Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management

Cities play important roles in the conservation of global biodiversity, particularly through the planning and management of urban green spaces (UGS). However, UGS management is subject to a complex assortment of interacting social, cultural, and economic factors, including governance, economics, social networks, multiple stakeholders, individual preferences, and social constraints. To help deliver more effective conservation outcomes in cities, we identify major challenges to managing biodiversity in UGS and important topics warranting further investigation. Biodiversity within UGS must be managed at multiple scales while accounting for various socioeconomic and cultural influences. Although the environmental consequences of management activities to enhance urban biodiversity are now beginning to be addressed, additional research and practical management strategies must be developed to balance human needs and perceptions while maintaining ecological processes

Habitat selection by an avian top predator in the tropical megacity of Delhi: human activities and socio-religious practices as prey-facilitating tools

Research in urban ecology is growing rapidly in response to the exponential growth of the urban environment. However, few studies have focused on tropical megacities, and on the interplay between predators’ habitat selection and human socio-economic aspects, which may mediate their resilience and coexistence with humans. We examined mechanisms of breeding habitat selection by a synanthropic raptor, the Black Kite Milvus migrans, in Delhi (India) where kites mainly subsist on: (1) human refuse and its associated prey-fauna, and (2) ritualised feeding of kites, particularly practised by Muslims. We used mixed effects models to test the effect of urban habitat configuration and human practices on habitat selection, site occupancy and breeding success. Kite habitat decisions, territory occupancy and breeding success were tightly enmeshed with human activities: kites preferred areas with high human density, poor waste management and a road configuration that facilitated better access to resources provided by humans, in particular to Muslim colonies that provided ritual subsidies. Furthermore, kites bred at ‘clean’ sites with less human refuse only when close to Muslim colonies, suggesting that the proximity to ritual-feeding sites modulated the suitability of other habitats. Rather than a nuisance to avoid, as previously portrayed, humans were a keenly-targeted foraging resource, which tied a predator’s distribution to human activities, politics, history, socio-economics and urban planning at multiple spatio-temporal scales. Many synurbic species may exploit humans in more subtle and direct ways than was previously assumed, but uncovering them will require greater integration of human socio-cultural estimates in urban ecological research

Biodiversity and Health: Implications for Conservation

The human health and well-being benefits of contact with nature are becoming increasingly recognised and well understood, yet the implications of nature experiences for biodiversity conservation are far less clear. Theoretically, there are two plausible pathways that could lead to positive conservation outcomes. The first is a direct win-win scenario where biodiverse areas of high conservation value are also disproportionately beneficial to human health and well-being, meaning that the two sets of objectives can be simultaneously and directly achieved, as long as such green spaces are safeguarded appropriately. The second is that experiencing nature can stimulate people’s interest in biodiversity, concern for its fate, and willingness to take action to protect it, therefore generating conservation gains indirectly. To date, the two pathways have rarely been distinguished and scarcely studied. Here we consider how they may potentially operate in practice, while acknowledging that the mechanisms by which biodiversity might underpin human health and well-being benefits are still being determined

Planning for the Future of Urban Biodiversity: A Global Review of City-Scale Initiatives

Cities represent considerable opportunities for forwarding global biodiversity and sustainability goals. We developed key attributes for conserving biodiversity and for ecosystem services that should be included in urban-planning documents and reviewed 135 plans from 40 cities globally. The most common attributes in city plans were goals for habitat conservation, air and water quality, cultural ecosystem services, and ecological connectivity. Few plans included quantitative targets. This lack of measurable targets may render plans unsuccessful for an actionable approach to local biodiversity conservation. Although most cities include both biodiversity and ecosystem services, each city tends to focus on one or the other. Comprehensive planning for biodiversity should include the full range of attributes identified, but few cities do this, and the majority that do are mandated by local, regional, or federal governments to plan specifically for biodiversity conservation. This research provides planning recommendations for protecting urban biodiversity based on ecological knowledge

The phylogenetic and functional diversity of regional breeding bird assemblages is reduced and constricted through urbanization

Aim: Urbanization broadly affects the phylogenetic and functional diversity of natural communities through a variety of processes including habitat loss and the introduction of non‐native species. Due to the challenge of acquiring direct measurements, these effects have been studied primarily using “space‐for‐time” substitution where spatial urbanization gradients are used to infer the consequences of urbanization occurring across time. The ability of alternative sampling designs to replicate the findings derived using space‐for‐time substitution has not been tested. Location: Global. Methods: We contrasted the phylogenetic and functional diversity of breeding bird assemblages in 58 cities worldwide with the corresponding regional breeding bird assemblages estimated using geographic range maps. Results: Compared to regional assemblages, urban assemblages contained lower phylogenetic diversity, lower phylogenetic beta diversity, a reduction in the least evolutionary distinct species and the loss of the most evolutionarily distinct species. We found no evidence that these effects were related to the presence of non‐native species. Urban assemblages contained fewer aquatic species and fewer aquatic foraging species. The distribution of body size and range size narrowed for urban assemblages with the loss of species at both tails of the distribution, especially large bodied and broadly distributed species. Urban assemblages contained a greater proportion of species classified as passerines, doves or pigeons; species identified as granivores; species that forage within vegetation or in the air; and species with more generalized associations with foraging strata. Main conclusions: Urbanization is associated with the overall reduction and constriction of phylogenetic and functional diversity, results that largely replicate those generated using space‐for‐time substitution, increasing our confidence in the quality of the combined inferences. When direct measurements are unavailable, our findings emphasize the value of developing independent sampling methods that broaden and reinforce our understanding of the ecological implications of urbanization