- Home
- Garden Science
- Myths
- City gardens are no good
But this isn’t the whole story. Urban habitats may offer less competition, and some extra resources (trash cans, discarded ready meals) for wildlife that can tolerate the conditions. We now know that lots of species of animals and plants are evolving to become better adapted to urban habitats. We will be creating a web page on this topic, but for now Schilthuizen’s very readable book provides an excellent introduction2.
While inner city gardens may be more difficult environments than rural ones, that absolutely does not mean they are of “no value for wildlife”, there are still LOTS of species which do live and thrive there. There may be subtle differences between (generally) older inner-city gardens and the (generally) younger suburban ones – the inner gardens are less likely to have hedges for example3. The Sheffield BUGS studies found no significant relationships between the distance to the edge of the city for any groups of species, with the characteristics of individual gardens being the main determining factors of diversity and abundance4,5.
Myth: City gardens are of no value for wildlife
Cities are built for people, so it would not be surprising if wildlife struggled to make any sort of living there.
Most studies have indeed found that more urbanised habitats generally contain smaller populations and numbers of species than fully rural sites, although some species buck the trend, and appear to prefer urban areas.
Urban areas are heavily influenced by the processes of pollution, disturbance and habitat fragmentation affecting wildlife generally. In the case of moths, light pollution could be a major factor as well1.
The wildlife garden of the London Natural History Museum (above)is about as inner-city as you can get, but over its 25-year existence has recorded 3,399 species of animals and plants6 within its roughly 4,000 square metres including:
• Birds: over 9,800 records of 66 species
• Moths and butterflies: over 5,800 records of 602 species
• Spiders: over 1,400 records of 128 species
• Beetles: over 1,300 records of 381 species
• True flies: over 800 records of 276 species7
Two of the moths recorded were new sightings to Britain, and the list includes 34 Notable species and 8 UK Red Data Book species.
At 4,000m2, the NHM garden is about 20x times larger than the UK average garden area of 190m2, and of course it has been extensively studied. However, it does seem that where decent quality habitat is available, wildlife, especially insects, will find it. As one paper put it:
“for many species of invertebrates in the urban environment, the maintenance and even restoration/creation of good
quality habitat is the key to their continued survival8”
City gardens are valuable for wildlife, although it would be helpful for ecologists to have more species lists for inner city gardens. What is also indisputably true, is that for the people that live in cities, gardens and good quality public green space (and the visible and audible wildlife they contain) are of enormous value for mental health and wellbeing. This has been amply demonstrated by the human response to the 2020 Covid 19 lockdowns9.
References
1. Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Grundy D, Lowe N, Davis G, et al. (2014) Garden and Landscape-Scale Correlates of Moths of Differing Conservation Status: Significant Effects of Urbanization and Habitat Diversity. PLoS ONE 9(1): e86925. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086925
2. Menno Schilthuizen (2018) Darwin Comes to Town: How the Urban Jungle Drives Evolution. Quercus Editions Ltd London
3. Smith, R.M., Gaston, K.J., Warren, P.H. & Thompson, K. 2005. Urban domestic gardens (V): relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape. Landscape Ecology 20, 235-253. Available here
4. Smith, R.M., Warren, P.H., Thompson, K. & Gaston, K.J. 2006. Urban domestic gardens (VI): environmental correlates of invertebrate species richness. Biodiversity and Conservation 15, 2415-2438. Available here
5. Smith R.M., Gaston K.J., Warren P.H. & Thompson, K. 2006. Urban domestic gardens (VIII): environmental correlates of invertebrate abundance. Biodiversity and Conservation 15, 2515-2545. Available here
6. Ware, C., Lowe, M. and Sivell, D. et al. (2018) The wildlife garden at the Natural History Museum: developments of the flora and fauna. Update 2017-2018 – twenty three years of species recording. Lond. Nat. 97:135-152
8. Angold, P. G.; Sadler, J. P.; Hill, M. O.; Pullin, A.; Rushton, S.; Austin, K.; Small, E.; Wood, B.; Wadsworth, R.; Sanderson, R.; Thompson, K.. 2006 Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Science of the Total Environment, 360. 196-204. Available here
9. Lemmey, T. (2020) Connection with Nature in the UK during the COVID-19 Lockdown. University of Cumbria Available here
Page written by Steve Head: reviewed by Ken Thompson
Myth: City gardens are of no value for wildlife
Cities are built for people, so it would not be surprising if wildlife struggled to make any sort of living there.
Most studies have indeed found that more urbanised habitats generally contain smaller populations and numbers of species than fully rural sites, although some species buck the trend, and appear to prefer urban areas.
Urban areas are heavily influenced by the processes of pollution, disturbance and habitat fragmentation affecting wildlife generally. In the case of moths, light pollution could be a major factor as well1.
But this isn’t the whole story. Urban habitats may offer less competition, and some extra resources (trash cans, discarded ready meals) for wildlife that can tolerate the conditions. We now know that lots of species of animals and plants are evolving to become better adapted to urban habitats. We will be creating a web page on this topic, but for now Schilthuizen’s very readable book provides an excellent introduction2.
While inner city gardens may be more difficult environments than rural ones, that absolutely does not mean they are of “no value for wildlife”, there are still LOTS of species which do live and thrive there. There may be subtle differences between (generally) older inner-city gardens and the (generally) younger suburban ones – the inner gardens are less likely to have hedges for example3. The Sheffield BUGS studies found no significant relationships between the distance to the edge of the city for any groups of species, with the characteristics of individual gardens being the main determining factors of diversity and abundance4,5.
The wildlife garden of the London Natural History Museum (above) is about as inner-city as you can get, but over its 25-year existence has recorded 3,399 species of animals and plants6 within its roughly 4,000 square metres including:
• Birds: over 9,800 records of 66 species
• Moths and butterflies: over 5,800 records of 602 species
• Spiders: over 1,400 records of 128 species
• Beetles: over 1,300 records of 381 species
• True flies: over 800 records of 276 species7
Two of the moths recorded were new sightings to Britain, and the list includes 34 Notable species and 8 UK Red Data Book species.
At 4,000m2, the NHM garden is about 20x times larger than the UK average garden area of 190m2, and of course it has been extensively studied. However, it does seem that where decent quality habitat is available, wildlife, especially insects, will find it. As one paper put it:
“for many species of invertebrates in the urban environment, the maintenance and even restoration/creation of good
quality habitat is the key to their continued survival8”
City gardens are valuable for wildlife, although it would be helpful for ecologists to have more species lists for inner city gardens. What is also indisputably true, is that for the people that live in cities, gardens and good quality public green space (and the visible and audible wildlife they contain) are of enormous value for mental health and wellbeing. This has been amply demonstrated by the human response to the 2020 Covid 19 lockdowns9.
References
1. Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Grundy D, Lowe N, Davis G, et al. (2014) Garden and Landscape-Scale Correlates of Moths of Differing Conservation Status: Significant Effects of Urbanization and Habitat Diversity. PLoS ONE 9(1): e86925. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086925
2. Menno Schilthuizen (2018) Darwin Comes to Town: How the Urban Jungle Drives Evolution. Quercus Editions Ltd London
3. Smith, R.M., Gaston, K.J., Warren, P.H. & Thompson, K. 2005. Urban domestic gardens (V): relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape. Landscape Ecology 20, 235-253. Available here
4. Smith, R.M., Warren, P.H., Thompson, K. & Gaston, K.J. 2006. Urban domestic gardens (VI): environmental correlates of invertebrate species richness. Biodiversity and Conservation 15, 2415-2438. Available here
5. Smith R.M., Gaston K.J., Warren P.H. & Thompson, K. 2006. Urban domestic gardens (VIII): environmental correlates of invertebrate abundance. Biodiversity and Conservation 15, 2515-2545. Available here
6. Ware, C., Lowe, M. and Sivell, D. et al. (2018) The wildlife garden at the Natural History Museum: developments of the flora and fauna. Update 2017-2018 – twenty three years of species recording. Lond. Nat. 97:135-152
8. Angold, P. G.; Sadler, J. P.; Hill, M. O.; Pullin, A.; Rushton, S.; Austin, K.; Small, E.; Wood, B.; Wadsworth, R.; Sanderson, R.; Thompson, K.. 2006 Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Science of the Total Environment, 360. 196-204. Available here
9. Lemmey, T. (2020) Connection with Nature in the UK during the COVID-19 Lockdown. University of Cumbria Available here
Page written by Steve Head: reviewed by Ken Thompson
