1986
DOI: 10.1016/0304-4009(86)90011-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relative use of municipal street trees by birds during summer in state college, Pennsylvania

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
11
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results show that the presence of birds was higher in large trees than in small ones, mirroring the findings from other settings [6,30,31]. This may be an active selection for large trees or may simply be a reflection of the size effect (larger trees have a larger volume and therefore a greater random likelihood of harbouring a bird).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results show that the presence of birds was higher in large trees than in small ones, mirroring the findings from other settings [6,30,31]. This may be an active selection for large trees or may simply be a reflection of the size effect (larger trees have a larger volume and therefore a greater random likelihood of harbouring a bird).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…For example, the early work of Tzilkowsjki et al [6] revealed that one-third of street trees had birds in them and that the prevalence differed markedly between different tree species, whilst Kubista & Bruckner [7] reported that urban trees provided 50% of the roost sites for several species of bats.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Few studies in Australia have considered how street tree species of urban areas have influenced birds' usage of them (Young et al 2007). Bird species may even choose certain tree species, independent of height and location, although it is not always clear which resources these trees provide over other tree species (Tzikowski et al 1986). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Angophora costata) and non-endemic (e.g. E. sideroxylon) trees that are recognised for their prolific flowering, which increases in intensity, frequency and duration as they mature (Nagendra and Gopal 2010;Smith and Lill 2008;Tzilkowski et al 1986;White et al 2005;Williams et al 2006). Elevated nectar availability from ornamental urban plantings has been anecdotally hypothesised to explain increases in nectarivore density (Anderies et al 2007;McCaffrey and Mannan 2012;McGoldrick and Mac Nally 1998) however to date, only a few studies have addressed the contribution of nectar from ornamental plantings (see Ashley et al 2009;Sewell and Catterall 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%