“…These differences are not expected in a scenario of direct effects of human disturbance, that would lead to either increased, decreased or invariant FIDs across habitats, bird locations and singing behaviors (Díaz et al, 2013;Samia et al, 2015;Mikula et al, 2022). Specifically, we expected a) differential lockdown effects in urban as compared to nearby rural habitats, with stronger changes in the latter due to lower sensitivity of urban bird populations to changes in environmental conditions (Díaz et al, 2021); b) lack of changes in height above ground of birds when flushed if lockdown decreased direct human disturbance effects, and increased height in the urban an decreased height in rural habitats if effects were mediated by predator release (ground-dwelling predators are prevalent in urban habitats whereas aerial predators prevail in rural habitats; Møller, 2011;Díaz et al, 2022); c) stronger responses to lockdown by non-singing (i.e., foraging or resting) birds than by singing birds, due to constraints imposed by selection of optimal singing heights (Møller, 2011); d) differential adjustments of vertical and horizontal components of FID if predator release is at stake, by increasing the latter according to the former (i.e. longer horizontal FIDs when individuals perch higher) according to lockdown, habitat and singing behavior (Møller, 2010;Díaz et al, 2021); no adjustments, or invariant adjustments according to habitat and singing behavior, are expected under an scenario of direct disturbance effects; and e) delayed effects of lockdown on FIDs to the year after lockdown, as compared with pre-lockdown conditions, if disturbance, predation or food conditions during lockdown had lasting effects of bird behavior (Møller et al, 2013;Gotanda, 2020).…”