Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 649–655 | Cite as

Urban predation: a case study assessing artificial nest survival in a neotropical city

  • Anayani Rivera-López
  • Ian MacGregor-ForsEmail author
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Nest predation is an important ecological driver that can mold avian communities. Previous studies performed in urban areas support both predatory relaxation and increases when assessing natural and artificial nest predation. In this study, we assessed artificial nest predation pressure in a neotropical city considering spatial and habitat traits. Our results show that artificial nest predation was driven by the interaction between location and urbanization intensity, with visual predators being responsible for most predation. This supports the notion that urban areas can act as landscape entities that filter biodiversity. Our study, showing both predation relaxation and intensification in the same urban system, suggests that nest predation dynamics can be diverse throughout urban areas. Thus, the predation paradox can occur in parallel with scenarios in which rises in predator numbers can actually decrease nest survivorship. Future studies investigating nest predation in urban areas should take into account the spatial environmental heterogeneity of their system in order to fully capture the patterns and biases related to nest predation.

Keywords

Bird nests Predation paradox Mexico Nest survivorship Urban ecology Veracruz 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are most grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions that enhanced the clarity and quality of our paper, as well as to Jeffrey G. Lee for proofreading the paper, and Richard Lemoine Rodríguez for help with GIS.

References

  1. Bayne EM, Hobson KA (1999) Do clay eggs attract predator to artificial nests? J Field Ornithol 70:1–7Google Scholar
  2. Benítez Badillo G (2011) Crecimiento de la población y expansión urbana de la ciudad de Xalapa, Veracruz y sus efectos sobre la vegetación y agroecosistemas. Ph. D. Dissertation, Colegio de Postgraduados, Instituto de Enseñanza e Investigación en Ciencias Agrícolas, VeracruzGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair RB (2001) Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the United States: is urbanization creating a homogeneous fauna? In: Lockwood JL, McKinney ML (eds) Biotic Homogenization. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 33–56Google Scholar
  4. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Castillo-Campos G (1991) Vegetación y flora del municipio de Xalapa, Veracruz. INECOL, XalapaGoogle Scholar
  6. Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clement P (2010) House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J, Christie DA, de Juana E (eds) Handbook of the birds of the world alive. Lynx Edicions, BarcelonaGoogle 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. Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50:593–601Google Scholar
  10. Danielson WR, DeGraff RM, Fuller TK (1997) Rural and suburban forest edges: effect on egg predators and nest predation rates. Landsc Urban Plan 38:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeGraaf RM, Maier TJ, Fuller TK (1999) Predation of small eggs in artificial nests: effects of nest position, edge, and potential predator abundance in extensive forest. Wilson Bull 111:236–242Google Scholar
  12. Evans K, Newson S, Gaston K (2009) Habitat influences on urban avian assemblages. Ibis 151:19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernández-Juricic E, Jokimäki J (2001) A habitat island approach to conserving birds in urban landscapes: case studies from southern and northern Europe. Biodivers Conserv 10:2023–2043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer JD, Schneider SC, Ahlers AA, Miller JR (2015) Categorizing wildlife responses to urbanization and conservation implications of terminology. Conserv Biol 29:1246–1248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer JD, Cleeton SH, Lyons TP, Miller JR (2012) Urbanization and the predation paradox: the role of trophic dynamics in structuring vertebrate communities. Bioscience 62:809–818Google Scholar
  16. Gering JC, Blair RB (1999) Predation on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: predatory risk or relaxation in urban environments? Ecography 22:532–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grimm N, Faeth S, Golubiewski N, Redman C, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs J (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. González-García F, Terrazas T (1983) Las aves de Xalapa, Veracruz. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones sobre Recursos Bióticos. Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología, XalapaGoogle Scholar
  19. González-García F, Straub R, Lobato García JA, MacGregor-Fors I (2014) Birds of a Neotropical green city: an up-to-date review of the avifauna of the city of Xalapa with additional unpublished records. Urban Ecosyst 17:991–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gurrola-Hidalgo MA, Sánchez-Hernández C, Romero-Almaraz ML (2009) Dos nuevos registros de alimentación de Quiscalus mexicanus y Cyanocorax sanblasianus en la Costa de Chamela, Jalisco, México. Acta Zool Mex 25:427–430Google Scholar
  21. Huhta E, Jokimäki J, Helle P (1998) Predation on artificial nests in a forest dominated landscape - the effects of nest type, patch size and edge structure. Ecography 21:464–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hurvich CM, Tsai CL (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307CrossRefGoogle 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 M-L, Sorace A, Fernández-Juricic E, Rodriguez-Prieto I, Jiménez M (2005) Evaluation of the “safe nesting zone” hypothesis across an urban gradient: a multi-scale study. Ecography 28:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lemoine Rodríguez R (2012) Cambios en la cobertura vegetal de la ciudad de Xalapa-Enríquez, Veracruz y zonas circundantes entre 1950 y 2010. Bsc Thesis, Universidad VeracruzanaGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindell C (2000) Egg type influences predation rates in artificial nest experiment. J Field Ornithol 71:16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. López-Flores V, MacGregor-Fors I, Schondube J (2009) Artificial nest predation along a Neotropical urban gradient. Landsc Urban Plan 92:90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacGregor-Fors I (2010) How to measure the urban-wildland ecotone: redefining “peri-urban” areas. Ecol Res 25:883–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacGregor-Fors I, Schondube J (2011) Gray vs. green urbanization: relative importance of urban features for urban bird communities. Basic Appl Ecol 12:372–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin TE (1995) Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation and food. Ecol Monogr 65:101–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (2001) A historical perspective on urban bird research: trends, terms, and approaches. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnely R (eds) Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World. Kluwer Academic, Boston. pp 1–17Google Scholar
  32. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ortega-Álvarez R, MacGregor-Fors I (2011) Spreading the word: the ecology of urban birds outside the United States, Canada, and western Europe. Auk 128:415–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paton PW (1994) The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? Conserv Biol 8:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Boone CG, Groffman PM, Irwin E, Kaushal SS, Marshall V, McGrath BP, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Szlavecz K, Troy A, Warrenm P (2010) Urban ecological systems: scientific foundations and a decade of progress. J Environ Manage 92:331–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Puga-Caballero A, MacGregor-Fors I, Ortega-Álvarez R (2014) Birds at the urban fringe: avian community shifts in different peri-urban ecotones of a megacity. Ecol Res 29:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sieving KE, Willson MF (1998) Nest predation and avian species diversity in northwestern forest understory. Ecology 79:2391–2402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thorington KK, Bowman R (2003) Predation rate on artificial nests increases with human housing density in suburban habitats. Ecography 26:188–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Whelan CJ, Dilger ML, Robson D, et al. (1994) Effect of olfactory cues on artificial-nest experiments. Auk 111:945–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. White G, Burnham K (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:120–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams-Linera G (2002) El Bosque de niebla del Centro de Veracruz: ecología, historia y destinos en tiempos de fragmentación y cambio climático. CONABIO-INECOL, XalapaGoogle Scholar
  43. Yahner RH, DeLong CA (1992) Avian predation and parasitism on artificial nests and eggs in two fragmented landscapes. Wilson Bull 104:162–186Google Scholar
  44. Yahner RH, Mahan G (1996) Effects of egg type on depredation of artificial ground nests. Wilson Bull 108:129–136Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Red de Ambiente y SustentabilidadInstituto de EcologíaVeracruzMéxico

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options