Bird feeding is one of the most widespread direct interactions between man and nature, and this has important social and environmental consequences. However, this activity can differ between rural and urban habitats, due to inter alia habitat structure, human behaviour and the composition of wintering bird communities. We counted birds in 156 squares (0.25 km2 each) in December 2012 and again in January 2013 in locations in and around 26 towns and cities across Poland (in each urban area, we surveyed 3 squares and also 3 squares in nearby rural areas). At each count, we noted the number of bird feeders, the number of bird feeders with food, the type of feeders, additional food supplies potentially available for birds (bread offered by people, bins) and finally the birds themselves. In winter, urban and rural areas differ in the availability of food offered intentionally and unintentionally to birds by humans. Both types of food availability are higher in urban areas. Our findings suggest that different types of bird feeder support only those species specialized for that particular food type and this relationship is similar in urban and rural areas.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11356-015-4723-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Urban environments cover vast areas with a high density of humans and their dogs and cats causing problems for exploitation of new resources by wild animals. Such resources facilitate colonization by individuals with a high level of neophilia predicting that urban animals should show more neophilia than rural conspecifics. We provided bird-feeders across urban environments in 14 Polish cities and matched nearby rural habitats, testing whether the presence of a novel item (a brightly coloured green object made out of gum with a tuft of hair) differentially delayed arrival at feeders in rural compared to urban habitats. The presence of a novel object reduced the number of great tits Parus major, but also the total number of all species of birds although differentially so in urban compared to rural areas. That was the case independent of the potentially confounding effects of temperature, population density of birds, and the abundance of cats, dogs and pedestrians. The number of great tits and the total number of birds attending feeders increased in urban compared to rural areas independent of local population density of birds. This implies that urban birds have high levels of neophilia allowing them to readily exploit unpredictable resources in urban environments.

Urban development has a marked effect on the ecological and behavioural traits of many living organisms, including birds. In this paper, we analysed differences in the numbers of wintering birds between rural and urban areas in Poland. We also analysed species richness and abundance in relation to longitude, latitude, human population size, and landscape structure. All these parameters were analysed using modern statistical techniques incorporating species detectability. We counted birds in 156 squares (0.25 km2 each) in December 2012 and again in January 2013 in locations in and around 26 urban areas across Poland (in each urban area we surveyed 3 squares and 3 squares in nearby rural areas). The influence of twelve potential environmental variables on species abundance and richness was assessed with Generalized Linear Mixed Models, Principal Components and Detrended Correspondence Analyses. Totals of 72 bird species and 89,710 individual birds were recorded in this study. On average (±SE) 13.3 ± 0.3 species and 288 ± 14 individuals were recorded in each square in each survey. A formal comparison of rural and urban areas revealed that 27 species had a significant preference; 17 to rural areas and 10 to urban areas. Moreover, overall abundance in urban areas was more than double that of rural areas. There was almost a complete separation of rural and urban bird communities. Significantly more birds and more bird species were recorded in January compared to December. We conclude that differences between rural and urban areas in terms of winter conditions and the availability of resources are reflected in different bird communities in the two environments.

Roosting site selection by geese is a key factor for survival during migration and wintering. Birds should select sites that minimize thermoregulation demands and predation risk, and maximize foraging efficiency. We used data on the spatial location of geese roosting sites in Poland to compare landscape features and the conservation status of roosting and non-roosting sites at different scales ranging from 5 to 50 km. Logistic regression revealed that the sites selected by geese had larger waterbody size than non-selected sites, and surrounded by a smaller coverage of woodland at the scale of 50 km. They also were more often Natura 2000 sites. The most important factors positively affecting the abundance of geese were the size of waterbody and low coverage of artificial area (mostly urban) within a 50 km radius. Several further factors also influenced the roosting site selection. Regardless to the scale a large coverage of farmland (mostly rapeseed) positively affected roosting geese whereas forest coverage had a negative effect. Spatial hierarchical clustering analysis showed that the roosting sites were densely located in regions characterized by the most intensive agriculture. Farming intensity therefore seems to increase the abundance of geese, and consequently, to increase a possible conflict between goose conservation and food production. To alleviate the conflicts we delineated areas that may be most affected and where the conservation measures should be implemented first. As geese respond to environmental factors at different spatial scales this scale-dependency should be included in the conservation and management of goose populations.