We are IntechOpen,

the world’s leading publisher of

Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists

5,300
Open access books available
132,000
International authors and editors
160M Downloads

Our authors are among the

154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

Interested in publishing with us?

Contact [email protected]
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter

Urban Ecosystem: An Interaction

of Biological and Physical
Components
Hassanali Mollashahi and Magdalena Szymura

Abstract

Urban ecosystems are composed of biological components (plants, animals,

microorganisms, and other forms of life) and physical components (soil, water,
air, climate, and topography) which interact together. In terms of “Urban Green
infrastructure (UGI)”, these components are in a combination of natural and
constructed materials of urban space that have an important role in metabolic
processes, biodiversity, and ecosystem resiliency underlying valuable ecosystem
services. The increase in the world’s population in urban areas is a driving force to
threat the environmental resources and public health in cities; thus, the necessity to
adopt sustainable practices for communities are crucial for improving and main-
taining urban environmental health. This chapter emphasizes the most important
issues associated with urban ecosystem, highlighting the recent findings as a
guide for future UGI management, which can support city planners, public health
officials, and architectural designers to quantify cities more responsive, safer places
for people.

Keywords: urban green infrastructure, connectivity, ecosystem services,

biodiversity, urban microbiome

1. Introduction

1.1 Urban ecosystem

Urban areas are composed of natural and constructed systems where human
population is more concentrated, and there are complex interactions between
socioeconomic factors and biophysical processes [1, 2]. In a city, an ecological
process often occur in habitat patches, which are connected by corridors in a matrix
of streets and buildings. The major ecological processes between/among habitat
patches include immigration and dispersal agents, also, ecological corridors that can
act as links or barriers for dispersal ability [2].
Due to transport networks cities are often the entry points of many alien species
[3]. Moreover, in contrast with non-urban areas, urban ecosystems have different
physical and chemical properties, which highly influence species distribution and
ecosystems functioning [4, 5]. As a whole, urban areas have been usually considered
novel in relation with their non-urban counterparts, which are comprised by a
variety of fragmented habitats [4]. Overall, in this novel ecosystems the restoration

1
Biodiversity of Ecosystems

ecology, conservation, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and climate change have

been the most discussed topics in literature [6].

1.2 Urban green infrastructure

Research on Green infrastructure (GI) started to gain more momentum from

2010 by becoming a motor theme of urban sustainability assessment for the first
time, which is strongly linked to issues such as climate change adaptation and
mitigation, microclimate regulation, and ecosystem services [7], suggesting that
urban green infrastructure is essential for achieving sustainability [8]. Regarding
the ‘green infrastructure’ sub-themes, analysis of the thematic networks shows
that more attention has been paid to the health and well-being impacts during this
period. It is also worth noting that in this period green infrastructure is closely
related to conservation which is another motor theme.
The term “Urban Green infrastructure (UGI)” refers to engineered and
non- engineered habitat structures in connection with natural and semi-natural
areas and other environmental features, which are designed to deliver enormous
ecosystem services from nature to people and to protect biodiversity [9]. In urban
landscapes, a GI may have different kind of components including green roofs,
bioswales, parks, protected areas like urban forests, road verges and other types of
soil-based, which are widely emerging across the world [10].
The “Green Infrastructure” has the ability to perform several function in the
same spatial area. In contrast to gray (or conventional) infrastructure which usu-
ally have one single objective, GI is multifunctional which means it can promote
win-win solutions or “small loss-big gain”, delivering benefits to a wide range of
stakeholders and public at large [10].
In line with Europe’s 2020 strategy, it can act as a catalyst for economic growth
by inward investment and generating employment, reducing environmental costs
and providing health benefits among others. This can contribute to the recovery
of Europe’s economy by creating green businesses and innovative approaches,
representing around 5% of the job market. For instance, the Hoge Kempen
National Park (6,000 ha) which is located in the eastern part of Belgium, the
investment to carry out improvement projects is raised up to €90 million and
generating €24.5 million per year in revenues from sustainable tourism alone. In
Sweden, 10,000 m2 of green roofs were installed and an open storm-water system
was built to improve environment both for people and nature, the entire project
cost around €22 million but the benefits that have been derived from this invest-
ment are already tracking up; for example, decreasing in rainwater runoff rates
by half, significant saving energy by residents, increasing the biodiversity by half,
unemployment has fallen from 30–6%, and turnover in tenancies is decreased
substantially [10]. More example is Canada where the economic value of 13 ES in
Canada’s Capital Region (Ottawa-Gatineau region) amounts to an average of 332
million dollars, and to a total economic value of over 5 billion dollars, annualized
over 20 years [11].

1.3 Ecosystem services

Cities are expected to grow rapidly in the coming decades, therefore, it is

important to understand urban ecosystem services and their values by city planners
and policymakers [12]. Many aspects of human wellbeing and economic activi-
ties rely on ecosystem processes, from food security which is rely on maintaining
soil fertility to filtering clean air and water by plants, and our mental and physical
health may depend on the accessibility to green spaces [13].

2
Urban Ecosystem: An Interaction of Biological and Physical Components
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97742

1.3.1 Categorization of ecosystem services (ES) at urban level

At urban level, ESs contribute in several ways to human wellbeing. They ensure
a better quality of life in cities by providing a wide range of benefits such as air
and water purification, local climate regulation, carbon sequestration and storage,
water and food provision, higher physical and psychological wellbeing, esthetic
appreciation and inspiration for culture, art, and design [14–17].
Several classifications of ESs have been provided, including; I) Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA) [18], II) The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity (TEEB) [19], III) The Common International Classification of ES
(CICES) [20], IV) and the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their
Services (MAES)—Urban ecosystems, 4th report [21].
The MAES Urban only considers those ESs which are relevant to and occur
in urban ecosystems, defined as socio-ecological systems composed of green
infrastructure and built infrastructure [21]. The ES classification according to the
MAES-Urban ecosystems is limited to only 11 out of the 21 ESs. According to the
MAES Urban, freshwater and food are the main provisioning services in cities;
noise reduction, air quality regulation, moderation of extreme events, regulation of
water flows, local climate regulation, climate sequestration and storage, and polli-
nation are the main regulating services; and finally, recreation, mental and physical
health, and esthetic appreciation and inspiration are the main cultural services [22].
Supporting services despite being left out of both the MAES Urban and the
CICES, are, namely habitats for species and maintenance of genetic diversity. These
kinds of ESs are defined as intermediate ESs. Even if ESs do not produce direct
benefits to human wellbeing [23], through a cascade model the linkages between
intermediate ESs and final ESs can be put in evidence by investigating their indirect
contribution to human wellbeing (e.g., urban parks create habitat for pollinators,
which in turn provide pollination, beneficial to society) [24]. Moreover, several
studies claim that urban parks constitute biodiversity hotspots and thus provide
habitats for wildlife [25]. Since the interaction with biodiversity is among the activi-
ties of park visitors [26], the provision of habitats for species in urban contexts does
contribute directly to human wellbeing.

1.4 Biodiversity

Urban development threatens some elements of biodiversity, yet urban areas

often contain significant biodiversity, including threatened species [27].
Biodiversity loss has become a major global issue, and the current rates of species
decline are unprecedented [28]. Among the different species, vertebrates, particu-
larly mammals and birds have more attention for scientists and publics [29, 30],
whereas insects were routinely underrepresented in biodiversity and conservation
studies in spite of their paramount importance to the overall functioning and stabil-
ity of ecosystems worldwide [31, 32]. The drivers of this decline is mainly point to
habitat change as the main driver of insect declines, a factor equally implicated in
global bird and mammal declines [33, 34]. Next on the list is pollution (25.8%) fol-
lowed by a variety of biological factors (17.6%), whereas few studies (6.9%) indicate
climate change as triggering the losses [35].

1.4.1 Biological factors

Urban development is a major threat to conservation [36]. Animals including

mammals, insects, and birds are among the urban wildlife that need attention for
conservation. Thus, ecological and life history traits can predict species’ responses

3
Biodiversity of Ecosystems

to urbanization. In new environment which totally differ from their natural habitat,
they have to move and disperse in order to maintain their species development
through colonization. Different species have different ability of disperse. Species
with strong dispersal capacity have more probability to colonize novel environ-
ments. For example, in birds, behavioral flexibility, nest type, brain size, migration,
and environmental tolerance have all been suggested to be important in allowing
successful colonization of urban areas [37, 38].
Specialized species are more at risk of extinction, because they are most sus-
ceptible to habitat changes and lack of host plants while generalist species are more
adaptable to environmental change, have behavioral plasticity, climatic adaptability,
and broader range of host plants, food, and shelter requirements. Moreover, the
generalist species are able to survive under different conditions and often colonies
vacant niches and new urbanized environments. Many invasive plant and animal
species have cascading effects on ecosystem, which have pervasive impacts against
a number of species communities. For instance, invasive plants have negative
effects on the abundance and diversity of different species especially insect species.
In South Africa, a predatory fish (rainbow trout) which has economic and recre-
ational benefit, causes the reduction in the distribution of a threatened dragonfly
(Ecchlorolestes peringueyi) [35].

1.4.2 Habitat change

Over the past centuries, human activities such as industrialization, agricul-

tural intensification for food production, deforestation in tropical countries, and
urbanization (in the last decades) have boosted the susceptibility of specialist
pollinators to land-use changes (involving loss of floral resources, nesting and
hibernation sites), appears to be a determining factor in the decline of many
bumblebees and wild bees. Urbanization, causing the disappearance of many
habitat specialists and their replacement with a few generalists adapted to the
artificial human environment [39].

1.4.3 Pollution

Pollution is the second major driver of insects decline and other species in urban
areas. The factors caused environmental pollution include fertilizers and synthetic
pesticides used in agricultural production, sewage (sanitary, industrial and storm
sewers) and landfill leachates from urbanized areas and industrial chemicals from
factories and mining sites [39].
Exposure to pesticides occur mostly in agricultural settings. However, the neo-
nicotinoid residues have been detected from multi-floral honey collected from Apis
mellifera hive in many countries (for example, France, Poland, the USA). A recent
study reported that Neonicotinoid like Clothianidin and thiacloprid frequently
detected in honeys from urban habitats, highlighting the urgent consideration
of pesticide use in urban domestic pesticides, sport and amenity contexts, given
potential exposure of bees and other pollinators. These, pesticides have also been
demonstrated to cause and chronic toxicity to bees [40]. Fipronil, a comparatively
new and widely used urban insecticide were found in runoff waters in California
and were considered responsible in exerting acute toxicity to arthropods, chirono-
mids, and other aquatic invertebrates even at very low concentrations [41, 42].
The use of modern urban insecticides such as imidacloprid, bifenthin, and fipronil
also causes toxicological effects to black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) and other
crustaceans [43]. Moreover, many other kind of insecticides have a high toxicity
on aquatic insects, crustaceans, and fish survival which can cause to a significant

4
Urban Ecosystem: An Interaction of Biological and Physical Components
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97742

reduction in their abundance. This is even more evident for aquatic environments,
where pesticide residues from agricultural and urban runoff are the major cause of
biodiversity declines [44, 45].
In Germany, over the 27 years of study, about 80% of the flying insect biomass
losses was caused by increases in pesticide application [46]. In a study in Paris,
urbanization made a dramatic decline (−89%) of the bird species called “House
Sparrows” [47].

1.4.4 Climate change

Urban areas are under the pressures of population growth, urbanization and
suburbanization processes, which interact with the climate, leading to the establish-
ment of the urban climate. Urban climate is generally characterized by some par-
ticular features such as heat islands effects, dryness, urban flooding, cold, humidity
and pollution, which can significantly affect human health [48]. Among them, heat
waves, drought, and flooding are the three most important stresses having huge
multi-lateral impacts [49].

1.4.4.1 Urban climate, the heat-related phenomena and its impact

In the recent years, climate phenomena (mainly heat-related) have become

severe on agricultural crops, infrastructure and human health which have complex
interactions with the urban/rural habitat. Urban heat island is one of the most
climatological effects of man’s modification of the atmospheric environment. The
heat-related phenomena are related with heat waves and drought which produce
negative effects as heat-related illness and heat-related mortality [50–52]. Moreover,
long-term exposure to heat-related stresses could trigger certain types of diseases,
for example; respiratory, gastrointestinal, caused by low humidity, high tempera-
tures and lack of water for personal hygiene and household cleaning [53].

1.4.4.2 Urbanization and sponge city concept

The Sponge City concept refers to the man-made changes which positively affect
the urban climate. In 2014, the concept of the ‘Sponge City’ established, which will
be used to tackle urban surface-water flooding and related urban water manage-
ment issues, such as purification of urban runoff, attenuation of peak run-off and
water conservation. The concept is being developed to make use of ‘blue’ and ‘green’
spaces in the urban environment for stormwater management and control [54].
It aims to (i) adopt and develop LID (low impact development) concepts which
improve effective control of urban peak runoff, and to temporarily store, recycle
and purify stormwater; (ii) to upgrade the traditional drainage systems using more
flood-resilient infrastructure (e.g. construction of underground water-storage
tanks and tunnels) and to increase current drainage protection standards using
LID systems to offset peak discharges and reduce excess stormwater; and (iii)
to integrate natural water-bodies (such as wetlands and lakes) and encourage
multi-functional objectives within drainage design (such as enhancing ecosystem
services) whilst providing additional artificial water bodies and green spaces to
provide higher amenity value. It is envisaged that related practices will enhance
natural ecosystems and provide more esthetically pleasing space for the people that
live and work in urban environments, in addition enabling nature-based solutions
to improve urban habitats for birds and other organisms. The Sponge City concept
and related guidelines and practices will provide multiple opportunities to integrate
ideas from eco-hydrology, climate change impact assessment and planning, and

5
Biodiversity of Ecosystems

consideration of long-term social and environmental well-being, within the urban

land-use planning process [55].

1.4.4.3 Global warming and insect’s decline

Global warming stimulates the decline of many beneficial insects, for example,
wild bees and butterfly. In some cases, global warming has increased their popula-
tion and geographical distribution in the northern part of Europe. However, due to
the climate change and warming trend, the world’s insect population are declining
approximately 50%. Likewise, the insect populations which are adapted to the cold
climate have declined (e.g. dragonflies, stoneflies and bumblebees), and negatively
impacted the population of some pollinators in Mediterranean regions [35].

1.5 Connectivity

The term “Connectivity” is considered as a proxy for biodiversity or a measure

of biodiversity potential [56], which contribute to habitat fragmentation alleviation
and in turn genetic diversity. To improve connectivity and later ES, linking between
parks and other green structures together with green corridor is proposed to be
pragmatic approach, which enhance both structural and functional connectiv-
ity. Structural and functional connectivity are the two elements of connectivity.
Structural connectivity may serve as useful indicators of functional connectivity
and guide green space planning [57]. The graph theory approach is a useful tool to
analyze connectivity, which takes both intra-patch and inter-patch connectivity
into account, it is one of the most robust metrics to prioritize habitat patches to
support decision making [58].

1.5.1 Connectivity indices

Connectivity is represented by groups of habitat patches (i.e., nodes) and the

links that connect paired nodes, including the movement between them. The links
encode information about the physical distances among patches and can represent
structural, potential, or functional connection [59]. Different connectivity indices
have been used, such as the number of existing links between patches (NL) and
the number of components (NC) representing the number of groups of patches
which are connected. A higher NL and a lower NC denote better connectivity. The
term component considers a set of nodes (i.e., habitat patches) connected by links
and thus defines a group of patches with possible migration within the system. An
isolated patch is itself a component [58].
One of the more sophisticated indices is the integral index of connectivity
(IIC), which was proposed by Pascual-Hortal and Saura [58]. The IIC allows not
only estimating the current “degree of connectivity” within a landscape, but it
also offers a relative ranking of patches by their contribution to overall landscape
connectivity [58]. This relative ranking is considered to be the most useful tool in
the decision process for planners [60–62]. The importance of each patch in overall
connectivity (IIC) was assessed based on the difference (delta, d) in the IIC value
when that patch was excluded from the entire system. The rank of dIIC values for
each patch ranged from 0 to 1, with a higher value indicating greater importance of
the patch for connectivity of the analyzed landscape [58]. Moreover, the dIIC index
enables distinguishing three fractions, which additively yield the overall value.
The first fraction includes the intra-patch connectivity component (intra), which
is based on the assumption that connectivity exists within the patch. Two fractions
compose the inter-patch connectivity component: flux, which indicates whether the

6
Urban Ecosystem: An Interaction of Biological and Physical Components
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97742

node is directly connected to other nodes, and connector, which indicates whether
a node serves as a stepping stone and contributes to the connection between other
nodes [63].

1.6 Urban microbiome

The term microbiomes refers to a complex communities of bacteria, fungi,

viruses and micro-eukaryotes and are an integral part of human and natural ecosys-
tems [64, 65]. In terms of environment, soil microbial communities are a key factor
in biochemical process which support plant growth and other ecosystem services
of GI features [66, 67]. In urban level, the first assessment of subsurface microbial
communities in a truly urban site was investigated in 1992 [68].
Microbial biogeography is controlled primarily by “edaphic variables” [69]. As,
in urban areas, the soil physical (moisture and texture) and chemical properties
(pH, solid minerals, and organic matter) can influence microorganism communi-
ties [70, 71]. Moreover, microbial diversity has a positive correlation with human
population density (as a proxy of anthropogenic activity) [72], which always com-
panies with the increase in species richness of some taxonomic group [73], although
this relationship is still unknown.
Understanding the anthropogenic impacts on soil ecosystems is crucial because
some on its impacts like exposure to petroleum products, heavy metals, salt, animal
feces, pesticides, fertilizers, and garbage in urban runoff can shift abundances of
bacteria within the Technosol microbiome [74–76].
Different urban soil types and their locations show that the Phyla Acidobacteria
and Actinobacteria, are the most dominant soil bacteria [77]. On the other side,
the most abundant fungi are related to the genera Glomus and Rhizophagus. Many
of identified taxa are associated with key ecosystem services involving nitrogen
cycling, biodegradation, and decomposition [78].
Knowing microbial communities in GI features is important because it can
help to guide urban planning for the purposes of improving urban biodiversity
or bioremediation as a guide for future GI management. Identifying and under-
standing the dynamics of microbial communities in urban environments is thus
essential for managing microbes beneficially in the context of urban sustainability
[79]. Recently and in 2016 the project of Metagenomics and Meta-design of the
Subways and Urban Biomes (MetaSUB) have started to characterize the composi-
tion of the microbial inhabitants of urban environments across the world. The
aim of this international project is to support city planners, public health officials,
and architectural designers and to quantify cities more responsive, safer places for
people [80].
Growing the world’s population accelerate the increase of pollutants and con-
sequently can jeopardize the people’s life by being exposure to pollutants. This can
also proliferate the spread of pandemic and pathogenic microbiome. Therefore, it is
imperative to adopt sustainable practices and enhance the health of urban environ-
mental, considering the implementation of surveillance programs, discovering the
genetic characterization and functional diversity of microbes in the cities [81, 82].

2. Conclusion

This chapter attempts to address the important concepts related to urban

ecosystem. Urban areas are composed of natural and constructed systems. In a city,
an ecological process including immigration and dispersal agents often occur in
habitat patches, which are connected by corridors. Urban ecosystems have different

7
Biodiversity of Ecosystems

physical and chemical properties, which highly influence species distribution,

ecosystems functioning, and provide ample ecosystem services, representing
sustainable tourism, saving energy, increasing the biodiversity, reducing environ-
mental costs and providing health benefits for residents. Nowadays, however, urban
development threatens human health and some elements of biodiversity, which
is mainly caused by climate change especially urban heat island, environmental
pollution, and habitat fragmentation. Green corridor is proposed to be pragmatic
approach in connectedness of different groups of habitat structures and in turn
genetic diversity. Subsurface microbial communities are also associated with major
biochemical process which support plant growth and ensure key ecosystem services
involving nitrogen cycling, biodegradation, and decomposition.
In an increasing urbanized world, adopting sustainable practices for communi-
ties are crucial for improving and maintaining urban environmental health. This
could be helpful to guide urban planning for the purposes of improving urban
biodiversity or bioremediation as a guide for future GI management. To do this,
researchers from different disciplines, both in national and international collabora-
tions can address many environmental issues and consequently human well-being
in cities. To explore next, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary
projects are required to untangle the current challenges associated with biodiversity,
ecosystem services, and climate change in urban areas.

Acknowledgements

This chapter financed by the project “UPWR 2.0: international and interdis-
ciplinary programme of development of Wrocław University of Environmental
and Life Sciences”, co-financed by the European Social Fund under the
Operational Program Knowledge Education Development, under contract No.
POWR.03.05.00-00-Z062/18.

Author details

Hassanali Mollashahi* and Magdalena Szymura

Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production, Wrocław University of
Environmental and Life Sciences, Wrocław, Poland

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected];

[email protected]

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

8
Urban Ecosystem: An Interaction of Biological and Physical Components
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97742

References

[1] MEA (2005) Urban Systems. Engineering 125, 68-75. doi: 10.1016/j.
Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: ecoleng. 2018.10.017
Current State and Trends. Island Press,
Washington, DC, pp. 795-825 [10] European Commission. (2013).
Building a Green Infrastructure for
[2] Schaefer VH (2011) Remembering Europe. https://doi. org/10.2779/54125.
our roots: A possible connection
between loss of ecological memory, [11] L'Ecuyer-Sauvageau, C., Dupras, J.,
alien invasions and ecological He, J., Auclair, J., Kermagoret, C. and
restoration. Urban Ecosyst 14:35-44. Poder, T.G., 2021. The economic value of
Canada’s National Capital Green
[3] Gaertner M, Wilson JRU, Cadotte Network. Plos one, 16(1), p.e0245045.
MW et al (2017) Non-native species in
urban environments: Patterns, [12] Russo, A., & Cirella, G. T. (2021).
processes, impacts and challenges. Biol Urban Ecosystem Services: New
Invasions 19:3461-3469. Findings for Landscape Architects,
Urban Planners, and Policymakers.
[4] Kowarik I (2011) Novel urban
ecosystems, biodiversity, and [13] Andreucci, M.B.; Russo, A.;
conservation. Environ Pollut Olszewska-Guizzo, A. Designing Urban
159:1974-1983. green blue infrastructure for mental
health and elderly wellbeing.
[5] Perring MP, Manning P, Hobbs RJ Sustainability 2019, 11, 6425. [CrossRef ]
et al (2013a) Novel urban ecosystems
and ecosystem services. In: Hobbs RJ, [14] Bratman, G.N., Anderson, C.B.,
Higgs ES, Hall CM (eds) Novel Berman, M.G., Cochran, B., De Vries,
Ecosystems: Intervening in the New S., Flanders, J., Folke, C., Frumkin, H.,
Ecological World Order. Wiley, Gross, J.J., Hartig, T. and Kahn, P.H.,
Chichester, pp. 310-325. 2019. Nature and mental health: An
ecosystem service perspective. Science
[6] Teixeira, C.P. and Fernandes, C.O., advances, 5(7), p.eaax0903.
2020. Novel ecosystems: A review of the
concept in non-urban and urban [15] Simpson, J.R. Urban Forest impacts
contexts. Landscape Ecology, 35(1), on regional cooling and heating energy
pp.23-39. use: Sacramento County case study. J.
Arboric. 1998, 24, 201-214.
[7] Sharifi, A., 2020. Urban
sustainability assessment: An overview [16] Carter, J.G. Climate change
and bibliometric analysis. Ecological adaptation in European cities. Curr.
Indicators, p.107102. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3, 193-
198. [CrossRef ]
[8] Wang, J., Banzhaf, E., 2018. Towards
a better understanding of green [17] Camps-Calvet, M.; Langemeyer, J.;
infrastructure: A critical review. Ecol. Calvet-Mir, L.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.
Ind. 85, 758-772. Ecosystem services provided by Urban
gardens in Barcelona, Spain: Insights for
[9] Deeb, M., Groffman, P. M., Joyner, J. policy and planning. Environ. Sci. Policy
L., Lozefski, G., Paltseva, A., Lin, B., et 2016, 62, 14-23. [CrossRef ]
al. (2018). Soil and microbial properties
of green infrastructure stormwater [18] Reid,W.; Mooney, H.; Cropper, A.;
management systems. Ecological Capistrano, D.; Carpenter, S.; Chopra,

9
Biodiversity of Ecosystems

K. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Urban Ecosyst 2014, 17, 305-327.

Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: [CrossRef ]
Synthesis; island press: Washington,
DC, USA, 2005. [26] Palliwoda, J.; Kowarik, I.; von der
Lippe, M. Human-biodiversity
[19] Sukhdev, P.;Wittmer, H.; Schröter- interactions in Urban parks: The species
Schlaack, C.; Neßhöver, C.; Bishop, J.; level matters. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017,
Ten Brink, P.; Gundimeda, H.; Kumar, 157, 394-406. [CrossRef ]
P.; Simmons, B. Mainstreaming the
Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the [27] Grafius, D. R., Corstanje, R.,
Approach, Conclusions and Warren, P. H., Evans, K. L., Norton, B.
Recommendations of TEEB; UNEP: A., Siriwardena, G. M., ... & Harris, J. A.
Nairobi, Kenya, 2010. (2019). Using GIS-linked Bayesian belief
networks as a tool for modelling urban
[20] Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. biodiversity. Landscape and Urban
CICES Version 4: Response to Planning, 189, 382-395.
Consultation; Centre for Environmental
Management, School of Geography, [28] Barnosky, A.D., Matzke, N.,
University of Nottingham: Nottingham, Tomiya, S., Wogan, G.O.U., Swartz, B.,
UK, 2012; p. 17. Quental, T.B., Marshall, C., McGuire,
J.L., Lindsey, E.L., Maguire, K.C.,
[21] European Commission. Directorate Mersey, B., Ferrer, E.A., 2011. Has the
general for the environment. In Earth's sixth mass extinction already
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems arrived? Nature 471, 51-57.
and their Services; Urban Ecosystems,
4th Report; Publications Office: [29] Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P.R., 2002.
Luxembourg, 2016. Mammal population losses and the
extinction crisis. Science 296, 904-907.
[22] Croci, E., Lucchitta, B. and Penati,
T., 2021. Valuing ecosystem Services at [30] Manne, L.L., Brooks, T.M., Pimm,
the Urban Level: A critical review. S.L., 1999. Relative risk of extinction of
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1129. passerine birds on continents and
islands. Nature 399, 258-261.
[23] Lamothe, K.; Sutherland, I.
Intermediate ecosystem services: The [31] Fox, R., 2013. The decline of moths
origin and meanings behind an in Great Britain: A review of possible
unsettled concept. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. causes. Insect Conserv. Divers. 6, 5-19.
Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2018, 14, 179-187.
[CrossRef ] [32] Thomas, J.A., Telfer, M.G., Roy,
D.B., Preston, C.D., Greenwood, J.J.D.,
[24] Saarikoski, H.; Jax, K.; Harrison, Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R.T., Lawton,
P.A.; Primmer, E.; Barton, D.N.; J.H., 2004. Comparative losses of British
Mononen, L.; Vihervaara, P.; Furman, butterflies, birds, and plants and the
E. Exploring operational ecosystem global extinction crisis. Science 303,
service definitions: The case of boreal 1879-1881.
forests. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 14, 144-157.
[CrossRef ] [33] Chamberlain, D.E., Fuller, R.J.,
2000. Local extinctions and changes in
[25] Nielsen, A.B.; van den Bosch, M.; species richness of lowland farmland
Maruthaveeran, S.; van den Bosch, C.K. birds in England and Wales in relation to
Species richness in Urban parks and its recent changes in agricultural land-use.
drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 78, 1-17.

10
Urban Ecosystem: An Interaction of Biological and Physical Components
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97742

[34] Diamond, J.M., 1989. The present, [43] Hook, S.E., Doan, H., Gonzago, D.,
past and future of human-caused Musson, D., Du, J., Kookana, R., Sellars,
extinctions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. M.J., Kumar, A., 2018. The impacts of
Ser. B Biol. Sci. 325, 469-477. modern-use pesticides on shrimp
aquaculture: An assessment for north
[35] Sánchez-Bayo, F. and Wyckhuys, eastern Australia. Ecotoxicol. Environ.
K.A., 2019. Worldwide decline of the Saf. 148, 770-780.
entomofauna: A review of its drivers.
Biological conservation, 232, pp.8-27. [44] Beketov, M.A., Liess, M., 2008.
Acute and delayed effects of the
[36] McDonald RI, Kareiva P, Forman neonicotinoid insecticide thiacloprid on
RTT (2008) The implications of current seven freshwater arthropods. Environ.
and future urbanization for global Toxicol. Chem. 27, 461-470.
protected areas and biodiversity
conservation. Biological Conservation, [45] Weston, D.P., Schlenk, D., Riar, N.,
141, 1695-1703. Lydy, M.J., Brooks, M.L., 2015. Effects
of pyrethroid insecticides in urban
[37] Evans, K. L., Chamberlain, D. E., runoff on Chinook salmon, steelhead
Hatchwell, B. J., Gregory, R. D., & trout, and their invertebrate prey.
Gaston, K. J. (2011). What makes an Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 34, 649-657.
urban bird?. Global Change Biology,
17(1), 32-44.
[46] Hallmann, C.A., Sorg, M.,
Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N.,
[38] Iglesias-Carrasco, M., Duchêne, D.
Schwan, H., Stenmans, W., Müller, A.,
A., Head, M. L., Møller, A. P., & Cain,
Sumser, H., Hörren, T., Goulson, D., de
K. (2019). Sex in the city: Sexual
Kroon, H., 2017. More than 75 percent
selection and urban colonization in
decline over 27 years in total flying
passerines. Biology letters, 15(9),
insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS
20190257.
One 12, e0185809.
[39] Williams, P., Osborne, J., 2009.
[47] Mohring, B., Henry, P. Y., Jiguet, F.,
Bumblebee vulnerability and
conservation world-wide. Apidologie Malher, F., & Angelier, F. (2020).
40, 367-387. Investigating temporal and spatial
correlates of the sharp decline of an
[40] Kavanagh, S., Henry, M., Stout, J.
urban exploiter bird in a large European
C., & White, B. (2021). Neonicotinoid city. Urban Ecosystems, 1-13.
residues in honey from urban and rural
environments. Environmental Science [48] Grigorescu, I., Mocanu, I., Mitrică,
and Pollution Research, 1-12. B., Dumitraşcu, M., Dumitrică, C., &
Dragotă, C. S. (2021). Socio-economic
[41] Stevens, M., Burdett, A.S., and environmental vulnerability to
Mudford, E., Helliwell, S., Doran, G., heat-related phenomena in Bucharest
2011. The acute toxicity of fipronil to metropolitan area. Environmental
two non-target invertebrates associated Research, 192, 110268.
with mosquito breeding sites in
Australia. Acta Tropica 117, 125-130. [49] Fahad, S., Bajwa, A.A., Nazir, U.,
Anjum, S.A., Farooq, A., Zohaib, A.,
[42] Gan, J., Bondarenko, S., Oki, L., Sadia, S., Nasim, W., Adkins, S., Saud,
Haver, D., Li, J., 2012. Occurrence of S., Ihsan, M.Z., Alharby, H., Wu, C.,
fipronil and its biologically active Wang, D., Huang, J., 2017. Crop
derivatives in urban residential runoff. production under drought and heat
Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 1489-1495. stress: Plant responses and management

11
Biodiversity of Ecosystems

options. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 1147. https:// PLoS One, 8(6), e62202.https://doi.
doi.org/10.3389/ fpls.2017.01147. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062202.

[50] Leal Filho, W., Icaza, L.E., Neht, A., [57] Zhang, Z., Meerow, S., Newell, J. P.,
Klavins, M., Morgan, E.A., 2018. & Lindquist, M. (2019). Enhancing
Coping with the impacts of urban heat landscape connectivity through
islands. A literature based study on multifunctional green infrastructure
understanding urban heat vulnerability corridor modeling and design. Urban
and the need for resilience in cities in a forestry & urban greening, 38,
global climate change context. J. Clean. 305-317.
Prod. 171, 1140-1149.
[58] Pascual-Hortal, L., & Saura, S.
[51] Yoo, S., 2019. Assessing urban (2006). Comparison and development
vulnerability to extreme heat-related of new graph-based landscape
weather events. The Routledge connectivity indices: Towards the
handbook of Urban resilience. In: priorization of habitat patches and
Burayidi, M.A., Allen, A., Twigg, J., corridors for conservation. Landscape
Wamsle, C. (Eds.). Routledge ecology, 21(7), 959-967.
International Handbooks, p. 534.
[59] Rayfield B, Fortin MJ, Fall A.
[52] Graczyk, D., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Connectivity for conservation: A
Chory’nski, a., Førland, E.J., Pi’nskwar, framework to classify network
I., Szwed, M., 2019. Heat-related measures. Ecology. 2011 Apr; 92(4):847-
mortality during hot summers in Polish 858. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-2190.1
cities. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 136 (3-4), PMID: 21661548
1259-1273.
[60] Urban D, Keitt T. Landscape
[53] Ortega-Gaucin, D., de la Cruz connectivity: A graph-theoretic
Bartol’on, J., Castellano Bahena, H., perspective. Ecology. 2001 May; 82(5):
2018. Drought vulnerability indices in 1205-1218.
Mexico. Water 10 (11), 1671.
[61] Jalkanen J, Toivonen T, Moilanen A.
[54] MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND Identification of ecological networks for
URBAN-RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2014. land-use planning with spatial
The Construction Guideline of Sponge conservation prioritization. Landscape
City in China − Low Impact Ecology. 2020 Feb; 35(2):353-371.
Development of Stormwater System
(Trail) In: DEVELOPMENT, M. O. H. [62] Matos C, Petrovan SO, Wheeler PM,
A. U.-R. (ed.). Beijing. Ward AI. Landscape connectivity and
spatial prioritization in an urbanising
[55] Chan, F. K. S., Griffiths, J. A., world: A network analysis approach for
Higgitt, D., Xu, S., Zhu, F., Tang, a threatened amphibian. Biological
Y. T., ... & Thorne, C. R. (2018). “Sponge Conservation. 2019 Sep 1; 237:238-247.
City” in China—A breakthrough of
planning and flood risk management in [63] Saura S, Rubio L. a common
the urban context. Land use policy, 76, currency for the different ways in which
772-778. patches and links can contribute to
habitat availability and connectivity in
[56] Kovacs, K., Polasky, S., Nelson, E., the landscape. Ecography. 2010 Jun; 33
Keeler, B. L., Pennington, D., Plantinga, (3): 523-537.
A. J., & Taff,S.J. (2013). Evaluating the
return in ecosystem services from [64] Human Microbiome Project
investment in public landacquisitions. Consortium. Structure, function and

12
Urban Ecosystem: An Interaction of Biological and Physical Components
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97742

diversity of the healthy human [72] Wang, H., Cheng, M., Dsouza, M.,
microbiome. Nature. 2012;486:207-214. Weisenhorn, P., Zheng, T. and Gilbert,
J.A., 2018. Soil bacterial diversity is
[65] Sunagawa S, Coelho LP, Chaffron S, associated with human population
Kultima JR, Labadie K, Salazar G, et al. density in urban greenspaces.
Structure and function of the global Environmental science & technology,
ocean microbiome. Science. American 52(9), pp.5115-5124.
association for the. Adv Sci.
2015;348:1261359 [73] Luck, G. W. A review of the
relationships between human
[66] Wall, D. H. (2004). Sustaining population density and biodiversity. Biol
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Rev Camb Philos Soc 2007, 82 (4),
Soils and Sediments. Washington, DC: 607-645.
Island Press.
[74] Marcin, C., Marcin, G., Justyna,
[67] Hostetler, M., Allen, W., and M.-P., Katarzyna, K., and Maria, N.
Meurk, C. (2011). Conserving urban (2013). Diversity of microorganisms
biodiversity? Creating green from forest soils differently polluted
infrastructure is only the first step. with heavy metals. Applied Soil Ecology
Landscape and Urban Planning 100, 64, 7-14. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.
369-371. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan. 11.004
2011.01.011
[75] Delgado-Balbuena, L., Bello-López,
J. M., Navarro-Noya, Y. E., Rodríguez-
[68] Madsen, E.L., Winding, A.,
Valentín, A., Luna-Guido, M. L., and
Malachowsky, K., Thomas, C.T. and
Dendooven, L. (2016). Changes in the
Ghiorse, W.C., 1992. Contrasts between
bacterial community structure of
subsurface microbial communities and
remediated anthracene-contaminated
their metabolic adaptation to polycyclic
soils. PLoS ONE 11:e160991–e160928.
aromatic hydrocarbons at a forested
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160991
and an urban coal-tar disposal site.
Microbial ecology, 24(2), pp.199-213.
[76] Adeniji, A. O., Okoh, O. O., and
Okoh, A. I. (2017). Petroleum
[69] Fierer, N.; Jackson, R. B. The hydrocarbon fingerprints of water and
diversity and biogeography of soil sediment samples of Buffalo River
bacterial communities.Proc. Natl. Acad. estuary in the eastern Cape Province,
Sci. USA 2006, 103 (3), 626-631. South Africa. J Anal Methods Chem
2017, 2629365-2629313. doi:
[70] Brodsky, O.L., Shek, K.L., 10.1155/2017/2629365
Dinwiddie, D., Bruner, S.G., Gill, A.S.,
Hoch, J.M., Palmer, M.I. and McGuire, [77] Huot, H., Joyner, J., Córdoba, A.,
K.L., 2019. Microbial communities in Shaw, R. K., Wilson, M. A., Walker, R.,
bioswale soils and their relationships to et al. (2017). Characterizing urban soils
soil properties, plant species, and plant in new York City: Profile properties and
physiology. Frontiers in microbiology, bacterial communities. J Soils Sediments
10, p.2368. 17, 393-407. doi: 10.1007/s11368-016-
1552-9
[71] Joyner, J. L., Kerwin, J., Deeb, M.,
Lozefski, G., Prithiviraj, B., Paltseva, [78] McGuire, K. L., Payne, S. G.,
A., et al. (2019). Green infrastructure Palmer, M. I., Gillikin, C. M., Keefe, D.,
design influences communities of urban Kim, S. J., et al. (2013). Digging the new
soil bacteria. Front. Microbiol. 10:14. York City skyline: Soil fungal
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00982 communities in green roofs and City

13
Biodiversity of Ecosystems

parks. PLoS ONE 8:e58020–e58013. doi:

10.1371/journal.pone. 0058020

[79] King, G. M. (2014). Urban

microbiomes and urban ecology: How
do microbes in the built environment
affect human sustainability in cities?.
Journal of Microbiology, 52(9), 721-728.

[80] MetaSUB International

Consortium. The metagenomics and
Metadesign of the subways and urban
biomes (MetaSUB) international
consortium inaugural meeting report.
Microbiome. 2016;4:24.

[81] Gardy JL, Loman NJ. Towards a

genomics-informed, real-time, global
pathogen surveillance system. Nat Rev
Genet. 2018;19:9-20.

[82] Miller RR, Montoya V, Gardy JL,

Patrick DM, Tang P. Metagenomics for
pathogen detection in public health.
Genome Med. 2013;5:81.

14