Distribution of Wild Mammal Assemblages along an Urban–Rural–Forest Landscape Gradient in Warm-Temperate East Asia

Abstract

Urbanization may alter mammal assemblages via habitat loss, food subsidies, and other factors related to human activities. The general distribution patterns of wild mammal assemblages along urban–rural–forest landscape gradients have not been studied, although many studies have focused on a single species or taxon, such as rodents. We quantitatively evaluated the effects of the urban–rural–forest gradient and spatial scale on the distributions of large and mid-sized mammals in the world's largest metropolitan area in warm-temperate Asia using nonspecific camera-trapping along two linear transects spanning from the urban zone in the Tokyo metropolitan area to surrounding rural and forest landscapes. Many large and mid-sized species generally decreased from forest landscapes to urban cores, although some species preferred anthropogenic landscapes. Sika deer (Cervus nippon), Reeves' muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi), Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata), Japanese squirrel (Sciurus lis), Japanese marten (Martes melampus), Japanese badger (Meles anakuma), and wild boar (Sus scrofa) generally dominated the mammal assemblage of the forest landscape. Raccoon (Procyon lotor), raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides), and Japanese hare (Lepus brachyurus) dominated the mammal assemblage in the intermediate zone (i.e., rural and suburban landscape). Cats (feral and free-roaming housecats; Felis catus) were common in the urban assemblage. The key spatial scales for forest species were more than 4000-m radius, indicating that conservation and management plans for these mammal assemblages should be considered on large spatial scales. However, small green spaces will also be important for mammal conservation in the urban landscape, because an indigenous omnivore (raccoon dog) had a smaller key spatial scale (500-m radius) than those of forest mammals. Urbanization was generally the most important factor in the distributions of mammals, and it is necessary to consider the spatial scale of management according to the degree of urbanization.

Urban stress is associated with variation in microbial species composition—but not richness—in Manhattan

“…Boxplots of the relative abundances of the most dominant bacterial phyla (a) and fungal classes (b) show no significant differences in relative abundance between parks (black) and medians (gray). Saito and Koike, 2013;Concepción et al, 2015), we re-acknowledge that many macroorganisms decline in diversity in cities relative to rural areas and that some species are absent in cities, resulting in changes in composition. Recent work (Beninde et al, 2015) has surveyed the causes of intra-urban biodiversity variation for a range of macroorganisms and found that, to a great extent, shifts in composition and declines in diversity in cities are due to the effects of habitat area and connectivity, with the most affected green spaces in cities being both small and disconnected.…”

“…This stress is predicted to reduce diversity beyond the predicted reduction owing to small habitat patch size, while intermediate disturbances (for example, suburban development) may lead to local diversity peaks. Plant and animal communities often show these expected patterns of intermediate optima, while minimal diversity is seen in the most urbanized sites (for example, Blair, 1996;Blair and Launer, 1997;Cam et al, 2000;Marzluff, 2005;McKinney, 2008;Minor and Urban, 2010;Saito and Koike, 2013). Response to urbanization varies within a city depending on site characteristics (Sushinsky et al, 2013) as well as on the species assemblage and the spatial scale investigated (Concepción et al, 2015).…”

Monitoring program for mammals in a protected area of Colombia

“…Bogotá Additionally, monitoring mammal diversity and activity patterns is important due to the relationships of these animals with anthropogenic dynamics, as supported by evidence outside and inside protected areas affected by human presence (Ordeñana et al 2010, Lira-Torres & Briones-Salas 2012, Gonthier & Castañeda 2013, Lynam et al 2013, in agriculture lands near forests (Cove et al 2013), in interfaces between rural and urban areas (Abi Said & Amr 2012, Saito & Koike 2013, as well as in relation with the presence of exotic species (Ordeñana et al 2010, Lenth et al 2008. Therefore, monitoring species community diversity and activity patterns are fundamental aspects when evaluating species vulnerability within a protected area.…”

“…This evidence is essential to predict changes in populations and communities in space and time, as well as to identify the threats they face (Salom-Pérez et al 2007, Ordeñana et al 2010, Sathyakumar et al 2011, Gonthier & Castañeda 2013, Saito & Koike 2013, in order to implement timely and appropriate management actions (Sathyakumar et al 2011, Lira-Torres & BrionesSalas 2012, Saito & Koike 2013.…”

Influência do ambiente e relações predador-presa em uma comunidade de mamíferos terrestres de médio e grande porte em Floresta Ombrófila Densa

“…Logo, a ocorrência dessas espécies está fortemente relacionada às características ambientais das áreas que habitam. Por conta disso, busca-se compreender qual a influência da paisagem sobre a ocorrência destas (LYRA-JORGE et al, 2010;BITETTI, 2011;SAITO;KOIKE, 2013), para guiar ações de conservação.…”