Overview

The article I reviewed is Enhancing pollination supply in an urban ecosystem through landscape modifications by Davis et al. (2017), published in Landscape and Urban Planning. As urban farming becomes more common, understanding how to support pollinators in cities is increasingly important. This study examines whether converting small portions of turf grass into flowering habitat could increase pollinator supply and benefit urban agriculture. The researchers used Chicago, Illinois, as their study area and focused on modeling how different strategies for increasing floral resources, such as planting flowers in city parks, residential yards, or near community gardens, would impact pollination availability. The goal was to help city planners and residents find the most effective way to support pollinators and improve crop yields in urban gardens.

Methods

The researchers first mapped the locations of urban farms, community gardens, and home food gardens using Google Earth imagery. They then collected pollinator specimens from 15 community gardens across Chicago using colored pan traps filled with a detergent solution. Traps were arranged in a 3 x 3 meter grid, spaced one meter apart, with alternating colors, and left out for one daylight cycle each month during July, August, and September 2009.

Specimens were preserved in ethanol and later identified to genus or species. Using this field data, the team validated the InVEST pollination model, which uses land cover, nesting resources, and floral resources to predict pollinator abundance. They then modeled several scenarios simulating the conversion of one to five percent of Chicago’s turf grass to pollinator-friendly flower gardens in different locations, including city parks, private yards, and areas within varying distances of community gardens, to compare how each strategy affected pollination supply across the city.

Results

The study found that augmenting floral resources can increase pollination supply in Chicago, but the most effective strategy depends on the type of urban agriculture. For home gardens, distributing flowers throughout the city was most beneficial, while concentrating flowers near community gardens and urban farms provided the greatest pollination benefits for those larger sites. The InVEST model predicted 46 percent of the variation in native bee richness, indicating that it can reliably identify areas with high or low pollination potential. The results highlight that city parks, forest preserves, and green spaces act as pollination hotspots, whereas downtown and heavily industrialized areas may have lower pollination supply.

Fig. 1. Study area (Chicago, Illinois)with inset of United States.

Fig. 2. Map of pollination supply score and location of sites used for model validation, i.e. sites where bees were collected.

Fig. 4. Effect of landscape modification scenarios on pollination supply scores.

Critiques and Reflection

While this article provides valuable insight into the role of bees in urban pollination and demonstrates how modifying turf grass can enhance pollinator supply for both residential and commercial agriculture, it has some limitations. One notable omission is the lack of consideration for other important insect orders, such as Diptera (flies) and Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), which also play critical roles in pollination. Including these groups could provide a more complete understanding of urban pollinator communities.

The study excels in highlighting the underutilized potential of urban green spaces, particularly turf grass and ornamental plantings, and shows how thoughtful landscape modifications can provide both ecological and economic benefits. However, greater attention could be given to the use of native plantings, which not only offer nectar resources but also serve as host plants for pollinators, contributing to the restoration of urban biodiversity and supporting the life cycles of native insects.

Despite these limitations, the article provides strong empirical evidence for the importance of maximizing the ecological value of urban green spaces. It demonstrates that targeted interventions, such as converting portions of turf grass to flower gardens, can meaningfully enhance pollinator populations and improve urban agricultural productivity, making it a valuable resource for both researchers and urban planners.

Reference 

Amélie Y. Davis, Eric V. Lonsdorf, Cliff R. Shierk, Kevin C. Matteson, John R. Taylor, Sarah T. Lovell, Emily S. Minor. (2017). Enhancing pollination supply in an urban ecosystem through landscape modifications, 162, 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.02.011

This study, “Reconciling cities with nature: Identifying local Blue-Green Infrastructure interventions for regional biodiversity enhancement,” was written by Donati et al. and published on August 15th, 2022. It seeks to answer the question of how we can better support regional biodiversity enhancement in cities through local Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) interventions. To address this, the researchers focused on how amphibian species are affected by urbanization, using the Swiss lowlands as a case study. Amphibians were chosen because they are particularly sensitive to environmental conditions compared to most other animal groups and because they depend on both terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

The researchers approached this question using habitat suitability models, high-resolution land cover data, and circuit theory models to assess biodiversity patterns in both urban and non-urban areas. In identifying the key habitat features that best support regional biodiversity enhancement, they found that stepping-stone areas allowing amphibians to move between habitats were the most important. The study highlighted features such as forest edges, wet forests, moist soils, and riparian habitats. From this, the researchers concluded that up to 15% of urban spaces could contribute to regional ecological connectivity if strategically planned and intentionally managed. Overall, the study shows that cities, if designed with biodiversity in mind, have the potential to significantly enhance ecological connectivity and support regional biodiversity.

This study is well-written and highly credible, being peer-reviewed and supported by a substantial amount of evidence. It does an excellent job of presenting its research, providing clear justification for its methodology, reasoning, and results. The focus on amphibians is particularly strong, as the authors clearly explain why this group was chosen and how it effectively demonstrates the value of biodiversity in urban contexts.

However, the study struggles somewhat with connecting its findings explicitly to the concept of BGI. BGI is often understood as engineered infrastructure—such as green roofs or rain gardens—designed to improve environmental outcomes in human-made spaces. In this study, however, BGI is framed more broadly, referring to the modification of human-used landscapes to support natural habitats and species. While this is a valid interpretation, the distinction could have been made clearer. Another limitation is the narrow applicability of the findings. Although amphibians are highly sensitive to anthropogenic impacts, results derived from their responses cannot be easily generalized to other species, such as birds or small mammals. This limits the study’s broader ecological relevance.

I personally found this study extremely interesting and eye-opening, particularly in its approach to using natural habitat features as a form of Blue-Green Infrastructure—an area of habitat management I had not previously considered. While this type of infrastructure was new to me, the results confirmed some of my assumptions about regional biodiversity enhancement in cities and also provided surprising insights. I was impressed by the depth of evidence presented, including the various mapping strategies that show cities can increase amphibian connectivity by up to 15% if key habitat features are intentionally incorporated. From this study, I have gained not only a better understanding of BGI but also an appreciation for the optimistic potential cities have to enhance biodiversity when environmental considerations are prioritized in infrastructure planning.

Overall, I found this study to be compelling and thought-provoking, proposing important ideas supported by strong data. While the study is well-executed in terms of methodology and reasoning, it does have some limitations. For instance, certain conceptual elements could have been expanded to make the findings more broadly applicable to other species and urban contexts.

The study effectively conveys its central message: cities can improve environmental conditions and support regional biodiversity if planners actively consider ecological factors in infrastructure design. Nevertheless, the work is far from exhaustive. Future research could explore how these interventions affect other species, such as birds or small mammals, and investigate practical strategies for implementing BGI in existing urban areas. Additionally, examining how cities can retrofit current infrastructure to better support biodiversity would further enhance the study’s practical relevance.

Donati, G. F. A., Bolliger, J., Psomas, A., Maurer, M., & Bach, P. M. (2022). Reconciling cities with nature: Identifying local Blue-Green Infrastructure interventions for regional biodiversity enhancement. Journal of Environmental Management, 316, 115254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115254

Crowley, S. L., Hinchliffe, S., & McDonald, R. A. (2017). Conflict in invasive species management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(3), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1471

The introduction and establishment of invasive species are leading causes in global biodiversity loss. These species not only actively outcompete native and endemic species that inhabit similar environments, but can also disrupt and alter their new habitat, completely shifting the ecological dynamics that exist within all components, both biotic and abiotic, of the system. The establishment of an invasive species can cause significant damage to the population of many native species, and can even lead to local and species extinctions.

Invasive species exist within the context of their environments. This means that just because a species may be considered invasive in one area, it is not by default deemed invasive in all locations. Additionally, not all introduced or non-native species are considered invasive. In fact, a majority of non-native and introduced species are not considered invasive to their introduced range. For an introduced species to be considered invasive, it had to produce some sort of harm, generally economically, environmentally, or to human health. This harm can be realized through a multitude of ways, including damaging agricultural fields and crops. Many invasive species have been known to negatively impact agriculture and farmland, costing both farmers and governments hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Additionally, invasive species can negatively impact human health by spreading diseases. An introduced species, acting as a vector, can spread pathogens to numerous individuals, resulting in the spread of both existing diseases and potentially new illnesses. If the introduced vector species fits the criteria of an invasive species, its ability to spread disease would be greater, resulting in an increased infection rate in the human population. This would result in significant economic damage, as governments would be required to develop treatments, medications, and vaccines, and mitigate the impacts of the invasive species. 

These species also disrupt ecological systems and cause significant environmental damage. Invasive species are often extreme generalist species, meaning that they thrive in a large variety of conditions; because of this, these species frequently outcompete native species for resources such as food, nesting locations, growing spaces, etc. Invasive species are also quite efficient at reproducing and spreading, allowing them to further establish and extend their range. These species also cause economic damage this way, as governments will frequently make efforts to combat the impacts of an invasive species once it has been established. These efforts are quite economically intensive and can cost governments millions of dollars.

This study, published by Crowley et al. in 2017, evaluated the patterns in which conflicts arise within invasive species management, as well as identifying some of the more divisive management strategies, and why some of these conflicts arise initially. Sociopolitical issues are a common ignition of conflict, as management strategies have differing impacts on different individuals, communities, and cultures. Another common cause of conflict is the typically used top-down control approach, as this method often fails to recognize the more minute details of the issue; this approach also isolates the general public from the issue, as centralized authorities are making the decisions. Once a conflict has been inflicted, Crowley et al. (2017) suggest that there are two main drivers in accelerating conflict: polarization, often driving discussions to feel black and white, and escalation, which occurs as the conflict and number of involved parties grow. Escalated conflicts are self-perpetuating and can often reach a point where “winning” becomes more prominent than the initial invasive species issue. This study suggests making shifts in our existing invasive species management practices by promoting more openness in communication, placing emphasis on the context of the ecosystem, and fostering early public involvement to generate more productive management strategies. 

Figure 1. 

This study recognises its own complexities by acknowledging that each situation is entirely unique and each of the variables within these situations is unpredictable. It, however, does not offer any solutions for how to account for this variability. Instead, it offers that individuals, when engaged in conflict, tend to behave in predictable ways, allowing researchers to identify these behaviors. One potential avenue for improvement would be to explore the correlation that exists between the number of variables involved in a situation and the unpredictability of the conflict. This would allow researchers to understand more specifically how these conflicts arise and accelerate. Furthermore, this study only briefly considers actual case studies. As a result, we can only consider invasive species management strategies and their consequential conflicts, hypothetically. Due to the constraints of this study, the authors were not able to observe these species and these practices in the field. A future study may benefit by assessing these conflicts and behavior patterns firsthand, with an actively invasive population currently undergoing management practices. Overall conclusions of the study suggest that wildlife managers and officials should put more energy into proactive and anticipatory invasive species management approaches, such as monitoring programs and preventive outreach initiatives. While this would be ideal when it comes to avoiding conflict within invasive species management, as you would have to interact with fewer stakeholders, it does not account for situations in which the invasive species are already established in a new habitat. The article goes on to explain the steps that Crowley et al. (2017) identified one should take in order to minimize the risk of conflict when planning and applying invasive species management strategies; however, I propose a further study that focuses only on established invasive species populations within a given area that are managed in different ways. This study would assess how conflict arises in similar settings, and would offer a more controlled version of the study, allowing us to identify ways to minimize conflict when managing already established invasive species. 

Background: The point of this study was to measure the effect that noise pollution, primarily automobile generated, affected wildlife populations close to the sources of noise. While there is much documentation about direct effects of noise pollution on wildlife species that have auditory senses, especially birds and mammals, this study was designed to look at the cascading effects of noise pollution on ecosystems and food webs as a whole. Additionally, the study wanted to see if the effects of noise pollution would reach communities in quiet ecosystems separated from the noise pollution that were adjacent to the area with the exposure. The hypothesis was that noise pollution has greater systematic and cascading effects on wildlife than previously widely known.

Methods: The study measured both forest and grassland ecosystems. Six treatment sites were chosen for each ecosystem, along with six control sites for each ecosystem. All of these sites were roadless, wild sites in their respective ecosystem that had negligible noise pollution. In treatment sites, artificial recorded traffic noises were played from stationary points, and the treatment zones were split into near and far groups at the 150 meter mark from the noise source. This point was chosen because that is the distance at which the decibels of the traffic noise were registered as the same as the constant decibels of the noiseless control sites. The decibels were also measured and that data provided to confirm the treatment zones were appropriate. After a period of time, species richness and abundance data was collected in each zone for birds, grasshoppers, which represented insects capable of hearing, and odonates, which cannot hear. 

Results: The results show that a statistically significant lower amount of bird richness and abundance was recorded at the sites close to the noise, but only in forest sites. Grasshoppers and odonates showed statistically significant lower amounts of richness and abundance at the sites farther away from the noise source. The study believes that this is proof of the cascading effect of noise pollution, and claims that the results support their hypothesis. The study claims the change in bird population is responsible for the change in insect populations, and therefore the claim of cascading effects of noise pollution is proven. 

Criticisms: The study looked at result categories in a very general sense. The results contained species richness and abundance for “songbirds” as a category. I think it may be more informative to, if possible, collect more specific species data to get a sense on if these noise conditions affect all songbirds equally. While the study is focused on communities as a whole and the cascading interactions between niches, I still think more specified species information could provide a clearer picture. It’s also not clear if species abundance and richness was measured in each site beforehand, or if only theorized. If it was measured, a figure with that data does not appear to be included. I would have liked to see this experiment done with a focus on change in richness and abundance before and after treatment, rather than raw numbers on richness and abundance, as that would more clearly indicated if the treatment had an effect on the animals, rather than some other effect, or preexisting conditions of the site. I also do not know if this study is truly enough to prove that noise pollution has cascading effects. Proof of changing results for insect populations can certainly be correlated with changing results for bird populations, but I don’t know if causality can be proven. How do we know the noise itself isn’t also responsible for insect population changes?

Citation: Sensaki, Mazayuki., Kadoya, Taku., and Francis, Clinton. Direct and indirect effects of noise pollution alter biological communities in and near noise-exposed environments. NIH National Library of Medicine. 2020 Mar 25. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32183626/

The process and expansion of urbanization is becoming an increasingly prevalent issue across the globe. Among the list of problems increased human-wildlife interactions creates, interactions with carnivores are one of the more serious. Some groups of carnivores, such as coyotes and red foxes, have begun to adapt their behaviors to better coexist with humans, whether that be through self-domestication or a more simple symbiotic relationship. However, the long term consequences and cascading effects of these new behaviors is unclear.

One British study published in 2020 focused on the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and their potential changes in behaviors of neophobia (fear of new things, or level of curiosity) and overall wariness of new and changing environments. The study notes that many British news articles and journals have discussed public discourse with the increase in red fox populations within their yards and common spaces, describing the canids as “bold.” However, they also explain that by continuing stereotypes of foxes being “sly” and “cunning,” it completely disregards the personalities that foxes (and many other animals) display, and causes more public issues in the long run. 

While this study is highly qualitative and variable based on scientists’ opinions, the methods for the study created very quantitative and concrete results. The mapping of the study area for six urban fox groups was tested through both radio-tracking and camera traps to identify the foxes’ territories and boundaries.

After firm boundaries for each group of foxes was determined, many smaller experimental areas were created in randomly selected gardens/yards within sparsely populated suburban areas. These areas were small circles cut into the lawns, divided into 4 quadrants: quadrant 3 facing the house, quadrant 1 being closest to the entry of the lawn (for the foxes), and quadrants 2 and 4 facing the sides of the yard. 

While results were conducted in batches to test seasonality (late November-early December 2014 and May 2015), the seasonality ended up not impacting the overall data (null). The recording equipment was to help provide identification of individual foxes (for personality and behavioral details) and for testing how curious foxes were based on the quadrants and areas they explored, in addition to a new or foreign object. To test wariness behaviors (“a response to a potentially threatening stimulus”), the study used garden twine that had been soaked in wolf urine. Figure 6 shows the placement of the foreign object in orange (neophobia test), and the placement of the urine soaked twine in blue.

The results were determined by how quickly the foxes would get to the food hidden with the new object, overcoming their neophobia, and the wariness related to the urine-soaked twine (all behaviors before and after this process were noted as well). The behaviors were described by specific standards and parameters as shown in table 2:

The overall results from both seasons of the study, with 2,127 visits from foxes, the classified “dominant” foxes were shown to have made more visits to the circle and quadrants than “subordinate” foxes. However, the dominant foxes would not explore nearly as much as subordinate foxes, leading to the conclusion that there is a strong relation between personality and neophobia and wariness. Additionally, while most of the visits were from foxes that were alone, these solitary fox visits also showed significantly more present behaviors of both neophobia and wariness, in comparison to foxes who visited the sites in groups. 

This data shows that the increased fox presence (or “nuisance” as depicted by public articles), is possibly being artificially selected for because of the availability of food, as many as 1 in 7 people put food out for the foxes. While the small complexities and details of fox personality and behavior were unable to be explored in this study due to scope and time, it opens the way for more understanding between human and fox populations. Especially in a time when more and more wildlife habitat is being encroached upon, finding ways to mesh big social and personal differences between species will become increasingly necessary. Conclusively, more research needs to be done on the intricate communities and the entire social network that occurs both with and without human intervention/interaction. This way, we can both reduce human-wildlife interactions and reduce the negativity explored by preconceived expectations and notions of various wildlife species.

Padovani, R., Shi, Z., & Harris, S. (2020, December 26). Are British urban foxes (Vulpes vulpes) “bold”? The importance of understanding human-wildlife interactions in urban areas. Ecology and Evolution, Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 835-851, https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7087 

This study focuses on the impact that urbanization and human interactions have on the gut microbiome of wildlife. These animals that come into contact with humans have shown that they have differences in their microbiome, rather than other animals of the same species that are deep in the woods with no human contact. The process of animal microbiomes becoming more like people’s is called “humanization” of their microbiome. This is a very important factor when studying human-animal interactions in urban areas, because these distinct changes are indicators of urbanization.

The research performed in this study was done on 3 different animals: anoles, coyotes, and sparrows. These animals were tested in both urban and rural areas around the world. Some samples were taken from Puerto Rico, some were from California, and others, like Venezuela or Cameroon. The diversity of the animals and places reduced the amount of bias and error that the results would show. The more diverse the location and the species of animal, the more reliable the data. To compare the animal microbiota findings, the researchers compared these microbes to humans. The more similar they were to humans, the more humanization that occurred in the animal’s microbiome.

The results of the research showed that the closer an animal lives to an urban area, the more their microbiome reflects humans. The closer animals were to humans, the more human-associated bacteria there were in their gut. This clear shift in microbiome contents between wildlife coming into contact with urban areas/cities versus wildlife that lives in the wild indicates a clear humanization of microbiomes in animals.

Some changes or improvements that I would make for next time would be to look into more of the causes of why humanization occurs, rather than focus on whether or not it occurs. With this research, we know that it does happen, but I think it would be of better use to know where it stems from. For example, do animals that eat human trash have an increased number of human-associated microbes? Is that the number one cause of humanization of animal microbiomes? If not, then what is? Though it is important to know that humanization of microbes exists, I think the next area of research needs to focus on how animals are at an increased risk of exposure to human microbes, as well as how that impacts them.

Citation: Dillard, B. A., Chung, A. K., Gunderson, A. R., Campbell-Staton, S. C., & Moeller, A. H. (2022). Humanization of wildlife gut microbiota in urban environments. eLife, 11, e76381. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76381

Overview

The article that I am reviewing is “Bat Activity in an Urban Landscape: Patterns at the Landscape and Microhabitat Scale” by Gehrt and Chelsvig (2003). This study addresses an important and often overlooked question in urban ecology: how do bats respond to increasing urbanization, and to what extent do both large-scale (landscape-level) and fine-scale (microhabitat) features influence their activity? Bats play a crucial ecological role as insect predators, yet research on their persistence in urban and suburban environments has historically lagged behind studies of more visible species.

The authors sought to answer two primary questions. First, they inquired about how landscape-scale variables, such as the proportion of forest cover or urban development, influence overall bat activity. Second, they examined whether microhabitat characteristics, including canopy cover, presence of water, and local vegetation structure, explain additional variation in bat activity beyond what can be predicted by landscape context alone. Together, these questions aimed to shed light on how bats navigate increasingly fragmented urban environments and what habitat elements are most critical for their persistence.

Methods

To investigate these questions, the researchers conducted acoustic surveys across multiple sites representing a gradient of urbanization. Ultrasonic bat detectors were used to record echolocation calls, which served as an index of bat activity. The study design incorporated two spatial scales of analysis. At the landscape scale, the researchers quantified features such as forest cover, urban development, and impervious surface area surrounding each site. At the microhabitat scale, they measured local site variables including canopy density, vegetation structure, and proximity to water.

Data collection took place during the summer months to coincide with peak bat activity. The researchers then analyzed bat “passes” (recorded calls) to determine how strongly activity correlated with both landscape and microhabitat variables, allowing them to separate broad-scale effects from those operating at the site level.

Results

The results revealed a clear pattern: bat activity declined as the amount of urban cover increased and was positively associated with forest cover. This suggests that bats are sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation at the landscape level. However, the study also found that microhabitat features significantly influenced bat activity even within similarly urbanized areas. Sites with dense tree canopy, well-developed vegetation structure, and water sources exhibited higher activity than sites lacking these features.

These findings demonstrate that landscape context and local habitat quality interact to shape bat distributions. Two sites with comparable levels of urbanization could display markedly different levels of bat activity depending on their microhabitat composition. This means that conserving or restoring key habitat elements at the local scale can have a meaningful impact on maintaining bat populations even within urban settings.

Critiques and Reflection

This study is commendable for highlighting that both large-scale and fine-scale habitat features must be considered when developing urban wildlife management strategies. Its reliance on acoustic monitoring was also useful, as it provided a non-invasive yet comprehensive method for assessing bat presence and activity across numerous sites. Furthermore, the study’s findings carry clear implications for urban planning, suggesting that preserving forest patches, maintaining tree canopy, and protecting water bodies can promote bat activity in otherwise developed landscapes.

Nevertheless, there are areas in which the study could be strengthened. The analysis aggregates overall bat activity rather than distinguishing among species or foraging guilds, which may obscure species-specific responses to urbanization. Some species may be more tolerant of urban settings than others, and identifying these differences would help refine conservation priorities. Additionally, the study’s temporal scope is limited; sampling across multiple seasons or under varied environmental conditions could reveal whether the observed patterns are consistent year-round. Finally, the article could have offered explicit management recommendations, such as quantifiable targets for canopy cover or patch size, that would be useful for city planners and conservation practitioners.

Despite these limitations, the study contributes meaningfully to urban ecology by illustrating that microhabitat improvements can mitigate some of the negative effects of urbanization on bats. It challenges the notion that urban areas are inherently unsuitable for wildlife and underscores the importance of intentional habitat design in cities.

Reference

Gehrt, S.D. and Chelsvig, J.E. (2003), BAT ACTIVITY IN AN URBAN LANDSCAPE: PATTERNS AT THE LANDSCAPE AND MICROHABITAT SCALE. Ecological Applications, 13: 939-950. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-5188

Overview

The title of the paper I will be reviewing is “Urban and Suburban Deer Management by State Wildlife-Conservation Agencies.” The primary reason this study was conducted is because of increasing populations of white-tailed deer in urban and suburban areas throughout the United States. Human-wildlife conflicts have increased as a result of this population growth, which has led to the implementation of various deer management strategies in urban areas. These strategies can either be lethal or nonlethal. Some examples of urban management strategies are bow hunting, firearm hunting, contraception, sharpshooting, trap-and-relocate, and trap-and-kill. There are significant amounts of data available regarding public opinion of various deer management methods in urban areas. However, there has been little effort to understand the management techniques that are preferred by wildlife biologists at state agencies. This study focused on two primary goals. The first of these was to determine what deer management techniques are currently being used by state conservation agencies, their perceived efficacy, and their legality. The second goal was to identify possible drivers for differences in opinions between deer biologists and the general public. 

Methods

The primary method of data collection used in this study was an online survey that was provided to deer biologists who worked at state wildlife agencies. The survey was sent to 41 different state agencies, and 34 of these agencies provided a response. The survey included 10 questions to be answered by deer biologists. These questions mainly focused on the management techniques currently being used in each state, their level of effectiveness, reasons for managing deer populations, and the legality of management techniques. 

Results

The results from this survey were informative for providing answers to the questions being answered by this study. The majority of states indicated that their urban/suburban deer populations were increasing, and the majority of deer biologists believed that urban/suburban deer populations were an issue in their state. One interesting finding was that 64.7% of deer biologists have not done any surveys of local communities regarding their opinions on urban/suburban deer management. The most popular and effective management techniques according to deer biologists were archery hunts, sharpshooting, and firearm hunts. The least popular methods according to deer biologists were trap-and-kill, contraception, sterilization, and trap-and-relocate. The legality of the previously mentioned methods is an influential factor for determining how much they are used in certain states. The vast majority of deer biologists indicated that the primary reasons for management of urban/suburban deer populations were deer-vehicle collisions and damage to gardens. Other popular reasons for management were native vegetation damage and agricultural damage due to deer populations. Additionally, 88.2% of states concluded that the current management of urban/suburban deer populations in their state was effective. 

Critiques/Reflection

This study was able to collect valuable information regarding the opinions of deer biologists on managing urban/suburban deer populations. Although deer biologists and the public commonly agree on the reasons for managing these deer populations (car collisions and garden damage), they have not been able to reach a consensus on the methods that should be implemented. The public is typically not heavily involved with decision making regarding urban deer management policies. This was shown in the survey results since 64.7% of state deer biologists have not made the effort to survey communities about their opinions on deer management. This study could be improved by asking an additional question relating to public opinions. Instead of simply asking if public opinion surveys had been conducted in each state, the questionnaire should have also asked for the reasoning behind this decision. If the state agencies chose not to involve public opinion when making decisions on urban/suburban deer management, then it would be valuable to know why this was the case. There could be a variety of reasons (lack of funds, lack of public interest, inability to reflect public opinion in policies, etc.) for not surveying public opinions, but this study does not provide data to answer this question.

Another suggestion to improve this study could be to modify the methods used for data collection. Overall, there was a high response rate to the survey that was sent to the state wildlife agencies. Although many of the agencies responded to the survey, increasing the amount of data collected would increase the reliability of the study’s findings. This study chose to send the survey in an email and then send a reminder email two weeks after the first email was delivered. I believe that choosing to send the reminder email was a beneficial idea, however, I think that this could be improved. Instead of solely communicating with the wildlife agencies through email, I think that the researchers should have made phone calls to the state wildlife agencies that had not responded to the survey. The agencies could have overlooked the email, or they may not have been certain about the legitimacy of the survey. By making a phone call to the agency, the researchers could have made a more personal connection to the deer biologists who work there. This could have led to higher response rates to the survey, which would have led to larger amounts of data being available to analyze for the study. 

Reference

Rachael E. Urbanek, et al. “Urban and Suburban Deer Management by State Wildlife-Conservation Agencies.” Wildlife Society Bulletin (2011-), vol. 35, no. 3, 2011, pp. 310–15. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/wildsocibull2011.35.3.310. Accessed 11 Sept. 2025.

Background and Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of remote sensing and GIS to manage urban ecosystems. The study takes place in West Africa which is a region that is experiencing high rates of urbanization. These two types of software can be used as a way to visualize and predict spatial features such as landscape, vegetation cover, water bodies, and human settlements as they change over time.

Methods:
The study analyzes three sites along the Ivory Coast: Abidjan, Accra, and Lagos. Image data from Google Earth Engine and USGS Earthexplorer were obtained. The image data were then analyzed to determine the Built-Up Index (permeable surfaces), Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, and Normalized Difference Water Index.

Results and Discussion:
The final results of the study were maps generated through remote sensing and GIS data that compare the three indexes mentioned in the paragraph above. The discussion highlighted that an increase in the Built-Up Index leads to a decrease in the other two indexes which points to negative effects from urban areas. The study then reiterates the usefulness in using GIS and remote sensing to create management plans for urban ecosystems.

Reasons for Selecting:

I have an interest in GIS and the data science aspect of ecology. I saw this study was fairly recent and involved something relevant to the class as well as my personal interest. I have some background knowledge of GIS and remote sensing but I wanted to learn more about new methods and how this topic specifically relates to urban wildlife management.

Critiques:

My initial thought was that this study was fairly short. Each of the sections were only a few paragraphs long and the bulk of the article’s length was taken up by images and references. The results and discussion were combined into one section that was less than a third of a page long. I would have liked to see more in depth explanations of each section. Also, the study didn’t seem like it discovered anything new or exciting. They just selected data that they wanted to represent and plugged it into ArcGIS. To me, it appeared that they were more so demonstrating what the software that can be used for rather than a new method.

References:

Oppong, J., Ning, Z. H., Twumasi, Y., Antwi, R. A., Anokye, M., Ahoma, G., Annan, J., Namwamba, J. B., Loh, P., and Akinrinwoye, C.: THE INTEGRATION OF REMOTE SENSING AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) IN MANAGING URBAN ECOSYSTEMS, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLVIII-M-3-2023, 169–175, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-M-3-2023-169-2023, 2023.