Visitors   Views   Downloads

Development and landscaping choices differentiate heterogenous tree and shrub communities on office developments

View preprint
31 days ago
RT @_kdyson: Pre-print up for my latest research! Vegetation in urban areas... but on office developments! https://t.co/W85UjBqnIJ via @Pee…
RT @_kdyson: Pre-print up for my latest research! Vegetation in urban areas... but on office developments! https://t.co/W85UjBqnIJ via @Pee…
32 days ago
RT @_kdyson: Pre-print up for my latest research! Vegetation in urban areas... but on office developments! https://t.co/W85UjBqnIJ via @Pee…
32 days ago
Pre-print up for my latest research! Vegetation in urban areas... but on office developments! https://t.co/W85UjBqnIJ via @PeerJPreprints
37 days ago
Development and landscaping choices differentiate heterogenous tree and shrub communities on office developments https://t.co/OOshnorFbQ https://t.co/J9RMhXouyE
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

Supplemental Information

Supplemental Table 1:All trees observed in site surveys

Abundance is count of individuals belonging to each taxonomic group. Ambiguous indicate both native, non-native, and hybrids used in horticulture.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27661v1/supp-1

Supplemental Table 2: All shrubs observed in site surveys

Abundance is count of individuals belonging to each taxonomic group. Ambiguous indicate both native, non-native, and hybrids used in horticulture.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27661v1/supp-2

Supplemental Table 3: All simple multivariate PERMANOVA results for tree and shrub communities

Variables significant at α ≤ 0.05 after Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons are bolded. For trees, median household income is only significant at α ≤ 0.1 after multiple comparison correction.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27661v1/supp-3

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Karen Dyson conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

University of Washington Human Subjects Division

Field Study Permissions

The following information was supplied relating to field study approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Field surveys were approved in writing by private property owners or managers of office developments.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Manuscript specific data and analysis code will be available on GitHub at https://github.com/kdyson. Code functions already available at https://github.com/kdyson/R_Scripts.

Funding

The author received no funding for this work.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies