Explore the vast range of titles available.

Society is increasingly concerned with declining wild bee populations. Although most bees nest in the ground, considerable effort has centered on installing 'bee hotels'--also known as nest boxes or trap nests--which artificially aggregate nest sites of above ground nesting bees. Campaigns to 'save the bees' often promote these devices despite the absence of data indicating they have a positive effect. From a survey of almost 600 bee hotels set up over a period of three years in Toronto, Canada, introduced bees nested at 32.9% of sites and represented 24.6% of more than 27,000 total bees and wasps recorded (47.1% of all bees recorded). Native bees were parasitized more than introduced bees and females of introduced bee species provisioned nests with significantly more female larva each year. Native wasps were significantly more abundant than both native and introduced bees and occupied almost 3/4 of all bee hotels each year; further, introduced wasps were the only group to significantly increase in relative abundance year over year. More research is needed to elucidate the potential pitfalls and benefits of using bee hotels in the conservation and population dynamics of wild native bees.

Green roofs are novel ecosystems that are increasingly common in cities. While their hydrologic and energy saving benefits are well‐established, green roofs have also been proposed as having significant value for conserving biodiversity. We evaluate six hypotheses that describe the purported biodiversity conservation benefits of green roofs. Green roofs largely support generalist species particularly insects, but their conservation value for rare taxa, and other taxonomic groups especially vertebrates, is poorly documented. Further, their ability to replicate biotic communities in the context of ecological restoration is largely untested, as is their potential to connect ground‐level habitats. Synthesis and applications. Given the evidence, green roof proponents should use restraint in claiming conservation benefits and it is premature for policymakers to consider green roofs equivalent to ground‐level urban habitats. Ecologists need to work with the industry to evaluate green roof biodiversity and help design green roofs based on ecological principles to maximize biodiversity gains.

As urban areas expand, understanding how ecological processes function in cities has become increasingly important for conserving biodiversity. Urban green spaces are critical habitats to support biodiversity, but we still have a limited understanding of their ecology and how they function to conserve biodiversity at local and landscape scales across multiple taxa. Given this limited view, we discuss five key questions that need to be addressed to advance the ecology of urban green spaces for biodiversity conservation and restoration. Specifically, we discuss the need for research to understand how green space size, connectedness, and type influence the community, population, and life-history dynamics of multiple taxa in cities. A research framework based in landscape and metapopulation ecology will allow for a greater understanding of the ecological function of green spaces and thus allow for planning and management of green spaces to conserve biodiversity and aid in restoration activities.

Background: Green roofs perform ecosystem services such as summer roof temperature reduction and stormwater capture that directly contribute to lower building energy use and potential economic savings. These services are in turn related to ecosystem functions performed by the vegetation layer such as radiation reflection and transpiration, but little work has examined the role of plant species composition and diversity in improving these functions. Methodology/Principal Findings: We used a replicated modular extensive (shallow growing- medium) green roof system planted with monocultures or mixtures containing one, three or five life-forms, to quantify two ecosystem services: summer roof cooling and water capture. We also measured the related ecosystem properties/processes of albedo, evapotranspiration, and the mean and temporal variability of aboveground biomass over four months. Mixtures containing three or five life-form groups, simultaneously optimized several green roof ecosystem functions, outperforming monocultures and single life-form groups, but there was much variation in performance depending on which life-forms were present in the three life-form mixtures. Some mixtures outperformed the best monocultures for water capture, evapotranspiration, and an index combining both water capture and temperature reductions. Combinations of tall forbs, grasses and succulents simultaneously optimized a range of ecosystem performance measures, thus the main benefit of including all three groups was not to maximize any single process but to perform a variety of functions well. Conclusions/Significance: Ecosystem services from green roofs can be improved by planting certain life-form groups in combination, directly contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. The strong performance by certain mixtures of life-forms, especially tall forbs, grasses and succulents, warrants further investigation into niche complementarity or facilitation as mechanisms governing biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationships in green roof ecosystems.

Cities play important roles in the conservation of global biodiversity, particularly through the planning and management of urban green spaces (UGS). However, UGS management is subject to a complex assortment of interacting social, cultural, and economic factors, including governance, economics, social networks, multiple stakeholders, individual preferences, and social constraints. To help deliver more effective conservation outcomes in cities, we identify major challenges to managing biodiversity in UGS and important topics warranting further investigation. Biodiversity within UGS must be managed at multiple scales while accounting for various socioeconomic and cultural influences. Although the environmental consequences of management activities to enhance urban biodiversity are now beginning to be addressed, additional research and practical management strategies must be developed to balance human needs and perceptions while maintaining ecological processes.

Rapid urbanization and the global loss of biodiversity necessitate the development of a research agenda that addresses knowledge gaps in urban ecology that will inform policy, management, and conservation. To advance this goal, we present six topics to pursue in urban biodiversity research: the socioeconomic and social–ecological drivers of biodiversity loss versus gain of biodiversity; the response of biodiversity to technological change; biodiversity–ecosystem service relationships; urban areas as refugia for biodiversity; spatiotemporal dynamics of species, community changes, and underlying processes; and ecological networks. We discuss overarching considerations and offer a set of questions to inspire and support urban biodiversity research. In parallel, we advocate for communication and collaboration across many fields and disciplines in order to build capacity for urban biodiversity research, education, and practice. Taken together we note that urban areas will play an important role in addressing the global extinction crisis.

Occupancy modelling has received increasing attention as a tool for differentiating between true absence and non-detection in biodiversity data. This is thought to be particularly useful when a species of interest is spread out over a large area and sampling is constrained. We used occupancy modelling to estimate the probability of three phylogenetically independent pairs of native-introduced species [Megachile campanulae (Robertson)-Megachile rotundata (Fab.), Megachile pugnata Say-Megachile centuncularis (L.), Osmia pumila Cresson-Osmia caerulescens (L.)] (Apoidea: Megachilidae) being present when repeated sampling did not always find them. Our study occurred along a gradient of urbanization and used nest boxes (bee hotels) set up over three consecutive years. Occupancy modelling discovered different patterns to those obtained by species detection and abundance-based data alone. For example, it predicted that the species that was ranked 4th in terms of detection actually had the greatest occupancy among all six species. The native M. pugnata had decreased occupancy with increasing building footprint and a similar but not significant pattern was found for the native O. pumila. Two introduced bees (M. rotundata and M. centuncularis), and one native (M. campanulae) had modelled occupancy values that increased with increasing urbanization. Occupancy probability differed among urban green space types for three of six bee species, with values for two native species (M. campanulae and O. pumila) being highest in home gardens and that for the exotic O. caerulescens being highest in community gardens. The combination of occupancy modelling with analysis of habitat variables as an augmentation to detection and abundance-based sampling is suggested to be the best way to ensure that urban habitat management results in the desired outcomes.

Urban ecosystems are rapidly expanding throughout the world, but how urban growth affects the evolutionary ecology of species living in urban areas remains largely unknown. Urban ecology has advanced our understanding of how the development of cities and towns change environmental conditions and alter ecological processes and patterns. However, despite decades of research in urban ecology, the extent to which urbanization influences evolutionary and eco‐evolutionary change has received little attention. The nascent field of urban evolutionary ecology seeks to understand how urbanization affects the evolution of populations, and how those evolutionary changes in turn influence the ecological dynamics of populations, communities, and ecosystems. Following a brief history of this emerging field, this Perspective article provides a research agenda and roadmap for future research aimed at advancing our understanding of the interplay between ecology and evolution of urban‐dwelling organisms. We identify six key questions that, if addressed, would significantly increase our understanding of how urbanization influences evolutionary processes. These questions consider how urbanization affects nonadaptive evolution, natural selection, and convergent evolution, in addition to the role of urban environmental heterogeneity on species evolution, and the roles of phenotypic plasticity versus adaptation on species’ abundance in cities. Our final question examines the impact of urbanization on evolutionary diversification. For each of these six questions, we suggest avenues for future research that will help advance the field of urban evolutionary ecology. Lastly, we highlight the importance of integrating urban evolutionary ecology into urban planning, conservation practice, pest management, and public engagement.

The development of buildings and other infrastructure in cities is viewed as a threat to local biodiversity and ecosystem functioning because natural habitat is replaced. However, there is momentum for implementing green infrastructure (GI), such as green roofs, wetland detention basins and community gardens, that partially offset these impacts and that benefit human health. GI is often designed to explicitly support ecosystem services, including implied benefits to biodiversity. The effects of GI on biodiversity have been rarely quantified, but research on this topic has increased exponentially in the last decade and a synthesis of the literature is needed. Here, we examined 1,883 published manuscripts and conducted a meta‐analysis on 33 studies that were relevant. We determined whether GI provides additional benefits to biodiversity over conventional infrastructure or natural counterparts. We also highlighted research gaps and identified opportunities to improve future applications. We determined that GI significantly improves biodiversity over conventional infrastructure equivalents, and that in some cases GI had comparable measures of biodiversity to natural counterparts. Many studies were omitted from these analyses because we found GI research has generally neglected conventional experimental design frameworks, including controls, replication or adequate sampling effort. Synthesis and applications. Our synthesis identified that taxa specificity is an important consideration for green infrastructure (GI) design relative to the more common measurements at the community level. We also identified that ignoring multi‐trophic interactions and landscape‐level patterns can limit our understanding of GI effects on biodiversity. We recommend further examination of species‐specific differences among infrastructures (i.e. green, conventional or natural equivalents) or using functional traits to improve the efficacy of GI implementation on urban biodiversity. Furthermore, we encourage policy makers and practitioners to improve the design of GI to benefit urban ecosystems because of the potential benefits for both humans and global biodiversity. Our synthesis identified that taxa specificity is an important consideration for green infrastructure (GI) design relative to the more common measurements at the community level. We also identified that ignoring multi‐trophic interactions and landscape‐level patterns can limit our understanding of GI effects on biodiversity. We recommend further examination of species‐specific differences among infrastructures (i.e. green, conventional or natural equivalents) or using functional traits to improve the efficacy of GI implementation on urban biodiversity. Furthermore, we encourage policy makers and practitioners to improve the design of GI to benefit urban ecosystems because of the potential benefits for both humans and global biodiversity.

• Background and Aims Green roofs are constructed ecosystems where plants perform valuable services, ameliorating the urban environment through roof temperature reductions and stormwater interception. Plant species differ in functional characteristics that alter ecosystem properties. Plant performance research on extensive green roofs has so far indicated that species adapted to dry conditions perform optimally. However, in moist, humid climates, species typical of wetter soils might have advantages over dryland species. In this study, survival, growth and the performance of thermal and stormwater capture functions of three pairs of dryland and wetland plant species were quantified using an extensive modular green roof system. • Methods Seedlings of all six species were germinated in a greenhouse and planted into green roof modules with 6 cm of growing medium. There were 34 treatments consisting of each species in monoculture and all combinations of wet-and dryland species in a randomized block design. Performance measures were survival, vegetation cover and roof surface temperature recorded for each module over two growing seasons, water loss (an estimate of evapotranspiration) in 2007, and albedo and water capture in 2008. • Key Results Over two seasons, dryland plants performed better than wetland plants, and increasing the number of dryland species in mixtures tended to improve functioning, although there was no clear effect of species or habitat group diversity. All species had survival rates >75 % after the first winter; however, dryland species had much greater cover, an important indicator of green roof performance. Sibbaldiopsis tridentata was the top performing species in monoculture, and was included in the best treatments. • Conclusions Although dryland species outperformed wetland species, planting extensive green roofs with both groups decreased performance only slightly, while increasing diversity and possibly habitat value. This study provides further evidence that plant composition and diversity can influence green roof functions.