, taxonomic revisions, monographs, online repositories of plant biodiversity, and herbarium specimens. These resources are vital for understanding how morphological features modulate the provision of ecosystem services. Despite the abundance of plant species data, their potential to inform decision-makers on ecosystem services remains underutilized. Here, we emphasize the unexplored potential of species descriptions and identification keys to indirectly assess the ecosystem services of plant species not yet listed for urban green infrastructure. Leveraging these valuable resources can provide decision-makers with insights into local and regional native species pools to support urban biodiversity and cities’ resilience to climate change, particularly in megadiverse countries.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/urbansci8040233/s1, Table S1: Brief description of the diversity of the main taxonomic characters used in plant description and identification. Table S2: Species examples that provide ecosystem services according to specific taxonomic characters. References [137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152] are cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.L.d.S.L. and G.M.L.; investigation, C.L.d.S.L., G.M.L., R.R., L.F.C. and D.Z.; resources, G.M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, C.L.d.S.L., G.M.L., R.R., L.F.C. and D.Z.; writing—review and editing, C.L.d.S.L., G.M.L., R.R., L.F.C. and D.Z.; visualization, C.L.d.S.L., G.M.L., R.R., L.F.C. and D.Z.; supervision, G.M.L.; project administration, G.M.L.; funding acquisition, G.M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the São Paulo Research Foundation (2017/50341-0, 2019/08783-0, 2020/14163-2, 2022/15891-7, 2023/01141-9) and the National Council for Technological Development (CNPq 311854/2022-2). D.Z. holds a CNPq productivity grant (304178/2021).

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the São Paulo Research Foundation and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kumar, A.; Nagar, S.; Anand, S. Climate Change and Existential Threats; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; ISBN 9780128229286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zuccaro, G.; Leone, M.F. Climate Services to Support Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: The CLARITY Project and the Napoli Case Study. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 693319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Manoli, G.; Fatichi, S.; Schläpfer, M.; Yu, K.; Crowther, T.W.; Meili, N.; Burlando, P.; Katul, G.G.; Bou-Zeid, E. Magnitude of Urban Heat Islands Largely Explained by Climate and Population. Nature 2019, 573, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Marengo, J.A.; Alves, L.M.; Ambrizzi, T.; Young, A.; Barreto, N.J.C.; Ramos, A.M. Trends in Extreme Rainfall and Hydrogeometeorological Disasters in the Metropolitan Area of São Paulo: A Review. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2020, 1472, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Landrigan, P.J.; Fuller, R.; Acosta, N.J.R.; Adeyi, O.; Arnold, R.; Basu, N.; Baldé, A.B.; Bertollini, R.; Bose-O’Reilly, S.; Boufford, J.I.; et al. The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health. Lancet 2018, 391, 462–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. United Stations. World Urbanization Prospects 2018; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 9789211483185. [Google Scholar]
  7. Grimm, N.B.; Faeth, S.H.; Golubiewski, N.E.; Redman, C.L.; Wu, J.; Bai, X.; Briggs, J.M. Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science 2008, 319, 756–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chang, S.E.; Gregorian, M.; Pathman, K.; Yumagulova, L.; Tse, W. Urban Growth and Long-Term Changes in Natural Hazard Risk. Environ. Plan. A 2012, 44, 989–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Finewood, M.H. Green Infrastructure, Grey Epistemologies, and the Urban Political Ecology of Pittsburgh’s Water Governance. Antipode 2016, 48, 1000–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Seddon, N.; Chausson, A.; Berry, P.; Girardin, C.A.J.; Smith, A.; Turner, B. Understanding the Value and Limits of Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change and Other Global Challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2020, 375, 20190120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Locosselli, G.M.; Buckeridge, M.S. The Science of Urban Trees to Promote Well-Being. Trees Struct. Funct. 2023, 37, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Babí Almenar, J.; Elliot, T.; Rugani, B.; Philippe, B.; Navarrete Gutierrez, T.; Sonnemann, G.; Geneletti, D. Nexus between Nature-Based Solutions, Ecosystem Services and Urban Challenges. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 104898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Raymond, C.M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N.; Berry, P.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Geneletti, D.; Calfapietra, C. A Framework for Assessing and Implementing the Co-Benefits of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 77, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wild, T.; Bulkeley, H.; Naumann, S.; Vojinovic, Z.; Calfapietra, C.; Whiteoak, K. Nature-Based Solutions: State of the Art in EU-Funded Projects; Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; ISBN 978-92-76-17334-2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. de Bello, F.; Lavorel, S.; Díaz, S.; Harrington, R.; Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Bardgett, R.D.; Berg, M.P.; Cipriotti, P.; Feld, C.K.; Hering, D.; et al. Towards an Assessment of Multiple Ecosystem Processes and Services via Functional Traits. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 2873–2893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Funk, J.L.; Larson, J.E.; Ames, G.M.; Butterfield, B.J.; Cavender-Bares, J.; Firn, J.; Laughlin, D.C.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Williams, L.; Wright, J. Revisiting the Holy Grail: Using Plant Functional Traits to Understand Ecological Processes. Biol. Rev. 2017, 92, 1156–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Brown, L.M.; Anand, M. Plant Functional Traits as Measures of Ecosystem Service Provision. Ecosphere 2022, 13, e3930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Opportunities for Business and Industry; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; p. 31. [Google Scholar]
  19. Wallace, K.J. Classification of Ecosystem Services: Problems and Solutions. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Salmond, J.A.; Tadaki, M.; Vardoulakis, S.; Arbuthnott, K.; Coutts, A.; Demuzere, M.; Dirks, K.N.; Heaviside, C.; Lim, S.; MacIntyre, H.; et al. Health and Climate Related Ecosystem Services Provided by Street Trees in the Urban Environment. Environ. Health 2016, 15, S36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hortal, J.; De Bello, F.; Diniz-Filho, J.A.F.; Lewinsohn, T.M.; Lobo, J.M.; Ladle, R.J. Seven Shortfalls That Beset Large-Scale Knowledge of Biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2015, 46, 523–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Paquette, A.; Sousa-Silva, R.; Maure, F.; Cameron, E.; Belluau, M.; Messier, C. Praise for Diversity: A Functional Approach to Reduce Risks in Urban Forests. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Seddon, N.; Turner, B.; Berry, P.; Chausson, A.; Girardin, C.A.J. Grounding Nature-Based Climate Solutions in Sound Biodiversity Science. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. IPPC Secretariat. Scientific Review of the Impact of Climate Change on Plant Pests; FAO on behalf of the IPPC Secretariat: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  25. Boyd, I.L.; Freer-Smith, P.H.; Gilligan, C.A.; Godfray, H.C.J. The Consequence of Tree Pests and Diseases for Ecosystem Services. Science 2013, 342, 1235773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hantsch, L.; Bien, S.; Radatz, S.; Braun, U.; Auge, H.; Bruelheide, H. Tree Diversity and the Role of Non-Host Neighbour Tree Species in Reducing Fungal Pathogen Infestation. J. Ecol. 2014, 102, 1673–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Prospero, S.; Cleary, M. Effects of Host Variability on the Spread of Invasive Forest Diseases. Forests 2017, 8, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Roberts, M.; Gilligan, C.A.; Kleczkowski, A.; Hanley, N.; Whalley, A.E.; Healey, J.R. The Effect of Forest Management Options on Forest Resilience to Pathogens. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2020, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sjöman, H.; Östberg, J. Vulnerability of Ten Major Nordic Cities to Potential Tree Losses Caused by Longhorned Beetles. Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 22, 385–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kirnbauer, M.C.; Baetz, B.W.; Kenney, W.A. Estimating the Stormwater Attenuation Benefits Derived from Planting Four Monoculture Species of Deciduous Trees on Vacant and Underutilized Urban Land Parcels. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hwang, W.H.; Wiseman, P.E.; Thomas, V.A. Enhancing the Energy Conservation Benefits of Shade Trees in Dense Residential Developments Using an Alternative Tree Placement Strategy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 158, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gatti, R.C.; Reich, P.B.; Gamarra, J.G.P.; Crowther, T.; Hui, C.; Morera, A.; Bastin, J.F.; de-Miguel, S.; Nabuurs, G.J.; Svenning, J.C.; et al. The Number of Tree Species on Earth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2115329119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pakeman, R.J.; Stockan, J. Using Plant Functional Traits as a Link between Land Use and Bee Foraging Abundance. Acta Oecol. 2013, 50, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Biella, P.; Akter, A.; Ollerton, J.; Tarrant, S.; Janeček, Š.; Jersáková, J.; Klecka, J. Experimental Loss of Generalist Plants Reveals Alterations in Plant-Pollinator Interactions and a Constrained Flexibility of Foraging. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. He, C.; Qiu, K.; Pott, R. Reduction of Urban Traffic–Related Particulate Matter—Leaf Trait Matters. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 5825–5844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Raven, P.H.; Gereau, R.E.; Phillipson, P.B.; Chatelain, C.; Jenkins, C.N.; Ulloa, C.U. The Distribution of Biodiversity Richness in the Tropics. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eabc6228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Van Stan, J.T.; Underwood, S.J.; Friesen, J. Urban Forestry: An Underutilized Tool in Water Management. Adv. Chem. Pollut. Environ. Manag. Prot. 2018, 3, 35–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zabret, K.; Šraj, M. Rainfall Interception by Urban Trees and Their Impact on Potential Surface Runoff. Clean 2019, 47, 1800327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Davis, C.C. The Herbarium of the Future. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2023, 38, 412–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hevia, V.; Martín-López, B.; Palomo, S.; García-Llorente, M.; de Bello, F.; González, J.A. Trait-Based Approaches to Analyze Links between the Drivers of Change and Ecosystem Services: Synthesizing Existing Evidence and Future Challenges. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 831–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Lavorel, S.; Díaz, S.; Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Garnier, E.; Harrison, S.P.; McIntyre, S.; Pausas, J.G.; Pérez-Harguindeguy, N.; Roumet, C.; Urcelay, C. Plant Functional Types: Are We Getting Any Closer to the Holy Grail? In Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: 2011–2020; Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2012; ISBN 978-1-905164-41-7. [Google Scholar]
  43. Heberling, J.M.; Miller, J.T.; Noesgaard, D.; Weingart, S.B.; Schigel, D. Data Integration Enables Global Biodiversity Synthesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2018093118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Joswig, J.S.; Kattge, J.; Kraemer, G.; Mahecha, M.D.; Rüger, N.; Schaepman, M.E.; Schrodt, F.; Schuman, M.C. Imputing Missing Data in Plant Traits: A Guide to Improve Gap-Filling. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2023, 32, 1395–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liang, D.; Huang, G. Influence of Urban Tree Traits on Their Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review. Land 2023, 12, 1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Borsch, T.; Berendsohn, W.; Dalcin, E.; Delmas, M.; Demissew, S.; Elliott, A.; Fritsch, P.; Fuchs, A.; Geltman, D.; Güner, A.; et al. World Flora Online: Placing Taxonomists at the Heart of a Definitive and Comprehensive Global Resource on the World’s Plants. Taxon 2020, 69, 1311–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Paton, A.J.; Brummitt, N.; Govaerts, R.; Harman, K.; Allkin, B.; Lughadha, E.N.; Taxon, S.; May, N.; Wiley, P.; Paton, A.J.; et al. Towards Target 1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: A Working List of All Known Plant Species—Progress and Prospects. Taxon 2008, 57, 602–611. [Google Scholar]
  48. IBGE. Censo Brasileiro de 2022; IBGE: Belém, Brazil, 2022. Available online: https://censo2022.ibge.gov.br/panorama/?utm_source=ibge&utm_medium=home&utm_campaign=portal (accessed on 18 September 2024).
  49. Park, D.S.; Lyra, G.M.; Ellison, A.M.; Maruyama, R.K.B.; dos Reis Torquato, D.; Asprino, R.C.; Cook, B.I.; Davis, C.C. Herbarium Records Provide Reliable Phenology Estimates in the Understudied Tropics. J. Ecol. 2023, 111, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Park, D.S.; Xie, Y.; Ellison, A.M.; Lyra, G.M.; Davis, C.C. Complex Climate-Mediated Effects of Urbanization on Plant Reproductive Phenology and Frost Risk. New Phytol. 2023, 239, 2153–2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Koski, M.H.; MacQueen, D.; Ashman, T.L. Floral Pigmentation Has Responded Rapidly to Global Change in Ozone and Temperature. Curr. Biol. 2020, 30, 4425–4431.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Deletic, A.; Fletcher, T.D. Performance of Grass Filters Used for Stormwater Treatment—A Field and Modelling Study. J. Hydrol. 2006, 317, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ryan, C.M.; Pritchard, R.; McNicol, I.; Owen, M.; Fisher, J.A.; Lehmann, C. Ecosystem Services from Southern African Woodlands and Their Future under Global Change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McPherson, E.G.; Nowak, D.J.; Rowntree, R.A. Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project; Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-186; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: Radnor, PA, USA, 1994; p. 201. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sydnor, T.D.; Subburayalu, S.K. Should We Consider Expected Environmental Benefits When Planting Larger or Smaller Tree Species? Arboric. Urban For. 2011, 37, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mullaney, J.; Lucke, T.; Trueman, S.J. A Review of Benefits and Challenges in Growing Street Trees in Paved Urban Environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gage, E.A.; Cooper, D.J. Relationships between Landscape Pattern Metrics, Vertical Structure and Surface Urban Heat Island Formation in a Colorado Suburb. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 1229–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vaz Monteiro, M.; Doick, K.J.; Handley, P.; Peace, A. The Impact of Greenspace Size on the Extent of Local Nocturnal Air Temperature Cooling in London. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 16, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lin, T.-P.; Matzarakis, A.; Hwang, R.-L. Shading Effect on Long-Term Outdoor Thermal Comfort. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Speak, A.; Montagnani, L.; Wellstein, C.; Zerbe, S. The Influence of Tree Traits on Urban Ground Surface Shade Cooling. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 197, 103748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nur Hannah Ismail, S.; Stovin, V.; Cameron, R.W.F. Functional Urban Ground-Cover Plants: Identifying Traits That Promote Rainwater Retention and Dissipation. Urban Ecosyst. 2023, 26, 1709–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Davis, A.P.; Stagge, J.H.; Jamil, E.; Kim, H. Hydraulic Performance of Grass Swales for Managing Highway Runoff. Water Res. 2012, 46, 6775–6786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Alves, P.L.; Formiga, K.T.M.; Traldi, M.A.B. Rainfall Interception Capacity of Tree Species Used in Urban Afforestation. Urban Ecosyst. 2018, 21, 697–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Escobedo, F.J.; Wagner, J.E.; Nowak, D.J.; De la Maza, C.L.; Rodriguez, M.; Crane, D.E. Analyzing the Cost Effectiveness of Santiago, Chile’s Policy of Using Urban Forests to Improve Air Quality. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Redondo Bermúdez, M.d.C.; Kanai, J.M.; Astbury, J.; Fabio, V.; Jorgensen, A. Green Fences for Buenos Aires: Implementing Green Infrastructure for (More than) Air Quality. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kanai, J.M.; Fabio, V.; Mirás, M.; Gastiarena, L. Making Green Heritage Schools Work: Nature-Based Solutions and Historical Preservation When Infrastructure Fails. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kampa, M.; Castanas, E. Human Health Effects of Air Pollution. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 151, 362–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Locosselli, G.M. Soluções Baseadas Na Natureza Para Redução Da Poluição Do Ar Na Cidade. In Planejamento Urbano e Políticas Ambientais: Métodos, Instrumentos e Experiências; Gunter, W.M.R., Philipp, A., Jr., Eds.; Universidade de São Paulo: São Paulo, Brazil, 2020; pp. 86–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Churkina, G. The Role of Urbanization in the Global Carbon Cycle. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 3, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nowak, D.J.; Greenfield, E.J.; Hoehn, R.E.; Lapoint, E. Carbon Storage and Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Community Areas of the United States. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 178, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hardiman, B.S.; Wang, J.A.; Hutyra, L.R.; Gately, C.K.; Getson, J.M.; Friedl, M.A. Accounting for Urban Biogenic Fluxes in Regional Carbon Budgets. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 592, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Tigges, J.; Churkina, G.; Lakes, T. Modeling Above-Ground Carbon Storage: A Remote Sensing Approach to Derive Individual Tree Species Information in Urban Settings. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Brilli, L.; Carotenuto, F.; Chiesi, M.; Fiorillo, E.; Genesio, L.; Magno, R.; Morabito, M.; Nardino, M.; Zaldei, A.; Gioli, B. An Integrated Approach to Estimate How Much Urban Afforestation Can Contribute to Move towards Carbon Neutrality. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 842, 156843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Hong, W.; Ren, Z.; Guo, Y.; Wang, C.; Cao, F.; Zhang, P.; Hong, S.; Ma, Z. Spatiotemporal Changes in Urban Forest Carbon Sequestration Capacity and Its Potential Drivers in an Urban Agglomeration: Implications for Urban CO2 Emission Mitigation under China’s Rapid Urbanization. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 159, 111601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pregitzer, C.C.; Hanna, C.; Charlop-Powers, S.; Bradford, M.A. Estimating Carbon Storage in Urban Forests of New York City. Urban Ecosyst. 2022, 25, 617–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhao, D.; Cai, J.; Xu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Yao, M. Carbon Sinks in Urban Public Green Spaces under Carbon Neutrality: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 86, 128037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rawat, M.; Arunachalam, K.; Arunachalam, A.; Alatalo, J.; Pandey, R. Associations of Plant Functional Diversity with Carbon Accumulation in a Temperate Forest Ecosystem in the Indian Himalayas. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 98, 861–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Finegan, B.; Peña-Claros, M.; de Oliveira, A.; Ascarrunz, N.; Bret-Harte, M.S.; Carreño-Rocabado, G.; Casanoves, F.; Díaz, S.; Eguiguren Velepucha, P.; Fernandez, F.; et al. Does Functional Trait Diversity Predict Above-Ground Biomass and Productivity of Tropical Forests? Testing Three Alternative Hypotheses. J. Ecol. 2015, 103, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ali, A.; Yan, E.-R. Functional Identity of Overstorey Tree Height and Understorey Conservative Traits Drive Aboveground Biomass in a Subtropical Forest. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ayma-Romay, A.I.; Bown, H.E.; Pérez-Harguindeguy, N.; Enrico, L. Trait Similarity among Dominant Highly-Competitive Species Rather than Diversity Increases Productivity in Semi-Arid Mediterranean Forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 486, 118969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Pan, Y.; Yu, C.; Zhang, X.; Chen, B.; Wu, J.; Tu, Y.; Miao, Y.; Luo, L. A Modified Framework for the Regional Assessment of Climate and Human Impacts on Net Primary Productivity. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wilkes, P.; Disney, M.; Vicari, M.B.; Calders, K.; Burt, A. Estimating Urban above Ground Biomass with Multi-Scale LiDAR. Carbon Balance Manag. 2018, 13, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. da Rosa, C.E.; Stefanello, M.; dos Reis, N.C.S.; Facco, D.S.; Teleginski Ferraz, S.; Boiaski, N.T.; Herdies, D.L.; Degrazia, G.A. Winter Heat Waves Characteristics Associated with Downslope Windstorm in South Brazil. Int. J. Climatol. 2023, 43, 5951–5965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. da Silva Brito, N.D.; dos Santos Medeiros, M.J.; de Souza, E.S.; de Lima, A.L.A. Drought Response Strategies for Deciduous Species in the Semiarid Caatinga Derived from the Interdependence of Anatomical, Phenological and Bio-Hydraulic Attributes. Flora 2022, 288, 152009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Livesley, S.J.; Baudinette, B.; Glover, D. Rainfall Interception and Stem Flow by Eucalypt Street Trees—The Impacts of Canopy Density and Bark Type. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Van Stan, J.T.; Dymond, S.F.; Klamerus-Iwan, A. Bark-Water Interactions Across Ecosystem States and Fluxes. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2021, 4, 660662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Schelle, E.; Rawlins, B.G.; Lark, R.M.; Webster, R.; Staton, I.; McLeod, C.W. Mapping Aerial Metal Deposition in Metropolitan Areas from Tree Bark: A Case Study in Sheffield, England. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 155, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Caldana, C.R.G.; Hanai-Yoshida, V.M.; Paulino, T.H.; Baldo, D.A.; Freitas, N.P.; Aranha, N.; Vila, M.M.D.C.; Balcão, V.M.; Oliveira Junior, J.M. Evaluation of Urban Tree Barks as Bioindicators of Environmental Pollution Using the X-Ray Fluorescence Technique. Chemosphere 2023, 312, 137257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Wang, M.; Qin, M.; Xu, P.; Huang, D.; Jin, X.; Chen, J.; Dong, D.; Ren, Y. Atmospheric Particulate Matter Retention Capacity of Bark and Leaves of Urban Tree Species. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 342, 123109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Baklanov, A.; Molina, L.T.; Gauss, M. Megacities, Air Quality and Climate. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 126, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ponette-González, A.G. Accumulator, Transporter, Substrate, and Reactor: Multidimensional Perspectives and Approaches to the Study of Bark. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2021, 4, 716557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Moreira, T.C.L.; Amato-Lourenço, L.F.; da Silva, G.T.; de André, C.D.; de André, P.A.; Barrozo, L.V.; Singer, J.M.; Saldiva, P.H.N.; Saiki, M.; Locosselli, G.M. The Use of Tree Barks to Monitor Traffic Related Air Pollution: A Case Study in São Paulo–Brazil. Front. Environ. Sci. 2018, 6, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zhang, X.; Lyu, J.; Chen, W.Y.; Chen, D.; Yan, J.; Yin, S. Quantifying the Capacity of Tree Branches for Retaining Airborne Submicron Particles. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 310, 119873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhao, L.; Lee, X.; Smith, R.B.; Oleson, K. Strong Contributions of Local Background Climate to Urban Heat Islands. Nature 2014, 511, 216–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Bickford, C.P. Ecophysiology of Leaf Trichomes. Funct. Plant Biol. 2016, 43, 807–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Hami, A.; Abdi, B.; Zarehaghi, D.; Maulan, S. Bin Assessing the Thermal Comfort Effects of Green Spaces: A Systematic Review of Methods, Parameters, and Plants’ Attributes. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 49, 101634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Stav, Y.; Lawson, G.M. Vertical Vegetation Design Decisions and Their Impact on Energy Consumption in Subtropical Cities. In The Sustainable City VII: Urban Regeneration and Sustainability; Passerini, G., Brebbia, C.A., Latini, G., Eds.; WIT Press: Ancona, Italy, 2012; pp. 489–500. [Google Scholar]
  98. Livesley, S.J.; McPherson, E.G.; Calfapietra, C. The Urban Forest and Ecosystem Services: Impacts on Urban Water, Heat, and Pollution Cycles at the Tree, Street, and City Scale. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Baptista, M.D.; Livesley, S.J.; Parmehr, E.G.; Neave, M.; Amati, M. Variation in Leaf Area Density Drives the Rainfall Storage Capacity of Individual Urban Tree Species. Hydrol. Process. 2018, 32, 3729–3740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Holder, C.D.; Gibbes, C. Influence of Leaf and Canopy Characteristics on Rainfall Interception and Urban Hydrology. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2017, 62, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Yan, T.; Wang, Z.; Liao, C.; Xu, W.; Wan, L. Effects of the Morphological Characteristics of Plants on Rainfall Interception and Kinetic Energy. J. Hydrol. 2021, 592, 125807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yang, J.; Chang, Y.; Yan, P. Ranking the Suitability of Common Urban Tree Species for Controlling PM2.5 Pollution. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2015, 6, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hallam, N.D. Growth and Regeneration of Waxes on the Leaves of Eucalyptus. Planta 1970, 93, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Weerakkody, U.; Dover, J.W.; Mitchell, P.; Reiling, K. Evaluating the Impact of Individual Leaf Traits on Atmospheric Particulate Matter Accumulation Using Natural and Synthetic Leaves. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 30, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Barwise, Y.; Kumar, P. Designing Vegetation Barriers for Urban Air Pollution Abatement: A Practical Review for Appropriate Plant Species Selection. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2020, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Moura, B.B.; Zammarchi, F.; Manzini, J.; Yasutomo, H.; Brilli, L.; Vagnoli, C.; Gioli, B.; Zaldei, A.; Giordano, T.; Martinelli, F.; et al. Assessment of Seasonal Variations in Particulate Matter Accumulation and Elemental Composition in Urban Tree Species. Environ. Res. 2024, 252, 118782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Viecco, M.; Vera, S.; Jorquera, H.; Bustamante, W.; Gironás, J.; Dobbs, C.; Leiva, E. Potential of Particle Matter Dry Deposition on Green Roofs and Living Walls Vegetation for Mitigating Urban Atmospheric Pollution in Semiarid Climates. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zhang, W.; Wang, B.; Niu, X. Relationship between Leaf Surface Characteristics and Particle Capturing Capacities of Different Tree Species in Beijing. Forests 2017, 8, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chen, L.; Liu, C.; Zhang, L.; Zou, R.; Zhang, Z. Variation in Tree Species Ability to Capture and Retain Airborne Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 3206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. 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]
  111. Corada, K.; Woodward, H.; Alaraj, H.; Collins, C.M.; de Nazelle, A. A Systematic Review of the Leaf Traits Considered to Contribute to Removal of Airborne Particulate Matter Pollution in Urban Areas. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 269, 116104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Charoenkit, S.; Yiemwattana, S. Living Walls and Their Contribution to Improved Thermal Comfort and Carbon Emission Reduction: A Review. Build. Environ. 2016, 105, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Poorter, L.; Bongers, F. Leaf Traits Are Good Predictors of Plant Performance across 53 Rain Forest Species. Ecology 2006, 87, 1733–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Araus, J.L.; Alegre, L.; Tapia, L.; Calafell, R.; Serret, M.D. Relationships between photosynthetic capacity and leaf structure in several shade plants. Am. J. Bot. 1986, 73, 1760–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Soliveres, S.; van der Plas, F.; Manning, P.; Prati, D.; Gossner, M.M.; Renner, S.C.; Alt, F.; Arndt, H.; Baumgartner, V.; Binkenstein, J.; et al. Biodiversity at Multiple Trophic Levels Is Needed for Ecosystem Multifunctionality. Nature 2016, 536, 456–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Youngsteadt, E.; Keighron, M.C. Urban Pollination Ecology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2023, 54, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Dietzel, S.; Rojas-Botero, S.; Kollmann, J.; Fischer, C. Enhanced Urban Roadside Vegetation Increases Pollinator Abundance Whereas Landscape Characteristics Drive Pollination. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 147, 109980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Wang, H.; Ran, N.; Jiang, H.-Q.; Wang, Q.-Q.; Ye, M.; Bowler, P.A.; Jin, X.-F.; Ye, Z.-M. Complex Floral Traits Shape Pollinator Attraction to Flowering Plants in Urban Greenspaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 91, 128165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Cabon, V.; Kracht, A.; Seitz, B.; Kowarik, I.; von der Lippe, M.; Buchholz, S. Urbanisation Modulates the Attractiveness of Plant Communities to Pollinators by Filtering for Floral Traits. Oikos 2022, 2022, e09071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Blowers, C.J.; Cunningham, H.M.; Wilcox, A.; Randall, N.P. What Specific Plant Traits Support Ecosystem Services Such as Pollination, Bio-Control and Water Quality Protection in Temperate Climates? A Systematic Map Protocol. Environ. Evid. 2017, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Sikora, A.; Michołap, P.; Sikora, M. What Kind of Flowering Plants Are Attractive for Bumblebees in Urban Green Areas? Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 48, 126546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Menzel, R. Untersuchungen Zum Erlernen von Spektralfarben Durch Die Honigbiene (Apis Mellifica). Z. Vgl. Physiol. 1967, 56, 22–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Giurfa, M.; Núñez, J.; Chittka, L.; Menzel, R. Colour Preferences of Flower-Naive Honeybees. J. Comp. Physiol. A 1995, 177, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Sardeshpande, M.; Shackleton, C. Fruits of the City: The Nature, Nurture and Future of Urban Foraging. People Nat. 2023, 5, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Koike, S.; Masaki, T. Characteristics of Fruits Consumed by Mammalian Frugivores in Japanese Temperate Forest. Ecol. Res. 2019, 34, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Gobster, P.H.; Nassauer, J.I.; Daniel, T.C.; Fry, G. The Shared Landscape: What Does Aesthetics Have to Do with Ecology? Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 959–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Chen, K.; Zhang, T.; Liu, F.; Zhang, Y.; Song, Y. How Does Urban Green Space Impact Residents’ Mental Health: A Literature Review of Mediators. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Hůla, M.; Flegr, J. Habitat Selection and Human Aesthetic Responses to Flowers. Evol. Hum. Sci. 2021, 3, e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kaplan, S. The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Neale, C.; Griffiths, A.; Chalmin-Pui, L.S.; Mendu, S.; Boukhechba, M.; Roe, J. Color Aesthetics: A Transatlantic Comparison of Psychological and Physiological Impacts of Warm and Cool Colors in Garden Landscapes. Wellbeing Space Soc. 2021, 2, 100038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Quan, Q.; He, N.; Zhang, R.; Wang, J.; Luo, Y.; Ma, F.; Pan, J.; Wang, R.; Liu, C.; Zhang, J.; et al. Plant Height as an Indicator for Alpine Carbon Sequestration and Ecosystem Response to Warming. Nat. Plants 2024, 10, 890–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zhang, L.; Dempsey, N.; Cameron, R. Flowers—Sunshine for the Soul! How Does Floral Colour Influence Preference, Feelings of Relaxation and Positive up-Lift? Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 79, 127795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Zhang, M.; Lu, C.; Han, Q.; Lu, C. Structure and Characteristics of Plant-Frugivore Network in an Urban Park: A Case Study in Nanjing Botanical Garden Mem. Sun Yat-Sen. Diversity 2022, 14, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Petter, J.; Ries, P.; D’Antonio, A.; Contreras, R. A Tree Selection Survey of Tree City USA Designated Cities in the Pacific Northwest. Arboric. Urban For. (AUF) 2020, 46, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Sjöman, H.; Watkins, J.H.R. What Do We Know about the Origin of Our Urban Trees?—A North European Perspective. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 56, 126879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Silva-Luz, C.L.; Pirani, J.R.; Pell, S.K.; Mitchell, J.D. Anacardiaceae. Available online: https://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/FB4380 (accessed on 4 September 2024).
  137. Radford, A.E. Vascular Plant Systematics; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1974.
  138. Evert RF, E.S. Esau’s Plant Anatomy: Meristems, Cells, and Tissues of the Plant Body: Their Structure, Function, and Development; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  139. Bell, A.D. Plant Form: An Illustrated Guide to Flowering Plant Morphology; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  140. López-Martínez, A.M.; Magallón, S.; von Balthazar, M.; Schönenberger, J.; Sauquet, H.; Chartier, M. Angiosperm Flowers Reached Their Highest Morphological Diversity Early in Their Evolutionary History. New Phytol. 2024, 241, 1348–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Dmitruk, M.; Strzałkowska-Abramek, M.; Bożek, M.; Denisow, B. Plants Enhancing Urban Pollinators: Nectar Rather than Pollen Attracts Pollinators of Cotoneaster Species. Urban For Urban Green 2022, 74, 127651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Cheng, C.Y.; Cheung, K.K.S.; Chu, L.M. Thermal Performance of a Vegetated Cladding System on Facade Walls. Build Environ 2010, 45, 1779–1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Feng, H.; An, J.; Wang, H.; Miao, X.; Yang, G.; Feng, H.; Wu, Y.; Ma, X. The Ecological Healthcare Benefits and Influences of Plant Communities in Urban Wetland Parks. Forests 2023, 14, 2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Wang, H.; Shi, H. Particle Retention Capacity, Efficiency, and Mechanism of Selected Plant Species: Implications for Urban Planting for Improving Urban Air Quality. Plants 2021, 10, 2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Ma, X.Y.; Shu, Y.; Shi, Y.; Bao, Z.Y. Analysis of plant selection and landscaping design for rain garden: A case study of Gongkang Rainwater Garden in Shanghai. Acta Agric. Zhejiangensis 2018, 30, 1526–1533. [Google Scholar]
  146. Yang, B.; Lee, D.K.; Heo, H.K.; Biging, G. The Effects of Tree Characteristics on Rainfall Interception in Urban Areas. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 15, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Selmi, W.; Weber, C.; Rivière, E.; Blond, N.; Mehdi, L.; Nowak, D. Air Pollution Removal by Trees in Public Green Spaces in Strasbourg City, France. Urban For Urban Green 2016, 17, 192–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Chaparro, L.; Terradas, J. Ecological Services of Urban Forest in Barcelona; CREAF: Bellaterra, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Kong, L.; Lau, K.K.L.; Yuan, C.; Chen, Y.; Xu, Y.; Ren, C.; Ng, E. Regulation of Outdoor Thermal Comfort by Trees in Hong Kong. Sustain Cities Soc 2017, 31, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Nooraei Beidokhti, A.; Moore, T.L. The Effects of Precipitation, Tree Phenology, Leaf Area Index, and Bark Characteristics on Throughfall Rates by Urban Trees: A Meta-Data Analysis. Urban For Urban Green 2021, 60, 127052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Barwise, Y.; Kumar, P.; Abhijith, K.V.; Gallagher, J.; McNabola, A.; Watts, J.F. A Trait-Based Investigation into Evergreen Woody Plants for Traffic-Related Air Pollution Mitigation over Time. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 914, 169713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Xiao, Q.; McPherson, G.G. Rainfall Interception of Three Trees in Oakland, California. Urban Ecosyst. 2011, 14, 755–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Urbansci 08 00233 g001
Figure 1. Global distribution of vascular plant species [37] and cities with more than 1 million inhabitants (gray dots) and those with more than 10 million people, known as megacities (black dots) [38]. The black line represents the geopolitical division between the Global North and South.
Figure 1. Global distribution of vascular plant species [37] and cities with more than 1 million inhabitants (gray dots) and those with more than 10 million people, known as megacities (black dots) [38]. The black line represents the geopolitical division between the Global North and South.
Urbansci 08 00233 g001
Urbansci 08 00233 g002
Figure 2. A brief theoretical illustration of the morphological character diversity that affects the provision of ecosystem services by various plant species, including (I) plant life form; (II) leaf phenology; (III) bark morphology; (IV) leaf morphology; and (V) reproductive morphology and phenology.
Figure 2. A brief theoretical illustration of the morphological character diversity that affects the provision of ecosystem services by various plant species, including (I) plant life form; (II) leaf phenology; (III) bark morphology; (IV) leaf morphology; and (V) reproductive morphology and phenology.
Urbansci 08 00233 g002
Urbansci 08 00233 g003
Figure 3. Short identification key of Brazilian Anacardium (cashew-nut) species (English version) [136], illustrating the association between some morphological characters and ecosystem services. Brown boxes represent plant life form and size characters, green boxes represent leaf characters, and pink boxes represent reproductive characters.
Figure 3. Short identification key of Brazilian Anacardium (cashew-nut) species (English version) [136], illustrating the association between some morphological characters and ecosystem services. Brown boxes represent plant life form and size characters, green boxes represent leaf characters, and pink boxes represent reproductive characters.
Urbansci 08 00233 g003
Urbansci 08 00233 g004
Figure 4. Brief Jacaranda mimosifolia description [132] illustrating the association between some morphological characters and ecosystem services. Brown boxes represent plant life form and size characters, green boxes represent leaf characters, and pink boxes represent reproductive characters.
Figure 4. Brief Jacaranda mimosifolia description [132] illustrating the association between some morphological characters and ecosystem services. Brown boxes represent plant life form and size characters, green boxes represent leaf characters, and pink boxes represent reproductive characters.
Urbansci 08 00233 g004
Table 1. Summary matrix of the association between states of taxonomic characters and ecosystem services. ↑ indicates increasing magnitude, ↓ indicates decreasing magnitude.
Table 1. Summary matrix of the association between states of taxonomic characters and ecosystem services. ↑ indicates increasing magnitude, ↓ indicates decreasing magnitude.
Thermal ComfortRainfall
Interception		Air-FilteringCO2 SequestrationBiodiversity SupportCultural Services
Life form and sizeAll life forms: ↑ albedo, evaporative cooling, convective turbulence.
Trees: ↑ shading		All life forms: ↓ kinetic energy.
Trees and shrubs: ↑ throughfall and stemflow		All life forms:
↑ passive deposition on leaves.
Trees and shrubs: ↑ deposition on bark.		All life forms: ↑ carbon sink.
Trees: ↑ carbon residence time		All life formsAll life forms
Leaf phenologyEvergreen: ↑ provision year-round.
Deciduous: ↑ resilience.		Evergreen: ↑ provision year-round.
Deciduous: ↑ resilience.		Evergreen: ↑ provision year-round.
Deciduous: ↑ resilience.		Evergreen: ↑ provision year-round.
Deciduous: ↑ resilience.
Bark morphology Rough: ↓ stemflow
Lenticels: ↓ stemflow		Rough: ↑ deposition of PM
Lenticels: ↑ deposition of PM
Leaf morphologyThicker: ↓ transmittance.
Light colored: ↑ albedo.		Rough: ↑ water storage, ↓ throughfall.
Compound: ↑ water storage, ↓ throughfall.
Small leaves and leaflets: ↑ water storage, ↓ throughfall.
Trichomes: ↑ water storage, ↓ throughfall.		Rough: ↑ deposition of PM
Epicuticular wax: ↑ deposition of PM
Trichomes: ↑ deposition of PM		Thicker: ↑ assimilation.
Leaf area: ↑ assimilation.
Reproductive morphology and phenology Flower: ↑ species reproduction.
Fruit: ↑ food provision.
Inflorescence: ↑ different pollinators.		Flower: ↑ aesthetics and emotional connection.
Fruit: ↑ food provision.
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

Silva Luz, C.L.d.; Reale, R.; Candido, L.F.; Zappi, D.; Locosselli, G.M. Using Morphological Characters to Support Decision-Making in Nature-Based Solutions: A Shortcut to Promote Urban Plant Biodiversity. Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040233

AMA Style

Silva Luz CLd, Reale R, Candido LF, Zappi D, Locosselli GM. Using Morphological Characters to Support Decision-Making in Nature-Based Solutions: A Shortcut to Promote Urban Plant Biodiversity. Urban Science. 2024; 8(4):233. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040233

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva Luz, Cíntia Luiza da, Ricardo Reale, Leticia Figueiredo Candido, Daniela Zappi, and Giuliano Maselli Locosselli. 2024. "Using Morphological Characters to Support Decision-Making in Nature-Based Solutions: A Shortcut to Promote Urban Plant Biodiversity" Urban Science 8, no. 4: 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040233

APA Style

Silva Luz, C. L. d., Reale, R., Candido, L. F., Zappi, D., & Locosselli, G. M. (2024). Using Morphological Characters to Support Decision-Making in Nature-Based Solutions: A Shortcut to Promote Urban Plant Biodiversity. Urban Science, 8(4), 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040233

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop