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

This article addresses the increasing concerns, incidents, and potential issues stemming from negative human-wildlife interactions. The article does a good job of addressing the effects that management can have on populations rather than allowing them to persist uncontacted and without interference. Acknowledging that fragmentation can occur because of human management is an important part of what the article talks about, as well as that certain management practices promote plastic vs genetic change and why either would be aimed for as a goal.

The authors’ findings show that behavioral shifts in animals are directly correlated to how human/animal interactions tend to play out in urban environments vs non-urban environments. Often, new behaviors and plastic changes are passed down through generations in urban environments because human interactions tend not to be lethal, whereas genetic changes are often passed down in non-urban environments so that populations can survive. In urban environments, nocturnality, problem-solving, increased tolerance, diet niche shifts, and fear responses are all behaviors that urban wildlife species show to have developed through time. 

Soci-economic factors have been shown to impact human attitudes and interactions regarding wildlife. Low-income communities tend not to have access to substantial green spaces, vegetation, and other environmental problems. Increased negative interactions occur more frequently because of the limited space available and can cause many issues like property damage and even increased health risks. Because of the compounded factors, lower-middle to lower class income families and communities tend to have a much more negative attitude towards urban wildlife and are far more likely to have negative interactions.

Management practice has a significant impact on the current and future generations of urban wildlife, as the type of control used on populations influences the behaviors and perceptions of the animals. For example, mass rodenticides are one of the few practices that wipe out entire populations and are for the benefit of both humans and wildlife. By keeping these otherwise exponentially growing populations at bay, negative attitudes towards urban wildlife more broadly can be positively influenced and perceived. Single target removals and translocations are other methods of protecting wildlife and humans, specifically for larger animals. Oftentimes, wildlife will changes their behaviors and/or traits as to not draw attention to themselves and avoid having to have these interactions with wildlife management.

Overall, this article effectively highlights causation and impacts on wildlife in urban settings and how attitudes towards wildlife can be impacted. I think that certain methods could have been further explored and in more detail but I believe that it is an effective and productive article regardless.