2017
DOI: 10.1002/eap.1611
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mammal diversity and metacommunity dynamics in urban green spaces: implications for urban wildlife conservation

Abstract: As urban growth expands and natural environments fragment, it is essential to understand the ecological roles fulfilled by urban green spaces. To evaluate how urban green spaces function as wildlife habitat, we estimated mammal diversity and metacommunity dynamics in city parks, cemeteries, golf courses, and natural areas throughout the greater Chicago, Illinois, USA region. We found similar α-diversity (with the exception of city parks), but remarkably dissimilar communities in different urban green spaces. A… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

6
82
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 116 publications
(89 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
6
82
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We detected cats in less than half of our preserves and at less 422 than 20% of monitoring points, although cats were likely to be present at more preserves 423 due to the relatively low detection probability across much of the preserve network (see 424 section 4.2 below). In contrast, raccoons, opossums, skunks, and coyotes were widely dis-425 tributed, and we documented their presence in nearly every preserve, consistent with re-426 gional predictions (Gallo et al 2017, Greenspan et al 2018). There are few landscape level 427 reports of urban biodiversity (but see Gallo et al 2017 andMagle et al 2019), and our 428 work provides important baseline data for land managers and conservation planners.…”
Section: Discussion 419supporting
confidence: 72%
“…We detected cats in less than half of our preserves and at less 422 than 20% of monitoring points, although cats were likely to be present at more preserves 423 due to the relatively low detection probability across much of the preserve network (see 424 section 4.2 below). In contrast, raccoons, opossums, skunks, and coyotes were widely dis-425 tributed, and we documented their presence in nearly every preserve, consistent with re-426 gional predictions (Gallo et al 2017, Greenspan et al 2018). There are few landscape level 427 reports of urban biodiversity (but see Gallo et al 2017 andMagle et al 2019), and our 428 work provides important baseline data for land managers and conservation planners.…”
Section: Discussion 419supporting
confidence: 72%
“…These varying results may suggest different sources that induce vigilance behaviour in eastern cottontails along an urbanization gradient. In Chicago, cottontail rabbits are likely to occupy green spaces in the urban core (e.g., city parks; Gallo et al., ) where coyote occupancy is low (Figure c, Supporting Information Table S4) but visitation by humans and their pets is high. While these urban locations may provide potential refuge for eastern cottontails from coyote (i.e., human‐shield effect), they potentially come with trade‐offs in the form of increased interactions with humans and their pets.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our study design follows an urban to suburban gradient (Figure a). To characterize the varying levels of urbanization surrounding a site, we calculated an urbanization index using a principal components analysis consisting of the per cent tree cover, per cent impervious cover and mean housing density, each within a 500 m fixed‐radius buffer around a sampling site (Gallo, Fidino, Lehrer, & Magle, ). Tree cover and impervious cover were included in the urbanization index calculation because together they represent the conversion of natural habitats to impervious surfaces (Grimm et al., ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, native vegetation remnants also represent an important reservoir of local and regional biodiversity (Angold et al, 2006;Aronson et al, 2014;Ives et al, 2016). Much of what we know about the effects of urbanization is influenced by the large amount of data available on birds and mammals (e.g., Aronson et al, 2014;Gallo, Fidino, Lehrer, & Magle, 2017;Magle, Hunt, Vernon, & Crooks, 2012), the responses of which may not be representative of many other taxa. Arthropods, for instance, are still an understudied group in urban areas (Magle et al 2012), and we still have gaps in our knowledge on how urbanization affects insects (Leather, 2018;Mata et al, 2017).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%