When Central Park was opened in 1873, biodiversity was not within the goals of the park or one of the major components of its design. In its time, its picturesque beauty and sheer size of public space were touted as the main points for the park, which remains to this day. However, the modern day park essentially requires that biodiversity and sustainability as tent-poles of the park’s mission. With this in mind, Central Park’s success must be judged based on its fulfillment of creating and maintaining a biologically diverse, self-sustaining space.
Before one can accurately come to this judgment, however, it is important to define what is meant by biodiversity. One definition, from the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), allows for judgment:
Biological diversity is the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different items and their relative frequency. For biological diversity, these items are organized at many levels, ranging from complete ecosystems to the chemical structures that are the molecular basis of heredity. Thus, the term encompasses different ecosystems, species, genes, and their relative abundance. (qtd. in California Biodiversity Council)
For Central Park to be considered biologically diverse, therefore, it needs to be not only containing several different species and ecosystems (studying on the genetic level was not possible for this investigation, so it unfortunately must be disregarded), but they must be interconnected.
Multiple sources and methods for investigation were used to determine whether Central Park works as a place of biodiversity and sustainability. Along with group research in the field, four experts were consulted. The first, Felicity Arengo, is the Associate Director of the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at the American Museum of Natural History. While much of her work takes place outside of New York City – for example, studying flamingos in the Andes or turtles in the Palmyra Atoll – a major part of her ideology is that within an ecosystem, species are tightly interconnected, so that the presence one species reflects the presence of other species, and in turn allows for the presence of still more. Dr. Arengo noted as an example of this the presence of red-tailed hawks in the park, which are only present thanks to large populations of pigeons and rats off which to feed. Additionally, it was the AMNH that aided in the discovery of a new species of bee native to New York, the “Gotham bee” (Lasioglossum gotham), one of over 250 bee species found in the New York City area (“Museum Collections”). Finally, it is in Arengo’s point of view that humans deem what is biologically important in an ecosystem, based on a series of moral, practical, economic and religious values.
The second expert, Marie Winn, is the author of Central Park In The Dark: More Mysteries of Urban Wildlife, and provided an even greater understanding of the Central Park ecosystem. According to her research, there are over 200 migratory birds that travel through Central Park; some of them actually remain, such as Baltimore orioles. Also, as a testament to the interconnectedness of which Felicity Arengo spoke, carp and goldfish – the latter in large part introduced to the park by visitors – are able to survive, though often fall prey to such larger fish as largemouth bass. (“Answers About”).
Ken Chaya is the third of the experts whose research was utilized for this analysis. Chaya, along with Edward Sibley Barnard, is responsible for a comprehensive map of Central Park’s trees – approximately 21,000 in number among those with diameters of greater than six inches, representing 174 different species – covering approximately 85% of the park (Robbins). These include such native tree species as the black cherry, the most prolific species in the park – thanks in large part to propagation from birds eating its fruit and spreading its seeds – and the swamp white oak, which goes back to Olmsted’s design; hybrids such as the London plane, which combines the American and Oriental plane trees; and such nonnative trees as the Lebanon cedar. Chaya noted the Mall, which has a remarkable number of American elm trees; most American elms had been wiped out in the 1930s due to Dutch elm disease. Additionally, at one vantage point in the park, one can see 11 different species of oak, a testament to Chaya’s contention that Central Park was “made by man, touched by nature.”
In his tour of Central Park, Chaya also shed some light on the birds of Central Park. The presence of a multitude of bird species in the park is thanks in part to its design and in part to nature and geography. First, Central Park lies under the Atlantic Flyway, which birds use to migrate, occasionally leading to some migratory birds remaining, as noted by Winn earlier. Second, the picturesque landscape design of the park creates different elevations, which allows the birds to see into the trees more easily. Third, the trees themselves provide the food resources necessary for the birds – sap, fruit and seeds – the latter two of which allows for further propagation of the trees.
While not all experts, BioBlitz was the fourth of the major sources used for this analysis. In the first BioBlitz, in July 2003, about 350 scientists and volunteers identified 836 distinct species of flora and fauna over the course of a 24-hour period. This included 393 plants, 102 invertebrates, 7 mammals, and 46 birds – though there were thought to be many more, had it not been for the time of the year in which the BioBlitz took place. (Roach)
Additionally, as a group we were afforded the opportunity to partake in lab activities in Central Park; those particularly germane to our analysis were labs identifying plant and animal species. Within a fairly compact area on the eastern end of the park, between 68th and 72nd to explore the flora of the park and between 72nd and 79th to identify fauna, several species were found. Identified flora of note included the London Plane (Platanus acerifolia), a hybrid of the American and Oriental plane trees, planted in the park in the 1930s by Robert Moses; the pin oak (Quercus palustris), the most common oak tree in the park; and the Yoshino cherry (Prunus yedoensis), the most abundant ornamental flowering cherry in the park. The main reason for the latter two’s abundance and continued ubiquity in the park is due to its production of acorns and fruits and aforementioned spreading of seeds by birds and mammals; in the case of the London Plane, its self-exfoliating, camouflage-colored bark allows it to be very resilient in urban areas. However, despite a natural, picturesque presence, it seemed the trees and other plants of the park were definitely the beneficiaries of careful planning, going back to the original Greensward Plan of Olmsted and Vaux and continuing to this day; for example, with the aforementioned planting of the London Planes in the 1930s and the planting of eight Yoshino cherries after the most recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. The trees in the park are certainly diverse and at this point are largely self-sustaining, but behind the bucolic façade there is certainly an element of human influence and interaction.
With regard to the animals found, however, there seemed to be much more of a correlation with the plants found in the park and the animals found there; further, the former seems to be greatly influencing the latter. Among the animals we found in the park include the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensi), which eat primarily the seeds from such trees as oak, hickory, and beech, many of which can be found in the park (probably in large part today due to dispersion of seeds); the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), which eat seeds and fruits; the pill bug, found mostly in leaf litter; and two species of bees – the American bumble bee (Bombus pennsylvanicus) and the mellifera honey bee (Apis mellifera)– which require both flowering plants and trees with cavities in which they can nest.
The presence of some species – the native feral pigeon (Columba livia) or the invasive European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), for examples – does show the effect of human influence, however. The ubiquitous feral pigeon survives in cities well thanks to human-discarded food; the European starling was introduced to the park and became an invasive species thanks the introduction of every bird species mentioned in Shakespeare.
Along with biodiversity, sustainability is deemed necessary for a modern day park; the two seem to go hand in hand. A sustainable park, as defined by Galen Cranz and Michael Boland, supports both human and ecological health, and features native plants and a largely self-sufficient ecosystem, with minimal maintenance done via community stewardship (103). In order to assess Central Park’s potential status of a sustainable park, a comparison to other, similar parks is necessary. Golden Gate Park in San Francisco and Stanley Park in Vancouver were used in this analysis as points of contrast with Central Park. Golden Gate Park measures 1,017 acres and a rectangular shape not unlike Central Park; within it, there are 886 plant species, over 350 vertebrate species, and several “ecological neighborhoods,” such as forest, grassland, wetland, and scrubland (“Nature and Science”). Stanley Park measures 1,000 acres, over 200 plant species including several large conifers, and over 230 species of birds (“Nature”). Central Park, at 843 acres, has more plant species than Stanley Park according to the 2003 BioBlitz, and relative to size, an equitable number of vertebrate species. Additionally, like Golden Gate and Stanley Parks, the ecology of Central Park is fairly self-sustaining.
A biologically diverse park not only fosters a good ecological system in an urban area, but humans can use that system for substantial psychological and physiological benefits. Thanks to flora filtering out pollutants, parks produce cleaner air compared to the rest of the city; additionally, roots of plants keep silt and other foreign substances out of bodies of water. Plants can even be used for pharmacological and even gastronomic purposes; tea made from the flowers of the Littleleaf Linden (Tilia cordata), found in Central Park, is popularly used in Germany and the former Yugoslavia as a remedy for colds and the flu, and foraging in Central Park, though frowned upon by the Central Park Conservancy, allows for efficient removal of invasive species (“Linden Flowers”) (Foderaro). Due to considerably less energy usage in the park and the presence of flora and fauna, biologically diverse parks reduce the “urban heat island” phenomenon. Further, parks allow for public education and stewardship, giving urban dwellers firsthand understanding of the natural world, and space for physical activity, improving public health. Municipal government is better off maintaining parks, as well; parks increase tourism and drive up city revenue. This is especially true for Central Park, the second-most-visited space in the world, with 38 million people from around the world visiting the park annually (Matthews). (Harnik 60)
Using the OTA’s definition as a framework for this analysis, and using both expert research and ventures into the field, it must be concluded that Central Park does, in fact, work as a source of biodiversity and sustainability. From the admittedly small-sample study in the form of lab exercises and the larger species identification projects BioBlitz and Ken Chaya undertook, we can confirm that Central Park has a wide variety of organisms, and thanks to Felicity Arengo’s analysis of ecological systems, Central Park can easily be seen as having several networks of botanical and zoological goings-on. Further, in spite of maintenance in the park performed by the Central Park Conservancy and volunteers, sustainability of the park is a priority; compared to other parks, there is evidence to support that it is largely self-sustainable. This evidence of self-propagating and self-sustaining biodiversity in turn benefits the users of the park, as they gain mental and physical benefits for using a biologically diverse area.
Works Cited
“Answers About Central Park Wildlife.” City Room. The New York Times Company, 23
July 2008. Web. 4 Dec. 2011.
California Biodiversity Council. “Scientific Definitions of Biodiversity.” California
Biodiversity Council. State of California. Web. 4 Dec. 2011.
Cranz, Galen and Michael Boland. “Defining the Sustainable Park: A Model for Urban
` Parks.” Landscape Journal 23.2 (2004): 102-120. Print.
Foderaro, Lisa W. “Enjoy Park Greenery, City Says, but Not as Salad.” New York Times
30 July 2011: A1. Web. 20 Dec. 2011.
Harnik, Peter. “The Excellent City Park System: What Makes It Great and How to Get
There.” The Humane Metropolis: People and Nature in the 21st Century City. Ed. Rutherford Platt. Amherst: Univ. of Mass., 2006. 47-60. Print.
“Linden Flowers.” Flora Health. Flora Health, n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2011.
Matthews, Lyndsey. “World’s Most-Visited Tourist Attractions.” Travel + Leisure.
American Express Publishing Corporation, 1 Oct. 2011. Web. 20 Dec. 2011.
“Museum Collections Help Identify Four New Species of Bees in New York City.”
American Museum of Natural History. American Museum of Natural History, 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 20 Dec. 2011.
“Nature.” Stanley Park. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, n.d. Web. 4 Dec.
2011.
“Nature and Science.” Golden Gate National Recreation Area. U.S. National Park
Service, n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2011.
Roach, John. “”BioBlitz” Finds 800-Plus Species in New York Park.” National
Geographic News. National Geographic Society, 8 July 2003. Web. 4 Dec. 2011.
Robbins, Liz. “A Labor of Wonder: Mapping 19,993 Trees in Central Park.” New York
Times 31 May 2011: A17. Web. 4 Dec. 2011.
