The cataloguing of gardens revealed that perennials showed the largest species diversity, because up to 94 species were distinguished, including only 30% typically found in rural gardens. Creepers made up the smallest group; however 60% of them were species grown in rural gardens in the past. In most rural gardens, there were no such elements as orchard or vegetable garden that were characteristic in the past. Disappearance of traditional garden’s usefulness can be more apparently observed in Lublin region. Properties were most often surrounded by metal net, while wooden fences considered as typically rural were met in only 35% of farms; plaited wooden fences were found in about 10% of the smallest area farms. In majority of farms, the entrance was made in a form of metal gate and wicket. Rustic forms of these elements were found in about 5% of rural gardens within the smallest area farms group. Lawns dominated in most of gardens. Studies allow for concluding that only small number of rural gardens in Lublin region correspond with their form and species composition to traditional rural gardens existing years ago.
|MLA||Lipińska, Halina, et al. "Współczesne formy zagospodarowania wiejskich ogrodów przydomowych na Lubelszczyźnie." Nauka Przyr. Technol. 3.1 (2009): #4.|
|APA||Halina Lipińska, Wanda Harkot, Magdalena Kępka (2009). Współczesne formy zagospodarowania wiejskich ogrodów przydomowych na Lubelszczyźnie. Nauka Przyr. Technol. 3 (1), #4|
|ISO 690||LIPIńSKA, Halina, HARKOT, Wanda, KęPKA, Magdalena. Współczesne formy zagospodarowania wiejskich ogrodów przydomowych na Lubelszczyźnie. Nauka Przyr. Technol., 2009, 3.1: #4.|
Katedra Łąkarstwa i Kształtowania Krajobrazu
ul. Akademicka 15