3 Wildlife in the City: Human Drivers and Human Consequences 1 2 3 4 Susannah B. Lerman *, Desiree L. Narango , Riley Andrade , Paige S. Warren , Aaron M. Grade5 and Katherine Straley5 1 USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA; 2Advanced Science Research Center, City University of New York, New York, New York, USA; 3School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA; 4Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA; 5Graduate Program in Organismic and EvolutionaryBiology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA Abstract on how built structures, species interactions and socio-cultural factors further influence The urban development process results in the local species pool. Within this context, we the removal, alteration and fragmentation of assess the ecosystem services and disservices provided by urban wildlife, how management natural vegetation and environmental features, decisions are shaped by attitudes and exposure which have negatively impacted many wildlife to wildlife, and how these decisions then feed species. With the loss of large tracts of intact back to the local species pool. By understanding wildlands (e.g. forests, deserts and grasslands), why some animals are better able to persist in and the demise of specific habitat features (e.g. human modified landscapes than others, land early successional habitat or native plants), managers, city planners, private homeowners many specialist species are filtered out from and other stakeholders can make better­ urban ecosystems. As a result, some argue that informed decisions when managing properties urbanization has a homogenizing effect on in ways that also conserve and promote wildlife. wildlife communities. However, these general patterns belie a high degree of variability in urban biodiversity patterns. In this chapter, we focus on vertebrate and invertebrate species that Introduction contribute to urban fauna (hereafter 'wildlife'). We review how wildlife species have responded More than half the world's population lives in to altered conditions of the urban environment, cities and suburbs (Grimm et al., 2008), and an with a focus on the environmental features and estimated 80% of the world's population will species traits that filter wildlife communities from live in urbanized areas by 2050 (United Nations the regional scale to the city scale. We also focus Department of Economic and Social Affairs, *Corresponding author: [email protected] © CAB International 2021. Urban Ecology: Its Nature and Challenges (ed. P. Barbosa) 37 1 38 © CAB lnternation Susannahu? -B.s-:-fe Lermanr a ,et ft~ al. _onal use of authors. Population Division, 2019). A consequence of to non-specialist species (McIntyre et al. , 2001; this migration to and expansion of cities includes Magura et al. , 2010). In addition, some taxo­ the degradation of wildlife habitat, with implica­ nomic groups, like pollinators, may also thrive in tions for local and regional biodiversity (Grimm urban landscapes due to increased resources. For et al. , 2008; Seto et al. , 2012). The urban devel­ example, a high diversity of bees can occur in ur­ opment process results in the removal. alteration ban areas (see Chapter 6, Protecting Pollinators and fragmentation of natural vegetation and en­ in the Urban Environment), likely due to abun­ vironmental features, which have negatively im­ dant flowers (Baldock et al. , 2015; Hall et al. , pacted many wildlife species (McKinney, 2002; 2017; but see McIntyre and Hostetler, 2001), Grimm et al. , 2008). Natural habitats transform which are available in untreated lawns (Lerman into human-dominated environments, which and Milam, 2016) and in cultivated gardens include residential developments, public parks, (Leve et al. , 2019). Herbivorous and predatory commercial/industrial districts, transportation insects also may be abundant in certain urban corridors and impervious surfaces (e.g. build­ habitats when resources are available, such as ings and roads), and become a prominent fea­ appropriate host plants and vegetative complex­ ture that supports a growing urban population. ity (Raupp et al. , 2010). However, despite high Urban wildlife studies commonly document a diversity, the species that colonize urban areas depauperate fauna in cities compared to their tend to consist of distinctly different suites of non-urban habitats, resulting in lower species species from those that remain in natural habi­ diversity (Emlen, 19 7 4; Beissinger and Osborne, tats (e.g. Bang and Faeth, 2011; LaSorte et al.. 1982; Mills et al.. 1989; Blair, 1996; Marzluff, 2018; Collado et al.. 2019). For mammals, gen­ 2001; Donnelly and Marzluff, 2004; Chace and eralist species such as raccoons (Procyon lotor) Walsh, 2006; Croci et al., 2008). With the loss may thrive at high densities and occupancies in of large tracts of intact wildlands (e.g. forests, some types of urban green space, but not in oth­ deserts and grasslands), and the demise of spe­ ers (Crooks and Soule, 1999; Parker and Nilon, cific habitat features such as early successional 2008; Gallo et al. , 2017). Thus, both the de­ habitat or native plants, many specialist species gree of urbanization and the quality of habitat are filtered out from urban ecosystems (Blair, within urban systems can have complementary 1996; Aronson et al. , 2016; Evans et al. , 2018). forces driving the particular animal species that As a result, some argue that urbanization has is able to occupy and thrive in urban systems. a homogenizing effect on wildlife communi­ In this chapter, we focus on vertebrate and ties (McKinney, 2006; Sol et al. , 2014; Knop, invertebrate species that contribute to urban 2016; Morelli et al. , 2016; Murthy et al., 2016; fauna (hereafter referred to as 'wildlife'). We re­ Salomao et al. , 2019), wherein invasive species view how wildlife species have responded to al­ (e.g. pigeons, Norway rats and cockroaches) tered conditions of the urban environment, with dominate. However, these general patterns belie a focus on the environmental features and spe­ a high degree of variability in urban biodiversity cies traits that filter wildlife communities from patterns. the regional scale to the city scale (Fig. 3.1). We Negative effects of urbanization on biodi­ also focus on how built structures, species inter­ versity are not ubiquitous across taxa. Indeed, actions and socio-cultural factors further influ­ some urban areas can support high levels of ence the local species pool. Within this context, biodiversity, and for some taxa, like birds, native we assess the ecosystem services and disservices species largely dominate urban communities provided by urban wildlife, how management (Aronson et al., 2014). Some invertebrates and decisions are shaped by attitudes and exposure mammals also respond positively to urban areas. to wildlife, and how these decisions then feed For example, in two separate studies, one from back to the local species pool (Fig. 3 .1). Our taxo­ Phoenix, Arizona, and the other a meta-analysis nomic focus includes birds, bees, lepidopterans, that included various cities in Europe, Japan and ground arthropods and mammals, as the major­ Canada, investigators found that ground arthro­ ity of research focuses on these groups (Pickett pod diversity did not differ between natural ar­ et al. , 2011; Beninde et al., 2015). We provide eas and various urban land areas, owing to the a global perspective when data and examples turnover of communities from habitat-specialist are available, though much of the available Wildlife in the City: Human Drivers and Human Consequences 39 Fig. 3.1. A series of interacting ecological and social factors determine the local species pool in urban systems. The potential wildlife species that occupy a particular city is first determined from the regional species pool, which is primarily dictated by climate and latitude. Species traits (e.g. diet and body size) and specific environmental features (e.g. urban form and land use) filter the regional pool to the urban species pool. Species interactions (e.g. predator-prey dynamics), the built structure (e.g. roads and buildings), and socio-cultural factors (e.g. income and attitudes) further filter which species persist into the local species pool. Overarching each of these hierarchical layers are governance structures (i.e. institutions, social norms and municipalities) that interact at various levels and degrees with the factors shaping the urban and local species pool. It is at the local species pool level that people have regular contact with wildlife species and experience ecosystem services and disservices. These interactions further affect attitudes towards local wildlife, which subsequently shape management decisions to either encourage or discourage certain species, which ultimately feed back into influencing the local species pool. (Animal images by Creazilla.com are licensed under CC BY 4.0 and were recoloured.) literature comes from North America, western intact natural areas. A unique contribution of Europe, Australia and New Zealand (Magle et al., this chapter is that we integrate a description 2012; McDonnell and Hahs, 2013; Goddard of the human drivers influencing urban wild­ et al., 2017). We review the literature on habitat life communities with discussion of potential use of urban green spaces within the urban and feedbacks to humans, particularly those at lo­ suburban