Phenological and visual evaluations of some roadside deciduous trees in urban area

Abstract

Landscape has been referred to ecologically as a patch-corridor-matrix. Road corridors are not only significant in contributing to the urban landscape, but are also of great importance from an ecological point of view. Under pressure from increasing urban population, the density of urban open green areas is diminishing. In urban spaces, plantings along roadside corridors provide a very important positive effect on this density. The main objectives of this study were to identify the morphological changes in some deciduous roadside trees, and to use images of urban roadside plantings of different species, ages and seasonal change potential to identify the visual effects they had on urban motorists. In order to realize these aims, firstly, a number of deciduous trees were observed over a six-year period to determine their morphological changes. Secondly, seasonal changes of Platanus orientalis L. oriental plane , Aesculus hippocastanum L. horse chestnut , Liriodendron tulipifera L. tulip poplar and Acer negundo L. boxelder maple along urban roadsides were photographed over each of the six years. These images were then subjected to a preliminary survey in order to evaluate the questionnaire. The survey itself was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, the images of the trees were evaluated according to the years in order to determine visual preference levels. In the second stage, they were assessed according to seasonal changes in order to define visual quality levels. Consequently, the preference and visual quality levels of the images of the roadside trees as they affected urban motorists were identified and the phenological changes of the trees were determined

Keywords

• plant phenology,visual determinations,roadside plantings,deciduous trees

Kentsel alanlardaki yaprak döken bazı yol ağaçlarının fenolojik ve görsel açıdan değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Peyzaj ekolojik olarak leke-matris-koridor kavramalarının referansı ile ifade edilir. Yol koridorları kentsel ortamların sadece ekoljik değil aynı zamanda görsel durumun da katkı sağlayan önemli kentsel yapılardır. Kentler artan nüfüs bakımından açık ve yeşil alanların sıklığı yönünden baskı altındadır. Yol kenarı bitkilendirmeleri bu sıklık üzerinde olumlu yönde önemli katılar sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı; yol kenarındaki bazı yaprak döken bitkilerin morfolojik değişimlerinin neler olduklarını belirlemek ve bu ağaçların yolu kullananlar üzerindeki görsel etkilerini mevsimsel değişim ve yaşlara göre değişim yönünden ele almaktır. Bu amaçların gerçekleştirilmesi için; ilk aşamada morfolojik değişimlerini belirlemek için bu ağaçlar altı yıl boyunca gözlemlenmiştir. Ikici aşamada altı yıl boyunca ve mevsimsel değişimleri fotoğraflanan bu ağaçlar Platanus orientalis L., Aesculus hippocastanum L., Liriodendron tulipifera L. and Acer negundo L. yol kenarı boyunca fotoğraflanmıştır. Daha sonra, fotoğraflar ankette değerlendirmek için ön elemeye tabi tutulmuştur. Anket çalışması iki aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ilk aşamasında fotoğrafların yıllara göre beğeni düzeylerini belirlemek için yapılırken, ikinci aşamasında ise mevsimsel değişimlerin görsel tercih ve kalite düzeylerini belirlemek üzere değerlendirmeler yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma ile, yol kenarında bulunan bazı yaprak döken ağaçların görsel kalite ve beğeni durumları ve ağaçalrın fenolojik değişimleri belirlenmiştir

Keywords

• bitki fenolojisi,görsel tanımlamalar,yol kenarı bitkilendirmeleri,yaprak döken ağaç

References

1. Acar, C., Demirbaş, E., Dinçer, P., Acar, H. 2003. Evaluation of Semantic Differantial Scale Technique for plant Composition Sampless. S.D.Ü. Journal of Faculty of Forestry. Serial: A, Number: 1, ISSN: 1302-7085, Pages: 15- 28. Isparta.
2. Acar,C., Acar, H., Eroğlu, E. 2007. Evaluation of Ornamental Plant Resources to Urban Biodiversity and Cultural Changing; A Case Study of Residential Landscapes in Trabzon City (TURKEY). Building and Environment. Vol. 42. Pages. 218-229.
3. Akbar K. F., Hale, W., Headley, A. D. 2003. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning. 63, 139–144.
4. Antupit, S., Gray, B., Woods, S. 1996. Steps ahead: making street that work in Seattle, Washington. Landscape Urban Plan. 35, 107–122
5. Brown, B. 1993. Eco-revelatory Design: Nature Constructed/Nature Revealed. Special Issue, Landscape Journal 17,2.
6. Bulut, Z., Yılmaz, H. 2008. Determination of Landscape Beauties through Visual Quality Assessment Method: A Case Study for Kemaliye (Erzincan / Turkey) ,Environmental Monitoring and Assesment, 141,1-1 ,121-129
7. Coley, R. L., Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C. 1997. Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environ.
8. Corner, J. 1990. A Discourse on Theory I: Sounding the Depths Origins, Theory and Representation, Landscape Journal, 9,2, 61–78.

9. Dee, C. 2002. The Imaginary Texture of The Real: Critical Visual Studies in Landscape Architecture, Landscape Research, 29,1, 13–30.
10. Deming, E. M., Swaffield, S. 2011. Landscape Architecture Research Inquiry, Strategy, Design. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
11. D'Odorico, P., Gonsamo, A., Gough, C. M., Bohrer, G., Morison, J., Wilkinson, M., Hanson, P. J., Gianelle, D., Fuentes, J. D., Buchmann, N. 2015. The match and mismatch between photosynthesis and land surface phenology of deciduous forests. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.07.00, 214, 25-38.
12. Eroğlu, E., Müderrisoğlu, H. Kesim. G. A. 2012. The Effect of Seasonal Change of Plants Compositions on Visual Perception. DOI:10.3846/16486897.2011.646007. of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management. ID: 646007
13. Fathi, M., Masnavi M. R. 2014. Assessing Environmental Aesthetics of Roadside Vegetation and Scenic Beauty of Highway Landscape: Preferences and Perception of Motorists. International Journal of Environmental Ressearch. 8 (4):941-952
14. Givoni, B. 1991. Impact of planted areas on urban environmental quality: a review. Atmos. Environ. 25 (3), 289–299.
15. Gürcan, B., Düşen, O. 2015. The flora of Denizli city. Biological Diversity and Conservation. Vol.8/2, p.p. 92-113.
16. Hull, R.B. 1992. Brief encounters with urban forests produce moods that matter. J. Arboric. 18 (6), 322–324.
17. Kaplan, R. 1992. The psychological benefits of nearby nature. The role of horticulture in human well-being and social development. A national symposium (proceedings). Timber Press, Portland, OR, pp. 125–133.
18. Kent, R.L. 1993. Attributes, features and reasons for enjoyment of scenic routes: a comparison of experts, residents, and citizens. Landscape Res. 18 (2), 92–102.
19. Mader, G., Neubert-Mader, L. 2004. Bäume – Gestaltungsmittel in Garten, Landschaft und Städtebau. Komet, Cologne, Germany (in German).
20. Müderrisoğlu, H., Eroğlu, E. Ak, K., Aydın, Ş, Ö. 2006. Visual Perception of Tree Form. Building and Environment. Vol, 41. Pages. 796-806.
21. Müderrisoğlu, H., Eroğlu, E. 2006. Kar Yükü Altında Bazı Ibreli Türlerin Görsel Değerleri. S.D.Ü. Orman Fakültesi Dergisi. Seri: A, Sayı: 1, Yıl: 2006, ISSN: 1302-7085, Sayfa: 136-146. Isparta.
22. Orsenigo, S., Mondoni, A., Rossi, G., Abeli, T. 2014. Some like it hot and some like it cold, but not too much: plant responses to climate extremes. Plant Ecol 215(7):677–688.
23. Parsons, R., Tassinary, L. G., Ulrich, R. S., Hebl, M. R., Grossman-Alexander, M. 1998. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunization. J. Environ. Psychol. 18, 113–139.
24. Radley, S. 1997. Healthcare guidance. Landscape Des. 2, 19–21.
25. Rutishauser, T., Luterbache,r J., Defila, C., Frank, D., Wanner, H. 2008. Swiss spring plant phenology 2007: extremes, a multi-century perspective, and changes in temperature sensitivity. Geophys Res Lett 35(5):L05,703.
26. Scott, K. I., Simpson, J. R., McPherson, E. G. 1999. Effects of tree cover on parking lot microclimate and vehicle emissions. J. Arboric. 25 (3), 129–142.
27. Serpa, A., Muhar, A. 1999. Effects of plant size, texture and colour onspatial perception in public green areas—a cross- cultural study. Landscape and Urban Planning. 36 (1), 19–25.
28. Stoneham, J. 1997. Health benefits. Landscape Des. 2, 23–26.
29. Strumse, E. 1996. Demographıc differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 16 (1), 17–31.
30. Ulrich, R. S. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224, 420–421.
31. Ulrich, R. S., Parsons, R. 1992. Influences of passive experiences with plants on individual well-being and health. The role of horticulture in human well-being and social development. A national symposium (proceedings). Timber Press, Portland, OR, pp. 93–105.
32. Wolf, K. 2003. Freeway roadside management: the urban forest beyond the white line. J. Arboric. 29 (3), 127–135.