Elsevier

Cities

Volume 98, March 2020, 102590
Cities

Urban size effect on biodiversity: The need for a conceptual framework for the implementation of urban policy for small cities

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102590Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The most intense effects of urban conditions on wildlife occur in city centers.

  • We wanted to determine the minimum city size that depletes wildlife biodiversity.

  • We used data for small mammals living in green areas of cities of various sizes.

  • Unequivocal transformation of fauna occurs in cities with 1000 people per km2.

  • To preserve wildlife, pre-emptive actions should be taken when cities are still small.

Abstract

Answers are still being sought to the question of how to plan cities to ensure good living conditions for humans while also protecting urban biodiversity. We asked what is the minimum city size that causes the depletion of wildlife biodiversity, and how quickly does this process develop? We summarized data for wild ground-dwelling small mammals (Rodentia and Soricomorpha) living in green areas in cities/settlements of sizes from 1.3 thousand to 1.7 million inhabitants (Poland, Central Europe) and used various statistical tools to explore this issue. Our models indicate that the explicit transformation and depletion of ground-dwelling fauna occurs in cities with a density higher than 1000 people/km2 (20,000 inhabitants, area of 20 km2). We estimated species richness and the rate of diversity decline as a city grows. Our findings indicate that in order to preserve the relatively high biodiversity of native wildlife in cities (even in central areas) appropriate actions should be taken in the early stages of city development. This knowledge may facilitate the design of more sustainable cities and could be particularly useful for the promotion of the implementation of appropriate urban policies for smaller cities. Nowadays, the theory of sustainable design of small cities is still insufficient.

Introduction

Studies of wild animals in urbanized areas are usually focused on ecological or evolutionary issues (Magle, Hunt, Vernon, et al., 2012). Thousands of cities around the world provide many research polygons in which one can observe how wild species react and adapt to urban conditions, how urbanization affects their behavior or physiology, and the evolutionary consequences of living in such a specific environment. These issues have been widely studied for birds, but for other groups of animals an increasing amount of research and information is also available (Bonier, 2012; Chace & Walsh, 2006; Fischer, Cleeton, Lyons, et al., 2012; Hall, Camilo, Tonietto, et al., 2017; Hamer & McDonnell, 2008; Hamer & McDonnell, 2010; Łopucki, Klich, Ścibior, & Gołębiowska, 2019; Peressin & Cetra, 2014; Slabbekoorn, 2013; Tryjanowski, Møller, Morelli, et al., 2016; Vignoli, Mocaer, Luiselli, & Bologna, 2009).

Studies on urban fauna may also have a conservation aspect. While fundamental research tries to investigate and describe the specific nature of urban populations living in this “new evolutionary situation”, conservation research asks how to plan and manage cities to avoid or mitigate the negative effects of urbanization on wildlife (Birnie-Gauvin, Peiman, Gallagher, et al., 2016; Garden, McAlpine, & Possingham, 2010; Magle et al., 2012; Marzluff & Ewing, 2001). These negative effects are related not only to the loss of species sensitive to urbanization (Łopucki, Klich, & Kitowski, 2019; McKinney, 2008; Waldstein Parsons, Forrester, Baker-Whatton, McShea, et al., 2018), but also to the condition of populations of species that successfully inhabit cities (Birnie-Gauvin et al., 2016). There is already a lot of evidence indicating that even urban adapters are often the object of non-adaptive evolution, i.e. reduced gene flow and stronger genetic drift leads to decreased genetic diversity within populations (Santangelo, Rivkin, & Johnson, 2018). These findings suggest the need to intensify conservation actions for urban wildlife, mainly by ensuring the appropriate quantity and quality of urban green areas and functional connections between them (Ikin, Knight, Lindenmayer, Fischer, & Manning, 2012; Kong, Yin, Nakagoshi, & Zong, 2010; LaPoint, Balkenhol, Hale, et al., 2015; Matthies, Rueter, Schaarschmidt, et al., 2017). Humans can also indirectly benefit from such activities because the quality of life is better in cities with rich and varied urban greenery (Amano, Butt, & Peh, 2018; Dean, van Dooren, & Weinstein, 2011; Fuller, Irvine, Devine-Wright, et al., 2007; Shwartz, Turbe, Simon, et al., 2014).

The effects of urbanization on wildlife have commonly been studied across urban–rural gradients, thus providing a useful framework for comparative studies on a global scale (McDonnell & Hahs, 2008; McKinney, 2008; Niemelä & Kotze, 2009; Waldstein Parsons et al., 2018). The results obtained in this way clearly show that the most intense effects of urban conditions on wildlife occur in older, more man-modified centers of cities, and these effects decrease farther away from city centers (McDonnell & Hahs, 2008). It can therefore be said that areas with impoverished wildlife or a lack of ground-dwelling wildlife are formed in the central parts of cities.

In this paper, we focus on the central part of cities and try to determine the minimum size of city from which the central part loses most of its potential biodiversity that is typical of city surroundings. On the one hand, we want to determine the rate of decline in species richness and biodiversity in cities of various sizes; on the other hand, we want to determine the size of city whose central zone is still relatively biodiverse and when depletion of wildlife species richness and biodiversity begins in this zone. This knowledge may facilitate the design of more sustainable cities and could be particularly useful for smaller cities because in the early stages of city development the opportunities for introducing measures that could reduce the negative effects of urbanization are greater. Even though small cities are much more common than large cities (in number and in total occupied area), the theory of sustainable design of small cities is still insufficient; in the near future, in many developing countries of the world, most urban growth is expected to take place in small and medium-sized cities (Łopucki & Kitowski, 2017; Secretariat of the CBD, 2012; Sun, Xiu, Wang, & Ding, 2012).

Section snippets

Object of the study

In this paper, we studied the effect of city size on wild ground-dwelling small mammals, specifically non-synanthropic rodents (order Rodentia, family Arvicolinae and Muridae) and shrews (order Soricomorpha, family Soricidae) that commonly live in various habitats of central Europe. Small mammals belonging to these systematic groups have several advantages that make them suitable for this purpose. First, they live in multi-species assemblages, so urbanization effects can be observed not only at

Differences in species richness and species diversity between the built-up and control areas

The Kruskal-Wallis test showed that the studied areas differed significantly both in terms of species richness (H(5) = 46.1; p < 0.001; N= 78) and the species diversity index (H(5) = 48.0; p < 0.001; N = 78). Post hoc tests showed that these differences mainly result from differences between the studied built-up and control areas. In the case of species richness (Fig. 1), all the studied built-up areas had significantly fewer species than the control areas. In the case of the species diversity

Discussion

As predicted, in our work we observed very strong negative effects of city size on the fauna of small ground-dwelling mammals. This effect was revealed by a decline in species richness and the species diversity index. The strongest negative reaction occurred in species known to be the most sensitive to urbanization, such as shrews and voles (Łopucki & Kitowski, 2017). On the other hand, there was one species, the striped field mouse, that showed a positive reaction, and which can be considered

Conclusions

When comparing fauna of small ground-dwelling mammals in urban areas, strong negative effects of city size (revealed by a decline in species richness and species diversity) may be observed. Our results indicate that this negative effect begins in very small cities. This means that in order to preserve the relatively high biodiversity of native wildlife in cities (even in central areas), appropriate actions should be taken in the early stages of city development. Proposals for such activities

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Rafał Łopucki: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project administration.Daniel Klich: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.Ignacy Kitowski: Investigation, Writing - review & editing.Adam Kiersztyn: Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions that improved the quality of the paper and Iwona Mróz for support during the field study and agreeing to use her unpublished data.

References (56)

  • R. Łopucki et al.

    Are small carnivores urban avoiders or adapters: Can they be used as indicators of well-planned green areas?

    Ecological Indicators

    (2019)
  • S.B. Magle et al.

    Urban wildlife research: Past, present, and future

    Biological Conservation

    (2012)
  • J. Niemelä et al.

    Carabid beetle assemblages along urban to rural gradients: A review

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2009)
  • A. Shwartz et al.

    Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: An experiment

    Biological Conservation

    (2014)
  • H. Slabbekoorn

    Songs of the city: Noise-dependent spectral plasticity in the acoustic phenotype of urban birds

    Animal Behaviour

    (2013)
  • T. Amano et al.

    The importance of green spaces to public health: A multi-continental analysis

    Ecological Applications

    (2018)
  • R. Andrzejewski et al.

    Synurbization process in population of Apodemus agrarius. I. Characteristics of populations in urbanization gradient

    Acta Theriologica

    (1978)
  • A.J. Arnfield

    Two decades of urban climate research: A review of turbulence, exchanges of energy and water, and the urban heat island

    International Journal of Climatology

    (2003)
  • P.J. Baker et al.

    Urban mammals: What does the future hold? An analysis of the factors affecting patterns of use of residential gardens in Great Britain

    Mammal Review

    (2007)
  • K. Birnie-Gauvin et al.

    Sublethal consequences of urban life for wild vertebrates

    Environmental Reviews

    (2016)
  • J.D. Fischer et al.

    Urbanization and the predation paradox: The role of trophic dynamics in structuring vertebrate communities

    Bioscience

    (2012)
  • J.D. Fischer et al.

    Categorizing wildlife responses to urbanization and conservation implications of terminology

    Conservation Biology

    (2015)
  • D. Frynta et al.

    Small mammals (Insectivora, Rodentia) in the city of Prague: Distributional patterns

    Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemicae

    (1994)
  • R.A. Fuller et al.

    The scaling of green space coverage in European cities

    Biology Letters

    (2009)
  • R.A. Fuller et al.

    Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity

    Biology Letters

    (2007)
  • S.A. Gagné et al.

    Do birds and beetles show similar responses to urbanization?

    Ecological Applications

    (2011)
  • J.G. Garden et al.

    Multi-scaled habitat considerations for conserving urban biodiversity: Native reptiles and small mammals in Brisbane, Australia

    Landscape Ecology

    (2010)
  • J.G. Garden et al.

    Habitat structure is more important than vegetation composition for local-level management of native terrestrial reptile and small mammal species living in urban remnants: A case study from Brisbane, Australia

    Austral Ecology

    (2007)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text