comparative studies of wildlife in cities charles nilon ... · world; 2. compare the patterns ......
TRANSCRIPT
Comparative Studies of Wildlife in Cities
Charles NilonDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences
University of MissouriColumbia, MO USA
Relevance to Benchmarks for Cities
Long interest in comparative studies – Luniak 1991
Development of working group – Nagoya 2010
Types of data, analyses , potential application
Comparative Studies of Cities
Interest in comparative ecological studies of cities
Value to urban wildlife studies?
Value to management and planning decisions?
Approach
Wildlife Management (Caughley)
“The art and science of applying ecological knowledge in ways that seek a balance between the needs of wildlife and the needs of people.”
Project Goals
1. Compile and synthesize large, diverse datasets of the flora and avifauna of cities around the world;
2. Compare the patterns and ecological responses of birds and plants in urban habitats;
3. Understand the social constraints on biodiversity in cities;
4. Develop recommendations for monitoring biodiversity in urban areas.
A Cross-City Comparison of Urban Birds
Chris Lepczyk – University of Hawaii
Paige Warren – University of Massachusetts
Madhu Katti – California State University Fresno
Mark Goddard – Leeds University
Ulla Mortberg – Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden)
Marcus Hedblom – Swedish Agricultural University
Jip Louwe Koojimans – Birdlife Netherlands
Ian MacGregor-Fors - INECOL
Criteria for selecting cities
Complete avifauna
All land uses represented
Data since 1990's
Point counts and / or atlas data
What Makes an Urban Biota “Urban”?
Questions relevant to management:– Variables about
cities that are correlates of species richness at multiple scales?
– Patterns of similarity among cities?
– Life history traits associated with urban species?
Differences Among CitesPercent Urbanization
15 km buffer
30 km buffer
Indirect measure of fragmentation, isolation (?)
Differences Among CitiesPrecipitation, Temperature
Mean annual precipitation and temperature
Maximum summer temperature
Minimum winter temperature
Using Data to Address Three Questions
2. Similarity Among Cities (Homogenization Question)
A pilot study using six cities
Describing / Classifying CitiesPotential Natural Vegetation
Washington, DC / Baltimore, MD
Eastern Broadleaf / Needleleaf Forest
Tucson, AZ / Phoenix, AZ
Western Shrub
Vancouver, BC / Seattle, WA
Western Needleleaf Forest
Species Checklists175 species
Baltimore (Denison 2010)
Washington, DC (Hadidian et al. 1997)
Phoenix (Hostetler and Knowles-Yanez 2003)
Tucson (Turner 2003) Seattle (Donnelley and
Marzluff 2006) Vancouver (Melles et al.
2003)
Question:Similarity of Avifauna Among Cities
Methods:
List of species for each of 6 cities
Species presence / absence data
Classification
Cluster Analysis (Jacard and BetaSim)
Two-way cluster analysis
10 of 175 Species Occur in 5 Cities
European Starling
House Finch
House Sparrow
Northern Flicker
Red-winged Blackbird
Song Sparrow
Killdeer
Mallard
Mourning Dove
Rock Pigeon
Results
Cities support a large number bird species
Cities have different bird species associated with potential natural vegetation
Based on presence cities are not homogeneous
Using Data to Address Three Questions
3. Applying bird trait data to understanding patterns among cities
A pilot study using same six cities and a subset of 114 bird species
Question:Trait Data, Species and Cities
Methods:
List of species with trait data available (Lepczyk and Flather 2007)
Traits - nest height, clutch size, incubation time, time to fledging
Ordination
Canonical Correspondence Analysis: • Species presence / absence for cities
• Trait data (“environmental data”)
Results of CCA
Separation of raptors from other species
Traits Incubation Time Time to Fledging Nest Height
vs Clutch Size
Separation of cities
Additional Questions
How much of the regional avifauna is captured in urban areas?
Does species abundance matter?