Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 154, Issue 3, pp 655–662 | Cite as

Bird traits in urban–rural gradients: how many functional groups are there?

Original Article

Abstract

Recent analyses of communities have examined the variation of species traits along environmental gradients. These papers highlight a combination of several traits, instead of variation of individual traits, to better explain the effect of urbanization on bird communities. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) allows the identification of an underlying structure of a broad set of data. EFA can be a useful tool for generating functional groups from highly correlated biological traits in bird communities and determining its variation along gradients of urbanization. Birds were counted along an urban–rural gradient during spring 2009–summer 2010. Species were classified using 15 biological traits related to the use of space. The EFA was calculated from a matrix where rows were sampling units (n = 75), and columns represented counts of individuals with each trait (n = 15). Four functional groups were obtained. Functional group 1 comprised resident species feeding gregariously on the grond, nesting in buildings, having an omnivorous diet, and being most abundant in the more urbanized areas. Functional group 2 was most abundant at intermediate levels of urbanization and represented solitary species that nest in trees, feeding on vegetation and with carnivorous and nectarivorous diets. Migratory behavior, insectivorous and granivorous diets, aerial feeding and ground nesting were representative of two functional groups in rural areas. Responses to urbanization by these functional groups are consistent with the classifications of response guilds (urban exploiters, urban adapters, and urban avoiders). Thus, EFA allows a link between concepts generated from the analysis of species and the analysis based on biological traits.

Keywords

Exploratory factor analysis Urbanization Guilds Birds Argentina Land use 

Zusammenfassung

Merkmale von Vögeln entlang von städtisch-ländlichen Gradienten: Wie viele funktionelle Gruppen gibt es?

In aktuellen Untersuchungen von Vogelgemeinschaften wurde die Variation von Merkmalen an Arten entlang von Umweltgradienten untersucht. Diese Untersuchungen betonen eine Kombination verschiedener Merkmale, anstatt einer Variation individueller Merkmale, um den Effekt der Urbanisierung auf Vogelgemeinschaften besser zu erklären. Eine Erklärende Faktoranalyse (EFA) erlaubt es, in einem großen Datensatz eine zugrundeliegende Struktur aufzudecken. EFA kann ein nützliches Werkzeug sein, um aus hoch miteinander korrelierten biologischen Merkmalen in Vogelgemeinschaften funktionelle Gruppen zu erzeugen und um deren Variation entlang von Urbanisierungsgradienten zu bestimmen. Vögel wurden entlang eines städtisch-ländlichen Gradienten während des Frühlings 2009 bis Sommer 2010 gezählt. Die Arten wurden anhand von 15 biologischen Merkmalen zur Raumnutzung klassifiziert. Die EFA wurde aus einer Matrix berechnet, deren Reihen den Zählstellen entsprachen (n = 75), und in deren Spalten die Anzahl der Individuen mit dem jeweiligen Merkmal (n = 15) stand. Wir erhielten vier funktionale Gruppen. Die funktionale Gruppe 1 bestand aus Arten, die Schwärme bilden, in Gebäuden nisten, eine omnivore Ernährung aufweisen und am häufigsten in den am meisten urbanisierten Gegenden vorkommen. Die funktionale Gruppe 2 war am häufigsten in Gebieten mittlerer Urbanisierung zu finden und bestand aus Arten, die in Bäumen nisten, die sich von Pflanzen ernährten und solchen mit carnivorer und nectarivorer Ernährung. Zugverhalten, insektivore und granivore Ernährung, Nahrungsaufnahme im Flug und Bodenbrüten waren kennzeichnend für zwei funktionelle Gruppen in ländlichen Gegenden. Die Reaktionen dieser funktionalen Gruppen auf Urbanisierung stimmen überein mit den sog. Reaktions-Gilden (Stadtnutzer, Stadtanpasser und Stadtvermeider). Daher erlaubt die EFA eine Verbindung zwischen Konzepten, die auf der Analyse der Art beruhen, mit Analysen, die auf biologischen Merkmalen fußen.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The idea of this manuscript appeared in the postgraduate course “Análisis Factorial Exploratorio” taught by Dr. Ledesma. I really appreciate the improvements in English usage made by F. Isla and Peter Lowther through the Association of Field Ornithologists’ program of editorial assistance. The suggestions made by J. Isacch and R. Ledesma and two anonymous reviewers improved the quality of the manuscript. I thank F. Isla for the production of Fig. 1. The author is a fellow of CONICET.

Supplementary material

10336_2012_928_MOESM1_ESM.doc (84 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 84 kb)

References

  1. Bellocq MI, Filloy J, Garaffa P (2008) Influence of agricultural intensity and urbanization on the abundance of the raptor chimango caracara (Milvago chimango) in the pampean region of Argentina. Ann Zool Fenn 45:128–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blair RB (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 6:506–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair RB, Johnson EM (2008) Suburban habitats and their role for birds in the urban-rural habitat network: points of local invasions and extinction? Landsc Ecol 23:1157–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burton ML, Samuelson LJ, Mackenzie MD (2009) Riparian woody plant traits across an urban-rural land use gradient and implications for watershed function with urbanization. Landsc Urban Plan 90:42–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Catterall CP (2009) Response of faunal assemblages to urbanization: global research paradigms and an avian case study. In: McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK, Breuste JH (eds) Ecology of cities and towns: a comparative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conole LE, Kirkpatrick JB (2011) Functional and spatial differentiation of urban bird assemblages at the landscape scale. Landsc Urban Plan 100:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Croci S, Butet A, Clergeau P (2008) Does urbanization filter birds on the basis of their biological traits. Condor 110:223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De la Peña MR (1988) Guía de aves Argentinas: Dendrocolaptidae a Tyrannidae. Literature of Latin America (L.O.L.A.), Buenos Aires, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  10. De la Peña MR (1989) Guía de aves Argentinas: Rhinocryptidae a Corvidae. Literature of Latin America (L.O.L.A.), Buenos Aires, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  11. De la Peña MR (2010) Nidos de aves argentinas. CD-ROM. Universidad Nacional del Litoral, EsperanzaGoogle Scholar
  12. Diaz S, Cabido C, Zak M, Martinez CE, Aranibar J (1999) Plant functional traits, ecosystem structure and land-use history along a climatic gradient in central-western Argentina. J Veg Sci 10:651–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. du Toit MJ, Cilliers SS (2011) Aspects influencing the selection of representative urbanization measures to quantify urban-rural gradients. Landsc Ecol 26:169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans KL, Chamberlain DE, Hatchwell BJ, Gregory RD, Gaston KJ (2011) What makes an urban bird? Glob Change Biol 17:32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandez- Juricic E (2000) Avifaunal use of wooded streets in an urban landscape. Conserv Biol 14:513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrando PJ, Anguiano-Carrasco C (2010) El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en Psicología. Pap Psicól 31:18–33Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Glutting J (2002) Some psychometric properties of a system to measure ADHD. Meas Eval Couns Dev 34:194–209Google Scholar
  19. Hashimoto H, Natuhara Y, Morimoto Y (2005) A habitat model for Parus major minus using logistic regression model for the urban area of Osaka, Japan. Landsc Urban Plan 70:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heyman E, Gunnarsson B (2011) Management effect on bird and arthropod interaction in suburban woodlands. BMC Ecol 11:8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howit D, Cramer D (2011) Introduction to statistics in psychology. Pearson, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  22. James FC, McCulloch CE (1990) Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics: panacea or Pandora’s box? Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:129–166Google Scholar
  23. Jokimäki J, Huhta E (2000) Artificial nest predation and abundance of birds along an urban gradient. Condor 102:838–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jokimäki J, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki ML, Sorace A, Fernández-Juricic E, Rodriguez- Prieto I, Jimenez MD (2005) Evaluation of the “safe nesting zone” hypothesis across an urban gradient: a multi-scale study. Ecography 28:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaiser HF (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 20:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaiser HF (1970) A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 35:401–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kark S, Iwaniuk A, Schalimtzeka A, Banker E (2007) Living in the city: can anyone become an ‘urban exploiter’? J Biogeogr 34:638–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lavorel S, Garnier E (2002) Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct Ecol 16:545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Leveau LM, Leveau CM (2004) Comunidades de aves en un gradiente urbano de la ciudad de Mar del Plata, Argentina. Hornero 19:13–21Google Scholar
  31. Leveau CM, Leveau LM (2005) Avian community response to urbanization in the Pampean Region, Argentina. Ornitol Neotrop 16:503–510Google Scholar
  32. Lim HC, Sodhi NS (2004) Responses of avian guilds to urbanization in a tropical city. Landsc Urban Plan 66:199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. López-Gonzalez E, Carbonell AP, Ramos-Santana G (2011) Modelos complementarios al análisis factorial en la construcción de escalas ordinales: un ejemplo aplicado a la medida del clima social aula. Rev Educ 354:369–397Google Scholar
  34. Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ (2006) Factor: a computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behav Res Methods 38:88–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marzluff JM (2005) Island biogeography for an urbanizing world: how extinction and colonization may determine biological diversity in human-dominated landscapes. Urban Ecosyst 8:157–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McDonnell MJ, Pickett TA (1990) Ecosystem structure and function along urban–rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71:1232–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGill B, Enquist BJ, Weiher E, Westoby M (2006) Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends Ecol Evol 21:178–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Møller AP (2009) Succesful city dwellers: a comparative study of the ecological characteristics of urban birds in the Western Paleartic. Oecologia 159:849–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Montaldo NH (1984) Asociación de dos especies de picaflores con árboles del género Eucalyptus (Myrtaceae) en la provincia de Buenos Aires. Hornero 12:159–162Google Scholar
  41. Newton I, Dale LC (1996) Bird migration at different latitudes in eastern North America. Auk 113:626–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pautasso M (2007) Scale dependence of the correlation between human population presence and vertebrate and plant species richness. Ecol Lett 10:16–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pérez ER, Medrano L (2010) Análisis factorial exploratorio: bases conceptuales y metodológicas. Rev Argent Cienc Comport 2:58–66Google Scholar
  44. Rabinowitz GB (1975) An introduction to nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Am J Pol Sci 19:343–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reynaud RA, Thioulouse J (2000) Identification of birds as ecological markers along a neotropical urban-rural gradient (Cayenne, French Guiana), using co-inertia analysis. J Environ Manage 59:121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sol D (2007) Do successful invaders exist? Pre-adaptations to novel environments in terrestrial vertebrates. In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions. Springer, Berlin, pp 127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Soriano A, León RJC, Sala OE, Lavado RS, Deregibus VA, Cauhépé M, Scaglia OA, Velásquez CA, Lemcoff JHM (1991) Río de la Plata grasslands. In: Coupland RT (ed) Natural grasslands: introduction and Western Hemisphere. Ecosystems of the World. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 367–407Google Scholar
  48. Spearman Ch (1904) General intelligence: objectively determined and measured. Am J Psychol 115:201–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tabachnick B, Fidell L (2001) Using multivariate statistics. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. ten Berge JMF, Kiers HAL (1991) A numerical approach to the exact and the approximate minimum rank of a covariance matrix. Psychometrika 56:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thurstone LL (1947) Multiple factor analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  52. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Nacional de Mar del PlataMar del PlataArgentina

Personalised recommendations