An assessment of pollen limitation on Chicago green roofs

Ksiazek, Kelly; Fant, Jeremie B.; Skogen, Krissa A.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.07.008

Cited by 59 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 60 publications

(74 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared to other studies, the roofs showed a considerable wild bee diversity: Depending on the number of sampled roofs, the amount of study years and the study's scope, other authors documented between 17 and 77 wild bee species on green roofs (Brenneisen 2005;Kadas 2006;Tonietto et al 2011;Ksiazek et al 2012Ksiazek et al , 2014MacIvor et al 2014;MacIvor 2015). Due to its geographical position, Vienna is influenced by the Pannonian climate, which could be one reason that the studied green roofs emerged with higher species numbers compared to the studies mentioned above.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Buzzing on top: Linking wild bee diversity, abundance and traits with green roof qualities

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Green roofs are potentially valuable habitats for plants and animals in urban areas. Wild bees are important pollinators for crops and wild plants and may be enhanced by anthropogenic structures, but little is known about wild bees on green roofs in cities. This study investigates the effects of green roof qualities (floral resources, substrate character and depth, roof height and age) on wild bee diversity, abundance and traits (nesting type, sociality, pollen specialisation, body size) on green roofs in Vienna. Nine green roofs were sampled monthly between March and September 2014 by a semi quantitative approach. Wild bees were collected in pre-defined sub-areas for the same amount of time and floral resources were recorded. Over all green roofs, 992 individuals belonging to 90 wild bee species were observed. Wild bee diversity and abundance was strongly positively affected by increasing forage availability and fine substrates. Wild bees on roofs were characteristically solitary, polylectic and 8.3-11.2 mm. Regarding nesting type, the percentage of above-ground nesting bees was higher compared to the common species composition in Middle Europe. Ground-nesting wild bees were mainly eusocial, smaller (6.4-9.6 mm) and positively affected by roofs with fine substrates. During June, when forage availability by wildflowers on roofs was Blow^(5-15% flower coverage), flowering Sedum species were an important forage resource. We conclude that wild bee diversity and abundance on green roofs are enhanced by floral resources. Furthermore, the installations of areas with finer and deeper substrates benefit ground nesting and eusocial wild bees.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Buzzing on top: Linking wild bee diversity, abundance and traits with green roof qualities

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Approximately three-quarters of articles were published in 2010 or later (Figure 1). The objectives of the majority of articles can be grouped into: (1) the development of conceptual or operational frameworks for systemic understanding of green infrastructure use and innovation [23][24][25][26][27][28]; (2) the investigation of factors, such as policy or planning instruments and the action of stewardship groups, that influence the use and performance of green infrastructure and innovation in the field [16,17,19,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]; and (3) the assessment of the performance of green infrastructure in providing ecosystem services [25,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] (Table 1). Exceptions to this grouping include two articles that described the spatial diffusion of green infrastructure technology [4] or defined sustainability and examined its underlying principles [50].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Socio-Ecological Factors that Influence the Adoption of Green Infrastructure

Tayouga

Gagné

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Green infrastructure is defined as any type of infrastructure that has the purpose of lessening the burden of development on the environment and/or has the aim of providing ecosystem services, such as runoff management, air temperature reduction, carbon sequestration, and habitat provisioning. Despite these potential benefits and a recent increase in popularity, the widespread use of green infrastructure has been limited. To ascertain why this may be the case, we asked: What are the socio-ecological factors that influence the adoption of green infrastructure? To answer this question, we carried out a review of the literature. We found 32 papers addressing our research topic, three quarters of which were published since 2009. Based on the results and conclusions of the articles we reviewed, we identify six factors that influence the adoption of green infrastructure: Education, the Provision of Ecosystem Services, Financial Incentives, Coordination Among Actors, Laws and Policies, and Planning Recommendations. We present a model of the direct and indirect effects of each factor on the adoption of green infrastructure and investigate the geographic variability of factors. Our results indicate that Education, the Provision of Ecosystem Services, and Financial Incentives are the most influential factors affecting the adoption of green infrastructure because they are supported by the greatest number of articles regardless of location of study and have the greatest number of linkages with other factors and adoption in our model. We conclude with evidence-based strategies to promote the use of green infrastructure in order to create more sustainable environments.

show abstract

“…efficiently pollinated experimental plant populations (Verboven et al 2012). In a similar study in Chicago, insect pollinator services were sufficient for native plants on urban green roofs although green roofs supported a smaller and less diverse pollinator community than ground level habitats (Ksiazek et al 2012). Ants, arthropod predators and microbial communities are the major regulators of pest populations in urban soils and they can probably be harnessed to control insect pests affecting UA (Yadav et al 2012;Gardiner et al 2014).…”

Section: Additional Regulating Servicesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Potential ecosystem services of urban agriculture: a review

Aerts

Dewaelheyns

Achten

2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban agriculture (UA) is increasingly proposed as an environmentally friendly answer to global challenges including urbanization, public health, food security and climate change. We provide an overview of present evidence of ecosystem services delivered by UA that could potentially increase the sustainability of the urban ecosystem, including the often claimed reduced greenhouse gas emissions. There is general agreement that UA is important for local food production, especially in the south; that UA has a role in regulating green and blue water flows, organic waste flows and pollination; and that UA has important socio-cultural values, including an improved quality of city life and increased local community capacity. There is some evidence that UA may also improve human health because of dietary changes in certain social classes, but these are potentially confounded by environmental pollution in the city. Quantitative evidence is very limited for all ecosystem services, but the available data nevertheless suggests that the overall food productivity and the total reductions in greenhouse gas emission are low at global or city-wide scale despite the fact that UA has potential strong effects on food security at the local scale. The current eagerness of industrialized cities to integrate UA into their food policies as an approach to become "climate neutral" or to rely on ecosystem services to become more resilient calls for life cycle assessment studies that accurately quantify emission reductions and other urban ecosystem services of urban agriculture.

show abstract

An assessment of pollen limitation on Chicago green roofs

Cited by 59 publications

References 60 publications

Buzzing on top: Linking wild bee diversity, abundance and traits with green roof qualities

Buzzing on top: Linking wild bee diversity, abundance and traits with green roof qualities

The Socio-Ecological Factors that Influence the Adoption of Green Infrastructure

Potential ecosystem services of urban agriculture: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About