Abstract
A serious barrier to our understanding of urban ecosystems is a lack of information on the ecology of soils organisms of green spaces within large cities. This study addresses this gap by providing baseline survey data on the biodiversity of soil macrofauna in urban parks and domestic gardens of London, UK. In April and June 2004, the soil macrofauna were handsorted from soil cores in eleven parks and gardens of various sizes in central London. Five taxa were identified to species (Lumbricidae, Isopoda, Diplopoda, Chilopoda and Formicidae). The biodiversity value of the two main habitats (horticultural borders and mown grass lawns) was assessed and the influence of a range of environmental factors on species density (number of species per unit area) examined. The species densities of the studied soil invertebrates in the urban gardens were comparable with those found in natural ecosystems, although plant borders contained significantly more species than lawns. Borders had higher levels of plant nutrients, higher floristic diversity and lower levels of micronutrients and heavy metals than lawns. Significant predictor variables of species densities in the plant borders were the percentage of leaf litter cover, sampling month and soil pH. Species densities in the lawns were significantly correlated with the distance of the samples from the edge of the lawn.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barber AD (1985) Distribution patterns in British Chilopoda. Bijdr Dierkd 55:16–24
Barber AD (2003) A guide to the identification of British centipedes. AIDGAP Test Version. Field Studies Council, Shrewsbury, UK
Blakemore RJ (2005). British and Irish earthworms - a checklist of species updated from Sims and Gerard (1999). In a series of searchable texts on earthworm biodiversity, ecology and systematics from various regions of the world. Eds. N. Kaneko and M .T. Ho. COE Soil Ecology Research Group, Yokohama National University, Japan. CD publication
Blower G (1985) Millipedes. Synopses of the British Fauna. Bath, Avon, UK
Bolger DT, Suarez AV, Crooks KR, Morrison SA, Case TJ (2000) Arthropods in urban habitat fragments in southern California: area, age and edge effects. Ecol Appl 10:1230–1248
Bultman TL, Uetz GW (1984) Effect of structure and nutritional quality on abundances of litter-dwelling arthropods. Am Midl Nat 111:165–172
Collinge SK (1996) Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landsc Urban Plan 36:59–77
Dubbin W (2001) Soils. The Natural History Museum, London
Eason H (1964) Centipedes of the British Isles. William Clowes & Sons, London & Beccles, UK
Edwards CA, Bohlen PJ (1996) Biology and ecology of earthworms. Chapman & Hall, London, UK
Faeth SH, Kane TC (1978) Urban biogeography. City parks as islands for Diptera and Coleoptera. Oecologia 32
Gaston KJ, Smith RM, Thompson K, Warren PH (2004) Gardens and wildlife: the BUGS project. Br Wildl 16:1–9
Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2002) Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: large and small fragments support different arthropod assemblages. Biol Conserv 106:91–100
Hågvar S (1998) The relevance of the Rio-Convention on biodiversity to conserving the biodiversity of soils. Appl Soil Ecol 9:1–7
Hopkin S (1991) A key to the woodlice of Britain and Ireland. Field Studies Council, Shrewsbury, UK
Hopkin S, Read HJ (1992) The biology of millipedes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
IMKO. Micromodultechnik GmbH. Im Stock 2, D-76275 Ettlingen, Germany http://www.imko.de
Kime RD (1997) Biodiversity and land-use with regard to Diplopods on some West European sites. In Proceedings of the 10th Int. EIS-Coll., 6–7 July, 1995 Saarbrucken
Leadley-Brown A (1978) Ecology of soil organisms. Heineman Educational Books Ltd., London, UK
Mader HJ (1984) Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biol Conserv 29:81–96
MINITAB14 (2003) MINITAB Release 14 For Windows. Minitab Inc.
Oliver PG, Meechan CJ (1993) Woodlice. Synopses of the British Fauna No.49. The Field Studies Council, Shrewsbury, UK
Peterson H, Luxton M (1982) A comparative analysis of soil fauna populations and their role in decomposition processes. Oikos 39:287–388
Rebele F (1994) Urban ecology and special features of urban ecosystems. Glob Ecol Biogeogr Lett 4:173–187
Sims R, Gerard B (1999) Earthworms. The Field Studies Council, Shrewsbury, UK
Skinner G, Allen G (1996) Ants. The Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd., Richmond, UK
Smith J (2003) Gardening practices and soil macroinvertebrate diversity, MSc Dissertation, Imperial College, University of London
Spurgeon DJ, Hopkin S (1999) Seasonal variation in the abundance, biomass and biodiversity of earthworms in soils contaminated with metal emissions from a primary smelting works. J Appl Ecol 36:173–183
Stork NE, Eggleton P (1992) Invertebrates as determinants and indicators of soil quality. Am J Altern Agric 7:38–47
ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2003) Canoco for windows, Version 4.51. Biometris-Plant Research International, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Thompson K, Austin KC, Smith RM, Warren PH, Angold PG, Gaston KJ (2003) Urban domestic gardens (I): putting small-scale plant diversity in context. J Veg Sci 14:71–78
Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Smith RM, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2004) Urban domestic gardens (III): composition and diversity of lawn floras. J Veg Sci 15:373–378
Zimmer M, Topp W (1997) Does leaf litter quality influence population parameters of the common woodlouse, Porcellio scaber (Crustacea: Isopoda)? Biol Fertil Soils 24:435–441
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Mr. Stephen Preston and the Wellcome Trust Ltd., the Royal Parks Authority, Imperial College estates and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for giving us permission to sample in their parks and gardens. Many thanks to Alessandro Giusti, Alex van Holland and Belinda Edwards for field assistance, and thanks also to Alex van Holland for identifying the Chilopoda. We are very grateful to Sarah James of the Electron Microscopy and Mineral Analysis (EMMA) lab at the Natural History Museum, London, for help and advice with the soil analyses. Many thanks to Kelly Inward for providing data on oak-beech woodland. This work was funded by a grant from the Research Fund of the Entomology Department of the Natural History Museum, London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Total species density of each sampling site
Sample site (location 51°N 0°W) | Area (ha) | Habitat (border/lawn) | Sampling month (April/June) | Total species density (per sample) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Onslow Square I29′32″N 10′18″W | 0.111 | B | A | 8 |
B | J | 10 | ||
L | A | 7 | ||
L | J | 8 | ||
Evelyn Gardens I29′20″N 10′46′′W | 0.387 | B | A | 8 |
B | J | 8 | ||
L | A | 8 | ||
L | J | 4 | ||
Onslow Gardens I29′28″N 10′35″W | 0.673 | B | A | 15 |
B | J | 7 | ||
L | A | 7 | ||
L | J | 5 | ||
Evelyn Gardens II29′18″N 10′40″W | 0.806 | B | A | 8 |
B | J | 2 | ||
L | A | 8 | ||
L | J | 5 | ||
Lennox Gardens 29′45″N 09′48″W | 1.079 | B | A | 19 |
B | J | 14 | ||
L | A | 3 | ||
L | J | 3 | ||
Onslow Gardens II29′30″N 10′33′′W | 1.667 | B | A | 10 |
B | J | 9 | ||
L | A | 10 | ||
L | J | 6 | ||
Onslow Square II 29′33″N 10′25″W | 2.528 | B | A | 16 |
B | J | 7 | ||
L | A | 7 | ||
L | J | 4 | ||
Princes Gardens 29′57″N 10′20″W | 4.98 | B | A | 6 |
B | J | 5 | ||
L | A | 2 | ||
L | J | 0 | ||
Holland Park 30′10″N 12′15″W | 54.781 | B | A | 18 |
B | J | 9 | ||
L | A | 6 | ||
L | J | 1 | ||
Green Park 30′15″N 08′40″W | 119.522 | B | A | 12 |
B | J | 3 | ||
L | A | 6 | ||
L | J | 0 | ||
Kensington Gardens 30′20″N 10′50″W | 625 | B | A | 9 |
B | J | 10 | ||
L | A | 3 | ||
L | J | 5 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, J., Chapman, A. & Eggleton, P. Baseline biodiversity surveys of the soil macrofauna of London’s green spaces. Urban Ecosyst 9, 337–349 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-006-0001-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-006-0001-8