Many cities aim to increase urban forest cover to benefit residents through the provision of ecosystem services and to promote biodiversity. As a complement to traditional forest plantings, we address opportunities associated with “emerging urban forests” (i.e., spontaneously developing forests in cities) for urban biodiversity conservation. We quantified the area of successional forests and analyzed the species richness of native and alien plants and of invertebrates (carabid beetles, spiders) in emerging forests dominated by alien or native trees, including Robinia pseudoacacia, Acer platanoides, and Betula pendula. Emerging urban forests were revealed as shared habitats of native and alien species. Native species richness was not profoundly affected by the alien (co-)dominance of the canopy. Instead, native and alien plant species richnesses were positively related. Numbers of endangered plants and invertebrates did not differ between native- and alien-dominated forest patches. Patterns of tree regeneration indicate different successional trajectories for novel forest types. We conclude that these forests (i) provide habitats for native and alien species, including some endangered species, (ii) allow city dwellers to experience wild urban nature, and (iii) support arguments for adapting forests to dynamic urban environments. Integrating emerging urban forests into the urban green infrastructure is a promising pathway to sustainable cities and can complement traditional restoration or greening approaches.

In face of a dramatic decline of wild bee species in many rural landscapes, potential conservation functions of urban areas gain importance. Yet effects of urbanization on pollinators, and in particular on wild bees, remain ambiguous and not comprehensively understood. This is especially true for amenity grassland and extensively managed wastelands within large-scale residential housing areas. Using Berlin as a study region, we aimed to investigate (a) if these greenspaces are accepted by wild bee assemblages as foraging habitats; (b) how assemblage structure of bees and individual bee species are affected by different habitat (e.g., management, flower density) and urban matrix variables (e.g., isolation, urbanization); and (c) to what extent grassland restoration can promote bees in urban environments. In summer 2012, we collected 62 bee species belonging to more than 20% of the taxa known for Berlin. Urbanization significantly affected species composition of bees; 18 species were affiliated to different levels of urbanization. Most bee species were not affected by any of the environmental variables tested, and urbanization had a negative effect only for one bee species. Further, we determined that restoration of diverse grasslands positively affected bee species richnesss in urban environments. We conclude that differently structured and managed greenspaces in large-scale housing areas can provide additional foraging habitats and refuges for pollinators. This supports approaches towards a biodiversity friendly management within urban regions and may be of particular importance given that anthropogenic pressure is increasing in many rural landscapes.

Pitfall trapping is an approved self-sampling method for capturing epigeal arthropods for ecological and faunistic studies. Capture efficiency of pitfall traps may be affected by external factors and the design of the trap. Pitfall traps set in forests are usually protected with covers or wire grids, but the effect of these constructions on sampling efficiency as well as their practicability and necessity have so far received little attention. During the present study pitfall traps of four different designs (covers, wire grids, litter exclosure, open) were tested in terms of their efficiency in capturing ground-dwelling arthropods (Acari, Araneae, Carabidae, Formicidae, Isopoda, Myriapoda, Opiliones) in order to gain a better understanding of the applicability and reliability of pitfall traps in forests. The study was carried out in an oak-beech forest in Northwest Germany using a total of 40 pitfall traps (ten replicates per trap design). Generalised linear models indicated no significant differences in arthropods counts among catches of pitfall traps of the four different designs, except for woodlice. Ordination analyses (NMDS) and MANOVA revealed no significant differences in spider and carabid beetle species compositions of the catches. In contrast, for both these taxa there were significant differences in the body sizes of the individuals caught. We conclude that the catches of pitfall traps are little affected by their design. Furthermore, the litter layer and litter input have no effect on the capture efficiency and thus there seems to be no need to protect pitfall traps with covers or wire grids in litter rich forest habitats.