The urban tree of life: quantifying relationships between body size and urban tolerance for more than 30,000 plant and animal species

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors integrate multiple large databases to test whether body sizes were positively associated with which species tolerate urban areas. In general, many plant families showed a positive association between body size and urban tolerance, whereas a smaller, though still non-trivial, percentage of animal families showed the same pattern. Notably, the authors are careful in the interpretation of their findings and provide helpful context for the ways that this analysis can be generative in shaping new hypotheses and theory around how urbanization influences biodiversity at large. They are careful to discuss how body size is an important trait, but the absence of a relationship between body size and urban tolerance in many families suggests a variety of other traits undergird urban success.

Strengths:

The authors aggregated a large dataset, but they also applied robust filters to ensure they had an adequate and representative number of detections for a given species, family, geography, etc. The authors also applied their analysis at multiple taxonomic scales (family and order), which allowed for a better interpretation of the patterns in the data and at what taxonomic scale body size might be important.

Weaknesses:

My main concern is that it is not fully clear how the measure of body size might influence the result. The authors were unable to obtain consistent measures of body size (mean, median, maximum, or sex variation). This, of course, could be very consequential as means and medians can differ quite a bit, and they certainly will differ substantially from a maximum. And of course, sex differences can be marked in multiple directions or absent altogether. The authors do note that they selected the measure that was most common in a family, but it was not clear whether species in that family that did not have that measure were removed or not. This could potentially shape the variability in the dataset and obscure true patterns. This may require additional clarity from the authors and is also a real constraint in compiling large data from disparate sources.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

I have completed a thorough review of this paper, which seeks to use the large datasets of species occurrences available through GBIF to estimate variation in how large numbers of plant and animal species are associated with urbanization throughout the world, describing what they call the "species urbanness distribution" or SUD. They explore how these SUDs differ between regions and different taxonomic levels. They then calculate a measure of urban tolerance and seek to explore whether organism size predicts variation in tolerance among species and across regions.

The study is impressive in many respects. Over the course of several papers, Callaghan and coauthors have been leaders in using "big [biodiversity] data" to create metrics of how species' occurrence data are associated with urban environments, and in describing variation in urban tolerance among taxa and regions. This work has been creative, novel, and it has pushed the boundaries of understanding how urbanization affects a wide diversity of taxa. The current paper takes this to a new level by performing analyses on over 94000 observations from >30,000 species of plants and animals, across more than 370 plant and animal taxonomic families. All of these analyses were focused on answering two main questions:

(1) What is the shape of species' urban tolerance distributions within regional communities?

(2) Does body size consistently correlate with species' urban tolerance across taxonomic groups and biogeographic contexts?

Overall, I think the questions are interesting and important, the size and scope of the data and analyses are impressive, and this paper has a potentially large contribution to make in pushing forward urban macroecology specifically and urban ecology and evolution more generally.

Despite my enthusiasm for this paper and its potential impact, there are aspects that could be improved, and I believe the paper requires major revision.

Some of these revisions ideally involve being clearer about the methodology or arguments being made. In other cases, I think their metrics of urban tolerance are flawed and need to be rethought and recalculated, and some of the conclusions are inaccurate. I hope the authors will address these comments carefully and thoroughly. I recognize that there is no obligation for authors to make revisions. However, revising the paper along the lines of the comments made below would increase the impact of the paper and its clarity to a broad readership.

Major Comments:

(1) Subrealms

Where does the concept of "subrealms" come from? No citation is given, and it could be said that this sounds like an idea straight out of Middle Earth. How do subrealms relate to known bioclimatic designations like Koppen Climate classifications, which would arguably be more appropriate? Or are subrealms more socio-ecologically oriented? From what I can tell, each subrealm lumps together climatically diverse areas. It might be better and more tractable to break things in terms of continents, as the rationale for subrealms is unclear, and it makes the analyses and results more confusing. The authors rationalized the use of subrealms to account for potential intraspecific differences in species' response to urbanization, but that is never a core part of the questions or interpretation in the paper, and averaging across subrealms also accounts for intraspecific variation. Another issue with using the subrealm approach is that the authors only included a species if it had 100 observations in a given subrealm, leading to a focus on only the most common species, which may be biased in their SUD distribution. How many more species would be included if they did their analysis at the continental or global scale, and would this change the shape of SUDs?

(2) Methods - urban score

The authors describe their "urban score" as being calculated as "the mean of the distribution of VIIRS values as a relative species specific measure of a response to urban land cover."

I don't understand how this is a "relative species-specific measure". What is it relative to? Figures S4 and S5 show the mean distribution of VIIRS for various taxa, and this mean looks to be an absolute measure. Mean VIIRS for a given species would be fine and appropriate as an "urban score", but the authors then state in the next sentence: "this urban score represents the relative ranking of that species to other species in response to urban land cover".

That doesn't follow from the description of how this is calculated. Something is missing here. Please clarify and add an explicit equation for how the urban score is calculated because the text is unclear and confusing.

(3) Methods - urban tolerance

How the authors are defining and calculating tolerance is unclear, confusing, and flawed in my opinion.

Tolerance is a common concept in ecology, evolution, and physiology, typically defined as the ability for an organism to maintain some measure of performance (e.g., fitness, growth, physiological homeostasis) in the presence versus absence of some stressor. As one example, in the herbivory literature, tolerance is often measured as the absolute or relative difference in fitness of plants that are damaged versus undamaged (e.g., https://academic.oup.com/evolut/article/62/9/2429/6853425?login=true).

On line 309, after describing the calculation of urban scores across subrealms, they write: "Therefore, a species could be represented across multiple subrealms with differing measures of urban tolerance (Fig. S4). Importantly, this continuous metric of urban tolerance is a relative measure of a species' preference, or affinity, to urban areas: it should be interpreted only within each subrealm".

This is problematic on several fronts. First, the authors never define what they mean by the term "tolerance". Second, they refer to urban tolerance throughout the paper, but don't describe the calculation until lines 315-319, where they write (text in [ ] is from the reviewer):

"Within each subrealm, we further accounted for the potential of different levels of urbanization by scaling each species' urban score by subtracting the mean VIIRS of all observations in the subrealm (this value is hereafter referred to as urban tolerance). This 'urban tolerance' (Fig. S5) value can be negative - when species under-occupy urban areas [relative to the average across all species] suggesting they actively avoid them-or positive-when species over-occupy urban areas [relative to the average across all species] suggesting they prefer them (i.e., ranging from urban avoiders to urban exploiters, respectively).
They are taking a relativized urban score and then subtracting the mean VIIRS of all observations across species in a subrealm. How exactly one interprets the magnitude isn't clear and they admit this metric is "not interpretative across subrealms".

This is not a true measure of tolerance, at least not in the conventional sense of how tolerance is typically defined. The problem is that a species distribution isn't being compared to some metric of urbanness, but instead it is relative to other species' urban scores, where species may, on average, be highly urban or highly nonurban in their distribution, and this may vary from subrealm to subrealm. A measure of urban tolerance should be independent of how other species are responding, and should be interpretable across subrealms, continents, and the globe.

I propose the authors use one of two metrics of urban tolerance:

(i) Absolute Urban Tolerance = Mean VIIRS of species_i - Mean VIIRS of city centers
Here, the mean VIIRS of city centers could be taken from the center of multiple cities throughout a subrealm, across a continent, or across the world. Here, the units are in the original VIIRS units where 0 would correspond to species being centered on the most extreme urban habitats, and the most extreme negative values would correspond to species that occupy the most non-urban habitats (i.e., no artificial light at night). In essence, this measure of tolerance would quantify how far a species' distribution is shifted relative to the most highly urbanized habitat available.

(ii) % Urban Tolerance = (Mean VIIRS of species_i - Mean VIIRS of city centers)/MeanVIIRS of city centers * 100%
This metric provides a % change in species mean VIIRS distribution relative to the most urban habitats. This value could theoretically be negative or positive, but will typically be negative, with -100% being completely non-urban, and 0% being completely urban tolerant.

Both of these metrics can be compared across the world, as it would provide either absolute (equation 1) or relative (equation 2) metrics of urban tolerance that are comparable and easily interpretable in any region.

In summary, the definition of tolerance should be clear, the metric should be a true measure of tolerance that is comparable across regions, and an equation should be given.

(4) Figure 1: The figure does not stand alone. For example, what is the hypothesis for thermophily or the temperature-size rule? The authors should expand the legend slightly to make the hypotheses being illustrated clearer.

(5) SUDs: I don't agree with the conclusion given on line 83 ("pattern was consistent across subrealms and several taxonomic levels") or in the legend of Figure 2 ("there were consistent patterns for kingdoms, classes, and orders, as shown by generally similar density histograms shapes for each of these").

The shapes of the curves are quite different, especially for the two Kingdoms and the different classes. I agree they are relatively consistent for the different taxonomic Orders of insects.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper reports on an association between body size and the occurrence of species in cities, which is quantified using an 'urban score' that can be visualized as a 'Species Urbanness Distribution' for particular taxa. The authors use species records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and link the occurrence data to nighttime lighting quantified using satellite data (Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite-VIIRS). They link the urban score to body size data to find 'heterogeneous relationship between body size and urban tolerance across the tree'. The results are then discussed with reference to potential mechanisms that could possibly produce the observed effects (cf. Figure 1).

Strengths:

The novelty of this study lies in the huge number of species analyzed and the comparison of results among animal taxa, rather than in a thorough analysis of what traits allow species to persist under urban conditions. Such analyses have been done using a much more thorough approach that employs presence-absence data as well as a suite of traits by other studies, for example, in (Hahs et al. 2023, Neate-Clegg et al. 2023). The dataset that the authors produced would also be very valuable if these raw data were published, both the cleaned species records as well as the body sizes.

The paper could strongly add to our understanding of what species occur in cities when the open questions are addressed.

Weaknesses:

I value the approach of the authors, but I think the paper needs to be revised.

In my view, the authors could more carefully validate their approach. Currently, any weakness or biases in the approach are quickly explained away rather than carefully explored. This concerns particularly the use of presence-only data, but also the calculation of the urban score.

The vast majority of data in GBIF is presence-only data. This produces a strong bias in the analysis presented in the paper. For some taxa, it is likely that occurrences within the city are overrepresented, and for other taxa, the opposite is true (cf. Sweet et al. 2022). I think the authors should try to address this problem.

The authors should compare their results to studies focusing on particular taxa where extensive trait-based analyses have already been performed, i.e., plants and birds. In fact, I strongly suggest that the authors should compare their results to previous studies on the relationship between traits, including body size and occurrences along a gradient of urbanisation, to draw conclusions about the validity of the approach used in the current study, which has a number of weaknesses.

They should be be more careful in coming up with post-hoc explanations of why the pattern found in this study makes sense or suggests a particular mechanism. This reviewer considers that there is no way in which the current study can disentangle the different possible mechanisms without further analyses and data, so I would suggest pointing out carefully how the mechanisms could be studied

More details should be given about the methodology. The readers should be able to understand the methods without having to read a number of other papers.

References:

Hahs, A. K., B. Fournier, M. F. Aronson, C. H. Nilon, A. Herrera-Montes, A. B. Salisbury, C. G. Threlfall, C. C. Rega-Brodsky, C. A. Lepczyk, and F. A. La Sorte. 2023. Urbanisation generates multiple trait syndromes for terrestrial animal taxa worldwide. Nature Communications 14:4751.

Neate-Clegg, M. H. C., B. A. Tonelli, C. Youngflesh, J. X. Wu, G. A. Montgomery, Ç. H. Şekercioğlu, and M. W. Tingley. 2023. Traits shaping urban tolerance in birds differ around the world. Current Biology 33:1677-1688.

Sweet, F. S. T., B. Apfelbeck, M. Hanusch, C. Garland Monteagudo, and W. W. Weisser. 2022. Data from public and governmental databases show that a large proportion of the regional animal species pool occur in cities in Germany. Journal of Urban Ecology 8:juac002.