Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2022View details →

Biodiversity of urban floras of the Urals and Volga region

The dataset, “Biodiversity of urban floras of the Urals and Volga region”, includes data on the composition of 19 urban floras located in the Sverdlovsk, Samara and Ulyanovsk regions, the Republic of Bashkortostan and the Udmurt Republic. The studied cities, according to the classification adopted in the Russian Federation, differ in population size into: small, with a population of less than 50,000 people (Kambarka, Krasnoufimsk, Mozhga, Novoulyanovsk, Sengiley, Turinsk), medium, with a population of 50,000-100,000 people (Votkinsk, Zhigulevsk, Ishimbai, Kumertau, Meleuz), large, with a population of 100,000-250,000 people (Dimitrovgrad, Kamensk-Uralsky, Salavat, Sterlitamak), very large, with a population of 250,000-1,000,000 people (Izhevsk, Tolyatti, Ulyanovsk) and a city with a population of over 1 million people – Yekaterinburg. In the urban flora 2050 plant species were recorded, and synonymy was aligned with The Plant List (http://www.theplantlist.org). The dataset provides information about the distribution of each species in studied urban floras as well as grouping of species into native plants, neophytes and archaeophytes.   The general list of vascular plants of the analyzed urban flora is compiled on the basis of the authors' own field research. All types of habitats (natural, semi-natural and artificial) were examined. Our direct observations were supplemented with information from herbarium collections: the Museum of the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SVER), Ural Federal University (UFU), Kurgan State University, Udmurt State University (UDU), South Ural Botanical Garden-Institute, Institute of Ecology of the Volga River Basin of the Russian Academy of Sciences (PVB RAS). Published sources were also consulted (Ilminskikh et al., 1998; Rakov, 2003; Rakov, Saxonov, 2008; Kornilov et al., 2012; Mogutova Mountain..., 2013; Rakov et al., 2013; Golovanov, Abramova, 2014a; 2014b; Baranova, Bralgina, 2015; Golovanov et al., 2015; Golovanov et al., 2017; Golovanov, 2018).   In the general list of vascular plants, native and alien species were identified. Alien species are understood as plant species either unintentionally introduced into our region as a result of human economic activity, or as ornamental or purposefully introduced species found outside their cultivation areas (Tretyakova, Shurova, 2013; Baranova et al., 2018). Alien species, depending on the time of their appearance in the flora, are traditionally divided into two groups: archaeophytes and neophytes (Pysek et al., 2004). Archaeophytes are alien species that appeared in the study area before 1800, neophytes appeared after this date. The main sources for classifying archaeophytes and neophytes into groups were complete lists of flora of the Sverdlovsk Region (Knyazev et al., 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019a; b; 2020; 2021) and the Udmurt Republic (Baranova, Puzyrev, 2012), as well as lists of alien plants of the Samara and Ulyanovsk regions (Senator, Vasyukov, 2019), the Republic of Bashkortostan (Muldashev et al., 2017). The analysis also uses data from K. F. Ledebour (von Ledebour, 1842-1853), K. K. Klaus (Klaus, 1852), p. Korzhinsky (Korzhinsky, 1898), H. F. Lessing (Lessing, 1835), A. A. Bunge (Bunge, 1851), Y. K. Schell (Schell, 1880; 1883), O. and B. Fedchenko (Fedchenko, Fedchenko, 1894), which summarized information about the flora of the Urals and the Volga region, accumulated by the beginning of the XIX century.   In order to provide a single classification scheme in which each species is assigned to only one category, we used the approach described by La Sorte and co-authors (La Sorte et al., 2008). Species that were not identified exclusively as native were classified as archaeophytes if they were identified as archaeophytes in at least one urban flora. Similarly, species have been classified as neophytes if they have not been identified as archaeophytes in any urban flora and have been identified as neophytes in at least one urban flora. At the same time, preference is given to assigning an alien status to a species, because such species show the ability to settle in a secondary area. Among alien plants, preference has been given to the status of archaeophytes, due to their earlier appearance in new regions outside the primary range. Accordingly, species have been universally identified as archaeophytes if they are classified as archaeophytes in at least one urban flora (La Sorte et al., 2008).

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2022View details →

Asiantuntijakysely kaupunkibiotooppien monimuotoisuudesta ja kaupunkibiotooppikartta Suomen pääkaupunkiseudulla / Expert Questionnaire Results Regarding Biodiversity of Urban Biotopes and an Urban Biotope Map in Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland

(in English below) ASIANTUNTIJAKYSELY KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIEN MONIMUOTOISUUDESTA JA KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIKARTTA SUOMEN PÄÄKAUPUNKISEUDULLA Tausta ja tavoitteet Luonnonsuojelu on keskittynyt perinteisesti Suomessa tiettyihin lajeihin ja luontotyyppeihin, mikä ei välttämättä kuvaa erilaisten kaupunkiympäristöjen ekologisia arvoja kattavasti. Lisäksi tulisi huomioida eliöyhteisöjä, jotka turvaavat kestävän ja monimuotoisen ekosysteemien toiminnallisuuden. Tämän asiantuntijakyselyn tavoitteena oli selvittää, miten erilaiset kaupunkibiotoopit tukevat erilaisia ekologisten yhteisöjen monimuotoisuutta kuvaavia tekijöitä eri eliöryhmillä. Nämä monimuotoisuuden laatutekijät kuvaavat yhdessä biotooppien roolia kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuudessa, toiminnallisuudessa ja täten epäsuorasti myös mm. ekosysteemipalvelujen tarjoamisessa. Kyselyn tuloksia voidaan hyödyntää ekologisten arvojen turvaamiseksi paremmin osana kaupunkisuunnittelua tai kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuuden kattavan turvaamisen perustana. Kysely keskittyi pääkaupunkiseudun (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) biotooppeihin. Lisäksi asiantuntijat antoivat arvionsa biotooppipisteytyksen sovellettavuudesta muualla Suomessa. Kysely on kuvattu Terra-lehdessä (Jalkanen & Vierikko 2022) sekä Jalkanen ym. (2020). Menetelmät Kaupunkibiotooppien pisteytys Aineisto kerättiin internetkyselyllä 5.10.-21.11.2016 välisenä aikana. Kysely lähetettiin 38 paikalliselle lajiasiantuntijalle (Luonnontieteellisessä keskusmuseossa, Helsingin yliopistossa, Suomen ympäristökeskuksessa, ympäristökonsulttiyrityksissä ja luontojärjestöissä), joista 24 osallistui kyselyyn. Mukana olleet asiantuntijat (suluissa heidän lajiryhmänsä): <ul> <li>Heidi Björklund (Linnut)</li> <li>Tea von Bonsdorff (Sienet, muut kuin käävät)</li> <li>Eero Haapanen (Nisäkkäät, muut kuin lepakot)</li> <li>Nina Hagner-Wahlsten (Lepakot)</li> <li>Jari Kaitila (Perhoset)</li> <li>Jarkko Korhonen (Sienet, muut kuin käävät)</li> <li>Jaakko Kullberg (Perhoset)</li> <li>Eeva-Maria Kyheröinen (Lepakot)</li> <li>Esa Lammi (Putkilokasvit)</li> <li>Riku Lumiaro (Nisäkkäät, muut kuin lepakot)</li> <li>Sampsa Malmberg (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Ilpo Mannerkoski (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Olli Manninen (Käävät)</li> <li>Heikka Marttila-Tornio (Matelijat & sammakkoeläimet)</li> <li>Juho Paukkunen (Pistiäiset)</li> <li>Terhi Ryttäri (Putkilokasvit)</li> <li>Jarmo Saarikivi (Matelijat & sammakkoeläimet)</li> <li>Hannu Sarvanne (Linnut)</li> <li>Keijo Savola (Käävät)</li> <li>Ilkka Teräs (Pistiäiset)</li> <li>Stephen Venn (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Tarmo Virtanen (Perhoset)</li> <li>Terhi Wermundsen (Lepakot)</li> <li>Rauno Yrjölä (Linnut)</li> </ul> Asiantuntijat pisteyttivät kyselyssä 68 biotooppia sen mukaan, kuinka ne tukevat heidän lajiryhmiensä eri ominaisuustekijöitä. Jokainen biotooppi arvioitiin erikseen kunkin tekijän näkökulmasta. Pisteet annettiin 5-portaisella asteikolla (0–4; 0 alin). Asiantuntijoita ohjeistettiin miettimäään koko vuodenaikaiskiertoa (arvioimaan biotooppien merkitystä siis myös esim. talvehtimisen kannalta). Kysely perustui Vierikon ym. (2014) biotooppiluokitteluun seuraavin muutoksin: <ul> <li>Metsäbiotoopit jaettiin kahteen ikäluokkaan (30–100-vuotiaat ja yli 100-vuotiaat metsät)</li> <li>Piha-alueet jaettiin päällystettyihin ja maavaraisiin</li> <li>Tiiviiden pientaloalueiden ja townhouse-alueiden pihat lisättiin omana biotooppinaan</li> <li>Kalliolaet, -rinteet ja -seinämät sekä kivikot yhdistettiin samaksi biotoopiksi (paljaat kalliopinnat)</li> <li>Uimarannat, kanaalit ja rantaterassit yhdistettiin samaksi biotoopiksi (rakennetut rannat)</li> <li>Kiviseinät ja lintuluodot poistettiin</li> <li>Viherseinät lisättiin omana biotooppinaan</li> </ul> Biotooppien merkitystä kysyttiin seuraavissa eliöyhteisöjen monimuotoisuuden laatua kuvaavissa kategorioissa: <ol> <li>Lajirikkaus</li> <li>Vaatelias lajisto</li> <li>Biomassa</li> <li>Runsaus</li> <li>Tasaisuus</li> <li>Uniikkius</li> <li>Seudullinen edustavuus</li> <li>Herkkyys ihmissyntyisiä häiriöitä kohtaan</li> <li>Kytkeytyvyys</li> </ol> Asiantuntijat arvioivat lisäksi omien vastaustensa luotettavuutta, erikseen jokaisen tekijän kohdalla. Tässä aineistossa biotooppien pisteet on painotettu nousevan painokertoimen mukaan, jotta luotettavat vastaukset korostuvat epäluotettavia voimakkaammin. Luotettavuuskertoimet ovat 0, 1, 2, 4 ja 8, mitkä tarkoittavat “erittäin epäluotettavia”, “epäluotettavia”, “jonkin verran epäluotettavia”, ”melko luotettavia” ja ”erittäin luotettavia” vastauksia.  Biotooppipisteiden sovellettavuus muualla Suomessa Kyselyn jälkeen asiantuntijat arvioivat työpajassa, kuinka hyvin heidän vastauksiaan voi soveltaa muissa suomalaisissa kaupungeissa. Työpaja pidettiin 29.11.2016. Tarkka kysymyksenasettelu oli: Tämä kysely on laadittu Etelä-Suomen ja erityisesti pääkaupunkiseudun (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) näkökulmasta. Kuinka hyvin kyselyn tulokset kuvaavat eliöryhmäsi lajistoa muiden Suomen maakuntien kaupungeissa? Vastaa asteikolla 0–10 (0: tämän kyselyn tuloksia ei voi soveltaa lainkaan ko. maakunnan kaupunkeihin, 10: kyselyn tulokset soveltuvat erittäin hyvin ko. maakunnan kaupunkiluontoon). Vastaa myös, kuinka luotettavina vastauksiasi voidaan pitää asteikolla 0-3 (0: hyvin epäluotettavina, 3: hyvin luotettavina). Vastaa oman eliöryhmäsi näkökulmasta. Tässä aineistossa vastaukset näytetään alkuperäisinä, eli luotettavia vastauksia ei korosteta erikseen kuten biotooppipisteytyksessä. Aineistot: Aineistot ovat suomeksi (etuliite ”FIN”) ja englanniksi (”ENG”). Aineisto sisältää: <ul> <li>Monimuotoisuuden laatutekijöiden luonnehdinnat ja pisteytysohjeet (.pdf)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppien luonnehdinnat (.pdf)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppien pisteytys taulukkona (.xlsx)</li> <li>Taulukko vastausten sovellettavuudesta muualla Suomessa (.xlsx)</li> </ul> Taulukkotiedostoissa monimuotoisuuden laatutekijän tai eliöryhmän perässä oleva numero viittaa asiantuntijaan (esim. lintuja koskevissa sarakkeissa ”Lajirikkaus 1” ja ”Vaateliaat lajit 1” viittaavat saman lintuasiantuntijan vastauksiin). Asiantuntijoiden vastaukset on listattu satunnaisjärjestyksessä. Kaikki asiantuntijat ovat suostuneet heidän vastaustensa ja nimiensä julkaisemiseen kirjallisesti. KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIKARTTA Kansiossa "FIN_Kaupunkibiotooppikartta" on rasterimuotoinen kartta pääkaupunkiseudun kaupunkibiotoopeista paikkatietomuodossa. Kartta on luotu 2021 eri paikkatietolähteistä (ks. Jalkanen ym. 2020). Kaupunkibiotooppikartta mahdollistaa esimerkiksi monimuotoisuusarvojen tarkastelun pääkaupunkiseudulla yhdessä asiantuntijakyselyn tulosten kanssa. HUOM! Karttaa ei ole tarkoitettu sellaisenaan suunnittelukäyttöön. Minkäänlaisia takuita tulosten oikeellisuudesta, virheettömyydestä tai käytettävyydestä ei myönnetä. Kansiossa on seuraavat tiedostot: <ul> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartta (.tif) (CRS: EPSG 3902)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartan soluarvojen selitykset (.xlsx). Kaupunkibiotooppikartta käsittää 53 biotooppia/maanpeiteluokkaa, eli kaikkia asiantuntijakyselyn biotooppeja ei ole pystytty koostamaan kartalle.</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartan koostamisen ja lähtöaineistojen kuvaus (.pdf)</li> </ul> Kiitokset: Kiitämme Silviya Korpiloa, Susanna Lehvävirtaa ja Stephen Venniä avusta englanninnosten kanssa.  Viittausohje: Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Asiantuntijakysely kaupunkibiotooppien monimuotoisuudesta sekä kaupunkibiotooppikartta Suomen pääkaupunkiseudulla [Aineisto] https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6563190 Aineistoon tulee viitata käytettäessä. Viitteet: <ul> <li>Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Viheralueiden elonkirjo – Asiantuntijakysely ja luonnon monimuotoisuuden laatumittaristo kaupunkisuunnittelun tueksi. Terra 134: 207–223. https://doi.org/10.30677/terra.120163</li> <li>Jalkanen, J., Vierikko, K. & Moilanen, A. (2020) Spatial prioritization for urban Biodiversity Quality using biotope maps and expert opinion. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 49: 126586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126586.</li> <li>Vierikko, K., Niemelä, J., Salminen, J., Jalkanen, J. & Tamminen, N. 2014: Helsingin kestävä viherrakenne –Miten turvata kestävä viherrakenne ja kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuus tiivistyvässä kaupunkirakenteessa. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston yleissuunnitteluosaston selvityksiä 2014:27. Helsinki. 132 s.</li> </ul>   EXPERT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS REGARDING BIODIVERSITY OF URBAN BIOTOPES AND AN URBAN BIOTOPE MAP IN HELSINKI METROPOLITAN AREA, FINLAND Background and aim: Finnish biodiversity conservation has traditionally focused on certain species and biotopes, which does not necessarily describe urban areas’ ecological values in a comprehensive manner. In addition, focus should be put on ecological communities that enable resilient and diverse ecosystem functioning. The aim of this questionnaire was to determine how different urban biotopes support different biodiversity quality attributes of ecological communities of different higher taxonomic groups. Together these attributes describe biotopes’ support for sustainable urban ecosystem functioning and, thus, indirectly for ecosystem services provisioning. The results can be used to better preserve ecological values in urban planning and as a basis for comprehensive urban biodiversity conservation. The questionnaire focused on biotopes found in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area (HMA; municipal cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, and Kauniainen), Southern Finland. In addition, the applicability of the scoring elsewhere in Finnish cities was evaluated. The questionnaire is described in Terra (Jalkanen & Vierikko 2022; in Finnish with English abstract) and in Jalkanen et al. (2020). Methods: Scoring of urban biotopes The data was collected using an online questionnaire during 5.10.-21.11.2016. It was sent to 38 local taxonomic experts (from Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Finnish Environment Institute, environmental consultant firms, and local environmental NGOs), out of which 24 replied. Experts who participated were (their taxon): <ul> <li>Heidi Björklund (Birds)</li> <li>Tea von Bonsdorff (Fungi, other than polypores)</li> <li>Eero Haapanen (Mammals, other than bats)</li> <li>Nina Hagner-Wahlsten (Bats)</li> <li>Jari Kaitila (Butterflies)</li> <li>Jarkko Korhonen (Fungi, other than polypores)</li> <li>Jaakko Kullberg (Butterflies)</li> <li>Eeva-Maria Kyheröinen (Bats)</li> <li>Esa Lammi (Vascular plants)</li> <li>Riku Lumiaro (Mammals, other than bats)</li> <li>Sampsa Malmberg (Beetles)</li> <li>Ilpo Mannerkoski (Beetles)</li> <li>Olli Manninen (Polypores)</li> <li>Heikka Marttila-Tornio (Herpetofauna)</li> <li>Juho Paukkunen (Hymenoptera)</li> <li>Terhi Ryttäri (Vascular Plants)</li> <li>Jarmo Saarikivi (Herpetofauna)</li> <li>Hannu Sarvanne (Birds)</li> <li>Keijo Savola (Polypores)</li> <li>Ilkka Teräs (Hymenoptera)</li> <li>Stephen Venn (Beetles)</li> <li>Tarmo Virtanen (Butterflies)</li> <li>Terhi Wermundsen (Bats)</li> <li>Rauno Yrjölä (Birds)</li> </ul> In the questionnaire, the experts scored 68 local urban biotopes in terms of how well they support different biodiversity attributes of their taxonomic group. Each biotope was scored separately for every attribute. Scores were given on a 5-rank scale (0–4; 0 being the lowest). Experts were advised to consider all seasons (e.g., to consider the importance of the biotope also for wintering). We used the biotope classification from the expert questionnaire by Vierikko et al. (2014) with the following modifications: <ul> <li>Forest biotopes were further divided into two age classes (30-100 y. and over 100 y.)</li> <li>Yards were further divided into sealed and bare yards</li> <li>Densely-built residential gardens & townhouse gardens were added as a new biotope</li> <li>Outcrops, ledges, and rocky grounds were combined to one biotope (bare rocks)</li> <li>Beaches, canals, and terraced embankments were combined to one biotope (artificial shores)</li> <li>Stone walls and bird-colonized islets were excluded</li> <li>Green walls were added as a new biotope</li> </ul> The relevance of biotopes was evaluated for the following Biodiversity Quality attributes that describe or relate to the diversity of urban ecological communities: <ol> <li>Species richness</li> <li>Habitat specialist species</li> <li>Biomass</li> <li>Abundance</li> <li>Evenness</li> <li>Uniqueness</li> <li>Regional representativeness</li> <li>Sensitivity towards anthropogenic disturbance</li> <li>Connectivity</li> </ol> In addition, experts gave overall self-evaluated confidence rates for their answers concerning each attribute. In the data, biotopes’ scores are weighted by an increasing confidence coefficient in order to emphasize confident answers over non-confident ones. Confidence coefficients are 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 that refer to ‘very unconfident’, ‘unconfident’, ‘somewhat unconfident’, ‘somewhat confident’, and ‘very confident’ answers, respectively. Applicability of the urban biotope scores elsewhere in Finland After the questionnaire, experts assessed how applicable their answers are elsewhere in Finland. This task was done in an expert workshop on 29.11.2016. The exact question, given to the experts, was: This questionnaire is designed from Southern Finnish, and especially from the Helsinki Metropolitan area (cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) perspective. How well do the questionnaire results describe the species assemblages of your taxon found in cities in other Finnish provinces? Answer on a scale of 0-10 (0: the results of this questionnaire are completely inapplicable to the cities in the given province, 10: the results of the questionnaire apply very well to the urban nature of the given province). Also evaluate the confidence of your answers at the scale of 0-3 (0: very unconfident, 3: very confident). Answer from the point of view of your own taxon. In the data, the expert answers are reported as they were given, i.e., confident answers are not emphasized over non-confident ones like with biotope scores. Data: Data is provided in Finnish (files starting with ‘FIN’) and in English (‘ENG’). This data set includes: <ul> <li>Biodiversity Quality attribute descriptions and scoring instructions (.pdf)</li> <li>Urban biotope descriptions (.pdf)</li> <li>Table of urban biotope scores (.xlsx)</li> <li>Table of the applicability of biotope scores elsewhere in Finland (.xlsx)</li> </ul> In the tables, the Arabic number after the attribute or taxon name refers to the corresponding expert (i.e., under birds (‘Richness 1’ and ‘Specialist species 1’ refer to the answers of the same bird expert). Experts’ answers are listed in random order. All experts have agreed on publication of their answers and names using written informed consent. URBAN BIOTOPE MAP The folder ’ENG_UrbanBiotopeMap’ includes a raster-type GIS layer of urban biotopes in the Helsinki Metropolitan area. The map has been compiled from several GIS sources (see Jalkanen et al. 2020). The urban biotope map allows for example spatial analyses of biodiversity values together with the expert questionnaire results. OBS! The map is not meant for planning purposes. No warrant about the correctness, flawlessness, or feasibility of the results is given. The folder includes the following files: <ul> <li>The urban biotope map (.tif) (CRS: EPSG 3902)</li> <li>The explanation of the cell values of the urban biotope map (.xlsx). The urban biotope map comprises of 53 different biotopes/land cover types, i.e., every biotope asked in the questionnaire are not found in the map.</li> </ul> Acknowledgements: We thank Silviya Korpilo, Susanna Lehvävirta, and Stephen Venn for help with the English translations. How to cite: Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Expert questionnaire results regarding biodiversity of urban biotopes and an urban biotope map in Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland [Data set] https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6563190 Data should be properly cited when used. References: <ul> <li>Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Viheralueiden elonkirjo – Asiantuntijakysely ja luonnon monimuotoisuuden laatumittaristo kaupunkisuunnittelun tueksi (Biodiversity in urban green spaces: Expert questionnaire about urban Biodiversity Quality to support urban planning) . Terra 134: 207–223. https://doi.org/10.30677/terra.120163 [In Finnish with English abstract.]</li> <li>Jalkanen, J., Vierikko, K. & Moilanen, A. (2020) Spatial prioritization for urban Biodiversity Quality using biotope maps and expert opinion. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 49: 126586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126586.</li> <li>Vierikko, K., Salminen, J., Niemelä J., Jalkanen, J. & Tamminen, N. 2014: Sustainable green infrastructure of Helsinki – urban ecological research report and recommendations for the Helsinki master plan 2050. Strategic Planning Office of the City Planning Department of the City of Helsinki. Research report. [In Finnish with English abstract.] Available in: <a href="https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2014-27.pdf">https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2014-27.pdf</a> (Cited 16.1.2018). 132 pp.</li> </ul>

Fig. 5 in Urban biodiversity: Cuterebriasis in free-ranging Robinson's mouse opossum (Marmosa robinsoni) in the suburbs of Barranquilla, Colombia

Fig. 5. Second instar of Cuterebra sp. from M. robinsoni. Note the body spines appear evenly distributed in the larva's body.

Fig. 4 in Urban biodiversity: Cuterebriasis in free-ranging Robinson's mouse opossum (Marmosa robinsoni) in the suburbs of Barranquilla, Colombia

Fig. 4. Development stages of Cuterebra sp. found in different hosts of M. robinsoni. A. Second instar. B. Third instar.

Fig. 2 in Urban biodiversity: Cuterebriasis in free-ranging Robinson's mouse opossum (Marmosa robinsoni) in the suburbs of Barranquilla, Colombia

Fig. 2. Primers used to amplify and sequence the mitochondrial cytochrome Oxidase subunit I gene (COX1) of Cuterebra sp. List of primers: Droso-mt1490 5′- TTTCWACWAATCATAAAGATATYGG-3′, Droso-mt1729 5′-GGAGCYCCTGAYATRGCATTYCC-3′, Droso-mt1819 5′-GTRCCAGCYCCRTTTTCTAC-3′, Droso-mt2162 5′- CAACATTTATTYTGATTYTTTGG-3′, Droso-mt2169 5′-TAAACTTCAGGRTGWCCAAARAATCA-3′ y Droso-mt2680 5′-GYTAATCCWGTAAATAAWGG-3′.

Fig. 1 in Urban biodiversity: Cuterebriasis in free-ranging Robinson's mouse opossum (Marmosa robinsoni) in the suburbs of Barranquilla, Colombia

Fig. 1. Map of the Atlantic department of Colombia showing the four areas (red dots) of study of M. robinsoni: Palomar, Carreto, Luriza, and Zona Franca Celsia (visualized with Google Earth Pro). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 3. Free range M. robinsoni with interscapular wounds. A in Urban biodiversity: Cuterebriasis in free-ranging Robinson's mouse opossum (Marmosa robinsoni) in the suburbs of Barranquilla, Colombia

Fig. 3. Free range M. robinsoni with interscapular wounds. A. External appearance of bot fly larva wound. B. Extraction of Cuterebra sp. larvae.

opencc-zeroDec 2018View details →

Data from: Multi-scalar drivers of biodiversity: local management mediates wild bee community response to regional urbanization

It is critical to understand the specific drivers of biodiversity across multiple spatial scales, especially within rapidly urbanizing areas, given the distinct management recommendations that may result at each scale. However, drivers of biodiversity patterns and interactions between drivers are often only measured and modeled at a single scale. In this study, we assessed bee community composition at three time periods in 20 grassland and 20 agriculture sites located across two major metroplexes. We examined how local environmental variables and surrounding landscape composition impact bee abundance, richness, and evenness, including comparisons between groups with different nesting strategies and body sizes. We collected nearly 13,000 specimens and identified 172 species. We found that levels of regional land-use differentially impacted bee abundance and diversity depending on local habitat management. Specifically, within agriculture sites, bee richness was greater with increasing landscape-level semi-natural habitat, while in grassland sites, bee richness was similar across landscapes regardless of semi-natural habitat cover. Bee evenness at both site types declined with increasing landscape-level habitat heterogeneity, due to an increase of rare species at the grassland sites, but not in the agricultural sites; further indicating that diversity is driven by the interaction of local habitat quality and landscape-level habitat composition. We additionally found that agriculture sites supported higher abundances, but not richness, of small-bodied and below-ground nesting bees, while grassland sites supported higher abundances of above-ground nesting bees, and higher richness of large-bodied species. Increased levels of local bare ground were significantly related to multiple metrics of bee diversity, including greater below-ground nesting bee abundance and richness. Local floral richness was also significantly related to increases of overall bee abundance, as well as the abundance and richness of small bees. Overall, we suggest that local land managers can support bee abundance and diversity by conserving areas of bare soil and promoting native floral diversity, the latter especially critical in highly urban agricultural spaces. Our results provide the first documentation of significant interactions between local habitat management and landscape composition impacting insect communities in urban systems, indicating that bee conservation practices depend critically on land-use interactions across multiple spatial scales.

opencc-zeroSep 2019View details →

Data from: Temperature accounts for the biodiversity of a hyperdiverse group of insects in urban Los Angeles

The urban heat island effect is a worldwide phenomenon that has been linked to species' distributions and abundances in cities. However, effects of urban heat on biotic communities are nearly impossible to disentangle from effects of land cover in most cases because hotter urban sites also have less vegetation and more impervious surfaces than cooler sites within cities. We sampled phorid flies, one of the largest, most biologically diverse families of true flies (Insecta: Diptera: Phoridae), at 30 sites distributed within the central Los Angeles Basin, where we found that temperature and the density of urban land cover are decoupled. Abundance, richness, and community composition of phorids inside urban Los Angeles were most parsimoniously accounted for by mean air temperature in the week preceding sampling. Sites with intermediate mean temperatures had more phorid fly individuals and higher richness. Communities were more even at urban sites with lower minimum temperatures and sites located further away from natural areas, suggesting that communities separated from natural source populations may be more homogenized. Species composition was best explained by minimum temperature. Inasmuch as warmer areas within cities can predict future effects of climate change, phorid fly communities are likely to shift non-linearly under future climates in more natural areas. Exhaustive surveys of biotic communities within cities, such as the one we describe here, can provide baselines for determining the effects of urban and global climate warming as they intensify.

zenodo36/100

Figure 7. from Inventory of the Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera) in Komaba Campus of the University of Tokyo, a highly urbanized area in Japan - Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4981 (24 April 2015) https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.3.e4981

Figure 7. - Cluster analysis of Heteroptera assemblages in Komaba Campus and the six reference sites based on Jaccard distances.

opencc-by-4.0Feb 2017View details →

zenodo36/100

Figure 2. from Inventory of the Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera) in Komaba Campus of the University of Tokyo, a highly urbanized area in Japan - Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4981 (24 April 2015) https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.3.e4981

Figure 2. - The aerial photograph of the Komaba Campus (taken in 2009 by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan).

opencc-by-4.0Feb 2017View details →

opencc-zeroJun 2022View details →

Rare species biodiversity, socio-demographics and local and landscape characteristics in Northern California community urban gardens

Cities are sometimes characterized as homogenous with species assemblages composed of abundant, generalist species having similar ecological functions. Under this assumption, rare species, or species observed infrequently, would have especially high conservation value in cities for their potential to increase functional diversity. Management to increase the number of rare species in cities could be an important conservation strategy in a rapidly urbanizing world. However, most studies of species rarity define rarity in relatively pristine environments where human management and disturbance is minimized. We know little about what species are rare, how many species are rare, and what management practices promote rare species in urban environments. Here, we identified which plants and species of birds and bees that control pests and pollinate crops are rare in urban gardens and assessed how social, biophysical factors, and cross-taxonomic comparisons influence rare species richness. We found overwhelming numbers of rare species, with over 50% of plant cultivars observed classified as rare. Our results highlight the importance of women, older individuals, and gardeners who live closer to garden sites in increasing the number of rare plants within urban areas. Fewer rare plants were found in older gardens and gardens with more bare soil. There were more rare bird species in larger gardens and more rare bee species where canopy cover was higher. We also found that in some cases, rarity begets rarity, with positive correlations found between the number of rare plants and bee species and between bee and bird species. Overall, our results suggest that urban gardens include a high number of species existing at low frequency and that social and biophysical factors promoting rare, planned biodiversity can cascade down to promote rare, associated biodiversity.

zenodo36/100

Resources for studying the aesthetic and diversity values of plants and pets in shaping biodiversity loss belief among urban residents

Considering the issues of data transparency and the cost of reproduction, all data and code snippets of the study titled "From beauty to belief: The aesthetic and diversity values of plants and pets in shaping biodiversity loss belief among urban residents" are deposited here.

opencc-by-4.0May 2024View details →

opencc-zeroDec 2022View details →

Multiple ecosystem service synergies and landscape-mediation of biodiversity within urban agroecosystems

Ecosystem services are essential for human well-being, especially in urban areas where 60% of the global population will live by 2030. While urban habitats have the potential to support biodiversity and ecosystem services, few studies have quantified the impact of local and landscape management across a diverse suite of services. We leverage five years of data (>5,000 observations) across a network of urban gardens to determine the drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies. We found multiple synergies and few trade-offs, contrasting previous assumptions that food production is at odds with biodiversity. Furthermore, we show that landscape-level natural habitat cover interacts with local management to mediate services provided by mobile animals, specifically pest control and pollination. By quantifying the factors that support a diverse suite of ecosystem services, we highlight the critical role of garden management and urban planning for optimizing biodiversity and human benefit.

publicJun 2025View details →

A predictive approach to assess urban biodiversity and plan for future development scenarios

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicJun 2022View details →

Rare species biodiversity, socio-demographics and local and landscape characteristics in Northern California community urban gardens

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicDec 2017View details →

Data from: Biodiverse cities: the nursery industry, homeowners, and neighborhood differences drive urban tree composition

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.