Urbanization has led to the loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitats, as well as the loss of biodiversity. Urban parks are a dominant component of greenspaces and play a key role in biodiversity conservation. Park size, the complexity of vegetation structures, age of trees, and water availability are key factors in avian diversity (Huang et al., 2015; Morelli et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2013); of these factors, vegetation structure influences bird diversity the most (Xie et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2015). Multilayered and heterogeneous vegetation structures (three or more layers including tree, shrub, and ground cover species) promote the diversity and abundance of bird and insect species (Aronson et al., 2017; Cook et al., 2012).
However, frequent human visitation affects biodiversity, causing failed wildlife survival and reproduction, reduced avian species abundance and diversity. Citizens’ preferences should first be considered when an urban park is planned, designed, and managed. Safety is of particular concern in a park scheme (Bjerke et al., 2006), and vegetation structure is crucial. Dense vegetation (thick shrub understory) is perceived as unsafe for human recreation (Bjerke et al., 2006; Sandström et al., 2006). Hence, simpler vegetation structures with few vegetation layers are favored and popularized in urban parks worldwide (Anderson and Stokes, 1989; Freedman, 2009; Herzog and Kutzli, 2002). The prevailing characteristics of vegetation structure are often homogeneous vegetation with two layers: short turf-grass lawns and high trees, typical of modern urban parks in China, based on the English model of picturesque-gardenesque landscape (Aronson et al., 2017; Ignatieva, 2010). Vegetation with a simple structure does not provide optimum habitat for insects and birds (Aronson et al., 2017). Urban parks should be multi-functional and provide both recreational spaces for visitors and habitats for birds and insects; however, these aims may sometimes be mutually incompatible (Chang et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2015). It is necessary to improve the spatial pattern of current parks and find solutions to the trade-offs between human preferences and biodiversity conservation (Aronson et al., 2017). The countermeasure for both biodiversity conservation and human recreation may be zoning, which has been a primary tool for guiding resource management and human activities in protected areas worldwide. There is a long-established zoning framework for the national park (NP) and natural scenic area (NSA), where zoning is a required management plan component. At a finer scale, an urban park is designed to provide multiple urban ecosystem services, such as recreation activities and biodiversity. Zoning may be introduced in urban parks as a compromise to strike a balance between human recreation and biodiversity conservation; it effectively improves landscape ecological patterns in protected areas (del Carmen Sabatini et al., 2007; Huang and Zhou, 2016; Palomo et al., 2013). The zoning approach for the NP and NSA may also be applied to urban parks, thus developing core biodiversity conservation zones and surrounding human recreational zones. Furthermore, the multilayered structural mosaics from near-natural forests form a heterogeneous patch structure and diverse patch model (Podlaski, 2010). We defined the concept of hierarchical forest patch (HFP) as an area with a multilayered community structure and small mosaics that could be used in the design of urban parks. A megacity such as Beijing has a large developed urban center. Despite a fine scale of heterogeneity being important for biodiversity (Chang et al., 2017), its feasibility in an urban center is difficult to determine. Little is known about the arrangement of greenspaces providing optimal shelters for biodiversity conservation in cities (MacGregor-Fors et al., 2016). We should understand how a balance between human recreation and biodiversity conservation can be struck in urban parks (Müller et al., 2018). Is it possible to build a HFP model from an urban forest park based on the proven advantage in biodiversity? First, this study aimed to explore the effects of small forest parks within a highly populated urban center on bird and insect diversity and attempted to confirm the positive function of a complex vegetation structure. We then attempted to build scenarios of complex forest patches in urban parks to cater to human recreation and biodiversity conservation needs. Seven urban parks were used for sampling in the core of Beijing, China (Fig.1), of which one was the researched urban forest park. The Guangyanggu Urban Forest Park (GUFP) is a small (3.4 ha), newly established (2017), and HFP model-based forest park. The park was the first to put into practice the Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016–2035), which proposed the strategy of “Let the forest into the city” to build urban forests with near-natural complex community features (dominant indigenous species Biodiversity advantages in GUFP The forest park had 72 plant species (13 trees, 24 shrubs, 35 herbaceous species), 26 insect species, and 16 bird species, while the six control parks had mean values of 28.50 ± 4.10 plant species (13.17 ± 3.06 trees, 8.50 ± 1.38 shrubs, 6.83 ± 1.94 herbs), 9.67 ± 2.16 insect species, and 8.00 ± 2.37 bird species. Compared to the control parks, the forest park had significantly higher species richness regarding plant (tree, shrub, and herb), insect, and bird species (t = 6.931, p < 0.001 (t = Discussion This study found that a small forest patch assigned a stronger biodiversity function than did general parks because of complex vegetation structures. Bird and insect diversity indices are significantly correlated with vegetation structures. Insectivore bird species would increase because of more insect species that prefer understory shrubs as main habitats (Xie et al., 2016). The positive interactions within a plant-insect-bird system reveal the fundamental and crucial role of HFP in urban Conclusions Based on the proven advantage of biodiversity in a small forest park, this study proposed a multilayered vegetation structure model called HFP in the core zone of a park. The new model adopts a mosaic HFP-based zoning strategy in a park. The zoning-based solution will strike a balance between human recreation and biodiversity protection in urban parks; thus, it is an innovative and dominant model that should guide future urban park designs. [SCIENCE TODAY ARTICLE] K RAJARAM IRS 23925 On Tue, 23 Sept 2025 at 06:32, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < [email protected]> wrote: > > > -- > *Mar*Absolutely — here’s a *short philosophical-ecological story* > inspired by the core ideas and themes of your essay. > ------------------------------ > 🌿 *Story Title: "The Patch of Earth"* By YM Sarma *(Story adaptation by > ChatGPT)* > ------------------------------ > > In a world paved in concrete and glass, where machines hummed louder than > birdsong, lived a young man named Aarav. He worked as an environmental > engineer in one of the top universities in the city — a city where even a > blade of grass was considered disorder, and where nature was something you > studied, not lived with. > > Every morning, Aarav would pass an empty plot of land on his way to work — > a rare piece of untended earth the city planners hadn’t yet devoured. It > was no larger than a tennis court, surrounded by rusting wire fencing, and > overgrown with wild grass, weeds, and a stubborn neem tree that refused to > die. Most called it an eyesore. Aarav didn’t. > > One day, after another long meeting about "smart city expansion" and > "green-compatible construction technologies", Aarav walked past the plot > again — but this time, he stopped. > > And he *felt* something. > > It wasn’t the kind of feeling his instruments or sensors could measure. It > was as if the patch of land was *breathing* — not just alive, but awake. > It didn't need human approval. It simply existed — defiantly, freely. > > He stepped inside. > > As his shoes sank into the soft, damp soil, he felt a strange calm. His > watch stopped ticking. The city noises seemed far away. Time, as he knew > it, had dissolved. He sat under the neem tree, and for the first time, he > felt not like a man with a brain full of knowledge — but like a *being*, > part of a much vaster intelligence. > > It was then that he realized: *Nature wasn’t a subject to be studied. It > was a symphony he had always been a part of — but had forgotten how to > hear.* > > In that silence, Aarav felt what the textbooks never taught — that > *opportunities > are not forged in labs or factories*, but arise naturally when one lives > in *symbiosis* with life itself. He saw that every plant in the patch > wasn’t growing *despite* each other, but *because* of each other. There > was no competition here — only cooperation, expression, and balance. > ------------------------------ > > When Aarav returned to the university the next day, he didn't go to the > lab. He went to the Dean. > > “I want to propose a project,” he said. > > “What kind of project?” the Dean asked, adjusting his glasses. > > “A park.” > > The Dean frowned. “We already have a botanical garden.” > > “No. Not a garden. A *Free Nature Park* — no benches, no paved walkways, > no manicured lawns. Just one untouched patch of earth, where students can > sit, observe, breathe — and feel the living processes of nature.” > > “That sounds... unscientific.” > > “No,” Aarav smiled, “It’s *ecological*. The most advanced science begins > with feeling, not formulas.” > ------------------------------ > > Months passed. Many resisted the idea. Funding was scarce. Papers were > rejected. > > But Aarav persisted. > > Eventually, on the edge of the campus — in a neglected corner by the > boundary wall — a small patch of land was left alone. No workers touched > it. No machines cleared it. Nature was left to *be*. > > And slowly, life returned. > > Grass rose like hope. Insects buzzed like ancient songs. A jackfruit tree > bloomed where no one had planted it. Students began visiting — not to take > notes, but to sit quietly, listening. > > They didn’t call it a park. They called it *“The Patch.”* > > It became a sacred space. Not in religion, but in rhythm — a place where > people remembered they were not masters of nature, but *members of it*. > ------------------------------ > Epilogue: > > Years later, Aarav’s city experienced what experts called a “superstorm.” > Concrete crumbled. Skyscrapers drowned in their own drainage systems. The > "smart city" wasn’t smart enough to predict the *anger of nature silenced > too long.* > > But “The Patch” stood — resilient, alive. > > Its trees absorbed floodwaters. Its soil held firm. Birds nested, and > humans sheltered beneath its branches. > > In the heart of collapse, a small patch of earth whispered a forgotten > truth: > > 🌱 *“If you live as part of me, I will never be your enemy. I am not your > resource. I am your home.”* > > ------------------------------ > 🟢 The End > > Would you like a longer version of this turned into a short novel, or > perhaps a screenplay version? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "societyforservingseniors" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHCL-9ipaE-Ebr7Ys%2Bx%3DS-sQesdrHU0j%3DwhDhk%2B846H5mMQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHCL-9ipaE-Ebr7Ys%2Bx%3DS-sQesdrHU0j%3DwhDhk%2B846H5mMQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoocRVD%3DYmiqud9NP1PO0hDR8x96LCBvNCcirTXAMG2odQ%40mail.gmail.com.
