Wildlife has existed in urban areas since records began. However, the discipline of urban ecology is relatively new and one that is undergoing rapid growth. All wildlife in urban areas will interact with humans to some degree. With rates of urbanisation increasing globally, there is a pressing need to understand the type and nature of human–wildlife interactions within urban environments, to help manage, mitigate or even promote these interactions. Much research attention has focussed on the core topic of human–wildlife conflict. This inherent bias in the literature is probably driven by the ease with which it can be quantified and assessed. Human–wildlife conflicts in terms of disease transmission, physical attack and property damage are important topics to understand. Equally, the benefits of human–wildlife interactions are becoming increasingly recognised, despite being harder to quantify and generalise. Wildlife may contribute to the provision of ecosystem services in urban areas, and some recent work has shown how interactions with wildlife can provide a range of benefits to health and wellbeing. More research is needed to improve understanding in this area, requiring wildlife biologists to work with other disciplines including economics, public health, sociology, ethics, psychology and planning. There will always be a need to control wildlife populations in certain urban situations to reduce human–wildlife conflict. However, in an increasingly urbanised and resource-constrained world, we need to learn how to manage the risks from wildlife in new ways, and to understand how to maximise the diverse benefits that living with wildlife can bring.

Testes size is used as a proxy of male intrasexual competition, with larger testes indicative of greater competition. It has been shown that in some taxa, social mating systems reflect variance in testes size, but results are not consistent, and instead it has been suggested that genetic patterns of mating may reflect testes size. However, there are different measures of genetic patterns of mating. Multiple paternity rates are the most widely used measure but are limited to species that produce multi-offspring litters, so, at least for group living species, other measures such as loss of paternity to males outside the social group (extra group paternity) or the proportion of offspring sired by the dominant male (alpha paternity) might be appropriate. This study examines the relationship between testes size and three genetic patterns of mating: multiple paternity, extragroup paternity and alpha paternity. Using data from mammals, phylogenetically corrected general linear models demonstrate that both multiple paternity and alpha paternity, but not extra group paternity, relate to testes size. Testes size is greater in species with high multiple paternity rates, whereas the converse is found for alpha paternity. Additionally, length of mating season, ovulation mode and litter size significantly influenced testes size in one model. These results demonstrate that patterns of mating (multiple paternity and alpha paternity rates) determined by genetic analysis can provide reliable indicators of male postcopulatory intrasexual competition (testes size), and that other variables (length of mating season, ovulation mode, litter size) may also be important.