Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

The Theory of Island Biogeography

Urban areas are hot spots that drive environmental change at multiple scales. Material demands of production and human consumption alter land use and cover, biodiversity, and hydrosystems locally to regionally, and urban waste discharge affects local to global biogeochemical cycles and climate. For urbanites, however, global environmental changes are swamped by dramatic changes in the local environment. Urban ecology integrates natural and social sciences to study these radically altered local environments and their regional and global effects. Cities themselves present both the problems and solutions to sustainability challenges of an increasingly urbanized world.

http://leml.asu.edu/jingle/web_pages/wu_pubs/pdf_files/grimm_etal-2008-gc+ecology of cities.pdf

Global Change and the Ecology of Cities

http://www.no-sea-and-earth-pollution.org/ALBATROSS-ARTICLES_files/pollution-of-the-marine-environment-derraik-2002.pdf

The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review.

Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization

Urban land-cover change threatens biodiversity and affects ecosystem productivity through loss of habitat, biomass, and carbon storage. However, despite projections that world urban populations will increase to nearly 5 billion by 2030, little is known about future locations, magnitudes, and rates of urban expansion. Here we develop spatially explicit probabilistic forecasts of global urban land-cover change and explore the direct impacts on biodiversity hotspots and tropical carbon biomass. If current trends in population density continue and all areas with high probabilities of urban expansion undergo change, then by 2030, urban land cover will increase by 1.2 million km2, nearly tripling the global urban land area circa 2000. This increase would result in considerable loss of habitats in key biodiversity hotspots, with the highest rates of forecasted urban growth to take place in regions that were relatively undisturbed by urban development in 2000: the Eastern Afromontane, the Guinean Forests of West Africa, and the Western Ghats and Sri Lanka hotspots. Within the pan-tropics, loss in vegetation biomass from areas with high probability of urban expansion is estimated to be 1.38 PgC (0.05 PgC yr−1), equal to ∼5% of emissions from tropical deforestation and land-use change. Although urbanization is often considered a local issue, the aggregate global impacts of projected urban expansion will require significant policy changes to affect future growth trajectories to minimize global biodiversity and vegetation carbon losses.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/40/16083.full.pdf

Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools

A the many human activities that cause habitat loss (Czech et al. 2000), urban development produces some of the greatest local extinction rates and frequently eliminates the large majority of native species (Vale and Vale 1976, Luniak 1994, Kowarik 1995, Marzluff 2001). Also, urbanization is often more lasting than other types of habitat loss. Throughout much of New England, for example, ecological succession is restoring forest habitat lost from farming and logging, whereas most urbanized areas in that region not only persist but continue to expand and threaten other local ecosystems (Stein et al. 2000). Another great conservation challenge of urban growth is that it replaces the native species that are lost with widespread “weedy” nonnative species. This replacement constitutes the process of biotic homogenization that threatens to reduce the biological uniqueness of local ecosystems (Blair 2001). Urban-gradient studies show that, for many taxa, for example, plants (Kowarik 1995) and birds and butterflies (Blair and Launer 1997), the number of nonnative species increases toward centers of urbanization, while the number of native species decreases. The final conservation challenge of sprawl is its current and growing geographical extent (Benfield et al. 1999). A review by Czech and colleagues (2000) finds that urbanization endangers more species and is more geographically ubiquitous in the mainland United States than any other human activity. Species threatened by urbanization also tend to be threatened by agriculture, recreation, roads, and many other human impacts, emphasizing the uniquely far-reaching transformations that accompany urban sprawl. About 50% of the US population lives in the suburbs, with another 30% living in cities (USCB 2001). Over 5% of the total surface area of the United States is covered by urban and other built-up areas (USCB 2001). This is more land than is covered by the combined total of national and state parks and areas preserved by the Nature Conservancy. More ominously, the growth rate of urban land use is accelerating faster than land preserved as parks or conservation areas by the Conservancy (figure 1). Much of this growth is from the spread of suburban housing. It is estimated, for example, that residential yards occupy 135,000 acres in the state of Missouri (MDC 2002). This residential landscape represents nearly 1% of the total area of Missouri and is nearly three times the area occupied by Missouri state parks. Here I review the growing literature that documents how urban (and suburban) expansion harms native ecosystems. This knowledge can aid conservation efforts in two major ways. One is through the use of ecological principles—such as preserving remnant natural habitat and restoring modified habitats to promote native species conservation—to reduce the impacts of urbanization on native ecosystems. Rare and endangered species sometimes occur in urbanized habitats (Kendle and Forbes 1997, Godefroid 2001) and thus could be conserved there. Managing the large amount of residential vegetation (1% of the state area, as noted above) in ways that promote native plants and animals could also make a significant contribution to conservation.

https://bioone.org/journals/BioScience/volume-52/issue-10/0006-3568(2002)052[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2/Urbanization-Biodiversity-and-Conservation/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2.pdf

Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation

Human activities are not random in their negative and positive impacts on biotas. Emerging evidence shows that most species are declining as a result of human activities ('losers') and are being replaced by a much smaller number of expanding species that thrive in human-altered environments ('winners'). The result will be a more homogenized biosphere with lower diversity at regional and global scales. Recent data also indicate that the many losers and few winners tend to be non-randomly distributed among higher taxa and ecological groups, enhancing homogenization.

Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction

Many studies have described the effects of urbanization on species richness. These studies indicate that urbanization can increase or decrease species richness, depending on several variables. Some of these variables include: taxonomic group, spatial scale of analysis, and intensity of urbanization. Recent reviews of birds (the most-studied group) indicate that species richness decreases with increasing urbanization in most cases but produces no change or even increases richness in some studies. Here I expand beyond the bird studies by reviewing 105 studies on the effects of urbanization on the species richness of non-avian species: mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and plants. For all groups, species richness tends to be reduced in areas with extreme urbanization (i.e., central urban core areas). However, the effects of moderate levels of urbanization (i.e., suburban areas) vary significantly among groups. Most of the plant studies (about 65%) indicate increasing species richness with moderate urbanization whereas only a minority of invertebrate studies (about 30%) and a very small minority of non-avian vertebrate studies (about 12%) show increasing species richness. Possible explanations for these results are discussed, including the importance of nonnative species importation, spatial heterogeneity, intermediate disturbance and scale as major factors influencing species richness.

Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals

▪ Abstract Extinction is rarely random across ecological and geological time scales. Traits that make some species more extinction-prone include individual traits, such as body size, and abundance. Substantial consistency appears across ecological and geological time scales in such traits. Evolutionary branching produces phylogenetic (as often measured by taxonomic) nesting of extinction-biasing traits at many scales. An example is the tendency, seen in both fossil and modern data, for higher taxa living in marine habitats to have generally lower species extinction rates. At lower taxononomic levels, recent bird and mammal extinctions are concentrated in certain genera and families. A fundamental result of such selectivity is that it can accelerate net loss of biodiversity compared to random loss of species among taxa. Replacement of vulnerable taxa by rapidly spreading taxa that thrive in human-altered environments will ultimately produce a spatially more homogenized biosphere with much lower net diversity.

Michael L. McKinney

Papers

Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation

Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization

Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction

Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals

Extinction Vulnerability and Selectivity: Combining Ecological and Paleontological Views