Urban environments pose different selective pressures than natural ones, leading to changes in animal behavior, physiology, and morphology. Understanding how animals respond to urbanization could inform the management of urban habitats. Non-avian reptiles have important roles in ecosystems worldwide, yet their responses to urbanization have not been as comprehensively studied as those of mammals and birds. However, unlike mammals and birds, most reptiles cannot easily move away from disturbances, making the selective pressure to adapt to urban environments especially strong. In recent years, there has been a surge in research on the responses of lizards to urbanization, yet no formal synthesis has determined what makes an urban lizard, in other words, which phenotypic traits are most likely to change with urbanization and in which direction? Here, we present a qualitative synthesis of the literature and a quantitative phylogenetic meta-analysis comparing phenotypic traits between urban and non-urban lizard populations. The most robust finding from our analysis is that urban lizards are larger than their non-urban counterparts. This result remained consistent between sexes and taxonomic groups. Hence, lizards that pass through the urban filter have access to better resources, more time for foraging, and/or there is selection on attaining a larger body size. Other results included an increase in the diameters of perches used and longer limb and digit lengths, although this may be a result of increased body size. Urban lizards were not bolder, more active or exploratory, and did not differ in immune responses than non-urban populations. Overall, studies are biased to a few geographic regions and taxa. More than 70% of all data came from three species of anoles in the family Dactyloidae, making it difficult to generalize patterns to other clades. Thus, more studies are needed across multiple taxa and habitats to produce meaningful predictions that could help inform conservation and management of urban ecological communities.

During the worldwide shutdown in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, many reports emerged of urban wildlife sightings. While these images garnered public interest and declarations of wildlife reclaiming cities, it is unclear whether wildlife truly reoccupied urban areas or whether there were simply increased detections of urban wildlife during this time. Here, we detail key questions and needs for monitoring wildlife during the COVID‐19 shutdown and then link these with future needs and actions with the intent of improving conservation within urban ecosystems. We discuss the tools ecologists and conservation scientists can use to safely and effectively study urban wildlife during the shutdown. With a coordinated, multicity effort, researchers and community scientists can rigorously investigate the responses of wildlife to changes in human activities, which can help us address long‐standing questions in urban ecology, inspire conservation of wildlife, and inform the design of sustainable cities.

Although examples of successful applications of behavioral ecology research to policy and management exist, knowledge generated from such research is in many cases under-utilized by managers and policy makers. On their own, empirical studies and traditional reviews do not offer the robust syntheses that managers and policy makers require to make evidence-based decisions and evidence-informed policy. Similar to the evidence-based revolution in medicine, the application of formal systematic review processes has the potential to invigorate the field of behavioral ecology and accelerate the uptake of behavioral evidence in policy and management. Systematic reviews differ from traditional reviews and meta-analyses in that their methods are peer reviewed and prepublished for maximum transparency, the evidence base is widened to cover work published outside of academic journals, and review findings are formally communicated with stakeholders. This approach can be valuable even when the systematic literature search fails to yield sufficient evidence for a full review or meta-analysis; preparing systematic maps of the existing evidence can highlight deficiencies in the evidence base, thereby directing future research efforts. To standardize the use of systematic evidence syntheses in the field of environmental science, the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) created a workflow process to certify the comprehensiveness and repeatability of systematic reviews and maps, and to maximize their objectivity. We argue that the application of CEE guidelines to reviews of applied behavioral interventions will make robust behavioral evidence easily accessible to managers and policy makers to support their decision-making, as well as improve the quality of basic research in behavioral ecology.

Humans profoundly impact landscapes, ecosystems, and animal behavior. In many cases, animals living near humans become tolerant of them and reduce antipredator responses. Yet, we still lack an understanding of the underlying evolutionary dynamics behind these shifts in traits that affect animal survival. Here, we used a phylogenetic meta-analysis to determine how the mean and variability in antipredator responses change as a function of the number of generations spent in contact with humans under 3 different contexts: urbanization, captivity, and domestication. We found that any contact with humans leads to a rapid reduction in mean antipredator responses as expected. Notably, the variance among individuals over time observed a short-term increase followed by a gradual decrease, significant for domesticated animals. This implies that intense human contact immediately releases animals from predation pressure and then imposes strong anthropogenic selection on traits. In addition, our results reveal that the loss of antipredator traits due to urbanization is similar to that of domestication but occurs 3 times more slowly. Furthermore, the rapid disappearance of antipredator traits was associated with 2 main life-history traits: foraging guild and whether the species was solitary or gregarious (i.e., group-living). For domesticated animals, this decrease in antipredator behavior was stronger for herbivores than for omnivores or carnivores and for solitary than for gregarious species. By contrast, the decrease in antipredator traits was stronger for gregarious, urbanized species, although this result is based mostly on birds. Our study offers 2 major insights on evolution in the Anthropocene: (1) changes in traits occur rapidly even under unintentional human “interventions” (i.e., urbanization) and (2) there are similarities between the selection pressures exerted by domestication and by urbanization. In all, such changes could affect animal survival in a predator-rich world, but through understanding evolutionary dynamics, we can better predict when and how exposure to humans modify these fitness-related traits.

Studying animals in urban environments is especially challenging because much of the area is private property not easily accessible to professional scientists. In addition, collecting data on animals that are cryptic, secretive, or rare is also challenging due to the time and resources needed to amass an adequate dataset. Here, we show that community science can be a powerful tool to overcome these challenges. We used observations submitted to the community science platform iNaturalist to assess predation and parasitism across urbanization gradients in a secretive, ‘hard-to-study’ species, the Southern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria multicarinata). From photographs, we quantified predation risk by assessing tail injuries and quantified parasitism by counting tick loads on lizards. We found that tail injuries increased with age and with urbanization, suggesting that urban areas are risky habitats. Conversely, parasitism decreased with urbanization likely due to a loss of hosts and anti-tick medications used on human companion animals. This community science approach generated a large dataset on a secretive species rapidly and at an immense spatial scale that facilitated quantitative measures of urbanization (e.g. percent impervious surface cover) as opposed to qualitative measures (e.g. urban vs. rural). We therefore demonstrate that community science can help resolve ecological questions that otherwise would be difficult to address.