Next Article in Journal
High-Throughput Sequencing Shows High Fungal Diversity and Community Segregation in the Rhizospheres of Container-Grown Conifer Seedlings
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Autoregressive Models for Stand Top and Stand Mean Height Relationship in Mixed Quercus mongolica Broadleaved Natural Stands of Northeast China
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Forests 2016, 7(2), 42; doi:10.3390/f7020042

Quantifying the Impact of Different Ways to Delimit Study Areas on the Assessment of Species Diversity of an Urban Forest

3,4,* and 1,2,*
Key Laboratory of Protection and Developmental Utilization of Tropical Crop Germplasm Resources of Ministry of Education, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China
College of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Center for Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Joint Center for Global Change Studies (JCGCS), Beijing 100875, China
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Brian J. Palik and Timothy A. Martin
Received: 2 November 2015 / Revised: 25 January 2016 / Accepted: 28 January 2016 / Published: 15 February 2016
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1900 KB, uploaded 15 February 2016]   |  


Assessing the species diversity of an urban forest is important for understanding its structure and functions, but the result can be affected by sampling methods, times, and delimitations of the study area. In this study, we examined the influence of different ways to delimit boundaries of urban areas on the assessment of species diversity of urban forests through a case study conducted in Haikou, China. We surveyed the species diversity of the urban forest in Haikou twice using the same sampling protocol but two commonly used delimitations of the urban area. The two surveys produced significantly different estimates of species richness of the urban forest. Recorded species richness was 228 (144 woody and 84 herbaceous species) and 303 (164 woody and 139 herbaceous species) for the first and the second survey, respectively. The rarefaction analysis indicated that species richness of woody plants recorded in the two surveys could converge by doubling the sample size, but species richness of herbaceous plants was significantly different between the two surveys at the 95% confidence interval even at three times the original sample size. The value of the Simpson dissimilarity index between the two surveys was 0.417 and 0.357 for woody and herbaceous plants respectively, which implied noticeable dissimilarity of species compositions of plant assemblages in the two areas. We concluded that the assessment of biodiversity of an urban forest can be affected significantly by how the boundary of an urban area is defined. Caution should be taken when comparing species diversities of urban forests reported in different studies, especially when richness measures are used. View Full-Text
Keywords: Species richness; β diversity; rarefaction curve; land use/land cover; random sampling Species richness; β diversity; rarefaction curve; land use/land cover; random sampling

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

He, R.; Yang, J.; Song, X. Quantifying the Impact of Different Ways to Delimit Study Areas on the Assessment of Species Diversity of an Urban Forest. Forests 2016, 7, 42.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Forests EISSN 1999-4907 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top