Landscape Ecology

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 193–203

Resident bird species in urban forest remnants; landscape and habitat perspectives

  • Ulla M. Mörtberg


The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of habitat loss, fragmentation and habitat quality on sedentary forest birds in an urban and suburban environment. The study area was situated in Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, embracing the city centre, suburbs and parts of the rural surroundings. Breeding forest birds were surveyed in 51 forested sample sites (2-700 ha) and five species of resident birds were selected for further studies: willow tit (Parus montanus), crested tit (P. cristatus) and coal tit (P. ater) representing coniferous forest and marsh tit (P. palustris) and nuthatch (Sitta europaea) representing deciduous forest. A spatial landscape analysis was made using a geographical information system (GIS). In 21 of the smaller sites (2-200 ha), a field study was conducted to examine habitat quality parameters like vegetation age, structure and composition, and human-induced disturbance. The probability of occurrence (breeding) of bird species as functions of landscape and habitat descriptors was tested using logistic regression. All investigated species of the Parus guild showed high probabilities of occurrence only in forest patches larger than 200-400 ha, and was not present in patches smaller than 10-30 ha. This meant that patches of presumably suitable habitat (coniferous vs. moist deciduous forest) were left unoccupied. The amount of standing dead and decaying trees provided additional explanation for the distribution of the willow tit. Large areas of urban open land, industrial land use and large bodies of water had a negative influence on the probability of occurrence of several species, which indicate that they were sensitive to isolation. The probability of occurrence of the marsh tit was also influenced by distance to other sample sites with marsh tits. Unlike the Parus species, the nuthatch was breeding in most of the parks and forest remnants. This species prefers mature deciduous forest, mainly oak, which habitat was common in the urban environment. The nuthatch was only absent in some of the smallest (a few ha) forest fragments, with a mean distance between forest patches in the surroundings of over 100 m. The study showed that large forest areas and a high amount of forest in the landscape are important for the investigated resident birds that are not adapted to the urban environment. Vast areas without tree-cover seemed to be poor habitat and/or restrict dispersal. Strips of high-quality habitats, including standing trees with nest-holes, were not entirely absent in the urban and suburban environment.

Resident forest birds urban fragmentation landscape pattern habitat quality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrén, H. 1997. Population response to landscape changes depends on specialization to different landscape elements. Oikos 80: 193–196.Google Scholar
  2. Angelstam, P. 1992. Conservation of communities-the importance of edges and surroundings in man-dominated landscapes. In: L. Hansson (ed). Ecological principles of nature conservation. Elsevier, Barking.Google Scholar
  3. Beissinger, S.R. and Osborne, D.R. 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. Condor 84: 75–83.Google Scholar
  4. Bolger, D.T., Scott, T.A. and Rotenberry, J.T. 1997. Breeding bird abundance in an urbanizing landscape in coastal Southern California. Cons. Biol. 11: 406–421.Google Scholar
  5. Clergeau, P., Savard, J-P.L., Mennechez, G. and Falardeau, G. 1998. Bird abundance and diversity along an urban-rural gradient: a comparative study between two cities on different continents. Condor 100: 413–425.Google Scholar
  6. DeGraaf, R.M. 1991. Winter foraging guild structure and habitat associations in suburban bird communities. Landsc. Urban Plan 21: 173–180.Google Scholar
  7. Enoksson, B., Angelstam, P. and Larsson, K. 1995. Deciduous forest and resident birds: the problem of fragmentation within a coniferous forest landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 10: 267–275.Google Scholar
  8. Esseen, P.-A., Ehnström, B., Ericson, L. And Sjöberg, K. 1997. Boreal forests. Ecol. Bull. 46: 16–47.Google Scholar
  9. Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. J. Wildl. Manage. 61: 603–610.Google Scholar
  10. Farina, A. 1997. Landscape structure and breeding bird distribution in a sub-Mediterranean agro-ecosystem. Landsc. Ecol. 12: 365–378.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, O.L. 1989. The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Hagan, J.M., van der Haegen, W.M. and McKinley, P.S. 1996. The early development of forest fragmentation effects on birds. Cons. Biol. 10: 188–202.Google Scholar
  13. Hanski, I. 1998. Connecting the parameters of local extinction and metapopulation dynamics. OIKOS 83: 390–396.Google Scholar
  14. Hansson, L., Fahrig. L. and Merriam, G. (eds). 1995. Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Hargis, C.D., Bissonette, J.A. and David, J.L. 1998. The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landsc. Ecol. 13: 167–186.Google Scholar
  16. Helle, P. 1984. Observations on some taiga forest birds with respect to forest fragmentation. Ornis Fennica 61: 121–122.Google Scholar
  17. Helle, P. and Järvinen, O. 1986. Population trends of north Finnish land birds in relation to their habitat selection and changes in forest structure. Oikos 46: 107–115.Google Scholar
  18. Hinsley, S.A., Bellamy, P.E., Newton, I. and Sparks, T.H. 1996. Influences of population size and woodland area on bird species distribution in small woods. Oecologia 105: 100–106.Google Scholar
  19. Jokimäki, J. and Huhta, E.. 1996. Effects of landscape matrix and habitat structure on a bird community in northern Finland. Ornis Fennica 73:97–113.Google Scholar
  20. Jokimäki, J. and Suhonen, J. 1998. Distribution and habitat selection of wintering birds in urban environments. Landscape and Urban Planning 39: 253–263.Google Scholar
  21. Koskimies, P. 1989. Distribution and numbers of Finnish breeding birds. Appendix to Suomen Lintuatlas. Lintutieto Oy. Helsinki.Google Scholar
  22. Lens, L. 1996.Wind stress affects foraging site competition between Crested Tits and Willow Tits. OIKOS 27: 41-46.Google Scholar
  23. McDonnell, M.J., Pickett, S.T.A.; Groffman, P., Bohlen, P., Pouyat, R.V., Zipperer, W.C., Parmelee, R.W., Carreiro, M.M. and Medley, K. (1997). Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems 1: 21–36.Google Scholar
  24. McGarigal, K. and Marks, B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW 351, Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Mörtberg, U.M. 1996. Biologisk mångfald i Stockholms grönstruktur-Fåglar. Inledande landskapsekologisk studie. [Biodiversity in the green areas of Stockholm-Birds. A landscape ecological perspective]. Licentiate thesis. Div. of Land and Water Resources, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. [In Swedish].Google Scholar
  26. Mörtberg, U.M. 1998. Bird species diversity in urban forest remnants: landscape pattern and habitat quality. pp. 239–244. In: R.W. Dover and R.G.H. Bunce (eds). Key concepts in landscape ecology. Proceedings of the 1998 European Congress of the International Association for Landscape Ecology, 3rd-5th September 1998, Myers Cough, UK.Google Scholar
  27. Municipality of Sollentuna. 1991. Environmental Protection Plan. Municipality of Sollentuna, Stockholm. [In Swedish].Google Scholar
  28. National Landsurvey of Sweden. 1991. The Green Map, T5-version. Gävle, Sweden.Google Scholar
  29. Nilsson, S.G. 1997. Forests in the temperate-boreal transition: natural and man-made features. Ecol. Bull. 46: 61–71.Google Scholar
  30. Opdam, P. 1997. LANDECONET: The Study of Biodiversity in Changing Landscapes. Department of Landscape Ecology, DLO-institute for Forestry and Nature Research Wageningen, The Netherlands. Http:// Scholar
  31. Opdam, P., Foppen, R. Reijnen, M. and Schotman, A. 1995. The landscape ecological approach in bird conservation: integrating the metapopulation concept into spatial planning. IBIS 137, suppl. 1: 139–146.Google Scholar
  32. Reijnen, R., Foppen, R. and Veenbaas, G. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodiv. Cons. 6: 567–581.Google Scholar
  33. Sauvajot, R.M., Buechner, M., Kamradt, D.A. and Shonewald, C.M. 1998. Patterns of human disturbance and response by small mammals and birds in chaparral near urban development. Urban Ecosystems 2: 279–297.Google Scholar
  34. Sjögren-Gulve, P. and Ray, C. 1996. Using logistic regression to model metapopulation dynamics: large-scale forestry extirpates the pool frog. In: D.R. McCullough (ed.), Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation & Management. Island Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Biologiska Inventerings-Normer, Fåglar. Stockholm, Sweden. [In Swedish].Google Scholar
  36. Swetnam, R.D., Ragou, P., Firbank, L.G., Hinsley, S.A. and Bellamy, P.E. 1998. Applying ecological models to altered landscapes scenario-testing with GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 41: 3–18.Google Scholar
  37. Tilghman, N.S. 1987. Characteristics of urban woodlands affecting breeding bird diversity and abundance. Landscape and Urban Planning 14: 481–495.Google Scholar
  38. Van der Zande, A.N., Berkhuizen, J.C., van Latesteijn, H.C., Keurs, W.J. and Poppelaars, A.J. 1984. Impact of outdoor recreation on the density of a number of breeding bird species in woods adjacent to urban residential areas. Biol. Cons. 30: 1–39.Google Scholar
  39. Van Dorp, D. and Opdam, P.F.M. 1987. Effects of patch size, isolation and regional abundance on forest bird communities. Landsc. Ecol. 1: 59–73.Google Scholar
  40. Villard, M-A., Trzcinski, M.K. and Merriam, G. 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Cons. Biol. 13: 774–783.Google Scholar
  41. Walbridge, M.R. 1997. Urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosystems 1: 1–2.Google Scholar
  42. Wiens, J.A. 1994. Habitat fragmentation: island versus landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137: 97–104.Google Scholar
  43. With, K.A., Gardner, R.H. and Turner, M.G. 1997. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78:151–169.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulla M. Mörtberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Div. of Land- and Water ResourcesRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations