Skoči na glavni sadržaj

Izvorni znanstveni članak

https://doi.org/10.31298/sl.149.9-10.3

Diversity of woody plants in urban parks of Skopje, North Macedonia

Viktorija Brndevska Stipanović orcid id orcid.org/0000-0001-7772-1744 ; Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Hans Em Faculty of Forest Sciences, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Engineering *
Vlatko Andonovski orcid id orcid.org/0000-0001-9697-5854 ; Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Hans Em Faculty of Forest Sciences, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Engineering, Skopje, North Macedonia
Saša Orlović ; University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Agriculture, Novi Sad, Serbia / University of Novi Sad, Institute of Lowland Forestry and Environment, Novi Sad, Serbia

* Dopisni autor.


Puni tekst: engleski pdf 1.420 Kb

verzije

str. 431-442

preuzimanja: 323

citiraj

Preuzmi JATS datoteku


Sažetak

Urban parks are crucial components of a city’s green infrastructure, offering significant benefits from both social and environmental perspectives. They provide many ecosystem services and play a key role in maintaining, preserving, and enhancing urban biodiversity. This paper analyses the woody plant diversity in three urban parks in Skopje, North Macedonia. The research identified 90 different woody plant taxa in the analyzed parks, belonging to 42 genera and 23 families. The parks have a significantly higher number of non-native taxa compared to the native ones, as well as a significantly higher number of deciduous taxa compared to evergreen taxa. Although non-native species dominate to a great extent over the native ones, there is no threat from invasive plant species in the researched parks. Furthermore, the analyses included the calculation of biodiversity indices (alpha indices: Shannon, Simpson, and Berger-Parker, and also Sørensen beta index). The results showed that none of the parks are highly significant from a biodiversity perspective. The alpha indices indicate a low to moderate biodiversity in the studied North Macedonian urban parks. On the other hand, the Sørensen beta index indicated a more positive view, emphasizing the lack of significant similarity among the studied urban parks. Nevertheless, there is a clear need to enhance the biodiversity of woody plants in urban parks in Skopje. Integrating biodiversity considerations into the process of planning, landscape design of urban parks, and their maintenance is crucial. Establishing biodiversity monitoring as a standard practice will be essential for understanding the real situation in urban parks and enabling timely interventions.

Ključne riječi

woody plants; dendroflora; trees and shrubs; diversity; biodiversity indices; horticulture; urban parks

Hrčak ID:

336196

URI

https://hrcak.srce.hr/336196

Datum izdavanja:

1.10.2025.

Posjeta: 961 *




INTRODUCTION

Urban parks are essential components of urban green infrastructure (Breuste et al. 2015). They provide numerous ecosystem services, with biodiversity being one of the most important (Lakičević et al. 2022). These parks serve as specific urban green places, acting as habitats for various flora and fauna, thereby representing significant biodiversity hotspots within cities (Nielsen et al. 2014, Vidaković et al. 2020). As urbanization continues to rise, the fundamental importance of conserving urban biodiversity remains a subject of ongoing debate (Nilon 2011), with growing interest in this area (Cornelis and Hermy 2004, Dearborn and Kark 2010). One of the key methods for preserving biodiversity within urban habitats is monitoring changes in biodiversity over time (Volis 2018, Shilling et al. 2020, Lakičević et al. 2022). This procedure is useful for determining the presence of species, their persistence, or their potential loss from the area.

The variety of organisms and the measurement of their diversity have long been of interest to ecologists, particularly in natural habitats (Sohrabi and Habashi 2011). Nowadays, the diversity of tree species has also become a popular and interesting research topic for urban foresters and landscape designers (Hilbert et al. 2023). Greater diversity increases the functionality of trees, making their roles in urban environments more significant (Zare et al. 2009). An increase in plant species within manmade urban ecosystems can enhance environmental sustainability (Fard et al. 2015). This understanding of biodiversity allows for timely interventions during the urban planning process. Moreover, trees as dominant landscape elements in many urban areas and parks also influence other aspects of biodiversity. This makes them an important consideration in urban management decisions (Nowak 2010), further highlighting their crucial role in enhancing urban biodiversity (Vidaković et al. 2020).

In the past, analyses showed that biodiversity played a limited role in urban planning, often overshadowed by other priorities (Miller et al. 2009). However, recommendations to focus on challenging and relevant hypotheses, evaluate outcomes, and make knowledge actionable to provide specific guidance, tools, and workflows to increase biodiversity’s influence in urban planning (Norton et al. 2016) are becoming more relevant today. Certain studies have found a positive correlation between biodiversity in urban parks and well-being, suggesting that urban planners should prioritize enhancing diversity in urban green spaces (Brown and Grant 2005, Wood et al. 2018). Taylor and Hochuli (2015), in their study on creating better cities, emphasize the importance of considering biodiversity during the design process. They argue that urban designers should recognize the potential of their work to enhance human well-being by integrating biodiversity into their design and research.

In recent years, the diversity of woody plants in urban parks has become an increasingly researched topic (Bo and Zhi-Yi 2003; Cornelis and Hermy 2004; Poljak et al. 2011; Tafra et al. 2012, 2013; Nielsen et al. 2014; Zebec et al. 2014; Sahani and Raghavaswamy 2018; Savosko et al. 2020; Vidaković et al. 2020; Çoban et al. 2021; Öğçe et al. 2022; Zibtseva 2022; Lakičević et al. 2022; Ma et al. 2023). These studies typically analyze various aspects such as the number of species and varieties, the presence of deciduous and evergreen taxa, as well as the presence of woody plants by life form, and the number of native and non-native species. Beyond these common methods of studying and analyzing diversity, biodiversity in an area can also be measured in two distinct ways that include alpha and beta diversity indices (Heip et al. 1998, Gotelli and Colwell 2001, Stirling and Wilsey 2001). The most commonly used indices for determining biological diversity are alpha indices, such as the Shannon index (Shannon 1948), which measures both richness and evenness, and the Simpson index (Simpson 1949), which focuses on evenness. These indices are determined by the number of different taxa and their presence in a given area. Another alpha index that measures evenness is the Berger-Parker index (Berger and Parker 1970), which, in addition to considering the number of different taxa and their distribution, also takes into account the dominance of particular taxa. This makes it quite significant from the perspective of urban planning and landscape design, as dominant taxa influence the design and style of the park (Kümmerling and Müller 2012). Unlike alpha indices, which measure diversity within a single area, beta diversity indices are used to compare biodiversity between different areas or, less frequently, within the same area over different time periods (Legendre 2019, Lakičević et al. 2022). Understanding beta-diversity indices is essential for protecting regional diversity (Socolar et al. 2016) and can directly assist urban planning. This comprehensive approach to studying the diversity of woody plants in urban parks not only provides valuable ecological insights but also supports effective urban planning and landscape design.

Urban parks and urban dendroflora in North Macedonia (Shotaroska et al. 2019, Stipanović et al. 2022, Dimitrova et al. 2023, Stipanović and Andonovski 2024) have rarely been mentioned in research, presenting a significant opportunity for investigation. This study aimed to assess the current state of urban woody plant diversity in three North Macedonian parks and identify potential actions to enhance it. The focus was on preserving and improving biodiversity and enhancing the overall quality of life for urban residents. The specific objectives of this research were: (1) to determine and examine the abundance of woody plant taxa, their family affiliation, and the number of native, non-native, and invasive taxa; and

(2) to analyze the diversity of woody plants in the studied parks using various biodiversity indices, including the alpha indices (Shannon, Simpson and Berger-Parker) and the Sørensen beta index.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area

The research was conducted in three urban parks in Skopje, North Macedonia: Macedonia 1 Park, Airplane Park, and Woman-Warrior Park. These parks are all located in the central city area of Skopje, each within a different municipality (Figure 1).

image3.jpeg

Figure 1 Locations of the analyzed parks in Skopje (North Macedonia).

Macedonia 1 Park is situated in the municipality of Karposh, in the settlement of Kapishtec. It is a linear park, bordered to the north by Metropolit Teodosij Golaganov Boulevard and to the south by Jurij Gagarin Street. Established in 2012, the park has been progressively enhanced over the years with a variety of plantings. This park is multifunctional, comprising various elements or sections, including a recreational area with an outdoor gym and white gravel trim trail, children’s play area and a playground, a cycling track for children, space for quiet relaxation, and a dog park. Each section offers a range of activities. Due to its diverse offerings and the densely developed nature of the Kapishtec settlement, along with the scarcity of large parks in the area, Macedonia 1 Park plays a crucial role for the local community.

Airplane Park is located in the municipality of Aerodrom, within the settlement of Novo Lisiche. On one side, it borders the Vardar River, while on the other, it is bordered by ASNOM Boulevard. This park is frequently visited by local residents, primarily due to its location next to the Vardar River quay and the opportunity to enjoy the cherry blossoms during a certain period of the year. Additionally, it offers a variety of recreational options, including a cafeteria, a restaurant, various children’s play equipment, and a basketball court.

Woman-Warrior Park is in the municipality of Centar, right in the city center, next to the city’s oldest shopping center. Due to its location and, primarily, the shade from the old trees and resting areas, the park is always filled with passers-by who stop to rest.

All selected parks are classified as urban parks. Macedonia 1 Park and Airplane Park are relatively new, created in the previous decade, while Woman-Warrior Park is the oldest, established in the early 1970s (Table 1).

Although the three parks vary in size, they have some similarities in vegetation. Both Macedonia 1 Park and Woman-Warrior Park feature a diverse array of vegetation, including trees, shrubs, linear groups of shrubs, and floral compositions. In contrast, Airplane Park is characterized solely by the presence of trees. All three parks are designed with a combination of informal and formal styles, with the informal style predominating. However, formal elements are also present, not only in the inanimate features such as paths and monuments but also in the plant compositions, particularly through the use of formal hedges created from shrubs. The presence of these formal elements is significant as they greatly impact the assessment of biodiversity values within the parks.

Table 1 Basic characteristics of the studied parks in Skopje (North Macedonia).

Park

Area

Period of construction

Macedonia 1 Park

2.33 ha

2012-2016

Airplane Park

3.41 ha

2012

Woman-Warrior Park

1.62 ha

1970-1973

Field data collection

The data for this study were collected from the beginning of March 2023 to the end of July 2024. All woody plants (trees and shrubs) were marked using a GARMIN GPS MAP 66sr and processed with QGIS (Quantum Geographic Information System) software. Plant determination was conducted using literature on dendrology, including books by Džekov (1988), Šilić (1990), Idžojtić (2009), and databases from World Flora Online (WFO 2024), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Kew 2024), and The Royal Horticulture Society (RHS 2024). Scientific names of taxa are listed according to the International Plant Names Index (IPNI 2025) and World Flora Online (WFO 2024). The authorities for scientific names are standardized according to Brummitt and Powell (1992). Cultivar names are provided according to Hoffman (2021), in accordance with the new guidelines in the “International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants” (ICNCP), which appeared in 2016 (Brickell et al. 2016). Family affiliations are listed according to Cronquist (1981), Dahlgren et al. (1985), Kramer and Green (1990), and Farjon (2010). Additionally, literature by Vidaković et al. (2020) and Idžojtić et al. (2019) was consulted. Finally, a list of all woody plants and the number of individuals belonging to each taxon for each park was compiled and used to analyze biodiversity.

Woody plant diversity analyses

Based on the collected data, a dendrological analysis of woody plants in the parks of Skopje was conducted. The analysis included the following data: the abundance of individual taxa (species, varieties, forms, hybrids, and cultivars), family affiliation, the number of woody plant taxa and plants by leaf habit, life form, and the number of native, non-native, and invasive taxa. Invasive taxa were identified according to the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species for North Macedonia by Trajanovski et al. (2020). Additionally, the diversity of woody plants in the studied parks was calculated using the following indices: Shannon, Simpson, Berger-Parker and Sørensen. All taxa, including hybrids and cultivars, were included in the analyses, with hybrids and cultivars of native species being classified as native, and those of non-native species classified as non-native.

The Shannon index (H’) (Shannon 1948) describes both richness and evenness and is obtained based on the formula:

image4.png

where:

pi represents the proportion of the number of taxa,

i is the total number of plants present in a given area, and

s is the total number of registered plant taxa.

The Shannon index does not have a fixed range of values but usually takes values between 1.5 and 3.5 (Magurran 2003). If the value is equal or higher than 4, the area is considered extraordinary from a biodiversity perspective.

The Simpson index (D) (Simpson 1949) is a measure for evenness. The values of this index range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater uniformity within the taxa of the analyzed area. The formula used to calculate the Simpson index is as follows:

image5.png

where:

p represents the proportion of the number of plants of the taxa,

i is the total number of plants that are present in a given area, and

s represents the total number of plants present in a given area.

The Berger-Parker index (d) (Berger and Parker 1970) quantifies the relative abundance of the most dominant taxa. The index values range from 0 to 1, where values closer to 0 indicate higher diversity, and a value of 1 signifies a monoculture. This index is calculated using the formula:

image6.png

where:

N represents the total number of plants, and

Nmax represents the number of plants of the most abundant taxa.

The Sørensen index (Sørensen 1948) is a beta index that measures the similarity in plant composition between urban parks. The index values range from 0 to 1, with higher values, closer to 1, indicating greater similarity in the composition of plant taxa. The index is calculated using the formula:

image7.png

where:

EC is the total number of plants in common between two areas,

E1 is the number of plants in Area 1 (Park 1), and

E2 is the number of plants in Area 2 (Park 2).

RESULTS

The woody plant diversity in the selected parks included 90 different taxa (60 tree taxa and 30 shrub taxa), belonging to 23 different families (Table 2). The Cupressaceae family was characterized with the highest number of taxa, with 19, while the Rosaceae family was characterized with the highest number of woody plants, totaling 526, which included 11 different taxa found in the researched parks. There were 42 different genera, and 21 of them have representatives of only one taxon, with five of them represented only by a single woody plant (Aesculus L., Chaenomeles Lindl., Euonymus L., Hedera L. and Pseudotsuga Carrière). The Thuja L. genus had the highest number of taxa, with eight taxa, and it also had the largest number of woody plants, totaling 335. Other genera with a higher number of taxa included Acer L., Fraxinus Tourn. ex L. and Juniperus L., each represented by six taxa, and Magnolia Plum. ex L., which was represented by five taxa. Оf the total 90 different taxa, 33 were cultivars, four were hybrids, one was a variety, one was a form, and one was a cultivar of a hybrid. The remaining 51 taxa were species.

Table 2 List of woody taxa in the studied parks of Skopje (North Macedonia). Native woody plant taxa are given in green, invasive woody plant taxa are given in red.

Taxon

Family

Macedonia 1 Park

Airplane Park

WomenWarrior Park

Total
1Abies concolor (Gordon) Lindl. ex Hildebr.

Pinaceae

/

/

2

2
2Acer saccharinum L.

Sapindaceae

/

/

4

4
3Acer negundo L.

Sapindaceae

/

/

5

5
4Acer palmatum 'Elegans'

Sapindaceae

/

/

9

9
5Acer platanoides L.

Sapindaceae

/

/

2

2
6Acer platanoides 'Globosum'

Sapindaceae

/

/

3

3
7Acer pseudoplatanus L.

Sapindaceae

/

/

4

4
8Aesculus hippocastanum L.

Sapindaceae

/

/

1

1
9Albizia julibrissin Durazz.

Fabaceae

8

1

/

9

10

Berberis thunbergii DC.

Berberidaceae

/

/

5

5

11

Betula pendula Roth

Betulaceae

7

/

8

15

12

Betula pendula 'Youngii'

Betulaceae

12

/

/

12

13

Buxus microphylla Siebold et Zucc.

Buxaceae

29

/

/

29

14

Buxus sempervirens L.

Buxaceae

167

/

/

167

15

Catalpa bignonioides 'Nana'

Bignoniaceae

/

2

/

2

16

Catalpa bignonioides Walter

Bignoniaceae

11

/

/

11

17

Cedrus atlantica (Endl.) Manetti ex Carrière

Pinaceae

/

/

1

1

18

Cedrus deodara (Roxb. ex D.Don) G.Don

Pinaceae

/

/

16

16

19

Chaenomeles speciosa (Sweet) Nakai

Rosaceae

/

/

1

1

20

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Alumii'

Cupressaceae

3

/

/

3

21

Chamaecyparis pisifera 'Boulevard'

Cupressaceae

5

/

/

5

22

Cotoneaster horizontalis Decne.

Rosaceae

5

/

/

5

23

Cupressus sempervirens L.

Cupressaceae

/

/

3

3

24

Elaeagnus angustifolia L.

Elaeagnaceae

2

/

/

2

25

Euonymus fortunei 'Emerald 'n' Gold'

Celastraceae

1

/

/

1

26

Fraxinus americana L.

Oleaceae

9

1

/

10

27

Fraxinus angustifolia Vahl

Oleaceae

/

/

2

2

28

Fraxinus excelsior L.

Oleaceae

8

9

/

17

29

Fraxinus excelsior 'Jaspidea'

Oleaceae

4

/

/

4

30

Fraxinus excelsior 'Nana'

Oleaceae

91

/

3

94

31

Fraxinus excelsior 'Pendula'

Oleaceae

5

/

/

5

32

Ginkgo biloba L.

Ginkgoaceae

18

/

/

18

33

Ginkgo biloba 'Mariken'

Ginkgoaceae

5

/

/

5

34

Hedera helix L.

Araliaceae

1

/

/

1

35

Jasminum nudiflorum Lindl.

Oleaceae

3

/

/

3

36

Juniperus chinensis 'Stricta'

Cupressaceae

3

/

/

3

37

Juniperus communis 'Hibernica'

Cupressaceae

5

/

/

5

38

Juniperus horizontalis Moench

Cupressaceae

1

/

2

3

39

Juniperus scopulorum 'Blue Arrow'

Cupressaceae

10

/

/

10

40

Juniperus scopulorum 'Skyrocket'

Cupressaceae

21

/

2

23

41

Juniperus virginiana L.

Cupressaceae

/

/

2

2

42

Liriodendron tulipifera L.

Magnoliaceae

39

9

3

51
43Lonicera ligustrina var. yunnanensis Franch.Caprifoliaceae

2

/

7

9
44Magnolia grandiflora L.Magnoliaceae

/

/

1

1
45Magnolia kobus DC.Magnoliaceae

/

/

1

1
46Magnolia × loebneri LoebnerMagnoliaceae

44

/

/

44
47Magnolia liliiflora Desr.Magnoliaceae

/

/

6

6
48Magnolia × soulangeana Soul.-Bod.Magnoliaceae

1

/

/

1
49Metasequoia glyptostroboides Hu et W.C.ChengCupressaceae

3

/

/

3
50Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch.Vitaceae

18

/

/

18
51Picea abies (L.) H.Karst.Pinaceae

/

/

13

13
52Picea glauca 'Conica'Pinaceae

2

/

/

2
53Picea pungens f. glauca (Regel) Beissn.Pinaceae

/

/

14

14
54Pinus mugo TurraPinaceae

2

/

/

2
55Pinus nigra J.F.ArnoldPinaceae

1

/

95

96
56Pinus sylvestris L.Pinaceae

/

/

5

5
57Platanus occidentalis L.Platanaceae

/

/

5

5
58Platanus orientalis L.Platanaceae

/

107

13

120
59Platanus × hispanica Mill. ex Münchh.Platanaceae

56

32

/

88
60Platycladus orientalis 'Aurea Nana'Cupressaceae

5

/

/

5
61Prunus avium (L.) L.Rosaceae

/

3

/

3
62Prunus cerasifera 'Nigra'Rosaceae

31

/

/

31
63Prunus serrulata 'Kanzan'Rosaceae

/

131

/

131
64Prunus laurocerasus 'Rotundifolia'Rosaceae

/

/

33

33
65Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) FrancoPinaceae

/

/

1

1
66Pyracantha coccinea M.Roem.Rosaceae

/

/

4

4
67Quercus robur (Fastigiata Group) 'Koster'Fagaceae

3

/

/

3
68Quercus robur L.Fagaceae

/

/

2

2
69Quercus rubra L.Fagaceae

1

/

1

2
70Rosa helenae Rehder et E.H.WilsonRosaceae

/

/

53

53
71Rosa Floribunda GroupRosaceae

225

/

/

225
72Salix × sepulcralis 'Chrysocoma'Salicaceae

6

/

/

6
73Salix babylonica 'Tortuosa'Salicaceae

/

/

1

1
74Scandosorbus intermedia (Ehrh.) SennikovRosaceae

6

/

2

8
75Spiraea japonica 'Little Princess'Rosaceae

32

/

/

32
76Taxus baccata L.Taxaceae

/

/

3

3
77Taxus baccata 'Fastigiata'Taxaceae

7

/

/

7
78Thuja occidentalis 'Brabant'Cupressaceae

1

/

/

1
79Thuja occidentalis 'Columna'Cupressaceae

/

/

3

3
80Thuja occidentalis 'Europa Gold'Cupressaceae

/

/

1

1
81Thuja occidentalis 'Globosa'Cupressaceae

254

/

42

296
82Thuja occidentalis 'Rheingold'Cupressaceae

1

/

/

1
83Thuja occidentalis 'Smaragd'Cupressaceae

4

/

/

4
84Thuja occidentalis 'Woodwardii'Cupressaceae

/

/

27

27
85Thuja plicata Donn ex. D.DonCupressaceae

/

/

2

2
86Tilia cordata Mill.Malvaceae

3

/

/

3
87Tilia tomentosa MoenchMalvaceae

3

/

6

9
88Ulmus glabra 'Exoniensis'Ulmaceae

4

/

/

4
89Ulmus glabra 'Pendula'Ulmaceae

6

/

/

6
90Wisteria sinensis (Sims) DC.Fabaceae

26

/

/

26

The number of woody plant taxa and plants by leaf habit, life form, and origin in researched parks of Skopje (North Macedonia) is presented in Table 3. Of the total number of woody plant taxa in all three parks, the ratio of evergreen to deciduous taxa was 41:59% (28:72% for trees and 67:33% for shrubs), and the ratio of conifers to broadleaves was 34:66% (28:72% for trees and 47:53% for shrubs) (Table 3). The ratio of evergreen to deciduous woody plants was 41:59% (20:80% for trees and 61:39% for shrubs), and the ratio of conifers to broadleaves was 29:71% (20:80% for trees and 37:63% for shrubs).

All native taxa in the studied parks are marked in green in Table 2. Only 18 of the 90 different taxa (15 tree taxa and three shrub taxa) were categorized as native (Table 3). This indicates that non-native taxa were predominantly present in the researched parks. The ratio between native and non-native woody taxa was 20:80%. In Macedonia 1 Park, there were only nine native plant taxa (17%) out of a total of 53, including six native tree taxa (21%) out of 29, and three native shrub taxa (12.5%) out of 24. Airplane Park had only three native taxa out of a total of nine (all native trees), and Woman-Warrior Park had 11 native taxa (24%) out of 45, all of which were native trees (Table 3). The largest number of native woody plants was in Macedonia 1 Park, with 194 or 16% of all native woody plants (1220) (Table 3). However, considering that all native shrubs were in this park (170 shrubs or 21% of all shrubs in the park), Macedonia 1 Park had the smallest number of native trees (only 24 trees or 6% of all 418 trees in the park) compared to other researched parks (Airplane Park with 119 plants or 40% of a total 295, and Woman-Warrior Park with 141 individuals or 37% native individuals of a total of 419) (Table 3).

Of the 72 non-native woody plant taxa present in the researched parks, only one, Acer negundo L., was invasive. This species was found only in one of the researched parks (Woman-Warrior Park), with just five trees (Table 2, Table 3).

Table 3 The number of woody plant taxa and plants by leaf habit, life form, and origin in researched parks of Skopje (North Macedonia).

Category

Number of taxa

Number of plants

Macedonia 1 Park

Airplane Park

Woman Warrior Park

Total

Macedonia 1 Park

Airplane Park

Woman Warrior Park

Total

Evergreen/deciduous

20/33

0/9

21/24

37/53

523/697

0/295

269/150

792/1142

Evergreen/deciduous trees

3/26

0/9

16/20

17/43

32/386

0/295

161/84

193/765

Evergreen/deciduous shrubs

17/7

0/0

5/4

20/10

491/311

0/0

108/66

599/377

Conifers/broadleaves

17/36

0/9

18/27

31/59

328/892

0/295

232/187

560/1374

Conifer/broadleaves trees

4/25

0/9

15/21

17/43

35/383

0/295

161/84

196/762

Conifer/broadleaves shrubs

13/11

0/0

3/6

14/16

293/509

0/0

71/103

364/612

Trees

29

9

36

60

418

295

245

958

Shrubs

24

0

9

30

802

0

174

976

Native taxa

9

3

11

18

194

119

141

454

Non-native taxa

44

6

34

72

1026

176

278

1480

Invasive taxa

0

0

1

1

0

0

5

5

Total

53

9

45

90

1220

295

419

1934

The values of the alpha biodiversity indices in the studied parks are shown in Table 4. The Shannon index had the highest value of 2.76 in Woman-Warrior Park, slightly lower in Macedonia 1 Park at 2.66, and significantly lower in Airplane Park at 1.30. The Simpson index had especially high values in two of the parks, Macedonia 1 Park and Woman-Warrior Park, both with a value of 0.89, indicating a quite highly homogeneous distribution of plant taxa in these parks. In Airplane Park, the value was slightly lower, at 0.66. Furthermore, the Berger-Parker index was the highest in Airplane Park (0.92), indicating very low diversity. The values of the Berger-Parker index in the other two parks were lower, 0.53 for both Macedonia 1 Park and Woman-Warrior Park, but they still represent a quite high abundance of the most dominant taxa.

Table 4 The Shannon, Simpson, and Berger-Parker indices of woody plant diversity in the studied parks.

Park Shannon index

Simpson index

Berger-Parker index

Macedonia 1 Park2.66

0.89

0.53

Airplane Park1.30

0.66

0.92

Woman-Warrior Park2.76

0.89

0.53

Using the Sørensen beta index, the similarity between the researched parks was determined. The values of the Sørensen index of woody species biodiversity between the selected parks are presented in Table 5. In accordance with this research, the greatest similarity, with a Sørensen index value of 0.36, was observed between Macedonia 1 Park and Woman-Warrior Park. However, this value still indicates very small similarity. The remaining Sørensen index values were notably low: 0.12 between Airplane Park and Woman-Warrior Park, and 0.23 between Macedonia 1 Park and Airplane Park, indicating significant differences in their plant compositions.

Table 5 Sørensen index of woody species biodiversity between the studied parks.

Sørensen index Macedonia 1 Park

Airplane Park

Woman-Warrior Park

Macedonia 1 Park1
Airplane Park0.23

1

Woman-Warrior Park0.36

0.12

1

DISCUSSION

The presence of deciduous broadleaved taxa dominates the entire researched area, as well as each of the individual parks. From the analysis of trees, it is evident that deciduous broadleaved tree taxa are dominant. Moreover, in one of the parks (Airplane Park), the absence of evergreen plants is noticeable, with all woody plants being deciduous broadleaved. Although the shade provided by deciduous trees is considered the optimal shading solution and effectively meets the demands for thermally comfortable spaces (Xu et al. 2019), this choice of vegetation creates empty landscapes in late autumn and winter, negatively impacting biodiversity and the maintenance of ecosystem services (Nagendra and Gopal 2011). In addition, the analysis of shrubs shows that evergreen and broadleaved shrubs are dominant in the studied parks.

The presence of native woody taxa and the abundance of native plants across all the surveyed parks in Skopje are notably low. According to some authors (Lanta et al. 2013, Lakičević et al. 2022, Öğçe et al. 2022), urban spaces should prioritize the selection of native species over non-native ones. In general, native species are better adapted to local climate conditions and can significantly improve the quality of urban ecosystems. In addition, these species are crucial for maintaining local biodiversity, supporting wildlife, and providing ecosystem services. Besides being better adapted to the local environment and climatic conditions, they require less maintenance and, in terms of decorativeness, they are not inferior to non-native species (Tafra et al. 2012). Nevertheless, non-native species are often chosen over native ones for urban landscaping due to their aesthetic appeal, fast growth, beautiful flowers, interesting foliage, and exotic appearance (Idžojtić et al. 2010, 2011, 2013; Poljak et al. 2011; Špaková and Šerá 2018). People often enjoy introducing exotic plants to create visually appealing and diverse landscapes (Zebec et al. 2014). However, the replacement of native species with non-native ones can undermine essential ecological functions provided by vegetation, and some of these functions may be completely lost (Talal and Santelmann 2019). Ultimately, this can negatively affect biodiversity in the urban environment. Although a significant number of studies have found that in urban parks, non-native taxa are more prevalent than native ones (Rauš 1969; Karavla 1997; Godefroid 2001; Wania et al. 2006; Shochat et al. 2010; Poljak et al. 2011; Tafra et al. 2012, 2013; Zebec et al. 2014; Gaertner et al. 2017; Pušić et al. 2023), there are also examples where native species have increased and non-native taxa have decreased in certain parks. For example, in King Petar Krešimir IV Park in Zagreb, Croatia, this shift occurred between 1995 and 2020 as a result of efforts focused on preserving biodiversity (Vidaković et al. 2020). On the contrary, some studies indicate that in the context of a changing climate, greater attention should be given to the potentially positive role of non-native, climate-adapted, aesthetically pleasing species in urban planting schemes, as these could be well-received by the public (Hoyle et al. 2017).

Among the non-native taxa in the researched parks of Skopje, only one is invasive, and it was recorded in only one park, Woman-Warrior Park. It is well known that invasive plant species represent one of the major threats to global biodiversity, including urban biodiversity (Francis and Chadwick 2015, Williams et al. 2015, Kaushik et al. 2022). These species often act as pioneer species in different landscapes, are tolerant to disturbances, climatic conditions, and climate change, and have high competitive potential, which results in the loss of native flora (Kaushik et al. 2022). However, in the researched urban parks in Skopje, we can conclude that the situation is under control, and there is currently no threat posed by invasive species to urban plant biodiversity. The presence of only one invasive species in only one of the researched parks, with just five trees in total, is completely insignificant. In general, in urban parks like the researched ones, which are consistently managed through planning and maintenance, with no larger areas in a typical landscape style, the probability of invasive species occupying the space is very low. Nevertheless, in the future, special attention is recommended when introducing new woody taxa to ensure they do not possess invasive characteristics (Burton et al. 2005, Fuller et al. 2007, Kowarik 2011, Trentanovi et al. 2013, Wood et al. 2018).

Most of the native trees in the parks are older, indicating a decline in the use of native woody plants in urban green areas compared to the past, and an increasing use of non-native and exotic species in recent times. The oldest and largest trees were found in Woman-Warrior Park, where the largest number of native trees were planted during the construction of the park in the early 1970s. These species include Pinus nigra J.F.Arnold, Platanus orientalis L., Betula pendula Roth, Tilia tomentosa Moench, Pinus sylvestris L. and Quercus robur L. Specifically, the most striking specimens are those of the genus Platanus L., with an average diameter at breast height (DBH) of 61 cm. Notably dominant is one specimen of Platanus orientalis, with a remarkable DBH of 112 cm, along with three other trees measuring 96 cm. These four trees are believed to have been part of the area even before the park’s construction. Generally, such old and large trees are keystone structures in urban parks and they are recognized for their biodiversity values (Jonsell 2004, Stagoll et al. 2012, Zebec et al. 2014) and for their ecological, historical and sociocultural importance (Tyrväinen et al. 2005, Poljak et al. 2011, Nolan et al. 2020). The other two parks are relatively new (since 2012), and they lack such old and large trees. Most of the trees in the other two studied parks have an average diameter of less than 30 cm.

The diversity of woody taxa in the researched parks was also analyzed using the biodiversity indices. The Shannon index values obtained for the researched parks indicate that none of the parks fall into the category of extraordinary biodiversity, which is defined by a value equal to or higher than 4 (Magurran 2003). In fact, Airplane Park has a particularly low Shannon index value of 1.30, which is even below the usual range of 1.5-3.5 (Shannon 1948). This was also confirmed by the Berger-Parker index, where values closer to 0 correspond to higher diversity, and a value of 1 indicates a monoculture (Berger and Parker 1970). Airplane Park had a value slightly above 0.9, indicating that it is very close to being a monoculture. The park is characterized by a high abundance of the following taxa: Platanus × hispanica Mill. ex Münchh., Platanus orientalis and Prunus serrulata ‘Kanzan’. In addition, the values of the Simpson index indicated a highly homogeneous distribution of woody plant taxa, especially in two parks: Macedonia 1 Park and Woman-Warrior Park. Finally, the similarity between the researched parks was determined using the Sørensen beta index. According to the rule that values closer to 1 correspond to greater similarity in plant composition (Sørensen 1948), it can be concluded that there is a lack of significant similarity among the parks. From a biodiversity perspective, parks with a diverse plant composition are more beneficial than those with uniform plant components, which is why the analysis of beta indices for different habitats/parks is of great importance (Lakičević et al. 2022). Therefore, although the alpha indices suggest a lower to moderate diversity of woody taxa in the researched parks, the beta index suggest significant differences between the parks in terms of the presence of woody taxa.

CONCLUSIONS

Biodiversity studies are of great importance for raising awareness about nature preservation in the urban environment and improving urban life. In this study of three parks in the city of Skopje, a total of 90 different woody plant taxa were identified, which is somewhat lower compared to some other cities in Europe. Generally speaking, the surveyed parks have a significantly higher number of deciduous taxa compared to evergreen taxa, and a significantly higher number of non-native taxa compared to native taxa. Overall, the interrelated values of the calculated alpha indices contribute to a low level of species richness across the studied parks. While the values of the alpha indices indicate a negative impact on biodiversity, the Sørensen beta index reveals a positive perspective, highlighting a lack of significant similarity among the researched parks.

Since none of the parks is characterized by great biodiversity, the recommendations emphasize the need to enhance the biodiversity of woody plants in Skopje and to monitor it continuously. Biodiversity considerations should be integrated into the process of planning and landscape designing of urban parks, as well as in their maintenance, including the regular replacement of plants. Finally, this research can inform future studies by comparing biodiversity across parks and different time periods in the territory of Skopje, providing guidance for urban planners and landscape designers. Regular monitoring of woody plant diversity in urban parks should be established as a standard practice, as it is essential for understanding the actual situation and enabling timely interventions.

References

 

- Berger, W.H., F.L. Parker, 1970;Diversity of planktonic foraminifera in deep-sea sediments. Science. 168(3937):1345–1347. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.168.3937.1345

 

- Bo, C., B. Zhi-Yi, 2003;Indicators for monitoring biodiversity in urban and suburban parks. Biodiversity Journal. 11(2):169https://doi.org/10.17520/biods.2003023

 

- Breuste, J., M. Artmann, J. Li, M. Xie, 2015;Special issue on green infrastructure for urban sustainability. Journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division, ASCE. 141(3):2015001https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000291

 

- Brickell, C.D., C. Alexander, J.J. Cubey, J.C. David, M. Hoffmann, A.C. Leslie, V. Malécot, X. Jin, 2016. International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants,. 9th Edition. International Society for Horticultural Science,; Leuven.:

 

- Brown, C., M. Grant, 2005;Biodiversity and human health: What role for nature in healthy urban planning? Built Environment. 31(4):326–338. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.2005.31.4.326

 

- Brummitt, R.K., C.E. Powell, 1992. Authors of plant names. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew,; London.:

 

- Burton, M.L., L.J. Samuelson, S. Pan, 2005;Riparian woody plant diversity and forest structure along an urban-rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems. 8:93–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11252-005-1421-6

 

- Çoban, S., Ş.D. Yener, S. Bayraktar, 2021;Woody plant composition and diversity of urban green spaces in Istanbul, Turkey. Plant Biosystems. 155(1):83–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2020.1727980

 

- Cornelis, J., M. Hermy, 2004;Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69(4):385–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2003.10.038

 

- Cronquist, A., 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press,; New York.:

 

- Dahlgren, R., H. Clifford, P. Yeo, 1985. The families of the monocotyledons: Structure, evolution, and taxonomy. Springer Verlag,; Berlin.:

 

- Dearborn, D.C., S. Kark, 2010;Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conservation Biology. 24(2):432–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01328.x

 

- Dimitrova, A., V. Brndevska Stipanović, D.D. Kolevska, 2023;Collection of experiences: 25 years’ work on seed propagation of allochthonous woody plants in Skopje and their possible role in the urban landscape. South-east European forestry: SEEFOR. 14(1):53–67. https://doi.org/10.15177/seefor.23-09

 

- Džekov, S., 1988. Dendrologija. Univerzitet “Kiril i Metodij”,. Šumarski fakultet,. Skopje.;

 

- Fard, M.S.H., M. Namiranian, V. Etemad, 2015;Evaluating plant species diversity in urban parks of Kio and Shariati in Khorramabad county. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences. 6(4):1–8

 

- Farjon, A., 2010. A handbook of the world’s conifers,. Brill, Leiden.:

 

- Francis, R.A., M.A. Chadwick, 2015;Urban invasions: non-native and invasive species in cities. Geography. 100(3):144–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2015.12093969

 

- Fuller, R.A., K.N. Irvine, P. Devine-Wright, P.H. Warren, K.J. Gaston, 2007;Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters. 3(4):390–394. https://doi. org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149

 

- Gaertner, M., J.R. Wilson, M.W. Cadotte, J.S. MacIvor, R.D. Zenni, D.M. Richardson, 2017;Non-native species in urban environments: patterns, processes, impacts and challenges. Biological Invasions. 19:3461–3469. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10530-017-1598-7

 

- Godefroid, S., 2001;Temporal analysis of the Brussels flora as indicator for changing environmental quality. Landscape and Urban Planning. 52(4):203–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0169-2046(00)00117-1

 

- Gotelli, N.J., R.K. Colwell, 2001;Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters. 4(4):379–391. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x

 

- Heip, C.H., P.M. Herman, K. Soetaert, 1998;Indices of diversity and evenness. Oceanis. 24(4):61–88

 

- Hilbert, D.R., A.K. Koeser, M. Andreu, M. Clarke, G. Hansen, L.A. Roman, M. Thetford, 2023;Expanding urban tree species diversity in Florida (USA): Challenges and opportunities for practitioners. Society & Natural Resources. 36(8):891–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2023.2175285

 

- Hoffman, M.H.A., 2021. List of names of woody plants.International standard ENA 2021–2025. Naktuinbouw, Roelofarendsveen.:

 

- Hoyle, H., J. Hitchmough, A. Jorgensen, 2017;Attractive, climate-adapted and sustainable? Public perception of non-native planting in the designed urban landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning. 164:49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2017.03.009

 

- Idžojtić, M., 2009. Dendrologija: List.Sveučilište u Zagrebu Šumarski fakultet. Zagreb.:

 

- Idžojtić, M., I. Anić, I. Šimić, M.A. Kovačević, I. Poljak, 2019;Dendrološke značajke arboretuma Trsteno. Šumarski list. 14334:125–143. https://doi.org/10.31298/sl.143.3-4.3

 

- Idžojtić, M., I. Poljak, M. Zebec, 2013;Determination of trees and shrubs in the Lisičine arboretum within the project of revitalisation – part 2. Šumarski list. 13756:325–333

 

- Idžojtić, M., M. Zebec, I. Poljak, 2010;Revitalisation of the Lisičine arboretum. Šumarski list. 13412:5–17

 

- Idžojtić, M., M. Zebec, I. Poljak, 2011;Dendrological and horticultural value of Lisičine arboretum. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering. 32(1):193–201

 

- IPNI, 2025. International Plant Names Index. https://www.ipni.org/

 

- Jonsell, M., 2004;Old park trees: a highly desirable resource for both history and beetle diversity. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 30(4):238

 

- Karavla, J., 1997;Parkovni objekti u općini Rijeka. Šumarski list. 12134:133–160

 

- Kaushik, P., P.K. Pati, M. Khan, P. Khare, 2022;Plant functional traits best explain invasive species’ performance within a dynamic ecosystem – A review. Trees, Forests and People. 8:100260https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100260

 

- Kew, 2024. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. https://www.kew.org/

 

- Kowarik, I., 2011;Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environmental Pollution. 15989:1974–1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.02.022

 

- Kramer, K.U., P.E. Green, 1990. Pteridophytes and gymnosperms. In (Kubitzki, K., ed.): , editor. The families and genera of vascular plants. Springer Verlag,; Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.:

 

- Kümmerling, M., N. Müller, 2012;The relationship between landscape design style and the conservation value of parks: A case study of a historical park in Weimar, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning. 107(2):111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2012.05.006

 

- Lakičević, M., K.M. Reynolds, S. Orlović, R. Kolarov, 2022;Measuring dendrofloristic diversity in urban parks in Novi Sad (Serbia). Trees, Forests and People. 8:100239https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100239

 

- Lanta, V., T. Hyvönen, K. Norrdahl, 2013;Non-native and native shrubs have differing impacts on species diversity and composition of associated plant communities. Plant Ecology. 214:1517–1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-013-0272-0

 

- Legendre, P., 2019;A temporal beta-diversity index to identify sites that have changed in exceptional ways in space–time surveys. Ecology and Evolution. 9(6):3500–3514. https://doi. org/10.1002/ece3.4984

 

- Ma, Z., P. Zhang, N. Hu, G. Wang, Y. Dong, Y. Guo, C. Wang, Y. Fu, Z. Ren, 2023;Understanding the drivers of woody plant diversity in urban parks in a snow climate city of China. Journal of Forestry Research. 34(4):1021–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/11676–11022

 

- Magurran, A., 2003. Measuring biological diversity. Black-well Publishing,; Oxford.:

 

- Miller, J.R., M. Groom, G.R. Hess, T. Steelman, D.L. Stokes, J. Thompson, T. Bowman, L. Fricke, B. King, R. Marquardt, 2009;Biodiversity conservation in local planning. Conservation Biology. 23(1):53–63. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01110.x

 

- Nagendra, H., D. Gopal, 2011;Tree diversity, distribution, history and change in urban parks: studies in Bangalore, India. Urban Ecosystems. 14:211–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/11252–11010

 

- Nielsen, A.B., M. van den Bosch, S. Maruthaveeran, C.K. van den Bosch, 2014;Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosystems. 17:305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0316-1

 

- Nilon, C.H., 2011;Urban biodiversity and the importance of management and conservation. Landscape and Ecological Engineering. 7:45–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0146-8

 

- Nolan, V., T. Reader, F. Gilbert, N. Atkinson, 2020;The ancient tree inventory: a summary of the results of a 15 year citizen science project recording ancient, veteran and notable trees across the UK. Biodiversity and Conservation. 29(11):3103–3129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-02033-2

 

- Norton, B.A., K.L. Evans, P.H. Warren, 2016;Urban biodiversity and landscape ecology: patterns, processes and planning. Current Landscape Ecology Reports. 1:178–192. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40823-016-0018-5

 

- Nowak, D.J., 2010. Urban biodiversity and climate change. In (Muller, N., P. Werner, J.G. Kelcey, eds.): , editor. Urban biodiversity and design. Blackwell Publishing,; Hoboken, New York,: p. 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318654.ch5

 

- Öğçe, H., E. Şatıroğlu, F. Bekiryazıcı, D. Dinçer, 2022;Comparing urban parks’ woody plant diversity in seven different locations of Turkey. Forestist. 72(3):266–274. https://doi. org/10.54614/forestist.2022.21038

 

- Poljak, I., M. Idžojtić, M. Zebec, 2011;Woody plants of the Zagreb ZOO garden. Šumarski list. 13556:269–278

 

- Pušić, M., T. Narandžić, J. Ostojić, M. Grubač, M. Ljubojević, 2023;Assessment and potential of ecosystem services of ornamental dendroflora in public green areas. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 30(2):2850–2865. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11356-022-22299-z

 

- Rauš, Đ., 1969;Autohtona i alohtona dendroflora šire okolice Vukovara. Šumarski list. 9356:185–209

 

- RHS, 2024. The Royal Horticulture Society. https://www.rhs. org.uk/

 

- Sahani, S., V. Raghavaswamy, 2018;Analyzing urban landscape with City Biodiversity Index for sustainable urban growth. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 190(8):471https://doi. org/10.1007/s10661-018-6854-5

 

- Savosko, V., N. Tovstolyak, Y. Lykholat, I. Grygoryuk, 2020;Structure and diversity of urban park stands at Kryvyi Rih ore-mining & metallurgical district, Central Ukraine. Agriculture and Forestry. 66(3):105–126. https://doi.org/10.17707/ AgricultForest.66.3.10

 

- Shannon, C.E., 1948;A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal. 27(3):379–423

 

- Shilling, F., W. Collinson, M. Bil, D. Vercayie, F. Heigl, S.E. Perkins, S. MacDougall, 2020;Designing wildlife-vehicle conflict observation systems to inform ecology and transportation studies. Biological Conservation. 251:108797https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108797

 

- Shochat, E., S.B. Lerman, J.M. Anderies, P.S. Warren, S.H. Faeth, C.H Nilon, 2010;Invasion, competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. Bioscience. 60(3):199–208. https:// https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.6

 

- Shotaroska, M., B. Simovski, T. Nikolovski, K. Chonevska, I. Minčev, V. Stojanovski, 2019;Urban dendroflora of the Macedonia Park in the city of Skopje, North Macedonia. Glasilo Future. 2(3):10–28. https://doi.org/10.32779/gf.2.3.2

 

- Simpson, E.H., 1949;Measurement of diversity. Nature. 163(4148):688. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0

 

- Socolar, J.B., J.J. Gilroy, W.E. Kunin, D.P. Edwards, 2016;How should beta-diversity inform biodiversity conservation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 31(1):67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tree.2015.11.005

 

- Sohrabi, V., H. Habashi, 2011;Relationship between trees and shrubs biodiversity with some soil physical properties in Hyrcanian forests (North of Iran). International Journal of Biology. 3(4):22–29. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijb.v3n4p22

 

- Sørensen, T.J., 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons.I kommission hos E. Munksgaard,; København.:

 

- Šilić, Č., 1990. Ukrasno drveće i grmlje. Svjetlost,; Sarajevo.:

 

- Špaková, M., B. Šerá, 2018;Woody plants of the main part of the Bečov botanical garden. Šumarski list. 14278:403–409. https://doi.org/10.31298/sl.142.7-8.7

 

- Stagoll, K., D.B. Lindenmayer, E. Knight, J. Fischer, A.D. Manning, 2012;Large trees are keystone structures in urban parks. Conservation Letters. 5(2):115–122. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00216.x

 

- Stipanović, V.B., V. Andonovski, 2024;Eco-roundabouts: assessing and amplifying environmental benefits in Skopje’s urban green infrastructure. Forest Science. 60:121–136

 

- Stipanović, V.B., J. Čukanović, S. Orlović, J.R. Atanasovska, V. Andonovski, B. Simovski, 2022;Linear greenery in urban areas and green corridors case study: Blvd. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Blvd. Hristijan Todorovski Karposh, Skopje, North Macedonia. Contemporary Agriculture. 7134:212–221. https:// doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2478/contagri-2022-0028

 

- Stirling, G., B. Wilsey, 2001;Empirical relationships between species richness, evenness, and proportional diversity. The American Naturalist. 158(3):286–299

 

- Tafra, D., M. Milović, M. Pandža, 2013;Non-native flora of the town of Omiš (Dalmatia, Croatia). Natura Croatica: Periodicum Musei Historiae Naturalis Croatici. 22(1):135–146

 

- Tafra, D., M. Pandža, M. Milović, 2012;Woody plants of the Omiš. Šumarski list. 1361112:605–616

 

- Talal, M.L., M.V. Santelmann, 2019;Plant community composition and biodiversity patterns in urban parks of Portland, Oregon. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 7:201https://doi. org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00201

 

- Taylor, L., D.F. Hochuli, 2015;Creating better cities: how biodiversity and ecosystem functioning enhance urban residents’ wellbeing. Urban Ecosystems. 18:747–762. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11252-014-0427-3

 

- Trajanovski, S., B. Simovski, B. Nikolov, L.J. Wong, S. Pagad, 2020. Global register of introduced and invasive species – North Macedonia, Version 1.3. Invasive Species Specialist Group ISSG,. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15468/xdl73taccessed via GBIF.org on 2024-09-17.

 

- Trentanovi, G., M. von der Lippe, T. Sitzia, U. Ziechmann, I. Kowarik, A. Cierjacks, 2013;Biotic homogenization at the community scale: disentangling the roles of urbanization and plant invasion. Diversity and Distributions. 19(7):738–748. https:// https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12028

 

- Tyrväinen, L., S. Pauleit, K. Seeland, S. de Vries, 2005. Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In (Konijnendijk, C., K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, J. Schipperijn, eds.): , editor. Urban forests and trees. Springer,; Berlin, Heidelberg,: p. 81–114. https://doi. org/10.1007/3-540-27684-X_5

 

- Vidaković, A., M. Idžojtić, T. Megyery, D. Turk, I. Poljak, 2020;Kralj Petar Krešimir IV. park in Zagreb – woody plants. Šumarski list. 144910:475–484. https://doi.org/10.31298/1449–1104

 

- Volis, S., 2018;Securing a future for China’s plant biodiversity through an integrated conservation approach. Plant Diversity. 40(3):91–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2018.04.002

 

- Wania, A., I. Kühn, S. Klotz, 2006;Plant richness patterns in agricultural and urban landscapes in Central Germany – spatial gradients of species richness. Landscape and Urban Planning. 7512:97–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2004.12.006

 

- WFO, 2024. World Flora Online. http://www.worldfloraonline. org/

 

- Williams, N.S., A.K. Hahs, P.A. Vesk, 2015;Urbanisation, plant traits and the composition of urban floras. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 17(1):78–86. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ppees.2014.10.002

 

- Wood, E., A. Harsant, M., Dallimer, A. Cronin de Chavez, R.R., McEachan, C. Hassall, 2018;Not all green space is created equal: Biodiversity predicts psychological restorative benefits from urban green space. Frontiers in Psychology. 9:2320https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02320

 

- Xu, M., B. Hong, R. Jiang, L. An, T. Zhang, 2019;Outdoor thermal comfort of shaded spaces in an urban park in the cold region of China. Built Environment. 155:408–420. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.03.049

 

- Zare, S., S. Karami, M. Namiranian, F. Shabanali, 2009. Principles of urban forestry. In (Müller, N., P. Werner, J.G. Kelcey, eds.): , editor. Urban Forestry and Design. Blackwell Publishing,; New York,: p. 101–117

 

- Zebec, M., M. Idžojtić, I. Poljak, M. Zebec, 2014;Dendroflora and harmony of the architectural and horticultural elements of the park surrounding the Faculty of Forestry and the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Zagreb. Šumarski list. 13812:55–64

 

- Zibtseva, O., 2022;Tree species biodiversity in small Ukrainian towns. Ekológia (Bratislava). 41(2):161–171. https://doi. org/10.2478/eko-2022-0017

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the scientific project Biodiversity of Urban Dendroflora in Skopje (BUDS), funded through the integrative funds of the University of St. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje.


This display is generated from NISO JATS XML with jats-html.xsl. The XSLT engine is libxslt.