| Literature DB >> 28030559 |
John M Marzluff1, Jack H DeLap1, M David Oleyar1, Kara A Whittaker1, Beth Gardner1.
Abstract
Changes in land cover during urbanization profoundly affect the diversity of bird communities, but the demographic mechanisms affecting diversity are poorly known. We advance such understanding by documenting how urbanization influences breeding dispersal-the annual movement of territorial adults-of six songbird species in the Seattle, WA, USA metropolitan area. We color-banded adults and mapped the centers of their annual breeding activities from 2000-2010 to obtain 504 consecutive movements by 337 adults. By comparing movements, annual reproduction, and mate fidelity among 10 developed, 5 reserved, and 11 changing (areas cleared and developed during our study) landscapes, we determined that adaptive breeding dispersal of sensitive forest species (Swainson's Thrush and Pacific wren), which involves shifting territory and mate after reproductive failure, was constrained by development. In changing lands, sensitive forest specialists dispersed from active development to nearby forested areas, but in so doing suffered low annual reproduction. Species tolerant of suburban lands (song sparrow, spotted towhee, dark-eyed junco, and Bewick's wren) dispersed adaptively in changing landscapes. Site fidelity ranged from 0% (Pacific wren in changing landscape) to 83% (Bewick's wren in forest reserve). Mate fidelity ranged from 25% (dark-eyed junco) to 100% (Bewick's wren). Variation in fidelity to mate and territory was consistent with theories positing an influence of territory quality, asynchronous return from migration, prior productivity, and reproductive benefits of retaining a familiar territory. Costly breeding dispersal, as well as reduced reproductive success and lowered survival cause some birds to decline in the face of urbanization. In contrast, the ability of species that utilize edges and early successional habitats to breed successfully, disperse to improve reproductive success after failure, and survive throughout the urban ecosystem enables them to maintain or increase population size.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28030559 PMCID: PMC5193330 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167829
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Research questions, predictions from hypotheses, and statistical approaches to testing each.
| Research Question and Prediction from Hypothesis | Response Variable | Explanatory Variables (bold) | Statistical Procedure |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does a species’ life history influence mate and site fidelity? | |||
| A. Less site fidelity in migrants than non-migrants | Number of pairs | Fisher’s Exact Test | |
| B. Less mate fidelity in migrants than non-migrants | Number of pairs | Fisher’s Exact Test | |
| 2) Does annual productivity, mate fidelity, or landscape conversion influence annual movement of breeders and likelihood of divorce? | |||
| A. Greater annual movement by failed breeders than successful breeders | Annual distance moved between territory centers | Generalized Linear Mixed Model—with site included as a random effect (see | |
| B. Greater annual movement in changing lands than stable lands | Annual distance moved between territory centers | Generalized Linear Mixed Model—with site included as a random effect (see | |
| C. Greater annual movement by avoiders than adapters/exploiters | Annual distance moved between territory centers | Generalized Linear Mixed Model—with site included as a random effect (see | |
| D. Greater annual movement by divorcees than those retaining mate | Annual distance moved between territory centers | Generalized Linear Mixed Model—with site included as a random effect (see | |
| E. Greater frequency of divorce by failed breeders than successful breeders | Number of pairs of 3 well-sampled exploiter/adapters | Fisher’s Exact Test | |
| F. Greater annual movement from territories experiencing local habit modification greater than those not modified | In Changing Landscapes only: Annual distance moved between territory centers | Correlation | |
| 3) Does movement improve reproduction or enable dispersers to settle in appropriate habitat? | |||
| A. Greater fledging success after moving in response to failure in reserves than in changing lands | Number of pairs of avoiders | Fisher’s Exact Test | |
| B. Improved fledging success after movement by failed breeders in reserves but not changing lands | Number of pairs of avoiders | Binomial Regression | |
| C. Reduced fledging success after failure if site faithful, but increased success following dispersal | Number of pairs of exploiters/adapters | Fisher’s Exact Test | |
| D. Increased forest cover in territory of avoiders | Amount of forest within 100m of territory center | ANOVA | |
| E. Distance moved increases territory quality for avoiders | Annual distance moved between territory centers | Generalized Linear Mixed Model—with site included as a random effect (see | |
| F. Distance moved increases territory quality for exploiters/adapters | Annual distance moved between territory centers | Generalized Linear Mixed Model—with site included as a random effect (see | |
Fig 1Classification of satellite images (top row) into suburban vegetation classes (bottom row) at original breeding site during year of occupancy (Territory A, Year 1), original breeding site during year it was abandoned (Territory A, Year 2), and new breeding site during year of occupancy (Territory B, Year 2).
In this example of a Pacific wren, the breeding male moved 647m from Territory A to Territory B in association with clearing of a portion of his former territory for construction of a new subdivision.
Fig 2Breeding dispersal by songbirds in an urbanizing environment.
The frequency of movements by distance category is separated by guild in this stacked bar figure (gray portion of bars is 47 distances moved by avoiders and black portion is 457 distances moved by adapters and exploiters).
Territory size, site fidelity, apparent death of partner, and mate fidelity of songbirds spot-mapped in forested landscapes surrounding Seattle, WA, USA, from 2003–2010.
Assessment of site fidelity was done within each landscape and summed here for an overall proportion because territory size varied among species and among landscapes (S1 Table). When a banded bird remated with a new partner and it’s mate from the prior year was not detected in the study area, we concluded the prior mate was apparently dead. Species abbreviated as follows, Bewick’s wren: BEWR; dark-eyed junco: DEJU; song sparrow: SOSP; spotted towhee: SPTO; Swainson’s thrush: SWTH; Pacific wren: PAWR.
| SPECIES | Average Maximum Territory Radius ( | Site Fidelity (% of movements < | Percentage of new pair bonds resulting from apparent death of one partner (n) | Mate Fidelity (% of resighted birds that remated with prior partner) (n) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 46.1m (151, 1.0) | 64.3% (14) | 50.0% (4) | 100% (2) | |
| 41.6m (205, 1.4) | 16.1% (31) | 46.7% (15) | 25% (8) | |
| 32.9m (369, 0.9) | 49.8% (257) | 50.6% (87) | 74% (43) | |
| 44.2m (360, 1.0) | 49.0% (155) | 56.5% (46) | 70% (20) | |
| 36.6m (268, 0.8) | 18.5% (27) | 100% (1) | NA | |
| 49.6m (226, 1.1) | 35.0% (20) | 100% (4) | NA | |
Fig 3Average (+1SE) breeding dispersal distance by guilds in each of three landscapes.
Sample size above error bars.
Fig 4Breeding dispersal distance of adapters / exploiters (A) and avoiders (B) in response to vegetation changes associated with construction of new subdivisions.
The most influential vegetation variable for each guild is used as the x-axis. For adapters / exploiters this was the total amount of forest within 100m of the new territory center. For avoiders it was the difference in total forest within 100m of the new territory center minus the old territory center (positive values indicate increases in forest cover at the territory each bird dispersed to. Shading of points indicates mate fidelity (A) or annual productivity (B), which were found to be important to each guild. Least-squares regression line ± 95% CI are fitted to data.