Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 20, pp 19530–19545 | Cite as

Bird diversity and dissimilarity show contrasting patterns along heavy metal pollution gradients in the Urals, Russia

  • Eugen A. Belskii
  • Vladimir S. Mikryukov
Research Article

Abstract

The effects of industrial pollution on bird diversity have been widely studied using traditional diversity measures, which assume all species to be equivalent. We compared species richness and Shannon index with distance-based measures of taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity (the abundance-weighted mean nearest taxon distances), which describe within-community dissimilarity at terminal branches. Analysis of dissimilarity can shed light on the processes underlying community assembly, i.e., environmental filtering decreases dissimilarity whereas competitive exclusion increases it. In the 2-year study near Karabash and Revda copper smelters in Russia, point counts of nesting birds and habitat descriptions were taken at 10 sites (40 plots) along each pollution gradient. The abundance and diversity of birds showed good repeatability in both regions. The total density of birds, number of species per plot, and Shannon diversity decreased at high toxic load in both regions. The taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic nearest taxon distances showed the same pattern within regions. Species dissimilarity within communities increased with pollution in Karabash (due to loss of functionally similar species), but did not change in Revda (due to mass replacement of forest species by species of open habitats). Pollution-induced changes in bird communities near Karabash were greater due to the stronger deterioration of the forest ecosystems and less favorable natural conditions (more arid climate, lower diversity and vitality of the tree stand and understorey) compared to Revda. This study emphasizes the need for a multi-level approach to the analysis of bird communities using traditional indices of diversity, functional, taxonomic, or phylogenetic distances between species and environmental variables.

Keywords

Heavy metals Boreal forest Bird community Taxonomic diversity Functional diversity Phylogenetic diversity Nearest taxon distance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank E.L. Vorobeichik and anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript and A.V. Shtshepetkin for performing chemical analyses. Language editing was provided by J. Dodgson (http://www.excellent-proofreading-and-writing.com). The study was supported by the State Contract of the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, UB RAS (field work and basic analyses) and by the Integrated Research Program of the Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, project no. 18-4-4-9 (preparation of the manuscript).

Supplementary material

11356_2018_2153_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1162 kb)

References

  1. Alaya-Ltifi L, Selmi S (2014) Passerine abundance and diversity in a polluted oasis habitat in south-eastern Tunisia. Eur J Wildlife Res 60:535–541.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-014-0817-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alaya-Ltifi L, Chokri MA, Selmi S (2012) Breeding performance of passerines in a polluted oasis habitat in southern Tunisia. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 79:170–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.12.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexandrov AN (2013) State report on the state and protection of environment in Sverdlovsk oblast in 2012. UMC UPI Publishing, YekaterinburgGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow J, Peres CA (2004) Avifaunal responses to single and recurrent wildfires in Amazonian forests. Ecol Appl 14:1358–1373.  https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belskii EA, Belskaya EA (2013a) Bird population in birch forests of the southern Urals affected by industrial pollution: report 1. Reactions of species and the community. Contemp Probl Ecol 6:315–322.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995425513030025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belskii EA, Belskaya EA (2013b) Bird population in birch forests of the Southern Urals affected by industrial pollution: report 2. Relationship with habitat variables. Contemp Probl Ecol 6:323–329.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995425513030037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belskii EA, Lyakhov AG (2003) Response of the avifauna to technogenic environmental pollution in the southern taiga zone of the Middle Urals. Russ J Ecol 34:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belskii EA, Lugas'kova NV, Karfidova AA (2005) Reproductive parameters of adult birds and morphophysiological characteristics of chicks in the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca Pall.) in technogenically polluted habitats. Russ J Ecol 36:329–335.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11184-005-0080-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berglund ÅMM, Nyholm NEI (2011) Slow improvements of metal exposure, health- and breeding conditions of pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) after decreased industrial heavy metal emissions. Sci Total Environ 409:4326–4334.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BirdLife International (2017) IUCN Red List for birds. http://www.birdlife.org. Accessed 31 Oct 2017
  11. Cadotte MW, Carscadden K, Mirotchnick N (2011) Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J Appl Ecol 48:1079–1087.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02048.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cody ML (1974) Competition and the structure of bird communities. Monographs in population biology, vol 7. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Connolly J, Cadotte MW, Brophy C, Dooley Á, Finn J, Kirwan L, Roscher C, Weigelt A (2011) Phylogenetically diverse grasslands are associated with pairwise interspecific processes that increase biomass. Ecology 92:1385–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cramp S, Perrins CM (1977-1994) The birds of the Western Palearctic: handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Dehling DM, Fritz SA, Topfer T, Packert M, Estler P, Bohning-Gaese K, Schleuning M (2014) Functional and phylogenetic diversity and assemblage structure of frugivorous birds along an elevational gradient in the tropical Andes. Ecography 37:1047–1055.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Department of Rospotrebnadzor in Chelyabinsk oblast (2014) State report “On the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population of the Chelyabinsk oblast in 2013” ChelyabinskGoogle Scholar
  17. Devictor V, Mouillot D, Meynard C, Jiguet F, Thuiller W, Mouquet N (2010) Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: the need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. Ecol Lett 13:1030–1040.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01493.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dray S, Dufour AB (2007) The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. JStat Softw 22:1–20Google Scholar
  19. Edwards FA, Edwards DP, Hamer KC, Davies RG (2013) Impacts of logging and conversion of rainforest to oil palm on the functional diversity of birds in Sundaland. Ibis 155:313–326.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eeva T, Lehikoinen E (1995) Egg shell quality, clutch size and hatching success of the great tit (Parus major) and the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) in an air-pollution gradient. Oecologia 102:312–323.  https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf00329798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eeva T, Lehikoinen E (1996) Growth and mortality of nestling great tits (Parus major) and pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) in a heavy metal pollution gradient. Oecologia 108:631–639.  https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf00329036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eeva T, Hakkarainen H, Koivunen V (2002) Population densities of forest birds in a heavy metal pollution gradient. Avian Sci 2:227–236Google Scholar
  23. Eeva T, Belskii E, Gilyazov AS, Kozlov MV (2012) Pollution impacts on bird population density and species diversity at four non-ferrous smelter sites. Biol Conserv 150:33–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Faith DP (1992) Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv 61:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flousek J (1989) Impact of industrial emissions on bird populations breeding in mountain spruce forests in Central Europe. Ann Zool Fenn 26:255–263Google Scholar
  26. Flynn DFB, Gogol-Prokurat M, Nogeire T, Molinari N, Richers BT, Lin BB, Simpson N, Mayfield MM, DeClerck F (2009) Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol Lett 12:22–33.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01255.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  28. Fox J, Friendly M, Monette G (2016) Heplots: visualizing tests in multivariate linear models. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=heplots. Accessed 31 Oct 2017
  29. Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ (2012) Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psy: General 141:2–18.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gerhold P, Cahill JF, Winter M, Bartish IV, Prinzing A (2015) Phylogenetic patterns are not proxies of community assembly mechanisms (they are far better). Funct Ecol 29:600–614.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gotelli NJ (2000) Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81:2606–2621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hackett SJ, Kimball RT, Reddy S, Bowie RCK, Braun EL, Braun MJ, Chojnowski JL, Cox WA, Han KL, Harshman J, Huddleston CJ, Marks BD, Miglia KJ, Moore WS, Sheldon FH, Steadman DW, Witt CC, Yuri T (2008) A phylogenomic study of birds reveals their evolutionary history. Science 320:1763–1768.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157704 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Helmus MR, Keller W, Paterson MJ, Yan ND, Cannon CH, Rusak JA (2010) Communities contain closely related species during ecosystem disturbance. Ecol Lett 13:162–174.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01411.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hidasi-Neto J, Barlow J, Cianciaruso MV (2012) Bird functional diversity and wildfires in the Amazon: the role of forest structure. Anim Conserv 15:407–415.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2012.00528.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hooper DU, Chapin FS III, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setälä H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoyt DF (1979) Practical methods of estimating volume and fresh weight of bird eggs. Auk 96:73–77Google Scholar
  37. Janssens E, Dauwe T, Pinxten R, Eens M (2003) Breeding performance of great tits (Parus major) along a gradient of heavy metal pollution. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1140–1145.  https://doi.org/10.1897/1551-5028(2003)022<1140:Bpogtp>2.0.Co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Järvinen O (1978) Estimating relative densities of land birds by point counts. Ann Zool Fenn 15:290–293Google Scholar
  39. Järvinen O, Väisänen R (1983) Correction coefficients for line transect censuses of breeding birds. Ornis Fenn 60:97–104Google Scholar
  40. Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO (2012) The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491:444–448.  https://doi.org/10.1038/Nature11631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Redding DW, Hartmann K, Mooers AO (2014) Global distribution and conservation of evolutionary distinctness in birds. Curr Biol 24:919–930.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jombart T, Balloux F, Dray S (2010) Adephylo: new tools for investigating the phylogenetic signal in biological traits. Bioinformatics 26:1907–1909.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kembel SW, Cowan PD, Helmus MR, Cornwell WK, Morlon H, Ackerly DD, Blomberg SP, Webb CO (2010) Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26:1463–1464.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Koskimies P, Väisänen RA (1991) Monitoring bird populations: a manual of methods applied in Finland. University of Helsinki, Zoological Museum, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  45. Kozlov MV, Zvereva EL (2007) Industrial barrens: extreme habitats created by non-ferrous metallurgy. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 6:231–259.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-006-9117-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kozlov MV, Zvereva EL, Zverev VE (2009) Impacts of point polluters on terrestrial biota: comparative analysis of 18 contaminated areas. Environmental pollution, vol 15. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  47. Letten AD, Cornwell WK (2015) Trees, branches and (square) roots: why evolutionary relatedness is not linearly related to functional distance. Methods Ecol Evol 6:439–444.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Long JS, Ervin LH (2000) Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. Am Stat 54:217–224Google Scholar
  49. Luck GW, Carter A, Smallbone L (2013) Changes in bird functional diversity across multiple land uses: interpretations of functional redundancy depend on functional group identity. PLoS One 8:e63671.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ponel.0063671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacArthur R, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:377–385.  https://doi.org/10.1086/282505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mayr E (1968) The role of systematics in biology: the study of all aspects of the diversity of life is one of the most important concerns in biology. Sci 159:595–599.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3815.595 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mayr E (1969) Principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Newbold T, Scharlemann JPW, Butchart SHM, Şekercioğlu ÇH, Alkemade R, Booth H, Purves DW (2013) Ecological traits affect the response of tropical forest bird species to land-use intensity. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 280:20122131.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nyholm NEI (1994) Heavy metals tissue levels, impact on breeding and nestling development in natural populations of pied flycatcher (Aves) in the pollution gradient from a smelter. In: Donker MH (ed) Ecotoxicology of soil organisms. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 373–382Google Scholar
  55. Oksanen J et al. (2017) vegan: Community ecology package. http://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/vegan/. Accessed 31 Oct 2017
  56. Pavoine S, Bonsall MB (2011) Measuring biodiversity to explain community assembly: a unified approach. Biol Rev 86:792–812.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00171.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pavoine S, Vallet J, Dufour AB, Gachet S, Daniel H (2009) On the challenge of treating various types of variables: application for improving the measurement of functional diversity. Oikos 118:391–402.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.16668.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Petchey OL, Gaston KJ (2006) Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecol Lett 9:741–758.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00924.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Petchey OL, Evans KL, Fishburn IS, Gaston KJ (2007) Low functional diversity and no redundancy in British avian assemblages. J Anim Ecol 76:977–985.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01271.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 31 Oct 2017
  61. Rangel TFLVB, Diniz-Filho JAF, Bini LM (2006) Towards an integrated computational tool for spatial analysis in macroecology and biogeography. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:321–327.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-822x.2006.00237.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sazonova TA, Olchev AV (2010) The response of coniferous trees to industrial pollution in north-western Russia. Open Geogr J 3:125–130.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874923201003010125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Seymour C et al (2015) On bird functional diversity: species richness and functional differentiation show contrasting responses to rainfall and vegetation structure in an arid landscape. Ecosystems 18:971–984.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9875-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smorkalov IA, Vorobeichik EL (2011) Soil respiration of forest ecosystems in gradients of environmental pollution by emissions from copper smelters. Russ J Ecol 42:464–470.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1067413611060166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tilman D (2001) Functional diversity. In: Levin SA (ed) Encyclopedia of biodiversity, vol 3. Elsevier, New York, pp 109–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-226865-2/00132-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tomek T (1992) Formation of bird communities in the forest sample plots undergoing the action of industrial pollution in the Ojcow National Park. Acta Zool Cracov 35:351–372Google Scholar
  67. Tucker CM, Cadotte MW, Carvalho SB, Davies TJ, Ferrier S, Fritz SA, Grenyer R, Helmus MR, Jin LS, Mooers AO, Pavoine S, Purschke O, Redding DW, Rosauer DF, Winter M, Mazel F (2017) A guide to phylogenetic metrics for conservation, community ecology and macroecology. Biol Rev 92:698–715.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vorobeichik EL, Kaigorodova SY (2017) Long-term dynamics of heavy metals in the upper horizons of soils in the region of a copper smelter impacts during the period of reduced emission. Eurasian Soil Sci 50:977–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vorobeichik EL, Pishchulin PG (2016) Industrial pollution reduces the effect of trees on forming the patterns of heavy metal concentration fields in forest litter. Russ J Ecol 47:431–441.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1067413616050155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Webb CO, Ackerly DD, McPeek MA, Donoghue MJ (2002) Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:475–505.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolysis.33.010802.150448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilman H, Belmaker J, Simpson J, de la Rosa C, Rivadeneira MM, Jetz W (2014) EltonTraits 1.0: species-level foraging attributes of the world's birds and mammals. Ecology 95:2027–2027.  https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1917.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zar JH (2010) Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn. Pearson Education Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Plant and Animal EcologyUral Branch, Russian Academy of SciencesYekaterinburgRussia

Personalised recommendations