Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The future of urban biodiversity research: Moving beyond the ‘low-hanging fruit’

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this era of rapidly urbanising human populations, urban practitioners are under increasing pressure to create resilient and sustainable cities and towns. Urban ecologists currently have a unique opportunity to apply solid, evidence-based research to help create biodiversity-rich and sustainable cities and towns for the future. Unfortunately, there is currently a mismatch between the questions planners, designers and decision-makers are asking urban ecologists that would allow them to improve the biodiversity outcomes in urban areas, and the questions urban ecologists must ask to contribute to the development and application of the science of urban ecology. For a number of reasons, urban ecologists over the past 25 years have primarily focused on describing the patterns of biodiversity in cities and towns using broad, aggregate predictor variables (e.g., distance to city center, land-use, percent cover of impermeable surfaces and vegetation, etc.). We refer to these results as ‘low-hanging fruit’. If the discipline of urban ecology is going to provide the necessary information to inform actions to preserve and enhance urban biodiversity, we need to move beyond place-based research, and work towards the development of confirmed generalizations regarding the relationship between the structure and function of urban ecosystems and biodiversity. We propose three essential strategies for achieving this refined understanding: 1) defining the study window to place the study into a broader global context, 2) collecting and using more explicit question-driven measures of the urban condition in order to improve our understanding of urban ecological drivers, as well as recording more detailed ecological responses to provide insights into the ecological mechanisms underlying an observed response, and 3) expanding studies to include multiple cities, regions and countries. These strategies will help to expedite the ability of urban ecology to contribute to the creation of biodiversity-rich, healthy, resilient cities and towns.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler PB, Seabloom EW, Borer ET et al (2011) Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness. Science 333:1750–1753

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alberti M (2008) Advances in urban ecology: integrating humans and ecological processes in urban ecosystems. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Allen TFH, Starr TB (1982) Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. University Chicago Press, Chicago

  • Apostolopoulou E, Paloniemi R (2012) Frames of scale challenges in Finnish and Greek biodiversity conservation. Ecol Soc 17:9. doi:10.5751/ES-05181-170409

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM (2010) The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 25:180–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Becker A, Whitfield AK, Cowley PD, Järnegren J, Næsje TF (2013) Potential effects of artificial light associated with anthropogenic infrastructure on the abundance and foraging behaviour of estuary-associated fishes. J Appl Ecol 50:43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnington C, Gaston KJ, Evan KL (2013) Fearing the feline: domestic cats reduce avian fecundity through trait-mediated indirect effects that increase nest predation by other species. J Appl Ecol 50:15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone CG, Cook E, Hall SJ, Nation ML, Grimm NB, Raish CB, Finch DM, York AM (2012) A comparative gradient approach as a tool for understanding and managing urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosyst 15:795–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2008) Urban principles for ecological landscape design and management: Scientific fundamentals Cities and the Environment 1 16 pp http://digitalcommonslmuedu/cate/vol1/iss2/4/

  • Clergeau P, Jokimäki J, Snep R (2006) Using hierarchical levels for urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:660–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronon W (1993) The uses of environmental history. (Presidential Address, American Society for Environmental History). Environ Hist Rev 17:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronon W (2004) Getting ready to do history. The Carnegie Foundation for fhe Advancement of Teaching.http://www.williamcronon.net/writing/Cronon_Carnegie_Essay_Getting_Ready_to_Do_History_2004.pdf

  • Duncan RP, Clemants SE, Corlett RT, Hahs AK, McCarthy MA, McDonnell MJ, Schwartz MW, Thompson K, Vesk PA, Williams NSG (2011) Plant traits and extinction in urban areas: a meta-analysis of new world cities. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:509–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faeth SH, Warren PS, Shochat E, Marussich WA (2005) Trophic dynamics in urban communities. BioScience 55:399–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felson AJ, Pickett STA (2005) Designed experiments: new approaches tostudying urban ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:549–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis CD, Kleist NJ, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2012) Noise pollution alters ecological services: enhanced pollination and disrupted seed dispersal. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 279:2727–2735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Smith RM, Thompson K, Warren PH (2005) Urban domestic gardens (II): experimental tests of methods for increasing biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 14:395–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Davies TW, Bennie J, Hopkins J (2012) Reducing the ecological consequences of night-time light pollution. Options Dev J Appl Ecol 49(6):1256–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gering JC, Blair RB (1999) Predation on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: predatory risk or relaxation in urban environments? Ecography 22:532–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace JB, Michael Anderson T, Han O, Scheiner SM (2010) On the specification of structural equation models for ecological systems. Ecol Monogr 80:67–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregg JW, Jones CG, Dawson TE (2003) Urbanization effects on tree growth in the vicinity of New York City. Nature 424:183–187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm NB, Grove JM, Pickett STA, Redman CA (2000) Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. BioScience 50:571–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen JB (2008) Teaching ecology during the environmental age, 1965–1980. Environ Hist 13:704–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahs A, McDonnell MJ (2006) Selecting independent measures to quantify Melbourne’s urban–rural gradient. Landsc Urban Plan 78:435–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I, Von Hertzen L, Fyhrquist N, Koskinen K, Torppa K, Laatikainen T, Karisola P, Auvinen P, Paulin L, Mäkelä MJ, Vartiainen E, Kosunen TU, Alenius H, Haahtela T (2012) Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:8334–8339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jerzak L (2001) Synurbanization of the magpie in the Paleartic. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 403–425

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye JP, Groffman PM, Grimm NB, Baker LA, Pouyat RV (2006) A distinct urban biogeochemistry? Trends Ecol Evol 21:192–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kendal D, Williams KJH, Williams NSG (2012) Plant traits link people’s plant preferences to the composition. Landsc Urban Plan 105:34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp S, Kühn I, Bakker JP, Kleyer M, Klotz S, Ozinga WA, Poschlod P, Thompson K, Thuiller W, Römermann C (2009) How species traits and affinity to urban land use control large-scale species frequency. Divers Distrib 15:533–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Körner C (2003) Alpine plant life, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Likens GE (1992) The ecosystem approach: its use and abuse. In: Kinne O (ed) Excellence in ecology, book 3. International Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe

    Google Scholar 

  • Longcore T, Rich C (2004) Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ 2:191–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louv R (2005) Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Algonquin of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck GW (2007) A review of the relationships between human population density and biodiversity. Biol Rev 82:607–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Nally R (2000) Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: the distinction between - and reconciliation of - ‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodivers Conserv 9:655–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (2001) A historical perspective on urban bird research: trends, terms and approaches. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 403–425

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RI, Kareiva P, Forman RTT (2008) The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 141:1695–1703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RI, Forman RTT, Kareiva P (2010) Open space loss and land inequality in United States’ cities, 1990–2000. PLoSONE 5:e9509

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RI, Green PA, Balk D, Fekete B, Revenga C, Todd M, Montgomery M (2011) Urban growth, climate change, and freshwater availability. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:6312–6317

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell MJ (2011) The history of urban ecology. In: Niemelä J, Breuste JH, Guntenspergen G, McIntyre NE, Elmqvist T and James P (eds) Urban ecology: patterns, processes, and applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK (2008) The use of gradient analysis studies in advancing our understanding of the ecology of urbanising landscapes: current status and future directions. Landsc Ecol 23:1143–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK (2009) Comparative ecology of cities and towns: past, present and future. In: McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK, Breuste JH (eds) Ecology of cities and towns: a comparative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA, Pouyat RV (1993) The application of the ecological gradient paradigm to the study of urban effects. In: McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA (eds) Humans as components of ecosystems. Springer, New York

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK, Breuste J (eds) (2009) Ecology of cities and towns: a comparative approach. Cambridge University Press, Oxford, 664 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK, Pickett STA (2012) Exposing an urban ecology straw man: Critique of Ramalho and Hobbs. Trends Ecol Evol 27:255–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre NE, Knowles-Yanez K, Hope D (2000) Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: differences in the use of “urban” between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosyst 4:5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Cons 127:247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol 16:330–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mϋller N (2011) Conclusion. In: Kelcey JG, Müller N (eds) Plants and habitats of European cities. Springer, New York

  • Mϋller N, Werner P (2010) Urban biodiversity and the case for implementing the convention on biological diversity in towns and cities. In: Müller N, Werner P, Kelcey JG (eds) Urban biodiversity and design. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford

  • Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape paradigm. Landsc Ecol 25:633–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä J, Kotze DJ, Venn S, Penev L, Stoyanov I, Spence J, Hartley D, de Oca M (2002) Carabid beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Caribidae) across urban–rural gradients: an international comparison. Landsc Ecol 17:387–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, DeAngelis D, Waide J, Allen TFH (1986) A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  • Pickett STA, Burch WR Jr, Dalton SE, Foresman TW, Grove JM, Rowntree R (1997) A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst 1:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, Buckley GL, Kaushal SS, Williams Y (2011) Social-ecological science in the humane metropolis. Urban Ecosyst 14:319–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, McGrath B (2013) Resilence in ecology and urban design: linking theory and practice for sustainable cities. Springer, Netherlands

  • Pouyat PV, Carreiro MM (2003) Controls on mass loss and nitrogen dynamics of oak leaf litter along an urban–rural land-use gradient. Oecologia 135:288–298

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rich C, Longcore T (2006) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricotta C, La Sorte FA, Pyšek P, Rapson GL, Celesti-Grapow L, Thompson K (2009) Phyloecology of urban alien floras. J Ecol 97:1243–1251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose KA, Morgan IG, Ip J, Kifley A, Huynh S, Smith W, Mitchell P (2008) Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of Myopia in children. Ophthalmology 115:1279–1285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz MW, Thorne JH, Viers JH (2006) Biotic homogenization of the California flora in urban and urbanizing regions. Biol Conserv 127:282–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) Cities and biodiversity outlook. A global assessment of the links between action and policy: Urbanization, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Montreal, 64 pp

  • Shochat E, Stefanov WL, Whitehouse MEA, Faeth SH (2004) Urbanization and spider diversity: influences of human modification of habitat structure and productivity. Ecol Appl 14:268–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D (2006) From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Ecol Evol 21:186–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner FR (2002) Human ecology: following nature’s lead. Island Press, Washington, DC, 237 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner FR (2011) Design for a vulnerable planet. University of Texas Press, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout WE, Rosenfield RN, Holton WG, Bielefeldt J (2007) Nesting biology of urban Cooper’s hawks in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. J Wildlife Manage 71:366–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theobald DM (2004) Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework. Front Ecol Environ 2:139–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson GF, Steiner FR (1997) Ecological design and planning. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 348 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend M (2006) Feel blue? Touch green! Participation in forest/woodland management as a treatment for depression. Urban Urban Gree 5:111–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Ree R, McDonnell MJ, Temby ID, Nelson J, Whittingham E (2005) The establishment and dynamics of a recently established camp of flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocaphalus) outside their geographic range. J Zool 268:177–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters CJ, Holling CS (1990) Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060–2068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward K (2010) Towards a relational comparative approach to the study of cities. Prog Hum Geog 34:471–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams NM, Winfree R (2013) Local habitat characteristics but not landscape urbanization drive pollinator visitation and native plant pollination in forest remnants. Biol Conserv 160:10–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams NSG, McDonnell MJ, Phelan GK, Keim L, van der Ree R (2006) Range expansion due to urbanisation: increased food resources attract grey-headed flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) to Melbourne. Austral Ecol 31:190–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This manuscript was significantly improved by comments from Norbert Mϋller, Glenn Guntenspergen, Rodney van der Ree, Dave Kendal, Julia Stammers and Zoe Metherell. The Baker Foundation provided generous support for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne, c/o School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia

    Mark J. McDonnell & Amy K. Hahs

Authors
  1. Mark J. McDonnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy K. Hahs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark J. McDonnell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McDonnell, M.J., Hahs, A.K. The future of urban biodiversity research: Moving beyond the ‘low-hanging fruit’. Urban Ecosyst 16, 397–409 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0315-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0315-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation