Skip to main content

Wildlife Responses to Urbanization: Patterns of Diversity and Community Structure in Built Environments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Urban Wildlife conservation

Abstract

As the study of biodiversity, the field of community ecology seeks to understand what factors govern the formation and maintenance of multispecies assemblages (i.e., how and why certain species coexist). The structure of communities is described by their diversity—comprised of richness (number of species present) and evenness (the relative abundance of each species)—and interactions among the constituent species. Communities are biotic components within ecosystems, and because cities can be viewed as an ecosystem (albeit one characterized by high-density human habitation and built structure), understanding how wildlife responds to the ever-increasing scope of urban development makes urban-community ecology an important component of contemporary wildlife science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams, L. W. 1994. Urban wildlife habitats: A landscape perspective. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aizen, M. A., and P. Feinsinger. 2003. Bees not to be? Responses of insect pollinator faunas and flower pollination to habitat fragmentation. Ecological Studies 162:111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnolds, E. 1991. Decline of ectomycorrhizal fungi in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 35:209–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. A., A. J. Brazel, N. Selover, C. Martin, N. McIntyre, F. R. Steiner, A. Nelson, and L. Musacchio. 2002. Urbanization and warming of Phoenix (Arizona, USA): Impacts, feedbacks and mitigation. Urban Ecosystems 6:183–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begon, M., C. R. Townsend, and J. L. Harper. 2006. Ecology: From individuals to ecosystems. 4th ed. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, R. B. 1999. Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: Surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecological Applications 9:164–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, R. B. 2001. Creating a homogeneous avifauna. In Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world, ed. J. Marzluff, R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly, 459–486. Boston: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, R. B., and A. E. Launer. 1997. Butterfly diversity and human land-use: Species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biological Conservation 80:1132–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boal, C. W., and R. W. Mannan. 1999. Comparative breeding ecology of Cooper’s Hawks in urban and exurban areas of southeastern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, C. E., Z. F. Jones, and J. H. Bock. 2008. The oasis effect: Response of birds to exurban development in a southwestern savanna. Ecological Applications 18:1093–1106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. L., and E. O. Wilson. 1956. Character displacement. Systematic Zoology 5:49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buyantuyev, A., and J. G. Wu. 2009. Urbanization alters spatiotemporal patterns of ecosystem primary productivity: A case study of the Phoenix metropolitan region, USA. Journal of Arid Environments 73:512–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chace, J. F., and J. J. Walsh. 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning 74:46–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, J. H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, J. H. 1980. Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35:131–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16:488–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, K. R., and M. E. Soulé. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, K. R., S. P. D. Riley, S. D. Gehrt, T. E. Gosselink, and T. R. Van Deelen. 2010. Community ecology of urban carnivores. In Urban carnivores: Ecology, conflict, and conservation, ed. S. D. Gehrt, S. P. D. Riley, and B. L. Cypher, 185–196. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czech, B., P. R. Krausman, and P. K. Devers. 2000. Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioScience 50:593–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diefenbach, L. M. G., and M. Becker. 1992. Carabid taxocenes of an urban park in subtropical Brazil. II. Specific diversity and similarity (Insecta: Coleoptera: Carabidae). Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 27:189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faeth, S. H., P. S. Warren, E. Shochat, and W. A. Marussich. 2005. Trophic dynamics in urban communities. BioScience 55:399–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrt, S. D., and J. E. Chelsvig. 2003. Bat activity and distribution patterns in an urban landscape. Ecological Applications 13:939–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrt, S. D., and J. E. Chelsvig. 2004. Bat activity in an urban landscape: Species-specific patterns along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications 14:625–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrt, S. D., and S. P. D. Riley. 2010. Coyotes (Canis latrans). In Urban carnivores: Ecology, conflict, and conservation, ed. S. D. Gehrt, S. P. D. Riley, and B. L. Cypher, 79–95. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehrt, S. D., S. P. D. Riley, and B. L. Cypher, eds. 2010. Urban carnivores: Ecology, conflict, and conservation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorenzel, W. P., and T. P. Salmon. 1995. Characteristics of American crow urban roosts in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:638–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli, N. J. and D. J. McCabe. 2002. Species co-occurrence: A meta-analysis of J. M. Diamond’s assembly rules model. Ecology 83:2091–2096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadidian, J., S. Prange, R. Rosatte, S. P. D. Riley, and S. D. Gehrt. 2010. Raccoons (Procyon lotor). In Urban carnivores: Ecology, conflict, and conservation, ed. S. D. Gehrt, S. P. D. Riley, and B. L. Cypher, 35–47. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D. U., F. S. Chapin, J. J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J. H. Lawton, D. M. Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Setälä, A. J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer, and D. A. Wardle. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75:3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope, D., C. Gries, W. Zhu, W. F. Fagan, C. L. Redman, N. B. Grimm, A. L. Nelson, C. Martin, and A. Kinzig. 2003. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100:8788–8792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbell, S. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imhoff, M. L., L. Bounoua, R. DeFries, W. T. Lawrence, D. Stutzer, C. J. Tucker, and T. Ricketts. 2004. The consequences of urban land transformation on net primary productivity in the United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 89:434–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinzig, A. P., P. Warren, C. Martin, D. Hope, and M. Katti. 2005. The effects of human socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecology and Society 10:23 (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art23/).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leston, L. F. V., and A. D. Rodewald. 2006. Are urban forests ecological traps for understory birds? An examination using Northern cardinals. Biological Conservation 131:666–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H., and S. Koptur. 2003. Breeding system and pollination of a narrowly endemic herb of the Lower Florida Keys: Impacts of the urban-wildland interface. American Journal of Botany 90:1180–1187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lotze, J., and S. Anderson. 1979. Procyon lotor. Mammalian Species 119:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran, A. E. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzluff, J. M. 2005. Island biogeography for an urbanizing world: How extinction and colonization may determine biological diversity in human-dominated landscapes. Urban Ecosystems 8:155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, R. M. 1972. Will a large complex system be stable? Nature 238:413–414.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, K. S. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405:228–233.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCleery, R. A., R. R. Lopez, N. J. Silvy, and D. L. Gallant. 2008. Fox squirrel survival in urban and rural environments. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:133–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, N. E. 2011. Urban ecology: Definitions and goals. In The Routledge handbook on urban ecology, ed. I. Douglas, D. Goode, M. Houck, and R. Wang, 7–16. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, N. E., K. Knowles-Yanez, and D. Hope. 2000. Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: Differences in the use of “urban” between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosystems 4:5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, M. L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. BioScience 52:883–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, M. L. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127:247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milesi, C., C. D. Elvidge, R. R. Nemani, and S. W. Running. 2003. Assessing the impact of urban land development on net primary productivity in the southeastern United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 86:401–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, P. J. 2011. Community ecology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newbound, M., M. A. Mccarthy, and T. Lebel. 2010. Fungi and the urban environment: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning 96:138–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä, J., D. J. Kotze, S. Venn, L. Penev, I. Stoyanov, J. Spence, D. Hartley, and E. Montes de Oca. 2002. Carabid beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across urban-rural gradients: An international comparison. Landscape Ecology 17:387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, T. S., and C. H. Nilon. 2008. Gray squirrel density, habitat suitability, and behavior in urban parks. Urban Ecosystems 11:243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, G., B. W. Buchanan, R. N. Fisher, M. Salmon, and S. E. Wise. 2008. Effects of artificial night lighting on amphibians and reptiles in urban environments. In Urban herpetology, ed. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, 239–256. Salt Lake City: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, S. T. A., M. L. Cadenasso, J. M. Grove, P. M. Groffman, L. E. Band, C. G. Boone, W. R. Burch, Jr., C. S. B. Grimmond, J. Hom, J. C. Jenkins, N. L. Law, C. H. Nilon, R. V. Pouyat, K. Szlavecz, P. S. Warren, and M. A. Wilson. 2008. Beyond urban legends: An emerging framework of urban ecology, as illustrated by the Baltimore Ecosystem Study. BioScience 58:139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouyat, R. V., R. W. Parmelee, and M. M. Carreiro. 1994. Environmental effects of forest soil invertebrates and fungal densities in oak stands along an urban-rural land use gradient. Pedobiologia 38:385–399.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek, P., D. M. Richardson, M. Rejmánek, G. L. Webster, M. Williamson, and J. Kirschner. 2004. Alien plants in checklists and floras: Towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon 53:131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racey, G. D., and D. L. Euler. 1982. Small mammal and habitat response to shoreline cottage development in central Ontario, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:865–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts, T., and M. Imhoff. 2003. Biodiversity, urban areas, and agriculture: Locating priority ecoregions for conservation. Conservation Ecology 8:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs, R. E. 2006. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity: Do the numbers add up? Ecology 87:1424–1423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, S. P. D., J. Handidian, and D. A. Manski. 1998. Population density, survival and rabies in raccoons in an urban national park. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:153–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydell, J. 2006. Bats and their insect prey at streetlights. In Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting, ed. C. Rich and T. Longcore, 43–60. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sale, P. F. 1978. Coexistence of coral reef fishes-a lottery for living space. Environmental Biology of Fishes 5:243–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shochat, E. 2004. Credit or debit? Resource input changes population dynamics of city-slicker birds. Oikos 106:622–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shochat, E., W. L. Stefanov, M. E. A. Whitehouse, and S. H. Faeth. 2004. Spider diversity in the greater Phoenix area: The influence of human modification to habitat structure and productivity. Ecological Applications 14:268–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shochat, E., P. S. Warren, S. H. Faeth, N. E. McIntyre, and D. Hope. 2006. From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:186–191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stratford, J. A., and W. D. Robinson. 2005. Distribution of Neotropical migratory bird species across an urbanizing landscape. Urban Ecosystems 8:59–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman, D., and J. A. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:363–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valcarcel, A., and E. Fernández-Juricic. 2009. Anti-predator strategies of house finches: Are urban habitats safe spots from predators even when humans are around? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63:673–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Maarel, E., and M. T. Sykes. 1993. Small-scale plant species turnover in a limestone grassland: The carousel model and some comments on the niche concept. Journal of Vegetation Science 4:178–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N., M. Schwartz, P. Vesk, M. McCarthy, A. K. Hahs, S. Clements, R. Corlett, R. Duncan, B. Norton, K. Thompson, and M. McDonnell. 2009. A conceptual framework for predicting the effects of urban environments on floras. Journal of Ecology 97:4–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willig, M. R., D. M. Kaufmann, and R. D. Stevens. 2003. Latitudinal gradients of biodiversity: Pattern, process, scale and synthesis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 34:273–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, C., M. Liu, S. An, J. M. Chen, and P. Yan. 2007. Assessing the impact of urbanization on regional net primary productivity in Jinagyin County, China. Journal of Environmental Management 85:597–606.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y., M. Fujihara, B. Li, X. Yuan, K. Hara, L. Da, M. Tomita, and Y. Zhao. 2011. Structure and diversity of remnant natural evergreen broad-leaved forests at three sites affected by urbanization in Chongqing metropolis, Southwest China. Landscape and Ecological Engineering. doi:10.1007/s11355-011-0160-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerbe, S., U. Maurer, S. Schmitz, and H. Sukopp. 2003. Biodiversity in Berlin and its potential for nature conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning 62:139–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X. Y., M. A. Friedl, C. B. Schaaf, and A. H. Strahler. 2004. Climate controls on vegetation phenological patterns in northern mid- and high latitudes inferred from MODIS data. Global Change Biology 10:1133–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy E. McIntyre .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Conclusion

Managing diversity is a key focus of wildlife biology, but it is an even more challenging endeavor when conducted in urban areas. Challenges arise both from complex and poorly understood inter-species relationships and from the difficulty of influencing human behaviors that drive many ecosystem processes. Effective planning and design for urban wildlife and for positive human–wildlife interactions must therefore include a social component (Chap. 6). Cross-disciplinary, team efforts among wildlife biologists, landscape architects, and land-use planners will become more common as urbanization occurs. Although these efforts will require unprecedented emphasis on communication (McIntyre 2011, Chap. 11), the commonalities across the globe of factors that structure urban communities may facilitate making action plans for urban biodiversity conservation. This chapter provides a basic understanding of community ecology needed to shape urban wildlife communities, while later chapters provide detailed examples of how to manipulate wildlife communities in urban areas and productively engage urban residents in those endeavors.

Community ecology is the science of biodiversity , interested in explaining how certain species can coexist whereas other combinations cannot, and why certain assemblages are stable whereas others are susceptible to invasion and alteration. Urbanization brings together species to create novel assemblages subject to novel regulation. As perhaps the main sign of the Anthropocene, urban ecosystems present wildlife scientists with many research opportunities that combine the familiar with the unique.

Acknowledgments

Much of my thinking about urban communities has come from my association with the Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project at Arizona State University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McIntyre, N. (2014). Wildlife Responses to Urbanization: Patterns of Diversity and Community Structure in Built Environments. In: McCleery, R., Moorman, C., Peterson, M. (eds) Urban Wildlife conservation. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7500-3_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics