More and more, cemeteries are trying to maintain a park-like aspect (Bronski, 2003c). In fact, Spring Grove Cemetery and Arboretum, in Cincinatti, Ohio, has 733 acres that starkly contrast against the asphalt and development of the industrial Mill Creek Valley (Bronski, 2003c). Cemeteries are no longer places with locked gates; they are opening their doors to the public to share the rare patches of green that we can all appreciate.

Humans are not the only ones to appreciate these scarce, but lush, green cemeteries. Some wildlife, as a result of their displacement, have started turning to cemeteries as new homes (Bronski, 2003c). As Humans spread across what habitats are left, animals are uprooted from their homes and are in search of a remnant of their habitat into which they can move. The obvious choice ends up being some of the the only remnants that are left, cemeteries, making them ideal places for the enhancement of these remnant habitats (Emery, 2000). Cemeteries can provide habitats for hundreds of species of birds, as well as deer, fox, muskrat, skunks, snakes, and squirrels (Bronski, 2003a). It is promising, however, to look at examples of cemeteries that are taking extra steps to provide homes for these displaced animals. The Roselawn Cemetery, in Colorado, has created a protected corridor that provides food and an undisturbed place for wildlife to roam (Bronski, 2003a). Another cemetery, the White Haven Memorial Park, in New York, is creating a plan that involves taking advantage of the different habitats on its grounds and linking them together for the benefit of the wildlife by preserving its habitats (Bronski, 2003c). In the Pueblo Cemetery, in Colorado, volunteers have made nest boxes to place around the property for the birds that live on the grounds. The Arkansas Valley Audubon Society aided in the placement of the nest boxes so that they would be put in the optimal locations (Emery, 2000). A pond in the cemetery provides a home for frogs, muskrats, turtles and Wood Ducks. All of these cemeteries have increased their awareness of the importance of sharing their resources with wildlife with the help of the Audubon Cemeteries Program, created to help managers succeed in preserving wildlife habitats (Dybas, 2003)

In preserving wildlife habitat, cemeteries are not only preserving the native wildlife, they are also preserving the native biodiversity. Ecologist Gary Barrett of University of Georgia describes cemeteries as providing, through their preservation, a wide variety of species (Dybas, 2003). In the Midwest, for example, the tallgrass prairie, as a habitat, has almost been completely extinguished by Humans, but there are small patches in some of the old cemeteries, acting as protectors of this almost extinct American ecosystem (Bronski, 2003b). Peter Bronski (staff ecologist for the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Cemeteries) suggests some steps to take in order to protect the biodiversity of the natural habitats found in cemeteries. These steps include selecting native plants for landscaping and tree plantings, protecting natural areas from unnecessary disturbance and development, and selectively removing exotic invasive plant species that threaten the native species (Bronski, 2003b).

The purpose of my project is to investigate the biodiversity of tree species present in a local cemetery, the Oak Hill Cemetery, and compare it to the biodiversity of Glover-Archbold Park, which represents a sampling of native habitats, as well as calculate a coefficient of community. The null hypothesis that I am testing is that the cemetery has a similar Simpson’s Diversity index as Glover-Archbold Park. Further I calculate the coefficient of community (CC) for the two habitats.

Materials and Methods

I used the data collected by our Forest Ecology Class from Glover-Archbold Park (GAP) and obtained data on my own in the Oak Hill Cemetery. The class and I collected the list of tree species present in GAP by laying down twelve transects (each 200 ft long), in different directions, in three different areas of GAP near the Georgetown University Main and Medical Campuses. I, then, laid down six transects (200 ft) in different parts of the Oak Hill Cemetery, 3001 R St., N.W., Washington, D.C., along the paths through the cemetery. Tree species were recorded only if they were within 3 feet of the transect line. Two indexes were used to calculate comparison data between the two locations: the Simpson’s Diversity Index

Results and Discussion

The overall average Simpson’s Index of Diversity (D) of the Glover-Archbold Park was 0.76. The overall D of the Oak Hill Cemetery was 0.73. These values suggest that they both have a similar level of diversity. In order to compare these two communities, however, it is important to compare the different species that give these communities their biodiversity. In order to fully uncover any similarities in the community, I calculated the CC which was 0.37. Coefficients of community range from 0 through 1, with 0's meaning that the two communities are very different and 1's meaning the communities are the same. The Cemetery and Park were somewhat different. Only a few species occurred in both study sites (Tables 1, 2 and 3).

The Cemetery and Park have a similar levels of biodiversity present, but do not share many species. This does not, however, mean that it can be said conclusively that the cemetery is not preserving the natural habitats of the area. I did not choose transects entirely randomly because, out of respect for the dead, I took data from paved pathways through out the cemetery. Also, six transects may not have been adequate enough to provide enough data in order to provide a full account of the species present in the Cemetery. Our class also was not completely random in choosing the transects through GAP, and did not cover all of the different areas in GAP, only three small areas.

Future studies should include a larger number of transects in order to get a better representation of species in both Glover-Archbold Park and Oak Hill Cemetery. Taking data from other cemeteries that are also in the area would provide a better view of cemetery biodiversity. Studies on wildlife that set up homes in cemeteries would also provide information as to whether local cemeteries are indeed providing natural sanctuaries for native organisms.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Edward M. Barrows (Biology Department, Georgetown University) for helping me in choosing a prevalent topic to study and in the analysis of my data. I would also like to thank the staff of the Oak Hill Cemetery for being so helpful and welcoming in allowing me to study the tree species on their grounds, especially Mr. Joseph and Mrs. Ella Pozell (Superintendent and Office manager, respectively, of the Oak Hill Cemetery).

Literature Cited

Barrows, E. M. 2001. Animal Behavior Desk Reference. A Dictionary of Animal Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution. Second Edition. CRC Press LCC, Boca Raton, FL. 922 pp.

Bronski, P. 2003a. Cemeteries as guardians of our nation’s natural heritage. Internet file. http://www.icfa.org/5.03_prairie.htm (15 December 2003)

Bronski, P. 2003c. Quiet sanctuaries for yesterday, today and tomorrow. Internet file. http://www.icfa.org/9.02_audubon.htm (15 December 2003)

Dybas, C.L. 2003. In old graveyards, the dead protect the living. The Washington Post 26 May: A12.

Emery, E. 2000. Pueblo cemetery serves as wildlife habitat. The Denver Post 3 July: B03.