4.5 Article

Mammal conservation in a changing world: can urban gardens play a role?

期刊

URBAN ECOSYSTEMS
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 555-567

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11252-020-00935-1

关键词

Citizen science; Conservation; Gardens; Mammals; Urban ecology; Urbanisation

资金

  1. UWA School of Agriculture and Environment
  2. University of Western Australia
  3. Threatened Species Recovery Hub
  4. Western Australian Biodiversity Science Institute
  5. Australian Geographic Society
  6. Australian Government Research Training Stipend
  7. University of Western Australia Safety Net Top-up Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urbanisation threatens biodiversity globally, yet some animal populations persist within urban landscapes. Conservation of urban wildlife has prioritised parks and remnant bushland as critical habitat and neglected the role that residential gardens offer for conservation. We explored the potential for residential gardens to assist the conservation of mammals using an online questionnaire administered to residents of two case study cities in Australia to identify how widespread mammals in cities can be, which garden features promote mammal presence, and if the features varied among species with different habitat requirements. From 649 responses we found that three mammal species with different habitat requirements occurred in residential gardens throughout the city landscape. Garden features promoting mammal presence were consistent with broad ecological and habitat requirements of each species, but differed among both species and regions. Our study demonstrates that residential gardens offer a valuable habitat for mammals, and that garden features could be manipulated to promote use of gardens by these species. By considering gardens in urban planning and management actions aimed at conserving urban wildlife, residential gardens offer additional habitat to parks, roadside vegetation and urban bushland, and can play a significant role in biodiversity conservation.

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

4.5
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