Objective Under ecological civilization and Beijing’s Garden City initiative, urban planting is expected to move beyond ornamental display and contribute to biodiversity conservation, ecological connectivity, recreation and nature education. Flower borders are suitable small-scale units for this transition because they combine visual accessibility, flexible deployment, seasonal plant structure, and observable plant–animal interactions within manageable spaces. However, they are often treated separately as ornamental compositions, naturalistic planting styles, or pollinator-friendly habitats, without a unified framework for selecting, coordinating, managing and monitoring different types. This study proposes that urban flower borders can function as modular ecological infrastructure units when their design is organized by functional type, pollinator guild requirements, habitat-layer differentiation and feedback-based adaptive management. Taking the China National Botanical Garden as the spatial context, we construct an ecological flower border system comprising classic, naturalistic and pollinator flower borders, clarify their functional differentiation, and examine a transferable design-management pathway through the Xuanqiuyuan woodland-edge pollinator flower border.

Methods The study followed a sequence of historical comparison, system construction, case analysis and application-oriented synthesis. Literature review and comparative analysis were used to trace the ecological evolution of herbaceous planting from composition-oriented flower borders to naturalistic community planting and pollinator-supportive habitat planting. Classic, naturalistic and pollinator flower borders were compared using common dimensions, including plant materials, community structure, functional objectives and management requirements. These dimensions were integrated to establish an ecological flower border system based on functional positioning, site suitability, spatial coordination and maintenance intensity. The approximately 350 m² Xuanqiuyuan woodland-edge pollinator border was selected for case analysis because it combines semi-shaded conditions, multilayer vegetation, low disturbance and an explicit pollinator-support objective. The case was examined through a six-step workflow: target-guild identification, site and disturbance diagnosis, functional plant matching, microhabitat creation, management and maintenance, and interpretation and monitoring. Fixed-point observations and management records documented flowering continuity, major flower-visiting insect guilds, microhabitat retention, trimming frequency, chemical inputs and planting renewal. The typology and case workflow were translated into a type-selection framework and minimum monitoring indicator system.

Results The three flower border types form an ecological gradient from ornamental display to habitat provisioning, rather than sequential design stages or mutually exclusive styles. Classic flower borders are suitable for entrances, plazas, main visitor routes and other highly visible spaces, where spatial order, seasonal display and landscape legibility are primary requirements. Their ecological performance can be improved by increasing perennial use and limiting chemical inputs. Naturalistic flower borders are more appropriate for secondary routes, large green spaces, slopes and woodland-edge transition areas. They shift attention from individual ornamental plants to community construction, niche complementarity, layered structure and seasonal dynamics, and function as ecological transition zones under moderate intervention. Pollinator flower borders are the most habitat-oriented type. They support pollinator life cycles through continuous pollen and nectar resources, diverse flower forms and heights, host plants, overwintering structures and microhabitats, and are best located in woodland edges, boundaries, ecologically sensitive areas and science education spaces where disturbance can be controlled. Together, the three types generate a coordinated “display–transition–habitat” spatial sequence and a management gradient from frequent horticultural maintenance to low-disturbance habitat management. The Xuanqiuyuan case demonstrated the feasibility of translating this gradient into a site-responsive design and management process. Target-guild identification focused on bees, flies, butterflies and beetles. Site diagnosis identified a semi-shaded woodland edge with limited trampling and low management disturbance. Functional planting was organized around early-season resources, summer floral supply, autumn supplementation and winter structural retention. Herbaceous plants, subshrubs, shrubs and existing trees formed a multilayer community with an approximately 180–200-day flowering period. Microhabitat design retained dead stems, leaf litter, woody debris, stone crevices and small bare or gravelly areas to provide foraging, shelter, reproduction and overwintering resources. Management was differentiated into display, buffer and conservation zones. Mid-season intervention was triggered mainly by safety or access problems, excessive lodging, pest outbreaks, aggressive plants or floral-resource gaps, while dormant-season renewal retained part of the standing and ground-level residues. Preliminary fixed-point observations showed an increasing trend in flower-visiting insect records under a comparable rapid-identification protocol. Because these observations were influenced by monitoring frequency, weather, flowering abundance, surrounding resources and identification resolution, they are interpreted as evidence of pathway operability rather than causal proof of biodiversity enhancement.

Conclusion The ecological flower border system offers a transferable way to transform urban flower borders from one-time ornamental installations into continuously managed small-scale ecological infrastructure. Its value lies in linking ecological objectives with site diagnosis, functional planting, microhabitat creation, differentiated maintenance and monitoring feedback, rather than in copying a fixed plant list. Under Garden City objectives, classic, naturalistic and pollinator flower borders should be selected and combined according to spatial function, ecological goals, site conditions and maintenance capacity. Standardized, multi-site and multi-year monitoring is needed to evaluate ecological responses, maintenance costs, public acceptance and adaptive management effectiveness.