2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A Research Agenda for Urban Biodiversity in the Global Extinction Crisis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Rapid urbanization and the global loss of biodiversity necessitate the development of a research agenda that addresses knowledge gaps in urban ecology that will inform policy, management, and conservation. To advance this goal, we present six topics to pursue in urban biodiversity research: the socioeconomic and social–ecological drivers of biodiversity loss versus gain of biodiversity; the response of biodiversity to technological change; biodiversity–ecosystem service relationships; urban areas as refugia for biodiversity; spatiotemporal dynamics of species, community changes, and underlying processes; and ecological networks. We discuss overarching considerations and offer a set of questions to inspire and support urban biodiversity research. In parallel, we advocate for communication and collaboration across many fields and disciplines in order to build capacity for urban biodiversity research, education, and practice. Taken together we note that urban areas will play an important role in addressing the global extinction crisis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references130

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

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

          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 km(2), 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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers.

            Urbanization contributes to the loss of the world's biodiversity and the homogenization of its biota. However, comparative studies of urban biodiversity leading to robust generalities of the status and drivers of biodiversity in cities at the global scale are lacking. Here, we compiled the largest global dataset to date of two diverse taxa in cities: birds (54 cities) and plants (110 cities). We found that the majority of urban bird and plant species are native in the world's cities. Few plants and birds are cosmopolitan, the most common being Columba livia and Poa annua. The density of bird and plant species (the number of species per km(2)) has declined substantially: only 8% of native bird and 25% of native plant species are currently present compared with estimates of non-urban density of species. The current density of species in cities and the loss in density of species was best explained by anthropogenic features (landcover, city age) rather than by non-anthropogenic factors (geography, climate, topography). As urbanization continues to expand, efforts directed towards the conservation of intact vegetation within urban landscapes could support higher concentrations of both bird and plant species. Despite declines in the density of species, cities still retain endemic native species, thus providing opportunities for regional and global biodiversity conservation, restoration and education.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                BioScience
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0006-3568
                1525-3244
                March 2021
                March 01 2021
                December 09 2020
                March 2021
                March 01 2021
                December 09 2020
                : 71
                : 3
                : 268-279
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ and formerly with the Institute of Ecology, Technische Universität, Berlin, Germany
                [2 ]Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, Brunswick, New Jersey
                [3 ]University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
                [4 ]University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico
                [5 ]Ulm University, Ulm, Germany
                [6 ]University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
                [7 ]Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
                [8 ]Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
                [9 ]University of Helsinki, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme in Lahti, Finland
                [10 ]Department of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [11 ]Department of Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
                [12 ]Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts—Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts and the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers University, in Brunswick, New Jersey
                [13 ]Department of Biology, Pittsburg State University, Pittsburg, Kansas
                [14 ]Center for Tree Science, Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois
                [15 ]University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                [16 ]University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
                [17 ]University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
                Article
                10.1093/biosci/biaa141
                14653b89-29d9-4e00-92e7-5708a52bba19
                © 2020

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article