Private Urban Greenspaces or “Patios” as a Key Element in the Urban Ecology of Tropical Central America

Full text

Private Urban Greenspaces or “Patios”as a Key Element
in the Urban Ecology of Tropical Central America
Alberto González-García &Antonio Gómez Sal
Published online: 29 January 2008
#Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007
Introduction
Urban ecology is a relatively new discipline (Sukopp 1998;
2002) but is the subject of growing interest due to the
increasing size of cities and the ever more blurred
boundaries between rural and urban areas. In recent years,
there have numerous studies on the plant communities that
appear spontaneously in different urban habitats. The
diversity and abundance of these communities has been
frequently associated with land use and urbanisation
gradients (McDonell and Pickett 1990; Blair 1996; Kent
et al. 1999; Luck and Wu 2002; Hope et al. 2003), as well
as with historical components and building types (Starfinger
and Sukopp 1994; Kent et al. 1999;Danaet al. 2002; Zerbe
et al. 2003).
Some attempts have been made to highlight the
importance and contribution to biodiversity of urban
gardens, especially in the UK (Owen and Owen 1975;
Owen 1991, Thompson et al. 2003). Other authors describe
urban gardens as “the last great system to be studied by
urban ecologists”(Gilbert 1989), or as systems in which
humans create new and very directed plant communities
(Whitney and Adams 1980). Beck et al. (2001) analysed
sample gardens from an energetic point of view, highlight-
ing their strong dependence on external inputs. In terms of
landscape ecology, urban gardens are important in terms of
the connection between urban green areas and quality of
life (Rudd et al. 2002). Unfortunately, very little attention
has been paid to these systems despite the fact that in many
growing cities the area they occupy and the biodiversity
they harbour are greater than those of other urban areas
(Thompson et al. 2003). Studies have been made, however,
of indigenous patios with tropical home gardens character-
istics equivalent to multistratified agroforestry systems
widely found in rural areas and even in some cities
(Christanty 1990; WinklerPrins 2003). Although urban
agricultural production in tropical cities constitutes a
substantial element in food provision, despite many general
observations (Altieri et al. 1999; Madaleno 2000; Boncodin
et al. 2001), it has been the focus of very little scientific
research.
The Study Area
The city of León is located in western Nicaragua (Fig. 1),
approximately 12° 26′N, 86° 53′W, at an altitude of 109 m
above sea level. The area has a dry tropical climate with an
average of 1,385 mm annual rainfall, concentrated mainly
between May and October (INIFOM 2000). The mean
temperature is 27°C; the difference between the warmest
and coldest months is less than 5°C (Marín 1988). The city
lies on a physiographic unit of wide plains running parallel
to the Pacific coast. The soils are formed from ashes
released by volcanic activity (Taylor 1963; Marín 1988),
usually andosols and regosols.
The vegetation consists of dry tropical forests, charac-
terised by the presence of two tree layers, the highest of
which is some 20–25 m above the ground (Stevens et al.
2001). Extensive fragmentation and degradation of the
original ecosystem has caused the disappearance of mature
forest (Janzen 1988; Gillespie et al. 2000). Common forest
Hum Ecol (2008) 36:291–300
DOI 10.1007/s10745-007-9155-0
A. González-García (*):A. G. Sal
Departamento de Ecología, Universidad de Alcalá,
28871 Alcalá de Henares (Madrid), Spain
e-mail: alberto.gonzalez@uah.es

species that were also recorded in urban patios are Bursera
simaruba,Calycophyllum candidissimum and Ceiba pen-
trandra. In degraded areas common tree and bushe species
include Pithecellobium dulce,Gliricidia sepium,Byrsonima
crassifolia and Crescentia alata, which is dominant in the
“jicaro”savannah around León city and a very popular
multipurpose tree in rural and urban indigenous patios. All
the latter species are more frequently found in urban patios
that the forest species.
As for the previous knowledge about biodiversity at
León city, Paguaga (2000) realized a first survey of urban
flora, and Dávila (2001) studied bird community at
periurban areas. The urban development of León is the
result of its different cultural heritages, the colonial Spanish
and pre-Hispanic indigenous cultures being the most
important. It was founded in 1610 in its current position,
very close (2 km) to the indigenous settlement of Sutiaba.
The historic centre with its colonial buildings is very
different to the Sutiaba neighbourhood, although they are
now united by the overall urban of a central park connected
to secondary neighbourhood centers (Buitrago 1987), and
both differ in building design and historical development
from the newer cheaply built neighbourhoods that have
grown in the peripheral areas of the city in recent decades.
The population of León was 143,878 in 2000 (INIFOM
2000). In recent years, the annual municipal growth rate has
been 3.15%. There are an estimated 27,882 houses
(INIFOM-AMUNIC 1997), with about six people living
in each. Patios are a basic element of León's dwellings, no
matter what type of construction. The total number of
patios in the city is unknown, though houses with no patio
are very rare.
Historically, León's economy was driven by the cultiva-
tion of cotton and the leather industry, but the services
sector is now its mainstay, followed by secondary industry
(mainly manufacturing) and finally cattle rearing (López
2002). Tourism, a potentially important activity for the city,
is almost nonexistent.
Public green areas are mostly limited squares adjacent to
the main churches and two large periurban parks (Arlen Siú
and Campus agropecuario). Most urban parks are in a poor
state of conservation, with little municipal investment. They
have extensive paved areas, with isolated shade trees
(including Ficus benjamina,Delonix regia,Tecoma stans
and Callycophylum candissimun) and some ornamental
hedges (including Codiaeum variegatum and two species of
Polyscias). We estimate that private patios comprise more
than 85% of overall urban green spaces in terms of surface
(Table 1), including riverbanks and periurban country
houses.
Fig. 1 Situation of León city in Nicaragua and sampled houses. The map shows the three sectors used in the sampling design
Table 1 Urban and peri-urban green areas in León city
Urban green
area
% Surface of urban
green areas
% Surface of overall
green areas
Patios or private
gardens
96.1 (2,635,300 m
2
) 86.2 (3,391,600 m
2
)
Riversides 2.9 (79,600 m
2
) 3.0 (143,000 m
2
)
Peri-urban
country houses
0.0 3.0 (140,120 m
2
)
Peri-urban parks 0.0 2.1 (231,430 m
2
)
Urban parks 1.0 (27,470 m
2
) 0.6 (27,470 m
2
)
Calculations based on the GIS and the City Map of León (1:10.000)
292 Hum Ecol (2008) 36:291–300

This study examines two hypotheses: (1) that plant
diversity (species as plant forms) in urban patios reflects
processes of cultural and historical development, and (2)
that urban patio plant diversity is independent of urban and
historic dynamics and depends mainly on individual
choices.
Methodology
Sampling was conducted between July and September of
2001 (53 sampled houses) and 2002 (30 sampled houses),
for a total of 83 houses. Measured variables did not vary
between the two sampling periods and both were during the
same season. In addition to a central patio, some colonial
houses have a backyard patio (“traspatio”). Other building
types have only a central or a backyard patio. The sampling
unit was the individual house, but patios and traspatios
were considered as separate “analysis units”due to
significant differences in plant composition and uses
between them. The total number of patios recorded in the
83 houses was 96.
We used a random and stratified sampling design. The
three established city sectors—the colonial centre of the
city, the indigenous neighbourhood of Sutiaba, and the re-
cent settlements of more modern construction (Fig. 1)—are
clearly differentiated in terms of the general type of their
buildings and their historical development. From the total
of sampled houses, 55 were randomly surveyed from the
city sectors. The remainder were not randomly selected
both because of their good state of repair and because they
were designated representative in an earlier survey by local
experts (Table 2). A cluster analysis including only random
samples was the basis for classification. The later addition
of specifically selected patios did not alter the outcome.
During sampling, information was recorded on floristic
and the structural composition of the patio vegetation
(abundance, use/aim, species, height and coverage), as well
as information on the structure and management of the
patio (area, type, presence of corridors, irrigation). The first
goal was to categorize the patios according to plant species.
Next, the patios were categorized by diversity and rarity
indices, and variables related to management and structure.
Data were analysed by a divisive multivariate analysis
(Ward's method), the calculation of different indices, tests
of normality of the variables (Shapiro–Wilks test), and non-
parametric tests (Kruskal–Wallis and the Mann–Whitney U
test). All analyses were performed using PC-ORD software
for Windows (McCune and Mefford 1999) or Statistica
software for Windows (StatSoft 1996).
Results
Two hundred and ninety three plant species belonging to 88
families were recorded in the 96 patios examined. The
mean species richness was 26.21 (SD = 19.77). The family
Euphorbiaceae was the most represented (19 species),
followed by Araceae (17), Poaceae, and Rutaceae (10).
The aroids were the most important in terms of frequency
of appearance. The species Dieffenbachia spp. (Araceae)
was the most common, followed by Nephrolepis biserrata
(Nephrolepidaceae) and Caladium bicolor (Araceae); all
ornamental. Half of the species recorded were found in <5%
of the samples.
In terms of their origin (based on Stevens et al. 2001),
more than 80% of the species recorded were tropical,
although not usually native to the study region:
&Native species: 37.54%
&Exotic species: 57.67%
o Neotropical: 10.60%
o Palaeotropical: 28.96%
o Other areas: 18.11%
o No data: 4.78%
It must be emphasised that some exotic species, such as
mangoes, tamarind and citrus trees, were introduced several
centuries ago. They are now very widespread and local
varieties have been developed.
Multivariate Analysis
Classification analysis used Ward's minimum variance
method (McCune and Mefford 1999) to identify groups of
patios with similar floristic compositions. The variables
introduced to classify the patios were the presence/absence
of the different plant species appearing in more than two
inventories (a total of 179 species). Two clusters were
obtained, the first using the random samples and the second
with the selected samples. Results show four patio groups
in the first cluster and six in the second (Fig. 2). The four
Table 2 Sampling
organisation City centre Sutiaba neighbourhood Outskirts
Random Selected Random Selected Random Selected Total
Houses 30 20 15 7 10 0 83
Patios and traspatios 33 28 18 7 10 0 96
Hum Ecol (2008) 36:291–300 293

groups (random samples) were not altered by the addition
of the selected samples. For this discussion, the six groups
of selected of patios are used.
Floristic Composition and Diversity
Values of species richness for the different patio groups
were very different, although these differences were
attenuated when size was taken into account (Table 3).
Similar results were obtained with the Shannon index and
for the rarity of species. Values of beta diversity showed
great heterogeneity, being highest in the “recent patios”
group (A), which also showed the lowest species richness.
Table 4shows most frequent species in each group.
Self-seeded plants were important in the “indigenous”
groups (C, D) (Table 3), the most common being typical of
ruderal (nitrophilous) environments: Rauvolfia tetraphylla,
Carica papaya,Cordia dentata,Psidium guajava and
Pithecellobium dulce.
Vegetation Structure
To analyse the vegetation structure, a simplified classifica-
tion of life forms was used (Table 5). Some groups showed
a dominance of woody species, while in others herbaceous
plants predominated. Palm and other life forms were less
important.
No significant differences were found in terms of plant
cover between the different patio groups, except for
understory trees, which were common in all groups except
colonial ones, which had practically no trees at all (Table 5)
(although the values for well-conserved indigenous and
colonial patios were high). The tree layer was differentiated
into two layers, similar to dry tropical forest: trees more
than 15 m high act as a canopy, while the understory layer
is between 5 and 15 m. Significant differences were found
among groups with respect to the frequency of canopy and
understory trees (p<0.001; Kruskal–Wallis test). Canopy
trees were commonly found in the indigenous patio groups
(C and D) but were rare in the others.
Linkage Distance
0 5 10 15 20
Group C
“Indigenous patios”
Group A
“Recent pa tios”
Group B
“Transitional
group”
Group F
“Transitional
group”
Linkage Distance
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
A “Recent patios”
B “Transitional group”
C “Indigenous patios”
D “Indigenous patios”
E “Colonial patios”
F
“Transitional group”
Fig. 2 In the left side, cluster obtained using Ward's method for 61
random samples (top) and both 96 random and selected samples
(bottom). In the right side, maps showing the situation of samples
distinguished by group. Four groups of patios according to plant
composition were distinguished in the first cluster and six groups in
the second. Group A coincides in all samples between the two
clusters; Group B coincides but adds four samples from other groups;
Group C have four less samples in the second cluster; and Group F
present changes in five samples
294 Hum Ecol (2008) 36:291–300

Table 4 Percentage of most common species in the total sampling, in each group
Species
a
Total A B C D E F
Dieffenbachia spp. 60.4 6.7 85.7 0.0 50.0 100.0 90.9
Nephrolepis biserrata 49.0 0.0 47.6 7.7 60.0 100.0 68.2
Caladium bicolor 47.9 0.0 33.3 7.7 80.0 73.3 86.4
Ixora casei 47.9 0.0 38.1 61.5 90.0 66.7 50.0
Cordyline fruticosa 44.8 0.0 42.9 30.8 80.0 66.7 54.5
Citrus xaurantium 42.7 53.5 28.6 61.5 90.0 6.7 40.9
Syngonium podophyllum 42.7 0.0 52.4 30.8 20.0 60.0 68.2
Capsicum annuum 41.7 6.7 38.1 30.8 90.0 46.7 50.0
Citrus xlimon 41.7 20.0 38.1 61.5 90.0 0.0 54.5
Aglaonema spp. 40.6 0.0 38.1 7.7 40.0 80.0 63.6
Chrysalidocarpus lutescens 40.6 6.7 33.3 7.7 30.0 80.0 68.2
Mangifera indica 38.5 40.0 14.3 92.3 80.0 0.0 36.4
Epipremnum aureum 37.5 0.0 42.9 0.0 20.0 60.0 72.7
Codiaeum variegatum 37.5 0.0 9.5 23.1 80.0 53.3 68.2
Begonia spp. 34.4 0.0 14.3 7.7 40.0 93.3 50.0
Psidium guajava 33.3 13.3 9.5 84.6 90.0 0.0 36.4
Portulaca grandiflora 33.3 6.7 23.8 15.4 40.0 60.0 50.0
Murraya paniculata 33.3 0.0 4.8 30.8 70.0 33.3 68.2
Musa xparadisiaca 32.3 13.3 23.8 46.1 100.0 26.7 18.2
Pilea microphylla 31.3 6.7 19.0 0.0 50.0 60.0 50.0
Rosa chinensis 30.2 0.0 28.6 7.7 40.0 93.3 18.2
a
Five of these species belong to Araceae family, three to Rutaceae family and the rest to other families
Table 3 Biodiversity and rarity indices of species in the patio groups
Category Group Species
richness
Species per
100 m
2
Shannon index
a
Evenness
a
β
w
diversity
% Spontaneous
species richness
Rare species
per patio
Colonial patios E 38.33 33.12 2.24 0.86 3.73 1.74 2.00
Transitional groups B 14.00 29.04 1.37 0.84 7.93 6.13 0.81
F 32.36 37.04 2.30 0.89 5.53 4.52 1.32
Indigenous gardens C 19.61 13.15 2.44 0.88 4.59 13.75 0.61
D 60.80 11.42 3.23 0.89 3.35 18.38 4.80
Recent patios A 4.80 7.57 0.98 0.75 8.96 8.73 0.40
Mean 26.21 24.17 2.00 0.85 11.14 7.79 1.12
Significant differences between groups (p<0.001; Kruskal–Wallis test) except evenness (n.s.)
a
Indices calculated with species abundance data, the rest of variables were calculated with presence/absence data
Table 5 Mean number of species in each category and the percentage they represent
Category Group Tree Palm Shrub Herbaceous Others
a
Mean Percentage Mean Percentage Mean Percentage Mean Percentage Mean Percentage
Colonial patios E 0.67 1.68 2.13 6.08 11.20 28.25 21.07 55.48 3.27 8.5
Transitional
groups
B 1.10 6.57 0.81 6.69 3.95 27.52 5.71 42.63 2.14 16.59
F 4.54 11.8 1.50 4.78 9.59 29.48 12.77 41.04 4.00 12.9
Indigenous
gardens
C 7.39 37.49 1.00 5.64 8.08 40.8 2.15 11.19 1.00 4.89
D 12.30 20.27 2.00 2.92 25.60 43.93 18.20 28.76 2.70 4.11
Recent patios A 2.13 62.83 0.20 5.22 1.60 18.5 0.80 11.23 0.07 2.22
Mean 4.00 15.29 1.23 4.70 8.82 33.73 9.78 37.39 2.32 8.88
Significant differences between groups in each life form (p<0.001, Kruskal–Wallis test)
a
Includes lianas, epiphytes, cactus and ferns
Hum Ecol (2008) 36:291–300 295

Factors Related to Human Management
Tab le 6shows some of the factors related to the
management and structure of the different groups of patios.
Human population density is greater towards the outskirts
of the city where most of group A patios are located. The
division of older dwellings is common in León, altering the
original house structures and increasing the population
density of the historic centre (OCHU 2001). These
divisions reduce the available patio surface and conse-
quently a very wide variation in sizes was found (mean
263.43 m
2
; SD=376.07). The indigenous group (D) patios
stand out because of their large surface area (maintained
almost without changes).
The presence of peripheral corridors is typical of the
pure colonial patio structure (about half of sampled patios,
see Table 6). Plants grown in pots (almost always
herbaceous) are predominantly ornamental. Colonial patios
and transitional groups (F, E and B) had a much greater
density of pots and paved area than the others.
Plants Uses
Most of the plant species found in the patios were
ornamentals. Secondary uses were domestic consumption,
and for shade/climate regulation (Fig. 3). Plants grown to
provide food were mainly fruit trees; very few annual or
biennial food plants were recorded. In contrast, only a few
species were grown for forage, tool-making, wood supply,
and fencing to separate patios. Finally there were plants
acting as support for cultivated epiphytes such as Hylocer-
eus undatus. Some trees had multiple uses, such as
Crescentia alata and C. cujete.
The species used to make fences between patios, or to
separate them from the outside, are becoming scarce due to
the use of artificial fencing. Fences are associated with the
maintenance of traditional agricultural practices of the
indigenous people of the area. Ornamental hedges were
common in some groups, most frequently Murraya pan-
iculata,Codiaeum variegatum and plants of the genera
Ixora and Polyscias (all shrubs or small trees) (Table 7).
Discussion
Colonial Patios (Group E)
The patios of group E have maintained their original
colonial style (as described by Buitrago, 1987). They are
exclusively located in the historic centre of León. All of
them are central patios with at least three surrounding
corridors, with few modifications to their original structure.
Table 6 Variables related to human management in each group
Category Group Population
density
a
Average
size (m
2
)
Presence of
corridors (%)
Frequency of
irrigation
b
Pot density
per m
2
Paved
area (%)
Colonial patios E 5168.0 148.12 100.0 100.0 0.47 53.80
Transitional groups B 8112.7 125.75 76.0 76.2 0.26 35.80
F 7269.2 284.05 64.0 68.2 0.44 41.50
Indigenous gardens C 8665.8 293.14 8.0 38.5 0.01 4.95
D 5755.1 875.31 10.0 10.0 0.10 8.98
Recent patios A 9566.5 107.62 7.0 46.7 0.01 10.24
Mean 7515.8 263.43 50.0 61.5 0.24 28.96
Significant differences among groups in all variables (p<0.001; Kruskal–Wallis test), less significance for population density (p< 0.05)
a
Inhabitants/km
2
b
Percentage of patios irrigated at least three times a week in the dry season
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E Group F
Ornamental
Food
Shade
Medicinal
Fig. 3 Percentage of species
destined to the four main
uses in the patio groups. One
plant can have two or more uses
in a patio. Significant
differences between groups in
the four uses (p<0.001;
Kruskal–Wallis test)
296 Hum Ecol (2008) 36:291–300

The best preserved colonial houses also have a traspatio
used mostly for domestic activities, although this is
increasingly rare.
Colonial patios showed the highest species richness and
rarity values (relative to their area). Self-seeded species
were practically non-existent; those cultivated were raised
almost exclusively for ornamental purposes. Hanging
baskets containing the fern Nephrolepis biserrata, roses
(Rosa chinensis), Dieffenbachia spp. and begonias (Begonia
spp.) were common. The lower layer cover was high due to
the use of species such as Dichondra repens,which
requires regular flooding, for floor covering.
Herbaceous plants represented more than half of the
species recorded; shrub species were also important; trees
and palms are scattered. The use of pots is very widespread,
located mainly in the paved corridors. A pattern of groups
of associated species, arranged in specific forms were found
in different patios. One of the most prevalent groupings was
a mixture of Dichondra repens,Rosa chinensis and
Nephrolepis biserrata (p<0.001; Chi-squared test), seen in
two thirds of group E. Some 90% of all observations of
Dichondra repens were within this group. No living fences
were found in group E patios, because they are neither
divided nor do they abut other houses. In cases where they
were divided, separating walls were usually built. Orna-
mental hedges, however, were very common, located in the
borders of the patio.
From an ecological point of view, colonial patio have a
regulatory function for the microclimate of the house.
While ornamental and scenic functions predominate, the
architectural design of the house with peripheral corridors
helps air circulation (Buitrago 1987). The patio is not
normally used for moving through the house. Patio
vegetation is consciously ordered, with symmetry among
the different components (a combination of lawn, lateral
shrub hedges, pots of herbaceous plants, and trees or palms
providing shade in certain areas). Generally these patios are
open and bright, while their peripheral corridors are roofed
galleries. Periodic flooding is sometimes performed as a
means of irrigation; decorative fountains are also frequent.
Transitional Patios (Groups B and F)
These patios are very heterogeneous. The majority derive
from the colonial style, similar to group E but in poorer
states of repair. Most traspatios are also classified in these
groups. The modification of the original design of the
colonial patio generally leads to poorer air circulation.
Transitional patios are located mainly in neighbourhoods
peripheral to the historic centre, but they are not restricted
to such a specific area as the well preserved colonial patios.
The most common species found were the ornamentals
Dieffenbachia spp., Nephrolepis biserrata,Caladium bicol-
or and Epipremnum aureum. Their diversity indices were
low to medium. Woody species made up less than one third
of the total number of plants. Herbaceous plants made up
more than 40%. However in group B plants were also
cultivated to provide shade and food. Patterns formed by
clumps of linked species were not found. The reduction in
the lower layer cover and the increased frequency of non-
ornamental plants are important differences from the best
preserved colonial patios.
These patios usually have one or two corridors (indicat-
ing the state of preservation of the original structure).
Traspatios are used for domestic activities (Buitrago 1987),
and the vegetation in them, usually trees or bushes, often
provides food. The results highlight the variety within
groups B and F and the difficulty of establishing a clearly
defined typology due to the different degrees of transfor-
mation these spaces have undergone.
Indigenous Patios (Groups C and D)
Patios of indigenous origin have preserved their original
structure and floristic composition to different degrees.
Because of their size and wide design, some of the most
typical of this group are referred to as named as “pationes”
(“big patios”). They are exclusively found in the Sutiaba
neighbourhood and show a typology very similar to
“tropical homegardens”as described in the literature
(multistratified gardens established near living quarters to
serve primarily household consumption needs) (Landauer
and Brazil 1990). In fact, a few traspatios and even the odd
preserved colonial patio have acquired this typology as
well. The samples of group D are of greater natural and
ethnobotanical diversity than those of group C, which are
more poorly preserved.
Typically, these patios are wide (>500 m
2
in the best
examples) and bordered by living fences to separate them
from the street or other houses (Fig. 4). Their absolute
Table 7 Appearing of linear
elements in the different patio
groups
Significant differences between
groups (p<0.0001; Kruskal–
Wallis test)
Colonial patios Transitional
groups
Indigenous
gardens
Recent patios
E B F C D A Mean
Live fences 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.46 0.70 0.20 0.19
Ornamental hedges 0.87 0.29 0.59 0.31 0.80 0.00 0.46
Hum Ecol (2008) 36:291–300 297

species richness is greater than that of all the other groups
(Table 3). More than half of the species grown are woody.
There is an interesting high variety of flora, shrubs being
the most common. A wide variety of plant species were
recorded, predominantly bananas (Musa xparadisiaca),
papayas (Carica papaya), chillies (Capsicum annuum),
mangoes (Mangifera indica) and some citrus fruits (Citrus x
aurantium,C. xlimon), clearly indicating that much of the
flora are grown as food for the household. Nonetheless, the
diversity of ornamental species was the highest of all
the groups, although only the area closest to the house was
devoted to these plants. Self-seeded plants made up nearly
20% of the total number of species.
Both hedges and living fences are common, but the latter
are more significant in terms of their extent (the total patio
perimeter) and because they represent a traditional practice
now disappearing. The most common species used for
living fences are Bromelia pinguin,Euphorbia neriifolia
and Cordia dentata. Very high levels of plant cover were
estimated for all layers, and two different tree layers can be
distinguished. The plant architecture of these gardens is in
some ways very similar to that of the dry tropical forest of
the surrounding area (though degraded in the vicinity of
León), although the species composition is rather different.
These patios resemble the complex agroforestry systems
that have been studied in different tropical zones around the
world (Fernandes and Nair 1986; Landauer and Brazil
1990; Soermawoto and Conway 1992; Lok 1998).
Spatial segregation was noted between areas given over
to different uses, rather like the zoning of vegetable plots
described for homegardens of Nicaraguan rural areas
(Méndez et al. 2001). The first band of vegetation, closer
to the house, has a high density of ornamental plants,
generally of herbaceous, small bushes or palms, as well as
spice species such as the chilli (Capsicum annuum) and
others for medicinal use. Further away from the house are
fruit trees and beyond them or interplanted among them are
trees for wood or other uses. Self-seeded species from the
surrounding ecosystems appear furthest away from the
house in areas not usually maintained. These areas act as
refuges for wild flora and fauna, especially for birds but
also for reptiles and others. These systems therefore show
the coexistence and balance of both intense management
and ‘naturalness’.
In contrast to the colonial patios of the city centre, these
gardens are spaces where many everyday activities are
carried out (similar to traspatios). They are also used to
raise animals whose consumption or sale is important to the
household. Given the large size of these patios generally
only areas close to the house and the younger fruit trees are
irrigated.
The patios of groups C must originally have been similar
to those of groups D and have served the same functions,
but divisions and modifications have led to a significant
reduction in their area and the number of species grown.
They are now much simpler with different areas of use
becoming minimized or even disappearing. Of the plants
grown in group C, those for consumption were more
important than ornamentals. Traditional living fences had
been substituted by artificial fencing. The only significant
plant cover was that provided by trees, and the basal layer
was almost non-existent.
Urban Patios of Recent Construction (Group A)
The samples of group A showed the poorest values of
biodiversity and lowest quality of habitat variables. These
open spaces are found in the most outlying areas of the city
and are very small. Their diversity indices were signifi-
cantly lower than those of all the other groups. In extreme
cases only one plant species was found (just an isolated
tree). Those that were recorded were grown for food and to
provide shade—generally fruit trees which perform both
functions. The four most common species were the bitter
orange (Citrus xaurantium), the mango (Mangifera
indica), Melicoccus bijugatus and the papaya (Carica
papaya). There was a high frequency of spontaneous
species as in indigenous patios (nearly 17% of the total
Fig. 4 Idealized model of ‘in-
digenous’gardens used for
agriculture/forestry purposes.
The figure corresponds with the
best conserved patios,
belonging to group D
298 Hum Ecol (2008) 36:291–300

sampled). The tree layer cover was high but that of other
layers was practically non-existent. There were no hedges
or living fences and these spaces were usually separated by
poor quality building materials.
The peripheral location of these spaces corresponds to
the notably lower economic power of their owners
compared to the inhabitants of the city center. Building in
this area is ad hoc (Alcaldía de León 1995), there is almost
no planning and basic services are frequently unavailable
(INIFOM-AMUNIC 1997). The architectural value of these
dwellings is therefore negligible, and their patios have no
defined structure, although they are usually at the back of
the house. Presently they are little used for growing plants.
Conclusions
The existence of two different human settlements, indige-
nous and colonial, associated with the origin of the city of
León prefigures the two most common types of patios still
found in the present day. Between these two extremes there
is a range of transitional or mixed types.
From a conservation point of view, the indigenous patios
of Sutiaba and the colonial patios of the city centre are of
greatest interest. The former have high species richness and
show a configuration generally similar to the wooded farms
and vegetable gardens of Nicaragua's rural areas. In a
relatively small space, both a great diversity and structural
complexity can be found. The conservation of these
complex patios should be encouraged given their contribu-
tion to the agrobiodiversity preservation (Watson and
Eyzaguirre 2001), and usefulness to the food supply.
The colonial patios are of interest mainly because of
their architectural, scenic, and habitat characteristics and the
presence of a specific and flora. Outstanding trees and
uncommon plants were found with notable frequency. High
values of plant biodiversity are not associated with a
specific area of the city or a specific building style, but
seems to be more related to the age of the house and the
length of time the patio has been used. Indigenous patios
have higher species richness (60 species) than colonial
patios (close to 40 species), but the density of species is
greater in the latter.
The patios of the medium size historical cities of the
American tropics are one of their most interesting character-
istics from the urban and human ecology point of view. In
León they occupy far more land than do other greenzones. As
a whole their maintenance and improvement can be of great
importance in terms of green spaces and life quality in the city.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank the Programa de
Cooperación con Nicaragua of the University of Alcalá (Spain) and
the UNAN-León (Nicaragua) for project support. The University of
Alcalá also provided financial support through an F.P.I. grant. We are
especially grateful to Raquel Santos and Lorena Delgado for the aid in
fieldwork, and Pedrarias Dávila for his support at all times. We also
thank the UNAN-León Herbarium for aid in plant identification.
Finally, we are very grateful to all the inhabitants of León and
especially those who kindly opened their doors for this work.
References
Alcaldía de León (1995). Plan Maestro de Desarrollo del Medio Físico
y Económico de León. Diagnóstico, Alcaldía de León, León.
Altieri, M. A., Companioni, N., Cañizares, K., Murphy, C., Rosset, P.,
Bourque, M., and Nicholls, C. I. (1999). The Greening of the
“Barrios”: Urban Agriculture for Food Security in Cuba.
Agriculture and Human Values 16: 131–140.
Beck, T. B., Quigley, M. F., and Martin, J. F. (2001). Emergy
Evaluation of Food Production in Urban Residential Landscapes.
Urban Ecosystems 5: 3187–207.
Blair, R. B. (1996). Land Use and Avian Species Diversity along an
Urban Gradient. Ecological Applications 6: 2506–519.
Boncodin, R., Campilan, D., and Prain, G. (2001). La Dinámica de los
Huertos Caseros Tropicales. Revista Agricultura Urbana 1: 119–20.
Buitrago, E. (1987). La vivienda y la ciudad en Nicaragua. Boletín
Nicaragüense de Bibliografía y Documentación, BCN, pp. 95–
115c.
Christanty, L. (1990). Home Gardens in Tropical Asia, with Special
Reference to Indonesia. In Landauer, K., and Brazil, M. (eds.),
Tropical Home Gardens: Selected Papers from an International
Workshop Held at the Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran Univer-
sity, Bandung, 2–9 December 1985. United Nations University
Press, Tokyo.
Dana, E. D., Vivas, S., and Mota, J. F. (2002). Urban Vegetation of
Almería City—A Contribution to Urban Ecology in Spain.
Landscape and Urban Planning 59: 203–216.
Dávila, P. (2001). Estimación de diversidades, similitud de comuni-
dades y uso de hábitat de las aves en la ciudad de León Trabajo
para optar al título de Máster en Gestión de Recursos Naturales y
Planificación Ambiental. UNAN-León, Nicaragua.
Evans, M. (2001). Garden Tourism—Is the market really blooming?
Insights 13: 153–159.
Fernandes, E. C. M., and Nair, P. K. R. (1986). An Evaluation of the
Structure and Function of Tropical Homegardens. Agricultural
Systems 21: 279–310.
Gilbert, O. L. (1989). The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman &
Hall, London.
Gillespie, T. W., Grijalva, A., and Farris, C. N. (2000). Diversity,
Composition, and Structure of Tropical Dry Forests in Central
America. Plant Ecology 147: 37–47.
Hope, D., Gries, C., Zhu, W., 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 of the United States of
America 100: 158788–8792.
INIFOM (2000). Caracterización del municipio de León. INIFOM,
León.
INIFOM-AMUNIC (1997). Caracterización del Municipio de León.
INIFOM-AMUNIC, León.
Janzen, D. H. (1988). Tropical Dry Forests: The Most Endangered
Major Tropical Ecosystem. In Wilson, E. O. (ed.), Biodiversity.
National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp. 130–137.
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, U.K. Journal of Biogeography 26: 1281–1298.
Hum Ecol (2008) 36:291–300 299

Landauer, K., Brazil, M. (Eds.) (1990). Tropical Home Gardens:
Selected Papers From An International Workshop Held at the
Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indone-
sia, 2–9 December 1985, United Nations University Press,
Tokyo.
Lok, R. (1998). Huertos caseros tradicionales de América Central:
características, beneficios e importancia desde un enfoque multi-
disciplinario. CATIE, Turrialba.
López, A. (2002). Diagnóstico 2002 de las PYMES en León. Escuela
de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales. UNAN-León, León.
Luck, M., and Wu, J. (2002). A Gradient Analysis of Urban
Landscape Pattern: A Case Study from the Phoenix Metropolitan
Region, Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecology 17: 327–339.
Madaleno, I. (2000). Urban Agriculture in Belem, Brazil. Cities 17:
173–77.
Marín, E. (1988). Proyecto de Ordenamiento del sistema productivo.
Región II. Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario y Reforma
Agraria. Dirección General de Agricultura, Managua.
McCune, B., and Mefford, M. J. (1999). PC-ORD. Multivariate
Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 4.0. MjM Software.
Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
McDonell, M. J., and Pickett, S. T. A. (1990). Ecosystem Structure
and Function along Urban–Rural Gradients: An Unexploited
Opportunity for Ecology. Ecology 71: 41232–1237.
Méndez, V. E., Lok, R., and Somarriba, E. (2001). Interdisciplinary
Analysis of Homegardens in Nicaragua: Micro-Zonation, Plant
Use and Socioeconomic Importance. Agroforestry Systems 51:
85–96.
OCHU (2001). Plan especial de revitalización del centro de León:
Estudio base tipológico-urbano-arquitectónico Oficina de Centro
Histórico y Urbanismo. Alcaldía de León, León.
Owen, J. (1991). The Ecology of a Garden. Cambridge University
Press, UK.
Owen, J., and Owen, D. F. (1975). Suburban Gardens: England's Most
Important Nature Reserve? Environmental Conservation 2: 53–59.
Paguaga, D., (2000). Plantas de la ciudad de León y sus usos. Tesis de
Licenciatura en Biología. UNAN-León, León.
Rudd, H., Vala, J., and Schaefer, V. (2002). Importance of Backyard
Habitat in a Comprehensive Biodiversity Conservation Strategy:
A Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces. Restoration
Ecology 10: 2368–375.
Soermawoto, O., and Conway, G. R. (1992). The Javanese Home-
garden. Journal of Farming Systems Research-Extension 2: 395–
118.
StatSoft (1996). STATISTICA for Windows. StatSoft Inc., Tulsa.
Stevens, W. D., Ulloa, C., Pool, A., and Montiel, O. M. (Eds.) 2001. Flora
de Nicaragua, Vol. I–III. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis.
Starfinger, U., and Sukopp, H. (1994). Assessment of Urban Biotopes
for Nature Conservation. In Cook, E. A., and Van Lier, H. N.
(eds.), Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 89–115.
Sukopp, H. (1998). Urban Ecology: Scientific and Practical Aspects.
In Breuste, J., Feldmann, H., and Uhlmann, O. (eds.), Urban
Ecology. Springer, Berlin, pp. 3–16.
Sukopp, H. (2002). On the Early History of Urban Ecology in Europe.
Preslia 74: 373–393.
Taylor, B. W. (1963). An Outline of the Vegetation of Nicaragua.
Journal Ecology 51: 127–54.
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: 71–78.
Watson, J. W., and Eyzaguirre, P. B. (Eds.) (2001). Home Gardens and
In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming
Systems. Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens
Workshop, 17–19 July 2001. IPGRI, Witzenhausen, Federal
Republic of Germany.
Whitney, G. G., and Adams, S. D. (1980). Man as a Maker of New
Plant Communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 17: 431–448.
WinklerPrins, A. M. G. A. (2003). House–lot Gardens in Santarém, Pará,
Brazil: Linking Rural with Urban. Urban Ecosystems 6: 43–65.
Zerbe, S., Maurer, U., Schimtz, S., and Sukopp, H. (2003).
Biodiversity in Berlin and its Potential for Nature Conservation.
Landscape and Urban Planning 61: 139–148.
300 Hum Ecol (2008) 36:291–300