scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation

01 Oct 2002-BioScience (American Institute of Biological Sciences)-Vol. 52, Iss: 10, pp 883-890
TL;DR: 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, emphasizing the uniquely far-reaching transformations that accompany urban sprawl as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: 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.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
08 Feb 2008-Science
TL;DR: Urban ecology integrates natural and social sciences to study these radically altered local environments and their regional and global effects of an increasingly urbanized world.
Abstract: 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.

5,096 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a basic conservation challenge is that urban biota is often quite diverse and very abundant, and that, because so many urban species are immigrants adapting to city habitats, urbanites of all income levels become increasingly disconnected from local indigenous species and their natural ecosystems.

2,823 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: S spatially explicit probabilistic forecasts of global urban land-cover change are developed and the direct impacts on biodiversity hotspots and tropical carbon biomass are explored to minimize global biodiversity and vegetation carbon losses.
Abstract: 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.

2,681 citations


Cites background from "Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Con..."

  • ...Urban expansion and associated landcover change drives habitat loss (5, 6), threatens biodiversity (7), and results in the loss of terrestrial carbon stored in vegetation biomass (8)....

    [...]

01 Dec 2012
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors develop spatially explicit probabilistic forecasts of global urban land-cover change and explore the direct impacts on biodiversity hotspots and tropical carbon biomass, showing that urban land cover change threatens biodiversity and affects ecosystem productivity through loss of habitat, biomass, and carbon storage.
Abstract: 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.

1,939 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: 105 studies on the effects of urbanization on the species richness of non-avian species: mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and plants are reviewed, including the importance of nonnative species importation, spatial heterogeneity, intermediate disturbance and scale as major factors influencing species richness.
Abstract: 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.

1,897 citations


Cites background from "Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Con..."

  • ...M. L. McKinney (*) Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA e-mail: mmckinne@utk.edu As urbanization is spreading rapidly across the globe, a basic challenge for conservation is to understand how it affects biodiversity (McKinney 2002)....

    [...]

  • ...A moderate level of urbanization was assigned for habitats in suburban areas, i.e., outside the urban core but not including undeveloped or rural areas, usually having 20–50% impervious surface area ( McKinney 2002, Fig. 2). A low level of urbanization represented rural or undeveloped areas beyond the suburban fringe, with less than 20% impervious surface area....

    [...]

  • ...But there are many studies of urban-rural gradients, describing the spatial effects of urbanization on species-richness by examining changes along an intensity gradient ( McKinney 2002 )....

    [...]

  • ...M. L. McKinney (*) Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA e-mail: mmckinne@utk.edu As urbanization is spreading rapidly across the globe, a basic challenge for conservation is to understand how it affects biodiversity ( McKinney 2002 )....

    [...]

  • ...My designation of low, moderate and high levels of urbanization was based on the following criteria (following McKinney 2002, Fig. 2). A high level of urbanization was assigned for habitats that represented the urban core....

    [...]

References
More filters
Book
01 Jan 1878
TL;DR: The Red River of the North basin of the Philippines was considered a part of the Louisiana Purchase by the United States Department of Commerce in the 1939 Census Atlas of the United Philippines as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: 1 Includes drainage basin of Red River of the North, not a part of any accession, but in the past sometimes considered a part of the Louisiana Purchase. i Includes Baker, Canton, Enderbury, Rowland, Jarvis, Johnston, and Midway Islands; and also certain other outlying islands (21 square miles). 3 Commonwealth of the Philippines, Commission of the Census; 1939 Census, Census Atlas of the Philippines. Source: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

10,650 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
05 Aug 1999-Nature
TL;DR: It appears that the decline and disappearance of the coyote, in conjunction with the effects of habitat fragmentation, affect the distribution and abundance of smaller carnivores and the persistence of their avian prey.
Abstract: Mammalian carnivores are particularly vulnerable to extinction in fragmented landscapes1, and their disappearance may lead to increased numbers of smaller carnivores that are principle predators of birds and other small vertebrates. Such ‘mesopredator release’2 has been implicated in the decline and extinction of prey species2,3,4,5,6. Because experimental manipulation of carnivores is logistically, financially and ethically problematic6,7, however, few studies have evaluated how trophic cascades generated by the decline of dominant predators combine with other fragmentation effects to influence species diversity in terrestrial systems. Although the mesopredator release hypothesis has received only limited critical evaluation8 and remains controversial9, it has become the basis for conservation programmes justifying the protection of carnivores6. Here we describe a study that exploits spatial and temporal variation in the distribution and abundance of an apex predator, the coyote, in a landscape fragmented by development. It appears that the decline and disappearance of the coyote, in conjunction with the effects of habitat fragmentation, affect the distribution and abundance of smaller carnivores and the persistence of their avian prey.

1,552 citations


"Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Con..." refers background in this paper

  • ...As with birds, elimination of large predators (in addition to subsidized resources) leads to very high population densities of urban adapter mammal species (Crooks and Soulé 1999)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, an open definition of urban systems that accounts for the exchanges of material and influence between cities and surrounding landscapes is presented, which sets the stage for comprehensive understanding of urban ecosystems.
Abstract: Ecological studies of terrestrial urban systems have been approached along several kinds of contrasts: ecology in as opposed to ecology of cities; biogeochemical compared to organismal perspectives, land use planning versus biological, and disciplinary versus interdisciplinary. In order to point out how urban ecological studies are poised for significant integration, we review key aspects of these disparate literatures. We emphasize an open definition of urban systems that accounts for the exchanges of material and influence between cities and surrounding landscapes. Research on ecology in urban systems highlights the nature of the physical environment, including urban climate, hydrology, and soils. Biotic research has studied flora, fauna, and vegetation, including trophic effects of wildlife and pets. Unexpected interactions among soil chemistry, leaf litter quality, and exotic invertebrates exemplify the novel kinds of interactions that can occur in urban systems. Vegetation and faunal responses suggest that the configuration of spatial heterogeneity is especially important in urban systems. This insight parallels the concern in the literature on the ecological dimensions of land use planning. The contrasting approach of ecology of cities has used a strategy of biogeochemical budgets, ecological footprints, and summaries of citywide species richness. Contemporary ecosystem approaches have begun to integrate organismal, nutrient, and energetic approaches, and to show the need for understanding the social dimensions of urban ecology. Social structure and the social allocation of natural and institutional resources are subjects that are well understood within social sciences, and that can be readily accommodated in ecosystem models of metropolitan areas. Likewise, the sophisticated understanding of spatial dimensions of social differentiation has parallels with concepts and data on patch dynamics in ecology and sets the stage for comprehensive understanding of urban ecosystems. The linkages are captured in the human ecosystem framework.

1,479 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: The most consistent effects of increasing settlement were increases in non-native species of birds, increases in birds able to nest on buildings (esp. swifts and swallows), increases in nest predation, and decreases in interior-and ground-nesting species as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Human populations are increasing and becoming predominantly urban. Resulting land cover changes reduce, perforate, isolate, and degrade bird habitat on local and global scales. I review: 1) urbanization of the Earth, and 2) published studies of bird responses to human settlement, and then: 3) suggest how and why birds respond to settlement. In a slight majority of studies, bird density increased, but richness and evenness decreased in response to urbanization. The most consistent effects of increasing settlement were increases in non-native species of birds, increases in birds able to nest on buildings (esp. swifts and swallows), increases in nest predation, and decreases in interior- and ground-nesting species. Effects of urbanization on hawks, owls, and cavity nesters were less consistent, in part being dependent on the surrounding habitat. The factors favoring species in urbanizing areas appear simpler than those reducing species. Increased availability of food was primary among factors benefiting species; predator reduction, reduced human persecution, and habitat enhancement were less important. Decreased habitat availability, reduced patch size, increased edge, increased non-native vegetation, decreased vegetative complexity, and increased nest predation were commonly associated with bird declines in response to human settlement. Urban planners and policy makers can profoundly affect how and where cities grow. Avian ecologists can help inform these important decisions by: 1) quantifying how the pattern of settlement affects birds and 2) understanding how bird populations and resulting communities change along entire gradients of urbanization.

776 citations


"Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Con..." refers background in this paper

  • ...The great abundance of such subsidized foods is one reason why these animal urban adapters often attain an abundance and biomass that is much greater than in natural areas (Adams 1994, Marzluff 2001)....

    [...]

  • ...The population density of nonnative species—both mammals (Mackin-Rogalska et al. 1988) and birds (Marzluff 2001)—also tends to increase the nearer they are to the urban core....

    [...]

  • ...A major challenge is that remnant habitats are open to colonization by nonnative species of invasive plants (Luken 1997) and predatory animals such as housecats and dogs (Marzluff 2001)....

    [...]

  • ...…of early successional species from nearby ecosystems, urban exploiters are composed of a very small subset of the world’s species; these exploiters are well adapted to intensely modified urban environments wherever humans construct them across the planet (Adams 1994, Johnston 2001, Marzluff 2001)....

    [...]

  • ...…No. 10 • BioScience 883 Among 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)....

    [...]

Posted Content
TL;DR: Associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States reflect the integration of economic sectors, supporting the theory and evidence that economic growth proceeds at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States reflect the integration of economic sectors, supporting the theory and evidence that economic growth proceeds at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate.

645 citations