Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 1579–1596 | Cite as

Value of park reserves to migrating and breeding landbirds in an urban important bird area

  • Tania Z. HomayounEmail author
  • Robert B. Blair


Increasing urban development threatens not only breeding habitat for migratory landbirds but also critical stopover habitat. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between landbird community composition and land cover in and surrounding urban park reserves in the Mississippi River Twin Cities Important Bird Area (IBA) in order to evaluate this area’s value during both spring migration and summer breeding seasons. This IBA includes a mosaic of residential, commercial, and park reserve land running along the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and Hastings, Minnesota. Using citizen-science data collected at 8 park reserve sites in the IBA between 2007 and 2010, we calculated species richness, diversity, and evenness for the migrating and breeding landbird community at each site and categorized species into three conservation statuses (species of greatest conservation need, native and exotic) and four migratory behavior classes (permanent residents, short-distance migrants, resident neotropical migrants, and en-route neotropical migrants). We used AIC to rank multiple regression models to evaluate how these groupings vary across sites in comparison to the land cover in and surrounding each site. We found that most measures of both the spring migration and breeding communities were negatively related to increased impervious cover. Exotic species and permanent residents were less affected by surrounding land use, while breeding season resident and transitory neotropical migrants were greatly affected. Patterns of landbird richness and density suggest that removing impervious cover within lower quality sites can improve habitat supporting migrating birds.


Neotropical migrants Migration stopover Community composition Land cover Minnesota USA 



The Mississippi River Twin Cities Important Bird Area Landbird Monitoring Program was supported by a grant from Mississippi River Fund and Audubon Minnesota. Partial funding for this program was supported by a Migratory Bird Conservation in the Upper Midwest Grant Agreement from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. We wish to thank S. Fuqua for applying his database and programming expertise to this project and T. Arnold for his review and guidance regarding statistical methods. Special thanks to Audubon Minnesota, the National Park Service, and all the volunteers in the IBA Monitoring Program, without whose efforts this project would not have been possible.

Supplementary material

11252_2015_437_MOESM1_ESM.docx (122 kb)
Online Resource 1 (DOCX 121 kb)
11252_2015_437_MOESM2_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Online Resource 2 (DOCX 27 kb)
11252_2015_437_MOESM3_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Online Resource 3 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. Bardon KJ (2001) The Hastings-Prescott bird count. Loon 73(4):231–235Google Scholar
  2. Beyer HL (2004) Hawth’s analysis tools for ArcGIS. Available from
  3. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA (1992) Bird census techniques. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair RB (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 6:506–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair RB (2004) The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple levels of biological organization. Ecol Soc 9(5):2, Available from CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Burghardt KT, Tallamy DW, Shriver WG (2008) Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly diversity in suburban landscapes. Conserv Biol 23(1):219–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J, Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC, Dentener F, Foster M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P, Gregory RD, Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque J-F, Leverington F, Loh J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Hernández Morcillo M, Oldfield TEE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR, Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vié J-C, Watson R (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328(5982):1164–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Center for Watershed Protection (2003) Impacts of impervious cover on aquatic Systems. watershed protection. Research Monograph No. 1. Ellicott City, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  11. Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chipley R (ed) (1999) Methods. North American important bird areas. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  13. Ciach M (2012) The winter bird community of rural areas in the proximity of cities: low density and rapid decrease in diversity. Pol J Ecol 60:193–199Google Scholar
  14. Ciach M, Fröhlich A (2013) Habitat preferences of the Syrian Woodpecker Dendrocopos syriacus in urban environments: an ambiguous effect of pollution. Bird Study 60:491–499. doi: 10.1080/00063657.2013.847899 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Devenish C, Díaz Fernández DF, Clay RP, Davidson I, Yépez Zabala I, eds. (2009) Important Bird Areas Americas - Priority sites for biodiversity conservation. Quito, Ecuador: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 16)Google Scholar
  16. Doherty PF, White GC, Burnham KP (2012) Comparison of model building and selection strategies. J Ornithol 152:S317–S323. doi: 10.1007/s10336-010-0598-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) (2004) ArcGIS Version 9.0. Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  18. Friesen LE, Eagles PFJ, Mackay RJ (1995) Effects of residential development on forest-dwelling neotropical migrant songbirds. Conserv Biol 9(6):1408–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayak LC, Buzas MA (1997) Surveying natural populations. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Herkert JR, Reinking DL, Wiedenfeld DA, Winter M, Zimmerman JL, Jensen WE, Finck EJ, Koford RR, Wolfe DH, Sherrod SK, Jenkins MA, Faaborg J, Robinson SK (2003) Effects of prairie fragmentation on the nest success of breeding birds in the midcontinental United States. Conserv Biol 17(2):587–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Homayoun TZ, Blair RB (2009) Citizen-science monitoring of landbirds in the Mississippi River Twin Cities Important Bird Area. In: Rich TD, Arizmendi C, Demarest D, Thompson C (eds) Tundra to Tropics: Connecting Birds, Habitats and People. Proceedings of the 4th International Partners in Flight Conference, February 2008, McAllen, Texas. p 607–616Google Scholar
  22. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manson S, Bauer M (2006) Changing landscapes in the twin cities metropolitan area. CURA Report 36(3):3–11, Available from (accessed November 2014)Google Scholar
  24. Marzluff JM (2001) Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 19–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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(3):280–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) PC-ORD: multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 5. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OregonGoogle Scholar
  28. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA, Groffman P et al (1997) Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 1:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52(10):883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127(3):247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mehlman DW, Mabey SE, Ewert DN et al (2005) Conserving stopover sites for forest-dwelling migratory landbirds. Auk 122(4):1281–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Metropolitan Council (2005) Land Use—Twin Cities Region. Available from (accessed September 2010)
  33. Metropolitan Council (2011a) Land use and planning resources report: final report to Minnesota legislature. Available from (accessed September 2012)
  34. Metropolitan Council (2011b) Twin Cities population is growing and diversifying. Available from (accessed August 2013)
  35. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2006) Tomorrow’s habitat for the wild and rare: an action plan for Minnesota wildlife, comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  36. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee (2009) The state of the birds. U.S. Department of Interior, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. Pennington DN, Hansel J, Blair RB (2008) The conservation value of urban riparian areas for landbirds during spring migration: land cover, scale, and vegetation effects. Biol Conserv 141:1235–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rich TD, Beardmore CJ, Berlanga H, Blancher PJ, Bradstreet MSW, Butcher GS, Demarest DW, Dunn EH, Hunter WC, Iñigo-Elias EE, Kennedy JA, Martell AM, Panjabi AO, Pashley DN, Rosenburg KV, Rustay CM, Wendt JS, Will TC (2004) Partners in Flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  39. Rodewald PG, Matthews SN (2005) Landbird use of riparian and upland forest stopover habitats in an urban landscape. Condor 107:259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SAS Institute (2009) JMP 8.0. SAS Institute. Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  41. Seto KC, Fragkias M, Güneralp B, Reilly MK (2011) A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23777. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023777 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Sheehan DK, Gregory RD, Eaton MA, Bubb PJ, Chenery AM (2010) The wild bird index – guidance for national and regional use. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Swanson DL, Carlisle HA, Liknes ET (2003) Abundance and richness of neotropical migrants during stopover at farmstead woodlots and associated habitats in southeastern South Dakota. Am Midl Nat 149:176–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Conservation Biology Graduate ProgramUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.Audubon TexasDallasUSA
  3. 3.Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations