Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/springer-journals/effects-of-urbanization-on-the-avian-community-in-a-southern-brazilian-R5wXguRirZ
- Publisher
- Springer Journals
- Copyright
- Copyright © Sociedade Brasileira de Ornitologia 2017
- eISSN
- 2178-7875
- DOI
- 10.1007/bf03544374
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 25(1): 31–39. ARTICLE March 2017 Effects of urbanization on the avian community in a southern Brazilian city 1,2,3 1,2 Vinícius Abilhoa & Rafael Amorin Museu de História Natural Capão da Imbuia. Rua Professor Benedito Conceição, 407, CEP 82810080, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. Programa de Pós-graduação em Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná. Avenida Cel. Francisco H. dos Santos, S/N, Jardim das Américas, Caixa Postal 19020, CEP 81531-980, Curitiba, PR, Brazil. Corresponding author: vabilhoa@uol.com.br Received on 14 April 2016. Accepted on 10 May 2017. ABSTRACT: This paper compares the proportion of urban tolerant birds in the urban avian community and the amount of built-up areas, mostly impervious surface, as indicators of urbanization on patterns of bird species richness in a southern Brazilian city. From September to December 2013 (breeding season), bird surveys were conducted in 120 squares of 100 ha randomly select within Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. All bird species seen or heard during the sample timeframe were recorded. The extent of urban modification and disturbance was estimated directly from urban landscape data analyses through a geographic information system. Linear regressions were graphed and Spearman rank correlations were calculated to assess the relationship of overall species richness and the percentage of urban tolerant birds against the percentage of built-up areas as the predictor variable. Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric analyses of variance were performed to test if the total richness or the percentage of urban tolerant birds on the assemblages differed between categories of urbanization (low, intermediate and high). We recorded 102 bird species, including 13 urban tolerant species. As expected, urbanization significantly reduced species ric hness, but urban tolerant species were less affected to changes on land modifications associated to urban growth. The increase in representativeness of “urban-adaptable” species on the bird assemblages of intermediate and high-urbanized areas in Curitiba was probably favored by their broad environmental tolerance. Most urban tolerant species registered are ground foraging resident birds, use a diverse array of anthropogenic resources, and can be found occupying various types of habitat in several human-modified ecosystems. KEY-WORDS: avian community, nonnatives, synanthropic, urban exploiters, urban landscape. INTRODUCTION values of species richness are usually registered in the most intensively built-up areas, such as the city center (Blair 1996).While there is general consensus in the literature Urban development exerts negative impacts on biodiversity because of habitat loss and ecosystems regarding the point of lowest diversity, usually urban core fragmentation (McKinney 2002). In urban landscapes, areas (Seress & Liker 2015), species richness is higher the disruption of ecosystem processes (Thom et al. 2001), in areas of intermediate levels of urbanization (Marzluff 2001, Chace & Walsh 2006). predator proliferation (Baker et al. 2008, Fischer et al. Patterns of avian community composition within 2012), elevated noise levels (Proppe et al. 2013), and the fragmentation of remaining forests (Zipperer et al. 2012) the urban landscape are mediated by species tolerance significantly impact the richness (Marzluff 2001) and and ability to exploit urbanized areas. Species sensitive consequently the composition and functional structure to habitat disturbances have been categorized as “urban avoiders” (McKinney 2002) or “urban-sensitive” (Garden of bird communities (e.g. Blair 1996, Marzluff 2001, Lim et al. 2007), while species that are common in urbanized & Sodhi 2004, Ferenc et al. 2013). The composition and distribution of urban birds are areas have been categorized as “urban exploiters” influenced by habitat structure and urban development (McKinney 2002) or “synanthropes” (Marzluff et al. in Australia (Garden et al. 2006), Europe (Ferenc et al. 2001). Birds in urban ecosystems are usually opportunistic species with wide dispersal ability, whereas species with 2013), Asia (Sodhi et al. 1999), North America (Donnelly poor dispersal ability, slow reproduction or specialized & Marzluff 2006), South Africa (van Rensburg et al. 2009) and Neotropics (Leveau & Leveau 2005, 2012, diets disappear from urban assemblages as urbanization Pauchard et al. 2006, Fontana et al. 2011, Reis et al. increases (McKinney & Lockwood 1999). The increase 2012, Toledo et al. 2012, Silva et al. 2015). The lowest in the “urban-adaptable” species and the formation of Effects of urbanization on the avian community in a southern Brazilian city Abilhoa & Amorin similar urban communities in many regions all over the exotic or accidental (Straube et al. 2014). The urban world has been promoting the biotic homogenization resident avian community comprises more than 100 process (McKinney 2006). aquatic and terrestrial species, as well as migratory birds. Several studies examined the composition of urban The most common native species found in the city are avian communities and stated that these communities Rufous Hornero (Furnarius rufus), Eared Dove (Zenaida comprise native and nonnatives species, well adapted to auriculata), Rufous-collared Sparrow (Zonotrichia human-dominated landscapes, which are tolerant to urban capensis), House Wren (Troglodytes aedon), and Great constraints and able to maintain populations in urbanized Kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus), along with the nonnatives areas (Manhães & Loures-Ribeiro 2005, Pinheiro et al. House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), Rock Dove (Columba 2008, Shochat 2010, Fontana et al. 2011). Lower levels livia) and the Common Waxbill (Estrilda astrild). of urbanization seem to increase richness because of the coexistence of species associated with original and new Sampling and data analysis habitat, whereas higher levels would lead to lower species richness (Blair 1996, Marzluff 2001). Curitiba's territory was divided into 490 equal squares of This study aims to assess changes in the species 100 ha (1000 × 1000 m) to standardize samples and to richness and also in the representativeness of urban ensure independence from urban form. At the periphery tolerant birds across a range of sample areas embedded in of the study area, there were 85 irregularly bounded a southern Brazilian city. We hypothesized that the overall squares that were eliminated due to their irregular size species richness, as opposed to the representativeness and smaller areas, yielding 405 squares (Fig. 1). For the of urban tolerant birds, will decline with increasing bird survey, we randomly selected sample sites (squares) urbanization. As urban tolerant species generally thrive in within Curitiba using 'sample' function in R software (R urban ecosystems, their richness and presence should be Development Core Team 2013). Such random selection less affected to changes on land modifications associated ensured that sites with different levels of urbanization to urban growth. (amount of built-up areas) were surveyed. Sample- based rarefaction method was performed to evaluate the adequate sampling effort (number of squares surveyed) METHODS (Colwell et al. 2004).This measuring of species richness preserves the spatial structure of the data, reflecting Study area processes such as spatial aggregation or segregation of species (Gotelli & Colwell 2011). Sample-base Curitiba (25°25'S; 49°16'W), a 324-year-old city rarefaction curves were calculated (Mao Tau estimator, occupies 432.2 km and is located in the Subtropical 500 randomizations) in the software EcoSim, version Zone of southern Brazil. The average altitude is 934 m 7.72 (Gotelli & Entsminger 2000). a.s.l., ranging between 900 and 1000 m. The city has Fieldwork was carried out during the breeding a subtropical highland climate where the temperature season (spring), between September and early December ranges from 21 to 32°C during the rainy summer and of 2013, when most birds establish breeding territories from 0 to 13°C in the winter, when rainfall is less and exhibit strong site fidelity (Sogge 2000). Choosing abundant. The average annual precipitation is 1413 mm this period of the year also avoid the temporal fluctuation with little variation throughout the year. The population caused by the presence of migratory birds. Each square has grown exponentially over the last decades, and reach was surveyed by walking along public rights-of-way almost 1.8 million people and an average density of 4062 (e.g. streets, unpaved roads, grasslands with scattered -2 inhabitants km , becoming the eighth most populous trees and shrubs, ornamental gardens, parks, non- city in the country in 2014 (ICLEI 2008, Curitiba 2016). municipal green spaces, built-up areas) in the period The City's territory has 77,786,020.60 m of forests with maximum bird activity (between 6:30 and 10:00 remnants (20% of the city surface), comprising nowadays h) on sunny or scattered clouds days. No surveys were more than 50 conservation units, mostly municipal parks. performed during periods of rain or high wind. One hour The arborisation of streets, recreational parks and private was spent in each 100 ha square, thereby standardizing green areas are dominated by nonnative species, such as sampling effort across all sites. This period of time was the Crape Myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), Chinese Privet considered satisfactory for sampling two non-adjoining (Ligustrum lucidum), Rosewood (Tipuana tipu), Box squares for each day. Adjacent squares were not surveyed Elder (Acer negundo), Vilca (Anadenanthera colubrina) during the same day in order to avoid overlapping and the Brazilian Firetree (Schizolobium parahyba). observations of birds. Birds were detected visually and/ Historical bird records identified 387 native species or by vocalizations, and all species were assumed to in Curitiba, along with 30 species considered introduced, have equal detection probabilities due to the large-scale Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 25(1): 2017 Effects of urbanization on the avian community in a southern Brazilian city Abilhoa & Amorin urban landscape. This assumption is common to studies sample timeframe in the surroundings at unlimited of urban bird communities (Chapa-Vargas & Robinson distances, excluding high-flying individuals and night- 2006, Donnelly & Marzluff 2006). We recor ded the active species. Bird taxonomy and nomenclature follow presence of all bird species seen or heard during the Piacentini et al. (2015). Figure 1. Map of the Curitiba municipality in southern Brazil, showing the distribution of the 120 sample sites (black squares). The small South America map depicts the location of the state of Paraná (shaded) and the city of Curitiba. We divided the community registered into two landscape modification produced by urbanization, groups based upon their life history characteristics and such anthropogenic habitat fragmentation and and ability to thrive and exploit urbanized ecosystems disturbance are known to influence avian community (Blair 1996). Thirteen species were assigned to the (Marzluff et al. 2001). Modification of land cover in synanthropic guild according to Litteral & Wu (2012), urban areas has also been shown to cause the urban and were therefore considered urban tolerant birds. heat island effect, which leads to higher temperature in Besides urban invaders (i.e. House Sparrow, Rock Dove, urbanized areas than surroundings (e.g. Streutker 2003), and Common Waxbill), most species that thrive in urban causing differences in timing of arrival of migratory birds environments are remnant native species, some of which in cities (Tryjanowski et al. 2013). are synanthropic generalists, urban commensals and/or Linear regressions were graphed and Spearman urban-resource dependent (Marzluff 2001). rank correlations were calculated on the total number The extent of urban modification and disturbance of species and the percentage of urban tolerant birds as was estimated directly from urban landscape data analysis the dependent variables against the percentage of built- rather than indirect inference or a priori assignment. A up areas as the predictor variable. Non-parametric rank geographic information system (GIS) was used, built by correlations were used because species richness and the means of ArcView GIS 3.2 software and geographical proportion of urban tolerant birds could not be successfully databases of the city of Curitiba, provided by Curitiba's normalized to meet assumptions of parametric tests. We Institute of Research and Public Planning (IPPUC). For used the proportion of impervious surface to indicate each sample point (100 ha square), the amount of built- the level of urbanization and to determine whether this up areas (e.g. buildings, roads, industrial areas, paved- important modification on the urban landscape affected over soil, compacted/near-impervious open spaces) was species richness and the percentage of urban tolerant measured. We used the amount of built-up areas as a proxy birds on the assemblages. to evaluate the proportion of impervious surface. Land- To summarize the relative influence of the level of surface impermeabilization is one of the most important urbanization on bird species richness and composition, Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 25(1): 2017 Effects of urbanization on the avian community in a southern Brazilian city Abilhoa & Amorin sample units (squares) were categorized into one of the RESULTS following classes (levels) of urbanization: low (<50% of built-up areas), intermediate (50–75% of built-up A total of 102 bird species, representing 43 families of areas), and high (>75% of built-up areas). We examined 29 orders were observed. Species richness estimated using the effect of the urbanization level on avian composition the sample-based rarefaction technique tended to stabilize through Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric analyses of after 120 squares were sampled. The greatest recor ded variance, as initial examination of the data revealed they richness concerned Thraupidae (11 species), Tyrannidae do not meet assumptions of parametric tests (Zar 1999). (9 species), and Columbidae (6 species). The families Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to evaluate if the Icteridae and Picidae can also be highlighted because of number of overall species or the percentage of urban their representativeness (5 species each) in the surveys. tolerant birds on the assemblages differed between Among the 102 birds identified, 13 were considered different levels of urbanization. Boxplots on both urban tolerant species, including three nonnatives (Rock assemblages were constructed. Dove, Common Waxbill, and House Sparrow) (Table 1). Table 1. Common names, scientific names, families, origin (native or exotic), and tolerance to exploit urbanized areas (accor ding to Litteral & Wu 2012) of birds observed during the study period in Curitiba city, southern Brazil. Common nameSpecies Family Origin Urban tolerant Brown Tinamou Crypturellus obsoletus Tinamidae Native No White-faced Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna viduata Anatidae Native No Brazilian Teal Amazonetta brasiliensis Anatidae Native No White-cheeked Pintail Anas bahamensis Anatidae Native No Dusky-legged Guan Penelope obscura Cracidae Native No Neotropic Cormorant Nannopterum brasilianus Phalacrocoracidae Native No Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Ardeidae Native No Striated Heron Butorides striata Ardeidae Native No Great Egret Ardea alba Ardeidae Native No Whistling Heron Syrigma sibilatrix Ardeidae Native No Buff-necked I bis Theristicus caudatus Threskiornithidae Native No Black Vulture Coragyps atratus Cathartidae Native No White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus Accipitridae Native No Roadside Hawk Rupornis magnirostris Accipitridae Native No Slaty-breasted Wood-Rail Aramides saracura Rallidae Native No Common Gallinule Gallinula galeata Rallidae Native No Southern Lapwing Vanellus chilensis Charadriidae Native Yes White-backed Stilt Himantopus melanurus Recurvirostridae Native No Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Scolopacidae Native No Wattled Jacana Jacana jacana Jacanidae Native No RuddyGround Dove Columbina talpacoti Columbidae Native Yes Rock Pigeon Columba livia Columbidae Exotic Yes Picazuro Pigeon Patagioenas picazuro Columbidae Native No Eared Dove Zenaida auriculata Columbidae Native Yes White-tipped Dove Leptotila verreauxi Columbidae Native No Gray-fronted Dove Leptotila rufaxilla Columbidae Native No Squirrel Cuckoo Piaya cayana Cuculidae Native No Smooth-billed Ani Crotophaga ani Cuculidae Native No Guira Cuckoo Guira guira Cuculidae Native No Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Strigidae Native No White-collared Swift Streptoprocne zonaris Apodidae Native No Swallow-tailed Hummingbird Eupetomena macroura Trochilidae Native No White-vented Violetear Colibri serrirostris Trochilidae Native No Glittering-bellied Emerald Chlorostilbon lucidus Trochilidae Native No White-throated Hummingbird Leucochloris albicollis Trochilidae Native No Surucua Trogon Trogon surrucura Trogonidae Native No Ringed Kingfisher Megaceryle torquata Alcedinidae Native No Red-breasted Toucan Ramphastos dicolorus Ramphastidae Native No White Woodpecker Melanerpes candidus Picidae Native No Yellow-fronted Woodpecker Melanerpes flavifrons Picidae Native No White-spotted Woodpecker Veniliornis spilogaster Picidae Native No Green-barred Woodpecker Colaptes melanochloros Picidae Native No Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 25(1): 2017 Effects of urbanization on the avian community in a southern Brazilian city Abilhoa & Amorin Family Origin Urban tolerant Common nameSpecies Campo Flicker Colaptes campestris Picidae Native No Southern Caracara Caracara plancus Falconidae Native No Yellow-headed Caracara Milvago chimachima Falconidae Native No American Kestrel Falco sparverius Falconidae Native No Aplomado Falcon Falco femoralis Falconidae Native No Plain Parakeet Brotogeris tirica Psittacidae Native Yes Pileated Parrot Pionopsitta pileata Psittacidae Native No Scaly-headed Parrot Pionus maximiliani Psittacidae Native No Variable Antshrike Thamnophilus caerulescens Thamnophilidae Native No Olivaceous Woodcreeper Sittasomus griseicapillus Dendrocolaptidae Native No Planalto Woodcreeper Dendrocolaptes platyrostris Dendrocolaptidae Native No Rufous Hornero Furnarius rufus Furnariidae Native Yes Araucaria Tit-Spinetail Leptasthenura setaria Furnariidae Native No Spix's Spinetail Synallaxis spixi Furnariidae Native No Swallow-tailed Manakin Chiroxiphia caudata Pipridae Native No Southern Beardless-Tyrannulet Camptostoma obsoletum Tyrannidae Native No Yellow-bellied Elaenia Elaenia flavo gaster Tyrannidae Native No White-crested Tyrannulet Serpophaga subcristata Tyrannidae Native No Great Kiskadee Pitangus sulphuratus Tyrannidae Native Yes Cattle Tyrant Machetornis rixosa Tyrannidae Native No Tropical Kingbird Tyrannus melancholicus Tyrannidae Native No Fork-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus savana Tyrannidae Native No Long-tailed Tyrant Colonia colonus Tyrannidae Native No Euler's Flycatcher Lathrotriccus euleri Tyrannidae Native No Rufous-browed Peppershrike Cyclarhis gujanensis Vireonidae Native No Chivi Vireo Vireo chivi Vireonidae Native No Plush-crested Jay Cyanocorax chrysops Corvidae Native No Blue-and-white Swallow Pygochelidon cyanoleuca Hirundinidae Native Yes Brown-chested Martin Progne tapera Hirundinidae Native No Gray-breasted Martin Progne chalybea Hirundinidae Native No Southern House Wren Troglodytes musculus Troglodytidae Native Yes Rufous-belliedThrush Turdus rufiventris Turdidae Native Yes Creamy-bellied Thrush Turdus amaurochalinus Turdidae Native No White-neckedThrush Turdus albicollis Turdidae Native No Chalk-browed Mockingbird Mimus saturninus Mimidae Native No Rufous-collared Sparrow Zonotrichia capensis Passerellidae Native No Tropical Parula Setophaga pitiayumi Parulidae Native No Masked Yellowthroat Geothlypis aequinoctialis Parulidae Native No Golden-crowned Warbler Basileuterus culicivorus Parulidae Native No White-browed Warbler Myiothlypis leucoblepharus Parulidae Native No Red-rumped Cacique Cacicus haemorrhous Icteridae Native No Chopi Blackbird Gnorimopsar chopi Icteridae Native No Chestnut-capped Blackbird Chrysomus ruficapillus Icteridae Native No Yellow-rumped Marshbird Pseudoleistes guirahuro Icteridae Native No Shiny Cowbird Molothrus bonariensis Icteridae Native Yes Fawn-breasted Tanager Pipraeidea melanonota Thraupidae Native No Blue-and-yellow Tanager Pipraeidea bonariensis Thraupidae Native No Diademed Tanager Stephanophorus diadematus Thraupidae Native No Sayaca Tanager Tangara sayaca Thraupidae Native Yes Saffron Finch Sicalis flaveo la Thraupidae Native Yes Blue-black Grassquit Volatinia jacarina Thraupidae Native No Black-goggled Tanager Trichothraupis melanops Thraupidae Native No Red-crested Finch Coryphospingus cucullatus Thraupidae Native No Swallow Tanager Tersina viridis Thraupidae Native No Double-collared Seedeater Sporophila caerulescens Thraupidae Native No Green-winged Saltator Saltator similis Thraupidae Native No Hooded Siskin Spinus magellanicus Fringillidae Native No Violaceous Euphonia Euphonia violacea Fringillidae Native No Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild Estrildidae Exotic Yes House Sparrow Passer domesticus Passeridae Exotic Yes Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 25(1): 2017 Effects of urbanization on the avian community in a southern Brazilian city Abilhoa & Amorin The most common and widespread species of birds, not statistical different between low and intermediate with a frequency of occurrence of more than 80% in the urbanized sites (P > 0.05). Despite the high-variability surveys, were the natives Rufous Hornero, Eared Dove, in data, total richness was lower in sites were the amount Great Kiskadee, and Rufous-bellied Thrush ( Turdus of built-up areas was higher (Spearman r = -0.69, P = rufiventris), along with t he nonnative House Sparrow. 0.01, Fig. 3). Rock Dove and House Sparrow were registered in all sites The effect of the urbanization level on the amount assessed in high urbanized areas, whereas the Eared Dove of urban tolerant birds on avian composition was also and the House Sparrow were the most persistent species significant (Kruskal-Wa llis H = 50.065, P = 0.001, 2,120 in the low to intermediate urbanized sites. Fig. 4), except between low and intermediate urbanized The effect of the urbanization level on avian sites (P > 0.05). The proportion of urban tolerant birds richness was significant (Kruskal-Wa llis H = 47.817, on avian composition was higher in high urbanized sites 2,120 P = 0.001, Fig. 2), however the avian richness was (Spearman r = 0.71, P = 0.001, Fig. 5). Figure 2. Box-plot on avian total richness of Curitiba, southern Brazil, Figure 4. Box-plot on the amount of tolerant birds in avian assemblages considering the effect of the proportion of built-up areas (urbanization of Curitiba, southern Brazil, considering the effect of the proportion levels). Low (<50% of built-up areas), intermediate (50–75% of built- of built-up areas (urbanization levels). Low (<50% of built-up areas), up areas), and high (>75% of built-up areas). intermediate (50–75% of built-up areas), and high (>75% of built-up areas). Figure 3. Regression on avian total richness in Curitiba, southern Figure 5. Regression on the amount of tolerant birds in avian Brazil, considering the effect of the proportion of built-up areas assemblages of Curitiba, southern Brazil, considering the effect of the (urbanization levels). proportion of built-up areas (urbanization levels). DISCUSSION species (e.g. Ruddy Ground Dove Columbina talpacoti, Eared Dove, Great Kiskadee, Rufous-bellied Thrush, This study examined trends in bir d richness and the Rufous Hornero) and nonnatives (Rock Dove, Common representativeness of urban tolerant birds across a range Waxbill, and House Sparrow). The bir d assemblages of sampled areas embedded in a southern Brazilian city. detected are typical of others South American's urban The assemblage recor ded consisted of a high frequency landscapes (e.g. Reynaud & Thioulouse 2000, Leveau & of a relatively few species of birds, including both natives Leveau 2005, 2012, Manhães et al. 2005, Pauchard et al. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 25(1): 2017 Effects of urbanization on the avian community in a southern Brazilian city Abilhoa & Amorin 2006, Pinheiro et al. 2008, Fontana et al. 2011, Reis et al. the greater availability of anthropogenic food (Suhonen & 2012, Toledo et al. 2012). Jokimäki 1988, Leveau & Leveau 2005) may contribute As expected, we found that urbanization plays an to the higher densities of these exotic species in urban important role in shaping spatial distribution of urban areas (DeVictor et al. 2007). bird assemblages. Our analysis supported recent reviews The ground foraging bir ds was by far the most of Hansen et al. (2005) and Faeth et al. (2011), which abundant in terms of the number of species observed, have found that for the overall bird community, species and were represented by granivorous, omnivorous, richness declines with increasing urban development, and insectivorous birds. The dominant trop hic guild and also that the representativeness of species that are (granivorous) were represented by Ruddy Ground Dove, ecologically associated with humans increase in sites Rock Pigeon, Eared Dove, Saffron Finch ( Sicalis flaveo la), with high amounts of built-up areas (Sandström et al. and Common Waxbill. Omnivorous were represented by 2006, DeVictor et al. 2007, Kark et al. 2007, Conole & Plain Parakeet (Brotogeris tirica), Great Kiskadee, Rufous- Kirkpatrick 2011). bellied Thrush, and House Sparrow, and insectivorous The number of species recor ded in areas with high species, represented by Rufous Hornero, Southern urbanization levels was significantly lower than at the Lapwing and Blue-and-white Swallow (Pygochelidon low and intermediate urbanized areas. High (>75% of cyanoleuca). Such trophic guilds are usually benefited built-up areas) urbanized sites were found not only in from habitat modification (Willis 1979) and from an central districts of Curitiba, but also in the surroundings increase in built-up areas (Jokimäki & Suhonen 1998). of the urban core. In such sites, the urbanization process Our results show that most avian species were decreased the taxonomic and functional characteristics of negatively affected by urban disturbance, except urban avian communities through the loss of rare and specialist tolerant birds. These observations were consistent with species, and by the increase of generalist urban birds, a other studies which have found that certain functional biological phenomenon called biotic homogenization groups tend to thrive in urban communities (Blair 1996, (McKinney & Lockwood 1999). Our results indicated Kark et al. 2007, Conole & Kirkpatrick 2011), such as that urbanization changes bird species richness, both by sedentary species (Croci et al. 2008) and birds with larger decreasing native species diversity and by the addition of ranges and broader environmental tolerances (Blackburn widely distributed synanthropic species, such as Ruddy et al. 2009). On the other hand, the exact ecological Ground Dove, Eared Dove, Great Kiskadee, Rufous- mechanisms driving urban bird composition according bellied Thrush, Rufous Hornero, Rock Dove, Common to different levels of anthropogenic disturbances still Waxbill, and House Sparrow. These species appear to need further investigation. Most urban tolerant species benefit from t he greater availability of resources that registered in Curitiba are ground foraging resident birds, occur in urban areas. which use a diverse array of anthropogenic resources and According to Kark et al. (2007) and Møller (2009), can be found occupying various types of habitat in the city. urban birds share certain life history traits, including The ability to exploit a wide variety of resources, which being resident (as opposed to migrant), nesting above is useful when resources are scarce or when individuals ground (i.e. cavity and canopy nesters), and having colonize new environments, contribute to urban bird's a behavioral plasticity that allows a species to have a ecological flexibility, predisposing them to succeed in broad environmental tolerance. The 12 urban tolerant human-disturbed habitats (Bonier et al. 2007). birds identified in Curitiba shared t hese traits, and they included both native and nonnative species. Even though ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS urbanization and associated modifications negatively affect native species (B lair 1996, Hodgson et al. 2007, We thank Antenor Silva (Museu de História Natural Kark et al. 2007, Evans et al. 2011), leading to an increase Capão da Imbuia) for helping with the geographic in invasive ones usually exotics (Blair 2001, Sol et al. information system (GIS) and anonymous referees 2012), Curitiba's highly urbanized environments were for helpful comments on a previous version of this not dominated by exotic species. The most widespread manuscript. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de and commonly registered species were the natives Nível Superior (CAPES) provided grant to R.A. Rufous Hornero, Eared Dove, Great Kiskadee, and Rufous-bellied Thrush, along with t he nonnative House Sparrow. However, our personal observations indicate REFERENCES that the abundance of individuals of exotic species seems to outnumbered native ones. Factors like the higher Baker P.J., Molony S.E., Stone E., Cuthill I.C. & Harris S. 2008. Cats temperature in urban environments (Roth et al. 1989), about town: is predation by free‐ranging pet cats Felis catus likely the greater availability of nest sites (Murgui 2009), and to affect urban bir d populations? Ibis 150: 86–99. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 25(1): 2017 Effects of urbanization on the avian community in a southern Brazilian city Abilhoa & Amorin Blackburn T.M., Lockwood J.L. & Cassey P. 2009. Avian invasions: the Hansen A.J., Knight R.L., Marzluff J.M., Powell S., Brown K., ecology and evolution of exotic birds. New York: Oxford University Gude P.H. & Jones K. 2005. Effects of exurban development on Press. biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological Blair R.B. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban Applications 15: 1893–1905. gradient. Ecological Applications 6: 506–519. Hodgson P., French K. & Major R.E. 2007. Avian movement across Blair R.B. 2001. Creating a homogeneous avifauna, p. 459–486. In: abrupt ecological edges: differential responses to housing density Marzluff J.M., Bowman R. & Donelly R. (eds.). Avian ecology and in an urban matrix. Landscape and Urban Planning 79: 266–272. conservation in an urbanizing world. Boston: Kluwer Academic. ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives Bonier F., Martin P.R. & Wingfield J.C. 2007. Urban birds have Local Governments for Sustainability). 2008. Local action for broader environmental tolerance. Biology Letters 3: 670–673. biodiversity report. http://archive.iclei.org/index.php?id=7910 Chace J.F. & Walsh J.J. 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: a (access on 04 July 2015). review. Landscape and Urban Planning 74: 46–69. Jokimäki J. & Suhonen J. 1998. Distribution and habitat selection Chapa-Vargas L. & Robinson S.K. 2006. Nesting success of a songbird of wintering birds in urban environments. Landscape and Urban in a complex floodplain forest landscape in I llinois, USA: local Planning 39: 253–263. fragmentation vs. vegetation structure. Landscape Ecology 21:525– Kark S., Iwaniuk A., Schalimtzek A. & Banker E. 2007. Living in the city: can anyone become an urban exploiter? Journal of Colwell R.K., Mao C.X. & Chang J. 2004. Interpolating, extrapolating, Biogeography 34: 638–651. and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Leveau C.M. & Leveau L.M. 2005. Avian community response to Ecology 85: 2717–2727. urbanization in the Pampean region, Argentina. Ornitología Conole L.E. & Kirkpatrick J.B. 2011. Functional and spatial Neotropical 16: 503–510. differentiation of urban bird assemblages at the landscape scale. Leveau L.M. & Leveau C.M. 2012. The role of urbanization and Landscape and Urban Planning 100: 11–23. seasonality on the temporal variability of bird communities. Croci S., Butet A. & Clergeau P. 2008. Does urbanization filter birds Landscape and Urban Planning 106: 271–276. on the basis of their biological traits? Condor 110: 223–240. Lim H.C. & Sodhi N.S. 2004. Responses of avian guilds to Curitiba – Prefeitura Municipal de Curitiba. 2016. Portal da Prefeitura urbanisation in a tropical city. Landscape and Urban Planning 66: de Curitiba. http://www.curitiba.pr.gov.br (access on 23 October 199–215. 2016). Litteral J. & Wu J. 2012. Urban landscape matrix affects avian diversity DeVictor V., Julliard R., Couvet D., Lee A. & Jiguet F. 2007. in remnant vegetation fragments: evidence from the Phoenix Functional homogenization effect of urbanization on bir d metropolitan region, USA. Urban Ecosystems 15: 939–954. communities. Conservation Biology 21: 741–751. Manhães M.A. & Loures-Ribeiro A. 2005. Spatial distribution and Donnelly R. & Marzluff J.M. 2006. Relative importance of habitat diversity of bird community in an urban area of southeast Brazil. quantity, structure, and spatial pattern to birds in urbanizing Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 48: 285–294. environments. Urban Ecosystems 9: 99–117. Marzluff J.M. 2001. Worldwide urbanization and its effects on bir ds, Evans K.L., Chamberlain D.E., Hatchwell B.J., Gregory R.D. & p. 331–364. In: Marzluff J.M., Bowman R. & Donnelly R. (eds.). Gaston K.J. 2011. What makes an urban bird? Global Change An urbanizing world. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Biology 17: 32–44. Marzluff J.M., Bowman R. & Donnelly R. 2001. A historical Faeth S.H., Bang C. & Saari S. 2011. Urban biodiversity: patterns perspective on urban bird research: trends, terms, and approaches, and mechanisms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1223: p. 1–17. In: Marzluff J.M., Bowman R. & Donnelly R. (eds.). 69–81. Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Boston: Ferenc M., Sedláček O., Fuchs R., Dinetti M., Fraissinet M. & Storch Kluwer Academic. D. 2013. Are cities different? Patterns of species richness and McKinney M.L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation: beta diversity of urban bird communities and regional species the impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, assemblages in Europe. Global Ecology and Biogeography 23: 479– but educating a highly urbanized human population about these 489. impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. Fischer J.D., Cleeton S.H., Lyons T.P. & Miller J.R. 2012. BioScience 52: 883–890. Urbanization and the predation paradox: the role of trophic McKinney M.L. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic dynamics in structuring vertebrate communities. BioScience 62: homogenization. Biological Conservation 127: 247–260. 809–818. McKinney M.L. & Lockwood J.L. 1999. Biotic homogenization: a Fontana C.S., Burger M.I. & Magnusson W.E. 2011. Bird diversity few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. in a subtropical South-American city: effects of noise levels, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14: 450–453. arborisation and human population density. Urban Ecosystems 14: Møller A.P. 2009. Successful city dwellers: a comparative study of the 341–360. ecological characteristics of urban birds in the Western Palearctic. Garden J., Mcalpine C., Peterson A.N.N., Jones D. & Possingham H. Oecologia 159: 849–858. 2006. Review of the ecology of Australian urban fauna: a focus on Murgui E. 2009. Seasonal patterns of habitat selection of the House spatially explicit processes. Austral Ecology 31: 126–148. Sparrow Passer domesticus in the urban landscape of Valencia Garden J.G., McAlpine C.A., Possingham H.P. & Jones D.N. 2007. (Spain). Journal of Ornithology 150: 85–94. Habitat structure is more important than vegetation composition Pauchard A., Aguayo M., Peña E. & Urrutia R. 2006. Multiple effects for local‐level management of native terrestrial reptile and small of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: the mammal species living in urban remnants: a case study from case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepción, Chile). Brisbane, Australia. Austral Ecology 32: 669–685. Biological Conservation 127: 272–281. Gotelli N.J. & Colwell R.K. 2011. Estimating species richness, p. 39– Piacentini V.Q., Aleixo A., Agne C.E., Mauricio G.N., Pacheco J.F., 54. In: Magurran A.E. & McGill B.J. (eds.). Frontiers in measuring Bravo G.A., Brito G.R.R., Naka L.N., Olmos F., Posso S., Silveira biodiversity. New York: Oxford University Press. L.F., Betini G.S., Carrano E., Franz I., Lees A.C., Lima L.M., Gotelli N.J. & Entsminger G.L. 2000. EcoSim: null models software for Pioli D., Schunck F., Amaral F.R., Bencke G.A., Cohn-Haft M., ecology. v. 5.0. Acquired Intelligence Inc. and Kesey-Bear. http:// Figueiredo L.F.A., Straube F.C. & Cesari E. 2015. Annotated homepages.together.net/~gentsmin/ecosim.htm (access on 20 checklist of the birds of Brazil by the Brazilian Ornithological June 2014) Records Committee. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 23: 91–298. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 25(1): 2017 Effects of urbanization on the avian community in a southern Brazilian city Abilhoa & Amorin Pinheiro R.T., Dornas T., Reis E.S., Barbosa M.O. & Rodello D. southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Ogden: Department of Agriculture 2008. Birds of the urban area of Palmas, TO: composition and Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. conservation. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 16: 339–347. Sol D., Bartomeus I. & Griffin A.S. 2012. The paradox of invasion Proppe D.S., Sturdy C.B. & St Clair C.C. 2013. Anthropogenic in birds: competitive superiority or ecological opportunism? noise decreases urban songbird diversity and may contribute to Oecologia 169: 553–564. homogenization. Global Change Biology 19: 1075–1084. Straube F.C., Carrano E., Santos R.E.F., Scherer-Neto P., Ribas C.F., R Development Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for Meijer A.A.R., Vallejos M.A.V., Lanzer M., Klemann-Júnior statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, L., Aurélio-Silva M., Urben-Filho A., Arzua M., Lima A.M.X., Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org. (access on 23 Sobânia R.L.M., Deconto L.R., Bispo A.Â., Jesus S. & Abilhoa V. October 2013). 2014. Aves de Curitiba: coletânea de registros, v. 2. Curitiba: Hori Reis E., López-Iborra G.M. & Pinheiro R.T. 2012. Changes in Consultoria Ambiental e Prefeitura Municipal de Curitiba. bird species richness through different levels of urbanization: Streutker D.R. 2003. Satellite-measured growth of the urban heat implications for biodiversity conservation and garden design in island of Houston, Texas. Remote Sensing of Environment 85: central Brazil. Landscape and Urban Planning 107: 31–42. 282–289. Reynaud P.A. & Thioulouse J. 2000. I dentification of bir ds as Suhonen J. & Jokimäki J. 1988. A biogeographical comparison of the biological markers along a Neotropical urban–rural gradient breeding bird species assemblages in twenty Finnish urban parks. (Cayenne, French Guiana), using co-inertia analysis. Journal of Ornis Fennica 65: 76–83. Environmental Management 59: 121–140. Thom R.M., Bor de A.B., Richter K.O. & Hibler L.F. 2001. Influence Roth M., Oke T.R. & Emery W.J. 1989. Satellite-derived urban heat of urbanization on ecological processes in wetlands. Land use and islands from three coastal cities and the utilization of such data watersheds: human influence on hy drology and geomorphology in in urban climatology. International Journal of Remote Sensing 10: urban and forest areas, v. 1. Washington: American Geophysical 1699–1720. Union. Sandström U.G., Angelstam P. & Mikusiński G. 2006. Ecological Toledo M.C.B., Donatelli R.J. & Batista G.T. 2012. Relation between diversity of birds in relation to the structure of urban green space. green spaces and bird community structure in an urban area in Landscape and Urban Planning 77: 39–53. southeast Brazil. Urban Ecosystems 15: 111–131. Seress G. & Liker A. 2015. Habitat urbanization and its effects on bir ds. Tryjanowski P., Sparks T.H., Kuźniak S., Czechowski P. & Jerzak Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 61: 373–408. L. 2013. Bird migration advances more strongly in urban Shochat E., Lerman S. & Fernández-Juricic E. 2010. Birds in environments. PLoS ONE 8: e63482. urban ecosystems: population dynamics, community structure, van Rensburg B.J., Peacock D.S. & Robertson M.P. 2009. Biotic biodiversity, and conservation, p. 75–86. In: Aitkenhead-Peterson homogenization and alien bird species along an urban gradient in J. & Volder A. (eds.). Urban ecosystem ecology. Madison: American South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning 92: 233–241. Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Willis E.O. 1979. The composition of avian communities in Science Society of America. remanescent woodlots in southern Brazil. Papéis Avulsos de Silva C.P., García C.E., Estay S.A. & Barbosa O. 2015. Bird richness Zoologia, São Paulo 33: 1–25. and abundance in response to urban form in a Latin American Zar J.H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. city: Valdivia, Chile as a case study. PLoS ONE 10: e0138120. Zipperer W.C., Foresman T.W., Walker S.P. & Daniel C.T. 2012. Sodhi N.S., Briffett C., Kong L. & Yuen B. 1999. Bir d use of linear Ecological consequences of fragmentation and deforestation in areas of a tropical city: implications for park connector design and an urban landscape: a case study. Urban Ecosystems 15: 533–544. management. Landscape and Urban Planning 45: 123–130. Sogge M.K. 2000. Breeding season ecology, p. 57–70. In: Finch D.M. & Stoleson S.H. (eds.). Status, ecology and conservation of the Associate Editor: Carla S. Fontana. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 25(1): 2017
Journal
Ornithology Research – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 1, 2017
Keywords: avian community; nonnatives; synanthropic; urban exploiters; urban landscape