Sorry for the long lapse, I finally managed the time to compil Hi All, Sorry for the long lapse, I finally managed the time to compile the delightful and surprising array of responses to my query re: urban open space systems (cemeteries, golf courses, ball fields etc...) as important biodiversity resources and habitat. A sincere personal thanks to the over 50 folks who offered some really fascinating and, for me, very useful perspectives and resources. This was actually very fun!.
I'm including a somewhat condensed version of the responses, with submitters names removed... though decided to include the URL links to many, fascinating papers and references. Finding it increasingly true: "the more I know... the less I understand" (though say that in a good way). As a biogeographer, having worked and focused my efforts in understanding the conservation dimensions of "large, wild-ish, intact, "high-functioning" natural areas, which de facto was taken as the inverse of urban, I'm ever so slowly softening my historically guarded (chauvinistic?) stance re: what "valuable" might entail, in urban systems. With now some 80% of the US population in urban areas (and growing), it would seem that just the human dimensions of greening will account for an enormously valuable asset. This immediately stimulates a desire to hear about folks experience with efforts to quantify ecosystem services within urban areas, something I was startled to hear that there has been precious little of, but will make that an additional query line. Gratefully, John Mickelson ************************************************************************************************************************ Cemeteries as Habitat: Summary Responses “I had never thought about graveyards specifically, but on a recent field trip to a 19th century graveyard in central Alabama with very old trees I found an amazingly high density of northern parula warblers. They were also found outside the graveyard, but I had never before seen (really heard) so many parulas in a such a small area.” “In Pittsburgh, PA we have a fair amount of large cemeteries within the city limits, and as a result of our "impossible topography" a significant portion of these are under natural cover on steep slopes or valleys. I'm not aware of any formal studies on their wildlife value, but some of these appear to provide at least decent habitat to some species. I'm heard from longtime residents that these areas did harbor significant wildflower diversity at some point, but increasing deer populations and invasive plants have greatly reduced these. Also,a relatively large and successful great blue heron rookery is present in one of the cemeteries. Additionally, the concept of green burial is gaining ground and locally we have a new green cemetery which is setting a third of the land into conservation. Since the site is a natural burial park, "maintenance is largely limited to reforestation and removal of invasive plants" http://pennforestcemetery.com/who-we-are/” “This is a wonderful conversation going on. To add more data to the topic, the paper by Tonietto R, Fant J, Ascher J, Ellis K, & Larkin D (2011) A comparison of bee communities of Chicago green roofs, parks and prairies. Landscape and Urban Planning 103(1):102-108, performed data analysis with green spaces including grass areas and ignoring grass areas and found a profound difference. I recommend reading this to help understand the affects of parks vs permeable grass spaces.” “I've been using landscape genetics approaches to understand how the composition of the urban landscape influences gene flow / genetic structure. My lab's most recent paper (which I have attached here in case you are interested!) identified models of landscape connectivity that explain a very high percentage of the gene flow between urban white-footed mouse populations. Cemeteries were important components of "green" corridors in both the Bronx and Queens. We are working on other species now (particularly stream salamanders, coyotes, and monk parakeets). I imagine that some of these same cemeteries and others will be important for them as well.” “I am second-generation Korean-American and I can ask family members for more accurate information, but yes, I think that is true about pieces of land being kept partially undeveloped for burial mounds of ancestors. Traditionally, family members -- usually direct descendents -- go back every year to weed, trim the grass, and offer their respects. I believe the tradition varies slightly upon region as well -- for instance, on the island of Jeju, burial mounds are often found in farm plots, although I do not know if this is because the farms expanded around the graves or if family members were buried deliberately on that land (I think it is more likely the first). These traditions are very rapidly disappearing, in Korea at least. I was in Korea just last year and visited my grandparents' graves. My grandfather was buried in a stretch of rural forest, while my grandmother was buried in a modern cemetery, her grave one among crammed thousands. South Korea has one of the highest population densities in the world, and indeed land is a most limited resource, something that is especially evident when you visit a Korean park. You will likely encounter just as many, if not more, people there as you would on an average American city street corner. Please note, population density is extremely skewed, with cities overwhelmingly crowded (the Seoul metropolitan area contains a quarter of the entire country's population) and many rural regions suffering from severe lack of young-to-middle-aged adults. Studying natural areas in Korea would be somewhat complicated because most of Korea's forests were stripped during the Japanese annexation and invasion of the early 20th century. Much of the land has since been reforested through efforts made in the 50s/60s/70s, but those forests are not only very young, they were also planted more with industrial pursuits in mind. Therefore, species composition often does not reflect what the native ecology might have looked like.” “I wonder if anyone knows of the tradition in Korea, Japan, or other east Asian countries in terms of natural areas associated with grave sites. My understanding is that families (at least in the past) in Korea would have a semi-natural tract of land that was kept undeveloped and served as a family burial site. Does anyone else have more information on this? I suppose such practices would become more challenging with increased population densities in those countries.” “Here is a paper on cemeteries that I, as one who studies dispersal and symbioses, found to be fantastically interesting: http://www.ag.unr.edu/leger/Leger/CV_files/Leger09.pdf” “Abstract: Tai Dam Funeral Forest Management can be used in REDD The proposal to reduce emissions for deforestation and degradation (REDD) has widespread support of many non-governmental agencies. Problems in implementing REDD include establishing historical forest cover and composition baselines, and creating culturally relevant management strategies that can be run by local populations. The People’s Democratic Republic of Laos is one of the first countries chosen to participate in REDD and this ethnobotanical and ecological study proposes a way to determine historic forest cover and composition baselines as well as a way to include local villagers in management strategies. Lao funeral forests--forest fragments preserved through culturally dictated traditions--can provide a baseline for local forest cover and composition. The culturally dictated traditions, which include forms of active forest management on the part of the village head, should be included in management regimes of these REDD projects in order to make the conservation efforts locally relevant.” “While I agree with the previous sentiment, things are not often as black and white as "Do we choose urban development or a 'natural' state?". The continuum of "natural" to "man made" habitats is vast and there are certainly some semi-natural, or cultural landscapes, that may be of conservation value for both their cultural and biodiversity value. I work on heathlands in New England for example. Both the heathlands of North America and those in Europe were formed by harsh European land use, and traditional agricultural practices. Today, in the absence of these traditional practices, these openland systems are reforesting. Now we could let them reforest, but then what happens to the many openland plants, insects, birds etc. that call these areas home? In many cases they may go extinct. Now what? Does it not make sense to manage some of the New England landscape to be in this semi-natural open state? As a conservation biologist, I believe part of the role of my field is to protect biodiversity, even if it means maintaining these "cultural landscapes", which while sub-par habitat for some, may be ideal (and necessary) habitat for other species. I agree, this is a slippery slope. Where does "nature" stop, and where does "urban" begin? When is one intrinsically more valuable than the other? “ “Certainly more study is needed with respect to what exactly is going on with all forms of life in urban and other cultural places, but facts should not be twisted into misrepresentations. Skyscrapers might well make habitats, even refuges, for falcons and other species taking advantage, say, of feral pigeons and the like, and such populations might ironically be all that is left of some species when "civilization" finally rots away to repopulate wild places--there are lots of effects involved in the incursions of wild things into cities, but those effects need to be understood for what they are and no more . . . not made into posters and slogans to excuse the outrage to life that urban spaces are. That life hangs on, even colonizes such spaces is no substitute for what has been sacrificed for expediency. Recognize it, but don't lie about it, Audubon Society recognitions aside.” “In Illinois we used to go to old abandoned cemeteries to look for prairie plants. These "family cemeteries" were rather common and were seldom larger than a typical backyard. But they often had many rare prairie plants that managed to tweak out an existence there. I have forgotten when or where, but I also recall an old cemetery where a particular snake was very common. This is probably a hit-or-miss proposition because cemeteries vary so much from one place to another in their size, isolation, regularity and extent of care, and visitation rates.” “This course only lasted one semester and to my knowledge, the idea of an eco-cemetery to restore an old degraded cornfield at the Charlotte Park and Wildlife Refuge is regretfully still on paper. I think that most people would agree that it would be a great idea to start monitoring projects like the one proposed in my course and also similar ones. This project strikes me (I must confess that most such projects strike me) as a great opportunity to start with a known baseline like the cornfield and some trees, then follow the changes to the baseline over time. I hope this has been done; if so, the results should be enlightening, even after a few months or years. If this hasn't been done here, why don't we start a list of places where it has been done? You raised an interesting question. I just have a comment. A few years back I taught a class called "Restoring Ecosystems Across the Landscape". Among the projects we proposed, was one on a wildlife park in Charlotte, Vermont with a couple of degraded 25-acre corn fields. One of the proposed sub-projects was to establish an eco-cemetery in one of these fields where, for every person buried there, three or four native trees were planted. The idea was to create a future forest restoring the degraded corn fields reestablishing forest connectivity and thus, habitat for biodiversity. Just my 2 cts!" “I recall that in "Trees and Shrubs of the Witwatersrand," it mentioned that graveyards were the only places that some indigenous species could be found, so roundly trounced had been the indigenous vegetation in South Africa. As to policy, it would be fraudulent to equate a cemetery or a golf course with the ecosystem that was destroyed in order to "create" it. PS: If there are cultural influences in an ecosystem, and some of the organisms that depended upon those influences for their survival, reproduction, and persistence as a viable population die when those influences are removed, they were not elements of an ecosystem--unless one wishes to insist that culture is "part" of "the" ecosystem. But regardless of what term is used, the underlying facts remain clear that there is a difference between culture-dependent assemblages of organisms and those which can persist without cultural influences. In graveyards and other culturally-created places, however, the resilience of indigenous ecosystems is widely demonstrated by "invasions" of indigenous organisms. Organisms simply do what they can, when they can, where they can. And culture giveth, and culture taketh away . “ “While I was doing my thesis research I traveled from Maine to Florida taking pictures of trees. I was specifically interested in open grown crowns whose shape had not been modified by pruning, as city street trees usually are. Not surprisingly, cemeteries were one of my best sources. For many species, cemeteries are tree heaven: lots of sun and little or no competition above ground or below. Though I don't have data, I expect that such trees are vastly more productive of fruits/seeds than their forest counterparts, and thus may be an important food resource for migratory and resident animals. Also, in many areas cemeteries adjoin undeveloped (though disturbed) woods, and so they provide that "fringe habitat" that is useful to many species. Lastly, I think we are showing some vertebrate chauvinism here in considering mostly birds, mammals, and herps. Cemeteries are also good places for worms (heh, heh), insects, fungus, mosses and lots of other "insignificant" species that need a place to live that is better than asphalt or concrete.” “Here's a link to a paper I remember reading while in graduate school about some Wisconsin cemeteries be home to remnant tallgrass prairie plants - they speculate that infrequent mowing replaced fire and grazing allowing for these species to persist in cemeteries. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/273/5281/1555.short” “Hi John, nice to see your post. Having looked at this issue for years, I think the short answer is such places can be important for some species, at some times, even as they may also be sinks for other species. Of course all depends on variables such as site size, site conditions, landscape context, and site management. And I would also include former landfills in the category of semi-important urban habitat. Old Cemeteries in NE US with good forest canopy (especially oaks) are famous for their neotropical migrants. Mt Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge Mass. and Greenwood Cemetery in Brooklyn are reknowned in that regard. Mt. Auburn is one of the top places to bird in the Boston area. But neither site is anywhere near as useful for breeding birds. Urban Golf courses can be important; for example in the Bronx two cemeteries have repeatedly hosted coyote dens, and a few years ago one had the only recent blue bird nest in NYC. The sites near big parks get the most interesting species, as would be expected. Ballfields near big parks often support birds that like short grass. Canada geese, of course, but also migrant grassland obligates such as savanna sparrows. Same is true of some cemetaries, St. Charles cemetery on Long Island is well known for golden plover and other species in fall migration. A big concern is how much pesticide these places use. I am told it can be a lot. This would seem to make them a sink for many species, especially sensitive herps and amphibians, as well as invertebrates. Of course, with intelligent management, even small sites can harbor interesting plants and pollinators. I close with an unusual case history. Out on Staten Island there is a cluster of cemeteries near the Richmondtown Historic area ( a nice museum collection of rescued old buildings). The area also has a golf course and a very large forested "Greenbelt" park. As is common in cities, there are neighboring cemeteries for people of varied religious and ethnic backgrounds. I was particularly fond of the Hebrew Free Burial Society's cemetery. Originally established as a burial site in the 1800s by pre-Soviet Marxist immigrants, there were even memorial stones decorated with carved hammers and sickles. As that group dissolved, it became a burial ground for the indigent. When I discovered it in the late 1980's it was barely maintained, and it harbored a diverse array of "prairie" flora, dominated by Indian grass, Sorgastrum Nutans. In the US midwest such old cemeteries are well known as refugia for prairie plants, Sadly, in the early 1990s the place was bought up by recent Russian immigrants. First thing they did was to destroy any stones with old marxist images. Next, they "cleaned" up all the unsightly "weeds", destroying pretty much any biological value of the place. Just one example of how site management decisions can have regional ecological impacts.” “Everything is habitat for something. Now that we got the obvious out of the way, to me the real question is, can these urban offspring be used in a meaningful way as habitat for something that matters? And, unfortunately, the only reason cemeteries and golf courses exist is because they generate a lot of profit (for somebody). To turn them into meaningful habitat would require a cut in profits, and nobody getting those profits is going to want to do that.” “I find it hard to imagine that golf courses are as good as cemeteries for habitat since they are loaded with herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and every other kind of -cide you can imagine. Any wildlife that lives there must be loaded with toxic chemicals.” “Stopover habitat for migrant birds is also very important. For instance, Green-Wood cemetery in Brooklyn, over the last five years, boasts at least 170 species, of which comparatively few are breeders. Here is an eBird summary: http://bit.ly/IyxFrs Many very small parks in NYC boast very large bird lists as well, since they are the main green spaces in a sea of urbanization.” “you probably know this already, but the Jacksonville Oregon cemetery is an important site for the protection of the endangered lily, Fritillaria gentneri, and supports a large population. It is managed to protect the lily (as well as for normal cemetery things) http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/recovery_plan/030828.pdf http://www.npsoregon.org/kalmiopsis/kalmiopsis12/gentners.pdf” “Some work has been done regarding importance of golf courses as habitat, including my husband's masters work in Naples, Florida Jodice P.G.R. 1993. Movement patterns of translocated Big Cypress fox squirrels (Sciurus niger avicennia). Florida Scientist 56: 1-6. Jodice P.G.R. and S.R. Humphrey 1992. Activity and diet of an urban-population of big cypress fox squirrels. Journal of Wildlife Management 56: 685-692. and his former student's work (see http://etd.lib.clemson.edu/documents/1181250764/umi-clemson-1147.pdf and Meehan, K.*, P.G.R. Jodice. 2010. Landscape scale correlates of fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) presence on golf courses in coastal South Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 9:573-586. Audubon also has a certification of some sort for golf courses.” “Interesting question, and fun to think about. Aside from governance challenges, I'm struggling to come up with reasons not to include them: Cemeteries are generally pretty large, given the context (i.e. bigger than the average lot), and they're less likely than other types of land uses to be redeveloped into something else. They're fairly quiet - there's mowing, and there's digging when people are buried, but generally there's not a lot of traffic or major disturbances. They're limited in terms of the type of habitat that they provide, but that's not a reason not to include them - it just means they have limited functionality. They're probably one of the few places where you get really big, old trees, so that's a plus for critters that need those. I study nutrient cycling, not critters, and I've never worked on an urban conservation plan, so maybe I'm missing something obvious... My inclination would be to include whatever serves as habitat, regardless of what it is (ex. the sewer system undoubtedly provides pretty good habitat for various spp of rats and insects; certain types of building features provide roosts and nest sites for birds (and maybe bats)), while trying to keep in mind their particularly urban aspects (vacant lots being re-developed, so you might not want to make them a "core" feature; trash pickup on certain days of the week means the critters feed there the previous night). Makes me wonder about tracking things like vacant lots on a city-wide basis - there may be turnover, but if the total area stays fairly constant, it might still be okay to count them toward habitat for reasonably mobile spp.” “And many NYC cemeteries have introduced Italian wall lizards, Podarcis siculus. They do very well in such habitats.” “A program on biodiversity in New York City that aired on NPR recently might be of interest: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/06/150123939/taking-a-walk-on-new-yorks-wild-side” “I'm not an expert (but rather, someone with a deep interest) in urban ecology, but my understanding is that areas like cemeteries, ballfields, golf courses, etc., often act as ecological traps, providing enough low-quality habitat to foster low-levels of biodiversity, but preventing species from adequately thriving and reproducing into successive generations. My thoughts are that these low-quality habitats should be considered in a comprehensive urban management plan, with the caveat that they are not areas where you would expect high levels of biodiversity, and that they could potentially create localized scenarios of diminishing diversity. However, there is research out there that show that effective habitat management (especially in places like golf courses and parks) can increase habitat suitability to the point of encouraging sustainable rates of biodiversity. But please, someone with more expertise in this area, correct me if I'm wrong.” “Along the California coast, native monarch butterflies routinely use cemetery and golf course fairway trees as overwintering cluster sites: San Luis Cemetery, San Luis Obispo, Calif. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrEBTFAlEdw Monarch Bay Golf Course, San Leandro, Calif. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77NIWVT9fHA Morro Bay State Park Golf Course, Morro Bay, Calif. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX70cjtX29k Chuck Corica Golf Course, Alameda, Calif. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdLm-Gr5A9E” “I would say Yes - we should consider all such urban spaces. That said, it is worth remembering that what constitutes habitat really depends on the species inhabiting the space! Therefore, in any particular case, you'll have to consider the species inhabiting or at least using these spaces and how valuable those are in the overall conservation plan. I would argue that it is good to include these spaces if only because it forces us to think about such "green spaces" as well as the more conventional "habitat" spaces.” “There is some really interesting research coming out of all these urban areas, green roofs, cemeteries, vacant lots - especially in the arthropod communities. They definitely have value on the micro as well as macro scale - although it hasn't all been quantified yet. “ “We have a study out in review that indicates that native trees (valley oak) in urban areas (cemeteries, abandoned lots, parks, median strips, etc.) are used by native herbivores (gall wasps), and we believe these urban trees could be quite important for native herbivore conservation. On the other hand, our study shows that litter retention under native trees is important for the native herbivore community on the tree. So these urban open spaces that are intensively managed may not actually be fantastic habitat for a trophically important group. Unclear how the changes to the herbivore community might alter predators in these types of settings. Also important to the native herbivore community was the number of near-by native trees. So, say if you were going to plant 100 valley oaks, better to plant them clustered together than all over the city, from the gall wasp's perspective. Don't know if that helps. I suppose the answer as far as native gall wasps are concerned is, 1) if the right tree is there, urban spaces are good. 2) if leaf litter is not removed and the trees are close together, awesome. The more about the natural history of the species you are interested in managing for, the better you can design your urban conservation plan. “ “This fits firmly into the evolving concept of "Novel Ecosystems". They may provide some very useful ecosystem services (speaking of another evolving concept) and, in any case, are widespread on the landscape. If we only focus on the "pristine," we will wind up with little to study - or protect - and miss out on some areas that may be very interesting besides. Among the writings about them are Hobbs and colleagues in Frontiers and TREE; also Emma Marris' recent book "Rambunctious Garden".” “Just a quick story. More than 15 yrs ago at a little league game on a municipal field in Sarasota FL, my son hit his head under the bleachers. We had to take him for emergency care and found that he has lost his ball cap. When I returned at dusk, I spooked a fox foraging for dropped food under the bleachers. It's well known that such small predators can be adaptable. Similarly, marine mammals in close proximity to urban areas are essentially under similar pressures such as manatees and dolphins in coastal FL where they compete with humans for use of the habitat. “ “I've been surveying Connecticut suburban areas for the past few months and have been thinking similar things. As far as amphibians are concerned, you get ubiquitous, development-tolerant species like bullfrogs (*Rana catesbeiana*) and green frogs (*R. clamitans*) but *not* infrequently you also get American toads (*Bufo americanus*) and gray tree frogs (*Hyla versicolor*). However, you tend to lose species, like wood frogs (*R. sylvatica*) and spring peepers (*Pseudacris crucifer*), which are more forest-dependent. There is some literature on the use of golf courses as amphibian habitat but I haven't come across cemeteries specifically. In Connecticut, for something like turtles, you tend to only get common species like painted turtles (*Chrysemys picta*) and snapping turtles (*Chelydra serpentina*) and occasionally species like stinkpots (*Sternotherus odoratus *) in urbanized regions. From a turtle (and maybe frog) perspective, something like a cemetery could be an interesting "habitat feature" as one would imagine there to be fewer herpetofaunal introductions in cemetery waterways. Something like a cemetery as core habitat would probably depend on the taxa in question.” “You should really check out the work at Stockholm University by Thomas Elmqvist and Stephan Barthel - they have been working on this topic for about a decade through an interdisciplinary urban ecological/sociological perspective. “ “There is such a fundamental difference between impervious surfaces and living soil and vegetation that I think it is a good idea to include any kind of managed land with things growing on it as part of the conservation picture.” . . John Mickelson Geospatial and Ecological Services 501 Stage Rd. Monroe, NY 10950-3217 (845) 893-4110 [email protected]
