Assessing and Identifying Improvements to Enhance Biodiversity at the University of Glasgow

Home , Dollar spot, Enarmonia, Enarmonia formosana, Eucallipterus, Eucallipterus tiliae, Hydrocotyle vulgaris

ASSESSING AND IDENTIFYING IMPROVEMENTS TO ENHANCE BIODIVERSITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW

2089878

BSc (Hons) Environmental Science & Sustainability University of Glasgow School of Interdisciplinary Studies

Supervisor: Dr. Steven Gillespie

ABSTRACT

As urban environments continue to expand, the conservation value of urban biodiversity is open to question. Recent studies on urban ecosystems highlight that urban biodiversity is fundamental to ecosystem regulation and improving health and wellbeing. In a time of increased climate variability, it is important to identify what species are valuable to ensure urban resilience and sustainability in the future. This paper examines the biodiversity found in six habitats at the University of Glasgow Gilmorehill and Garscube, Scotland. This was done so university users, visitors and estate developers can understand the wider values of biodiversity at the university. Habitats were ascertained using the University of Glasgow Phase 1 Habitat Survey, and assessed in terms of their socio-ecological significance and potential to enhance native biodiversity. The assessment identified Amenity Grassland as the dominant habitat on both campuses. The discussion on Amenity Grassland found that there is an imbalance between the ecological and social significance of biodiversity within these habitats and surrounding areas. To enhance biodiversity in ecologically fragmented habitats, connectivity between Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree, Intact Hedge native species-rich, Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland, Marsh/Marshy Grassland and Running water (Oligotrophic) habitats could be improved. This could be done through management and conservation initiatives aimed and enhancing and promoting the ecological, social and educational values of native biodiversity on campus. In turn, this could increase the socio- ecological values of campus biodiversity, and exhibit the university’s commitment to conservation at a local, national and global scale.

CONTENTS PAGE

Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 6 List of Abbreviations 7 1 Introduction and Review of Literature 9 1.1 Urban biodiversity: a growing issue for concern 9 1.2 The global situation 11 1.3 The University of Glasgow 11 2 Aims & Objectives 12 3 Methods 13 3.1 Procedure 13 3.2 Limitations 14 4 Assessing and identifying improvements to enhance biodiversity 15 5 Amenity Grassland 20 5.1 Definition and characteristics 20 5.2 Gilmorehill 20 5.3 Garscube 21 5.4 Opportunities to enhance Amenity Grassland 23 5.4.1 Ecologically 23 5.4.2 Socially 27 5.4.3 Educationally 27 6 Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree 29 6.1 Definition and characteristics 29 6.2 Gilmorehill 29 6.3 Garscube 30 6.4 Opportunities to enhance Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitat 32 6.4.1 Ecologically 32 6.4.2 Socially 36 6.4.3 Educationally 36 7 Intact Hedge Native Species-Rich 38 7.1 Definition and characteristics 38 7.2 Gilmorehill 38 7.3 Opportunities to enhance Intact Hedge native species-rich habitat 40 7.3.1 Ecologically 40 7.3.2 Socially 44 7.3.3 Educationally 44 8 Broadleaved Woodland: Semi-Natural 46 8.1 Definition and characteristics 46 8.2 Garscube 46 8.3 Garscube: River Kelvin 48 8.4 Opportunities to enhance Semi-Natural Broadleaved Woodland habitat 49 8.4.1 Ecologically 49 8.4.2 Socially 52 8.4.3 Educationally 52 9 Marsh/Marshy Grassland 53 9.1 Definition and characteristics 53 9.2 Garscube 53 9.3 Opportunities to enhance Marsh/Marshy Grassland habitat 54 9.3.1 Ecologically 54 9.3.2 Socially 58 9.3.3 Educationally 58 10 Running Water (Oligotrophic) 59 10.1 Definition and characteristics 59

10.2 Garscube: River Kelvin 59 10.3 Opportunities to enhance Running Water (Oligotrophic) habitat 61 10.3.1 Ecologically 61 10.3.2 Socially 64 10.3.3 Educationally 64 11 Guidelines to improve biodiversity at the University of Glasgow 65 11.1 Amenity Grassland 65 11.2 Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree 65 11.3 Intact Hedge Native Species-Rich 66 11.4 Semi-Natural Broadleaved Woodland 66 11.5 Marsh/Marshy Grassland 67 11.6 Running Water (Oligotrophic) 67 12 Conclusion 68 References 70 Appendices 83 Appendix 1 Species List 83 Appendix 2 Habitat Alphanumeric Codes 89

List of Tables

Table 1 Legend for Fig. 4 24 Table 2 Legend for Fig. 5 26 Table 3 Legend for Fig. 6 33 Table 4 Legend for Fig. 7 35 Table 5 Legend for Fig. 8 41 Table 6 Legend for Fig. 9 & Fig. 10 43 Table 7 Legend for Fig. 11 & Fig. 12 51 Table 8 Legend for Fig. 13 55 Table 9 Legend for Fig. 14 57 Table 10 Legend for Fig. 15 & 16 63

List of Figures

Fig. 1 Phase 1 Habitat Map of Gilmorehill 15 Fig. 2 Phase 1 Habitat Map of Garscube 16 Fig. 3 Phase 1 Habitat Map of Garscube: River Kelvin-Map 1 17 Fig. 3.1 Phase 1 Habitat Map of Garscube: River Kelvin-Map 2 17 Fig. 3.2 Phase 1 Habitat Map of Garscube: River Kelvin-Map 3 17 Fig. 3.3 Phase 1 Habitat Map of Garscube: River Kelvin-Map 4 17 Fig. 3.4 Phase 1 Habitat Map of Garscube: River Kelvin-Map 5 18 Fig. 3.5 Phase 1 Habitat Map of Garscube: River Kelvin-Map 6 18 Fig. 3.6 Phase 1 Habitat Map of Garscube: River Kelvin-Map 7 18 Fig. 4 Improvements for Amenity Grassland: Gilmorehill 24 Fig. 5 Improvements for Amenity Grassland: Garscube 26 Fig. 6 Improvements for Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree: Gilmorehill 33 Fig. 7 Improvements for Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree: Garscube 34 Fig.8 Improvements for Intact Hedge native species-rich: Gilmorehill 41 Fig.9 Improvements for Intact Hedge native species-rich: Garscube-Map 1 42 Fig.10 Improvements for Intact Hedge native species-rich: Garscube-Map 2 43 Fig.11 Improvements for Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland: Garscube-Map 1 50 Fig.12 Improvements for Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland: Garscube-Map 2 50 Fig.13 Improvements for Marsh/Marshy Grassland: Gilmorehill 55 Fig.14 Improvements for Marsh/Marshy Grassland: Garscube 56 Fig.15 Improvements for Running Water (Oligotrophic): Garscube-Map 1 62

Fig.16 Improvements for Running Water (Oligotrophic): Garscube-Map 2 62

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Along the journey of my studies, I have been encouraged, supported and inspired by many people. Here, I would like to take the opportunity to thank several people who contributed to the development and completion of this dissertation.

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Steven Gillespie. Without your expertise, optimism and continuous support, this dissertation would not be possible. I would also like to thank all members of staff at the University of Glasgow: Dumfries Campus who have helped me go from strength to strength throughout my undergraduate degree. In particular, I would like to thank Dr Bethan Wood for her enthusiasm and suggestions for Sections 5-10 of this work.

I must express my gratitude to Dr Stewart Miller for providing me with key policy documents which form the basis of this research. Thanks are also due to members of staff at the University of Glasgow Estates and Buildings department for their assistance throughout the entirety of this project.

Completing this dissertation would have been all the more difficult were it not for the support received from fellow classmates on the BSc (Hons.) Environmental Science and Sustainability programme. Particularly to Catherine, I am indebted to you for your help and friendship over the past four years.

I would like to say a heartfelt thank you to my parents and grandparents for supporting me throughout my studies, and providing a home to complete my research. Thanks must also be given to Neil Wallace and David Suttie for offering to proofread this dissertation. Finally, I would like to dedicate this work to Margaret Rose Nelson - your love and strength will continue to inspire me for the rest of my life.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

UN - United Nations

UNCBD - Convention on Biological Diversity

JNCC - Joint Nature Conservation Committee

UoG - University of Glasgow

FC - Forestry Commission

FCS - Forestry Commission Scotland

SNH - Scottish Natural Heritage

DAFOR - Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional, Rare

AGMP - Amenity Grassland Management Plan

BAP - Biodiversity Action Plan

GUWGT - Glasgow University Wildlife Garden Team

NGO - Non-governmental Organisation

GUEST - Glasgow University Environmental Sustainability Team

WT - The Woodland Trust

QMU - Queen Margaret Union

WFD - Water Framework Directive

RMP - Riverbank Management Plan

SWT - Scottish Wildlife Trust 7

PSTMP - Parkland/Scattered Tree Management Plan

HMP - Hedgerow Management Plan

WoMP - Woodland Management Plan

WeMP - Wetland Management Plan

UGST - University Grounds Services Team

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Urban biodiversity: a growing issue for concern

Ecosystem services provide a myriad of benefits that are critical to maintain species composition, enhance species richness and sustain ecosystem function (Daily, 1997; Downing, 2005). Without these services, natural processes such as climate regulation, carbon sequestration, water purification and waste management would be non-existent (Godbold & Solan, 2009; BISE, 2016; Parris, 2016). In recent years, academics and policy- makers have considered biodiversity as an influential actor that controls a range of ecosystem functions (Cardinale et al., 2012; Tilman et al., 2012). Subsequently, this has influenced the formation of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) and global strategies aimed at conserving biological diversity, e.g. the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (UN, 1992; UN, 2015).

Particularly in urban environments, the variety, variability and interactions amongst living organisms can be valuable to sustain ecological systems (Berkes & Folke, 1998). For instance, Kohsaka et al. (2003) suggest that urban biodiversity reduces the effects of inland and coastal flooding, the urban heat island effect, geo-hydrological hazards and air pollution. In areas where urbanization is augmenting climate variability, urban biodiversity could be essential to mitigate the effects of climate change and protect natural resources (Dearborn & Kark, 2010). Also, if biodiversity was enhanced, and habitat connectivity improved, this could increase urban resilience for sustainability and the values of urban biodiversity (Ahern, 2013; Trundle et al., 2016).

While it is widely recognised that urban biodiversity responds to natural processes, it can be affected by anthropogenic impacts on the environment (Ernston et al., 2010; Nowak, 2010). In rapidly urbanizing cities, species are often subject to repeated disturbance as a result of development pressure and increased urban sprawl (Niemelä, 1999; Kowarik, 2011). This can create harsh ecological conditions, or stressed environments, as habitat connectivity is interrupted (Sandström et al., 2006; Ahern, 2013). In turn, this can impact the survival of species and their coexistence with others, creating ecologically impoverished habitats (Gilbert, 1989).

However, it may be argued that some species have the ability to cope and thrive in harsh ecological conditions and nutrient-poor environments (Niemelä, 1999). Non-native invasive species are often successful colonists in urban environments as they have no natural 9 predators, pathogens or competitors (Vitousek et al., 1996; Torchin & Mitchell, 2004). Common invasive plants such as Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica), Common Rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) and Himalayan Balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) are acknowledged as serious threats to native biodiversity (Manchester & Bullock, 2000). Also, they are some of the most difficult species to eradicate and drivers of species extinction (Myers et al., 2000).

To enhance and prevent the decline of native urban biodiversity in Scotland, national strategies such as the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (2004) and the 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity (2013) have been established (SNH, 2017). Both strategies aim to protect and restore native biodiversity in compliance with the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (1994) and ‘Priority Habitat’ descriptions (SG, 2004; SG, 2013). By preserving and enhancing ‘Priority Habitats’ in cities, this could establish ‘national ecological networks’ and provide resilience to adverse changes arising from climate change (SG, 2013).

As well as ecological benefits, Cilliers (2010) argues that urban biodiversity provides a multitude of social benefits linked to quality of life, culture and well-being. In the 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity (2013), key activities that encourage physical activity and contact with nature are listed. These include recreation, environmental volunteering and outdoor learning (SG, 2013). Benefits that arise from such activities cover a range of policy areas, e.g. health, wellbeing, education, community development and regeneration (SG, 2013). Therefore, encouraging outdoor learning experiences in urban recreational areas could be valuable to enhance the social values of biodiversity (Bogner, 1998).

The Scottish Government’s (SG) commitment to increase ‘national ecological networks’ could also enhance human health and wellbeing (SG, 2013). More specifically, increased connectivity in grasslands, woodlands, hedgerows, marshlands and rivers could work well in sustaining species diversity and providing benefits linked to outdoor learning experiences (Ignatieva et al., 2011; SG, 2013). In urban environments, ecological connectivity in these habitats could also increase the conservation of biodiversity whilst meeting the goals of the EU Biodiversity Policy (2011) and UNCBD Aichi Targets (2011) (SG, 2015). In turn, this would enhance urban green space, increase green networks and allows nature to flourish, improving the quality of life for city inhabitants (Fahrig, 2003; SG, 2013).

1.2 The global situation

Since the industrial revolution, the population of those living in cities has risen dramatically and it is now estimated that more than half of the world’s population live in cities (UN, 2014; Parris, 2016). As urbanization continues, and human impacts on the ecosystem rise, there is a growing importance for conservation and research on biodiversity within these areas (Wilson, 1984; Vitousek et al., 1997;). To increase our knowledge of the ecological and social aspects of cities, McDonnell et al. (2009) suggest that collective action must be taken. If collaborative action is applied in urban environments, this could reduce the impacts and concerns over biodiversity loss locally, regionally and globally (Grimm et al., 2000; Alberti, 2008; Marzluff et al., 2008; McDonnell et al., 2009).

1.3 The University of Glasgow

The University of Glasgow (UoG) Gilmorehill and Garscube Campus are central to this research. As a public body, it is the university’s obligation to preserve its natural resources and conserve biodiversity on the grounds it is responsible for (UoG, 2015). The Gilmorehill Campus is undergoing redevelopment and the University’s grounds department are restructuring practise to ensure sustainability is integrated into new builds on campus (UoG, 2014). One key responsibility of the university’s grounds department is to ensure biodiversity is protected and enhanced for its own intrinsic value, the wellbeing of university users and visitors, as well as the wider communities beyond (UoG, 2017a). In the case of this paper, these can be seen as actors which influence the values of biodiversity in urban environments.

2. AIMS & OBJECTIVES

The aim of the research is to assess the socio-ecological values of biodiversity on the Gilmorehill Main Campus and Garscube Campus at the UoG. The research questions to address this study are:

● What biodiversity is there on campus?

● What is the socio-ecological significance of biodiversity on campus?

● What could be done to enhance biodiversity at the UoG?

The objectives of this research are:

● To provide recommendations to enhance biodiversity at the University.

● To integrate recommendations into future framework established by the UoG;

● To build a platform for research into the values biodiversity in urban environments.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Procedure

To assess and identify improvements for biodiversity at the UoG, a desk-based study was undertaken. The recently established UoG Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2015) was selected as the primary resource for the study as it provided the best available data on campus biodiversity. Alternative methods to the Phase 1 Habitat Survey were considered, e.g. floral and faunal assessments, but rejected due to the scale of the study location.

The researcher obtained the finalised Phase 1 Habitat Survey from the Estates and Buildings department at the University of Glasgow. Using the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, the researcher identified key habitats and species noted in the habitat descriptions, target notes and species list for the Gilmorehill Campus, Garscube Campus and Garscube: River Kelvin. This was done to determine the ecological and social significance of biodiversity found. Once species and habitats were noted, findings were and expanded using secondary research. Secondary sources of information were obtained from the UoG library, and online using ‘Science Direct’, ‘Springer Science+Business Media’ and ‘Google Scholar’. Sources included UoG framework, governmental/non-governmental environmental policies, national/international environmental legislation, academic literature and scientific journals.

Once findings from the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and secondary sources were collated, these were used to create the ‘opportunities to improve’ subsections in each habitat assessed. To support recommendations made in this section, digital maps using EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service were created (EDOSS, 2017a; EDOSS, 2017b; EDOSS, 2017c). Geographic Information System Software (GIS), i.e. ESRI ArcGIS, was considered as an alternative methodology to digital mapping but was rejected due to its lack of ecological detail.

Using OS VectorMap Local Raster, recommendations were annotated onto base maps for Gilmorehill Campus and Garscube Campus. Google Earth satellite imagery was used to assist this process as it provided a clearer view of habitats that could be improved. Once maps were completed, map legends were added to allow readers to interpret suggestions offered for each habitat.

3.2 Limitations

During the project, there were a number of limitations which put restrictions on the methodology and results obtained. As the study was desk-based, data interpreted from the Phase 1 Habitat Survey was assumed as accurate, even though standard error occurs in species identification. This limitation may also apply to other secondary sources of information used to compile Sections 5-10 of this project. Also, as it was difficult to map smaller habitats on EDINA Digimap, annotations may not fully represent the area where changes are proposed. Finally, it is recognised that the UoG Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2015) does not account habitat coverage at the UoG Dumfries Campus as the land is owned by the Crichton Development Company. Given the opportunity to repeat the study, inclusion of habitats on the Dumfries Campus would be valuable to fully account biodiversity at the university. Furthermore, full assessments and improvements for habitats such as Tall Herb and Fern (C3.1) and Scrub: Dense/Continuous (A2.1) at Gilmorehill and Garscube could be valuable.

4. ASSESSING AND IDENTIFYING IMPROVEMENTS TO ENHANCE BIODIVERSITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW

Sections 5-10 aim to assess the social and ecological significance of biodiversity at the UoG, and provide recommendations to enhance its ecological, social and educational values. Information on habitats and species were ascertained using the 2015 UoG Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the Gilmorehill and Garscube estates (see Fig. 3, 4 and 5 - 5.6). Habitats summarized were based on coverage and classified as: Amenity Grassland, Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Trees, Broadleaved Woodland – Semi-natural, Mixed Woodland: Semi- natural, Scrub: Dense/Continuous, Introduced Shrub, Flower Beds, Tall Herb and Fern, Intact Hedge native species-rich, Marsh/Marshy Grassland, Marginal Vegetation, Earth Bank and Running water (Oligotrophic).

Figure 1 displays the Phase 1 Habitat map of Gilmorehill campus. UoG, 2015.

Figure 2 displays the Phase 1 Habitat map of Garscube campus. UoG, 2015.

Figure 3-3.3 displays the Phase 1 Habitat Map of Garscube: River Kelvin. UoG, 2015.

Figure 3.4-3.6 displays the Phase 1 Habitat Map of Garscube: River Kelvin. UoG, 2015.

To generate the aims of the research, Sections 5-10 explore: Amenity Grassland; Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree; Intact Hedge native species-rich; Broadleaved Woodland – Semi-natural; Marsh/Marshy Grassland; Running water (Oligotrophic). Habitats discussed were chosen based on their coverage, socio-ecological significance and potential to improve biodiversity at the university.

In the first subsection of each section, the definition and characteristics of each habitat are contextualised. Following this, habitats are summarized and assessed in terms of their social and ecological significance for biodiversity at Gilmorehill, Garscube or Garscube: River Kelvin. In the final subsection, ways to enhance biodiversity within the habitat and throughout the university are offered. Recommendations made are supported by maps so university users, visitors and estate developers can understand the ecological benefits of connecting green space on campus.

5. AMENITY GRASSLAND

This section defines and contextualises Amenity Grassland, and examines its benefits and limitations on the Gilmorehill and Garscube estates. Recommendations are made in Section 5.4 to enhance Amenity Grassland and the values of campus biodiversity.

5.1 Definition and characteristics

The JNCC define Amenity Grassland (alphanumeric code J2.1 in Appendix 2) as “cultivated disturbed land” comprised of

“intensively managed and regularly mown grasslands, typical of lawns, playing fields, golf course fairways and many urban ‘savannah’ parks, in which Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne), with or without White Clover (Trifolium repens), often predominates” (JNCC, 1990: 48).

Amenity Grassland generally consists of young grasslands and procumbent perennials that are compounded by fertile or fertilised soil (Rorison & Hunt, 1980; Forestry Commission, 2006). Common species include L. perenne and T. repens, as well as monocotyledonous flowering plants such as Annual Meadow Grass (Poa annua), Bentgrass (Agrostis spp.) and Fescue (Festuca spp.) (JNCC, 1990; Boller et al., 2010).

5.2 Gilmorehill

According to the UoG Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2015), Amenity Grasslands makes up approximately 3.39 ha of the Gilmorehill campus. Amenity Grasslands are intensively managed, except for areas that have been transformed into wildflower meadows. In Amenity Grasslands, P. annua is the dominant species (>75% according to the DAFOR scale), and nitrogen-fixing Red Clover (Trifolium pratense) and T. repens have a scattered distribution (UoG, 2015).

The large abundance of Clover (Trifolium spp.) on campus could be valuable to local species composition (Grime, 1998). Trifolium spp. thrives in a range of soil and environmental conditions, and attracts a diverse assemblage of native invertebrates, e.g. Buff-tailed Bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) and the rarely-spotted Purple Hairstreak (Neozephyrus quercus) (Dicks et al., 2010; Larson et al., 2014). Research by Matteson & Langellotto (2010) on urban invertebrates found that open habitats, i.e. Amenity Grassland, attract pollinators and encourage species interaction. Thus, increased Trifolium spp. in Amenity

Grassland could attract a wider range of native pollinator species to Gilmorehill campus.

On the other hand, Amenity Grassland comprised of Trifolium spp. could be regarded as ecologically fragmented in comparison to highly productive habitats such as wetlands (Chen & Lu, 2003; Gibson, 2009). A major reason for this is recognised by Wedin (1992) who claims that regular mowing and fertiliser use creates uniform short-swards of limited species, preventing the establishment of native flora. Applying this to Gilmorehill, Amenity Grassland surrounding main university buildings could be perceived as species limited and colonized by Trifolium spp. If land maintenance activities were reduced, Jones & Hayes (1999) believe this would increase floristic species diversity on campus.

Nonetheless, Trifolium spp. can be valuable for their provisioning and regulating services (Jose, 2009). Trifolium spp. are recognised as a nitrogen-fixing plants, removing the need for synthetic fertilisers on temperate landscapes (Palmer & Iverson, 1983). This can be valuable to land management as costs and labour associated with maintenance and fertiliser application are eliminated (Jennings, 2010). Also, as chemicals and toxins from artificial fertilizers are removed, this could enhance species diversity in Amenity Grassland (Wedin, 1992). Relating to Trifolium spp. on Gilmorehill, increased coverage of similar species could provide socio-ecological benefits to native campus biodiversity.

Despite this, Amenity Grassland can be perceived as socially insignificant where plant diversity is absent (NERC, 2016). Studies by Lindemann-Matthies et al. (2010) found that areas of limited plant diversity create negative perceptions of grassland vegetation. Subsequently, this can result in neglect of Amenity Grassland and utilization of the landscape (Klaus, 2013). Applying this to Gilmorehill, close-cut Amenity Grassland could be perceived to lack visual diversity.

5.3 Garscube

Amenity Grassland covers approximately 15.44 ha of Garscube Campus and is the dominant habitat on the estate (UoG, 2015). P. annua is the dominant species and intensively managed to meet sports team requirements (UoG, 2015). Garscube campus is also made up of sport pitches containing artificial grass turf (UoG, 2015). Furthermore, a large area of Amenity Grassland near the Acre Road site off Maryhill Road is designated to allotment gardens (UoG, 2015).

Like Trifolium spp., P. annua could also be perceived as ecologically significant for its

21 pioneering abilities (Bond et al., 2007). P. annua is regarded as an ecologically adaptable species and has a cosmopolitan distribution in various ecotypes worldwide (CABI, 2015a). Research by Grime et al. (2014) on restoration ecology describes P. annua as a successful colonist in disturbed or fragmented habitats. Thus P.annua on Garscube could be important for facilitating vegetation succession in Amenity Grassland.

On the other hand, Amenity Grassland where P. annua is a common constituent is seen as ecologically fragmented (Rorison & Hunt, 1980). One reason for this is that P. annua is regarded as a grassland weed by land managers for its ability to outcompete native species (CABI, 2015a). Another is its high dispersal and resilience to maintenance aimed at reducing its spread (RHS, 2017a). As a result, Amenity Grassland can become colonized by P. annua and lack ecological diversity (Bond et al., 2007). In terms of enhancing biodiversity at Garscube, the effectiveness of P. annua at doing this is debatable.

Nonetheless, amenity grasslands dominated by P. annua can be beneficial for maintenance and recreational purposes (CABI, 2015a). P. annua is one of the most suitable species for sports turf as it has a high-wear resistance to trampling, mowing and fertilizer application (Aldous & Chivers, 2002). Additionally, P. annua can improve the water-holding capacity of soil containing organic matter as it can withstand periodic waterlogging (Garden Organic, 2007). Referring to the amenity grasslands on Garscube, P. annua may be important for reducing inundation and maintaining pitch quality. By doing so, this could enhance the values of species to sports teams and other recreational users.

Still, Amenity Grassland with limited Poa spp. and floristic diversity is often undervalued by land maintenance (FC, 2006). Particularly on sports turf, greenkeepers tend to use large amounts of water and fertilizer to enhance the green colouration, remove weeds and prevent diseases such as Fusarium and Dollar Spot (Lawson, 1989; Walsh et al., 1999). In the long- term, this is unsustainable from a social and ecological perspective, and limits species diversity (SNH, 2013). To enhance biodiversity on Garscube, the following section discusses potential ways to improve Amenity Grassland.

5.4 Opportunities to enhance Amenity Grassland

5.4.1 Ecologically

To create opportunities for species diversity at the university, native grasses could be introduced into Amenity Grassland. At Gilmorehill, P. annua, L. perenne, Meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) and Red fescue (Festuca rubra) could be sown into Amenity Grassland surrounding main university buildings; particularly in the southern boundaries of the estate (Fig. 4). This would encourage vegetation succession and the growth of native wildflowers, e.g. Common Daisy (Bellis perennis), Common Snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) and Wild Daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus). Potentially, wildflower meadows could create a visual aesthetic and connect campus biodiversity to larger urban green space, i.e. Kelvingrove Park.

On Gilmorehill, newly-planted wildflower meadows also provide an opportunity to enhance the ecology of Amenity Grasslands. Areas species-rich in California Poppy (Eschscholzia californica) and Chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla) could be expanded to include a wider variety of native wildflowers, e.g. Tufted vetch (Vicia cracca), Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) and Giant bellflower (Campanula latifolia). As shown in Fig. 5, where expansion is impracticable, raised wildflower beds could be created in close proximity. Potentially, this could increase habitat connectivity and invertebrate diversity on campus, particularly during pollination seasons.

Figure 4 displays potential improvements for Amenity Grassland on Gilmorehill.

Table 1 displays legend for Fig. 4.

Proposed areas for wildflower meadows

Proposed areas for raised wildflower beds

Information boards

Nature interpretation panels

Potential nature trails . . . .

Potential ecological corridors - - - -

At Garscube, native perennials similar to those proposed for Gilmorehill could be introduced. As shown in Fig. 5, grasslands not used as sports turf on the borders of the estate could be transformed into wildflower meadow habitat. Species may include those found bordering the River Kelvin, i.e. Cocks-foot (Dactylis glomerata) and Creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and other native species, e.g. meadow-grass (Poa spp.) and A. pratensis (UoG, 2015). This would attract a diversity of pollinators, invertebrates, birds and small mammals from surrounding habitats on Garscube, e.g. Marsh/Marshy Grassland (B5) and Running Water (Oligotrophic) (G2.3) (UoG, 2015).

Additionally, the allotment gardens could be enhanced for biodiversity on campus. This could be done by planting or sowing a mixture of native wildflowers and perennials into plots. For instance, species may include Common knapweed (Centaurea nigra), Cowslip (Primula veris) and Devil’s bit scabious (Succisa pratensis). Once planted, this could create a wildlife corridor for species into surrounding habitats, i.e. Running Water (Oligotrophic) and Semi- natural Broadleaved Woodland (A1.1.1) (UoG, 2015). In turn, this could enhance species diversity on Garscube and surrounding areas, i.e. Maryhill Park and Dawsholm Park.

Figure 5 displays potential improvements for Amenity Grassland on Garscube.

Table 2 displays legend for Fig. 5.

Proposed areas for wildflower meadows

Information boards

Nature interpretation panels

Potential nature trail . . . .

Potential ecological corridor - - - -

Finally, the creation of an ‘Amenity Grassland Management Plan’ (AGMP) by the university’s grounds department, grounds services team (UGST) and GUEST could be valuable to enhance biodiversity. The management plan should contain, but not be limited to, the following recommendations:

1. Introduce wildflower meadow habitats and wildflower beds where possible to enhance biodiversity and habitat connectivity; 2. Remove artificial grass where possible to enhance biodiversity and habitat connectivity; 3. Amend maintenance regimes to facilitate the development of newly-planted wildflower habitats; 4. Involve university members and the local community in wildflower conservation projects.

Adopting an AGMP could increase biodiversity in Amenity Grasslands as species are given the opportunity to establish and rigorous mowing regimes are reduced. Also, it may create opportunities to promote the importance of biodiversity conservation at the university.

5.4.2 Socially

To promote the benefits of native species-rich grasslands at Gilmorehill, information boards could be created and installed in areas surrounding proposed wildflower habitats (Fig. 4). Boards could be designed by Glasgow University Environmental Sustainability Team (GUEST) and include information on the Glasgow University Wildlife Garden Team (GUWGT), campus biodiversity projects and local gardening initiatives. This could be effective for communication purposes, promoting biodiversity projects and enhancing the values of green space on campus.

Similarly, information boards could be installed around the proposed wildflower habitats at Garscube (Fig. 5). As Garscube is a recreational facility, boards could feature information the benefits of wildflowers meadows for improving mental health. This may influence further engagement in conservation and gardening projects on campus. Also, it could raise awareness of biodiversity loss at a local, regional and global scale.

5.4.3 Educationally

To provide opportunities for outdoor learning experiences on campus, nature interpretation

27 panels could be installed around Amenity Grasslands and wildflower habitats (Fig. 4 & Fig. 5). These could be created in collaboration with the university’s grounds department, conservation non-governmental organisations (NGO) (i.e. Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT), GUEST, university students and staff, and members of the local community.

Information could include profiles on native species found in Amenity Grasslands and wildflower habitats, and how to get involved in biodiversity conservation on campus. Panels could also be used to highlight the university’s commitment to campus biodiversity, i.e. aims of the UoG Biodiversity Policy (Miller, 2014). By doing so, this could create wildlife education trails which interlink habitats and enhance the values of Amenity Grassland at the university.

6. BROADLEAVED PARKLAND/SCATTERED TREE

This section defines and contextualises Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitat, and examines the benefits and limitations of its presence on Gilmorehill and Garscube campus. In Section 6.4, ways to enhance biodiversity in Broadleaved Parkland/ Scattered Tree habitat are offered to increase the values of biodiversity at the university.

6.1 Definition and Characteristics

Parklands are described as

“mosaic habitats valued for veteran and ancient trees, and the plants and animals they support” (JNCC, 2008: 2).

More specifically, broadleaved parklands are designed as landscape features and to foster a sense of place (Manning et al., 2006). Urban broadleaved parklands feature an array of broadleaved species which are scattered amongst open grasslands or found bordering green space (SNH, 2017). Typical broadleaved species include Alder (Alnus glutinosa), Ash (Fraxinus excelsior), Common Lime (Tilia x europaea), English Oak (Quercus robur), Horse Chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), Silver Birch (Betula pendula) and Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) (Woodland Trust, 2017a; BRC, 2017). By scattering broadleaved trees, this creates an ecological network of connected canopy habitats which encourages species interaction and movement (Manning et al., 2009).

6.2 Gilmorehill

Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Trees (A3.1) make up approximately 2.33 ha of the Gilmorehill estate (UoG, 2015). T. europaea and Whitebeam (Sorbus aria) are the most abundant species in this habitat, while F. excelsior, B. pendula, Common Beech (Fagus sylvatica) and Rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) have a frequent distribution (UoG, 2015). Broadleaved species are found in areas of intensively-managed grassland to provide canopy cover for P. annua and species similar (UoG, 2015).

T. europaea can be an ecologically valuable species to native invertebrates inhabiting parklands (WT, 2017a). The leaves of T. europaea provide a food source for a myriad of insects including Moths and Caterpillars (Lepidoptera spp.), and their predatory species from higher trophic levels (WT, 2017a). Additionally, T. europaea acts as a nectar and pollen

29 source for bees (Anthophila spp.) and butterflies (Rhopalocera spp.) during seasons of flowering (Norfolk Wildlife Trust, 2017). If the abundance of T. europaea was increased on Gilmorehill, this could encourage pollinator movement between scattered broadleaved trees in parklands. In turn, this would strengthen habitat connectivity and sustain the ecological functioning of parkland ecosystems (Bennett, 1999).

On the other hand, T. europaea can affect the diversity of microorganisms (RHS, 2017b). Particularly in urban environments, T. europaea can be susceptible to attack by Linden aphid (Eucallipetrus tiliae) (Carter, 1992). E. tiliae produces copious amounts of honeydew which are deposited onto treestands and surrounding ground flora (Carter, 1992). This can affect the composition of microorganisms, reduce the growth of T. europaea and be troublesome for land management (Dixon, 1971; Carter, 1992). In terms of enhancing biodiversity at the university, the effectiveness of T. europaea at doing this is debatable.

Despite this, broadleaved species like T. europaea and F. sylvatica provide a range of benefits linked to health and wellbeing (Nilsson et al., 2010). T. europaea and F. sylvatica are popular ornamental trees in urban green space for their aesthetic appearance and canopy cover (WT, 2017b; RHS, 2017c). Also, research by (Yatagai, 2000) found that similar species improve mental health as tree aroma enhances sensory experiences with nature. On Garscube, T. europaea and F. sylvatica may be regarded as socially significant for similar reasons.

Nonetheless, broadleaved parkland comprised F. sylvatica may be problematic for land management (Pirone et al., 1988). F. sylvatica can have substantial leaf litter in Autumn and require higher levels of land maintenance to remove foliage in areas of amenity value (WT, 2017c). According to More et al. (1988), increased labour and costs associated with such tasks can result in the removal of broadleaved trees in urban parklands. Referring to Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Trees on Gilmorehill, this argument could be relevant in areas of Amenity Grassland.

6.3 Garscube

Following Amenity Grasslands and Buildings (J3.6), Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree is the most dominant habitat on Garscube (UoG, 2015). The 6.84 ha classified as Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree encompasses a variety of native and non-native trees that are “well maintained aesthetically and accordingly” (UoG, 2015:11). Species include Large-Leaved Lime (Tilia platyphyllos), Wild Cherry (Prunus avium), Japanese Maple (Acer palmatum),

Katsura (Cercidiphyllum japonicum), Magnolia (Magnoliaceae spp.) and Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) (UoG, 2015).

From an ecological perspective, P. avium is valuable to an array of native species (CABI, 2017a). Fruits from P. avium are readily eaten by numerous bird species, e.g. Hawfinch (Coccothraustes coccothraustes) and Song thrush (Turdus philomelos), and small mammals such as the Red fox (Vulpes vulpes), European badger (Meles meles) and rarely-spotted Hazel Dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) (Hernandez, 2008; Petrokas, 2010; Snow & Snow, 2010; WT, 2017d). Additionally, the leaves provide a food source for Lepidoptera spp., e.g. Cherry-bark Moth (Enarmonia formosana), and flowers attract a spectrum of pollinator species (WT, 2017d). Thus, the scattered distribution of P. avium could be valuable to enhance biodiversity and establish ecological networks on Garscube.

However, non-native broadleaved species on Garscube may not be valuable to native campus biodiversity (Broadmeadow et al., 2005). Non-native A. palmatum has an extensive range of cultivars and is planted globally for its distinct appearance and ornamental value (van Gelderen et al., 1994). Research by Helden et al. (2012) discovered that non-native trees like A. palmatum provide fewer ecosystem services than native tree species. Additionally, the study found that native trees attract a wider variety of True Bugs (Hemiptera spp.) and insectivorous birds than non-native trees in urban parkland (Helden et al., 2012). Applying this to Garscube, native biodiversity on campus could be enhanced if non-native A. palmatum, C. japonicum, Magnoliaceae spp. and L. tulipifera were removed.

Nevertheless, Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats could be significant for improving the health of urban residents (Wolch et al., 2014). According to Campbell et al. (2016), urban parklands provide opportunities to pursue recreation and socialize, whilst interacting with nature. Subsequently, this improves physical health and mental health issues such as stress (Campbell et al., 2016). As Garscube is a sports facility, users may gain similar benefits through recreation on campus. Thus, Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats on Garscube could be valuable for the cultural ecosystem services they provide.

Still, Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats require ongoing maintenance to preserve amenity and recreational values (Chiesura, 2004). At the university, landscape maintenance is carried out by the UGST and aims to preserve horticulture and arboriculture (UoG, 2017b). Horticulture and arboriculture are labour intensive activities and often have high associated costs that create challenges for land managers and urban authorities

(Thompson, 2002). Referring to Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Trees on Garscube, habitats may create conflicts related to maintenance and land use.

6.4 Opportunities to enhance Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Trees

6.4.1 Ecologically

To enhance biodiversity at Gilmorehill, a greater abundance of native trees could be planted in Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats (Fig. 6). Species could include broadleaves with a frequent distribution on campus, i.e. F. excelsior and S. aucuparia, and other native broadleaved and coniferous species, e.g. Downy birch (Betula pubescens), Common Juniper (Juniperus communis), Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) and A. glutinosa (UoG, 2015).

This would create a mosaic of native trees and increase the abundance of Mixed Parkland/Scattered Tree (A3.3) habitats on the estate. Additionally, habitats could attract a wider range of native invertebrates, birds and small mammals as tree canopy provides a refuge for wildlife (SNH, 2016). Increased canopy cover could also link habitats on Gilmorehill to larger green space, i.e. Kelvingrove Park. In turn, this could enhance habitat connectivity on and surrounding campus.

Figure 6 displays potential improvements for Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Trees on Gilmorehill.

Table 3 displays legend for Fig.6.

Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats

Proposed areas for native broadleaved/coniferous trees

Information boards

Nature interpretation panels

Potential nature trails . . . .

Potential ecological corridor - - - -

Similarly, Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats at Garscube could be enhanced by integrating a wider variety of native broadleaved and coniferous species. This could be done by replacing mature non-native trees (i.e. A. palmatum, C. japonicum and Magnoliaceae spp.) with the dominant native trees on campus (i.e. T. platyphyllos and P. avium). Alternatively, other varieties of native ornamental trees, e.g. Common Holly (Ilex aquifolium)

33 and Elder (Sambucus nigra), could be planted (UoG, 2015).

As shown in Fig. 7, species could also be planted in areas of parkland not used as sports turf or scattered around the boundaries of playing fields and amenity grasslands. This could enhance ecologically fragmented areas on campus, and facilitate the development of microhabitats and native species-rich understory. Also, it would exhibit the university’s commitment to enhance campus biodiversity and comply with wider environmental policy, i.e. the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (2012) and UNCBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2010).

Figure 7 displays potential improvements for Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Trees on Garscube.

Table 4 displays legend for Fig. 7.

Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Trees

Proposed areas for native broadleaved/coniferous trees

Information boards

Nature interpretation panels

Potential nature trails . . . .

Potential ecological corridor - - - -

To enhance biodiversity at Gilmorehill and Garscube, a Parkland/Scattered Tree Management Plan (PSTMP) could be adopted by the UGST. This could be created in collaboration with the university’s grounds department, GUEST, university students and staff and members of the local community. The PSTMP should aim to enhance and promote the ecological values of Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats at the university. Also, it should conserve the cultural, historical and ornamental values of species in these habitats. To do so, the plan could prioritize the following actions:

1. Conserve and protect ancient and veteran native trees species; 2. Expand Mixed Parkland/Scattered Tree and enrich Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats to enhance biodiversity and habitat connectivity; 3. Establish native understory to accommodate wildlife; 4. Remove non-native invasive species to enhance the diversity of native species; 5. Amend maintenance regimes to facilitate the development of newly-planted woodland; 6. Identify suitable locations where dead or decaying species can be retained for microhabitats; 7. Involve university members and the local community in parkland conservation projects.

By reshaping practise to preserve the ecological values of Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats, this could enhance the diversity of native broadleaved and coniferous species on campus. Also, if recommendations are put into effect, this could enhance the social and educational values of biodiversity at the UoG.

6.4.2 Socially

To enhance the values of Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats on Gilmorehill, the social benefits of parklands could be promoted. This could be done through information boards and created in collaboration with the university’s grounds department, GUEST, university students and staff and members of the local community. Information boards could contextualise the ecosystem services that native trees provide. Additionally, boards could contain information on the benefits of native trees to human health and well-being. As shown in Fig. 6, information boards could be installed near main university buildings and learning hubs. As these are main student areas on campus, this could increase interaction with signage and participation in conservation projects at and beyond the university.

Similarly, at Garscube, the values of Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats could be promoted by information boards. Boards could display information on the benefits of parklands to physical, mental and emotional well-being. Also, information boards could explain the benefits of Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats in terms of minimizing the effects of atmospheric pollution. As displayed in Fig. 7, information boards could be installed around newly planted trees and veteran or ancient native trees on campus. Establishing information boards could be an effective way to communicate the university’s previous and ongoing efforts to conserve and enhance native trees on campus. Additionally, it would promote the university as an institution committed to conserving biodiversity in an era of biodiversity loss.

6.4.3 Educationally

Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats on Gilmorehill and Garscube could be used as an educational resource to promote the importance of biodiversity at the UoG. This could be done through nature interpretation panels. Panels could display information on native tree species found on campus, how to identify them, their importance and threats and how to contribute to their conservation. These could be devised by the university's grounds department, wildlife education NGOs (i.e. The Woodland Trust (WT)), GUEST, university students and staff, and members of the local community.

As indicated in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, panels could be installed around main university buildings at Gilmorehill and throughout Garscube campus. Also, panels could be introduced in areas of tree fall or where dead or decaying species are retained to communicate the benefits of microhabitats. Establishing interpretation panels in Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats could create wildlife education trails on Gilmorehill and Garscube. In turn, this may

36 attract members of the public to campus, enhancing the values of biodiversity at the UoG.

7. INTACT HEDGE NATIVE SPECIES-RICH

This section defines and contextualises Intact Hedge native species-rich, and discusses the social and ecological significance of its presence on the Gilmorehill campus. In Section 7.3, ways to increase and conserve Intact Hedge Native Species-rich habitats are offered so the values of biodiversity can be enhanced at the university.

7.1 Definition and characteristics

Hedgerows are defined as

“any boundary line of trees or shrubs over 20m long, less than 5m wide and where any gaps between the trees or shrub species are less than 20m wide”. (Bickmore, 2002: 8)

According to the JNCC (2016), hedgerow habitats also include any bank, ditch, wall, herbaceous vegetation or tree within 2m of the centre of the hedgerow. Intact Hedge native species-rich habitats (J2.1.1) consist of a “diversity of native woody species and good understory flora” (JNCC, 2010: 25). Native flowering species such as Box (Buxus sempervirens) and I. aquifolium, and woody species such as Yew (Taxus baccata) and F. excelsior are commonly found in hedgerows throughout the UK (RHS, 2017d; RHS, 2017e). In well-established native hedgerows, native climber species such as Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), Bramble (Rubus fruticosus) and Damson (Prunus domestica) can also be found (RHS, 2017e; RHS, 2017f).

7.2 Gilmorehill

Intact Hedge native species-rich habitat covers approximately 0.1 ha of the Gilmorehill campus (UoG, 2015). Dominant native hedge species include B. sempervirens, T. baccata and Wild Privet (Ligustrum vulgare) (UoG, 2015). Habitats border areas of amenity grassland, scattered parkland and the sides of university buildings (UoG, 2015). One example of this can be observed along the north side of the Wolfson Medical School Building on University Avenue where Birch (Betula spp.) is the dominant species (UoG, 2015).

B. sempervirens and T. baccata are popular hedging plants in the UK and are an essential habitat for a wealth of native biodiversity (Hitchmough & Fieldhouse, 2008; SNH, 2015a; RHS, 2017d). The species form dense understory thickets which create nesting opportunities for small native birds such as the Robin (Erithacus rubecula), and shelter for small ground- 38 dwelling mammals, e.g. Red Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) and M. avellanarius (RSPB, 2017; The Wildlife Trusts, 2017; WT, 2017). Additionally, B. sempervirens and T. baccata produce fruit which provide a food source for native birds, small mammals and invertebrates such as the Western honey bee (Apis mellifera); a keystone pollinator in the the UK (Free, 1960; RSPB, 2009; Williams et al., 2010;). Thus, hedgerows comprised of B. sempervirens and T. baccata on Gilmorehill could be critical to maintain the structure of local species composition.

On the other hand, native species found in hedgerows on the Gilmorehill may be problematic. Planted Betula spp. is often susceptible to Birch Dieback; a disease caused by Marssonina leaf spot (Marssonina betulae) and Anisogramma virgultorum (Anisogramma virgultorum) pathogenic fungus due to stressed environmental conditions (Silva et al., 2008). The disease causes crown dieback which can kill affected trees and threaten the establishment microhabitats and native understory (Green, 2005). Research by Houston (1981) on stress- triggered tree diseases confirmed that Birch Dieback proliferates in areas of expanding urbanization. Applying this to the Gilmorehill campus redevelopment, Betula spp. may threaten the livelihood of native species found in Intact Hedge Native Species-rich habitats.

Despite this, Betula spp. are popular hedgerow species in parklands and gardens throughout the UK (RHS, 2017g). One reason for this is that Betula spp. and similar hardwood trees facilitate the growth of native plants (SG, 2002). Another is for their monoecious flowers and ornamental value (Skjøth et al., 2009). The presence of Betula spp. on Gilmorehill may encourage the growth of native edible climber species, e.g. R. fruticosus, and add aesthetic value to the campus (Harmer et al., 2005; Konijnendijk et al., 2005). Additionally, if R. fruticosus became established, this could provide a food source for human consumption and enhance the values of hedgerows to campus users and visitors.

Nonetheless, native hedgerows often require ongoing maintenance to support wildlife and maintain aesthetic values (WT, 2014; RSPB, 2017). Alternatively, non-native hedge species, e.g. R. ponticum, are introduced to reduce management and provide ornamental value (Dehnen-Schmutz & Williamson, 2006). Findings from the UoG Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2015) highlight that Intact Hedge native species-poor (J2.1.2) is six times more prevalent than Intact Hedge native species-rich on the estate. This may suggest that hedgerows are integrated for their aesthetic values, rather than ecological benefits.

7.3 Opportunities to enhance Intact Hedge native species-rich

7.3.1 Ecologically

To enhance Intact Hedge native species-rich on Gilmorehill, Intact Hedge native species- poor and Defunct Hedge native species-poor (J2.2.2) could be enriched. This could be done by integrating species found in native hedgerows on campus, i.e. B. sempervirens, L. vulgare, P. spinosa and R. fruticosus (UoG, 2015). Also, native climber species such as Common Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Dog-rose (Rosa canina) and Honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum) could be planted.

As shown in Fig. 8, native species-poor hedgerows are located on the southern boundaries of the estate near Glasgow International College and the Western Infirmary. In light of the Gilmorehill campus redevelopment, native hedgerows could attract wildlife to new builds (UoG, 2014). More importantly, it may create an ecological corridor for species to surrounding green space, i.e. Kelvingrove Park.

Additionally, existing Intact Hedge Native Species-Rich could be enhanced by introducing a wider variety of native hedgerow species. These may include native climber and fruiting species, e.g. S. nigra and P. spinosa, and woody species such as T. baccata, F. excelsior and Spindle (Euonymus europaea). Also, native understory species, e.g. R. fruticosus and Lesser celandine (Ficaria verna), could be introduced to facilitate the development of microhabitats. Native hedgerow species could be planted along the north side of the Wolfson Medical School Building and University Gardens (Fig. 8). As these hedgerows are adjacent, this could create a wildlife corridor, and increase species movement and biodiversity in ecologically fragmented habitats, i.e. Amenity Grassland outside the Fraser Building.

Figure 8 displays potential improvements for Intact Hedge native-species rich on Gilmorehill.

Table 5 displays legend for Fig. 8.

Intact Hedge native-species rich

Intact Hedge native species-poor

Defunct Hedge native species-poor

Information boards

Nature interpretation panels

Potential nature trails . . . .

Potential ecological corridor - - - -

The UoG Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2015) recorded 0.01 ha of Intact Hedge native species- poor and no presence of Intact Hedge native species-rich habitats on Garscube. To enhance native hedgerows, Intact Hedge Native Species-poor could be enriched and Intact Hedge native species-rich introduced. As mapped on Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, hedgerows adjacent to Ballater Drive and beside the Beaton Institute for Cancer Research could be improved. Surrounding these areas, native species-rich hedgerows could be planted near walls and fences to enhance habitat connectivity and increase the abundance of native hedgerows. Native species-rich hedgerows could contain climber and understory species such as B. sempervirens, C. monogyna, T. baccata and R. fruticosus. This would create a linear passage for species to the River Kelvin and habitats adjacent, i.e. Marsh/Marshy Grassland.

Figure 9 displays potential improvements for Intact Hedge native species-rich on Garscube: Map 1

Figure 10 displays potential improvements for Intact Hedge native species-rich on Garscube: Map 2

Table 6 displays legend for Fig. 9 and Fig. 10.

Intact Hedge native-species rich

Intact Hedge native species-poor

Defunct Hedge native species-poor

Information boards

Nature interpretation panels

Potential nature trails . . . .

Potential ecological corridor - - - -

Wall

Fence

To preserve and enhance native hedgerows at the university, a Hedgerow Management Plan (HMP) could be adopted by the UGST. The HMP should value hedgerows as a priority habitat, and ensure hedgerows are preserved and enhanced as part of a long-term strategy. The plan could be devised by the university’s grounds department, GUEST, university students and staff, and members of the local community. The management plan should contain, but not be limited to, the following recommendations:

1. Conserve and protect existing hedgerows; 2. Expand and enrich native hedgerows to enhance biodiversity and habitat connectivity; 3. Establish native understory to accommodate wildlife; 4. Remove non-native invasive species to enhance the diversity of native species; 5. Amend maintenance regimes to facilitate the development of newly-planted hedgerows 6. Involve university members and the local community in hedgerow conservation projects.

Adopting a HMP at the UoG would comply with the UoG Biodiversity Policy and UK Post- 2010 Biodiversity Framework (2012) (Miller, 2014). Additionally, if a long-term strategy is introduced, this could increase the values of native hedgerows and raise awareness of their importance on campus.

7.3.2 Socially

To enhance and promote the values of hedgerow habitats, information boards could be introduced in areas of newly-planted and enriched hedgerows (Fig. 8, Fig. 9 & Fig. 10). The design of signage could be created by GUEST and installed by the UGST. Boards could include information on hedgerow species in the area, their benefits to us (i.e. ecosystem services), reasoning for their introduction/enrichment and their conservation importance. Using hedgerow information boards could increase engagement in hedgerow conservation on campus and enhance the social values of campus biodiversity.

7.3.3 Educationally

To enhance and conserve biodiversity on campus, Intact Hedge native species-rich habitats could be used as an educational resource. This could be done by installing nature interpretation panels in areas of native species-rich hedgerows or introduced hedgerows on

Gilmorehill and Garscube. Interpretation panels could be created in collaboration with the university’s grounds department, GUEST and SWT, and introduced in areas shown in Fig. 8, 9 and 10. Interpretation panels could include facts, information and guidance on how to get involved in hedgerow conservation projects on campus. Additionally, interpretation panels in linear hedgerow habitats could create nature trails and subsequently enhance the educational values of biodiversity at the university.

8. BROADLEAVED WOODLAND: SEMI-NATURAL

This subsection defines and contextualises the characteristics of Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland. Following this, the benefits and limitations of its presence on the Garscube estate are examined. Section 8.4 considers ways to enhance Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland and the values of biodiversity at the University.

8.1 Definition and characteristics

Semi-natural woodlands are comprised of trees and shrubs which derive from natural regeneration or through coppicing (FC, 1994; JNCC, 2010). Habitats are distinct from natural or planted woodlands and their distribution is influenced by environmental conditions, i.e. soil conditions and species composition (JNCC, 2010). In the UK, Oak (Quercus spp.), Hazel (Corylus avellana) and F. excelsior are the commonest species found in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland (FC, 1994). However, Field Maple (Ulmus minor), Wych Elm (Ulmus glabra), Small-leaved Lime (Tilia cordata), Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), Sessile Oak (Quercus petraea) and A. glutinosa also have a widespread distribution in these habitats (FC, 1994; FCS, 2016a).

8.2 Garscube

According to the UoG Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2015), Garscube campus is covered by approximately 1.27 ha of Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland. Habitats encompass a variety of long-standing and recently established species, and are located on the boundaries of the estate and along the River Kelvin (UoG, 2015). In these areas, F. sylvatica and A. pseudoplantanus are the dominant broadleaved species, and Elm (Ulmus spp.), Quercus spp., S. aucuparia, A.hippocastanum and Betula.spp have a frequent distribution (UoG, 2015). In the understory, the commonest species are R. fruticosus, R. ponticum and Common Nettle (Urtica dioica) (UoG, 2015).

Native species in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodlands are ecologically significant to biodiversity throughout Scotland and the UK (FC, 1994). S. aucuparia is an insect-pollinated, strong-smelling species which attracts a mosaic of Lepidoptera spp. and Anthophila spp. (Hemerey & Simblet, 2014). Furthermore, the fruit of S. aucuparia is a food source for native Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs) and Blackbird (Turdus merula) (WT, 2010; WT, 2017e). The seeds of S. aucuparia fruit is indigestible by birds so are passed intact in their droppings, allowing propagation (Rushforth, 1999). If the abundance of S. aucuparia was increased at 46

Garscube, species could naturally propagate and enhance native biodiversity in the area.

Despite this, semi-natural broadleaved woodlands can be ecologically undermined by non- native invasive species in woodland understory (JNCC, 2013). After its introduction in the 18th century, R. ponticum naturalised and became a major invasive species in the UK (Edwards, 2006). Particularly in areas of native species-rich vegetation, invasive R. ponticum can have deleterious effects on wildflowers and the community structure of native invertebrates and birds (CABI, 2017b). If the coverage of R. ponticum on Garscube increases, this could alter the composition of native biodiversity (UoG, 2015). Moreover, if anthropogenic impacts on the environment continue, this could accelerate the growth of R. ponticum and transition Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland into an alternative stable state (Vitousek et al., 1997; CABI, 2017).

Nonetheless, species in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland provide a range of benefits linked to landscape amenity and ecosystem regulation (Hall, 2001). S. aucuparia is recognised as an important broadleaf in its native ranges and Scottish folklore (Gazin- Schwartz, 2001). Furthermore, F. sylvatica is often used as an ornamental tree in urban parklands for its extensive canopy cover and lifespan (Hall, 2001). Research by Tyrväinen et al. (2007) found that urban woodlands encompass green area values. These are linked to urban culture, historical meanings, and aesthetic and health benefits (Tyrväinen et al., 2007). On Garscube, Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland could embody green area values for similar reasons.

Nonetheless, Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland can have drawbacks related to land use (Kowarik & Körner, 2005). In urban environments, careful planning prior to planting is essential to ensure site conditions are appropriate for tree establishment (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2010). Additionally, without regular maintenance, tree fall can obstruct pathways, cause hazards and prevent public access (WT, 2002). As a result, the Forestry Commission Scotland (FSC) (2016b) claim this influences the perception of woodlands as habitats associated with high maintenance costs. To change this understanding, the benefits and values of native woodland species could be promoted at the university.

8.3 Garscube: River Kelvin

Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland covers approximately 0.65 ha of the riverbanks surrounding the River Kelvin (UoG, 2015). Habitats are located in the southern boundaries of the estate where the riverbanks appear most natural (UoG, 2015). In these areas, a variety of species can be found and dominant species include T. europaea, A. glutinosa, F. sylvatica and Willow (Salix spp.) (UoG, 2015). The understory of species is variable and comprised of Lady Fern (Athyrium filix-femina) and Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens) (UoG, 2015). Additionally, moss (Bryophyta spp.) and liverwort (Marchantiophyta spp.) such as Common Smooth Cap (Atrichum undulatum), Overleaf Pellia (Pellia epiphylla) and Hart’s-Tongue Thyme-Moss (Plagiomnium undulatum) can be found on rock surfaces and tree stumps surrounding woodland understory (UoG, 2015).

A. glutinosa and its respective understory provide a refuge for native aquatic, semi-aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity (Trees for Life, 2015). Also, A. glutinosa woodlands can enhance habitat connectivity and assist riverbank plant succession (WT, 2017f). Once river habitats reach a climatic climax state, Dawson et al. (1978) claims this has numerous environmental benefits as flooding, soil erosion and pollution are reduced. Along the River Kelvin, Semi- natural Broadleaved Woodlands could be significant for pioneering community succession and establishing Marginal and Inundation Vegetation (F2).

On the other hand, urban Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodlands are often affected by ecosystem disturbance (Peterson et al., 1998). During extreme weather events, repeated disturbance can affect tree survival and trigger ecosystem regime shifts (Bonan, 2008; Norris et al., 2008). This is supported by Farber et al. (2002) who found that severe flooding affects tree density and the composition of climax vegetation. Applying this to the River Kelvin, if heavy rainfall and flooding continues, this could transform the ecological structure and functions of biodiversity in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland.

Still, Salix spp. and F. sylvatica can be perceived as indicators of a healthy urban ecosystem (Dobbs et al., 2011). Trees and shrubs surrounding aquatic habitats provide ecological services that enhance carbon sequestration, reduce stormwater runoff, and improve air and water quality (SEPA, 2009). Research by Tyrväinen (1999) on the monetary values of urban woodlands supports these environmental benefits. Additionally, findings suggest that urban woodlands reduce temperature and humidity caused by the urban heat island effect (Tyrväinen, 1999; Konijnendijk et al., 2005). Thus, semi-natural broadleaved woodlands along the River Kelvin may be significant for sustaining ecosystem functioning.

Nevertheless, semi-natural broadleaved woodlands along rivers often require continual maintenance and management (Anbumozhi et al., 2005). Primarily, this is done to preserve the recreational values of river habitats (Harmer et al., 2010). According to the Forestry Commission (FC) (2017), key maintenance activities include thinning, coppicing and thicket removal in riparian buffer zones. This could suggest that Salix spp. and A. glutinosa along the River Kelvin are integrated for their aesthetic value, rather than their ecological benefits. To enhance the ecological values of these species, the importance of native biodiversity could be promoted at the university.

8.4 Opportunities to enhance Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland

8.4.1 Ecologically

On Garscube, Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland could be enhanced by planting a larger variety of native trees. Species such as C. avellana, P. avium and Goat Willow (Salix caprea) could be introduced in areas mapped on Fig. 11 and Fig. 12. Also, areas of Semi- natural Broadleaved Woodland could be transformed into Mixed Plantation Woodland (A1.3.2). These areas could contain J. communis, P. sylvestris and T. baccata to attract native species from Semi-natural Mixed Woodland (A1.2.1) and enhance habitat connectivity.

Figures 11 and 12 display potential improvements for Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland on Garscube.

Table 7 displays legend for Fig. 11 and Fig. 12.

Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland

Proposed areas for native broadleaved/coniferous trees

Information boards

Nature interpretation panels

Potential nature trails . . . .

Potential ecological corridor - - - -

As shown in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, sites along Maryhill Road and the River Kelvin are main areas where Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland could be improved. In these areas native, non-invasive understory could be planted to create ecological buffer zones and strengthen habitat connectivity. Species could comprise of those found along the riverbanks on Garscube, e.g. A. filix-femina and R. repens, as well as R. fruticosus, Primrose (Primula vulgaris), Wood-sorrel (Oxalis acetosella), and rare Rock Whitebeam (Sorbus rupicola) (UoG, 2015). This could create ecological corridors for species to adjacent habitats, i.e. Amenity Grasslands near Acre Road and Maryhill Park, and increase biodiversity on campus.

To conserve and enhance Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodlands, a Woodland Management Plan (WoMP) could be adopted by the UGST. The WoMP should aim to preserve and increase woodland on campus, and be created in collaboration with the university’s grounds department, GUEST, university students and staff, public body organisations (e.g. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)), local conservation NGO and members of the local community. To comply with the aims, the WoMP should contain, but not be limited to, the following recommendations:

1. Conserve and protect ancient and veteran woodland; 2. Expand and enrich native woodland to enhance biodiversity and habitat connectivity; 3. Establish native understory to accommodate wildlife; 4. Remove non-native invasive species to enhance the diversity of native species; 5. Amend maintenance regimes to facilitate the development of newly-planted woodland; 6. Identify suitable locations where dead or decaying species can be retained for microhabitats; 7. Involve university members and the local community in woodland conservation projects.

Expanding and enhancing semi-natural woodlands on campus would meet the aims of the UoG Biodiversity Policy, Town and Country Planning Act (1990) and Forestry Act (1967) (Miller, 2014). Additionally, if a long-term strategy is adopted, this could create opportunities for woodland education on campus.

8.4.2 Socially

To promote the importance of woodland conservation, information boards could be installed in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodlands on Garscube. Information boards could be created in collaboration with the university’s grounds department, GUEST and WT. These could be installed by the UGST in areas mapped on Fig. 11 and Fig. 12.

In these locations, boards could feature information on native trees in the area, their environmental benefits (i.e. ecosystem regulation) and how to conserve them. This allows readers to understand the benefits of native woodlands to our livelihood and heritage. In turn, this could influence their participation in conservation projects and enhance biodiversity at the university.

8.4.3 Educationally

To increase learning experiences on campus, nature interpretation panels could be installed in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodlands on Garscube. These could be created by the university’s grounds department, GUEST and Glasgow Tree Lovers Society, and installed by the UGST. Interpretation panels could feature profiles on native trees and wildlife in the area, tree identification guidance and information on woodland conservation projects on campus.

As shown in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, interpretation panels could be installed in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodlands on the western and southern boundaries of the estate. This could create nature trails and active learning opportunities on campus, and enhance the values of campus biodiversity.

9. MARSH/MARSHY GRASSLAND

This section defines and contextualises Marsh/Marshy Grassland habitat, and discusses the social and ecological significance of its presence on Garscube campus. In subsection 9.3, ways to increase and conserve Marsh/Marshy Grassland habitat are offered so the values of campus biodiversity can be enhanced.

9.1 Definition and characteristics

Marsh and Marshy Grassland is recognised by the JNCC as a diffuse category that covers

“certain moor grasslands (Molinia spp.), grasslands with a high proportion of Rush (Juncus spp.), Sedge (Carex spp.) or Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), and wet meadows or pastures which support species such as Marsh Marigold (Caltha palustris) and Valerians (Valeriana spp.), where broadleaved herbs, rather than grasses, predominate” (JNCC, 2010: 40).

Marsh/Marshy Grassland differs from swamps, marginal vegetation and flush, and is often found in close proximity to waterbodies and tributaries where they form a hybrid of a terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem (JNCC, 2010). Also, Marsh/Marshy Grasslands are species-rich in Marsh Orchid (Dactylorhiza spp.), Marsh Hawk’s-beard (Crepis paludosa) and Hemp-agrimony (Eupatorium cannabinum) (JNCC, 2010).

9.2 Garscube

Marsh/Marshy Grassland covers approximately 1.27 ha of Garscube Campus (UoG, 2015). The habitat is found in one location and located on a gradual gradient behind the Garscube Sports Complex, approximately 20m from the River Kelvin (UoG, 2015). The dominant species in this area is Soft Rush (Juncus effusus) and T. repens, and most abundant is Meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris) (UoG, 2015). On this site, Ribwort Plantain (Plantago lanceolata) and Docks and Sorrels (Rumex spp.) have a frequent distribution (UoG, 2015).

Juncus spp. can be ecologically significant for encouraging the growth of native plant species (Eastman, 1995). Furthermore, J. effusus is perceived by Bijlsma (2001) as a pioneer species that forms tall, dense colonies which facilitate the growth of other native species typical of Marsh/Marshy Grassland habitat. As outlined in the ‘Priority Habitat’ descriptions of the UK BAP (1994), marsh floristic diversity creates species-rich grasslands that are valued by an assemblage of native species. Thus Marsh/Marshy Grassland species-

53 rich in J. effusus could be valuable for the growth of other Juncus spp. Molinia spp. and Carex spp on Garscube.

On the other hand, Juncus spp. can affect the composition of native flora in Marsh/Marshy Grassland habitats (Landsdown, 2014). Many varieties of Juncus spp. have high dispersal and colonizing abilities which prevent the growth of wildflowers (Cairns, 2014). In Ervin & Wetzel (2002) research on dominant wetland plants, findings highlighted that an increased J. effusus correlates to lower species diversity in wetland vascular plant communities. Applying this to Garscube, J. effusus may prevent the growth of native plants in Marsh/Marshy Grassland.

Still, J. effusus and T. repens may be significant for their environmental services and ornamental value. Studies by Wu et al. (2005) describe J. effusus as a popular plant used in landscape gardening. Furthermore, Matthews et al. (2004) and and Bidar et al. (2007) regard J. effusus and T. repens as pollution tolerant species which thrive in habitats with high water tables. Applying this to marshland on Garscube, if Standing Water (G1) was created, J. effusus could provide wider benefits linked to landscape amenity and pollution reduction.

However, Marsh/Marshy Grasslands can be perceived as habitats which lack aesthetic value (Parsons, 2007). A main reason for this is posited by Gilpin (1782) who claims that the habitat does not fit the characteristics of a picturesque landscape. Research by Saito (2007) on landscape aesthetics found that guidance on nature transforms how we conceptualise, appreciate and respond to the landscape. To enhance the aesthetic values of Marsh/Marshy Grasslands, guidance in the form of signage could be installed at the university.

9.3 Opportunities to enhance Marsh/Marshy Grassland Habitat

9.3.1 Ecologically

To increase Marsh/Marshy Grassland on Gilmorehill, T. repens, L. perenne, F. rubra, Meadow Fescue (Schedonorus pratensis) and small amounts of J.effusus could be planted around Standing Water. Planting could be carried out by the UGST, GUWGT, university students and staff, and members of the local community. As shown in Fig. 13, standing water is in the form of a small pond located behind Queen Margaret Union (QMU). Surrounding this area, native herbs and wildflowers such as Yellow Iris (Iris pseudacorus), Marsh Pennywort (Hydrocotyle vulgaris) and F. ulmaria could be sown into grasslands or

54 planted in flower beds. Additionally, open ditches could be created near the pond. This would create a buffer strip for semi-aquatic species inhabiting the pond, e.g. Common frog (Rana temporaria) and European Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius). Also, it may enhance wetland biodiversity on campus.

Figure 13 displays potential improvements for Marsh/Marshy Grassland and Standing Water on Gilmorehill.

Table 8 displays legend for Fig. 13.

Proposed Marsh/Marshy Grassland species

Standing Water

Proposed areas for wildflower meadows

Proposed areas for raised wildflower beds Open Ditch

Information boards

Nature interpretation panels

Potential ecological corridor - - - -

To enhance Marsh/Marshy Grassland on Garscube, a wider variety of native herbs and wildflowers could be planted. Native herbs could include those with a relative abundance in the area (i.e. Rumex spp.), as well as Marsh woundwort (Stachys palustris) and Marsh willowherb (Epilobium palustre) (UoG, 2015). Native wildflowers such as Water Avens (Geum rivale), Ragged-Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi) could also be integrated.

As shown in Fig. 14, Marsh/Marshy Grassland is near the River Kelvin. If this area was enhanced by native herbs and wildflowers, it would be ideal for a pond habitat. Pond habitats could create ecological corridors to larger aquatic ecosystems, i.e. the River Kelvin, and ecologically fragmented habitats, e.g. sports turf Amenity Grassland. Also, it could enhance biodiversity in Marsh/Marshy Grassland and other habitats on campus.

Figure 14 displays potential improvements for Marsh/Marshy Grassland and Standing Water on Garscube.

Table 9 displays legend for Fig. 14.

Marsh/Marshy Grassland

Standing Water

Information boards

Nature interpretation panels Potential ecological - - - - corridor

To preserve and enhance Marsh/Marshy Grassland on campus, a Wetlands Management Plan (WeMP) could be adopted by the UGST. The WeMP could be devised by the university’s grounds department, representatives from SNH, GUEST, university students and staff, and members of the local community. The WeMP should contain, but not be limited to, the following actions:

1. Conserve and protect wetland habitats; 2. Increase the diversity of native grasses, herbs and wildflowers in wetlands to enhance biodiversity and habitat connectivity; 3. Enrich existing Marsh/Marshy Grasslands to enhance biodiversity and habitat connectivity; 4. Establish pond habitat and marginal vegetation, where appropriate; 5. Remove non-native invasive species to enhance the diversity of native species; 6. Amend maintenance regimes and public access to facilitate wetland restoration; 7. Involve university members and the local community in wetland conservation projects.

Preserving and enhancing wetland habitats on campus would meet the goals of the UoG Biodiversity Policy and wider policy such as the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (2012) and EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000) (Miller, 2014). Additionally, if a WMP is adopted, this could create opportunities for wetland education on campus.

9.3.2 Socially

To raise awareness of the importance of wetlands, biodiversity projects on campus could be promoted by the university’s grounds department, GUEST and the GUWGT. Promotion methods could highlight the aesthetic, sensory and regulatory benefits that wetland habitats provide. Promotion materials could contain information on wildlife garden projects and the potential pond habitat at Garscube.

Examples of promotional strategies could be workshops, information sessions, open days, university fairs, posters and social media. Additionally, signage could be installed to communicate the reasons for wetland and pond restoration (Fig. 13 & Fig. 14). If promotion is successful, this could reduce maintenance for the UGST and costs associated. Also, it could enhance the socio-ecological values, and prevent future neglect, of Marsh/Marshy Grassland on campus.

9.3.3 Educationally

To create learning experiences related to wetland conservation, nature interpretation panels could be installed on the Gilmorehill and Garscube campus. Interpretation panels could be devised by the university's grounds department, GUWGT, GUEST, SWT, university students and staff, and the local community. These should aim to raise awareness of biodiversity in wetlands and encourage interests in conservation projects at the university.

As shown in Fig. 13 and Fig. 14, interpretation panels could be installed in the wildlife garden and on Garscube Sports Complex. In the wildlife garden, panels could provide information on GUWGT and how to get involved. Also, panels may include profiles on species found in pond habitats, e.g. R. temporaria. At Garscube, interpretation panels could provide information on wetland restoration, the proposed pond habitat and how to get involved in projects related to its development. By doing so, this could enhance the values of Marsh/Marshy Grassland and Standing Water habitats at the university.

10. RUNNING WATER (OLIGOTROPHIC)

This section contextualises Running water (oligotrophic) habitat, and examines the benefits and limitations of the habitats surrounding it on the Garscube estate. Section 10.3 considers values and ways to enhance biodiversity in Running Water (Oligotrophic) environments on campus.

10.1 Definition and characteristics

Running water (oligotrophic) habitat is distinct from bank or open water habitats, and comprises of rivers and streams (JNCC, 2010). Habitats are found across high and low altitudes but are most abundant in upland areas where sites are thought to be glacial relicts (JNCC, 2008; SNH, 2015b). Sites that encompass oligotrophic characteristics are found in areas of heavy rainfall, hard/acidic geology (e.g. granite and schist), and nutrient poor soils (JNCC, 2008; SNH, 2015b). Oligotrophic water is very clear and contains sparse algae and plankton, large quantities of dissolved oxygen and rocky/sandy substrates (Holmes et al., 1998; JNCC, 2008). In the water, Bryophytes are regarded as the dominant species (JNCC, 2010).

10.2 Garscube: River Kelvin

Garscube campus is covered by approximately 4 ha of Running water (oligotrophic) habitat (G2.3) in the form of the River Kelvin (UoG, 2015). There are small amounts of Inundation Vegetation (F2.2) in the river, and scattered/fragmented Marginal Vegetation (F2.1) on the riverbanks (UoG, 2015). The small presence of algae suggests it is a low nutrient environment, and muddy/rocky substrate confirms it is an oligotrophic habitat (UoG, 2015). The dominant species in Marginal Vegetation is Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and often accompanied by Rumex spp. A.filix-femina, Great Willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), and non-native I. glandulifera (UoG, 2015). Around these areas, Water Forget- me-not (Myosotis scorpioides) and Sharp-flowered Rush (Juncus acutiflorus) have an occasional distribution (UoG, 2015).

The abundance and distribution of Marginal Vegetation could be valuable to species composition in the River Kelvin ecosystem (SEPA, 2009). Herbaceous native perennials such as P. arundinacea and Rumex spp. act as an ecological buffer in marginal habitats and provide a refuge for aquatic, semi-aquatic and terrestrial species (Crawford, 2008; Freshwater Habitats Trust, 2010; The Nature Conservancy, 2015). Also, E. hirsutum and M. 59 scorpioides create positive environments for Anthophila spp., Hoverflies (Syrphidae spp.) and other pollinator species (Institute of Environmental Assessment Great Britain, 1995; Leonard et al., 2011). Along the River Kelvin, if embankment vegetation is enhanced, this could connect river habitats to those adjacent on Garscube estate. Subsequently, this could attract species inhabiting watercourses to less ecologically productive areas on Garscube, enhancing campus biodiversity.

On the other hand, Marginal Vegetation comprised of non-native I. glandulifera can prevent the growth of native embankment vegetation (Hejda, M & Pyšek, 2006). In riparian ecosystems, I. glandulifera is a highly invasive species that forms dense, glabrous clusters that outcompete native vegetation and regenerating trees (Maule et al., 2000; Hulme & Bremner, 2006; CABI 2017c). As a result, I. glandulifera can alter entire ecosystems and create ecologically fragmented habitats (Tickner et al., 2001). Thus, its presence along the River Kelvin may be an indicator of a disturbed or species-poor environment.

Despite this, river habitats can improve the quality of life for urban dwellers (Everard & Moggridge, 2012). River corridors can be used for green exercise; a form of recreation known to increase social cohesion, and aesthetic and cultural appreciation of the landscape (Lee & Maheswaran, 2011). Furthermore, research by Åberg & Tapsell (2013) on the long- term benefits of river rehabilitation found that riverscapes have positive effects on physical and mental well-being. If riverbank conservation was strengthened along the River Kelvin, recreational users could experience similar benefits.

Nonetheless, as river habitats require constant protection, this can create challenges for maintenance (Tabacchi et al., 1998). To prevent and control the spread of invasive riverbank species, e.g. I. glandulifera, a combination of mechanical and chemical treatment is necessary (CABI, 2017c) In some cases, treatment requires legal permission and is costly due to the intensive nature of activities undertaken (CABI, 2017c). As a result, invasive species management can become less frequent, proliferating the growth of invasive species and decline of native biodiversity (Hulme, 2006). Along the River Kelvin, the large abundance of I. glandulifera in Marginal Vegetation may create similar issues.

10.3 Opportunities to enhance Running water (Oligotrophic) habitat

10.3.1 Ecologically

As the River Kelvin is legally protected by the SG and GCC under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (2012), actions to directly enhance it are limited. However, as the UoG has the rights to land adjacent, this could be improved to enhance biodiversity in the River Kelvin ecosystem.

To do so, Marginal Vegetation could be expanded by planting a wider variety of native species (Fig. 15 and Fig. 16). Species could comprise of those found in surrounding Tall Herb and Fern (C3.1) habitats, i.e. F. ulmaria and A. filix-femina (UoG, 2015). In addition, native Poa spp., Juncus spp., L. flos-cuculi and Creeping Jenny (Lysimachia nummularia) could be integrated. Enhancing Marginal Vegetation could create green corridors for aquatic wildlife to semi-natural woodlands. Also, as marginal habitats are a natural biofilter, this could reduce river pollution and enhance aquatic biodiversity (Gheorghe & Ion, 2011).

To enhance habitat connectivity on Garscube, an insect wildlife corridor, or ‘Pollinator Passage’ could be created along the river corridor by the UGST, GUWGT, university students and staff, and members of the local community. As shown in Fig. 16, the ‘Pollinator Passage’ could be created as a buffer strip between Marginal Vegetation and Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland adjacent to Dawsholm Park. The buffer strip could contain a mixture of native plants such as Self-heal (Prunella vulgaris), Cuckoo Flower (Cardamine pratensis) and I. pseudacorus to attract pollinating insects. Beside the buffer strip, insect-friendly feeding stations could be installed to provide a hospitable environment for invertebrates.

Figure 15 and 16 display improvements for Running Water (Oligotrophic) on Garscube.

Table 10 displays legend for Fig. 15 and 16.

Marginal Vegetation

Proposed areas for Marginal Vegetation

Pollinator Passage

Information boards

Nature interpretation panels

Potential nature trails . . . .

Potential ecological corridor - - - -

Introducing a ‘Pollinator Passage’ could be an effective mechanism to increase the variety of native invertebrates on campus. Additionally, it may support semi-aquatic and terrestrial species that feed on invertebrates, i.e. amphibians, birds and small mammals such as the Otter (Lutra lutra). Similar projects have recently been introduced in Norway to protect and enhance the population of endangered Anthophila spp. (The Guardian, 2015). If this was replicated at the UoG, this may conserve keystone species and exhibit the university’s commitment to enhancing campus biodiversity.

To ensure river habitats are preserved and enhanced, a Riverbank Management Plan (RMP) could be adopted by the UGST. The RMP could be created in collaboration with representatives from the SG and GCC, the university’s grounds department, GUEST, university students and staff, and members of local community. The plan should aim to safeguard and enhance river habitats for the long-term conservation of native biodiversity. To exhibit the highest standards of conservation, the RMP should contain, but not be limited to, the following recommendations:

1. Conserve and protect riverbank habitats; 2. Expand and enrich Marginal Vegetation to enhance biodiversity and habitat connectivity; 3. Establish a ‘Pollinator Passage’ to enhance biodiversity and habitat connectivity; 4. Remove non-native invasive species to enhance the diversity of native species; 5. Amend maintenance regimes and public access to facilitate the development of newly-planted Marginal Vegetation;

6. Involve university members and the local community in river conservation projects.; 7. Engage with stakeholders to enhance and protect the River Kelvin ecosystem.

Adopting a RMP would preserve and enhance river habitats on campus, whilst meeting the aims of the UoG Biodiversity Policy and wider framework, i.e. the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act (2003) and EU WFD (2000) (Miller, 2014). Also, it could create opportunities to enhance the social and educational values of biodiversity on campus.

10.3.2 Socially

To enhance and promote the values of river habitats, information boards could be introduced along the River Kelvin (Fig. 15 & Fig. 16). These could be created in collaboration with the university’s grounds department, SWT, GUEST, university students and staff, and members of the local community. Boards could provide information on native riverside vegetation and the ecological services they provide. For instance, in areas of overhanging vegetation, signage could be installed to demonstrate how vegetation acts as a natural filtration system to reduce nutrient loading and pollution (Gheorghe & Ion, 2011). This allows recreational users to understand the impacts of river ecology on their health and wellbeing. Also, it could encourage them to participate in river conservation projects on campus.

10.3.3 Educationally

To increase wildlife education on campus, nature interpretation panels could be installed by the UGST on the riverbanks on Garscube campus (Fig. 15 & Fig. 16). Interpretation panels could be created by the university’s grounds department, SWT, GUEST, university students and staff, and members of the local community. Also, panels could promote the benefits of native species-rich river habitats to engage the public in wildlife conservation. For example, panels may feature profiles on native flora in the ‘Pollinator Passage’, the wildlife they attract and how to get involved in similar projects on campus. By doing so, this could enhance the values of campus biodiversity and increase interests in biodiversity at and beyond the university.

11. GUIDELINES TO IMPROVE BIODIVERSITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW

The following section lists guidelines to improve biodiversity at the UoG. Guidelines have been developed for each habitat discussed and build on recommendations made to improve biodiversity. Adopting guidelines into practice could promote and expand the values of biodiversity at and beyond the university. Also, it could contribute to the sustainable development of urban environments locally, regionally and globally.

11.1 Amenity Grassland

● To increase the coverage of native wildflower meadows on Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● To introduce native wildflowers in areas where habitat connectivity could be improved to establish wildlife corridors. ● To create and adopt a long-term strategy, i.e. Amenity Grassland Management Plan, to conserve and enhance native biodiversity in Amenity Grassland habitats. ● To raise awareness of the importance of native biodiversity in Amenity Grassland habitats. ● To establish nature interpretation panels and signposts in Amenity Grassland habitats on Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● To ensure multi-stakeholder engagement in the development of Amenity Grassland habitats on Gilmorehill and Garscube.

11.2 Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Trees

● To conserve and protect ancient native trees on Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● To increase the coverage and diversity of native broadleaved and coniferous species in parkland on Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● To create and adopt a long-term strategy, i.e. Parkland/Scattered Tree Management Plan, to conserve and enhance native biodiversity in Broadleaved Parkland/ Scattered Tree habitats. ● To raise awareness of the importance of native biodiversity in Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats at Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● To establish nature interpretation panels and signposts in Broadleaved Parkland/ Scattered Tree habitats on Gilmorehill and Garscube.

● To ensure multi-stakeholder engagement in the development of Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats on Gilmorehill and Garscube.

11.3 Intact Hedge Native Species-Rich

● To increase the coverage and diversity of Intact Hedge native species-rich habitats on Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● To restore and enhance Intact Hedge native species-poor and Defunct Hedge native species-poor habitats ● To create and adopt a long-term strategy, i.e. Hedgerow Management Plan, to conserve and enhance native biodiversity in Intact hedge native species-rich habitats. ● To raise awareness of the importance of native biodiversity in Intact Hedge native species-rich habitats at Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● To establish nature interpretation panels and signposts in close proximity to Intact Hedge native species-rich habitats on Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● To ensure multi-stakeholder engagement in the development of Intact Hedge native species-rich habitats on Gilmorehill and Garscube.

11.4 Semi-Natural Broadleaved Woodland

● To conserve and protect ancient semi-natural woodland on Garscube. ● To increase the coverage and diversity of native broadleaved and coniferous species in woodlands on Garscube. ● To create and adopt a long-term strategy, i.e. Woodland Management Plan, to conserve and enhance native biodiversity in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland. ● To raise awareness of the importance of native biodiversity in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodlands on Garscube. ● To establish nature interpretation panels and signposts in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodlands on Garscube. ● To ensure multi-stakeholder engagement in the development of Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodlands on Garscube.

11.5 Marsh/Marshy Grassland

● To conserve and protect Marsh/Marshy Grassland on Garscube. ● To increase the coverage and diversity of native species in Marsh/Marshy Grasslands on Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● The increase or enhance Standing Water habitats in close proximity to Marsh/Marshy Grasslands on Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● To create and adopt a long-term strategy, i.e. Wetlands Management Plan, to conserve and enhance native biodiversity in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland. ● To raise awareness of the importance of native biodiversity in Marsh/Marshy Grasslands on Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● To establish nature interpretation panels and signposts in close proximity to Marsh/Marshy Grasslands on Gilmorehill and Garscube. ● To ensure multi-stakeholder engagement in the development of Marsh/Marshy Grassland habitats on Gilmorehill and Garscube.

11.6 Running Water (Oligotrophic)

● To conserve and protect Running Water and riparian habitats on Garscube. ● To increase the coverage and diversity of native species in Marginal Vegetation surrounding Running Water on Garscube. ● To introduce a ‘Pollinator Passage’ or similar wildlife refuges on land areas adjacent to Running Water ● To create and adopt a long-term strategy, i.e. Riverbank Management Plan, to conserve and enhance native biodiversity in Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland. ● To establish nature interpretation panels and signposts in close proximity to Running Water (Oligotrophic) on Garscube. ● To ensure multi-stakeholder engagement in the development of riparian habitats on Garscube.

12. CONCLUSION

This research has assessed the social and ecological significance of biodiversity found on the UoG Gilmorehill and Garscube estates. It has also provided recommendations and guidance to enhance biodiversity. The importance of conserving native biodiversity has repeatedly been linked to its compliance with environmental framework. Also, it has highlighted the benefits of sustainable urban development.

The examination of Amenity Grassland highlighted that a strong correlation exists between well-maintained grasslands and areas of aesthetic or recreational value. In these habitats, species diversity is often limited as intensive mowing regimes prevent other Poa spp. establishing. To enhance biodiversity in Amenity Grassland, native wildflowers could be introduced into several areas on Gilmorehill and Garscube. This would enhance ecological connectivity in fragmented habitats and create wildlife corridors for local biodiversity.

Similarly, Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree habitats were found to experience high levels of maintenance to preserve amenity and recreational values. Also, these habitats were comprised of various non-native broadleaved tree species which affect the composition of native biodiversity. To prevent this, improvements suggested that mature non-native species should be removed and replaced with native broadleaved and coniferous species. This could create connected canopy habitats, allowing biodiversity to thrive.

Intact Hedge native species-rich habitats on Gilmorehill were credited as priority habitats for wildlife; particularly those with dense understory. However, maintenance aimed at preserving amenity values is a key reason why native hedgerows are in decline. To increase the abundance of native hedgerows, native-species poor hedgerows could be improved by introducing native flowering and fruiting species. This would provide a refuge for biodiversity and edible fruit for human consumption, enhancing the values of hedgerow habitats.

At Garscube, Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodlands on campus and along the River Kelvin consist of a mosaic of long-standing and mature species. These are valued for their regulating and cultural ecosystem services. To preserve and enhance Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland, native coniferous species could be planted. This could create ecological corridors to surrounding mixed woodland and opportunities to promote the area's natural heritage.

Marsh/Marshy Grassland was identified as a valuable habitat to sustain the structure of ecological communities on and surrounding Garscube. Nonetheless, it was also argued that the habitat can lack of aesthetic appeal. To change this perception, native varieties of Juncus spp., Carex spp. and wildflowers could be planted on Marsh/Marshy Grassland at Garscube and beside Standing Water on Gilmorehill. This would create an ecological buffer for species and maximise ecological benefits linked to health.

The assessment of riparian vegetation surrounding Running Water (Oligotrophic) was highlighted as significant habitats for biodiversity and enhancing green area values. To safeguard habitats, Marginal Vegetation could be increased on banks of the estate. In addition, mechanisms to increase the abundance of keystone pollinators could be valuable.

Mechanisms such as a ‘Pollinator Passage’ could increase habitat connectivity in riparian habitats and create positive environments to encourage green recreation. Also, it would apply to an overriding theme of this project which is to provide outdoor learning experiences that enhance the socio-ecological values of biodiversity on campus. Approaching projects on campus using the provided recommendations and guidance could build ‘national ecological networks’ that reduce the impacts of biodiversity loss. In turn, this would demonstrate the highest standards of collective action for environmental sustainability, and promote the UoG as an institution committed to conserving urban biodiversity at a local, regional and global level.

REFERENCES

Ahern, J (2013). Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecology 28, 1203-1212.

Alberti, M (2008). Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems. Springer, New York.

Aldous, DE & Chivers, IH (2002). Sports turf and amenity grasses: a manual for use and identification. Landlinks Press, Collingwood.

Allan, JD & Flecker, AS (1993). Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience 43, 32-43.

Anbumozhi, V., Radhakrishnan, J & Yamaji, E (2005). Impact of riparian buffer zones on water quality and associated management considerations. Ecological Engineering 24, 517- 523.

Bennett, AF (1999). Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland.

Berkes, F & Folke, C (1998). Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience 1, 13-20.

Bickmore, CJ (2002). Hedgerow Survey Handbook: a standard procedure for local surveys in the UK. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.

Bidar, G., Garçon, G., Pruvot, C., Dewaele, D., Cazier, F., Douay, F & Shirali, P (2007). Behavior of Trifolium repens and Lolium perenne growing in a heavy metal contaminated field: plant metal concentration and phytotoxicity. Environmental Pollution 147, 546-553.

Bijlsma, RG (2001). Pitrus Juncus effusus en Sprinkhaanzangers Locustella naevia: de discrepantie tussen theorie en praktijk. Drentse vogels 14, 43-54.

Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) (2016). Ecosystem services. Online at http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/ecosystem-services [accessed: 17/11/16].

Biological Records Centre (BRC) (2017) Online Atlas of British and Irish Flora - Aesculus hippocastanum (Horse-chestnut). Online at http://www.brc.ac.uk/plantatlas/plant/aesculus- hippocastanum [accessed: 18/04/16].

Bogner, F.X (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(4), pp.17-29.

Boller, B., Posselt, UK & Veronesi, F (2010). Fodder crops and amenity grasses. Springer, New York.

Bonan, GB (2008). Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444-1449.

Bond, W., Davies, G & Turner, R (2007). The biology and non-chemical control of Annual Meadow-grass (Poa annua L.). Online at

70 https://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/sites/www.gardenorganic.org.uk/files/organic-weeds/poa- annua.pdf [accessed: 20/04/16].

Broadmeadow, MSJ., Ray, D & Samuel, CJA (2005). Climate change and the future for broadleaved tree species in Britain. Forestry 78, 145-161.

Cairns, 2014. Management and Control of Common (soft) Rush. Online at http://www.dwrcymru.com/en/WaterSource/MCPA-Weedwiper/Best-Practice-Advice.aspx [accessed: 18/04/17].

Campbell, LK., Svendsen, ES., Sonti, NF & Johnson, ML (2016). A social assessment of urban parkland: Analyzing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning. Environmental Science & Policy 62, 34-44.

Cardinale, BJ., Duffy, JE., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, DU., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, GM., Tilman, D., Wardle, DA & Kinzig, AP (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59-67.

Carter, CI (1992). Arboriculture Research Note: Issued by the D O E Arboricultural Advisory & Information Service: Lime Trees and Aphids. Online at https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/files/c4/c439d44f-19ef-4002-9ad3-4ba293650242.pdf [accessed: 18/04/17].

Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI) (2015). Poa annua (annual meadowgrass). Online at http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/42485 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI) (2017a). Prunus avium (sweet cherry). Online at http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/44250 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI) (2017b). Rhododendron ponticum (rhododendron). Online at http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/47272 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI) (2017c). Impatiens glandulifera (Himalayan balsam). Online at http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/28766 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Chen, YY & Lu, XG (2003). The Wetland Function and Research Tendency of Wetland Science. Wetland Science 1, 7-11.

Chiesura, A (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and urban planning 68, 129-138.

Cilliers, SS (2010). Social aspects of urban biodiversity–An overview. Wiley-Blackwell, Sussex.

Crawford, RM (2008). Plants at the margin: ecological limits and climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Daily, G (1997). Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Dargie, T (1992). Repeat Phase 1 habitat survey and the detection of vegetation change. English Nature Research Reports 51, 1-14.

Dawson, FH., Castellano, E & Ladle, M (1978). Concept of species succession in relation to

71 river vegetation and management. Verhandlung international Vereinung theoretische angewandte Limnologie 20,1429-1434.

Dearborn, DC & Kark, S (2010). Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conservation biology 24, 432-440.

Dehnen-Schmutz, K & Williamson, M (2006). Rhododendron ponticum in Britain and Ireland: social, economic and ecological factors in its successful invasion. Environment and History 12, 325-350.

Dicks, LV., Showler, DA & Sutherland, WJ (2010). Bee conservation: evidence for the effects of interventions. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter

Dixon, AFG (1971). The role of aphids in wood formation. II: The effect of the lime aphid, Eucallipterus tiliae L.(Aphididae), on the growth of lime, Tilia x vulgaris Hayne. Journal of Applied Ecology 8, 393-399.

Dobbs, C., Escobedo, FJ & Zipperer, WC (2011). A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landscape and urban planning 99, 196-206.

Eastman, JA (1995). The book of swamp and bog: trees, shrubs, and wildflowers of the eastern freshwater wetlands. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg.

EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service (2017a). OS VectorMap Local Raster: Shape geospatial data: Scale 1:5000: Tile(s): Map of Gilmorehill. Online at https://digimap.edina.ac.uk [accessed: 20/04/17].

EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service (2017b). OS VectorMap Local Raster: Shape geospatial data: Scale 1:5000: Tile(s): Map of Garscube. Online at https://digimap.edina.ac.uk [accessed: 19/04/17].

EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service (2017c). OS VectorMap Local Raster: Shape geospatial data: Scale 1: 1250: Tile(s): Map of Gilmorehill. Online at https://digimap.edina.ac.uk [accessed: 19/04/17].

Edwards, C (2006). Forestry Commission Practice Guide: Managing and controlling invasive rhododendron. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Elmqvist, T (2010). Urban transitions: on urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystems. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 39, 531-545.

Ernstson, H., Leeuw, SEVD., Redman, CL., Meffert, DJ., Davis, G., Alfsen, C &

Ervin, GN & Wetzel, RG (2002). Influence of a dominant macrophyte, Juncus effusus, on wetland plant species richness, diversity, and community composition. Oecologia 130, 626- 636.

European Commission (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060 [accessed: 18/04/17].

European Commission (2011). The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. European Union, Luxembourg.

Everard, M & Moggridge, HL (2012). Rediscovering the value of urban rivers. Urban Ecosystems 15, 293-314.

Fahrig, L (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics 34, 487-515.

Farber, SC., Costanza, R & Wilson, MA (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological economics 41, 375-392.

Forestry Commission (FC) (1994). Forestry Commission Practice Guide: The management of semi-natural woodlands: 3. Lowland mixed broadleaved woods. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Forestry Commission (FC) (2006). Grassland habitats. Online at https://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/urgc-7edjsm [accessed: 18/04/17].

Forestry Commission (FC) (2017). Managing riparian buffer areas. Online at https://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/infd-6mvk4u [accessed: 19/04/17].

Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) (2010). The right tree in the right place Planning for forestry & woodlands. Forestry Commission Scotland, Edinburgh

Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) (2016a). What are Scotland’s native woodlands?. Online at http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/strategy-policy-guidance/native- woodland-survey-of-scotland-nwss/scotlands-native-woodlands [accessed: 19/04/17].

Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) (2016b). Costs of creating and managing woodland. Online at http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/grants-and-regulations/farm- woodlands/costs-of-creating-and-managing-woodland [accessed: 19/04/17].

Free, JB (1960). The pollination of fruit trees. Bee world 41, 169-186.

Freshwater Habitats Trust (2010). Creating ponds for water voles. Online at http://freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/watervole-dossier.pdf [accessed: 19/04/17].

Garden Organic (2007). Annual meadow-grass. Online at https://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/weeds/annual-meadow-grass [accessed: 19/04/17].

Gazin-Schwartz, A (2001). Archaeology and folklore of material culture, ritual, and everyday life. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5, 263-280.

Gheorghe, IF & Ion, B (2011). The effects of air pollutants on vegetation and the role of vegetation in reducing atmospheric pollution. InTech Publishing, Rijeka

Gibson, DJ (2009). Grasses and grassland ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Gilbert, OL (1989). The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Gilpin, W (1782). Observations on the River Wye and Several parts of South Wales, &c., Relative Chiefly to Picturesque Beauty, made in the summer of the year 1770. R. Blamire, London.

Godbold, JA & Solan, M (2009). Relative importance of biodiversity and the abiotic

73 environment in mediating an ecosystem process. Marine Ecology Progress Series 396, 273- 282.

Green, S (2005). Birch dieback in Scotland. Online at https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcin072.pdf/$FILE/fcin072.pdf [accessed: 18/04/17].

Grime, J.P., Hodgson, J.G & Hunt, R (2014). Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.

Grime, JP (1998). Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects. Journal of Ecology 86, 902-910.

Grimm, NB., Grove, JM., Pickett, STA & Redman, CA (2000). Integrated approaches to long- term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50, 571-584.

Hall, J (2001). Natural Heritage Trends Forest and Woodland: an overview. SNH, Edinburgh.

Harmer, R., Boswell, R & Robertson, M (2005). Survival and growth of tree seedlings in relation to changes in the ground flora during natural regeneration of an oak shelterwood. Forestry 78, 21-32.

Harmer, R., Kerr, G & Thompson, R (2010). Managing native broadleaved woodland. The Stationary Office Ltd (TSO), Edinburgh.

Hejda, M & Pyšek, P (2006). What is the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on species diversity of invaded riparian vegetation?. Biological conservation 132, 143-152.

Helden, AJ., Stamp, GC & Leather, SR (2012). Urban biodiversity: comparison of insect assemblages on native and non-native trees. Urban Ecosystems 15, 611-624.

Hemery, G & Simblet, S (2014). The new sylva: a discourse of forest and orchard trees for the twenty-first century. Bloomsbury, London.

Hernandez, A (2008). Cherry removal by seed-dispersing mammals: mutualism through commensal association with frugivorous birds. Polish Journal of Ecology 56, 127.

Hitchmough, J & Fieldhouse, K (2008). Plant user handbook: a guide to effective specifying. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

Holmes, NTH., Boon, PJ & Rowell, TA (1998). A revised classification system for British rivers based on their aquatic plant communities. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8, 555-578.

Houston, DR (1981). Stress triggered tree diseases, the diebacks and declines. US Forest Service, Broomall.

Hulme, PE (2006). Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 835-847.

Hulme, PE & Bremner, ET (2006). Assessing the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats: partitioning diversity components following species removal. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 43-50.

Ignatieva, M., Stewart, GH & Meurk, C (2011). Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape and ecological engineering 7, 17-25.

Institute of Environmental Assessment (Great Britain) (1995). Guidelines for baseline ecological assessment. Taylor & Francis, London.

Jennings, J (2010). Value of nitrogen fixation from clovers and other legumes. Online at http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201300146149 [accessed: 18/04/17].

Joint Nature Conservation Council (JNCC) (2008). UK BAP list of priority habitats: Oligotrophic and Dystrophic Lakes. Online at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/UKBAP_BAPHabitats-39-OligDysLakes.pdf [accessed: 18/04/17].

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit. Online at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/pub10_handbookforphase1habitatsurvey.pdf [accessed: 19/04/17].

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) & DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2012). UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. Online at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/UK_Post2010_Bio-Fwork.pdf [accessed: 18/04/17].

Joint Nature Conservation Council (JNCC) (2013). UK Woodland Habitats. Online at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1437 [accessed: 18/04/17]. Jones, AT & Hayes, MJ (1999). Increasing floristic diversity in grassland: the effects of management regime and provenance on species introduction. Biological Conservation 87, 381-390.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2016), UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat Descriptions: Hedgerows. Online at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/UKBAP_BAPHabitats-17- Hedgerows.pdf [accessed: 18/04/17].

Jose, S (2009). Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agroforestry systems 76, 1-10.

Klaus, VH (2013). Urban grassland restoration: a neglected opportunity for biodiversity conservation. Restoration Ecology 21, 665-669.

Kohsaka, R., Shih, W., Saito, O & Sadohara, S (2013). Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global assessment. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.

Konijnendijk, CC., Nilsson, K., Randrup, Th.B & Schipperijn, J (2005). Urban Forests and Trees: A Reference Book. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

Kowarik, I (2011). Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environmental Pollution 159, 1974-1983.

Kowarik, I & Körner, S (2005). Wild urban woodlands: new perspectives for urban forestry. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin.

Lansdown, RV (2014). Juncus effusus: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014. Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-1.RLTS.T164223A43119434.en [accessed: 20/04/16].

Larson, JL., Kesheimer, AJ & Potter, DA (2014). Pollinator assemblages on dandelions and

75 white clover in urban and suburban lawns. Journal of insect conservation 18, 863-873.

Lawson, DM (1989). The principles of fertilizer use for sports turf. Soil Use and Management 5, 122-127.

Lee, AC & Maheswaran, R (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence. Journal of public health 33, 212-222.

Leonard, AS., Dornhaus, A & Papaj, DR (2011). Forget-me-not: complex floral displays, inter-signal interactions, and pollinator cognition. Current Zoology 57, 215-224.

Leopold, A (1949). A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lindemann-Matthies, P., Junge, X & Matthies, D (2010). The influence of plant diversity on people's perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation 143, 195-202.

Manchester, SJ & Bullock, JM (2000). The impacts of non- native species on UK biodiversity and the effectiveness of control. Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 845-864.

Manning, AD., Fischer, J & Lindenmayer, DB (2006). Scattered trees are keystone structures - Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 132, 311–321.

Manning, AD., Gibbons, P & Lindenmayer, DB (2009). Scattered trees: a complementary strategy for facilitating adaptive responses to climate change in modified landscapes?. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 915-919.

Marzluff, JM., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., Alberti, M., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., ZumBrunnen, C & Simon, U (2008). Urban Ecology: An international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature. Springer, New York.

Matteson, KC & Langellotto, GA (2010). Determinates of inner city butterfly and bee species richness. Urban Ecosystems 13, 333-347.

Matthews, DJ., Moran, BM & Otte, ML (2004). Zinc tolerance, uptake, and accumulation in the wetland plants Eriophorum angustifolium, Juncus effusus, and Juncus articulatus. Wetlands 24, 859-869.

Maule, H., Andrews, M., Watson, C & Cherrill, A (2000). Distribution, biomass and effect on native species of Impatiens glandulifera in a deciduous woodland in northeast England. Aspects of Applied Biology 58, 31-38.

McDonnell, MJ., Hahs, AK & Breuste, JH (2009). Ecology of Cities and Towns: A comparative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Miller, S (2014). Biodiversity Report 2014. University of Glasgow, Glasgow.

Mitsch, WJ & Gosselink, JG (2000). The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological economics 35, 25-33.

More, TA., Stevens, T & Allen, PG (1988). Valuation of urban parks. Landscape and urban planning 15, 139-152.

Myers, JH., Simberloff, D., Kuris, AM & Carey, JR (2000). Eradication revisited: dealing with

76 exotic species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15, 316-320.

Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) (2016) Improving urban grassland for people and wildlife Access to nature is beneficial to human health. How can designed urban meadows help to enhance public well-being and urban biodiversity? Online at http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/ppn/ppn32/ [accessed: 19/04/17].

Niemelä, J (1999). Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and conservation 8, 119-131.

Nilsson, K., Sangster, M., Gallis, C., Hartig, T., De Vries, S., Seeland, K & Schipperijn, J (2010). Forests, trees and human health. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht.

Norfolk Wildlife Trust (2017). Wildlife in Norfolk: Common Lime, Large Leaved Lime, and Small Leaved Lime. Online at http://www.norfolkwildlifetrust.org.uk/wildlife-in-norfolk/species- explorer/trees/common-lime,-large-leaved-lime,-and-small-leaved-l [accessed: 19/04/17].

Norris, JE., Stokes, A., Mickovski, SB., Cammeraat, E., van Beek, R., Nicoll, BC & Achim, A (2008). Slope stability and erosion control: ecotechnological solutions. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht.

Nowak, DJ (2010). Urban Biodiversity and Climate Change. Urban biodiversity and design 7, 101.

Palmer, JP & Iverson, LR (1983). Factors affecting nitrogen fixation by white clover (Trifolium repens) on colliery spoil. Journal of applied ecology, pp.287-301.

Parris, KM (2016). Ecology of Urban Environments. Wiley-Blackwell, Sussex.

Parsons, G (2007). The Aesthetics of Nature. Philosophy Compass 2, 358-372.

Peterson, G., Allen, CR & Holling, CS (1998). Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1, 6-18.

Petrokas, R (2010). Prerequisites for the Reproduction of Wild Cherry (Prunus avium L). Baltic Forestry 16, 139-153.

Pirone, PP., Hartman, JR., Sall, MA & Pirone, TP (1988). Tree maintenance. Oxford University Press, New York.

Rorison, IH & Hunt, R (1980). Amenity grassland: an ecological perspective. Wiley, Hoboken.

Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) (2017a). Coarse grasses in lawns. Online at https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=514 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) (2017b). Aphids. Online at https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?pid=181 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) (2017c). Trees and shrubs: native to the UK. Online at https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=848 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) (2017d). Hedges: selection. Online at https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/Profile?pid=351 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) (2017e). Best native shrubs for hedging. Online at

77 https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/articles/misc/best-native-shrubs-for-hedging [accessed: 19/04/17].

Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) (2017f). Hedgerow fruit. Online at https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=641 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) (2017g). Trees and shrubs: native to the UK. Online at https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=848 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (2009). Planting for wildlife. Online at https://www.rspb.org.uk/get-involved/community-and-advice/garden-advice/planting/ [accessed: 19/04/17].

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (2017). Values of hedgerows for wildlife. Online at https://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/advice/farmhedges/value.aspx [accessed: 19/04/17].

Rushforth, K (1999). Trees of Britain and Europe. HarperCollins Publishers, London.

Saito, Y (2007). The moral dimension of Japanese aesthetics. The Journal of aesthetics and art criticism 65, 85-97.

Sandström, UG., Angelstam, P & Khakee, A (2006). Urban comprehensive planning– identifying barriers for the maintenance of functional habitat networks. Landscape and urban planning 75, 43-57.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (2009). Engineering in the Water Environment Good Practice Guide: Riparian Vegetation Management. Online at https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/151010/wat_sg_44.pdf [accessed: 19/04/17].

Scottish Government (SG) (2002). Scotland's Native Trees and Shrubs. Online at http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2002/06/14891/5585 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Scottish Government (SG) (2003). Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act. Online at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/3/pdfs/asp_20030003_en.pdf [accessed: 19/04/17].

Scottish Government (SG) (2004). Scotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands - A strategy for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

Scottish Government (SG) (2008). Good Places, Better Health - the Scottish Government’s strategy on health and the environment. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

Scottish Government (SG) (2013). 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

Scottish Government (SG) (2015). Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. Online at http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/Wildlife-Habitats/biodiversity/BiodiversityStrategy [accessed: 22/04/17].

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (2015a). Field margins and hedgerows. Online at http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/habitats-and-ecosystems/farmland-and- croftland/hedgerows-and-field-margins/ [accessed: 19/04/17].

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (2015b). Oligotrophic and Dystrophic Lakes (UK BAP Priority Habitat). Online at http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1509011.pdf [accessed: 19/04/17].

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (2016). Trees and Woodland. Online at http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/advice-for-planners-and- developers/woodlands/ [accessed: 20/04/16].

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (2017). The 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity. Online at http://www.biodiversityscotland.gov.uk/doing/strategy/ [accessed: 22/04/16].

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (2017). Wood-pasture and Parkland (uk bap priority habitat). Online at http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1509885.pdf [accessed: 18/04/16].

Silva, HD., Green, S & Woodward, S (2008). Incidence and severity of dieback in birch plantings associated with Anisogramma virgultorum and Marssonina betulae in Scotland. Plant pathology 57, 272-279.

Skjøth, CA., Smith, M., Brandt, J & Emberlin, J (2009). Are the birch trees in Southern England a source of Betula pollen for North London?. International Journal of Biometeorology 53, 75-86.

Snow, B & Snow, D (2010). Birds and berries. A&C Black, London.

Tabacchi, E., Correll, DL., Hauer, R., Pinay, G., Planty-Tabacchi, AM & Wissmar, RC (1998). Development, maintenance and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscape. Freshwater biology 40, 497-516.

The Guardian (2015). Oslo creates world's first 'highway' to protect endangered bees. Online at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/25/oslo-creates-worlds-first-highway- to-protect-endangered-bees [accessed: 19/04/17].

The Nature Conservancy (2015). Ecological Buffers. Online at https://www.nature.org/media/centralapps/recommended-shale-practices-ecological- buffers.pdf [accessed: 19/04/17].

The Wildlife Trusts (2017). Hedgerows. Online at http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife/habitats/hedgerows [accessed: 19/04/17].

Thompson, CW (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and urban planning 60, 59-72.

Tickner, DP., Angold, PG., Gurnell, AM & Mountford, JO (2001). Riparian plant invasions: hydrogeomorphological control and ecological impacts. Progress in Physical Geography 25, 22-52.

Tilman, D., Reich, PB & Isbell, F (2012). Biodiversity impacts ecosystem productivity as much as resources, disturbance, or herbivory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 10394-10397.

Torchin, ME & Mitchell, CE (2004). Parasites, pathogens, and invasions by plants and animals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2, 183-190.

Trees for Life (2015). Alder (Alnus glutinosa). Online at http://treesforlife.org.uk/forest/alder/ [accessed: 19/04/17].

Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K & Schipperijn, J (2007). Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and urban planning 79, 5-19.

Tyrväinen (1999) Monetary Valuation of Urban Forest Amenities in Finland. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa.

UNCBD (United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity) (2010). Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Targets. United Nations, Montreal.

United Kingdom Parliament (1967). Forestry Act (1967). Online at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/10 [accessed: 18/04/17].

United Kingdom Parliament (1990). Town and Country Planning Act (1990). Online at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/contents [accessed: 18/04/17].

United Kingdom Parliament (1994). Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan. HMSO, London.

United Nations (UN) (2011). Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Targets. Online at https://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/2011-2020/Aichi-Targets-EN.pdf [accessed: 22/04/16].

United Nations (UN) (1992) United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Online at https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf [accessed: 17/11/16].

United Nations (UN) (2014). World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas Online at http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world- urbanization-prospects-2014.html [accessed: 17/11/2016].

United Nations (UN) (2015) United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Online at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ [accessed: 17/11/16].

University of Glasgow (UoG) (2014). Gilmorehill Campus Development Framework. University of Glasgow, Glasgow.

University of Glasgow (UoG) (2015). University of Glasgow Phase I Habitat Survey. University of Glasgow, Glasgow.

University of Glasgow (UoG) (2017a). Sustainability. Online at http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/estates/sustainability/ [accessed: 16/03/16].

University of Glasgow (UoG) (2017b). Sustainability: Grounds. Online at http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/estates/sustainability/grounds/#/groundsmaintenance,supplem entaryservices(chargeable),externalcleansing,grafittiandposterremoval [accessed: 19/04/17]. van Gelderen, DM., De Jong, PC & Oterdoom, HJ (1994). Maples of the world. Timber Press, Oregon.

Vitousek, PM., Antonio, CM., Loope, LL & Westbrooks, R (1996). Biological invasions as global environmental change. American scientist 84, 468.

Vitousek, PM., Mooney, HA., Lubchenco, J & Melillo, JM (1997). Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277, 494-499.

Walsh, B., Ikeda, SS & Boland, GJ (1999). Biology and management of dollar spot (Sclerotinia homoeocarpa); an important disease of turfgrass. HortScience 34, 13-21.

Wedin, DA (1992). Biodiversity Conservation in Europe and North America: I. Grasslands: A Common Challenge. Restoration & Management Notes 10, 137-143.

Williams, NM., Crone, EE., T’ai, HR., Minckley, RL., Packer, L & Potts, SG (2010). Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biological Conservation 143, 2280-2291.

Willmer, P (2011). Pollination and floral ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Wilson, FD (1984). Urban ecology: Urbanization and systems of cities. Annual Review of Sociology 10, 283-307.

Wolch, JR., Byrne, J & Newell, JP (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning 125, 234-244.

Woodland Trust (WT) (2002). Urban woodland management guide 1: Damage and misuse. Online at https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/mediafile/100385288/pg-wt-161214-urban-wood- 1.pdf?cb=94c6518f993148339c0e1b3d38221430 [accessed: 19/04/17].

Woodland Trust (WT) (2010). Nature’s Calendar - Rowan. Online at http://www.naturescalendar.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/08D2F0BE-C613-4F15-B170- 83155F379C8F/0/facts_rowan.pdf [accessed: 19/04/17].

Woodland Trust (WT) (2014). Wood Wise: Woodland Conservation News: Summer 2014 - Hedgerows and Hedgerow Trees. Online at https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/mediafile/100210270/Wood-wise-summer-2014.pdf [accessed: 19/04/17].

Woodland Trust (WT) (2017a). Native Trees https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting- woods/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/native-trees/ [accessed: 19/04/17].

Woodland Trust (WT) (2017b). Lime, common (Tilia x europaea). Online at https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british- trees/native-trees/common-lime/ [accessed: 19/04/17].

Woodland Trust (WT) (2017c). Beech, common (Fagus sylvatica). Online at https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british- trees/native-trees/common-beech/ [accessed: 19/04/17].

Woodland Trust (WT) (2017d). Cherry, wild (Prunus avium). Online at https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british- trees/native-trees/wild-cherry/ [accessed: 19/04/17].

Woodland Trust (WT) (2017d). Yew (Taxus baccata). Online at https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british- trees/native-trees/yew/ [accessed: 19/04/17].

Woodland Trust (WT) (2017e). Rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) Online at https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british- trees/native-trees/rowan/ [accessed: 19/04/17].

Woodland Trust (WT) (2017f). Alder (Alnus glutinosa). Online at https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-

81 trees/native-tre es/alder/ [accessed: 19/04/17].

Wu, JQ., Ruan, XH & Wang, X (2005). Selection and function of aquatic plants in constructed wetlands. Water Resources Protection 1, 1.

Yatagai, M (2000). Tree aroma and its function on relaxation and rest. Aroma Research 1, 2- 7.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Species List

Species Name Latin name

Perennial Ryegrass Lolium perenne

White Clover Trifolium repens

Annual Meadow Grass Poa annua

Bentgrass Agrostis spp.

Fescues Festuca spp.

Red Clover Trifolium pratense

Buff-tailed Bumblebee Bombus terrestris

Purple Hairstreak Neozephyrus quercus

Meadow Grass Poa spp.

Clover Trifolium spp.

Meadow Foxtail Alopecurus pratensis

Red Fescue Festuca rubra

Cocks-foot Dactylus glomerata

Common Daisy Bellis perennis

Common Snowdrop Galanthus nivalis

Wild Daffodil Narcissus pseudonarcissus

California Poppy Eschscholzia californica

Chamomile Matricaria chamomilla

Tufted Vetch Vicia cracca

Tansy Tanacetum vulgare

Giant bellflower Campanula latifolia

Docks and Sorrels Rumex spp.

Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense

Common Knapweed Centaurea nigra

Cowslip Primula veris

Devil’s bit scabious Succisa pratensis

Alder Alnus glutinosa

Ash Fraxinus excelsior

Common Lime Tilia x europaea

English Oak Quercus robur

Horse Chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum

Silver Birch Betula pendula

Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus

Whitebeam Sorbus aria

Common Beech Fagus sylvatica

Rowan Sorbus aucuparia

Moths and Caterpillars Lepidoptera spp.

Butterflies Rhopalocera spp.

Linden Aphid Eucallipetrus tiliae

Large-leaved Lime Tilia platyphyllos

Wild Cherry Prunus avium

Japanese Maple Acer palmatum

Katsura Cercidiphyllum japonicum

Magnolia Magnoliaceae spp.

Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera

Hawfinch Coccothraustes coccothraustes

Song Thrush Turdus philomelos

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

European Badger Meles meles

Hazel Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius

Cherry-bark Moth Enarmonia formosana

True Bugs Hemiptera spp.

Willow Salix spp.

Downy Birch Betula pubescens

Common Juniper Juniperus communis

Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris

Common Holly Ilex aquifolium

Sessile Oak Quercus petraea

Elder Sambucus nigra

Box Buxus sempervirens

Yew Taxus baccata

Blackthorn Prunus spinosa

Bramble Rubus fruticosus

Damson Prunus domestica

Birch Betula spp.

Wild Privet Ligustrum vulgare

Robin Erithacus rubecula

Red Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris

Western Honey Bee Apis mellifera

Marssonina Leaf Spot Marssonina betulae

Anisogramma Virgultorum Anisogramma virgultorum

Common Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

Dog Rose Rosa canina

Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum

Spindle Euonymus europaea

Lesser Celandine Ficaria verna

Oak Quercus spp.

Hazel Corylus avellana

Field Maple Ulmus minor

Wych Elm Ulmus glabra

Small-leaved Lime Tilia cordata

Hornbeam Carpinus betulus

Elm Ulmus spp.

Common Nettle Urtica dioica

Common Rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum

Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs

Common Blackbird Turdus merula

Lady Fern Athyrium filix-femina

Moss Bryophyta spp.

Liverwort Marchantiophyta spp.

Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens

Common Smooth Cap Atrichum undulatum

Overleaf Pellia Pellia epiphylla

Hart’s-Tongue Thyme-Moss Plagiomnium undulatum

Goat Willow Salix caprea

Primrose Primula vulgaris

Wood-sorrel Oxalis acetosella

Rock Whitebeam Sorbus rupicola

Moor Grass Molinia spp.

Rush Juncus spp.

Sedge Carex spp.

Valerian Valeriana spp.

Marsh Orchid Dactylorhiza spp.

Marsh Hawk’s-beard Crepis paludosa

Hemp-agrimony Eupatorium cannabinum

Soft Rush Juncus effusus

Meadow Buttercup Ranunculus acris

Ribwort Plantain Plantago lanceolata

Meadow Fescue Schedonorus pratensis

Meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria

Yellow Iris Iris pseudacorus

Marsh Pennywort Hydrocotyle vulgaris

Common Frog Rana temporaria

Marsh Woundwort Stachys palustris

Marsh Willowherb Epilobium palustre

Marsh Marigold Caltha palustris

Water Avens Geum rivale

Ragged-Robin Lychnis flos-cuculi

Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea

Great Willowherb Epilobium hirsutum

Himalayan Balsam Impatiens glandulifera

Water Forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides

Sharp-flowered Rush Juncus acutiflorus

Otter Lutra lutra

Creeping Jenny Lysimachia nummularia

Self-heal Prunella vulgaris

Cuckoo Flower Cardamine pratensis

European Water Vole Arvicola amphibius

Hoverfly Syrphidae spp.

Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica

Appendix 2: Habitat Alphanumeric Codes

Habitat Alphanumeric Code

Amenity Grassland J2.1

Buildings J3.6

Broadleaved Parkland/Scattered Tree A3.1

Mixed Parkland/Scattered Tree A3.3

Intact Hedge native species-rich J2.1.1

Intact Hedge native species-poor J2.1.2

Defunct Hedge native species-poor J2.2.2

Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland A1.1.1

Mixed Woodland A1.2.1

Marsh/Marshy Grassland B5

Standing Water G1

Running Water (Oligotrophic) G2.3

Tall Herb and Fern C3.1

Scrub: Dense/Continuous A2.1