Linking Foraging Decisions to Residential Yard Bird Composition

Lerman, Susannah B.; Warren, Paige S.; Gan, Hilary; Shochat, Eyal

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043497

Cited by 24 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was a lower GUD in mesic yards, parallel to the lower GUD of urban areas, which may be explained by a greater density of animals living in mesic yards than xeric yards (Lerman et al 2012). Lower predation and abundant resources may contribute to a greater density of conspecifics in urban areas as well, leading to greater competition for food and longer foraging bouts to procure enough calories (Bowers and Breland 1996;Shochat et al 2004;Lerman et al 2012).…”

Section: Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 91%

“…9.7.1. However, a comparison of birds in native desert (xeric) yards and in non-native lush (mesic) yards showed no differences in perceived predation risk as expressed through the use of foraging trays placed closer or farther from protective cover (Lerman et al 2012). There was a lower GUD in mesic yards, parallel to the lower GUD of urban areas, which may be explained by a greater density of animals living in mesic yards than xeric yards (Lerman et al 2012).…”

Section: Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 94%

“…However, a comparison of birds in native desert (xeric) yards and in non-native lush (mesic) yards showed no differences in perceived predation risk as expressed through the use of foraging trays placed closer or farther from protective cover (Lerman et al 2012). There was a lower GUD in mesic yards, parallel to the lower GUD of urban areas, which may be explained by a greater density of animals living in mesic yards than xeric yards (Lerman et al 2012). Lower predation and abundant resources may contribute to a greater density of conspecifics in urban areas as well, leading to greater competition for food and longer foraging bouts to procure enough calories (Bowers and Breland 1996;Shochat et al 2004;Lerman et al 2012).…”

Section: Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Eastern gray squirrels ( Sciurus carolinensis) in more urban areas had greater densities and lower GUDs than squirrels in more rural areas (Bowers and Breland 1996). Similarly, birds in urban areas have shown consistently lower GUDs than birds in nonurban areas Lerman et al 2012). …”

Section: Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Urban animals may perceive less predation pressure because of the altered community structure in urban areas and thus enjoy longer foraging bouts (Bowers and Breland 1996;Shochat et al 2004;Lerman et al 2012), or they may be less cautious because urban areas select for bold personalities, as discussed in Sect. 9.7.1.…”

Section: Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Urban Wildlife Behavior

Ryan

Partan

2014

Urban Wildlife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild animals in urban areas face unique challenges. They live in environments modified by and for humans without having evolved in them, but unlike domesticated animals, they remain under the auspices of natural selection. We do not yet know how living in urban areas will ultimately affect the animals that share our urban environments, but we are at the beginning of a new and important scientific effort to study the effects of urbanization on wildlife. Early signs suggest that animals that can tolerate urbanization are quite different in behavior and physiology than those that are limited in distribution to natural areas .In this chapter, we focus on how animal behavior changes in response to urbanization. We use the term urban to refer to habitats undergoing intense human development for purposes of human residency, as seen in cities and suburbs (see Gehrt 2010). Understanding why some animals successfully adapt their behavior to urban areas and others do not can contribute to both the management of urban wildlife and the conservation of species that do not fare well during urbanization. After addressing the behavioral effects of urbanization, we conclude with implications for evolution and biodiversity of animals in urban environments. We have limited our review to terrestrial vertebrates with a few exceptions. Aquatic animal

show abstract

Section: Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Urban Wildlife Behavior

Ryan

Partan

2014

Urban Wildlife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The more things change: species losses detected in Phoenix despite stability in bird–socioeconomic relationships

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The science of urban ecology has increasingly grappled with the long‐term ramifications of a globally urbanized planet and the impacts on biodiversity. Some researchers have suggested that places with high species diversity in cities simply reflect an extinction debt of populations that are doomed to extinction but have not yet disappeared. The longitudinal studies conducted to date have found species composition shifting with urbanization but have not always documented continued species extirpations post‐urbanization. We used long‐term monitoring data on birds from the greater metropolitan area of Phoenix, Arizona, to measure changes in residential bird communities, species–habitat relationships, and human perceptions of bird species diversity over a five‐year period. Bird richness, occupancy, and abundance decreased, as did the percentage of respondents satisfied with bird variety in their neighborhoods. As in previous analyses for this region, we found that desert specialist species were associated with neighborhoods with xeric landscaping consisting of gravel groundcover, and drought‐tolerant, desert‐adapted vegetation. These species were also found in neighborhoods with high per capita income rates and lower percentages of renters and Hispanic/Latinx residents. Non‐native species were positively associated with neighborhoods containing mesic yards with grass and other water‐intensive vegetation. The proportions of yards in our surveyed neighborhoods with these distinct landscaping types likewise remained relatively stable over five‐year period. Although habitat–species relationships remained unchanged, we detected significant loss of species across the sampling period. Declines were not confined to desert specialist species but included generalist and invader species as well. The parallel reduction in residents’ satisfaction suggests that people perceive some aspect of this environmental degradation. Further investigation into the mechanisms underlying these species losses may reveal options for retaining some desert specialist species, and the uniqueness they contribute to urban fauna.

show abstract

Long‐term effects of land‐use change on bird communities depend on spatial scale and land‐use type

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land-use transformation is one of the most important and pervasive ecological changes occurring across the Earth, but its long-term effects are poorly understood. Here, we analyze the effects of urban and agriculture development on bird biodiversity and community structure over a 16-yr study period. We found that long-term effects of land-use change are dependent on spatial scale and land-use type. At the regional scale, we found that gamma diversity (total number of species observed) declined by~10% over time. At the landscape spatial scale, we found that beta diversity (uniqueness of bird communities) increased by~16% over time. Additionally, the average contributions of urban riparian bird communities to beta diversity were generally the highest but declined by~26% over the study period. Contributions of urban communities to beta diversity were generally the lowest but increased by~10% over time. At the local scale, we observed different responses for different measures of alpha diversity. For bird species richness, temporal changes varied by land use. Species richness declined 16% at sites in desert riparian areas but increased by 21% and 12% at sites in urban and agricultural areas, respectively. Species evenness declined across all land uses, with some land uses experiencing more rapid declines than others. Our analysis of species groups that shared certain traits suggests that these community-level changes were driven by species that are small, breed onsite, and feed on insects, grains, and nectar. Collectively, our results suggest that biodiversity declines associated with land-use change predominate at the regional and local spatial scale, and that these effects can strengthen or weaken over time. However, these changes counterintuitively led to increases in biodiversity at the landscape scale, as bird communities became more unique. This has implications for conservation and management as it shows that the effects of land-use modification on biodiversity may be positive or negative depending on the spatial scale considered.

show abstract

Linking Foraging Decisions to Residential Yard Bird Composition

Cited by 24 publications

References 43 publications

Urban Wildlife Behavior

Urban Wildlife Behavior

The more things change: species losses detected in Phoenix despite stability in bird–socioeconomic relationships

Long‐term effects of land‐use change on bird communities depend on spatial scale and land‐use type

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About