<%BANNER%>

Comparison of Tree Species Richness and Species Diversity in Public Landscapes of Broward County, Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024623/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparison of Tree Species Richness and Species Diversity in Public Landscapes of Broward County, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (69 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Bogardus, David
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: basal, biodiversity, broward, city, community, conservation, county, development, diversity, ecological, ecosystem, ecosystems, endangered, exotic, flora, florida, fort, habitat, invasive, landscape, lauderdale, loss, lyman, management, metropolitan, municipal, native, natural, new, old, olmstead, palm, park, parks, phillips, plant, protection, public, rare, refuge, richness, saplings, shannon, species, sprawl, threatened, tree, urban, weiner
Environmental Horticulture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Horticultural Science thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: COMPARISON OF TREE SPECIES RICHNESS AND SPECIES DIVERSITY IN PUBLIC LANDSCAPES OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA By David C. Bogardus August 2009 Chair: Kimberly A. Moore Major: Environmental Horticulture The accelerating loss of biodiversity is a growing concern throughout the world. With a world population of over 6 billion (Weier, 2000), humankind is eroding the ecological foundations of plant biodiversity causing the loss of unique gene pools, species, and even entire communities of species forever (Tuxill, 1999). Florida provides a case in point. Approximately a thousand people on average move to the state daily (State of Florida, 2007). Habitat destruction and associated alteration of abiotic conditions, particularly water levels and fire regimes, have drastically threatened Florida?s rich plant diversity. Florida has undergone deforestation, wetland drainage, agricultural development and urbanization, causing significant loss of natural species diversity. Today an increasing portion of the state?s flora is considered to be endangered, threatened, or rare (Chafin, 2000). Public parks, as one specific manifestation of habitat protection, play an increasingly important role in the conservation of plant biodiversity, as well as providing recreational and educational opportunities in an ever-increasing urban environment. Parks are also becoming more important as a means of preserving regional character. With the growing awareness of local biodiversity and the fear of urban monotony, urban communities appear to be moving towards encouraging ecological diversity by making changes to design concepts and management of parks. This study surveyed tree species diversity and species richness in six public municipal parks in Broward County, Florida. Analysis was conducted in two areas of Broward County, one area representing a group of older landscapes, Fort Lauderdale incorporated in 1911, and the other area representing a group of newer landscapes in Southwest Ranches incorporated 2000 and Weston incorporated 1996. Three parks were located in the municipality of Fort Lauderdale and three were in the municipalities of Weston and Southwest Ranches. The study evaluated whether Broward County municipal parks established within the last twenty-five years (after 1987) contain significantly greater tree biodiversity and species richness than those of the same approximate size developed more than 85 years ago (earlier than 1923). The study?s conception is borne out of an interest in whether unique, rare and representative plant communities are being harbored within municipal public parks. Results reveal that old parks had a higher species diversity, species richness, and density of native tree species, indicating a higher biodiversity. New parks had higher density and coverage of exotic species, indicating a lack of management for native species. Overall, management of older parks appears to support the protection of native plants when compared to newer parks. Specifically, ten state listed endangered and threatened species were identified in the study, of which 90% (102) were found in old parks and 10% (11) were found in new parks. Yet, ten exotic invasive species (FLEPPC 2007 List of Invasive Plant Species) were identified, of which 87% (125) were found in new parks and 13% (18) were found in old parks.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by David Bogardus.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Klock, Kimberly A.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024623:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024623/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparison of Tree Species Richness and Species Diversity in Public Landscapes of Broward County, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (69 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Bogardus, David
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: basal, biodiversity, broward, city, community, conservation, county, development, diversity, ecological, ecosystem, ecosystems, endangered, exotic, flora, florida, fort, habitat, invasive, landscape, lauderdale, loss, lyman, management, metropolitan, municipal, native, natural, new, old, olmstead, palm, park, parks, phillips, plant, protection, public, rare, refuge, richness, saplings, shannon, species, sprawl, threatened, tree, urban, weiner
Environmental Horticulture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Horticultural Science thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: COMPARISON OF TREE SPECIES RICHNESS AND SPECIES DIVERSITY IN PUBLIC LANDSCAPES OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA By David C. Bogardus August 2009 Chair: Kimberly A. Moore Major: Environmental Horticulture The accelerating loss of biodiversity is a growing concern throughout the world. With a world population of over 6 billion (Weier, 2000), humankind is eroding the ecological foundations of plant biodiversity causing the loss of unique gene pools, species, and even entire communities of species forever (Tuxill, 1999). Florida provides a case in point. Approximately a thousand people on average move to the state daily (State of Florida, 2007). Habitat destruction and associated alteration of abiotic conditions, particularly water levels and fire regimes, have drastically threatened Florida?s rich plant diversity. Florida has undergone deforestation, wetland drainage, agricultural development and urbanization, causing significant loss of natural species diversity. Today an increasing portion of the state?s flora is considered to be endangered, threatened, or rare (Chafin, 2000). Public parks, as one specific manifestation of habitat protection, play an increasingly important role in the conservation of plant biodiversity, as well as providing recreational and educational opportunities in an ever-increasing urban environment. Parks are also becoming more important as a means of preserving regional character. With the growing awareness of local biodiversity and the fear of urban monotony, urban communities appear to be moving towards encouraging ecological diversity by making changes to design concepts and management of parks. This study surveyed tree species diversity and species richness in six public municipal parks in Broward County, Florida. Analysis was conducted in two areas of Broward County, one area representing a group of older landscapes, Fort Lauderdale incorporated in 1911, and the other area representing a group of newer landscapes in Southwest Ranches incorporated 2000 and Weston incorporated 1996. Three parks were located in the municipality of Fort Lauderdale and three were in the municipalities of Weston and Southwest Ranches. The study evaluated whether Broward County municipal parks established within the last twenty-five years (after 1987) contain significantly greater tree biodiversity and species richness than those of the same approximate size developed more than 85 years ago (earlier than 1923). The study?s conception is borne out of an interest in whether unique, rare and representative plant communities are being harbored within municipal public parks. Results reveal that old parks had a higher species diversity, species richness, and density of native tree species, indicating a higher biodiversity. New parks had higher density and coverage of exotic species, indicating a lack of management for native species. Overall, management of older parks appears to support the protection of native plants when compared to newer parks. Specifically, ten state listed endangered and threatened species were identified in the study, of which 90% (102) were found in old parks and 10% (11) were found in new parks. Yet, ten exotic invasive species (FLEPPC 2007 List of Invasive Plant Species) were identified, of which 87% (125) were found in new parks and 13% (18) were found in old parks.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by David Bogardus.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Klock, Kimberly A.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024623:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 COMPARISON OF TREE SPECIES RICHNESS AND SPECIES DIVERSITY IN PUBLIC LANDSCAPES OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA By DAVID C. BOGARDUS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 David C. Bogardus

PAGE 3

3 I dedicate this to John Adornato III for his unrelenting support and willingness to help.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to first thank the members of my committee for sharing with me their passion for horticulture. I appreciate their commitment to my education and their constant encouragement. I want to thank Dr. Kimberly Moore for serving as my compass during my research. Thanks go to Dr. Wagner Vendrame for his comments and guidance on my writings and presentations. A special thanks to Dr. George Fitzpatrick who provided his considerable experience, understanding of statistics and lengthy rolodex of contacts in the fields of horticulture and arboriculture. I would also like to thank Michael Sisk, Janet Miranda, and Dr. Kimberly Moore for their roles in charting my coursework from the University of Floridas Fort Lauderdale campus through to the Gainesville main campus. I would like to thank Dr. George Fitzpatrick and Bryan Steinberg of the University of Floridas Fort Lauderdale Campus for their help in tree identification. I would like to thank December Lauretano Haines, Program Manager for the town of Southwest Ranches for her willingness to provide the history of Southwest Ranches and Trailside Park. I would like to thank Aisha Fraites, Public Information Specialist for the City of Fort Lauderdale Parks and Recreation for her support in identi fying historical documents and newspaper clippings on Fort Lauderdales parks. I would also like to thank Joan and the kind folks at the Hollywood Historical Societys Hammerstein House, as well as The Fort Lauderdale Historical Society for their important service in preserving our history for future generations. I want to thank Linda Briggs and Gretal McCausland, Natural Resources Specialists for Broward Countys Parks and Recreation Division for being so open to my many questions and brainstorming sessions. I want to thank Gene Dempsey, Park Supervisor, City of Fort Lauderdale, for his help in identify the history and tree species at Stranahan Park. I want to thank Alex Rio, Associate Architect for his help with Colee

PAGE 5

5 Hammock Park. I would also like to tha nk Andrew Gilmore, Director of Landscaping for the City of Weston, for his help with Country Isles and Windmill Ranch Parks. Lastly, I would like to thank Richard Allen who provided help with plant identification and whose passion for plants was always a source of encouragement. A special thanks to John Adornato for his dedication to assisting me in my data collection no matter what the weather conditions and for his willingness to share his knowledge of the SAS statistical program system.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTE NTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1 LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY ...................................................................................................12 Introduction .............................................................................................................................12 Hypothesis ..............................................................................................................................14 Objectives ...............................................................................................................................14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................15 What is Biodiversity? .............................................................................................................15 Floridas Plant Diversity .........................................................................................................16 Loss o f Biodiversity ................................................................................................................16 Exotic and Native Plants .........................................................................................................17 Urban Growth .........................................................................................................................18 Human Population Impacts on Plant Diversity ......................................................................19 Status of Floridas Biodiversity ..............................................................................................19 Parks Past and Present ............................................................................................................20 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS ...........................................................................................23 Broward County ......................................................................................................................23 City Descriptions ....................................................................................................................23 Park Selection .........................................................................................................................24 Data Collected ........................................................................................................................27 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................28 4 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................30 Species Richness and the ShannonWeiner Diversity Index ..................................................30 Basal Area and Count of Tree and Sapling ............................................................................33 Tree Density ............................................................................................................................34 5 DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................................42 6 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................44 APPENDIX

PAGE 7

7 A RAW DATA ...........................................................................................................................46 B NUMBER OF PARK OCCURRENCES ...............................................................................52 C SPECIES AND FAMILIES ....................................................................................................56 D AVERAGE ANNUAL PARTICIPATION ............................................................................59 E PARK MAPS ..........................................................................................................................60 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................66 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................69

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 31 Park description including year the land was acquired, size, location and type. ...............25 41 Species Richness for both trees and saplings standardized to 100,000 SF. .......................30 42 ShannonWeiner Diversity Index for trees and trees and saplings standardized to 100,000 SF. ........................................................................................................................32 43 Basal area of native and exotic trees standardized to 100,000 SF. ....................................33 44 Density of trees and trees categorized into native and exotic standardized to 100,000 SF. Density of trees and saplings, native and exotic standardized to 100,000 SF. ............35 45 Number of species per park, total tree, basal area and percentage of basal area. ..............38 46 Stated listed endangered and threatened tree and sapling species. ....................................39 47 Total number of exotics invasive species as listed by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (2007). ..................................................................................................................39

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 41 Tree S pecies R ichness for each park age group. Standard Error is represented by box on top of bar. ......................................................................................................................30 42 Tree and sapling species richness for each park age group. Standard Error is represented by box on top of bar. .......................................................................................31 43 ShannonWeiner Diversity Index for tree species in each park age group. Standard Error (SE) is represented by box on top of bar. .................................................................32 44 ShannonWeiner Diversity Index for tree and sapling species in each park age group. Standard Error (SE) is represented by box on top of bar. ..................................................33 45 Basal area of trees in old and new parks, standardized to 100,000 SF. Standard Errors (SE) are designated by the outline on top of the bar. .........................................................34 46 Basal area of trees separated by exotic and native species in old and new parks, standardized to 100,000 SF. Standard Error s (SE) are designated by the outline on top. .....................................................................................................................................35 47 Count of Trees in old and new parks, standardized to 100,000 SF. Standard Errors (SE) are designated by the outline on top of the bar. .........................................................36 48 Count of trees by exotic and native species in old and new parks, standardized to 100,000 SF. Standard Errors (SE) are designated by the outline on top of the bar. ..........36 49 Count of trees and saplings by exotic and native species in old and new parks, standardized to 100,000 SF. Standard Errors (SE) are designated by the outlines on top of the bar. .....................................................................................................................37

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree o f Master of Science COMPARISON OF TREE SPECIES RICHNESS AND SPECIES DIVERSITY IN PUBLIC LANDSCAPES OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA By David C. Bogardus August 2009 Chair: Kimberly A. Moore Major: Horticultural Science The accelerating loss of biodiversity is a growing concern throughout the world. With a world population of over 6 billion (Weier, 2000), humankind is eroding the ecological foundations of plant biodiversity causing the loss of unique gene pools, species, and even entire communities of species forever (Tuxill, 1999). Florida provides a case in point. Approximately a thousand people on average move to the state dail y (State of Florida, 2007). Habitat destruction and associated alteration of abiotic conditions, particularly water levels and fire regimes, have drastically threatened Floridas rich plant diversity. Florida has undergone deforestation, wetland drainage, agricultural development and urbanization, causing significant loss of natural species diversity. Today an increasing portion of the states flora is considered to be endangered, threatened, or rare (Chafin, 2000). Public parks, as one specific manifestati on of habitat protection, play an increasingly important role in the conservation of plant biodiversity, as well as providing recreational and educational opportunities in an ever increasing urban environment. Parks are also becoming more important as a me ans of preserving regional character. With the growing awareness of local biodiversity and the fear of urban monotony, urban communities appear to be moving towards

PAGE 11

11 encouraging ecological diversity by making changes to design concepts and management of par ks. This study surveyed tree species diversity and species richness in six public municipal parks in Broward County, Florida. Analysis was conducted in two areas of Broward County, one area representing a group of older landscapes, Fort Lauderdale incorpo rated in 1911, and the other area representing a group of newer landscapes in Southwest Ranches incorporated 2000 and Weston incorporated 1996. Three parks were located in the municipality of Fort Lauderdale and three were in the municipalities of Weston a nd Southwest Ranches. The study evaluated whether Broward County municipal parks established within the last twenty five years (after 1987) contain significantly greater tree biodiversity and species richness than those of the same approximate size develop ed more than 85 years ago (earlier than 1923). The studys conception is borne out of an interest in whether unique, rare and representative plant communities are being harbored within municipal public parks. Results reveal that old parks had a higher spec ies diversity, species richness, and density of native tree species, indicating a higher biodiversity. New parks had higher density and coverage of exotic species, indicating a lack of management for native species. Overall, management of older parks appea rs to support the protection of native plants when compared to newer parks. Specifically, ten state listed endangered and threatened species were identified in the study, of which 90% (102) were found in old parks and 10% (11) were found in new parks. Yet, ten exotic invasive species (FLEPPC 2007 List of Invasive Plant Species) were identified, of which 87% (125) were found in new parks and 13% (18) were found in old parks.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY Introduction The accelerating loss of biodiversity is a growing concern throughout the world. With a population of over 6 billion (Weier, 2000), humankind is eroding the ecological foundations of plant biodiversity causing the loss of unique gene pools, species, and even entire communities of species forever (Tuxill, 1999). Although the costs of unrestrained growth are just beginning to become apparent, these impacts will cast a shadow over the fut ure of humankind. Florida provides a case in point, on average approximately a thousand people move to the state daily (State of Florida, 2007). Habitat destruction and associated alteration of abiotic conditions, particularly water levels and fire regimes are threatening Floridas rich plant diversity. Florida has experienced deforestation, wetland drainage, agricultural development and urbanization which have caused significant loss of natural species diversity. Today an increasing portion of the states flora is considered to be endangered, threatened, or rare. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list 55 plant species as endangered or threatened and another 154 species as candidates for listing and management concerns (Chafin, 2000). The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) lists 528 plant species as endangered or threatened and anot her 8 as commercially exploited. Public parks, as one specific mechanism of habitat protection, play an increasingly important role in the conservat ion of plant biodiversity. Additionally parks serve as a means of preserving the regional character and provide recreational and educational opportunities in an ever increasing urban environment. With the growing public appreciation of regional biodiversit y and the concern over urban monotony, counties and cities are taking steps towards encouraging ecological diversity through park design and management. Examples of the steps

PAGE 13

13 being taken include preserving and restoring historical plant communities, removi ng exotic invasive species, supplementing parks with native plant species, and developing designs that serve as models of environmental stewardship. Water restrictions and economic concerns should also be noted as an impetus for city managers and the gener al public to investigate the use of native plants as a low water and maintenance option. For example, in Broward County several programs support this type of awareness including the South Florida Water Management Districts Water Matters outreach activities ( www.savewaterfl.com ) and the Broward County Water Resources Divisions NatureScape Program ( www.broward.org/naturescape/ natur escapesinformation.htm ). Th is project seeks to evaluate whether changes in park design and management is occurring by taking a snapshot of tree species diversity and species richness of six parks found in Broward County. Tree species were selected because they are representative of the mosaic of plant communities. Species diversity serves as the foundation of park design and provides the most visible sense of place. Trees such as the majestic live oak ( Quercus virginiana Mill. ), the bald cypress ( Taxodium distichum (L.) L. Rich.) with its knobby knees, and the State tree, the Sabal palm ( Sabal palmetto (Walt.) Lodd. Ex. Schult. & Schult.f.) are often representative of the southern United States (Wunderlin and Hansen, 2003) Tree species diversity of three pa rks located in Fort Lauderdale was used as representative of older parks. While three parks located in the contiguous area of Weston and Southwest Ranches represented a newer park design. By evaluating biodiversity and species richness between the older an d newer parks this paper seeks to identify trends to the overall park design and management concepts.

PAGE 14

14 Hypothesis The hypothesis tested stated that urban Broward County municipal parks established within the last twenty five years (after 1987) contain signi ficantly greater tree biodiversity and species richness than those Broward County parks of the same approximate size developed more than 85 years ago (earlier than 1923). The null hypothesis is that biodiversity and species richness are equal between the o lder and newer parks representing no change to the overall park design and management. Objectives 1. Evaluate and compare New and Old municipal park tree species and family diversity and richness 2. Evaluate and compare native species and exotic species at New and Old parks

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW What is Biodiversity? Biological diversity encompasses the variety of species found on this planet and the communities they create. This abundance of life, or biodiversity, supplies us with free services such as pollination, water purification, the oxygen we breathe, mechanisms for dispersal, and the less glamorous things such as predation and decomposition. The importance of biodiversity is often difficult to see for example it can be hidde n in the genetic material of the wild plants that enhance the quality and resiliance of our crops. The medicinal plants that provide cures for diseases. Biodiversity enriches our lives with the vibrancy of sound and color. It is the inspiration of art and literature. Its intricate relationships are the very foundation f or the rich diversity of human cultures found throughout the world (World Wildlife Fund, 2001). Plant biodiversity in particular is one of the greatest resources humankind has garnered during its cultural development (Tuxill, 2001). More than 235,000 flowering plants and about 325,000 nonflowering plants such as lichens, mosses, and seaweeds (Given, 1994) have been identified; and it is estimated that there are many more species yet to be dis covered. Plant diversity provides food, oils, latex, gums, fibers, dyes, and essences, as well as fuels for industrial operations (Tuxill, 2001). Large portions of medicines also come from chemical compounds found in plants (Tuxill, 2001). On a global scal e, one out of ten plants has been found to contain anti cancer substances of some degree. An even higher percentage of plants yield pharmaceuticals and other natural products of potential use (Wilson, 1999). Consequently the protection of plants and the ma intenance of biodiversity are of vital importance.

PAGE 16

16 F loridas Plant Diversity Over 3,600 native plants exist in Florida exceeding most of the continental states, except Texas and California (Chafin, 2000). In terms of trees, Florida supports more species than any other state in the continental United States and when you include introduced species and naturalized species, Floridas tree list becomes extensive (Nelson, 1994). Much of Floridas botanical diversity has to do with its geographic position, which e ncompasses latitudes from temperate to sub tropical. Floridas flat topography also creates a unique environment where a change of only a few inches in elevation produces large differences in hydrology and plant communities (Chafin, 2000). Florida is also a peninsula surrounded on three sides by water, creating a warm humid climate that supports a large diversity and abundance of plant life. Plant communities also range in age with some existing above sea level for 25 million years, while others have develo ped within the last thousand years when the sea receded. Another aspect of Floridas plant diversity is that the state did not begin to become heavily populated until the early 20thLoss of Biodiversity century. The complexity and importance of biodiversit y is immense, yet little is known about the magnitude of diversity that exists. What has been discovered is that all living things are supported by the interactions among species and ecosystems. As species are lost, their ecological functions such as polli nation, dispersal, predation, and water purification are lost with them (Forys, 2002). As the composition of species within an ecosystem changes, the stability and resilience of that ecosystem deteriorates. Without this resilience, ecosystems could fail to recover from massive changes brought about by either natural or human impacts. Humankind depends on the diversity of living things for the necessities of life. Despite the vital role plants play in the environment, little attention has been given to them with respect to their importance (Given,

PAGE 17

17 1994). Today the worlds scientific community ranks the loss of biodiversity as one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time (World Wildlife Fund, 2001). With a population over 6 billion, mankind is qui ckly eroding the ecological foundations of biodiversity. Exotic and Native Plants When discussing diversity it is important to understand the terms of exotic and native. In the case of Florida, an exotic is a species introduced to Florida, purposefully or accidentally, from a natural range outside of Florida. While a native is a spe cies whose natural range included Florida at the time of the first documented European contact (c.a. 1500 AD). An invasive exotic is an exotic that is expanding on its own within Florida and altering native plant communities by displacing native species, c hanging community structures, or ecological functions, or hybridizing with native plants (FLEPPC, 2007). Plants form the biological foundation of all habitat types. Displacement of a native plant community by invading plant species can drastically alter a n ecosystem and can have irreversible impacts on agriculture, recreation, and natural resources. Invasive species impact biodiversity, habitat quality, and the functioning of an ecosystem by altering fire regimes, hydrology, nutrient cycling and productivi ty. Two types of plant invaders are particularly devastating in Florida those that constitute n ew habitats, (e.g. Australian melaleuca, Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) S.T. Blake and Australian pine trees, Casuarina L. sp .) and species that alter ecosystem function (e.g. Old World climbing fern, Lygodium microphyllum Swartz. and kudzu, Pueraria montana (Willd.) Ohwi ) (Schmitz, 1997). Ecosystem functioning is crucial when even the smallest changes can negatively affect enti re communities of plants and animals. In fact, i nvasive exotic species are considered to be the second most significant threat to native species, behind habitat destruction. Invasive species contributed to the decline of 42% of U.S. endangered and threaten ed species and present an ever increasing threat to agricultural productivity and human

PAGE 18

18 health (ESA, 2004). In the United States, the economic costs of nonnative species invasion exceed $137 billion each year, more than the combined total of all other natural disasters (ESA, 2004) Southern Florida in particular is especially vulnerable to biological invasions. Some possible reasons for this vulnerability include the large amount of disturbed areas caused by rapid human population growth, the favorable clim ate to subtropical and ornamental plants, and the high rate of introductions that occur in the region (Schmitz, 1997). Urban Growth Along with the exponential growth in population is a mass movement of people towards urban areas. Urban populations are grow ing three times faster than the general population growth (Weier, 2000). Today, almost 3 billion people worldwide now live in urban or metropolitan areas (Nash, 2002). Most people in North America, South America, Australia, and Europe now live in a city. T his is also predicted to occur in Africa and Asia within the next quarter century. An alarming concern is the lack of planning and the dearth of natural environment that characterizes urban cities (Given, 1994). While urbanization may have some positive i mpacts for the environment, such as lower birth rates, scientists are concerned about the impact of urbanization on natural environment (Weier, 2000). Many municipalities look to vacant land for revenue generation through development. The associated urban sprawl transforms habitats, removes resources and associated soil while altering the surrounding ecosystem and climate (Weier, 2002). Consequently, once an area has been urbanized, it is very difficult to bring the land back to its natural state. In the Un ited States, 2.2 million acres of farmland and open space are converted into urban areas every year (Weier, 2002). Often, the only spaces left in urban areas are parks, which become only fragments of a once continuous habitat. These fragments are usually drastically altered, and have many pressures on them that transform them into a new habitat type. These new urban habitats

PAGE 19

19 function as recreational sites, open space and, increasingly, refuges for regional biodiversity. As urban development continues, the r ole of refuge will become increasingly important for urban parks. Human Population Impacts on Plant Diversity Recent studies on the changes in plant species diversity in areas where populations have increased (Decandido, 2004) show that plant species decli ned while invasive exotic species increased. The most important biological processes that lead to this decline of native species include fire suppression resulting in the loss of habitat and succession regimes; habitat fragmentation; changes in levels of s oil nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium and pH; changes in atmosphere CO2Status of Floridas Biodiversity ; and changes in density levels of herbivores, pathogens, and predators causing drastic changes in ecosystems. Concerns over the habitat fragmentation of urban parks are now also being rais ed as rare and sensitive species continue to be surrounded and absorbed by urban sprawl. With Floridas exponential growth rate, a high proportion of its flora is considered to be endangered, threatened, or rare (Chafin, 2000). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list 55 species as endangered or threatened and another 154 species as candidates for listing and management concerns (Chafin, 2000). The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) list 528 plant species as endangered or threatened and another 8 as commercially exploited Urbanization and anthropogenic disturbance caused by the rapid rate of human population growth is threatening Floridas biodiversity and the sustainability of its ecosystems. Tod ay, Florida ranks 4th in population in the U.S. behind California, Texas and New York with an estimated 18,089,888 people ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 Population Estimates ). Between 1960

PAGE 20

20 and 2000, the population of the state more than tripled. The continued expansion of urban sprawl comes at the expense of natural communities resulting in fragmentation, conflicts over water needs and use, and increased recreational pressures on the remaining habitats. The urbanization of south Florida began in 1896, when the Florida East Coast Rail was extended to Miami (Williams, 1995). The rail provided rapid transportation from all parts of the nation. People from all over the country were inspired by the hopes of getting rich buying and selling real estate and growing cro ps without the fear of frost. Today people continue to be drawn to the state for its warm climate and job opportunities from its growing urban areas. Parks Past and Present The origin and concept of parks evolved from many different cultures and places in the world. The Egyptians had domestic and temple gardens, while the Greeks created public gardens as meeting and market places. The Romans incorporated spaces for exercise and for the collection of fine arts that celebrat ed the emperor's status. Northern E uropean parks were created by the aristocracy with the objective of setting aside land for hunting. Over time these hunting grounds evolved into landscaped parks designed to proclaim the owners wealth and status. Monks set aside land to grow medicinal her bs and to study newly discovered plants from faraway places such as in the new world. Many of these physic parks were originally walled monastery gardens that later becoming part of educational institutions such as Oxford (Sumner, 2000) due to their cont ribution to medicine and plant science (Baker, 1978). With the onset of the industrial revolution and the associated rapid growth and migration strains on society, new needs were incorporated into the park concept. The term 'Public Park' as we know it toda y originated with the public health movement in the early nineteenth century. It was believed that infectious diseases could be prevented by giving people the restorative function of fresh air and landscapes pleasurable to the senses. As

PAGE 21

21 time went on this gave way to a new concept that parks could be used to provide socializing activities and outlets for the public to suppress the more negative aspects of society (Cranz, 1982). The first public park in the western hemisphere was Central Park in New York in 1858. The park was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. Together, Olmsted and Vaux are considered to be the founders of the profession of landscape architecture in America (Central Park Conservancy, 2009). The fame and success of Central Pa rk launched a new concept of Public Park that spread throughout the county and the world. Olmsteds son, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. would continue the work of his father. In 1901, he was appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt as a member of the Senat e Park Improvement Commission for the District of Columbia, and would become the intellectual leader in the design and planning of city parks, as well as one of the architects of the National Park System. Along with Olmsted, Jr. at the same landscape archi tecture firm was another historic leader, William Lyman Phillips. Phillips is considered to be the Pioneer of Tropical Landscape Architecture and the father of Florida landscaping. Together with Olmsted, Jr. and later on his own, Phillips would create some of Floridas most beautiful and most iconic parks including Bok Tower (Lake Wales), Crandon Park (Key Biscayne), Fairchild Tropical Garden (Coral Gables), Matheson Hammock (Miami), Mountain Lake Sanctuary (Lake Wales) and Royal Palm State Park (now part o f Everglades National Park). Phillipss work coincides with that of Florida in its boom years, from 1930s through the 1960s creating the look and feel of many of Floridas public lands (Jackson, 1997). These early pioneers of parks were born out of the lat ter half of the nineteenth century when American cities were struggling with balancing the effects of industrialization,

PAGE 22

22 technological innovation, rapid growth, and increased migration. Parks today remain just as important, not just as a way to exert a civ ilizing influence on working class men as Fredrick Law Olmstead (Cranz, 1989) believed, but as a means of planning and controlling land use and shaping the civic form and beauty of communities. Tomorrows parks will continue to grow in scope facing new cha llenges such as environmental and ecological concerns. The future thinkers who will lead the way must include not just city planners but ecologists, horticulturalists, and land managers.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS Broward County Broward County was t he location for this study. Situated in south Florida along the Atlantic coastline within the USDA Hardiness Zone of 10a and 10b (USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1475, January 1990). Climatic conditions are subtropical with mean summer temperatures in the mid 80F and mean winter temperatures in the mid 60F. Summer temperatures vary between night and day with a difference that can reach 14F, and an average difference of 17F in winter. The annual average precipitation in F t. Lauderdale is between 5 6 to 60 inches. Summer months are wetter than winter months. City Descriptions The city of Fort Lauderdale was named for a fortification erected on the banks of the New River in 1838 during the Second Seminole War (Old Fort Lauder dale Village & Museum, 2007). The Fort was named after Major William Lauderdale who led solders along the east coast to capture Seminole agricultural lands and battle elusive Indian warriors. Over time three Fort Lauderdales were constructed, but the area remained largely unpopulated, as transportation was not available. It was not until Frank Stranahan established a trading post on the banks of the New River in 1893 that a town was created ( Kersey, Jr. 2003) With the arrival of the Florida East Coast Rail way the town rapidly grew and was incorporated on March 27, 1911 (City of Fort Lauderdale, 2007). Fort Lauderdale has a land area of more than 32 square miles with a population of 167,380 people in 2005 ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 Population Estimates) It i s the seventh largest city in Florida and the largest of Broward Countys 30 municipalities. Weston was incorporated on September 3, 1996 (City of Weston, 2007). It was born on the western edge of Broward County and within the wetlands of the Everglades. T oday, Weston has

PAGE 24

24 a population of 65,679 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 Population Estimates) people over 25 square miles. It is 49thPark Selection on the list of largest cities in Florida Southwest Ranches was born out of a citizens movement that began in 1996 in response to the City of Pembroke Pines introducing a bill request that Broward County approve the annexation of all unincorporated areas into its western boundary (Town of Weston, 2007). Lead by the Homeowners Association of Southwest Ranches, citizens pushed state representatives to create a bill to give the un incorporated areas the right to vote on whether to be annexed or to become a new city. In 1997 the Florida Legislature passed the bill and on March 14, 2000, residents voted to form a new town. The town encompasses approximately 13 square miles and is home to over 7,000 residents. Municipalities were chosen based on their original incorporation date. Fort Lauderdale was selected as an older municipality with an incorporation date of 1911, and the parks within were designated Old parks. The New parks were selected from the contiguous areas of Weston (incorporated 1996) and Southwest Ranches (incorporated 2000), combined. These municipalities are a similar land area to Fort Lauderdale and are the two most recent municipal incorporations within Broward County. Parks within these municipalities were then chosen based on their size, with 5acre or smaller par ks being selected. Special preference was given to those parks that were designed for a place of refuge in urban areas. The parks selected provided key components such as places of solitude and recreation and/or served as buffer areas for communities. The park designation differed based on the municipalitys definition. However, in general they were categorized urban C ity P ark or Neighborhood Park. Parks selected were noted for their natural beauty, small amount of hardscape, and significance within the com munity. Three parks were selected each

PAGE 25

25 from the Old and New municipal regions for a total of six parks to be evaluated from April 2007 to June 2008. Table 31. Park description including year the land was acquired, size, location and type. Park name Y ear Acreage Square ft. Location Municipality Park type Warfield Park 1911 3.63 158,122.80 1000 N. Andrews Ave. Ft. Lauderdale Community Park Stranahan Park 1918 2.8 121,968.00 100 E. Broward Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale Neighborhood Park Colee Hammock 1923 4.4 191,664.00 1500 Brickell Dr. Ft. Lauderdale Community Park County Isles Park 1987 4.214 183,561.84 2260 County Isles Rd. Weston Neighborhood Park Windmill Ranches 1989 5.272 229,648.32 2900 Bonaventure Blvd. Weston Neighborhood Park Trailside Park 2002 3.92 170,755.20 12498 Griffon Rd. S W Ranches Town Park Warfield Park is the oldest designated city park in Broward County platted on February 18, 1911 from the Florida Fruit Lands Co. The plot is 4.21 acres and is bounded on the south side by 10th Street, on the north by N.E. 11th Street, on the west by Andrews Avenue, and on the east by another parcel. In 1956 Northside School was located within the north portion of the east parcel and the park was reduced to 3.63, later a park recreational buildi ng was placed on the south side of the parcel. The North Lauderdale Improvement Association on December 19, 1927 unanimously named the park Warfield. The resolution read As a fitting commemoration of a distinguished man and railroad builder, through whose unshakeable faith in the future of Florida and through whose courage the building of a complete new railroad and the opening of hundreds of miles of new territory was made possible (North Lauderdale Improvement Association Beautification Committee, 1928) Solomon Davies Warfield, originally from Baltimore, became President of the Seaboard Airline Railroad Company during the difficult economic period of the Florida land bust and the hurricane of 1926 (Miami Herald, 1989). Warfield is the only city park wit hin the boundaries of the South Middle River Civic Association. The park was named after his death in October 24, 1927 (Miami Herald, 1989). Today, the historic park creates a

PAGE 26

26 community atmosphere with a recreational center and open grassy areas surround b y large mature trees. St r anahan Park is located on 100 E. Broward Blvd in downtown Fort Lauderdale It was donated by and dedicated to Frank Stranahan and his wife Ivy Cromartie Stranahan (18661929). The land was donated in 1918 to preserve forever a part of the pioneering history of the city Frank was the first postmaster and Ivy the first school teacher for the area. The 2.8 acre park is located in the middle of busy downtown yet still provides a place of solitude and shade. Colee Hammock is located on 1500 Brickell Drive just south of Las Olas Boulevard where SE 15th Avenue meets the New River in Fort Lauderdale. This neighborhood park is a passive treecanopied park with a scenic waterfront along the New River and a popular destination for residents s eeking solitude on its benches and open grassy areas. The 4.4 acre park has been known alternately as Cooley Hammock and Colee Hammock Park based on confusion stemming from the similar names of two early pioneers, James Louis Colee and William Cooley. The family of William Cooley was killed on a New River Site close to Sailboat Bend, just west of the 7th Avenue Bridge, in 1836 by Seminoles. The event sparked the second Seminole War. James Louis Colee was a civil engineer who oversaw the Intracoastal Waterwa y project during the late 1800s. It is said that James Colees work camp for the Florida East Coast Canal (Intracoastal) existed in this area of Tarpon Bend. Colee Hammock was the site of the first ferry and overnight camp for the Bay Biscayne Stage Line f rom metropolis of Lantana to Lemon City (Miami) established in 1892 (Gillis, 1995). The owners of the land, the Brickells, wanted to develop the land so the business was transferred to Frank Stranahan and located where the Stranahan House is located (Gillis, 1995). The city of Ft. Lauderdale obtained the park in 1923 (Mcgoun, 1973).

PAGE 27

27 Country Isles Park is a 4 acre park that was designed with the housing communities surrounding it in 1987. The neighborhood provides both a place for relaxation and for recreati on. Windmill ranch was designed in 1989 for both the needs of the local neighborhood and local school. It has multiple uses, including recreation and solitude. Trailside is the newest of the three parks at 3.92 acres. It was designed to be a gateway to the community and to provide a buffer to commercial development. The park is designed for passive open space and to increase the beauty of the town. Data Collected Each park site was surveyed for the following information: tree species identification, trunk diameter, tree height, and tree site location within the park. The tree identification was based on field observations and comparison with field guides and regional professionals. Trees that could not be identified to the species level were identified to the genus. A tree for this study was defined as any plant that exhibits a welldefined trunk of at least 1.97 inches (5 cm) in diameter and has the general biolog ical features of a tree. A tree can have multiple branches of different diameters; however, at least one branch must have a diameter of at least 1.97 inches. Palms were included in this definition, as long as the trunk diameter is greater than 1.97 inches. Plants with trunks smaller than the 1.97inch trunk diameter, were termed saplings, and also recorded for the species name, height, and location within the park. A diameter tape was used to measure the trunk diameter. Trunk diameter standard height is def ined as the diameter measured approximately 4.5 feet above the ground. The trunk diameter measurements were made for all trees. For trees that were multi stemmed at or below the trunk diameter, each stem was measured and considered to be part of one tree. In clumping palms, each stem originating from the base was measured and grouped together as one tree. The trunk

PAGE 28

28 diameter was used for computation of basal area, or cross sectional area of the tree trunks, for each park. Height measurements of trees and saplings were taken with a Suunto Clinometer model, PM 5/360 (Suunto FIN 01510 Vantaa, Finland). Accuracy can be one degree or one percent. Measurements of the height were taken at a distance of 82 ft. away from the base of the tree on level ground. Data Ana lysi s Species richness of each of the park age groups was calculated and t he Shannon Weiner index was used to calculate diversity using the following equation (Peet, 1974) : H = (log (pi) pi) Where H = Shannon Weiner Diversity Index piSimilar analyses were conducted at the species specific level in order to determine whether there were differences in species between old and new parks. Total basal area of each tree species, calculated from the diameter measurements, was analyzed to examine significance of differences between park age groups. The standardized density of trees for each species in new parks was compared to that of old parks and t he standardized density of trees and saplings combined for each species was compared between old and new parks. = import ance value (relative density expressed as a proportion) of species 1 through i The Trunk Diameter data were used to calculate the trees basal area in an effort to estimate standing biomass. Basal area and density/tree count data were stan dardized to 100,000 square feet for each park. The standardized combined basal area and standardized density of trees in new parks was compared to that of old parks The standardized combined basal area and standardized density of exotic and native trees and saplings were separately compared between old and new parks.

PAGE 29

29 All data was analyzed using two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in the Statistical Analysis Software System v 9.1 for Windows (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA 2002). S tatistical comparisons of species richness and family richness also were analyzed using the Studentized paired t test and Chi s quare test for goodness of fit However, they did not indicate any statistically significant differences (at P<0.05) between the two age groups.

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Species Richness and the ShannonWeiner Diversity Index The species richness of trees, standardized per 100,000 square feet, in old parks was higher than new parks ( Table 4 1; Figure 41 ). The species richness for trees and saplings, standardized per 100,000 square feet (SF) in old parks also was higher than in new parks ( Table 41; Figure 42). Stranahan had the highest species richness for trees and trees plus saplings while Trailside had the lowest species richness fo r trees and Windmill Ranches for trees plus saplings. When saplings are included with the trees the species richness increases for most of the parks, especially in Colee Hammock, County Isles, and Trailside (Table 4 1) Table 4 1. Species Richness for bot h trees and saplings standardized to 100,000 SF. Parameter OLD PARKS NEW PARKS Colee Stranahan Warfield County Trailside Windmill Species Richness (Trees Only) 10.43 15.58 8.85 7.63 5.74 6.53 Species Richness (Trees & Saplings) 14.61 15.58 9.49 10.36 9.18 6.53 Figure 4 1. Tree S pecies R ichness for each park age group. Standard E rror is represented by box on top of bar.

PAGE 31

31 Figure 4 2. Tree and sapling S pecies R ichness for each park age group. Standard E rror is represented by box on top of bar. The ShannonWeiner Index (S W) is a measurement of the likelihood that the next individual selected will be the same species as the previous. A large ShannonWeiner Diversity Index (H') indicates a greater diversity. The S W Index values can range from 0 to ~ 4.6. A value near 0 would indicate that every species in the sample is the same, while a value near 4.6 would indicate that the number of individuals is evenly distributed. The S W Index for just trees and trees and saplings was not significantly different (P=0.5537) between old and new parks ( Table 42; Figure 4 3; Figure 4 4) When saplings were included with the trees the diversity index increased for most of the parks. The park with the highest tree diversity was a new park, Windmill Ranches, however when saplings were included it was an old park Colee Hammock ( Table 42 ). The park with the lowest tree diversity was a new park, Trailside, and the park with the lowest diversity with saplings included was a new park, W indmill ( Table 42).

PAGE 32

32 Table 4 2. ShannonWeiner Diversity Index for trees and trees and s aplings standardized to 100,000 SF. Parameter OLD PARKS NEW PARKS Colee Stranahan Warfield County Trailside Windmill S W Diversity Index (Trees) 1.94 2.25 2.06 1.84 1.79 2.27 S W Diversity Index (Trees & Saplings) 2.45 2.25 2.16 2.24 2.30 2.14 Figure 4 3. Shannon Weiner Diversity Index for tree species in each park age group. Standard Error (SE) is represented by box on top of bar.

PAGE 33

33 Figure 4 4. Shannon Weiner Diversity Index for tree and sapling species in each park age group. Standard Error (SE) is represented by box on top of bar. Basal Area and Count of Tree and Sapling The basal area for this study was the cross section area of a stem or stems of a plant and was standardized to 100,000 square feet. The total basal area of all trees in old parks was not significantly different from the total basal area of all trees in new parks (P=0.6357). However, at 15,057 square feet, it was larger than the 11,220 square feet in new parks ( Table 4 3; Figure 45). The park with the highest basal area was a new park, Country Isles (24,899.13) while the park with the lowest basal area was a new park, Windmill Ranches (2,841.80) ( Table 4 3 ). Table 4 3. Basal A rea of native and exotic trees standardized to 100,000 SF. Parameter OLD PARKS NEW PARKS Colee Stranahan Warfield County Trailside Windmill Basal Area of Trees 11 383.92 20 866.62 12 922.49 24 899.13 5 919.65 2 841.80 Basal Area of Native Trees 11 258.50 17 985.02 3 685.67 5 256.17 1 442.87 366.09 Basal Area of Exotic Trees 135.75 2 881.61 9 236.81 19 765.75 4 476.78 2 475.71

PAGE 34

34 Figure 4 5. Basal A rea of trees in old and new parks, standardized to 100,000 SF. Standard Errors (SE) are designated by the outline on top of the bar. The basal area of native trees ( Table 4 3; Figure 4 6), in old parks was much larger (10,976.4 SF) than in new parks (2,355.05 SF). New parks, however, had higher basal area (Table 4 3; Figure 46), standardized to 100,000 SF of exotic trees (8,906.08 SF ) than old parks (4 ,084.72 SF ). The park with the highest basal area of natives was an old park, Stranahan (17,985.02 SF ) while the park with the lowest basal area of natives was a new park, Windmill Ranches (366.09 SF). The park with the highest basal area of exotic species was a new park, Country Isles (19,765.75 SF ) and the park with the lowest basal area of exotic species was an old park, Colee Hammock (135.75 SF ). Tree Density Old parks had higher tree counts than new parks. The total count of trees ( Table 4 4; Figure 4 7 ) standardized to 100,000 SF in old parks was only slightly higher (65.28) than new parks (54.93), but was not significant (P=0.7393). There also was no significant difference between exotic and native species between old and new parks ( Table 4 4). Howeve r, older parks

PAGE 35

35 had a higher count of native species (39.46) than new parks (28.67) (Figure 4 8) However, the density of exotic trees standardized to 100,000 SF in new parks (26.44), was very similar to old parks (25.82) (P=0.9706). Figure 4 6. Basal ar ea of trees separated by exotic and native species in old and new parks, standardized to 100,000 SF Standard Errors (SE) are designated by the outline on top. Table 4 4. Density of trees and trees categorized into native and exotic standardized to 100,000 SF. Density of trees and saplings, native and exotic standardized to 100,000 SF. Parameter OLD PARKS NEW PARKS Colee Stranahan Warfield County Trailside Windmill Total Density of Trees 49.57 97.57 48.70 103.61 33.29 27.88 Total Density of Native Trees 46.44 57.39 14.55 57.20 25.77 3.05 Total Density of Exotic Trees 3.13 40.17 34.15 46.31 8.20 24.82 Total Density of Native Trees & Saplings 86.61 57.39 27.83 74.09 33.38 3.05 Total Density of Exotic Trees & Saplings 3.13 40.17 34.78 49.57 25.18 31.35 New parks had a higher number of exotic species (26.44) than old parks (25.82). When adding saplings to the tree counts ( Figure 4 9 ), the difference between old parks for native plants

PAGE 36

36 (57.28) becomes even larger than new parks (36.84). For e xotic saplings and trees ( Figure 4 9) the difference in counts changes, with new parks increasing to 35.37 per 100,000 SF, and old parks slightly increasing to 26.03 per 100,000 SF. Figure 4 7. Count of Trees in old and new parks, standardized to 100,000 SF Standard Errors (SE) are designated by the outline on top of the bar. Figure 4 8. Count of trees by exotic and native species in old and new parks, standardized to 100,000 SF Standard Errors (SE) are designated by the outline on top of the bar.

PAGE 37

37 Figure 4 9. Count of trees and saplings by exotic and native species in old and new parks, standardized to 100,000 SF Standard Errors (SE) are designated by the outlines on top of the bar The results of individual tree speci es, standardized to 100,000 SF for basal area, tree count, and tree plus sapling count show some significant differences between old and new parks for some species of trees ( Table 43, Table 4 4 ). Tree counts of live oak ( Quercus virginiana), which is nat ive to Florida, were similar in both old (6.65) and new parks (6.57). The basal area of live oak trees in old parks, however, was significantly larger (P=0.0045) than in new parks. The live oak was also the only species that occurred in all six park sites (Table 4 5) The Sabal palm ( Sabal palmetto), which is also native to Florida, had higher counts in the new parks (16.52) than in the old parks (10.61). The old parks did have significantly higher (P=0.0034) Sabal palm basal area than new parks. Royal Palm ( Roystonea regia (HBK) O.F. Cook), which is a native, had larger counts in old parks (4.92) than new parks (1.09). The basal area of Royal Palms showed no significant difference between the two parks types (P=0.4362), although the basal area was slightly larger in old parks. Baldcypress ( Taxodium distichum ), another native plant, had higher tree counts in older parks (9.29) than new parks (1.76) and the basal area was significantly larger

PAGE 38

38 in old parks (P<0.0001). Strangler fig ( Ficus aurea Nutt. ) had hig her counts in old parks (0.45) than new parks (0.15). The basal area for the strangler fig in old parks was higher (0.0674) than in new parks. Table 4 5. Number of species per park, total tree, basal area and percentage of basal area. # of Species # of Parks Total Trees Basal Area % of Basal area 1 Six parks 67 15,061.94 12% 0 Five parks 0 0 0% 3 Four parks 42 16,555.66 13% 6 Three parks 253 63,467.75 49% 11 Two parks 193 24,053.43 18% 53 One park 241 11,148.87 8% 74 TOTAL 796 130,287.65 100% The count for the exotic Black olive ( Bucida buceras L. ) was 3.15 in old parks and 0.54 in new parks but they were not significantly different. However, there was a significant difference in basal area for Black olives with old parks having a larger area t han new parks (P=0.0226). The count for exotic Mexican fan palm ( Washingtonia robusta H. Wendl.) was 1.09 in old parks and 3.99 in new parks, but not significantly different. However, there was a significant difference in basal area for Mexican fan palm wi th older parks having a larger area than new parks ( P =0.0053). Ten species were identified as being protected under FDACS States Endangered and Threatened Plant list (Table 4 6) Of the listed species 90 percent (102) were found in old parks and 10 percent (11) were found in new parks. Florida Thatch palm (Thrinax radiat a Lodd. Ex. Schult & Schult.f.) was the most commonly encountered and Royal palm the second most encountered. Only one Lignum Vitae ( Guaiacum sanctum L. ) was identified and it was pla nted as a memorial in Colee Hammock Park Royal Palm and Mahogany ( Swietenia mahagoni (L.) Jacq. ) were found in the most parks including both new and old parks.

PAGE 39

39 Table 4 6. Stated listed e ndangered and t hreatened tree and sapling species. Common Name Scientific Name T otal T ree Total Sap State Protected Status # of Parks Cinnecord/Tamarindillo Acacia choriophylla 2 Endangered 1 (old) Everglades palm Acoelorraphe wrightii 2 Threatened 1 (old) Myrtle of the River Calyptranthes Zuzygium 1 1 Endangered 1 (old) Silver palm Coccothrinax argentata 0 2 Threatened 1 (old) Red Stopper Eugenia rhombea 0 12 Endangered 1 (old) Lignum Vitae Guaiacum sanctum 0 1 Endangered 1 (old) Simpson Stopper Myrcianthes fragrans 0 3 Threatened 1 (old) Royal palm Roystonea regia 24 1 Endangered 3 (old & n ew) Mahogany Swietenia mahagoni 2 4 Threatened 3 (old & n ew) Florida thatch palm Thrinax radiat a 2 56 Endangered 2 (old ) Ten exotic invasive species were identified in the parks surveyed (Table 4 7). Of those 87 percent (125) were found in new parks and 13 (18) percent in old parks, Also, of those 35 percent were category I plants (invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures o r ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives) and 65 percent were category II plants (invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing naive species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives). Table 4 7. Total number of exotics invasive species as listed by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (2007). Common name Scientific name Tree Sap Category Gov. List z y Javanese Bishopwood Bischofia javanica 1 0 I Carrot wood Cupaniopsis anacardioides 8 0 I N Laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 32 0 I Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius 0 1 I P, N Java plum Syzygium cumini 7 1 I Indian Rosewood, Sissoo Dalbergia sissoo 9 0 II Chinese palm Livistona chinensis 15 10 II Queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 25 1 II Sea/Tropical almond Terminalia catappa 1 0 II Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta 29 3 II zI = Invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives; II = Invasive exotics that have increased in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered Florida plant communities to the extent shown by Category I species. yP = Prohibited by Florida Department of Environmental Protection; y N = Noxious weed listed by Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services.

PAGE 40

40 The highest tree counts per 100,000 SF, were as follows: Sabal Palm ( Sabal palmetto) at 16.52 in new parks and at 10.78 in old parks, Live oak ( Quercus virginiana) 6.75 in new parks and 6.65 in old parks (Table 45, Table 46). Rare and uncommon native species were identified and included the following: Cinnecord sapling ( Acacia choriophylla Lindl.) (0.35) in old parks, Bald cypress ( Taxodium distichum ) (9.29) in old parks and (1.76) in new parks, Lignum vitae sapling ( Guaiacum sanctum ) (0.17) in old parks, Geiger Tree ( Cordia sebestena L.) (0.17) in old parks, Red Stopper saplings ( Eugenia rhombea L.) (2.09) in old parks, Mastic ( Mastichodendron foetidissimum (Jacq.) Cronq.) (0.17) in old parks, and Simpson Stopper saplings ( Myrcianthes fragrans (Small) K.A. Wils.) (0.52) in ol d parks. Rare and uncommon exotic species included Verawood saplings ( Bulnesia arborea (Jacq.) Engl.) (0.54) in new parks, Queens crepe myrtle ( Lagerstroemia speciosa (L.) Pers.) (0.20) trees and (0.59) saplings in new parks, Pongam ( Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre.) (0.29) in new parks, and Cabada palm ( Chrysalidocarpus cabadae H.E. Moore.) (0.55) in old parks. The largest basal areas were seen in: Ficus aurea Nutt. at 4,187.22 SF in old parks, Ficus microcarpa L. at 1,073.70 SF in old parks, Ficus benjamina L. at 913.04 SF in old parks, Swietenia mahagoni at 649.10 SF in old parks, Ficus microcarpa at 628.39 SF in new parks, Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels at 622.13 SF in new parks, Coccoloba uvifera (L.) L. at 324.58 SF in old parks, Taxodium distichum at 280.13 SF in old parks, Bischofia javanica Blume at 218.69 SF in new parks, and Quercus virginiana Mill. at 205.34 SF in old parks. Bishopwood ( Bischofia javanica), a Category I invasive exotic species, was identified only in new parks (0.20) and not in old parks (Table 4 7) Carrotwood ( Cupaniopsis anacardioides (A. Rich.) Radlk.), a Category I species and a noxious weed by the Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (FDACS), was identified in both old (1.26) and new parks

PAGE 41

41 (0.36) with a greater number and basal area (154.69 SF ) in older parks. Laurel fig ( Ficus microcarpa) listed as a Category I species was identified in both old (1.05) and new parks (4.79) with a greater basal area in old parks (1,073.70 SF) than in new parks (628.39 SF ). A Brazilia n pepper sapling ( Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi.) listed as a Category I, a prohibited species by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and a noxious weed was found in new parks (0.20). Java plum ( Syzygium cumini ) listed as a Category I p lant was identified in new parks (1.32) with a large basal area (622.13 SF ). Indian rosewood ( Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. Ex.DC. ) listed as a Category II was found in new parks (1.63). Chinese fan palm ( Livistona chinensis (Jacq.) R. Br. Ex Mart. ) listed as a Category II was found at new parks (2.18). Queen palm ( Syagrus romanzoffiana Mart. ) listed as a Category II was found in old parks (0.21) and in higher numbers in new parks (4.18). Tropical almond (T erminalia catappa L. ) listed as a Category II was identif ied in new parks (0.20). Mexican fan palm ( Washingtonia robusta H. Wendl.) listed as a Category II was identified in both old (1.09) and new parks (3.99).

PAGE 42

42 C HAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The hypothesis of this paper was that urban Broward County municipal parks established within the last thirteen years contain significantly greater tree biodiversity and species richness than those Broward County parks of the same approximate size developed more than ninety eight years ago. The null hypothesis is that biodi versity and species richness are equal between the older and newer parks representing no change to the overall park design and management. The analyzed data shows no significant difference at the 0.05 level between the parks for diversity or species richness so the null hypothesis is accepted that there is no change to the overall park design and management. While the differences were not significant, the old parks had greater tree biodiversity and species richness than the new parks. T rees in old parks are much larger than those in new parks, given that the basal area was larger, yet the counts were not that much different. This difference in tree size is to be expected given that the old parks were established earlier than the new parks and therefore have had more time for the trees to grow larger. Over time the difference in basal area will likely shrink as the trees in new parks get larger more quickly while larger trees in older parks will not grow as much. The new parks have fewer total trees per 100,000 square feet than old parks, perhaps indicating different recreational uses for the park or perhaps a management decision of the new parks. Of note is that Stranahan (old park) had 97.6 trees per 100,000 SF whereas Colee and Warfield, both also old parks had 49.6 and 48.7 trees per 100,000 SF respectively. Country Isles (new park) had 103.0 trees per 100,000 SF whereas Trailside and Windmill, also new parks, had 34.0 and 27.9 trees per 100,000 SF Overall the trend is that the newer parks have fewer tr ees, which may indicate some kind of preference for more open space within urban parks.

PAGE 43

43 The surprising trend that these data show is that new parks are not increasing the native to exotic ratio nor are they matching the older park ratio. The basal area o f exotic trees in new parks is much larger than old parks, despite their counts being similar, indicating that the exotic trees in new parks are older. In fact, the counts of exotic and natives in new parks are similar. However, the basal area of those exo tic trees is almost three times the size of native trees. In addition to these larger exotic trees, new parks have more exotic saplings planted. These results are inconsistent to the hypothesis and expectations presumed at the beginning of this study. It w as anticipated that newer parks would be more conscience of the need to protect and increase the biodiversity of the natural areas in these municipalities. In fact, the opposite appears to be true, where new parks are trending away from providing a natural landscape and otherwise providing habitat for regional plant diversity On the contrary, old parks are increasing their native tree populations by adding more native saplings, though in general, new parks also had more native saplings, yet still fewer in number than old parks. This trend would indicate that park managers and landscapers in old parks further value their native plantings and want to ensure that their parks provide a sense of regional plant diversity While this does not reflect in the ShannonWeiner Diversity Index, it does reflect in the species richness evaluation, where old parks had higher species richness of trees and trees and saplings than new parks. Exotic trees have a higher basal area in new parks than in old parks, and many of thes e larger exotics are Class I and Class II exotic invasive species, resulting in the potential for further spread to other natural areas.

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION Old parks had a higher species diversity, species richness, and density of native tree species, indicating a higher biodiversity and providing a habitat for rare, threatened and endangered species. New parks had higher density and coverage of exotic species, indicating a lack of management for native species. These results indicate a management decisions. It is unclear whether the diversity was due to plantings or from historic natural conditions at the different parks and f urther study into this aspect would be beneficial. For example in the case of Stranahan Park the re were naturally occurring native trees and therefore the natural biodiversity was protected and added to over time. This was a management decision for this park, but similar data could not be obtained for other parks in this study. Data in this study indicates that very large exotic trees existed before the creation of two new parks. Based on discussions with the mangers of Trailside and Windmill Ranch these trees were left to provide large tree cover and shade for new plantings Overall, manage ment of old parks appears to trend towards supporting the protection of native plants when compared to new parks. Also, based on the data showing fewer trees in new parks, it will be necessary for park managers and landscapers to continue to plant trees wi th the goal of increasing biodiversity. Data results on species occurrences could be used as a guide to the species most under represented. Further advice to new park managers and landscapers would be to increase the number of native plantings (trees or sa plings) as they improve existing parks or create new ones as well as to match the count of native trees and the species richness in old parks. Given the high number of Class I and Class II exotic invasive species, in new parks, managers and landscapers sh ould consider removing them, and avoid additional plantings If removals occur, there is an opportunity to improve the biodiversity and species richness that

PAGE 45

45 these parks provide. For example, many county and state parks are removing Australian pine, Cassur ina equisitifolia which has provided shade particularly at campsites, and replacing them with native shade producing plants, such as seagrape, Coccolobo uvifera, and live oak, Quercus virginiana (Topekeegee Yugnee Park, Hollywood, FL, personal observation) Municipalities that undertake the replacement of exotic invasive species with native plants can provide a positive example for new developments, new parks, as well as revitalizing blighted or older areas.

PAGE 46

46 APPENDIX A RAW DATA OLD PARKS COLEE STRANAHAN WARFIELD Scientific Name Total BA Total BA Total BA Acacia choriophylla 2 19.82 0 0 0 0 Acer rubrum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acoelorraphe wrightii 0 0 0 0 2 53.82 Aralia sp. 1 9.53 0 0 0 0 Bauhinia blakeanna 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bischofia javanica 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bucida buceras 0 0 10 1727.364273 0 0 Bucida buceras 0 0 0 0 2 868.77 Bucida buceras 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bulnesia arborea 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bursera simaruba 3 18.68 0 0 0 0 Bursera simaruba 0 0 0 0 0 0 Callistemon viminal e 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calyptranthes zuzygium 2 5.78 0 0 0 0 Capparis cynophallophora 2 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentaria acuminat a 0 0 2 75.10330668 0 0 Carpentaria acuminat a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Catalpa sp. 0 0 1 138.0946741 0 0 Ceiba sp. 0 0 1 59.85747169 0 0 Ceiba sp. 1 65.9 0 0 0 0 Chrysalidocarpus cabadae 0 0 2 87.22294281 0 0 Chrysobalanus icaco 0 0 2 14.55036491 0 0 Clusia guttifera 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coccoloba uvifera 0 0 1 679.34632060 0 0 Coccoloba uvifera 2 798.76 0 0 0 0 Coccothrinax argentata 2 0 0 0 0 0 Conocarpus erectus 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conocarpus erectus 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cordia sebestena 1 4.52 0 0 0 0 Cupaniopsis anacardioides 0 0 0 0 6 1467.62 Cupaniopsis anacardioides 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dalbergia sissoo 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delonix regia 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dipholis salicifolia 4 75.93 0 0 0 0 Dracaena sp. 0 0 3 121.50863570 0 0 Dypsis lutescens 0 0 1 24.98767819 0 0 Eugenia axillaris 2 0 0 0 0 0 Eugenia rhombea 12 0 0 0 0 0 Eugenia sp. 2 0 0 0 0 0 Ficus aurea 0 0 1 5414.05773100 0 0 Ficus aurea 1 7542.96 0 0 0 0

PAGE 47

47 OLD PARKS COLEE STRANAHAN WARFIELD Scientific Name Total BA Total BA Total BA Ficus aurea 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ficus aurea 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ficus benjamina 0 0 0 0 1 1443.72 Ficus microcarpa 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ficus microcarpa 0 0 0 0 5 8488.77 Ficus microcarpa 0 0 0 0 0 0 Guaiacum sanctum 1 0 0 0 0 0 Guapira discolor 2 30.37 0 0 0 0 Gymnanthes lucida 11 22.68 0 0 0 0 Ilex alternata 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex sp. 2 6.74 0 0 0 0 Krugiodendron ferreum 7 12.25 0 0 0 0 Lagerstroemia speciosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ligustrum japonicum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ligustrum japonicum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Livistona chinensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lysiloma latisiliqu um 0 0 0 0 3 513.77 Mangifera sp. 2 171.56 0 0 0 0 Mastichodendron Foetidissimum 1 5.22 0 0 0 0 Myrcianthes fragrans 3 0 0 0 0 0 Myrsine guianensis 4 6.8 0 0 0 0 Pandanus utilis 0 0 1 207.62990050 0 0 Phoenix roebelenii 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pinus elliottii 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pongamia pinnata 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus laurifolia 0 0 0 0 1 497.57 Quercus virginiana 0 0 5 165.0380723 0 0 Quercus virginiana 11 7805.62 0 0 0 0 Quercus virginiana 0 0 0 0 16 3736.35 Quercus virginiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus virginiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus virginiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roystonea regia 0 0 18 3310.867321 0 0 Roystonea regia 1 0 0 0 0 0 Roystonea regia 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sabal palmetto 0 0 7 459.7751479 0 0 Sabal palmetto 51 5150.3 0 0 0 0 Sab a l palmetto 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sapindus saponaria 0 0 1 137.67841310 0 0 Schinus terebinthifolius 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senna surat t ensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swietenia mahagoni 0 0 0 0 1 1026.38 Swietenia mahagoni 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 48

48 OLD PARKS COLEE STRANAHAN WARFIELD Scientific Name Total BA Total BA Total BA Swietenia mahagoni 0 0 0 0 0 0 Syagrus romanzoffiana 0 0 0 0 2 42.78 Syagrus romanzoffiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 Syagrus romanzoffiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 Syzygium cumini 0 0 0 0 0 0 Syzygium cumini 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tabebuia argentea 0 0 3 381.6382408 0 0 Tabebuia argentea 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tabebuia argentea 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tabebuia argentea 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tabebuia heterophylla 0 0 0 0 5 327.72 Tabebuia heterophylla 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tabebuia sp. 0 0 0 0 2 275.09 Taxodium distichum 0 0 34 11616.55626 0 0 Taxodium distichum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tecoma stans 2 13.2 0 0 0 0 Terminalia catappa 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thrinax radiat a 37 72.07 0 0 0 0 Thrinax radiat a 0 0 0 0 21 0 Veitchia arecina 0 0 0 0 5 726.27 Veitchia merrilllii 0 0 22 492.0290157 0 0 Veitchia winin 0 0 0 0 27 964.77 Washingtonia robusta 0 0 4 337.2953674 0 0 Washingtonia robusta 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washingtonia robusta 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washingtonia robusta 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wodyetia bifurcat a 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 49

49 NEW PARKS COUNTRY TRAILSIDE WINDMILL Scientific Name Total BA Total BA Total BA Acacia choriophylla 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acer rubrum 0 0 0 0 2 41.38 Acoelorraphe wrightii 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aralia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bauhinia blakeanna 0 0 0 0 5 563.86 Bischofia javanica 0 0 1 218.69 0 0 Bucida buceras 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bucida buceras 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bucida buceras 3 339.67 0 0 0 0 Bulnesia arborea 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bursera simaruba 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bursera simaruba 0 0 7 228.79 0 0 Callistemon viminal e 3 250.31 0 0 0 0 Calyptranthes zuzygium 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capparis cynophallophora 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentaria acuminat a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentaria acuminat a 0 0 0 0 1 30.58 Catalpa sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceiba sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceiba sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chrysalidocarpus cabadae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chrysobalanus icaco 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clusia guttifera 0 0 18 0 0 0 Coccoloba uvifera 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coccoloba uvifera 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coccothrinax argentata 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conocarpus erectus 18 0 0 0 0 0 Conocarpus erectus 0 0 12 22.24 0 0 Cordia sebestena 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cupaniopsis anacardioides 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cupaniopsis anacardioides 2 545.95 0 0 0 0 Dalbergia sissoo 9 2251.12 0 0 0 0 Delonix regia 3 210.6 0 0 0 0 Dipholis salicifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dracaena sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dypsis lutescens 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eugenia axillaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eugenia rhombea 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eugenia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ficus aurea 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ficus aurea 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ficus aurea 0 0 0 0 1 201.06 Ficus aurea 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ficus benjamina 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 50

50 NEW PARKS COUNTRY TRAILSIDE WINDMILL Scientific Name Total BA Total BA Total BA Ficus microcarpa 24 30059.89 0 0 0 0 Ficus microcarpa 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ficus microcarpa 0 0 0 0 3 1356.25 Guaiacum sanctum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Guapira discolor 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gymnanthes lucida 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex alternat a 3 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Krugiodendron ferreum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lagerstroemia speciosa 0 0 3 3.77 0 0 Ligustrum japonicum 10 183.97 0 0 0 0 Ligustrum japonicum 0 0 0 0 7 178.97 Livistona chinensis 0 0 0 0 25 750.39 Lysiloma latisiliqu um 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mangifera sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mastichodendron Foetidissimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrcianthes fragrans 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrsine guianensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pandanus utilis 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phoenix roebelenii 4 42.78 0 0 0 0 Pinus elliottii 10 0 0 0 0 0 Pongamia pinnata 0 0 0 0 2 330.42 Quercus laurifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus virginiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus virginiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus virginiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus virginiana 8 676.47 0 0 0 0 Quercus virginiana 0 0 0 0 3 589.53 Quercus virginiana 0 0 24 2088.93 0 0 Roystonea regia 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roystonea regia 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roystonea regia 6 1304.71 0 0 0 0 Sabal palmetto 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sabal palmetto 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sab a l palmetto 91 7667.14 0 0 0 0 Sapindus saponaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schinus terebinthifolius 0 0 1 0 0 0 Senna surattensis 0 0 4 0 0 0 Swietenia mahagoni 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swietenia mahagoni 0 0 0 0 1 8.76 Swietenia mahagoni 0 0 4 0 0 0 Syagrus romanzoffiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 Syagrus romanzoffiana 19 1340.79 0 0 0 0

PAGE 51

51 NEW PARKS COUNTRY TRAILSIDE WINDMILL Scientific Name Total BA Total BA Total BA Syagrus romanzoffiana 0 0 0 0 5 315.53 Syzygium cumini 0 0 0 0 1 402.93 Syzygium cumini 0 0 7 7136.63 0 0 Tabebuia argentea 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tabebuia argentea 1 225.38 0 0 0 0 Tabebuia argentea 0 0 0 0 1 9.4 Tabebuia argentea 0 0 1 2.84 0 0 Tabebuia heterophylla 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tabebuia heterophylla 0 0 6 17.94 0 0 Tabebuia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taxodium distichum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taxodium distichum 0 0 9 123.82 0 0 Tecoma stans 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terminalia catappa 0 0 1 264.46 0 0 Thrinax radiat a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thrinax radiat a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veitchia arecina 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veitchia merrilllii 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veitchia winin 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washingtonia robusta 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washingtonia robusta 10 831.91 0 0 0 0 Washingtonia robusta 0 0 0 0 17 1609.11 Washingtonia robusta 0 0 1 0 0 0 Wodyetia bifurcate 0 0 0 0 5 137.98

PAGE 52

52 APPENDIX B NUMBER OF PARK OCCUR RENCES

PAGE 53

5 3 Scientific Name Native or Exotic OLD PARKS NEW PARKS COLEE STRANAHAN WARFIELD COUNTRY TRAILSIDE WINDMILL Total BA Total BA Total BA Total BA Total BA Total BA Quercus virginiana Native 11 7805.62 5 165.04 16 3736.35 8 676.47 24 2088.93 3 589.53 Ficus aurea Native 1 7542.96 1 5414.06 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 201.06 Tabebuia argentea Exotic 0 0 3 381.64 0 0 1 225.38 1 2.84 1 9.40 Washing tonia robusta Exotic 0 0 4 337.30 0 0 10 831.91 1 0 17 1609.11 Bucida buceras Exotic 0 0 10 1727.36 2 868.77 3 339.67 0 0 0 0 Fic u s microcarpa Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 5 8488.77 24 30059.89 0 0 3 1356.25 Roystonea regia Native 1 0 18 3310.87 0 0 6 1304.71 0 0 0 0 Sabal palmetto Native 51 5150.3 7 459.78 0 0 91 7667.14 0 0 0 0 Swietenia mahagoni Native 0 0 0 0.00 1 1026.38 0 0 4 0 1 8.76 Syagrus romanzoffiana Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 2 42.78 19 1340.79 0 0 5 315.53 Bursera simaruba Native 3 18.68 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 7 228.79 0 0 Carpentaria acuminata Exotic 0 0 2 75.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 30.58 Ceiba sp. Exotic 1 65.9 1 59.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coccoloba uvifera Native 2 798.76 1 679.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conocarpus erectus Native 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 18 0 12 22.24 0 0 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 6 1467.62 2 545.95 0 0 0 0 Ligustrum japonicum Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 10 183.97 0 0 7 178.97 Syzygium cumini Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 7 7136.63 1 402.93 Tabebuia heterophylla Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 5 327.72 0 0 6 17.94 0 0 Taxodiu m distichum Native 0 0 34 11616.56 0 0 0 0 9 123.82 0 0 Thrinax radiat a Native 37 72.07 0 0.00 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acacia choriophylla Native 2 19.82 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acer rubrum Native 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 41.38 Acoelorraphe wrightii Native 0 0 0 0.00 2 53.82 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aralia sp. Exotic 1 9.53 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 54

54 Scientific Name Native or Exotic OLD PARKS NEW PARKS COLEE STRANAHAN WARFIELD COUNTRY TRAILSIDE WINDMILL Total BA Total BA Total BA Total BA Total BA Total BA Bauhinia blakeanna Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 563.86 Bischofia javanica Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 1 218.69 0 0 Bulnesia arborea Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Callistemon viminal e Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 3 250.31 0 0 0 0 Calyptranthes zuzygium Native 2 5.78 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capparis cynophallophora Native 2 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Catalpa sp. Native 0 0 1 138.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chrysalidocarpus cabadae Exotic 0 0 2 87.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chrysobalanu s icaco Native 0 0 2 14.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clusia guttifera Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 Coccothrinax argentata Native 2 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cordia sebestena Native 1 4.52 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dalbergia sissoo Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 9 2251.12 0 0 0 0 Delonix regia Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 3 210.6 0 0 0 0 Dipholis salicifolia Native 4 75.93 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dracaena sp. Exotic 0 0 3 121.51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dypsis lutescens Exotic 0 0 1 24.99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eugenia axillaris Native 2 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eugenia rhombea Native 12 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eugenia sp. Native 2 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ficus benjamina Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 1 1443.72 0 0 0 0 0 0 Guaiacum sanctum Native 1 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Guapira discolor Native 2 30.37 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gymnanthes lucida Native 11 22.68 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex alternat a Native 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex sp. Native 2 6.74 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 55

55 Scientific Name Native or Exotic OLD PARKS NEW PARKS COLEE STRANAHAN WARFIELD COUNTRY TRAILSIDE WINDMILL Total BA Total BA Total BA Total BA Total BA Total BA Krugiodendron ferreum Native 7 12.25 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lagerstroemia speciosa Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 3 3.77 0 0 Livistona chinensis Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 750.39 Lysiloma latisiliqu um Native 0 0 0 0.00 3 513.77 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mangifera sp. Exotic 2 171.56 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mastichodendron Foetidissimum Native 1 5.22 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrcianthes fragrans Native 3 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrsine guianensis Native 4 6.8 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pandanus utilis E xotic 0 0 1 207.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phoenix roebelenii Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 4 42.78 0 0 0 0 Pinus elliottii Native 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 Pongamia pinnata Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 330.42 Quercus laurifolia Native 0 0 0 0.00 1 497.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sapindus sapon aria Native 0 0 1 137.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schinus terebinthifolius Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Senna surattensis Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Tabebuia sp. Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 2 275.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tecoma stans Exotic 2 13.2 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terminalia catappa Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 1 264.46 0 0 Veitchia arecina Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 5 726.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veitchia merrilllii Exotic 0 0 22 492.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veitchia winin Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 27 964.77 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wodyetia bifurcate Exotic 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 137.98

PAGE 56

56 APPENDIX C SPECIES AND FAMILIES Common Name Scientific Name F amily Native or Exotic Verawood Bulnesia arborea Zygophyllaceae E Jamaican c aper Capparis cynophallophora Brassicaceae N Kapok Ceiba sp. Bombacaceae E Small leaf clusia Clusia guttifera Clusiacae E Silver palm Coccothrinax argentata Arecaceae N Silver b uttonwood Conocarpus erectus var. sericeus Combretaceae N White s topper Eugenia axillaris Myrtaceae N Red s topper Eugenia rhombea Myrtaceae N Stopper sp. Eugenia sp. Myrtaceae N Lignum Vitae Guaiacum sanctum Zygophyllaceae N "East Palatka" h olly Ilex Alternata Aquifoliaceae N Simpson s topper Myrcianthes fragrans Myrtaceae N Slash pine Pinus elliottii Pinaceae N Brazilian p epper Schinus terebinthifolius Anacardiaceae E Glaucous c assia Senna Suratensis Fabaceae E Pink t abebuia Tabebuia heterophylla Bignoniaceae E Arelia Aralia sp. Araliaceae E Javanese bishopwood Bischofia javanica Euphorbi aceae E Catalpa sp Catalpa sp. Bignoniaceae N Myrtle of the River Calyptranthes Zuzygium Myrtaceae N Geiger Tree Cordia sebestena Boraginaceae N Areca palm Dypsis lutescens Arecaceae E Weeping fig Ficus benjamina Moraceae E Holly sp. Ilex sp. Aquifoliaceae N Queen's c repe m yrtle Lagerstroemia speciosa Lythraceae E Mastic Mastichodendron Foetidissimum Sapotaceae N Myrsine Myrsine guianensis Myrsinaceae N Screw p ine Pandanus utilis Pandanaceae E Pygmy date palm Phoenix roebelenii Arecaceae E Laurel o ak Quercus laurifolia Fagaceae N Florida s oapberry Sapindus saponaria Sapindaceae N Sea almond Terminalia catappa Combretaceae E Cinnecord Acacia choriophylla Fabaceae N

PAGE 57

57 Common Name Scientific Name F amily Native or Exotic Red maple Acer rubrum Sapindaceae N Paurotis palm Acoelorraphe wrightii Arecaceae N Ceiba sp. Ceiba sp. Bombaceae E Cabada palm Chrysalidocarpus cabadae Arecaceae E Cocoplum Chrysobalanus icaco Chrysobalanaceae N Blolly Guapira discolor Nyctaginaceae N Mango Mangifera sp. Anacardiaceae E Pongam Pongamia pinnata Fabaceae E Mahogany Swietenia mahagoni Meliaceae N Tabebuia sp. Tabebuia sp Bignoniaceae E Yellow e lder Tecoma stans Bignoniaceae E Florida thatch palm Thrinax radiata Arecaceae N Hong K ong o rchid t ree Bauhinia blakeanna Fabaceae E Carpentaria palm Carpentaria acuminat a Arecaceae E Bottlebrush Callistemon vimi nale Myrtaceae E Sea grape Coccoloba uvifera Polygonaceae N Royal p oinciana Delonix regia Fabaceae E Dragon Dracaena sp. Agavaceae E Strangler fig Ficus aurea Moraceae N Black i ronwood Krugiodendron ferreum Rhamnaceae N Wild t amarind Lysiloma latisiliqu um Fabaceae N Buttonwood Conocarpus erectus Combretaceae N Willow b ustic Dipholis salicifolia Sapotaceae N Crabwood Gymnanthes lucida Euphorbiaceae N Arecina palm Veitchia arecina Arecaceae E Foxtail palm Wodyetia bifurcate Arecaceae E Yellow t abebuia Tabebuia argentea Bignoniaceae E Java p lum Syzygium cumini Myrtaceae E Carrot wood Cupaniopsis anacardioides Sapindaceae E Gumbo l imbo Bursera simaruba Burseraceae N Indian r osewood Dalbergia sissoo Fabaceae E Pink t abebuia Tabebuia heterophylla Bignoniaceae E Black o live Bucida buceras Combretaceae E Chinese palm Livistona chinensis Arecaceae E Japanese privet Ligustrum japonicum Oleaceae E Christmas palm Veitchia merrilllii Arecaceae E Royal palm Roystonea regia Arecaceae N Queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana Arecaceae E Winin palm Veitchia winin Arecaceae E Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta Arecaceae E

PAGE 58

58 Common Name Scientific Name F amily Native or Exotic Laurel fig Ficus microcarpa Moraceae E Bald cypress Taxodium distichum Cupressaceae N Live oak Quercus virginiana Fagaceae N Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto Arecaceae N

PAGE 59

59 APPENDIX D AVERAGE ANNUAL PARTI CIPATION

PAGE 60

60 APPENDIX E PARK MAPS Source: Broward County Aerials 2008.

PAGE 61

61 Source: Broward County Aerials 2008.

PAGE 62

62 Source: Broward County Aerials 2008.

PAGE 63

63 Source: Broward County Aerials 2008.

PAGE 64

64 Source: Broward County Aerials 2008.

PAGE 65

65 Source: Broward County Aerials 2008.

PAGE 66

66 LIST OF REFERENCES Brown, L. R., C. Flavin, and H. French. 2001. State of the World. World Watch Institute. Washington, DC. Celesti Grapow, L., P. Pysek, V. and C. Blasi. 2006. Determinants of Native and Alien Species Richness in the Urban Flora of Rome. Diversity and Distributions. 12:490501. Chafin, L. G. 2000. Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. Walsworth Publishing Company Brookfield, Missouri. City of Fort Lauderdale. 2000. Fort Lauderdale Statistics and Demographic Data. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://info.ci.ftlaud.fl.us/sta tistics2002.pdf Roberts, R. City of Hollywood. 2002. Hollywood History. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.hollywoodfl.org/records_archives/ARC.asp?DeptN=ARC& PageX=history City of Weston. 2006. The City of Weston, Planting Seeds for the Future. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.westonfl.org/ DeCandido, R 2004. Recent Changes in Plant Species Diversity in Urban Pe lham Bay Park, 19471998. Biological Conservation. 120:129136. Drayton, B. and R. B. Pimack. 1996. Plant Species Lost in an Isolated Conservation Area in Metropolitan Boston from 1894 to 1993. Conservation Biology, Vol. 10. No. 1. 3039. Fitzpatrick, G. E 2005. Analysis of Landscape Palm Species Richness and Diversity in Southeastern Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 118:294297. Forys, E. A. and C. R. Allen. 2002. Functional Group Change Within and Across Scales Following Invasions and Extinctions in the Everglades Ecosystem. Ecosystems 5:339347. Gillis, S. June 3, 1995. Letter to Ms. Rosemary Jones. Fort Lauderdale Historical Society. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Given, D. R. 1994. Principles and Practice of Plant Conservation. Timber Press Inc. Portland, Oregon Goode, D. A. 1990. Participation in Urban Nature Conservation in Britain. Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments, Proceedings of a National Symposium on Urban Wildlife National Institute for Urban Wildlife. Columbia, Maryland. Loeb, R E. 1989. The Ecological History of An Urban Park. Journal of Forest History. 134142. McF rederick, Q. S., and G. LeBuhn. 2006. Are Urban Parks Refuges for Bumble Bee Bombus Spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biological Conservation. 129:372382.

PAGE 67

67 Mcgoun, B. Nov 25, 1973. New Facts Story of Local Massacre. The Miami Herald, Miami, Florida. McKinney, M. L. 2006. Urbanization as a Major Cause of Biotic Homogenization. Biological Conservation. 127: 247260. McKinney, M. L. 2002. Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conse rvation. BioScience. Vol. 52. No. 10. 883890. Nash, J. G., and R .M. De Souza. 2002. Marking the Link, Population Health Environment. Population Reference Bureau. Measure Communication. Washington, D.C. Nelson, G 1994. The Trees of South Florida, A Refer ence Guide. Pineapple Press, Inc. Sarasota, Florida. Old Fort Lauderdale Village & Museum Fort Lauderdale Historical Society. Early History of the Fort Lauderdale Area. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.oldfortlauderdale.org/ history/preview.html Pearlstine, L. G., S. E. Smith, L.A. Brandt, C. R. Allen, W. M. Kitchens and J. Stenberg. 2002. Assessing State Wide Biodiversity i n the Florida Gap Analysis Project. Journal of Environmental Management. 66:127144. Peet, R. K. 1974. The measurement of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 5:285 307. Stark, S. C., D. E. Bunker and W. P. Carson. 2006. A Null Mode l of Exotic Plant Diversity Tested with Exotic and Native Species Area Relationships. Ecology Letters. 9:136141. State of Florida. Co. Florida Dept. of State. 20002005. Florida Facts. Retrieve February 24, 2007, from http://www.stateofflorida.com/Portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=95 Sumner, J 2000. The Natural History of Medicinal Plants. Timber Pr ess, Inc. Portland, Oregon. The Miami Herald. May 28, 1989. Whats in a Name, Broward County History, Solomon Davies Warfield. Miami, Florida. The North Lauderdale Imp. Association Beautification Committee Fort Lauderdale Shopper. January 6, 1928. Fort Lauderdale Historical Society. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Tilman, D. and C. Lehman. 2001. HumanCaused Environmental Change: Impacts on Plant Diversity and Evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 98:54335440. Town of Southwest Ranches. Southwest Ranches History. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.southwestranches.org/05web/about_history.html

PAGE 68

68 Tuxill, J 1999. Appreciating the Benefits of Plant Biodiversity. Worldwatch Institute. Washington, D.C. Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://www.worldwatch.org U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. State & County Quick Facts, Florida. Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html Weir, J Earth Observatory. NASA. 2000. Bright Lights, Big City. Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Features/Lights/ Weir, J Earth Observatory. NASA. 2000. Reaping What We Sow. Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Lights2/ Weir, J Earth Observatory NASA. 2002. Urbanizations Aftermath. Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Lights3/ Wunderlin, R P. and B F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to Vascular Plants of Florida 2nd ed. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. Williams, L. K. and P. S. George. Historical Museum of Southern Florida. 1995. South Florida: A Brief History. Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://www.hmsf.org/collections southflorida briefhistory.htm Wilson, E O. 1999. Biological Diversity, The Oldest Human Heritage. New York State Museum. Albany, New York. World Wildlife Fund. 2001. Wild Spaces, Wi ld Species, A Biodiversity Journey. CD Educators Guide. World Wildlife Fund. Washington, DC.

PAGE 69

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David Bogardus was born in 1970 and has had a lifelong passion for wild creatures and wild places. He has an undergradu ate degree from Warren Wilson College, North Carolina in e nvironmental s tudies. After graduating David spent eleven years with World Wildlife F und (WWF) in a variety of roles, but with the interest in preserving and restoring natural habitats. His interests took him to Florida to work on the Federal and State Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan This work gave him a keen passion for south F lorida and the Everglades flora and fauna. David was involved with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and has c omposed numerous technical recommendations on position papers created by the South Florida Water Management District, Department of In terior, and U .S Army Corps of Engineers. Today, David works for the Florida Department of Transportation as an E nvironmental S pecialist.