Literature DB >> 30022525

Correcting common misconceptions to inspire conservation action in urban environments.

Kylie Soanes1,2, Michael Sievers1,2, Yung En Chee1, Nicholas S G Williams1, Manisha Bhardwaj2, Adrian J Marshall1, Kirsten M Parris1.   

Abstract

Despite repeated calls to action, proposals for urban conservation are often met with surprise or scepticism. There remains a pervasive narrative in policy, practice, and the public psyche that urban environments, although useful for engaging people with nature or providing ecosystem services, are of little conservation value. We argue that the tendency to overlook the conservation value of urban environments stems from misconceptions about the ability of native species to persist within cities and towns and that this, in turn, hinders effective conservation action. However, recent scientific evidence shows that these assumptions do not always hold. Although it is generally true that increasing the size, quality, and connectivity of habitat patches will improve the probability that a species can persist, the inverse is not that small, degraded, or fragmented habitats found in urban environments are worthless. In light of these findings we propose updated messages that guide and inspire researchers, practitioners, and decision makers to undertake conservation action in urban environments: consider small spaces, recognize unconventional habitats, test creative solutions, and use science to minimize the impacts of future urban development.
© 2018 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  保护政策, 新生境, 斑块大小, 城市保护, 城市多样性, 城市绿地; biodiversidad urbana; cities; ciudades; conservación urbana; conservation policy; hábitats novedosos; novel habitats; patch size; políticas de conservación; tamaño de fragmento; urban biodiversity; urban conservation; urban green space; área verde urbana

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30022525     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  6 in total

Review 1.  Urban biodiversity management using evolutionary tools.

Authors:  Max R Lambert; Colin M Donihue
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 15.460

2.  Direct and indirect effects of urban gardening on aboveground and belowground diversity influencing soil multifunctionality.

Authors:  Simon Tresch; David Frey; Renée-Claire Le Bayon; Paul Mäder; Bernhard Stehle; Andreas Fliessbach; Marco Moretti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Habitat provision is a major driver of native bird communities in restored urban forests.

Authors:  Elizabeth Elliot Noe; John Innes; Andrew D Barnes; Chaitanya Joshi; Bruce D Clarkson
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 5.606

4.  Socio-ecological connectivity differs in magnitude and direction across urban landscapes.

Authors:  Monika Egerer; Nakisha Fouch; Elsa C Anderson; Mysha Clarke
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-03-06       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Flower power in the city: Replacing roadside shrubs by wildflower meadows increases insect numbers and reduces maintenance costs.

Authors:  Karsten Mody; Doris Lerch; Ann-Kathrin Müller; Nadja K Simons; Nico Blüthgen; Matthias Harnisch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The Biological Deserts Fallacy: Cities in Their Landscapes Contribute More than We Think to Regional Biodiversity.

Authors:  Erica N Spotswood; Erin E Beller; Robin Grossinger; J Letitia Grenier; Nicole E Heller; Myla F J Aronson
Journal:  Bioscience       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 11.566

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.