Spatiotemporal modeling of invasive arthropod spread in urban ecosystems with recreational areas
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31210/spi2026.29.01.13Keywords:
urban ecosystems, spatiotemporal modeling, recreational localities, ecological connectivity, Schroeder coefficientAbstract
This article examines contemporary approaches to modeling the spread of invasive species in urban ecosystems, considering their spatiotemporal dynamics and the functional heterogeneity of the environment. The relevance of this study stems from the need to enhance the accuracy of predicting invasion processes in urban ecosystems, where conventional bioclimatic models often fail to capture the complex mosaic structure of the environment. The study aims to develop and formalize a spatiotemporal model of invasive arthropod spread in urban ecosystems with recreational areas, considering their role as attractors, repellents, and ecological traps. The objectives included analyzing the spatial structure of urban ecosystems, identifying patterns of population distribution, and assessing the influence of environmental connectivity on invasion processes. The methodology was based on a spatially explicit discrete matrix approach, in which the urban ecosystem was modeled as a 10×10 grid. Contagion (Kc) and structural connectivity (Ksh) coefficients were applied to evaluate spatial patterns and simulate population spread scenarios. The results demonstrate that the degree of saturation of urban ecosystems with recreational areas, as well as their spatial connectivity, determines the nature of invasion processes. It was found that at a Schroeder coefficient of
Ksh ≥ 0.6, a network of ecologically connected localities is formed, enabling active biotic exchange and facilitating the spread of invasive species. In contrast, at Ksh < 0.6, the system becomes fragmented, and the infiltration process follows a probabilistic pattern based on Markov transitions. It was also established that the type of spatial distribution (uniform, random, or aggregated) significantly influences the formation of population clusters and their rate of spread. Recreational areas were shown to have a dual function, acting either as centers of population accumulation or as barriers, thereby creating an ecological trap effect. An analytical relationship describing the rate of population infiltration as a function of trophic specialization, resource availability, and spatial structure of the environment is proposed. The findings highlight that incorporating the spatiotemporal organization of urban ecosystems significantly improves the accuracy of invasion predictions. The practical significance of the study lies in the application of the model for identifying high-risk zones and optimizing the management of urban green spaces.
References
1. Alberti, M. (2005). The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. International Regional Science Review, 28 (2), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017605275160
2. Beninde, J., Veith, M., & Hochkirch, A. (2015). Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta‐analysis of factors determining intra‐urban biodiversity variation. Ecology Letters, 18 (6), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12427
3. Bondareva, L., & Tarnavskyi, N. (2023). The main factors influencing the damage and population dynamics of Cameraria ohridella (Deschka & Dimic, 1986) in urban plantations of Kyiv region. Biological Systems: Theory and Innovation, 14 (3-4). https://doi.org/10.31548/biologiya14(3-4).2023.012
4. Buenrostro, J. H., & Hufbauer, R. A. (2022). Urban environments have species-specific associations with invasive insect herbivores. Journal of Urban Ecology, 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juac011
5. Fletcher, R. J., Smith, T. A. H., Troy, S., Kortessis, N., Turner, E. C., Bruna, E. M., & Holt, R. D. (2024). The prominent role of the matrix in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 55 (1), 423–447. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102722-025653
6. Flickinger, H. D., & Dukes, J. S. (2024). A review of theory: Comparing invasion ecology and climate change‐induced range shifting. Global Change Biology, 30 (12), e17612. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17612
7. Turner, M. G., & Gardner, R. H. (2015). Landscape ecology in theory and practice: Pattern and process (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2794-4
8. Fokin, A. V., Adamchuk, O. S., & Mishchenko, O. A. (2025). Construction of complex systemic preparations for beekeeping and plant protection based on the principle of neural networks. Scientific and Production Journal Beekeeping of Ukraine, 15, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.32782/beekeepingjournal.2025.15.13
9. Strogatz, S. H. (2018). Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: With applications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering (2nd ed.). CRC Press
10. Fokin, A. V., Moroz, S. Yu., & Adamchuk, O. S. (2026). Theoretical aspects of designing plant protection systems against phytophagous insects. Phoenix Publishing House.
11. Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press.
12. Freise, J. F., Heitland, W., & Tosevski, I. (2002). Parasitism of the horse chestnut leaf miner, Cameraria ohridella Deschka and Dimic (Lep., Gracillariidae), in Serbia and Macedonia. Anzeiger Für Schädlingskunde, 75 (6), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0280.2002.02046.x
13. Hanski, l. (1999). Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198540663.001.0001
14. Hanski, I., Kinne, O., & Bazzaz, F. A. (2005). The shrinking world: Ecological consequences of habitat loss. International Ecology Institute.
15. Hastings, A., Cuddington, K., Davies, K. F., Dugaw, C. J., Elmendorf, S., Freestone, A., Harrison, S., Holland, M., Lambrinos, J., Malvadkar, U., Melbourne, B. A., Moore, K., Taylor, C., & Thomson, D. (2004). The spatial spread of invasions: new developments in theory and evidence. Ecology Letters, 8 (1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00687.x
16. Schlaepfer, M., Runge, M., & Sherman, P. (2002). Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17 (10), 474–480.
17. Kowarik, I. (2023). Urban biodiversity, ecosystems and the city. Insights from 50 years of the Berlin School of urban ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning, 240, 104877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104877
18. Liu, N., Liu, Z., & Wu, Y. (2025). Direct and indirect impacts of urbanization on biodiversity across the world’s cities. Remote Sensing, 17 (6), 956. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17060956
19. Nixon, L. J., Acebes-Doria, A., Kirkpatrick, D., & Leskey, T. C. (2024). Influence of deployment method and maintenance on efficacy of sticky card traps for Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 117 (5), 2003–2008. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toae192
20. Pan, R., Zhang, J., Xue, W., Xia, Q., Liu, J., Yan, J., Ling, H., & Jin, X. (2025). Research on the evolution and optimization of ecological networks in arid areas based on machine learning and multi-source remote sensing data. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 27, 100830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100830
21. Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Nilon, C. H., Pouyat, R. V., Zipperer, W. C., & Costanza, R. (2001). Urban ecological systems: Linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and Socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32(1), 127–157. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114012
22. Rao, X., Li, J., & Li, J. (2025). Multi-scale differences in landscape connectivity evaluation and protection strategies: a case study of Chongqing, China. Scientific Reports, 15 (1), 4965. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-88629-6
23. Renault, D., Manfrini, E., Leroy, B., Diagne, C., Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Angulo, E., & Courchamp, F. (2021). Biological invasions in France: Alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps. NeoBiota, 67, 191–224. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.59134
24. Zurell, D., Franklin, J., König, C., Bouchet, P. J., Dormann, C. F., Elith, J., Fandos, G., Feng, X., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Guisan, A., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., Leitão, P. J., Park, D. S., Peterson, A. T., Rapacciuolo, G., Schmatz, D. R., Schröder, B., Serra‐Diaz, J. M., Thuiller, W., Yates, K. L., Zimmermann, N. E. & Merow, C. (2020). A standard protocol for reporting species distribution models. Ecography, 43 (9), 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04960
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 А. В. Фокін, Л. М. Бондарева

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.