Wildlife Population Dynamics in Urban Landscapes

Abstract

To say that urban wildlife populations differ from those in other landscapes is, in some ways, to state the obvious, as many studies have well demonstrated how urbanization influences pattern of occurrence and relative abundance of wildlife (e.g., Blair 1996;Marzluff et al. 2001;Sinclair et al. 2005;Chace and Walsh 2006). Identifying the specific ways in which urban and nonurban wildlife populations differ and the drivers of those differences is less understood and requires a more careful examination. The response of a species to urbanization may be the consequence of life history, and behavioral and physiological attributes that promote avoidance, tolerance, or preference for urban systems. For example, urban avoiders, or species that respond negatively to development, tend to be habitat specialists, migratory, and/or sensitive to a wide range of human activities and disturbance (Croci et al. 2008). Species that respond positively to urban development (e.g., synanthropic species, urban exploiters) are often generalists, omnivorous, multi-brooded, and behaviorally flexible. Because these suites of species differ widely in population ecology even in the absence of urbanization, we forgo a direct comparison of these groups of species and, rather, examine how urbanization affects population structure and demography of species occupying both urban and nonurban landscapes (i.e., urban adapters).As we synthesize the literature, we recognize the inherent difficulty of clearly defining a "population." What distinguishes a subpopulation from a population? For some species, this may be quite clear because of limited vagility and strong segregation among habitat types; for others, it may be unclear, particularly those with more generalist habitat requirements and extensive mobility across urban

Environmental filtering of avian communities along a rural‐to‐urban gradient in Greater Washington, D.C., USA

“…Numerous studies have reported a negative association between the presence of Neotropical migrant birds and urbanization (Stratford and Robinson ), and several studies (McKinney and Lockwood , Kark et al. , Rodewald and Gehrt ) have suggested that resident life histories are one of the key features that defines urban‐adapted species (but see Evans et al. ).…”

Urbanization may limit impacts of an invasive predator on native mammal diversity

“…Generalist mammals often have higher rates of survival and fecundity in urbanized environments (Rodewald & Gehrt, 2014), but even elevated demographic rates may not explain the ability of some species to persist in urbanized areas with pythons (McCleery et al, 2015). Urban areas may buffer the impact of pythons on species loss and community change.…”

Raccoon (Procyon lotor) Activity is Better Predicted by Water Availability than Land Cover in a Moderately Fragmented Landscape

“…Raccoons often exploit human-dominated habitats (Rodewald and Gehrt 2014). They can reach high densities in urban or developed habitats (Haskell et al 2013, Prange and and are positively associated with anthropogenic food sources (Bozek et al 2007.…”