Linking yard plant diversity to homeowners’ landscaping priorities across the U.S

Josep Padullés Cubino; Meghan L. Avolio; Megan M. Wheeler; Kelli L. Larson; Sarah E. Hobbie; Jeannine Cavender-Bares; Sharon J. Hall; Kristen C. Nelson; Tara L.E. Trammell; Christopher Neill; Diane E. Pataki; J. Morgan Grove; Peter M. Groffman

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103730

Linking yard plant diversity to homeowners’ landscaping priorities across the U.S

Josep Padullés Cubino, Meghan L. Avolio, Megan M. Wheeler, Kelli L. Larson, Sarah E. Hobbie, Jeannine Cavender-Bares, Sharon J. Hall, Kristen C. Nelson, Tara L.E. Trammell, Christopher Neill, Diane E. Pataki, J. Morgan Grove, Peter M. Groffman

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

28 Scopus citations

Abstract

Residential yards contribute to human well-being and urban biodiversity. The structure, diversity, and composition of yard floras are largely determined by personal choices and landscaping priorities at local scales, but it is unclear whether these relationships hold across broader geographical areas. We investigated the relationship between homeowners’ criteria for vegetation and yard management choices, ecosystem-service based traits, and yard plant diversity (i.e., taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional) in 145 yards distributed across 6 major cities in the U.S. Individual priorities for a set of ecosystem services were collected with closed-ended questions and reduced into four main principal components using factor analyses: natural, neat, showy and low cost. Across cities, priorities for neat yards were negatively related to overall and spontaneous species richness. Priorities for showy yards were positively related to yard aesthetics (based on showiness of flowers, fruits and leaves for component plants) and spontaneous species richness. Homeowners that preferred low-cost yards had a significantly higher proportion of exotics, and yards with significantly lower functional diversity (i.e., a composite measure for plant height, seed mass, and specific leaf area). The proportion of natives was not related to homeowners’ priorities for natural yards and phylogenetic diversity was only weakly and negatively related to priorities for showy yards. Our study corroborates previous research showing that homeowners’ landscaping priorities are only partially related to their yard vegetation at the continental scale. The disconnection might be attributed to broader institutional, structural, and ecological constraints that prevent people's personal ideals and priorities from being realized.

Original language	English (US)
Article number	103730
Journal	Landscape and Urban Planning
Volume	196
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103730
State	Published - Apr 2020

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This research was supported by a series of collaborative grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Macrosystems Biology Program (EF-1065548, 1065737, 1065740, 1065741, 1065772, 1065785, 1065831 and 121238320); and additionally by grants from the NSF Long Term Ecological Research Program supporting work in Baltimore (DEB-0423476), Cedar Creek (DEB-0620652), Central Arizona-Phoenix (BCS-1026865, DEB-0423704 and DEB-9714833), Florida Coastal Everglades (DBI-0620409), and Plum Island (OCE-1058747 and 1238212) and. We are grateful to the botanical field teams involved in yard sampling: Charlie Davis, Dan Dillon, Erin Mellenthin, Charlie Nicholson, Hannah Saunders, Avery Uslaner, Emma Dixon, Roberta Lombardi, Pamela Polloni, Jehane Semaha, Elisabeth Ward, Aprille Curtis, La’Shaye Ervin, Bianca Bonilla, Stephen Hodges, Lawrence Lopez, Gabriel Sone, Chris Buyarski, Emily Loberg, Alison Slaats, Kelsey Thurow, Erin Barton and Miguel Morgan. We thank Anika Bratt and Noortje Grijseels for providing pictures of yards in Miami and Los Angeles, respectively. We also greatly appreciate the thoughtful and insightful comments provided by two anonymous reviewers. Appendix A

Funding Information:
This research was supported by a series of collaborative grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Macrosystems Biology Program (EF-1065548, 1065737, 1065740, 1065741, 1065772, 1065785, 1065831 and 121238320); and additionally by grants from the NSF Long Term Ecological Research Program supporting work in Baltimore (DEB-0423476), Cedar Creek (DEB-0620652), Central Arizona-Phoenix (BCS-1026865, DEB-0423704 and DEB-9714833), Florida Coastal Everglades (DBI-0620409), and Plum Island (OCE-1058747 and 1238212) and. We are grateful to the botanical field teams involved in yard sampling: Charlie Davis, Dan Dillon, Erin Mellenthin, Charlie Nicholson, Hannah Saunders, Avery Uslaner, Emma Dixon, Roberta Lombardi, Pamela Polloni, Jehane Semaha, Elisabeth Ward, Aprille Curtis, La'Shaye Ervin, Bianca Bonilla, Stephen Hodges, Lawrence Lopez, Gabriel Sone, Chris Buyarski, Emily Loberg, Alison Slaats, Kelsey Thurow, Erin Barton and Miguel Morgan. We thank Anika Bratt and Noortje Grijseels for providing pictures of yards in Miami and Los Angeles, respectively. We also greatly appreciate the thoughtful and insightful comments provided by two anonymous reviewers.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier B.V.

Keywords

Domestic gardens
Ecosystem services
Human values
Plant biodiversity
Socio-ecological systems
Urban ecology

Access

10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103730

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

Padullés Cubino, J., Avolio, M. L., Wheeler, M. M., Larson, K. L., Hobbie, S. E., Cavender-Bares, J., Hall, S. J., Nelson, K. C., Trammell, T. L. E., Neill, C., Pataki, D. E., Grove, J. M., & Groffman, P. M. (2020). Linking yard plant diversity to homeowners’ landscaping priorities across the U.S. Landscape and Urban Planning, 196, Article 103730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103730

@article{db7a2fb1b8c54ead92a1a6fe50e9d8e7,

title = "Linking yard plant diversity to homeowners{\textquoteright} landscaping priorities across the U.S",

abstract = "Residential yards contribute to human well-being and urban biodiversity. The structure, diversity, and composition of yard floras are largely determined by personal choices and landscaping priorities at local scales, but it is unclear whether these relationships hold across broader geographical areas. We investigated the relationship between homeowners{\textquoteright} criteria for vegetation and yard management choices, ecosystem-service based traits, and yard plant diversity (i.e., taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional) in 145 yards distributed across 6 major cities in the U.S. Individual priorities for a set of ecosystem services were collected with closed-ended questions and reduced into four main principal components using factor analyses: natural, neat, showy and low cost. Across cities, priorities for neat yards were negatively related to overall and spontaneous species richness. Priorities for showy yards were positively related to yard aesthetics (based on showiness of flowers, fruits and leaves for component plants) and spontaneous species richness. Homeowners that preferred low-cost yards had a significantly higher proportion of exotics, and yards with significantly lower functional diversity (i.e., a composite measure for plant height, seed mass, and specific leaf area). The proportion of natives was not related to homeowners{\textquoteright} priorities for natural yards and phylogenetic diversity was only weakly and negatively related to priorities for showy yards. Our study corroborates previous research showing that homeowners{\textquoteright} landscaping priorities are only partially related to their yard vegetation at the continental scale. The disconnection might be attributed to broader institutional, structural, and ecological constraints that prevent people's personal ideals and priorities from being realized.",

keywords = "Domestic gardens, Ecosystem services, Human values, Plant biodiversity, Socio-ecological systems, Urban ecology",

author = "{Padull{\'e}s Cubino}, Josep and Avolio, {Meghan L.} and Wheeler, {Megan M.} and Larson, {Kelli L.} and Hobbie, {Sarah E.} and Jeannine Cavender-Bares and Hall, {Sharon J.} and Nelson, {Kristen C.} and Trammell, {Tara L.E.} and Christopher Neill and Pataki, {Diane E.} and Grove, {J. Morgan} and Groffman, {Peter M.}",

note = "Funding Information: This research was supported by a series of collaborative grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Macrosystems Biology Program (EF-1065548, 1065737, 1065740, 1065741, 1065772, 1065785, 1065831 and 121238320); and additionally by grants from the NSF Long Term Ecological Research Program supporting work in Baltimore (DEB-0423476), Cedar Creek (DEB-0620652), Central Arizona-Phoenix (BCS-1026865, DEB-0423704 and DEB-9714833), Florida Coastal Everglades (DBI-0620409), and Plum Island (OCE-1058747 and 1238212) and. We are grateful to the botanical field teams involved in yard sampling: Charlie Davis, Dan Dillon, Erin Mellenthin, Charlie Nicholson, Hannah Saunders, Avery Uslaner, Emma Dixon, Roberta Lombardi, Pamela Polloni, Jehane Semaha, Elisabeth Ward, Aprille Curtis, La{\textquoteright}Shaye Ervin, Bianca Bonilla, Stephen Hodges, Lawrence Lopez, Gabriel Sone, Chris Buyarski, Emily Loberg, Alison Slaats, Kelsey Thurow, Erin Barton and Miguel Morgan. We thank Anika Bratt and Noortje Grijseels for providing pictures of yards in Miami and Los Angeles, respectively. We also greatly appreciate the thoughtful and insightful comments provided by two anonymous reviewers. Appendix A Funding Information: This research was supported by a series of collaborative grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Macrosystems Biology Program (EF-1065548, 1065737, 1065740, 1065741, 1065772, 1065785, 1065831 and 121238320); and additionally by grants from the NSF Long Term Ecological Research Program supporting work in Baltimore (DEB-0423476), Cedar Creek (DEB-0620652), Central Arizona-Phoenix (BCS-1026865, DEB-0423704 and DEB-9714833), Florida Coastal Everglades (DBI-0620409), and Plum Island (OCE-1058747 and 1238212) and. We are grateful to the botanical field teams involved in yard sampling: Charlie Davis, Dan Dillon, Erin Mellenthin, Charlie Nicholson, Hannah Saunders, Avery Uslaner, Emma Dixon, Roberta Lombardi, Pamela Polloni, Jehane Semaha, Elisabeth Ward, Aprille Curtis, La'Shaye Ervin, Bianca Bonilla, Stephen Hodges, Lawrence Lopez, Gabriel Sone, Chris Buyarski, Emily Loberg, Alison Slaats, Kelsey Thurow, Erin Barton and Miguel Morgan. We thank Anika Bratt and Noortje Grijseels for providing pictures of yards in Miami and Los Angeles, respectively. We also greatly appreciate the thoughtful and insightful comments provided by two anonymous reviewers. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019 Elsevier B.V.",

year = "2020",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103730",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "196",

journal = "Landscape and Urban Planning",

issn = "0169-2046",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Linking yard plant diversity to homeowners’ landscaping priorities across the U.S

AU - Padullés Cubino, Josep

AU - Avolio, Meghan L.

AU - Wheeler, Megan M.

AU - Larson, Kelli L.

AU - Hobbie, Sarah E.

AU - Cavender-Bares, Jeannine

AU - Hall, Sharon J.

AU - Nelson, Kristen C.

AU - Trammell, Tara L.E.

AU - Neill, Christopher

AU - Pataki, Diane E.

AU - Grove, J. Morgan

AU - Groffman, Peter M.

N1 - Funding Information: This research was supported by a series of collaborative grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Macrosystems Biology Program (EF-1065548, 1065737, 1065740, 1065741, 1065772, 1065785, 1065831 and 121238320); and additionally by grants from the NSF Long Term Ecological Research Program supporting work in Baltimore (DEB-0423476), Cedar Creek (DEB-0620652), Central Arizona-Phoenix (BCS-1026865, DEB-0423704 and DEB-9714833), Florida Coastal Everglades (DBI-0620409), and Plum Island (OCE-1058747 and 1238212) and. We are grateful to the botanical field teams involved in yard sampling: Charlie Davis, Dan Dillon, Erin Mellenthin, Charlie Nicholson, Hannah Saunders, Avery Uslaner, Emma Dixon, Roberta Lombardi, Pamela Polloni, Jehane Semaha, Elisabeth Ward, Aprille Curtis, La’Shaye Ervin, Bianca Bonilla, Stephen Hodges, Lawrence Lopez, Gabriel Sone, Chris Buyarski, Emily Loberg, Alison Slaats, Kelsey Thurow, Erin Barton and Miguel Morgan. We thank Anika Bratt and Noortje Grijseels for providing pictures of yards in Miami and Los Angeles, respectively. We also greatly appreciate the thoughtful and insightful comments provided by two anonymous reviewers. Appendix A Funding Information: This research was supported by a series of collaborative grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Macrosystems Biology Program (EF-1065548, 1065737, 1065740, 1065741, 1065772, 1065785, 1065831 and 121238320); and additionally by grants from the NSF Long Term Ecological Research Program supporting work in Baltimore (DEB-0423476), Cedar Creek (DEB-0620652), Central Arizona-Phoenix (BCS-1026865, DEB-0423704 and DEB-9714833), Florida Coastal Everglades (DBI-0620409), and Plum Island (OCE-1058747 and 1238212) and. We are grateful to the botanical field teams involved in yard sampling: Charlie Davis, Dan Dillon, Erin Mellenthin, Charlie Nicholson, Hannah Saunders, Avery Uslaner, Emma Dixon, Roberta Lombardi, Pamela Polloni, Jehane Semaha, Elisabeth Ward, Aprille Curtis, La'Shaye Ervin, Bianca Bonilla, Stephen Hodges, Lawrence Lopez, Gabriel Sone, Chris Buyarski, Emily Loberg, Alison Slaats, Kelsey Thurow, Erin Barton and Miguel Morgan. We thank Anika Bratt and Noortje Grijseels for providing pictures of yards in Miami and Los Angeles, respectively. We also greatly appreciate the thoughtful and insightful comments provided by two anonymous reviewers. Publisher Copyright: © 2019 Elsevier B.V.

PY - 2020/4

Y1 - 2020/4

N2 - Residential yards contribute to human well-being and urban biodiversity. The structure, diversity, and composition of yard floras are largely determined by personal choices and landscaping priorities at local scales, but it is unclear whether these relationships hold across broader geographical areas. We investigated the relationship between homeowners’ criteria for vegetation and yard management choices, ecosystem-service based traits, and yard plant diversity (i.e., taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional) in 145 yards distributed across 6 major cities in the U.S. Individual priorities for a set of ecosystem services were collected with closed-ended questions and reduced into four main principal components using factor analyses: natural, neat, showy and low cost. Across cities, priorities for neat yards were negatively related to overall and spontaneous species richness. Priorities for showy yards were positively related to yard aesthetics (based on showiness of flowers, fruits and leaves for component plants) and spontaneous species richness. Homeowners that preferred low-cost yards had a significantly higher proportion of exotics, and yards with significantly lower functional diversity (i.e., a composite measure for plant height, seed mass, and specific leaf area). The proportion of natives was not related to homeowners’ priorities for natural yards and phylogenetic diversity was only weakly and negatively related to priorities for showy yards. Our study corroborates previous research showing that homeowners’ landscaping priorities are only partially related to their yard vegetation at the continental scale. The disconnection might be attributed to broader institutional, structural, and ecological constraints that prevent people's personal ideals and priorities from being realized.

AB - Residential yards contribute to human well-being and urban biodiversity. The structure, diversity, and composition of yard floras are largely determined by personal choices and landscaping priorities at local scales, but it is unclear whether these relationships hold across broader geographical areas. We investigated the relationship between homeowners’ criteria for vegetation and yard management choices, ecosystem-service based traits, and yard plant diversity (i.e., taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional) in 145 yards distributed across 6 major cities in the U.S. Individual priorities for a set of ecosystem services were collected with closed-ended questions and reduced into four main principal components using factor analyses: natural, neat, showy and low cost. Across cities, priorities for neat yards were negatively related to overall and spontaneous species richness. Priorities for showy yards were positively related to yard aesthetics (based on showiness of flowers, fruits and leaves for component plants) and spontaneous species richness. Homeowners that preferred low-cost yards had a significantly higher proportion of exotics, and yards with significantly lower functional diversity (i.e., a composite measure for plant height, seed mass, and specific leaf area). The proportion of natives was not related to homeowners’ priorities for natural yards and phylogenetic diversity was only weakly and negatively related to priorities for showy yards. Our study corroborates previous research showing that homeowners’ landscaping priorities are only partially related to their yard vegetation at the continental scale. The disconnection might be attributed to broader institutional, structural, and ecological constraints that prevent people's personal ideals and priorities from being realized.

KW - Domestic gardens

KW - Ecosystem services

KW - Human values

KW - Plant biodiversity

KW - Socio-ecological systems

KW - Urban ecology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076716323&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85076716323&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103730

DO - 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103730

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85076716323

SN - 0169-2046

VL - 196

JO - Landscape and Urban Planning

JF - Landscape and Urban Planning

M1 - 103730

ER -

Linking yard plant diversity to homeowners’ landscaping priorities across the U.S

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access

OpenUrl availability

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this