Cities play important roles in the conservation of global biodiversity, particularly through the planning and management of urban green spaces (UGS). However, UGS management is subject to a complex assortment of interacting social, cultural, and economic factors, including governance, economics, social networks, multiple stakeholders, individual preferences, and social constraints. To help deliver more effective conservation outcomes in cities, we identify major challenges to managing biodiversity in UGS and important topics warranting further investigation. Biodiversity within UGS must be managed at multiple scales while accounting for various socioeconomic and cultural influences. Although the environmental consequences of management activities to enhance urban biodiversity are now beginning to be addressed, additional research and practical management strategies must be developed to balance human needs and perceptions while maintaining ecological processes.

As urban areas expand, understanding how ecological processes function in cities has become increasingly important for conserving biodiversity. Urban green spaces are critical habitats to support biodiversity, but we still have a limited understanding of their ecology and how they function to conserve biodiversity at local and landscape scales across multiple taxa. Given this limited view, we discuss five key questions that need to be addressed to advance the ecology of urban green spaces for biodiversity conservation and restoration. Specifically, we discuss the need for research to understand how green space size, connectedness, and type influence the community, population, and life-history dynamics of multiple taxa in cities. A research framework based in landscape and metapopulation ecology will allow for a greater understanding of the ecological function of green spaces and thus allow for planning and management of green spaces to conserve biodiversity and aid in restoration activities.

BackgroundGreen roofs perform ecosystem services such as summer roof temperature reduction and stormwater capture that directly contribute to lower building energy use and potential economic savings. These services are in turn related to ecosystem functions performed by the vegetation layer such as radiation reflection and transpiration, but little work has examined the role of plant species composition and diversity in improving these functions.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe used a replicated modular extensive (shallow growing- medium) green roof system planted with monocultures or mixtures containing one, three or five life-forms, to quantify two ecosystem services: summer roof cooling and water capture. We also measured the related ecosystem properties/processes of albedo, evapotranspiration, and the mean and temporal variability of aboveground biomass over four months. Mixtures containing three or five life-form groups, simultaneously optimized several green roof ecosystem functions, outperforming monocultures and single life-form groups, but there was much variation in performance depending on which life-forms were present in the three life-form mixtures. Some mixtures outperformed the best monocultures for water capture, evapotranspiration, and an index combining both water capture and temperature reductions. Combinations of tall forbs, grasses and succulents simultaneously optimized a range of ecosystem performance measures, thus the main benefit of including all three groups was not to maximize any single process but to perform a variety of functions well.Conclusions/SignificanceEcosystem services from green roofs can be improved by planting certain life-form groups in combination, directly contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. The strong performance by certain mixtures of life-forms, especially tall forbs, grasses and succulents, warrants further investigation into niche complementarity or facilitation as mechanisms governing biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationships in green roof ecosystems.

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.

No abstract

No abstract

Urban environments are often seen as unique or degraded habitats that both present hardships for some sensitive species and provide opportunities to others. Non-indigenous species (NIS) are commonly referenced in the latter group, and are comprised of species that can tolerate the unique conditions or capitalize on the opportunities found in urban environments. Moreover, these urban beneficiaries may be those that normally cannot overcome competitive interactions in intact native communities, but find opportunity to flourish in urban habitats. We ask the question: do NIS benefit from urbanization? We answer this question using three strategies. First, we explore the problem conceptually, using community assembly theory. Second, we perform a broad literature review. Finally, we analyze studies with sufficient information using a meta-analysis. We show that the available evidence supports the proposition that NIS benefit from urbanization, with NIS obtaining higher abundances and greater diversity in more urbanized habitats. There were only 43 studies that measured NIS abundance and diversity while adequately quantifying the degree of urbanization surrounding plots, and effect sizes (measured by Hedge's D) reveal that NIS obtain higher abundances in more urbanized habitats, and especially for invertebrates. Despite the intense interest in NIS dynamics and impacts, we note a general dearth of robust studies that adequately quantify 'urbanization', and we end with a general call for more detailed research.

Summary1. Green roofs are novel ecosystems that are increasingly common in cities. While their hydrologic and energy saving benefits are well-established, green roofs have also been proposed as having significant value for conserving biodiversity. 2. We evaluate six hypotheses that describe the purported biodiversity conservation benefits of green roofs. Green roofs largely support generalist species particularly insects, but their conservation value for rare taxa, and other taxonomic groups especially vertebrates, is poorly documented. Further, their ability to replicate biotic communities in the context of ecological restoration is largely untested, as is their potential to connect ground-level habitats. 3. Synthesis and applications. Given the evidence, green roof proponents should use restraint in claiming conservation benefits and it is premature for policymakers to consider green roofs equivalent to ground-level urban habitats. Ecologists need to work with the industry to evaluate green roof biodiversity and help design green roofs based on ecological principles to maximize biodiversity gains.