Advertisement

Ecological Research

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 619–628 | Cite as

Birds at the urban fringe: avian community shifts in different peri-urban ecotones of a megacity

  • Aura Puga-Caballero
  • Ian MacGregor-Fors
  • Rubén Ortega-ÁlvarezEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Cities can be regionalized in intra-urban and peri-urban areas. The space between urban areas and adjacent systems represents an ecological transition that often acts as a semi-permeable biological filter. In this study, we assessed changes in avian community species richness, density, and composition at different peri-urban ecotones (i.e., urban-croplands, urban-grasslands, urban-shrublands) of northeastern Mexico City. Species richness was lower in the urban component of urban-grassland and urban-shrubland ecotones, while bird densities were higher in the urban components of the urban-grassland and urban-shrubland peri-urban ecotones, mainly due to the high number of urban exploiter species. However, the urban-cropland peri-urban ecotone exhibited a different pattern, with similar low bird species richness and density values between both components (urban and non-urban). A species composition analysis revealed that urban bird communities were not influenced by adjacent non-urban habitats, since the urban components of peri-urban ecotones were more similar among them than in relation to the rest of non-urban components. In summary, results of this study show that urbanization can represent an important biological filter for birds, often reducing species richness and homogenizing avian communities at local scales. As the environmental variables determining ecological processes related to the semi-permeable filter effect that urban areas pose to biodiversity might depend on urban habitats, regions, and spatial scales, further studies are needed to fully understand this phenomenon.

Keywords

Biological homogenization Croplands Mexico City Urban sprawl Urban ecology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the General Coordination for the Ecological Conservation of the State of Mexico, the Administration Office of the “Sierra de Guadalupe” Park, and Aarón Torrijos Solís for their kind support during fieldwork. We are grateful to Roberto Perezdíaz and Sarah Heiberg for their kind support with the grammar edition of this manuscript. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments, as they improved the quality and clarity of our work.

References

  1. American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) (1998) Check-list of North American birds. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Alldredge MW, Simons TR, Pollock KH (2007) A field evaluation of distance measurement error in auditory avian point count surveys. J Wildlife Manag 71:2759–2766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Álvarez-Romero J, Medellín RA, Oliveras de Ita A, Gómez de Silva H, Sánchez O (2008) Animales exóticos en México: Una amenaza para la biodiversidad. CONABIO, Distrito FederalGoogle Scholar
  4. Beecher NA, Johnson RJ, Brandle JR, Case RM, Young LJ (2002) Agroecology of birds in organic and nonorganic farmland. Conserv Biol 6:1620–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beissinger SR, Osborne DR (1982) Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. Condor 84:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair RB (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 6:506–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boischio A, Clegg A, Mwagore D (2006) Health risks and benefits of urban and ‘peri-urban’ agriculture and livestock (UA) in sub-Saharan Africa. Urban Poverty and Environment Series Report 1, IDRC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  9. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 4:325–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DR, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesser RT, Banks RC, Barker FK, Cicero C, Dunn JL, Kratter AW, Lovette IJ, Rasmussen PC, Remsen JV, Rising JD, Stotz DF, Winker K (2013) Fifty-fourth supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-List of North American Birds. Auk 130:558–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clergeau P, Jokimäki J, Savard JPL (2001) Are urban bird communities influenced by the bird diversity of adjacent landscape? J Appl Ecol 38:1122–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colwell RK (2009) EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 8.2, http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates
  15. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) (1997) Portal de geoinformación. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. http://www.conabio.gob.mx
  16. Croci S, Butet A, Clergeau P (2008) Does urbanization filter birds on the basis of their biological traits? Condor 110:223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Czech B, Krausman PR (1997) Distribution and causation of species endangerment in the United States. Science 277:1116–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dallimer M, Rouquette JR, Skinner AMJ, Armsworth PR, Maltby LM, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2012) Contrasting patterns in species richness of birds, butterflies and plants along riparian corridors in an urban landscape. Divers Distrib 18:742–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Emlen JT (1974) An urban bird community in Tucson, Arizona: derivation, structure, regulation. Condor 76:184–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans KL, Stuart EN, Gaston KJ (2009) Habitat influences on urban avian assemblages. Ibis 151:19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friedberg S (2001) Gardening on the edge: the social conditions of unsustainability on an Africa urban periphery. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91:349–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. González-García F, Gómez de Silva H (2003) Especies endémicas: riqueza, patrones de distribución y retos para su conservación. In: Gómez de Silva H, Oliveras de Ita A (eds) Conservación de aves. Experiencias en México. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation–CONABIO, Distrito Federal, pp 150–194Google Scholar
  24. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grimm NB, Grove JM, Pickett STA, Redman CL (2000) Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 7:571–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodgson P, French K, Major RE (2007) Avian movement across abrupt ecological edges: differential responses to housing density in an urban matrix. Landsc Urban Plan 79:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iaquinta DL, Drescher AW (2000) Defining periurban: understanding rural-urban linkages and their connection to institutional contexts. In: Tenth World Congress. IRSA, Río de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  28. Instituto Nacional Estadística Geografía e Informática(INEGI) (2008a) Delimitación de las Zonas Metropolitanas de México 2005. Instituto Nacional Estadística Geografía e Informática. http://www.inegi.org.mx
  29. Instituto Nacional Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI) (2008b) México en cifras. Instituto Nacional Estadística Geografía e Informática. http://www.inegi.org.mx
  30. Instituto Nacional Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI) (2009) Anuario estadístico de México. Gobierno del Estado de México-INEGI, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  31. Instituto Nacional Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI) (2010) México en cifras. Instituto Nacional Estadística Geografía e Informática. http://www.censo2010.org.mx/
  32. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) (2013) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species http://www.iucnredlist.org/
  33. MacGregor-Fors I (2010) How to measure the urban-wildland ecotone: redefining “peri-urban” areas. Ecol Res 25:883–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacGregor-Fors I, Ortega-Álvarez R (2011) Fading from the forest: bird community shifts related to urban park site-specific and landscape traits. Urban For Urban Green 10:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacGregor-Fors I, Ortega-Álvarez R, Schondube JE (2009a) On the ecological quality of urban systems: an ornithological perspective. In: Graber DS, Birmingham KA (eds) Urban Planning in the 21st Century. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 51–66Google Scholar
  36. MacGregor-Fors I, Vázquez L, Vega-Rivera JH, Schondube JE (2009b) Non-exotic invasion of Great-tailed Grackles “Quiscalus mexicanus” in a tropical dry forest reserve. Ardea 97:367–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacGregor-Fors I, Morales-Pérez L, Quesada J, Schondube JE (2010) Relationship between the presence of House Sparrows (Passer domesticus) and Neotropical bird community structure and diversity. Biol Invasions 12:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacGregor-Fors I, Schondube JE, Morales-Pérez L (2012) From forests to cities: Effects of urbanization on tropical birds. In: Lepczyk CA, Warren PS (eds) Urban bird ecology and conservation. Studies in Avian Biology 45. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp 33–48Google Scholar
  39. MacGregor-Fors I, Hernández-Ordoñez O, Ortega-Álvarez R (2013) Urban croaking: diversity and distribution of anurans in a neotropical city. Urban Ecosyst 16:389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marzluff J, Bowman R, Donnelly R (2001) A historical perspective on urban bird research: trends, terms, and approaches. In: Marzluff J, Bowman R, Donnely R (eds) Avian conservation and ecology in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McAleece N (1997) BioDiversity Professional. The Scottish Association for Marine Science. http://www.sams.ac.uk/research/software
  42. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McKinney ML, Lockwood JL (2001) Biotic homogenization: a sequential and selective process. In: McKinney ML, Lockwood JL (eds) Biotic homogenization. Kluwer Academic, Nueva York, pp 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Melles S, Glenn S, Martin K (2003) Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: species-environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradients. Conserv Ecol 7:5Google Scholar
  45. Moreno CE (2001) Métodos para medir la biodiversidad. M&T–Manuales y Tesis SEA. Gorfi SA, ZaragozaGoogle Scholar
  46. Nocedal J (1987) Las comunidades de pájaros y su relación con la urbanización en la Ciudad de México. In: Rapoport E, López-Moreno I (eds) Aportes a la ecología urbana de la Ciudad de México. Editorial Limusa, Distrito Federal, pp 73–109Google Scholar
  47. Ortega-Álvarez R, MacGregor-Fors I (2009) Living in the big city: effects of urban land-use on bird community structure, diversity and composition. Landsc Urban Plan 90:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ortega-Álvarez R, MacGregor-Fors I (2010) What matters most? Relative effect of urban habitat traits and hazards on urban park birds. Ornitol Neotrop 21:519–533Google Scholar
  49. Ortega-Álvarez R, MacGregor-Fors I (2011a) Dusting-off the file: a review of knowledge on urban ornithology in Latin America. Landsc Urban Plan 101:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ortega-Álvarez R, MacGregor-Fors I (2011b) Spreading the word: the ecology of urban birds outside The United States, Canada, and Western Europe. Auk 128:415–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Payton ME, Greenstone MH, Schencker N (2003) Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: what do they mean in terms of statistical significance? J Insect Sci 3:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ralph CJ, Geupel GR, Pyle P, Martin TE, DeSante DF, Milá B (1996) Manual de métodos de campo para el monitoreo de aves terrestres. Department of Agriculture, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  53. Rzedowski J (1988) Vegetación de México. Limusa, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  54. Santos C, Escamilla I, Guarnero L (2009) La expansión urbana en la zona norte de la periferia Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México. In: Aguilar A, Escamilla I (eds) Periferia urbana. Miguel Angel Porrúa-Instituto de Geografía UNAM, Distrito Federal, pp 53–71Google Scholar
  55. Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano del Estado de México (SDUEM) (2003) Plan Municipal de Desarrollo Urbano de Ecatepec Morelos, Estado de México. Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano. http://seduv.edomexico.gob.mx
  56. Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano del Estado de México (SDUEM) (2009) Plan de Desarrollo Municipal 2009–2012. H. Ayuntamiento de Tlalnepantla de Baz. http://www.tlalnepantla.gob.mx
  57. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) (2010) Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. Segunda Sección. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Distrito FederalGoogle Scholar
  58. Shwartz A, Shirley S, Kark S (2008) How do habitat variability and management regime shape the spatial heterogeneity of birds within a large Mediterranean urban park? Landsc Urban Plan 84:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thomas L, Buckland ST, Rexstad EA, Laake JL, Strindberg S, Hedley SL, Bishop JR, Marques TA, Burnham KP (2009) Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. J Appl Ecol 47:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ting Z, Shaolin P (2008) Spatial scale types and measurement of edge effects in ecology. Acta Ecológica Sinica 28:3322–3333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tjallingii SP (2000) Ecology on the edge: landscape and ecology between town and country. Landsc Urban Plan 48:103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. United Nations (2008) World urbanization prospects: The 2007 revision. United Nations. http://www.un.org
  63. van Rensburg BJ, Peacock D, Robertson MP (2009) Biotic homogenization and alien bird species along an urban gradient in South Africa. Landsc Urban Plan 92:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vilisics F, Hornung E (2009) Urban areas as hot-spots for introduced and shelters for native isopod species. Urban Ecosyst 12:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Williams J, Read C, Norton T, Dovers S, Burgman M, Proctor W, Anderson H (2001) Biodiversity, Australia state of the environment report 2001 (Theme report). CSIRO (publishing on the behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage), CanberraGoogle Scholar
  67. Zuria I, Rendón-Hernández G (2010) Notes on the breeding biology of common resident birds in an urbanized area of Hidalgo, Mexico. Huitzil 11:35–41Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aura Puga-Caballero
    • 1
  • Ian MacGregor-Fors
    • 2
  • Rubén Ortega-Álvarez
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Museo de Zoología “Alfonso L. Herrera”, Departamento de Biología Evolutiva, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMéxico D.F.México
  2. 2.Red de Ambiente y SustentabilidadInstituto de Ecología, A.C.XalapaMexico
  3. 3.Laboratorio de Ecología de Restauración. Centro de Investigaciones en EcosistemasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMoreliaMexico
  4. 4.Iniciativa para la Conservación de las Aves de América del Norte-México (NABCI-México)Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO)México D.F.México

Personalised recommendations