Commonness and ecology, but not bigger brains, predict urban living in birds

Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Svein Dale¹  Jan T Lifjeld²  Melissah Rowe² 

[1] Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Oslo, NO-1432 Ås, Norway

[2] Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, NO-0318, Norway

关键词: Urban ecology;    Source population;    Brain size;    Colonization pressure;    Bird communities;   

Others  :  1175300
DOI  :  10.1186/s12898-015-0044-x

 received in 2014-10-24, accepted in 2015-03-24,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Several life history and ecological variables have been reported to affect the likelihood of species becoming urbanized. Recently, studies have also focused on the role of brain size in explaining ability to adapt to urban environments. In contrast, however, little is known about the effect of colonization pressure from surrounding areas, which may confound conclusions about what makes a species urban. We recorded presence/absence data for birds in 93 urban sites in Oslo (Norway) and compared these with species lists generated from 137 forest and 51 farmland sites surrounding Oslo which may represent source populations for colonization.

Results

We found that the frequency (proportion of sites where present) of a species within the city was strongly and positively associated with its frequency in sites surrounding the city, as were both species breeding habitat and nest site location. In contrast, there were generally no significant effects of relative brain mass or migration on urban occupancy. Furthermore, analyses of previously published data showed that urban density of birds in six other European cities was also positively and significantly associated with density in areas outside cities, whereas relative brain mass showed no such relationship.

Conclusions

These results suggest that urban bird communities are primarily determined by how frequently species occurred in the surrounding landscapes and by features of ecology (i.e. breeding habitat and nest site location), whereas species’ relative brain mass had no significant effects.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Dale et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM: Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 1997, 277:494-9.
• [2]Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R: Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston; 2001.
• [3]Chace JF, Walsh JJ: Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landscape Urban Plan 2006, 74:46-69.
• [4]Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D: From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 2006, 21:186-91.
• [5]Clergeau P, Croci S, Jokimäki J, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki M-L, Dinetti M: Avifauna homogenisation by urbanisation: analysis at different European latitudes. Biol Conserv 2006, 127:336-44.
• [6]Bonier F, Martin PR, Wingfield JC: Urban birds have broader environmental tolerance. Biol Lett 2007, 3:670-3.
• [7]Husté A, Boulinier T: Determinants of local extinction and turnover rates in urban bird communities. Ecol Appl 2007, 17:168-80.
• [8]Croci S, Butet A, Clergeau P: Does urbanization filter birds on the basis of their biological traits? Condor 2008, 110:223-40.
• [9]Møller AP: Successful city dwellers: a comparative study of the ecological characteristics of urban birds in the Western Palearctic. Oecologia 2009, 159:849-58.
• [10]Cassey P: Life history and ecology influences establishment success of introduced land birds. Biol J Linn Soc 2002, 76:465-80.
• [11]Sol D, Timmermans S, Lefebvre L: Behavioural flexibility and invasion success in birds. Anim Behav 2002, 63:495-502.
• [12]Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lockwood JL: The role of species traits in the establishment success of exotic birds. Glob Change Biol 2009, 15:2852-60.
• [13]Carrete M, Tella JL: Inter-individual variability in fear of humans and relative brain size of the species are related to contemporary urban invasions in birds. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:e18859.
• [14]Maklakov AA, Immler S, Gonzalez-Voyer A, Rönn J, Kolm N: Brains and the city: big-brained passerine birds succeed in urban environments. Biol Lett 2011, 7:730-2.
• [15]Sol D, Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lefebvre L: Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2005, 102:5460-5.
• [16]Lefebvre L, Whittle P, Lascaris E, Finkelstein A: Feeding innovations and forebrain size in birds. Anim Behav 1997, 53:549-60.
• [17]Sol D, Lapiedra O, Gonzáles-Lagos C: Behavioural adjustments for a life in the city. Anim Behav 2013, 85:1101-12.
• [18]Kark S, Iwaniuk A, Schalimtzek A, Banker E: Living in the city: can anyone become an ‘urban exploiter’? J Biogeogr 2007, 34:638-51.
• [19]Evans KL, Chamberlain DE, Hatchwell BJ, Gregory RD, Gaston KJ: What makes an urban bird? Glob Change Biol 2011, 17:32-44.
• [20]Sol D, González-Lagos C, Moreira D, Maspons J, Lapiedra O, Mouillot D: Urbanisation tolerance and the loss of avian diversity. Ecol Lett 2014, 17:942-50.
• [21]Healy SD, Rowe C: A critique of comparative studies of brain size. Proc R Soc Lond B 2007, 274:453-64.
• [22]Blair RB: Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 1996, 6:506-19.
• [23]Evans KL, Hatchwell BJ, Parnell M, Gaston KJ: A conceptual framework for the colonisation of urban areas: the blackbird Turdus merula as a case study. Biol Rev 2010, 85:643-67.
• [24]MacArthur RH, Wilson EO: The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton; 1967.
• [25]Hubbell SP: The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton; 2001.
• [26]Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T: The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 2005, 20:223-8.
• [27]Simberloff D: The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 2009, 40:81-102.
• [28]Shochat E, Lerman S, Fernández-Juricic E: Birds in urban ecosystems: population dynamics, community structure, biodiversity, and conservation. In Urban Ecosystem Ecology. Edited by Aitkenhead-Peterson J, Volder A. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI; 2010:75-86.
• [29]Clergeau P, Jokimäki J, Savard J-PL: Are urban bird communities influenced by the bird diversity of adjacent landscapes? J Appl Ecol 2001, 38:1122-34.
• [30]Brown JH, Mehlman DW, Stevens GC: Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology 1995, 76:2028-43.
• [31]Møller AP, Diaz M, Flensted-Jensen E, Grim T, Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Jokimäki J, et al.: High urban population density of birds reflects their timing of urbanization. Oecologia 2012, 170:867-75.
• [32]Evans KL, Newson SE, Gaston KJ: Habitat influences on urban avian assemblages. Ibis 2009, 151:19-39.
• [33]Royle JA, Nichols JD: Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 2003, 84:777-90.
• [34]Brown JH: Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1995.
• [35]Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM: Patterns and Process in Macroecology. Blackwell, Oxford; 2000.
• [36]Haavik A, Dale S: Are reserves enough? Value of protected areas for boreal forest birds in southeastern Norway. Ann Zool Fennici 2012, 49:69-80.
• [37]García-Berthou E: On the misuse of residuals in ecology: testing regression residuals vs. the analysis of covariance. J Anim Ecol 2001, 70:708-11.
• [38]Darlington RB, Smulders TV: Problems with residual analysis. Anim Behav 2001, 62:599-602.
• [39]Freckleton RP: On the misuse of residuals in ecology: regression of residuals vs. multiple regression. J Anim Ecol 2002, 71:542-5.
• [40]Packard GC, Boardman TJ: The use of percentages and size-specific indices to normalize physiological data for variation in body size: wasted time, wasted effort? Comp Biochem Physiol A 1999, 122:37-44.
• [41]Nevill AM, Holder RL: Scaling, normalizing, and per ratio standards: an allometric modeling approach. J Appl Physiol 1995, 79:1027-31.
• [42]Lüpold S: Ejaculate quality and constraints in relation to sperm competition levels among eutherian mammals. Evolution 2013, 67:3052-60.
• [43]Immler S, Pitnick S, Parker GA, Durrant KL, Lüpold S, Calhim S, et al.: Resolving variation in the reproductive tradeoff between sperm size and number. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2011, 108:5325-30.
• [44]Rowe M, Laskemoen T, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT: Evolution of sperm structure and energetics in passerine birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 2013, 280:20122616.
• [45]Haftorn S: Norges Fugler. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo; 1971.
• [46]Mlikovsky J: Brain size in birds: 2. Falconiformes through Gaviiformes. Vest Cs Spolec Zool 1989, 53:200-13.
• [47]Mlikovsky J: Brain size in birds: 3. Columbiformes through Piciformes. Vest Cs Spolec Zool 1989, 53:252-64.
• [48]Mlikovsky J: Brain size in birds: 4 Passeriformes. Acta Soc Zool Bohemoslov 1990, 54:27-37.
• [49]Garamszegi LZ, Møller AP, Erritzøe J: Coevolving avian eye size and brain size in relation to prey capture and nocturnality. Proc R Soc Lond B 2002, 269:961-7.
• [50]Møller AP, Erritzøe J, Garamszegi LZ: Covariation between brain size and immunity in birds: implications for brain size evolution. J Evol Biol 2005, 18:223-37.
• [51]Møller AP: Flight distance and population trends in European breeding birds. Behav Ecol 2008, 19:1095-102.
• [52]Sol D, Garcia N, Iwaniuk A, Davis K, Meade A, Boyle WA, et al.: Evolutionary divergence in brain size between migratory and resident birds. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:e9617.
• [53]Dale S, Andersen GS, Eie K, Bergan M, Stensland P: Guide til fuglelivet i Oslo og Akershus. Norsk Ornitologisk Forening, avdeling Oslo og Akershus, Oslo; 2001.
• [54]Felsenstein J: Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 1985, 125:1-15.
• [55]Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO: The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 2012, 491:444-8.
• [56]Drummond AJ, Suchard MA, Xie D, Rambaut A: Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Mol Biol Evol 2012, 29:1969-73.
• [57]Freckleton RP, Harvey PH, Pagel M: Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am Nat 2002, 160:712-26.
• [58]Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC: Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 2007, 82:591-605.
• [59]Smithson MJ: Confidence Intervals. Sage University Press, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2003.
• [60]Graham MH: Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 2003, 84:2809-15.
• [61]Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G, et al.: Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 2013, 36:27-46.
• [62]Nakagawa S: A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behav Ecol 2004, 15:1044-5.
• [63]R Development Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2011. Available at http://www.R-project.org/.
• [64]Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA: Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. Springer, New York; 2009.
• [65]Vauhkonen M: Heinolan kaupunkialueen pesimälinnusto vuosina 1989–1990. Päijät-Hämeen Linnut 1990, 21:112-21.
• [66]Rose F: Caractérisation de l’avifaune le long d’un gradient d’urbanisation à Rennes et Angers. INRA, Rennes; 2004.
• [67]Palomino D, Carrascal LM: Urban influence on birds at a regional scale: a case study with the avifauna of northern Madrid province. Landscape Urban Plan 2006, 77:276-90.
• [68]Ducatez S, Clavel J, Lefebvre L, Quinn J: Ecological generalism and behavioural innovation in birds: technical intelligence or the simple incorporation of new foods? J Anim Ecol 2015, 84:79-89.
• [69]Shultz S, Bradbury RB, Evans KL, Gregory RD, Blackburn TM: Brain size and resource specialization predict long-term population trends in British birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 2005, 272:2305-11.
• [70]BirdLife International: Birds in Europe, population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife International, Cambridge; 2004.
• [71]Blumstein DT: Developing an evolutionary ecology of fear: how life history and natural history traits affect disturbance tolerance in birds. Anim Behav 2006, 71:389-99.
• [72]Tomialojc L: The urban population of the woodpigeon Columba palumbus Linnaeus, 1758, in Europe - its origin, increase and distribution. Acta Zool Crac 1976, 21:585-632.
• [73]Evans KL, Gaston KJ, Frantz AC, Simeoni M, Sharp SP, McGowan A, et al.: Independent colonization of multiple urban centres by a formerly forest specialist bird species. Proc R Soc Lond B 2009, 276:2403-10.
• [74]Chamberlain DE, Cannon AR, Toms MP, Leech DI, Hatchwell DJ, Gaston KJ: Avian productivity in urban landscapes: a review and meta-analysis. Ibis 2009, 151:1-18.
• [75]Paradis E, Baillie SR, Sutherland WJ, Gregory RD: Patterns of natal and breeding dispersal in birds. J Anim Ecol 1998, 67:518-36.
• [76]Jokimäki J: Occurrence of breeding bird species in urban parks: Effects of park structure and broad-scale variables. Urban Ecosystems 1999, 3:21-34.
• [77]Fernández-Juricic E: Spatial and temporal analysis of the distribution of forest specialists in an urban-fragmented landscape (Madrid, Spain). Implications for local and regional bird conservation. Landscape Urban Plan 2004, 69:17-32.
• [78]Dale S, Lifjeld JT, Rowe M: Commonness and ecology, but not bigger brains, predict urban living in birds. http://datadryad.org/review? doi:10.5061/dryad.pq6d7