Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

Old stone walls as an ecological habitat for urban trees in Hong Kong
C.Y. Jim*
Department of Geography and Geology, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China Received 22 January 1998; received in revised form 13 April 1998; accepted 17 April 1998

Abstract Urban growth in Hong Kong is constrained by rugged topography resulting in grave shortage of developable land. Besides forming new land by reclamation from the sea, hillsides have been extensively cut into terraces to accommodate denselypacked roads and buildings. To maximize useable area and to provide geotechnical stability, stone retaining walls were widely built between platforms. Such vertical habitats constitute a unique opportunity for spontaneous colonization by a diversied humid-tropical ora, including large trees up to 20 m tall. The walls-cum-vegetation, many exceeding 100 years old, furnish a precious natural-cum-cultural heritage and decorate some otherwise drab neighborhoods. Recent city redevelopment unfortunately has damaged beautiful walls and their living companions. A city-wide survey was conducted to establish a microcomputer database to assess wall and tree characteristics and to identify candidates for conservation. Some 505 walls with 1275 trees (>1 m tall) were found mainly in residential areas. A broad range of stone types, wall dimensions, construction methods and wall age were recorded. The 30 tree species, largely native, are dominated by Moraceae (Mulberry family), eight of which contribute 88% of the population. About 10% of the trees are >9 m tall, providing conspicuous and pleasant landscape elements. Some tree attributes are associated with wall characteristics. Many trees had been heavily pruned to meet vehicular clearance needs and perceived safety concerns. The absence of an ofcial policy to preserve champion-caliber trees and walls need to be urgently rectied to prevent further loss of an irreplaceable community asset. # 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stone wall; Wall tree; Urban tree; Urban ecology; Wall preservation; Hong Kong

1. Introduction and preamble A continual quest for developable land underscored 150 years of urban-expansion in Hong Kong. The predominantly rugged terrain is dominated by steep slopes which constrain city growth in the old circumharbor core. Rapid population and economic growth demand land which has to be created without respite by reclamation from the sea and cutting the hillslopes
*Tel.: +852 2859 7020; fax: +852 2559 8994; e-mail: hragjcy@hkucc.hku.hk 0169-2046/98/$19.00 # 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII S0169-2046(98)00072-3

to form platforms. These two modes of site formation over the years have molded the direction and pace of urban development which must be preceded by laborious creation of usable land. The city's morphology, being prevalently high-density and high-rise, has been dictated by this inherent limitation of land scarcity and its high production cost. Lands acquired by reclamation from the sea present few constraints to development, and were rapidly lled with buildings and roads leaving little open spaces. Lands carved from hillslopes, however, are beset by geotechnical constraints. To ensure that dis-

30

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

turbed slopes would remain stable has been a key consideration in terracing hillsides. Cutting slopes into a ight of platforms, likened to giant steps, requires much efforts to stabilize the intervening oversteepened sections. Sometimes well vegetated pockets of residual slopes are left in the built-up matrix as telltale legacies of the landform disturbances. To maximize usable land, adjacent platforms are often separated by vertical faces which must be protected and reinforced against failure, unless there is sound solid rock. In the past, stone retaining walls (Geotechnical Control Ofce, 1979; Teng, 1980) were commonly constructed to serve this purpose. Continual urban sprawl up the foothills has created many stone walls. The hilly northern part of Hong Kong Island, with a long development history, has most of the oldest representatives including many older than 100 years. Some are conspicuously situated at roadsides, whereas others are sequestered behind buildings and in obscure lanes. Over the years, the method and the style of construction gradually evolved, resulting in a wide variety of walls with elaborate masonry occurring in equally varied environs. As soon as these articial vertical habitats were formed, nature's cliff-hangers would begin to colonize the vacant niches. Most walls nurture a rich complement of ora of different growth forms, including mosses, lichens, ferns, herbs, shrubs, climbers and trees, together with diverse wildlife. Of the assorted denizens, the biomass and ecologicalenvironmental benets of large trees deserve particular attention. The landscape of the hilly neighborhoods, otherwise monotonous and sterile, has been decorated by stone walls and their living companions. The older crop of walls is often blanketed by dense vegetation with large trees up to 20 m tall. The ecological and cityscape value of such natural ingredients deserve to be treasured, yet they have been largely taken for granted if not neglected. Recent widespread redevelopment of the hilly districts have damaged and obliterated many ne walls. New city extensions into fringe slopes carve huge platforms separated by engineered slopes rather than retaining walls. New retaining structures, occasionally needed, are invariably made of reinforced concrete (to meet stringent geotechnical requirements) rather than stone. Old stones walls in Hong Kong have become a threatened heritage.

This study aims at assessing comprehensively this diminishing resource, ruderal vegetation on a special ruderal habitat (Frenkel, 1970). Intrinsic and extrinsic wall variations present a plethora of chances for vegetation. An empirical evaluation of both walls and trees can throw lights on the ecological relationship between the two intimate partners. As most wall vegetation studies were carried in the temperate lands (e.g. Segal, 1969; Darlington, 1981), this humid-tropical study can provide comparative data. Analysis of detailed information gleaned in the eld helps to: (1) understand the nature, distribution and environs of stone walls, for plant-growth substrate in the city; (2) to enumerate the species composition and relative abundance of the attached trees; (3) to evaluate the growth condition and problems of the wall trees; (4) to identify candidate walls and trees for conservation; (5) to explore the long-term management strategy of old stone walls and trees. 2. Study area and methods The location of walls were initially pinpointed on 1:1000 large-scale maps. A reconnaissance of 100 walls in different districts provided basic knowledge about walls and trees to design two detailed eld record forms to facilitate systematic data collection. The wall form assembles data on location, material, stone dimensions, surface smoothness, surface moisture, weathering status, joint type and condition, wall aspect, inclination and exposure, wall environs, vegetation cover, integrity and threats to wall existence. The tree form assesses tree position on the wall, species, tree height, surface root length and density, crown spread, integrity and restriction, and overall tree performance rating species. Each wall form is tied to one or more tree forms. The possible answers were largely of a closed-ended nature to minimize subjective judgement and to facilitating microcomputer database treatment. A pilot study on 30 walls and 60 trees was conducted to test the applicability of the record forms and to gather feedbacks to rene them. The study area was then divided into small enclaves each approximately equivalent to 1 day of eld work. Most walls were found on northern Hong Kong Island with the oldest city core dating back to 1840s. The eld survey

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

31

focused on this study area where walls over 1 m tall and wall tree over 1 m tall, attached on them, were evaluated. Only the retaining walls (holding back soil materials) were included; free-standing ones were not. A wall tree was dened as one with most of its roots spreading on or penetrating through the wall face, and with the trunk base situated within the connes of a wall. A tree overhanging above a wall but not physically attached to it, and a tree with trunk base and most roots located outside a wall's boundaries, did not qualify. A 3-month intensive eld study was conducted in the summer (JuneAugust) of 1996 to gauge the trees in their prime growing season. A total of 505 walls and 1275 trees were assessed. Wall locations were plotted on 1:5000 maps which was the working scale. Two computer les, namely for wall and tree data, were created with Microsoft Excel Version 5.0. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSSPC for Windows Version 6.1. Botanical nomenclature follows those of Agriculture and Fisheries Department (1993) and Jim (1990). 3. Stone walls as vegetation habitat The enumerated 505 stone walls are found in the older hilly neighborhoods built on Hong Kong Island. Two districts have a signicant clustering of walls, taking up 40% of the total number. There is a marked concentration in several winding two-lane roads that run largely along the contour where most large wall trees (<6 m) are attached. The old urban-sprawl mode tended to terrace hillslopes into small pockets separated by stone retaining walls; recent developments formed large tracts bounded by cut and ll slopes rather than walls. By land use, the low- to mediumdensity residential areas contain most walls and associated trees. Hilly lands are mainly earmarked for better-quality private housing. Other land uses, except high-density residential, have few and scattered walls. The walls are found within 20400 m altitudinal range, with the majority in the 20200 m bracket. Most walls are highly or moderately exposed, and face north which is the main slope direction in the study area. This factor carries both positive and negative connotations. Exposed walls are subject to more direct sunshine and wind, and may be more prone to

desiccation. Exposure, however, can allow walls to receive more rainwater by lateral impaction due to wind. Furthermore, exposure provides opportunities for the wind vector to admit extraneous propagules and disseminate resident propagules. Only a few walls incline over 10 degrees from the vertical; the remaining are vertical or nearly so. Other things being equal, inclination may allow marginally easier lodging of seeds. Deviation from the vertical can facilitate capture of rainwater. Wall stones are mainly granite (60%) which are lighter in color, and secondarily volcanic which are much darker. The latter contains more mac minerals which upon weathering can release more basic nutrients. Its dark color absorbs more radiant energy and attains a higher stone temperature which accelerates drying of walls. No wall is constructed with a mixture of stones. Both rock types are commonly found in Hong Kong. Most stone faces have either smooth or moderately so nish, with only a few roughly-hewn. Uneven stone surface could furnish more landing opportunities for propagules and more secure root anchorage. The stones show different degrees of incipient weathering, reecting wall age which for many exceeds a century. The most weathered ones are likely to be pre-weathered. Weathering rate in the humid-tropical condition, in an subaerial rather than subterranean environment, is unlikely to attain an advanced stage within the 150 years maximum tenure of the oldest walls (Ollier, 1984). The weathered minerals can release nutrients for wall vegetation (Woodell, 1979), supplementing a resource in restricted supply. Moisture availability is a crucial factor that imparts life on walls. Some 57% of the walls have dry surfaces despite surveying during the summer rainy season. The remaining walls are moist, with some having localized seepage and others pervasively moistureladen. The back-of-wall land use is a pivotal control of moisture status. Inltrated rainwater soaking the soil behind walls supplies seepage outow through weep holes and joints. Extensive stretch of vegetated slope above walls provides a ready source of moisture replenishment. Walls situated on the upper edge of the city have such a favorable disposition. Occasionally, in times of heavy downpour at an intensity exceeding soil inltration capacity, surface runoff may spread from the abutting slope onto or cascade down wall faces, and water may shoot out of weepholes.

32

Table 1 Distribution of trees species on stone walls of different dimensions Wall height (m) 5075 75100 >100 <2.5 2.55 57.5 7.510 >10 <250 250500 500750 Wall area (m2) 7501000 >1000 Total

Species

Wall width (m)

<25

2550

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

Alangium chinense Albizia lebbeck Aporusa chinensis Bauhinia blakeana Bridelia monoica Broussonetia papyrifera Carica papaya Cassia surattensis Celtis sinensis Cratoxylum ligustrinum Dalbergia balansae Delonix regia Ficus hispida Ficus microcarpa Ficus religiosa Ficus superba Ficus variegata Ficus virens Ligustrum sinense Liquidambar formosana Litsea glutinosa Litsea monopetala Macaranga tanarius Maesa perlarius Mallotus paniculatus Nerium indicum Punica granatum Sapium sebiferum Schefflera octophylla Thevetia peruviana 219 143 205 123 603 303 238 8 668 358 129 34 86

0 1 0 0 3 12 0 3 20 0 0 2 15 128 10 57 15 23 9 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 6 23 1 3 19 4 3 0 64 169 1 49 19 23 1 0 7 1 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 1 1 9 0 0 11 1 0 0 8 128 0 20 11 14 4 0 4 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 12 84 1 21 0 6 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 128 1 37 5 8 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 61 0 19 12 7 3 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 4 27 1 3 31 1 0 0 53 302 11 82 25 36 9 0 6 1 0 4 2 0 0 1 1 0

2 0 0 0 6 18 0 3 11 4 3 2 37 143 1 41 1 10 2 0 5 0 2 9 2 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 12 0 0 0 13 127 1 40 12 19 4 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 6 28 1 3 37 1 0 2 64 283 11 106 43 45 13 1 6 1 5 4 4 1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 4 21 0 3 13 4 3 0 27 217 1 29 1 16 5 0 5 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 11 76 0 16 4 6 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14 0 11 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 47 1 22 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 1 1 1 12 54 1 6 59 5 3 2 105 637 13 184 50 74 18 1 11 1 8 15 6 1 1 1 1 1 1275

Total

305

403

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

33

For the few walls adjacent to well-wooded companion slopes, the high humidity environment allowed capture of atmospheric moisture in a process similar to fog straining. A well vegetated slope is more able to store water and release it gradually over a longer period between rainfalls. Moreover, a site with luxuriant vegetation cover has more organic matter and more fertile soils, thus generating more eutrophic outows. The nutrients thus conveyed to walls, a continual material input into the mural ecosystem, constitute an important means of sustenance for vegetation. Stones can hardly store water and the tiny volume of soil in the joints has meager storage capacity. For small plants with limited root spread, the timeliness and adequacy of water supply is a critical survival determinant. Surface area of walls is limited, with 79% in the <250 m2 small class, and only a few in the large 750 1000 and >1000 m2 categories. The largest wall attains 2340 m2. By linear dimensions (Table 1 and Fig. 1), most walls are 2.55.0 m in height and 25

50 m width. The longest wall reaches 310 m and the tallest 12 m. The wide walls are dominated by granite, whereas the tall walls are both granitic and volcanic. In line with the species-area concept, large walls were expected to accommodate more species. Besides presenting a large physical surface for plant attachment, they are likely to furnish more microvariations in habitat conditions, hence a diversity of niches. They are also more conspicuous if not imposing urban landscape features. Tall walls, however, are more likely to be construed as a safety threat especially if they are situated close to buildings. Most stones are 3040 cm height and 2060 cm wide; the widest stones reach over 200 cm, and the tallest over 60 cm (Fig. 2). Walls made of large stones are mainly granitic. Small stone means more gaps between individual ones, hence a better chance for seepage, propagule lodging and root anchorage. Some 77% of the walls have regularly-shaped stones, either square or rectangular, and the remainder are irregular (subrounded or subangular). Irregularity provides

Fig. 1. Frequency of stone walls by categories of wall height and width.

34

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

Fig. 2. The height and width of stones which constitute the stone walls.

more and wider inter-stone gaps furnishing benets analogous to small stones. Most joints are mortared with ush or ribbon pointing. Only 3.6% of the walls have open joints, being the oldest representatives. Most joints are either intact/original or intact/repaired; few walls have broken mortar at the joints. With open or broken joints, advantages similar to small stones mentioned above can be achieved. 4. Characteristics of wall trees The surveyed walls contain vegetation of different growth forms, ranging from mosses and lichens, to ferns and herbs, and to shrubs and trees. The wall plants are due to spontaneous colonization unassisted by human actions. As mimicry of nature's rocky precipices, the wall habitat is expected to harbor a similar plant assemblage. The humid-tropical environment of Hong Kong, with an inherently rich native ora enriched by exotic components, has many candidate species with different degrees of suitability to wall existence. Some 49.5% of the walls harbor trees, a total 1275 individuals from 30 species, which are

conspicuous by virtue of biomass, ecological and environmental signicance (Table 1 and Table 2). In comparison, roadside trees in urban Hong Kong reach 149 species (Jim, 1996), and the total tree species of the territory is about 300 (Agriculture and Fisheries Department, 1993). In relative terms, the tree species diversity on walls is subdued. In terms of habitat stress level and limited surface area, that some 30 species can establish despite the heavy odds is an impressive record. No data on wall vegetation in other tropical areas is available for comparison. Temperate-latitude walls are dominated by non-woody species of herbs, ferns and lower plants, with trees as minor or rare elements (Segal, 1969). The tree stock is dominated by a small number of common species, accompanied by uncommon to rare ones (Table 2). The top three species take up 72.7% and the top 12 as high as 96.7%. Some 18 species have frequencies below 10, of which 11 are solitary specimens. Most walls have two to ve species each; those with less than two or more than ve species are less common. Native species are predominant, mainly Moraceae (Mulberry family), and to a lesser extent Ulmaceae (Elm family),

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943 Table 2 Species composition and frequency of trees growing on stone retai urban Hong Kong Scientific name Ficus microcarpa Ficus superba Ficus hispida Ficus virens Celtis sinensis Broussonetia papyrifera Ficus variegata Ligustrum sinense Maesa perlarius Ficus religiosa * Bridelia monoica Litsea glutinosa Macaranga tanarius Cassia surattensisa Mallotus paniculatus Cratoxylum ligustrinum Dalbergia balansae Alangium chinense Delonix regiaa Albizia lebbeck Aporusa chinensis Bauhinia blakeana Carica papayaa Liquidambar formosana Litsea monopetala Nerium indicuma Punica granatum Sapium sebiferum Schefflera octophylla Thevetia peruvianaa Total
a

35

Common name Chinese banyan Superb fig Rough-leaf stem-fig Big-leaved fig Chinese hackberry Paper mulberry Red-stem fig Chinese privet (nil) Peepul tree Pop-gun seed Pond spice Elephant's ear Sunshine tree Turn-in-the-wind Yellow-cow wood South China rosewood Chinese alangium Flame of the forest Lebbeck tree Aporusa Hong Kong orchid tree Papaya Sweet gum Persimmon-leaf litsea Oleander Pomegranate Tallow tree Ivy tree Yellow oleander

Family Moraceae Moraceae Moraceae Moraceae Ulmaceae Moraceae Moraceae Oleaceae Myrsinaceae Moraceae Euphorbiaceae Lauraceae Euphorbiaceae Caesalpiniaceae Euphorbiaceae Hypericaceae Papilionaceae Alangiaceae Caesalpiniaceae Mimosaceae Euphorbiaceae Caesalpiniaceae Cariaceae Hamamelidaceae Lauraceae Apocynaceae Punicaceae Euphorbiaceae Araliaceae Apocynaceae

Tree frequency Count 637 184 105 74 59 54 50 18 15 13 12 11 8 6 6 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1275 % 49.96 14.43 8.24 5.80 4.63 4.24 3.92 1.41 1.18 1.02 0.94 0.86 0.63 0.47 0.47 0.39 0.24 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 100.00

Exotic species.

Oleaceae (Olive family), Myrsinaceae (Ardisia family), Euphorbiaceae (Spurge family), and Lauraceae (Laurel family). Exotic trees are rarely found, constituting merely 1.89% from six species. Only one of the top 12 species is exotic; the remaining ve exotic species are sparsely represented. By botanical family, Moraceae is overwhelming dominant with seven species and 87.6% of the trees. The genus Ficus contributing six species, ve of which are native, is the undisputed arboreal leader on walls. The evergreen Ficus microcarpa alone occupies 50% of the wall-tree population. The species is naturally found in local woodlands of the lowland evergreen

variety (Zhang et al., 1989). It is commonly planted as amenity trees in the city (Jim, 1990), furnishing the largest and oldest urban specimens including highcaliber champion trees (Jim, 1994a, b). It is renowned for huge nal size up to 20 m in height and crown spread, for longevity easily over 500 years, and for environmental tolerance to persevere in stressful urban sites. The species stocks most walls and most of the largest wall trees. They are the wall-tree par excellence of the city, providing important landmark features in the hilly neighborhoods. Moreover, they serve as wildlife habitats especially for birds, adding faunal diversity to the city's biotic community.

36

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

The exceptional ability of Ficus microcarpa to conquer wall habitat is related to its evolutionary history and adaptive trait. It evolved as a strangler in the tropical forest (Hills, 1967), with proliferation of aerial roots which upon reaching the soil can become woody and fuse together to form a sturdy web-like matrix. The species has a natural growth habit pre-adapted to grip tightly onto other trees, and it is equally at home gripping stone faces. Besides beginning life as a normal seedling on the forest oor, its surface-clinging ability also allows spontaneous growing on cliffs and rocky faces in general (Corner, 1988). On local stone walls, most F. microcarpa send out a massive amount of roots which grip the stone face and penetrate the gaps between stones and weep holes to explore the soil behind the stone facade. For the species, growing on a stone wall is analogous to growing on a host tree, except that the wall cannot be strangled. In some respect, wall trees behave like giant epiphytes with the necessary adaptations for a steadfast attachment, except that they were not specically evolved for this purpose. Other Ficus species include F. superba, F. hispida, F. virens, F. variegata, and F. religiosa. They are present on most walls, and owe their common occurrence mainly to aggressive roots and efcient seed dispersal mainly by birds. F. superba, F. virens and F. religiosa in particular are by growth habit similar to F. microcarpa. On the other hand, F. hispida, F. variegata and Broussonetia papyrifera (the remaining member of Moraceae) attach themselves by sending roots into the soil behind the wall facade, with little surcial roots on the stone face. Wall trees thus have two means of anchorage, namely, surcial roots with common self-grafting forming a strong basket-like framework, as well as penetrating roots spreading into the soil retained behind the stones. Species adopting a dualistic anchorage mode tend to attain a higher frequency and reach the largest biomass category (>9 m tall and >9 m crown spread; Table 1). The most capable species is F. microcarpa which has the highest root density, longest root spread, and constitutes 80% of the 137 largest wall trees. A few managed to reach 20 m tall which is close to the maximum potential size for the species. Other species with a single mode of attachment, only penetrating roots, have restricted biomass usually much smaller than their respective biological potential dimensions. Overall, rooting habit

plays a cardinal role in molding the capability of trees to colonize walls and to attain their nal size. The remaining 23 species are non-Moraceae, most of which have low frequencies, in total contributing 12.4% of the wall trees. The only signicant nonMoraceae is Celtis sinensis of Ulmaceae, a native and common in local woodlands with a strong and searching root system adopting the penetrating-root attachment mode. A few trees managed to reach over 9 m tall. Other trees with >10 frequencies include Ligustrum sinense, Maesa perlarius, Bridelia monoica and Litsea glutinosa. The rest of the tree composition is made of rare species, 11 of which are solitary specimens. Unlike frequent tree species with special adaptations to thrive on walls, the uncommon ones do not have specic surface-clinging traits. The occurrence of such rarities on walls could be incidental if not accidental. Many uncommon species are ruderals (Jim, 1994a, b) which spontaneously invade disturbed and articial habitats which abound in the city. Cases in point are Aporusa chinensis, Bridelia monoica, Ligustrum sinense, Litsea glutinosa, Litsea monopetala, Macaranga tanarius, Sapium sebiferum, and Schefera octophylla. They have opportunistic and fugitive characters allowing invasion of open unstable sites such as roadside cut and ll slopes and vacant building lots. Some are found in the early successional stage of local woodlands (Zhang et al., 1989). It is possible that they had spread from adjacent woodlands onto walls. A few unusual and unexpected species, namely ve owering trees (Bauhinia blakeana, Cassia surattensis, Delonix regia, Nerium indicum and Thevetia peruviana) and two fruit trees (Carica papaya and Punica granatum), are garden escapees. They are normally cultivated in gardens and roadside green strips in the city. In this group, the ability of exotic species to grow on walls indicates a tendency to become naturalized; their degree of naturalization is limited as they do not venture into natural habitats. Together with the proper wall trees, an interesting species assemblage taking advantage of the unique opportunity for plant life has been nurtured. They furnish an additional dimension to the ruderal diversities of urban ecological habitats. The small trees (13 m tall) take up some 56% of the wall trees. Large trees (>9 m tall) contribute only 10.7%, but are conspicuous due to biomass as well as

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

37

Fig. 3. Frequency of trees in different tree-height and wall-height categories.

environmental-landscaping impacts (Fig. 3). That they hang on walls above the ground tend to emphasize their imposing stature. The largest trees are almost invariably Ficus microcarpa (80% of the >9 m category; Table 1), accompanied by some F. virens, F. superba, F. variegata and Celtis sinensis. The small trees are also commonly represented by this species group, indicating an ample supply of saplings and young trees with the potential in due course to become sizable wall trees. This phenomenon suggests that the colonization of walls by trees is still actively proceeding despite deleterious urbanization impacts. Crown spread measurements provide a similar physical connement with dominance by a limited 13 m span. Some 54.7% of the trees have incomplete crowns due to various growing-space and physiological constraints, pruning and other damaging activities. 5. Ecological association between walls and trees Wall dimensions apparently do not affect tree frequency. Overall, large walls do not necessarily harbor more trees or more species (Table 1; Figs. 4 and 5).

The smaller walls are often the best endowed with tree ora. Most trees are attached to walls with stones slightly to moderately weathered, implying an increased afnity for old walls. Alternatively, it implies that it takes time for walls to be gradually colonized by trees, thus an old wall can accumulate more trees. Highly weathered walls tend to attract more Ficus variegata and F. virens. Walls with stones of irregular size and shape and with wider gaps between stones attract more trees, and uncommon to rare species are more likely to dwell on them. Such walls have features that deviate from the harshest conditions, or rather more akin to normal habitats, thus they are more amenable to invasion by species without special wall-hugging adaptations. The positions of trees on walls, dened as the spot where the trunk base is attached, tells something about seed lodging and establishment. Most trees (68.7%) are attached somewhat away from the wall base or top. For a large tree to be adequately supported on a vertical surface, the amount of biomass and resource devoted to anchorage is substantial. Comparing with ground-growing trees, this extra burden drains heavily on the tree's limited sustenance. It is reasonable to hypothesize that a wall tree does not outgrow the

38

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

Fig. 4. Frequency of trees on walls of different categories of height and width.

Fig. 5. Species diversity index on walls of different categories of height and width.

ability of its root system to support it. The mechanical principle of tree architecture suggests an equilibrium between shoot loading and root holding capability (Mattheck and Breloer, 1994). That very few trees toppled from walls despite occasionally typhoon onslaught (the few that fell were traced to deleterious human activities such as root severance) lend support to this assumption. For trees that emanate from the wall top or the base, the need to support tree weight is

partly shouldered by the horizontal or nearly horizontal surfaces, with a subdued problem of attachment and stability. Wall moisture status in the wet summer months has little inuence on long-term tree growth. Most trees are found on quite dry walls, although some species are slightly more favored where seepage occurs. The ne tree roots responsible for moisture and nutrient uptake (Perry, 1994) penetrate the wall face to enter

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

39

the shielded soils. The availability of water in the retained soil in the dry winter months is more important in regulating tree survival. Whether the joint pointing is of the ush or ribbon types has no signicant inuence on wall-tree colonization. A few species surprisingly are more common on ush rather than ribbon or recessed pointings, although the last two types are supposedly more amenable to receive seeds and support seedling growth. In terms of material composition, granite walls favor more of Ficus microcarpa, F. religiosa, F. variegata and Celtis sinensis. The volcanic walls are more accommodating to Ficus hispida, F. superba, Broussonetia papyrifera and Ligustrum sinense. Wall exposure affects the growth of some species. The exposed walls are more frequently invaded by Broussonetia papyrifera and Bridelia monoica, whereas the sheltered walls favor Ficus hispida, F. superba and F. virens. Tolerance of the more stressful habitat conditions associated with exposure is needed for survival. Regarding wall verticality, the inclined ones accommodate trees that are not normally found on walls, including the ruderal and garden escapee groups discussed in Section 4. The angled face facilitates seed lodging and subsequently growth, and demands less on anchorage. The ability to venture into the soil trapped behind the wall is essential for trees to absorb water and nutrient and to ascertain anchorage. That Ficus microcarpa and other related species can reach phenomenal dimensions on walls, up to 20 m tall and 1.2 m trunk diameter, is attributed to the aggressive and spreading roots which greatly expand the rooting room. Thus the successful wall trees enlist the stone face mainly for initial landing and physical attachment, with the bulk of the water, nutrient and anchorage needs for sustainable growth fullled by the soil lying behind. A retaining wall with its backing soil, both in situ and backll (Mohoney, 1994), form a partnership for vegetation establishment. A stone wall with portals, in the forms of between-stone joints and weepholes, is pertinent for effective communication between tree and soil. The wall lying between trees and soil forms an intermediary providing a rigid yet penetrable structure to connect the two end members. The better the connection, the better is the tree growth. In a sense, the most successful wall trees are the most able emulator of normal ground-grown trees in capturing resources

for long-term survival, with a better chance to reach their growth potential. 6. Vicissitudes of wall vegetation In nature, the uncommon vertical surfaces are mainly rocky cliffs with trying conditions for survival, mainly the absence of an effective soil layer and the impermeability of stones. This is compounded by shortage of available moisture and nutrients, and exposure to wind and insolation. In cities, articial vertical faces abound on buildings and other structures, yet most are too inhospitable for even the most tolerant species. Stone retaining walls, however, are human emulation of nature's cliffs created using natural materials in an articial organization. The physical contiguity with behind-wall soil provides a ready source of surface and subsurface moisture which contains nutrients. The gaps between individual stones furnish portals for nutrient-laden water to seep out and for plant roots to reach the retained soil. The same gaps also afford micro-platforms for propagules to land and subsequently germinate. Weep-holes, designed to facilitate drainage of water away from the held-back soil to reduce loading on walls, have a pleasant side-effect of enhancing plant life. A vertical face is a difcult substrate with few niches for propagules to lodge. Few seeds may by chance land on the minuscule ledges. The ensuing life is prone to a host of risks. Insufcient water and nutrients severely limits germination which is the most critical life stage. The young saplings have to eke out enough resources to send out roots to grip the largely sealed surface. Resources have to be diverted towards growing supporting roots to maintain the foothold. The normal geotropic responses of the shoot and roots are distorted by habitat verticality. Soil trapped behind the stone facade could be accessed only if they are not secluded by cement, lime or other mortar and pointing materials. Additionally, pollination and propagation are difcult due to shortage of suitable vectors. Stone walls are further subjected to atmospheric stresses. In exposed sites, direct solar radiation heats up the stones which have higher thermal capacity than the soil. The temperature range of stones is wider than the normal soil environment, with daytime heat accumulation reaching harmful levels. The energy loading

40

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943 Table 3 Habitat constraints of stone wall in cities Factor A. Intrinsic 1. Verticality Constraint Propagule lodging Germination stress Establishment difficulty Geotropism adjustment Anchorage problem Rooting restriction Moisture storage Moisture supply Nutrient deficiency Temperature stress Photosynthetic rate Shade sensitivity Desiccation Deformation Breakage Uprooting Typhoon selection Species admission Nutrient availability Growth dampening Selective force Photoperiod response Pollination vector Propagation opportunity Inadequate attention Access problem Tree pruning Tree removal Grazing injury Tree pruning Vegetation removal Surface-root clearance Pointing repair Joint sealing Surface srcubbing Buttressing Reinforcement Partial reconstruction Total reconstruction Root severance Wall foundation disturbance Vegetation removal Shoot physical damage Root physical damage Soil (behind wall) contamination Particulate pollution Building foundation intrusion Building awning intrusion Wall demolition Wall reconstruction

could also dry up the stones and the soil in the crevices. Wind can accelerate the desiccation process. Trees on fully exposed walls could be snapped or extracted by strong wind and typhoon. At sites trapped behind high-rise buildings, heavy shading may reduce moisture loss. The lack of sunshine, however, may check photosynthetic rate. Articial street lighting may interfere with plant photoperiod response and other physiological functions. Besides physical stresses, wall chemistry can be restrictive to plant life. The mortar jammed between stones contains lime which upon dissolution releases calcareous substances and raise the pH of the substrate into the alkaline range (Darlington, 1981). Small plants such as herbs and ferns with limited root spread have to be rooted mainly in the alkalized materials. As most humid-tropical species are adapted to an acidic substratum, many plants nd the chemical environment alien. The roadside location of many walls opens them to air pollution. Walls in built-up areas are increasingly regarded as a safety threat (Table 3). Wall plants, particularly trees, are often construed as potentially disruptive elements that may compromise wall stability (Fig. 6) despite the lack of relevant evidence (Woodell, 1979). With safety a paramount consideration, they are habitually pruned or removed in routine highway and building maintenance. Recent heightened concern on geotechnical stability due to several fatal failure of disturbed slopes has increased wall repair and vegetation clearance. Selected walls have been strengthened with new concrete structures added as attachments to old walls, resulting in massive destruction of the companion greenery. Some walls have been demolished, either partly but often completely, and replaced by new reinforced concrete walls which are inhospitable to vegetation. The widespread redevelopment of old buildings is the most prevalent threat to walls which are usually removed to lower the site level to that of the adjacent road. New retaining walls are no longer built with the traditional masonry technique which requires much manual skill and labor, and which does not satisfy stringent modern safety standards. Some new concrete walls were given a thin stone veneer to visually mimic old ones but are devoid of ecological necessities for plant life. Wall trees beside narrow roads are regularly trimmed for safe pedestrian and vehicle (including

2. Sealed surface

3. Shading 4. Exposure

5. Substrate alkalinity B. Extrinsic 6. Air pollution 7. Artificial lighting 8. Reproduction 9. Tree care 10. Vehicular clearance 11. Wall maintenance

12. Wall instability

13. Utility trenching 14. Construction activities

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

41

Fig. 6. Tree biomass index in different categories of threat to wall existence and wall integrity.

double-decker buses) clearance. Some estate management regard vegetation on walls as a sign of poor upkeep, and impose a diligent purging regime. These periodic culling is catastrophic to existing mural plants, ushering a dim prospect for urban landscape in the degraded neighborhoods. For old walls that escape the scourge thus far, they have recently received ubiquitous maintenance treatments such as re-doing or adding mortar and pointing. Such largely cosmetic tinkering may bring psychological solace vis-a-vis safety, but are detrimental to small plants and tree roots. For annuals and biennials, there may be the chance to complete a life cycle before they are heavily injured or eradicated. For perennials, such periodic havoc is inimical to their continued survival. The heavy crown reduction and branch removal leave them weak and deformed. Too many wall plants with an initial promise fail to reach maturity. 7. Long-term management strategy and conclusion In Hong Kong, intensive and relentless urban development in a difcult terrain over 150 years has

bequeathed many ne stone retaining walls. They testify the elaborate masonry work of a bygone era, entailing much hard manual labor and proud workmanship. Stone walls were built to stabilize a vertical engineered surface. Any subsequent plant colonization is a coincidental byproduct, a result of the interactions between nature and culture. A harsh and cold vertical wall face is softened by greenery and rendered less visually obtrusive. As a geographical reality and necessity, the population has accustomed to living near them and to appreciating their landscape contributions. The co-existence between walls and people over the years unfortunately has recently been upset by increasing safety concern and widespread redevelopment. Massive destruction and inappropriate propping measures have been proceeding with little regard to their ecological and landscape values. With no new walls built in the traditional way, the continual ravage of a shrinking legacy needs to be arrested. Old stone walls, especially those with more than a century of tenure, should be treated as a cultural heritage of the community. The spontaneous colonization of walls by diverse and vigorous vegetation, a pleasant spin-off of the

42

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943

engineering endeavors, has greatly augmented their value in the cityscape. The traditional wall-construction method has laid down ample chances for nature to explore and exploit. Walls constitute a highly specialized articial habitat for the proliferation of ruderal vegetation which are in effect followers of humans and unconscious consequences of human activities. Nature has attempted to claim the vacant niches of such habitats which happen to afford the basic sustenance for life. The tropical environment has provided both abiotic and biotic ingredients for a rich wall ora, signicantly more so in comparison with temperate walls. The internal variabilities of this habitat is faithfully echoed by equally varied permutations of oristic assemblages, making it particularly interesting in both ecological and landscape terms. The species composition also reects the plasticity of wall plants towards adverse habitat conditions. The pleasant green veneer adds interesting and vivid life to the otherwise lifeless stone facades. A wide range of species representing different botanical families and growth forms manages to gain a foothold on the apparently difcult ruderal sites. They arrive and establish without human intervention, require no maintenance, hence qualify as the highly-priced and genuine nature-in-the-city components, assiduously enriching the city ora and landscape. The hanging vegetation, not taking up precious ground-level space, furnishes a unique landscape element for the dull city environment, often contributing the main if not the sole greenery in the hilly neighborhoods. The largest specimen trees are believed to be as old as the century-aged walls. In these regards, the walls-cum-trees truly constitute a treasure of naturalcum-cultural heritage of the city. Unfortunately, the inexorable pressure of urban redevelopment in recent years has threatened the existence of this valuable heritage. Many ne old walls together with their sylvan doyens have been damaged or removed. Urban renewal, including rejuvenating the buildings, roads and associated infrastructure, often disregards the conservation worth of stone walls. The best examples of this irreplaceable heritage, as shown by the present ndings on wall construction methods and their vegetative companions, should be identied and preserved for posterity. An inventory of old walls and associated trees should be established and they should be declared as the

community's heritage under the provisions of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance. All listed walls can be equipped with a plaque placed nearby to signify their importance to the city's cultural and natural history, to be accompanied by publicity and other modes of information so as to raise awareness and respect. The statutory umbrella should be accompanied by a rigorous program of protection and enforcement to ensure their long-term welfare. All construction activities that may affect them directly or indirectly should be carefully scrutinized by an appropriate authority, and clear technical guidelines should be prescribed to minimize deleterious impacts. Walls and their constituent living companions should be treated as an integral package. Unless it can be proven absolutely necessary by objective evidence, the heritage walls should not receive damaging or disguring treatments. Research should be conducted to develop a reliable scientic method to detect wall instability. Research should also probe the means of stabilizing walls without degrading their heritage qualities. Any new walls can be designed to invite vegetation colonization or be installed with receptacles to accommodate plants. To accomplished the above goals, the active support of developers and relevant professionals both within and without the government is essential. Acknowledgements I would like to convey my gratitude to the Caltex Green Fund for nancial support of this project. The help in eld work provided by my student research assistants Wing-yee Ho, Oi-man Lee, Shun-wa Lee, Esther Li, Jeannette Liu, Wai-ling Tam and May Wong is gratefully acknowledged. References
Agriculture and Fisheries Department, 1993. Check List of Hong Kong Plants, revised edition. Agriculture and Fisheries Department Bulletin No. 1, Hong Kong Herbarium, Hong Kong, 159pp. Corner, E.J.H., 1988. Wayside Trees of Malaya. 3rd ed., vol. 2, Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 477 861.

C.Y. Jim / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 2943 Darlington, A., 1981. Ecology of Walls. Heinemann Educational, London, 64pp. Frenkel, R.E., 1970. Ruderal Vegetation Along Some California Roadsides. University of California Press, Berkeley, 163pp. Geotechnical Control Office, 1979. Geotechnical Manual for Slopes. Public Works Department, Hong Kong Government, Hong Kong, 228pp. Hills, D.S., 1967. Figs (Ficus Spp.) of Hong Kong. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, 130pp. Jim, C.Y., 1990. Trees in Hong Kong: Species for Landscape Planting. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, 434pp. Jim, C.Y., 1994a. Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong. Hong Kong Flora and Fauna Series, Urban Council, Hong Kong, 294pp. Jim, C.Y., 1994b. Urban Tree Survey 1994 Roadside Trees Managed by the Urban Council: Volume 2 survey Results and Recommendations. Urban Council, Hong Kong, p. 470. Jim, C.Y., 1996. Roadside trees in urban Hong Kong: part II species composition. Arboricultural Journal 20, 279298. Mattheck, C., Breloer, H., 1994. The Body Language of Trees.

43

Research for Amenity Trees No. 4, Department of the Environment, HMSO, London, p. 240, Translated by Strouts R. Mohoney, J., 1994. Retaining Wall Design Guide. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Engineering Staff, Washington, DC, EM-7170-14, 347pp. Ollier, C., 1984. Weathering. 2nd ed., Longman, London, 270pp. Perry, T.O., 1994. Size, management and design of tree planting sites. In: Watson, G.W., Neely, D. (Eds.), The Landscape Below Ground. International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, IL, pp. 315. Segal, S., 1969. Notes on Wall Vegetation. Dr. W. Junk, The Hague, 325pp. Teng, W.C., 1980. Foundation Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 465pp. Woodell, S., 1979. The flora of walls and pavings. In: Laurie, I.C. (Ed.), Nature in Cities. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 135157. Zhang H.D., Wang, B.S., Hu, Y.J., Bi, P.X., Zhong, Y.X., Lu, Y., Yu, X.X., 1989. Hong Kong Vegetation. Supplement to the Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatsen (Guangzhou, China) 8(2), 1172 (in Chinese).