4.7 Article

A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.3330

关键词

anthropogenic activities; global biodiversity; native species; density of species; urbanization

资金

  1. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
  2. Praemium Academiae award (Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic)
  3. [RVO 67985939]
  4. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  5. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [0949036] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urbanization contributes to the loss of the world's biodiversity and the homogenization of its biota. However, comparative studies of urban biodiversity leading to robust generalities of the status and drivers of biodiversity in cities at the global scale are lacking. Here, we compiled the largest global dataset to date of two diverse taxa in cities: birds (54 cities) and plants (110 cities). We found that the majority of urban bird and plant species are native in the world's cities. Few plants and birds are cosmopolitan, the most common being Columba livia and Poa annua. The density of bird and plant species (the number of species per km(2)) has declined substantially: only 8% of native bird and 25% of native plant species are currently present compared with estimates of non-urban density of species. The current density of species in cities and the loss in density of species was best explained by anthropogenic features (landcover, city age) rather than by non-anthropogenic factors (geography, climate, topography). As urbanization continues to expand, efforts directed towards the conservation of intact vegetation within urban landscapes could support higher concentrations of both bird and plant species. Despite declines in the density of species, cities still retain endemic native species, thus providing opportunities for regional and global biodiversity conservation, restoration and education.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据