Search

Urban areas represent a spectrum that goes from being safe habitats for biodiversity (i.e., habitats more or equally preferred, without costs to fitness) to being ecological traps (i.e., habitats more or equally preferred, but with costs to fitness). Given the imminent urban expansion, it is valuable to assess how biodiversity is responding to urbanization and thus generate timely conservation strategies. We systematically review the urban ecology literature to analyze how much do we know about the role of urban areas as ecological traps. Using a formal meta-analytical approach, we test whether urban areas are functioning as ecological traps or as safe habitats for different taxonomic groups. We generated a data set of 646 effect sizes of different measures of habitat preferences and fitness from 38 papers published between 1985 and 2020. The data set covered 15 countries and 47 urban areas from four continents, including 29 animal species. Studies from North America and Europe were best represented, and birds were the most studied taxa. Overall, the meta-analysis suggests that urbanized habitats are functioning more as safe sites than as ecological traps, mainly for certain species with characteristics that have allowed them to adapt well to urban areas. That is, many of the studied species prefer more urbanized habitats over other less urbanized sites, and their fitness is not modified, or it is even increased. However, there was high heterogeneity among studies. We also performed meta-regressions to identify variables accounting for this heterogeneity across studies and we demonstrate that outcomes may depend on methodological aspects of studies, such as study design or the approach used to measure habitat preference and fitness. More research is needed for poorly studied regions and on a wider range of species before generalizations can be made on the role of urban areas for biodiversity conservation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)