Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 1005–1020 | Cite as

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

  • Jason J. Taylor
  • Christopher A. Lepczyk
  • Daniel G. Brown
Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

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.

Keywords

Housing development Neotropical migrant Protected areas Rural–urban interface Sprawl 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

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.

Supplementary material

10980_2015_310_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 37 kb)

References

  1. Ahlering MA, Faaborg J (2006) Avian habitat management meets conspecific attraction: If you build it, will they come? Auk 123:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold CL, Gibbons CJ (1996) Impervious surface coverage—the emergence of a key environmental indicator. J Am Plan Assoc 62:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bart J, Hofschen M, Peterjohn BG (1995) Reliability of the breeding bird survey: effects of restricting surveys to roads. Auk 112:758–761Google Scholar
  4. Bellamy PE, Rothery P, Hinsley SA (2003) Synchrony of woodland bird populations: the effect of landscape structure. Ecography 26:338–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair R (2004) The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple levels of biological organization. Ecol Soc 9:2–22Google Scholar
  6. Blake JG, Karr JR (1987) Breeding birds of isolated woodlots—area and habitat relationships. Ecology 68:1724–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 95:7497–7501CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Brewer R, McPeek GA, Adams RJ (1991) The atlas of breeding birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East LansingGoogle Scholar
  9. Brotons L, Monkkonen M, Martin JL (2003) Are fragments islands? landscape context and density-area relationships in boreal forest birds. Am Nat 162:343–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown DG, Johnson KM, Loveland TR, Theobald DM (2005) Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecol Appl 15:1851–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke DM, Nol E (2000) Landscape and fragment size effects on reproductive success of forest-breeding birds in Ontario. Ecol Appl 10:1749–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Collinge SK (1996) Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landsc Urban Plan 36:59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crooks KR, Suarez AV, Bolger DT (2004) Avian assemblages along a gradient of urbanization in a highly fragmented landscape. Biol Conserv 115:451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donnelly R, Marzluff JM (2004) Importance of reserve size and landscape context to urban bird conservation. Conserv Biol 18:733–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donovan TM, Flather CH (2002) Relationship among North American songbird trends, habitat fragmentation, and landscape occupancy. Ecol Appl 12:364–374Google Scholar
  17. Dunford W, Freemark K (2004) Matrix matters: effects of surrounding land uses on forest birds near Ottawa, Canada. Landscape Ecol 20:497–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biol Conserv 100:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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-191Google Scholar
  20. Fletcher RJ, Hutto RL (2008) Partitioning the multi-scale effects of human activity on the occurrence of riparian forest birds. Landscape Ecol 23:727–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 309:570–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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-191Google Scholar
  23. 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 77:858–864Google Scholar
  24. Galitsky C, Lawler JJ (2015) Relative influence of local and landscape factors on bird communities vary by species and functional group. Landscape Ecol 30:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Girling C, Kellet R (2002) Comparing stormwater impacts and costs on three neighborhood plan types. Landsc J 21:100–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutzwiller KJ, Wiedenmann RT, Clements KL, Anderson SH (1994) Effects of human intrusion on song occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk 111:28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrold ES (2003) Barred owl (Strix varia) nesting ecology in the Southern Piedmont of North Carolina. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, CharlotteGoogle Scholar
  28. Janzen DH (1983) No park is an island—increase in interference from outside as park size decreases. Oikos 41:402–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 73:97–113Google Scholar
  30. Keller CME, Scallan JT (1999) Potential roadside biases due to habitat changes along breeding bird survey routes. Condor 101:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 320:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 22:939–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lepczyk CA, Flather CH, Radeloff VC, Pidgeon AM, Hammer RB, Liu J (2008) Human impacts on regional avian diversity and abundance. Conserv Biol 22:405–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Loman J, Vonschantz T (1991) Birds in a farmland—more species in small than in large habitat island. Conserv Biol 5:176–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacArthur R, MacArthur JW (1961) On bird species-diversity. Ecology 42:594–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin TE, Paine CR, Conway CJ, Hochachka WM, Allen P, Jenkins W (1997) BBIRD Field Protocol. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, MissoulaGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 9:280–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marzluff JM, Rodewald AD (2008) Conserving biodiversity in urbanizing areas: nontraditional views from a bird’s perspective. Cities Environ 1:1–27Google Scholar
  40. 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, CharlotteGoogle Scholar
  41. McGarigal K, McComb WC (1995) Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol Monogr 65:235–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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/
  45. Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pejchar L, Morgan PM, Caldwell MR, Palmer C, Daily GC (2007) Evaluating the potential for conservation development: biophysical, economic, and institutional perspectives. Conserv Biol 21:69–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 17:1989–2010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Reed SE, Hilty JA, Theobald DM (2014) Guidelines and incentives for conservation development in local land-use regulations. Conserv Biol 28:258–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Robbins CS, Dawson DK, Dowell BA (1989) Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildl Monogr 103:1–34Google Scholar
  51. Rosenzweig M (2003) Win-win ecology: how earth’s species can survive in the midst of the human enterprise. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 91:6–7Google Scholar
  53. Simberloff D, Abele LG (1982) Refuge design and island biogeographic theory—effects of fragmentation. Am Nat 120:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Simons TR, Alldredge MW, Pollock KH, Wettroth JM (2007) Experimental analysis of the auditory detection process on avian point counts. Auk 124:986–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith PA (1994) Autocorrelation in logistic-regression modeling of species distributions. Glob Ecol Biogeogr Lett 4:47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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 128:431–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stratford JA, Robinson WD (2005) Distribution of neotropical migratory bird species across an urbanizing landscape. Urban Ecosyst 8:59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Theobald DM (2001) Land-use dynamics beyond the American urban fringe. Geogr Rev 91:544–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tilghman NG (1987) Characteristics of urban woodlands affecting breeding bird diversity and abundance. Landsc Urban Plan 14:481–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Trzcinski MK, Fahrig L, Merriam G (1999) Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecol Appl 9:586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology—the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. United Nations Secretariat (2006) Population newsletter 81. United Nations Population Division; Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Villard MA, Merriam G, Maurer BA (1995) Dynamics in subdivided populations of neotropical migratory birds in a fragmented temperate forest. Ecology 76:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Villard MA, Trzcinski MK, Merriam G (1999) Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conserv Biol 13:774–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason J. Taylor
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christopher A. Lepczyk
    • 3
  • Daniel G. Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Bureau of Land Management - AlaskaAnchorageUSA
  3. 3.School of Forestry and Wildlife SciencesAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations