Defining synurbia: Getting along with the new neighbors

 
As human population increases, and the natural world is driven further into a proverbial corner, it’s nice to know that some species actually achieve a synergy with mankind, living side-by-side in the backyards of our suburban homes, eating out of our gardens (or trash cans), and sleeping in our waste spaces or wood piles. At least, this is the takeway provided by the chief author of a new paper on the subject, Dr. Robert A. Francis, a senior lecturer in Ecology from the Department of Geography, King’s College, London. Tempting as it is to see the root of the word in synergy, synurbization is in fact a meld of the words synanthropization (adaptation to human conditions) and urbanization, or the transformation of open land into residential, commercial and industrial uses.

Are foxes coming to a neighborhood near you?

Origins aside, it’s the perfect word to restore our faith in the ability of mankind to live in harmony with nature (and vice versa), hinting as it does of synurbic species like birds, rabbits, foxes, mice squirrels, chipmunks and even raccoons achieving harmony with carports, backyard barbeques, swimming pools and storage sheds.

Surprisingly, the word hints at more; synurbic species actually thrive in the vicinity of man. That is, more members of synurbic species live close to us, happily and profitably, than live in surrounding farmland or countryside.

A little further out — in adaptability if not always geography — and skipping the insect world altogether, one might also include among these synurbic species coyotes, hedgehogs, deer, brown bears, and peregrine falcons. Falcons, in particular, driven to the edge of extinction by the DDT formerly used on farmer’s fields to prevent insect pests, can credit the recovery of their species to the efforts of humans across the United States, from New York City to the Upper Midwest.

In fact, the peregrine falcon is, according to a recent paper by Maciej Luniak (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw), currently the best-known example of synurbization — a process which Luniak describes as a sort of “plasticity” essential to animal and insect species if they are to adjust their lifestyle to human civilization.

Populations of peregrines, successfully reintroduced during the last few decades in North America, Germany, Prague, Warsaw and even Moscow, are highest in two cities almost a world apart — Berlin and New York. And these populations, increasingly successful at reproducing, represent the triumph of mankind’s ingenuity and determination over difficult environments. In the Upper Midwest, thanks to human conservation efforts, successful falcon nests are perched on the smokestacks of current and former coal-fired power plants!

Simply put, synurbic species have greater urban than rural populations, and this statement alone should cause us to pause and rethink humanity’s relationship to the natural world, since it is both proof that we cancoexist and a suggestion that we haven’t even begun to try with most species.

Or, as lead author Dr. Francis is quick to observe, synurbic species, even the “pest” varieties like grackles and rats, are (unavoidably) likely to be key components in current and future urban ecological communities simply by virtue of a shrinking ecosphere. To frame it in human terms, we are restricted in our capacity to “make friends” with the natural world only by our inability to survive in certain parts of it.

How has synurbization affected the species which exhibit the kind of plasticity needed to live alongside humans? Some naturalists believe that species are not improved by their proximity to man. Among finch populations, beaks once adapted to eating wild seed have changed, subtly, to take advantage of backyard birdfeeders. Among carnivores, a fox’s hunting skills may be diminished by having dinner come from a trash can or a backyard barbeque instead of the wilderness.

Once near extinction, the peregrine falcon has had a successful comeback and many are finding nesting places on the ledges of skyscrapers instead of the rocky cliffs of their "natural" habitat.

But are those examples of species plasticity reason to insist on a “world-that-was”, especially since such a world is likely no longer achievable? Wouldn’t Nature (and man) be better served by making lemonade – which in this case translates to wildlife havens within our human settlements? Besides, who is to say that such adaptations are negative?

Not Dr. Francis, who assures us that if we make the effort to meet the natural world halfway, with backyard gardens, birdfeeders, wildflower patches and literal scraps from our tables, some generalist species with “inherent natural phenotype plasticity” will adapt readily to exploit such modest offerings.

Others may need more careful habitat modification to allow breeding populations to become established and selection processes to occur, Dr. Francis adds, but once we have our adaptations well underway this extra effort for non-plastic species won’t seem like such a reach, or such a hardship.

Where it does, we should take a page from what is perhaps the ultimate lesson plan in synurbic species, by turning to the turtle Andre. Andre was rescued from death by humans, and healed by humans. Then Andre was released back into the wild (with all the best of intentions, of course), only to perish within weeks when left to his own devices.

So perhaps, instead of beating ourselves up about the effects of civilization on wildlife, we should be looking at better ways of making the world work for all its inhabitants. After all, who says that a sloth can’t live in a computer manufacturer’s lobby arboretum? Not the sloth, that’s for certain.

Or, as Dr. Francis notes: “Greater sharing of cities between humans and non-humans is definitely something to aspire to, in my opinion.”

As an advocate of Professor Michael Rosenzweig (Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona at Tucson), who espouses a concept of reconciliation ecology, Dr. Francis adds:

“The principle (of reconciliation ecology) is essentially that the area of natural habitat around the globe has been reduced or compromised to such an extent that the current methods of conservation (preserving areas of land in parks or other conservation areas, and the restoration of degraded ecosystems), while useful, are not enough to prevent the substantial loss of biodiversity that has already been set in motion. The remaining area is simply too limited. Perhaps, therefore, our best option to support biodiversity and the ecosystem resources and services it provides is to find ways to ‘share’ land with species, without losing the use of it ourselves.”

And this can be accomplished, Dr. Francis assures, if the biodiversity and ecosystem services of cities can be improved to create resilient ecological communities — communities that may be able even to withstand future disturbances from climate change. In fact, Dr. Francis concludes, “These “resilient cities” may even form refuges of sorts to reduce environmental pressures elsewhere, in more natural areas. This seems, to me, like one of the best things society could aim for.”