Phylogenetic Diversity of Urban Floras in the Central Urals

Abstract

Modern cities harbor a high diversity of plants, and urban floras are significantly different from non-urban floras especially when considering the proportion of alien species found in cities. However, it is not clear whether urban areas disproportionately select for species from relatively few evolutionary lineages or provide opportunities for species across the full spectrum of plant lineages. Here, we examined the taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity of the floras in four cities (Yekaterinburg, Kamensk-Uralsky, Krasnoufimsk, and Turinsk) in the understudied region of Central Urals (Russian Federation). We classified native species into indigenous and apophytic species, namely, those that are sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance and those that have expanded their range with human activity, respectively. Alien species were classified into archaeophytes and neophytes according to when they were introduced (i.e., before or after than 1800). Phylogenetic diversity was quantified using Faith’s index to reflect total evolutionary history in urban areas and mean phylogenetic distance (MPD) to reflect species dissimilarity. Phylogenetic diversity of native species was higher than that for alien species, and the standardized effect size (SES) of MPD for natives was positive, reflecting their general dissimilarity from one another, while it was very negative for aliens, showing that they were phylogenetically clustered. However, among natives, apophytes were significantly clustered, while indigenous species were overdispersed. For the aliens, MPD was higher for archaeophytes compared to neophytes, though both groups were significantly clustered. These results show that urbanization leads to a non-random selection of plants. Apophytes and alien plants were composed of closely related species, reflecting similar ecological traits and are likely to be pre-adapted to the environmentally altered and highly disturbed urban environment.

Invasibility of Common Plant Community Types of the Middle Urals

“…Alien species to Central Europe have been traditionally divided into archaeophytes (introduced before the discovery of America in 1492) and neophytes (introduced after that date) [40]. The boundary between the archaeophytes and neophytes in the Middle Urals was determined by 1800-the time when the Russian population engaged in agriculture appeared on this territory [30]. In this study, alien plants were not divided into archaeophytes and neophytes.…”

“…All alien species in our study are more than 100 km away from their native populations [39]. The majority of alien species of the Middle Urals by origin belong to Mediterranean and Iran-Turanian groups, and fewer species to American and European groups [30]. Alien species to Central Europe have been traditionally divided into archaeophytes (introduced before the discovery of America in 1492) and neophytes (introduced after that date) [40].…”

“…The city flora (within Ekaterinburg) is well-studied [30] and includes many alien species, but their distribution among habitat groups is mainly represented at the level of coenofloras or partial floras, i.e., at the level of γ-diversity [31,32]. Invasion levels have been previously determined for a limited range of habitat types: forest parks [33,34] and plantation fragments with native and alien tree species [35].…”

It Is a Wild World in the City: Urban Wildlife Conservation and Communication in the Age of COVID-19

“…Urban areas can provide substantial plant biodiversity, but greater abundance and species richness do not always equate to suitable quality habitat for urban wildlife. Between 30% and 50% of urban plant species are non-native [79][80][81][82]. Non-native plant species abundance and richness increase in more urbanized environments [83], a process driven by human-mediated trade and transport, whether that be unintentional or intentional [84].…”