Value to wildlife of urban-agricultural parks: a case study from Rome urban area.

Urban-agricultural parks could have some advantages to wildlife because of less intensive agricultural procedures, absence of hunting pressure, and reduced human disturbance. In this study, the breeding and wintering bird communities and the small mammal community in an urban-agricultural park of Rome were compared to those of a close urban park and a close agricultural area just outside the city. The aim was to assess the best destination and management of wildlife in natural areas at the urban-rural interface. Richness and diversity of bird communities were higher in the urban-agricultural park. Due to habitat features and probably human disturbances, but not to urbanization, predation, and competition factors, the urban park drastically reduces the abundance of decreasing open-land bird species. Abundance of these species was not significantly different in the urban-agricultural park and in the agricultural area. In the urban-agricultural and urban park, bird and mammal pest species were more abundant than they were in the agricultural area. Regarding decreasing abundance of small mammal species, no significant difference among the study areas was observed. Urban-agricultural park is a better choice than urban park for wildlife. Thus, a higher number of preserved urban natural areas should be devoted to urban-agricultural parks. However, to increase the abundance of open-land species and in general wildlife, a less intensive management of cultivated and pasture patches is necessary.