The idea of pest management has always been a topic in urban wildlife. Depending on opinion, every species known to man could be considered a nuisance animal. Canadian geese are no exception. From school yards, to neighborhood ponds, they are everywhere. Especially during the winter months in the southern United States, as that is their home range for the winter. Urban goose management is one of the biggest struggles in urban wildlife management, and the authors of this paper did their best to lay it out.

The authors laid out each individual idea of urban goose management in the paper. What the plan entails, how to carry out a successful execution of the plan, and the perceived results. They compared and contrasted several methods based on effectiveness, and legality. They also did a really good job of giving multiple different approaches to managing urban geese populations. If someone was in search of good ideas, this article would be a phenomenal place to start.

The biggest problem they laid out is the down right removal of the birds. Shooting geese in a school parking lot isn’t exactly legal, or the best idea. They laid that out really well. One thing that I have a problem with in the study is that they provide no statistical data to back up each method. Yes, they provide different methods, but there is no concrete evidence to compare and contrast with. The entire basis of science is having evidence to prove a hypothesis. The author’s intentions may not have been to make it scientific study, but there is no concrete evidence in writing that supports that claim. 

In the article there is a study included from a high school who had unsanitary conditions on their sports areas due to goose feces and feathers. They do a good job of explaining that the results of what they implemented were effective, but again no concrete evidence. This article really lacks, but it is definitely a good way to start thinking about management practices.

https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/13/1/28/6883996

Urbanization is an obvious problem for multiple species of wildlife. Dependency on humans, and boldness are two of the largest effects urbanization has on species. One species in particular being the Eastern Gray Squirrel. From eating bird feed from backyards, to eating out of people’s hands, it shows that they have shifted from their natural avoidance of humans. A study conducted in Boston Commons, a 50 acre urban park in downtown Boston, shows this perfectly.

The study conducted on the boldness of the Eastern Gray Squirrel divides Boston Commons into 5 sectors, two of which had dense tree cover, while the others contained mostly grassland and scattered trees. All quadrants are surrounded by roadway, so noise pollution and distractions could be factors in results. The experimenter in the study observed squirrels in each quadrant 3 times for periods of 20-60 minutes throughout the month of March. It is important to note that this is around spring breeding times for squirrels, and could see increased activity and boldness. The experimenter observed squirrels feeding, how quickly the squirrels fled, how bold they were, or if they were conducting other activities. 

It is important to understand that this study has many flaws. One being that it is only a regional study, in a park setting. Boston has vastly different weather conditions in March than in say the Midwest. Only being a regional study, it can be hard to determine if the behavior in that specific region can correlate to different environments. Not only that, it is important to realize that another flaw in the sampling is that the study is at a time of peak activity, and no other time of the year. Squirrels breed and produce young between February and May. What if another study was conducted in July, when temperatures peak? Lack of consistency is also important to consider. A human body was introduced when seeing how bold the squirrels would be when presented with a nut in a hand. Some squirrels took it, and some didn’t. Humans aren’t perfect, and there is no control group in the study.

Overall the study does a great job of highlighting the problems of urbanization for squirrels. In the wilderness, a squirrel will not just walk up to an out of place object, a human, and accept a nut from their hand. It is just not realistic in their natural environment. An urban squirrel taking a nut from hand not only shows they don’t fear natural predators anymore, but they may be becoming dependent. No study is without flaw, and I think this could be a great resource in future research, to help raise awareness about problems of species urbanization.

Responses of urban gray squirrels (Scurius carolinensis) to humans and conspecifics in an area of Boston Common

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534722003329

Ever since the dawn of time several thousands of years ago, there has been light. Along with that light there have been thousands of species affected by such light. Although known that light pollution causes wildlife conflicts, according to the authors, “…artificial light was only referenced as a pollutant and entered the lexicon of peer-reviewed scientific literature in the past 50 years…” Commonly confused with astrological light pollution, light pollution with effects on wildlife was coined, “ecological light pollution.”

In the study it is reported that lights are not the specific cause of death to the migratory species, but alter the behavior of said species in dramatic ways. Artificial light can disrupt migration patterns, and timing. But, it is not just during the night that this occurs, as the authors presented claims that lights during the day may be a cause of bird collisions. We know that birds often collide with buildings during the day, as I have seen it happen, but is it specifically lights being the cause? Not only has it been reported that light affects migratory birds, but some insects as well have been known to be attracted to light. Moths and grasshoppers being some of them.

The article presents an interesting idea that there are three main areas of conflict that wildlife, specifically migratory wildlife, face when it comes to light pollution. That being on the macro scale, the regional scale, and the local scale. The local scale being your cities, individual structures, and sometimes even vehicles. The regional scale being obviously based on what region it is in, most specifically areas of major migration (flyways). And macro being large scale, like hemispherical regions. 

The authors of the article don’t do a very good job in explaining the study method. Yes, it is understandable that it is hard to study wildlife deaths due to light pollution because there is no control. You can’t physically have a control group in the study. It was just acknowledged how many birds were found dead throughout a certain period in a certain area. The article reports that 40,000 birds have been recorded dead by collisions with lighted buildings since 1978. It is also important to acknowledge that the authors understand the lack of control group, and the lack of organization in the study. The information was very hard to understand as well, as it was organized in a complicated manner for me.

Overall, the authors presented what evidence they had, and the potential reasonings why. Although the evidence may be collected in a non-controlled manner, I still think the article and study both serve the purpose of presenting the case of light pollution and its effects on wildlife.

Carolyn S. Burt, Jeffrey F. Kelly, Grace E. Trankina, Carol L. Silva, Ali Khalighifar, Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Andrew S. Fox, Kurt M. Fristrup, Kyle G. Horton,
The effects of light pollution on migratory animal behavior,
Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
Volume 38, Issue 4,
2023,
Pages 355-368,
ISSN 0169-5347,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.12.006.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534722003329)
Abstract: Light pollution is a global threat to biodiversity, especially migratory organisms, some of which traverse hemispheric scales. Research on light pollution has grown significantly over the past decades, but our review of migratory organisms demonstrates gaps in our understanding, particularly beyond migratory birds. Research across spatial scales reveals the multifaceted effects of artificial light on migratory species, ranging from local and regional to macroscale impacts. These threats extend beyond species that are active at night – broadening the scope of this threat. Emerging tools for measuring light pollution and its impacts, as well as ecological forecasting techniques, present new pathways for conservation, including transdisciplinary approaches.
Keywords: artificial light at night; avian; light pollution; human–wildlife conflict; migration

I

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1202115/full

The article I chose to critically review discussed the drivers of plant biodiversity in urban landscapes. Before opening the article, I had a very vague outline of the drivers, but didn’t really know enough to teach someone about the subject. They do a great job discussing Urban Green Space, and how those spaces function inside of an Urban Functional Unit. This is something important to discuss because come to find out, the presence of Urban Green Space is single handedly one of the largest drivers of plant biodiversity.

The authors describe their experiment as taking small test plots, a different size for each type of plant they are looking to collect data on. I think this poses a problem with some of the results. By surveying a large plot for the number of trees vs a smaller plot for the number of shrubs and herbaceous, there could be a big difference in the number of plants, and the standard deviations across the various plots. The reasoning behind this may be due to the fact that trees cover significantly less surface area than some shrubs or herbaceous vegetation, but I think it is more important to keep a constant in the study, which the scientists failed to do.

Another thing that I find interesting is the failure of the scientists to post somewhat readable data. All of the visual charts that the scientists posted in the article were very hard, almost impossible to read. This very well could be a technology failure and not a failure of the scientists, but it is a very interesting thing to make note of.

The thing the authors do really well is laying out the information found in the study very clearly. They make sure that each individual driving factor is explained really well, and give ample reasoning why each driving factor is a driving factor. It is laid out very clearly as well, and is easy for someone who may not be used to reading scientific information, especially myself. 

Overall, the authors did a really good job of writing the article. There may be some questions about the process of surveying the plants, but the factors that were done well supersede those in my opinion. It was easy to understand, and yielded a happy reader with more understanding of the topic.