Importance of Reserve Size and Landscape Context to Urban Bird Conservation

We tested whether reserve size, landscape surrounding the reserve, and their interaction affect forest songbirds in the metropolitan area of Seattle, Washington (U.S.A.), by studying 29 reserves of varying size (small, medium, large) and surrounding urbanization intensity (urban, suburban, exurban). Larger reserves contained richer and less even bird communities than smaller reserves. These size effects disappeared when we removed the positive correlation of shrub diversity with reserve size, suggesting that greater habitat diversity in large reserves supported additional species, some of which were rare. Standardizing the number of individuals detected among all reserve size classes reversed the effect of size on richness in exurban landscapes and reduced the magnitude of the effect in suburban or urban landscapes. The latter change suggested that richness increased with reserve size in most landscapes because larger areas also supported larger samples from the regional bird species pool. Most bird species associated with native forest habitat (native forest species) and with human activity (synanthropic species) were present in reserves larger than 42 ha and surrounded by >40% urban land cover, respectively. Thus, we recommend these thresholds as means for conserving the composition of native bird communities in this mostly forested region. Native forest species were least abundant and synanthropic species most abundant in urban landscapes, where exotic ground and shrub vegetation was most common. Therefore, control of exotic vegetation may benefit native songbird populations. Bird nests in shrubs were most dense in medium (suburban) and large reserves (urban) and tended to be most successful in medium (suburban) and large reserves (exurban), potentially supplying another mechanism by which reserve size increased retention of native forest species.

[1]  B. Thompson,et al.  NEST SUCCESS IS NOT AN ADEQUATE COMPARATIVE ESTIMATE OF AVIAN REPRODUCTION , 2001 .

[2]  Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (Maps): A Sharp, Rather than Blunt, Tool for Monitoring and Assessing Landbird Populations , 1992 .

[3]  M. McKinney,et al.  Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation , 2002 .

[4]  M. Alberti,et al.  Quantifying the urban gradient: Linking urban planning and ecology , 2001 .

[5]  J. Marzluff,et al.  A historical perspective on urban bird research: trends, terms, and approaches , 2001 .

[6]  J. Marzluff.  Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds , 2001 .

[7]  F. Schmiegelow,et al.  CORRIDORS MAY NOT IMPROVE THE CONSERVATION VALUE OF SMALL RESERVES FOR MOST BOREAL BIRDS , 2002 .

[8]  M. Soulé,et al.  Occurrence Patterns of Bird Species in Habitat Fragments: Sampling, Extinction, and Nested Species Subsets , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[9]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research , 1969 .

[10]  C. S. Robbins,et al.  Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest , 1981 .

[11]  Martin L. Cody,et al.  Habitat selection in birds , 1986 .

[12]  S. Beissinger,et al.  Effects of Urbanization on Avian Community Organization , 1982 .

[13]  J. Marzluff,et al.  Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World , 2002, Springer US.

[14]  O. Hildén,et al.  Habitat Selection in Birds , 1934, Nature.

[15]  R. Macarthur,et al.  The Theory of Island Biogeography , 1969 .

[16]  C. Whelan,et al.  The Relative Impacts of Nest Predation and Brood Parasitism on Seasonal Fecundity in Songbirds , 1999 .

[17]  Jay M. Savage,et al.  Zoogeography: The Geographical Distribution of Animals , 1958 .

[18]  M. Huston.  A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[19]  A. Magurran.  Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement , 1988, Springer Netherlands.

[20]  H. Mooney,et al.  Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems , 1997, Renewable Energy.

[21]  Wirt Atmar,et al.  The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat , 1993, Oecologia.

[22]  Douglas H. Johnson.  Estimating Nest Success: The Mayfield Method and an Alternative , 1979 .

[23]  Mark V. Lomolino,et al.  Investigating causality of nestedness of insular communities: selective immigrations or extinctions? , 1996 .

[24]  G. A. Garrison.  Uses and Modifications for the Moosehorn Crown Closure Estimator , 1949 .

[25]  H. Mayfield.  NESTING SUCCESS CALCULATED FROM EXPOSURE , 2002 .

[26]  R. Blair.  Land Use and Avian Species Diversity Along an Urban Gradient , 1996 .

[27]  F. C. James,et al.  Rarefaction, Relative Abundance, and Diversity of Avian Communities , 1981 .

[28]  Bruce D. Patterson,et al.  The Principle of Nested Subsets and Its Implications for Biological Conservation , 1987 .