Cities are hotspots for threatened species

Aim Although urbanization impacts many species, there is little information on the patterns of occurrences of threatened species in urban relative to non-urban areas. By assessing the extent of the distribution of threatened species across all Australian cities, we aim to investigate the currently under-utilized opportunity that cities present for national biodiversity conservation. Location Australian mainland, Tasmania and offshore islands. Methods Distributions of Australia's 1643 legally protected terrestrial species (hereafter ‘threatened species’) were compiled. We assessed the extent to which they overlapped with 99 cities (of more than 10,000 people), with all non-urban areas, and with simulated ‘dummy’ cities which covered the same area and bioregion as the true cities but were non-urban. We analysed differences between animals and plants, and examined variability within these groups using species accumulation modelling. Threatened species richness of true versus dummy cities was analysed using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Results Australian cities support substantially more nationally threatened animal and plant species than all other non-urban areas on a unit-area basis. Thirty per cent of threatened species were found to occur in cities. Distribution patterns differed between plants and animals: individual threatened plant species were generally found in fewer cities than threatened animal species, yet plants were more likely to have a greater proportion of their distribution in urban areas than animals. Individual cities tended to contain unique suites of threatened species, especially threatened plants. The analysis of true versus dummy cities demonstrated that, even after accounting for factors such as net primary productivity and distance to the coast, cities still consistently supported a greater number of threatened species. Main conclusions This research highlights that Australian cities are important for the conservation of threatened species, and that the species assemblages of individual cities are relatively distinct. National conservation policy should recognize that cities play an integral role when planning for and managing threatened species.

[1]  William Cronon,et al.  The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature , 1996, Environmental History.

[2]  Laurent Simon,et al.  Outstanding challenges for urban conservation research and action , 2014 .

[3]  P. Newton Human settlements: theme commentary prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee , 2006 .

[4]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Improving city life: options for ecological restoration in urban landscapes and how these might influence interactions between people and nature , 2012, Landscape Ecology.

[5]  R. Hobbs,et al.  Time since fire influences food resources for an endangered species, Carnaby’s cockatoo, in a fire-prone landscape , 2014 .

[6]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Conservation Where People Live and Work , 2002 .

[7]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Transparent planning for biodiversity and development in the urban fringe , 2012 .

[8]  M. Mcdonnell,et al.  The future of urban biodiversity research: Moving beyond the ‘low-hanging fruit’ , 2013, Urban Ecosystems.

[9]  Ken Thompson,et al.  A global synthesis of plant extinction rates in urban areas. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[10]  J. D. Pilgrim,et al.  Wilderness and biodiversity conservation , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Bill Slee,et al.  Resolving production-environment conflicts: the case of the Regional Forest Agreement Process in Australia , 2001 .

[12]  M. Alberti The Effects of Urban Patterns on Ecosystem Function , 2005 .

[13]  K. Parris,et al.  Biotic effects of climate change in urban environments: The case of the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) in Melbourne, Australia , 2005 .

[14]  C. Mason Thrushes now largely restricted to the built environment in eastern England , 2000 .

[15]  P. Quintana‐Ascencio,et al.  Isolated Wetland Loss and Degradation Over Two Decades in an Increasingly Urbanized Landscape , 2013, Wetlands.

[16]  J. S. Cavin Beyond prejudice: Conservation in the City. A case study from Switzerland , 2013 .

[17]  K. Seto,et al.  Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  E. Sanderson,et al.  The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild , 2002 .

[19]  Robert I. McDonald,et al.  The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation , 2008 .

[20]  Liana N. Joseph,et al.  Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study , 2012, Oryx.

[21]  G. Luck,et al.  A review of the relationships between human population density and biodiversity , 2007, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[22]  M. Mcdonnell,et al.  Range expansion due to urbanization: Increased food resources attract Grey-headed Flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) to Melbourne , 2006 .

[23]  The future face of conservation: could it be female? , 2013, Oryx.

[24]  P. Eby,et al.  The distribution, abundance and vulnerability to population reduction of a nomadic nectarivore, the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus in New South Wales, during a period of resource concentration , 1999 .

[25]  M. Schwartz,et al.  Conservation's Disenfranchised Urban Poor , 2002 .

[26]  M. Friedl,et al.  A new map of global urban extent from MODIS satellite data , 2009 .

[27]  Ulla Mörtberg,et al.  A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.