4.6 Article

Urban densification causes the decline of ground-dwelling arthropods

Journal

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
Volume 23, Issue 8, Pages 1859-1877

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-014-0689-3

Keywords

Urban densification; Ground-dwelling arthropods; Rove beetle; Ground beetle; Spider; Urban landscape

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Urban densification is often considered has a green planning policy. However, its effects on woodland arthropods have been rarely analysed. To fill this gap, a multi-taxa approach using three ground-dwelling arthropod assemblages was conducted on 11 woodlands located along an urbanisation gradient. The gradient range from rural areas to one of the most urbanized cities in the world: Paris (France). Spiders, ground beetles and rove beetles were sampled with pitfall traps. We addressed the two following questions: (i) do the responses to urbanisation differ between taxa and/or between trait groups (habitat affinity to woodlands and dispersal capability) along the gradient? (ii) do the richness and abundance show a linear or an intermediate response? Our results showed a replacement of forest and non-flying species by generalist species and flying species with an increasing level of urbanisation. In term of species richness and abundance, the response varied between taxonomical and also trait groups. Some groups showed a strong linear decrease like forest carabids but other groups like spiders showed maximum values at intermediate levels of urbanisation. However, after a threshold of 70 % of built-in area, urbanisation negatively affected the species richness of all taxa and almost all trait groups, with a stronger effect on forest species. We suggest that the urban densification strongly impacted the assemblages of ground-dwelling arthropods by modifying both landscape and local properties of woodlands. To be considered as a green planning policy, the deleterious effects of urban densification should be mitigated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available