Brazil, a global biodiversity hotspot, is home to an incredible 178 bat species, and surprisingly, nearly half of these species (84) have been documented in urban environments. In major cities like São Paulo to the urban forests in Rio de Janeiro, bats have found ways to coexist with humans in cities across the country.

Bats adapt by roosting in urban forest fragments, trees, and even man-made structures. Forest fragments are vital, especially for the third of species that rely solely on these green pockets for survival. Meanwhile, the flexible bats make use of a variety of human structures, from ceilings to abandoned buildings, proving their resilience in modified environments.

With 31 different plants supporting at least twelve species of bats, urban green spaces become essential food sources, offering fruits, nectar, and insect populations. Streetlamps attract insects, providing an easy meal for insectivorous bats, while others feast on the fruit-bearing trees of the city.

Bats, as reservoirs of zoonotic diseases, bring a unique public health dimension to urban wildlife. With parasites like rabies virus and Leishmania, monitoring urban bat populations becomes essential for public health. The study identifies 27 species carrying these zoonotic pathogens, highlighting the need for policies that balance bat conservation with public safety.

The authors emphasize that as urbanization expands, we need a conservation strategy for bats. Preserving urban green spaces and creating awareness about bats’ role in ecosystems—like pollination and pest control—are critical for harmonizing urban life with wildlife conservation.

Nunes, H., Rocha, F. L., & Cordeiro-Estrela, P. (2016). Bats in urban areas of Brazil: roosts, food resources and parasites in disturbed environments. Urban Ecosystems, 20(4), 953–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0632-3

Riparian zones are interfaces between freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. These zones provide several ecosystem services and support an immense amount of biodiversity. Riparian zones cover about 1% of southwestern North American landscape, yet the riparian zones contain an abundance of richness and wildlife. In western North America, most of these ecosystems have been degraded or altered. Efforts to restore these riparian ecosystems continue to grow and in urban settings watercourses are diverted from floodplains to protect urban infrastructure.

In this study they assess the responses of wildlife to habitat restoration and floodplain management efforts. The study site is located in Tucson, Arizona. Specifically, they assess communities of diurnal lizards and how they are affected by Pima County Regional Flood Control District efforts to flood control. Included in these efforts RFCD enhance habitats through vegetation seeding and planting, and water retention. The researched the lizards before and after the treatment in a nearby tributary and a major river course.

It was found that restoration efforts mitigated the impacts of flood control management and provided benefits for some species. A tradeoff was identified in the data as there were negative impacts identified in at least one species of lizard. Terrestrial species with faster maturity times recovered faster than arboreal species with longer maturity times. Also the data suggests that management efforts should be paired with restoration efforts to maximize human and wildlife benefits.

I honestly do not feel that the study could improve. I found zero areas to negatively critique. The researchers conducted this study over several years, they provided a control experiment testing the area before undergoing restoration and compared that to the data they collected after the restoration and management efforts. They also went into distinct detail on both trait-dependent variation responses and context-dependent variation responses using the hard data collected throughout the experiment. This experiment is solely based on the effects against diurnal lizards, but I feel this is great framework to conduct in several other species to compare if management and restoration efforts are positive and neutral to other species affected in the area.

Wyman, Jules T., et al. “Long-Term Impacts of Urban Floodplain Management and Habitat Restoration on Lizard Communities in a Sonoran Desert City.” Ecological Engineering, vol. 197, Dec. 2023, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2023.107121.

The human population in urban areas will increase by 2.7 billion from 2010 to 2050. Vertebrates such as amphibians are under threat, about 40% of amphibian species are threatened with extinction. Urban development affects around 950 amphibian species with extinction. This paper stresses the concerns about how amphibians are some of the least studied vertebrate groups in urbanized landscapes, and how most land management is derived from studies of a few common species mostly leaving out amphibians and in turn failing to cater to all affected species leading to a higher risk of decline.

The researchers studied the distribution of pond-breeding frogs during breeding season in an area consisting of rural, forests, and urban areas. The site was focused in southeastern Australia, specifically it was conducted between Nowra and Booderee National Park.

The area is mostly dominant with native eucalypt forests and wetlands, consisting of both urban and rural areas. The researchers surveyed a total of 28 ponds within the study area boundaries. Frog calls were recorded at ponds during breeding season as this is when peak calling activity occurs. The researchers did state that two sites were not surveyed in urban areas due to vandalism and access, which I thought interesting as this could skew the data, especially since we are specifically looking at urbanization effects.

Aquatic and terrestrial variables were measured, variables such as water body size, and cover of surface vegetation. For this study they also took into account an exotic fish species, the eastern gambusia, because of its negative impact on frog populations. Personally, I feel this is an important factor to consider when studying specific species. This framework could be implemented when studying other species, it would obviously vary based on location. I believe the measurement of the exotic fish factor to be short. The researchers performed one five-minute visual search and placed a trap in the pond for three days. I don’t believe that to be maximizing efficiency on that specific factor, but data was captured, nonetheless.

It was found that some frog species had a positive association to urbanization while others had a negative association. It is known that the number of roads has a negative correlation to frog species richness. The paper suggests biodiversity metrics such as total species richness may underestimate urbanization impacts. It is still suggested that urbanization is a key driver in loss of pond-breeding frogs in the study region. Only one breeding season was examined in this study, yet the researchers expect the patterns of occurrence to be common to what was quantified and reflected in this study. Ultimately it was concluded that uncommon frog species are more sensitive to terrestrial modification where common frogs respond more to local aquatic variables.

I felt this paper was great at identifying the environmental variables that correlated to uncommon and common frogs. I did feel the paper lacked the measurement of environmental conditions. An example would be humidity and soil moisture. I feel the study could have been constructed in the manner of grouping the different study sites based on these factors rather than consolidating them to a basic body of water label. Also, the sites were based on urban, rural, and forested areas, the lack of knowledge on the history of the urban study sites I feel affected the data presented. The reader does not know if the urban areas are settled, or newly constructed. I feel knowing if the frogs have adapted to the changed environment or are adapting is crucial to scaling the impact of urbanization.

Villasenor, Nelida R., and Don A. Driscoll. “The Relative Importance of Aquatic and Terrestrial Variables for Frogs in an Urbanizing Landscape: Key Insights for Sustainable Urban Development.” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 157, Jan. 2017, p. 26–35, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.006.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.576665

Growing urbanization has displaced many animals and has led to the rapid adaptation of animals across many taxa. Recently, it has been an area of study to determine what adaptations are taking place in order for species to be more fit for an urbanized environment. This article focuses on the different types of behavioral changes and which animal orders are being observed successfully adapting to urban environments. Among the 83 published papers that were included in this review, there were 44 distinct behaviors and 155 individual occurrences of behavior changes in urban areas. The observations, behaviors, and number of occurrences for each respective behavior change all have the potential to support successful urban wildlife management and conservation. 

Considering the issues with their methods of retrieving relevant peer-reviewed publications, the authors did not agree upon the definition of “urban” for their search engine. This led to a broad overview of papers that were not consistent with their determined levels of urbanization. Also, they excluded any articles that were not in English or reliably translated. Although this is purposeful in order to not misinterpret results/findings from the paper, this may also mean that there is a large body of literature that is not considered, which also limits the geographic scope of the literature review. This is demonstrated by the fact that 52% of their data was from North America, followed by 20.5% from Europe. Additionally, the authors did not include any papers that are inaccessible via university resources or general internet access. This makes it easy for readers/researchers to locate the literature cited and find the primary research, but the authors could have included a section encompassing data they accessed via communication with the primary research authors to expand the data set that they analyzed.

The results showed that the most abundant behavior type studied was the alert response, followed closely by spatial change. Alert response was seen as changes in vigilance/caution behavior and was shown to both increase and decrease in urban areas. Spatial behavior was commonly shown as a decreased home range. Other common trends were increased nocturnality, a shift in resource selection, increased boldness, and increased exploratory behavior. Behaviors were sorted by animal order and then within each order broken up by guild (carnivore, herbivore, omnivore). The results of this study could have included a snippet about broad behaviors like shifting resource selections to give the readers insight as to why an animal would be altering its food source (Was the shift in resources due to abundance? Nutrition levels?)

Although there is a clear indication that species are responding behaviorally to the urban environments, the authors suggest that there are underlying mechanisms like region/ resource availability that act as external factors to further effect the adaptive behavioral response. Future research can be improved by being more inclusive of mammalian species, herbivores (especially deer/raccoons), and being aware that behavior is multi-directional/fluctuating. Ultimately, this research can be insightful for city planners, wildlife managers, and urban residents since human-wildlife interactions may be resulting from these potentially predictable behavioral changes.

Ritzel, K., & Gallo, T. (2020). Behavior change in urban mammals: a systematic review. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 576665.