Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do protected areas in urban and rural landscapes differ in species diversity?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 03 August 2010

Abstract

Previous studies from Central Europe and North America showed that species richness is higher in urban than in rural landscapes. Do protected areas, which can be found in both city and countryside, reflect this species richness pattern? The impact of urban land-use might reduce conservation success and necessitate special management strategies. We compared species richness and species spatial turnover of selected animal and plant taxa (carabids, butterflies, snails, birds, lichens, mosses, vascular plants) in 30 protected areas in the city of Halle and 56 protected areas in the adjacent rural district of Saalkreis (Central Germany). Species were mapped by experienced biologists within a systematic species inventory. We corrected species numbers for the effects of landscape structure (e.g. size, shape and distance of habitats) which might influence species diversity beyond urbanisation effects. Butterflies, birds and lichens had significantly higher species numbers in the rural protected areas. Species spatial turnover was higher among urban areas than among rural areas or pairs of urban and rural areas for most taxa. Diversity in all taxa depended on the size of a protected area. We discussed these patterns in the context of the general urban-rural species diversity patterns. Our results indicate an increasing isolation of species assemblages with urbanisation and highlight that space for protected areas is even more limited in urban than rural areas. An effective conservation of urban species diversity should include both typical urban and semi-natural habitats to cover the full range of species living in cities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ANCOVA:

Analysis of covariance

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

a.s.l:

Above sea level

MPAR:

Mean perimeter-to-area ratio

MPS:

Mean patch size

NN_DIST:

Distance to nearest neighbour

NSH_MDIST:

Mean distance to nearest similar habitat

NUMP:

Number of patches

References

  • Araújo MB (2003) The coincidence of people and biodiversity in Europe. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair RB (1999) Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecol Appl 9:164–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buschendorf J, Klotz S (1995) Geschützte Natur in Halle (Saale). Flora und Fauna der Schutzgebiete. Teil 1: Fauna der Schutzgebiete. Umweltamt, Halle (Saale)

  • Buschendorf J, Klotz S (1996) Geschützte Natur in Halle (Saale). Flora und Fauna der Schutzgebiete. Teil 2: Flora der Schutzgebiete. Umweltamt, Halle (Saale)

  • Chocholouskova Z, Pysek P (2003) Changes in composition and structure of urban flora over 120 years: a case study of the city of Plzen. Flora 198:366–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R (2000) Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 404:990–992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clergeau P, Croci S, Jokimäki J, Kaisanlathi-Jokimäki M-L, Dinetti M (2006) Avifauna homogenisation by urbanisation: analysis at different European latitudes. Biol Conserv 127:336–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing. An introduction to data analysis using S-plus. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutschewitz K, Lausch A, Kühn I, Klotz S (2003) Native and alien plant species richness in relation to spatial heterogeneity on a regional scale in Germany. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:299–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson AP, Rodriguez JP, Roberts WM (2001) Synoptic tinkering: integrating strategies for large-scale conservation. Ecol Appl 11:1019–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebel F, Schönbrodt R (1988) Pflanzen- und Tierarten der Naturschutzobjekte im Saalkreis (Bez. Halle) Teil 2. Rat des Saalkreises—Kulturbund der DDR, Botanischer Garten der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle, Halle (Saale)

  • Ebel F, Schönbrodt R (1991) Pflanzen- und Tierarten der Naturschutzobjekte im Saalkreis 1.Ergänzungsband. Landratsamt des Saalkreises, Botanischer Garten der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle, Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle (Saale)

  • Ebel F, Schönbrodt R (1993a) Pflanzen- und Tierarten der Naturschutzobjekte im Saalkreis 2. Ergänzungsband. Landratsamt des Saalkreises, Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle (Saale)

  • Ebel F, Schönbrodt R (1993b) Rote-Liste-Arten der Naturschutzobjekte im Saalkreis. Verband zur Landschaftspflege und Einrichtung eines Naturparks „Unteres Saaletal” e.V., Landratsamt des Saalkreises, Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle (Saale)

  • Elkie P, Rempel R, Carr A (1999) Patch analyst. Users guide. A tool for quantifying landscape structure. Ontario. Available via http://flash.lakeheadu.ca. Cited June 2005

  • Eversham BC, Roy DB, Telfer MG (1996) Urban, industrial and other manmade sites as analogues of natural habitats for Carabidae. Ann Zool Fenn 33:149–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ (2000) Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405:220–227

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert OL (1968) Bryophytes as indicators of air pollution in the Tyne valley. New Phytol 67:15–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeupler H (1975) Statistische Auswertungen von Punktrasterkarten der Gefäßpflanzenflora Süd-Niedersachsens. Scripta Geobotanica 8:1–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbst H, Herbst V (2006) The development of an evaluation method using a geographic information system to determine the importance of wasteland sites as urban wildlife areas. Landsc Urban Plan 77:178–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoechstetter S, Wahr J, Knapp S, Klotz S, Uhl D, Thiv M, Mosbrugger V (2005) Muster der Biodiversität von Gefäßpflanzen in Baden-Württemberg - eine geostatistische Analyse abiotischer Einflussfaktoren. Stuttgarter Beitr Naturk 676

  • Hope D, Gries C, Zhu WX, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8788–8792

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jenness J (2004) Nearest features (nearfeat.avx) extension for ArcView 3.x, v. 3.8a. Jenness Enterprises. Available via http://www.jennessent.com/arcview/nearest_features.htm. Cited June 2005

  • Klotz S (1990) Species/area and species/inhabitants relations in European cities. In: Sukopp H, Hejný S (eds) Urban ecology: plants and plant communities in urban environment. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 99–103

  • Koleff P, Gaston KJ, Lennon JJ (2003) Measuring beta diversity for presence-absence data. J Anim Ecol 72:367–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühn I, Brandl R, Klotz S (2004) The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evol Ecol Res 6:749–764

    Google Scholar 

  • Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt (2005a) Datenbank der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Sachsen-Anhalts. Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt. Halle (Saale)

  • Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt (2005b) Datenbank der Flechten Sachsen-Anhalts. Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt. Halle (Saale)

  • Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt (2005c) Datenbank der Moose Sachsen-Anhalts. Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt. Halle (Saale)

  • Landsberg H (1981) The urban climate. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang G (1994) Quartäre Vegetationsgeschichte Europas: Methoden und Ergebnisse. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennon JJ, Koleff P, Greenwood JJD, Gaston KJ (2001) The geographical structure of British bird distributions: diversity, spatial turnover and scale. J Anim Ecol 70:966–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzin H, Meier-Küpfer H, Schwegler S, Baur B (2007) Hafen- und Gewerbegebiete als Schwerpunkte pflanzlicher Diversität innerhalb urban-industrieller Ökosysteme. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 39:86–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Leveau CM, Leveau LM (2005) Avian community response to urbanization in the Pampean region, Argentina. Ornitol Neotrop 16:503–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Luck GW (2003) Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature 421:530–533

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lososová Z, Chytrý M, Kühn I, Hájek O, Horáková V, Pyšek P, Tichý L (2006) Patterns of plant traits in annual vegetation of man-made habitats in central Europe. Perspect Plant Ecol 8:69–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur R, Wilson EO (1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press

  • Mac Nally R (2000) Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: the distinction between and reconciliation of ‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodivers Conserv 9:655–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Marks B (1994) Fragstats—spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structures. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-351. Available via http://www.umass.edu/landeco/pubs/pubs.html#fragstats. Cited Dec 2005

  • McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministerium für Raumordnung LuUdLS-A (1996) Agraratlas des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt. Landwirtschaftliches Gutachten in Karten, Texten, Übersichten. Ministerium für Raumordnung,Landwirtschaft und Umwelt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, Magdeburg

  • Müller-Westermeier G, Kreis A, Dittmann E (1999) Klimaatlas Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Teil 1. Lufttemperatur, Niederschlagshöhe, Sonnenscheindauer. Deutscher Wetterdienst, Offenbach am Main

  • Müller-Westermeier G, Kreis A, Dittmann E (2001) Klimaatlas Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Teil 2. Verdunstung, Maximumtemperatur, Minimumtemperatur, Kontinentalität. Deutscher Wetterdienst, Offenbach am Main

  • Nebbia AJ, Zalba SM (2007) Designing nature reserves: traditional criteria may act as misleading indicators of quality. Biodivers Conserv 16:223–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumeister H, Peklo P, Niehus B (1997) Umweltbelastungen in der Region Leipzig-Halle-Bitterfeld und deren Bewertung. Immissionsbedingte Stoffeinträge. In: Feldmann R, Henle K, Auge H, Flachowsky J, Klotz S, Krönert R (eds) Regeneration und nachhaltige Landnutzung. Konzepte für belastete Regionen Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 35–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä J (1999a) Is there a need for a theory of urban ecology? Urban Ecosyst 3:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä J (1999b) Ecology and urban planning. Biodivers Conserv 8:119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä J, Kotze DJ, Venn S, Penev L, Stoyanov I, Spence J, Hartley D, de Oca EM (2002) Carabid beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across urban–rural gradients: an international comparison. Landsc Ecol 17:387–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oke TR (1982) The Energetic Basis of the Urban Heat-Island. Quart J R Meteorol Soc 108:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Pautasso M (2007) Scale dependence of the correlation between human population presence and vertebrate and plant species richness. Ecol Lett 10:16–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson J, Langner U (1992) Berichte des Landesamtes für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt. Heft 4. Katalog der Biotoptypen und Nutzungstypen für die CIR-luftbildgestützte Biotoptypen- und Nutzungstypenkartierung im Land Sachsen-Anhalt. Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle (Saale)

  • Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Nilson CH, Pouyat R, Zipperer WC, Costanza R (2001) Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:127–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl A (2003) Kartierschlüssel für Biotoptypen in der Stadt Halle (Saale). Fachbereich Stadtentwicklung und Stadtplanung, Landschafts- und Grünordnungsplanung, Halle (Saale)

  • Purvis A, Hector A (2000) Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405:212–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek P (1993) Factors affecting the diversity of flora and vegetation in central European settlements. Vegetatio 106:89–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek P (1995) Approaches to studying spontaneous settlement flora and vegetation in Central Europe: a review. In: Sukopp H, Numata M, Huber A (eds) Urban Ecology as the Basis of Urban Planning The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing, pp. 23–29

  • Pyšek P (1998) Alien and native species in Central European urban floras: a quantitative comparison. J Biogeogr 25:155–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2004) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna. Available via http://www.R-project.org. Cited April 2005

  • Röhr M, Lohse H, Ludwig R (1983) Statistik für Soziologen, Pädagogen, Psychologen und Mediziner, Band 2—Statistische Verfahren. Verlag Harri Deutsch, Frankfurt am Main

  • Rosenzweig M (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandström UG, Angelstam P, Mikusinski G (2006) Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the structure of urban green space. Landsc Urban Plan 77:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seaward MRD (1982) Lichen ecology of changing urban environments. In: Bornkamm R, Lee JA, Seaward MRD (eds) Urban Ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications

  • Stadt Halle (2003a) Digitale Karte der Schutzgebiete 1:20 000. Fachbereich Umwelt. Halle (Saale)

  • Stadt Halle (2003b) Digitale Karte der flächendeckenden Biotoptypenkartierung 1:5 000. Fachbereich Stadtentwicklung und Stadtplanung. Halle (Saale)

  • Strauss B, Biedermann R (2005) The use of habitat models in conservation of rare and endangered leafhopper species (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha). J Insect Conserv 9:245–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Haaren C, Reich M (2006) The German way to greenways and habitat networks. Landsc Urban Plan 76:7–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters SM (1970) The next twenty years. In: Perring F (ed) The flora of a changing Britain. Classey, Hampton, pp 136–141

  • Wania A, Kühn I, Klotz S (2006) Plant richness patterns in agricultural and urban landscapes in Central Germany—spatial gradients of species richness. Landsc Urban Plan 75:97–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warnes GR (2006) gmodels: Various R programming tools for model fitting. Includes R source code and/or documentation contributed by Bolker B, Lumley T, Johnson RC. R package version 2.13.0. Available via http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/PACKAGES.html, http://www.sf.net/projects/r-gregmisc. Cited Dec 2006

  • Whittaker RH (1972) Evolution and Measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams NSG, Morgan JW, McDonnell MJ, Mccarthy MA (2005) Plant traits and local extinctions in natural grasslands along an urban–rural gradient. J Ecol 93:1203–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittig R (1998) Lebensraumveränderung und Rückgang von Wildpflanzen in Städten und Dörfern—Gefährdungsursachen und Handlungsbedarf. Schr -R f Vegetationskunde 29:165–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittig R (2002) Siedlungsvegetation. Ulmer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Zobel M (1997) The relative role of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence? Trends Ecol Evol 12:266–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is part of a diploma thesis conducted at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ in cooperation with the University of Tübingen. We thank Dieter Frank and Kathrin Hünig (Environmental State Agency Saxony-Anhalt), Yvonne Brand (Environmental Agency Saalkreis), Thomas Katterle (Environmental Agency Halle / Saale) and Andreas Pohl (Office for Environmental Planning, Halle / Saale) for providing data on species, protected areas and land-use. Special thanks go to Regine Stordeur, Jens Stolle (University of Halle / Salle) and Frank Müller (University of Dresden) for reviewing species lists. Susanne Fritz (Imperial College London) and David Roy (CEH Monks Wood) improved our English and an anonymous referee provided valuable suggestions.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Volker Mosbrugger

    Present address: Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum, Senckenberganlage 25, 60325, Frankfurt, Germany

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Ecology (BZF), UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Theodor-Lieser-Str. 4, 06120, Halle, Germany

    Sonja Knapp, Ingolf Kühn & Stefan Klotz

  2. Institute for Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Sigwartstr. 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Sonja Knapp & Volker Mosbrugger

Authors
  1. Sonja Knapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ingolf Kühn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Volker Mosbrugger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Klotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonja Knapp.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9900-3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knapp, S., Kühn, I., Mosbrugger, V. et al. Do protected areas in urban and rural landscapes differ in species diversity?. Biodivers Conserv 17, 1595–1612 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9369-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9369-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation