The conservation of biodiversity and the generation of ecosystem services constitute strategies that has been promoted and executed by the institutions that manage ecological systems, which are also being assumed by the governance of socioeconomic systems. The design and appropriate integration of Auxiliary Vegetation Structures (AVS), as semi-natural spaces to improve the habit quality of the associated biodiversity and people in rural and urban areas, is argued as a promising alternative. Various plants and the design of vegetation structures that offer ecological, cultural, economic services are considered multifunctional.

Keywords: auxiliary vegetation, functional biodiversity, habitat quality, socioeconomic systems

Conventionally, the habitat is studied and managed according to the species or groups of biodiversity, considering their conservation and the ecosystem services. Nonetheless, socioeconomic development has been allowed the occupation of vast territories in urban and rural areas, with the consequent generation of incremented pollutant emissions, among other negative effects that as a whole, reduce the quality of the habitat for biodiversity in general, including human settlements.

The planet's biodiversity is being severely affected by the unprecedented modifications induced by human activities on ecosystems, among which are the change in land use, the alteration of biogeochemical cycles, the destruction and fragmentation of habitats, the introduction of exotic species and alteration of climatic conditions.¹ Furthermore, although it has not been so widely recognized, there is also clear evidence that changes in biodiversity are having a direct or indirect impact on human well-being, since they compromise the ecosystem functioning and their capacity to generate essential services for society.²

As a consequence, although in the past a good part of the biodiversity conservation initiatives was based almost exclusively on its intrinsic values or ethical criteria. in recent years more pragmatic arguments have begun to gain strength, which take into account the biodiversity contribution to the quality of life and well-being of human societies.³

However, this approach has been proven insufficient and today the attention is turned towards a more functional approach that it tries to establish causal relationships between the organism characteristics present and the processes and services of the ecosystems.^4,5 Nonetheless, it is evident that a more integrated vision is required at scale of agricultural and urban landscapes, due to the pressure that development exerts on anthropogenic self-extinction. Therefore, a promising alternative is the integration of vegetation structures with functional designs, such as semi-natural spaces that facilitate habitat quality for associated biodiversity and people.

Auxiliary vegetation structures (AVS)

 In general, biodiversity can be described in terms of the number, abundance, composition and spatial distribution of its entities (genotypes, species, or communities within ecosystems), functional characters, as well as the interactions between its components.⁴ Various plants that offer ecological, cultural, and economic services and are considered functional species; so that designs that integrates at those species can also be functional and even multifunctional.

The concept of functional diversity^6,7 has been gaining more and more popularity among the scientific community dedicated to the study of biodiversity, given its close links with ecological processes and its key role on the maintenance of life systems that it supports the planet.³

Auxiliary vegetation structures (AVS) are designs composed of one or more species of tree, shrub or herbaceous plants, which are planted or grow spontaneously to fulfill certain ecological and socioeconomic functions. The best AVS known are: (a) rows or strips of trees on the sides of roads and highways; (b) trees, ornamental plants and grass that are integrated into parks and other urban spaces; (c) fences or hedges around the systems of agricultural production and facilities; (d) windbreak curtains on sides of agricultural production systems and facilities; (e) living barriers lateral or interspersed in crop fields; (f) trees integrated into livestock pastures; (g) plants of different types in patios and gardens on the sides of homes and (h) patches of semi-natural vegetation that grows on unused land, among other structures. Integrating species and functional designs of AVS in rural and urban areas must be designed according to the characteristics of different land uses, considering the benefit to biodiversity, especially in human settlements, to promote functions that improve the quality of the habitat (Table 1).

AVS also facilitate soil and water conservation, carbon retention, among other functions that contributing to reducing polluting gas emissions and energy costs due to are harmoniously integrated into unused spaces. So that the AVS it complements to the productive and the socioeconomic uses of the land.

Live fences are used by many wild animals at some point in their life cycle, providing habitats for their reproduction and food,^8,9 they also serve for plants conservation, insects, birds and small mammals and it can contribute to the structural connectivity (Figure 1) of the agro landscape.⁹ Live fences it can potentially function as biological corridors in agricultural landscapes characterized by the fragmentation of natural habitats.¹⁰

Figure 1 Perimeter living fences that facilitate the structural connectivity of biodiversity on farms.

Urban green spaces can provide vegetation structures (Figure 2) and biodiversity for ecosystem functions and services, across fragmented habitats un spatial scales.¹¹ Several studies indicate that the inclusion of green spaces in urban environments promotes psychological well-being, reduces stress and improves the perception of health of its residents.¹²

Figure 2 Different tree and shrub vegetation structures integrated into urban spaces.

The complexity of the systems designs of mixed cultivations (polycultures, polyfruits and others) and the integration of some auxiliary vegetation structures how ecological corridors and alive barriers, further of the practices of control biological would facilitate the dispersion of natural enemies.¹³ The way trees are managed influences both their usefulness and the conservation of associated biodiversity, by providing habitats and preserving a certain level of landscape connectivity.¹⁴

Habitat quality

The habitat must be valued as a space where biodiversity coexists in a broad sense, regardless of whether each species has its requirements regarding quality. Nature provides humans with multiple benefits; in fact, our existence on Earth depends on the good state of conservation of ecosystems. This last provide resources such as food, energy, oxygen and water, furthermore that perform essential functions for the proper functioning of the planet such as regulating of climate, preventing floods and pollination. Ecosystems provide essential strategic and services for the economic prosperity, security, health and well-being of society. Ecosystem services are understood as the benefits that people obtain from them.³

In fact, human health is closely related to the environmental factors.¹⁵ The different models on health determinants consider the environment as an important factor to take into account.¹⁶ Considering that the city is the main environment in which the life of a large part of the population takes place and that, as has already been seen, it is possible that it will increasingly accommodate a greater number of people, it seems advisable to study how to make these ecosystems healthy spaces.¹⁵

Sustainable quality of life, although it is a highly complex socioeconomic challenge for health, can be considered one of the priorities for the survival of human populations. It is a holistic approach to health conservation, which is particularly different in urban, peri-urban and rural systems, where factors that determine the quality of the habitat, healthy eating and natural medication converge.¹⁷

AVS, which are traditional in peasant agriculture and peri-urban communities, constitute a promising ecological buffer system, because they facilitate various functions that increase the quality of the habitat and the resilience capacity in said systems.

Biodiversity is an important component of any ecological system, promoting functional diversity and improving ecological stability by influencing resilience and resistance to environmental changes and is therefore crucial for overall quality of life.¹⁸

The green structure is multifunctional, since as we have seen it goes from social to ecological functions.¹⁸ Understanding biodiversity as a fundamental component of socio-ecological systems, whose dynamics go through different phases or adaptive cycles, requires strengthening an integrated work approach from different perspectives.¹⁹

The factors negative extern at human development, whose pressure approaches the threshold of tolerance and resistance of socioeconomic systems, especially rural and urban human settlements, suggests the need to appropriately design and integrate vegetation structures as ecological buffers.

Various vegetation structures, made with multifunctional design, facilitate habitat quality for biodiversity and people in rural and urban socioeconomic systems.

None.

Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

1. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). Ecosystems and human well–being: Biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C; 2005.
2. Díaz S, Fargione J, Chapin III FS, et al. Biodiversity loss threatens human well–being. PLoS Biology. 2006;4:e277.
3. Martín–López B, González JA, Díaz S, et al. Biodiversity and human well–being: the role of functional diversity. Ecosystems. 2007;16(3):68–79.
4. Hooper DU, Chapin III FS, Ewel JJ, et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs. 2005;75:3–35.
5. Díaz S, Tilman D, Fargione J, et al. Biodiversity regulation of ecosystem services. In: Ecosystems and human well–being: Current state and trends. Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N, editors. Island Press, Washington D.C; 2005. p. 297–329.
6. Díaz S, Cabido M. Vive la differénce: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem functioning. Trends Ecology and Evolution. 2001;16:646–655.
7. Tilman D. Functional diversity. In: Encyclopedia of biodiversity. In: Levin R, editor. Academic Press, San Diego, CA; 2001. p. 109–120.
8. Braudry J, Bunce RG, Burel F. Hedgerows: An international perspective on their origin, function and management. Journal of Environmental Management. 2003;60(1):7–22.
9. Harvey CA, Villanueva C, Villacís J, et al. Contribution of living fences to the productivity and ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes in Central America. Agroforestería de las Américas. 2003;10(39–40):30–39.
10. Harvey CA, Villanueva C, Ibrahim M, et al. Producers, trees and livestock production in Central American landscapes: implications for biodiversity conservation. In: Harvey CA, Sáenz J, editors. Assessment and conservation of biodiversity in fragmented landscapes of Mesoamerica. INBio/CATIE/UNA. 1 ed. Heredia, Costa Rica; 2008. p. 197–224.
11. Lin BB, Fuller RA. Sharing or sparing? How should we grow the world's cities? Journal of Applied Ecology. 2013;50:1161–1168.
12. Largo–Wight E. Cultivating healthy places and communities: evidenced–based nature contact recommendations. International Journal of Environmental Health Research. 2011;21(1):41–61.
13. Vázquez LL, Jacques GC. Dispersion and increase of natural enemies in agroecosystems.  In: Souza B, Vázquez LL, Marucci RC, editors. Natural enemies of insect pests in neotropical agroecosystems biological control and functional biodiversity. Springer Nature Switzerland AG; 2019.
14. Harvey CA, Haber WA, Mejías F, et al. Remnant trees in pastures of Costa Rica: Tools for conservation? Agroforestería en las Américas. 1999;6(24):19–22.
15. Mejías AI. Contribution of urban gardens to health. Hábitat y Sociedad No. 6. 2013. p. 85–103.
16. Evans RG, Barer ML, Marmor TR. Why some people are healthy and others are not? the determinants of population health. Madrid: Díaz de Santos; 1996.
17. Vázquez LL. Habitat, food and health. Three components that need to meet again to contribute to a sustainable quality of life. Primera Scientific Medicine and Public Health. 2022;1:12–15.
18. Montoya J. Recognition of urban Biodiversity for planning in contexts of informal growth. Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo. 2016;9(18):232–275.
19. Rincón–Ruíz A, Echeverry–Duque M, Piñeros A, et al. Comprehensive assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services: Conceptual and methodological aspects. Bogotá, Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos "Alexander von Humboldt". 2014.