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

Nilon, Charles H.; Aronson, Myla F. J.; Cilliers, Sarel S.; Dobbs, Cynnamon; Frazee, Lauren J.; Goddard, Mark A.; O’Neill, Karen; Roberts, Debra; Stander, Emilie K.; Werner, P.; Winter, Marten; Yocom, Ken

doi:10.1093/biosci/bix012

Cited by 167 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The rationale for this focus is motivated by many reasons, including the protection of tree biodiversity Klotz 2006, Johnson et al 2017), the safeguarding of ecosystem services, and to support understory plant and animal habitat (Charles and Dukes 2008, Aronson and Handel 2011, Vilà et al 2011. This perceived value of native habitat, and of the ecosystem services it provides, is reflected in priorities for urban planning (Nilon et al 2017). However, if such planning priorities are to be executed successfully, they first require accurate baseline data on forest condition which means that urban forest assessments must capture the spatial variation in the structure and composition of forested areas in cities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Trees and forests are important components of urban greenspace, providing diverse economic, ecological, and social benefits (Roy et al 2012). As more land is converted to urban uses and as city populations increase, the focus on enhancing and sustaining urban forests to secure the benefits they provide becomes more important (Getter and Rowe 2006, Young 2011, Nilon et al 2017, Hölscher et al 2019. Urban forest assessments are the basis upon which their benefits are quantified, policy is determined, and management is implemented (McPherson 1992, Brack 2002, Cowett and Bassuk 2017.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defining and assessing urban forests to inform management and policy

Pregitzer

Ashton

Charlop‐Powers

et al. 2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The context in which trees and forests grow in cities is highly variable and influences the provision of ecological, social, and economic benefits. Understanding the spatial extent, structure, and composition of forests is necessary to guide urban forest policy and management, yet current forest assessment methodologies vary widely in scale, sampling intensity, and focus. Current definitions of the urban forest include all trees growing in the urban environment, and have been translated to the design of urban forest assessments. However, such broad assessments may aggregate types of urban forest that differ significantly in usage and management needs. For example, street trees occur in highly developed environments, and are planted and cared for on an individual basis, whereas forested natural areas often occur in parkland, are managed at the stand level, and are primarily sustained by natural processes such as regeneration. We use multiple datasets for New York City to compare the outcomes from assessments of the entire urban forest, street trees, and forested natural areas. We find that non-stratified assessments of the entire urban forest are biased towards abundant canopy types in cities (e.g. street trees) and underestimate the condition of forested natural areas due to their uneven spatial arrangement. These natural areas account for one quarter of the city's tree canopy, but represent the majority of trees both numerically and in terms of biomass. Non-stratified assessments of urban forest canopy should be modified to accurately represent the true composition of different urban forest types to inform effective policy and management.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining and assessing urban forests to inform management and policy

Pregitzer

Ashton

Charlop‐Powers

et al. 2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Designing cities that facilitate the coexistence of humans with other organisms is a key priority in an urbanizing world (Nilon et al, 2017).…”

Section: Urban Planning and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

A roadmap for urban evolutionary ecology

Rivkin

Santangelo

Alberti

et al. 2018

Evolutionary Applications

Self Cite

208

197

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban ecosystems are rapidly expanding throughout the world, but how urban growth affects the evolutionary ecology of species living in urban areas remains largely unknown. Urban ecology has advanced our understanding of how the development of cities and towns change environmental conditions and alter ecological processes and patterns. However, despite decades of research in urban ecology, the extent to which urbanization influences evolutionary and eco‐evolutionary change has received little attention. The nascent field of urban evolutionary ecology seeks to understand how urbanization affects the evolution of populations, and how those evolutionary changes in turn influence the ecological dynamics of populations, communities, and ecosystems. Following a brief history of this emerging field, this Perspective article provides a research agenda and roadmap for future research aimed at advancing our understanding of the interplay between ecology and evolution of urban‐dwelling organisms. We identify six key questions that, if addressed, would significantly increase our understanding of how urbanization influences evolutionary processes. These questions consider how urbanization affects nonadaptive evolution, natural selection, and convergent evolution, in addition to the role of urban environmental heterogeneity on species evolution, and the roles of phenotypic plasticity versus adaptation on species’ abundance in cities. Our final question examines the impact of urbanization on evolutionary diversification. For each of these six questions, we suggest avenues for future research that will help advance the field of urban evolutionary ecology. Lastly, we highlight the importance of integrating urban evolutionary ecology into urban planning, conservation practice, pest management, and public engagement.

show abstract

“…While the existing, or potential, biological richness of cities is increasingly acknowledged in policies directed at sustainable, biodiversity‐friendly urban development (Aronson et al., ; Nilon et al., ), the foundations of such approaches have recently been called into question. Previous work has advanced the understanding of how species have adapted or can adapt to urban environments (McDonnell & Hahs, ; Williams et al., ).…”

Section: Biodiversity Conservation In Cities Must Move Beyond Plant Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant population success across urban ecosystems: A framework to inform biodiversity conservation in cities

Kowarik

Lippe

2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a rapidly urbanising world, the ability of plant species to survive and build self‐sustaining populations in urban environments is increasingly important for biodiversity conservation. Yet, the contribution of cities to biodiversity conservation remains unclear because ecologists have studied biodiversity patterns, largely without considering the population establishment of plants and the ways in which different kinds of urban ecosystems harbour native and endangered plant species. These limitations can mislead conservation policies for cities. To better understand how urban ecosystems can contribute to biodiversity conservation, we propose a framework that links the population status (casual or established) of plant species with ecosystem novelty and highlights barriers to population establishment in different types of urban ecosystems, from natural remnants to novel ecosystems. To quantify the relative importance of natural remnants vs. human‐shaped ecosystems for the conservation of self‐sustaining urban plant populations. we re‐analyse a unique dataset from a metropolitan region in Europe with information on the population status of 1,199 plant species. Results demonstrate that urban ecosystems harbour many established native and endangered species although a considerable share (37%) of species of conservation concern are confined to natural remnants. In hybrid and immature novel ecosystems, high species numbers reflect many species with only casual populations. The role of novel ecosystems as habitats for native and endangered plant species increases as novel ecosystems mature. Synthesis and applications. General information about plant species richness in urban environments may mislead conservation policies as different kinds of urban ecosystems can play different roles in harbouring species of conservation concern. Moreover, presence/absence data can mask establishment failures of species. This proposed framework helps to distinguish between casual and established populations of plant species, and highlights barriers to population persistence in urban ecosystems, reflecting different land uses and land use histories over time. Revealing the role of natural remnants vs. hybrid vs. novel ecosystems as habitats for species of conservation concern illustrates opportunities for biodiversity conservation in all urban ecosystems and can support setting priorities for conservation.

show abstract

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

Cited by 167 publications

References 42 publications

Defining and assessing urban forests to inform management and policy

Defining and assessing urban forests to inform management and policy

A roadmap for urban evolutionary ecology

Plant population success across urban ecosystems: A framework to inform biodiversity conservation in cities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About