Relationships among Breeding Birds, Habitat, and Residential Development in Greater Tucson, Arizona

Germaine, Stephen S.; Rosenstock, Steven S.; Schweinsburg, Raymond E.; Richardson, W. Scott

doi:10.2307/2641259

Cited by 64 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As predicted by the theory of island biogeography, bird, butterfly, and small mammal abundance and diversity increase with habitat area (Chamberlain et al 2004;Daniels and Kirkpatrick 2006b;Baker and Harris 2007;Evans et al 2009), neighborhood age (Edgar and Kershaw 1994;Yahner 2001; yet see Loss et al 2009), and proximity to natural habitats, source populations, and corridors (Germaine et al 1998;Daniels and Kirkpatrick 2006b;Baker and Harris 2007;Loss et al 2009). In addition, residential landscapes in conjunction with local open, green spaces may form a large urban matrix of habitats, corridors and resources that can provide beneficial services to urban species (James et al 2009;Goddard et al 2010).…”

Section: Attitudinal and Structural Factorsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…While some common trends exist, patterns often vary by species, region, or method and scale of analysis (Smith et al 2006b, d). For instance, bird, butterfly and small mammal abundance and richness vary between positive, negative and non-linear relationships with housing density (Germaine et al 1998(Germaine et al , 2001Yahner 2001;Baker and Harris 2007;Tratalos et al 2007a;Evans et al 2009;Hourigan et al 2010).…”

Section: Attitudinal and Structural Factorsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Invertebrate species richness is often lower in lawns than in less productive xeric yards (McIntyre and Hostetler 2001;Shochat et al 2004; yet see Cook and Faeth 2006), although species richness increases near the lawn's edge where species mix from adjacent habitats (e.g., shrub borders; Smith et al 2006a). Additionally, plant species composition within yards (e.g., native versus non-native species) is especially important to butterfly, bee, and bird populations (Table 1; Germaine et al 1998;Marzluff and Ewing 2001;Yahner 2001;Chace and Walsh 2006;Daniels and Kirkpatrick 2006b;French et al 2005;Fetridge et al 2008;Aurora et al 2009;Burghardt et al 2009). …”

Section: Attitudinal and Structural Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residential landscapes are a common setting of human-environment interactions. These ubiquitous ecosystems provide social and ecological services, and yard maintenance leads to intended and unintended ecological outcomes. The ecological characteristics of residential landscapes and the human drivers of landscape management have been the focus of disciplinary studies, often at a single scale of analysis. However, an interdisciplinary examination of residential landscapes is needed to understand the feedbacks and tradeoffs of these complex adaptive social-ecological systems as a whole. Our aim is to synthesize the diversity of perspectives, scales of analysis, and findings from the literature in order to 1) contribute to an interdisciplinary understanding of residential landscapes and 2) identify research needs while providing a robust conceptual approach for future studies. We synthesize 256 studies from the literature and develop an interdisciplinary, multi-scalar framework on residential landscape dynamics. Complex human drivers (attitudinal, structural, and institutional factors) at multiple scales influence management practices and the feedbacks with biophysical characteristics of residential landscapes. However, gaps exist in our interdisciplinary understanding of residential landscapes within four key but understudied areas: 1) the link between social drivers and ecological outcomes of management decisions, 2) the ecosystem services provided by these landscapes to residents, 3) the interactions of social drivers and ecological characteristics across scales, and 4) generalizations of patterns and processes across cities. Our systems perspective will help to guide future interdisciplinary collaborations to integrate theories and research methods across geographic locations and spatial scales.

show abstract

Section: Attitudinal and Structural Factorsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Attitudinal and Structural Factorsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Attitudinal and Structural Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Native landscaping has been advocated as a means of improving biodiversity through increased use of native plants (Meurk and Swaffield 2000;Hostetler and Main 2010;Stewart et al 2010). While there is some debate about the validity of what has been termed a Bpro-native tyranny^based on a simplistic Bgood versus evil paradigm^ (Hitchmough 2011), there is evidence of positive associations between native species diversity, and the occurrence and volume of native plants (Mills et al 1989;Clergeau et al 1998;Day 1995;Germaine et al 1998;McIntyre and Hostetler 2001;White et al 2005;MacGregor-Fors 2008;Burghardt et al 2009;Pardee and Philpott 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Exotic trees can sustain native birds in urban woodlands

Gray

Heezik

2015

Urban Ecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Native landscaping has been proposed as a means of increasing native bird diversity and abundance in urban landscapes. However residents' preferences for vegetation are such that exotic plants are often preferred over natives. We investigated the extent to which native birds foraged in three common native and three exotic tree species in mixed urban woodland during four seasons. We predicted that native birds would spend more time foraging in native trees, and that food resources provided by deciduous exotic trees would be more seasonal than those provided by non-deciduous natives. Native birds spent a lot of time foraging in two of the native tree species, but very little time in native red beech (Nothofagus fusca). They used exotic oak (Quercus robur) throughout the year, and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) seasonally. Oak and European beech (Fagus sylvatica) were used by the largest number of species overall, because they attracted both native and exotic birds. With the exception of tree fuchsia (Fuschia excorticata), which produces large volumes of nectar followed by fruits, all tree species were sources of invertebrates for insectivorous feeding. Seasonality of use was high only in sycamore, indicating limited support for our second prediction. We show that being native doesn't necessarily entail being a good food source for native birds, and popular landscaping exotic species, such as oak, provide foraging opportunities across all seasons.

show abstract

“…The ecological effects of urbanisation are diverse, but include (i) alteration of habitat, including the loss and fragmentation of natural vegetation, and the creation of novel habitat types, (ii) alteration of resource flows, including reduction in net primary production, increase in regional temperature and degradation of water quality, (iii) alteration of disturbance regimes (with many habitats experiencing more frequent disturbance), and (iv) alteration of species composition (commonly comprising reductions in the richness of animal groups in areas of intense urbanisation, but sometimes increases in that of plant groups, often because of the large number of aliens) (Kinzig and Grove 2001; for empirical examples see Davis 1978;Dickman 1987;Gilbert 1989;Ruszczyk and de Araujo 1992;Jokima¨ki and Suhonen 1993;Rapoport 1993;Blair 1996Blair , 1999Blair and Launer 1997;Bolger et al 1997;McGeoch and Chown 1997;Clergeau et al 1998;Germaine et al 1998;Gering and Blair 1999;Hardy and Dennis 1999;Roy et al 1999;Sodhi et al 1999;Jokima¨ki and Huhta 2000;King and Buckney 2000;Savard et al 2000;McIntyre et al 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Urban Domestic Gardens (IV): The Extent of the Resource and its Associated Features

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domestic ('private') gardens constitute a substantial proportion of 'green space' in urban areas and hence are of potential significance for the maintenance of biodiversity in such areas. However, the size and nature of this resource and its associated features are poorly known. In this study, we provide the first detailed audit, using domestic gardens in the city of Sheffield as a model study system. Domestic gardens, the mean area of which was 151 m 2 , cover approximately 33 km 2 or 23% of the predominantly urban area of the city. The smaller gardens contribute disproportionately to this total because, although individually they add little, they are large in number. Conversely, the regions of the city with proportionately more garden area contribute most to the total garden area of the city, although such regions are limited in number. Based on the findings of a telephone based survey, 14.4% of dwellings with gardens were estimated to have ponds, 26% to have nest-boxes, 29% to have compost heaps, 48% to hold trees more than 3 m tall, and 14% of dwellings were estimated to be home to one or more cats. Whilst the absolute frequency of these features is low to moderate, by extrapolation they nonetheless yield estimates for domestic gardens in Sheffield of a total of 25,200 ponds, 45,500 nest boxes, 50,750 compost heaps, 360,000 trees, and a population of 52,000 domestic cats. These results are considered in the context of the role of gardens in urban areas as habitats for wildlife and the implications for housing policy.

show abstract

Relationships among Breeding Birds, Habitat, and Residential Development in Greater Tucson, Arizona

Cited by 64 publications

References 0 publications

Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment

Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment

Exotic trees can sustain native birds in urban woodlands

Urban Domestic Gardens (IV): The Extent of the Resource and its Associated Features

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About