Jump to content

User:Soccerguym/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need for remediation

[edit]

Urbanization has indeed had a profound effect on the environment, on both local and global scales. Difficulties in actively constructing habitat corridor and returning biogeochemical cycles to normal raise the question as to whether such goals are feasible. However, some groups are working to return areas of land affected by the urban landscape to a more natural state.[1] This includes using landscape architecture to model natural systems and restore rivers to pre-urban states.[1]

Copied from Urban ecology

What should be added to the "Need for remediation" section (after the above exerpt):

It is becoming increasingly critical that conservation action be enabled within urban landscapes. Space in cities is limited; urban infill threatens the existence of green spaces. Green spaces that are in close proximity to cities are also vulnerable to urban sprawl. It is common that urban development comes at the cost of valuable land that could host wildlife species. Natural and financial resources are limited; a larger focus must be placed on conservation opportunities that factor in feasibility and maximization of expected benefits[2]. Since the securing of land as a protected area is a luxury that cannot be extensively implemented, alternative approaches must be explored in order to prevent mass extinction of species.

The need to pursue conservation outcomes in urban environments is most pronounced for species whose global distribution is contained within a human-modified landscape[3].The fact is that many threatened wildlife species are prevalent among land types that were not originally intended for conservation[3]. Of Australia’s 39 urban-restricted threatened species, 11 species occur at roadsides, 10 species occur in private lands, 5 species occur in military lands, 4 species in schools, 4 species in golf courses, 4 species at utility easements (such as railways), 3 species at airports and 1 species at hospitals[3]. The spiked rice flower species Pimelea spicata persists mainly at a golf course, while the guinea-flower hibbertia puberula glabrescens is known mainly from the grounds of an airport[3]. Unconventional landscapes as such are the ones that must be prioritized. The goal in the management of these areas is to bring about a “win-win” situation where conservation efforts are practiced while not compromising the original use of the space. While being near to large human populations can pose risks to endangered species inhabiting urban environments, such closeness can prove to be an advantage as long as the human community is conscious and engaged in local conservation efforts.



Species reintroduction

[edit]

Reintroduction of species to urban settings can help improve the local biodiversity previously lost; however the following guidelines should be followed in order to avoid undesired effects[4][5].

  1. No predators capable of killing children will be reintroduced to urban areas.
  2. There will be no introduction of species that significantly threaten human health, pets, crops or property.
  3. Reintroduction will not be done when it implies significant suffering to the organisms being reintroduced, for example stress from capture or captivity.
  4. Organisms that carry pathogens will not be reintroduced.
  5. Organisms whose genes threaten the genetic pool of other organisms in the urban area will not be reintroduced.
  6. Organisms will only be reintroduced when scientific data support a reasonable chance of long term survival (if funds are insufficient for the long term effort, reintroduction will not be attempted).
  7. Reintroduced organisms will receive food supplementation and veterinary assistance as needed.
  8. Reintroduction will be done in both experimental and control areas to produce reliable assessments (monitoring must continue afterwards to trigger interventions if necessary).
  9. Reintroduction must be done in several places and repeated over several years to buffer for stochastic events.
  10. People in the areas affected must participate in the decision process, and will receive education to make reintroduction sustainable (but final decisions must be based on objective information gathered according to scientific standards).

Sustainability

[edit]
Pipes carrying biogas produced by anaerobic digestion or fermentation of biodegradable materials as a form of carbon sequestration.

With the ever-increasing demands for resources necessitated by urbanization, recent campaigns to move toward sustainable energy and resource consumption, such as LEED certification of buildings, Energy Star certified appliances, and zero emission vehicles, have gained momentum. Sustainability reflects techniques and consumption ensuring reasonably low resource use as a component of urban ecology. Techniques such as carbon recapture may also be used to sequester carbon compounds produced in urban centers rather continually emitting more of the greenhouse gas.[6]

Copied from Urban ecology

What should be added between the above two sections, "Species reintroduction" and "Sustainability":

Green Infrastructure Implementation

Urban areas can be converted to areas that are more wildlife-friendly through the application of green infrastructure. Although the opportunities of green infrastructure (GI) to benefit human populations have been recognized, there are also opportunities to conserve wildlife diversity. Green infrastructure has the potential to support wildlife robustness by providing a more suitable habitat than conventional, “grey” infrastructure as well as aid in stormwater management and air purification[2][7]. GI can be defined as features that were engineered with natural elements or natural features[7]. This natural constitution helps prevent wildlife exposure to man-made toxicants[8]. Although research on the benefits of GI on biodiversity has increased exponentially in the last decade, these effects have rarely been quantified. In a study performed by Alessandro Filazzola (et. al.), 1,883 published manuscripts were examined and meta-analyzed in reference to 33 relevant studies in order to determine the effect of GI on wildlife. Although there was variability in the findings, it was determined that the implementation of GI improved biodiversity compared to conventional infrastructure[7]. In some cases, GI even preserved comparable measures of biodiversity to natural components[7].



Urban green space

[edit]

This section is an excerpt from Urban green space[edit]

In land-use planning, urban green space is open-space areas reserved for parks and other "green spaces", including plant life, water features and other kinds of natural environment. Most urban open spaces are green spaces, but occasionally include other kinds of open areas. The landscape of urban open spaces can range from playing fields to highly maintained environments to relatively natural landscapes.

Generally considered open to the public, urban green spaces are sometimes privately owned, such as higher education campuses, neighborhood/community parks/gardens, and institutional or corporate grounds. Areas outside city boundaries, such as state and national parks as well as open space in the countryside, are not considered urban open space. Streets, piazzas, plazas and urban squares are not always defined as urban open space in land use planning. Urban green spaces have wide reaching positive impacts on the health of individuals and communities near the green space. Urban greening policies are important for revitalizing communities, reducing financial burdens of healthcare and increasing quality of life. Most policies focus on community benefits, and reducing negative effects of urban development, such as surface runoff and the urban heat island effect. Historically, access to green space has favored wealthier, and more privelaged communities, thus recent focus in urban greening has increasingly focused on environmental justice concerns, and community engagement in the greening process. In particular, in cities with economic decline, such as the Rust Belt in the United States, urban greening has broad community revitalization impacts.

Copied from Urban ecology

What should be added after the above exerpt:

Increasing Wildlife Habitat Connectivity

The implementation of wildlife corridors throughout urban areas (and in between wildlife areas) would promote wildlife habitat connectivity. Habitat connectivity is critical for ecosystem health and wildlife conservation yet is being compromised by increasing urbanization. Urban development has caused green spaces to become increasingly fragmented and has caused adverse effects in genetic variation within species, population abundance and species richness. Urban green spaces that are linked by ecosystem corridors have higher ecosystem health and resilience to global environmental change[2]. Employment of corridors can form an ecosystem network that facilitates movement and dispersal[2]. However, planning these networks requires a comprehensive spatial plan.

One approach is to target “shrinking” cities (such as Detroit, Michigan, USA) that have an abundance of vacant lots and land that could be repurposed into greenways to provide ecosystem services (although even cities with growing populations typically have vacant land as well)[2]. However, even cities with high vacancy rates sometimes can present social and environmental challenges. For instance, vacant land that stands on polluted soils may contain heavy metals or construction debris; this must be addressed before the repurposing[2]. Once land has been repurposed for ecosystem services, avenues must be pursued that could allow this land to contribute to structural or functional connectivity.

Structural connectivity refers to parts of the landscape that are physically connected[2]. Functional connectivity refers to species-specific tendencies that indicate interaction with other parts of the landscape[2]. Throughout the City of Detroit, spatial patterns were detected that could promote structural connectivity[2]. The research performed by Zhang “integrates landscape ecology and graph theory, spatial modeling, and landscape design to develop a methodology for planning multifunctional green infrastructure that fosters social-ecological sustainability and resilience”[2]. Using a functional connectivity index, there was found to be a high correlation between these results (structural and functional connectivity), suggesting that the two metrics could be indicators of each other and could guide green space planning[2].

Although urban wildlife corridors could serve as a potential mitigation tool, it is important that they are constructed so as to facilitate wildlife movement without restriction. As humans may be perceived as a threat, the success of the corridors is dependent on human population density proximity to roads[9]. In a study performed by Tempe Adams (et. al.), remote-sensor camera traps and data from GPS collars were utilized to assess whether or not the African elephant would use narrow urban wildlife corridors. The study was performed in three different urban-dominated land use types (in Botswana, South Africa) over a span of two years.

The results of the study indicated that elephants tended to move through unprotected areas more quickly, spending less time in those areas[9]. Using vehicular traffic as a measure of human activity, the study indicated that elephant presence was higher during times when human activity was at a minimum[9]. It was determined that “formal protection and designation of urban corridors by the relevant governing bodies would facilitate coexistence between people and wildlife at small spatial scales.”[9] However, the only way this co-existence could be feasible is by creating structural connectivity (and thus promoting functional connectivity) by implementing proper wildlife corridors that facilitate easy movement between habitat patches[2][9]. The usage of green infrastructure that is connected to natural habitats has been shown to reap greater biodiversity benefits than GI implemented in areas far from natural habitats. GI close to natural areas may also increase functional connectivity in natural environments[7].

Roadkill Mitigation

In the United States, roadkill takes the lives of hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of mammals, birds and amphibians each year[10]. Roadkill mortality has detrimental effects on the persistence probability, abundance and genetic diversity of wildlife populations (more so than reduced movement through habitat patches)[10]. Roadkill also has an effect on driver safety[10]. If green areas cannot be reserved, the presence of wildlife habitats in close proximity to urban roads must be addressed. The optimal situation would be to avoid constructing roads next to these natural habitats, but other preventative measures can be pursued to reduce animal mortality. One way these effects could be mitigated is through implementation of wildlife fencing in prioritized areas. Many countries utilize underpasses and overpasses combined with wildlife fencing to reduce roadkill mortality in an attempt to restore habitat connectivity. It is unrealistic to try to fence entire road networks because of financial constraints. Therefore, areas in which the highest rates of mortality occur should be focused on[10].



Cause of diversity change

[edit]

The urban environment can decrease diversity through habitat removal and species homogenization—the increasing similarity between two previously distinct biological communities. Habitat degradation and habitat fragmentation[11] reduces the amount of suitable habitat by urban development and separates suitable patches by inhospitable terrain such as roads, neighborhoods, and open parks.[12] Although this replacement of suitable habitat with unsuitable habitat will result in extinctions of native species, some shelter may be artificially created and promote the survival of non-native species (e.g. house sparrow and house mice nests).[13] Urbanization promotes species homogenization through the extinction of native endemic species and the introduction of non-native species that already have a widespread abundance.[13] Changes to the habitat may promote both the extinction of native endemic species and the introduction of non-native species.[14] The effects of habitat change will likely be similar in all urban environments as urban environments are all built to cater to the needs of humans.[13]

The urban environment can also increase diversity in a number of ways. Many foreign organisms are introduced and dispersed naturally or artificially in urban areas. Artificial introductions may be intentional, where organisms have some form of human use, or accidental, where organisms attach themselves to transportation vehicles.[13] Humans provide food sources (e.g. birdfeeder seeds, trash, garden compost)[15] and reduce the numbers of large natural predators in urban environments,[11] allowing large populations to be supported where food and predation would normally limit the population size. There are a variety of different habitats available within the urban environment as a result of differences in land use[15] allowing for more species to be supported than by more uniform habitats.

Copied from Urban ecology

What should be added to the "Cause of diversity change" section (between the two above paragraphs):

Wildlife in cities are more susceptible to suffering ill effects from exposure to toxicants (such as heavy metals and pesticides)[8]. In China, fish that were exposed to industrial wastewater had poorer body condition; being exposed to toxicants can increase susceptibility to infection[8]. Humans have the potential to induce patchy food distribution, which can promote animal aggregation by attracting a high number of animals to common food sources; “this aggregation may increase the spread of parasites transmitted through close contact; parasite deposition on soil, water, or artificial feeders; and stress through inter‐ and intraspecific competition.”[8] The results of a study performed by Maureen Murray (et. al.), in which a phylogenetic meta-analysis of 516 comparisons of overall wildlife condition reported in 106 studies was performed, confirmed these results; “our meta‐analysis suggests an overall negative relationship between urbanization and wildlife health, mainly driven by considerably higher toxicant loads and greater parasite abundance, greater parasite diversity, and/or greater likelihood of infection by parasites transmitted through close contact.”[8]





Evolution

[edit]

Urban environments can exert novel selective pressures on organisms sometimes leading to new adaptations. For example, the weed Crepis sancta, found in France, has two types of seed, heavy and fluffy. The heavy ones land near the parent plant, whereas the fluffy seeds float further away on the wind. In urban environments, seeds that float far often land on infertile concrete. Within about 5-12 generations the weed has been found to evolve to produce significantly more heavy seeds than its rural relatives.[16][17] Among vertebrates, a case is urban great tits, which have been found to sing at a higher pitch than their rural relatives so that their songs stand out above the city noise, although this is probably a learned rather than evolved response.[18][19] Urban silvereyes, an Australian bird, make contact calls that are higher frequency and slower than those of rural silvereyes. As it appears that contact calls are instinctual and not learnt, this has been suggested as evidence that urban silvereyes have undergone recent evolution so as to better communicate in noisy urban environments.[20]

Copied from Urban wildlife

What should be added to the "Evolution" section (after the above excerpt):

Animals that inhabit urban environments have differences in morphology, physiology and behavior when compared to animals that inhabit less urbanized areas[21]. Hormone-mediated maternal effects are capable mechanisms of offspring phenotypic developmental modification[21]. For instance, when female birds deposit androgens into their eggs, this affects many diverse aspects of offspring development and phenotype[21]. Environmental factors that can influence the concentration of androgens in avian eggs include nest predation risk, breeding density, food abundance and parasite prevalence, all factors of which differ between urban and natural habitats[21]. In a study that compared antibody and maternal hormone concentrations in eggs between an urban population and a forest population of European blackbirds, there were found to be clear differences in yolk androgen concentrations between the two populations. Although these differences cannot be attributed definitively (more studies have to be performed), they might result from different environments causing females to plastically adjust yolk androgens[21]. Different yolk androgen levels are likely to program offspring phenotype[21].

Plant genetic variation has an influence on herbivore population dynamics and other dependent communities[22]. Conversely, different arthropod genotypes have varying abilities to live on different host plant species[22]. Differential reproduction of herbivores could lead to adaptation to particular host plant genotypes[22]. For instance, in two experiments that examined local adaptation and evolution of a free-feeding aphid (Chaitophorus populicola) in response to genetic variants of its host plant (Populus angustifolia), it was found that, 21 days (about two aphid generations) after aphid colony transplantation onto trees from foreign sites, aphid genotype composition had changed[22]. In the experiments, tree cuttings and aphid colonies were collected from three different sites and used to conduct a reciprocal transplant experiment. Aphids that were transplanted onto trees from the same site produced 1.7-3.4 times as many offspring as aphids that were transplanted onto trees from different sites. These two results indicate that activities of human perturbation that cause plant evolution may also result in evolutionary responses in interacting species that could escalate to affect entire communities[22].

Wildlife species that inhabit urban areas often experience shifts in food and resource availability[23]. Some species, at times, must resort to human handouts or even human refuse as a source of food[23]. One animal notorious for relying on such means for nutritional intake is the American white ibis[23]. In a study that tested physiological challenge, innate immunity and adaptive immunity of two groups of white ibis (both consisting of 10 white ibis nurtured in captivity), one group being fed a simulated anthropogenic diet and the other being fed a natural ibis diet, it was determined that the wildlife consumption of a diet with anthropogenic components (such as white bread) may be detrimental to a species’ ability to battle pathogenic bacterial species[23].


Effectiveness

[edit]

One of the primary concerns regarding protected areas on land and sea is their effectiveness at preventing the ongoing loss of biodiversity. There are multiple case studies indicating the positive effects of protected areas on terrestrial and marine species. However, those cases do not represent the majority of protected areas. Several limitations that may preclude their success include: their small size and large isolation to each other (both of these factors influence the maintenance of species), their limited role at preventing the many factors affecting biodiversity (e.g. climate change, invasive species, pollution), their large cost and their increasing conflict with human demands for nature's goods and services.[24][25]

Copied from Protected area

What should be added to the "Effectiveness" section (before the above exerpt):

Protected areas play a large role in protecting important natural ecosystems and providing essential ecosystem services[26][27]. Scientists advocate that 50% of global land and seas be converted to inter-connected protected areas in order to sustain these benefits[26]. The Asian country Bhutan achieved this high-reaching target by reserving 51.4% of the country’s area as protected areas interconnected through biological corridors[26]. Although these networks are well regulated (local communities are aware of their importance and actively contribute to their maintenance), Bhutan is currently a developing country that is undergoing infrastructure development and resource collection[26]. The country’s economic progression has brought about human-wildlife conflict and increased pressure on the existence of its protected areas. In light of ongoing disputes on the topic of optimal land usage, Dorji (et. al.), in a study using camera traps to detect wildlife activity, summarize the results of a nationwide survey that compares the biodiversity of Bhutan’s protected areas versus that of intervening non-protected areas.

The study indicated that Bhutan’s protected areas “are effectively conserving medium and large mammal species, as demonstrated through the significant difference in mammal diversity between protected areas, biological corridors, and non-protected areas with the strongest difference between protected areas and non-protected areas.”[26]. Protected areas had the highest levels of mammal biodiversity. This is made possible by the restriction of commercial activity and regulation of consumptive uses (firewood, timber, etc.)[26]. The regulation of such practices has allowed Bhutan’s protected areas to thrive with high carnivore diversity and other rare mammals such as Chinese pangolin, Indian pangolin, mountain weasel (Mustela altaica), small-toothed ferret badger, Asian small clawed otter, the tiger, dhole (Cuon alpinus), Binturong, clouded leopard and Tibetan fox (Vulpes ferrilata)[26]. Also found to be prevalent were the large herbivore species: Asiatic water buffalo Bubalus arnee, golden langur, musk deer, and Asian elephant[26]. The maintenance of these charismatic megafauna and other threatened species can be attributed to the intensity of Bhutan’s management of its protected areas and its local communities’ commitment to preserving them.

  1. ^ a b Blum, Andrew (24 November 2008). "The Long View: Urban Remediation through Landscape & Architecture". Metropolis.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Zhang, Zhenzhen; Meerow, Sara; Newell, Joshua P.; Lindquist, Mark (2019-02-01). "Enhancing landscape connectivity through multifunctional green infrastructure corridor modeling and design". Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 38: 305–317. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.014. ISSN 1618-8667.
  3. ^ a b c d Soanes, Kylie; Lentini, Pia E. (2019). "When cities are the last chance for saving species". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 17 (4): 225–231. doi:10.1002/fee.2032. ISSN 1540-9309.
  4. ^ Monge-Nájera, Julián (2018-02-28). "An ethical decalogue for the reintroduction of species to urban habitats". UNED Research Journal. 10 (1). doi:10.22458/urj.v10i1.2048. ISSN 1659-441X.
  5. ^ International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Species Survival Commission, issuing body. (2013). Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations. ISBN 978-2-8317-1609-1. OCLC 955308696.
  6. ^ Nowak, David J.; Crane, Daniel E. (March 2002). "Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA". Environmental Pollution. 116 (3): 381–389. doi:10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00214-7. PMID 11822716.
  7. ^ a b c d e Filazzola, Alessandro; Shrestha, Namrata; MacIvor, J. Scott (2019). "The contribution of constructed green infrastructure to urban biodiversity: A synthesis and meta-analysis". Journal of Applied Ecology. 56 (9): 2131–2143. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13475. ISSN 1365-2664.
  8. ^ a b c d e Murray, Maureen H.; Sánchez, Cecilia A.; Becker, Daniel J.; Byers, Kaylee A.; Worsley‐Tonks, Katherine EL; Craft, Meggan E. (2019). "City sicker? A meta-analysis of wildlife health and urbanization". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 17 (10): 575–583. doi:10.1002/fee.2126. ISSN 1540-9309.
  9. ^ a b c d e Adams, Tempe S. F.; Chase, Michael J.; Rogers, Tracey L.; Leggett, Keith E. A. (2017/04). "Taking the elephant out of the room and into the corridor: can urban corridors work?". Oryx. 51 (2): 347–353. doi:10.1017/S0030605315001246. ISSN 0030-6053. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ a b c d Spanowicz, Ariel G.; Teixeira, Fernanda Zimmermann; Jaeger, Jochen A. G. (2020). "An adaptive plan for prioritizing road sections for fencing to reduce animal mortality". Conservation Biology. 34 (5): 1210–1220. doi:10.1111/cobi.13502. ISSN 1523-1739.
  11. ^ a b Grimm, N. B.; Faeth, S. H.; Golubiewski, N. E.; Redman, C. L.; Wu, J.; Bai, X.; Briggs, J. M. (8 February 2008). "Global Change and the Ecology of Cities". Science. 319 (5864): 756–760. Bibcode:2008Sci...319..756G. doi:10.1126/science.1150195. PMID 18258902. S2CID 28918378.
  12. ^ Reed, David H.; Hobbs, Gayla R. (February 2004). "The relationship between population size and temporal variability in population size". Animal Conservation. 7 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1017/S1367943004003476.
  13. ^ a b c d McKinney, Michael L. (January 2006). "Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization". Biological Conservation. 127 (3): 247–260. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005.
  14. ^ Rahel, Frank J. (November 2002). "Homogenization of Freshwater Faunas". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 33 (1): 291–315. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150429.
  15. ^ a b McKinney, Michael L. (29 January 2008). "Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals". Urban Ecosystems. 11 (2): 161–176. doi:10.1007/s11252-007-0045-4. S2CID 23353943.
  16. ^ "Evolution in the urban jungle". The Oyster's Garter. 2008-03-12. Archived from the original on 2010-12-03. Retrieved 2013-06-18.
  17. ^ Cheptou, P.; Carrue, O.; Rouifed, S.; Cantarel, A. (2008). "Rapid evolution of seed dispersal in an urban environment in the weed Crepis sancta". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (10): 3796–3799. doi:10.1073/pnas.0708446105. PMC 2268839. PMID 18316722.
  18. ^ "The urban evolution lab". New Scientist. April 19, 2006. Retrieved 2013-06-18.
  19. ^ Slabbekoorn, Hans; Peet, Margriet (July 2003). "Ecology: Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise". Nature. 424 (6946): 267. doi:10.1038/424267a. PMID 12867967.
  20. ^ Zukerman, Wendy (2011-01-07). "Hipster bird species evolving to tune out urban sounds". New Scientist. Retrieved 2013-06-18.
  21. ^ a b c d e f Partecke, Jesko; Hegyi, Gergely; Fitze, Patrick S.; Gasparini, Julien; Schwabl, Hubert (2020). "Maternal effects and urbanization: Variation of yolk androgens and immunoglobulin in city and forest blackbirds". Ecology and Evolution. 10 (4): 2213–2224. doi:10.1002/ece3.6058. ISSN 2045-7758. PMC 7042752. PMID 32128150.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  22. ^ a b c d e Wooley, Stuart C.; Smith, David Solance; Lonsdorf, Eric V.; Brown, Sarah C.; Whitham, Thomas G.; Shuster, Stephen M.; Lindroth, Richard L. (2020). "Local adaptation and rapid evolution of aphids in response to genetic interactions with their cottonwood hosts". Ecology and Evolution. 10 (19): 10532–10542. doi:10.1002/ece3.6709. ISSN 2045-7758. PMC 7548174. PMID 33072278.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  23. ^ a b c d Cummings, Caroline R.; Hernandez, Sonia M.; Murray, Maureen; Ellison, Taylor; Adams, Henry C.; Cooper, Robert E.; Curry, Shannon; Navara, Kristen J. (2020). "Effects of an anthropogenic diet on indicators of physiological challenge and immunity of white ibis nestlings raised in captivity". Ecology and Evolution. 10 (15): 8416–8428. doi:10.1002/ece3.6548. ISSN 2045-7758. PMC 7417218. PMID 32788990.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  24. ^ Cite error: The named reference MoraAndSale2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  25. ^ "Evolution in the urban jungle". The Oyster's Garter. 2008-03-12. Archived from the original on 2010-12-03. Retrieved 2013-06-18.
  26. ^ a b c d e f g h Dorji, Sangay; Rajaratnam, Rajanathan; Vernes, Karl (2019-10-01). "Mammal richness and diversity in a Himalayan hotspot: the role of protected areas in conserving Bhutan's mammals". Biodiversity and Conservation. 28 (12): 3277–3297. doi:10.1007/s10531-019-01821-9. ISSN 1572-9710.
  27. ^ Yu, E.; Cui, N.; Quan, Y.; Wang, C.; Jia, T.; Wu, D.; Wu, G. (2020-11-16). "Ecological protection for natural protected areas based on landsenses ecology: a case study of Dalinor National Nature Reserve". International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 27 (8): 709–717. doi:10.1080/13504509.2020.1727585. ISSN 1350-4509.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Soccerguym/sandbox&oldid=993474636"