Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 24, Issue 13, pp 3329–3346 | Cite as

Diverse vegetation in a spa town supports human social benefits of urban birds

  • Tomáš Kučera
  • Petra Kloubcová
  • Petr Veselý
Original Paper


The urban–rural gradient effect, together with the value of urban green patches, on saving bird diversity has received significant research in recent years. These topics are usually studied in the context of big cities, where the effects are more pronounced. In the present study, we observed how these phenomena affect the avicoenoses in smaller spa town, where landscape protection supports the benefits of biocultural diversity. We assessed the effect of the occurrence of microhabitats (especially particular tree and shrub forms) within the urban–rural gradient on bird fauna composition. We found that the urban–rural gradient in towns is not as relevant as in cities because the effect is covered with a more complicated multi-layered vegetation structure. For the management practices we confirm the high importance of vegetation continuity from the periphery to the city centre, bypassing the isolation of green patches. A proportion of deciduous and coniferous trees and their spatial heterogeneity are important for the occurrence of small songbirds. Next, we conducted a questionnaire-based study with the park visitors and found that there is a biocultural benefit from the presence of songbirds in large urban parks, especially in the spa town. The clear preference of songbirds by park visitors highlights the social benefit of bird diversity.


Urban vegetation Green infrastructure Biocultural diversity Spa town Human perception 



We are grateful to P. Šmilauer for statistic consulting. This work was supported by University of South Bohemia (GAJU 04-146/2013/P). We also thank to M. Agnoletti and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Authors hereby state that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial). All human participants undertaking the questionnaire research confirmed the informed consent with the procedure of the research.

Supplementary material

10531_2015_974_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)
10531_2015_974_MOESM2_ESM.doc (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 1471 kb)


  1. Adevi AA, Mårtensson F (2013) Stress rehabilitation through garden therapy: the garden as a place in the recovery from stress. Urban For Urban Green 12:230–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson E, Bodin O (2009) Practical tool for landscape planning? An empirical investigation of network based models of habitat fragmentation. Ecography 32:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biadun W, Zmihorski M (2011) Factors shaping a breeding bird community along an urbanisation gradient: 26-year study in medium size city, Lublin, SE Poland. Pol J Ecol 59:381–389Google Scholar
  4. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Seddon AJE (1992) Bird census techniques. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair RB, Johnson EM (2008) Suburban habitats and their role for birds in the urban-rural habitat network: points of local invasion and extinction. Landsc Ecol 23:1157–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croci D, Butet A, Georges A, Aguejdad R, Clergeau P (2008) Small urban woodlands as biodiversity conservation hot-spot: a multi-taxon approach. Landsc Ecol 23:1171–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dallimer M, Irvine KN, Skinner AMJ, Davies ZG, Rouquette JR, Maltby LL, Warren PH, Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ (2012) Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. BioScience 62:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dallimer M, Davies ZG, Irvine KN, Maltby L, Warren PH, Gaston KJ, Armsworth PR (2014) What personal and environmental factors determine frequency of urban greenspace use? Int J Environ Res Public Health 11:7977–7992PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Donnelly R, Marzluff JM (2006) Relative importance of habitat quantity, structure and spatial pattern to birds in urbanizing environments. Urban Ecosyst 9:99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dorn NJ, Cook MI, Herring G, Boyle RA, Nelson J, Gawlik DE (2011) Aquatic prey switching and urban foraging by the White Ibis Eudocimus albus are determined by wetland hydrological conditions. Ibis 153:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards D, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montangé C, Peace A, Weiss G (2011) Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: towards a pan-European perspective. For Policy Econ 19:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eeva T, Lehikoinen E (1995) Egg shell quality, nest size and hatching success of the great tit (Parus major) and the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) in an air pollution gradient. Oecologia 102:312–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans KL, Newson SE, Gaston KJ (2009) Habitat influences on urban avian assemblages. Ibis 151:19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fanelli G, Battisti C (2014) Comparing disturbance-sensitivity between plants and birds: a fine-grained analysis in a suburban remnant wetland. Isr J Ecol Evol 60:11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferenc M, Sedláček O, Fuchs R (2014a) How to improve urban greenspace for woodland birds: site and local-scale determinants of bird species richness. Urban Ecosyst 17:625–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferenc M, Sedláček O, Fuchs R, Dinetti M, Fraissinet M, Storch D (2014b) Are cities different? Patterns of species richness and beta diversity of urban bird communities and regional species assemblages in Europe. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:479–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fernandes-Juricic E (2004) Spatial and temporal analysis of the distribution of forest specialists in an urban-fragmented landscape (Madrid, Spain) implications for total and regional bird conservation. Landsc Urban Plan 69:17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fontana S, Sattler T, Bontadina F, Moretti M (2011) How to manage the urban green to improve bird diversity and community structure. Landsc Urban Plan 101:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiverzity. Biol Lett 3:390–394PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Garaffa PI, Filloy J, Bellocq MI (2009) Bird community responses along urban-rural gradients: does the size of the urbanized area matter? Landsc Urban Plan 90:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaston K (2010) Urban ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hessayon DG (2008) The tree and shrub expert. Transworld Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Hodgson P, French K, Major RE (2007) Avian movement across abrupt ecological edges: differential responses to housing density in an urban matrix. Landsc Urban Plan 79:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Husté A, Boulinier T (2011) Determinants of bird community composition on patches in the suburbs of Paris, France. Biol Conserv 144:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Husté A, Selmi S, Boulinier T (2006) Bird communities in suburban patches near Paris: determinants of local richness in a highly fragmented landscape. Ecoscience 13:249–257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Isaac B, White J, Ierodiaconou D, Cooke R (2014) Urban to forest gradients: suitability for hollow bearing trees and implications for obligate hollow nesters. Aust Ecol 39:963–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson AK, Froneberger JP, Cristol DA (2013) Habitat near nest boxes correlated with fate of eastern bluebird fledglings in an urban landscape. Urban Ecosyst 16:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jensen H, Moe R, Hagen IJ, Holand AM, Kekkonen J, Tufto J, Saether B-E (2013) Genetic variation and structure of house sparrow populations: is there an island effect ? Mol Ecol 22:1792–1805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jim CY, Zhang H (2013) Species diversity and spatial differentiation of old-valuable trees in urban Hong Kong. Urban For Urban Green 12:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  32. Lõhmus K, Liira J (2013) Old rural parks support higher biodiversity than forest remnants. Basic Appl Ecol 14:165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacDougall-Shackleton EA, Clinchy M, Zanette L, Neff BD (2011) Songbird genetic diversity is lower in anthropogenically versus naturally fragmented landscapes. Conserv Genet 12:1195–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maffi L (2007) Biocultural diversity and sustainability. The Sage handbook on environment and society. Sage, London, pp 267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maffi L (2014) Biocultural diversity toolkit. Introduction to biocultural diversity, vol. 1. Terralingua, 43pGoogle Scholar
  36. Major RE, Johnson RN, King AG, Cooke GM, Sladek JLT (2014) Genetic isolation of endangered bird populations inhabiting salt marsh remnants surrounded by intensive urbanization. Anim Conserv 17:419–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manuel PM (2003) Cultural perceptions of small urban wetlands: cases from the Halifax reginal municipality, Nova Scotia, Canada. Wetlands 23:921–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mathez-Stiefel SL, Boillat S, Rist S (2007) Promoting the diversity of worldviews. In: Haverkort B, Rist S (eds) Endogenous development and bio-cultural diversity. ETC Compas, Leusden, pp 67–81Google Scholar
  39. McCune B, Mefford M (2011) PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 6. MjM Software, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  40. Mikula P, Hromada M, Albrecht T, Tryjanowski P (2014) Nest site selection and breeding success in three Turdus thrush species coexisting in an urban environment. Acta Ornithol 49:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murray CG, Kasel S, Loyn RH, Hepworth G, Hamilton AJ (2013) Waterbird use of artificial wetlands in an Australian urban landscape. Hydrobiologia 716:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mycko Ł, Rosin Z, Skórka P, Tryjanowski P (2014) Urbanization level and woodland size are major drivers of woodpecker species richness and abundance. PLoS One 9:e94218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Navrátil J, Kučera T et al (2015) Preferences of tourists in their use of the chateau gardens: a Central and Eastern European perspective. J Tour Cult Change. doi: 10.1080/14766825.2015.1043919 Google Scholar
  44. Nielsen AB, van den Bosch M, Maruthaveeran S, van den Bosch CK (2013) Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: a review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosyst 17:305–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Orłowski G, Kasprzykowski Z, Dobicki W, Pokorny P, Wuczyński A, Polechoński R, Mazgajski TD (2014) Trace-element interactions in rook Corvus frugilegus eggshells along an urbanisation gradient. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 67:519–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Palomino D, Carrascal LM (2006) Urban influence on birds at a regional scale. A case study with the avifauna of northern Madrid province. Landsc Urban Plan 77:276–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pauleit S, Breuste JH (2011) Land use and surface cover as urban ecological indicators. In: Neimelä J (ed) Handbook of urban ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pellissier V, Cohenb M, Boulayb A, Clergeau P (2012) Birds are also sensitive to landscape composition and configuration within the city centre. Landsc Urban Plan 104:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roovers P, Hermy M, Gulinck H (2002) Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Landsc Urban Plan 59:129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sandström UG, Angelstam P, Mikusinski P (2006) Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the structure of urban green space. Landsc Urban Plan 77:39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schipperijn J, Bentsen P, Troelsen J, Toftager M, Stigsdotter UK (2013) Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban For Urban Green 12:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwartz A, Turbé A, Simon L, Julliard R (2014) Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: an experiment. Biol Conserv 171:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Šmilauer P, Lepš J (2014) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using Canoco 5. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Šťastný K, Bejček V, Hudec K (2006) Atlas hnízdního rozšíření ptáků v České republice. Aventinum, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  55. Sukopp H, Numata M, Huber A (1995) Urban ecology as the basis of urban planning. SPB Academic Publishing, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  56. Sutherland WJ, Newton I, Green RE (2005) Bird ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  57. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2012) Canoco reference manual and user’s guide: software for ordination (version 5). Microcomputer Power, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  58. Thorington KK, Bowman R (2003) Predation rate on artificial nests increases with human housing density in suburban habitats. Ecography 26:188–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Townsend M, Weerasuriya R (2010) Beyond Blue to Green: The benefits of contact with nature for mental health and well-being. Beyond Blue Limited, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  60. Tremblay MA, St Clair CC (2011) Permeability of a heterogeneous urban landscape to the movements of forest songbirds. J Appl Ecol 48:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tyrväinen L, Mäkinen K, Schipperijn J (2006) Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landsc Urban Plan 79:5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vaananen VM, Nummi P, Lehtiniemi T, Luostarinen VM, Mikkola-Roos M (2011) Habitat complementation in urban barnacle geese: from safe nesting islands to productive foraging lawns. Boreal Environ Res 16:26–34Google Scholar
  63. Vangestel C, Mergeay J, Dawson DA, Callens T, Vandomme V, Lens L (2012) Genetic diversity and population structure in contemporary house sparrow populations along an urbanization gradient. Heredity 109:163–172PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Werquin AC, Duhem B, Lindholm G, Oppermann B, Pauleit S, Tjallingii S (2005) Green structure and urban planning. Final report COST Action C11. ESF COST LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilde HD, Gandhi KJK, Colson G (2015) State of the science and challenges of breeding landscape plants with ecological function. Hortic Res 2:14069. doi: 10.1038/hortres.2014.69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhang H, Chen B, Sun Z, Bao Z (2013) Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hagzhou, China. Urban For Urban Green 13:44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomáš Kučera
    • 1
  • Petra Kloubcová
    • 1
  • Petr Veselý
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecosystem Biology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Zoology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations