景观设计风格和园林价值保护之间的关系：德国魏玛历史公园的案例研究外文文献翻译英文原文（可编辑） .doc

landscapeandurbanplanning 107 2012 111?117contentslistsavailableatsciversesciencedirectlandscape and urban planningjournal homepage: /0./locate/landurbplantherelationshipbetweenlandscapedesignstyleandtheconservationvalueofparks:acasestudyofahistoricalparkinweimar,germanymartinkmmerling?,norbertmllerdepartmentlandscapemanagement&restorationecologyandheadof?ceurbio,universityofappliedscienceserfurt,germanyh i g h l i g h t s westudiedahistorical parkinweimar, germany whichispartofunescoworldheritage. welinkedthehistorical designprinciples andtechniques usedtotodaysplantbiodiversity. resultswerecompared withsimilargerman andeuropean landscape parks. suggestions forfuturesustainable parkdesign,restoration andmanagement weremade.a r t i c l e i n f oa b s t r a c tarticlehistory:urbanparkscanbeinvasionsourcesthrough planting ofintroduced taxa.ontheotherhand,parksmayactashotspotsofbiodiversityinurbanareasandcansupportthepreservationofendangeredandraretaxa.evenifhistoricurbanparksareevaluated?rstofallasheritagesites,theyarealsocreditedfortheirecosystem services andpositive aesthetical andsocialvalues.received17april2012accepted9may2012available online 3 june 2012althoughtherearenumerous studiesineuropeonthedesign,philosophies andhistoricalbackgroundof parks as well as their biological diversity, little research has posed the question of how landscapedesignprincipleshavein?uenced thebiologicalconservation valueofparks.becausethelandscapeparkstylewasoneofthemostin?uentialhistoricallandscapedesignfashionsineuropewefocusedourstudyontheparkanderilminweimar,germanywhichwascreatedinthelate18thcenturyandissince1998partoftheunesco worldheritage.keywords:biodiversityhistoricalgardenshorticultureurbanparksvegetationourresearch questions were:1. which design principles, plant material andtechnical implementation were usedduring thecreationandmanagement ofthepark?2. what is the current value of the park for biological conservation especially for the conservation ofendangered plantspeciesandhabitats?3. whatistherelationship between designprinciples andthepresent-day valueofthepark?we compared our results with similar landscape parks and made suggestions for future sustainableparkdesign,restoration andmanagement 2012 elsevier b.v. all rights reserved.1. introduction&butensch?n,2010.ontheotherhand,parksmayactashotspotsofbiodiversityinurbanareascornelis&hermy,2004andcansup-horticulture is a major source of plant species invasionsdehnen-schmutz, touza, perrings, & williamson, 2007; mack &erneberg,2002;reichard&white,2001.urbanparkscanbeinva-sionsourcesthroughplantingofintroducedtaxas?umel,kowarik,portthepreservationofendangeredandraretaxakowarik,1998;kunick,1978;li,ouyang,meng,&wang,2006;reidl,1989.evenifhistoricurbanparksarevaluedforemostasheritagesites,theyarealsocreditedfortheirecosystemservicesandpositiveaesthet-/.und&hunhammar,1999;chiesura,2004.althoughtherearenumerousstudiesineuropeonthedesign,philosophies and historical background of parks e.ggothein,1928; turner, 2005 as well as their biological diversity e.g.cornelis & hermy, 2004; ignatieva & konechnaya, 2004; nath,corresponding author at: department landscape management & restorationecology and head of?ce urbio, university of applied sciences erfurt, p.o. box450155,99051erfurt,germany.tel.:+4903616700273;fax:+4903616700259.e-mailaddress:martin.kuemmerlingfh-erfurt.dem.kmmerling.0169-2046/$?seefrontmatter? 2012 elsevier b.v. all rights reserved./.112m.kmmerling,n.mller/landscapeandurbanplanning107 2012 111?1171990 little research has posed the question of how landscapedesignprincipleshavein?uencedthebiologicalconservationvalueofparks.becausethelandscapeparkstylewasoneofthemostin?u-ential historical landscape design fashions in europe by the endofthe18thandthe?rstpartofthe19thcenturywefocusedourstudyonaparkfromthatperiod.theparkanderilminweimar,germanywascreatedinthelate18thcenturyandhasbeensince1998partoftheunescoworldheritagesiteclassicweimar.weselecteditforstudybecause:1. itisatypicalparkofthatperiod2. therewerenochangestodesignstyleforseveralcenturies3. therewasrichhistoricalmaterialonparkdesignandplantusesuspected.initialsearchesinthethuringianpublicrecordof?cesituatedclosetothepark,since1567con?rmedthissuspicion.ourresearchquestionswere:1. which design principles, plant material and technical imple-mentation were used during the creation and management ofthepark?2. whatisthecurrentvalueoftheparkforbiologicalconservationespeciallyfortheconservationofendangeredplantspeciesandhabitats?3. what is the relationship between design principles and thepresent-dayvalueofthepark?wecomparedourresultswithsimilargermanlandscapeparksandmakesuggestionsforfuturesustainableparkdesign,restora-tionandmanagement.2. studysitetheparkanderilmissituatedinweimar215ma./.entral/.ormanyhistoricalparksineuropeparkanderilmappearedonthesiteofapreviousformalgeometricalgardenwhichwasdesignednexttothedukecarlaugustspalace.atthattimetheparkwaslocatedintheoutskirtsofweimar.from1860thecityofweimarspreadandtheparkbecameenclosedintheurbanboundaries.fig.1. habitatmapofthe“parkanderilm”.theparkformspartofthe?oodplainoftheriverilmbetweentheducalcitypalaceofweimarandthecitycentreinthenorthandthenowsuburbanisedvillageofoberweimarandexclusiveresidential/.sc.1.5kmlongandcoversabout0.48km2.thesoilofthe?oodplainisalluvialclay;designersfoundinthethuringianpublicrecordof?ceandassoci-atedarchives,aswellasreprintsofhistoricetchingsanddrawingscollectedbytheweimarclassicsfoundation.inadditionlocalliteraturefromtheweimarclassicsfoundationespeciallybeyer&seifert,1995wasusedtorelatethe?ndingsofthehistoricdocumentstotheirappropriateera.alsoinformalinter-viewswiththecurrentandformergardenersaboutmanagementtechniquesandplantusagewerecarriedout.thevalleysidescomprisecalcareousmateriallikekeuperandshellbearinglimestonedeposits.climatically weimar belongs to the dry environment of thethuringian basin leeward of thuringia mountains with beechforests.theannualprecipitationisabout557mm;theprevailingwinddirectionsaresouthwest,westandnorthwest.theaverageannualtemperatureis8.3?c,withanaverageof?0.7?cinjanuary3.2. evaluationforbiologicalconservationand17.2?cinjulysalzmann,1999.3.2.1. fieldmappingof?oraandvegetation3. methodsthepresentvegetationand?orawereinvestigatedby?eldmap-pinginmay?october2006toevaluatetheparksplantdiversity.theparkwasdividedintodifferenthabitattypes:lawns,meadowsandpastures,shrubberies,woodlands,ecotonesherbaceousmar-gins,walls/rocks,plantcommunitiesonpaths&lanes,riverbanksandwaterbodies.eachhabitattypewasthensampledrandomly.thenumberofsampleswasbasedonthesizeofeachhabitattypefig.3.thesizeofsampleplotswasdeterminedusingtheminimalareamethoddierschke,1994.foreachsampleplotthefrequencyof plant species were recorded following the “braun?blanquet”method dierschke, 1994in total 436 sample plots were3.1. historyofdesign,plantintroductionandmanagementoftheparkhistoricdocumentswerestudiedtogainimportantinformationabout the design principles, plant material including origin andtimeofintroductionofnon-nativeornamentalspeciesandman-agementtechniquesusedduringthecreationanddevelopmentoftheparkanderilm.theseunpublisheddocumentsincluded?ledreports,managementnotesandplansoftheformergardenersandm.kmmerling,n.mller/landscapeandurbanplanning107 2012 111?117113established.inaddition,20inspectionsofthewholeparkwerecar-riedoutduringmay?october2006andmarch?may2007torecordallspontaneousvascularplanttaxa.neartomiddlesurroundingsofweimarandcultivatedintheducalplantnursery,whichwaswithintheparkthuringianpublicrecordof?ceunpublished.the 436 sample plots were used to determine the most fre-quentspecies.forwoodyspecies,onlyseedlingsandsaplingswerecounted.theparkstreeregisteroftheweimarclassicsfounda-tion1996?2007,unpublishedwasusedtocalculatethefrequencyofmaturetrees.nomenclature of plants generally follows j?ger and werner2005,andfortaxafoundintheparkbutnotlistedhere,erhardt,g?tz,b?deker,andseybold2002wasused.non-nativeplantshavebeenintroducedtocontrastwithnativeplants,aseyecatchersdesignemphasisandasabotanicalcurios-ityespeciallyfashionableinthesecondpartofthe19thcentury.mostly alien species were planted near representative buildingsandmonuments,aswellasinexposedareasalongtheparklanes.planted non-native trees included many so called “english tim-bers”,treespeciesimportedfromnorthamericalikeacerrubruml.,/.ycultivarsofrosaspp.wereplantedinlownumbersforornamentalpurposes,lobeliacardinalisl.wasplantedinsmallponds.3.2.2. evaluationbiologicalconservationstatusontheregionalandeuropeanlevelafterworldwariitheplantnurseryintheparkwasclosed.fromthenonplantmaterialhasbeenintroducedfromallovereuropeandoverseasgardenerspersonalinformation,2006.to evaluate the parks contribution to biological conservation,wecompiledtheendangeredplantsandhabitatsfoundintheparkusingthelocalthuringianreddatalistskorsch&westhus,2001;westhus&vanhengel,2001.furthermorewecheckedtheplantspecies and habitats protected by the thuringian law for natureconservationthrnatg,2006andtheeuropeanhabitatsdirec-tivecounciloftheeuropeanunion,2007.to evaluate the park as a potential source for plant invasionsde?nitionsforbiologicalinvasionsfollowrichardsonetal.,2000,we compared our data with the regional list of environmentalweedsinthuringiamller,westhus,&armft,2005.4.1.3. managementtechniquesinhistorictimes,managementofthemeadowsandgroveswasundertaken by local farmers and herdsmen who used them forgrazing sheep, goats and cattle, as well as for production of hay.ornamental plant beds around the buildings were managed bygardenersanddaylabourers.today,themeadowswithinpartsofthe?oodplainandontheeasternslopesofthevalleyarestillmowntwice-yearlyandthehayissoldtofarmersorcomposted.onthegrasslandswithinthe?ood-plainsheepandgoatgrazingisstillamanagementcomponentofthepark.thevegetationofthelanesiscontrolledwithherbicides.wallvegetationisclearedperiodically.treemaintenanceandreju-venationofthegrovesareonlydoneifnecessaryforthesafetyofvisitorsandthepreservationofcertainimportantaestheticvistas.areaswhicharenotusedbyvisitorsandthosewithoutimportantviewsareleftunmanaged.sincethesecondhalfofthe20thcentury,increasedrecreationaluse and the lack of ?nances have resulted in intensi?cation inmanagement of the park. for example all diverse meadows cuttwice-yearlyinthewesternpartandsomeinthe?oodplainshavebeen converted to frequently mown lawns cut twenty times ayear. this continues today and has resulted in a signi?cant lossofplantbiodiversityofspeciesrichmeadows.4. results4.1. historyofdesign,plantintroductionandmanagement4.1.1. designprinciplesrelevantforbiodiversityfollowingtheeuropeanfashioninlandscapedesigndukecarlaugustofsachsen?weimar?eisenach1757?1828decidedtocre-ate a park as an ideal pastoral landscape, consisting of differenttypesofviews:openandclosedspacesofdifferentsize,shapeandstructurewhichwerevisuallyconnectedtothesurroundingland-scape. it was followed according to the classic english landscapeparkrule?concealingtheboundariesofaparkwithnature.theseviewsshouldalsobevisiblewhenwalkingorridingthroughthepark.therefore the main design principle of the park was the useoftheexistingnaturaltopographyandculturallandscape,whichcomprisedtemporarily?oodedandfrequentlymownandgrazedgrasslands meadows and pastures in the ?oodplains, orchardsand meadows on the slopes and small forest patches where theslopes were too steep to be used for food production. when theparkwasincreasedinsize,newlandscapeswereaddedonformerarablelandthusthesehabitatscanbequali?edasarti?ciallycre-ated.theextentoftheforesthabitatswithintheparkwasincreasedtocreateabetterambianceaswellasagreatervarietyofviews.typicaldesignelementsarethevistas,usuallyextendedcuttingsthrough forest patches within the park, which connect featuresofspecialinterestsculpturesandpavilionsandopennewviewsfromdifferentlocations.theparkwasneverenclosedbyafenceorwall?importancewasgiventothecreationofaseamlesstransitionbetweentheparkanditssurroundings.theparkanderilmandtheparksoftiefurtandbelvedere,togetherwithsomeforestremnantsalongtheriverilmformagreencorridorthroughthecityofweimar,whichwasalwaystheintentionofthedukeeversincetheparkswerecreated.4.2. plantandhabitatdiversitythesurveyofthepark?orayielded479taxaofvascularplants.about59%281taxaofthesearenativetothuringia;15%arenat-uralisednon-nativetaxa74;and26%arenon-nativeplantedtaxa124. compared to the regional ?ora of thuringia korsch et al.,2002theparkharbours18%355taxa.whencomparingtheoriginofplanttaxaandtheirfrequencyinthesampleplotscomparefig.2itisevidentthatregardingthemost frequent species there are far more native mostly ubiqui-toustaxaandtaxacharacteristicfortheparksmainhabitatsthannon-/.oristhemostfrequentnon-nativetaxa,whichnaturalisedingermanybefore1500j?ger&werner,2005andisacharacteristicspeciesoftrampledplantcommunities,lawns,pasturesandriparianhabitats.thenextmostfrequentnon-nativetaxaareimpatiensparvi?oradc.,i.glanduliferaroyle,symphoricarposalbusl./.ke,aesculushippocastanum/.twoimpatiensspeciesareconsideredtobeweedsinthuringiamlleretal.,2005.symphoricarposalbusl./.ke,/.orna-mental species, which have not become naturalised in thuringiaup to now. but they already reproduce within the park and arecontrolledviamanagementsothattheydonotescapeoutside.thetreeregisteroftheweimarclassicsfoundationfortheparkanderilmrecords3192individualsof94taxalastupdate2006.4.1.2. plantintroductionsincelargeareasoftheparkweredevelopedfromtheexisting?oodplainforestsandmeadowsthenativeplantdiversitywaspre-served. for the creation of new forest patches and groves nativetreeandshrubspeciesweresourcedfromtheducalforestsinthe114m.kmmerling,n.mller/landscapeandurbanplanning107 2012 111?117fig.2. spontaneoustaxan306recordedwithinthesampleplotsn436,groupedafterfrequency.theproportionandnumberofnativetonon-nativetaxais28%26vs.72%68,buttheproportionandnumberofindividualsis73%2344nativevs.27%848non-native.themostfrequentnativespeciesarefraxinusexcelsiorl.409individuals,tiliacordatamill.305 and acer platanoides l. 281. fraxinus excelsior l. and acerplatanoidesl.arealsothemostfrequenttreespeciesintermsofregeneration.themostfrequentnon-nativetaxaareaesculuship-pocastanum l. 273 individuals, robinia pseudoacacia l. 78 andpopuluscanadensismoench70.allthreetaxareproduceinthepark,thelatteronlyviasuckering.thesethreespeciesaredomi-nant;theothernon-nativetreespecieshavebeenplantedonlyinverysmallnumbers.grasslandandforesthabitatsdominatethepark,coveringnearlytwo-thirdsandone-third,respectivelyseefig.1forapproximatedistribution of habitats. they are among the habitats with thehighest plant biodiversity in terms of total species and averagespecies number fig. 3. due to its design as a combination ofvarious landscape sceneries, the park contains many ecotones.these contain many different vegetation types, seen by the factthat total number of species fig. 3 is high, though the averagenumberofspeciesperplotislow.alltheotherhabitatspresent,namelywaterbodies,wallsandrocks,trampledplantcommuni-tieslanes,pathsandornamentalplantationsoccupymuchsmallerareas.4.3. valueforbiologicalconservationofplantsandhabitats4.3.1. endangeredandrarespeciestheparkcontainsthreenativespeciesthatarelistedintheredlistsofthuringiakorsch&westhus,2001:populusnigral.crit-icallyendangered,rosajundzilliibesserandmuscaribotryoides/.hvulnerable.geraniumphaeuml.,whichisanatu-ralisednon-native,/.raoccursrarelyinthealluvialforestswithintheilmvalley,r.jundzil-lii and m. botryoides are found rarely in the outskirts of the park/.eumoccursfrequentlyinecotonesanddrygrassla