Next Article in Journal
Effects of Pig Manure and Its Organic Fertilizer Application on Archaea and Methane Emission in Paddy Fields
Next Article in Special Issue
How Do Different Modes of Governance Support Ecosystem Services/Disservices in Small-Scale Urban Green Infrastructure? A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Do Social Pension and Family Support Affect Farmers’ Land Transfer? Evidence from China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Developing a Metropolitan-Wide Urban Forest Strategy for a Large, Expanding and Densifying Capital City: Lessons from Melbourne, Australia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/land11040498
land-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Urban Green Spaces Restoration Using Native Forbs, Site Preparation and Soil Amendments—A Case Study

by
Jaime Aguilar Rojas
,
Amalesh Dhar
and
M. Anne Naeth
*
Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, 751 General Services Building, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H1, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2022, 11(4), 498; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040498
Submission received: 15 March 2022 / Revised: 25 March 2022 / Accepted: 28 March 2022 / Published: 30 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Progress in Urban Forest Planning and Monitoring)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Restoration of urban green spaces with native flora is especially important for promoting various ecosystem services. Although there have been years of research on land reclamation, ecological restoration and plant establishment, there is a lack of knowledge on how to reintegrate the native ecological component, specifically forb species in urban green spaces. We evaluated the restoration potential of 24 native forbs using different site preparation (herbicide, tillage, herbicide with tillage and control) and soil amendment (100% compost, 50% compost with 50% topsoil, 20% compost with 80% topsoil and control) treatments in a recreational park in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Soil texture and nutrients generally increased with increased compost application rate; some declined within a year, others increased. Based on survival and growth analysis, the forb species with the highest potential for use in urban green spaces were Penstemon procerus, Fragaria virginiana, Heuchera cylindrica, Agastache foeniculum, Antennaria microphylla, Mentha arvensis and Geum aleppicum. Native forb species response was more prominent with soil amendment than site preparation. Treatments with greater amounts of compost had greater survival, growth, species richness, cover and noxious weed cover than control treatments. This study suggests amendment of soil with compost can positively influence forb species restoration in urban green spaces; under some conditions site preparation may be required.

1. Introduction

In the past, urban sustainability efforts mostly focused on engineered buildings, road networks and parks [1], while only modest attention was given to the green spaces that intermingle with urban structures [2,3]. Building a sustainable society in urban areas with appropriate management of green spaces (gardens and parks) is necessary [4,5,6] as they provide various environmental, economic and quality-of-life benefits [7]. Environmental benefits include increased biodiversity and wildlife use, soil stabilization, improved ground water recharge, windbreaks for snow capture and dust reduction, reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gases and cleaner air [3,5,8,9]. Economic benefits include significant reductions in maintenance costs such as mowing, irrigation and herbicide use. Quality-of-life benefits include landscape beautification, increased green and shady areas for recreation, increased community awareness of environmental issues and noise reduction by mature plantings [10,11].
To beautify urban gardens and parks, non-native garden flora is frequently planted, the most common pathway for alien species introductions worldwide [12,13]. In Europe, over 80,000 plant taxa are found in botanical gardens; 783 of these are alien species that have been introduced from other parts of the world and can be found in city parks and recreation areas [14]. Many of these invaders can easily escape and establish outside of their planted areas without human assistance and become problematic for native biodiversity [12,15]. Eradication of these alien species is difficult and expensive, thus preventing them by planting native species of regional provenance in urban areas may be a good management option. A successful native species restoration strategy in urban green areas can significantly reduce city management costs, promote preservation of local species, restore environmental services and encourage more community members to embrace native species as a desirable strategy to follow [3,16]. Therefore, cities such as Edmonton proposed to transform urban habitats into habitats suitable for native plants found in the area [17].
Restoration with native species can prevent new alien species invasions, reduce soil compaction and increase soil organic matter and microbial activity [5,18,19]. Compacted soils can restrict root growth, which can limit successful plant establishment and long-term development [20]. Restoration with native species can reduce soil compaction through root expansion, increased biological activity and frost heave, consequently increasing infiltration and percolation [16,21]. Naturalized sites retain leaf litter and woody debris, which decompose, adding organic material which can increase plant available soil water [22]. Planting native forbs (wildflowers) in addition to trees and shrubs is a relatively new approach in landscape architecture that is gaining momentum among urban planners and landscapers and is recommended in many studies [5,23,24,25]. Adding native forbs for restoration of urban green spaces promotes native biodiversity and creates attractive flowering vegetation for recreational enjoyment and education [25]. Although there are considerable possibilities for native forbs to be used in urban green space restoration, scientific research on methods for using native forbs is scarce. The huge variety of forbs complicates their use due to lack of knowledge about them as individual species in urban green space restoration. Current species selection is usually based on visual appearance and plant material availability. However, successful restoration requires use of plants that are competitive, hardy and resilient in a highly competitive urban area with non-native species that are often present in urban green spaces [17]. Native forb response to urban conditions and best introduction techniques thus need to be better understood. The objective of our study was to assess the effects of site preparation and soil amendment on the survival and growth of 24 native forb species and on plant community development. The outcome of this study helps us to predict which combinations of plant species, soil preparation techniques and amendments have the greatest potential for urban green space restoration and provides the ground for further detailed study in urban restoration and green space management.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Experimental Design

The study was conducted in a prominent recreational park in the City of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (53°34′19″ N and 113°31′10″ W). Mean annual temperature is 4.2 °C, mean growing season temperature from May to October is 13.0 °C and winter temperature from November to April is −4.6 °C. Mean annual precipitation is 348 mm, with 284 mm of rain from June to October [26]. The area is flat with a gentle slope to the southwest. Immediately surrounding the roundabout is asphalt, then buildings, small canopy trees and open lawn areas. Traffic conditions are moderately high for vehicles near the roundabout; pedestrian traffic is mostly concentrated on walking paths.

2.2. Experimental Design and Treatments

The experiment used a complete randomized design with four replicates 50 m from each other. Each experimental plot was 10 m × 10 m, divided into sixteen 2.5 m × 2.5 m subplots, covering an area of 6.25 m2 each (Figure A1). Site preparation treatments were randomly assigned vertically, and amendment treatments were applied randomly horizontally to the experimental plot (10 m × 10 m). Thus, there were 4 site preparation treatments × 4 amendment treatments × 4 replicates for a total of 64 plots. Plots were approximately 50 m from any roads and 10 m from all walking paths to reduce the traffic effect. There were 30 cm buffer zones between the subplots to reduce the potential neighbor effects.
Four site preparations and four soil amendment treatments were applied in the study area. Four site preparation techniques were soil tillage, foliar herbicide application, tillage plus herbicide and no site preparation (control) to remove existing vegetation, which consisted of lawn grass and some common annual weeds. Soil was tilled in June to a 15 cm depth with a rear tined, hydraulic drive, rototiller; first in one direction, then crossed perpendicularly. Glyphosate foliar herbicide Transorb™ was applied as a 1% solution (540 g/L glyphosate) 2 weeks prior to site tillage. Glyphosate has been predominantly used for controlling weeds in North America due to its effectiveness, non-selective nature, little or no soil residue and relatively low cost. Therefore, to control the competitive weeds, the practice of herbicide use prior to revegetation with native species is common in North American urban areas for reducing competition, although its use was questioned by many international agencies due to its toxicity and environmental safety. Some alternatives to glyphosate such as other chemicals Diquat (Reward™), pelargonic acid (Scythe™), glufosinate (Finale™); manual removal, fire, steam, hot foam and weeding were recommended for different jurisdictions and countries.
Four soil amendment treatments were 100% compost, 50% topsoil with 50% compost, 80% topsoil with 20% compost and a control (0% compost with 0% topsoil). Compost was 20% wood chips and 80% compost by volume, a standard mix used by the City of Edmonton. Topsoil was Ah horizon from development on previous agricultural land and clay loam to clay to silty clay loam in texture. Topsoil and compost were mixed in their treatment proportions, then applied using a mini steer loader. Amendment mixes were added to the surface of each subplot and spread by hand with shovels to a 15 cm deep layer.

2.3. Planting and Plot Management

Twenty-four native forb species from 12 families were selected for urban green space restoration recommended by the City of Edmonton. Forbs species were small with a shallow root system and selection was based on the visual appearance (flower color, shape and longevity), availability, geographic distribution (species that are adapted within the same geographic location) and growing conditions (water stress tolerant, frequent disturbance tolerant and ability to grow in a wide range of soil types) [17] (Table 1). All planting stock was procured from the City of Edmonton nursery and planted on July 8 and 9. In each treatment unit (subplot), one plant of each of the 24 forbs was planted with equal spacing. In total, 1536 plants (4 site preparation × 4 amendment × 4 replicates × 24 plants) were planted in the study area. Plants were watered 24 to 48 h after planting; then every 2 to 3 days for the next two weeks, twice per week for the next four weeks, then once per week until the end of the growing season. Manual weeding was conducted within 2 m from the edge of research plots as a weed control buffer zone.

2.4. Vegetation Assessments

Plant survival assessments were conducted in August and October of 2014, and June and August of 2015. Live and dead planted forbs were counted. In June and August 2015, planted forb-species spread was measured for each seedling. Diameter of forbs from tip to tip was determined with a tape measure. For species with cluster growth habits, the tape was placed on the farthest tip of one individual then pulled to the tip of the farthest individual of the cluster. Forbs were considered clusters when several of the same species were fewer than 5 cm apart with no vegetation between them. Other than planted forbs, vegetation cover was assessed in August 2014 and 2015, in three randomly located 1 m × 0.1 m quadrats inside each treatment. In total, 192 quadrats (4 site preparation × 4 amendment × 4 replication × 3 quadrat) were established and ocularly assessed for percent of live vegetation, bare ground, litter and other (rocks, trash and feces) cover. Total number of sample plots was considered adequate as species numbers reached a plateau for all treatment plots (Figure A2). Live vegetation was assessed on an individual species basis for both planted and naturally occurring species. Plant identification and nomenclature followed Moss [27].

2.5. Soils Sampling and Analyses

Soils were sampled in July of each study year from the plots to determine original soil conditions and changes with amendment treatments. One sample from each amended treatment in each plot was collected using 15 cm augers (total 16 soil samples). Collected samples were stored in ziploc plastic bags and sent to a commercial laboratory for analysis. Chloride in saturated paste was determined colorimetrically by auto-analyzer [28]. Inorganic and organic carbon were determined by carbon dioxide loss [29] and total carbon by combustion methods [30]. Cation exchange capacity was determined through ammonium acetate extraction [31]; ammonium by potassium chloride extraction; nitrate nitrogen colorimetrically in calcium chloride solution [32]; total nitrogen by combustion [33]; available phosphorus and potassium by modified Kelowna process [34]; sodium adsorption ratio, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium and sulfate in saturated paste by inductively coupled plasma; electrical conductivity and pH by meters [35]. Soil particles (sand, silt and clay) were determined by pipette method after removal of organic matter and carbonate [36].

2.6. Statistical Analyses

All statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.0.3 [37] and significance level for analysis was α = 0.05. In most cases, data from the last monitoring date of year 2 were statistically analyzed to evaluate overall performance of species at the end of the experiment. Chi-square analysis was used to identify effects of site preparation and soil amendment treatments on species survival. In a classical ecological experiment, replication of the treatments is prerequisite to test the hypothesis [38]. According to Oksanen [39] experiments, unreplicated or low-replicated treatments may also be the only or best option when (i) gross effects of treatments are anticipated, (ii) the experiment is conducted appropriately at large scales, (iii) only a rough estimate of effect is required and (iv) if the cost of replication is high. We conducted a study with low replication for individual species as the goal was to determine a rough estimate of effect for developing a foundation for future in-depth work, while minimizing the cost and labor requirements. Due to small numbers per species, statistical analysis was conducted on species grouped by family. Chi-square criteria were applied to groups and analyses were conducted only if assumptions were met (<20% of expected frequencies <5). Soil preparation and amendment effects were analyzed per species with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine normality of distribution and Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance assessments. For significant factors, an HSD Tukey’s test was applied for pairwise comparison. All statistical analyses were conducted using package ‘stats’ version 4.2.0 [37].

3. Results

3.1. Forb Survival Response to Treatments

Regardless of site preparation and soil treatment, top surviving and performing forbs species were Penstemon procerus (96.9%), Fragaria virginiana (95.3%), Agastache foeniculum (92.2%), Antennaria microphylla (92.1%), Heuchera cylindrica (89.1%), Geum aleppicum (89.0%) and Mentha arvenses (89.6%) at the end of the two-year experiment (Figure 1a,b). Survival was generally high at the first monitoring in August of year one then decreased with time, with fewer than 35% of the plants surviving by the end of the experiment for Cornus canadensis (0%), Anemone cylindrica (20.3%), Pulsatilla patens (21.8%), Eriogonum flavum (23.4%), Allium textile (29.7%), Viola adunca (34.4%) and Liatris ligulistylis (35.9%) (Figure 1a,b). Cornus canadensis was the only species that did not survive by the end of year two.
When species were analyzed grouped by family, a significant effect of soil amendment treatment on survival was found for Asteraceae, Ranunculaceae out of 12 families (Figure 2). Forb survival was significantly the lowest in compost 0% (unamended) for Asteraceae and the greatest in compost 100% (Figure 2). For Ranunculaceae, survival was significantly lower in compost 0% and compost 20%. Site preparation and interactions with amendment treatments did not significantly affect family survival.

3.2. Spread of Planted Forb Species

Spread of Thalictrum venulosum responded significantly (p = 0.008) to site preparation treatment; rate of spread was significantly higher with herbicide alone (25 cm) than herbicide–tillage together (14.8 cm) and tillage alone (12.9 cm), and statistically similar to untreated (19.4 cm) (data not shown). Soil amendment had a significant effect on spread for 9 of the 24 evaluated forb species (Table 2). Fragaria virginiana, Penstemon procerus, Delphinium elatum, Symphyotrichum falcatum, Heuchera cylindrical, Antennaria microphylla, Rudbeckia hirta, Geum aleppicum and Mentha arvensis had significantly greater spread in compost 100% than with no compost and more variable responses with the other two compost treatments (Table 2). The rate of spread was 6 to 128 cm across compost treatments, whereas in no compost 15 species had <10 cm spread (Table 2).

3.3. Species Cover, Composition and Richness

Other than planted forbs, cover by plant categories followed similar trends for most soil preparation and amendment treatments, with a few exceptions (Figure 3). The untreated control, herbicide and tillage together and tillage only treatments had greater cover of native species, and the herbicide–tillage together treatment had greater bare ground than other treatments (Figure 3). Planted forb-species cover was significantly higher in compost treatments than in compost 0% at the end of year two.
A total of 28 plant species other than the planted forbs were identified across the plots (Table A1). There were 9 native, 15 non-native, 3 noxious (Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. (Canada thistle), Sonchus arvensis L. (perennial sow thistle), Tripleurospermum perforatum (Mérat) M. Lainz (scentless chamomile)) and one prohibited noxious (Potentilla recta L. (sulphur cinquefoil)) species. Among the non-native species, Festuca rubra L. (creeping red fescue), Polygonum convolvulus L. (wild buckwheat) and Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. (common dandelion) were the most common species. Festuca rubra and Taraxacum officinale were found on all site preparation treatments with compost 0% and Polygonum convolvulus was found on all site preparation treatments with compost 20%. The noxious species Cirsium arvense was found on almost 50% of the plots, being more frequent in the compost 100% treatment. Species richness excluding planted forbs differed with soil amendment but not site preparation treatments. Compost 0% had significantly greater overall species richness (R: 8.6; p < 0.001), native (R: 4; p < 0.021) and non-native (R: 3.5; p < 0.045) species richness than all soil amendments.

3.4. Soil Response to Treatments

Most soil properties did not differ with year and soil amendment treatments. Soil nutrients generally increased with compost application: some declined slightly (total nitrogen, nitrate, total carbon, total organic carbon, ammonium, phosphorus, copper and zinc) and some increased slightly (sodium adsorption ratio, calcium, potassium, sodium and sulphate) within a year, being the highest and steadiest in both years with 100% compost (Table 3). Soil pH was acidic and increased with 100% compost (mean 5.7). Sodium adsorption ratio was very low across all amendment treatments (mean 0.5).

4. Discussion

Native forb species planted in green areas and exposed to urban disturbance and restoration treatments behaved quite differently. The limited impact of site preparation treatments in our study supports the results of Buonopane et al. [40] who found no differences in vegetation cover, germinant density or species richness between herbicide and non-herbicide plots in any group, including noxious weeds. Amendment with compost was a useful treatment for forb survival and spread in our study, similar to other studies that found a positive relationship between compost and forb survival [41,42]. Marrs and Gough [41] found floristic composition of wildflower meadows was controlled by soil fertility. Bretzel et al. [42] reported that the wildflower diversity index was related to cation exchange capacity and carbon–nitrogen ratio.
Native forbs used in our experiment were small with a shallow root system, and when planted in the upper 15 cm of soil that had been structurally altered and amended with compost, they had a new growing medium. Even small changes in nutrients in amended substrates may have impacted tiny plants at a vulnerable time when they needed nutrition. However, soil preparation and amendment application combinations were expected to influence soil water dynamics, indirectly determining stress and winterizing conditions. Site preparation techniques can alter soil water availability in the soil profile, and strategic plant treatments can increase revegetation success [43].
Although soil amendments resulted in a greater proportion of desired planted species cover, it exposed the site to invasion by non-native, noxious and prohibited noxious weed species. This finding is consistent with Skrindo and Pedersen [44], who found using topsoil as an amendment to restore a roadside in Norway increased vegetation cover from one year to the next for species such as Cirsium arvense. The loss of ecological memory in urban settings is thought to facilitate the establishment of alien or non-native invasive or weed species in recently disturbed urban environments, as these species have very high seed output, phenotypic and germination plasticity, adaptations for short- and long-distance dispersal, small seed size and high seed longevity [12,45]. Thus, these species are often difficult to control in newly naturalized landscapes, where they can quickly dominate and outcompete desired species [45]. Without management intervention such as native seeding, common seed bank species, especially exotic and noxious plants, may exclude or inhibit desirable later successional species until resources are made available by their damage or death [46].
Weed management in our study played a key role in assemblage of plant communities. Targeted hand weeding benefitted planted forbs, especially in amended plots where forbs grew larger. Weed management is a necessary tool to build plant communities rather than simply for containment and eradication of undesired species. Plant community weed management opens the possibility of using competitive native species to shift the plant community to a more desirable state and reduce weed management in the long term. Weed control can be complex for native forbs as they tend to be more sensitive to chemical control than other species [47]. There are few selective herbicides targeted to weeds that do not also kill the native forbs. Manually weeding the sites is an efficient but time-consuming practice and requires good plant identification skills. This type of manual weeding would need to be implemented early in the restoration program and continue at least beyond two years.
Due to the elevated level of exposure of the research site, it appeared that using native forbs was a great way to raise ecological awareness and involvement of the local community in citizen science [4,24,48]. People are often interested in wildflowers when they are in urban green spaces which opens up the possibility to integrate common citizens in maintenance and weed management strategies associated with naturalization, potentially reducing costs and creating a common goal among the community members [25,49]. Native forbs constitute part of our natural heritage and should be protected and preserved. This experiment confirmed that native forb species remain resilient in their endemic environments. Human landscape modifications may provide opportunity for evolutionary adjustment, for growth, maturation and adaptation to new conditions.
Findings from this two-year study provide documented insight on how site preparation and soil amendment techniques can be used to improve the success of restoration with a relatively large number of native forb species. The outcomes of this study can provide a foundation for future work, including longer-term seedling establishment.

5. Conclusions

Soil amendment with compost was more influential than site preparation treatments for restoration of forb species in an urban green area as it had a direct positive impact on survival and growth of planted forbs. Treatments with greater amounts of compost had greater survival, growth, species richness, cover and noxious weed cover than control treatments. Soil amendment had a concurrent negative impact by increasing noxious weeds. Although site preparation treatments had little influence on survival of planted forbs, they could provide more benefits when combined with appropriate weed management that controls competition from baseline vegetation. Of 24 forb species, Penstemon procerus, Fragaria virginiana, Heuchera cylindrica, Agastache foeniculum, Antennaria microphyla, Mentha arvensis and Geum aleppicum showed the greatest potential for establishment under the management approach used in this study. These species are highly recommended for future use in restoration for the City of Edmonton and similar urban centers. Cornus canadensis, Pulsatilla patens and Liatris ligulistylis are not recommended for use due to their poor performance. Allium textile, Eriogonum flavum, Viola adunca, Potentilla arguta, Heterotheca villosa, Anemone cylindrica, Rudbeckia hirta, Thalictrum venulosum and Anemone canadensis need further study but may have potential for use in urban restoration programs. Since the results of this investigation are based on low replication, we recommend that urban planners and practitioners use our results but do so with caution as they may be site specific.

Author Contributions

J.A.R. collected and analyzed data and wrote the thesis; A.D. analyzed data, reviewed, edited and significantly modified the manuscript from the thesis; M.A.N. conceptualized the experiment and procured funding, developed the experimental design, supervised all the work and reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the City of Edmonton and the Land Reclamation International Graduate School (LRIGS) through the NSERC CREATE program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to copyright issues.

Acknowledgments

We thank Travis Kennedy, Karolina Peret, Nicole Fraser, Lesley Ravell, Megan Egler, Dustin Bilyk, Kelly Bakken, Brent Hamilton, Danny Petryliak and the spraying and planting crews of the City of Edmonton for their support to complete this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Land 11 00498 g0a1 550
Figure A1. Plot design and soil preparation treatments (colored boxes) randomly applied in columns. Amendment treatments (patterns) randomly distributed within columns.
Figure A1. Plot design and soil preparation treatments (colored boxes) randomly applied in columns. Amendment treatments (patterns) randomly distributed within columns.
Land 11 00498 g0a1
Land 11 00498 g0a2 550
Figure A2. Species accumulation curves in reclamation well sites showing number of species (mean ± SD) versus number of plots.
Figure A2. Species accumulation curves in reclamation well sites showing number of species (mean ± SD) versus number of plots.
Land 11 00498 g0a2
Table
Table A1. List of species found in the study site.
Table A1. List of species found in the study site.
Plant CategoryCommon NameBotanical Name
NativeMilkvetchAstragalus L.
Plains rough fescueFestuca hallii (Vasey) Piper
Mountain fescueFestuca saximontana Rydb.
Foxtail barleyHordeum jubatum L.
Western wheatgrassPascopyrum smithii (Rydb.) Á. Löve
Alpine bluegrassPoa alpina L.
Wood bluegrassPoa nemoralis L. subsp. interior (Rydb.) W.A. Weber
Bluebunch wheatgrassPseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) Á. Löve
Prairie thermopsisThermopsis rhombifolia (Nutt. ex Pursh) Nutt. Ex Richardson
Non NativeCommon oatAvena sativa L.
Smooth bromeBromus inermis Leyss.
Lamb’s quartersChenopodium album L.
QuackgrassElymus repens (L.) Gould
Creeping red fescueFestuca rubra L.
Yellow sweet cloverMelilotus officinalis (L.) Lam.
White man’s footPlantago major L.
Kentucky bluegrassPoa pratensis L.
Wild buckwheatPolygonum convolvulus L.
Prickly sow-thistleSonchus asper (L.) Hill
ChickweedStellaria media (L.) Vill.
Common dandelionTaraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg.
Alaska cloverTrifolium hybridum L.
White cloverTrifolium repens L
RapeseedBrassica napus L.
NoxiousCanada thistleCirsium arvense (L.) Scop.
Perennial sow thistleSonchus arvensis L.
Scentless chamomileTripleurospermum perforatum (Mérat) M. Lainz
Prohibited NoxiousSlphur cinquefoilPotentilla recta L.

References

  1. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renew. Resour. J. 2002, 20, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  2. 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aronson, M.F.; Lepczyk, C.A.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; MacIvor, J.S.; Vargo, T. Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Rojas, J.A.; Dhar, A.; Naeth, M.A. Urban Naturalization for Green Spaces Using Soil Tillage, Herbicide Application, Compost Amendment and Native Vegetation. Land 2021, 10, 854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bartoli, F.; Savo, V.; Caneva, G. Biodiversity of urban street trees in Italian cities: A comparative analysis. Plant Biosyst. 2021, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Song, P.; Kim, G.; Mayer, A.; He, R.; Tian, G. Assessing the Ecosystem Services of Various Types of Urban Green Spaces Based on i-Tree Eco. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Millard, A. Indigenous and spontaneous vegetation: Their relationship to urban development in the city of Leeds, UK. Urban For. Urban Green. 2004, 3, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lin, B.B.; Meyers, J.; Beaty, M.; Barnett, G.B. Urban green infrastructure impacts on climate regulation services in Sydney, Australia. Sustainability 2016, 8, 788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Brieger, H. Does urban gardening increase aesthetic quality of urban areas? A case study from Germany. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 17, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hwang, Y.H.; Yue, Z.E.J.; Ling, S.K.; Tan, H.H.V. It’s ok to be wilder: Preference for natural growth in urban green spaces in a tropical city. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 38, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mayer, K.; Haeuser, E.; Dawson, W.; Essl, F.; Kreft, H.; Pergl, J.; Pysek, P.; Weigelt, P.; Winter, M.; Lenzner, B.; et al. Naturalization of ornamental plant species in public green spaces and private gardens. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 3613–3627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Çoban, S.; Yener, S.D.; Bayraktar, S. Woody plant composition and diversity of urban green spaces in Istanbul, Turkey. Plant Biosyst. 2021, 155, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dullinger, I.; Wessely, J.; Bossdorf, O.; Dawson, W.; Ess, L.F.; Gattringer, A.; Klonner, G.; Kuttner, M.; Moser, D.; Pergl, J.; et al. Climate change will increase naturalization risk from garden plants in Europe. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2017, 26, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Vila, M.; Espinar, J.L.; Hejda, M.; Hulme, P.E.; Jarosik, V.; Maron, J.L.; Pergl, J.; Schaffner, U.; Sun, Y.; Pysek, P. Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: A meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14, 702–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Savard, J.-P.L.; Clergeau, P.; Mennechez, G. Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 48, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. City of Edmonton. Environmental Stewardship Naturalization. 2021. Available online: https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/environmental_stewardship/naturalization (accessed on 20 February 2022).
  18. Pavao-Zuckerman, M.A. The nature of urban soils and their role in ecological restoration in cities. Restor. Ecol. 2008, 16, 642–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schaefer, V. Alien Invasions, ecological restoration in cities and the loss of ecological memory. Restor. Ecol. 2009, 17, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Millwood, A.A.; Paudel, K.; Briggs, S.E. Naturalization as a strategy for improving soil physical characteristics in a forested urban park. Urban Ecosyst. 2011, 14, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alakukku, L. Persistence of soil compaction due to high axle load traffic. II. Long-term effects on the properties of fine-textured and organic soils. Soil Tillage Res. 1996, 37, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gomez, A.; Powers, R.F.; Singer, M.J.; Horwath, W.R. Soil compaction effects on growth of young ponderosa pine following litter removal in California’s Sierra Nevada. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2002, 66, 1334–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bretzel, F.; Malorgio, F.; Carrai, C.; Pezzarossa, B. Wildflower plantings to reduce the management costs of urban gardens and roadsides. Acta Hortic. 2009, 813, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Muzafar, I.; Khuroo, A.A.; Mehraj, G.; Hamid, M.; Rashid, I.; Malik, A.H. Floristic diversity along the roadsides of an urban biodiversity hotspot in Indian Himalayas. Plant Biosyst. 2019, 153, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Itani, M.; Al Zein, M.; Nasralla, N.; Talhouk, S.N. Biodiversity conservation in cities: Defining habitat analogues for plant species of conservation interest. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0220355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Environment Canada. Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010. Bindloss East Station Data. 2021. Available online: https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html (accessed on 2 March 2022).
  27. Moss, E.H. Flora of Alberta, 2nd ed.; Packer, J.G., Ed.; University Press Inc: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1994; p. 687. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hendershot, W.H.; Lalande, H.; Duquette, M. Ion exchange and exchangeable cations. In Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis; Carter, M.R., Gregorich, E.G., Eds.; Canadian Society of Soil Science: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008; pp. 199–201. [Google Scholar]
  29. Loeppert, R.H.; Suarez, D.L. Carbonate and gypsum. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3—Chemical Methods; Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H., Eds.; Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 437–474. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nelson, D.W.; Sommers, L.E. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3—Chemical Methods; Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H., Eds.; Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 961–1010. [Google Scholar]
  31. Chapman, H.D. Cation-exchange capacity. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Black, C.A., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1965; pp. 891–901. [Google Scholar]
  32. Maynard, D.G.; Kalra, Y.P.; Crumbaugh, J.A. Nitrate and exchangeable ammonium nitrogen. In Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis; Carter, M.R., Gregorich, E.G., Eds.; Canadian Society of Soil Science: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008; pp. 71–80. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bremner, J.M. Nitrogen—Total. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3—Chemical Methods; Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H., Eds.; Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 1085–1121. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ashworth, J.; Mrazek, K. Modified Kelowna test for available phosphorus and potassium in soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant. Anal. 1995, 26, 731–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Miller, J.J.; Curtin, D. Electronical conductivity and soluble ions. In Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 2nd ed.; Carter, M.R., Gregorich, E.G., Eds.; Canadian Soil Science Society: Madison, WI, USA; CRC Press and Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; pp. 153–166. [Google Scholar]
  36. Burt, R. Soil Survey Field and Laboratory Methods Manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 51 Version 2.0. US Department of Natural Resources. 2014. Available online: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1244466.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  37. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021; Available online: http://www.Rproject.org/ (accessed on 15 July 2021).
  38. Hurlbert, S.H. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 1984, 54, 187–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Oksanen, L. Logic of experiments in ecology: Is pseudo-replication a pseudoissue? Oikos 2001, 94, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Buonopane, M.; Snider, G.; Kerns, B.K.; Doescher, P.S. Complex restoration challenges: Weeds, seeds, and roads in a forested wildland urban interface. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 295, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Marrs, R.H.; Gough, M.W. Soil fertility—A potential problem for habitat restoration. In Biological Habitat Reconstruction; Buckley, G.P., Ed.; Belhaven Press: London, UK, 1989; pp. 29–44. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bretzel, F.; Vannucchi, F.; Romano, D.; Malorgio, F.; Benvenuti, S.; Pezzarossa, B. Wildflowers: From conserving biodiversity to urban greening: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 428–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ruthrof, K.X.; McHenry, M.P.; Hardy, G.E.S.J.; Matusick, G.; Fontaine, J.B.; Buizer, M. Linking restoration outcomes with mechanism: The role of site preparation, fertilisation and revegetation timing relative to soil density and water content. Plant Ecol. 2013, 214, 987–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Skrindo, A.B.; Pedersen, P.A. Natural revegetation of indigenous roadside vegetation by propagules from topsoil. Urban For. Urban Green. 2004, 3, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fortuna-Antoszkiewicz, B.; Łukaszkiewicz, J.; Rosłon-Szeryńska, E.; Wysocki, C.; Wiśniewski, P. Invasive species and maintaining biodiversity in the natural Areas—Rural and urban—Subject to strong anthropogenic pressure. J. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 19, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pickett, S.T.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Childers, D.L.; McDonnell, M.J.; Zhou, W. Evolution and future of urban ecological science: Ecology in, of, and for the city. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2016, 2, e01229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Managing Invasive Plants Concept, Principles and Practices. 2021. Available online: https://www.fws.gov/invasives/stafftrainingmodule/methods/chemical/impacts.html (accessed on 2 March 2022).
  48. Semeraro, T.; Scarano, A.; Buccolieri, R.; Santino, A.; Aarrevaara, E. Planning of Urban Green Spaces: An Ecological Perspective on Human Benefits. Land 2021, 10, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Klaus, V.H.; Kiehl, K. A conceptual framework for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2021, 52, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 11 00498 g001 550
Figure 1. Mean (±SE) survival percent of planted forb by species at the end of monitoring dates in relation to (a) soil amendment and (b) site preparation. Herb + Till = Herbicide with tillage.
Figure 1. Mean (±SE) survival percent of planted forb by species at the end of monitoring dates in relation to (a) soil amendment and (b) site preparation. Herb + Till = Herbicide with tillage.
Land 11 00498 g001
Land 11 00498 g002 550
Figure 2. Mean (±SE) survival percent grouped by family and soil amendment. Different letters within species indicate significance differences at α = 0.05.
Figure 2. Mean (±SE) survival percent grouped by family and soil amendment. Different letters within species indicate significance differences at α = 0.05.
Land 11 00498 g002
Land 11 00498 g003 550
Figure 3. Percent cover by category for site preparation and soil amendment treatments.
Figure 3. Percent cover by category for site preparation and soil amendment treatments.
Land 11 00498 g003
Table
Table 1. Planted native forb species.
Table 1. Planted native forb species.
Common NameScientific NameFamily
Black-eyed SusanRudbeckia hirta L.Asteraceae
Dotted blazing starLiatris ligulistylis A. Nels. K. Schum.Asteraceae
Hairy false golden asterHeterotheca villosa Pursh ShinnersAsteraceae
Little-leaf pussytoesAntennaria microphylla Rydb.Asteraceae
Prairie sagewortArtemisia frigida WilldAsteraceae
White prairie asterSymphyotrichum falcatum Lindl. G.L. NesomAsteraceae
HarebellCampanula rotundifolia L.Campanulaceae
BunchberryCornus canadensis L.Cornaceae
Giant hyssopAgastache foeniculum Pursh ktze.Lamiaceae
Wild mintMentha arvensis L.Lamiaceae
Prairie onionAllium textile A. Nels. and J. F. Macbr.Liliaceae
Yellow buckwheatEriogonum flavum Nutt.Polygonaceae
Canada anemoneAnemone canadensis L.Ranunculaceae
Long-fruited anemoneAnemone cylindrica GrayRanunculaceae
Prairie crocusPulsatilla patens L.Ranunculaceae
Tall larkspurDelphinium elatum L.Ranunculaceae
Veiny meadowThalictrum venulosum Trel.Ranunculaceae
Prairie cinquefoilPotentilla arguta PurshRosaceae
Three-flowered avensGeum aleppicum Jacq.Rosaceae
Wild strawberryFragaria virginiana Dcne.Rosaceae
Northern bedstrawGalium boreale L.Rubiaceae
Round-leaved alumrootHeuchera cylindrica Douglas ex Hook.Saxifragaceae
Slender penstemonPenstemon procerus Dougl. Ex GrahamScrophulariaceae
Early blue violetViola adunca Sm.Violaceae
Table
Table 2. Mean (±SE) spread (cm) by planted forb species in response to soil amendment treatments in year 2. Different letters within rows denote significant differences among treatments for species at α = 0.05.
Table 2. Mean (±SE) spread (cm) by planted forb species in response to soil amendment treatments in year 2. Different letters within rows denote significant differences among treatments for species at α = 0.05.
SpeciesCompost 0%Compost 20%Compost 50%Compost 100%
Agastache foeniculum11.4 (1.2)72.0 (4.3)46.5 (3.4)68.8 (7.2)
Allium textile6.5 (0.9)9.6 (1.9)7.5 (0.5)8.2 (2.3)
Anemone canadensis8.7 (1.0)16.2 (1.1)17.0 (NA)24.3 (1.4)
Anemone cylindrica5.0 (NA)11.7 (2.5)9.7 (1.9)18.7 (1.8)
Antennaria microphylla20.7 (1.8) b27.3 (2.3) ab21.6 (1.1) b30.7 (2.4) a
Artemisia frigida16.2 (1.9)128.0 (3.9)118.7 (6.7)99.2 (10.8)
Campanula rotundifolia7.4 (0.7)25.4 (3.7)15.8 (1.7)26.4 (2.9)
Delphinium elatum5.3 (0.3) b16.4 (1.8) a16.4 (1.1) a21.0 (1.9) a
Eriogonum flavum8.5 (0.9)14.0 (1.2)9.0 (0.2)12.4 (0.6)
Fragaria virginiana9.5 (0.8) b18.0 (1.7) a16.6 (1.0) a19.0 (1.2) a
Galium boreale8.8 (1.1)24.2 (2.6)19.9 (1.0)21.3 (2.6)
Geum aleppicum12.1 (1.0) b22.5 (1.7) a18.1 (1.2) ab21.0 (2.1) a
Heterotheca villosa16.3 (2.1)37.6 (5.5)21.6 (3.3)38.6 (4.9)
Heuchera cylindrica9.4 (0.6) b24.0 (1.2) a19.8 (1.8) a23.6 (1.6) a
Liatris ligulistylis9.6 (1.0)13.5 (0.5)10.0 (1.6)14.3 (0.9)
Mentha arvensis9.7 (2.2) b67.5 (10.3) a39.1 (6.0) ab52.2 (7.8) a
Penstemon procerus18.9 (1.8) c47.1 (2.7) a33.3 (3.4) b49.8 (2.5) a
Potentilla arguta5.0 (NA)25.7 (1.7)22.6 (1.4)30.2 (2.2)
Pulsatilla patens2.5 (0.2)8.1 (0.7)6.0 (1.1)10.0 (0.9)
Rudbeckia hirta21.7 (2.7) b39.1 (3.9) ab38.4 (2.9) ab46.8 (4.1) a
Symphyotrichum falcatum21.8 (2.5) b55.3 (4.6) a60.1 (4.4) a62.7 (5.6) a
Thalictrum venulosum7.3 (1.3)19.8 (2.2)13.8 (2.9)19.7 (1.3)
Viola adunca7.5 (0.2)11.2 (1.3)10.6 (2.4)12.6 (1.4)
Table
Table 3. Mean (±SE) soil properties by soil amendment treatments. Different letters indicate significant differences among amendment treatments in individual years at α = 0.05. EC = Electrical Conductivity, CEC = Cation Exchange Capacity, SAR = Sodium Adsorption Ratio and TOC = Total Organic Carbon.
Table 3. Mean (±SE) soil properties by soil amendment treatments. Different letters indicate significant differences among amendment treatments in individual years at α = 0.05. EC = Electrical Conductivity, CEC = Cation Exchange Capacity, SAR = Sodium Adsorption Ratio and TOC = Total Organic Carbon.
PropertiesCompost 0%Compost 20%Compost 50%Compost 100%
Year 1Year 2Year 1Year 2Year 1Year 2Year 1Year 2
pH6.5 (0.1)6.9 (0.1)6.2 (0.2)6.3 (0.1)6.0 (0.1)6.2 (0.1)5.8 (0.1)5.7 (0.1)
EC (dS m−1)1.1 (0.1) c1.2 (0.1) y2.8 (0.3) b2.2 (0.3) x3.2 (0.3) a2.0 (0.4) x5.6 (0.6) a2.1 (0.4) x
CEC (meq 100 g−1)33.8 (1.5) b35.7 (5.2) z39.8 (4.0) b41.5 (5.0) yz43.1 (5.9) b52.6 (4.7) y61.6 (4.2) a71.8 (5.2) x
SAR0.7 (0.1)1.0 (0.1)0.4 (0.0)0.5 (0.1)0.4 (0.0)0.5 (0.0)0.3 (0.1)0.3 (0.0)
Sodium (mg L−1)26.4 (2.8)56.4 (4.9) y31.0 (4.8)41.7 (6.2) xy34.0 (6.2)35.6 (8.5) x28.3 (12)22.5 (3.1) x
Total Carbon (%)4.3 (0.4) c3.4 (0.3) y5.6 (1.7) c5.1 (0.5) y9.4 (1.6) b6.9 (1.2) y23.2.3 (2.5) a20.86 (1.9) x
Total Nitrogen (%)0.3 (0.0) c0.3 (0.0) y 0.5 (0.1) c0.5 (0.1) y1.4 (0.1) b0.6 (0.1) y6.4 (0.8) a1.5 (0.1) x
TOC (%)4.3 (0.4) c3.2 (0.3) y5.2 (0.7) c5.1 (0.5) y8.3 (0.3) b6.5 (1.2) y22.5 (2.3) a20.7 (1.4) x
Ammonium (mg L−1)4.3 (1.8) c2.3 (0.9) y8.8 (3.5) bc2.6 (0.3) y17.4 (5.1) b14.9 (4.6) x70.4 (14.2) a23.7 (6.4) x
Nitrate (mg L−1)19.9 (3.3) b2.9 (0.9) z117.0 (23.2) a56.4 (9.1) y104.0 (15.8) a55.1 (8.0) y139.8 (22.3) a91.6 (9.0) x
Phosphate (mg L−1)29.9 (6.1) c8.2 (1.8) z251.0 (65.2) b212.0 (41.2) y470.2 (82.4)b412.0 (79.5) y2580.7 (179.3) a1550.0 (154.2) x
Potassium (mg L−1)176.5 (37.4) c121.3 (23.8) z231.0 (19.9) c186.3 (14.1) y330.7 (29.0) b290.0 (62.3) y1100.0 (58.6) a1050.8 (100.8) x
Sulfate (mg L−1)44.1 (2.2) c82.1 (3.8) z154.0 (23.6) b129.4 (23.9) y231.5 (32.4) ab178.8 (31.1) y372.7 (85.7) a274.1 (61.1) x
Calcium (mg L−1)111.4 (13.5) b170.0 (15.8) y340.1 (53.1) a379.7 (48.2) x396.8 (75.7) 4328.0 (61.0) x306.5 (45.4) a299.8 (63.3) x
Chloride (mg L−1)30.5 (3.8)36.5 (4.3)25.6 (5.0)30.8 (5.7)26.2 (7.7)34.5 (4.9)24.1 (6.5)20.0 (3.1)
Copper (mg L−1)16.6 (0.5) c0.9 (0.1) z44.0 (3.5) b2.9 (0.4) y55.5 (5.9) b5.1 (1.9) y308.0 (5.9) a40.6 (2.7) x
Magnesium (mg L−1)27.0 (4.2) c39.5 (8.6) y77.6 (15.1) b89.7 (14.8) x108.6 (21.4) a91.5 (19.2) x126.4 (19.4) a114.0 (22.2) x
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rojas, J.A.; Dhar, A.; Naeth, M.A. Urban Green Spaces Restoration Using Native Forbs, Site Preparation and Soil Amendments—A Case Study. Land 2022, 11, 498. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040498

AMA Style

Rojas JA, Dhar A, Naeth MA. Urban Green Spaces Restoration Using Native Forbs, Site Preparation and Soil Amendments—A Case Study. Land. 2022; 11(4):498. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040498

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rojas, Jaime Aguilar, Amalesh Dhar, and M. Anne Naeth. 2022. "Urban Green Spaces Restoration Using Native Forbs, Site Preparation and Soil Amendments—A Case Study" Land 11, no. 4: 498. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040498

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop