Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Seiten (von - bis) | 37-49 |
| Seitenumfang | 13 |
| Fachzeitschrift | Basic and applied ecology |
| Jahrgang | 89 |
| Frühes Online-Datum | 3 Okt. 2025 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - Dez. 2025 |
Abstract
Knowledge on the status and trends of biodiversity in urban areas is scattered and biased towards a few taxonomic groups, despite the fact that cities are where most humans get in touch with nature today. As part of the German Biodiversity Assessment (‘Faktencheck Artenvielfalt’), we conducted a nationwide review of published studies that recorded species occurrences in urban areas in Germany. We found that urban areas can host a large proportion of all plant, animal, and fungal species found in Germany, thus contributing to the nationwide conservation of biodiversity. However, compared to other habitat types outside of cities, the number of studies analysing the status and trends of urban biodiversity is relatively small. We could not identify a general trend over time for species diversity in German cities, based on the available studies. Even within individual species groups, there are combinations of declining, positive, and/or neutral trends. Information on population trends remains limited. Similarly, evidence of whether urbanisation promotes the homogenisation or differentiation of species groups is weak, with those groups investigated more thoroughly showing mixed patterns. With regard to biodiversity promotion, preserving the environmental heterogeneity that contributes to biodiversity is important, such as the maintenance of various habitat types (forests, parks, gardens, ponds, streams, etc.) that offer various food and nesting resources. Hence, the proportion of built-up impervious areas must remain limited, i.e. must not increase, and additional measures to promote biodiversity must be implemented. However, local authorities are largely ill-equipped to systematically monitor species occurrence across the variety of habitat types, or elements of green-blue infrastructure and taxonomic groups in cities. We discuss these findings, considering international urban biodiversity assessments and suggest key attributes of an effective national monitoring system to support urban biodiversity conservation and enhancement.
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
- Agrar- und Biowissenschaften (insg.)
- Ökologie, Evolution, Verhaltenswissenschaften und Systematik
Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
in: Basic and applied ecology, Jahrgang 89, 12.2025, S. 37-49.
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Status and trends of Germany's urban biodiversity
T2 - A nationwide assessment and identified knowledge gaps
AU - Wellmann, Thilo
AU - Knapp, Sonja
AU - Albert, Christian
AU - Egerer, Monika
AU - Fischer, Leonie K.
AU - Kaiser, Josef
AU - Kramer-Schadt, Stephanie
AU - Mascarenhas, André
AU - Ristok, Christian
AU - Sporbert, Maria
AU - Straka, Tanja M.
AU - Strohbach, Michael W.
AU - Bleidorn, Christoph
AU - Marx, Jori Maylin
AU - Xylander, Willi E.R.
AU - Keil, Peter
AU - Haase, Dagmar
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2025
PY - 2025/12
Y1 - 2025/12
N2 - Knowledge on the status and trends of biodiversity in urban areas is scattered and biased towards a few taxonomic groups, despite the fact that cities are where most humans get in touch with nature today. As part of the German Biodiversity Assessment (‘Faktencheck Artenvielfalt’), we conducted a nationwide review of published studies that recorded species occurrences in urban areas in Germany. We found that urban areas can host a large proportion of all plant, animal, and fungal species found in Germany, thus contributing to the nationwide conservation of biodiversity. However, compared to other habitat types outside of cities, the number of studies analysing the status and trends of urban biodiversity is relatively small. We could not identify a general trend over time for species diversity in German cities, based on the available studies. Even within individual species groups, there are combinations of declining, positive, and/or neutral trends. Information on population trends remains limited. Similarly, evidence of whether urbanisation promotes the homogenisation or differentiation of species groups is weak, with those groups investigated more thoroughly showing mixed patterns. With regard to biodiversity promotion, preserving the environmental heterogeneity that contributes to biodiversity is important, such as the maintenance of various habitat types (forests, parks, gardens, ponds, streams, etc.) that offer various food and nesting resources. Hence, the proportion of built-up impervious areas must remain limited, i.e. must not increase, and additional measures to promote biodiversity must be implemented. However, local authorities are largely ill-equipped to systematically monitor species occurrence across the variety of habitat types, or elements of green-blue infrastructure and taxonomic groups in cities. We discuss these findings, considering international urban biodiversity assessments and suggest key attributes of an effective national monitoring system to support urban biodiversity conservation and enhancement.
AB - Knowledge on the status and trends of biodiversity in urban areas is scattered and biased towards a few taxonomic groups, despite the fact that cities are where most humans get in touch with nature today. As part of the German Biodiversity Assessment (‘Faktencheck Artenvielfalt’), we conducted a nationwide review of published studies that recorded species occurrences in urban areas in Germany. We found that urban areas can host a large proportion of all plant, animal, and fungal species found in Germany, thus contributing to the nationwide conservation of biodiversity. However, compared to other habitat types outside of cities, the number of studies analysing the status and trends of urban biodiversity is relatively small. We could not identify a general trend over time for species diversity in German cities, based on the available studies. Even within individual species groups, there are combinations of declining, positive, and/or neutral trends. Information on population trends remains limited. Similarly, evidence of whether urbanisation promotes the homogenisation or differentiation of species groups is weak, with those groups investigated more thoroughly showing mixed patterns. With regard to biodiversity promotion, preserving the environmental heterogeneity that contributes to biodiversity is important, such as the maintenance of various habitat types (forests, parks, gardens, ponds, streams, etc.) that offer various food and nesting resources. Hence, the proportion of built-up impervious areas must remain limited, i.e. must not increase, and additional measures to promote biodiversity must be implemented. However, local authorities are largely ill-equipped to systematically monitor species occurrence across the variety of habitat types, or elements of green-blue infrastructure and taxonomic groups in cities. We discuss these findings, considering international urban biodiversity assessments and suggest key attributes of an effective national monitoring system to support urban biodiversity conservation and enhancement.
KW - Biodiversity assessment
KW - Biodiversity dynamics
KW - Biotic homogenisation
KW - Conservation
KW - Germany
KW - Monitoring
KW - Species richness
KW - Urban biodiversity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105019615846&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.baae.2025.10.002
DO - 10.1016/j.baae.2025.10.002
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105019615846
VL - 89
SP - 37
EP - 49
JO - Basic and applied ecology
JF - Basic and applied ecology
SN - 1439-1791
ER -