Multi-city analysis of synergies and trade-offs between urban bird diversity and carbon storage to inform decision-making

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-04 · read from full text

The paper studied how urban greenspaces can simultaneously support bird functional diversity and carbon storage in ten Canadian cities, using bivariate mapping and models that relate vegetation attributes to both outcomes. It found that carbon and biodiversity are weakly positively correlated overall, but the relationship varies in strength, direction, and statistical significance across cities, and it identified spatial areas where greenspace management could maximize both benefits. A key caveat is that nature-based solution strategies are not consistently generalizable across regions, so national guidance and regional priorities are emphasized. This paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Cities are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of biodiversity loss and climate change. Urban greenspaces are important ecosystems that can conserve biodiversity and help offset the carbon footprint of urban areas. However, despite large-scale tree planting and restoration initiatives in cities, it is not well known where trees or vegetation should be planted or restored to achieve multiple benefits. We considered urban greenspaces as nature-based solutions for urban climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation planning. Using bivariate mapping, we examined the spatial synergies and trade-offs between bird functional diversity and carbon storage in ten Canadian cities spanning a gradient of geography and population, and modelled the relationships between vegetation attributes and both bird diversity and amount of carbon. We found carbon and biodiversity are weakly positively correlated across the ten cities, however, this relationship varied in strength, direction and significance. Our maps highlight areas within our target cities where greenspaces could be managed, restored, or protected to maximize carbon storage and conserve biodiversity. Nationwide, our results also show that forest management strategies that promote increases in canopy cover and the proportion of needle-leaved species in urban greenspaces are potential win-win strategies for biodiversity and carbon. Our study shows NbS strategies are not always generalizable across regions. National policies should guide municipalities and cities using regional priorities and science advice, since a NbS promoting biodiversity in one region may, in fact, reduce it in another.
Full text 1,751 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Cities are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of biodiversity loss and climate change. Urban greenspaces are important ecosystems that can conserve biodiversity and help offset the carbon footprint of urban areas. However, despite large-scale tree planting and restoration initiatives in cities, it is not well known where trees or vegetation should be planted or restored to achieve multiple benefits. We considered urban greenspaces as nature-based solutions for urban climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation planning. Using bivariate mapping, we examined the spatial synergies and trade-offs between bird functional diversity and carbon storage in ten Canadian cities spanning a gradient of geography and population, and modelled the relationships between vegetation attributes and both bird diversity and amount of carbon. We found carbon and biodiversity are weakly positively correlated across the ten cities, however, this relationship varied in strength, direction and significance. Our maps highlight areas within our target cities where greenspaces could be managed, restored, or protected to maximize carbon storage and conserve biodiversity. Nationwide, our results also show that forest management strategies that promote increases in canopy cover and the proportion of needle-leaved species in urban greenspaces are potential win-win strategies for biodiversity and carbon. Our study shows NbS strategies are not always generalizable across regions. National policies should guide municipalities and cities using regional priorities and science advice, since a NbS promoting biodiversity in one region may, in fact, reduce it in another. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-28T02:00:01.590549+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0