Plant Diversity of Concessions Held by Catholic Religious Groups in Three Cities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
by
, , , , , , , , and
Léa Mukubu Pika
1,*
,
Serge Mugisho Mukotanyi
2,
David Pyame Onyo
3,
Aloïse Bitagirwa Ndele
4,
Joël Mobunda Tiko
5,
Julien Bwazani Balandi
1,5,
Kouagou Raoul Sambieni
6,
Jean Pierre Meniko To Hulu
7,
Jean-François Bastin
1,
Jeroen Meersmans
1
,
Yannick Useni Sikuzani
8 and
Jan Bogaert
1,* 1
Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liege, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium
2
Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Catholic University of Bukavu, Bukavu P.O. Box 285, Democratic Republic of the Congo
3
Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources Management, University of Kisangani, Kisangani P.O. Box 2012, Democratic Republic of the Congo
4
Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, Catholic University of Bukavu, Bukavu P.O. Box 285, Democratic Republic of the Congo
5
The Regional Post-Graduate Training School on Integrated Management of Tropical Forests and Lands, Kinshasa P.O. Box 15373, Democratic Republic of the Congo
6
Faculty of Architecture, University of Lubumbashi, Lubumbashi P.O. Box 1825, Democratic Republic of the Congo
7
Laboratoire d’Ecologie du Paysage et Foresterie Tropicale (LEPAFORT), Faculty Institute of Agricultural Sciences of Yangambi (IFA-Yangambi), Kisangani P.O. Box 1232, Democratic Republic of the Congo
8
Ecology, Ecological Restoration and Landscape Unit, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Lubumbashi, Lubumbashi P.O. Box 1825, Democratic Republic of the Congo
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6732; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156732
Submission received: 19 June 2025
/
Revised: 8 July 2025
/
Accepted: 17 July 2025
/
Published: 24 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainability, Biodiversity and Conservation)
Abstract
Urbanization’s environmental challenges have increased interest in urban biodiversity, traditionally focused on public green spaces, which are shrinking as urban growth escapes government control. This study examines the understudied role of private actors—specifically Concessions held by Catholic Religious Groups (CRGs)—in biodiversity conservation across three DRC cities (Bukavu, Kisangani, Lubumbashi). CRGs were selected due to Catholicism’s dominance and socio-economic influence in the DRC. A systematic flora inventory of 70 randomly sampled CRGs identified 220 species from 76 families and 185 genera. Although the CRG area was smaller in Lubumbashi (1.1 ha) than Bukavu (3.7 ha) and Kisangani (5.2 ha), the area did not correlate with species richness. Plant composition varied significantly within and between cities, dominated by phanerophytes and exotic species. These findings underscore the importance of including private stakeholders in urban biodiversity conservation.
1. Introduction
Over centuries, human societies have profoundly influenced land use dynamics through natural resource exploitation and spatial occupation, a process commonly termed landscape anthropization [1]. This typically leads to two main outcomes, the conversion of natural areas into agricultural land and direct transformation into urban areas, with the latter giving rise to urbanization [1,2].
Globally, urbanization is recognized as a critical challenge [3]. The United Nations projects that by 2050, over two-thirds of the world’s population will reside in cities [4]. Population growth has driven urban expansion, sometimes surpassing demographic increases in certain regions [5]. Today, urbanization levels are unprecedented, with large cities both increasing in number and size [6]. Currently, half the world’s population lives in urban areas, compared to just 10% at the start of the 20th century [7]. While cities dominate global production and consumption, urban growth in developing countries often outpaces their capacity to provide adequate services [8]. Moreover, rural exodus and population surges exacerbate urban and peri-urban sprawl, impacting socio-ecosystem functions [9]. These effects include deforestation, reduced green and open spaces, species loss, pollution, heat island development, erosion, and flooding [10,11,12]. Urbanization pressures profoundly affect ecosystems and biodiversity, with multidimensional impacts on the well-being of urban and peri-urban populations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa [13]. Urban biodiversity not only aids in conserving genetic resources but also delivers essential ecosystem services such as microclimate regulation, shade provision, recreational areas, food, fuel, and medicinal resources, and supports water, flood, and erosion management [14,15,16].
Accordingly, urban biodiversity conservation has gained prominence, with numerous initiatives promoting urban forestry and horticulture. These involve diverse stakeholders at multiple levels—individual, collective, local, national, regional, and international. For instance, the New Urban Agenda (NUA), adopted at the 2016 UN Habitat III conference, alongside the African Strategy for Urban Forestry (2018), exemplify international and regional commitments [17].
Numerous studies aim to better understand urban green space biodiversity [18,19,20,21,22]. However, research predominantly targets public green spaces [23,24,25,26,27], with limited focus on private-managed spaces such as individual gardens and business premises [28,29]. Private green spaces, like public ones, play crucial roles in urban biodiversity but remain largely understudied [30]. In many African cities, where public authorities often lose control over urban growth, leading to the depletion of public green spaces, private stakeholders’ role in green space development merits increased attention. Such private initiatives offer promising pathways for urban biodiversity conservation and eco-citizen awareness promotion [31,32,33].
This knowledge gap regarding urban biodiversity, especially in private spaces, is evident in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where urban ecology research is recent [12,34]. Among private actors, Catholic Religious Groups have historically played (and continue to play) key socio-economic and political roles [35,36,37]. They hold extensive concessions across the country, used for various activities (schools, cultural centers, and churches). Understanding biodiversity within these Catholic-managed concessions is crucial due to their spatial significance. Moreover, a strong link exists between vegetation and religious practices, whether through sacred forests in traditional religions [38] or Christian sites such as the garden where Jesus prayed [39]. Some authors note the “greening” of Christianity through church commitments to biodiversity conservation and green space development. Moreover, according to the Vatican’s Central Office of Ecclesiastical Statistics, Catholics comprise 49.6% of the Congolese population [40], highlighting the predominance of Catholic confessions relative to others and justifying this study’s focus. Beyond the recognized disciplined management of these concessions, including green maintenance, their floristic composition remains poorly documented [41,42,43].
To address this, the present study assesses the biodiversity structure of Catholic Religious Groups (CRGs) in three major DRC cities: Bukavu, Kisangani, and Lubumbashi. These cities were selected due to the historical and socio-economic influence of Catholic groups and the feasibility of data collection [35]. This study hypothesizes that plant diversity—quantified by species, family, and genus richness, and qualified by species types, families, genera, and life forms—will be more similar among CRGs within the same city than between cities, influenced by CRG areas. Indeed, according to the species–area theory, species diversity is expected to increase up to a maximum limit [44,45]. In addition, green management typically depends on locally available cultivated or planted species, which are shaped by prevailing climate and dominant vegetation formations [46,47]. Furthermore, owing to potential external species input, floristic diversity is expected to be highest in Bukavu (a border city), intermediate in Lubumbashi (30 km from the border), and lowest in inland Kisangani. It is also anticipated that each city’s CRGs will be dominated by a few species, genera, and families common across most local CRGs, reflecting the influence of nearby examples on species selection in garden management [48,49]. While the CRGs primarily contain exotic species, Kisangani’s relative isolation likely favors a higher proportion of native species. This aligns with general observations that urban flora tends to be predominantly exotic [50]. Across all cities, CRGs host species classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List, although most species remain unassessed.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
This study was conducted in three cities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Bukavu (South Kivu province), Kisangani (Tshopo province), and Lubumbashi (Haut-Katanga province) (Figure 1).
2.2. Data Collection
Due to the absence of comprehensive inventories of Catholic Religious Groups (CRGs)’ concessions in these cities, a random sample of CRGs was selected for the survey. Sampling was influenced by site accessibility (road network), CRG abundance, the time required for vegetation identification, and the required substantial logistical efforts. In addition to these constraints, sampling in each city was discontinued once a significant number of new species was no longer recorded, in accordance with the species–area curve [44,45]. Surveys were conducted during peak vegetation periods between 2023 and 2024, with prior site access permissions and the assistance of master’s-level researchers. A total of 20 CRGs were surveyed in Bukavu, 40 in Kisangani, and 10 in Lubumbashi (Table A1, Appendix A).
Data collection involved estimating the area of each concession, either directly in the field or via Google Earth Pro v7.3.6, followed by systematic, full-turn inventories of all visible plant species within each CRG. This method was necessary because CRG vegetation is often fragmented and does not allow for standardized plot-based inventories [55,56].
Identified species were taxonomically verified using online databases, including the African Plants Database, the International Plant Names Index (IPNI), and The Plant List. Each species was classified by family and origin status (native or exotic). Life forms were assigned according to Raunkiaer’s classification [57], which considers the position of regenerative organs during unfavorable periods. Six primary life forms were used: therophytes (Th), hemicryptophytes (Hem), geophytes (Ge), chamaephytes (Ch), epiphytes (Epi), and phanerophytes (Ph), as they provide insight into vegetation stratification and resilience during dry periods. Conservation status was assigned based on the IUCN Red List [58], using the following categories: Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD), and Not Applicable (NA).
2.3. Data Analysis
Quantitative analyses were performed on CRG area, species composition, and biological spectrum. Species richness, number of families, and genera were calculated at both the CRG and city scales. Given data non-normality, inter-city comparisons were performed using non-parametric tests (Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post hoc test), implemented in RStudio v4.4.1 [59]. The same approach was applied to CRG area comparisons. Pearson correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between CRG area and biodiversity metrics.
To evaluate differences in life form distribution among cities, Fisher’s exact test was employed due to its suitability for small sample sizes [60]. Dominant families and genera in each city were identified by calculating their relative dominance (RD), defined as the proportion of species within a given taxon relative to total species richness in that city.
Intra-city similarity among CRGs was assessed using Ascending Hierarchical Classification based on presence/absence data at the species, family, and genus levels. This analysis was conducted in RStudio using the Factoshiny package [61]. The same package was used to perform multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) to evaluate inter-city floristic similarity. Additionally, relative occurrence frequencies were calculated for each taxonomic level to further highlight floristic similarities and distinctions between cities.
Data on species origin and conservation status were used to compute absolute frequencies for each status category in each city. Fisher’s exact tests were applied to assess associations between species status and city. Finally, species richness was used as the primary diversity indicator, given its intuitive interpretation and relevance for comparing community-level biodiversity [62].
3. Results
3.1. Plant Composition and Biological Spectrum of Catholic Religious Groups’ Concessions and Area Effects
A total of 220 plant species belonging to 76 families and 185 genera were recorded across the CRGs in Bukavu, Kisangani, and Lubumbashi (Table A2, Appendix A). Mean comparison analysis (Table 2) revealed no statistically significant difference between Bukavu and Kisangani in terms of average species richness, family diversity, or genus diversity. In contrast, Lubumbashi’s CRGs exhibited significantly higher values—2 to 3 times greater—than those of the other two cities for all these parameters.
Consequently, Lubumbashi recorded the highest overall species richness (152 species vs. 67 in Kisangani and 24 in Bukavu), family richness (60 families vs. 36 and 15, respectively), and genus richness (137 genera vs. 56 and 22, respectively). Within each city, high standard deviation values indicate low intra-city homogeneity in species composition among CRGs.
Regarding CRGs area, mean comparison showed Lubumbashi has the smallest average area (1.1 ha), compared to Bukavu (3.7 ha) and Kisangani (5.2 ha), with no significant difference between the latter two. Correlation analyses revealed no significant relationship between CRG area and species richness (t = −0.63189, df = 68, p = 0.5296), family richness (t = −0.72088, df = 68, p = 0.4735), or genus richness (t = −0.65989, df = 68, p = 0.5116).
Fisher’s exact test showed that the biological spectrum varied significantly by city. Although phanerophytes dominated in all three cities, Lubumbashi exhibited the broadest spectrum with five life forms, compared to two in Bukavu and one in Kisangani (Figure 2).
The three most dominant families and genera differed by city (Table 3). In Bukavu, Bigoniaceae, Fabaceae, and Rutaceae were co-dominant (RD = 12.5% each), with Citrus as the most dominant genus (RD = 12.5%). In Kisangani, Fabaceae dominated (RD = 15.3%), along with Acacia and Citrus (RD = 5.6% each). In Lubumbashi, Araceae (RD = 8.6%) was dominant, while Cyperus and Euphorbia were the most represented genera (RD = 2% each).
3.2. Comparative Plant Composition Between CRGs and Cities
Hierarchical clustering analyses (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5) show that intra-city floristic similarity varies widely. Only Kisangani’s CRGs exhibit notable intra-group similarity, with 40 CRGs forming three clusters, including one large cluster of 38 CRGs consistent across taxonomic levels. In contrast, Lubumbashi’s CRGs group into five clusters, and Bukavu’s CRGs show the highest heterogeneity, clustering into 10 groups for species and 7 groups for families and gene.
Multiple correspondence analysis (Figure 6) further confirms low inter-city similarity in species composition. While Bukavu and Kisangani share more common taxa, Lubumbashi remains floristically distinct.
The top three most frequent species, families, and genera also differ by city, reflecting distinct floristic profiles (Table 4).
3.3. Species Origin and Conservation Status in CRGs
Fisher’s exact tests on species origin and conservation status show significant variation among cities (Figure 7 and Figure 8). All three cities are dominated by exotic species (See Table A2 for examples), but Bukavu stands out for the complete absence of native species, while Kisangani and Lubumbashi host four and one native species, respectively.
In terms of conservation status, species classified as Least Concern (LC), Not Assessed (NA), and Data Deficient (DD) are predominant across all cities. Bukavu recorded only one species in the Critically Endangered (CR) category: Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) De Wit, 1961. Kisangani had the highest number of threatened species, including one CR (Leucaena leucocephala), four Endangered (EN)—Autranella congolensis (De Wild.) A. Chev.; Coffea arabica L., 1753; Millettia laurentii De Wild; and Tectona grandis L.f., 1782—and two Near Threatened (NT): Artocarpus camansi Blanco, 1837 and Milicia excelsa (Welw.) C.C. Berg, 1982. Lubumbashi recorded two CR species—Hyophorbe lagenicaulis (L.H. Bailey) H.E. Moore, 1976 and Leucaena leucocephala—two EN (Coffea arabica and Kalanchoe daigremontiana Raym.-Hamet & H. Perrier, 1914), and one NT (Dypsis lutescens (H. Wendl.) Beentje & J. Dransf., 1995).
4. Discussion
4.1. Methodological Considerations
This study was based on a systematic floristic inventory of vegetation within the concessions held by Catholic Religious Groups (CRGs). The approach was adapted to the garden-like nature of these spaces—comprising both low and high vegetation distributed discontinuously across CRG properties. Full-turn inventories, commonly used in garden studies, were appropriate for capturing their diversity [63,64,65].
The number of CRG samples varied between cities due to differences in accessibility and abundance. Standardizing sample sizes across cities would have been preferable, especially for clustering analyses. However, sampling was adapted based on the widely accepted species–area relationship [44,45]. Furthermore, non-parametric analyses appropriate for unequal sample sizes were employed to minimize potential biases as effectively as possible. Interestingly, floristic diversity did not correlate with surveyed area size. Contrary to expectations, Lubumbashi—with the smallest sample size—recorded the highest species count (Table 3).
4.2. Intra- and Inter-City Floristic Variation in CRGs
Substantial variation in floristic composition was observed both within and between cities. Kisangani showed relatively high internal similarity in species, families, and genera, whereas CRGs in Bukavu and Lubumbashi exhibited low similarity, both within and across cities. The openness of Bukavu and Lubumbashi, due to proximity to borders, likely facilitates species introductions through interactions with diverse gardens. Previous studies emphasize the influence of personal experiences and exposure to nature on gardening practices [48,66,67]. Furthermore, the dominance of exotic species in border cities like Bukavu and Lubumbashi likely results from deliberate or accidental plant introductions via trade and human mobility, particularly with neighboring countries such as Rwanda (Bukavu) and Zambia (Lubumbashi, notably for mining-related exchanges). Comparative studies of garden flora across border cities could help clarify the underlying dynamics.
The complete absence of native species in Bukavu likely results from colonial urban planning favoring exotic landscapes and insufficient postcolonial restoration. Indeed, colonial urban planning prioritized sanitary and segregative layouts (e.g., buffer zones, separate quarters) with green spaces modeled on European designs, promoting ornamental exotic species [68]. Postcolonial greening largely continued these horticultural practices. In contrast, Kisangani and Lubumbashi—being near reserves still harboring native flora—retain indigenous species in urban gardens.
Inter-city dissimilarity was also confirmed. Although Bukavu and Kisangani had similar species, families, genera, and average CRG areas, their floristic compositions differed from each other and even more so from Lubumbashi. Unlike findings in countries such as Bangladesh, where private gardens across regions are more similar [69], the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) displays marked regional environmental and climatic contrasts [70]. The uniqueness of Lubumbashi supports the hypothesis that climate has a stronger influence on species selection than religious affiliation. The lack of homogenization across CRGs, despite shared Catholic affiliation, further reflects the complexity of human–nature interactions, shaped by cultural, regional, and individual factors [71,72,73,74]. The heterogeneity observed suggests diverse environmental contexts and management practices, which may enhance regional biodiversity by hosting complementary species across sites. Therefore, reservations must be made regarding the species–area theory for anthropized habitats and human-managed green spaces. The determinants of species diversity in these contexts involve multiple factors that require investigation.
Contrary to species–area expectations [75,76,77], plant diversity did not correlate with CRG size. Gardens can support high species richness in limited space, particularly with herbaceous plants. Habitat heterogeneity, disturbance history, and management intensity likely explain this divergence [60,64] This underscores the importance of small green spaces in urban biodiversity conservation. Floristic composition can also be influenced by past management, landscape configuration, and proximity to other habitats. Soil and climate conditions [78], as well as ecosystem age, are additional determinants [79]. Areas affected by intensive human activity—agriculture, logging, mining, or urban expansion—typically support lower diversity [80,81], while CRGs may mitigate these pressures through protective management.
Phanerophytes dominated across all cities, aligning with expectations under tropical climates [82], and reflecting forest-favorable conditions in surrounding landscapes [83]. Their dominance also suggests a preference for perennial, low-maintenance vegetation. This contrasts with findings from private gardens in Lubumbashi, where herbaceous species prevailed [31].
4.3. Phytobiodiverse Significance of CRGs
CRGs collectively hosted 220 plant species—comparable to those reported in Lubumbashi (232 species) [31] and Amman (223 species) [33] but exceeding totals from Benin’s cities (103 species) [56], while falling short of Tlokwe in South Africa (835 species) [32]. These differences reflect varying gardening dynamics and local contexts.
Most species across cities were exotic, a common feature in urban environments [32,33,56]. Kisangani had the highest number of native species (4), confirming our hypothesis and aligning with studies in tropical urban settings [50]. Despite the presence of acclimatized exotics, the predominance of non-native species highlights the challenge of promoting native flora. Introducing exotics poses risks of invasion and genetic erosion [32].
CRGs also host species classified as threatened on the IUCN Red List, a contribution echoed in other studies on private gardens [71,84,85]. Additionally, the high proportion of unassessed species underscores CRGs’ potential as biodiversity reservoirs. These sites may act as stepping-stones or “islands” of biodiversity, promoting plant dispersal and maintaining genetic diversity across fragmented urban landscapes. Phytobiodiversity within CRGs provides essential ecosystem services, including cultural services, microclimate regulation, improved air and water quality, and pollination support—enhancing urban resilience and human well-being [13,86].
4.4. Implications for Urban Biodiversity Management and Future Research
This study highlights the overlooked role of private actors, particularly Catholic groups, in urban biodiversity conservation, reinforcing the idea of cities as biodiversity reservoirs [16,75]. Unlike rural areas, urban biodiversity is fragmented and managed by diverse stakeholders. Recognizing this heterogeneity is key to effective conservation strategies [87,88,89,90].
Well-managed urban habitats, such as CRGs, can offer recreational benefits, improve water quality, and serve as ecological corridors between urban and peri-urban zones [88]. These corridors facilitate seasonal migration, reproduction, and genetic exchange among species, and act as refuges for rare species [21,85]. Conservation efforts must thus prioritize identifying and managing such species while minimizing human disturbances. Catholics, and religious groups more broadly, including both children and adults, can contribute significantly to conservation by acting as a ‘citizen manager’ of biodiversity [88,91,92,93].
Given the dominance of exotic flora, raising awareness among stakeholders about the value of native species is crucial. Promoting native species can prevent ecological imbalance and strengthen local biodiversity [16,30]. Developing regional catalogs and guides on native species suitable for urban use could incentivize their integration into urban landscaping. To this end, ecological education programs targeting religious communities can be developed.
Future studies should expand beyond CRGs to include other religious affiliations (e.g., Methodists, Protestants, Kimbanguists) and compare their biodiversity contributions. Comparative studies involving public and other private green spaces would provide a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity patterns and conservation opportunities in the urban DRC.
5. Conclusions
This study assessed plant biodiversity within Catholic Religious Groups (CRGs)’ concessions across three cities—Bukavu, Kisangani and Lubumbashi—through systematic floristic inventories. The results confirm the hypothesis of low floristic similarity between cities and, to a lesser extent, within cities. Kisangani was the exception, showing greater intra-city floristic consistency among its CRGs.
No correlation was found between the size of CRGs and their species richness, and exotic species were predominant in all cities. In total, 220 plant species were recorded, representing 76 families and 185 genera. Each city exhibited distinct floristic compositions within its CRGs. While Kisangani’s CRGs shared more similar species compositions, those in Bukavu and Lubumbashi displayed greater heterogeneity.
The presence of high plant diversity—including threatened species—underscores the conservation value of CRGs. However, the dominance of exotic species highlights the urgent need to promote native species to safeguard local phytogenetic resources.
This study demonstrates the critical role of private actors, such as CRGs, in conserving urban biodiversity. It suggests the need to expand biodiversity assessments to other private entities and religious groups. The participatory and relatively sustainable management models observed in CRGs offer promising frameworks for broader urban biodiversity conservation efforts. Moreover, Catholics—and religious groups more broadly—can be considered ‘citizen managers’ in biodiversity conservation. Both adults and children can be trained and motivated to engage in small-scale environmental actions that support biodiversity preservation.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, L.M.P. and K.R.S.; methodology, L.M.P. and K.R.S.; software, L.M.P.; validation, K.R.S., Y.U.S. and J.B.; formal analysis, L.M.P. and K.R.S.; investigation, L.M.P., A.B.N., J.M.T., Y.U.S. and J.P.M.T.H. resources, S.M.M., D.P.O., J.M.T., Y.U.S. and J.P.M.T.H.; data curation, L.M.P. and D.P.O.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M.P., S.M.M., J.B.B. and K.R.S.; writing—review and editing, L.M.P., K.R.S., Y.U.S., J.B. and K.R.S.; visualization, L.M.P. and K.R.S.; supervision, K.R.S., J.M., J.-F.B., Y.U.S. and J.B.; project administration, J.B.; funding acquisition, L.M.P. and J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Académie de Recherche pour l’Enseignement Supérieur (ARES–CCD, Belgium), B-MOB scholarship program of Liège University.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend their gratitude to all field interviewers for their valuable contributions to data collection and to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript and its language.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
List of concessions held by Catholic Religious Groups (CRGs) surveyed, by city, with corresponding codes.
Table A1.
List of concessions held by Catholic Religious Groups (CRGs) surveyed, by city, with corresponding codes.
| CRG’s Code | CRG’s Name | Area (ha) |
|---|---|---|
| Lubumbashi | ||
| CRGL1 | Convent of Saint Paul Parish | 0.11 |
| CRGL2 | Theological Institute—Chaplains of Work | 0.32 |
| CRGL3 | Tabora University Cultural Center | 0.17 |
| CRGL4 | Theologicum | 1.25 |
| CRGL5 | Provincial House of the Franciscans | 0.2 |
| CRGL6 | Tertiary Capuchin Sisters—Nazareth Homes | 0.15 |
| CRGL7 | Scholasticate—Chaplains of Work | 0.15 |
| CRGL8 | Laura House | 8.32 |
| CRGL9 | Carmelite Sisters | 0.58 |
| CRGL10 | Mercedarian Missionaries | 0.19 |
| Bukavu | ||
| CRGB1 | Bukavu Amani Center | 0.51 |
| CRGB2 | Kasongo Procuracy | 6.59 |
| CRGB3 | The Corniche | 0.24 |
| CRGB4 | Xaverian Sisters | 5.07 |
| CRGB5 | Missionaries of Africa | 0.41 |
| CRGB6 | Cirezi High School | 0.52 |
| CRGB7 | Cathedral of Our Lady of Bukavu | 1.05 |
| CRGB8 | Solidarity | 2.89 |
| CRGB9 | Saint Joseph Sisters | 1.09 |
| CRGB10 | Father Vavassori Health Center | 3.85 |
| CRGB11 | Saint John the Baptist Parish—Cahi | 2.37 |
| CRGB12 | Antonella School | 0.97 |
| CRGB13 | Holy Family Parish of Bagira | 0.06 |
| CRGB14 | Nyakavogo High School | 5.13 |
| CRGB15 | Nyakavogo Primary School | 2.15 |
| CRGB16 | Catholic University of Bukavu Bugabo | 1.29 |
| CRGB17 | Saint Francis Xavier Parish—Kadutu | 0.65 |
| CRGB18 | Fundi Maendeleo Technical Institute | 14.38 |
| CRGB19 | Wima High School | 19.71 |
| CRGB20 | General Economat | 5.64 |
| Kisangani | ||
| CRGK1 | Kisangani Little Seminary of Mandombe | 3 |
| CRGK2 | Saint Peter Parish | 3 |
| CRGK3 | Saint Albert Chapel | 2 |
| CRGK4 | Saint Martha Parish | 8 |
| CRGK5 | Cathedral of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary | 8 |
| CRGK6 | Father Dehonus Scholasticate | 8 |
| CRGK7 | Simama Center | 3 |
| CRGK8 | Servant Sisters of Jesus | 10 |
| CRGK9 | Sisters of the Holy Family Mediatrix | 1 |
| CRGK10 | Augustinian Sisters | 1 |
| CRGK11 | Pastoral House of the Sacred Heart | 10 |
| CRGK12 | Convent of the Priests of Mont Fortaint | 3 |
| CRGK13 | Bel Vedere | 25 |
| CRGK14 | Saint Gabriel Parish | 4 |
| CRGK15 | Convent of the Priests of the Sacred Heart | 2 |
| CRGK16 | Sisters of Jesus Educator Station Kis-Bondo | 2 |
| CRGK17 | Canonical Sisters | 3 |
| CRGK18 | Sisters Novitiate Holy Family | 3 |
| CRGK19 | Saint Camille Parish | 0.4 |
| CRGK20 | Josephites of Kinzambi | 0.49 |
| CRGK21 | Sisters Holy Family Artisan | 0.15 |
| CRGK22 | Marist Brothers | 2 |
| CRGK23 | Formation House Scholasticate | 2 |
| CRGK24 | Saint Augustine Major Seminary | 1 |
| CRGK25 | Saint Lawrence Parish | 4 |
| CRGK26 | Deo Soli/Scholasticate | 0.25 |
| CRGK27 | Daughters of Wisdom | 0.08 |
| CRGK28 | Sisters Immaculate Conception | 7 |
| CRGK29 | Sisters Saint Joseph House | 0.32 |
| CRGK30 | Saint John Parish | 2.5 |
| CRGK31 | Blessed Isidore Bakanja Parish | 0.49 |
| CRGK32 | Blessed Anuarité Parish | 2 |
| CRGK33 | Deo Soli/Scholasticate 7th Plateau | 0.25 |
| CRGK34 | Comboni House | 0.49 |
| CRGK35 | Technical High School Mapendano | 7 |
| CRGK36 | The Moinnaux | 4 |
| CRGK37 | Mary Queen of Peace | 49 |
| CRGK38 | Christ the King Parish | 4 |
| CRGK39 | Saint Ignatius Parish | 3 |
| CRGK40 | Saint Joseph Artisan Parish | 20 |
Table A2.
List of species inventoried in the concessions of Catholic Religious Groups in three cities (Bukavu, Kisangani, Lubumbashi) of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). − = absent from town; + = present in town, Ex = Exotic, Na = Native, Hem = hemicryptophytes, Ge = geophytes, Ch = chamaephytes, Epi = epiphytes, Ph = phanerophytes, CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened, LC = Least Concern, DD = Data Deficient, NA = Not Applicable.
Table A2.
List of species inventoried in the concessions of Catholic Religious Groups in three cities (Bukavu, Kisangani, Lubumbashi) of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). − = absent from town; + = present in town, Ex = Exotic, Na = Native, Hem = hemicryptophytes, Ge = geophytes, Ch = chamaephytes, Epi = epiphytes, Ph = phanerophytes, CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened, LC = Least Concern, DD = Data Deficient, NA = Not Applicable.
| No. | Scientific Name | Family | Conservation Status | Life Form | Origin Status | Bukavu | Kisangani | Lubumbashi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Benth., 1842 | Fabaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 2 | Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile | Fabaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | − |
| 3 | Acalypha wilkesiana Müll. Arg., 1866 | Euphorbiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 4 | Agave americana L. | Asparagaceae | LC | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 5 | Agave attenuata Salm-Dyck, 1834 | Asparagaceae | NA | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 6 | Aglaonema commutatum Schott, 1856 | Araceae | NA | Hem | Ex | − | − | + |
| 7 | Albizia chinensis (Osbeck) Merr., 1916 | Fabaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 8 | Albizia gummifera (J. F. Gmel.) C. A. Sm., 1930 | Mimosaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 9 | Albizia julibrissin Durazz., 1772 | Fabaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 10 | Alocasia macrorrhizos (L.) G. Don, 1839 | Araceae | NA | Ge | Ex | − | − | + |
| 11 | Aloe arborescens Mill., 1768 | Asphodelaceae | LC | Ge | Ex | − | − | + |
| 12 | Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f., 1768 | Asphodelaceae | NA | Ge | Ex | − | − | + |
| 13 | Alternanthera brasiliana (L.) Kuntze, 1891 | Amaranthaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 14 | Amaranthus hybridus L., 1753 | Amaranthaceae | NA | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 15 | Annona muricata L., 1753 | Annonaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 16 | Annona senegalensis Pers., 1806 | Annonaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 17 | Anonidium mannii (Oliv.) Engler & Diels, 1901 | Annonaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 18 | Anthocleista schweinfurthii Gilg, 1893 | Loganiaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 19 | Antigonon leptopus Hook. & Arn., 1838 | Polygonaceae | NA | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 20 | Araucaria cunninghamii Aiton ex D. Don, 1837 | Araucariaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 21 | Archontophoenix alexandrae H. Wendl. & Drude, 1875 | Arecaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 22 | Aristaloe aristata Adrian Hardy Haworth, 1825 | Xanthorrhoeaceae | NA | Ge | Ex | − | − | + |
| 23 | Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg, 1941 | Moraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 24 | Artocarpus camansi Blanco, 1837 | Moraceae | NT | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 25 | Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam., 1789 | Moraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 26 | Aspidistra elatior Blume, 1834 | Asparagaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 27 | Asplenium nidus L., 1753 | Aspleniaceae | NA | Hem | Ex | − | − | + |
| 28 | Autranella congolensis (De Wild.) A. Chev. | Sapotaceae | EN | Ph | NA | − | + | − |
| 29 | Averrhoa carambola L., 1753 | Oxalidaceae | DD | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 30 | Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. ex J. C. Wendl., 1810 | Poaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | + | − | + |
| 31 | Bauhinia variegata Carl Von Linne, 1753 | Fabaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 32 | Begonia rex Jules Antoine Adolph Henri Putzeys, 1856 | Begoniaceae | NA | Epi | Ex | − | − | + |
| 33 | Bellucia pentamera Naudin | Melastomataceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 34 | Borassus flabellifer L., 1977 | Arecaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 35 | Bougainvillea glabra Philibert Commerson, 1760 | Nyctaginaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 36 | Breynia disticha J. R. Forst. & G. Forst., 1775 | Euphorbiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 37 | Caladium bicolor (Aiton) Vent., 1801 | Araceae | NA | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 38 | Callistemon citrinus (Curtis) Skeels, 1913 | Myrtaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 39 | Callistemon viminalis (Sol. ex Gaertn.) G. Don, 1830 | Myrtaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 40 | Cananga odorata Albert Schwenger, 1860 | Annonaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 41 | Canna indica L., 1753 | Cannaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 42 | Carica papaya L., 1753 | Caricaceae | DD | Ph | Ex | + | + | + |
| 43 | Cascabela thevetia (Pers.) K. Schum,1895 | Apocynaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 44 | Casimiroa edulis La Llave & Lex, 1825 | Rutaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 45 | Cassia siamea (Lam.) H. S. Irwin & Barneby, 1982 | Fabaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 46 | Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don, 1837 | Apocynaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 47 | Celosia cristata L., 1753 | Amaranthaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 48 | Cestrum nocturnum L., 1753 | Solanaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 49 | Chamaedorea cataractarum Mart., 1849 | Arecaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 50 | Chamaerops humilis L., 1753 | Arecaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 51 | Chelidonium majus L., 1753 | Papaveraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 52 | Chlorophytum comosum Jacques, 1862 | Asparagaceae | NA | Hem | Ex | − | − | + |
| 53 | Citrus aurantium L., 1753 | Rutaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 54 | Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck, 1765 | Rutaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | + | + | + |
| 55 | Citrus maxima (Burm.) Merrill, 1917 | Rutaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | + | + | − |
| 56 | Citrus reticulata Blanco, 1837 | Rutaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 57 | Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck, 1765 | Rutaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | + | + | − |
| 58 | Clerodendrum thomsoniae Balf., 1862 | Lamiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 59 | Clivia miniata William J. Burchell en 1815 | Amaryllidaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 60 | Cocos nucifera L., 1753 | Arecaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 61 | Codiaeum variegatum (L.) Rumph. ex A. Juss., 1824 | Euphorbiaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 62 | Coffea arabica L., 1753 | Rubiaceae | EN | Ph | Ex | − | + | + |
| 63 | Cola acuminata (P. Beauv.) Schott & Endl., 1832 | Malvaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 64 | Coleus amboinicus Lour., 1790 | Lamiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 65 | Coleus scutellarioides (L.) Benth., 1830 | Lamiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 66 | Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott, 1832 | Araceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 67 | Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev., 1919 | Asparagaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 68 | Cornus drummondii C. A. Mey., 1845 | Cornaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 69 | Cupaniopsis anacardioides (A. Rich.) Radlk., 1879 | Sapindaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 70 | Cuphea hyssopifolia Kunth, 1823 | Lythraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 71 | Cupressus macrocarpa Hartw., 1847 | Cyperaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 72 | Cycas revoluta Carl Peter Thunberg, 1782 | Cycadaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 73 | Cyperus alternifolius Carl von Linné, 1767 | Cyperaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 74 | Cyperus esculentus L., 1753 | Cyperaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 75 | Cyperus papyrus Linné, 1753 | Cyperaceae | NA | Ge | Ex | − | − | + |
| 76 | Dacryodes edulis [G.Don] H. J. Lam, 1832 | Burseraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 77 | Dianella ensifolia (L.) Redouté, 1802 | Asphodelaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 78 | Dieffenbachia seguine (Jacq.) Schott, 1829 | Araceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 79 | Dillenia indica (L.), 1753 | Dilleniaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 80 | Dodonaea viscosa Jacq., 1760 | Sapindaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 81 | Dracaena fragrans (L.) Ker Gawl., 1808 | Asparagaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 82 | Dracaena reflexa Lam., 1786 | Asparagaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 83 | Duranta erecta L., 1753 | Verbenaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 84 | Dypsis lutescens (H. Wendl.) Beentje & J. Dransf., 1995 | Arecaceae | NT | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 85 | Elaeis guineensis Jacq., 1763 | Arecaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | + | + | + |
| 86 | Entandrophragma candollei Harms, 1896 | Meliaceae | VU | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 87 | Epipremnum aureum (Linden & André) Bunting, 1964 | Araceae | NA | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 88 | Erythrina abyssinica Lam. ex DC., 1825 | Fabaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | + | − | − |
| 89 | Eucalyptus globulus Labill., 1800 | Myrtaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | + | − | − |
| 90 | Eucharis amazonica Linden ex Planch., 1857 | Liliaceae | NA | Ge | Ex | − | − | + |
| 91 | Euphorbia cotinifolia L., 1753 | Euphorbiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 92 | Euphorbia resinifera O. Berg, 1863 | Euphorbiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 93 | Euphorbia royleana E. Ursch et J. D. Léandri, 1954 | Euphorbiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 94 | Ficus benjamina L., 1767 | Moraceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 95 | Ficus mucuso Welw. ex Ficalho, 1884 | Moraceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 96 | Ficus vallis-choudae Delile, 1843 | Marantaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 97 | Fragaria vesca L., 1753 | Rosaceae | LC | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 98 | Goeppertia makoyana (É.Morren) Borchs. & S. Suárez, 2012 | Marantaceae | NA | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 99 | Goeppertia zebrina (Sims) Nees, 1831 | Marantaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 100 | Graptophyllum balansae Heine, 1976 | Acanthaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 101 | Grevillea robusta A.Cunn. ex R. Br., 1830 | Proteaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | + | + | − |
| 102 | Harungana madagascariensis Lam. ex Poir., 1804 | Hypericaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 103 | Hemerocallis fulva (L.) L., 1762 | Asphodelaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 104 | Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A. Juss.) Mull. Arg., 1865 | Euphorbiaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 105 | Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L., 1753 | Malvaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 106 | Hibiscus tiliaceus L., 1753 | Malvaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 107 | Hydrocotyle verticillata Thunb., 1798 | Araliaceae | LC | Ge | Ex | − | − | + |
| 108 | Hymenocallis littoralis (Jacq.) Salisb., 1812 | Amaryllidaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 109 | Hyophorbe lagenicaulis (L. H. Bailey) H. E. Moore, 1976 | Arecaceae | CR | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 110 | Ipomoea indica (Burm.) Merr., 1917 | Convolvulaceae | DD | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 111 | Iresine diffusa Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd., 1806 | Amaranthaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 112 | Iris pseudacorus L., 1753 | Iridaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 113 | Jacaranda mimosifolia D. Don, 1822 | Bignoniaceae | VU | Ph | Ex | + | − | − |
| 114 | Kalanchoe daigremontiana Raym.-Hamet & H. Perrier, 1914 | Crassulaceae | EN | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 115 | Lagerstroemia indica L., 1759 | Lythraceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 116 | Lannea discolor (Sond.) Engl., | Anacardiaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | + | − | − |
| 117 | Lantana camara L., 1753 s.s. | Verbenaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 118 | Lavandula angustifolia Mill., 1768 | Lamiaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 119 | Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) De Wit, 1961 | Fabaceae | CR | Ph | Ex | + | + | + |
| 120 | Leucanthemum maximum (Ramond) DC., 1837 | Asteraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 121 | Ligustrum sinense Lour., 1790 | Oleaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 122 | Liriope muscari (Decne.) L. H. Bailey, 1929 | Asparagaceae | NA | Ge | Ex | − | − | + |
| 123 | Livistona chinensis (Jacq.) R. Br. ex Mart., 1838 | Arecaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 124 | Malus domestica (Suckow) Borkh., 1803 | Rosaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | + | − | − |
| 125 | Malvaviscus arboreus Cav., 1787 | Malvaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 126 | Mangifera indica L., 1753 | Anacardiaceae | DD | Ph | Ex | + | + | + |
| 127 | Manihot esculenta Crantz, 1766 | Euphorbiaceae | DD | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 128 | Markhamia lutea (Benth.) K. Schum. | Bignoniaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | + | − | − |
| 129 | Melissa officinalis L., 1753 | Lamiaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 130 | Milicia excelsa (Welw.) C. C. Berg, 1982 | Moraceae | NT | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 131 | Millettia laurentii De Wild | Fabaceae | EN | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 132 | Millettia novo-guineensis Kaneh. & Hatus. | Fabaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 133 | Monstera deliciosa, Liebn., 1849 | Araceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 134 | Moringa oleifera Lam. | Moringaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | + | + | − |
| 135 | Morus alba L., 1753 | Moraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 136 | Musa acuminata Colla, 1820 | Musaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | + |
| 137 | Musa basjoo Siebold ex Iinuma, 1830 | Musaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 138 | Musanga cecropioides R. Br. ex Tedlie, 1819 | Urticaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 139 | Myrianthus arboreus P. Beauv., 1804–1805 | Cecropiaceae | LC | Ph | Na | − | + | − |
| 140 | Nephrolepis cordifolia (L.) C. Presl, 1836 | Nephrolepidaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 141 | Nephrolepis exaltata (L.) Schott, 1834 | Nephrolepidaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 142 | Nerium oleander L., 1753 | Apocynaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 143 | Newbouldia laevis (P. Beauv.) Seem. | Bignoniaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 144 | Olea europaea L., 1753 | Oleaceae | DD | Ph | Ex | + | − | − |
| 145 | Oxalis griffithii Edgew. & Hook.f. | Oxalidaceae | NA | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 146 | Passiflora edulis Sims, 1818 | Passifloraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 147 | Peltandra virginica (Linnaeus) Schott & Endlicher | Araceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 148 | Peperomia obtusifolia (L.) A. Dietr., 1831 | Piperaceae | NA | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 149 | Persea americana Mill., 1768 | Lauraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | + | + | + |
| 150 | Persicaria microcephala Seikei Zusetsu, 1804 | Polygonaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 151 | Petersianthus macrocarpus (P. Beauv.) Liben | Lecythidaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 152 | Petunia sp Wijsman, 1990 | Solanaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 153 | Phoenix canariensis Chabaud, 1882 | Arecaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 154 | Phyllostachys viridiglaucescens (Carrière) Rivière & C. Rivière, 1878 | Poaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 155 | Pinellia pedatisecta Schott | Araceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 156 | Pinus patula Schltdl. & Cham., 1831 | Pinaceae | VU | Ph | Ex | + | − | − |
| 157 | Pittosporum tobira (Murray) W. T. Aiton | Pittosporaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 158 | Plumeria rubra L., 1753 | Apocynaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | + |
| 159 | Polyscias scutellaria (Burm.f.) Fosberg, 1948 | Araliaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 160 | Prunus caroliniana (Mill.) Aiton | Rosaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 161 | Prunus domestica L., 1753 | Rosaceae | DD | Ph | Ex | + | + | − |
| 162 | Pseudospondias microcarpa (A. Rich.) Engl., 1883 | Anacardiaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 163 | Psidium guajava L., 1753 | Myrtaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | + | + | + |
| 164 | Pteris vittata L., 1753 | Pteridaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 165 | Pycnanthus angolensis (Welw.) Warb. Notizbl. Königl. Bot. Gart, 1895 | Myristicaceae | LC | Ph | Na | − | + | − |
| 166 | Ravenala madagascariensis Sonn., 1782 | Strelitziaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | − |
| 167 | Ribes aureum Pursh, 1813 | Grossulariaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 168 | Ricinodendron heudelotii (Baill.) Pierre ex Heckel, 1898 | Euphorbiaceae | LC | Ph | Na | − | − | + |
| 169 | Rosa multiflora Thunb., 1784 | Rosaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 170 | Rosa chinensis Jacq., 1768 | Rosaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 171 | Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. Cook, 1900 | Arecaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 172 | Rudbeckia laciniata L., 1753 | Asteraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 173 | Ruellia simplex C. Wright, 1870 | Acanthaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 174 | Sabal palmetto (Walter) Lodd. ex Schult. & Schult.f., 1830 | Arecaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 175 | Saccharum officinarum L., 1753 | Poaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 176 | Saintpaulia ionantha Rubra, 1896 | Gesneriaceae | VU | Ge | Ex | − | − | + |
| 177 | Salix alba L., 1753 | Salicaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 178 | Sambucus canadensis L., 1753 | Adoxaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 179 | Sanchezia speciosa Leonard, 1926 | Acanthaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 180 | Sansevieria trifasciata Prain 1903 | Asparagaceae | NA | Ge | Ex | − | − | + |
| 181 | Schefflera arboricola (Hayata) Merr. | Araliaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 182 | Senna occidentalis (L.) Link, 1829 | Fabaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 183 | Senna siamea (Lam.) H. S. Irwin & Barneby, 1982 | Fabaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | + | − | − |
| 184 | Spathiphyllum wallisii Regel, 1877 | Araceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 185 | Spathodea campanulata P. Beauv., 1805 | Bignoniaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 186 | Sphagneticola trilobata (L.) Pruski, 1996 | Asteraceae | NA | Ch | Ex | + | − | − |
| 187 | Spondias dulcis Parkinson, 1773 | Anacardiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 188 | Spondias mombin L., 1753 | Anacardiaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 189 | Strelitzia reginae Banks, 1788 | Strelitziaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 190 | Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cham.) Glassman, 1968 | Arecaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 191 | Symphyotrichum novi-belgii (L.) G. L. Nesom, 1995 | Asteraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 192 | Symphyotrichum salignum (Willd.) G.L.Nesom, 1995 | Asteraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 193 | Syngonium podophyllum Schott, 1851 | Araceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 194 | Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels, 1912 | Lamiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 195 | Syzygium jambos (L.) Alston, 1931 | Lamiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 196 | Syzygium manii (King) N. P. Balakrishnan | Lamiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 197 | Tabernaemontana divaricata (L.) R. Br. ex Roem. & Schult., 1819 | Apocynaceae | NA | Hem | Ex | − | − | + |
| 198 | Tagetes erecta L., 1753 | Asteraceae | NA | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 199 | Tectona grandis L.f., 1782 | Lamiaceae | EN | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 200 | Terminalia catappa L., 1767 | Combretaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | + | + | + |
| 201 | Terminalia ivorensis A. Chev., 1909 | Combretaceae | VU | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 202 | Terminalia superba Engl. & Diels, 1899 | Combretaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 203 | Theobroma cacao L., 1753 | Malvaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 204 | Thyrsacanthus tubaeformis (Bertol.) Nees, 1847 | Acanthaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 205 | Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A. Gray, 1883 | Asteraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 206 | Tradescantia fluminensis Vell., 1829 | Commelinaceae | NA | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 207 | Tradescantia pallida (Rose) D. R. Hunt, 1976 | Commelinaceae | NA | Ch | Ex | − | − | + |
| 208 | Tradescantia zebrina hort. ex Bosse, 1849 | Commelinaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 209 | Treculia africana Decne. ex Trécul | Moraceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 210 | Uapaca esculenta A. Chev. ex Aubrév. & Leandri | Phyllanthaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 211 | Umbellularia californica (Hook. & Arn.) Nutt., 1842 | Lauraceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 212 | Vachellia karroo (Hayne) Banfi & Galasso | Fabaceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 213 | Vernonia amygdalina Delile | Asteraceae | NA | Ph | Na | − | + | − |
| 214 | Vitex trifolia L., 1753 | Lamiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | + | − |
| 215 | Volkameria inermis L., 1753 | Lamiaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 216 | Yucca gigantea Lem., 1859 | Asparagaceae | DD | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 217 | Zamioculcas zamiifolia (Lodd.) Engl., 1905 | Araceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 218 | Zantedeschia aethiopica (L.) Spreng., 1826 | Araceae | LC | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 219 | Zephyranthes longifolia Hemsl. | Amaryllidaceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
| 220 | Zinnia elegans Jacq., 1792 | Asteraceae | NA | Ph | Ex | − | − | + |
References
- Bogaert, J.; Vranken, I.; André, M. Anthropogenic Effects in Landscapes: Historical Context and Spatial Pattern. In Biocultural Landscapes; Hong, S.-K., Bogaert, J., Min, Q., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 89–112. ISBN 978-94-017-8940-0. [Google Scholar]
- Muteya, H.K.; Nghonda, D.-D.N.; Malaisse, F.; Waselin, S.; Sambiéni, K.R.; Kaleba, S.C.; Kankumbi, F.M.; Bastin, J.-F.; Bogaert, J.; Sikuzani, Y.U. Quantification and Simulation of Landscape Anthropization around the Mining Agglomerations of Southeastern Katanga (DR Congo) between 1979 and 2090. Land 2022, 11, 850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andre, M.; Mahy, G.; Lejeune, P.; Bogaert, J. Vers Une Synthèse de La Conception et Une Définition Des Zones Dans Le Gradient Urbain-Rural. Biotechnol. Agron. Société Environ. 2014, 18, 61–74. [Google Scholar]
- Gutu Sakketa, T. Urbanisation and Rural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review of Pathways and Impacts. Res. Glob. 2023, 6, 100133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suarez-Rubio, M.; Bates, P.J.J.; Aung, T.; Hlaing, N.M.; Oo, S.S.L.; Htun, Y.K.Z.; Mar, S.M.O.; Myint, A.; Wai, T.L.L.; Mo, P.M.; et al. Bird Diversity along an Urban to Rural Gradient in Large Tropical Cities Peaks in Mid-Level Urbanization. PeerJ 2023, 11, e16098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Urbanization Prospects The 2018 Revision. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/desa/2018-revision-world-urbanization-prospects (accessed on 4 October 2024).
- Damon, J. Peuplement, migrations, urbanisation: Où va la population mondiale? Popul. Avenir 2016, 728, 4–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, H.; Qiao, W.; Liu, J. Dynamic Feedback Analysis of Influencing Factors of Existing Building Energy-Saving Renovation Market Based on System Dynamics in China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogaert, J.; Biloso, A.; Vranken, I.; Andre, M. Peri-Urban Dynamics: Landscape Ecology Perspectives. In Territoires Périurbains: Développement, Enjeux et Perspectives dans les Pays du Sud; Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux: Gembloux, Belgium, 2015; pp. 63–73. ISBN 978-2-87016-136-4. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, H.; Zhuo, L.; Li, Z.; Ji, X.; Wu, P. Effects of Multidimensional Urbanisation on Water Footprint Self-Sufficiency of Staple Crops in China. J. Hydrol. 2023, 618, 129275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Power, A.L.; Tennant, R.K.; Jones, R.T.; Tang, Y.; Du, J.; Worsley, A.T.; Love, J. Monitoring Impacts of Urbanisation and Industrialisation on Air Quality in the Anthropocene Using Urban Pond Sediments. Front. Earth Sci. 2018, 6, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Useni Sikuzani, Y.; Malaisse, F.; Cabala Kaleba, S.; Kalumba Mwanke, A.; Yamba, A.M.; Nkuku Khonde, C.; Bogaert, J.; Munyemba Kankumbi, F. Tree Diversity and Structure on Green Space of Urban and Peri-Urban Zones: The Case of Lubumbashi City in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 41, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdulai, I.; Osumanu, I. How Urbanisation Shapes Availability of Provisioning Ecosystem Services in Peri-Urban Ghana. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2023, 15, 282–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraemer, R.; Kabisch, N. Parks Under Stress: Air Temperature Regulation of Urban Green Spaces Under Conditions of Drought and Summer Heat. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 849965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Fang, C.; Li, Y.; Wang, Z.; Sun, S.; He, S.; Qi, W.; Bao, C.; Ma, H.; Fan, Y.; et al. Global Impacts of Future Urban Expansion on Terrestrial Vertebrate Diversity. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Threlfall, C.; Mata, L.; Mackie, J.; Hahs, A.; Stork, N.; Williams, N.; Livesley, S. Increasing Biodiversity in Urban Green Spaces through Simple Vegetation Interventions. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 1874–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, E.J. L’avenir de La Foresterie Urbaine dans les Pays en Développement: Un Document de Réflexion. Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/t1680f/t1680f00.htm (accessed on 4 October 2024).
- Aram, F.; Higueras Garcia, E.; Solgi, E.; Mansournia, S. Urban Green Space Cooling Effect in Cities. Heliyon 2019, 5, 1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmental Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities ‘Just Green Enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kothencz, G.; Kolcsár, R.; Cabrera-Barona, P.; Szilassi, P. Urban Green Space Perception and Its Contribution to Well-Being. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kondo, M.C.; Fluehr, J.M.; McKeon, T.; Branas, C.C. Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilma, G.; Derero, A. Carbon Stock and Woody Species Diversity Patterns in Church Forests along Church Age Gradient in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Urban Ecosyst. 2020, 23, 971–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neal, S.; Bennett, K.; Jones, H.; Cochrane, A.; Mohan, G. Multiculture and Public Parks: Researching Super-Diversity and Attachment in Public Green Space. Popul. Space Place 2015, 21, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.; Sun, F.; Che, Y. Public Green Spaces and Human Wellbeing: Mapping the Spatial Inequity and Mismatching Status of Public Green Space in the Central City of Shanghai. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 27, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, H. Characterizing the Inequalities in Urban Public Green Space Provision in Shenzhen, China. Habitat Int. 2016, 56, 176–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Huang, Y.; Ma, X. Evaluation of the Accessible Urban Public Green Space at the Community-Scale with the Consideration of Temporal Accessibility and Quality. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 131, 108231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Y.; Li, Z.; Webster, C. Estimating the Mediate Effect of Privately Green Space on the Relationship between Urban Public Green Space and Property Value: Evidence from Shanghai, China. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poortinga, W.; Bird, N.; Hallingberg, B.; Phillips, R.; Williams, D. The Role of Perceived Public and Private Green Space in Subjective Health and Wellbeing during and after the First Peak of the COVID-19 Outbreak. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 211, 104092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanson, H.I.; Eckberg, E.; Widenberg, M.; Alkan Olsson, J. Gardens’ Contribution to People and Urban Green Space. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 63, 127198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hutt-Taylor, K. Assessing Urban Tree Taxonomic Diversity, Composition and Structure Across Public and Private Green Space Types: A Community-Based Tree Inventory. Master’s Thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Useni Sikuzani, Y.U.; Kalonda, B.K.; Mukenza, M.M.; Mleci, J.Y.; Kalenga, A.M.; Malaisse, F.; Bogaert, J. Exploring Floristic Diversity, Propagation Patterns and Plant Functions in Domestic Gardens Across Urban Planning Gradient in Lubumbashi, DR Congo. Ecologies 2024, 5, 512–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lubbe, C.S.; Siebert, S.J.; Cilliers, S.S. Floristic Analysis of Domestic Gardens in the Tlokwe City Municipality, South Africa. Bothalia 2011, 41, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Kofahi, S.D.; Al-Kafawin, A.M.; Al-Gharaibeh, M.M. Investigating Domestic Gardens Landscape Plant Diversity, Implications for Valuable Plant Species Conservation. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 26, 21259–21279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Useni Sikuzani, Y.; Mpibwe Kalenga, A.; Yona Mleci, J.; N’Tambwe Nghonda, D.; Malaisse, F.; Bogaert, J. Assessment of Street Tree Diversity, Structure and Protection in Planned and Unplanned Neighborhoods of Lubumbashi City (DR Congo). Sustainability 2022, 14, 3830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musanganya, D. La Matrice Intellectuelle du Catholicisme Social Face à l’Etat Faible au Congo ( RDC) Entre 1990 et 2018. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Paris-Est, Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- André, G.; Poncelet, M. Héritage Colonial et Appropriation Du Pouvoir d’éduquer. Approche Socio-Historique Du Champ de l’éducation Primaire En RDC. Cah. Rech. léducation Savoirs 2013, 2, 271. [Google Scholar]
- Kasangana, A.C. L’église Catholique et le Congo «Belge»: Approche Historico-Juridique des Relations Institutionnelles (1885–1960). Ph.D. Thesis, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Hounto, G.; Tente, B.; Yabi, F.; Yabi, I. Diversité et Connaissance Ethnobotanique Des Espèces Végétales de La Forêt Sacrée de Badjamè et Zones Connexes Au Sud-Ouest Du Benin. Rev. Sci. Tech. For. Environ. Bassin Congo 2016, 7, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaczyńska, M. The Church Garden as an Element Improving the Quality of City Life—A Case Study in Warsaw. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 54, 126765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistics of the Catholic Church in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in South Sudan as of 31 December 2021 (from the Central Office for Church Statistics). Available online: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2023/01/24/230124d.html (accessed on 4 October 2024).
- Subbotina, N. The Sustainable Development Goals and Catholic Social Teaching Perspective on Biodiversity in the Context of Protection of Forest Ecosystems in the Ukrainian Carpathians. Analecta UCU Ser. Theol. 2022, 9, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frascaroli, F. Catholicism and Conservation: The Potential of Sacred Natural Sites for Biodiversity Management in Central Italy. Hum. Ecol. 2013, 41, 587–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jerie, S. The Role of the Church in Sustainable Environmental Management in Zimbabwe: A Case Study of the Bulawayo Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church. J. Sustain. Dev. Afr. 2010, 12, 217–226. [Google Scholar]
- Hill, J.L.; Curran, P.J.; Foody, G.M. The Effect of Sampling on the Species-Area Curve. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 1994, 4, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cain, S.A. The Species-Area Curve. Am. Midl. Nat. 1938, 19, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savard, J.-P.L.; Clergeau, P.; Mennechez, G. Biodiversity Concepts and Urban Ecosystems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 48, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Les Jardins Comme Moyens d’Existence. Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/y5112f/y5112f00.htm (accessed on 4 October 2024).
- Tremblay, M.-H.; Simard, M. Les effets de proximité dans l’appropriation collective d’un grand parc paysager à saguenay. Vertigo 2011, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gueymard, S. Facteurs environnementaux de proximité et choix résidentiels. Dév. Durable Territ. Écon. Géogr. Polit. Droit Sociol. 2006, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakhraoui, N.; Metallaoui, S.; Chefrour, A.; Hadef, A. La flore exotique potentiellement envahissante d’Algérie: Première description des espèces cultivées en pépinières et dans les jardins. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2019, 23, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Population Review, DR Congo Cities by Population. 2025. Available online: https://worldpopulationreview.com/cities/dr-congo (accessed on 16 July 2025).
- L’insalubrité Publique et la Santé Environnementale Dans le District Sanitaire de Bukavu—ISDR BUKAVUISDR BUKAVU. Available online: https://isdrbukavu.ac.cd/produit/linsalubrite-publique-et-la-sante-environnementale-dans-le-district-sanitaire-de-bukavu/ (accessed on 4 October 2024).
- United Nations Conférence des Nations Unies sur le Logement et le Développement Urbain Durable: Habitat III|Nations Unies. Available online: https://www.un.org/fr/conferences/habitat/quito2016 (accessed on 4 October 2024).
- Vwima Ngezirabona, S.; Mastaki, J.-L.; Lebailly, P. Le rôle du commerce frontalier des produits alimentaires avec le Rwanda dans l’approvisionnement des ménages de la ville de Bukavu (province du Sud-Kivu). In Les Cahiers de l’Association Tiers-Monde n° 28-2013: XXVIIIes Journées sur le Développement “Mobilités Internationales, Déséquilibres et Développement: Vers un Développement Durable et une Mondialisation Décarbonée?”; Brot, J., Ed.; Association Tiers-Monde: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Balasha, A.M.; Murhula, B.B.; Munahua, D.M. Yard Farming in the City of Lubumbashi: Resident Perceptions of Home Gardens in Their Community. J. City Dev. 2019, 1, 46–53. [Google Scholar]
- Sêdami, A.B.; Naéssé, A.V.; Julien, D.; Firmin, A.D. Practice of Home Gardens (HG) in the Suburban Area between Cotonou and Ouidah in Southern Benin. J. Biodivers. Environ. Sci. 2016, 9, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
- Raunkiaer, C. The Life Forms of Plants and Statistical Plant Geography; The Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1934. [Google Scholar]
- IUCN. Guidelines for Species Conservation Planning: Version 1.0; IUCN: Cambridge, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-2-8317-1877-4. [Google Scholar]
- RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Available online: http://www.rstudio.com/ (accessed on 4 October 2024).
- Logan, M. Biostatistical Design and Analysis Using R: A Practical Guide, 1st ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-1-4051-9008-4. [Google Scholar]
- Pauline Vaissie, Astrid Monge, Francois Husson Factoshiny: Perform Factorial Analysis from “FactoMineR” with a Shiny Application 2015, 2.6. Available online: https://cran-e.com/package/Factoshiny (accessed on 4 October 2024).
- Magurran, A.E. Measuring Biological Diversity; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-1-118-68792-5. [Google Scholar]
- Subba, L.; Pala, N.; Shukla, G.; Chakravarty, S. Inventory of Flora in Home Gardens of Sub-Humid Tropical Landscapes, West Bengal, India. Int. J. Usufructs Manag. 2016, 7, 47–54. [Google Scholar]
- Regassa, R. Useful Plant Species Diversity in Homegardens and Its Contribution to Household Food Security in Hawassa City, Ethiopia. Afr. J. Plant Sci. 2016, 10, 211–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albuquerque, U.P.; Andrade, L.H.C.; Caballero, J. Structure and Floristics of Homegardens in Northeastern Brazil. J. Arid Environ. 2005, 62, 491–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samus, A.; Freeman, C.; Dickinson, K.; van Heezik, Y. An Examination of the Factors Influencing Engagement in Gardening Practices That Support Biodiversity Using the Theory of Planned Behavior. Biol. Conserv. 2023, 286, 110252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemessa, D.; Legesse, A. Non-Crop and Crop Plant Diversity and Determinants in Homegardens of Abay Chomen District, Western Ethiopia. Biodivers. Int. J. 2018, 2, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voelcker, B. Climate, Capital, and Colonialism: A Congolese Perspective. J. Clim. Resil. Justice 2023, 1, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabir, E.; Webb, E.L. Can Homegardens Conserve Biodiversity in Bangladesh? Biotropica 2008, 40, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stein, A.; Gerstner, K.; Kreft, H. Environmental Heterogeneity as a Universal Driver of Species Richness across Taxa, Biomes and Spatial Scales. Ecol. Lett. 2014, 17, 866–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idohou, R.; Fandohan, A.; Salako, V.; Kassa, B.; Gbedomon, R.; Yédomonhan, H.; Glele Kakaï, R.L.; Assogbadjo, A. Biodiversity Conservation in Home Gardens: Traditional Knowledge, Use Patterns and Implications for Management. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Manag. 2014, 10, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lepczyk, C.; Aronson, M.; Evans, K.; Goddard, M.; Lerman, S.; MacIvor, J.S. Biodiversity in the City: Fundamental Questions for Understanding the Ecology of Urban Green Spaces for Biodiversity Conservation. BioScience 2017, 67, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Souto, T.; Ticktin, T. Understanding Interrelationships Among Predictors (Age, Gender, and Origin) of Local Ecological Knowledge1. Econ. Bot. 2012, 66, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, B.M.; Nair, P.K.R. The Enigma of Tropical Homegardens. Agrofor. Syst. 2004, 61, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joscha, B.; Veith, M.; Hochkirch, A. Biodiversity in Cities Needs Space: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Determining Intra-Urban Biodiversity Variation. Ecol. Lett. 2015, 18, 581–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheiner, S.M.; Chiarucci, A.; Fox, G.A.; Helmus, M.R.; McGlinn, D.J.; Willig, M.R. The Underpinnings of the Relationship of Species Richness with Space and Time. Ecol. Monogr. 2011, 81, 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magurran, A. Measuring Biological Diversity; Blackwell Science Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2004; ISBN 978-0-632-05633-0. [Google Scholar]
- Rodrigues, P.M.S.; Schaefer, C.E.G.R.; de Oliveira Silva, J.; Ferreira Júnior, W.G.; dos Santos, R.M.; Neri, A.V. The Influence of Soil on Vegetation Structure and Plant Diversity in Different Tropical Savannic and Forest Habitats. J. Plant Ecol. 2016, 11, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sewagegn, G.B.; Abate, D.F.; Girma, Y.G. Woody Species Diversity and Carbon Stock of Church Forests along Age Gradient in Dangila District, Awi-Zone, Ethiopia. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumbrell, A.J.; Clark, E.J.; Frost, G.A.; Randell, T.E.; Pitchford, J.W.; Hill, J.K. Changes in Species Diversity Following Habitat Disturbance Are Dependent on Spatial Scale: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45, 1531–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentsi-Enchill, F.; Damptey, F.G.; Pappoe, A.N.M.; Ekumah, B.; Akotoye, H.K. Impact of Anthropogenic Disturbance on Tree Species Diversity, Vegetation Structure and Carbon Storage Potential in an Upland Evergreen Forest of Ghana, West Africa. Trees For. People 2022, 8, 100238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niklas, K.J. Life Forms, Plants. In Encyclopedia of Ecology; Jørgensen, S.E., Fath, B.D., Eds.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 2160–2167. ISBN 978-0-08-045405-4. [Google Scholar]
- Nguinambaye, M.; Nana, R.; Mbayngone, E.; Djinet, A.; Badiel, B.; Tamini, Z. Distribution et Usages des Ampelocissus Dans la Zone de Donia Au Sud Du Tchad. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2015, 9, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Useni Sikuzani, Y.; Malaisse, F.; Yona, J.M.; Mwamba, T.M.; Bogaert, J. Diversity, Use and Management of Household-Located Fruit Trees in Two Rapidly Developing Towns in Southeastern D.R. Congo. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 63, 127220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vijayakumari, J.; Prabha, V.S.; Rubi, J.; Raj, T.L.; Rayan, S. Floristic Diversity Assessment of Home Garden in Palayamkottai Region of Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu a Means of Sustainable Biodiversity Conservation. Int. J. Trend Sci. Res. Dev. 2019, 3, 1484–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersson, E.; Tengö, M.; McPhearson, T.; Kremer, P. Cultural Ecosystem Services as a Gateway for Improving Urban Sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, A. Linkages in the Landscape; The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Battisti, C. Ecological Networks as Planning Tools for African Fragmented Landscapes: Overcoming Weaknesses for an Effective Connectivity conservation. Afr. J. Ecol. 2024, 62, e13186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savary, P.; Lessard, J.-P.; Peres-Neto, P.R. Heterogeneous Dispersal Networks to Improve Biodiversity Science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2024, 39, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McIntyre, S.; Hobbs, R. A Framework for Conceptualizing Human Effects on Landscapes and Its Relevance to Management and Research Models. Conserv. Biol. 1999, 13, 1282–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battisti, C.; Frank, B.; Fanelli, G. Children as Drivers of Change: The Operational Support of Young Generations to Conservation Practices. Environ. Pract. 2018, 20, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeGeorges, P.A.; Reilly, B.K. The Realities of Community Based Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 2009, 1, 734–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battisti, C.; Cerfolli, F. From Citizen Science to Citizen Management: Suggestions for a Pervasive Fine-Grained and Operational Approach to Biodiversity Conservation. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 68, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Location of the three study cities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, along with dominant vegetation types: Bukavu (South Kivu), Kisangani (Tshopo), and Lubumbashi (Haut-Katanga).
Figure 1.
Location of the three study cities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, along with dominant vegetation types: Bukavu (South Kivu), Kisangani (Tshopo), and Lubumbashi (Haut-Katanga).
Figure 2.
Life-form distribution of plant species across all CRGs in the three studied cities. Values represent absolute species counts per city with the corresponding percentage in parentheses. Fisher’s exact test indicates a significant association between life form distribution and city.
Figure 2.
Life-form distribution of plant species across all CRGs in the three studied cities. Values represent absolute species counts per city with the corresponding percentage in parentheses. Fisher’s exact test indicates a significant association between life form distribution and city.
Figure 3.
Results of hierarchical ascending classification based on multiple correspondence analysis of species presence/absence data from CRGs in the three studied cities. Dendrograms show CRG clustering by species composition similarity, with clusters highlighted by frames. Bar plots depict the gain in within-cluster inertia at each dendrogram level, guiding the selection of cluster cut-off points.
Figure 3.
Results of hierarchical ascending classification based on multiple correspondence analysis of species presence/absence data from CRGs in the three studied cities. Dendrograms show CRG clustering by species composition similarity, with clusters highlighted by frames. Bar plots depict the gain in within-cluster inertia at each dendrogram level, guiding the selection of cluster cut-off points.
Figure 4.
Results of hierarchical ascending classification based on multiple correspondence analysis of family-level presence/absence data from CRGs in the three studied cities. Dendrograms show CRG clustering by similarity in family composition, with clusters outlined by frames. Bar plots display within-cluster inertia gains used to define clustering levels.
Figure 4.
Results of hierarchical ascending classification based on multiple correspondence analysis of family-level presence/absence data from CRGs in the three studied cities. Dendrograms show CRG clustering by similarity in family composition, with clusters outlined by frames. Bar plots display within-cluster inertia gains used to define clustering levels.
Figure 5.
Hierarchical clustering of CRGs from the three cities based on genera presence/absence data via multiple correspondence analysis. Dendrograms show clusters by similarity, with frames highlighting groups. Bar plots indicate inertia gain for cluster cutoff selection.
Figure 5.
Hierarchical clustering of CRGs from the three cities based on genera presence/absence data via multiple correspondence analysis. Dendrograms show clusters by similarity, with frames highlighting groups. Bar plots indicate inertia gain for cluster cutoff selection.
Figure 6.
Results of multiple correspondence analysis between the three cities studied on the basis of the composition of their CRGs in identified species, families, and genera.
Figure 6.
Results of multiple correspondence analysis between the three cities studied on the basis of the composition of their CRGs in identified species, families, and genera.
Figure 7.
Distribution of the number of plant species in the CRGs of each of the three cities studied. The values represent the absolute number of species identified in the CRGs by city. The result of the Fisher test reveals that the distribution of origin status depends on the city.
Figure 7.
Distribution of the number of plant species in the CRGs of each of the three cities studied. The values represent the absolute number of species identified in the CRGs by city. The result of the Fisher test reveals that the distribution of origin status depends on the city.
Figure 8.
Distribution of plant species conservation status for the CRGs of each of the three cities studied, according to the IUCN Red List. The values represent the absolute number of species identified in all CRGs per city. The result of the Fisher test reveals that the distribution of conservation status depends on the city.
Figure 8.
Distribution of plant species conservation status for the CRGs of each of the three cities studied, according to the IUCN Red List. The values represent the absolute number of species identified in all CRGs per city. The result of the Fisher test reveals that the distribution of conservation status depends on the city.
| City (Old Name) | Bukavu (Costermansville) | Kisangani (Stanleyville) | Lubumbashi (Elisabethville) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coordinates | 2°30′55″ S, 28°50′42″ E | 0°31′ N, 25°11′ E | 11°61′55″ S, 27°48′61″ E |
| Area (km2) | 60 | 1910 | 747 |
| Population (2025) | 1,369,430 | 1,546,690 | 3,061,340 |
| Altitude (m) | Mean: 1654 Min: 1422 Max: 2190 | Mean: 415 Min: 378 Max: 503 | Mean: 1259 Min: 1167 Max: 1411 |
| Climate Type | Tropical montane (BWh); dry season: May–August; rainy: September–April | Equatorial humid (Af); two rainy seasons; dry: Jan, July–August | Subtropical dry winter (CW6); rainy: November; dry: May–September |
| Rainfall (mm/year) | 1500–2200 | 1500–2000 | ~1200 |
| Temperature (°C) | 20.5 | 25 | 20 |
| Dominant Soil | Andosols (volcanic, clayey, permeable) | Ferralsols (sandy-clay soils) | Ferralsols (young, red ferrallitic soils) |
| Vegetation Type | Montane forest | Dense rainforest | Miombo woodland |
Table 2.
Dunn’s post hoc test results following Kruskal–Wallis analysis comparing the three cities (Bukavu, Kisangani, and Lubumbashi) for four CRG characteristic parameters. n indicates the number of CRGs surveyed per city. Within each parameter, values sharing the same letter (a or b) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). SD = standard deviation.
Table 2.
Dunn’s post hoc test results following Kruskal–Wallis analysis comparing the three cities (Bukavu, Kisangani, and Lubumbashi) for four CRG characteristic parameters. n indicates the number of CRGs surveyed per city. Within each parameter, values sharing the same letter (a or b) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). SD = standard deviation.
| Cities | Specific Richness | Number of Families | Number of Genera | Area (ha) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Total | Mean | SD | Total | Mean | SD | Total | Mean | SD | Total | |
| Bukavu (n = 20) | 9.2 a | 4.7 | 24 | 6.9 a | 3.0 | 15 | 8.7 a | 4.5 | 22 | 3.7 a | 5.0 | 74.6 |
| Kisangani (n = 40) | 12.1 a | 8.3 | 72 | 9.2 a | 5.1 | 36 | 11.5 a | 7.3 | 56 | 5.2 a | 8.7 | 209.4 |
| Lubumbashi (n =10) | 24.1 b | 10.8 | 152 | 17.9 b | 7.5 | 60 | 23.7 b | 10.6 | 137 | 1.1 b | 2.5 | 11.4 |
Table 3.
Families and genera of species within CRGs in the studied cities showing the three highest relative dominance (RD) values. RD is calculated as the ratio of the number of species within a family or genus to total species richness (Rs). * ‘All others’ indicates that remaining taxa share the same RD value in the respective city.
Table 3.
Families and genera of species within CRGs in the studied cities showing the three highest relative dominance (RD) values. RD is calculated as the ratio of the number of species within a family or genus to total species richness (Rs). * ‘All others’ indicates that remaining taxa share the same RD value in the respective city.
| Cities | Taxa | Parameters |
| Family | Relative Dominance | |
| Bukavu (Rs = 24) | Bignoniaceae | 12.5% |
| Fabaceae | 12.5% | |
| Rutaceae | 12.5% | |
| Anacardiaceae | 8.3% | |
| Myrtaceae | 8.3% | |
| Rosaceae | 8.3% | |
| All others * | 4.2% | |
| Kisangani (Rs = 67) | Fabaceae | 15.3% |
| Moraceae | 9.7% | |
| Anacardiaceae | 5.6% | |
| Myrtaceae | 5.6% | |
| Rutaceae | 5.6% | |
| Lubumbashi (Rs = 152) | Araceae | 8.6% |
| Arecaceae | 7.2% | |
| Asparagaceae | 6.6% | |
| Genus | Dominance relative | |
| Bukavu (Rs = 24) | Citrus | 12.5% |
| All others * | 4.2% | |
| Kisangani (Rs = 67) | Acacia | 5.6% |
| Citrus | 5.6% | |
| Albizia | 4.2% | |
| Ficus | 4.2% | |
| Terminalia | 4.2% | |
| Lubumbashi (Rs = 152) | Cyperus | 2.0% |
| Euphorbia | 2.0% | |
| Tradescantia | 2.0% | |
| All others * | 1.3% |
Table 4.
Taxa making up the CRGs of the cities surveyed with the three highest relative frequency values (Fr). Fr is the ratio of the number of CGRs in which the taxon is identified to the total number (n) of CRGs surveyed in the city.
Table 4.
Taxa making up the CRGs of the cities surveyed with the three highest relative frequency values (Fr). Fr is the ratio of the number of CGRs in which the taxon is identified to the total number (n) of CRGs surveyed in the city.
| Cities | Taxa | Parameters |
|---|---|---|
| Species | Relative Frequence | |
| Bukavu (n = 20) | Pinus patula Schltdl. & Cham., 1831 | 75.0% |
| Eucalyptus globulus Labill., 1800 | 70.0% | |
| Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck, 1765 | 65.0% | |
| Psidium guajava L., 1753 | 65.0% | |
| Mangifera indica L., 1753 | 60.0% | |
| Markhamia lutea (Benth.) K. Schum. | 60.0% | |
| Persea americana Mill., 1768 | 60.0% | |
| Kisangani (n = 40) | Persea americana Mill., 1768 | 82.5% |
| Elaeis guineensis Jacq., 1763 | 75.0% | |
| Mangifera indica L., 1753 | 67.5% | |
| Lubumbashi (n = 10) | Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev., 1919 | 80.0% |
| Musa acuminata Colla, 1820 | 60.0% | |
| Acalypha wilkesiana Müll. Arg., 1866 | 50.0% | |
| Carica papaya L., 1753 | 50.0% | |
| Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck, 1765 | 50.0% | |
| Codiaeum variegatum (L.) Rumph. ex A. Juss., 1824 | 50.0% | |
| Families | Relative Frequence | |
| Bukavu (n = 20) | Myrtaceae | 90.0% |
| Anacardiaceae | 75.0% | |
| Bignoniaceae | 75.0% | |
| Pinaceae | 75.0% | |
| Rutaceae | 65.0% | |
| Kisangani (n =40) | Arecaceae | 85.0% |
| Lauraceae | 82.5% | |
| Fabaceae | 77.5% | |
| Lubumbashi | Asparagaceae | 100.0% |
| Arecaceae | 90.0% | |
| Euphorbiaceae | 90.0% | |
| Lamiaceae | 80.0% | |
| Genera | Relative Frequence | |
| Bukavu (n = 20) | Pinus | 68.2% |
| Eucalyptus | 63.6% | |
| Citrus | 59.1% | |
| Psidium | 59.1% | |
| Kisangani (n =40) | Persea | 82.5% |
| Elaeis | 75.0% | |
| Mangirefa | 67.5% | |
| Lubumbashi (n = 10) | Cordyline | 80.0% |
| Citrus | 60.0% | |
| Musa | 60.0% | |
| Acalypha | 50.0% | |
| Carica | 50.0% | |
| Codiaeum | 50.0% | |
| Dracaena | 50.0% | |
| Tradescantia | 50.0% |
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Mukubu Pika, L.; Mugisho Mukotanyi, S.; Pyame Onyo, D.; Ndele, A.B.; Mobunda Tiko, J.; Bwazani Balandi, J.; Sambieni, K.R.; Meniko To Hulu, J.P.; Bastin, J.-F.; Meersmans, J.; et al. Plant Diversity of Concessions Held by Catholic Religious Groups in Three Cities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156732
AMA Style
Mukubu Pika L, Mugisho Mukotanyi S, Pyame Onyo D, Ndele AB, Mobunda Tiko J, Bwazani Balandi J, Sambieni KR, Meniko To Hulu JP, Bastin J-F, Meersmans J, et al. Plant Diversity of Concessions Held by Catholic Religious Groups in Three Cities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156732
Chicago/Turabian StyleMukubu Pika, Léa, Serge Mugisho Mukotanyi, David Pyame Onyo, Aloïse Bitagirwa Ndele, Joël Mobunda Tiko, Julien Bwazani Balandi, Kouagou Raoul Sambieni, Jean Pierre Meniko To Hulu, Jean-François Bastin, Jeroen Meersmans, and et al. 2025. "Plant Diversity of Concessions Held by Catholic Religious Groups in Three Cities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156732
APA StyleMukubu Pika, L., Mugisho Mukotanyi, S., Pyame Onyo, D., Ndele, A. B., Mobunda Tiko, J., Bwazani Balandi, J., Sambieni, K. R., Meniko To Hulu, J. P., Bastin, J.-F., Meersmans, J., Useni Sikuzani, Y., & Bogaert, J. (2025). Plant Diversity of Concessions Held by Catholic Religious Groups in Three Cities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sustainability, 17(15), 6732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156732
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
