Remaining tree species from the indigenous vegetation of Ankara, Turkey

Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2004) 371–388

Remaining tree species from the indigenousvegetation of Ankara, Turkey

Dicle Oguz∗Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ankara University, Ankara 06110, Turkey

Abstract

The city of Ankara is located in the geographic centre of Anatolia, Turkey. In the state of nature, Anatolia was coveredwith forests. Due to the destructive effects of civilisations passing through Anatolia over the centuries, the forest vegetationwas gradually transformed to a steppe formation. After it became the capital city, a rapid planned urbanisation process wasinitiated in Ankara. In the first development plan, efforts were concentrated on the south axis of the city, which harbored thegreatest concentration of indigenous plant cover in the valleys.

In 1974, the embassy gardens and parks on the north–south axis were declared a “Natural Conservation Area”. Despitethe conservation act, change and denuding of indigenous vegetation continued all along the axis due to highly increasingdevelopment. However, these conservation areas still include tree species from the indigenous vegetation. In this study, thepresidency gardens, the embassy gardens and parks in Ankara that were declared a “conservation area” were evaluated interms of the remaining tree species from the indigenous plant cover. The study aims to indicate the level of conservation ofnatural habitat in Ankara and to determine whether the concept of “Natural Conservation Areas” includes the protection ofbiodiversity or not. Moreover, the research results aim to reveal still existing tree species of indigenous vegetation, which willenlighten us regarding future landscape planning in Central Anatolia. Trees were examined by age, height and exposition.The results show that remaining indigenous tree species of the study area grow along the formerIncesu River and that theterrain on which the trees stand is mostly exposed to the southwest and southeast. The indigenous tree species which do notexist in the study area are scattered in valleys along the river trails or on the hills of Ankara’s rural lands.© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Indigenous tree species; Natural Conservation Area; Ankara

1. Introduction

Anatolia is endowed with a rich diversity of fam-ily, genera and species of plants. It is regarded as theprimary or secondary genetic centre for some plantgroups at the level of genus or species. An explanationfor this might be that Anatolia served as a passagewaybetween the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa—a variety of flora and fauna owe their geographical

∗ Tel.: +90-3123170550/1730.E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Oguz).

spread to this passageway. Furthermore, the topog-raphy of the Anatolian peninsula exhibits significantvariety, with ecological factors changing greatly oververy short distances. For this reason living things haveevolved and differentiated richly, creating a wealthof species and subspecies. The most commonly en-countered types of vegetation in Turkey are shrubs,needle-leaf or deciduous forest trees and steppe typevegetation (Ministry of Environment, 1992).

The city of Ankara lies in the centre of Anatolia, onthe eastern edge of the Anatolian plateau, at an altitudeof 850 m. Daytime temperatures in Ankara during the

0169-2046/$20.00 © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00153-1

372 D. Oguz / Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2004) 371–388

month of July reach 35◦C. Annual precipitation inAnkara is about 350 mm, more than half of which fallsduring the winter and spring season. In summer rela-tive humidity is very low, and this increases water loss

Fig. 1. The Hatip Valley by 1910s (Sagdıç, 1995).

by perspiration. Water deficiency essentially occursduring the summer period. In accordance with ecolog-ical conditions, the lower parts of the Ankara regionare covered by true steppe. The areas higher than

D. Oguz / Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2004) 371–388 373

1000–1200 m are occupied by dry forests. The rem-nant stands found around Ankara (40 km south of thecity) are named Beynam Black Pine Forest (Akçura,1971; Çukurçayır and Arabacı, 2000). The topogra-

Fig. 2. Development of Ankara city on south axis till the end of 1930s (Aktüre, 2001).

phy of Ankara, surrounded by mountains and hillsthrough its north, south and east, and divided by val-leys, forms a pot shape. The Çubuk, Hacıkadın, Hatip,Incesu, Kavaklıdere and Çankaya valleys that extend


through the city centre are suitable for the develop-ment of vegetation not only on the basis of their mi-croclimatic features but also thanks to their deep andfertile soil (Fig. 1).

Fig. 3. Natural Conservation Area of Kavaklıdere–Çankaya Region in Ankara.

The history of Ankara as a settlement area reachesback to the Phrygians. The city has rapidly changedfollowing its proclamation as capital in the 1920s. Inthe first development plan, urbanisation was concen-


trated on the south axis of the city, which coinciden-tally harbored the highest concentration of indigenousplant cover in the valleys. Within the period in whichthe development to a modern city has been in progressthe government of the Turkish Republic obtained tractsof land which were offered to foreign countries forfree to encourage the moving of their embassies fromIstanbul to Ankara. Due to the generous offer extendedby the Turkish government of the time, the majorityof countries who relocated their embassies in Ankarachose the gardens and green areas that already existedalong the Kavaklıdere–Çankaya road. The extensionwent even further through the valley south of the city(Fig. 2). This subject area, which was selected by nu-merous embassies, includes today not only the mostnaturally green part of the city with its microclimaticconditions, but also the Residency of the President andother historically important sites. The multifaceted sig-nificance of this area was recognised and declared asa Natural Conservation Area by The Ministry of Cul-ture in 1974 (Fig. 3). In spite of this conservation act,continued changes in land use can be seen along theaxis due to high real estate values in this part of thecity.

Since the city of Ankara is built on a typical Ana-tolian steppe, the number of steppe and rock areas aswell as the variety of plant species living in these ar-eas is naturally high. Rapid urbanisation, however, isclose to destroying many of the natural habitats of thelatter.

In this study the existing indigenous tree species ofAnkara have been investigated through a comparisonwith old tree species known throughout the history ofthe city and its environment. The need for this compar-ison arises from the fact that some of the tree speciesno longer exist in the flora of Central Anatolia whileothers have been moved away from the city centre tothe rural areas due to urban conditions and preferencesof people.

Currently the city maintains primarily steppetype vegetation in contrast to the predominantlyforest-based flora of the past. This rapid change is aprime example of the impact that humankind and ur-banisation have on the indigenous vegetation of cities.

In addition, this study attempts to determine thelevel of conservation of natural habitats and questionswhether the concept of “Natural Conservation Areas”includes the protection of biodiversity in cities.

2. Materials and methods

This study investigates the Natural ConservationArea of Kavaklıdere–Çankaya District, which hasregularly maintained areas. Herbaceous plants andshrubs have been excluded, since the areas studiedare generally well maintained and grass-covered. Thesite research was performed in the parks as well asthe gardens of the presidency and embassies (Ger-man, American, Czech, British, Swedish, Japanese,Egyptian, Polish, Slovakian and Yugoslav), whichaccepted the request for the implementation of thestudy.

The first step of this study consists of the literaturesurvey, which has been conducted with the inten-tion of determining Ankara’s old indigenous treespecies. Here the indigenous tree species of Ankara’snatural habitat have been classified and investigatedwithin two major categories: tree species in ancienttimes and indigenous tree species of present-dayAnkara.

The second step of this research project is the col-lection of samples of tree species through field re-search. The identification of the subject samples hasbeen conducted by using the Ankara University Biol-ogy Department’s Herbarium samples as well as ‘Floraof Turkey’ by Davis (1965–1988). In considering thehabitus specifications and the ecological needs of thetree species which exist in the research fields, the maincriteria were the following: exposition of the trees,ground water, soil, watering facilities and some otheravailable criteria.

Based upon the observations, the height of the treespecies has been noted together with the approximateage as indicated by plantation date, when this wasavailable in the archives. More difficult has been theestimation of the ages of the trees that became indige-nous in these fields over time, and these are conse-quently seldom mentioned.

The third step of the project covers a comparativeanalysis between the tree species mentioned in stud-ies of Krause (1934)and Akaydın (1996)based onAnkara’s registration of natural habitats and the in-digenous tree species therein observed.

Finally, in the last section, there is a critique of theconcepts based on current conservation, and of theneed for being more sensitive to biodiversity in orderto achieve sustainability.


3. Findings

3.1. Findings of the literature survey

3.1.1. Tree species in ancient timesSince the climate in Turkey was much warmer in

previous geological eras, there were many differentkinds of trees in Anatolia which can still be seen intropical and subtropical areas today. During the glacialperiods of the Quaternary, these species disappearedfrom Anatolia (Pesmen, 1982; Vural, 1996).

Towards the end of the Tertiary (about 5 millionyears ago), before any evidence of the existence ofhuman beings on the planet, there was a fresh waterlake close to where the village of Güvem now standsnear Kızılcahamam, Ankara. Fossils of many kindsof trees, which are no longer found in Anatolia, havebeen discovered in the marl layers left behind whenthe lake dried up. One of these fossils is of a Sequoia(Redwood) which now grows only in California, andthe other is a Magnolia which is found throughoutsoutheast Asia and Central America. Besides thesethere are many species of Pinus (pine) and Quercus(oak) which can no longer be found in Anatolia (Vural,1996).

Central Anatolia is one of the worlds’ most ancientsettlement areas. In the Proneolithic and Neolithicages (6500b.c.) the climate was warm and rainy inthe region. As a result of good weather conditions,well-developed forest vegetation existed in places to-gether with regional lakes (Çetik, 1985; Erik, 1993).The first Neolithic (6500b.c.) settlements were set upin Central Anatolia and eastern part of the Mediter-ranean coastal belt. Here the first forest clearing andagricultural activities began. In these areas two im-portant events present themselves. One of them is theregressive change of vegetation (from forest throughsteppe) and the second is the growth in number offruit trees (Atalay, 1994). The population began to in-crease, which in turn affected the plant life. Commu-nities extended their fields and pastures to cultivateuseful plants. They began to damage natural growthby cutting down the trees for fuel and timber. One ofthe consequences of this is that one can scarcely findany dense forest in Anatolia today (Vural, 1996).

Forests were exploited from the very beginnings ofnear eastern civilisation. Earlier extensive forest usehas a history in the region of at least 10,000 years. The

archaeological evidence includesCedrus sp. (cedar),Pinus sp. (pine),Abies sp. (fir), Juniperus sp. (ju-niper),Quercus sp. (oak),Picea sp. (spruce),Cupres-sus sp. (cypress), Juglans (walnut),Acer sp. (maple)andFraxinus sp. (ash) (Kuniholm, 1997).

A paleontological study of late quaternary sedi-ments near ¸Sereflikoçhisar to the north of Tuz Gölü inCentral Anatolia yields evidence that the surroundinghills were covered with arboreal plants in the regionsome 2025 years ago. Examination of pollen diagramsshows that the majority of tree species were Quer-cus (oak), Pinus (pine), with small quantities of Ce-drus (cedar), Taxus (yew), Abies (fir), Fagus (beech)and Juniperus (juniper). Tree species such as Fraxi-nus (ash), Betula (birch), Corylus (hazelnut), Juglans(walnut), Carya (hickory), and Salix (willow) grewin suitable habitats along the streams and lakes. To-day some of the above-mentioned tree species (Ce-drus, Abies, Taxus) no longer grow naturally in CentralAnatolia. Moreover the Carya species has disappearedcompletely from the whole of Anatolia (Inceoglu andPehlivan, 1986; Vural, 1996).

Analysis of archaeobotanical remains from recentexcavations under the direction of Mary M. Voigt sug-gests that between the early Iron Age (1100–950b.c.)and the Islamic Era (15th century) there was a gradualloss of tree cover in the vicinity of Gordion—The Mi-das Tumulus (60 km west of Ankara). Parallel to this,some decline in pasture quality was identified (Miller,1999a).

The studies done in this region reveal thatTaxusbaccata L. (yew), Abies sp. (fir),Cedrus libani Loud.(cedar),Pinus sylvestris L. (Scots pine) andJunipe-rus foetidissima Willd. (juniper), etc. were used in theconstruction of the tomb of the Phrygian King Mi-das (750–675b.c.) (Kayacık and Aytug, 1968; Kılınç,1976; Çetik, 1985). Examination of the fossil pollenssupports the idea that the above-mentioned trees werepresent in this region. The Gordion charcoal analy-sis suggests that juniper, oak and pine dominated thewoody vegetation in the region from the late BronzeAge (1500–1000b.c.) to relatively recent times. “Evenso the composition of the woodland changed as thewooded area diminished. Juniper, which dominates asa fuel at the beginning of the sequence, largely disap-pears by the end. It lasts longer as an important con-struction material. Oak used as fuel shows the reversepattern, rising in importance over time, but it was never


used in this area for construction” (Miller, 1999b). To-day the region has a true steppe appearance and all thetrees are located 100–150 km away from the tomb.

According toAytug’s research (1970)on the woodmaterials obtained from the 19 tumulus areas close toAtatürk Orman Çiftligi (4 km west of the city centre),Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine) has been identified as theconstruction material (Kılınç, 1976). Pinus sylvestrisnow grows in the woodlands of Mount Karagül 90 kmnorth of Ankara (Çetik, 1985).

A great deal of forest destruction in the region tookplace in 3000b.c. (Prohittite) and Hittite (1800–1200b.c.) times. During the periods of other civilisations—Urartians (900–600b.c.), Phyrigians (750–300b.c.),Greeks (333–30b.c.), Romans (30b.c. to 395a.d.),Byzantines (395–1453), Seljuks (1071–1308) and Ot-tomans (1299–1923)—which settled afterwards in theregion, the anthropogenic effect caused a negative im-pact on the vegetation of Central Anatolia as well(Aksit, 1982; Akurgal, 1989) (Fig. 4).

Kuniholm (1997)states that “The local wood sup-plies of the Anatolian plateau were sufficient for mostneeds at least until Hellenistic times (333–30b.c.). Atall times lesser quality of woodsPopulus sp. (poplar),Salix sp. (willow), Platanus sp. (plane), Ficussp. (sycamore),Ulmus sp. (elm),Fagus sp. (beech)andAcacia sp. (acacia) must also have been exploited

Fig. 4. Settlement areas of various civilisations in Ankara (A.B.B., 1990).

for ordinary carpentry, fuel and pottery production”.All the mobilizations for war through Anatolia—suchas the military expedition of Alexander the Great toIndia (327 b.c.), crossing Anatolia—resulted in thepillage of agricultural products and the forests. Duringthe Roman (30b.c. to 395a.d.), constructing publicbaths also led to destruction of forests. Extensive ru-ination of the forests occurred for the sake of keepingthe bath water and airflow hot. The same process con-tinued during the Seljuk period (1071–1308) as well.In the period of the Ottoman Empire (1299–1923) theremaining forest vegetation was ruined completelythrough the activities of ship construction, miningcorporations, production of tar, heating and carvingout arable fields.

The Çubuk Forest (located 10 km north of Ankara),in which Tamerlane hid his elephants during the Battleof Ankara of 1402, has become a complete steppe areatoday (Erik, 1993).

As a matter of fact, already in the ancient settle-ment areas forest trees show a considerable decline,whereas herbaceous plants have increased markedly.Therefore the steppe areas of Central Anatolia can beconsidered an anthropogenic steppe (Atalay, 1994).The transition of forest vegetation to steppe vege-tation took place gradually. After the destruction ofPinus nigra forest, the species ofQuercus pubescens,


Juniperus oxycedrus, Amygdalus orientalis, Pyruselaeagnifolia, Berberis sp., Crataegus monogyna,Crataegus tanacetifolia, Citrus laurifolius, Astragalusangustifolius andTymus sp. all occurred in the region(Erik, 1993; Vural and Adıgüzel, 2001).

3.1.2. Tree species of present-day AnkaraThe first study on the flora of Ankara was “Flora

Orientalis” written by Boissier between 1867 and1888. In this study 60 plant species were specifiedthat grew in Ankara or the surrounding area (Krause,1934; Ekim, 1991; Akaydın and Erik, 1997). No mat-ter where they were collected from, the place wasnamed Angora. Furthermore an article titled “On theFlora of Nearer East III. A Collection” by the Rt. HonSir Ronald Lindsay was published in “Kew Bulletin”by W.B. Turrill in London 1937. Although variousfloristic researches have been conducted later at sev-eral times in the natural surroundings of Ankara, themost crucial study, which covers the entire plant spec-ifications of Ankara, is one named “Ankara’s Flora”by Krause, written in 1934. Furthermore, a study en-titled “Flora of Turkey” was published between 1965and 1988 by Davis.Erik (1994) compares Krause’s

Fig. 5. Development of Ankara city during the Republican period (Altaban, 1987).

findings to Davis’s findings on the flora of Ankaraand states that while Krause specifies 586 plantspecies in “Ankara’s Flora”, Davis specifies 418 plantspecies in Flora of Turkey’s records dealing with thecity of Ankara. One observes that although “Flora ofTurkey” was written at a later date it contains fewerplant species for the Ankara city area. The main rea-son for this is the method used in “Flora of Turkey”for plant locality specifications. In this study, if theplant species exist both within and outside of the citydevelopment area, then the plant locality is preferablylisted as being outside of the city development area(Erik, 1994). A comprehensive study was carried outby Akaydın on the floristic structure of Ankara cityin 1996. Both Krause and Akaydın explore the areaswithin the city development area. However the limitsof urban development have expanded nearly 320-foldbetween the dates of these two studies (Fig. 5). Com-parison of the research findings shows that Akaydınhas collected 995 plant species and added 409 newplant species to Krause’s list. The expanding city lim-its might have caused the increase in the number ofplant species by providing larger areas for research.Most of the new additions belong to the families

D.

Oguz

/Landscape

andU

rbanP

lanning68

(2004)371–388

379Table 1Existing tree species of conservation area

Botanical name Family name Origin English name Length Age Exposition Location

CA A OA

Abies bornmülleriana Mattf. Pinaceae X Uludag fir 20–30 80–85 W PGAbies concolor (Gord.) Lindl. ex.

Hildebr.Pinaceae X White fir PG

Abies pinsapo Boiss. Pinaceae X Spanish fir 20 80–85 N, NW PGAcer negundo L. Aceraceae X Box elder 15–20 45–50 SE, NE, NW EG, EP, ESAesculus hippocastanum L. Hippocastanaceae X Horse chestnut 15–20 45–50 SE, SW, NE, W, E EG, AE, SE, EY,

BP, PKGAlnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Betulaceae-Cupuliferae X Common elder 15–20 45–50 EGCarpinus betulus L. Betulaceae-Fagaceae-Cupuliferae X European hornbeam 15–20 45–50 NE, N EG, AECedrus atlantica (Endl.) Carr. Pinaceae-Coniferae X Atlas cedar 10–15 40–50 NE, SW SPCedrus atlantica ‘Glauca Pendula’ Pinaceae-Coniferae X Blue Atlas cedar 20 50 BECedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’ Pinaceae-Coniferae X 20–30 50 W, SW AE, BECedrus deodara G. Don. Pinaceae X Deodar cedar 30 80–85 NE, SW, SE, NW PG, BE, BP, SPCedrus deodara ‘Pendula’ Pinaceae X 20–25 50 BECedrus libani A. Rich. Pinaceae X Cedar of Lebanon 30 80–85 NW, SE, SW AE, PG, BP, PKGCercis siliquastrum L. Leguminosae X Judas tree 10 50 SW, W, SE BE, SE, EPChamaecyparis lawsoniana Parl. Pinaceae-Coniferae X Port Oxfort cedar 30 80–85 N AECorylus colurna L. Betulaceae-Cupuliferae X Turkish hazelnut 10 80–85 NW PGCrataegus crus-galli L. Rosaceae X Cockspur hawthorn 5 45–50 SW EG, BECupressocyparis x leylandii

DallimorePinaceae X Leyland cypress 15–20 20 E AE

Cupressus arizonica Greene. Cupressaceae-Coniferae X Arizone cypress 30 80–85 SW, SE, NW PG, BPCupressus sempervirens L. Cupressaceae-Coniferae X Italian cypress 20–25 50 BECupressus sempervirens

‘Pyramidalis’Cupressaceae-Coniferae X 20–25 50 SW BE

Elaeagnus angustifolia L. Elaeagnaceae X Russian olive 15–20 SW, NE SPFagus sylvatica L. Fagaceae X European beech 15–20 45–50 EG, SPFraxinus americana L. Oleaceae X White ash 15–20 45–50 NW, SE EG, AE, MEPFraxinus excelsior L. Oleaceae X Common ash 10–15 20 W, S AE, EY, SPFraxinus ornus L. Oleaceae X Ash, Manna EGGinkgo biloba L. Ginkgoaceae-Coniferae X Ginkgo 10 80–85 SW PGGleditsia triacanthos L. Leguminosae-Caesalpiniaceae X Honey locust 15–20 45–50 EGJuglans regia L. Juglandaceae X English walnut 15–20 100 S, SE, NW PG, BE, ES, SPKoelreuteria paniculata Laxm. Sapindaceae X Goldenrain tree 10–15 40–50 AEMaclura pomifera (Raf.) C.

SchneiderMoraceae X Osage orange EG

Magnolia grandiflora L. Magnoliaceae X Southern magnolia 2 5 BEMorus alba L. Moraceae X White mulberry 15–20 100 NE SEPicea excelsa Link. Pinaceae-Coniferae X Norway spruce 30 80–85 NW, SE AE, PG, BP, SPPicea orientalis Carr. Pinaceae-Coniferae X Oriental spruce 30 80–85 E, SE, NE, SW PG, SE, EE, EY, BP

380D

.O

guz/L

andscapeand

Urban

Planning

68(2004)

371–388

Table 1 (Continued )

Botanical name Family name Origin English name Length Age Exposition Location

CA A OA

Picea pungens ‘Fastigiata’ Pinaceae-Coniferae X Columnar spruce 10 20–35 N, S, SE, NW CE, BP, SPPicea pungens ‘Glauca’ Pinaceae-Coniferae X Blue Colarado spruce 30 80–85 NE, NW EG, PG, CEPinus brutia Ten. Pinaceae-Coniferae X Turkish red pine 30 80–85 SE, SW PG, BPPinus excelsa Wall. Pinaceae-Coniferae X Blue pine 15–20 SW SEPinus nigra Arnold. Pinaceae-Coniferae X Austrian pine 30 NE, SW, SE PG, CE, EP, ES,

PKGPinus sylvestris L. Pinaceae-Coniferae X Scots pine 15–20 65 NE, SW EP, ESPlatanus orientalis L. Platanaceae X Oriental sycamore 30 SW, NE AE, PG, PKGPopulus alba L. Salicaceae X White poplar 15–20 W, SE, NW PE, KPPopulus nigra L. ssp. Nigra Salicaceae X Lombardy poplar 20–30 NE, SE, NW EG, BE, BP, KP, SPPrunus serrulata Leaf. ‘Kanzan’ Rosaceae X Japanese cherry 5 SW EPPseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.)

FrancoPinaceae X Douglas fir 15 SE EP

Pterocarya fraxinifolia (Lam.)Spach.

Juglandaceae X Caucasian wingnut 15–20 40–50 SE AE

Quercus pedunculata Ehrh. Fagaceae-Cupuliferae X Common oak 30 NE, SE, SW EG, AE, SE, EP,KP, PKG

Rhus coriaria L. Anacardiaceae X Sicillian sumac 3 W BESalix alba L. Salicaceae X White willow 10 NE, SE, W AE, BE, EPSalix nigra Marsh. Salicaceae X Black willow 15 NE PG, SE, SPSalix viminalis L. Salicaceae X Willow osier 3 EPSophora japonica L. Leguminosae Japanese pagoda tree 15–20 45–50 NE, SW EG, PKGSorbus aucuparia L. Rosaceae X European mountain ash 5 40 NE, SW CETaxus baccata L. Taxaceae X English yew NW AEThuja orientalis L. Cupressaceae-Coniferae X Oriental arbovitae S, N ESThujopsis dolabrata (L.F.) Siebold

and Zucc.Cupressaceae-Coniferae X Hiba 10–15 PG, EJ

Tilia cordata Mill. Tiliaceae Little leaf linden 15–20 45–50 EGTilia tomentosa Moench. Tiliaceae X Silver linden 15–20 45–50 SW, SE EG, EYUlmus glabra Mill. Urticaceae-Ulmaceae X Scots elm 5–10 30 SW EG

CA, Central Anatolia; A, Anatolia; OA, Out of Anatolia; PG, Presidency Garden; AE, American Embassy; EG, Embassy of Germany; EP, Embassy of Poland; ES, Embassy of Slovakia; BE,British Embassy; PKG, Pembe Kiosk Garden; SE, Swedish Embassy; SP, Segmenler Park; BP, Botanic Park; KG, Kugulu Park; CE, Czech Embassy; EJ, Embassy of Japan; MEP, Milli EgemenlikPark; EY, Embassy of Yugoslavia; EE, Embassy of Egypt.


Asteracea (72), Fabacea (45) and Poaceae (42). Anarticle named “The Effect of Urbanization on Florain Ankara” by Akaydın and Erik in 1997 indicatesthat nowadays approximately 1000 natural plant

Fig. 6. Platanus orientalis, Pembe Kiosk.

species grow in urban conditions. Of these, 95 plantspecies collected by Krause in the early 1900s werenot observed in the researches led by Akaydın andErik. These 95 plant species, which are still alive in


Fig. 7. Populus alba, Kugulu Park.

the surroundings of Ankara, have disappeared due tothe ecosystem changes occurring through urbaniza-tion. Among these 95 species is found Crataegus mey-eri Pojark (hawthorn) as a woody species (Akaydınand Erik, 1997).

3.1.3. Results of the site researchAccording to the research results, various non-native

tree species have been planted in the conservationareas over the years. A total of 59 tree species wereidentified in the conservation areas. Ten of the treespecies (17% of the total) are native to Central Ana-tolia and eight of them are indigenous trees such asElaeagnus angustifolia L., Pinus nigra Arnold., Pla-tanus orientalis L., Populus alba L., Populus nigra L.supsp. nigra,Quercus pedunculata Ehrh.,Rhus cori-aria L., andSalix alba L. Sixteen of the tree species(27% of the total) are native to Anatolia and 33 ofthe tree species (56%) are non-native. It was noticedthat the terrain on which the trees in the research areastand is mostly exposed to the SW and SE (Table 1,Figs. 6–10).

Comparison of this with previous studies revealsthat Eleagnus hotensis M. Bieb. (Syn.E. angustifoliaL.), Pinus nigra Arnold., Populus alba L., Populus

nigra L., Salix alba L. andRhus coriaria L. species canalso be found inKrause’s (1934)list while Eleagnusangustifolia L., Quercus robur (Syn. Q. pedunculataEhrh.), Rhus coriaria L. can be found inAkaydın’s(1996)list (Table 2).

It emerges that non-native tree species in particularare widely used in the Republican period landscapedesign in Ankara. Indigenous trees such asQuercuspedunculata Ehrh. are found in the Swedish EmbassyGarden;Populus alba L. in the Embassy Garden ofPoland and in Kugulu park,Salix alba L. in the Em-bassy Garden of Poland,Elaeagnus angustifolia L. inSegmenler Park, andRhus coriaria in the British Em-bassy Garden (Oguz and Erdogan, 2002).

Research shows that there still exist indigenoustree species growing along the formerIncesu River,which now has been canalised and diverted under-ground. This fact reveals that trees benefit from thehigh ground water and warmer climatic conditionsof the valley along the river course. In the researcharea, indigenous tree species such asAmygdalus ori-entalis Miller., Celtis tournefortii Lam., Crataegustanacetifolia Pers.,Juniperus excelsa Bieb.,Juniperusoxycedrus L. supsp. oxycedrus, andPistacia atlanticaDesf. Pyrus eleagrifolia Pall., specified by previous


Fig. 8. Populus nigra, British Embassy.


Fig. 9. (a)Quercus pedunculata, Embassy of Poland. (b)Quercus pedunculata, Embassy of Poland.


Fig. 9. (Continued ).


Fig. 10. Salix alba, Embassy of Poland.


Table 2Comparison of indigenous tree species of Ankara

Botanical name of the tree

Krause, 1934 Akaydın, 1996 Oguz and Erdogan, 2002

Abies bornmüllerina Mattf.a Amygdalus orientalis Miller Elaeagnus angustifolia L.Amygdalus orientalis Ait.a Amygdalus X balansae Boiss. Pinus nigra Arnold.Amygdalus webbii Spach.a Celtis glabrata Steven ex Planchon Platanus orientalis L.Celtis tournefortii Lam.a Celtis tournefortii Lam. Populus alba L.Crataegus lagenaria Fish. et Meya Corylus avellana L. var. Avellana Quercus pedunculata Ehrh.Crataegus aronica Bosc.a Crataegus curvisepala Lindman. Rhus coriaria L.Crataegus orientalis Pall.a Crateagus microphylla C. Koch. Salix alba L.Crataegus orientalis var. connecta Diap. Crateagus monogyna Jacq.Crataegus tanacetifolia Pers.a Crateagus orientalis Palas ex BiebEleagnus hortensis M. Bieb.a Crateagus szovitsii Pojark.Fraxinus obliqua Tausch. Crateagus tanacetifolia Lam.Fraxinus oxycarpa Willd.a Eleagnus angustifolia L.Juniperus excelsa M. B.a Juniperus excelsa Bieb.Juniperus foetidissima Willd.a Juniperus oxycedrus L.Mespilus germanica L.a Pistacia atlantica L.Pinus nigra Arnold. var. pallasiana Antoinea Prunus divaricata Ledep.Pinus sylvestris L.a Prunus spinosa L.Pyrus eleagrifolia Pall.a Pyrus eleagnifolia PallasPopulus alba L.a Quercus ithaburensis Decne.Populus nigra L.a Quercus robur L.Quercus brutia Ten ssp. Pedunculiflora C. Kocha Rhus coriaria L.Quercus brutia Ten ssp. Haas Kotschy Sambucus nigra L.Quercus cerris L.a Sorbus domestica L.Rhus coriaria L.a Sorbus torminalis L.Salix alba L.a Tamarix smyrnensis Bunge.Salix alba L. var. micans And.a Ulmus glabra HudsonUlmus campestris L.a Ulmus minor Miller ssp. MinorUlmus campestris L. var. suberosa Ehrh.

a Species also found in Flora Orientalis (Krause, 1934).

researchers (Krause, 1934, Akaydın, 1996), have notbeen found. Nevertheless the indigenous tree specieswhich do not exist in the research area, are scatteredin valleys along the river courses or on the hills ofAnkara’s rural lands.

The research area obviously exemplifies only somepart of Ankara’s urban development area. However ithas great importance for revealing the present stateof an inner city conservation area and is worth com-paring with the previous research findings. The find-ings reveal that while in the 1930s the research areamainly harboured indigenous tree species; currentlynon-native species have become dominant in the land-scape. In the formation of the present-day urban land-scape it is noticeable that people have preferred certaintree species (both native and non-native) which havebetter habitus specifications or aesthetic qualities.

4. Conclusions

Due to difficulties in tree growth as a result of lowrainfall and the non-existence of an organisation pro-viding maintenance of trees, the greening of cities ingeneral has been ignored in Anatolia through time. InTurkish cities trees are grown mainly in the courtyardsof houses. Based on this tradition, urban greening wasstarted with the introduction of modern urban plan-ning in the 1920s.

In trying to understand the historical develop-ment together with the situation that obtains to-day and prospects for the future, it is important tostress the implementation of current conservationlaw. In this research area the current law does notallow new construction and building additions with-out special dispensation from the government, but


still land-use implementation does not reflect thesecharges. In addition to these facts, there is littleevidence of a planting policy and control in theseareas.

This research emphasizes the disappearance of theindigenous tree species in urban areas, which is theresult of human activities and shows the necessityfor the reconsideration of land-use policies and deci-sions in naturally important areas of the urban envi-ronment. Particularly, use of indigenous tree specieswould enhance the performance of afforestation ef-forts on steppe lands with no maintenance in new de-velopment areas. For the sustainability of cities theconservation of indigenous vegetation in urban areashas prime importance. Since the existing conservationlaw does not include incentives for the conservationof indigenous vegetation and biodiversity, it should berevised taking into consideration the sustainability ofspecies diversity.

This research shows that the indigenous trees canmove from a region partly or totally in the long run,but still existing tree species are the most important ev-idence that Central Anatolian steppe lands were oncecovered by forests.

References

A.B.B., 1990. Ankara Büyük¸sehir Belediyesi Nazım Raporu.Akaydın, G., 1996. Ankara ¸Sehir Florası (Ankara City Flora).

Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, BiyolojiAnabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi (Basılmamı¸s), Ankara.

Akaydın, G., Erik, S., 1997. Ankara ¸Sehrindeki Yapıla¸smanınFloristik Yapı Üzerindeki Etkisi (The Effect of Urbanisation onthe Flora of the City of Ankara). Dogayı Korumada Kent veEkoloji Sempozyumu, Istanbul.

Akçura, T., 1971. Ankara. ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi, Yayın No:16, Ankara.

Aksit, I., 1982. Anadolu Uygarlıkları (Anatolian Civilisations).Aksit Kültür ve Turizm Yayınları,Istanbul.

Aktüre, S., 2001. 1830’dan 1930’a Ankara’da Günlük Ya¸sam(Daily life in Ankara from 1830 to 1930). In: Yavuz, Y. (Ed.),Ankara. METU Faculty of Architecture Press, Ankara, p. 67.

Akurgal, E., 1989. Anadolu Uygarlıkları (Anatolian Civilisations).Net Turistik Yayınlar,Istanbul.

Altaban, Ö., 1987. Ankara Kentsel Alanının Dogal ÇevredeYayılımı (Urban development of Ankara on natural envi-ronment). In: Ankara 1985’den 2015’e, Ankara Büyük¸sehirBelediyesi. EGO Genel Müdürlügü, Ankara, p. 141.

Atalay, I., 1994. Vegetation Geography of Turkey. Ege ÜniversitesiBasımevi, Bornova,Izmir.

Aytug, B., 1970. Arkeolojik Ara¸stırmaların Isıgı Altında IçAnadolu Stebi (Central Anatolian Steppe in the Lightof Archaeological Research).Istanbul Üniversitesi OrmanFakültesi Dergisi, Seri A, Cilt XX, Sayı 1,Istanbul.

Çetik, A.R., 1985. Iç Anadolu’nun Vejetasyonu ve Ekolojisi(Vegetation and Ecology of Central Anatolia). Selçuk Üniv.Yayınları: 7, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları: 1, Konya.

Çukurçayır, F., Arabacı, H., 2000. Climate of Ankara. TurkishState Meteorological Service, DMI, Ankara.

Davis, P.H. (Ed.), 1965–1988. Flora of Turkey and the East AegeanIslands, vols. I–X. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Ekim, T., 1991. Ankara’nın Çevre Düzenlemelerinde Kullanılabi-lecek Dogal Bitkilerimiz (Natural Plants for Landscape DesignWorks of Ankara). Peyzaj Mimarlıgı Dergisi, 29/31, Mayıs91/2, 20–23, Ankara.

Erik, S., 1993. Ankara Çevresinin Bitki Örtüsü (Plant Cover ofAnkara’s Environs). Ankara Dergisi 2 (5), 61–64.

Erik, S., 1994. Ankara ¸Sehir Florasının Dünü Bugünü (Past andPresent of Ankara City Flora). E.Ü. Fen Fakültesi Dergisi, SeriB Ek, 16/11,Izmir.

Inceoglu, Ö., Pehlivan, S., 1986. A palynological study in quater-nary sediments of Lake Tuz Gölü in Central Anatolia. In:Proceedings of the Fifth Optima Meeting, 8–15 September,Istanbul.

Kayacık, H., Aytug, B., 1968. Gordion Kral Mezarının AgaçMalzemesi Üzerinde Ormancılık Yönünden Ara¸stırmalar(Forestry Research on the Wood Material of Gordion Tomb),vols. 37–54.Istanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 18Seri A, Istanbul.

Kılınç, M., 1976. Tarihi Devirler Boyunca Anadolunun TahribindeInsanların Rolü (The Role of Humankind on the Destructionof Anatolia Through History). Bitki, Cilt 3, Sayı 3,Ankara.

Krause, K., 1934. Ankara’nın Floru (Ankara’s Flora). AnkaraYüksek Ziraat Enstitüsü, Sayı 2, Ankara.

Kuniholm, P.I., 1997. Wood. In: Meyers, E.M. (Ed.), TheOxford Encyclopedia of Archeology in the Near East. OxfordUniversity Press, New York, pp. 347–349.

Miller, N.F., 1999a. Erosion, biodiversity and archaeology:preserving the Midas Tumulus at Gordion. In: Arkeoloji veSanat, Yı l.21, sayı 93,Istanbul, pp. 12–17.

Miller, N.F., 1999b. Interpreting Ancient Environment and Patternsof Land Use: Seeds, Charcoal and Archaeological Context, Sayı2, vol. 2. TÜBA-AR, Ankara, pp. 15–29.

Ministry of Environment, 1992. Turkey’s Importance in the Worldof Living Things. Bersay Publications, Cem Ofset,Istanbul.

Oguz, D., Erdogan, R., 2002. Ankara’nın Ender Agacları (RareTrees of Ankara). Nokta Ofset, Ankara.

Pesmen, H., 1982. Geçmi¸sten Bugüne Anadolu Bitki Örtüsü(Anatolian Vegetation from Past to Present).Insan ve Çevre,Türkiye Çevre Vakfı, Ankara, pp. 69–75.

Sagdıç, O., 1995. Bir Zamanlar Ankara (Once upon a TimeAnkara). Ankara Büyük¸sehir Belediyesi, SANTUR, Ankara,p. 77.

Vural, M., 1996. Vegetation. In: Öztan, Y., Knockaert, J.P. (Eds.),Along Ancient Trade Routes. Salto nv, Belgium.

Vural, M., Adıgüzel, N., 2001. Bozkırlar, Sayı 4, Kasım, Ye¸silAtlas, pp. 16–26.

Remaining tree species from the indigenous vegetation of Ankara, Turkey

Documents

Transcript of Remaining tree species from the indigenous vegetation of Ankara, Turkey