全 文 ：The Evolving Role of Botanical Gardens and Natural Areas: A Floristic
Case Study from Royal Botanical Gardens, Canada
David A. GALBRAITH1
*
, Natalie E. IWANYCKI1, Brechann V. McGOEY1, Jamie McGREGOR2,
James S. PRINGLE1, Carl J. ROTHFELS3, Tyler W. SMITH4
(1 Royal Botanical Gardens, Burlington, ON, Canada; 2 University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada;
3 Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; 4 Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, USA)
Abstract: As leaders calling for the conservation of the world忆s plants, botanical gardens protect plants within living
collections. Many also study, manage and restore plants in natural habitats. Royal Botanical Gardens (Ontario,
Canada) has integrated both horticultural and natural heritage in its mission for decades. Envisioned by municipal
leaders in the 1920s as a combination of nature sanctuaries and civic gardens, RBG now includes forests, wetlands
and other habitats, gardens and built spaces. Today RBG is Canada忆s largest botanical garden on the basis of area.
In the 1950s RBG began to inventory plant diversity. The checklist of spontaneous vascular plants now exceeds 1 170
species, of which 752 are native. This is 37% of Ontario忆s native vascular plants and 19% of the native vascular
flora of Canada. The RBG nature sanctuaries are among the richest locations in Canada for species鄄level diversity.
We examine the history of floristic exploration within RBG and compare plant species鄄area relationships among pro鄄
tected natural areas in Ontario. This comparison supports the contention that the nature sanctuaries, and in particu鄄
lar Cootes Paradise, could be considered an important area for plants in Canada, and relative to the nation忆s flora, a
biodiversity hotspot. The fact that a candidate vascular plant hotspot for Canada lies within a major botanical garden
presents opportunities for raising public awareness of the importance of plant diversity, as well as focusing attention
on the scientific and conservation biology needs of communities and individual species in this area.
Key words: Botanical garden; Ontario; Natural areas; Biodiversity; Species鄄area curve; Species richness
CLC number: Q 948摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 Document Code: A摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 Article ID: 2095-0845(2011)01-123-09
摇 Botanical gardens originated as teaching collec鄄
tions and as places of botanical research. Today
their mandates are more inclusive, ranging from con鄄
servation to providing visitor attractions to supplying
botanical expertise and educational programs to a di鄄
versity of users. The development of botanical gar鄄
dens varies greatly, influenced by planning decisions,
economic development and the natural and cultural
resources at hand. Some were established as munici鄄
pal or public parks, encompassing landscapes that
are entirely artificial. They are often considered ex
situ institutions, conserving biological diversity out鄄
side of its original context. Some botanical gardens,
however, have been developed to include natural
areas, and others now also place an increased empha鄄
sis on conserving of plants and plant communities in
situ. In Canada, approximately 75% of botanical gar鄄
dens and arboreta own or are associated with natural
areas (Garcia鄄Dominguez and Kennedy, 2003).
Conservation biologists and planners sometimes
label natural areas of high biological diversity as
“hotspots冶 . Protecting such hotspots is an effective
way to conserve large numbers of species as well as
their ecological associations (Myers et al., 2000).
At the global level, biodiversity hotspots are usually
identified in megadiverse countries and may include
植 物 分 类 与 资 源 学 报摇 2011, 33 (1): 123 ~ 131
Plant Diversity and Resources摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 DOI: 10. 3724 / SP. J. 1143. 2011. 10235
* Author for correspondence; E鄄mail: dgalbraith@ rbg. ca
Address: Royal Botanical Gardens, 680 Plains Road West, Burlington, Ontario, L7T4H4, Canada
Received date: 2010-12-09, Accepted date: 2010-12-27
large numbers of endemic species. At the regional or
national levels, important areas for species diversity
may also be considered as hotspots regardless of their
level of endemism, especially for the important ob鄄
jective of raising public awareness (Plantlife, 2010).
Within Canada, two regions are generally rec鄄
ognized as holding the richest botanical diversity:
southern British Columbia and southern Ontario (Ar鄄
gus and Pryer, 1990; CESCC, 2006 ). Both of
these regions are rich in spontaneously occurring
plant species because they represent patchworks or
mosaics of many different kinds of habitats, transi鄄
tions and plant communities, and because of favora鄄
ble climate. Both the southern British Columbia and
southern Ontario high鄄diversity regions are heavily
affected by contemporary human society.
In southern Ontario the northern extent of the
Deciduous Forest Region meets the Great Lakes鄄St.
Lawrence Forest Region. The landscapes of this re鄄
gion include some remnant savannahs and prairies,
and rare habitats such as sand dunes, alvars and
cliff鄄faces. Settlement and development of this area
has introduced many exotic species, including ani鄄
mals and plants related to horticulture, agriculture
and landscaping as well as accidental introductions.
It is a rapidly growing economy as well. The region
surrounding Toronto, for example, is among the high鄄
est鄄density urban zones in North America ( United
Nations, 2009).
Some of Canada忆s richest landscapes for species
diversity are within the Greater Toronto Area. About
60 kilometers west of Toronto lies the Dundas Val鄄
ley, which cuts deeply into the Niagara Escarpment
at the western tip, or “head冶 of Lake Ontario. The
importance of Cootes Paradise Marsh, a wetland
within this valley, and the ecological productivity of
the area, were recognized when the wetland was de鄄
signated as a fish sanctuary in the 19 th century and a
game sanctuary in the early 20 th . The concept of a
major public park system in this area combining
large open lands, natural areas and horticultural dis鄄
plays originated in the late 1920s. By 1932, the first
garden area opened to the public. Royal Botanical
Gardens was formed as an agency of the Province of
Ontario in 1941, with the objectives of developing
horticulture appropriate for the region, displaying
gardens, undertaking botanical research and protec鄄
ting natural areas for recreational and ecological pur鄄
poses (Laking, 2006). Since the early 1950s, do鄄
zens of person鄄years have been invested in the botani鄄
cal exploration of the RBG natural lands, resulting
in tens of thousands of herbarium specimens, and
checklists of the spontaneous vascular flora pub鄄
lished in 1969 ( Pringle, 1969), and updated in
2003 (Smith, 2003).
Here we present preliminary evidence that these
lands present the highest vascular plant species rich鄄
ness in the landscape of Ontario, and possibly in Cana鄄
da, on the basis of species鄄area relationships among
comparable protected areas. We discuss the importance
of natural areas associated with botanical gardens as
opportunities for conservation and interpretation.
Materials and Methods
Geographic Setting and Floristic Inventories
Royal Botanical Gardens consists of approxi鄄
mately 760 hectares of nature sanctuaries and anoth鄄
er 200 + hectares of built gardens and other facili鄄
ties, within the present boundaries of the cities of
Hamilton and Burlington, Ontario, Canada. These
lands are arrayed in several disjoint properties
(headquarters at 43毅17. 412忆 N 79毅52. 536忆 W).
Four of these are major nature sanctuaries, including
Cootes Paradise Marsh and the surrounding terrestri鄄
al habitats situated in and around the Dundas Valley
and the near鄄by Grindstone Creek to the east.
Early lists of plants found in the Hamilton area
were published in 1854, 1861, and 1874 (Pringle,
1995). The most intensive survey of RBG忆s sponta鄄
neous flora was made by Aleksander Tamsalu, an
RBG staff member who had studied plant ecology in
his native Estonia. From 1954 through 1958 Tamsa鄄
lu collected about 10 000 specimens from RBG忆 s
Cootes Paradise and Hendrie Valley properties, re鄄
421摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 植 物 分 类 与 资 源 学 报摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 第 33 卷
presenting approximately 800 species and botanical
varieties ( Lord, 1980 ). Subsequent additions to
RBG忆 s properties were surveyed in the 1960s by
Robert M. Johns, a student at McMaster, and James
S. Pringle, RBG忆 s plant taxonomist. The first
checklist of the spontaneous flora of these sanctuaries
was published in 1969, and included 937 species
(Pringle, 1969). John B. Lord, a student at the
University of Guelph, surveyed the aquatic and marsh
vegetation of Cootes Paradise in 1971-1972, compa鄄
ring his list of species observed with those compiled
in previous studies. Subsequently, RBG field bota鄄
nists Justus Benckhuysen, Jeremy Lundholm, Tyler
Smith, Carl Rothfels, Natalie Iwanycki and other
staff members have discovered additional species,
including rare native species as well as many natu鄄
ralized exotics. In 2003, RBG field botanist Tyler
Smith revised the list of the spontaneous flora on
RBG properties (Smith, 2003). Subsequent studies
have added to the checklist (Rothfels, 2003, 2004,
2005a,b, 2006a,b, 2007; Rothfels et al., 2004;
Smith et al., 2001).
The continuing efforts to document the diversity
and distribution of plants at Royal Botanical Gardens
include collection and identification of plants across
the various properties, and searches for previously
recorded species that have not been reported in re鄄
cent years (some of which have been rediscovered).
For this study, species recorded in the current data鄄
base were considered to be the Spontaneous Flora
and were classified as either native (likely present in
the local area prior to European settlement in the
18 th Century) or introduced ( arrived in the area
since European colonization). Plant species richness
was individually summarized for three of the major
natural lands properties at RBG: those in the Cootes
Paradise Nature Sanctuary (541 hectares), Hendrie
Valley Nature Sanctuary (114 hectares), and Rock
Chapel Nature Sanctuary (74 hectares), and for the
RBG nature sanctuaries as a whole.
Species Richness at Other Parks and Protected Areas
Observations of plant species richness, or check鄄
lists from which richness could be derived, were re鄄
quested from agencies maintaining natural areas in
Ontario, including conservation authorities, Ontario
Nature (formerly the Federation of Ontario Natural鄄
ists), Parks Canada, Ontario Parks, and the Ontar鄄
io Ministry of Natural Resources. Where possible,
species richness datasets for individual protected areas
were developed to include total species richness,
richness of native and of introduced species, using
the same definition as used for the RBG properties.
The geographic areas of individual parks were also
requested from the contacted agencies and were con鄄
firmed using the Ontario Natural Heritage Informa鄄
tion Centre忆 s ( NHIC) database ( NHIC, 2010).
Latitude and longitude for each park were obtained
either using the NHIC database or by locating the
parks using the online service Google Maps襆 .
Analysis
In order to control for effects of different plant
communities within different ecozones, latitude, and
other geographic variables, our analysis was limited
to parks in the Mixed Wood Plains Ecozone in the
Province of Ontario, of which RBG is a part.
To investigate the relationship between the size
of natural areas and species richness, and to assess
if the nature sanctuaries at RBG contain a greater
number of species than expected, three different an鄄
alyses were conducted. Firstly, a regression analysis
was performed, using log (area) as the explanatory
variable, and species richness as the dependent var鄄
iable.
Since the natural lands at RBG are composed of
distinct nature sanctuaries, a second analysis was
performed, in which three individual RBG areas
were included ( Cootes Paradise, Hendrie Valley
and Rock Chapel) . To understand the contributions
of native and introduced plants to overall species
richness, two separate linear regressions were con鄄
ducted. For these two analyses, only parks which
had introduced and native species data available
could be included.
In order to compare the species richness seen at
5211 期摇 摇 摇 David A. GALBRAITH: The Evolving Role of Botanical Gardens and Natural Areas: A Floristics . . . 摇 摇 摇
RBG with what one would expect based on data from
other natural areas, a vascular plant species鄄area re鄄
lationship for the sample of parks in Ontario was es鄄
timated by linear regression of species richness ver鄄
sus log (area), calculated without the RBG sanctu鄄
aries. The resulting regression equation was then
used to calculate the expected number of species that
should be present within each of the focal individual
RBG nature sanctuaries as well as for RBG as a
whole. All analyses were performed using SYSTAT
13襆 (SYSTAT Software, 2009).
Results
The most recent assessment of species richness
of spontaneous vascular plants within the RBG nature
sanctuaries and associated parklands includes 1 171
species in 126 families. Within the nature sanctua鄄
ries themselves ( excluding highly disturbed areas
such as roadsides) 1 037 species have been docu鄄
mented, of which 300 are introduced (29% of the
recorded flora).
Species richness data were obtained for 55
parks and protected areas located in Ontario忆s Mixed
Wood Plains Ecozone (Table 1; Fig. 1). The major鄄
ity of parks (70% ) are located in the counties of
Hastings and Northumberland, east of Toronto. Park
areas ranged from 5 hectares to 27 844 hectares, and
species richness ranged from 91 to 891 species. For鄄
ty鄄five parks provided separate species richness data
for native and introduced vascular plants. A strong,
statistically significant relationship was observed be鄄
tween total vascular plant species richness and pro鄄
tected area size among the parks for total species
richness, richness of native species and richness of
introduced species (Fig. 2).
The total species richness within each of the
three focal RBG nature sanctuaries was much greater
than expected based on the observed relationship be鄄
tween species richness and log ( area) among the
examined protected areas in Ontario ( Fig. 3: A).
Furthermore, both the native plant species richness
and introduced plant species richness was higher
than expected in RBG on the basis of forty鄄five parks
for which separate species richness data for native
and introduced plants was available (Fig. 3: B, C).
Fig. 1摇 Locations of parks and other protected areas in the
Province of Ontario, Canada, for which vascular plant
checklists could be obtained
Table 1摇 Summary of protected areas within Ontario忆s Mixed Wood Plains Ecozone for which plant species richness data was found
Name Latitude Longitude Area(ha)
Native
species
Introduced
species
Total vascular
plant species
Alderville Woods SNA 44 毅9. 599忆 N 78 毅2. 370忆 W 116 279 67 346
Altberg Wildlife Sanctuary Nature Reserve 44毅44. 1忆 N 78毅2. 394忆 W 204 125 8 133
Barry Lake Wetland Complex Conservation Area 44毅18. 42忆 N 78毅44. 57忆 W 101 296 38 334
Batawa SNA 44毅9. 779忆 N 77毅36. 13忆 W 329 318 65 383
Big Apple Headwater SNA 44毅0. 840忆 N 77毅54. 76忆 W 73 241 48 289
Bruce Peninsula National Park 44毅11. 93忆 N 81毅31. 30忆 W 27 844 — — 891
Burnley鄄Carmel Headwater SNA 44毅7. 559忆 N 78毅1. 199忆 W 1 203 415 78 493
Carman Headwater SNA 44毅7. 680忆 N 77毅43. 99忆 W 127 206 47 253
Cold Creek Complex SNA 44毅6. 720忆 N 77毅49. 79忆 W 1 211 457 80 537
RBG鄄Cootes Paradise 43毅16. 67忆 N 79毅54. 90忆 W 541 683 246 929
Cramahe Hill SNA 44毅10. 49忆 N 77毅49. 37忆 W 200 263 66 329
621摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 植 物 分 类 与 资 源 学 报摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 第 33 卷
continue table 1
Name Latitude Longitude Area(ha)
Native
species
Introduced
species
Total vascular
plant species
Cranberry Lake Wetland Conservation Area 44毅0. 480忆 N 78毅1. 854忆 W 58 200 20 220
Crookston Forest SNA 44毅26. 7忆 N 77毅26. 63忆 W 290 326 40 366
Dartford Pond鄄O忆Reilly Lake Wetland Conservation Area 44毅13. 55忆 N 77毅56. 21忆 W 162 162 10 172
Dumfries Conservation Area 43毅23. 22忆 N 80毅19. 60忆 W 75 51 12 63
Georgian Bay Islands National Park 44毅52. 78忆 N 79毅52. 39忆 W 1 218 — — 880
Godolphin Esker Wetland Conservation Area 44毅18. 71忆 N 77毅53. 90忆 W 79 227 36 263
Greenock Swamp Conservation Area ANSI 44毅9. 359忆 N 81毅22. 5忆 W 8 300 — — 692
Harwood Plains SNA 44毅8. 040忆 N 78毅8. 675忆 W 69 146 58 204
RBG鄄Hendrie Valley 43毅17. 58忆 N 79毅52. 5忆 W 114 410 145 555
Hickory Island Conservation Area 44毅12. 90忆 N 78毅6. 563忆 W 5 91 13 104
Hoards Creek Flats Wetland Conservation Area 44毅19. 79忆 N 77毅38. 00忆 W 97 274 49 323
Johnstown Drumlin SNA 44毅10. 20忆 N 77毅34. 06忆 W 162 258 41 299
Kemble Mountain Conservation Area 44毅45忆 N 80毅55. 92忆 W 140 — — 205
Killoran Lake Wetland Conservation Area 44毅17. 21忆 N 77毅56. 85忆 W 59 131 9 140
Laurel Creek Conservation Area 43毅34. 61忆 N 80毅28. 98忆 W 288 142 28 170
Lost Bay Nature Reserve 44毅28. 19忆 N 76毅6. 209忆 W 47 106 19 125
Lyal Island Nature Reserve 44毅57. 00忆 N 81毅24. 48忆 W 305 278 3 281
Mayhew Creek Headwater SNA 44毅5. 759忆 N 77毅41. 13忆 W 432 356 92 448
Moreland Lake Complex SNA 44毅25. 13忆 N 77毅24. 68忆 W 1 269 391 70 461
Morrow Bay Woods Conservation Area 44毅15. 41忆 N 78毅2. 303忆 W 80 137 18 155
Murray Hills Headwater SNA 44毅7. 139忆 N 77毅39. 47忆 W 383 379 69 448
Nappan Island SNA 44毅23. 52忆 N 77毅49. 09忆 W 93 159 16 175
Northumberland County Forest SNA 44毅6. 599忆 N 78毅4. 248忆 W 783 282 90 372
Oak Lake SNA 44毅16. 44忆 N 77毅31. 47忆 W 274 335 86 421
O忆Melia鄄Lamey Lakes Wetland Conservation Area 44毅16. 08忆 N 77毅57. 91忆 W 60 307 54 361
Pancake Hill SNA 44毅22. 68忆 N 77毅25. 33忆 W 92 33 58 91
Point Pelee National Park 41毅57. 47忆 N 82毅30. 85忆 W 1 550 — — 838
Puslinch Tract Conservation Area 43毅25. 98忆 N 80毅14. 76忆 W 107 163 72 235
Rawdon Marsh Conservation Area 44毅24. 41忆 N 77毅31. 81忆 W 67 107 7 114
Rawdon Wetland and Alvar Complex SNA 44毅26. 28忆 N 77毅32. 72忆 W 697 368 67 435
RBG鄄Rock Chapel 43毅17. 58忆 N 79毅52. 55忆 W 74 220 94 315
RBG鄄Summed Nature Sanctuaries 43毅16. 38忆 N 79毅54. 91忆 W 772 735 302 1 037
Rubberweed Nature Reserve 45毅7. 860忆 N 81毅26. 16忆 W 67 — — 206
Rylstone Wetland Conservation Area 44毅21. 78忆 N 77毅40. 51忆 W 145 302 42 344
Salt Creek Valley SNA 44毅9. 060忆 N 77毅55. 54忆 W 607 383 76 459
Skinner Bluff Conservation Area 44毅47. 16忆 N 81毅1. 884忆 W 1 052 — — 198
Slaughter Island Conservation Area 44毅22. 91忆 N 77毅50. 65忆 W 9 117 9 126
Spirit Rock Conservation Area 44毅45. 72忆 N 81毅10. 78忆 W 86 — — 222
Spring Valley Headwater SNA 44毅3. 960忆 N 77毅44. 95忆 W 104 232 49 281
Squire Creek Headwater SNA 44毅24. 30忆 N 77毅38. 59忆 W 904 375 45 420
St. Lawrence Islands National Park 44毅21. 00忆 N 75毅58. 69忆 W 527 — — 814
Stirling Slope Complex SNA 44毅14. 1忆 N 77毅34. 22忆 W 200 251 33 284
The Glen Conservation Area 44毅36. 90忆 N 80毅59. 98忆 W 1 168 — — 298
Trout Creek Wetland Conservation Area 44毅15. 84忆 N 77毅52. 64忆 W 121 258 28 286
Tubbs Corners Headwater SNA 44毅3. 179忆 N 77毅56. 59忆 W 181 284 48 332
Vernonville Headwater SNA 44毅3. 780忆 N 77毅58. 72忆 W 67 225 32 257
Wicklow Creek Headwater SNA 44毅1. 319忆 N 77毅58. 15忆 W 83 229 38 267
ANSI=Area of Natural and Scientific Interest; RBG=Royal Botanical Gardens; SNA=Significant Natural Area
7211 期摇 摇 摇 David A. GALBRAITH: The Evolving Role of Botanical Gardens and Natural Areas: A Floristics . . . 摇 摇 摇
摇 摇 The regression analysis excluding RBG provided
a means of comparing expected and observed species
richness. All observed values were much higher than
expected values ( Table 2). The observed species
richness for all of RBG was 223% greater than the
expected richness, and for the three sanctuaries, ob鄄
Fig. 2摇 Relationship between the total number of species and the log10
area of parks found in Ontario. The solid line represents the estimated
linear regression; the dashed lines are the 95% confidence interval
on the regression equation (r2 =0. 525, P<0. 0001)
Table 2摇 Observed and expected species richness of vascular plants
RBG nature sanctuaries. Expected species richness was calculated
in each case using the observed relationship between species
richness and log (area) for Ontario parks, excluding the
same RBG properties, as calculated by linear regression
Area Area(ha)
Observed
species
richness
Expected
species
richness
Observed
as % of
expected
Cootes Paradise Nature
Sanctuary 541 929 428 217
Hendrie Valley Nature
Sanctuary 114 555 269 206
Rock Chapel Nature
Sanctuary 74 315 225 140
Royal Botanical Gardens
(combined natural areas) 759
1 10372 465 223
Notes: 1—The total combined natural areas of Royal Botanical Gar鄄
dens listed here is less than the total area of the property owned by the
institution, as other areas include gardens and other land uses.
摇 2—The total combined species richness is less than the sum of
the richness in individual areas because many species were found in
more than one area
served richness ranged from 140% to 217% greater
than expected.
Fig. 3摇 Relationships between species richness and the area ( log10 )
of parks found in Ontario. A: all vascular plants (r2 =0.514, P<0. 0001).
B: native vascular plant species (r2 =0. 479, P<0. 0001) . C: intro鄄
duced vascular plant species ( r2 = 0. 192, P = 0. 001) . The solid
lines represent estimated linear regressions; dashed lines are the 95%
confidence interval on the regression equations
821摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 植 物 分 类 与 资 源 学 报摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 第 33 卷
Discussion
Variation in the number of species found in dif鄄
ferent geographic areas has been a fundamental focus
in ecology (Connor and McCoy, 1979). Two estab鄄
lished biogeographic patterns are the species鄄area re鄄
lationship and the latitudinal diversity gradient. The
species鄄area relationship refers to the tendency of
species richness to increase with increasing area,
while the latitudinal diversity gradient describes a
decrease in species richness as distance from the
equator increases (Qian et al., 2007). These rela鄄
tionships are consistent among different taxonomic
groups and geographic areas ( Lomolino, 2000;
Lyons and Willig, 2002; Hillebrand, 2004).
The nature sanctuaries at Royal Botanical Gar鄄
dens display greater total vascular species richness,
native species richness, and introduced species rich鄄
ness, than expected on the basis of their area. There
are several possible explanations for these results,
including factors that drive diversity, as well as fac鄄
tors that artificially inflate the relative species rich鄄
ness.
These nature sanctuaries lie at the transition
zone between the Deciduous Forest Region and the
Great Lakes鄄St. Lawrence Forest Regions, which
may contribute to the high species richness in the ar鄄
ea. Due to the topography of the landscape and
proximity to Lake Ontario, a wide array of vegetation
communities and soil types exist on RBG properties.
Habitats such as Carolinian forest, coastal wetland,
remnant oak prairie and savannah, cliff and talus
slopes are all found at RBG.
Observations of species richness are a function
of the habitats sampled and intensity of sampling ef鄄
fort. In addition to the biological and geographic fac鄄
tors influencing RBG忆s richness, it is quite probable
that RBG忆 s nature sanctuaries have been sampled
more intensely than the other parks included in this
analysis. RBG忆s Spontaneous Flora is a result of six
decades of floristic inventories undertaken by staff
botanists and is supported by herbarium vouchers.
The frequency and intensity of botanical inventories,
as well as the level of botanical skill, likely varied
for all other parks. It is likely that most parks con鄄
sidered in this study do not have a full鄄time botanist
on staff.
Species that were found historically within indi鄄
vidual protected areas but that may now be locally
extinct (“ extirpated冶) were included in this analy鄄
sis, as there is no practical means of checking the
floristic inventories for extirpated species. As a re鄄
sult, relative species richness could be inflated for
those areas where extirpation has taken place. It is
also difficult to compare total numbers of plants
across checklists without examining all of the lists for
nomenclatural consistency. The level of botanical
expertise employed in floristic inventories, and / or
the year that the inventories were conducted could
both affect the species reported for a given area.
The sample of parks for which data were availa鄄
ble to this study may not be an ideal representation
of the diversity in size, shape, and location of pro鄄
tected areas within the Mixed Wood Plain Ecozone.
For example, the high concentration of analyzed
parks in just two counties (Fig. 1) may have intro鄄
duced a confounding geographic effect into the spe鄄
cies area relationship. In addition, we were unable
to attain species checklists or information on species
richness for Provincial Parks, and no data could be
obtained from parks in close proximity to RBG. A
more complete analysis of the relationship of plant
species diversity and the areas of protected parks is
clearly warranted. Furthermore, more work to docu鄄
ment plant species diversity within protected areas is
needed to understand these relationships, and guide
park development and management. Three of the
other parks similar in size to RBG included in the
present study (Georgian Bay Islands National Park,
Point Pelee National Park and St. Lawrence Islands
National Park) also presented higher than expected
species richness. At present, Canada does not have
a formal process for designating important plant are鄄
as, a tool used to raise awareness and promote con鄄
servation in some jurisdictions ( Plantlife, 2010).
9211 期摇 摇 摇 David A. GALBRAITH: The Evolving Role of Botanical Gardens and Natural Areas: A Floristics . . . 摇 摇 摇
Further research on plant species richness will be
important to such efforts.
Introduced plants within RBG忆s nature sanctua鄄
ries account for 29% of the total species richness
(36% if all natural land holdings are considered),
which is slightly lower than the proportion for the
Province of Ontario (33% ) (CESCC, 2006). Al鄄
though introduced species contribute to the overall
richness at RBG, they are not the sole cause for
RBG presenting the extraordinary species richness
demonstrated in the present study. Introduced spe鄄
cies richness has been correlated with native species
richness, and both are correlated with human settle鄄
ment and population density ( Stohlgren et al.,
2006; Pautasso and McKinney, 2007). The diverse
land uses that surround RBG忆 s nature sanctuaries
may have facilitated plant introduction, particularly
given the extensive cultivated gardens managed by RBG.
From our preliminary analysis of species rich鄄
ness鄄area relationships, it is clear that the more we
look, the more we find. New species are still being
added to the RBG checklist after decades of inten鄄
sive botanical research. If the intensity of expert sur鄄
veys at RBG has yet to produce a comprehensive
checklist, the “single season, single botanist check鄄
lists冶 typical for many other reserves have likely
overlooked a substantial portion of their floras. Un鄄
fortunately, we do not have access to objective quan鄄
tification of the search effort for most natural areas.
However, our experience suggests that the species鄄
effort curve may be as important as the species鄄area
curve in understanding botanical diversity.
Urban botanical gardens, and urban nature re鄄
serves generally, can effectively serve as public rec鄄
reation areas and at the same time protect natural
heritage. However, conserving plants in both in situ
and ex situ circumstances within a single institution
can be challenging (Galbraith, 2003). Royal Bo鄄
tanical Gardens is located within the economic and
population center of Canada. Despite growing pres鄄
sures to develop new recreation trails and over鄄
whelming demand on existing infrastructure, RBG
sanctuaries continue to provide high鄄quality habitat
for dozens of rare and endangered species. Further鄄
more, ongoing monitoring of the sanctuaries will pro鄄
vide scientists with the data necessary to assess the
success of this mission in future.
Botanical gardens such as RBG provide a rare
example of high鄄quality natural habitats that are pro鄄
tected from development and that are also supported
by long鄄term, expert staff capable of documenting
year鄄to鄄year changes in the flora. As human popula鄄
tion increases, climate change accelerates, and in鄄
troduced plants and animals become more pervasive,
this combination of nature preserves and human ex鄄
pertise will be increasingly valuable in monitoring
and managing our changing environment.
Acknowledgements: The assistance of Professor Ma Jin鄄
shuang and Dr. Zuo Yunjuan are gratefully acknowledged.
We thank the Shanghai Chenshan Botanical Garden, the Chi鄄
nese Academy of Sciences, Botanic Gardens Conservation In鄄
ternational and all of the sponsors of the 2010 Shanghai Chen鄄
shan Botanical Garden International Symposium for travel and
other support that permitted participation in the symposium.
We are grateful to the many years of contributions to florstic
knowledge of RBG properties contributed by past and current
staff. In particular we acknowledge the founding contributions
of A. Tamsalu between 1955 and 1960. This paper consti鄄
tutes RBG Contribution 192.
References:
Argus GW, Pryer KM, 1990. Rare vascular plants in Canada: Our
natural heritage [ M]. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Nature,
(Ontario, Canada)
Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council ( CESCC ),
2006. Wild Species 2005: The General Status of Species in Can鄄
ada. Ottawa. Canadian Wildlife Service [OL]. URL: http: / /
www. wildspecies. ca / wildspecies2005 / index. cfm? lang=e
Connor EF, McCoy ED, 1979. The statistics and biology of the spe鄄
cies鄄area relationship [J] . The American Naturalist, 113 (6):
791—833
Galbraith DA, 2003. Natural Areas at Public Gardens: Creative Ten鄄
sions and Conservation Opportunities [ J] . The Public Garden,
the Journal of the AABGA, 18 (2): 10—13
Garcia鄄Dominguez E, Kennedy K, 2003. Benefits of working with
natural areas [J] . The Public Garden, the Journal of the AABGA,
18 (3): 8—44
031摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 植 物 分 类 与 资 源 学 报摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 第 33 卷
Hillebrand H, 2004. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gra鄄
dient [J] . The American Naturalist, 163: 192—211
Laking L, 2006. Blood, sweat and soil: A history of Royal Botanical
Gardens, 1930 to 1981 [M]. Burlington: Auxiliary of the Royal
Botanical Gardens, (Ontario, Canada)
Lomolino MV, 2000. Ecology忆s most general, yet protean pattern: the
species鄄area relationship [ J] . Journal of Biogeography, 27:
17—26
Lord JB, 1980. Aleksander Tamsalu 1891-1960: a botanist in exile.
Royal Botanical Gardens Technical Bulletin 11 [M]. Hamilton:
Royal Botanical Gardens, (Ontario, Canada)
Lyons SK, Willig MR, 2002. Species richness, latitude and scale鄄
sensitivity [J] . Ecology, 83 (1): 47—58
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al., 2000. Biodiversity
hotspots for conservation priorities [ J] . Nature, 403: 853—
858
Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), 2010. Biodiversity Ex鄄
plorer. Toronto, Ontario, Canada Queen忆 s Printer for Ontario
[OL]. URL: https: / / www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr. gov. on. ca /
nhicWEB /main.jsp
Pautasso M, McKinney ML, 2007. The botanist effect revisited:
plants species richness, county area, and human population size
in the United States [ J ] . Conservation Biology, 21 ( 5 ):
1333—1340
Plantlife, 2010. Important Plant Areas around the world: Target 5 of
the CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation [M]. Salisbury,
UK. Plantlife International
Pringle JS, 1995. Prior history of floristic exploration in the Hamilton鄄
Wentworth Region [A]. In: Goodban AG. The vascular plant
flora of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton鄄Wentworth, Ontario
[M]. Ancaster: Hamilton Region Conservation Authority, 8—15
(Ontario, Canada)
Pringle JS, 1969. Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of the
Royal Botanical Gardens, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Royal Bo鄄
tanical Gardens Technical Bulletin No. 4 [M]. Burlington: Roy鄄
al Botanical Gardens, (Ontario, Canada)
Qian H, Fridley JD, Palmer MW, 2007. The latitudinal gradient of
species鄄area relationships for vascular plants of North America
[J] . The American Naturalist, 170 (5): 690—701
Rothfels CJ, 2003. Significant 2002 Hamilton Study Area plant re鄄
cords from the Royal Botanical Gardens herbarium (HAM) [J] .
Wood Duck, 56 (7): 155—161
Rothfels CJ, 2004. Significant vascular plant records from the Hamil鄄
ton area, Ontario [ J] . Canadian Field鄄Naturalist, 118 (4):
612—615
Rothfels CJ, 2005a. Significant 2004 Hamilton Study Area Plant Re鄄
cords from the Royal Botanical Gardens Herbarium (HAM). Part
II: Alphabetical Families Lardizabalaceae to Vitaceae [ J ] .
Wood Duck, 58 (9): 219—223
Rothfels CJ, 2005b. Significant 2004 Hamilton Study Area Plant Re鄄
cords from the Royal Botanical Gardens Herbarium (HAM). Part
I: Alphabetical Families Aceraceae to Lamiaceae [ J] . Wood
Duck, 58 (8): 187—192
Rothfels CJ, 2006a. Significant Hamilton Study Area Plant Records
from the Herbarium of Royal Botanical Gardens (HAM): 2005
(Part 1) [J] . Wood Duck, 60 (3): 60—62
Rothfels CJ, 2006b. Significant Hamilton Study Area Plant Records
from the Herbarium of Royal Botanical Gardens (HAM): 2005
(Part 2) [J] . Wood Duck, 60 (4): 83—84
Rothfels CJ, 2007. Significant Hamilton Study Area Plant Records
from the Herbarium of Royal Botanical Gardens (HAM): 2005
(Part 3) [J] . Wood Duck, 60 (5): 106—111
Rothfels CJ, Spisani S, Sylvester J, 2004. Significant 2003 Hamilton
Study Area plant records from the Royal Botanical Gardens her鄄
barium (HAM) [J] . Wood Duck, 57 (9): 213—219
Smith T, 2003. Checklist of the spontaneous flora of Royal Botanical
Gardens忆 nature sanctuaries [ M]. Burlington: Royal Botanical
Gardens, (Ontario, Canada)
Smith T, Lundholm J, Simser L, 2001. Wetland vegetation monito鄄
ring in Cootes Paradise: Measuring the response of a fishway / carp
barrier [J] . Ecological Restoration, 19: 145—154
Stohlgren TJ, Barnett D, Flather C et al., 2006. Species richness and
patterns of invasion in plants, birds, and fishes in the United
States [J] . Biological Invasions, 8: 443—463
SYSTAT Software, 2009. SYSTAT, version 13. 0. Richmond, Cali鄄
fornia, USA. SYSTAT Software, Inc
United Nations, 2009. Population of Urban Agglomerations with
750 000 Inhabitants or More in 2009, by Country, 1950-2025.
World Urbanization Prospects, the 2009 Revision [OL]. URL:
http: / / esa.un.org /unpd /wup /index.htm
Appendix: Checklist of the Spontaneous Flora of Royal Botanical Gardens, Ontario, Canada
For electronic version of the checklist download address: http: / / journal.kib.ac.cn /CN /volumn /volumn_1296.
shtml
1311 期摇 摇 摇 David A. GALBRAITH: The Evolving Role of Botanical Gardens and Natural Areas: A Floristics . . . 摇 摇 摇