Front. Ecol. Evol. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution Front. Ecol. Evol. 2296-701X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fevo.2023.1112596 Ecology and Evolution Original Research Sowing wildflower meadows in Mediterranean peri-urban green areas to promote grassland diversity Fernandes Mariana P. 1 2 * Matono Paula 1 Almeida Erika 1 Pinto-Cruz Carla 3 Belo Anabela D. F. 3 1MED – Mediterranean Institute for Agriculture, Environment and Development & CHANGE – Global Change and Sustainability Institute, Instituto de Investigação e Formação Avançada, Universidade de Évora, Pólo da Mitra, Évora, Portugal 2cE3c – Center for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes & CHANGE – Global Change and Sustainability Institute, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, Portugal 3MED – Mediterranean Institute for Agriculture, Environment and Development & CHANGE – Global Change and Sustainability Institute, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade de Évora, Pólo da Mitra, Évora, Portugal

Edited by: Grégory Mahy, University of Liège, Belgium

Reviewed by: Leonie K. Fischer, University of Stuttgart, Germany; Réka Kiss, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary

*Correspondence: Mariana P. Fernandes, mpfernandes@uevora.pt

This article was submitted to Conservation and Restoration Ecology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution

02 03 2023 2023 11 1112596 30 11 2022 31 01 2023 Copyright © 2023 Fernandes, Matono, Almeida, Pinto-Cruz and Belo. 2023 Fernandes, Matono, Almeida, Pinto-Cruz and Belo

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Introduction

The increase of urban areas and their infrastructure network is homogenizing the landscape and threatening biodiversity and ecosystems functions and services. Wildflower meadows have a high biodiversity value and can prosper in degraded areas dominated by nitrophilous species, making them suitable to be used in peri-urban and urban areas to promote local flora, create habitat for pollinators and other small fauna, and increase overall biodiversity. Moreover, the application of wildflowers seed mixes suitable for rehabilitating anthropized environments should be restricted to native species of regional origin, and the results properly monitored. However, thorough monitoring of seed mixes evolution is uncommon. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a seed mix of wild native species developed to promote grassland diversity in Mediterranean peri-urban areas.

Methods

The study was divided into two sequential phases. Firstly, a preparatory phase consisted in developing two seed mixes and sowing them (autumn 2016) in ex-situ plots (three plots of 5 × 2 m2 per mix) at an experimental field to choose the one with the best performance. The second phase consisted of the in-situ application (autumn 2018) of the chosen seed mix by sowing 14 plots (10 × 2 m2) in pocket parks distributed along pedestrian trails of South Portugal. All plots were monitored through floristic surveys for two springs (ex-situ trials: 2017 and 2018; in-situ trials: 2019 and 2020).

Results

All sowed species germinated in the in-situ plots over the first 2  years. The seed mix application positively contributed to the floristic community, generating a significant increase in the total species richness, diversity, evenness, and vegetation cover. The seed mix establishment did not require watering nor soil fertilizing and the mowing frequency was low (once in late spring), contributing to sustainable and low-cost management of these green areas.

Discussion

The tested seed mix promoted native flora diversity rapidly and seems suitable for use in peri-urban context under identical climate conditions. Given the small number of native seed mixes tested in the Mediterranean, this study represents a contribution toward improved management standards of native flora diversity in Mediterranean green urban and peri-urban areas.

native flora conservation native seed mixes pedestrian path management rehabilitation semi-natural pastures UIDB/05183/2020 2020.06339.BD FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology

香京julia种子在线播放

    1. <form id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></form>
      <address id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></nobr></address>

      Introduction

      Human activities have consistently affected natural and semi-natural habitats. Land use and land cover changes, particularly land taken by agriculture and urbanization, are transforming the terrestrial environment at unprecedented rates and scales, homogenizing the landscape and threatening biodiversity and ecosystems functions and services (Stoate et al., 2009; Seto et al., 2011). With the expansion of the urban network and the decline of natural ecosystems, urban areas management has a crucial role in preserving and enhancing biodiversity and presents unparalleled opportunities to enhance the urban systems’ resilience and ecological functioning (Farinha-Marques et al., 2011; Elmqvist et al., 2015). Conservation of urban grasslands can reduce cities’ ecological footprints and ecological debts while enhancing their inhabitants’ resilience, health, and quality of life (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013). One way of diminishing the negative impact of cities is to use their green spaces to conserve biodiversity and improve these places’ ecosystem value and function.

      Natural and semi-natural grasslands are among the world’s most threatened biomes (Janssen et al., 2016), making the conservation of their floristic assemblages, individual species, and ecological functions essential (Wesche et al., 2012). Urban areas usually have many patches of unused land (e.g., road and trail verges, roundabouts) and amenity areas (e.g., public parks, pocket parks, and lawns) frequently managed by regular mowing, whose potential for promoting biodiversity is often ignored (Blackmore and Goulson, 2014). These areas can be considered urban grasslands (Klaus, 2013), which are herbaceous, perennial landscapes of primarily turf-forming grass species adapted to semi-regular mowing and kept for aesthetic or recreational value (Thompson and Kao-Kniffin, 2017, 2019). Urban grasslands are considered novel habitats with a species assemblage partially altered due to an intense modification of biotic and abiotic conditions caused by the high level of human disturbance (Kowarik, 2011). Nevertheless, rehabilitated urban grasslands can maintain characteristic species of semi-natural grasslands and even rare species (Fischer et al., 2013a).

      The urban green areas, including trail verges and pocket parks, are usually mown and, thus, kept in an early successional stage (Norton et al., 2019), promoting a vegetation composition and structure similar to natural and semi-natural grasslands. Due to their linear format, the trail verges can represent vegetation corridors between larger areas, such as parks or community gardens, promoting ecological connectivity. These linear infrastructures are, therefore, useful for grassland rehabilitation, i.e., for applying management actions that aim to reinstate a certain level of ecosystem functioning without the necessity to match up the biodiversity or integrity of the reference habitat with accuracy (Gann et al., 2019). Alter the management of these green areas to combine nature conservation with socio-economical aspects and landscape planning could be a win-win strategy for biodiversity conservation and improvement of socio-economic conditions (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Blackmore and Goulson, 2014; Bretzel et al., 2016).

      Native wildflowers seed mixes sown in pocket parks and trail verges can enhance biodiversity and create an ecological continuity between urban and rural landscapes with low management costs (Blackmore and Goulson, 2014; Bretzel et al., 2016). Species-rich herbaceous communities, like grasslands, wildflower meadows and pastures, have a high biodiversity value and are adapted to soils with structural degradation and low organic matter content (Bretzel et al., 2016). Additionally, these floristic communities benefit from a regular mowing regime, which is the standard practice in urban green areas (Kelemen et al., 2014; Tälle et al., 2018). Thus, these herbaceous communities can constitute models to be adapted for landscape management of urban areas to increase biodiversity, create habitat for pollinators or small fauna, and conserve the local flora (Aldrich, 2002; Norton et al., 2019).

      The effectiveness of wildflower meadows as a biodiversity promotion measure is related to the composition of the seed mix and its adaptation to local conditions, since this affects the number of species, flower abundance, plant species diversity, and vegetation structure in the sown areas (Haaland and Gyllin, 2011). Promoting a wide range of species in the urban grasslands increases life forms and survival strategies, favoring biodiversity promotion, and improving the establishment capacities of the floristic community (Bretzel et al., 2012). Although the species of semi-natural grasslands can adapt to urban environments, their choice should be judicious to guarantee an effective establishment: it is recommended to select native species, preferably of regional provenance, since they are well adapted to specific edaphoclimatic conditions, have fewer invasion risks, and help to conserve genetic diversity (Hufford and Mazer, 2003; Gann et al., 2019). The species selection should also consider the species’ ability to survive in semi-arid and/or disturbed environments, the existence of an extended flowering period assured by the set of the species, the use of species with different life types (Bretzel et al., 2012), their germination behavior, particularly when stored seeds are used (Bhatt et al., 2019), and the species establishment features (Scheper et al., 2021). Using seed mixes containing annual, biennial, and perennial species is a holistic approach that makes it possible to combine the advantages of different life strategies. Annual species enhance the aesthetic value and may persist by self-seeding (Dunnett, 2011; Hoyle, 2016). In contrast, biennial and perennial species persist and flower over multiple years, reducing the need for re-sowing (Hoyle, 2016). The Mediterranean grassland communities naturally include patches of biennial and perennial species (Chust et al., 2006), and promoting these species in urban grasslands, along with annual species, increases the cover of a functional group already present in native ecosystems while maintaining the local biogeographic species pool (Filibeck et al., 2016). Furthermore, using species with different life strategies extends the flowering period: annual species flower in early spring and biennial and perennial species flower in late spring or summer (Bretzel et al., 2009, 2012). Promoting species with different flowering periods is beneficial because it increases the period of attractiveness to people and of resources available for pollinators (Hoyle et al., 2018).

      In novel habitats, species assemblages can change the competitive dynamics between species (sown or spontaneous) compared to the habitats they usually inhabit (Hobbs et al., 2006). Consequently, the new floristic community will not have the same composition as in a non-anthropogenic environment (Fischer et al., 2013a). Therefore, species selection must consider the potential competition between all species (sown or spontaneous) One key question for the successful rehabilitation of urban grassland is how species cope with competitive pressure in an environment dominated by ruderal and exotic species (Fischer et al., 2013b), that are often competitive and tolerant to high stress and disturbance (Craine, 2005). The human disturbances in urban grasslands tend to favor the colonizing species with traits that increase a plant’s ability to cope with stress and ruderal conditions (Fischer et al., 2013b). Usually, the competitive strategy of perennial species is less favored and increases the proportion of annual species (Fischer et al., 2013b).

      Besides the ecological aspect, promoting semi-natural grasslands and wildflowers in urban areas also has economic, health promotion, and aesthetic value. To succeed, wildflowers should be sustainable, not require supplementary watering nor soil fertilizing, and have a low mowing frequency, and are, therefore, a low maintenance cost strategy (Bretzel et al., 2009; Köppler et al., 2014). Wildflowers can also provide ecosystem services like climate regulation, pollination, or soil and air quality improvement, being a link between urban environments and rural areas (Aldrich, 2002; Bretzel et al., 2016). This access to a wild natural environment positively impacts human health and quality of life and increments urban green spaces’ aesthetic interest (Lindemann-Matthies and Brieger, 2016; Norton et al., 2019). The long-term rehabilitation of urban grasslands requires residents’ acceptance and local authorities’ willingness to maintain them (Norton et al., 2019). Recent studies (e.g., Southon et al., 2018; Norton et al., 2019) suggested that replacing some of the amenity grasslands with a range of different types of meadow vegetation is well received by the general population and can generate positive outcomes for both biodiversity and people. For instance, using seed mixes with an extended flowering period meets the aesthetic expectations of the population (Hoyle et al., 2017a; Colombo et al., 2021) and promotes pollinators (Hoyle et al., 2018; Angelella et al., 2019), favoring flora and fauna diversity and benefiting the human population. However, some aspects concerning the actual use of wildflowers in urban settings remain – the use of tall herbaceous and the vegetation’s wild appearance close to residential areas is not always easily accepted (Hoyle et al., 2017b; Colombo et al., 2021). In the Mediterranean, the citizens’ displeasure is even more significant after the flowering season when the vegetation dries up (Filibeck et al., 2016; Colombo et al., 2021). However, mowing the vegetation in late spring removes the dry biomass, minimizing the negative effect on the aesthetic appearance and reducing fire risk during the dry season. Informing the citizens about the benefits to biodiversity of rehabilitated urban grasslands and a wise selection of areas seems to be decisive for the population acceptance of these areas (Filibeck et al., 2016; Southon et al., 2018; Norton et al., 2019).

      Using wildflowers or herbaceous seed mixes in urban environments is becoming widespread (Norton et al., 2019; Vega and Küffer, 2021); however, many seed mixes contain exotic species, use species not adapted to the specific edaphoclimatic conditions or do not consider the species’ establishment and development capacity (Bretzel et al., 2016). In the Mediterranean region, native seeds’ availability and applicability for urban environment rehabilitation is still limited (Bochet et al., 2010; Bretzel et al., 2012; de Vitis et al., 2017). Furthermore, this type of rehabilitation often reveals limited effectiveness, particularly in the Mediterranean region (Nunes et al., 2016), what highlights a still low predictive ability concerning rehabilitation trajectories and outcomes (Suding et al., 2015).

      Applied research is needed, so that ecological rehabilitation of urban and peri-urban green areas, such as grasslands, can fulfil its potential and meet its goals as a conservation tool. We developed a seed mix of wild native species to promote floristic diversity in peri-urban areas and improve conditions for promoting small fauna (e.g., butterflies and small mammals). The seed mix was applied in pocket parks distributed throughout pedestrian trails of Southern Portugal. The study aims to (a) promote plant diversity, including endemic species, and favor habitat for small fauna, (b) evaluate the effect of a seed mix developed for Mediterranean areas on floristic diversity, evenness, and vegetation cover, and (c) evaluate the potential of peri-urban green areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation in the South of Portugal.

      Materials and methods Study area, species selection and seed collection

      The study was carried out in Évora and Montemor-o-Novo (Central Alentejo – Southern Portugal) between 2016 and 2020 in a peri-urban context. The study area presents the typical land use pattern of the South of Portugal, with urban centers surrounded by cork oak forests (montado) and, nowadays, also by areas of intensive agriculture (e.g., vineyards and olive groves). Évora and Montemor-o-Novo are small cities with an urban area of 1,307 km2 and 1,233 km2 and a resident population of 53,577 and 15,799 inhabitants, respectively (FFMS, 2021). The area has a typical winter-wet and summer-dry pattern of the Mediterranean-type climate with a mean annual rainfall of 609 mm; the mean annual temperature is 15.9°C, and the warmest month is August (23.3°C) while the coldest is January (9.3°C; IPMA, 2019).

      The study was divided into two subsequent phases: ex-situ (autumn 2016 to spring 2018) and in-situ trials (autumn 2018 to spring 2020; Figure 1). Firstly, ex-situ trials of two seed mixes were accomplished in an experimental field at Herdade da Mitra (University of Évora). Afterwards, in-situ application of the more appropriate seed mix was made in pocket parks distributed throughout pedestrian trails of Évora and Montemor-o-Novo.

      Ex-situ and in-situ plots installed on the experimental field of the University of Évora and pocket parks distributed throughout pedestrian trails of Évora (six plots) and Montemor-o-Novo (eight plots), respectively.

      Forty-one native species were selected to be used in the seed mixes, considering:

      Their suitability to pedestrian trails and pocket parks, namely by being

      resistant to drought and intense solar radiation;

      annual plants that flower and set seed in early spring, ensuring their permanence in pedestrian trails and pocket parks (that are usually mown in late spring);

      non-annual plants with subterranean organs that allow re-sprouting each year after being cut;

      plants with no known toxicity.

      Their conservation interest, namely by using endemic species.

      The existence of well-established donor populations to collect seeds in the study area.

      The species ecological characteristics were compiled from the literature (e.g., Castroviejo, 1986–2012; Flora-On, 2014; Flora Vascular, 2016) and benefited also from the authors’ expert knowledge. The nomenclature of the species followed Flora Iberica (Castroviejo, 1986–2012). Seeds from the species selected were collected from plants growing in montado areas or in the intervened linear infrastructures surroundings during the springs and summers of 2016–2018, and their geographical coordinates were recorded with GPS technology (Garmin Montana 680 t). In all collecting campaigns, care was taken to never collect more than 20% of the seeds available at each site to avoid significant damage to the donor populations and assure natural regeneration (ENSCONET, 2009). In the seed bank of the University of Évora, the seeds were then cleaned, dehumidified at 15% RH (FITOCLIMA S600PDH – Aralab 1681; Portugal), stored in glass containers, and maintained in the dark at room temperature until being used in the ex-situ or the in-situ trials (autumn 2016 and 2018, respectively).

      Viability trials

      The selected species were submitted to viability trials in a germination chamber before each study phase to ensure that their viability was higher than 50% (Bellairs and Caswell, 2016), and only the seed lots – i.e., seeds belonging to the same batch of seeds, with a single reference number, origin, and history – meeting this criterion were considered suitable to be used in the trials. When using the same seed lot of a given species was not possible throughout the experiment (ex-situ and in-situ trials), viability trials were performed separately for each lot.

      Seeds were germinated, without pre-germination treatments, in plastic Petri dishes (9 cm diameter) with agar (1%; VWR Chemicals) in a germination chamber (FITOCLIMA S600PLH – Aralab 1680; Portugal). For each species, four 25-seeds replicates were incubated with a photoperiod of 8 h of light and 16 h of darkness with an alternating temperature of 15/10°C. These incubation conditions simulate autumn conditions, which is the optimum germination season for most Mediterranean species, according to Copete et al. (2009) and Fernandes et al. (2021). Petri dishes were re-randomized daily to ensure that there were no systematic effects due to position within the germination chamber (Cerabolini et al., 2004).

      The counting of germinated seeds was carried out daily over 30 days, and germinated seeds were removed from the Petri dishes. Though germination is considered to occur when the embryonic tissue emerges (Bewley et al., 2013), a more conservative approach was used by considering germination only when a radicle with at least half of the seed size emerged. Non-germinated seeds at the end of the trial were cut, and those with a well-developed, white, and firm embryo were considered viable (Gosling, 2003).

      <italic>Ex-situ</italic> trials

      The ex-situ trials occurred between November 2016 and June 2018 in an experimental field at Herdade da Mitra. Beside the experimental field there is a weather station managed by the University of Évora,1 what allowed accurate recording of meteorological conditions. During the ex-situ trial, the maximum monthly rainfall was in March 2018 (207 mm). Rainfall was higher in the autumn/winter of 2017/2018 than in the remaining study periods. The mean monthly temperature ranged between 26.3 ± 4.3°C in August 2018 and 8.4 ± 2.1°C in January 2017 (ICT, 2021).

      The 41 selected species were combined in two seed mixes with 23 species each (annex 1). Both seed mixes met the following criteria:

      have a proportion of 30% Fabaceae, 30% Poaceae, 10% Asteraceae, and 30% other families. The chosen proportions intended to maximize floristic diversity by creating a mix with more than 15 species as recommended by Lepš et al. (2007) and Carter and Blair (2012), and to promote the existence of different life strategies (annual, biennial, and perennial species) as recommend by Bretzel et al. (2012) and Filibeck et al. (2016). Regular mowing of vegetation promotes grass dominance (Simões et al., 2014). As such, the balance between Poaceae, Fabaceae, and Asteraceae aimed to minimize grass dominance pace.

      have at least one endemic species.

      have at least one species for small fauna promotion, i.e., ensure the inclusion of at least one flora species that provides food or shelter for small animals, namely butterflies and small mammals.

      provide a sequential and extended flowering period, offering aesthetic recreation for citizens and habitat and food for pollinators and small mammals.

      Each seed mix was tested ex-situ in three plots (5 × 2 m2 each) installed in November 2016 and one control plot (not sown) was also established. The plots had a slight slope (7°) and were exposed to full sun. The plots were previously harrowed and sowed with a density of 2,000 seeds/m2. Seed density followed Hitchmough et al. (2008), according to which sowing with high densities (>1,200 seeds/m2) positively contributes to promoting diverse floristic communities in grassland rehabilitation actions. The seeds did not receive any pre-germination treatment. The soil was then lightly raked to provide better contact between the seeds and the soil particles. No watering, fertilizing or pesticides were applied.

      Floristic inventories in 50 × 50 cm2 squares (three quadrats/plot evenly distributed throughout the center of the plot) were used to assess the total and species cover percentage (of both sown and spontaneous species) and the number of individuals of the sown species. Monitoring was done in 2017 and 2018 springs, to evaluate the mix performance over time. The plots were mowed at the end of the flowering season and after monitoring, to simulate the management regime usually carried out in marginal areas of pedestrian trails (June 2017 and 2018).

      <italic>In-situ</italic> trials

      The in-situ trial occurred between October 2018 and June 2020 in pocket parks distributed throughout pedestrian trails of Évora and Montemor-o-Novo. The pedestrian trails expand from the urban area to each city’s surroundings. The pocket parks used in the study are in the marginal areas of the pedestrian trails and occur throughout the entire trail. The temperature and precipitation conditions of Évora and Montemor-o-Novo plots were considered separately, and the records were obtained from the nearest meteorological station. During the in-situ trial (Figure 2), rainfall was higher between November and December 2019 and the maximum monthly temperature was in August 2019 (ICT, 2021).

      Total monthly rainfall (R) and mean monthly temperature (T) recorded accordingly the location of the in-situ plots (Évora or Montemor-o-Novo).

      The selected seed mix underwent minor composition or proportion adjustments to improve the less positive aspects identified during ex-situ trials. In autumn 2018, the final seed mix (annex 2) was sown in 14 in-situ plots (10 × 2 m2) in pocket parks distributed throughout pedestrian trails of Évora (six plots) and Montemor-o-Novo (eight plots). The sowing process was identical to that carried out in the ex-situ plots, with a density of 2,000 seeds/m2 and the seeds used did not receive any pre-germination treatment. Twelve control plots (not sown) were also established in areas close to, and identical to, the sowing plots. All plots were in flat sites and exposed to full sun. No watering, fertilizing, or pesticides were applied. All the plots were mowed in late spring (June 2019 and 2020) as part of the current management regime of the pedestrian trails and respective pocket parks.

      Citizens were informed of the ongoing conservation actions through signage placed at the beginning of pedestrian trails and in some of the intervened pocket parks. All the sown plots were marked with stakes.

      The plots were monitored and sampled during the springs of 2017–2018 (before intervention: control and pre-sown plots) and 2019–2020 (after intervention: control and sown plots) through floristic inventories in 50 × 50 cm2 squares (three quadrats/plot evenly distributed throughout the center of the plot). The following parameters were measured: total and species cover percentage (sown and spontaneous species), and the number of individuals of the sown species. The presence/absence of reproductive elements (flowers and/or fruits) of the sown species was also registered.

      Data analysis

      At the end of the viability trials and to ensure the seeds’ quality, the viability percentage (VI) was calculated for each species lot considering the formula VI (%) = (V × 100)/NT, where V is the number of viable seeds (germinated seeds plus viable seeds that did not germinate) and NT is the total number of seeds.

      In the ex-situ trials, the floristic community of the plots sown with the seed mixes was evaluated based on taxonomic terms and on the following parameters: sown species present in the floristic community (%), sown species that germinated (% and No.), global germination (%) of the seed mix (i.e., the total rate of sown seeds that germinated, regardless of species), cover of sown species (%), cover of spontaneous species (%), diversity of sown species (Shannon-Wienner index), and cover of sown species (evenness). The global germination of the mix was only evaluated in the first year after sowing (spring 2017).

      The selection of the most appropriate mix of species to be applied in the in-situ plots was based on the best results obtained for these parameters. To support this process, the seed mixes under analysis, and respective control plot, were compared for each of these parameters using the Mann-Whitney non-parametric test.

      For the purposes of comparing the results obtained in the ex-situ and in-situ trials, the initial floristic community of sites (control and pre-sown plots) was analyzed in terms of families, using the Wilcoxon non-parametric test. With the same purpose, this test was also used to compare the average annual values of air temperature (°C) and rainfall (mm) between the locations and years of the respective trials.

      In the in-situ trials, both the seed mix’s performance and the floristic community’s evolution were evaluated. The global seed mix and species germination percentages were calculated only for the first spring after sowing (2019) and took into consideration a viability factor (number of non-viable seeds), ensuring a valid comparison between species and a correct results interpretation. The viability factor was applied for each species in a sown plot, considering the proportion of each species lot used in the experimental plot. The following formulas were applied:

      Non-viable seeds (NS) = (NT-N) × (1-VI), where NT is the total number of seeds, N is the number of germinated seeds, and VI is the viability number obtained at the viability trial;

      Germination percentage (%) = (N × 100)/(NT-NS), where N is the number of individuals (germinated seeds), NT is the number of total seeds, and NS is the number of non-viable seeds.

      The germination percentage of the seed mix species was tested with the Mann-Whitney non-parametric test.

      The floristic community of the plots was analyzed on taxonomic terms, as well as for sown richness (mean number of species), diversity (Shannon-Wiener Index), evenness (Pielou Index) and vegetation cover (%), considering sown species, spontaneous species (other native and ruderal) and the species total. Mann-Whitney non-parametric test was used to compare these parameters between years and between control and sown plots. To evaluate the efficiency of the seed mix, for each of the in-situ plots, the percentage increment of each of these metrics was calculated, according to the formula: Increase (%) = (final-initial)/|initial| × 100, where final corresponds to the value obtained in the plot after sowing and initial corresponds to the value obtained in the control plot/pre-sowing plot. The increment of each metric between control and sown plots was tested using the Mann-Whitney non-parametric test.

      Data analysis was performed with the software Statistica 10, and the significance level was set at 0.05.

      Results

      The seeds’ viability was high, with a mean percentage of 93 ± 9%. The viability percentages ranged between 57 and 100%. Sixty-eight percent of the lots registered a viability percentage above 95%, and only 7% registered a viability percentage lower than 65%. These results ensured the necessary seeds’ quality for rehabilitation actions, such as the sowings carried out in this study.

      The initial floristic community registered in the control and pre-sown plots of the ex-situ and in-situ trials did not show significant differences in the families’ composition, allowing the comparability of the results, as well as the joint evaluation of post-sown data for the studied pedestrian trails. Also, the average air temperature and rainfall conditions did not reveal significant differences between the sites of ex-situ and in-situ trials, ensuring the comparability of the results without the need to consider the possible influence of these factors in the analysis of the results.

      <italic>Ex-situ</italic> trials

      In the ex-situ trials, both mixes registered significant differences and higher values in the parameters analyzed between control and sown plots (p < 0.001), therefore suggesting the effectiveness of the mixes, and supporting the restriction of the analysis to the direct comparison between the mixes under test to select the most suitable for the defined objectives. Mix 1 tended to have consistently higher values in most of the parameters analyzed (Table 1). However, despite this trend, for most parameters there were no significant differences between the two mixes in 2017 and 2018.

      Comparative analysis of the results obtained in 2017 and 2018 for different parameters of the floristic community (mean ± standard error) in the two mixes sowed in the ex-situ plots at Herdade da Mitra.

      Parameter 2017 2018
      Mix 1 Mix 2 SD Mix 1 Mix 2 SD
      Sown species in the floristic community (%) 56.8 ± 3.2 43.5 ± 3.1 ** 48.7 ± 3.0 38.6 ± 2.4 *
      Sown species that germinated (%) 43.0 ± 1.5 38.2 ± 3.1 43.5 ± 4.2 29.5 ± 3.1 *
      Sown species that germinated (no.) 9.9 ± 0.4 8.8 ± 0.7 10.0 ± 1.0 6.8 ± 0.7 *
      Global germination of the seed mix (%) 8.3 ± 0.77 6.2 ± 0.9
      Cover of sown species (%) 48.8 ± 2.7 43.2 ± 4.6 68.6 ± 6.7 64.7 ± 8.7
      Cover of spontaneous species (%) 36.4 ± 3.8 62.8 ± 6.5 ** 41.9 ± 8.2 47.0 ± 5.4
      Diversity of sown species (Shannon-Wienner index) 1.9 ± 0.06 1.9 ± 0.10 1.6 ± 0.09 1.1 ± 0.16
      Cover of sown species (evenness) 0.8 ± 0.02 0.9 ± 0.02 0.7 ± 0.03 0.6 ± 0.06

      The significant differences between each mix in each year are distinguished in column SD (significant differences): * ≤ 0.05; ** ≤ 0.01.

      The floristic community of the plots sown with mix 1 registered a significantly higher percentage of the sown species and lower spontaneous species cover. In fact, although the percentage of sown species that germinated in 2017 was identical between the two mixes, in 2018 there was a significant decrease in the germination of the species in mix 2 compared to mix 1. Nevertheless, between years, the cover of sown species significantly increased for both mixes (p < 0.05).

      The diversity and evenness of the germinated species were identical between the two seed mixes in 2017, and both registered a decreasing tendency regarding these parameters between 2017 and 2018.

      <italic>In-situ</italic> trials

      All the species of the final seed mix germinated in the in-situ plots in the first year, with global mean germination of 11% and maximum germination of 43% (Briza maxima L.). The germination percentage registered a high variability between species (p < 0.001). Seven species obtained germination values above 15% and, among them, Briza maxima, Cynosurus echinatus L., and Silene gallica L. obtained germination values above 30% (Figure 3).

      Germination percentage (mean ± standard error) in 2019 of the seed mix species sown in the in-situ plots.

      There were no significant differences in the number of species and percentage of vegetation cover between the control and the pre-sown plots in the first monitoring (springs 2017 and 2018). The mean number of species increased in 2019 and 2020 (p < 0.001), following the germination of sown species, though other native and ruderal species also increased after the intervention (Figure 4). Therefore, both spontaneous and sown species increased the total of native flora species in both years (p < 0.001).

      Number of species (mean ± standard error) in control and in-situ sown plots, considering the seed mix species and spontaneous species (other native and ruderal species), and total richness.

      The introduction of the seed mix increased the vegetation cover of the sown plots (p < 0.001) and enhanced the existence of herbaceous vegetation layers, especially in 2020 (Figure 5). All the species of the seed mix persisted between 2019 and 2020, with a seed mix cover of 33% in both years. In 2019, the cover of spontaneous native species diminished in both control and sown plots. However, in 2020, the cover of ruderal species remained the same in the sown plots, and the cover of other spontaneous native species increased.

      Species cover percentage (mean ± standard error) in control and in-situ sown plots, considering the seed mix species and spontaneous species (other native and ruderal species), and vegetation overlap.

      Additionally, 96% of the sown species produced flowers and seeds in both monitoring years. The overall flowering period of the seed mix took place between March and June. The number of flora species that provide food or shelter for butterflies and small mammals increased in the sown plots through the germination and growth of species such as Brachypodium distachyon (L.) P.Beauv. and Mantisalca salmantica (L.) Briq&Cavill. The seed mix also contributed to the increase of endemic species in the sown plots through the germination and persistence of Pterocephalidium diandrum (Lag.) G.López, Sanguisorba hybrida (Link ex G.Don) Ces., and Silene scabriflora Brot.

      Diversity and evenness were similar for control and pre-sown plots before the intervention (springs 2017 and 2018). The application of the final seed mix resulted in higher (p < 0.001) species diversity and evenness in the sown plots (Figure 6).

      Species diversity (Shannon-Wiener index) and Evenness (Pielou Index) of the floristic community (mean ± standard error) in control and in-situ sown plots.

      The application of the final seed mix generated a significant increase (p < 0.001) of the evaluated flora community parameters (Table 2), highlighting the increase in total species richness (125%) and diversity (45%).

      Proportional increase of flora community parameters in the in-situ plots sown with the final seed mix.

      Increase of flora community parameters
      Species richness +125%
      Species diversity (Shannon-Wienner index) +45%
      Species evenness (Pielou Index) +14%
      Vegetation cover +17%
      Discussion

      In the ex-situ trials, the two mixes under analysis showed identical behavior for most parameters of the floristic community. This similarity between mixes can be explained by their composition, which includes some shared species or species with identical functional characteristics. In either mix, only some of the sown species managed to establish (mix 1: 43% in 2017 and 43.5% in 2018; mix 2: 38.2% in 2017 and 29% in 2018), which agrees with other studies carried out in semi-arid conditions (e.g., Tormo et al., 2006; Bochet et al., 2010), and the global germination percentage was less than 10%. This difference between the establishment performance of the sown species evidences the need to readjust the mixes’ composition to ensure the success of the in-situ trials. Also, both mixes increased the vegetation cover in the second year despite a decrease in diversity and evenness of the sown species, reflecting a short-term persistence ability for some species and an increase in some species’ dominance, namely grasses. The increase in the vegetation cover could be related to the precipitation variability between years, since the rainfall was higher in the autumn/winter of 2017/2018. The decrease in diversity and evenness of sown species is expected over time (e.g., Haaland and Gyllin, 2011; Angelella et al., 2019); however, in these seed mixes, it started shortly after the intervention (2nd spring), which may indicate the need to readjust the seed mix proportions. Despite the similarities between mixes, in the 2 years monitored, plots sown with mix 1 registered: (a) a higher percentage of sown species present in the floristic community, (b) a lower cover of spontaneous species, and (c) a steady percentage of sown species that germinated (about 43%) in both springs. The performance of mix 1 in these parameters may indicate better suitability to the edaphoclimatic conditions and increased capacity to fulfil the study aims of promoting native flora in the pedestrian trails’ surrounding. Thus, mix 1 was considered most suitable for implementation in in-situ trials. Nevertheless, to ensure better performance, minor adjustments were made to the composition and proportion of mix 1 to incorporate the positive aspects of both mixes. These adjustments included (a) the redistribution of some species proportion (e.g., Medicago doliata Carmign. was excluded from the mix, and the proportions of the remaining Fabaceae species were therefore slightly adjusted), (b) the addition of one species from the unselected mix (Aegilops triuncialis L.), and (c) the replacement of species by others from the unselected mix that obtained a better germination percentage (namely Salvia verbenaca L. and Stipa capensis Thunb. were replaced by Petrorhagia nanteuilii (Burnat) P.W.Ball&Heywood and Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench, respectively) or have higher conservation interest (namely Cerinthe major L. and Sanguisorba verrucosa (Link ex G.Don) Ces. were replaced by Pterocephalidium diandrum and Sanguisorba hybrida, respectively).

      In the in-situ plots, all sown species germinated in the first and second years after the intervention, reflecting a better performance of the final seed mix than the original seed mixes tested in the ex-situ trials and ensuring a more suitable selection of the species composition and proportion. The seed mix germination percentage in the in-situ trial was not high (11%) but follows what is usually registered in rehabilitation actions (Ceccon et al., 2016).

      Applying seed mixes can be challenging, and even in places with low floristic diversity, such as many urban areas, sowing a wildflower mix does not automatically result in vegetation with the same composition as the seed mix (Bretzel et al., 2009; Fischer et al., 2013a; Schmidt et al., 2020). These differences in the species assemblage may occur due to the seed bank response or changes in the species’ competitive dynamic (Hobbs et al., 2006; Fischer et al., 2013b). In this study, the application of the seed mix increased the species number in the in-situ plots due to the germination of sown species but also of spontaneous species (other native and ruderal species), most surely because these benefited from the disturbance of the soil seed bank produced at sowing (Hölzel et al., 2012). Therefore, this seed mix complemented and improved the floristic richness of the sown areas, as intended, without replacing the existing flora.

      Developing a seed mix must consider the characteristics of the selected species and its applicability to the target place, considering factors such as soil type, soil seed bank, original land use, sowing method and weather conditions (Bretzel et al., 2012; Scheper et al., 2021). Despite considering other environmental factors (sun exposure and weather conditions), it was not possible to incorporate soil analyses that might help to explain the species’ different behavior in ex-situ and in-situ trials. All tested seed mixes (ex-situ and in-situ trials) incorporated a sufficiently broad range of species to successfully establish the seed mix; although, testing the seed mix in different soil types would benefit the study by evaluating its adaptive ability.

      The vegetation cover and the overlap of herbaceous species layers increased in the sown plots, ensuring a seed mix representation of 33% in the floristic community, and densifying the vegetation cover. The implemented seed mix is intended to promote grassland diversity and create favorable conditions for the permanency of small fauna such as butterflies and small mammals, what seems to be accomplished by increasing the number of these flora species, vegetation cover and vegetation layers. Among the sown species, the germination of Brachypodium distachyon and Mantisalca salmantica, for instance, stands out, because they contribute to the promotion of refuge and feeding areas for butterflies like Melanargia ines (Hoffmannsegg, 1804), Thymelicus action (Rottemburg, 1775), Thymelicus lineola (Ochsenheimer, 1808), and Vanessa cardui (Linnaeus, 1758) (Stefanescu, 1997; Maravalhas, 2003; Obregón and Prunier, 2014).

      The final seed mix combined species from several families with different life forms (annual, biannual, and perennial), what increases the floristic community resiliency by allowing an extended flowering period and different survival strategies (Hoyle, 2016). Additionally, most species produced flowers and seeds, which is a good indicator of sustainability. The flowering period occurred throughout the spring (March to June), ensuring food availability for pollinators and an aesthetically pleasing appearance for pedestrians, an important feature in these circumstances, as noted by other studies (Lindemann-Matthies and Brieger, 2016; Hoyle et al., 2018; Scheper et al., 2021). An extended flowering period, without mowing, provides more opportunities for the self-reseeding of annual species (Hoyle, 2016), as the plants have more time to produce viable seeds, decreasing the need to reseed. The tested seed mix also allows a wide range of flower shapes and colors, contributing to more feeding opportunities for pollinators and improving the citizens’ acceptance (Hoyle et al., 2018; Colombo et al., 2021; Scheper et al., 2021). Therefore, a seed mix composition that allows the longest and more diverse flowering season helps to increase biodiversity, minimizes reseeding costs, and improves the relationship between citizens and the urban rehabilitated grasslands. The long-term sustainability of urban rehabilitated grasslands depends on citizens’ acceptance and local authorities’ commitment (Norton et al., 2019); thus, ensuring a diverse and extended flowering season is a key factor when planning a seed mix composition.

      The management timing and frequency of rehabilitated urban grasslands also play a decisive role in their long-term sustainability. Although mowing is essential to preserve grassland diversity (Tälle et al., 2018), recurrent mowing during the flowering season can make seed production unfeasible (e.g., Blažek and Lepš, 2015; Nakahama et al., 2016), decreasing the diversity of wildflower meadows over time. The studied pedestrian trails, and respective pocket parks, were managed by mowing the vegetation in late spring, allowing the sown species to complete their reproductive cycle, and contributing to a favorable evolution of the floristic community over the studied period. Based on these results and in other studies in the Mediterranean (Filibeck et al., 2016), we advise planning the mowing just after the flowering peak, i.e., between the middle and the end of June, in the case of the Mediterranean basin.

      The three vegetation groups (other native, ruderal, and seed mix) under analysis were more balanced in the sown plots than in the control plots, with a decrease in the dominance of ruderal species and the fostering of less common spontaneous species. This balance between species follows other studies in urban areas (e.g., Fischer et al., 2013a,b; Norton et al., 2019), which verified a decrease in ruderal species in rehabilitated areas and the ability of meadow species to adapt to ruderal environments. The increment in the species diversity and evenness in the sown plots also corroborates the improvement of the flora community balance. Besides, the application of the seed mix increased the presence of species with conservation interest, like endemic species such as Pterocephalidium diandrum, Sanguisorba hybrida, and Silene scabriflora. As pointed out by Hobbs et al. (2006) and Fischer et al. (2013a), the coexistence of sown and spontaneous species results in a new floristic community that is probably more ruderal than natural or semi-natural grasslands. However, the establishment of less common species highlights the green urban areas’ potential to preserve rare species of natural and semi-natural grasslands.

      The application of the final seed mix in pocket parks distributed throughout pedestrian trails of South Portugal largely contributed to ameliorate the indicators of the floristic community, generating a quick and significant increase of total species richness in 125%, diversity in 45%, evenness in 14%, and cover in 17%. In addition, the establishment of this seed mix did not require watering nor soil fertilizing and the mowing frequency was low (once in late spring), following the requirements for implementing an ecologically sustainable and low-cost wildflower meadow (Bretzel et al., 2009; Köppler et al., 2014). The low requirements for maintaining rehabilitated urban grasslands are one of the significant advantages of their implementation from the point of view of policymakers and local authorities (Hoyle et al., 2017b). Thus, given these areas’ economic and ecological advantages, ensuring that the population recognizes their ecological and social value can be a decisive factor in expanding their implementation.

      The acceptance of native herbaceous vegetation in peri-urban or urban areas in the Mediterranean can be difficult, especially because of their appearance in summer (Filibeck et al., 2016; Colombo et al., 2021). Most native meadows and grassland species dry during summer, and the rehabilitated green areas can look unattractive and careless (Filibeck et al., 2016; Colombo et al., 2021). Mowing these areas in late spring can benefit the grassland species diversity, ensuring that they remain in an initial succession phase (Filibeck et al., 2016), and allowing a more acceptable aesthetic appearance during the dry season.

      This study did not include acceptance population surveys; thus, we have no information about the population reaction in the intervened cities. To our knowledge, during the monitoring period, the sown plots were not vandalized, and the citizens did not react negatively to the urban grasslands’ rehabilitation. Informational signs were placed at the beginning of pedestrian trails and some pocket parks, and the sown plots were marked with stakes. The signage of the rehabilitated areas allows citizens to be informed, what improves the ecological culture and increases the citizens’ respect (Filibeck et al., 2016; Norton et al., 2019). Signaling the plots also allows, if necessary, to adapt the vegetation management and ensure that the rehabilitated areas are only mowed after the flowering season, contributing to long-term preservation (Norton et al., 2019). As referenced in other studies (e.g., Filibeck et al., 2016; Hoyle et al., 2017b; Southon et al., 2018; Norton et al., 2019), the size, location, distribution, and density of the biodiversity promotion plots in urbanized contexts can be critical factors in preserving the intervened areas and their acceptance by the citizens. Thus, the plots’ small size, sparse distribution through pedestrian trails/pocket parks, and localization in peri-urban areas may have also contributed to their preservation. Furthermore, during the summer, the plots and the remaining vegetation were mowed, and the sown plots appearance was similar to the surrounding matrix.

      Our study shows that the application of seed mixes with regional native species allows the promotion of native flora in Mediterranean peri-urban green areas, enhancing the potential of these spaces as tools for biodiversity conservation. Furthermore, the development and commercialization of native seed mixes could prevent the use of seed mixes imported from different biogeographical regions and, thus, diminish the risk of introducing exotic species with invasive ability.

      The final seed mix seems suitable for replicating actions in a peri-urban context under identical climate conditions, namely in the south of the Iberian Peninsula. In the Mediterranean context and given the small number of native seed mixes tested, our study represents an innovation and provides practical insights into grassland rehabilitation, contributing to the improvement of plant diversity’ management in peri-urban and urban areas. Nevertheless, further monitoring of the seed mix dynamics and evolution will be necessary since some changes may occur over the following years, and adjustments to species composition or proportions may be required. Additionally, the sustainability of the seed mix must be assessed in the long term, including an evaluation of the need for seeding reinforcement.

      Data availability statement

      The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because raw data were generated at the University of Évora, under the LIFE LINES project (LIFE14 NAT/PT/001081). Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study. Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author MF on request. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to MF, mpfernandes@uevora.pt.

      Author contributions

      MF, CP-C, and AB conceived and designed the study. All authors participated in field work and contributed to data collection. PM analyzed data in collaboration with MF. MF, PM, and AB wrote and edited the manuscript, with inputs from the other authors. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

      Funding

      This work is funded by National Funds through FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology under the Project UIDB/05183/2020.

      Conflict of interest

      The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

      Publisher’s note

      All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

      MF was supported by a Ph.D. grant from FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology (2020.06339.BD). We thank the support of the project “LIFE LINES – Linear Infrastructure Networks with Ecological Solutions” (LIFE14 NAT/PT/001081), from the European Union LIFE Program. We also recognize the collaboration of Marlene Emídio during fieldwork and data collection.

      Supplementary material

      The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: /articles/10.3389/fevo.2023.1112596/full#supplementary-material

      References Aldrich J. H. (2002). Factors and benefits in the establishment of modest-sized wildflower plantings: a review. Native Plants J. 3, 6786. doi: 10.3368/npj.3.1.67 Angelella G. M. Stange L. Scoggins H. L. O’Rourke M. E. (2019). Pollinator refuge establishment and conservation value: impacts of seedbed preparations, seed mixtures, and herbicides. HortScience 54, 445451. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI13600-18 Bellairs S. M. Caswell M. J. (2016). Seed viability of native grasses is important when revegetating native wildlife habitat. North Territ. Nat. 27, 3646. Bewley J. D. Bradford K. J. Hilhorst H. W. M. Nonogaki H. (2013). Seeds. 3rd Edn. New York, NY: Springer New York. Bhatt A. Bhat N. R. Suleiman M. K. Santo A. (2019). Effects of storage, mucilage presence, photoperiod, thermoperiod and salinity on germination of Farsetia aegyptia Turra (Brassicaceae) seeds: implications for restoration and seed banks in Arabian Desert. Plant Biosyst. 153, 280287. doi: 10.1080/11263504.2018.1473524 Blackmore L. M. Goulson D. (2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of wildflower seed mixes for boosting floral diversity and bumblebee and hoverfly abundance in urban areas. Insect Conserv. Divers 7, 480484. doi: 10.1111/icad.12071 Blažek P. Lepš J. (2015). Victims of agricultural intensification: mowing date affects Rhinanthus spp. regeneration and fruit ripening. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 211, 1016. doi: 10.1016/J.AGEE.2015.04.022 Bochet E. Tormo J. García-Fayos P. (2010). Native species for Roadslope revegetation: selection, validation, and cost effectiveness. Restor. Ecol. 18, 656663. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00496.x Bretzel F. Malorgio F. Paoletti L. Pezzarossa B. (2012). Response of sowed, flowering herbaceous communities suitable for anthropic Mediterranean areas under different mowing regimes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 107, 8088. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.002 Bretzel F. Pezzarossa B. Benvenuti S. Bravi A. Malorgio F. (2009). Soil influence on the performance of 26 native herbaceous plants suitable for sustainable Mediterranean landscaping. Acta Oecol. 35, 657663. doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2009.06.008 Bretzel F. Vannucchi F. Romano D. Malorgio F. Benvenuti S. Pezzarossa B. (2016). Wildflowers: from conserving biodiversity to urban greening—a review. Urban For. Urban Green. 20, 428436. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.008 Carter D. L. Blair J. M. (2012). High richness and dense seeding enhance grassland restoration establishment but have little effect on drought response. Ecological Applications 22, 13081319. doi: 10.1890/11-1970.1 Castroviejo S. (coord. gen.). (1986–2012). Flora Iberica 1–8, 10–15, 17–18, 21. CSIC, Madrid: Real Jardín Botánico Available at: http://www.floraiberica.es/miscelania/aviso_legal.php (Accessed January 22, 2019). Ceccon E. González E. J. Martorell C. (2016). Is direct seeding a biologically viable strategy for restoring Forest ecosystems? Evidences from a meta-analysis. Land Degrad. Dev. 27, 511520. doi: 10.1002/ldr.2421 Cerabolini B. Andreis R.De Ceriani R. M. Pierce S. Raimondi B. (2004). Seed germination and conservation of endangered species from the Italian Alps: Physoplexis comosa and Primula glaucescens. Biol. Conserv. 117, 351356. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.12.011. Chust G. Pérez-Haase A. Chave J. Pretus J. L. (2006). Floristic patterns and plant traits of Mediterranean communities in fragmented habitats. J. Biogeogr. 33, 12351245. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01492.x Colombo A. S. Berto R. Ferrario P. Toccolini A. Larcher F. (2021). Wildflowers in urban design: an exploratory research of preference in Italian adults. Vis. Sustain. 2021, 3552. doi: 10.13135/2384-8677/4599 Copete M. Á. Herranz J. M. Ferrandis P. (2009). Seed germination ecology of the endemic Iberian winter annuals Iberis pectinata and Ziziphora aragonensis. Seed Sci. Res. 19, 155169. doi: 10.1017/S0960258509990079 Craine J. M. (2005). Reconciling plant strategy theories of grime and Tilman. J. Ecol. 93, 10411052. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01043.x de Vitis M. Abbandonato H. Dixon K. W. Laverack G. Bonomi C. Pedrini S. (2017). The European native seed industry: characterization and perspectives in grassland restoration. Sustainability 9, 114. doi: 10.3390/su9101682 Dunnett N. (2011). Urban meadows: an ecological discussion. Asp. Appl. Biol., 1117. Elmqvist T. Setälä H. Handel S. van der Ploeg S. Aronson J. Blignaut J. . (2015). Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 101108. doi: 10.1016/J.COSUST.2015.05.001 ENSCONET (2009). ENSCONET - seed collecting manual for wild species. Available at: https://www.publicgardens.org/resources/ensconet-seed-collecting-manual-wild-species. January 10, 2023. Farinha-Marques P. Lameiras J. M. M. Fernandes C. Silva S. Guilherme F. (2011). Urban biodiversity: a review of current concepts and contributions to multidisciplinary approaches. Innovations 24, 247271. doi: 10.1080/13511610.2011.592062 Fernandes M. P. Pinto-Cruz C. Almeida E. Emídio M. Simões M. P. Gazarini L. . (2021). Seed germination of six Iberian endemic species – a contribution to enhance plant conservation. Plant Biosyst. 155, 11461152. doi: 10.1080/11263504.2020.1845841 FFMS (2021). Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos. Available at: https://www.pordata.pt/en/municipalities (Accessed January 3, 2023). Filibeck G. Petrella P. Cornelini P. (2016). All ecosystems look messy, but some more so than others: a case-study on the management and acceptance of Mediterranean urban grasslands. Urban For. Urban Green. 15, 3239. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.11.005 Fischer L. K. von der Lippe M. Kowarik I. (2013b). Urban grassland restoration: which plant traits make desired species successful colonizers? Appl. Veg. Sci. 16, 272285. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2012.01216.x Fischer L. K. Von der Lippe M. Rillig M. C. Kowarik I. (2013a). Creating novel urban grasslands by reintroducing native species in wasteland vegetation. Biol. Conserv. 159, 119126. doi: 10.1016/J.BIOCON.2012.11.028 Flora Vascular (2016). Flora Vascular – Toda la informacion detallada sobre la Flora Vascular. Available at: https://www.floravascular.com/ (Accessed December 15, 2021). Flora-On (2014). Flora-On | Flora de Portugal interactiva. Sociedade Portuguesa de Botânica. Available at: https://flora-on.pt/ (Accessed December 15, 2021). Gann G. D. McDonald T. Walder B. Aronson J. Nelson C. R. Jonson J. . (2019). International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition. Restor. Ecol. 27, S1S46. doi: 10.1111/rec.13035 Gómez-Baggethun E. Barton D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235245. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019 Gosling P. G. (2003). “Viability testing” in Seed Conservation: Turning Science Into Practice. eds. Smith R. D. Dickie J. B. Linington S. H. Pritchard H. W. Probert R. J. (Kew, Great Britain: The Royal Botanic Gardens), 445481. Haaland C. Gyllin M. (2011). “Sown wildflower strips – a strategy to enhance biodiversity and amenity in intensively used agricultural areas” in The Importance of Biological Interactions in the Study of Biodiversity. ed. López-Pujol J. (Barcelona: IntechOpen), 155172. Hitchmough J. Paraskevopoulou A. Dunnett N. (2008). Influence of grass suppression and sowing rate on the establishment and persistence of forb dominated urban meadows. Urban Ecosyst. 11, 3344. doi: 10.1007/s11252-007-0041-8 Hobbs R. J. Arico S. Aronson J. Baron J. S. Bridgewater P. Cramer V. A. . (2006). Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 15, 17. doi: 10.1111/J.1466-822X.2006.00212.X Hölzel N. Buisson E. Dutoit T. (2012). Species introduction – a major topic in vegetation restoration. Appl. Veg. Sci. 15, 161165. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2012.01189.x Hoyle H. (2016). Improving urban grassland for people and wildlife. Available at: http://www.relu.ac.uk/landbridge/LWEC%20PP%20Note%2032.pdf. (Accessed January 5, 2023). Hoyle H. Hitchmough J. Jorgensen A. (2017a). All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landsc. Urban Plan. 164, 109123. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.011 Hoyle H. Jorgensen A. Warren P. Dunnett N. Evans K. (2017b). “Not in their front yard” the opportunities and challenges of introducing perennial urban meadows: a local authority stakeholder perspective. Urban For. Urban Green. 25, 139149. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.009 Hoyle H. Norton B. Dunnett N. Richards J. P. Russell J. M. Warren P. (2018). Plant species or flower colour diversity? Identifying the drivers of public and invertebrate response to designed annual meadows. Landsc. Urban Plan. 180, 103113. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.017 Hufford K. M. Mazer S. J. (2003). Plant ecotypes: genetic differentiation in the age of ecological restoration. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 147155. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00002-8 ICT (2021). Atmospheric sciences water and climate. Available at: http://www.i-c-t.pt/g1/ (Accessed December 15, 2021). IPMA (2019). Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera. Available at: https://www.ipma.pt/pt/oclima/normais.clima/1971-2000/ (Accessed May 1, 2022). Janssen J. A. M. Rodwell J. S. Criado M. G. Arts G. H. P. Bijlsma R. J. Schaminee J. H. J. (2016). European red list of habitats: Part 2. Terrestrial and Freshwater Habitats. Kelemen A. Török P. Valkó O. Deák B. Miglécz T. Tóth K. . (2014). Sustaining recovered grasslands is not likely without proper management: vegetation changes after cessation of mowing. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 741751. doi: 10.1007/s10531-014-0631-8 Klaus V. H. (2013). Urban grassland restoration: a neglected opportunity for biodiversity conservation. Restor. Ecol. 21, 665669. doi: 10.1111/rec.12051 Köppler M. R. Kowarik I. Kühn N. von der Lippe M. (2014). Enhancing wasteland vegetation by adding ornamentals: opportunities and constraints for establishing steppe and prairie species on urban demolition sites. Landsc. Urban Plan. 126, 19. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.03.001 Kowarik I. (2011). Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ. Pollut. 159, 19741983. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.02.022 Lepš J. Doležal J. Bezemer T. M. Brown V. K. Hedlund K. Igual A. M. . (2007). Long-term effectiveness of sowing high and low diversity seed mixtures to enhance plant community development on ex-arable fields. Appl. Veg. Sci. 10:97. doi: 10.1658/1402-2001(2007)10[97:LEOSHA]2.0.CO;2 Lindemann-Matthies P. Brieger H. (2016). Does urban gardening increase aesthetic quality of urban areas? A case study from Germany. Urban For. Urban Green. 17, 3341. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.010 Maravalhas E. (2003). As borboletas de Portugal. Portugal: Edição Ernestino Maravalhas. Nakahama N. Uchida K. Ushimaru A. Isagi Y. (2016). Timing of mowing influences genetic diversity and reproductive success in endangered semi-natural grassland plants. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 221, 2027. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.029 Norton B. A. Bending G. D. Clark R. Corstanje R. Dunnett N. Evans K. L. . (2019). Urban meadows as an alternative to short mown grassland: effects of composition and height on biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 29:e01946-1115. doi: 10.1002/eap.1946, PMID: 31173423 Nunes A. Oliveira G. Mexia T. Valdecantos A. Zucca C. Costantini E. A. C. . (2016). Ecological restoration across the Mediterranean Basin as viewed by practitioners. Sci. Total Environ. 566-567, 722732. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.136, PMID: 27239715 Obregón R. Prunier F. (2014). Diversidad y ecología de una comunidad de Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera) en el arroyo Pedroches y su entorno: un paraje natural periurbano a conservar (Córdoba, España). Rev. Gaditana Entomol. 1, 183201. Scheper J. Bukovinszky T. Huigens M. E. Kleijn D. (2021). Attractiveness of sown wildflower strips to flower-visiting insects depends on seed mixture and establishment success. Basic Appl. Ecol. 56, 401415. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2021.08.014 Schmidt A. Kirmer A. Kiehl K. Tischew S. (2020). Seed mixture strongly affects species-richness and quality of perennial flower strips on fertile soil. Basic Appl. Ecol. 42, 6272. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2019.11.005 Seto K. C. Fragkias M. Güneralp B. Reilly M. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS One 6:e23777. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023777, PMID: 21876770 Simões M. P. Belo A. F. Pinto-Cruz C. Pinheiro A. C. (2014). Natural vegetation management to conserve biodiversity and soil water in olive orchards. Span. J. Agric. Res. 12, 633643. doi: 10.5424/sjar/2014123-5255 Southon G. E. Jorgensen A. Dunnett N. Hoyle H. Evans K. L. (2018). Perceived species-richness in urban green spaces: cues, accuracy and well-being impacts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 172, 110. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.12.002 Stefanescu C. (1997). Migration patterns and feeding resources of the painted lady butterfly, Cynthia cardui (L.) (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) in the northeast of the Iberian peninsula. Misc.·Zool. 20, 3148. Stoate C. Báldi A. Beja P. Boatman N. D. Herzon I. van Doorn A. . (2009). Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe – a review. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 2246. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005, PMID: 19717221 Suding K. Higgs E. Palmer M. Callicott J. B. Anderson C. B. Baker M. . (2015). Committing to ecological restoration. Science 348, 638640. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa4216 Tälle M. Deák B. Poschlod P. Valkó O. Westerberg L. Milberg P. (2018). Similar effects of different mowing frequencies on the conservation value of semi-natural grasslands in Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 27, 24512475. doi: 10.1007/s10531-018-1562-6 Thompson G. L. Kao-Kniffin J. (2017). Applying biodiversity and ecosystem function theory to turfgrass management. Crop Sci. 57, S-238S-248. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2016.05.0433 Thompson G. L. Kao-Kniffin J. (2019). Urban grassland management implications for soil C and N dynamics: a microbial perspective. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7:315. doi: 10.3389/FEVO.2019.00315/BIBTEX Tormo J. Bochet E. García-Fayos P. (2006). Is seed availability enough to ensure colonization success? An experimental study in road embankments. Ecol. Eng. 26, 224230. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.10.003 Vega K. A. Küffer C. (2021). Promoting wildflower biodiversity in dense and green cities: the important role of small vegetation patches. Urban For. Urban Green. 62:127165. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127165 Wesche K. Krause B. Culmsee H. Leuschner C. (2012). Fifty years of change in central European grassland vegetation: large losses in species richness and animal-pollinated plants. Biol. Conserv. 150, 7685. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.02.015

      1https://www.icterra.pt/g1/index.php/meteo-data/

      ‘Oh, my dear Thomas, you haven’t heard the terrible news then?’ she said. ‘I thought you would be sure to have seen it placarded somewhere. Alice went straight to her room, and I haven’t seen her since, though I repeatedly knocked at the door, which she has locked on the inside, and I’m sure it’s most unnatural of her not to let her own mother comfort her. It all happened in a moment: I have always said those great motor-cars shouldn’t be allowed to career about the streets, especially when they are all paved with cobbles as they are at Easton Haven, which are{331} so slippery when it’s wet. He slipped, and it went over him in a moment.’ My thanks were few and awkward, for there still hung to the missive a basting thread, and it was as warm as a nestling bird. I bent low--everybody was emotional in those days--kissed the fragrant thing, thrust it into my bosom, and blushed worse than Camille. "What, the Corner House victim? Is that really a fact?" "My dear child, I don't look upon it in that light at all. The child gave our picturesque friend a certain distinction--'My husband is dead, and this is my only child,' and all that sort of thing. It pays in society." leave them on the steps of a foundling asylum in order to insure [See larger version] Interoffice guff says you're planning definite moves on your own, J. O., and against some opposition. Is the Colonel so poor or so grasping—or what? Albert could not speak, for he felt as if his brains and teeth were rattling about inside his head. The rest of[Pg 188] the family hunched together by the door, the boys gaping idiotically, the girls in tears. "Now you're married." The host was called in, and unlocked a drawer in which they were deposited. The galleyman, with visible reluctance, arrayed himself in the garments, and he was observed to shudder more than once during the investiture of the dead man's apparel. HoME香京julia种子在线播放 ENTER NUMBET 0016kxchain.com.cn
      l93fh.net.cn
      www.fanyouxi.com.cn
      www.hbiyes.org.cn
      haoryuan.com.cn
      idhifa.com.cn
      www.ubqses.com.cn
      qhdp.com.cn
      ungbrt.com.cn
      oizsml.com.cn
      处女被大鸡巴操 强奸乱伦小说图片 俄罗斯美女爱爱图 调教强奸学生 亚洲女的穴 夜来香图片大全 美女性强奸电影 手机版色中阁 男性人体艺术素描图 16p成人 欧美性爱360 电影区 亚洲电影 欧美电影 经典三级 偷拍自拍 动漫电影 乱伦电影 变态另类 全部电 类似狠狠鲁的网站 黑吊操白逼图片 韩国黄片种子下载 操逼逼逼逼逼 人妻 小说 p 偷拍10幼女自慰 极品淫水很多 黄色做i爱 日本女人人体电影快播看 大福国小 我爱肏屄美女 mmcrwcom 欧美多人性交图片 肥臀乱伦老头舔阴帝 d09a4343000019c5 西欧人体艺术b xxoo激情短片 未成年人的 插泰国人夭图片 第770弾み1 24p 日本美女性 交动态 eee色播 yantasythunder 操无毛少女屄 亚洲图片你懂的女人 鸡巴插姨娘 特级黄 色大片播 左耳影音先锋 冢本友希全集 日本人体艺术绿色 我爱被舔逼 内射 幼 美阴图 喷水妹子高潮迭起 和后妈 操逼 美女吞鸡巴 鸭个自慰 中国女裸名单 操逼肥臀出水换妻 色站裸体义术 中国行上的漏毛美女叫什么 亚洲妹性交图 欧美美女人裸体人艺照 成人色妹妹直播 WWW_JXCT_COM r日本女人性淫乱 大胆人艺体艺图片 女同接吻av 碰碰哥免费自拍打炮 艳舞写真duppid1 88电影街拍视频 日本自拍做爱qvod 实拍美女性爱组图 少女高清av 浙江真实乱伦迅雷 台湾luanlunxiaoshuo 洛克王国宠物排行榜 皇瑟电影yy频道大全 红孩儿连连看 阴毛摄影 大胆美女写真人体艺术摄影 和风骚三个媳妇在家做爱 性爱办公室高清 18p2p木耳 大波撸影音 大鸡巴插嫩穴小说 一剧不超两个黑人 阿姨诱惑我快播 幼香阁千叶县小学生 少女妇女被狗强奸 曰人体妹妹 十二岁性感幼女 超级乱伦qvod 97爱蜜桃ccc336 日本淫妇阴液 av海量资源999 凤凰影视成仁 辰溪四中艳照门照片 先锋模特裸体展示影片 成人片免费看 自拍百度云 肥白老妇女 女爱人体图片 妈妈一女穴 星野美夏 日本少女dachidu 妹子私处人体图片 yinmindahuitang 舔无毛逼影片快播 田莹疑的裸体照片 三级电影影音先锋02222 妻子被外国老头操 观月雏乃泥鳅 韩国成人偷拍自拍图片 强奸5一9岁幼女小说 汤姆影院av图片 妹妹人艺体图 美女大驱 和女友做爱图片自拍p 绫川まどか在线先锋 那么嫩的逼很少见了 小女孩做爱 处女好逼连连看图图 性感美女在家做爱 近距离抽插骚逼逼 黑屌肏金毛屄 日韩av美少女 看喝尿尿小姐日逼色色色网图片 欧美肛交新视频 美女吃逼逼 av30线上免费 伊人在线三级经典 新视觉影院t6090影院 最新淫色电影网址 天龙影院远古手机版 搞老太影院 插进美女的大屁股里 私人影院加盟费用 www258dd 求一部电影里面有一个二猛哥 深肛交 日本萌妹子人体艺术写真图片 插入屄眼 美女的木奶 中文字幕黄色网址影视先锋 九号女神裸 和骚人妻偷情 和潘晓婷做爱 国模大尺度蜜桃 欧美大逼50p 西西人体成人 李宗瑞继母做爱原图物处理 nianhuawang 男鸡巴的视屏 � 97免费色伦电影 好色网成人 大姨子先锋 淫荡巨乳美女教师妈妈 性nuexiaoshuo WWW36YYYCOM 长春继续给力进屋就操小女儿套干破内射对白淫荡 农夫激情社区 日韩无码bt 欧美美女手掰嫩穴图片 日本援交偷拍自拍 入侵者日本在线播放 亚洲白虎偷拍自拍 常州高见泽日屄 寂寞少妇自卫视频 人体露逼图片 多毛外国老太 变态乱轮手机在线 淫荡妈妈和儿子操逼 伦理片大奶少女 看片神器最新登入地址sqvheqi345com账号群 麻美学姐无头 圣诞老人射小妞和强奸小妞动话片 亚洲AV女老师 先锋影音欧美成人资源 33344iucoom zV天堂电影网 宾馆美女打炮视频 色五月丁香五月magnet 嫂子淫乱小说 张歆艺的老公 吃奶男人视频在线播放 欧美色图男女乱伦 avtt2014ccvom 性插色欲香影院 青青草撸死你青青草 99热久久第一时间 激情套图卡通动漫 幼女裸聊做爱口交 日本女人被强奸乱伦 草榴社区快播 2kkk正在播放兽骑 啊不要人家小穴都湿了 www猎奇影视 A片www245vvcomwwwchnrwhmhzcn 搜索宜春院av wwwsee78co 逼奶鸡巴插 好吊日AV在线视频19gancom 熟女伦乱图片小说 日本免费av无码片在线开苞 鲁大妈撸到爆 裸聊官网 德国熟女xxx 新不夜城论坛首页手机 女虐男网址 男女做爱视频华为网盘 激情午夜天亚洲色图 内裤哥mangent 吉沢明歩制服丝袜WWWHHH710COM 屌逼在线试看 人体艺体阿娇艳照 推荐一个可以免费看片的网站如果被QQ拦截请复制链接在其它浏览器打开xxxyyy5comintr2a2cb551573a2b2e 欧美360精品粉红鲍鱼 教师调教第一页 聚美屋精品图 中韩淫乱群交 俄罗斯撸撸片 把鸡巴插进小姨子的阴道 干干AV成人网 aolasoohpnbcn www84ytom 高清大量潮喷www27dyycom 宝贝开心成人 freefronvideos人母 嫩穴成人网gggg29com 逼着舅妈给我口交肛交彩漫画 欧美色色aV88wwwgangguanscom 老太太操逼自拍视频 777亚洲手机在线播放 有没有夫妻3p小说 色列漫画淫女 午间色站导航 欧美成人处女色大图 童颜巨乳亚洲综合 桃色性欲草 色眯眯射逼 无码中文字幕塞外青楼这是一个 狂日美女老师人妻 爱碰网官网 亚洲图片雅蠛蝶 快播35怎么搜片 2000XXXX电影 新谷露性家庭影院 深深候dvd播放 幼齿用英语怎么说 不雅伦理无需播放器 国外淫荡图片 国外网站幼幼嫩网址 成年人就去色色视频快播 我鲁日日鲁老老老我爱 caoshaonvbi 人体艺术avav 性感性色导航 韩国黄色哥来嫖网站 成人网站美逼 淫荡熟妇自拍 欧美色惰图片 北京空姐透明照 狼堡免费av视频 www776eom 亚洲无码av欧美天堂网男人天堂 欧美激情爆操 a片kk266co 色尼姑成人极速在线视频 国语家庭系列 蒋雯雯 越南伦理 色CC伦理影院手机版 99jbbcom 大鸡巴舅妈 国产偷拍自拍淫荡对话视频 少妇春梦射精 开心激动网 自拍偷牌成人 色桃隐 撸狗网性交视频 淫荡的三位老师 伦理电影wwwqiuxia6commqiuxia6com 怡春院分站 丝袜超短裙露脸迅雷下载 色制服电影院 97超碰好吊色男人 yy6080理论在线宅男日韩福利大全 大嫂丝袜 500人群交手机在线 5sav 偷拍熟女吧 口述我和妹妹的欲望 50p电脑版 wwwavtttcon 3p3com 伦理无码片在线看 欧美成人电影图片岛国性爱伦理电影 先锋影音AV成人欧美 我爱好色 淫电影网 WWW19MMCOM 玛丽罗斯3d同人动画h在线看 动漫女孩裸体 超级丝袜美腿乱伦 1919gogo欣赏 大色逼淫色 www就是撸 激情文学网好骚 A级黄片免费 xedd5com 国内的b是黑的 快播美国成年人片黄 av高跟丝袜视频 上原保奈美巨乳女教师在线观看 校园春色都市激情fefegancom 偷窥自拍XXOO 搜索看马操美女 人本女优视频 日日吧淫淫 人妻巨乳影院 美国女子性爱学校 大肥屁股重口味 啪啪啪啊啊啊不要 操碰 japanfreevideoshome国产 亚州淫荡老熟女人体 伦奸毛片免费在线看 天天影视se 樱桃做爱视频 亚卅av在线视频 x奸小说下载 亚洲色图图片在线 217av天堂网 东方在线撸撸-百度 幼幼丝袜集 灰姑娘的姐姐 青青草在线视频观看对华 86papa路con 亚洲1AV 综合图片2区亚洲 美国美女大逼电影 010插插av成人网站 www色comwww821kxwcom 播乐子成人网免费视频在线观看 大炮撸在线影院 ,www4KkKcom 野花鲁最近30部 wwwCC213wapwww2233ww2download 三客优最新地址 母亲让儿子爽的无码视频 全国黄色片子 欧美色图美国十次 超碰在线直播 性感妖娆操 亚洲肉感熟女色图 a片A毛片管看视频 8vaa褋芯屑 333kk 川岛和津实视频 在线母子乱伦对白 妹妹肥逼五月 亚洲美女自拍 老婆在我面前小说 韩国空姐堪比情趣内衣 干小姐综合 淫妻色五月 添骚穴 WM62COM 23456影视播放器 成人午夜剧场 尼姑福利网 AV区亚洲AV欧美AV512qucomwwwc5508com 经典欧美骚妇 震动棒露出 日韩丝袜美臀巨乳在线 av无限吧看 就去干少妇 色艺无间正面是哪集 校园春色我和老师做爱 漫画夜色 天海丽白色吊带 黄色淫荡性虐小说 午夜高清播放器 文20岁女性荫道口图片 热国产热无码热有码 2015小明发布看看算你色 百度云播影视 美女肏屄屄乱轮小说 家族舔阴AV影片 邪恶在线av有码 父女之交 关于处女破处的三级片 极品护士91在线 欧美虐待女人视频的网站 享受老太太的丝袜 aaazhibuo 8dfvodcom成人 真实自拍足交 群交男女猛插逼 妓女爱爱动态 lin35com是什么网站 abp159 亚洲色图偷拍自拍乱伦熟女抠逼自慰 朝国三级篇 淫三国幻想 免费的av小电影网站 日本阿v视频免费按摩师 av750c0m 黄色片操一下 巨乳少女车震在线观看 操逼 免费 囗述情感一乱伦岳母和女婿 WWW_FAMITSU_COM 偷拍中国少妇在公车被操视频 花也真衣论理电影 大鸡鸡插p洞 新片欧美十八岁美少 进击的巨人神thunderftp 西方美女15p 深圳哪里易找到老女人玩视频 在线成人有声小说 365rrr 女尿图片 我和淫荡的小姨做爱 � 做爱技术体照 淫妇性爱 大学生私拍b 第四射狠狠射小说 色中色成人av社区 和小姨子乱伦肛交 wwwppp62com 俄罗斯巨乳人体艺术 骚逼阿娇 汤芳人体图片大胆 大胆人体艺术bb私处 性感大胸骚货 哪个网站幼女的片多 日本美女本子把 色 五月天 婷婷 快播 美女 美穴艺术 色百合电影导航 大鸡巴用力 孙悟空操美少女战士 狠狠撸美女手掰穴图片 古代女子与兽类交 沙耶香套图 激情成人网区 暴风影音av播放 动漫女孩怎么插第3个 mmmpp44 黑木麻衣无码ed2k 淫荡学姐少妇 乱伦操少女屄 高中性爱故事 骚妹妹爱爱图网 韩国模特剪长发 大鸡巴把我逼日了 中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片 大胆女人下体艺术图片 789sss 影音先锋在线国内情侣野外性事自拍普通话对白 群撸图库 闪现君打阿乐 ady 小说 插入表妹嫩穴小说 推荐成人资源 网络播放器 成人台 149大胆人体艺术 大屌图片 骚美女成人av 春暖花开春色性吧 女亭婷五月 我上了同桌的姐姐 恋夜秀场主播自慰视频 yzppp 屄茎 操屄女图 美女鲍鱼大特写 淫乱的日本人妻山口玲子 偷拍射精图 性感美女人体艺木图片 种马小说完本 免费电影院 骑士福利导航导航网站 骚老婆足交 国产性爱一级电影 欧美免费成人花花性都 欧美大肥妞性爱视频 家庭乱伦网站快播 偷拍自拍国产毛片 金发美女也用大吊来开包 缔D杏那 yentiyishu人体艺术ytys WWWUUKKMCOM 女人露奶 � 苍井空露逼 老荡妇高跟丝袜足交 偷偷和女友的朋友做爱迅雷 做爱七十二尺 朱丹人体合成 麻腾由纪妃 帅哥撸播种子图 鸡巴插逼动态图片 羙国十次啦中文 WWW137AVCOM 神斗片欧美版华语 有气质女人人休艺术 由美老师放屁电影 欧美女人肉肏图片 白虎种子快播 国产自拍90后女孩 美女在床上疯狂嫩b 饭岛爱最后之作 幼幼强奸摸奶 色97成人动漫 两性性爱打鸡巴插逼 新视觉影院4080青苹果影院 嗯好爽插死我了 阴口艺术照 李宗瑞电影qvod38 爆操舅母 亚洲色图七七影院 被大鸡巴操菊花 怡红院肿么了 成人极品影院删除 欧美性爱大图色图强奸乱 欧美女子与狗随便性交 苍井空的bt种子无码 熟女乱伦长篇小说 大色虫 兽交幼女影音先锋播放 44aad be0ca93900121f9b 先锋天耗ばさ无码 欧毛毛女三级黄色片图 干女人黑木耳照 日本美女少妇嫩逼人体艺术 sesechangchang 色屄屄网 久久撸app下载 色图色噜 美女鸡巴大奶 好吊日在线视频在线观看 透明丝袜脚偷拍自拍 中山怡红院菜单 wcwwwcom下载 骑嫂子 亚洲大色妣 成人故事365ahnet 丝袜家庭教mp4 幼交肛交 妹妹撸撸大妈 日本毛爽 caoprom超碰在email 关于中国古代偷窥的黄片 第一会所老熟女下载 wwwhuangsecome 狼人干综合新地址HD播放 变态儿子强奸乱伦图 强奸电影名字 2wwwer37com 日本毛片基地一亚洲AVmzddcxcn 暗黑圣经仙桃影院 37tpcocn 持月真由xfplay 好吊日在线视频三级网 我爱背入李丽珍 电影师傅床戏在线观看 96插妹妹sexsex88com 豪放家庭在线播放 桃花宝典极夜著豆瓜网 安卓系统播放神器 美美网丝袜诱惑 人人干全免费视频xulawyercn av无插件一本道 全国色五月 操逼电影小说网 good在线wwwyuyuelvcom www18avmmd 撸波波影视无插件 伊人幼女成人电影 会看射的图片 小明插看看 全裸美女扒开粉嫩b 国人自拍性交网站 萝莉白丝足交本子 七草ちとせ巨乳视频 摇摇晃晃的成人电影 兰桂坊成社人区小说www68kqcom 舔阴论坛 久撸客一撸客色国内外成人激情在线 明星门 欧美大胆嫩肉穴爽大片 www牛逼插 性吧星云 少妇性奴的屁眼 人体艺术大胆mscbaidu1imgcn 最新久久色色成人版 l女同在线 小泽玛利亚高潮图片搜索 女性裸b图 肛交bt种子 最热门有声小说 人间添春色 春色猜谜字 樱井莉亚钢管舞视频 小泽玛利亚直美6p 能用的h网 还能看的h网 bl动漫h网 开心五月激 东京热401 男色女色第四色酒色网 怎么下载黄色小说 黄色小说小栽 和谐图城 乐乐影院 色哥导航 特色导航 依依社区 爱窝窝在线 色狼谷成人 91porn 包要你射电影 色色3A丝袜 丝袜妹妹淫网 爱色导航(荐) 好男人激情影院 坏哥哥 第七色 色久久 人格分裂 急先锋 撸撸射中文网 第一会所综合社区 91影院老师机 东方成人激情 怼莪影院吹潮 老鸭窝伊人无码不卡无码一本道 av女柳晶电影 91天生爱风流作品 深爱激情小说私房婷婷网 擼奶av 567pao 里番3d一家人野外 上原在线电影 水岛津实透明丝袜 1314酒色 网旧网俺也去 0855影院 在线无码私人影院 搜索 国产自拍 神马dy888午夜伦理达达兔 农民工黄晓婷 日韩裸体黑丝御姐 屈臣氏的燕窝面膜怎么样つぼみ晶エリーの早漏チ○ポ强化合宿 老熟女人性视频 影音先锋 三上悠亚ol 妹妹影院福利片 hhhhhhhhsxo 午夜天堂热的国产 强奸剧场 全裸香蕉视频无码 亚欧伦理视频 秋霞为什么给封了 日本在线视频空天使 日韩成人aⅴ在线 日本日屌日屄导航视频 在线福利视频 日本推油无码av magnet 在线免费视频 樱井梨吮东 日本一本道在线无码DVD 日本性感诱惑美女做爱阴道流水视频 日本一级av 汤姆avtom在线视频 台湾佬中文娱乐线20 阿v播播下载 橙色影院 奴隶少女护士cg视频 汤姆在线影院无码 偷拍宾馆 业面紧急生级访问 色和尚有线 厕所偷拍一族 av女l 公交色狼优酷视频 裸体视频AV 人与兽肉肉网 董美香ol 花井美纱链接 magnet 西瓜影音 亚洲 自拍 日韩女优欧美激情偷拍自拍 亚洲成年人免费视频 荷兰免费成人电影 深喉呕吐XXⅩX 操石榴在线视频 天天色成人免费视频 314hu四虎 涩久免费视频在线观看 成人电影迅雷下载 能看见整个奶子的香蕉影院 水菜丽百度影音 gwaz079百度云 噜死你们资源站 主播走光视频合集迅雷下载 thumbzilla jappen 精品Av 古川伊织star598在线 假面女皇vip在线视频播放 国产自拍迷情校园 啪啪啪公寓漫画 日本阿AV 黄色手机电影 欧美在线Av影院 华裔电击女神91在线 亚洲欧美专区 1日本1000部免费视频 开放90后 波多野结衣 东方 影院av 页面升级紧急访问每天正常更新 4438Xchengeren 老炮色 a k福利电影 色欲影视色天天视频 高老庄aV 259LUXU-683 magnet 手机在线电影 国产区 欧美激情人人操网 国产 偷拍 直播 日韩 国内外激情在线视频网给 站长统计一本道人妻 光棍影院被封 紫竹铃取汁 ftp 狂插空姐嫩 xfplay 丈夫面前 穿靴子伪街 XXOO视频在线免费 大香蕉道久在线播放 电棒漏电嗨过头 充气娃能看下毛和洞吗 夫妻牲交 福利云点墦 yukun瑟妃 疯狂交换女友 国产自拍26页 腐女资源 百度云 日本DVD高清无码视频 偷拍,自拍AV伦理电影 A片小视频福利站。 大奶肥婆自拍偷拍图片 交配伊甸园 超碰在线视频自拍偷拍国产 小热巴91大神 rctd 045 类似于A片 超美大奶大学生美女直播被男友操 男友问 你的衣服怎么脱掉的 亚洲女与黑人群交视频一 在线黄涩 木内美保步兵番号 鸡巴插入欧美美女的b舒服 激情在线国产自拍日韩欧美 国语福利小视频在线观看 作爱小视颍 潮喷合集丝袜无码mp4 做爱的无码高清视频 牛牛精品 伊aⅤ在线观看 savk12 哥哥搞在线播放 在线电一本道影 一级谍片 250pp亚洲情艺中心,88 欧美一本道九色在线一 wwwseavbacom色av吧 cos美女在线 欧美17,18ⅹⅹⅹ视频 自拍嫩逼 小电影在线观看网站 筱田优 贼 水电工 5358x视频 日本69式视频有码 b雪福利导航 韩国女主播19tvclub在线 操逼清晰视频 丝袜美女国产视频网址导航 水菜丽颜射房间 台湾妹中文娱乐网 风吟岛视频 口交 伦理 日本熟妇色五十路免费视频 A级片互舔 川村真矢Av在线观看 亚洲日韩av 色和尚国产自拍 sea8 mp4 aV天堂2018手机在线 免费版国产偷拍a在线播放 狠狠 婷婷 丁香 小视频福利在线观看平台 思妍白衣小仙女被邻居强上 萝莉自拍有水 4484新视觉 永久发布页 977成人影视在线观看 小清新影院在线观 小鸟酱后丝后入百度云 旋风魅影四级 香蕉影院小黄片免费看 性爱直播磁力链接 小骚逼第一色影院 性交流的视频 小雪小视频bd 小视频TV禁看视频 迷奸AV在线看 nba直播 任你在干线 汤姆影院在线视频国产 624u在线播放 成人 一级a做爰片就在线看狐狸视频 小香蕉AV视频 www182、com 腿模简小育 学生做爱视频 秘密搜查官 快播 成人福利网午夜 一级黄色夫妻录像片 直接看的gav久久播放器 国产自拍400首页 sm老爹影院 谁知道隔壁老王网址在线 综合网 123西瓜影音 米奇丁香 人人澡人人漠大学生 色久悠 夜色视频你今天寂寞了吗? 菲菲影视城美国 被抄的影院 变态另类 欧美 成人 国产偷拍自拍在线小说 不用下载安装就能看的吃男人鸡巴视频 插屄视频 大贯杏里播放 wwwhhh50 233若菜奈央 伦理片天海翼秘密搜查官 大香蕉在线万色屋视频 那种漫画小说你懂的 祥仔电影合集一区 那里可以看澳门皇冠酒店a片 色自啪 亚洲aV电影天堂 谷露影院ar toupaizaixian sexbj。com 毕业生 zaixian mianfei 朝桐光视频 成人短视频在线直接观看 陈美霖 沈阳音乐学院 导航女 www26yjjcom 1大尺度视频 开平虐女视频 菅野雪松协和影视在线视频 华人play在线视频bbb 鸡吧操屄视频 多啪啪免费视频 悠草影院 金兰策划网 (969) 橘佑金短视频 国内一极刺激自拍片 日本制服番号大全magnet 成人动漫母系 电脑怎么清理内存 黄色福利1000 dy88午夜 偷拍中学生洗澡磁力链接 花椒相机福利美女视频 站长推荐磁力下载 mp4 三洞轮流插视频 玉兔miki热舞视频 夜生活小视频 爆乳人妖小视频 国内网红主播自拍福利迅雷下载 不用app的裸裸体美女操逼视频 变态SM影片在线观看 草溜影院元气吧 - 百度 - 百度 波推全套视频 国产双飞集合ftp 日本在线AV网 笔国毛片 神马影院女主播是我的邻居 影音资源 激情乱伦电影 799pao 亚洲第一色第一影院 av视频大香蕉 老梁故事汇希斯莱杰 水中人体磁力链接 下载 大香蕉黄片免费看 济南谭崔 避开屏蔽的岛a片 草破福利 要看大鸡巴操小骚逼的人的视频 黑丝少妇影音先锋 欧美巨乳熟女磁力链接 美国黄网站色大全 伦蕉在线久播 极品女厕沟 激情五月bd韩国电影 混血美女自摸和男友激情啪啪自拍诱人呻吟福利视频 人人摸人人妻做人人看 44kknn 娸娸原网 伊人欧美 恋夜影院视频列表安卓青青 57k影院 如果电话亭 avi 插爆骚女精品自拍 青青草在线免费视频1769TV 令人惹火的邻家美眉 影音先锋 真人妹子被捅动态图 男人女人做完爱视频15 表姐合租两人共处一室晚上她竟爬上了我的床 性爱教学视频 北条麻妃bd在线播放版 国产老师和师生 magnet wwwcctv1024 女神自慰 ftp 女同性恋做激情视频 欧美大胆露阴视频 欧美无码影视 好女色在线观看 后入肥臀18p 百度影视屏福利 厕所超碰视频 强奸mp magnet 欧美妹aⅴ免费线上看 2016年妞干网视频 5手机在线福利 超在线最视频 800av:cOm magnet 欧美性爱免播放器在线播放 91大款肥汤的性感美乳90后邻家美眉趴着窗台后入啪啪 秋霞日本毛片网站 cheng ren 在线视频 上原亚衣肛门无码解禁影音先锋 美脚家庭教师在线播放 尤酷伦理片 熟女性生活视频在线观看 欧美av在线播放喷潮 194avav 凤凰AV成人 - 百度 kbb9999 AV片AV在线AV无码 爱爱视频高清免费观看 黄色男女操b视频 观看 18AV清纯视频在线播放平台 成人性爱视频久久操 女性真人生殖系统双性人视频 下身插入b射精视频 明星潜规测视频 mp4 免賛a片直播绪 国内 自己 偷拍 在线 国内真实偷拍 手机在线 国产主播户外勾在线 三桥杏奈高清无码迅雷下载 2五福电影院凸凹频频 男主拿鱼打女主,高宝宝 色哥午夜影院 川村まや痴汉 草溜影院费全过程免费 淫小弟影院在线视频 laohantuiche 啪啪啪喷潮XXOO视频 青娱乐成人国产 蓝沢润 一本道 亚洲青涩中文欧美 神马影院线理论 米娅卡莉法的av 在线福利65535 欧美粉色在线 欧美性受群交视频1在线播放 极品喷奶熟妇在线播放 变态另类无码福利影院92 天津小姐被偷拍 磁力下载 台湾三级电髟全部 丝袜美腿偷拍自拍 偷拍女生性行为图 妻子的乱伦 白虎少妇 肏婶骚屄 外国大妈会阴照片 美少女操屄图片 妹妹自慰11p 操老熟女的b 361美女人体 360电影院樱桃 爱色妹妹亚洲色图 性交卖淫姿势高清图片一级 欧美一黑对二白 大色网无毛一线天 射小妹网站 寂寞穴 西西人体模特苍井空 操的大白逼吧 骚穴让我操 拉好友干女朋友3p