Silva Balcanica, 19(1)/2018

Dendrological diversity in Santa Marina Holiday Village - as an example of contemporary landscape design trends in

Svetlana Anisimova Faculty of Ecology and Landscape Architecture, University of Forestry –

Abstract

The paper presents dendrofloral characteristics of Santa Marina Holiday Village, situated on the Southern Bulgarian coast. The systematic structure and species composition of woody ornamentals, the absolute and relative quantitative participation of each species were analyzed. A total number of 227 woody species, 315 species and intraspecific taxa, respectively of 110 genera, belonging to 54 families, were recorded. Furthermore, 44.4% of the families were represented by only one species. The results indicate a significant tree and shrub diversity, competitive with the one displayed in some Bulgarian historical parks famous for their dendrological collections. Some of them have been rarely cultivated in the green spaces in Bulgaria so far. A trend of a large scale use of alien species and cultivars was established. Consequently, the participation of autochthonous species is insignificant (5.9%). A relatively high percentage of coniferous and evergreen woody species provides the constant ornamental effect of the holiday village green spaces. Key words: urban green spaces, alien species, woody ornamentals, landscape planning

INTRODUCTION

The ornamental tree and shrub vegetation plays a leading role in the landscape design, creating the volume-spatial composition and enhancing environmental aesthetics and expressiveness. All ecosystem services provided by woody species depend on their adaptability to extreme environmental conditions (Chen, Jim 2008). In recent years, the diversity of ornamental tree and shrub species and cultivated varieties has grown considerably (Knapp, 2010; Chalker-Scott 2015; Sjöman et al., 2016.). The periodic inventory of public green spaces, accompanied by quantitative and qualitative dendrological analysis, provides valuable guidelines for landscape planning, construction and management of green spaces with specific environmental conditions. Dendrological analysis of public green spaces was conducted for the following Bulgarian cities: – Arboretum (Dimitrov, 1973, Alexandrov et al., 1996); , , (Vakarelov, Delkov, 1988b); (Zhelev, Yurukov, 1995); Nessebar (Vakarelov, Delkov, 1996); Sofia (Vakarelov, Delkov, 1988; Delkov, Gateva, 2004, Dimitrov et al., 2005); (Tsavkov, 2000); (Anisimova, 2013). Object of study was also the dendroflora of some resorts and architectural-and-park complexes along Bulgarian Black Sea coast: (Delkov, Vakarelov, 1976), St.

5 Constantine and , (Vakarelov et al., 1973), (Gateva, Kozarev, 2001), as well as Botanical garden in (Kitanova, 2005) and residence (Metodieva et al., 2001). Many of these inventory results have completely lost their relevance. The purpose of the present study was to analyse the dendrological diversity in the green spaces of a Sozopol’s holiday village and to assess its expediency to the environmental factors.

OBJECT AND METHODS

The study object was the dendroflora of Santa Marina Holiday Village (42°24’32.7”N 27°40’40.2”E). The settlement is located on the Southern Black Sea coast, 2 km north of the ancient of Sozopol and 34 km south of . It is situated amphitheatrically on a bay facing northwest towards the Black Sea. The holiday village covers 16 ha, about 2/3 of the area are green spaces. It consists of 80 three- or four-storey villa units. The altitude range is from 9 to 50 m a. s. l. Landscaping activities started in 2007. Light and regular standard trees have been planted not following landscape master plan. The holiday village was built on a terrain with an experimental 50-year-old Austrian black pine plantation in Saint Marina locality. The studied area is bordered to the east by the municipal forest park Saint Marina. The dendrological inventory was conducted in 2014-2016. Species composition was determined by applying the route method, inventorying the woody specimens along the whole alley network and in the depth of the groups and massifs. All woody species, apart from those applied as hedges and groundcovers, were presented as absolute and relative specimen quantities. Due to the different dendrometric characteristics, species were devided by their biological type into three groups – trees, shrubs (incl. lianas) and subshrubs. Still, the number of individuals of each species is not indicative of its real presence in the green spaces. The number of specimens used for hedges, green screens, borders, ground cover, as cascading plants and climbers, corresponds rather to the number of designs in which they are encountered. The sources used as referece books in plant identification are Krüssmann (1960, 1972) and Auders, Spicer (2012). The names of the species and cultivated varieties are consistent with the IPNI (http://www.ipni.org) and the RHS (https://www.rhs.org.uk/ plants) database.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Climate. The climate analysis of the site is based on the data of Hydrological and Meteorological Service of Sozopol (meteorological station 9 m a. s. l.) (BCRB, 1983; CRB, 1990). According to the climatic division of Bulgaria, Sozopol falls within the Continental-Mediterranean climate zone, Black Sea climate subzone, Southern Black Sea coast, climatic region of Burgas valley (Sabev et al., 1963).

6 Th e climate is characterized by a mild winter with a positive January mean temperature - + 3°C, and a long and hot summer (July and August average temperatures, respectively + 23.7°C and + 23.5°C). Th e mean annual temperature for Sozopol is 13.3°C. Since the town is located on the Black Sea coast, the weather rarely becomes extremely hot due to the infl uence of breeze circulation. However, it increases the soil dryness. Winter is relatively warm but windy. Northwest and southwest winds prevail, with an almost double the country’s average speed value. Th e adjoining sea basin determines year-round high humidity rate. Th e mean annual precipitation is very low - 494 mm, most of it being concentrated in the winter months. Snow is infrequent and melts soon thereafter. Th e Walter (1963) diagram (Fig. 1) shows moisture defi cit during the major part of the growing season – lasting from mid-June to the last decade of September. Th erefore, the accurate irrigation system design and schedule during the drought period are vitally important.

fig. 1. Climatic diagram of Sozopol

Th e general characteristics of the climate due to the lack of extreme values of the main climatic elements is favourable for the development of diverse ornamental species. However, species composition should include mainly moderately hardy woody ornamentals because of the adverse wind regime, combined with high atmospheric humidity during winter months and low precipitation in summer. soils. Th e regional soil type is Chromic Luvisols (Lc). Th ese soils are characterised by high bulk density, low aeration and water supply. Th ey alternate in depth (0.5 ÷ 1 m). In some places the soil profi le is very shallow. Th e soil reaction is slightly acidic. Th ey are poor in humus and very low in total nitrogen and assimilable phosphorus. Th e main problems of the site related to the landscaping are highly fragmented terrain with steep slopes up to 60% in some places and poor soil conditions.

7 The natural climatic and soil conditions of the site have been partially modified in relation to: the microclimate between the buildings, the intensive maintenance of the green areas in the complex in terms of irrigation, pruning, fertilizing. Woody vegetation. The oldest trees on the site that existed before the holiday village construction were: Pinus nigra J.F.Arnold, Cupressus sempervirens L., Acer campestre L., Cornus sanguinea L., Fraxinus ornus L., Quercus cerris L., Quercus pubescens Willd., Robinia pseudoacacia L., Ruscus aculeatus L., Ulmus minor Mill., Viburnum lantana L. The investigation of Saint Marina municipal forest park dendroflora, which borders the village to the east, represented the species diversity in the region prior its establishment. The inventory results showed almost equal participation of coniferous and broadleaved species. P. nigra was the main coniferous species (89%), while the most widely spread deciduous species were U. minor, F. ornus, C. orientalis. According to the habitat classification in Bulgaria (CFHB, 2011) the recommendable species for such growth conditions – flat to hilly terrain, lower slopes, sunny places on dry Chromic Luvisols (Lc) – are xerothermic oak communities of Q. cerris, Q. pubescens, Quercus frainnetto Ten., mixed with C. orientalis as a satellite broadleaved species. On the territory of the villa settlement Austrian black pine specimens have been entirely preserved everywhere outside the constructions perimeter. A total of 227 woody species, 315 species and intraspecific taxa, respectively, of 110 genera, belonging to 54 families were recorded in the green spaces of Santa Marina Holiday Village (Table 1). Probably, the list of the varieties is non-exhaustive. The results indicate that ratio of gymnosperm to angiosperm species is 1:3.1. Out of 227 woody species, 16.7% of them were found to be Gymnosperms, represented by 4 families: Cupressaceae – 20 species, Pinaceae – 16, Ginkgoaceae and Taxaceae – 1 each. Out of 38 coniferous species, 32 of them were found to be trees, while 6 were shrubs. The highest species diversity belonged to angiosperms (83.3%), represented by 50 families: Family Rosaceae was the most numerous – 30 species out of 17 genera, followed by Oleaceae 12 species of 6 genera; Leguminosae (9) and Sapindaceae (3) – 11 species each, Caprifoliaceae (4) and Salicaceae (2) – 10 species each, Hydrangeaceae (3) – 9 species, Berberidaceae (3), Lamiaceae (7) and Magnoliaceae (2) – 7 species each, Adoxaceae – (3) 6 species; Bignoniaceae (2) and Malvaceae (3) – 5 species each; Fagaceae (2) and Vitaceae (3) – 4 species each; Araliaceae (1), Asparagaceae (2), Celastraceae (1) and Ranunculaceae (1) – 3 species each; 9 families were represented by 2 species: Anacardiaceae (2 genera), Apocynaceae (1), Betulaceae (2), Buxaceae (2), Cornaceae (1), Hypericaceae (1), Lythraceae (2), Moraceae (2), Tamaricaceae (1). It should be pointed out, that 22 families (44.4%) were represented by a single species – Actinidiaceae, Aquifoliaceae, Ebenaceae, Elaeagnaceae, Ericaceae, Escalloniaceae, Cannabaceae, Garryaceae, Hamamelidaceae, Juglandaceae, Lauraceae, Meliaceae, Passifloraceae, Paulowniaceae, Pittosporaceae, Platanaceae, Polygonacea, Rhamnaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Simaroubaceae, Theaceae, and Ulmaceae. Considering the percentage participation of specimens of each species, it was hardly possible to distinguish main species and cultivars. Currently, a large number of species

8 and cultivated varieties were represented by a limited number or even single individuals. The most commonly present coniferous tree species were P. nigra (26.8% - existing plantation). As the largest woody specimens in the green areas of the holiday village, the Austrian black pine trees were substantial part of its current volume-spatial composition and silhouette. Thuja occidentalis cultivars (24.6%) and ×Cuprocyparis leylandii (13.9%) were also widely used. Representatives of Cupressaceae were the most commonly cultivated conifers - 72.2%. The percentage of cultivar specimens’ whithin gymnospermae group was 56.2%. The most frequently used deciduous tree species wereBetula pendula Roth (incl. cultivars) (29.2%) and Prunus cerasifera cultivars (9.8%). The percentage of cultivar specimens whithin angyospermae group was 32.0%. Relatively more shrub species (60.7 %) compared to tree species were found in the green spaces. The prevalence of shrub vegetation was reasonable due to the large size of trees, which require greater normative distances of planting next to buildings and facilities. Moreover shrub vegetation rapidly achieves ornamental effect. On the other hand, ecological services provided by trees that include shading, air temperature regulation, reduced air pollution are incomparable in recreational comfort supply. The participation of native species from Bulgarian dendroflora is insignificant (5.9%). Genus Rosa (16.0%) holds the first position among shrubs being the one with the most abundant representatives. The significant range of Rosa taxa (cultivars) was not included in the taxon list. Out of the large shrubs’ group, following the genus Rosa, the most widely spread species were found to be Buddleia davidii Franch. (6.5%), Hibiscus syriacus L. (3.2%), Hydrangea macrophylla (Thunb.) Ser. (4.5%) andSpiraea japonica cultivars, all of them summer and autumn blooming species. Taking into account the massive participation of evergreen hedges and green screens in the landscape design, the percentage of coniferous and broadleaved evergreen specimens is relatively high. Evergreen species provide the constant ornamental effect of the holiday village green spaces. The following species were widely used as hedges and green screens throughout the complex: Prunus laurocerasus L., Ligustrum ovalifolium Hassk. and L. ovalifolium ‘Aureum’, Photinia x fraseri ‘Red Robin’. Observations indicated that in case of future landscaping activities in the area of the study, Elaeagnus×submacrophylla Servett, Ligustrum japonicum Thunb.,Viburnum odoratissimum Ker Gawl., Viburnum tinus L. could be recommended as appropriate species for hedging and screening. Due to the many pergola structures, which are distinctive feature of the complex architecture, as well as the green façades, lianas were also substantial part of the dendrological composition. Some of the most interesting species, forms and cultivars in Santa Marina Holiday Village green spaces were: Abelia×grandiflora (Ravelli ex André) Rehder, Acer buergerianum Miq., Acer davidii Franch., Acer pseudoplatanus f. variegatum ‘Leopoldii’, Albizia julibrissin ‘Summer Chocolate’, Ampelopsis brevipedunculata ‘Elegans’, Caesalpinia gilliesii (Hook.) D.

9 Dietr., Cercis canadensis ‘Forest Pansy’, Clerodendrum bungei Steud., Escallonia rubra (Ruiz et Pav.) Pers., Firmiana simplex (L.) W. Wight, Hydrangea aspera ‘Macrophylla’, Hydrangea paniculata ‘Renhy’, Lagerstroemia indica cultivars: ‘Coccinea’, ‘Nivea’, ‘Monhid’, ‘Petite Red’, Lespedeza thunbergii (DC.) Nakai, Mahonia×media ‘Charity’, Melia azedarach L., Populus deltoides ‘Purple Tower’, Sambucus nigra f. porphyrophylla ‘Eva’, Viburnum davidii Franch., Viburnum odoratissimum Ker Gawl. Special attention should be given to part of the cultivated exotic woody ornamentals, which are thermophilic evergreen species grown as interior plants in the temperate-continental climatic region of Bulgaria: Camellia japonica L., Cupressus macrocarpa ‘Goldcres’, Laurus nobilis L., Osmanthus heterophyllus (G. Don) PSGreen, Passiflora caerulea L., Pittosporum tobira (Thunb.) W.T.Aiton. So far, the specimens have shown good development without any winter damages. No winter protection was provided. Furthermore, Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) Lindl., L. nobilis, P. caerulea, P. tobira were flowering and fruiting in Santa Marina green spaces. In this respect, the green spaces in the area of Sozopol could be successfully complemented with the following thermophilic exotic species: Abies pinsapo Boiss., Araucaria araucana (Molina) K. Koch, Cryptomeria japonica D. Don, Pinus coulteri D. Don, Pinus halepensis Mill., Thujopsis dolаbrata Sieb. et Zucc., Arbutus unedo unedo L., Buddleia alternifolia Maxim., Calycanthus floridus L., Chimonanthus praecox (L.) Link, Leycesteria formosa Wall., Nerium oleander L., Olea europaea L., Phlomis fruticosa L., Poncirus trifoliata Raf., Pterocarya fraxinifolia Spach, Quercus suber L., Jasminum officinale L. Eucalyptus gunnii Hook.f. could also be tested under these environmental conditions. The results of the inventory approximate the woody species diversity of the complex to the richest dendrological sites along Bulgarian Black Sea coast. In comparison, the dendrological collection of Botanic Garden in Balchik, North Black Sea coast, contains over 250 species of more than 60 families (Kitanova, 2005), 252 species were recorded in Euxinograd (Unpublished personal inventory data, 2012). It should be pointed out, that in the case study of Santa Marina green spaces, intraspecific taxa provide greater diversity, as the percentage of cultivars is considerable. Despite the devirsefication of green spaces by exotic woody species there was no evidence of invasive tendency The overall assessment of species phytosanitary status was good at the expense of intense maintenance, including pruning, fertilizing, irrigation, and pest and disease control. Certain mechanical damages on evergreen species were caused by strong winter winds. During summer months, one can often observe leave burns on Aesculus hippocastanum L. and some cultivated varieties of Acer palmatum. The high temperatures and high relative humidity were favourable for powdery mildew development.

CONCLUSIONS

The case study of Sozopol’s holiday village landscaping showed the trend of using mainly introduced species and cultivated varieties. The green spaces of Santa Marina complex were characterised by a rich dendrological composition, which provides diversity

10 Table 1. List of species

Cultivated N Species and intraspecific taxa Number % varieties Gymnospermae Trees 1 Abies concolor (Gordon) Lindl. ex Hildebr. 2 0.10 2 Abies nordmanniana (Steven) Spach 23 1.15 3 Abies alba Mill. 1 0.05 4 Calocedrus decurrens (Torr.) Florin ‘Aureovariegata’ 17 0.85 ‘Glauca’, ‘Glauca 5 Cedrus atlantica (Endl.) Manetti ex Carrière 29 1.45 Fastigiata’ 6 Cedrus deodara (Roxb. ex D.Don) G.Don 66 3.30 7 Cedrus libani A.Rich 7 0.35 ‘Columnaris’, 8 Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A.Murray bis) Parl. ‘Globus’, ‘Golden 98 4.90 Wonder’ 9 Cupressus arizonica ‘Fastigiata’, ‘Aurea’ 101 5.06 10 Cupressus macrocarpa ‘Goldcrest’ 21 1.05 11 Cupressus sempervirens ‘Pyramidalis’ 15 0.75 ‘2001’, ‘Gold 12 × Cuprocyparis leylandii (A.B.Jacks. et Dallim) Farjon 277 13.86 Rider’, ‘Silver Dust’ 13 Ginkgo biloba L. ‘Fastigiata’ 4 0.20 14 Juniperus communis ‘Hibernica’ 13 0.65 15 Juniperus virginiana L. 55 2.75 16 Larix decidua Mill. 3 0.15 17 Metasequoia glyptostroboides Hu et W.C.Cheng 1 0.05 18 Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. ‘Nidiformis’ 14 0.70 19 Picea glauca ‘Conica’ 3 0.15 20 Picea omorica (Pancic) Purk. 16 0.80 21 Picea pungens Engelm. ‘Hoopsii’ 108 5.41 22 Pinus excelsa Wall. ex D.Don 1 0.05 23 Pinus nigra J.F.Arnold 536 26.83 24 Pinus pinaster Aiton 3 0.15 25 Pinus pinea L. 7 0.35 ‘Elegantissima’, 26 Platycladus orientalis 70 3.50 ‘Pyramidalis Aurea’ 27 Pseudotsuga menziesii var. viridis (Schwer.) Franco 2 0.10 28 Sequoia sempervirens (D.Don) Endl. 1 0.05 29 Sequoiadendron giganteum (Lindl.) J.Buchholz 8 0.40 30 Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich. 3 0.15 31 Taxus baccata L. 1 0.05 ‘Columna’, ‘Danica’, ‘Globosa’, 32 Thuja occidentalis 492 24.62 ‘Golden Globe’, ‘Smaragd’ Total trees 1998

11 Table 1. Continued

Cultivated N Species and intraspecific taxa Number % varieties Shrubs 33 *Juniperus chinensis ‘Andorra Compact’ 24 0.36 ‘Blue Chip’, 34 *Juniperus horizontalis ‘Glauca’, ‘Prince of 162 2.41 Walse’ ‘Blue Carpet’, ‘Blue 35 *Juniperus squamata 23 0.34 Star’ 36 *Juniperus sabina ‘Tamariscifolia’ 1 37 Juniperus × pfitzeriana ‘Old Gold’ 130 1.94 38 Pinus mugo Turra 2 0.03 Total shrubs 342 100 Total conifers 2340 Angiospermae Trees 39 Acer buergerianum Miq. 1 0.14 40 Acer davidii Franch. 1 0.14 41 Acer negundo ‘Flamingo’ 17 2.38 ‘Dissectum’, ‘Dissectum Atropurpureum’, 42 Acer palmatum Thunb. 27 3.79 ‘Garnet’, ‘Orange Dream’, ‘Bloodgood’ 43 Acer platanoides L. ‘Crimson King’ 14 1.96 f. variegatum 44 Acer pseudoplatanus L. ‘Leopoldii’ ambig. 12 1.68 (v) 45 Acer tataricum subsp. ginnala (Maxim.) Wesm. 2 0.28 46 Aesculus hippocastanum L. 6 0.84 47 Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle 13 1.82 ‘Summer 48 Albizia julibrissin Durazz. Chocolate’, 43 6.03 ‘Ombrella’ ‘Purpurea’, 49 Betula pendula Roth 208 29.17 ‘Youngii’ 50 Castanea sativa Mill. 4 0.56 51 Catalpa bignonioides Walter ‘Nana’, ‘Aurea’ 24 3.37 52 Catalpa ovata G.Don 1 0.14 53 Celtis australis L. 14 1.96 54 Cercis canadensis ‘Forest Pansy’ 2 0.28 55 Cercis siliquastrum L. 9 1.26 56 Cydonia oblonga cv. 1 0.14 57 Diospyros kaki L.f. 2 0.28

12 Table 1. Continued

Cultivated N Species and intraspecific taxa Number % varieties 58 Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) Lindl. 3 0.42 59 Ficus carica L. 10 1.40 60 Firmiana simplex (L.) W.Wight 2 0.28 61 Fraxinus americana L. 2 0.28 62 Fraxinus angustifolia Vahl 8 1.12 63 Fraxinus excelsior L. 1 0.14 64 Fraxinus ornus L. 14 1.96 65 Juglans regia L. 1 0.14 66 Koelreuteria paniculata Laxm. 3 0.42 67 Laburnum × watereri ‘Vossii’ 8 1.12 68 Liquidambar styracifluaL. 6 0.84 69 Liriodendron tulipifera L. ‘Fastigiatum’ 2 0.28 70 Magnolia grandifloraL. ‘Galissonnière’ 16 2.24 71 Magnolia kobus DC. 1 0.14 72 Malus cv. 2 0.28 73 Melia azedarach L. 5 0.70 74 Morus alba ‘Pendula’ 9 1.26 75 Paulownia tomentosa Steud. 11 1.54 76 Platanus × acerifolia (Aiton) Willd. 24 3.37 77 Populus alba L. 1 0.14 78 Populus deltoides ‘Purple Tower’ 3 0.42 79 Populus tremula L. 1 0.14 80 Populus × euramericana (Dode) Guinier 1 0.14 81 Prunus armeniaca L. 4 0.56 82 Prunus serrulata ‘Kanzan’ 7 0.98 83 Prunus persica (L.) Batsch 2 0.28 84 Prunus cerasifera ‘Pissardii’, ‘Nigra’ 70 9.82 85 Pyrus spp. cv. 1 0.14 86 Quercus cerris L. 1 0.14 87 Quercus pubescens Willd. 7 0.98 88 Quercus rubra L. 13 1.82 89 Robinia pseudoacacia L. ‘Umbraculifera’ 10 1.40 90 Salix caprea ‘Kilmarnock’ 3 0.42 91 Salix integra ‘Hakuro Nishiki’ 11 1.54 92 Salix alba L. 1 0.14 93 Salix babylonica L. 1 0.14 94 Salix babylonica var. pekinensis ‘Tortuosa’ 1 0.14 95 Sorbus aria ‘Magnifica’ 3 0.42 96 Sorbus aucuparia ‘Fastigiata’ 6 0.84 97 Styphnolobium japonicum ‘Pendulum’ 2 0.28 98 Tilia cordata Mill. 1 0.14 99 Tilia platyphyllos Scop. 6 0.84

13 Table 1. Continued

Cultivated N Species and intraspecific taxa Number % varieties 100 Tilia tomentosa Moench 9 1.26 101 Ulmus minor Mill. 16 2.24 Total trees 710 100 Shrubs 102 Abelia × grandiflora(Ravelli ex André) Rehder ‘Hopleys’ 3 0.05 103 Acer shirasawanum ‘Aureum’ 1 0.02 104 Aronia melanocarpa (Michx.) Elliott 3 0.05 105 Aucuba japonica ‘Variegata’ 106 1.80 ‘Atropurpurea 106 *Berberis thunbergii Nana’, 31 1.19 ‘Rose Glow’ 107 Berberis vulgaris L. 1 0.02 108 Berberis × media ‘Parkjuweel’ 5 0.08 109 Berberis × ottawensis ‘Superba’ 138 2.34 ‘Black Knight’, ‘Empire Blue’, ‘Peace’, ‘Pink 110 Buddleia davidii Franch. 382 6.48 Delight’, ‘Royal Red’, ‘White Profusion’ 111 *Buxus sempervirens ‘Suffruticosa’ 1 0.02 112 Caesalpinia gilliesii (Hook.) D.Dietr. 10 0.17 113 Callicarpa bodinieri var. giraldii ‘Profusion’ 10 0.17 114 *Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull ‘Dark Star’ 50 0.85 115 Camellia japonica L. 1 0.02 116 Caryopteris × clandonensis ‘Heavanly Blue’ 34 0.58 117 * Chaenomeles japonica (Thunb.) Lindl. ex Spach 1 0.02 118 Clerodendrum bungei Steud. 3 0.05 119 Cornus sanguinea ‘Midwinter Fire’ 42 0.71 120 Cornus alba L. ‘Elegantissima’ 1 0.32 121 Corylus avellana L. ‘Contorta’ 3 0.07 122 Cotinus coggygria Scop. ‘Royal Purple’ 20 0.34 123 *Cotoneaster dammeri C.K. Schneid. 205 3.48 124 *Cotoneaste horizontalis Decne. 131 2.22 125 *Cotoneaster microphyllus Wall. ex Lindl. 3 0.05 126 Deutzia crenata Siebold et Zucc. 4 0.07 127 Elaeagnus × submacrophylla Servett 11 0.19 128 Escallonia rubra (Ruiz et Pav.) Pers. 17 0.29 ‘Aureomarginatus’, 129 Euonymus japonicus Thunb. 10 0.17 ‘Microphyllus’ 130 Euonymus alatus ‘Compactus’ 72 1.22 ‘Emerald ‘n’ Gold’, 131 *Euonymus fortunei 58 0.98 ‘Emerald Gaiety’

14 Table 1. Continued

Cultivated N Species and intraspecific taxa Number % varieties 132 Forsythia × intermedia Zabel 16 0.27 ‘Ardens’, ‘Hamabo’, ‘Red Heart’, Hibiscus syriacus 133 ‘Oiseau Bleu’, 189 3.21 ‘Lady Stanley’, ‘Woodbridge’ 134 Hydrangea arborescens ‘Annabelle’ 31 0.53 135 Hydrangea aspera ‘Macrophylla’ 1 0.02 136 Hydrangea macrophylla (Thunb.) Ser. ‘Masja’, ‘Tricolor’ 264 4.48 ‘Grandiflora’, 137 Hydrangea paniculata 28 0.47 ‘Renhy’ 138 Hydrangea petiolaris Siebold et Zucc. 5 0.08 139 Hydrangea quercifolia W. Bartram 15 0.25 140 Hypericum hookerianum ‘Hidcote’ 4 0.07 141 Ilex aquifolium ‘Pyramidalis’ 2 0.03 142 *Jasminum nudiflorumLindl. 15 0.25 143 Kerria japonica ‘Picta’, ‘Pleniflora’ 54 0.92 ‘Coccinea’, ‘Nivea’, ‘Monhid’, ‘Petite 144 Lagerstroemia indica L. 65 1.10 Red’, ‘Violacea Grassi’ 145 Laurus nobilis L. 1 0.02 146 *Lavandula angustifolia Mill. ‘Hidcote’ 337 5.72 147 *Ligustrum japonicum Thunb. 38 0.64 148 *Ligustrum ovalifolium Hassk. ‘Aureum’ 28 0.47 149 Lonicera fragrantissima Lindl. et J. Paxton 3 0.05 150 *Lonicera nitida E.H. Wilson ‘Lemon Beauty’ 347 5.89 151 Lonicera pileata Oliv. 56 0.95 152 Magnolia × soulangeana Soul.-Bod. 1 0.02 153 Magnolia stellate (Siebold et Zucc.) Maxim. 1 0.02 154 Magnolia ‘Susan’ 1 0.02 155 Magnolia liliifloraDesr. ‘Nigra’ 1 0.02 156 Mahonia aquifolium (Pursh) Nutt. 53 0.90 157 Mahonia × media ‘Charity’ 5 0.08 158 Nandina domestica Thunb. 13 0.22 159 Osmanthus heterophyllus (G.Don) P.S.Green 2 0.03 160 Philadelphus coronarius L. 3 0.05 161 Photinia serratifolia ‘Curly Fantasy’ 3 0.05 *Photinia × fraseri ‘Red Robin’, 162 306 5.19 ‘Little Red Robin’ ‘Dart’s Gold’, 163 Physocarpus opulifolius 149 2.53 ‘Diablo’ 164 Pittosporum tobira (Thunb.) W.T.Aiton 3 0.05

15 Table 1. Continued

Cultivated N Species and intraspecific taxa Number % varieties 165 Potentilla fruticosa L. 16 0.27 ‘Otto Luyken’ 166 *Prunus laurocerasus L. 488 8.28 ‘Rotundifolia’ 167 Prunus × cistena N.E.Hansen ex Koehne 3 0.05 168 Punica granatum L. 4 0.07 169 Pyracantha coccinea M.Roem. 29 0.49 170 Rhus typhina L. ‘Dissecta’ 15 0.25 171 Rosa cv. 944 16.01 172 Rosmarinus officinalisL. 36 0.61 Salix elaeagnos subsp. Angustifolia (Cariot et St.-Lag.) 173 1 0.02 Rech.f. 174 Sambucus nigra f. porphyrophylla ‘Eva’ 1 0.02 175 Sorbaria sorbifolia (L.) A.Braun ‘Sem’ 6 0.10 176 Spartium junceum L. 5 0.08 ‘Anthony Waterer’, ‘Golden Flame’, *Spiraea japonica 177 ‘Golden Princess’, 515 8.74

‘Crispa’, ‘Little Princess’ 178 Spiraea × arguta Zabel 8 0.14 179 Spiraea nipponica ‘Snowmound’ 24 0.41 180 Spiraea × billardii ‘Triumphans’ 3 0.05 181 Spiraea × vanhouttei (Briot) Zabel 41 0.70 182 Symphoricarpos albus (L.) S.F.Blake 29 0.49 183 Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Moench 3 0.05 184 Syringa josikaea J.Jacq. ex Rchb.f. 1 0.02 185 Syringa mayeri ‘Palibin’ 3 0.05 ‘Charles Joly’, 186 Syringa vulgaris ‘Michel Buchner’, 29 0.49 ‘Mme Lemoine’ 187 Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb. 5 0.08 188 Tamarix tetrandra Pall. ex M.Bieb. 1 0.02 189 Viburnum davidii Franch. 3 0.05 190 Viburnum odoratissimum Ker Gawl. 48 0.81 191 Viburnum lantana L. 28 0.47 192 Viburnum rhytidophyllum Hemsl. 20 0.34 193 Viburnum tinus ‘Eve Price’ 18 0.31 194 Vitex agnus-castus L. 4 0.07 195 Weigela florida cv. 102 1.73 196 Weigela ‘Nana Variegata’ 10 0.17 197 Yucca filamentosaL. ‘Bright Edge’ 8 0.14 198 Yucca gloriosa L. ‘Variegata’ 25 0.42 199 Ziziphus jujuba Mill. 1 0.02

16 Table 1. Continued

Cultivated N Species and intraspecific taxa Number % varieties Total shrubs 5933 100 Lianas 200 *Actinidia arguta (Siebold et Zucc.) Planch. ex Miq. 2 201 *Ampelopsis brevipedunculata ‘Elegans’ 2 202 *Campsis grandiflora(Thunb.) K.Schum. 3 203 *Campsis radicans (L.) Seem. 38 *Campsis radicans (L.) Seem. f. flava 2 204 *Campsis × tagliabuana ‘Madame Galen’ 4 205 *Clematis montana var. rubens ‘Tetrarose’ 12 206 *Clematis ‘Nelly Moser’ 8 207 *Clematis ‘The President’ 8 208 *Fallopia aubertii (L.Henry) Holub 1 209 *Hedera colchica ‘Sulphur Heart’ 1 210 *Hedera algeriensis ‘Gloire de Marengo’ 4 211 *Hedera helix L. 13 212 *Lonicera japonica Thunb. ‘Halliana’ 210 213 *Lonicera periclymenum L. 25 214 *Lonicera × brownii ‘Dropmore Scarlet’ 15 215 *Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. 62 ‘Veitchii’,’Green 216 *Parthenocissus tricuspidata 69 Spring’ 217 *Passiflora caeruleaL. 6 218 *Rosa cv. 34 219 *Vitis vinifera cv. 9 220 *Wisteria floribunda(Willd.) DC. ‘Rosea’ 57 221 *Wisteria sinensis (Sims) Sweet 48 Total lianas 633 Subshrubs 222 *Hypericum calycinum L. - 223 *Lespedeza thunbergii (DC.) Nakai 16 0.24 224 *Pachysandra terminalis Siebold et Zucc. - 161 Perovskia atriplicifolia ‘Blue Spire’ 54 0.92 225 *Ruscus aculeatus L. 3 0.05 226 *Vinca major L. - 227 *Vinca minor L. -

Note: * - species used as hedges, borders, ground cover, cascading plants and climbers. Their number corresponds to the number of designs in which they are encountered

17 and individuality, as well as year-round effect. A significant number of woody ornamental species and their cultivars have proven their successful adaptation to the local environmental conditions. An advantage for the diverse tree and shrub vegetation is the mild climate, allowing the development of thermophilic exotic species, as well as the complex intensive maintenance. In future optimisation of species composition of similar sites, it is necessary to take into account the microclimatic conditions between the buildings in relation to altered solar access and wind speed and direction. The rich dendrological collection of Santa Marina Holiday Village turns it into an interesting dendrological site in terms of studying woody species adaptation ability, which is important for landscape architecture theory and practice. Dendrological diversity enhances the ornamental effect and educational and recreational value of green spaces, as well as brings a sense of exotic and uniqueness. However, the rare occurrence of indigenous species leads to unification of urban landscapes worldwide. In future planning and construction, a priority should be given to more sustainable woody species.

Acknowledgements: This document was supported by the grant No BG051PO001-3.3.06-0056, financed by the Human Resources Development Operational Programme (2007–2013) and co-financed jointly by the European Social Fund of the European Union and the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science.

REFERENCES

Alexandrov, P., V. Stylianov, A. Pencheva. 1996. Research on the plant collection of IPS ‘General Toshevo’. I. Inventory of tree-shrub vegetation. C: IPPS in Bulgaria - Second ScientificConference: Propagation of Decorative Plants, Sofia, 5-7 October, 1996, 205-212 (In Bulgarian). Anisimova, S. 2013. City Park on coal mine spoil dump. Results and perspectives of reclamation. Dendrological characteristics. Proceedings IV International Scientific Conference ‘Conservation and reconstruction of botanical gardens and arboretums in conditions of sustainable development’, 225th anniversary of the dendrological park, NAS of Ukraine, 123-126 Auders, A., D. Spicer. 2012. Royal Horticultural Society Encyclopedia of Conifers: A Comprehensive Guide to Cultivars and Species (2 Vol Set), 1507, ISBN-13: 9781907057151. BCRB. 1983. Bulgarian Climate Reference Book. 3, Science and Art, Sofia, 440 (In Bulgarian). Chalker-Scott, L., 2015. Nonnative, noninvasive woody species can enhance urban landscape biodiversity. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 41(4), 173-186. Chen W.Y., Jim C.Y. 2008. Assessment and Valuation of the Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Forests. - In: Carreiro M.M., Song YC., Wu J. (Eds.) Ecology, Planning, and Management of Urban Forests. Springer, New York, NY, 53-83. CFHB. 2011. Classification of Forest Habitats in Bulgaria. Instructions for Identifying and Mapping the Forest Habitat Types and the Composition of Dendrocenosis. – Bulprofor, Sofia, 136 (In Bulgarian). CRB. 1990. Climate Reference Book. Precipitation in Bulgaria. BAS, Sofia, 169 (In Bulgarian). Delkov, A., R. Gateva. 2004. Dendrological Structure of the Green Areas in Sofia. – In: Ecology of the City of Sofia. Species and Communities in an Urban Environment, Penev, J. Niemela, D. J. Kotze, N. Chipev (Eds.) 213-228. Delkov, N., I. Vakarelov. 1976. Species composition of tree and shrub vegetation of Golden Sands resort.

18 Jubilee Conference Session – 50 years Forestry Higher Education, pp. 114-121 (In Bulgarian). Dimitar D., Ch. Gusev, G. Kimenov, Y. Boseva. 2005. Botanical Characteristics of Vrana Park. Trud, 92 (In Bulgarian). Dimitrov, H. 1973. Phenology of ornamental tree and shrub species. Zemizdat, Sofia, 93 (In Bulgarian) Gateva, R., D. Kozarev. 2001. Composition, Status and Manner of Using of Tree Vegetation in the Green System of Sunny Beach, Forest Science, ¾, 5-16 (In Bulgarian, English summary). IPNI. http://www.ipni.org/. Kitanova, S. 2005. University botanic garden – Balchik and its 50 years anniversary – a short description of the dendrological collection, Forest Science, 3, 119 (In Bulgarian, English summary). Knapp, S. 2010. Plant Biodiversity in Urbanized Areas. Plant Functional Traits in Space and Time, Plant Rarity and Phylogenetic Diversity. VIEWEG+TEUBNER RESEARCH, 180. Krüsmann, G. 1960. Handbuch der Laubgehölze. Band I, Berlin, 486. Krüsmann, G. 1962. Handbuch der Laubgehölze. Band II, Berlin, 608. Metodieva, Е., А. Pencheva, I. Radilova. 2001. Influence of biotic factors on tree health condition in the park Euxinograd. Jubilee Conference proceedings – 50 years Landscape architecture speciality, 118-128 (In Bulgarian). RHS. https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants Sabev, L., S. Stanev. 1963. Climatic Regions in Bulgaria and Their Climate. Zemizdat, Sofia, 180 (In Bulgarian). Sjöman, H., J. Morgenroth, J. Sjöman, A. Sæbø, I. Kowarik. 2016. Diversification of the urban forest - can we afford to exclude exotic tree species? Urban For Urban Green, 18, 237–241. Tsavkov, E. 2000. Analysis of the dendrological composition of the park areas of Silistra. - In: Jubilee proceedings, scientific reports - 75 years of higher forestry education in Bulgaria, Section ‘Landscape Architecture and Business Management’, Pub. LTU, Sofia, 72-81 (In Bulgarian). Vakarelov, I., N. Delkov. 1988а. Analysis of dendrological composition of Parka na Svobodata in Sofia. Folia Dendrologica, 15, 309-313 (In Russian). Vakarelov, I., N. Delkov. 1988b. Dendrological characteristics of green areas in certain of South- Western Bulgaria. - In: D. Velkov, M. Anchev, R. Gatev (Ed.). 10th congress of dendrologists, Sofia, 41-46 (In Bulgarian). Vakarelov, I., N. Delkov. 1996. Dendrological characteristics of the landscape architecture of Nessebar - a new part. Scientific Works ‘Ecology and Landscape Architecture Series’, XXXVII, 135-142 (In Bulgarian). Vakarelov, I., P. Koleva, N. Delkov. 1973. Application of shrub vegetation in the green spaces design of the resorts on the North Black Sea coast. International Scientific Technical Conference ‘Problems of the Black Sea Coast Landscape’, October 23-37, 1972, 179-188 (In Bulgarian). Walter, H. 1963. Climatic Diagrams as a Means to Comprehend the Various Climatic Types for Ecological and Agricultural Purposes. – In: Rutter, A., F. Whitehead (Eds.). The Water Relations of Plants, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 3-9. Zhelev, P., S. Yurukov. 1995. Dendrological characteristics of the park areas in some southern Bulgarian towns I. The park areas of Plovdiv. Proceedings of a jubilee symposium ‘100 years from birthday of Acad. Boris Stefanov’, II, PSSA, Sofia, 232-238 (In Bulgarian).

E-mail: [email protected]

19