The response of ground and bark foraging insectivorous birds across an urban–forest gradient

Trollope, Samuel T.; White, John G.; Cooke, Raylene

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.06.013

Cited by 26 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(88 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our results differ from previous findings for the other variables, which have found bird species richness in urban areas to be: (1) positively related to tree cover (e.g., Munyenyembe et al. , 1989; MacGregor‐Fors, 2008; Trollope et al. , 2009); (2) negatively related to built cover (Blair, 1996; Tratalos et al.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Does size really matter? Species-area relationships in human settlements

MacGregor‐Fors¹,

Morales‐Pérez²,

Schondube³

2010

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To describe species-area relationships in human settlements and compare them with those from a non-urban habitat.Location West-central Mexico. Methods We surveyed breeding birds in 13 human settlements and five shrubland patches. We estimated bird species richness using an abundancebased coverage estimator with equal sample sizes to eliminate biases related to sampling effort differences. To assess species-area relationships, we performed log-log linear regressions between the size of the studied patches and their estimated bird richness. We also used a logarithmic approach to determine how the species-area relationship asymptoted and made use of the Michaelis-Menten model to identify the size at which the studied patches reached their maximum species richness. We also investigated (1) possible relationships among the estimated bird richness and other variables known to affect urban-dwelling birds (built cover, plant species richness, tree cover or human population density) and (2) changes in bird community composition related to the size of the studied human settlements.Results Species-area relationships exhibited different patterns among the studied habitats. The log-log regression slope was steeper in human settlements, while the intercept was higher in shrublands. The maximum number of species was more than twofold higher in shrublands. Human settlement patch size was the only variable significantly related to bird richness. Our community composition results show that two main bird groups are related to human settlement size, and that as the size of human settlements increases, bird community similarity in relation to the largest city increases.Main conclusions Human settlements act as ecological islands, with pronounced species-area relationships. Our results suggest that an important threshold for bird species richness and community composition is reached in human settlements > 10.2 km 2 . This threshold is unlikely to be generalizable among bio-regions, and thus should be quantified and considered when studying, managing and/or planning urban systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Does size really matter? Species-area relationships in human settlements

MacGregor‐Fors¹,

Morales‐Pérez²,

Schondube³

2010

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although we did not measure the amount of tree cover surrounding each site, or the size of our woodland remnants, we would presume that total species richness and woodland species richness would be higher again in larger, more connected remnants (Radford et al, 2005;Trollope et al, 2009).…”

Section: Tree Covermentioning

confidence: 99%

Using bird–habitat relationships to inform urban planning

Stagoll

Manning

Knight

et al. 2010

Landscape and Urban Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The responses of birds and other wildlife to suburb-reserve edges and the suburban matrix are highly species specific (Mortberg, 2001;Trollope et al, 2009;Huste & Boulinier, 2011). Previous studies, however, have effectively grouped birds by their functional responses to urbanization (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of native versus exotic streetscape vegetation on the spatial distribution of birds in suburbs and reserves

Ikin

Knight

Lindenmayer

et al. 2012

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Management practices in the landscape matrix can have significant effects on the spatial distribution of animals within adjacent protected areas. This has been well established in agricultural and forested areas, but less is known about how management of the suburban matrix affects adjacent reserves. We argue that it is critically important to understand the impact of suburban management on reserves, as flawed planning decisions can have negative conservation outcomes and waste limited resources. Location Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. Methods We examined bird distribution patterns in suburbs and adjacent reserves to the effects of two suburban management practices: (1) street tree planting and (2) boundary design. We focused on three groups of birds with known responses to urbanization: native urban‐intolerant species (native avoiders), native urban‐tolerant species (native adapters) and exotic urban‐tolerant species (exotic adapters). Results We found that suburbs with ≥30% native (Eucalyptus) street trees and reserves adjacent to these suburbs had significantly higher bird species richness, native adapter species richness and probability of reporting exotic adapters than those with exotic trees. The type of street trees, however, did not affect the probability of reporting native avoiders. These species were more likely to be reported when habitat complexity was high. Only native adapters responded to boundary design, with higher species richness when the boundary type was a local or unsealed road as opposed to an arterial road. Main conclusions Native street trees provide foraging resources for birds that would be reduced or absent in exotic streetscapes, enabling native streetscapes to support a rich community of birds. Furthermore, native streetscapes increase bird richness and diversity in adjacent reserves. This result has important conservation implications for suburb and reserve management practices. Our study provides evidence that the establishment and retention of native suburban streetscapes is an important management strategy for improved bird conservation.

show abstract

The response of ground and bark foraging insectivorous birds across an urban–forest gradient

Cited by 26 publications

References 61 publications

Does size really matter? Species-area relationships in human settlements

Does size really matter? Species-area relationships in human settlements

Using bird–habitat relationships to inform urban planning

The influence of native versus exotic streetscape vegetation on the spatial distribution of birds in suburbs and reserves

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About