In September of 2021, Merri K. Collins, Seth B. Magle, and Travis Gallo conducted a literature review of peer reviewed and scientific primary literature sources that had to do with urban wildlife from 2011-2020. In a previous literature review from 2012, Dr. Magle performed a similar review of primary literature articles from 1971-2010 also looking into urban wildlife. The original Magle paper found an increase in papers from 1971-2010 having to do with conservation, with the new paper finding an even larger increase.

This paper used literature criteria along with key words in order to find the sources. They searched on World of Science in the most high journals, along with the word urban, exurban, and periurban, but limited the search to just primary literature. They then organized their data into categories based of of areas of study, including animal behavior, conservation, ecology, general science, landscape ecology, and wildlife biology. They then broadened their search by using Google Scholar, and including the term wildlife with urban. They ended up adding spatial ecology and social science as two more areas of study in order to acomodate for the increase in articles written in those disciplines.

Once they collected all of the literature sources, they placed them into a table side by side with the table from the Magle paper from 2012. The data was the translated into a graph in order to show the extreme increase in urban wildlife papers since 2010, and can be found below.

This graph shows the uptick in publications from 1971-2020, but specifically from 2011-2020. In the original Magle paper, Magle has hypothesized this increase, and from the new paper, they expect an even greater increase.

The paper found the highest proportion of papers to be in the animal behavior discipline, followed by conservation, and then wildlife management. Mammal studies were the most common found, followed by bird studies. These scientists also made note of the fact that many of these articles came from North America, followed by Europe, with very little coming from Africa, South America, and lastly Asia.

After reading this literature review, I am hopeful that more and more research is being done in the urban wildlife field, especially in conservation. I do believe though that we need more research in areas that are underrepresented, along with more articles that are written in a more interdisciplinary way, as many of these issues can be tackled from different perspectives. I think it is interesting that animal behavior was the most common discipline articles were found in, as I would have originally thought it to be wildlife management.

I think that literature review papers can be very beneficial for public education, as they allow everyone to read, visualize, and understand trends in conservation and urbanization. Considering the majority of the population is projected to live in urban areas by 2050, it is important for people to learn the impact that this has on our natural lands and ecosystems. More wildlife biologists are focusing on urban wildlife research, which can only help us in the long run.

Merri K. Collins a, et al. “Global Trends in Urban Wildlife Ecology and Conservation.” Biological Conservation, Elsevier, 10 July 2021, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320721002883?casa_token=wYjg9uqo7sEAAAAA%3AXrA2S7D3aXz-rFSMBOzzI2JZXAsajrJFv8pk2uBBjEw-DX2CFM0gQHoYieIjrKYc_It00-ev-Voh.

We have all seen it, news articles on human wildlife conflicts with coyotes. These are never good interactions as most of the time coyotes are attacking someone’s pet. Sometimes you see videos of a coyote catching a squirrel and people get mad at the coyote for doing so. Why? He has to catch his own meal. He would be doing the same thing in the woods where you can’t see them. This article studied the effects on anthropogenic foods on urban and rural coyotes and tried to find a correlation with the coyotes that caused conflict and their anthropogenic food consumption and overall health.

Urban coyotes that were studied came from Edmonton and Calgary in Alberta, Canada. Rural coyotes came from Elk Island National Park and Ministik Lake. Elk Island National park is a fenced park and Ministik is a bird sanctuary closed to the public. Scat collection was a way they were studying food choices by coyotes in all locations. Edmonton produced 531 scats and Calgary produced 484 scats. Calgary was collected between 2006-2007 and Edmonton was collected between 2009-2012. I am not sure why they were collected this many years apart and I believe they should have been collected more closely in time. Cities can change a fair amount in 6 years and that can change the diet of these carnivores. Elk Island had 1221 scats and once again a big time difference; these were from 1994-2000. There was no scat collected in Minisitk but collected from Wasbasca, a nearby town that allowed the public to enter. In my opinion, none of this collection seems very consistent as many things can change in that wide of a time period. Hair collection was another way data was collected. It turns out you can understand an animals diet by examining different parts of their guard hairs. Hair was from live-trapped animals or from deceased animals via car collisions or hunting.

The results were similar to what one would expect. Urban coyotes had a more diverse diet than rural coyotes. Shocker right? But urban coyotes did contain more species diversity in their scat than did rural coyotes. This is likely due to pets and other urban-centered critters that have better success living in urban environment than a rural environment. Urban coyotes that were reported for conflict had diets that contained more of anthropogenic food sources, had a lower body class score and more likely had mange than rural coyotes. None of the rural coyotes reported appeared to be unhealthy. Contrary to what the media shows us, coyotes predated less on pets than other mammal classes. Urban coyotes predated more on smaller mammals than rural coyotes did but predated much less on larger mammals than rural coyotes do. Out of the urban coyotes that were reported were involved in a human-wildlife conflict, all of them showed signs of low body score or have a manage infestation. Rural coyotes reported in human-wildlife conflict all appeared healthy. Urban coyotes reported had a much lower protein intake and higher anthropogenic intake than rural coyotes.

Urban coyotes were shown to have a much higher diversity in caloric consumption than did rural coyotes. They proved that pets are one of the lowest predated on groups by coyotes no matter in urban or rural locations. Coyotes in an urban environment that were reported had lower quality health and were more likely to be to weak to hunt properly or were sick with mange. I was very intrigued in this research with my business being heavily revolved around human-wildlife conflict. Coyotes is a very common call I experience and it is likely they are feeding on pet chickens that are free ranging or just roaming through the yard. Rarely are they seen trying to attack any pets. I would have preferred that their data collection been closer together in time period. Having a range from 1994-2012 is a large time period and lots can change in an area resulting in change to a species’ diet and actions.

1. M. Murray et al., Greater consumption of protein‐poor anthropogenic food by urban relative to rural coyotes increases diet breadth and potential for human–wildlife conflict. Ecography. 38, 1235–1242 (2015).

As a rapidly urbanizing global society, there are more and more interactions between wildlife in urban areas. Urban ecology has been a relatively new field of study since its inception in the 1960s, with its initial focus on the negatives of human-wildlife interactions: disease transmission, nuisances, property damage, and direct conflicts resulting in injury or death. More modern research details the positives of urban wildlife interactions, such as keystone species and ecosystem services such as supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural). The perception of these interactions is greatly determined by the social and cultural factors within a given community. This paper summarizes the general body of research surrounding urban wildlife conflicts, detailing the extent to which they expand our understanding and the gaps and limitations of the studies. 

The paper’s overarching objective to demonstrate the effects of one’s societal context on perceptions of urban wildlife interactions was one of the largest takeaways I had from this critical review. The discrepancy between the perceived dangers and damage to property of urban wildlife interactions far exceeds the real likelihood, prompting many to eradicate species, hindering conservation efforts, and making poorly informed management decisions. Urban wildlife conflicts have more to deal with social and cultural factors than reality itself; the authors indicate the need for a more interdisciplinary framework in which urban wildlife conflicts are studied. More collaboration with economics, public health, sociology, psychology, and planning experts is necessary to gain a better understanding. 

In addition to improving the framework from which researchers approach urban wildlife conflicts, there is a need for better education about their true nature. A larger focus on the benefits of the interactions between wildlife, such as mental health benefits, is necessary. In a rapidly urbanizing world, people are becoming more detached and disenchanted from the natural world, which is associated with more mental health issues. An increasing body of research indicates the benefits of nature-based therapy, which public health officials overlook; they are more concerned about the individual’s lifestyle than the environment they are constrained to. Better education would midgate hysteria, increase the value society places on urban wildlife, and midgate poor management decisions.

Another takeaway from this paper was the unintended consequences of urban greening initiatives. Urban greening projects have the unintended consequence of creating a high disease hazard, even more so with projects to connect fragmented habitats through corridors. Improved green infrastructure can also increase the frequency of wildlife-vehicle collisions. The positive impacts of urban greening can not be overstated, but mitigating wildlife disease transmission and collisions should also be mitigated, which are not mutually exclusive. 

As a result of this critical review, my perspective on the body of research on urban wildlife interaction has broadened. I am more aware of the current gaps and limitations of existing research. In the same way, ecology seeks to unravel the complexities of the interactions between organisms. Still, urban ecology faces greater complexity as cities function as an ecosystem. An ecosystem with its own identity is influenced by countless factors such as culture, history, economy, and environmental interactions. This paper reinforces the importance of a multidisciplinary perspective within urban ecology. As a researcher, I find this paper incredibly helpful as it indicates research gaps that must be explored and expanded upon.

Source: Soulsbury, Carl D., and Piran C. L. White. “Human–Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas: A Review of Conflicts, Benefits and Opportunities.” Wildlife Research, vol. 42, no. 7, July 2015, pp. 541–53. bioone.org, https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14229.

I utilized Grammarly during the completion of this assignment.

It is quite known that bees are one of the most famous pollinators, as they are said to be one of the top pollinators. Many factors such as pesticides, introduction of pathogens, climate change and habitat fragmentation all negatively affect bees. But one factor, urbanization, seems to be still understudied. It seems that there is a mix of both negative and positive effects on bees with urbanization. Social bees seem to thrive in urban areas and have an increased survival, while bees that nest in soils seem to be negatively impact. With this study its objective was to determine how urbanization and plant availability affect the richness, species abundance, functional characteristics and composition of bee communities in medium-sized cities.

The study area were 6 cities located in Brazil (southern Minas Gerais, Brazil: Alfenas, Poços de Caldas, Pouso Alegre, Varginha, Três Corações and Lavras, figure below). The cities were primarily made up of urban ecosystems made up of x<170000 inhabitants, agricultural landscapes, and forest area. 21 locations were selected across the 6 cities selected, with each location having an increasing gradient of impervious coverage (Figure below). To evaluate bee community, an active capture method was used to sample the bees in the cities. Sampling was performed within a radius of 200m from the central point of each location. Bees were collected on each plant for an approximate of 10 minutes. If 5 minutes passed and no bee were observed then the next plant was observed. Sampling of plants was also performed during sampling of bees. Bees were characterized under 3 functional groups, these groups being social behavior, nesting habit, and trophic specialization. Social behavior had 3 subgroups highly eusocial, primitively eusocial and solitary. Nesting habit had 2 groups above ground nesting and below ground nesting. For trophic specialization 2 groups were considered, they were generalist or specialist.

From this study it found a total of 4279 bee specimens that belonged to the 5 subfamilies that occur in Brazil (Andreninae, Apinae, Colletinae, Halictinae and Megachilinae). In order the richness of the bees were Apinae, Halictinae, Megachilinae, Andreninae, Colletinae. Regarding plants a total of 858 plants of 190 species were found.

It was found that the total bee richness was mainly affected by impervious cover, grass cover, and landscape heterogeneity with a radius of 750m and 1000m. Impervious cover showed a negative effect on total richness in 1000m, while landscape heterogeneity showed a positive effect for 750m and 1000m. Grass cover was deemed important and was show in the models. (Figures below)

Richness of above ground nesting bees and generalist bees were influenced positively by the diversity of landscape radius of 750m and 1000m. The abundance and below ground nesting bees was influenced positively by an increase of grass cover in the 1000m radius.

The models that helped explain the bee community diversity to plants is added below.

Overall the study found that an increase of impervious cover led to a decrease of bee species richness, especially affecting ground nesting bees. But solitary bees abundance increase as grass cover increased. It found that greater landscape diversity in urban areas support species richness. The study helps argue for the need of habitat diversity and native plants for bees in urban environments.

I overall really enjoyed reading this study as I enjoy reading about insects and their relation to conservation, ecology, etc. Reading this study made me wonder what urban designs could help promote bee richness or promote the bee populations. I believe that if more bee friendly designs were implemented it could definitely help improve the species. Maybe a structure that could help solitary bees when an increase of impervious surfaces are abundant. I also wonder how this study would be in areas that have a higher urbanization rate. Would the results be similar or would the results be drastically different?

Tavares Brancher, K.P., Graf, L.V., Heringer, G. & Zenni, R.D. (2024) Urbanization and abundance of floral resources affect bee communities in medium-sized neotropical cities. Austral Ecology, 49, e13299. Available from: https://doi-org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1111/aec.13299