Next Article in Journal
Social Capital in Neighbourhood Renewal: A Holistic and State of the Art Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Carbon Trading System on Green Economic Growth in China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Landscape and Vegetation Patterns Zoning Is a Methodological Tool for Management Costs Implications Due to Xylella fastidiosa Invasion
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/land11081201
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Native or Exotic: A Bibliographical Review of the Debate on Ecological Science Methodologies: Valuable Lessons for Urban Green Space Design

by
Catarina Archer de Carvalho
1,2,
Mauro Raposo
1,3,
Carlos Pinto-Gomes
1,3,4,* and
Rute Matos
1,2
1
Departamento da Paisagem, Ambiente e Ordenamento, Universidade de Évora, 7000-671 Évora, Portugal
2
CHAIA—Centro de História da Arte e Investigação Artística, Universidade de Évora, 7000-809 Évora, Portugal
3
MED—Mediterranean Institute for Agriculture, Environment and Development, Pólo da Mitra, Universidade de Évora, 7006-554 Évora, Portugal
4
ICT—Instituto de Ciências da Terra, Universidade de Évora, Rua Romão Ramalho, 59, 7002-554 Évora, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2022, 11(8), 1201; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081201
Submission received: 15 July 2022 / Accepted: 27 July 2022 / Published: 30 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Landscape and Vegetation: Methodological Aspects)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Knowledge from ecological sciences is an important reference for landscape design as Urban Green Spaces (UGS) play a critical role in the ecological protection of cities. There is an ongoing debate among ecologists on the value of exotic vegetation to ecosystem resilience and integrity, with authors arguing that in order for ecosystems to survive in future climates, exotic species with similar conditions in their current range must be considered. Others deem biodiversity vital for ecosystem functions and services, stating that most biodiversity losses are man-induced and should be addressed through the enhancement of native communities. Through a literature review, we confronted the arguments used in this debate, with the aim of conducting a comprehensive analysis of the potential of exotic and native vegetation in different aspects of the vegetation’s performance. The outcomes are important for the assessment of vegetation assemblages within UGS projects. Despite the strong arguments regarding their performative and adaptive capacity, we conclude that exotics pose significant ecological risks and have multiple negative impacts on ecosystem processes. Natives not only present high adaptive capacity, but also provide additional benefits for biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, and for people. In a broader framework, the literature demonstrates a preference for the use of native species in most situations.

1. Introduction

1.1. Context

Urban Green Spaces (UGS) are public open spaces within the city where vegetation is the predominant element. They represent nature in the cityscape and provide countless benefits for people. In contemporary cities, UGS play a multifunctional role, supporting ecological protection, production, recreation, and cultural expression. Their ecologic protective performance has become fundamental for urban resilience in the face of climate change [1,2]. With the spread of urban areas, cities are becoming increasingly disconnected from their natural surroundings. Thus, UGS, as a part of the urban green infrastructure, are the best option to improve cities’ capacities for climate change adaptation as they provide multiple ecosystem services [3]. They are also the means to tackle biodiversity loss and the spread of invasive species [4], playing an important role in both climate change adaptation and biodiversity strategies [5].
Strengthening urban green and blue infrastructure is one of the strategies of urban mitigation, defined in the IPCC Report—Climate Change 2022 (IPCC AR6 WGIII). UGS can be used to restore modified ecosystems and to obtain ecological connectivity. The reconversion of land use in key urban areas and the requalification of urban ecosystems also converges with international biodiversity strategies, which identify ecological connectivity as a key element for biodiversity conservation. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 recognizes fragmentation as a major limitation to the successful implementation of the Natura 2000 Network. Urban and agricultural areas constitute the major drivers of fragmentation by their extension [6]. If based on the restoration of native communities, urban green infrastructures offer the opportunity to connect cities to rural and natural surrounding areas [7], while supporting the development of quality open spaces for the urban population.
Knowledge of the climatic effects of specific urban vegetation structures is fundamental to understanding the potential of using UGS for ecosystem service supplies, especially in regulating services, which are critical in the climate change adaptation of urban areas (IPCC AR5 WGII).

1.2. The Contribution of Ecological Sciences in UGS Design and Current Trends

The landscape architects’ approach to UGS design can be considerably improved by incorporating the scientific knowledge of vegetation ecology, applied ecology, and ecological restoration. In particular, the research that relates vegetation type to ecosystem services and functions has a significant impact on landscape architecture practices. Several studies show a close relationship between vegetation structure and ecosystem services [1,8,9,10], especially in urban areas where the latter have an increased significance [11]. Vegetation structure is directly related to ecological function (e.g., root depth is related to the nutrient cycle, carbon fixation, and water capture) and any changes in the vegetation structure will directly influence the ecosystem services depending on those functions [5]. In this sense, restoration ecology provides an interesting framework for promoting the suitability of vegetation systems in UGS designs. Restoration processes are based on the articulation of three main ecosystem assessment factors (plant biology, abiotic elements, and the ecological interactions between them) and can be a valuable tool for enhancing urban ecosystems’ capacities and establishing a sustainable ecological function through time [5]. With the arising of new concepts within the field of ecological restoration, namely Novel Ecosystems and Designed Ecosystems [12], the restoration methods can be an effective solution in UGS projects where the main purpose is not the restoration of a pre-existing system but the maximization of the vegetation’s performative potential.
It has always been considered that natural areas with unmodified native communities have higher resilience and capacity for ecosystem service supplies in the face of global changes and biodiversity alterations and that restoration interventions should mimic such reference systems. However, scientists have begun to debate whether biodiversity is the main element for ecosystem integrity when outlining ecological restoration projects. The need to assess future environmental conditions to ensure the ecosystems’ climate change adaptive capacity has shifted the focus from native to adaptable species [13]. Some scientists point to functional diversity as the most important factor for ecosystem integrity. This concept favors plant traits over provenance or taxonomic composition [14,15,16,17,18,19]. From this perspective, exotic species should be evaluated by the ecosystem services they supply and not only by their negative impacts (disservices), which offers flexibility in the assessment of their ecological value [20,21,22]. Particularly in the restoration of urban or severely disturbed areas, some defend the presence of, and even an increase in, exotic species that can withstand the existing adverse conditions and replace natives with similar traits, resulting in lower diversity but maintaining ecosystem processes through a specific assemblage of plants that exhibit the essential functional traits [14].
On the other hand, some authors argue that the ecological functions of exotic species may have repercussions on the biodiversity and ecosystem processes, clashing with conservation goals [11]. They argue that a massive biodiversity loss is underway due to climate change, biological invasions, and human disturbance [23,24,25]. Thus, if species are selected for their good performance in disturbed environments, such as urban areas, and begin to be used in cities all over the world, this will aggravate the biological and landscape homogenization [26]. If there is not an attempt to reverse the species loss, repercussions will also be felt in the functional diversity [27].
Research relating vegetation type to ecosystem services and adaptive capacity is essential for UGS projects and the debate over the role of exotic and native vegetation calls for a special attention from landscape architects. The outcomes may shape future project methodologies seeking to ensure ecologically efficient vegetation assemblages for high-performing UGS. This debate has resulted in a consistent body of research that compares exotic and native vegetation in terms of ecological performance, impacts on ecosystem functions and processes, and the ability to provide different ecosystem services. However, these studies focus on individual features, lacking a wider analysis. An evaluation that considers all of the different aspects of vegetation performance is needed in order to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of exotic and native vegetation and to obtain more holistic conclusions in ecosystem-based adaptation strategies, particularly with nature-based solutions at the UGS level.
Thus, the aim of this paper is to examine and confront the arguments used to defend both perspectives in the ongoing debate over the use of exotic or native vegetation and answer critical questions regarding the role of landscape architects in climate change adaptation, such as the following:
-
What ways forward do ecological sciences propose in order to maximize the vegetation’s ecological potential when designing Urban Green Spaces?
-
What are the arguments presented to support exotic species as the answer to climate change-adaptive and -resilient ecosystems? To what extent can these arguments justify the disturbance of the native biodiversity and the loss of landscape identity?
-
Can native communities adapt to climate change and safeguard ecosystem function through time? Are they more resilient to climate change and more efficient at mitigating the subsequent effects?
Through a bibliographic review, this study compares the advantages and disadvantages highlighted in the examined papers regarding the use of exotic or native vegetation in several areas, namely the following: (i) biodiversity conservation; (ii) UGS performance in ecological protection, production, recreation, and ecosystem service supplies; (iii) ecosystem resilience and climate-adaptive capacity; (iv) people’s connection to nature and to the surrounding landscape and their sense of belonging.
These aspects reflect the citizens’ and urban environments’ needs, as well as the urgency currently felt in safeguarding the environment, health, and general quality of life in the face of extreme climate events, which are becoming more frequent.
The results of this assessment will indicate the best solution for UGS vegetation systems.

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted a bibliographic review following the PRISMA method [28] (Figure 1) using Scopus and ScienceDirect as the main academic databases. We searched for papers that compare native and exotic vegetation, focusing on eco-physiological traits and phenotypic plasticity (which enables species to respond to climate change), ecosystem service supplies, and cultural and psychological aspects of citizens’ perceptions of different vegetation systems.
For Scopus, we used a combination of the following keywords: native, exotic, and vegetation for a broader search range. For ScienceDirect, we used native, exotic, and vegetation, associated with ecosystem and climate-change-adapt for a more detailed search.
The time range was set between 2017 and 2021. Since this is a recent debate, these years represent a considerable sample of the research conducted on this subject.
The first search returned 639 articles on Scopus and 891 articles on ScienceDirect. After the removal of duplicates and the first phase of exclusion by title, 249 papers were selected for abstract reading and 134 articles were fully analyzed and assessed for suitability. In this phase, we excluded papers that could not be used for quantitative purposes, i.e., do not identify a clear advantage or disadvantage regarding the use of one type of vegetation against the other. For example, studies that compare native and exotic species in different ecological contexts (e.g., a native multi-stratal forest with exotic production forestry), conclusions that do not compare one’s performance with the other, or papers that mention only one of the two types of vegetation. The comparison is only effective if the papers consider similar conditions for both types of vegetation, whether it is an urban area, a restoration site, or a fully functioning ecosystem. The selected studies could compare native and exotic vegetation either in a generic way or by focusing on certain species, but with the consideration of the identical ecological functions between them. The contexts in which such comparisons are made involve an active intervention for the improvement of existing vegetation communities or the establishment of new ones, e.g., restoration projects or the rehabilitation of degraded urban areas and former agricultural fields. For the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages, we also considered studies focusing on the impact of biological invasions as these are a major disadvantage related to the use of exotic species. Papers that did not meet the quantitative requirements but still added qualitative value to the debate were sometimes cited in the discussion of the results.
In total, 114 papers were included in this literature review for statistical purposes. For each article, we identified their results as relating either the advantages or disadvantages of the use of either exotic or native vegetation. The advantages were assessed by a comparison between the two types of vegetation, but the disadvantages refer to the measurable negative impacts of one of the vegetation types and not to a lower performance. As the articles may refer to more than one advantage or disadvantage, for the statistical analysis, each advantage and disadvantage was quantified as a “reference” to give a total of 164.
The selected papers were then divided into five major interconnected themes that reflect the aspects on which exotic and native plant species are compared: (i) Effects on Biodiversity Conservation; (ii) Ecological Performance; (iii) Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change; (iv) Ecosystem Services; (v) Cultural Perception. Although this division might be subjective as there is a strong interinfluence and interdependence between them, it allows for a clearer view of the aspects according to which type of vegetation prevails over the other.
Studies grouped under the first theme, Effects on Biodiversity Conservation, focus on the role that native and exotic species play in biodiversity conservation. Since the positive relation between biodiversity and ecosystem services is largely recognized, it is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages related to the use of both types of vegetation to assess their potential for use in UGS. An advantage, for the purpose of this paper, is defined as the capacity to promote the establishment of other plant species and to attract native animals and soil microorganisms. Contributing to maintaining the habitat structure is also considered an advantage in this theme as it is fundamental for the preservation of a species. A disadvantage is defined as a decrease in the number and diversity of plant species, an alteration in the habitat of native fauna, the facilitation of exotica fauna, and the negative impacts on soil biota.
In the category Ecological Performance, the papers compare the species’ performance by evaluating the eco-physiological traits of native and exotic plants with similar ecological functions, their relationship with abiotic elements, their strategies of resource uptake, and their response in the face of stress or limited resource availability. The disadvantages in this case mean negative impacts on the interaction with ecosystem processes or functions, specifically those that concern abiotic features, such as soil stability, water, and nutrient cycle (the negative impacts on biotic elements fall within the biodiversity theme).
Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change compiles the studies that assess the way exotic and native species contribute to the ecosystems’ adaptive capacity to climate change, enhance communities’ resilience in the face of disturbances related to extreme climatic events, and mitigate climate change effects in urban areas, providing ecological protection through UGS. On the other hand, the disadvantages include the deterioration of community structures or the intensification of climate change effects.
The Ecosystem Services are related to all other themes, mostly to the Biodiversity Conservation and Cultural Perception, which is determinant of the supply of cultural services. For that reason, the biodiversity conservation is not assessed as an ecosystem service in this study, nor are cultural services, which are analyzed in the Cultural Perception theme. For Ecosystem Services, we examine papers that compare exotic and native species in terms of the quantity and quality of Regulation and Supporting Services. Disservices are considered as disadvantages and range from the introduction of pathogens to reductions in agricultural productivity and soil fertility, phytotoxin presence, and the inducing of a higher fire risk.
The Cultural Perception addresses the different ways in which people value exotic and native species. Here, we grouped papers focusing on whether there is an actual difference perceived by common citizens between the two types of vegetation, assessing if people associate biodiversity with native vegetation and if they value one more than the other in terms of UGS use, aesthetics, and ecological significance. References to aesthetic experiences, nature enjoyment, cultural identification, and sense of belonging are also considered within this theme.

3. Results and Discussion

The bibliographic search, considering the criteria described in the Materials and Methods, resulted in 114 papers comparing exotic and native vegetation, which were both research and review papers. The focus is distributed equally across the five themes with some studies covering more than one theme (e.g., some studies that compare ecological performance conclude that exotics outperform natives, but they have a significant disadvantage in terms of biodiversity conservation due to their invasive behavior; others identify an advantage in Ecological Performance for natives, with additional advantages in Ecosystem Services).
The increase in the number of papers from 2017 to 2021 (Figure 2) may reveal the pertinence of this debate, with a growing body of research focusing on the comparison of benefits and impacts of the use of exotic and native vegetation. It can also reveal the effort made to tackle biodiversity loss by expanding the knowledge of the traits that make exotics outperform natives and exhibit an invasive behavior.
It should be highlighted that none of the analyzed studies pointed to disadvantages in the use of native vegetation (Figure 3). For example, regarding ecosystem adaptive capacity, some papers stated a clear advantage for exotics as they have better chances of coping with the adverse effects of climate change and considered natives less suitable [13,15,16,17], but there is no real negative impact related to the use of native plants—only a “less positive” one. On the contrary, in the case of exotic vegetation, most studies that found exotic species to be better performers also pointed to significant disadvantages related to their use, such as biodiversity loss due to invasive behavior [29,30,31,32,33,34] or negative interactions with abiotic elements [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. In all five themes, the literature shows several negative ecological impacts, identified mostly through the first three themes, but also, in terms of Ecosystem Services, where negative impacts are classified as disservices, and in terms of Cultural Perception, throughpeople’s awareness of the effects of biological invasions (Figure 3).
There may also be some reluctance to clearly state an advantage of exotics or a disadvantage of natives because the analysis of the results must contemplate several aspects beyond the ones compared in each case study. Broader assessments frequently show that the use of native vegetation is preferable in most situations [5,11,13,19,45].

3.1. Effects on Biodiversity Conservation

The reviewed bibliography reveals an effort to understand how biodiversity influences ecosystem services and functions and how this can be transferred to conservation and restoration guidelines [46]. The scientific evidence shows a positive relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services and links biodiversity loss to a diminished capacity for service supplies [47,48]. Biodiversity is identified as the ecosystem component that supports the provision of multiple human-essential services, such as food and water security, heath, climate change adaptation, and cultural benefits [49]. The way native and exotic vegetation contribute to biodiversity is not universally agreed upon.
Through several papers, we analyzed the perceived importance of native vegetation as the sole guarantee of biodiversity conservation and to what extent exotics are believed to contribute to biodiversity, especially in urban areas or degraded ecosystems, even considering the ecological risk they represent. Studies related to this theme address the effects that plant species have on biodiversity through their influence on the establishment of other plant species and their interaction with soil bacterial and fungal communities, arthropods, and other native fauna, and consequently, with ecosystem functioning.
Most of the analyzed papers demonstrate that native species largely outperform exotics (Figure 3) in the enhancement of native animal species, in the interaction with soil biota, and in the establishment of other plant species [19,32,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. In contrast, the research reveals a clear disadvantage of exotic species when it comes to the effects on biodiversity due to existing or potential invasiveness [13,24,29,30,31,33,34,60,61,66] via their interference in the abiotic environment, which inhibits the thriving of other species [20,37,38,67].
However, when it comes to cities, these assumptions are challenged by some authors, who consider cities to be distinct socio-ecological systems with unusual plant assemblies that influence ecosystem functioning and stability in distinct ways [46]. The same happens when it comes to severely degraded areas, such as eroded areas, former mining sites, or landfills. Despite the known ecological risks and the disadvantages described in a considerable number of studies, some of the examined papers argue that, in these particular situations, exotic pioneer species have an advantage as they can colonize under severe conditions and enhance native plant communities by providing habitats and shelter for native species to thrive [68,69,70,71]. In the same way, exotics are considered to act as a replacement for lost native species in UGS, helping to maintain the necessary levels of functional diversity [72].

3.2. Ecological Performance

Papers analyzed within this theme assess the eco-physiological traits of ecologically similar exotic and native species, comparing their capacities and strategies for resource use and their interactions with the abiotic features of the ecosystem.
A significant part of the research compares the species’ strategies for the efficient capture and use of resources; here, in most cases, exotics outperform natives, particularly in scarcity contexts, which is frequently associated with their invasive behavior [25,29,30,31,33,34,66,73]. There is also a high number of studies focusing on the interaction with abiotic elements, such as soil nutrients and water, with exotic species showing significant disadvantages given their negative impacts on the nutrients cycle, resource consumption, and levels of soil pH [20,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. On the other hand, when compared to exotics, native species present clear benefits in their interaction with the soil nutrient cycle and stability [7,50,58,74,75,76,77].
In other cases, exotics are indicated as viable solutions in contexts of low resource availability or significant disturbance [78,79,80,81], which are expected to increase with climate change [30]. Particularly in urban environments, exotics are presented as viable substitutes for natives that cannot cope with stressors or as complementary elements in mixed communities [21,45,82,83].
However, a consistent body of research points to native vegetation as having better ecological performance [41,75,84,85,86,87]. Specifically in arid and semi-arid environments, native species possess high plasticity and adaptive traits that help them cope with the environmental stress related with the harsh environments they live in [74,84,88]. Studies demonstrate an advantage of the native species regarding the restoration of areas disturbed by biological invasions or human activities, such as agricultural production, the mining industry, or landfills [41,50,75,78,87,89]. Furthermore, in UGS exposed to additional stresses, natives can be particularly important as they also provide many regulating ecosystem services [15,58,90].
It is stated that natives are a better solution as they not only match exotics in performance, but also provide additional benefits, such as ecological integrity, connectivity, and the ability to increase native plant and animal species and soil biological activity [50,58,74,75]. Exotic species, although showing a better ecological performance in some situations, have several negative impacts and pose an ecological risk that raises reservations in regard to their use [24,25,33].

3.3. Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change

Another central topic within this debate is the extent to which native species can adapt to future climate conditions. Whether they will migrate to more favorable conditions, go extinct, or be replaced by more suitable exotics are questions the research is trying to answer. Some researchers propose that, as this is the most likely scenario, projects within ecological restoration, UGS, and forestry should consider future climate conditions and introduce species that are more suitable to those conditions [13,15,17,91]. It is also argued that ecosystems will be as resilient as they are functionally rich and that plant functional traits are more important than the diversity or origin of the species. The argument that the resources provided by plants are more important than their provenance reveals the researchers’ flexibility when exploring strategic responses to climate change [14,19,92]. Many of the reviewed papers state that exotic species play an important role in ecosystem adaptive capacity, showing a greater capacity for colonization in places where natives cannot subsist and for adjustment to changing conditions, such as hydrologic alterations due to rising sea levels, extended drought periods, or higher temperatures, which are expected to worsen with climate change [79,93].
On the other hand, there are concerns that if taxon replacement is a viable solution for a native species vulnerable to climate change, this option also involves many uncertainties, with the possibility of inexplicable maladaptation, underestimation of climate variability, and other unpredictable problems connected with invasiveness [13,91], including crypticity [24]. Besides the negative effects related to the interaction with abiotic components discussed in the Ecological Performance section, many of the examined studies point out the disadvantages of the presence of exotics in terms of ecosystem resilience, such as higher flammability, alterations in communities’ phenology, and the weakening of ecosystems’ structures, making them more vulnerable to extreme weather events [94,95,96,97].
Research approaching this perspective focuses on the native species’ capacity to adapt through plasticity, selection, or gene flow [98,99], expanding the available knowledge on plant eco-physiological traits and adaptive capacity [100,101,102]. The increase in habitat diversity to improve integrity and connectivity [103] and the development of strategies to assist the native communities’ adaptation [104,105] are suggested as solutions for achieving resilient ecosystems and halting biodiversity losses under the conditions of climate change. Thus, despite the adaptive potential shown by exotic species, a consistent body of research points to natives as a viable option and states that projects should favor the evolutionary development of native communities [99]. Several papers included in this review discuss different strategies to enhance the resilience and adaptive ability of native species and communities. The increase in genetic diversity within the same species (e.g., by using seeds from different ends of the species distribution range) and between species can improve the resilience of a native community [99]. Additionally, the use of rare, specialist native plants in their ecological optimum slows biodiversity loss and positively impacts ecosystem stability and structural complexity, enhancing resilience and ecosystem service supplies [106]. The increment in the number of species and the expansion of habitat areas both strengthen ecosystem integrity and ecological connectivity, improving the ecosystem’s ability to retain biological diversity in the face of climate change [103,105]. Intervention strategies both at the community and the landscape level (e.g., genetic strategies, such as assisted migration, or silvicultural interventions, such as density management, to reduce resource competition, fire risk, or disease spreading) support ecosystems’ adaptive capacity [104,107]. Beyond the development of strategies to enhance the natives’ adaptive capacity, several studies have demonstrated that well-structured native communities are better prepared to cope with adverse events due to climate change, such as storms and floods, long periods of drought, increasing temperatures, and recurrent fires, while the presence of exotic species, particularly invasive ones, progressively deteriorates the system [86,96,108,109].

3.4. Ecosystem Services

In terms of ecosystem services, native species are more favorable. Since biodiversity supports most ecosystem functions and services [49], many studies show the direct detrimental effects of biodiversity losses on ecosystem services [25,108,110]. As biological invasions are among the main drivers of biodiversity loss [22,23,24,110], it is reasonable that most papers addressing this theme identify a greater capacity to deliver ecosystem services in native species. The benefits they represent to biodiversity, namely the increase in the number and variety of insects, animals, and soil microbial communities, are essential to several ecosystem services, such as water and nutrient cycle regulation and soil formation [5,32,50,51,54,61,62]. Beyond establishing a positive relation between biodiversity levels and ecosystem services [47,111], some papers conclude that natives are more efficient in the supply ofregulating ecosystem services because they possess functions and structures adapted to the use of local resources, thus, they dispense less energy and respond more efficiently to the local climate [90,108].
Other studies find exotic vegetation to be equally as important for several ecosystem services [53], mainly in UGS, where they represent a significant percentage of the existing vegetation. Furthermore, exotic species are sometimes considered to surpass the native vegetation as they offer a denser canopy, have higher foliar biomass, and contribute significantly to the species’ diversity [21].
One significant turning point in the ecological relevance exotics have among scientists is their approach to invasive species, not only for the negative impacts they represent, but also for the services they provide [20,22]. Some papers state that the benefits balance the disadvantages of invasion [112]. However, most ecologists defend the negative impacts as being too significant to be compensated for by any services that invasive species may provide [23,110].

3.5. Cultural Perception

People’s perception of biodiversity and the value they assign to native species depend on many factors, such as socio-economic and cultural contexts. Education level, age, and access to information influence people’s attitudes to UGS and biodiversity [113,114,115]. The landscape context also changes the relevance attributed to ecosystem functioning, with urban citizens displaying a more alienated attitude. Rural citizens have a higher sensibility to vegetation since they are also more directly exposed to the effects of ecosystem changes.
The papers analyzed here explore the way people evaluate exotic and native vegetation, as well as their perception of natural spaces with native vegetation compared to traditional green spaces, particularly in urban areas where this perception is more likely distorted. Most studies were conducted by gathering empirical data through public consultations and behavioral observations related to several vegetation features.
Exotic species prevail; they are clearly preferred in domestic gardens or public spaces and are associated with cultural landscapes by people [116,117,118]. Most studies reveal that common citizens do not distinguish exotic species from native ones, especially if they have been introduced for a long time [119]. Empirical evidence shows that in UGS, exotic species are equally important for cultural ecosystem services, holding heritage significance in many public gardens and parks [120,121]. Additionally, in urban areas, people link exotic plants to a greater resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change [117,118]. This is not surprising as a significant portion of the urban vegetation is composed of exotic species and this is most of the “nature” that many city dwellers have contact with.
On the other hand, in recent years, due to the spread of information regarding climate change and biodiversity loss effects, several studies show that urban citizens have become more aware of the relevance of natural and biodiverse spaces, associating them with a positive aesthetic experience and more benefits to mental health [122,123,124]. An increasing part of the urban population recognizes the importance of promoting biodiversity within UGS through native species and acknowledges the possibility of conciliation between high biodiversity and recreational and cultural functions [114,125,126]. There is also evidence of an increasing awareness regarding the negative effects of biological invasions and the dangers of triggering one by introducing an exotic plant. Some authors defend these trends as a perfect opportunity for environmental education [119], thereby increasing the value of native species in the UGS. As they are the only daily contact with nature for many urban dwellers, UGS are also considered educational spaces [5,123]. In these situations, it is argued that the presence of native communities within UGS increases the public’s recognition of the many ecosystem services they provide [10], especially concerning regulating services that are not tangible at a local scale [127], wherein natives perform better [90,108].

4. Conclusions

Our bibliographical review of studies comparing the use of exotic and native species, with the purpose of achieving more resilient and climate-adaptive ecosystems, revealed the significant role that exotic species play, especially in urban spaces. They often show a greater capacity to survive in resource scarcity and stress conditions and they are more likely to successfully adapt to climate change. However, most studies that identify these advantages also highlight the negative impacts of the use of exotic species. Beyond the ecological risks, they have different resource use strategies and a distinct phenology from the native vegetation, which disturbs ecosystem functioning by altering the nutrient and water cycles, soil pH, and soil biota, thus, compromising ecological integrity. Additionally, it is widely acknowledged that the systematic replacement of native species with exotic ones with similar ecological traits increases the ongoing biotic homogenization and biodiversity loss, while weakening the landscape identity.
On the other hand, the examined literature has demonstrated the significant adaptive capacity of native species as an ecological feature that can equal that of exotic species. Furthermore, as opposed to exotics, native species not only present no disadvantages, but they also provide additional benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services, delivering strong ecological protection. In UGS, the native vegetation also contributes to spaces of high landscape diversity that host multiple functions (recreation, contemplation, sport, and nature enjoyment) and they promote identity as they resemble local and regional landscapes [122,123].
Although exotic species present some advantages over native species in terms of ecological performance and adaptive capacity, concerns regarding their negative impacts and the important benefits of using native species illustrate why, even in UGS, most scientists prefer the use of native over exotic vegetation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.A.d.C. and M.R.; methodology, C.A.d.C.; validation, R.M. and C.P.-G.; formal analysis, C.A.d.C. and M.R.; investigation, C.A.d.C.; data curation, C.A.d.C. and M.R.; writing—original draft preparation, C.A.d.C.; writing—review and editing, C.P.-G. and R.M.; supervision, R.M. and C.P.-G.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Landscape Research Group (Ref.ª RG-112-400586) of the Center for the History of Art and Artistic Research (CHAIA/UI&D Ref.ª UID/00112/2020/FCT).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Grose, M.J. Gaps and futures in working between ecology and design for constructed ecologies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 132, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Reimer, M.H. Unsettling eco-scapes: Aesthetic performances for sustainable futures. J. Landsc. Archit. 2010, 5, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pickett, S.T.A.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Grove, J.M.; Boone, C.G.; Groffman, P.M.; Irwin, E.; Kaushal, S.S.; Marshall, V.; McGrath, B.P.; Nilon, C.H.; et al. Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a decade of progress. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 331–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bryant, M.M. Urban landscape conservation and the role of ecological greenways at local and metropolitan scales. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 76, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Klaus, V.H.; Kiehl, K. A conceptual framework for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2021, 52, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. EEA. Building a coherent Trans-European Nature Network; Briefing no. 05/2020; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020; p. 18. [Google Scholar]
  7. Yu, D.; Xun, B.; Shi, P.; Shao, H.; Liu, Y. Ecological restoration planning based on connectivity in an urban area. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 46, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yapp, G.; Walker, J.; Thackway, R. Linking vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and services. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 292–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Carter, J.G.; Cavan, G.; Connelly, A.; Guy, S.; Handley, J.; Kazmierczak, A. Climate change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Prog. Plan. 2015, 95, 1–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bark, R.H.; Osgood, D.E.; Colby, B.G.; Katz, G.; Stromberg, J. Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1465–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Evers, C.R.; Wardropper, C.B.; Branoff, B.; Granek, E.F.; Hirsch, S.L.; Link, T.E.; Olivero-Lora, S.; Wilson, C. The ecosystem services and biodiversity of novel ecosystems: A literature review. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 13, e00362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Higgs, E. Novel and designed ecosystems. Restor. Ecol. 2016, 25, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Simonson, W.D.; Miller, E.; Jones, A.; García-Rangel, S.; Thornton, H.; McOwen, C. Enhancing climate change resilience of ecological restoration—A framework for action. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 19, 300–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aquilué, N.; Messier, C.; Martins, K.T.; Dumais-Lalonde, V.; Mina, M. A simple-to-use management approach to boost adaptive capacity of forests to global uncertainty. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 481, 118692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Esperon-Rodriguez, M.; Rymer, P.D.; Power, S.A.; Challis, A.; Prokopavicius, R.M.; Tjoelker, M.G. Functional adaptations and trait plasticity of urban trees along a climatic gradient. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 54, 126771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wood, S.L.R.; Dupras, J. Increasing functional diversity of the urban canopy for climate resilience: Potential tradeoffs with ecosystem services? Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ossola, A.; Lin, B.B. Making nature-based solutions climate-ready for the 50 °C world. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 123, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cardou, F.; Aubin, I.; Lapointe, M.; Shipley, B. Multifunctionality in practice: Measuring differences in urban woodland ecosystem properties via functional traits. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 68, 127453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Berthon, K.; Thomas, F.; Bekessy, S. The role of ‘nativeness’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 205, 103959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Castro-Díez, P.; Alonso, Á.; Saldaña-López, A.; Granda, E. Effects of widespread non-native trees on regulating ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 778, 146141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Riley, C.B.; Herms, D.A.; Gardiner, M.M. Exotic trees contribute to urban forest diversity and ecosystem services in inner-city Cleveland, OH. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Milanović, M.; Knapp, S.; Pyšek, P.; Kühn, I. Linking traits of invasive plants with ecosystem services and disservices. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 42, 101072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kumar Rai, P.; Singh, J.S. Invasive alien plant species: Their impact on environment, ecosystem services and human health. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 111, 106020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Jarić, I.; Heger, T.; Castro Monzon, F.; Jeschke, J.M.; Kowarik, I.; McConkey, K.R.; Pyšek, P.; Sagouis, A.; Essl, F. Crypticity in Biological Invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019, 34, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Turbelin, A.; Catford, J.A. Chapter 25—Invasive plants and climate change. In Climate Change, 3rd ed.; Letcher, T.M., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 515–539. ISBN 978-0-12-821575-3. [Google Scholar]
  26. Simmons, M.; Venhaus, H.C.; Windhager, S. Exploiting the attributes of regional ecosystems for landscape design: The role of ecological restoration in ecological engineering. Ecol. Eng. 2007, 30, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Olden, J.D.; LeRoy Poff, N.; Douglas, M.R.; Douglas, M.E.; Fausch, K.D. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339, b2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Sun, F.; Zeng, L.; Cai, M.; Chauvat, M.; Forey, E.; Tariq, A.; Graciano, C.; Zhang, Z.; Gu, Y.; Zeng, F.; et al. An invasive and native plant differ in their effects on the soil food-web and plant-soil phosphorus cycle. Geoderma 2022, 410, 115672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Raymundo, M.; Pastore, A.; Hille Ris Lambers, J.; Mayfield, M.M. Annual rainfall variation and dispersal limitation combine to alter invaded plant community diversity, dominance hierarchies and seeding phenology. Clim. Chang. Ecol. 2021, 2, 100024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barros, V.; Melo, A.; Santos, M.; Nogueira, L.; Frosi, G.; Santos, M.G. Different resource-use strategies of invasive and native woody species from a seasonally dry tropical forest under drought stress and recovery. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 147, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Esquivel, J.; Echeverría, C.; Saldaña, A.; Fuentes, R. High functional diversity of forest ecosystems is linked to high provision of water flow regulation ecosystem service. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 115, 106433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Shouman, S.; Mason, N.; Heberling, J.M.; Kichey, T.; Closset-Kopp, D.; Kobeissi, A.; Decocq, G. Leaf functional traits at home and abroad: A community perspective of sycamore maple invasion. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 464, 118061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Díaz-Barradas, M.C.; Gallego-Fernández, J.B.; Zunzunegui, M. Plant response to water stress of native and non-native Oenothera drummondii populations. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 154, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zhang, Y.; Yu, C.; Xie, J.; Du, S.; Feng, J.; Guan, D. Comparison of fine root biomass and soil organic carbon stock between exotic and native mangrove. Catena 2021, 204, 105423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Meira Castro, A.C.; Nunes, A.; Sousa, A.; Lourenço, L. Mapping the Causes of Forest Fires in Portugal by Clustering Analysis. Geosciences 2020, 10, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Fogliata, P.; Cislaghi, A.; Sala, P.; Giupponi, L. An ecological analysis of the riparian vegetation for improving the riverine ecosystem management: The case of Lombardy region (North Italy). Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 17, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fang, J.; Deng, Y.; Che, R.; Han, C.; Zhong, W. Bacterial community composition in soils covered by different vegetation types in the Yancheng tidal marsh. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 21517–21532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Tong, C.; Morris, J.T.; Huang, J.; Xu, H.; Wan, S. Changes in pore-water chemistry and methane emission following the invasion of Spartina alterniflora into an oliogohaline marsh. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2018, 63, 384–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kotzen, B.; Branquinho, C.; Prasse, R. Does the exotic equal pollution? Landscape methods for solving the dilemma of using native versus non-native plant species in drylands. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 2925–2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gastauer, M.; Ramos, S.J.; Caldeira, C.F.; Siqueira, J.O. Reintroduction of native plants indicates the return of ecosystem services after iron mining at the Urucum Massif. Ecosphere 2021, 12, e03762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xia, S.; Wang, W.; Song, Z.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Guo, L.; Van Zwieten, L.; Li, Q.; Hartley, I.P.; Yang, Y.; Wang, Y.; et al. Spartina alterniflora invasion controls organic carbon stocks in coastal marsh and mangrove soils across tropics and subtropics. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2021, 27, 1627–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Gaggini, L.; Rusterholz, H.-P.; Baur, B. The invasive plant Impatiens glandulifera affects soil fungal diversity and the bacterial community in forests. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 124, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dairel, M.; Fidelis, A. The presence of invasive grasses affects the soil seed bank composition and dynamics of both invaded and non-invaded areas of open savannas. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 276, 111291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tan, P.Y.; Wong, N.H.; Tan, C.L.; Jusuf, S.K.; Schmiele, K.; Chiam, Z.Q. Transpiration and cooling potential of tropical urban trees from different native habitats. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 705, 135764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pinho, P.; Casanelles-Abella, J.; Luz, A.C.; Kubicka, A.M.; Branquinho, C.; Laanisto, L.; Neuenkamp, L.; Alós Ortí, M.; Obrist, M.K.; Deguines, N.; et al. Research agenda on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services in European cities. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2021, 53, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Quijas, S.; Romero-Duque, L.P.; Trilleras, J.M.; Conti, G.; Kolb, M.; Brignone, E.; Dellafiore, C. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and beneficiaries of tropical dry forests of Latin America: Review and new perspectives. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 36, 100909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Van der Biest, K.; Meire, P.; Schellekens, T.; D’hondt, B.; Bonte, D.; Vanagt, T.; Ysebaert, T. Aligning biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services in spatial planning: Focus on ecosystem processes. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 136350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pires, A.; Amaral, A.G.; Padgurschi, M.; Joly, C.; Scarano, F. Biodiversity research still falls short of creating links with ecosystem services and human well-being in a global hotspot. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 34, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pandey, S.; Gurr, G.M. Conservation biological control using Australian native plants in a brassica crop system: Seeking complementary ecosystem services. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 280, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barrico, L.; Castro, H.; Coutinho, A.; Gonçalves, M.T.; Freitas, H.; Castro, P. Plant and microbial biodiversity in urban forests and public gardens: Insights for cities’ sustainable development. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Prendergast, K.S.; Tomlinson, S.; Dixon, K.W.; Bateman, P.W.; Menz, M.H.M. Urban native vegetation remnants support more diverse native bee communities than residential gardens in Australia’s southwest biodiversity hotspot. Biol. Conserv. 2022, 265, 109408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Thaweepworadej, P.; Evans, K.L. Species richness and ecosystem services of tree assemblages along an urbanisation gradient in a tropical mega-city: Consequences for urban design. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 70, 127527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Campbell, J.W.; Grodsky, S.M.; Monroe, A.P.; Martin, J.A. Bee (Apoidea) community response to perennial grass treatments managed for livestock production and conservation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 313, 107391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Olupot, W. The potential of natural succession to restore degraded areas of a Ugandan rainforest dominated by the exotic paper mulberry Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) L’Hér. ex Vent. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 504, 119861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gallinat, A.S.; Primack, R.B.; Lloyd-Evans, T.L. Can invasive species replace native species as a resource for birds under climate change? A case study on bird-fruit interactions. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 241, 108268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Machar, I.; Šimek, P.; Schlossárek, M.; Pechanec, V.; Petrovič, F.; Brus, J.; Špinlerová, Z.; Seják, J. Comparison of bird diversity between temperate floodplain forests and urban parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 67, 127427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jimenez, M.F.; Pejchar, L.; Reed, S.E.; McHale, M.R. The efficacy of urban habitat enhancement programs for conserving native plants and human-sensitive animals. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 220, 104356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Monberg, R.J.; Howe, A.G.; Kepfer-Rojas, S.; Ravn, H.P.; Jensen, M.B. Vegetation development in a stormwater management system designed to enhance ecological qualities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 46, 126463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Scotton, M.; Andreatta, D. Anti-erosion rehabilitation: Effects of revegetation method and site traits on introduced and native plant cover and richness. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 776, 145915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Curado, G.; Gallego-Tévar, B.; Figueroa, E.; Castillo, J.M. Effects of removal of alien Spartina densiflora and restoration of native S. maritima on succession and zonation in European salt marshes. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2020, 244, 105815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Phillips, M.L.; Aronson, E.L.; Maltz, M.R.; Allen, E.B. Native and invasive inoculation sources modify fungal community assembly and biomass production of a chaparral shrub. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 2020, 147, 103370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Champness, B.S.; Palmer, G.C.; Fitzsimons, J.A. Bringing the city to the country: Relationships between streetscape vegetation type and bird assemblages in a major regional centre. J. Urban Ecol. 2019, 5, juz018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mody, K.; Lerch, D.; Müller, A.-K.; Simons, N.K.; Blüthgen, N.; Harnisch, M. Flower power in the city: Replacing roadside shrubs by wildflower meadows increases insect numbers and reduces maintenance costs. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Gallego-Tévar, B.; Grewell, B.J.; Figueroa, E.; Castillo, J.M. The role of exotic and native hybrids during ecological succession in salt marshes. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2020, 523, 151282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zunzunegui, M.; Ruiz-Valdepeñas, E.; Sert, M.A.; Díaz-Barradas, M.C.; Gallego-Fernández, J.B. Field comparison of ecophysiological traits between an invader and a native species in a Mediterranean coastal dune. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 146, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. de Vos, D.; Nel, R.; Schoeman, D.; Harris, L.R.; du Preez, D. Effect of introduced Casuarina trees on the vulnerability of sea turtle nesting beaches to erosion. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2019, 223, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. González-Montelongo, C.; Pérez-Vargas, I. Is an invasive alien tree able to sustain a similar lichen diversity as the native forest? The case of the sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) and the laurel forest in Macaronesia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 488, 119009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Oduor, A.M.O.; Long, H.; Fandohan, A.B.; Liu, J.; Yu, X. An invasive plant provides refuge to native plant species in an intensely grazed ecosystem. Biol. Invasions 2018, 20, 2745–2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Martins, P.L.S.S.; Furtado, S.G.; Menini Neto, L. Could epiphytes be xenophobic? Evaluating the use of native versus exotic phorophytes by the vascular epiphytic community in an urban environment. Community Ecol. 2020, 21, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Randriambanona, H.; Randriamalala, J.R.; Carrière, S.M. Native forest regeneration and vegetation dynamics in non-native Pinus patula tree plantations in Madagascar. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 446, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gonçalves, P.; Vierikko, K.; Elands, B.; Haase, D.; Catarina Luz, A.; Santos-Reis, M. Biocultural diversity in an urban context: An indicator-based decision support tool to guide the planning and management of green infrastructure. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2021, 11, 100131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Christensen, B.; Cashmore, P.; Crump, S.; Hobbs, J. Fire disturbance favours exotic species at Kaituna Wetland, Bay of Plenty. N. Z. J. Ecol. 2019, 43, 3369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Cáceres, N.; Robbiati, F.O.; Hick, E.C.; Suárez, M.; Matoff, E.; Galetto, L.; Imhof, L. Analysis of biodiversity attributes for extensive vegetated roofs in a semiarid region of central Argentina. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 178, 106602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rey, F.; Bifulco, C.; Bischetti, G.B.; Bourrier, F.; De Cesare, G.; Florineth, F.; Graf, F.; Marden, M.; Mickovski, S.B.; Phillips, C.; et al. Soil and water bioengineering: Practice and research needs for reconciling natural hazard control and ecological restoration. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 648, 1210–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Pérez-Corona, M.E.; Pérez-Hernández, M.d.C.; Medina-Villar, S.; Andivia, E.; Bermúdez de Castro, F. Canopy species composition drives seasonal soil characteristics in a Mediterranean riparian forest. Eur. J. For. Res. 2021, 140, 1081–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Vasquez-Valderrama, M.; González-M, R.; López-Camacho, R.; Baptiste, M.P.; Salgado-Negret, B. Impact of invasive species on soil hydraulic properties: Importance of functional traits. Biol. Invasions 2020, 22, 1849–1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Eastburn, D.J.; Roche, L.M.; Doran, M.P.; Blake, P.R.; Bouril, C.S.; Gamble, G.; Gornish, E.S. Seeding plants for long-term multiple ecosystem service goals. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 211, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Gao, X.; Zhao, X.; Li, H.; Guo, L.; Lv, T.; Wu, P. Exotic shrub species (Caragana korshinskii) is more resistant to extreme natural drought than native species (Artemisia gmelinii) in a semiarid revegetated ecosystem. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 263, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Dagenais, D.; Brisson, J.; Fletcher, T.D. The role of plants in bioretention systems; does the science underpin current guidance? Ecol. Eng. 2018, 120, 532–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wang, J.; Fu, B.; Lu, N.; Wang, S.; Zhang, L. Water use characteristics of native and exotic shrub species in the semi-arid Loess Plateau using an isotope technique. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 276, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Miller, D.L.; Alonzo, M.; Roberts, D.A.; Tague, C.L.; McFadden, J.P. Drought response of urban trees and turfgrass using airborne imaging spectroscopy. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 240, 111646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Robbiati, F.O.; Cáceres, N.; Hick, E.C.; Suarez, M.; Soto, S.; Barea, G.; Matoff, E.; Galetto, L.; Imhof, L. Vegetative and thermal performance of an extensive vegetated roof located in the urban heat island of a semiarid region. Build. Environ. 2022, 212, 108791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Esfahani, R.E.; Paço, T.A.; Martins, D.; Arsénio, P. Increasing the resistance of Mediterranean extensive green roofs by using native plants from old roofs and walls. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 178, 106576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sueltenfuss, J.P.; Cooper, D.J. A new approach for hydrologic performance standards in wetland mitigation. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 1154–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Galleguillos, M.; Gimeno, F.; Puelma, C.; Zambrano-Bigiarini, M.; Lara, A.; Rojas, M. Disentangling the effect of future land use strategies and climate change on streamflow in a Mediterranean catchment dominated by tree plantations. J. Hydrol. 2021, 595, 126047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pang, C.-C.; Lo, W.-F.; Yan, R.W.-M.; Hau, B.C.-H. Plant community composition on landfill sites after multiple years of ecological restoration. Landsc. Res. 2020, 45, 458–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Guillen-Cruz, G.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, A.L.; Fernández-Luqueño, F.; Flores-Rentería, D. Influence of vegetation type on the ecosystem services provided by urban green areas in an arid zone of northern Mexico. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Singh, A.N.; Kumar, A. Ecological performances of exotic and native woody species on coal mine spoil in Indian dry tropical region. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 174, 106470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mughal, M.O.; Kubilay, A.; Fatichi, S.; Meili, N.; Carmeliet, J.; Edwards, P.; Burlando, P. Detailed investigation of vegetation effects on microclimate by means of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in a tropical urban environment. Urban Clim. 2021, 39, 100939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ennos, R.; Cottrell, J.; Hall, J.; O’Brien, D. Is the introduction of novel exotic forest tree species a rational response to rapid environmental change?—A British perspective. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 432, 718–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dudley, M.P.; Freeman, M.; Wenger, S.; Jackson, C.R.; Pringle, C.M. Rethinking foundation species in a changing world: The case for Rhododendron maximum as an emerging foundation species in shifting ecosystems of the southern Appalachians. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 472, 118240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Li, S.-H.; Ge, Z.-M.; Xie, L.-N.; Chen, W.; Yuan, L.; Wang, D.-Q.; Li, X.-Z.; Zhang, L.-Q. Ecophysiological response of native and exotic salt marsh vegetation to waterlogging and salinity: Implications for the effects of sea-level rise. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Guerrero, F.; Hernández, C.; Toledo, M.; Espinoza, L.; Carrasco, Y.; Arriagada, A.; Muñoz, A.; Taborga, L.; Bergmann, J.; Carmona, C. Leaf Thermal and Chemical Properties as Natural Drivers of Plant Flammability of Native and Exotic Tree Species of the Valparaíso Region, Chile. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Blackhall, M.; Raffaele, E. Flammability of Patagonian invaders and natives: When exotic plant species affect live fine fuel ignitability in wildland-urban interfaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Abbas, S.; Nichol, J.E.; Fischer, G.A.; Wong, M.S.; Irteza, S.M. Impact assessment of a super-typhoon on Hong Kong’s secondary vegetation and recommendations for restoration of resilience in the forest succession. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2020, 280, 107784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wilsey, B.J.; Martin, L.M.; Kaul, A.D. Phenology differences between native and novel exotic-dominated grasslands rival the effects of climate change. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Matesanz, S.; Valladares, F. Ecological and evolutionary responses of Mediterranean plants to global change. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2014, 103, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Rice, K.J.; Emery, N.C. Managing microevolution: Restoration in the face of global change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2003, 1, 469–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Azeñas, V.; Janner, I.; Medrano, H.; Gulías, J. Performance evaluation of five Mediterranean species to optimize ecosystem services of green roofs under water-limited conditions. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 212, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Volaire, F. Plant traits and functional types to characterise drought survival of pluri-specific perennial herbaceous swards in Mediterranean areas. Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 2–3, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Garnier, E.; Vile, D.; Roumet, C.; Lavorel, S.; Grigulis, K.; Navas, M.-L.; Lloret, F. Inter- and intra-specific trait shifts among sites differing in drought conditions at the north western edge of the Mediterranean Region. Flora 2019, 254, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ferrier, S.; Harwood, T.D.; Ware, C.; Hoskins, A.J. A globally applicable indicator of the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to retain biological diversity under climate change: The bioclimatic ecosystem resilience index. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Safford, H.D.; Vallejo, V.R. Chapter 12—Ecosystem management and ecological restoration in the Anthropocene: Integrating global change, soils, and disturbance in boreal and Mediterranean forests. In Developments in Soil Science; Busse, M., Giardina, C.P., Morris, D.M., Page-Dumroese, D.S., Eds.; Global Change and Forest Soils; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 36, pp. 259–308. [Google Scholar]
  105. Maxwell, S.L.; Reside, A.; Trezise, J.; McAlpine, C.A.; Watson, J.E. Retention and restoration priorities for climate adaptation in a multi-use landscape. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 18, e00649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Jensen, D.A.; Rao, M.; Zhang, J.; Grøn, M.; Tian, S.; Ma, K.; Svenning, J.-C. The potential for using rare, native species in reforestation– A case study of yews (Taxaceae) in China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 482, 118816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bussotti, F.; Pollastrini, M.; Holland, V.; Brüggemann, W. Functional traits and adaptive capacity of European forests to climate change. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2015, 111, 91–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hamberg, L.J.; Fraser, R.A.; Robinson, D.T.; Trant, A.J.; Murphy, S.D. Surface temperature as an indicator of plant species diversity and restoration in oak woodland. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 113, 106249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Vivian, L.M.; Greet, J.; Jones, C.S. Responses of grasses to experimental submergence in summer: Implications for the management of unseasonal flows in regulated rivers. Aquat. Ecol. 2020, 54, 985–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Filgueiras, B.K.C.; Peres, C.A.; Melo, F.P.L.; Leal, I.R.; Tabarelli, M. Winner–Loser Species Replacements in Human-Modified Landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2021, 36, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Teixeira, H.; Lillebø, A.I.; Culhane, F.; Robinson, L.; Trauner, D.; Borgwardt, F.; Kuemmerlen, M.; Barbosa, A.; McDonald, H.; Funk, A.; et al. Linking biodiversity to ecosystem services supply: Patterns across aquatic ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 657, 517–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Nsenga Kumwimba, M.; Dzakpasu, M.; Li, X. Potential of invasive watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spp.) to remediate eutrophic waterbodies with organic and inorganic pollutants. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 270, 110919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kuras, E.R.; Warren, P.S.; Zinda, J.A.; Aronson, M.F.J.; Cilliers, S.; Goddard, M.A.; Nilon, C.H.; Winkler, R. Urban socioeconomic inequality and biodiversity often converge, but not always: A global meta-analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 198, 103799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Vaz, A.S.; Castro-Díez, P.; Godoy, O.; Alonso, Á.; Vilà, M.; Saldaña, A.; Marchante, H.; Bayón, Á.; Silva, J.S.; Vicente, J.R.; et al. An indicator-based approach to analyse the effects of non-native tree species on multiple cultural ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Scopelliti, M.; Carrus, G.; Adinolfi, C.; Suarez, G.; Colangelo, G.; Lafortezza, R.; Panno, A.; Sanesi, G. Staying in touch with nature and well-being in different income groups: The experience of urban parks in Bogotá. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 148, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ward, S.G.; Amatangelo, K.L. Suburban gardening in Rochester, New York: Exotic plant preference and risk of invasion. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Hoyle, H.E. Climate-adapted, traditional or cottage-garden planting? Public perceptions, values and socio-cultural drivers in a designed garden setting. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 65, 127362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Hoyle, H.; Hitchmough, J.; Jorgensen, A. Attractive, climate-adapted and sustainable? Public perception of non-native planting in the designed urban landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 164, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Shackleton, S.E.; Shackleton, R.T. Local knowledge regarding ecosystem services and disservices from invasive alien plants in the arid Kalahari, South Africa. J. Arid Environ. 2018, 159, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Alvarez, S.; Soto, J.R.; Escobedo, F.J.; Lai, J.; Kibria, A.S.M.G.; Adams, D.C. Heterogeneous preferences and economic values for urban forest structural and functional attributes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 215, 104234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Vaz, A.S.; Gonçalves, J.F.; Pereira, P.; Santarém, F.; Vicente, J.R.; Honrado, J.P. Earth observation and social media: Evaluating the spatiotemporal contribution of non-native trees to cultural ecosystem services. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 230, 111193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Lampinen, J.; Tuomi, M.; Fischer, L.K.; Neuenkamp, L.; Alday, J.G.; Bucharova, A.; Cancellieri, L.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Čeplová, N.; Cerveró, L.; et al. Acceptance of near-natural greenspace management relates to ecological and socio-cultural assigned values among European urbanites. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2021, 50, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Threlfall, C.G.; Kendal, D. The distinct ecological and social roles that wild spaces play in urban ecosystems. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 348–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Young, C.; Hofmann, M.; Frey, D.; Moretti, M.; Bauer, N. Psychological restoration in urban gardens related to garden type, biodiversity and garden-related stress. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 198, 103777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Fischer, L.K.; Honold, J.; Cvejić, R.; Delshammar, T.; Hilbert, S.; Lafortezza, R.; Nastran, M.; Nielsen, A.B.; Pintar, M.; van der Jagt, A.P.N.; et al. Beyond green: Broad support for biodiversity in multicultural European cities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 49, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Shaw, A.; Miller, K.K.; Wescott, G. Australian native gardens: Is there scope for a community shift? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Stępniewska, M. The capacity of urban parks for providing regulating and cultural ecosystem services versus their social perception. Land Use Policy 2021, 111, 105778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 11 01201 g001 550
Figure 1. A flow of article selections through the different phases of the bibliographic review process. Adapted from PRISMA flow diagram [28].
Figure 1. A flow of article selections through the different phases of the bibliographic review process. Adapted from PRISMA flow diagram [28].
Land 11 01201 g001
Land 11 01201 g002 550
Figure 2. Selected articles within the search criteria by year of publication.
Figure 2. Selected articles within the search criteria by year of publication.
Land 11 01201 g002
Land 11 01201 g003 550
Figure 3. Results of the five themes in terms of percentage (%), considering the total number of references made by the analyzed articles to each theme; most papers refer to multiple advantages and disadvantages in more than one theme and one reference represents one identified advantage or disadvantage. The five themes were divided into subcategories, which represent the most studied aspects of each theme. The results in every subcategory are the percentage of references to an advantage of native species, an advantage of exotic species, or a disadvantage of exotic species within the total attributed to that theme (for example, in the case of 49 references made to Ecological Performance, 12% were to the disadvantages of exotic species for nutrient cycle and soil stability).
Figure 3. Results of the five themes in terms of percentage (%), considering the total number of references made by the analyzed articles to each theme; most papers refer to multiple advantages and disadvantages in more than one theme and one reference represents one identified advantage or disadvantage. The five themes were divided into subcategories, which represent the most studied aspects of each theme. The results in every subcategory are the percentage of references to an advantage of native species, an advantage of exotic species, or a disadvantage of exotic species within the total attributed to that theme (for example, in the case of 49 references made to Ecological Performance, 12% were to the disadvantages of exotic species for nutrient cycle and soil stability).
Land 11 01201 g003
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

de Carvalho, C.A.; Raposo, M.; Pinto-Gomes, C.; Matos, R. Native or Exotic: A Bibliographical Review of the Debate on Ecological Science Methodologies: Valuable Lessons for Urban Green Space Design. Land 2022, 11, 1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081201

AMA Style

de Carvalho CA, Raposo M, Pinto-Gomes C, Matos R. Native or Exotic: A Bibliographical Review of the Debate on Ecological Science Methodologies: Valuable Lessons for Urban Green Space Design. Land. 2022; 11(8):1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081201

Chicago/Turabian Style

de Carvalho, Catarina Archer, Mauro Raposo, Carlos Pinto-Gomes, and Rute Matos. 2022. "Native or Exotic: A Bibliographical Review of the Debate on Ecological Science Methodologies: Valuable Lessons for Urban Green Space Design" Land 11, no. 8: 1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081201

APA Style

de Carvalho, C. A., Raposo, M., Pinto-Gomes, C., & Matos, R. (2022). Native or Exotic: A Bibliographical Review of the Debate on Ecological Science Methodologies: Valuable Lessons for Urban Green Space Design. Land, 11(8), 1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081201

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop