Advertisement

Avian species richness and numbers in the built environment: can new housing developments be good for birds?

  • Christopher F. Mason
Part of the Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation book series (TOBC, volume 3)

Abstract

Bird species richness (S) and numbers (N) were studied in the breeding season in housing developments of different ages in a small English town and compared with village sites, urban green corridors and adjacent arable farmland. S and N were highest in village and green corridor sites. S in urban plots ranged from 13 to 18 species, similar to farmland, but N was much lower in farmland. Marked differences in the number of individual species between plots were recorded. S and N were independent of age of development and area of gardens within plots but both were correlated with the area of greenspace. Greenspace alone and combined with gardens was correlated with the numbers of several individual species. The results are discussed in relation to proposed new large-scale housing developments in England.

Key words

Biodiversity Bird species richness Gardens Passer domesticus Sturnus vulgaris Urban ecology Urban planning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ansell R., Baker P. and Harris S. 2001. The value of gardens for wildlife — lessons from mammals and herpetofauna. British Wildlife 13: 77–84.Google Scholar
  2. Beissinger S.R. and Osborne D.R. 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. Condor 84: 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair R.B. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol. Appl. 6: 506–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bland R.L. 1998. House sparrow densities in Bristol. Avon Bird Report 145–148.Google Scholar
  5. Bruun M. and Smith H.G. 2003. Landscape composition affects habitat use and foraging flight distances in breeding European starlings. Biol. Conserv. 114: 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cannon A. 1998. Garden BirdWatch Handbook. BTO, Thetford.Google Scholar
  7. Cannon A. 1999. The significance of private gardens for bird conservation. Bird Conserv. Int. 9: 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Churcher P.B. and Lawton J.H. 1987. Predation by domestic cats in an English village. J. Zool., London 212: 439–455.Google Scholar
  9. Clergeau P., Jokimäki J. and Savard J.-P. L. 2001. Are urban bird communities influenced by the bird diversity of adjacent landscape? J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 1122–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowie R.J. and Hinsley S.A. 1988. The provision of food and the use of bird feeders in suburban gardens. Bird Study 35: 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DEFRA 2001. Digest of Environmental Statistics. www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/des/chap08/ch080217.htm.Google Scholar
  14. Dott H.E.M. and Brown A.W. 2000. A major decline in house sparrows in central Edinburgh. Scottish Birds 21: 61–68.Google Scholar
  15. Fernández-Juricic E. 2000. Local and regional effects of pedestrians on forest birds in a fragmented landscape. Condor 102: 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernández-Juricic E. and Jokomäki J. 2001. A habitat island approach to conserving birds in urban landscapes: case studies from southern and northern Europe. Biodiv. Conserv. 10: 2023–2043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernández-Juricic E. and Telleria J.L. 2000. Effects of human disturbance on spatial and temporal feeding patterns of Blackbird Turdus merula in urban parks in Madrid, Spain. Bird Study 47: 13–21.Google Scholar
  18. Fuller R.J., Gregory R.D., Gibbons D.W., Marchant J.H., Wilson J.D., Baillie S.R. and Carter N. 1995. Population declines and range contractions among lowland farmland birds in Britain. Conserv. Biol. 9: 1425–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregory R.D. and Baillie S.R. 1998. Large-scale habitat use of some declining British birds. J. Appl. Ecol. 35: 785–799.Google Scholar
  20. Gregory R.D., Eaton M.A., Noble D.G., Robinson J.A., Parsons M., Baker H., Austin G. and Hilton G.M. 2003. The State of the U.K.’s Birds 2002. RSPB, BTO, WWT and JNCC, Sandy.Google Scholar
  21. Hickling R. 1983. Enjoying Ornithology. Poyser, Calton.Google Scholar
  22. Hole D.G., Whittingham M.J., Bradbury R.B., Anderson G.Q.A., Lee P.L.M., Wilson J.D. and Krebs J.R. 2002. Agriculture: widespread local house-sparrow extinctions. Nature 418: 931–932.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lancaster R.K. and Rees W.E. 1979. Bird communities and the structure of urban habitats. Can. J. Zool. 57: 2358–2368.Google Scholar
  24. Lepczyk C.A., Mertig A.G. and Liu J. 2003. Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 115: 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marzluff J.M., Gehlbach F.R. and Manuwal D.A. 1998. Urban environments: influences on avifauna and challenges for the avian conservationist. In: Marzluff J.M. and Sallabanks R. (eds), Avian Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 293–299.Google Scholar
  26. Mason C.F. 1998. Habitats of the song thrush Turdus philomelos in a largely arable landscape. J. Zool. Lond. 244: 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mason C.F. 2000. Thrushes now largely restricted to the built environment in eastern England. Biodiv. Distrib. 6: 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason C.F. 2003. Some correlates of density in an urban Blackbird Turdus merula population. Bird Study 50: 185–188.Google Scholar
  29. McKinney M.L. and Lockwood J.L. 2001. Biotic homogenization: a sequential and selective process. In: Lockwood J.L. and McKinney M.L. (eds), Biotic Homogenization. Kluwer, New York, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  30. Moore N.W. 1990. From arable farm to new town: changes in flora and fauna during the development of Bar Hill, Cambridgeshire, from 1966 to 1988. Nature Cambridgeshire 32: 27–58.Google Scholar
  31. Mortberg U. and Wallentius H.G. 2000. Red-listed forest birds in an urban environment-assessment of green space corridors. Landscape Urban Plan. 50: 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Niemelä J. 1999. Ecology and urban planning. Biodiv. Conserv. 8: 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Connor R.J. 1985. Behavioural regulation of bird populations: a review of habitat in relation to migration and residency. In: Sibly R.M. and Smith R.H (eds), Behavioural Ecology: Ecological Consequences of Adaptive Behaviour. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 105–142.Google Scholar
  34. Peach W., Taylor R., Cotton P., Gruar D., Hill I. and Denny M. 2002. Habitat utilization by song thrushes Turdus philomelus on lowland farmland during summer and winter. Aspects Appl. Biol. 67: 11–20.Google Scholar
  35. Siriwardena G.M., Baillie S.R., Buckland S.T., Fewster R.M., Marchant J.H. and Wilson J.D. 1998. Trends and abundance of farmland birds: a quantitative comparison of smoothed Common Birds Census indices. J. Appl. Ecol. 35: 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Snow D.W. 2003. Song and territories of Song Thrushes in a Buckinghamshire village: a ten-year study. British Birds 96: 119–131.Google Scholar
  37. Solonen T. 2001. Breeding of the great tit and blue tit in urban and rural habitats in southern Finland. Ornis Fennici 78: 49–60.Google Scholar
  38. Summers-Smith J.D. 2003. The decline of the house sparrow: a review. British Birds 96: 439–446.Google Scholar
  39. Woods M., McDonald R.A. and Harris S. 2003. Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mammal Rev. 33: 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wotton S.R., Field R., Langston R.H.W. and Gibbons D.W. 2002. Homes for birds: the use of houses for nesting by birds in the UK. British Birds 95: 586–592.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher F. Mason
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of EssexColchesterUK

Personalised recommendations