Assessing habitat-related disturbance in bird communities: Applying hemeroby and generalism as indicators

Abstract

We tested the application of the concept of hemeroby and generalism at community level, on a set of birds occurring in various habitats of central Italy characterized by different level of disturbance. In each habitat-related bird community, we applied the recently published species-specific score in hemeroby (a proxy of habitat-related disturbance; HSi) and hemerobiotic diversity (a proxy of generalism; H’Hi) to local species frequency, obtaining weighted values at community level (HStot and H’Htot). The relationship between HStot vs. H’Htot showed an increasing trend moving from reed beds through forests and mosaics to urban communities. Quadratic model (best fit) evidenced a significant correlation between these variables and a tendency toward a hump-shaped curve, corroborating results already observed at species level (intermediate generalism hypothesis). The co-inertia analysis discriminated four groups of habitat-related communities, characterized by species with different levels of disturbance-sensitivity (expressed by HSi) and generalism (expressed by hemerobiotic diversity; H’Hi): (i) forest type-related, where mature wood communities were separated from a coppiced wood one; (ii) communities of moderately disturbed agricultural habitats; (iii) communities embedded in highly disturbed mosaics, and (iv) a group including either a highly disturbed urban habitat or a low disturbed wetland reed bed, with highly specialized species (respectively, synanthropic species and water-related species). Total scores in hemeroby and hemerobiotic diversity, expressing the composition in species with different disturbance preference and generalism, might act as good community-based indicators of degree of naturalness, especially for forest habitat types.

Abbreviations

CoIA:

Co-Inertia Analysis

HS:

Hemeroby Score

HH:

Hemerobiotic diversity

PCA:

Principal Components Analysis

References

  1. Anderson, J.E. 1991. A conceptual framework for evaluating and quantifying naturalness. Conserv. Biol. 5:347–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Báldi, A. and Kisbenedek, T. 1999. Species-specific distribution of reed-nesting passerine birds across reed bed edges: effects of spatial scale and edge type. Acta Zool. Hung. 45:97–114.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Battisti, C, Capecchi, P. 2015. L’avifauna della Riserva naturale provinciale “Villa Borghese di Nettuno” (Italia centrale), con particolare riferimento alla composizione e struttura della comunità nidificante. Boll. Mus. Civ. St. Nat. Verona, Bot. Zool. 39:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Battisti, C. and Fanelli, G. 2011. Does human-induced heterogeneity differently affect diversity in vascular plants and breeding birds? Evidences from three Mediterranean forest patches. Rendiconti Lincei 22:25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Battisti C. and Fanelli G. 2015a. Applying indicators of disturbance from plant ecology to vertebrates: The hemeroby of bird species. Ecol. Indic. 61:799–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Battisti, C. and Fanelli, G. 2015b. Don’t think local! Scale in conservation, parochialism, dogmatic bureaucracy and the implementing of the European Directives. J. Nat. Conserv. 24:24–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Battisti, C, Poeta, G. and Fanelli, G. 2016. An Introduction to Disturbance Ecology. A Road Map for Wildlife Management and Conservation. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Belmaker, J., Sekercioglu, C.H. and Jetz, W. 2012. Global patterns of specialization and coexistence in bird assemblages. J. Biogeogr. 39:193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Benassi, G., Battisti, C., Luiselli, L. and Boitani, L. 2009. Area-sensitivity of three reed bed bird species breeding in Mediterranean marshland fragments. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 17:555–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Benton, T.G., Vickery, J.A. and Wilson, J.D. 2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:182–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bianconi R., Battisti C, Zapparoli M. 2004. Pattern of richness, abundance and diversity of four interior bird species in a hilly landscape in Central Italy: a contribution to assess their sensitivity to habitat fragmentation. J. Medit. Ecol. 4:37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. and Mustoe, S.H. 2000. Bird Census Techniques, 2nd ed. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Blair, R. 2004. The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple levels of biological organization. Ecology and Society 9(5):2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss5/art2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bossel, H. 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory Method, Applications. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bossuyt, B., Hermy, M. and Deckers, J. 1999. Migration of herbaceous plant species across ancient recent forest ecotones in central Belgium. J. Ecol. 87:517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brawn, J. D., Robinson, S. K. and Thompson III, F. R. 2001. The role of disturbance in the ecology and conservation of birds. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32:251–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Canterbury, G.E., Martin, T.E., Petit, D.R., Petit, L.J. and Bradford, D.F. 2000. Bird communities and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. Conserv. Biol. 14:544–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Clements, J.F. 2000. Birds of the World, a Checklist. Fifth edition, Ibis, Vista, Ca.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Crooks, K.R., Suarez, A.V. and Bolger, D.T. 2004. Avian assemblages along a gradient of urbanization in a highly fragmented landscape. Biol. Conserv. 115:451–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Devictor, V, Julliard, R., Clavel, J., Jiguet, F, Lee, A. and Couvet, D. 2008a. Functional biotic homogenization of bird communities in disturbed landscapes. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17:252–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Devictor, V, Julliard, R. and Jiguet, F. 2008b. Distribution of specialist and generalist species along spatial gradients of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Oikos 117:507–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Devictor, V and Robert, A. 2009. Measuring community responses to large-scale disturbance in conservation biogeography Divers. Distrib. 15:122–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dornelas, M. 2010. Disturbance and change in biodiversity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365:3719–3727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ewers, R.M. and Didham, R.K. 2006. Confounding factors in detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol. Rev. 81:117–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fanelli, G. and Battisti, C. 2014. Comparing disturbance-sensitivity between plants and birds: a fine-grained analysis in a suburban remnant wetland. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 60:11–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fanelli, G. and Battisti C. 2015. Range of species occupancy, disturbance and generalism: applying hemeroby metrics to common breeding birds from a regional Atlas. Vie et Milieu – Life and Environment 65 (4):243–250.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fanelli, G., Tescarollo, P. and Testi, A. 2005. Ecological indicators applied to urban and suburban floras. Ecol. Indic. 6:444–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Grabherr, G., Koch, G., Kirchmeir, H. and Reiter, K. 1998. Hemerobie österreichischer Waldökosysteme. Veröff. Des Österreichischen MAB-Programms 17:493 S.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gregory, R.D., Noble, D., Field, R., Marchant, J., Raven, M. and Gibbons, D.W. 2003. Using birds as indicators of biodiversity. Ornis Hungarica 12:11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gregory, R. D., Noble D.G., and Custance, J. 2004. The state of play of farmland birds: population trends and conservation status of lowland farmland birds in the United Kingdom. Ibis 146 (s2):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Henle, K, Davies, K.F., Kleyer, M., Margules, C. and Settele, J. 2004. Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodiv Conserv. 13:207–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hill, M.O., Roy, D.B. and Thompson, K. 2002. Hemeroby, urbanity and ruderality: bioindicators of disturbance and human impact. J. Appl. Ecol. 39:708–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Katayama, N, Amano, T, Naoe, S., Komatsu, I., Takagawa, S., Sato, N, Ueta, M. and Miyashita, T. 2014. Landscape heterogeneity-biodiversity relationship: effect of range size. PLOS One 9:e93359.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Koch, A.J., Drever, M.C and Martin, K. 2011. The effcacy of common species as indicators: avian responses to disturbance in British Columbia. Biodiv. Conserv. 20:3555–3575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kowarik, I. 1988. Zummenschlichen Einfluss auf Flora und Vegetation: Theoretische Konzepte und ein Quanti fizierungsansatz am Beispiel von Berlin (West). Landschafltsentwicklung und Umweltforschung, Schriftenreihe des Fachbereichs Landschaftsentwicklung der TU Berlin Vol. 56:241.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Julliard, R., Clavel, J., Devictor, V, Jiguet, F. and Couvet, D. 2006. Spatial segregation of specialists and generalists in bird communities. Ecol. Lett. 9:1237–1244.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Lack, PC. 1986. The Atlas of Wintering Birds in Britain and Ireland. TAD Poyser, London.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Malavasi, R., Battisti, C. and Carpaneto, G.M. 2009. Seasonal bird assemblages in a Mediterranean patchy wetland: corroborating the intermediate disturbance hypothesis. Pol. J. Ecol. 57:171–179.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Marzluff, J.M., Bowman, R. and Donnelly, R. (eds.) 2001. Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.

  40. Matthysen, E., Lens, L., Van Dongen, S., Verheyen, G.R., Wauters, L.A., Adriaensen, F. and Dhondt, A.A. 1995. Diverse effects of forest fragmentation on a number of animal species. Belg. J. Zool. 125:175–183.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Morelli, F., Benedetti, Y., Ibáñez Álamo, J. D., Jokimäki, J., Mänd, R., Tryjanowski, P. and Møller, A.P. 2016. Evidence of evolutionary homogenization of bird communities in urban environments across Europe. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25 :1284–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mouillot, D., Graham, N.A.J., Villéger, S. and Mason, N.W.H. 2013. A functional approach reveals community responses to disturbances. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28:167–177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Paracuellos, M. 2006. Relationship of song bird occupation with habitat configuration and bird abundance in patchy reed beds. Ardea 94:87–98

    Google Scholar 

  44. Peterken, G.F. 1974. A method for assessing woodland flora for conservation using indicator species. Biol. Conserv. 6:239– 247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. R Core Team . 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

  46. Redolfi De Zan, L., Rossi de Gasperis S., Fiore L., Battisti, C. and Carpaneto, G.M. 2016. The importance of dead wood for holenesting birds: a two years study in three beech forests of central Italy. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. DOI: 10.1080/15659801.2016.1191168.

  47. Reif, A. and Walentowski, H. 2008 The assessment of naturalness and its role for nature conservation and forestry in Europe. Waldökologie, Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz 6:63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Reif, J., Marhoul, P. and Koptík, J. 2013. Bird communities in habitats along a successional gradient: Divergent patterns of species richness, specialization and threat. Basic Appl. Ecol. 14:423–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rossi de Gasperis, S., Redolfi De Zan, L., Battisti, C., Reichegger, I. and Carpaneto, G.M. 2016. Distribution and abundance of holenesting birds in Mediterranean forests: impact of past management patterns on habitat preference. Ornis Fenn. 93:100–110.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schleupner, C. and Schenider, U.A. 2013. Allocation of European wetland restoration options for systematic conservation planning. Land Use Policy 30:604–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sharrock, J.T.R. 1976. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland. T. and A.D. Poyser, London.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Steinhardt, U., Herzog, F., Lausch, A., Miller, E. and Lehmann, S. 1999. Hemeroby index for landscape monitoring and evaluation. In: Pykh, Y.A. et al. (eds.), Environmental Indices – System Analysis Approach. EOLSS Publishing, Oxford, pp. 237–254.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sousa, W.P. 1984. The role of disturbance in natural communities. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15:353–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Suárez-Soane, S., Osborne, P.E., Alonso, J.C. 2002. Large-scale habitat selection by agricultural steppe birds in Spain: identifying species-habitat responses using generalized additive models. J. Appl. Ecol. 39:755–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Taffon, D. and Battisti, C. 2005. Breeding bird communities and ecotope niche breadth of the species in a heterogeneous landscape of Central Italy. Riv. ital. Ornitol., Research in Ornitology 75:129–139.

    Google Scholar 

  56. ter Braak, C.J.F. and Barendregt, L.G. 1986. Weighted averaging of species indicator values: its effciency in environmental calibration. Math. Biosci. 78:57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. ter Braak, C. J. F. and Schaffers, A.P. 2004. Co-correspondence analysis: a new ordination method to relate two community compositions. Ecology 85:834–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Testi, A., Guidotti, S., Bisceglie, S. and Fanelli, G. 2009. Detecting river environmental quality through plant and macroinvertebrate indicators in the Aniene River (Central Italy). Aquat. Ecol. 43:477–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Villard, M.-A. 1998. On forest-interior species, edge avoidance, area sensitivity, and dogma in avian conservation. Auk 115:801–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Villard, M.-A. and Jonsson, B.G. 2009. Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Vuerich, V., Bologna, M.A. and Battisti, C. 2006. Comunità ornitiche nidificanti in tre tipologie vegetazionali lungo un gradiente altitudinale nei monti Simbruini (Lazio, Appennini centrali) (Aves). Aldrovandia 2:49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Wiens, J.A. 1989. The Ecology of Bird Communities. Vols. 1–2. Cambridge studies in ecology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

  63. Winter, S. 2012. Forest naturalness assessment as a component of biodiversity monitoring and conservation management. Forestry 85:293–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Battisti.

Electronic supplementary material

42974_2017_1802215_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

S1. Relative frequencies of the species for each habitat-related community. For habitat type description and codes, see Table 1.

Rights and permissions

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Battisti, C., Fanelli, G., Pavel, D. et al. Assessing habitat-related disturbance in bird communities: Applying hemeroby and generalism as indicators. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 18, 215–223 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2017.18.2.11

Download citation

Keywords

  • Habitat-related communities
  • Hemeroby score
  • Hemerobiotic diversity score
  • Hump-shaped pattern
  • Intermediate generalism hypothesis