Landscape Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 681–692 | Cite as

Distribution of invasive plants in urban environment is strongly spatially structured

  • Kateřina Štajerová
  • Petr Šmilauer
  • Josef Brůna
  • Petr Pyšek
Research Article



Urban environments create a wide range of habitats that harbour a great diversity of plant species, many of which are of alien origin. For future urban planning and management of the green areas within the city, understanding of the spatial distribution of invasive alien species is of great importance.


Our main aim was to assess how availability of different ecosystem types within a city area, as well as several parameters describing urban structure interact in determining the cover and identity of invasive alien species.


We studied the distribution of chosen invasive plant species in a mid-sized city in the Czech Republic, central Europe, on a gradient of equal sized cells from the city centre to its outskirts.


A great amount of variation was explained by spatial predictors but not shared with any measured variables. The species cover of invasive species decreased with increasing proportion of urban greenery and distance from the city centre, but increased with habitat richness; road margins, ruderal sites, and railway sites were richest in invasive species. In contrast, the total number of invasive species in cells significantly decreased with increasing distance from the city centre, but increased with habitat richness.


Our results suggest that different invasive species prefer habitats in the vicinity of the city centre and at its periphery and the spatial structure and habitat quality of the urban landscape needs to be taken into account, in efforts to manage alien plant species invasions in urban environments.


Alien Species cover Central Europe Invasive Neophyte Species richness Urban environment 



Our special thanks are due to Věra Samková (East Bohemian Museum, Hradec Králové) for her extensive help in the field and for providing us with local floristic literature, Lukáš Sekerka for his patience and permanent support, Martin Hejda, Jan Pergl and Stanislav Mihulka for their critical insights on the first drafts of the manuscript, and to Christina Alba who kindly improved English and also commented on the manuscript. We also thank Amy Hahs, Jill Rapson and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments that helped us to improve the manuscript. JB, KŠ, PP and PŠ were supported by the Project No. 14-36079G (Centre of Excellence PLADIAS from the Czech Science Foundation), PŠ by the project of GAJU 04-142/2010/P, KŠ and PP by long-term research development project RVO 67985939 (The Czech Academy of Sciences), and Praemium Academiae award to PP.

Supplementary material

10980_2016_480_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre (2004) Archive Colour Orthophoto of the Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronson MFJ, La Sorte FA, Nilon CH, Katti M, Goddard MA, Lepczyk CA, Warren PS, Williams NSG, Cilliers S, Clarson B, Dobbs C, Dolan R, Hedblom M, Klotz S, Kooijmas JL, Kühn I, MacGregor-Fors I, McDonnell M, Mörtberg U, Pyšek P, Siebert S, Sushinsky J, Werner P, Winter M (2014) A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proc R Soc B 281(1780):20133330CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Asmus U, Rapson GL (2014) Floristic homogeneity underlies environmental diversification of northern New Zealand urban areas. New Zeal J Bot 52:285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate—a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Statist Soc Ser B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  5. Blumenthal D, Mitchell CE, Pyšek P, Jarošík V (2009) Synergy between pathogen release and resource availability in plant invasion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:7899–7904CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Celesti-Grapow L, Blasi C (1998) A comparison of the urban flora of different phytoclimatic regions in Italy. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 7:367–378Google Scholar
  7. Celesti-Grapow L, Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Blasi C (2006) Determinants of native and alien species richness in the flora of Rome. Divers Distrib 12:490–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chocholoušková Z, Pyšek P (2003) Changes in composition and structure of urban flora over 120 years: a case study of the city of Plzeň. Flora 198:366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chytrý M, Pyšek P, Tichý L, Knollová I, Danihelka J (2005) Invasions by alien plants in the Czech Republic: a quantitative assessment across habitats. Preslia 77:339–354Google Scholar
  10. Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Pyšek P, Hájek O, Knollová I, Tichý L, Danihelka J (2008a) Separating habitat invasibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasion. Ecology 89:1541–1553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chytrý M, Maskell LC, Pino J, Pyšek P, Vilà M, Font X, Smart FM (2008b) Habitat invasions by alien plants: a quantitative comparison among Mediterranean, subcontinental and oceanic regions of Europe. J Appl Ecol 45:448–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deutschewitz K, Lausch A, Kühn I, Klotz S (2003) Native and alien species richness in relation to spatial heterogeneity on a regional scale in Germany. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ESRI (2015) ArcGIS Pro 1.1, Redlands, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Foxcroft LC, Jarošík V, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Rouget M (2011) Protected-area boundaries as filters of plant invasions. Conserv Biol 25:400–405PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilbert OL (1989) The ecology of urban habitats. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gulezian PZ, Nyberg DW (2010) Distribution of invasive plants in a spatially structured urban Landscape. Landscape Urban Plan 95:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hahs AK, McDonnell MJ (2006) Selecting independent measures to quantify Melbourneʼs urban-rural gradient. Landscape Urban Plan 78:435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haeupler H (1974) Statistische Auswertung von Punktrasterkarten der Gefässpflanzenflora Süd-Niedersachsens. Scripta Geobot 8:1–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill MO, Roy DB, Thompson K (2002) Hemeroby, urbanity and ruderality: bioindicators of disturbance and human impact. J Appl Ecol 39(5):708–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE, Norton D, Ojima D, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladares F, Vilà M, Zamora R, Zobel M (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klotz S (1990) Species/area and species/inhabitants relations in European cities. In: Sukopp H, Hejný S (eds) Urban ecology, plants and plant communities in urban environments. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 99–104Google Scholar
  23. Kowarik I (1995) On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegetation. In: Pyšek P, Prach K, Rejmánek M, Wade M (eds) Plant invasions: general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 85–103Google Scholar
  24. Kowarik I (2011) Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ Pollut 159:1974–1983CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kühn I, Brandl R, Klotz S (2004) The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evol Ecol Res 6:749–764Google Scholar
  26. Kühn I, Klotz S (2006) Urbanization and homogenization—comparing the floras of urban and rural areas in Germany. Biol Conserv 127:292–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. La Sorte FA, McKinney ML, Pyšek P, Klotz S, Rapson GL, Celesti-Grapow L, Thompson K (2008) Distance decay of similarity among European urban floras: the impact of anthropogenic activities on β diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lambdon PW, Pyšek P, Basnou C, Hejda M, Arianotsou M, Essl F, Jarošík V, Pergl J, Winter M, Anastasiu P, Andriopoulos P, Bazos I, Brundu G, Celesti-Grapow L, Chassot P, Delipetrou P, Josefsson M, Kark S, Klotz S, Kokkoris Y, Kühn I, Marchante H, Perglová I, Pino J, Vilà M, Zikos A, Roy D, Hulme PE (2008) Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical pattern and research needs. Preslia 80:101–149Google Scholar
  29. Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology, 3rd, English edn. Elsevier Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lososová Z, Chytrý M, Tichý L, Danihelka J, Fajmon K, Hájek O, Kintrová K, Kühn I, Laníková D, Otýpková Z, Řehořek V (2012a) Native and alien flora in urban habitats: a comparison among 32 cities across central Europe. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:545–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lososová Z, Chytrý M, Tichý L, Danihelka J, Fajmon K, Hájek O, Kintrová K, Laníková D, Otýpková Z, Řehořek V (2012b) Biotic homogenization of Central European urban floras depends on residence time of alien species and habitat types. Biol Conserv 145(1):179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malavasi M, Carboni M, Cutini M, Carranza ML, Acosta ATR (2014) Landscape fragmentation, land-use legacy and propagule pressure promote plant invason on coastal dunes: a patch-based approach. Landscape Ecol 29:1541–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA (1990) Ecosystem structure and function along gradients of urbanization: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71:1231–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McDonell MJ, Hahs AK (2008) The use of gradient analysis studies in advancing our understanding of the ecology of urbanizing landscapes: current status and future directions. Landscape Ecol 23:1143–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Niggemann M, Jetzkowitz J, Brunzel S, Wichmann MC, Bialozyt R (2009) Distribution patterns of plants explained by human movement behavior. Ecol Model 220:1339–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P (2010) Estimating and controlling for spatial structure in the study of ecological communities. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pyšek P (1995) Approaches to studying spontaneous settlement flora and vegetation in Central Europe: a review. In: Sukopp H, Numata M, Huber A (eds) Urban ecology as the basis of urban planning. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp 23–39Google Scholar
  40. Pyšek P (1998) Alien and native species in Central European urban floras: a quantitative comparison. J Biogeogr 25:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pyšek P, Prach P, Šmilauer P (1995) Relating invasion success to plant traits: an analysis of the Czech alien flora. In: Pyšek P, Prach K, Rejmánek M, Wade M (eds) Plant invasions: general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 39–60Google Scholar
  42. Pyšek P, Sádlo J, Mandák B (2002) Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic. Preslia 74:97–186Google Scholar
  43. Pyšek P, Sádlo J, Mandák B, Jarošík V (2003) Czech alien flora and the historical pattern of its formation: what came first to Central Europe? Oecologia 135:122–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pyšek P, Chocholoušková Z, Pyšek A, Jarošík V, Chytrý M, Tichý L (2004a) Trends in species diversity and composition of urban vegetation over three decades. J Veg Sci 15:781–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Rejmánek M, Webster G, Williamson M, Kirschner J (2004b) Alien plants in checklists and floras: towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon 53:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pyšek P, Bacher S, Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Wild J, Celesti-Grapow L, Gassó N, Kenis M, Lambdon PW, Nentwig W, Pergl J, Roques A, Sádlo J, Solarz W, Vilà M, Hulme PE (2010) Contrasting patterns in the invasions of European terrestrial and freshwater habitats by alien plants, insects and vertebrates. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pyšek P, Danihelka J, Sádlo J, Chrtek J Jr, Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Kaplan Z, Krahulec F, Moravcová L, Pergl J, Štajerová K, Tichý L (2012) Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic (2nd edition): checklist update, taxonomic diversity and invasion patterns. Preslia 84:155–255Google Scholar
  48. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  49. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD, West CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distrib 6:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ricotta C, La Sorte FA, Pyšek P, Rapson GL, Celesti-Grapow L, Thompson K (2009) Phyloecology of urban alien floras. J Ecol 97:1243–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ricotta C, La Sorte FA, Pyšek P, Rapson GL, Celesti-Grapow L, Thompson K (2012) Phylogenetic beta diversity of native and alien species in European urban floras. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21(7):751–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ricotta C, Celesti-Grapow L, Kühn I, Rapson G, Pyšek P, La Sorte FA, Thompson K (2014) Geographical constraints are stronger than invasion patterns for European urban floras. Plos ONE 9(1):e85661CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Sádlo J, Chytrý M, Pyšek P (2007) Regionals species pools of vascular plants in habitats of the Czech Republic. Preslia 79:303–321Google Scholar
  54. Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6(2):461–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skalický V (1988) Regionálně fytogeografické členění [Phytogeographic land classification]. In: Hejný S, Slavík B (eds) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Academia, Praha, pp 103–121Google Scholar
  56. Sukopp H, Werner P (1983) Urban environments and vegetation. In: Holzner W, Werger MJA, Ikusima I (eds) Man’s impact on vegetation. Dr. W Junk Publishers, The Hague, pp 247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sukopp H (2002) On the early history of urban ekology in Europe. Preslia 74:373–393Google Scholar
  58. Šmilauer P, Lepš J (2014) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using Canoco 5, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2012) Canoco reference manual and user’s guide: software for ordination (version 5.0). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  60. Tolasz R, Míková T, Valeriánová A, Voženílek V (eds) (2007) Atlas podnebí Česka [Climate atlas of Czechia]. ČHMÚ, Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, Praha & OlomoucGoogle Scholar
  61. Urban Atlas (2006) Owner: Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry (DG-ENTR), Directorate-General for Regional policy, custodian: EEA.
  62. Vieira R, Finn JT, Bradley BA (2014) How does the landscape context of occurrence data influence models of invasion risk? A comparison of independent datasets in Massachusetts, USA. Landscape Ecol 29:1601–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vilà M, Ibáñez I (2011) Plant invasions in the landscape. Landscape Ecol 26:461–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weber E, Sun S, Li B (2008) Invasive alien plants in China: diversity and ecological insights. Biol Invasions 10:1411–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Williams NSG, Hahs AK, Vesk PA (2015) Urbanisation, plant traits and the composition of urban floras. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 17:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zerbe S, Choi I, Kowarik I (2004) Characteristics and habitats of non-native plant species in the city of Chonju, Southern Korea. Ecol Res 19:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Invasion EcologyInstitute of Botany, The Czech Academy of SciencesPrůhoniceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of EcologyFaculty of Science, Charles UniversityPrahaCzech Republic
  3. 3.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of GIS and Remote SensingInstitute of Botany, The Czech Academy of SciencesPrůhoniceCzech Republic
  5. 5.Institute for Environmental StudiesFaculty of Science, Charles UniversityPraha 2Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations