Can human disturbance promote nestedness? Songbirds and noise in urban parks as a case study

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 104, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 9-18

  González Oreja, José Antonio ^a   De La Fuente Díaz Ordaz, Arturo Andrés ^a   Hernández Santín, Lorna ^a   Bonache Regidor, Carolina ^a   Buzo Franco, Daniela ^a  

^a NEIKER and a Vaccine producing Commercial Company CZVSL   (Spain)

Author keywords

Acoustic communication; Body size; Conservation ecology; Ordered extinctions; Resampling methods; Urbanization

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC NOISE; BIRDS; ECOSYSTEMS; INFORMATION THEORY; NOISE POLLUTION;

ACOUSTIC COMMUNICATIONS; BODY SIZES; ORDERED EXTINCTIONS; RESAMPLING METHOD; URBANIZATION;

FORESTRY;

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; BODY SIZE; ENVIRONMENTAL DISTURBANCE; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; NESTEDNESS; NOISE POLLUTION; PARK MANAGEMENT; SONGBIRD; SPECIES RICHNESS; URBAN AREA; URBANIZATION;

BIRDS; CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; NOISE; POLLUTION;

MEXICO [NORTH AMERICA];

AVES; PASSERI; PASSERIFORMES;

EID: 81455131471     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Almeida-Neto M., Guimaraes P., Guimaraes P.R.J., Loyola R.D., Ulrich W. A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 2008, 117:1227-1239.
2. Atmar W., Patterson B.D. The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat. Oecologia 1993, 96:373-382.
3. Barber J.R., Crooks K.R., Fristrup K.M. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 25:180-189.
4. Barker N.K. Bird song structure and transmission in the Neotropics: trends, methods and future directions. Ornitol. Neotrop. 2008, 19:175-199.
5. Bascompte J., Jordano P., Melián C.J., Olesen J.M. The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003, 100:9383-9387.
6. Community noise. Arch. Center Sens. Res. (Stockholm) 1995, 2(1):1-195.
7. Bloch C.P., Higgins C.L., Willig M.R. Effects of large-scale disturbance on metacommunity structure of terrestrial gastropods: temporal trends in nestedness. Oikos 2007, 116(3):395-406.
8. Bowman R., Marzluff J.M. Integrating avian ecology into emerging paradigms in urban ecology. Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World 2001, 569-578. Kluwer Academic, Norwell. J.M. Marzluff, R. Bowman, R. Donelly (Eds.).
9. Brumm H. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J. Anim. Ecol. 2004, 73:434-440.
10. Brumm H., Slabbekoorn H. Acoustic communication in noise. Adv. Stud. Behav. 2005, 35:151-209.
11. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information-theoretic approach 2002, Springer. second ed.
12. Calmé S., Desrochers A. Nested bird and micro-habitat assemblages in a peatland archipielago. Oecologia 1999, 118:361-370.
13. Cervantes-Cornihs E., Zuria I. ámbito hogareño, comportamiento y abundancia del cuitlacoche Toxostoma curvirostre en un ambiente urbano en el Estado de Hidalgo, Mexico (Home range, behaviour and abundance of the Curve-billed thrasher Toxostoma curvirostre in an urban environment in the State of Hidalgo, Mexico). IX Congreso para el Estudio y Conservación de las Aves en México CECAM 2009, 14-15. Memorias, Querétaro, [in Spanish]. Cipamex (Ed.).
14. Coleman B.D., Mares M.A., Willing M.R., Hsieh Y.-H. Randomness, area, and species richness. Ecology 1982, 63:1121-1133.
15. Connor E.F., McCoy E.D. Species-area relationships. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity 2001, 397-411. Academic, London. S. Levin (Ed.).
16. Cook R.R., Quinn J.F. The influence of colonization in nested species subsets. Oecologia 1995, 102:413-424.
17. Croci S., Butet A., Clergeau P. Does urbanization filter birds on the basis of their ecological traits?. Condor 2008, 110:223-240.
18. Donnelly R., Marzluff J.M. Importance of reserve size and landscape context to urban bird conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18:733-745.
19. Donnelly R., Marzluff J.M. Relative importance of habitat quantity, structure, and spatial pattern to birds in urbanizing environments. Urban Ecosyst. 2006, 9:99-117.
20. Fernández-Juricic E. Can human disturbance promote nestedness? A case study with breeding birds in urban habitat fragments. Oecologia 2002, 131:269-278.
21. Fernández-Juricic E., Poston R., De Collibus K., Morgan T., Bastain B., Martin C., Jones K.B., Treminio R. Microhabitat selection and singing behavior patterns in male House finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) in urban parks in a heavily urbanizaed landscape in the Western U.S. Urban Habitats 2005, 3:49-69.
22. Fischer J., Lindenmayer D.B. Treating the nestedness temperature calculator as a "black box" can lead to false conclusions. Oikos 2002, 99:193-199.
23. Fleishman E., Betrus C.J., Blair R.B., Mac Nally R., Murphy D.D. Nestedness analysis and conservation planning: the importance of place, environment, and life history across taxonomic groups. Oecologia 2002, 133:78-89.
24. Fleishman E., Donnelly R., Fay J.P., Reeves R. Applications of nestedness analyses to biodiversity conservation in developing landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 2007, 81:271-281.
25. Fonderflick J. Méthodes d'étude des peuplements d'oiseaux (Methods to study bird populations) 1998, Centre d'Expérimentation Pédagogique, Florac, [in French].
26. Francis C.D., Ortega C.P., Cruz A. Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19(16):1415-1419.
27. Ganzorn J.U., Eisenbeiβ B. The concept of nested species assemblages and its utility for understanding effects of habitat fragmentation. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2000, 2:87-99.
28. González-Oreja J.A. Birds of different biogeographic origins respond in contrasting ways to urbanization. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:234-242.
29. González-Oreja J.A., Bonache-Regidor C., Buzo-Franco D., de la Fuente-Díaz-Ordaz A.A., Hernández-Santín L. Caracterización ecológica de la avifauna de los parques urbanos de la Ciudad de Puebla (México) (Ecological characterization of the birds of the urban parks of the City of Puebla (Mexico)). Ardeola 2007, 54:53-67. [in Spanish].
30. González-Oreja J.A., Bonache-Regidor C., de la Fuente-Díaz-Ordaz A.A. Far from the noisy world? Modelling the relationships between park size, tree cover and noise levels in urban green spaces of the City of Puebla, Mexico. Interciencia 2010, 35:486-492.
31. Gotelli N.J. Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 2000, 81:2606-2621.
32. Guimaraes P., Guimaraes P.R.J. Improving the analyses of nestedness for large sets of matrices. Environ. Model. Softw. 2006, 21:1512-1513.
33. Higgins C.L., Willig M.R., Staruss R.E. The role of stochastic processes in producing nested patterns of species distributions. Oikos 2006, 114:159-167.
34. Hood, G.M., 2010. PopTools. Version 3.2. http://www.cse.csiro.au/poptools.
35. Howell S.N.G., Webb S. A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America 1995, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
36. Hu Y., Cardoso G.C. Are bird species that vocalize at higher frequencies preadapted to inhabit noisy urban areas?. Behav. Ecol. 2009, 20:1268-1273.
37. Hu Y., Cardoso G.C. Which birds adjust the frequency of vocalizations in urban noise?. Anim. Behav. 2010, 79:863-867.
38. Hylander K., Nilsson C., Jonsson B.G., Göthner T. Differences in habitat quality explain nestedness in a land snail meta-community. Oikos 2005, 108:351-361.
39. INEGI, 2007. México en Cifras (Mexico in numbers). Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, México. (in Spanish). http://www.inegi.org.mx/.
40. INEGI, 2010. Mapa Digital de México V 5.0 (Digital Map of Mexico V 5.0). Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, México. (in Spanish). http://gaia.inegi.org.mx/mdm5/viewer.html.
41. Katti M., Warren P.S. Tits, noise and urban bioacoustics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19:109-110.
42. Laiolo P. The emerging significance of bioacoustics in animal species conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143:1635-1645.
43. Lomolino M. Investigating causality of nestedness of insular communities: selective immigration or extinctions?. J. Biogeog. 1996, 23:699-703.
44. Moore J.E., Swihart R.K. Toward ecologically explicit null models of nestedness. Oecologia 2007, 152:763-777.
45. Naguib M., Riebel K. Birdsong: a key model in animal communication. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 2 2006, 40-53. Elsevier, Amsterdam. K. Brown (Ed.).
46. Pater L.L., Grubb T.G., Delaney D.K. Recomendations for improved assessment of noise impacts on wildlife. J. Wildlife Manage. 2009, 73:788-795.
47. Patricelli G.L., Blickley J.L. Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. Auk 2006, 123:639-649.
48. Patterson B.D., Atmar W. Analyzing species composition in fragments. Isolated Vertebrate Communities in the Tropics. Proc. 4th Int. Symp. Bonn. Zool. Monogr. 46 2000, 9-24. G. Rheinwald (Ed.).
49. Peris S.J., Pescador M. Effects of traffic noise on passerine populations in Mediterranean wooded pastures. Appl. Acoust. 2004, 65:357-366.
50. Platt A., Lill A. Composition and conservation value of bird assemblages of urban 'habitat islands': do pedestrian traffic and landscape variables exert an influence?. Urban Ecosyst. 2006, 9:83-97.
51. Quinn G.P., Keough M.J. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
52. Rangel T.F., Diniz-Filho J.A.F., Bini L.M. SAM: a comprehensive application for spatial analysis in macroecology. Ecography 2010, 33:1-5.
53. Rheindt F.E. The impact of roads on birds: does song frequency play a role in determining susceptibility to noise pollution?. J. Ornithol. 2003, 144:295-306.
54. Ríos-Chelén A.A. Bird song: the interplay between urban noise and sexual selection. Oecol. Bras. 2009, 13:153-164.
55. Sebastián-González E., Botella F., Paracuellos M., Sánchez-Zapata J.A. Processes driving temporal communities in the nested pattern of waterbird communities. Acta Oecol. 2010, 36:160-165.
56. Sibley D.A. The Sibley Guide to Birds. National Audubon Society 2000, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
57. Simon, J., 1997. Resampling: The New Statistics. Arlington, VA.
58. Slabbekoorn H., den Boer-Visser A. Cities change the songs of birds. Curr. Biol. 2006, 16:2326-2331.
59. Slabbekoorn H., Halfwerk W. Behavioural ecology: noise annoys at community level. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19:R693-R695.
60. Slabbekoorn H., Ripmesteer E.A.P. Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17:72-83.
61. Swaddle J.P., Page L.C. High levels of environmental noise erode pair preferences in zebra finches: implications for noise pollution. Anim. Behav. 2007, 74:363-368.
62. Ulrich, W., 2008. Nestedness-a FORTRAN program for measuring order and disorder in ecological communities. http://www.home.umk.pl/~ulrichw/Downloads/NestednessManual.pdf.
63. Ulrich W., Almeida-Neto M., Gotelli N.J. A consumer's guide to nestedness analysis. Oikos 2009, 118:3-17.
64. Ulrich W., Gotelli N.J. Null model analysis of species nestedness patterns. Ecology 2007, 88:1824-1831.
65. Wang Y., Bao Y., Yu M., Xu G., Ding P. Nestedness for different reasons: the distributions of birds, lizards and small mammals on islands of an inundated lake. Diversity Distrib. 2010, 16(5):862-873.
66. Wiley R.H. Signal transmission in natural environments. Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, vol. 8 2009, 827-832. Elsevier, Oxford. R.L. Squire (Ed.).
67. Wilson Ch.E. Noise Control. Measurement, Analysis and Control of Sound and Vibration 1989, Harper & Row, New York.
68. Wood W.E., Yezerinac S.M. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) song varies with urban noise. Auk 2006, 123:650-659.
69. Worthen W.B., Jones M.T., Jetton R.M. Community structure and environmental stress: dessication promotes nestedness in mycophagous fly communities. Oikos 1998, 81:45-54.
70. Wright D.H., Patterson B.D., Mikkelson G.M., Cutler A., Atmar W. A comparative analysis of nested subset patterns af species composition. Oceologia 1998, 113:1-20.