Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Patch and matrix level influences on forest birds at the rural–urban interface

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Urbanization has altered many landscapes around the world and created novel contexts and interactions, such as the rural–urban interface.

Objectives

We sought to address how a forest patch’s location in the rural–urban interface influences which avian species choose to occur within the patch. We predicted a negative relationship between forest bird richness and urbanization surrounding the patch, but that it would be ameliorated by the area of tree cover in the patch and matrix, and that total tree-cover area would be more influential on forest bird species richness than area of tree cover in the focal patch alone.

Methods

We conducted bird surveys in 44 forest patches over 2 years in Southeast Michigan and evaluated bird presence and richness relative to patch and matrix tree cover and development density.

Results

We observed 43 species, comprised of 21 Neotropical migrants, 19 residents, and three short-distance migrants. Focal-patch tree-cover area and the matrix tree-cover area were the predominant contributors to a site’s overall forest-bird species richness at the rural–urban interface, but the addition of percent of over-story vegetation and percentage of deciduous tree cover influenced the ability of the patches to support forest species, especially Neotropical migrants. Development intensity in the matrix was unrelated to species richness and only had an effect in four species models.

Conclusions

Although small forest patches remain an important conservation strategy in developed environments, the influence of matrix tree cover suggests that landscape design decisions in surrounding matrix can contribute conservation value at the rural–urban interface.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlering MA, Faaborg J (2006) Avian habitat management meets conspecific attraction: If you build it, will they come? Auk 123:301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold CL, Gibbons CJ (1996) Impervious surface coverage—the emergence of a key environmental indicator. J Am Plan Assoc 62:243–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bart J, Hofschen M, Peterjohn BG (1995) Reliability of the breeding bird survey: effects of restricting surveys to roads. Auk 112:758–761

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy PE, Rothery P, Hinsley SA (2003) Synchrony of woodland bird populations: the effect of landscape structure. Ecography 26:338–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair R (2004) The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple levels of biological organization. Ecol Soc 9:2–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake JG, Karr JR (1987) Breeding birds of isolated woodlots—area and habitat relationships. Ecology 68:1724–1734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulinier T, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Sauer JR, Flather CH, Pollock KH (1998) Higher temporal variability of forest breeding bird communities in fragmented landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:7497–7501

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer R, McPeek GA, Adams RJ (1991) The atlas of breeding birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing

    Google Scholar 

  • Brotons L, Monkkonen M, Martin JL (2003) Are fragments islands? landscape context and density-area relationships in boreal forest birds. Am Nat 162:343–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown DG, Johnson KM, Loveland TR, Theobald DM (2005) Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecol Appl 15:1851–1863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke DM, Nol E (2000) Landscape and fragment size effects on reproductive success of forest-breeding birds in Ontario. Ecol Appl 10:1749–1761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinge SK (1996) Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landsc Urban Plan 36:59–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks KR, Suarez AV, Bolger DT (2004) Avian assemblages along a gradient of urbanization in a highly fragmented landscape. Biol Conserv 115:451–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly R, Marzluff JM (2004) Importance of reserve size and landscape context to urban bird conservation. Conserv Biol 18:733–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan TM, Flather CH (2002) Relationship among North American songbird trends, habitat fragmentation, and landscape occupancy. Ecol Appl 12:364–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunford W, Freemark K (2004) Matrix matters: effects of surrounding land uses on forest birds near Ottawa, Canada. Landscape Ecol 20:497–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biol Conserv 100:65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald JA, Bart J, Brown HD, Lee K (2005) Birds in a developing area: The need for habitat protection at the landscape scale. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191

  • Fletcher RJ, Hutto RL (2008) Partitioning the multi-scale effects of human activity on the occurrence of riparian forest birds. Landscape Ecol 23:727–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friesen LE, Cheskey ED, Cadman MD, Martin VE, MacKay RJ (2005) Early impacts of residential development on wood thrushes in an urbanizing forest. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191

  • Fry J, Xian G, JinS Dewitz J, Homer C, Yang L, Barnes C, Herold N, Wickham J (2011) Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77:858–864

    Google Scholar 

  • Galitsky C, Lawler JJ (2015) Relative influence of local and landscape factors on bird communities vary by species and functional group. Landscape Ecol 30:287–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girling C, Kellet R (2002) Comparing stormwater impacts and costs on three neighborhood plan types. Landsc J 21:100–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutzwiller KJ, Wiedenmann RT, Clements KL, Anderson SH (1994) Effects of human intrusion on song occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk 111:28–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrold ES (2003) Barred owl (Strix varia) nesting ecology in the Southern Piedmont of North Carolina. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte

    Google Scholar 

  • Janzen DH (1983) No park is an island—increase in interference from outside as park size decreases. Oikos 41:402–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jokimaki J, Huhta E (1996) Effects of landscape matrix and habitat structure on a bird community in Northern Finland: a multi-scale approach. Ornis Fennica 73:97–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller CME, Scallan JT (1999) Potential roadside biases due to habitat changes along breeding bird survey routes. Condor 101:50–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee M-B, Carroll JP (2014) Relative importance of local and landscape variables on site occupancy by avian species in a pine forest, urban, and agriculture matrix. For Ecol Manag 320:161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepczyk CA, Hammer RB, Radeloff VC, Stewart SI (2007) Spatiotemporal dynamics of housing growth hotspots in the North Central U.S. from 1940 to 2000. Landscape Ecol 22:939–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepczyk CA, Flather CH, Radeloff VC, Pidgeon AM, Hammer RB, Liu J (2008) Human impacts on regional avian diversity and abundance. Conserv Biol 22:405–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loman J, Vonschantz T (1991) Birds in a farmland—more species in small than in large habitat island. Conserv Biol 5:176–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur R, MacArthur JW (1961) On bird species-diversity. Ecology 42:594–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin TE, Paine CR, Conway CJ, Hochachka WM, Allen P, Jenkins W (1997) BBIRD Field Protocol. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzluff JM, Ewing K (2001) Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: a general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restor Ecol 9:280–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzluff JM, Rodewald AD (2008) Conserving biodiversity in urbanizing areas: nontraditional views from a bird’s perspective. Cities Environ 1:1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason JS (2004) The reproductive success, survival, and natal dispersal of Barred Owls (Strix varia) in rural versus urban habitats in and around Charlotte. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, McComb WC (1995) Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol Monogr 65:235–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Pages computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at the following web site: www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

  • McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melles S, Glenn S, Martin K (2003) Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: Species–environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradient. Conserv Ecol 7(1): 5. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/art5/

  • Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pejchar L, Morgan PM, Caldwell MR, Palmer C, Daily GC (2007) Evaluating the potential for conservation development: biophysical, economic, and institutional perspectives. Conserv Biol 21:69–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon AM, Radeloff VC, Flather CH, Lepczyk CA, Clayton MK, Hawbaker TJ, Hammer RB (2007) Associations of forest bird species richness with housing and landscape pattern across the USA. Ecol Appl 17:1989–2010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reed SE, Hilty JA, Theobald DM (2014) Guidelines and incentives for conservation development in local land-use regulations. Conserv Biol 28:258–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins CS, Dawson DK, Dowell BA (1989) Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildl Monogr 103:1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig M (2003) Win-win ecology: how earth’s species can survive in the midst of the human enterprise. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (1982) Big advantages of small refuges—few people question the value of wildlife refuges, but how to design them is a matter of debate. Nat Hist 91:6–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Abele LG (1982) Refuge design and island biogeographic theory—effects of fragmentation. Am Nat 120:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons TR, Alldredge MW, Pollock KH, Wettroth JM (2007) Experimental analysis of the auditory detection process on avian point counts. Auk 124:986–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith PA (1994) Autocorrelation in logistic-regression modeling of species distributions. Glob Ecol Biogeogr Lett 4:47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith CM, Wachob DG (2006) Trends associated with residential development in riparian breeding bird habitat along the Snake River in Jackson Hole, WY, USA: implications for conservation planning. Biol Conserv 128:431–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stratford JA, Robinson WD (2005) Distribution of neotropical migratory bird species across an urbanizing landscape. Urban Ecosyst 8:59–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theobald DM (2001) Land-use dynamics beyond the American urban fringe. Geogr Rev 91:544–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilghman NG (1987) Characteristics of urban woodlands affecting breeding bird diversity and abundance. Landsc Urban Plan 14:481–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trzcinski MK, Fahrig L, Merriam G (1999) Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecol Appl 9:586–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology—the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Secretariat (2006) Population newsletter 81. United Nations Population Division; Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Villard MA, Merriam G, Maurer BA (1995) Dynamics in subdivided populations of neotropical migratory birds in a fragmented temperate forest. Ecology 76:27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villard MA, Trzcinski MK, Merriam G (1999) Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conserv Biol 13:774–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was partially supported by the National Science Foundation Programs Biocomplexity in the Environment (BCS-0119804) and Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems (GEO-0814542), and University of Michigan discretionary and student research grants. The material in this manuscript is based on the work of Jason J. Taylor in partial fulfillment of a Doctoral degree at the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan. We would like to acknowledge the input and comments of William S. Currie, Larissa Larsen, and Robert B. Payne, and the UM Center for Statistical Consulting and Reporting. In addition, we appreciate the comments from Deahn Donner, Nancy McIntyre, and three anonymous reviewers that helped to improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher A. Lepczyk.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 37 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taylor, J.J., Lepczyk, C.A. & Brown, D.G. Patch and matrix level influences on forest birds at the rural–urban interface. Landscape Ecol 31, 1005–1020 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0310-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0310-5

Keywords

Navigation