Table 2.

Relative abundance of terrestrial isopods in the urban and suburban landscape. Numbers are expressed as percentage of isopods in pitfall trap materials, thus reflecting their abundance in relation to epigeic arthropods.

Location†	Land use/cover type	Percentage of isopods	Reference
San Diego CA, USA	Various suburban	48	Bolger et al. 2000
Toledo OH, USA	Various	59	Philpott et al. 2014
Sheffield, UK	Gardens	45	Smith et al. 2006
Yorkshire, UK	Urban agriculture	51	Turnbull 2012
Baltimore MD, USA	Vacant lots	52	Szlavecz, unpubl.
Chicago IL, USA	Woodland fragments	34/55‡	McCary et al. 2017
Melbourne, Australia	Grass with variable cover	<1	Norton et al. 2014
Osaka, Japan	Variable	88	Lee and Kwon 2015
Phoenix, AZ, USA	Variable, mesic-xeric	1.9/12‡	Cook and Faeth 2006
Phoenix, AZ, USA	Irrigated residential yards	7/37‡	Cook and Faeth 2006

† City might include greater metropolitan area ‡ First number was reported in publication and includes all arthropods. Second number is isopod percentage after removing Collembola and Acari. Removal of microarthropods allows more realistic comparison of macrofauna relative abundances.