Next Article in Journal
Non-Iterative Cluster Routing: Analysis and Implementation Strategies
Previous Article in Journal
Quantification of Heavy Metal Content in Anadara tuberculosa from the Gulf of Guayaquil Using ICP-OES: Assessing Marine Contamination
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/app14051705
applsci-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

Nature-Based Management of Lawns—Enhancing Biodiversity in Urban Green Infrastructure

by
Jan Winkler
1,
Grzegorz Pasternak
2,
Wojciech Sas
2,
Erika Hurajová
1,
Eugeniusz Koda
2,* and
Magdalena Daria Vaverková
2,3
1
Department of Plant Biology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
Institute of Civil Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159, 02 776 Warsaw, Poland
3
Department of Applied and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(5), 1705; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051705
Submission received: 10 January 2024 / Revised: 11 February 2024 / Accepted: 19 February 2024 / Published: 20 February 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Urban green areas have multifunctional benefits that may mitigate unfavorable health and ecological effects. Green areas represent important biodiversity hideouts in anthropogenic regions. Lawns are the most common elements of urban greenery, covering a considerable number of green areas in cities. The aim of this analysis was to gain knowledge on urban greenery and elaborate recommendations related to management that favors grass lawn biodiversity. The established working hypothesis is that the limited intensity of management in urban grass areas is reflected in the modification of their species composition, as well as their potential ecological functions. An experiment on the management of city lawns was conducted in 2010 (still ongoing). There are three lawn variants under different management methods: ornamental, city, and permaculture lawns. Vegetation was assessed using the method of phytocoenological relevés. The coverage values of the individual plant species were processed using multidimensional analysis of ecological data. The results showed that human decisions and activities affected the species composition of these grassy areas. There were 46 plant taxa found during the monitoring: 12 in ornamental lawn variants, 24 in city lawn variants, and 31 in permaculture lawn variants. Permaculture lawns with extensive management represent the most environmentally friendly variant with respect to biodiversity and soil moisture content. However, changes in species composition have raised questions regarding the extent to which they may perform other ecosystem functions. Increasing the intensity of lawn management has resulted in lower plant diversity. Extensive management alters the aesthetic value of lawns and creates spaces for species that may spread in urban environments.

1. Introduction

Cities are responsible for significant negative environmental, economic, and health issues, but they also hold the key to a greener economy and sustainable future. According to [1], protecting and restoring urban ecosystems is important for sustainable urbanization. Cities are key to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and there is a specific goal (SDG 11) for cities [2,3]. Urban green areas have multifunctional benefits that may mitigate unfavorable health and ecological effects [4,5,6]. They have several ecosystem functions, such as rainwater retention, urban heat-island effect mitigation, food supply, and air purification [5,7,8], particularly when they are located in the neighborhood of communication infrastructure [9]. Green areas are also important biodiversity hideouts in urban [10,11,12] and anthropogenic areas [13,14,15,16,17]. At present, lawns are the most common element of urban greenery, covering a considerable portion of all open green areas in cities (up to 70–75%) [18,19,20]. They have a positive impact on human life in cities [21,22,23,24]. However, it is crucial to emphasize that a lawn is a deliberately created plant community consisting of a variety of grass species, including numerous nonnative species [25,26]. These lawns are meticulously cultivated to attain the visually appealing aesthetic of a lush green carpet [27]. Lawns are often created in habitats that are strongly affected by humans; therefore, appropriate species compositions should be selected. Due to their unique microclimate and urban environment, the conditions in cities often deviate from natural ecosystems. As a result, it becomes necessary to explore plant species that may not be typical for the local area but have the ability to thrive and perform the expected functions within lawns. Moreover, lawn management depends entirely on humans. The presence of lawns is currently a topic of controversy due to the potential negative environmental impact caused by the extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as resource-intensive maintenance practices like frequent mowing, watering, aeration, and reseeding [28,29,30,31,32,33]. These anthropogenic factors alter habitat conditions, subsequently influencing the species composition of lawns. Additionally, lawns have the capacity to modify urban microclimates, facilitate rainfall infiltration, and contribute to increased biodiversity [10,34,35,36]. Predominantly, lawns play an aesthetic role [37]. Evergreen, dense, and compact lawns are highly appreciated, particularly in decorative parks, gardens, and flowerbeds [25,38]. Grass lawns are showcases in most Western European cities and are appreciated by most people in terms of culture and aesthetics [18]. However, these lawns require intense and expensive management [39]. The high costs of lawn management have raised questions related to their impact on the environment, particularly the carbon footprint associated with mowing and water usage [35,40,41,42]. Therefore, lawns with functions other than aesthetics represent an alternative. The shift in city lawn management practices, aimed at reducing their detrimental environmental impact, has given rise to the concept of permaculture [43]. Permaculture lawns or urban meadows are designed to require minimal human intervention while fulfilling various ecosystem functions. Urban meadows, characterized by natural, non-mowed green areas with or without flowering plants, serve as an alternative land cover to conventional mowed green areas. Although their establishment in urban areas is on the rise, they still constitute a small fraction of urban greenery [44].
Exploring polycultures of diverse plant species, including both grasses and dicotyledons, that can thrive and reproduce under traditional lawn management practices, presents an avenue for grass-lawn alternatives. The long-standing and consistent disturbances inflicted on grassland communities by human civilization have resulted in the development of vegetation specific to certain species. These changes in disturbance, driven by human activities, are also reflected in the composition of grassland communities [45]. The authors of [28] propose that polycultures consisting of grasses and native plant species represent relatively untapped resources with great potential for landscape applications.
Natural-based solutions refer to approaches that integrate green spaces and nature-based management practices into urban environments to address environmental, economic, and social challenges. Specifically, the focus is on using natural elements, such as vegetation and soil, to manage water, enhance biodiversity, mitigate urban heat islands, and improve air quality [35]. Nature-based management, particularly water management, involves the utilization of natural ecosystems and processes to regulate water flow, enhance water quality, and manage stormwater runoff. This can include strategies such as green infrastructure (e.g., green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavements), restoring wetlands and riparian zones, and promoting the infiltration and retention of rainwater within urban areas [20].
Therefore, understanding the impact of lawn management on urban herbaceous vegetation is crucial. This study addresses four research questions. First, what is the effect of lawn management intensity on the species composition of the urban herbaceous vegetation? We hypothesized that low-intensity lawn management would increase the species diversity and proportion of native plant species. Second, what is the effect of low-intensity lawn management on the representation of the sown plant species? We hypothesized that intentionally sown species can be suppressed by nature-friendly lawn management. Third, different lawn management practices alter the representation of plant species, which is indicative of habitat moisture. We hypothesized that intensive management would increase evaporation and alter habitat moisture conditions, which would also affect the representation of moisture-loving plant species and cause them to decline. Fourth, does lawn management influence the proportion of nonnative species? We hypothesized that nature-friendly lawn management would reduce the representation of nonnative plants. By investigating these research questions, we aim to enhance our understanding of the impact of lawn management in urban environments and its implications for the provision of ecosystem services within a city’s socio-ecological system.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

The Research and Educational Center—Water Center of the Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW) is located at the main university campus in the southern part of Warsaw in the Ursynów district (Figure 1).
The total project area is approximately 14,600 m2. The Water Center is comprised of an educational and research facility with a development area of approximately 2000 m2 and a total area of approximately 5600 m2 (Figure 2). The Research Center—Water Center has the dual objective of enhancing the quality of education and promoting ongoing research and development among academic staff. This includes improving research methods and techniques and implementing practical experiences in various applications. The Water Center comprises a model of a watercourse connected with trophic reservoirs, with its outlet in the ultimate water reservoir. A large area of the Water Center is covered with lawns.
One notable feature of the water center park is a model watercourse interconnected with trophic reservoirs, ultimately leading to a water reservoir. To complement this design, a significant portion of the park area is covered with lawns. One of the lawns serves as an example of natural-based solutions, highlighting the benefits of incorporating green spaces and nature-based management approaches into urban environments.

2.2. Characteristics of the Lawns

The experiment on the management of city lawns was initiated in 2010, with three distinct lawn variants being implemented, each employing different management methods. The specific management approaches for each lawn variant are as follows: (i) Ornamental lawn: This variant involves the cultivation of low-growing grass species under intensive management. Regular cutting is performed every 2–3 weeks during the growing season, with the cut biomass being removed. The lawn receives regular mineral fertilization and watering when precipitation is insufficient. (ii) City lawn: A city lawn represents the typical management approach found in most urban grass areas. It is mowed two to four times per year, depending on biomass growth. After mowing, the biomass is collected and removed, and neither fertilization nor watering is applied to the lawn. (iii) Permaculture lawn: This lawn variant follows a nature-based management approach that promotes semi-natural succession, with minimal human intervention. The grass stand is irregularly mowed once a year in the autumn. The cut biomass is left on-site, and the lawn receives no fertilization or watering. The management practices of permaculture lawns align with the long-term sustainability principles of the permaculture approach. By implementing these distinct management methods, this experiment aimed to assess the ecological and biodiversity outcomes associated with each lawn variant.

2.3. Methods of Vegetation Assessment

Vegetation was assessed using a remote sensor method. The study used the unmanned aerial vehicle DJI Matrice 600 with the multispectral camera Parrot Sequoia+. The camera allows images to be recorded in four spectral channels: green (GRE), red (RED), near-infrared (NIR), redge (REG), and RGB images in visible lights. The data collected allowed a visual assessment of the plants and an evaluation of plant health based on the chlorophyll index. The chlorophyll index allows the amount of chlorophyll in the green parts of plants to be determined. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), which is the most commonly used index due to its ease of calculation, was used in the study. The NDVI index is based on the ratio of the NIR and RED channels and is expressed by the Formula (1) [46]:
NDVI = (NIR − RED)/(NIR + RED)
where:
NIR—near-infrared band
RED—red band
Vegetation was assessed using phytocoenological relevés with as size of 2 m2. Four plots were surveyed for each lawn variant, on which vegetation was assessed in July 2020 and 2021. First, all taxa of plants that occurred on the phytocoenological relevés were identified, and then the aboveground biomass coverage was estimated for the respective taxa. The scientific names of the individual plant species were obtained from the Pladias database of flora and vegetation [47]. Based on the data from the Pladias database, plant species were classified into several groups according to the selected characteristics. The indicator value for moisture was expressed on an ordinal scale from 1 to 12, as defined by Ellenberg [48]. The values for the individual taxa were modified and extended by Chytrý [49].
The coverage values of individual plant species observed at each site were analyzed using a multidimensional analysis of ecological data. To determine the appropriate analytical method, the gradient length was assessed using segment Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA). Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was also performed. To assess statistical significance, a Monte Carlo test was employed, and 999 permutations were calculated. Data analysis was performed using Canoco 4.0, a computer program widely used for ecological data analysis [50].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Groups of Plant Species in Grasslands

There were 46 plant taxa found during the monitoring—12 of them in ornamental lawn variants, 24 in city lawn variants, and 31 in permaculture lawn variants. A representation of the identified plant taxa is shown in Table 1.
Lawns represent a prominent component of green areas worldwide, regardless of regional climate variations. Despite their prevalence, lawns have not received extensive research attention [18]. Various definitions of a ‘lawn’ exist, but in this context, they are defined as an artificially created or modified plant habitat characterized by predominantly grass species (technically referred to as graminoids). Additionally, lawns may also contain spontaneous herbaceous species commonly known as ‘weeds of lawn’ [27]. These so-called ‘weeds of lawn’ play a vital role in fulfilling important ecosystem functions that hold significance for urban greenery as well as the lawn plant community itself. It is essential to recognize that lawns are dynamic plant communities, with their species composition shaped by human influence [51,52]. According to a study by Ignatieva [53], Lolium perenne, Festuca rubra, and Poa pratensis comprise the basic species composition of lawns in central Europe.
In terms of human intervention, lawn plant species can be classified as (1) sown, (2) useful, (3) less suitable, and (4) undesirable. We assessed the criteria from a turf perspective only. Sown species are grasses that create basic and characteristic types of lawns. Useful species include leguminous plants that enrich the soil with nitrogen [54,55], thus supporting the growth of grasses and participating in improved rainwater infiltration into the soil [23,56]. Species that are less suitable for lawns are other dicotyledonous plant species, but only low-growth ones. Species that are undesirable for lawns are high-growth herbs or woody plants; that is, species that significantly alter vegetation characteristics [27]. The classification of the plant species in each category is presented in Table 1. Each species was assigned to only one group according to its predominant importance. The ratios in the representation of plant species groups based on their suitability for lawns are shown in Figure 3.
Sown species have the greatest cover contribution to cities and ornamental lawns. City lawns create a favorable ratio between sown grasses and useful species (family Fabaceae), which reduces their fertilization requirements (i.e., nitrogen). A considerably undesirable perennial species is Cirsium arvense with a sturdy root system, which occurs very unevenly. Therefore, local and targeted regulation is important.
Ornamental lawns have a lower contribution of useful species and a higher contribution of less suitable species. Although intensive management eliminates the occurrence of undesirable species, it also suppresses useful species (Fabaceae) and does not increase the contribution of the sown (grass) species. Our study indicates that intensive management significantly reduces plant species diversity and creates a category of species that can be characterized as ‘turfgrass weeds’. Species that are less suitable for lawns include Achillea millefolium, Bellis perennis, and Plantago lanceolata. Our results are in accordance with those of Abu-Dieyeh [57], who confirmed that the occurrence of turfgrass weeds is rare in lawns mowed to a small height. According to Watson [58], intensive lawn management decreases plant and insect biodiversity, whereas frequent low mowing decreases plant structure and composition by favoring low-growth annual plants or grasses and decreases flower resources for pollinators by removing higher flower structures. Additionally, the results obtained by Watson [58] suggest that frequent mowing resulting from aesthetic requirements may cause other aesthetic problems by facilitating the increased invasion of weeds and pests. Busey [59] and Norton [60] confirmed that intense mowing is an important factor that contributes to weed invasion in city lawns and meadows.
The studies performed by Chollet [51] indicate that lawns with low mowing frequency are characterized by higher plant biodiversity than green areas with high mowing frequency (+15% to 62%). Frequent mowing can only be tolerated by a few plant species, which may tolerate repeatable perturbations; thus, lawns are favored by ruderal species that are more tolerant to such perturbations [25].
The results indicate that mowing frequency is a key indicator of plant species diversity in urban spaces. This is in accordance with studies on semi-natural green areas, such as the study performed by Socher [61], who showed that mowing intensity had a greater impact on plant species richness than fertilization intensity in the analyzed green areas in Germany.
Permaculture lawns create space for the highest species diversity but also for undesirable species. In addition to common meadow plants, the species composition includes undesirable species of clearly ruderal or invasive character which spread in the landscape, such as Artemisia vulgaris, Calamagrostis epigejos, Cirsium arvense, Erigeron annuus, Lactuca serriola, and Solidago canadensis. The investigations performed by Bertoncini [62] have shown that surprisingly, less than 10% of species (seven species) noted on lawns in Paris represent invasive taxa. This is a relatively low amount, considering the common pattern observed in cities, which is usually about 15–20% of invasive species in urban and natural habitats.
The occurrence of Centaurea macrocephala (Figure 4) was also remarkable. The species was formerly cultivated as ornamental and its current potential to further spread in the built-up areas of towns and cities is high. Naturalized Centaurea macrocephala has been found in grass communities in the United Kingdom (UK). According to Hitchmough and Woudstra [63], sites yielding this species represent managed or abandoned gardens. Other localities where this plant is often naturalized are roadsides and the margins of railway tracks bordering suburban gardens. Regular botanic monitoring and targeted and local control would be adequate for the occurrence of these species. Permaculture lawns differ significantly in character from the aesthetic values of other variants. Therefore, this variant cannot be used at all sites determined for lawns.

3.2. Moisture Bioindication Using Dew Species and NDVI in Grasslands

Urban ecosystems present transformed soil conditions as well as a rapidly changing and often hotter microclimate, generating numerous barriers to fostering native plants, or even predicting which taxa may survive in such an environment [25]. Based on the indicative values for soil moisture content, it was found that the species occurring in the study had values ranging from 2 to 9. Species with an indicative value of 5 (indicator of fresh soils bound to soils with the average moisture content, missing in moist and frequently drying out soils) had a dominant share of coverage in all lawn variants. However, the permaculture lawn variants exhibited species with indicative values ranging from 7 to 9 (7, indicator of moisture content, bound to soils with a good water supply but not wet; 8, transition between 7 and 9; 9, indicator of wet soils, saturated with water and poorly aerated). Thus, the permaculture lawn variants indicated a sufficient amount of water in the soil. In contrast, these species were missing in the ornamental lawn variants where species occurred with an indicator value of 2; that is, species missing on moist soils up to species bound to dry soils. As this variant is irrigated, it should have sufficient water. Therefore, we can assume that intensive management will change the hydrological situation of lawns, facilitating the occurrence of drought-resistant species and suppressing the occurrence of moisture-loving species. The indicative values of the individual species are presented in Table 1. The representation of species groups according to their indicative values for moisture in the respective lawn variants is shown in Figure 5.
The NDVI index is based on the value of the contrast between the largest reflection (in the NIR band) and the absorption in the red band and contains in a range of values from −1 to 1. The value of the NDVI index increases as the reflection in the NIR band increases and the reflection in the red band decreases. A high value of the index corresponds to good plant health. The results of the analyses are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7.
The value of the NDVI index visibly differed between the three study areas. Statistical analysis of the study areas showed that the best condition was found in area (a) and the worst in area (b) (Figure 8).
According to the NDVI, the best condition for vegetation is the lawn of option a (ornamental lawn). Lawn vegetation that is frequently and regularly mowed can serve aesthetic purposes. However, this condition is provided by high external input (irrigation and fertilization). The species composition of the lawns with a higher proportion of species that tolerate drought in conjunction with irrigation suggests that water is likely to evaporate quickly.
The vegetation in variant b (city lawn) exhibited the worst conditions. Most lawn species respond to unfavorable conditions (drought and high temperatures) during summer dormancy. A higher proportion of species tolerating drought point to more intense evaporation. Vegetation limitations allow plant species to survive adverse summer periods. City lawns do not require external inputs but lose their aesthetic value in some seasons.
NDVI analysis also showed that the highest heterogeneity in vegetation conditions was in variant c (permaculture land). The heterogeneity in vegetation conditions is due to high species diversity and the presence of dead biomass. The low vegetation condition was found at sites with dead biomass left in place. New biomass grows at sites with good vegetation conditions. Species composition with a higher proportion of wetland species indicates conditions with limited water evaporation. The management applied to permaculture lawns is reflected in the high heterogeneity of conditions and is close to natural grassland communities.

3.3. Plant Species Diversity in Grasslands

The values of plant taxa cover recorded during monitoring were first processed using DCA analysis. The calculated gradient length was 3.25. Based on this calculation, the CCA was used for further processing. CCA defines the spatial arrangement of individual plant species and the monitored lawn variants. The results of the analysis were graphically expressed using an ordination diagram (Figure 9).
The results of the CCA analysis which was used to assess the degree of coverage of individual plant taxa were significant at a level of α = 0.001 for all canonical axes. Based on the CCA analysis, the found plant taxa can be classified into six groups (Table 1).
The first group (O) consists of species that prevailingly occur as part of the vegetation of ornamental lawns; that is, either poor competitors or those that are of annual character and gain ground only in low turfgrass. The second group of species (O/C) is represented by species occurring predominantly in ornamental and city lawns; that is, species less assertive against tall plant species and species that cope with regular cutting and removal of biomass. Plant species in the third group (C) tolerate regular cutting and do well under the lower competitive pressure of other species. Such species occurred predominantly in city lawn variants. The fourth group of plant species (C/P) was recorded particularly in city and permaculture lawn variants. These species were tolerant of regular cutting but was also capable of winning ground in competition with stronger species. The fifth group of plant species (P) dominated the permaculture lawns. These species were tolerant to extensive turfgrass management and were strong competitors. The sixth group of plant species (P/O) was recorded in ornamental and permaculture lawns. These species were tolerant to extreme variants and able to adapt to diverse environments. Different types of lawns under different management practices create different conditions that show a conspicuous change in the species spectrum of lawn vegetation. The consequences of human civilization activities have led to the development of a new plant community that changes and adapts to these activities [64,65,66,67,68,69].
Increasingly, more studies indicate how aesthetics and ecosystem values influence landscape management and public policy, especially in urban ecosystems [70,71]. Lawns are close to everyday human habitats and are thus one of the most affected by human design. Intensive management is indispensable when the aim is to achieve a uniform and idealized lawn [62]. However, considering the significance of these green areas to city residents, it is necessary to find measures that may reconcile the presence of human societies with biodiversity management. According to Tabassum [4], cities are significant repositories of biodiversity; therefore, it is imperative to create resilient urban green spaces in the face of climate and environmental change.

4. Conclusions

The conclusions drawn from this study highlight the dynamic response of urban grass vegetation to various anthropogenic management practices. This reaction manifests as altered plant species composition, leading to shifts in the function and perception of urban grass areas. The trends observed in our study can be regarded as being universally applicable.
Our results highlight the significant influence of human decisions and activities on the species composition of urban lawns. First, we found that management intensity directly affects species richness, with intensive management resulting in lower plant diversity compared to less intensive approaches. Second, nature-based management decreases the representation of intentionally sown plant species, facilitating the proliferation of undesired species that can alter the aesthetic appeal of lawns and potentially spread in the urban environment.
Third, intensive management practices exacerbate evaporation and surface drying, favoring drought-resistant species over moisture-loving ones. This shift in favorability towards certain plant types, such as grasses and drought-resistant species, comes at the expense of legumes and other high-growth plants. Notably, our analysis of permaculture lawns revealed high vegetation heterogeneity, suggesting differences in water regimes and potential reductions in evapotranspiration owing to the presence of dead biomass.
Furthermore, permaculture lawns managed with a nature-based approach exhibit the highest species diversity, including undesired species, surpassing the levels reported in the scientific literature. These undesired species, including neophytes and invasive species, underscore the complexity of managing urban grassy areas.
Given the pivotal role of lawns in urban ecosystems and their impact on biodiversity, achieving a balance between aesthetic appeal and ecological value is crucial. Our findings emphasize the urgency of developing resilient urban green spaces capable of adapting to climate and environmental changes while safeguarding biodiversity. Integrating nature-based solutions, such as permaculture lawns, offers sustainable alternatives for lawn management, and contributes to urban biodiversity conservation. Future research could delve into understanding human perceptions and preferences in shaping lawn management decisions and their consequent impact on biodiversity, providing valuable insights for sustainable urban landscape management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.W.; methodology, J.W.; software, J.W. and G.P.; validation, J.W. and E.H.; formal analysis, J.W.; investigation, J.W.; resources, J.W., W.S. and E.H.; writing—original draft preparation, J.W., G.P., W.S., E.H., E.K. and M.D.V.; writing—review and editing, J.W., G.P., W.S., E.H., E.K. and M.D.V.; visualization, J.W. and G.P.; supervision, W.S., E.K. and M.D.V.; funding acquisition, E.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in this article.

Acknowledgments

The first author is grateful to the Czech National Agency for International Education and Research (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic) for funding the scientific fellowship grant at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences SGGW at the Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Poland, which helped in the creation of this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Verburg, P.H.; Crossman, N.; Ellis, E.C.; Heinimann, A.; Hostert, P.; Mertz, O.; Nagendra, H.; Sikor, T.; Erb, K.H.; Golubiewski, N.; et al. Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective. Anthropocene 2015, 12, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Balaban, O.; de Oliveira, J.A.P. Sustainable buildings for healthier cities: Assessing the co-benefits of green buildings in Japan. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 163, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Benito, B.; Martínez-Córdoba, P.J.; Raimo, N.; Vitolla, F. Efficiency in environmental spending for sustainable development in Spanish cities. Local Environ. 2023, 28, 935–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tabassum, S.; Ossola, A.; Manea, A.; Cinantya, A.; Winzer, L.F.; Leishman, M.R. Using ecological knowledge for landscaping with plants in cities. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 158, 106049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kirby, C.K.; Specht, K.; Fox-Kämper, R.; Hawes, J.K.; Cohen, N.; Caputo, S.; Ilieva, R.T.; Lelièvre, A.; Poniży, L.; Schoen, V.; et al. Differences in motivations and social impacts across urban agriculture types: Case studies in Europe and the US. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 212, 104110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Uzonnah, O.E.; Chukwu, I.N.; Ibem, E.O. Influence of perceived social benefits on motives for visiting urban green infrastructure spaces in small and medium-sized towns in Southeast Nigeria. Cities 2023, 135, 104240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Petit-Boix, A.; Apul, D. From cascade to bottom-up ecosystem services model: How does social cohesion emerge from urban agriculture? Sustainability 2018, 10, 998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, Y.-C.; Chen, Z.-A. Water retention capacity and runoff peak flow duration of the urban food garden: A city-based model and field experiment. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 159, 106073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tang, A.M.; Hughes, P.N.; Dijkstra, T.A.; Askarinejad, A.; Brenčič, M.; Cui, Y.J.; Diez, J.J.; Firgi, T.; Gajewska, B.; Gentile, F.; et al. Atmosphere–vegetation–soil interactions in a climate change context; impact of changing conditions impacting on engineered transport infrastructure slopes in Europe. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 2018, 51, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mårtensson, L.M. Methods of establishing species-rich meadow biotopes in urban areas. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 103 Pt A, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yang, F.; Ignatieva, M.; Wissman, J.; Ahrné, K.; Zhang, S.; Zhu, S. Relationships between Multi-Scale Factors, Plant and Pollinator Diversity, and Composition of Park Lawns and other Herbaceous Vegetation in a Fast Growing Megacity of China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 185, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rahman, M.A. Optymalizing the spatial configurations of an urban open space: Syntactic analysis of the restored Hatirjheel Wetland, Dhaka. Acta Sci. Pol. Archit. 2021, 20, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pachuta, K.; Koda, E.; Wojarska, I. Flora and habitat conditions essential in landfills remediation with the use of plants. Sci. Rev. Eng. Environ. Sci. 2000, 20, 35–45. [Google Scholar]
  14. Koda, E.; Pachuta, K.; Osiński, P. Potential of plants application in the initial stage of landfill reclamation process. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2013, 22, 1731–1739. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bille, R.A.; Jensen, K.E.; Buitenwerf, R. Global patterns in urban green space are strongly linked to human development and population density. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 86, 127980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ragasová, L.; Kopta, T.; Winkler, J.; Šefrová, H.; Pokluda, R. The effect of the proportion of adjacent non-crop vegetation on plant and invertebrate diversity in the vineyards of the South Moravian Region. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Winkler, J.; Koda, E.; Červenková, J.; Děkanovský, I.; Nowysz, A.; Mazur, Ł.; Jakimiuk, A.; Vaverková, M.D. Green space in an extremely exposed part of the city center “Aorta of Warsaw”-Case study of the urban lawn. Urban Ecosyst. 2023, 26, 1225–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ignatieva, M.; Wissman, K.A.R.; Eriksson, T.; Tidåker, P.; Hedblom, M.; Kätterer, T.; Marstorp, H.; Berg, P.; Eriksson, T.; Bengtsson, J. Lawn as a cultural and ecological phenomenon: A conceptual framework for transdisciplinary research. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 383–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Halecki, W.; Stachura, T.; Fudała, W.; Stec, A.; Kuboń, S. Assessment and planning of green spaces in urban parks: A review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 88, 104280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Boas Berg, A.; Hurajová, E.; Černý, M.; Winkler, J. Anthropogenic ecosystem of green roofs from the perspective of rainwater management. Acta Sci. Pol. Archit. 2022, 21, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ignatieva, M.; Ahrné, K. Biodiverse green infrastructure for the 21st century: From “green desert” of lawns to biophilic cities. J. Archit. Urban. 2013, 37, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Starzyk, A. Pro-environmental architecture aimed at children—Future challenges, educational message. Acta Sci. Pol. Archit. 2020, 19, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chang, B.; Wherley, B.; Aitkenhead-Peterson, J.A.; Mcinnes, K.J. Effects of urban residential landscape composition on surface runoff generation. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 783, 146977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Luo, S.; Patuano, A. Multiple ecosystem services of informal green spaces: A literature review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 81, 127849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Castelli, K.R.; Silva, A.M.; Dunning, J.B. Improving the biodiversity in urban green spaces: A nature based approach. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 173, 106398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Baldi, D.S.; Humphrey, C.E.; Kyndt, J.A.; Moore, T.C. Native plant gardens support more microbial diversity and higher relative abundance of potentially beneficial taxa compared to adjacent turf grass lawns. Urban Ecosys. 2023, 26, 807–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ignatieva, M.; Eriksson, F.; Eriksson, T.; Berg, P.; Hedblom, M. The lawn as a social and cultural phenomenon in Sweden. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Simmons, M.; Bertelsen, M.; Windhager, S.; Zafian, H. The performance of native and non-native turfgrass monocultures and native turfgrass polycultures: An ecological approach to sustainable lawns. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 1095–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Smith, L.S.; Fellowes, M.D. The grass-free lawn: Management and species choice for optimum ground cover and plant diversity. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 433–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gu, C.; Crane, J.; Hornberger, G.; Carrico, A. The effects of household management practices on the global warming potential of urban lawns. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 151, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, Y.; Meng, W.; Yun, H.; Xu, W.; Hu, B.; He, M.; Mo, X.; Zhang, L. Is urban green space a carbon sink or source?—A case study of China based on LCA method. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 94, 106766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cameron, R. “Do we need to see gardens in a new light?” Recommendations for policy and practice to improve the ecosystem services derived from domestic gardens. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 80, 127820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kiraga, M.; Remer, A.M. Loss of river naturalness—Causes and cases. Acta Sci. Pol. Arch. 2023, 22, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gill, S.E.; Rahman, M.A.; Handley, J.F.; Ennos, A.R. Modelling water stress to urban amenity grass in Manchester UK under climate change and its potential impacts in reducing urban cooling. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fernandes, J.P.; Guiomar, N. Nature-based solutions: The need to increase the knowledge on their potentialities and limits. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 1925–1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Liu, S.; Zhao, J.; Xu, M.; Ahmadian, E. Effects of landscape patterns on the summer microclimate and human comfort in urban squares in China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 73, 103099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Barnes, M.R.; Watkins, E. Differences in likelihood of use between artificial and natural turfgrass lawns. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2022, 37, 100480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sehrt, M.; Bossdorf, O.; Freitag, M.; Bucharova, A. Less is more! rapid increase in plant species richness after reduced mowing in urban grasslands. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2020, 42, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chisté, M.N.; Mody, K.; Kunz, G.; Gunczy, J.; Blüthgen, N. Intensive land use drives small-scale homogenization of plant- and leafhopper communities and promotes generalists. Oecologia 2018, 186, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lerman, S.B.; Contosta, A.R. Lawn mowing frequency and its effects on biogenic and anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 182, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sikorska, D.; Macegoniuk, S.; Łaszkiewicz, E.; Sikorski, P. Energy crops in urban parks as a promising alternative to traditional lawns—Perceptions and a cost-benefit analysis. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Velasco, E.; Segovia, E.; Choong, A.M.F.; Lim, B.K.Y.; Vargas, R. Carbon Dioxide Dynamics in A Residential Lawn of a Tropical City. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Cameron, R.W.F.; Blanuša, T.; Taylor, J.E.; Salisbury, A.; Halstead, A.J.; Henricot, B.; Thompson, K. The domestic garden—Its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Griffiths-Lee, J.; Nicholls, E.; Goulson, D. Sown mini-meadows increase pollinator diversity in gardens. J. Insect Conserv. 2022, 26, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Winkler, J.; Mazur, Ł.; Smékalová, M.; Podlasek, A.; Hurajová, E.; Koda, E.; Jiroušek, M.; Jakimiuk, A.; Vaverková, M.D. Influence of land use on plant community composition in Vysocina Region grasslands, Czech Republic. Environ. Prot. Eng. 2022, 48, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zeng, Y.; Hao, D.; Huete, A.; Dechant, B.; Berry, J.; Chen, J.M.; Joiner, J.; Frankenberg, C.; Bond-Lamberty, B.; Ryu, Y.; et al. Optical vegetation indices for monitoring terrestrial ecosystems globally. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2022, 3, 477–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pladias. Department of Botany and Zoology Faculty of Science Masaryk University. Database of the Czech Flora and Vegetation. 2018. Available online: https://pladias.cz/en/ (accessed on 10 January 2020).
  48. Ellenberg, H.; Weber, H.E.; Düll, R.; Wirth, V.; Werner, W.; Paulißen, D. Pointer values of plants in Central Europe. Scr. Geobot. 1991, 18, 248. (In Germany) [Google Scholar]
  49. Chytrý, M.; Tichý, L.; Dřevojan, P.; Sádlo, J.; Zelený, D. Ellenberg-type indicator values for the Czech flora. Preslia 2018, 90, 83–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ter Braak, C.J.F.; Šmilauer, P. Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination; Version 5.0; Microcomputer Power: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  51. Chollet, S.; Brabant, C.; Tessier, S.; Jung, V. From urban lawns to urban meadows: Reduction of mowing frequency increases plant taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ignatieva, M.; Haase, D.; Dushkova, D.; Haase, A. Lawns in cities: From a globalised urban green space phenomenon to sustainable nature-based solutions. Land 2020, 9, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Knot, P.; Hrabe, F.; Hejduk, S.; Skladanka, J.; Kvasnovsky, M.; Hodulikova, L.; Caslavova, I.; Horky, P. The impacts of different management practices on botanical composition, quality, colour and growth of urban lawns. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 26, 178–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ball, K.R.; Baldock, J.A.; Penfold, C.; Power, S.A.; Woodin, S.J.; Smith, P.; Pendall, E. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen pools are increased by mixed grass and legume cover crops in vineyard agroecosystems: Detecting short-term management effects using infrared spectroscopy. Geoderma 2020, 379, 114619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rodriguez, C.; Carlsson, G.; Englund, J.-E.; Flöhr, A.; Pelzer, E.; Jeuffroy, M.-H.; Makowski, D.; Jensen, E.S. Grain legume-cereal intercropping enhances the use of soil-derived and biologically fixed nitrogen in temperate agroecosystems. A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 2020, 118, 126077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chen, H.; Chen, M.; Li, D.; Mao, Q.; Zhang, W.; Mo, J. Responses of soil phosphorus availability to nitrogen addition in a legume and a non-legume plantation. Geoderma 2018, 322, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Abu-Dieyeh, M.H.; Watson, A.K. Effect of turfgrass mowing height on biocontrol of dandelion with Sclerotinia minor. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2006, 16, 509–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Watson, C.J.; Carignan-Guillemette, L.; Turcotte, C.; Maire, V.; Proulx, R. Ecological and economic benefits of low-intensity urban lawn management. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Busey, P. Cultural management of weeds in turfgrass: A review. Crop Sci. 2003, 43, 1899–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Norton, B.A.; Bending, G.D.; Clark, R.; Corstanje, R.; Dunnett, N.; Grafius, E.K.L.; Gravestock, E.; Grice, S.M.; Harris, J.A.; Hilton, S.; et al. Urban meadows as an alternative to short mown grassland: Effects of composition and height on biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 2019, 29, e01946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Socher, S.A.; Prati, D.; Boch, S.; Müller, J.; Klaus, V.H.; Hölzel, N.; Fischer, M. Direct and productivity-mediated indirect effects of fertilization, mowing and grazing on grassland species richness. J. Ecol. 2012, 100, 1391–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bertoncini, A.P.; Machon, N.; Pavoine, S.; Muratet, A. Local gardening practices shape urban lawn floristic communities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hitchmough, J.; Woudstra, J. The ecology of exotic herbaceous perennials grown in managed, native grassy vegetation in urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 45, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hou, X.; Liu, S.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, X.; Cheng, F.; Dong, S. Interaction mechanism between floristic quality and environmental factors during ecological restoration in a mine area based on structural equation modelling. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 124, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jackowiak, B. Man-Made Changes in the Flora and Vegetation of Poland: Current Review. Diversity 2023, 15, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kompała-Bąba, A.; Sierka, E.; Dyderski, M.K.; Bierza, W.; Magurno, F.; Besenyei, L.; Błońska, A.; Ryś, K.; Jagodziński, A.M.; Woźniak, G. Do the dominant plant species impact the substrate and vegetation composition of post-coal mining spoil heaps? Ecol. Eng. 2020, 143, 105685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Uldrijan, D.; Kováčiková, M.; Jakimiuk, A.; Vaverková, M.D.; Winkler, J. Ecological effects of preferential vegetation composition developed on sites with photovoltaic power plants. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 168, 106274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Papadimitriou, F. Landscape stability, instability and civilization collapse. In Modelling Landscape Dynamics: Determinism, Stochasticity and Complexity; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2023; pp. 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Winkler, J.; Vaverková, M.D.; Havel, L. Anthropogenic life strategy of plants. Anthr. Rev. 2023, 10, 20530196221149120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Jackson, L.E. The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 64, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rippy, M.A.; Krauss, L.; Pierce, G.; Winfrey, B. Plant functional traits and viewer characteristics co-regulate cultural services provisioning by stormwater bioretention. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 168, 106284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 01705 g001
Figure 1. Location of the main campus and Water Center of SGGW.
Figure 1. Location of the main campus and Water Center of SGGW.
Applsci 14 01705 g001
Applsci 14 01705 g002
Figure 2. View of the Water Center of SGGW with the water park.
Figure 2. View of the Water Center of SGGW with the water park.
Applsci 14 01705 g002
Applsci 14 01705 g003
Figure 3. Lawn coverage shares by the groups of species suitability for lawns.
Figure 3. Lawn coverage shares by the groups of species suitability for lawns.
Applsci 14 01705 g003
Applsci 14 01705 g004
Figure 4. Photo documentation of Centaurea macrocephala identified at the Water Centre of SGGW.
Figure 4. Photo documentation of Centaurea macrocephala identified at the Water Centre of SGGW.
Applsci 14 01705 g004
Applsci 14 01705 g005
Figure 5. Lawn coverage share according to indicative values for moisture. Groups according to indicative value for moisture content: 2—transition between values 1 and 3; 3—missing on damp soil; 4—transition between values 3 and 5; 5—indicator of fresh soils, focus on soils of average moisture content, missing on wet soils and on soils that frequently dry out; 6—transition between values 5 and 7; 7—humidity indicator, focus on well-moistened but not wet soils; 8—transition between values 7 and 9; 9—wetness indicator, focus on often soaked, poorly aerated soils.
Figure 5. Lawn coverage share according to indicative values for moisture. Groups according to indicative value for moisture content: 2—transition between values 1 and 3; 3—missing on damp soil; 4—transition between values 3 and 5; 5—indicator of fresh soils, focus on soils of average moisture content, missing on wet soils and on soils that frequently dry out; 6—transition between values 5 and 7; 7—humidity indicator, focus on well-moistened but not wet soils; 8—transition between values 7 and 9; 9—wetness indicator, focus on often soaked, poorly aerated soils.
Applsci 14 01705 g005
Applsci 14 01705 g006
Figure 6. Orthophotomap with marked study areas (left). Spatial distributions of NDVI (right).
Figure 6. Orthophotomap with marked study areas (left). Spatial distributions of NDVI (right).
Applsci 14 01705 g006
Applsci 14 01705 g007
Figure 7. The lawn management variants in the Water Park and spatial distributions of NDVI (upper part): (a) ornamental lawn with intensive management; (b) city lawn with common management; (c) permaculture lawn with extensive management.
Figure 7. The lawn management variants in the Water Park and spatial distributions of NDVI (upper part): (a) ornamental lawn with intensive management; (b) city lawn with common management; (c) permaculture lawn with extensive management.
Applsci 14 01705 g007
Applsci 14 01705 g008
Figure 8. Histograms of the distribution of NDVI by area: (a) ornamental lawn with the intensive management; (b) city lawn with the common management; (c) permaculture lawn with the extensive management.
Figure 8. Histograms of the distribution of NDVI by area: (a) ornamental lawn with the intensive management; (b) city lawn with the common management; (c) permaculture lawn with the extensive management.
Applsci 14 01705 g008
Applsci 14 01705 g009
Figure 9. Relationships between the identified plant taxa and monitored lawn types (results of CCA analysis; F-ratio = 4.4; p-value = 0.001). Species Group O is indicated by purple font color and purple dots, Species Group O/C is indicated by green font color and purple dots, Species Group C is indicated by green font color and green dots, Species Group C/P is indicated by brown font color and green dots, Species Group P is indicated by brown font color and light yellow dots, Species Group P/O is indicated by brown font color and purple dots.
Figure 9. Relationships between the identified plant taxa and monitored lawn types (results of CCA analysis; F-ratio = 4.4; p-value = 0.001). Species Group O is indicated by purple font color and purple dots, Species Group O/C is indicated by green font color and purple dots, Species Group C is indicated by green font color and green dots, Species Group C/P is indicated by brown font color and green dots, Species Group P is indicated by brown font color and light yellow dots, Species Group P/O is indicated by brown font color and purple dots.
Applsci 14 01705 g009
Table 1. The list of identified plant taxa with the average cover and plant species classification in groups.
Table 1. The list of identified plant taxa with the average cover and plant species classification in groups.
Plan SpeciesAbbr.Lawn Variants (Average Cover %)Classification According to Groups:
Ornamental
Lawn		City LawnPermaculture
Lawn		Species Suitability
for Lawns		Moisture ContentCCA Analysis
Achillea millefoliumAchMill7.36.34.335O/C
Armoracia rusticanaArmRust 3.046P
Artemisia vulgarisArtVulg 0.73.045C/P
Bellis perennisBelPere6.7 35O
Bidens tripartitaBidTrip 0.339P
Calamagrostis epigejosCalEpig 5.045P
Carex hirtaCarHirt 1.31.736C/P
Centaurea macrocephalaCenMacr 3.74not
specified		P
Cichorium intybusCicInty 3.38.724C/P
Cirsium arvenseCirArve 6.02.345C/P
Convolvulus arvensisConArve 3.3 34C
Conyza canadensisConCana 0.7 34C
Cornus sanguineaCorSang 0.345P
Crepis mollisCreMoll3.00.70.734O/C
Dactylis glomerataDacGlom4.3 13.315P/O
Daucus carotaDauCaro 7.75.334C/P
Equisetum arvenseEquArve 4.346P
Erigeron annuusEriAnnu2.0 5.035P/O
Festuca arundinaceaFesArun 1.3 17C
Festuca pratensisFesPrat 16.715P
Festuca rubraFesRubr25.058.3 15O/C
Hypericum perforatumHypPerf 1.36.034C/P
Inula britannicaInuBrit 1.337P
Lactuca serriolaLacSerr 0.32.044C/P
Lolium perenneLolPere18.316.7 15O/C
Lotus corniculatusLotCorn 7.7 24C
Lythrum salicariaLytSali 1.749P
Medicago falcataMedFalc 2.023P
Medicago lupulinaMedLupu9.015.0 24O/C
Medicago sativaMedSati 4.06.724C/P
Phalaris arundinaceaPhaArun 16.748P
Plantago lanceolataPlaLanc10.77.0 35O/C
Poa pratensisPoaPrat 4.78.315C/P
Potentilla argenteaPotArge3.0 32O
Potentilla reptansPotRept 2.036P
Rosa caninaRosCani 1.044P
Rumex crispusRumCris 0.346P
Setaria viridisSetViri2.3 34O
Silene latifoliaSilLati 3.044P
Solidago canadensisSolCana 1.845P
Sonchus oleraceusSonOler 0.3 35C
Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum TarSect 10.04.335C/P
Trifolium pratenseTriPrat 7.7 25C
Trifolium repensTriRepe11.76.0 25O/C
Veronica maritimaVerMari 1.338P
Vicia craccaVicCrac 1.3 25C
Legend: Groups according to suitability for lawns: 1—sown species, 2—useful species, 3—less suitable species, 4—undesirable species. Groups according to indicative value for moisture content: 2—transition between values 1 and 3; 3—missing on damp soil; 4—transition between values 3 and 5; 5—indicator of fresh soils, focus on soils of average moisture content, missing on wet soils and on soils that frequently dry out; 6—transition between values 5 and 7; 7—humidity indicator, focus on well-moistened, but not wet soils; 8—transition between values 7 and 9; 9—wetness indicator, focus on often soaked, poorly aerated soils. Groups according to CCA analysis: O—group consists of species which prevailingly occurred as part of the vegetation of ornamental lawns. O/C—group of species occurring predominantly in ornamental and city lawns. C—group of species which occurred predominantly in the city lawn variants. C/P—group of plant species recorded particularly in the city and permaculture lawn variants. P—group of plant species which dominated in permaculture lawns. P/O—group of plant species recorded in the ornamental and permaculture lawn variants.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Winkler, J.; Pasternak, G.; Sas, W.; Hurajová, E.; Koda, E.; Vaverková, M.D. Nature-Based Management of Lawns—Enhancing Biodiversity in Urban Green Infrastructure. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1705. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051705

AMA Style

Winkler J, Pasternak G, Sas W, Hurajová E, Koda E, Vaverková MD. Nature-Based Management of Lawns—Enhancing Biodiversity in Urban Green Infrastructure. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(5):1705. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051705

Chicago/Turabian Style

Winkler, Jan, Grzegorz Pasternak, Wojciech Sas, Erika Hurajová, Eugeniusz Koda, and Magdalena Daria Vaverková. 2024. "Nature-Based Management of Lawns—Enhancing Biodiversity in Urban Green Infrastructure" Applied Sciences 14, no. 5: 1705. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051705

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