Bursa kent parklarının kentsel yaban hayatına doğal besin sağlama potansiyeli

Öz

Bu çalışmada, çalışma alanı parklarda bulunan meyveli odunsu bitki türlerinin olgun meyve bulundurduğu zamanlar bulunarak, parkların kentsel yaban hayatı için besin tedarik edebilme potansiyellerinin ortaya koyulması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma Bursa’nın üç büyük parkı olan Reşat Oyal Kültürparkı, Soğanlı Botanik Parkı ve Hüdavendigar Kent Parkı’nda yürütülmüştür. Tür bazında bitkilerin yılın hangi döneminde ve ne süre ile olgun meyve bulundurduğunu bulmak için çalışma alanı parklar 1 yıl boyunca haftada 1 kez ziyaret edilerek, parklarda bulunan meyveli odunsu bitki türlerinin olgun meyve bulundurdukları zamanlar tür-zaman çizelgesine işlenmiştir. Reşat Oyal Kültürparkı’nda 32, Soğanlı Botanik Parkı’nda 35, Hüdavendigar Kent Park’nda 17 meyveli odunsu bitki türü vardır. En eski park olan Reşat Oyal Kültür Parkı, 18 tür ile en yüksek meyveli doğal bitki türü sayısına sahipken, en yeni park olan Hüdavendigar Kent Parkı ise 8 tür ile en düşük doğal bitki türü sayısına sahip parktır. Reşat Oyal Kültür Parkı’nda haftalık ortalama 7.9 bitkide olgun meyve bulunurken, Soğanlı Botanik Parkında 9.6, Hüdavendigar Kent Parkında ise 4.8 tür bitkide olgun meyve bulunmaktadır. Reşat Oyal Kültürparkı ve Soğanlı Botanik Parkının verileri ile Hüdavendigar Kent Parkının verileri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark vardır(P>0,05). Kentsel ekosistemlerde meyveli odunsu bitkiler kentsel yaban hayatına doğal besin sağlarlar. Kent bitkilendirmelerinde doğal ve meyveli odunsu bitki türlerinin kullanımı, kentsel yaban hayatının sürdürülebilirliği için kritik öneme sahiptir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Meyveli odunsu bitkiler
• doğal bitkiler
• olgun meyveler
• kentsel biyolojik çeşitlilik
• kentsel yaban hayatı

The potential of Bursa city parks to provide natural food for urban wildlife

Öz

This study aims to determine the periods during which fruit-bearing woody plant species in the study area parks have ripe fruits, thereby revealing the potential of these parks to provide food resources for urban wildlife. The study was conducted in three major parks in Bursa: Reşat Oyal Culture Park, Soğanlı Botanical Park and Hüdavendigar City Park. To determine the periods and durations during which each plant species bears ripe fruits, the study area parks were visited once a week for one year. During the visits, the times when the fruit-bearing woody plant species had ripe fruits were recorded on a species-time table. Reşat Oyal Culture Park hosts 32 species of fruit-bearing woody plants, Soğanlı Botanical Park has 35 species, and Hüdavendigar City Park hosts 17 species. The oldest park, Reşat Oyal Culture Park, has the highest number of native fruit-bearing plant species with 18, while the newest park, Hüdavendigar Urban Park, has the lowest number with 8 species. On a weekly average, 7.9 plants in Reşat Oyal Culture Park, 9.6 plants in Soğanlı Botanical Park, and 4.8 plants in Hüdavendigar City Park bear ripe fruits. A statistically significant difference was found between the data from Reşat Oyal Culture Park and Soğanlı Botanical Park compared to the data from Hüdavendigar City Park (P>0.05). In urban ecosystems, fruity woody plants provide natural food for urban wildlife. The use of native and fruit-bearing woody plant species in urban plantings has an important role in the sustainability of urban wildlife.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fruit-bearing woody plants
• native plants
• ripe fruits
• urban biodiversity
• urban wildlife

Kaynakça

1. Aronson MF, Lepczyk CA, Evans KL, Goddard MA, Lerman SB, MacIvor JS, Vargo T (2017) Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(4): 189-196.
2. Ayberk H (2003) Yaban hayvanlarında kış yemlemesi. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University, 52(2/1-2): 79-86. Burghardt KT, Tallamy DW, Gregory Shriver W (2009) Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation biology, 23(1): 219-224.
3. Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States: associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States reflect the integration of economic sectors, supporting the theory and evidence that economic growth proceeds at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate. BioScience, 50(7): 593-601.
4. Daniels GD, Kirkpatrick JB (2006) Does variation in garden characteristics influence the conservation of birds in suburbia?. Biological conservation, 133(3): 326-335.
5. Dikmen BA, Yılmaz H (2021) Erzurum kentsel açık yeşil alanlarında meyve ağaçlarının kullanımı. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 52(3): 262-272.
6. Doody BJ, Sullivan JJ, Meurk CD, Stewart GH, Perkins HC (2010) Urban realities: the contribution of residential gardens to the conservation of urban forest remnants. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19: 1385-1400.
7. Dures SG, Cumming GS (2010) The confounding influence of homogenising invasive species in a globally endangered and largely urban biome: Does habitat quality dominate avian biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 143(3): 768-777.
8. Felappi JF., Sommer JH, Falkenberg T, Terlau W, Kötter T (2020) Green infrastructure through the lens of “One Health”: a systematic review and integrative framework uncovering synergies and trade-offs between mental health and wildlife support in cities. Science of the Total Environment, 748: 141589.

9. Gallinat AS, Primack RB, Lloyd-Evans TL (2020) Can invasive species replace native species as a resource for birds under climate change? a case study on bird-fruit interactions. Biological Conservation, 241: 108268.
10. Gaston KJ, Gaston S (2010) Urban gardens and biodiversity. In The Routledge Handbook of Urban Ecology: 474-482, Routledge.
11. Gilbert OL (1989) The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman and Hall.
12. Güneroğlu N, Pektaş S (2022) Yenilebilir meyve özelliği olan odunsu bitki taksonlarının peyzaj mimarlığındaki önemi: KTÜ Kanuni Kampüsü örneği. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 23(1): 79-89.
13. Hails CJ, Kavanagh M (2013) bring back the birds! planning for trees and other plants to support Southeast Asian wildlife in urban areas. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 29: 243–258.
14. Herrera CM (1982) Seasonal variation in the quality of fruits and diffuse coevolution between plants and avian dispersers. Ecology, 63(3): 773-785.
15. Howe HF (1986) Seed dispersal by fruit-eating birds and mammals. Seed Dispersal: 123-189, Academic Press New York.
16. Irmak M (2013) Use of native woody plants in urban landscapes. Journal of Food. Agriculture and Environment (JFAE) (ISI): 1305-1309.
17. Jacobs JH, Clark SJ, Denholm I, Goulson D, Stoate C, Osborne JL (2009) Pollination biology of fruit-bearing hedgerow plants and the role of flower-visiting insects in fruit-set. Annals of Botany, 104(7): 1397-1404.
18. Jarvis PJ (2010) Urban animal ecology. In The Routledge Handbook of Urban Ecology (pp. 376-384). Routledge.
19. Kılıç T, Kazaz S, Ergür EG, Gül A (2016) Meyve özellikli odunsu bitki türlerinin peyzaj amaçlı bitkisel tasarımda kullanılabilme olanakları. IV. Süs Bitkileri Kongresi, Antalya, Nisan, pp: 358-369.
20. Kissling WD, Field R, Böhning‐Gaese K (2008) Spatial patterns of woody plant and bird diversity: functional relationships or environmental effects?. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 17(3): 327-339.
21. Lancaster RK, Rees WE (1979) Bird communities and the structure of urban habitats. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 57(12): 2358-2368.
22. Lautenschlager RA (1997) Biodiversity is dead. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25(3): 679-685.
23. Lepczyk CA, Aronson MF, Evans KL, Goddard MA, Lerman SB, MacIvor JS (2017) Biodiversity in the city: fundamental questions for understanding the ecology of urban green spaces for biodiversity conservation. BioScience, 67(9): 799-807.
24. Lerman SB, Warren PS (2011) The conservation value of residential yards: linking birds and people. Ecological Applications, 21(4): 1327-1339.
25. Marzluff JM, Ewing K (2008) Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: a general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Urban Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans and Nature, Springer, Boston, MA, pp: 739-755.
26. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation: the impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. Bioscience, 52(10): 883-890.
27. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation, 127(3): 247–260. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosystems, 11: 161-176.
28. Melles S, Glenn S, Martin K (2003) Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: species–environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradient. Conservation Ecology, 7(1): 5.
29. Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conservation Biology, 16(2): 330-337.
30. Munyenyembe F, Harris J, Hone J, Nix H (1989) Determinants of bird populations in an urban area. Australian Journal of Ecology, 14(4): 549-557.
31. Nielsen AB, Van den Bosch M, Maruthaveeran S, Van den Bosch CK (2014) Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: a review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosystems, 17: 305-327.
32. Savard JPL, Clergeau P, Mennechez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48 (3-4): 131-142.
33. Schmidt V, Martin Schaefer H, Winkler H (2004) Conspicuousness, not colour as foraging cue in plant–animal signalling. Oikos, 106(3): 551-557.
34. Smith SB, DeSando SA, Pagano T (2013) The value of native and invasive fruit-bearing shrubs for migrating songbirds. Northeastern Naturalist, 20(1): 171-184.
35. Snow B, Snow D (1988) Birds and Berries. T & AD Poyser.
36. Terman MR (1997) Natural links: naturalistic golf courses as wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning, 38(3-4): 183-197.
37. Thompson JN, Willson MF (1979) Evolution of temperate fruit/bird interactions: phenological strategies. Evolution, 33(3): 973-982.
38. Turner WR, Nakamura T, Dinetti M (2004) Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. Bioscience, 54(6): 585-590.
39. Walhowe JL (2022) Land manager decision-making practices when establishing public fruit-bearing plants in Hennepin county municipalities, Minnesota. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 74: 127659.
40. Willson MF, Whelan CJ (1990) The evolution of fruit color in fleshy-fruited plants. American Naturalist, 136(6): 790–809.
41. Yalçınalp E, Demirci Ö (2018) Kent parklarında yenilebilir bitki talebine etki eden kullanıcı özellikleri. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(4): 666-675.
42. Yılmaz M (2014) Kentlerdeki bitkilendirmelerin kültürel açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Çevre ve Ahlak Sempozyumu Bildiri Metinleri, pp: 459-465.
43. Zencirkıran M, Akdeniz NS (2017) Bursa kent parkları odunsu bitki taksonlarının ekolojik tolerans kriterleri açısından değerlendirilmesi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2): 11-19.