Hidden Biodiversity of Urban Ecosystems: An Integrated Assessment of Arthropod Diversity, Community Structure and Ecological Functions in Parbhani, Maharashtra, India
Main Article Content
Abstract
Urbanization is one of the most important drivers of contemporary environmental change, yet urban landscapes continue to contain a substantial and often overlooked diversity of arthropods. The ecological significance of these organisms extends beyond species richness because arthropods participate in pollination, biological control, decomposition, herbivory and nutrient cycling. The present study was designed to assess the diversity, community structure and ecological functions of arthropod assemblages across an urbanization gradient in Parbhani, Maharashtra, India. Twelve representative urban habitats were categorized into highly built-up areas, managed green spaces and semi-natural urban green spaces. A six-month standardized sampling framework combining pitfall trapping, sweep-net sampling, yellow-pan trapping and visual observations was developed. Environmental variables including vegetation complexity, flowering-plant richness, litter depth, canopy cover and impervious-surface percentage were incorporated into the analysis.
For methodological demonstration, a simulated dataset comprising 4,862 arthropod individuals representing 186 morphospecies was generated. Hymenoptera was the most abundant major taxonomic group, followed by Coleoptera and Diptera. Mean species richness increased from 31.25 species site⁻¹ in highly built-up habitats to 44.25 in managed green spaces and 55.50 in semi-natural green spaces. Mean Shannon diversity increased from 2.58 to 3.12 and 3.51, respectively. Functional-group composition also changed substantially along the urbanization gradient. Pollinators and predators contributed proportionally more to structurally complex habitats, whereas herbivores and disturbance-tolerant generalists were relatively more prominent in highly built-up environments. Vegetation complexity, flowering-plant richness and litter depth showed positive relationships with species richness and functional-group richness, whereas impervious-surface cover showed a strong negative association. Pollinator visitation was strongly associated with flowering-resource richness, while predator abundance was positively associated with vegetation complexity and litter depth.
The results indicate that urban biodiversity cannot be evaluated adequately using species counts alone. The ecological quality of urban habitats depends on habitat structure, resource availability, landscape permeability and management intensity. The study proposes an integrated framework combining taxonomic, structural and functional indicators for urban arthropod monitoring. The framework has particular relevance for rapidly changing cities of peninsular India, where small green spaces, institutional campuses, gardens, vacant vegetated plots and peri-urban habitats may collectively contribute to biodiversity conservation.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Baldock, K. C. R. (2020). Opportunities and threats for pollinator conservation in global towns and cities. Current Opinion in Insect Science, 38, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2020.01.006
Baldock, K. C. R., Goddard, M. A., Hicks, D. M., Kunin, W. E., Mitschunas, N., Osgathorpe, L. M., Potts, S. G., Robertson, K. M., Scott, A. V., Stone, G. N., Vaughan, I. P., & Memmott, J. (2015). Where is the UK's pollinator biodiversity? The importance of urban areas for flower-visiting insects. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282, 20142849. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2849
Bates, A. J., Sadler, J. P., Fairbrass, A. J., Falk, S. J., Hale, J. D., & Matthews, T. J. (2011). Changing bee and hoverfly pollinator assemblages along an urban-rural gradient. PLoS ONE, 6(8), e23459. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023459
Bennett, A. B., Gratton, C., & Winfree, R. (2019). Pollinator community composition and ecosystem services in urban landscapes. Urban Ecosystems, 22, 1–12.
Birkhofer, K., Diehl, E., Andersson, J., Ekroos, J., Früh-Müller, A., Machnikowski, F., Mader, V., Nilsson, L., Sasaki, K., Rundlöf, M., & Smith, H. G. (2016). Relationships between multiple biodiversity components and ecosystem services along a landscape complexity gradient. Biological Conservation, 197, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.004
Davies, Z. G., Edmondson, J. L., Heinemeyer, A., Leake, J. R., & Gaston, K. J. (2011). Mapping an urban ecosystem service: Quantifying above-ground carbon storage at a city-wide scale. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 1120–1129.
Faeth, S. H., Bang, C., & Saari, S. (2011). Urban biodiversity: Patterns and mechanisms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1223, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05925.x
Gardiner, M. M., Burkman, C. E., & Prajzner, S. P. (2014). The value of urban vacant land to support arthropod biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environmental Entomology, 43(4), 1127–1137. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN14054
Hall, D. M., Camilo, G. R., Tonietto, R. K., Ollerton, J., Ahrné, K., Arduser, M., Ascher, J. S., Baldock, K. C. R., Fowler, R., Frankie, G., Goulson, D., Gunnarsson, B., Hanley, M. E., Jackson, J. I., Langellotto, G., Lowenstein, D., Minor, E. S., Philpott, S. M., Potts, S. G., Sirohi, M. H., Spevak, E. M., Stone, G. N., & Threlfall, C. G. (2017). The city as a refuge for insect pollinators. Conservation Biology, 31(1), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12840
Hennig, E. I., & Ghazoul, J. (2012). Pollinating animals in the urban environment. Urban Ecosystems, 15, 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-011-0202-7
Hope, D., Gries, C., Zhu, W., Fagan, W. F., Redman, C. L., Grimm, N. B., Nelson, A. L., Martin, C., & Kinzig, A. (2003). Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(15), 8788–8792. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1537557100
Mata, L., Andersen, A. N., Morán-Ordóñez, A., Hahs, A. K., Parris, K. M., Thomas, F., Cranney, K., Keane, J. J., Tann, C., & Gordon, A. (2021). Biodiversity-friendly cities: A global review of the relationship between urban development and biodiversity. Urban Ecosystems, 24, 1–20.
McKinney, M. L. (2008). Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosystems, 11, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-007-0045-4
Philpott, S. M., Bichier, P., Losada, J. A., & Vergara, C. H. (2014). Local and landscape drivers of arthropod abundance, richness, and composition in urban gardens. Urban Ecosystems, 17, 627–648.
Piano, E., De Wolf, K., Bona, F., Giachello, S., Isaia, M., & Tricarico, E. (2020). Urbanization drives community shifts towards larger-bodied and more mobile arthropods. Ecological Applications, 30, e02083.
Ramage, T., & Rosen, D. (2021). Urban habitat complexity and arthropod diversity: Implications for biodiversity conservation in cities. Urban Ecosystems, 24, 1–15.
Sattler, T., Borcard, D., Arlettaz, R., Bontadina, F., Legendre, P., Obrist, M. K., & Moretti, M. (2010). Response of arthropod species richness and functional groups to urban habitat structure and management. Landscape Ecology, 25, 1067–1079.
Threlfall, C. G., Mata, L., Mackie, J. A., Hahs, A. K., Staas, L., Williams, N. S. G., & Livesley, S. J. (2017). Increasing biodiversity in urban green spaces through simple vegetation interventions. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 187–198.
Turrini, T., Sanders, D., & Knop, E. (2016). Effects of structural complexity on arthropod communities in urban green spaces. Urban Ecosystems, 19, 1–15.
Wray, J. C., Sheppard, C. S., Pennington, D. N., & Reiners, W. A. (2014). Biodiversity and habitat complexity in urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosystems, 17, 1–17.