Vegetation
The percentage cover of bare ground was greater at urban (53.6 ± 20.0; mean ± standard error) compared to rural (41.3 ± 26.6) sites, and there was a significant difference between the two locations (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: W = 2055.5; p = 0.035; Figure 4A). The percentage cover of shrubs was lower at urban (5.28 ± 7.41) compared to rural (15.1 ± 14.2) sites, and both locations differed significantly (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: W = 3050; p = 0.017; Figure 4B). The percentage cover of trees was greater in urban (23.9 ± 22.0) compared to rural sites (14.4 ± 21.7), but the two locations were not significantly different (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: W = 28; p = 0.279; Figure 4C). The percentage cover of vegetation was greater at rural (17.5 ± 1.31) compared to urban (15.9 ± 1.24) sites, but there was no significant difference between the two locations (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: W = 19968;p = 0.47; Figure 4D). The species richness of vegetation was greater at rural (rural = 3.10 ± 0.19) compared to urban sites (3.00 ± 0.18), but there was no significant difference between locations (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: W = 2270.5; p = 0.88; Figure 4E). The Shannon diversity of vegetation was greater at urban (0.81 ± 0.06) compared to rural sites (0.77 ± 0.06), but the two locations were not significantly different (Student’s t-test: t 131.8= -0.41; p = 0.68; Figure 4F). These results conclusively reject our third hypothesis.