Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:01:12.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crop diversity and plant–plant interactions in urban allotment gardens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2016

Matthew E. Woods ,
Rehman Ata ,
Zachary Teitel ,
Nishara M. Arachchige ,
Yi Yang ,
Brian E. Raychaba ,
James Kuhns  and
Lesley G. Campbell
Matthew E. Woods
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Biology, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
Rehman Ata
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Biology, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
Zachary Teitel
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Biology, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
Nishara M. Arachchige
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Biology, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
Yi Yang
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Biology, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
Brian E. Raychaba
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Biology, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
James Kuhns
Affiliation:
Toronto Urban Growers, http://www.torontourbangrowers.org/ Centre for Studies in Food Security, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
Lesley G. Campbell*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Biology, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Allotment food gardens represent important sources of food security for urban residents. Since urban gardeners rarely receive formal agricultural education and have extremely limited space, they may be relying on readily available gardening advice (e.g., seed packet instructions), inventing cultural strategies that consider inter-specific competitive dynamics, or making poor planting decisions. Knowledge of garden crop diversity and planting arrangements can aid in designing strategies for productive urban gardens and food systems. We surveyed 96 individual plots in 10 allotment gardens in the Toronto region, assessed crop diversity within gardens and recorded planting practices used by urban gardeners by measuring the proximity of individual plants relative to similar or different crop species. We also compared planting densities used by urban gardeners with those recommended by major seed distributers. Collectively, Toronto urban agriculture contributes substantially to urban plant diversity (108 crops), but each plot tends to be relatively depauperate. Carrots and lettuce were three to five times more likely to be planted in clusters than intermingled with other crops (P < 0.05); whereas gardeners did not appear to use consistent planting arrangements for tomatoes or zucchini. Gardeners tended to plant tomatoes and zucchini 56–62.5% more densely than recommended by seed distributers (P < 0.001), whereas they planted 147 times fewer carrots in a given area than recommended (P < 0.05). Furthermore, neither crop planting density nor crop diversity changed with plot size. The planting arrangements we have documented suggest gardeners using allotment plots attempt plant densely in extremely limited space, and are employing cultural strategies that intensify competitive dynamics within gardens. Future research should assess the absolute and relative effect of altered cultural practices on yield, such that any modifications can be prioritized by their impact on yield.

Keywords

crop diversitydomestic gardensintercroppingplanting densitypolycultureurban agriculture
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 2016 , pp. 540 - 549
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Speidel, J.J., Weiss, D.C., Ethelston, S.A., and Gilbert, S.M. 2009. Population policies, programmes and the environment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences 364(1532):3049–3065.Google Scholar
2. Kremen, C., Iles, A., and Bacon, C. 2012. Diversified farming systems: An agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecology and Society 17(4):44.Google Scholar
3. Hinrichsen, D. and Rowley, J. 1999. Planet Earth 2025. A look into a future world of 8 billion humans. People and the Planet/IPPF, UNFPA, IUCN 8(4):14–15.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Clark, K.H. and Nicholas, K.A. 2013. Introducing urban food forestry: A multifunctional approach to increase food security and provide ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 28(9):1649–1669.Google Scholar
5. Wortman, S.E. and Taylor-Lovell, S. 2013. Environmental challenges threatening the growth of urban agriculture in the United States. Journal of Environmental Quality 42:1283–1294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Doyle, R. and Krasny, M. 2003. Participatory rural appraisal as an approach to environmental education in urban community gardens. Environmental Education Research 9(1):91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Saldivar-Tanaka, L. and Krasny, M.E. 2004. Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values 21(4):399–412.Google Scholar
8. Warner, K.D. 2008. Agroecology as participatory science: Emerging alternatives to technology transfer extension practice. Science, Technology, and Human Values 33:754–777.Google Scholar
9. Rosset, P.M., Sosa, B.M., Jaime, A.M.R., and Lozano, D.R.A. 2011. The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: Social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 38:161–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Vandermeer, J. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
11. Neto, F.B., Porto, V.C.N., Gomes, E.G., Cecilio Filho, A.B., and Moreira, J.N. 2012. Assessment of agroeconomic indices in polycultures of lettuce, rocket and carrot through uni- and multivariate approaches in semi-arid Brazil. Ecological Indicators 14(1):11–17.Google Scholar
12. Xu, W., Wu, F., Chang, C., Liu, S., and Zhou, Y. 2013. Effects of wheat as companion cropping on growth, soil enzymes and disease resistance of watermelon. Allelopathy Journal 32(2):267–277.Google Scholar
13. Picasso, V.D., Brummer, E.C., Liebman, M., Dixon, P.M., and Wilsey, B.J. 2011. Diverse perennial crop mixtures sustain higher productivity over time based on ecological complementarity. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 26(4):317–327.Google Scholar
14. Soni, P., Taewichit, C., and Salokhe, V.M. 2013. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in rainfed agricultural production systems of Northeast Thailand. Agricultural Systems 116:25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Amosse, C., Jeuffroy, M.-H., and David, C. 2013. Relay intercropping of legume cover crops in organic winter wheat: Effects on performance and resource availability. Field Crops Research 145:78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Gross, K., Cardinale, B.J., Fox, J.W., Gonzalez, A., Loreau, M., Polley, H.W., Reich, P.B., and van Ruijven, J. 2014. Species richness and the temporal stability of biomass production: A new analysis of recent biodiversity experiments. American Naturalist 183(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Taylor, J.R. and Lovell, T.S. 2015. Urban home gardens in the Global North: A mixed methods study of ethnic and migrant home gardens in Chicago, IL. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 30(1):22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. de Souza Gondim, T.M., de Macedo Beltrao, N.E., Pereira, W.E., de Oliveira, A.P., and da Silva Filho, J.L. 2014. Phenotypic plasticity in the early castor bean under different spatial arrangements when intercropped with cowpea. Revista Ciencia Agronomica 45(1):128–137.Google Scholar
19. Yang, F., Huang, S., Gao, R., Liu, W., Yong, T., and Wang, X., Wu, X., and Yang, W. 2014. Growth of soybean seedlings in relay strip intercropping systems in relation to light quantity and red: Far-red ratio. Field Crops Research 155:245–253.Google Scholar
20. Jaganmohan, M., Vailshery, L.S., Gopal, D., and Nagendra, H. 2015. Plant diversity and distribution in urban domestic gardens and apartments in Bangalore, India. Urban Ecosystems 15(4):911–925.Google Scholar
21. Gordon, E. 2013. Under-served and un-deserving: Youth empowerment programs, poverty discourses and subject formation. Geoforum 50:107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Zick, C.D., Smith, K.R., Kowaleski-Jones, L., Uno, C., and Merrill, B.J. 2013. Harvesting more than vegetables: The potential weight control benefits of community gardening. American Journal of Public Health 103(6):1110–1115.Google Scholar
23. Armstrong, D. 2000. A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implications for health promotion and community development. Health and Place 6:319–327.Google Scholar
24. Whittinghill, L.J. and Rowe, D.B. 2012. The role of green roof technology in urban agriculture. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 27(4):314–322.Google Scholar
25. Patel, I.C. 1996. Rutgers urban gardening: A case study in urban agriculture. Journal of Agriculture and Food Information 3(3):35–46.Google Scholar
26. Baker, L. 2002. Seeds of Our City: Case Studies from Eight Diverse Gardens in Toronto. Foodshare Education and Research Office, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
27. Hol, W.H.G., Bezemer, T.M., and Biere, A. 2013. Getting the ecology into interactions between plants and the plant growth-promoting bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens . Frontiers in Plant Science 4. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00081 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Bomford, M.K. 2009. Do tomatoes love basil but hate brussels sprouts? Competition and land-use efficiency of popularly recommended and discouraged crop mixtures in biointensive agriculture systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33(4):396–417.Google Scholar
29. de Haan, J.L. and Vasseur, L. 2014. Above and below ground interactions in monoculture and intercropping of onion and lettuce in greenhouse conditions. American Journal of Plant Sciences 5(21). doi: 10.4236/ajps.2014.521347 Google Scholar
30. Ballaré, C.L., Scopel, A.L., and Sanchez, R.A. 1990. Far-red radiation reflected from adjacent leaves: An early signal of competition in plant canopies. Science 247:329–332.Google Scholar
31. Cressman, S.T., Page, E.R., and Swanton, C.J. 2011. Weeds and the red to far-red ratio of reflected light: Characterizing the influence of herbicide selection, dose, and weed species. Weed Science 59(3):424–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Maina, G.G., Brown, J.S., and Gersani, M. 2002. Intra-plant versus inter-plant root competition in beans: Avoidance, resource matching, or tragedy of the commons. Plant Ecology 160:235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Weiner, J., Andersen, S.B., Wille, W.K.M., Griepentrog, H.W., and Olsen, J.M. 2010. Evolutionary Agroecology: The potential for cooperative, high density, weed-suppressing cereals. Evolutionary Applications 3:473–479.Google Scholar
34. Jolliffe, P.A. and Wanjau, F.M. 1999. Competition and productivity in crop mixtures: Some properties of productive intercrops. Journal of Agricultural Science 132:425–435.Google Scholar
35. Postma, J.A. and Lynch, J.P. 2012. Complementarity in root architecture for nutrient uptake in ancient maize/bean and maize/bean/squash polycultures. Annals of Botany 110(2):521–534.Google Scholar
36. Rajaniemi, T.K. 2007. Root foraging traits and competitive ability in heterogeneous soils. Oecologia 153(1):145–152.Google Scholar
37. Nasr, J., MacRae, R., and Kuhns, J. 2010. Scaling up Urban Agriculture in Toronto: Building the Infrastructure. October 3, 2014. Report No.Google Scholar
38. Baker, L.E. 2004. Tending cultural landscapes and food citizenship in Toronto's community gardens. Geographical Review 94(3):305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., and Skinner, A. 2007. Growing urban health: Community gardening in South–East Toronto. Health Promotion International 22(2):92–101.Google Scholar
40. McKinney, M.L. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127(3):247–260.Google Scholar
41. Bernholt, H., Kehlenbeck, K., Gebauer, J., and Buerkert, A. 2009. Plant species richness and diversity in urban and peri-urban gardns of Niamey, Niger. Agroforestry Systems 77:159–179.Google Scholar
42. Kendal, D., Williams, N.S.G., and Williams, K.J.H. 2012. A cultivated environment: Exploring the global distribution of plants in gardens, parks and streetscapes. Urban Ecosystems 15:637–652.Google Scholar
43. Kendal, D., Williams, K.J.H., and Williams, N.S.G. 2012. Plant traits link people's plant preferences to the composition of their gardens. Landscape and Urban Planning 105:34–42.Google Scholar
44. Taylor, J.R. and Taylor Lovell, S. 2014. Urban home food gardens in the Global North: Research traditions and future directions. Agriculture and Human Values 31(2):285–305.Google Scholar
45. Clarke, L.W. and Jenerette, G.D. 2015. Biodiversity and direct ecosystem service regulation in the community gardens of Los Angeles, CA. Landscape Ecology 30:637–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46. Kowarik, I. 2008. On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegetation. In Marzluff, J.M., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., Bradley, M.A.G., Ryan, C., Simon, U., and ZumBrunnen, C. (eds). Urban Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans and Nature. Springer, New York. p. 321–338.Google Scholar
47. Hope, D., Gries, C., Zhu, W.X., Fagan, W.F., Redman, C.L., Grimm, N.B., Nelson, A.L., Martin, C., and Kinzig, A. 2003. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100(15):8788–8792.Google Scholar
48. Kuhn, I., Brandl, R., and Klotz, S. 2004. The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evolutionary Ecology 6:749–764.Google Scholar
49. Kent, M., Stevens, R.A., and Zhang, L. 1999. Urban plant ecology patterns and processes: A case study of the flora of the City of Plymouth, Devon, UK. Journal of Biogeography 26(6):1281–1298.Google Scholar
50. Thompson, K., Austin, K.C., Smith, R.M., Warren, P.H., Angold, P.G., and Gaston, K.J. 2003. Urban domestic gardens (I): Putting small-scale plant diversity in context. Journal of Vegetation Science 14(1):71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51. Thompson, K., Hodgson, J.G., Smith, R.M., Warren, P.H., and Gaston, K.J. 2004. Urban domestic gardens (III): Composition and diversity of lawn floras. Journal of Vegetation Science 15(3):373–378.Google Scholar
52. Carey, E. 2002. Toronto: Canada's Linguistic Capital. Toronto Star A, 11 December, §A, 3.Google Scholar
53. Roth, M. 2014. Toronto: ‘Most multicultural city in the world’. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 19 October. http://www.post-gazette.com/newimmigrants/2014/10/19/Toronto-bills-itself-as-the-most-multicultural-city-in-the-world/stories/201409260206.Google Scholar
54. Kortright, R. and Wakefield, S. 2011. Edible backyards: A qualitative study of household food growing and its contributions to food security. Agriculture and Human Values 28(1):39–53.Google Scholar
55. Alvarez-Buylla Roces, M.E. LazosChavero, E., and García-Barrios, J.R. 1989. Homegardens of a humid tropical region in Southeast Mexico: An example of an agroforestry crop- ping system in a recently established community. Agroforestry Systems 8:133–156 Google Scholar
56. Mailvaganam, S. 2014. Area, Production and Farm Value of Specified Commercial Vegetable Crops, Ontario, 2012–2013. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), Ontario, Canada. [cited 2015 January 9, 2015]. Available at Web site http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/hort/veg_all12-13.htm Google Scholar
57. CoDyre, M., Fraser, E.D.G., and Landman, K. 2015. How does your garden grow? An empirical evaluation of the costs and potential of urban gardening. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 14:72–79.Google Scholar
58. Schurle, B.W. and Erven, B.L. 1979. Return-risk tradeoffs associated with processing tomato production in Northwestern Ohio. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Research Bulletin 1111:3–24.Google Scholar
59. Schultz, B., Phillips, C., Rosset, P., and Vandermeer, J. 1982. An experiment in intercropping cucumbers and tomatoes in Southern Michigan, USA. Scientia Horticulturae 18(1):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60. Bomford, M. 2004. Yield, Pest Density, and Tomato Flavor Effects of Companion Planting in Garden-Scale Studies Incorporating Tomato, Basil, and Brussels Sprout. West Virginia University: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements IFOAM, Morgantown, VW.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61. Yildirim, E. and Guvenc, I. 2005. Intercropping based on cauliflower: More productive, profitable and highly sustainable. European Journal of Agronomy 22(1):11–18.Google Scholar
62. Guvenc, I. and Yildirim, E. 2006. Increasing productivity with intercropping systems in cabbage production. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 28(4):29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63. Brown, E.J. 1965. Extension and the urban environment. Journal of Cooperative Extension 3004:95–102.Google Scholar
64. Raes-Harms, A.M., Ricks-Presley, D., Hettiarachchi, G.M., and Thien, S.J. 2013. Assessing the educational needs of urban gardeners and farmers on the subject of soil contamination. Journal of Extension 51(1):1FEA10.Google Scholar
65. Barthel, S, Folke, C., and Colding, J. 2010. Social–ecological memory in urban gardens—retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 20(2):255–265.Google Scholar
66. Burdon, J.J. and Chilvers, G.A. 1982. Host density as a factor in plant disease ecology. Annual Review of Phytopathology 20:143–166.Google Scholar
67. Zhu, Y., Chen, H., Fan, J., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Chen, J., Fan, J.X., Yang, S., Hu, L., Leung, H., Mew, T.W., Teng, P.S., Wang, Z., and Mundt, C.C. 2000. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature 406:718–722.Google Scholar
68. Hernandez, D.D., Alves, P.L.C.A., and Salgado, T.P. 2002. Efeito da densidade e proporção de plantas de tomate industrial e de maria-pretinha em competição. Planta Daninha 20(2):229–236.Google Scholar
69. Baier, J.E., de Resende, J.T.V., Galvao, A.G., Battistelli, G.M., Machado, M.M., and Faria, M.V. 2009. Productivity and commercial yield of onion bulbs in function of growth density. Ciencia E Agrotecnologia 33(2):496–501.Google Scholar
70. Li, B., Watkinson, A.R. and Hara, T. 1996. Dynamics of competition in populations of carrot (Daucus carota). Annals of Botany 78(2):203–214.Google Scholar
71. Silvertown, J. and Charlesworth, D. 2005. Introduction to Plant Population Biology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
72. Weiner, J. 2004. Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 6:207–215.Google Scholar
73. Dewaelheyns, V., Elsen, A., Vandenriessche, H., Gulinck, H., Dewaelheyns, V., Elsen, A., Vandendriessche, H., and Gulinck, H. 2013. Garden management and soil fertility in Flemish domestic gardens. Landscape and Urban Planning 116:25–35.Google Scholar
74. Witzling, L., Wander, M., and Phillips, E. 2011. Testing and educating on urban soil lead: A case of Chicago community gardens. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 1(2):167–185.Google Scholar
75. Norris, R.F., Elmore, C.L., Rejmanek, M., and Akey, W.C. 2001. Spatial arrangement, density, and competition between barnyardgrass and tomato: I. Crop growth and yield. Weed Science 49(1):61–68.Google Scholar
76. Taylor, J.R. and Lovell, S.T. 2012. Mapping public and private spaces of urban agriculture in Chicago through the analysis of high-resolution aerial images in Google Earth. Landscape and Urban Planning 108(1):57–70.Google Scholar