Linking Optimal Foraging Behavior to Bird Community Structure in an Urban‐Desert Landscape: Field Experiments with Artificial Food Patches

Urban bird communities exhibit high population densities and low species diversity, yet mechanisms behind these patterns remain largely untested. We present results from experimental studies of behavioral mechanisms underlying these patterns and provide a test of foraging theory applied to urban bird communities. We measured foraging decisions at artificial food patches to assess how urban habitats differ from wildlands in predation risk, missed‐opportunity cost, competition, and metabolic cost. By manipulating seed trays, we compared leftover seed (giving‐up density) in urban and desert habitats in Arizona. Deserts exhibited higher predation risk than urban habitats. Only desert birds quit patches earlier when increasing the missed‐opportunity cost. House finches and house sparrows coexist by trading off travel cost against foraging efficiency. In exclusion experiments, urban doves were more efficient foragers than passerines. Providing water decreased digestive costs only in the desert. At the population level, reduced predation and higher resource abundance drive the increased densities in cities. At the community level, the decline in diversity may involve exclusion of native species by highly efficient urban specialists. Competitive interactions play significant roles in structuring urban bird communities. Our results indicate the importance and potential of mechanistic approaches for future urban bird community studies.

[1]  R. Blair,et al.  Predation on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: predatory risk or relaxation in urban environments? , 1999 .

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

[3]  E. Charnov.  Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. , 1976, Theoretical population biology.

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

[5]  S. Fretwell,et al.  On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds , 1969 .

[6]  M. Brittingham,et al.  Use of winter bird feeders by black-capped chickadees , 1992 .

[7]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  The influence of snakes on the foraging behavior of gerbils , 1993 .

[8]  J. Gutiérrez,et al.  SMALL‐MAMMAL FORAGING BEHAVIOR: MECHANISMS FOR COEXISTENCE AND IMPLICATION FOR POPULATION DYNAMICS , 2002 .

[9]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  Habitat Selection: An Experimental Field Test with Two Gerbil Species , 1990 .

[10]  D. Bolger.  Urban birds: population, community, and landscape approaches , 2001 .

[11]  A. Bouskila,et al.  Interactions Between Predation Risk and Competition: A Field Study of Kangaroo Rats and Snakes , 1995 .

[12]  S. Reichard,et al.  Interactions among non-native plants and birds , 2001 .

[13]  The effects of water on patch use by two Simpson Desert granivores (Corvus coronoides and Pseudomys hermannsburgensis) , 1998 .

[14]  W. Dawson,et al.  Energetic Features of Avian Thermoregulatory Responses , 1996 .

[15]  W. Bennett.  Scale of Investigation and the Detection of Competition: An Example from the House Sparrow and House Finch Introductions in North America , 1990, The American Naturalist.

[16]  John T. Emlen,et al.  An Urban Bird Community in Tucson, Arizona: Derivation, Structure, Regulation , 1974 .

[17]  Thomas J. Valone,et al.  Measuring Patch Assessment Abilities of Desert Granivores , 1989 .

[18]  D. Ward,et al.  Predation Risk and Competition Affect Habitat Selection and Activity of Namib Desert Gerbils , 1994 .

[19]  R. L. Knight,et al.  Causes and consequences of expanding American Crow populations , 2001 .

[20]  Settlement of breeding European Starlings in urban areas: Importance of lawns vs. anthropogenic wastes , 2001 .

[21]  Joel s. Brown,et al.  Desert rodent community structure : a test of four mechanisms of coexistence , 1989 .

[22]  David G. Haskell,et al.  Nest predator abundance and urbanization , 2001 .

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

[24]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  Competition between birds and mammals: A comparison of giving-up densities between crested larks and gerbils , 2004, Evolutionary Ecology.

[25]  M. Bowers,et al.  Foraging of Gray Squirrels on an Urban‐Rural Gradient: Use of the Gud to Assess Anthropogenic Impact , 1996 .

[26]  Joel s. Brown,et al.  Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[27]  B. O. Wolf,et al.  Use of saguaro fruit by white-winged doves: isotopic evidence of a tight ecological association , 2000, Oecologia.

[28]  C. Dickman,et al.  The influence of fragment size and edge on nest predation in urban bushland , 1999 .

[29]  R. Major,et al.  Nest predation in Australian urban environments and the role of the pied currawong, Strepera graculina , 1996 .

[30]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  Two gerbils of the Negev: A long-term investigation of optimal habitat selection and its consequences , 2004, Evolutionary Ecology.

[31]  J. Jokimäki,et al.  ARTIFICIAL NEST PREDATION AND ABUNDANCE OF BIRDS ALONG AN URBAN GRADIENT , 2000 .

[32]  Nancy E. McIntyre,et al.  Ecology of Urban Arthropods: A Review and a Call to Action , 2000 .

[33]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  Factors Affecting Gerbil Foraging Behavior and Rates of Owl Predation , 1991 .

[34]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  The Effect of Competition on Foraging Activity in Desert Rodents: Theory and Experiments , 1990 .

[35]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  Foraging Theory, Patch Use, and the Structure of a Negev Desert Granivore Community , 1994 .

[36]  M. Whitehouse,et al.  URBANIZATION AND SPIDER DIVERSITY: INFLUENCES OF HUMAN MODIFICATION OF HABITAT STRUCTURE AND PRODUCTIVITY , 2004 .