Abstract
Growing human populations make it imperative for ecologists to identify strategies to conserve biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes, such as cities. Effects of urbanization on birds are particularly well-studied, but questions remain regarding the best conservation approaches. Debate about the relative utility of focusing conservation efforts on nature reserves versus developed lands has focused largely on comparing species abundance or presence, with few studies addressing underlying behavioral or demographic mechanisms. Here we evaluated differences in avian reproductive success in nature reserves and matrix habitats to test the assumption that nest predation is lower within areas protected from development. Specifically, we investigated 1) whether nest survival differed in replicated pairs of forest parks and residential neighborhoods and 2) whether differences in nest survival were associated with changes in which species most frequently depredated nests. From April–August 2007–2014, we monitored nests of two native birds, American robin (Turdus migratorius) and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and video-documented nest predators in paired forest-matrix habitats in the Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area. We found similar rates of nest survival in the two habitats for both robins (Χ21 = 0.715, p = 0.398, n = 741 nests) and cardinals (Χ21 = 0.926, p = 0.336, n = 1156 nests), but interactions between predators and prey differed. In particular, domestic cats (Felis catus) were over five times as likely to depredate cardinal nests in matrix habitats versus forest parks (Χ21 = 7.24, simulated p = 0.010; nforest = 3, nmatrix = 7). Our results suggest that at least in some circumstances, nest success of native birds may be equivalent between nature reserves and adjacent residential matrix habitats, and thus residential neighborhoods may contribute positively to bird conservation in urban landscapes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker AJ, González PM, Piersma T et al (2004) Rapid population decline in red knots: fitness consequences of decreased refuelling rates and late arrival in Delaware Bay. Proc Biol Sci 271(1541):875–882. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2663
Baker PJ, Bentley AJ, Ansell RJ, Harris S (2005) Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis Catus in an urban area. Mamm Rev 35:302–312
Baker PJ, Molony SE, Stone E et al (2008) Cats about town: is predation by free-ranging pet cats Felis Catus likely to affect urban bird populations? Ibis 150:86–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00836.x
Balogh AL, Ryder TB, Marra PP (2011) Population demography of gray catbirds in the suburban matrix: sources, sinks and domestic cats. J Ornithol 152(3):03 Mar 2011–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-011-0648-7
Barratt DG (1997) Home range size, habitat utilisation and movement patterns of suburban and farm cats Felis Catus. Ecography 20(3):271–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1997.tb00371.x
Barratt DG (1998) Predation by house cats, Felis Catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. II. Factors affecting the amount of prey caught and estimates of the impact on wildlife. Wildl Res 25(5):475–487. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR97026
Beckerman AP, Boots M, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban bird declines and the fear of cats. Anim Conserv 10(3):320–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2007.00115.x
Blair RB (2001) Creating a homogeneous avifauna. In: Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 459–486
Bonnington C, Gaston KJ, Evans KL (2013) Fearing the feline: domestic cats reduce avian fecundity through trait-mediated indirect effects that increase nest predation by other species. J Appl Ecol 50(1):15–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12025
Burghardt KT, Tallamy DW, Shriver WG (2009) Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conserv Biol 23(1):219–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01076.x
Butsic V, Radeloff VC, Kuemmerle T, Pidgeon AM (2012) Analytical solutions to trade-offs between size of protected areas and land-use intensity: land-use intensity and size of protected areas. Conserv Biol 26(5):883–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01887.x
Calver MC, Grayson J, Lilith M, Dickman CR (2011) Applying the precautionary principle to the issue of impacts by pet cats on urban wildlife. Biol Conserv 144(6):1895–1901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.04.015
Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74(1):46–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.08.007
Chace JF, Walsh JJ, Cruz A, Prather JW, Swanson HM (2003) Spatial and temporal activity patterns of the brood parasitic brown-headed cowbird at an urban/wildland interface. Landsc Urban Plan 64(3):179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00220-7
Chamberlain DE, Cannon AR, Toms MP et al (2009) Avian productivity in urban landscapes: a review and meta-analysis. Ibis 151(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00899.x
Churcher PB, Lawton JH (1987) Predation by domestic cats in an English village. J Zool 212(3):439–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1987.tb02915.x
Clergeau P, Jokimaki J, Savard JPL (2001) Are urban bird communities influenced by the bird diversity of adjacent landscapes? J Appl Ecol 38:1122–1134
Daniels GD, Kirkpatrick JB (2006) Does variation in garden characteristics influence the conservation of birds in suburbia? Biol Conserv 133(3):326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.06.011
Evans BS, Ryder TB, Reitsma R, Hurlbert AH, Marra PP (2015) Characterizing avian survival along a rural-to-urban land use gradient. Ecology 96(6):1631–1640. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0171.1
Fernandez-Juricic E, Jokimaki J (2001) A habitat island approach to conserving birds in urban landscapes: case studies from southern and northern Europe. Biodivers Conserv 10:2023–2043
Fischer J, Brosi B, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Goldman R, Goldstein J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ranganathan J, Tallis H (2008) Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Front Ecol Environ 6(7):380–385. https://doi.org/10.1890/070019
Fischer J, Abson DJ, Butsic V, Chappell MJ, Ekroos J, Hanspach J, Kuemmerle T, Smith HG, von Wehrden H (2014) Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward: land sparing versus land sharing. Conserv Lett 7(3):149–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12084
Flynn DFB, Gogol-Prokurat M, Nogeire T, Molinari N, Richers BT, Lin BB, Simpson N, Mayfield MM, DeClerck F (2009) Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol Lett 12(1):22–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01255.x
Franklin JF, Lindenmayer DB (2009) Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(2):349–350. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812016105
Gaston KJ, Smith R, Thompson K, Warren P (2005) Urban domestic gardens (II): experimental tests of methods for increasing biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 14(2):395–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-6066-x
Gehrt SD, Wilson EC, Brown JL, Anchor C (2013) Population ecology of free-roaming cats and interference competition by coyotes in urban parks. PLoS One 8(9):e75718. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075718
Gering JC, Blair RB (1999) Predation on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: predatory risk or relaxation in urban environments? Ecography 22(5):532–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1999.tb00542.x
Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307(5709):550–555. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106049
Greenberg R, Droege S (1999) On the decline of the rusty blackbird and the use of ornithological literature to document long-term population trends. Conserv Biol 13:7
Guttilla DA, Stapp P (2010) Effects of sterilization on movements of feral cats at a wildland-urban interface. J Mammal 91(2):482–489. https://doi.org/10.1644/09-MAMM-A-111.1
Halkin SL, Linville SU (1999) Northern cardinal (Cardinalis Cardinalis). The Birds of North America Online. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.440
Hansen AJ, Rotella JJ (2002) Biophysical factors, land use, and species viability in and around nature reserves. Conserv Biol 16(4):1112–1122. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00545.x
Heath SK, Culp LA, Howell CA (2010) Brood parasitism and nest survival of Brown-headed cowbird hosts at high-elevation riparian sites in the eastern sierra Nevada, California. Western North Am Nat 70:364–376
Hope AC (1968) A simplified Monte Carlo significance test procedure. J R Stat Soc Ser B 30:582–598
Kauhala K, Talvitie K, Vuorisalo T (2015) Free-ranging house cats in urban and rural areas in the north: useful rodent killers or harmful bird predators? Folia Zool 64:45–55
Kays RW, DeWan AA (2004) Ecological impact of inside/outside house cats around a suburban nature preserve. Anim Conserv 7(3):273–283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943004001489
Kearns LJ (2012) Avian responses to predator communities in fragmented, urbanizing landscapes. PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University
Kennedy ED, White DW (1996) Interference competition from house wrens as a factor in the decline of Bewick’s wrens. Conserv Biol 10(1):281–284. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10010281.x
Kupfer JA, Malanson GP, Franklin SB (2006) Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Global Ecol Biogeogr 15(1):8–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-822x.2006.00204.x
Lin BB, Fuller RA (2013) Sharing or sparing? How should we grow the world’s cities? J Appl Ecol n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12118
Loss SR, Will T, Marra PP (2013) The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat Commun 4:1396. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2380
Loyd KAT, Hernandez SM, Carroll JP, Abernathy KJ, Marshall GJ (2013) Quantifying free-roaming domestic cat predation using animal-borne video cameras. Biol Conserv 160:183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.01.008
MacGregor-Fors I, Schondube JE (2011) Gray vs. green urbanization: relative importance of urban features for urban bird communities. Basic Appl Ecol 12(4):372–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2011.04.003
Malpass JS (2015) Effects of food and vegetation on breeding birds and nest predators in the suburban matrix. PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University
Marks BK, Duncan RS (2009) Use of Forest edges by free-ranging cats and dogs in an urban forest fragment. Southeast Nat 8(3):427–436. https://doi.org/10.1656/058.008.0305
Martin TE (1995) Avian life-history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecol Monogr 65:101–127
Marzluff JM, Withey JC, Whittaker KA et al (2007) Consequences of habitat utilization by nest predators and breeding songbirds across multiple scales in an urbanizing landscape. Condor 109(3):516–534. https://doi.org/10.1650/8349.1
Mason CF (2006) Avian species richness and numbers in the built environment: can new housing developments be good for birds? Biodivers Conserv 15(8):2365–2378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-1236-4
McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52(10):883–890
Meek P, Ballard G, Fleming P, Falzon G (2016) Are we getting the full picture? Animal responses to camera traps and implications for predator studies. Ecol Evol 6(10):3216–3225. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2111
Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol 16(2):330–337. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00420.x
Mitrovich MJ, Matsuda T, Pease KH, Fisher RN (2010) Ants as a measure of effectiveness of habitat conservation planning in Southern California. Conserv Biol 24(5):1239–1248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01486.x
Morgan D, Waas J, Innes J, Fitzgerald N (2011) Identification of nest predators using continuous time-lapse recording in a New Zealand city. N Z J Zool 38(4):343–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014223.2011.607835
Nelson SH, Evans AD, Bradbury RB (2005) The efficacy of collar-mounted devices in reducing the rate of predation of wildlife by domestic cats. Appl Anim Behav Sci 94(3-4):273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.04.003
Newman DL (1961) House wrens and Bewick’s wrens in northern Ohio. The Wilson Bulletin 73:84–86
Ortega CP (1998) Cowbirds and other brood parasites. University of Arizona Press
Pejchar L, Morgan PM, Caldwell MR et al (2007) Evaluating the potential for conservation development: biophysical, economic, and institutional perspectives. Conserv Biol 21(1):69–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00572.x
Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333(6047):1289–1291. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1208742
Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(52):20770–20775. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806080105
Reidy JL, Stake MM, Thompson FR (2008) Golden-cheeked warbler nest mortality and predators in urban and rural landscapes. Condor 110(3):458–466. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2008.8473
Richardson TW, Gardali T, Jenkins SH (2009) Review and meta-analysis of camera effects on avian nest success. J Wildl Manag 73(2):287–293. https://doi.org/10.2193/2007-566
Rodewald AD, Bakermans MH (2006) What is the appropriate paradigm for riparian forest conservation? Biol Conserv 128(2):193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.041
Rodewald AD, Kearns LJ (2011) Shifts in dominant nest predators along a rural-to-urban landscape gradient. Condor 113(4):899–906. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2011.100132
Rodewald AD, Shustack DP (2008) Urban flight: understanding individual and population-level responses of Nearctic-Neotropical migratory birds to urbanization. J Anim Ecol 77(1):83–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01313.x
Rodewald AD, Shustack DP, Hitchcock LE (2010) Exotic shrubs as ephemeral ecological traps for nesting birds. Biol Invasions 12(1):33–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9426-3
Rodewald AD, Kearns LJ, Shustack DP (2011) Anthropogenic resource subsidies decouple predator-prey relationships. Ecol Appl 21:936–943
Ryder TB, Reitsma R, Evans BS, Marra PP (2010) Quantifying avian nest survival along an urbanization gradient using citizen- and scientist-generated data. Ecol Appl 20:419–426
Salo P, Korpimaki E, Banks PB, Nordstrom M, Dickman CR (2007) Alien predators are more dangerous than native predators to prey populations. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274(1615):1237–1243. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.0444
Sauer JR, Hines JE, Fallon JE et al (2015) The north American breeding bird survey. Results and Analysis:1966–2013 Version 01.30.2015. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/. Accessed 9 Dec 2015
Schmidt KA, Whelan CJ (1999) Effects of exotic Lonicera and Rhamnus on songbird nest predation. Conserv Biol 13:1502–1506
Shaffer TL (2004) A unified approach to analyzing nest success. Auk 121(2):526–540
Sims V, Evans KL, Newson SE, Tratalos JA, Gaston KJ (2007) Avian assemblage structure and domestic cat densities in urban environments: urban cats and birds. Divers Distrib 14(2):387–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00444.x
Söderström B, Pärt T, Rydén J (1998) Different nest predator faunas and nest predation risk on ground and shrub nests at forest ecotones: an experiment and a review. Oecologia 117(1-2):108–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050638
Stott I, Soga M, Inger R, Gaston KJ (2015) Land sparing is crucial for urban ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 13(7):387–393. https://doi.org/10.1890/140286
Stracey CM (2011) Resolving the urban nest predator paradox: the role of alternative foods for nest predators. Biol Conserv 144(5):1545–1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.022
Sushinsky JR, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP, Gill TK, Fuller RA (2013) How should we grow cities to minimize their biodiversity impacts? Glob Chang Biol 19(2):401–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12055
Tewksbury JJ, Hejl SJ, Martin TE (1998) Breeding productivity does not decline with increasing fragmentation in a western landscape. Ecology 79(8):2890–2903
Thomas RL, Fellowes MDE, Baker PJ (2012) Spatio-temporal variation in predation by urban domestic cats (Felis Catus) and the acceptability of possible management actions in the UK. PLoS One 7(11):e49369. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049369
Thompson FR, Burhans DE (2003) Predation of songbird nests differs by predator and between field and forest habitats. J Wildl Manag 67(2):408–416
Thorington KK, Bowman R (2003) Predation rate on artificial nests increases with human housing density in suburban habitats. Ecography 26(2):188–196. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03351.x
Tschanz B, Hegglin D, Gloor S, Bontadina F (2010) Hunters and non-hunters: skewed predation rate by domestic cats in a rural village. Eur J Wildl Res 57(3):597–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-010-0470-1
van Heezik Y, Smyth A, Adams A, Gordon J (2010) Do domestic cats impose an unsustainable harvest on urban bird populations? Biol Conserv 143(1):121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.013
Vanderhoff N, Sallabanks R, James FC (2014) American robin (Turdus migratorius). The Birds of North America Online. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.462
Vierling KT (2000) Source and sink habitats of red-winged blackbirds in a rural/suburban landscape. Ecol Appl 10(4):1211–1218
Wierzbowska IA, Olko J, Hędrzak M, Crooks KR (2012) Free-ranging domestic cats reduce the effective protected area of a polish national park. Mamm Biol - Z Säugetierkd 77(3):204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2012.01.004
Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N et al (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6
Acknowledgements
Research support was provided by Ohio Division of Wildlife through the United States Fish and Wildlife State Wildlife Grants Program and administered through the Ohio Biodiversity Conservation Partnership, and by the National Science Foundation (DEB- 0639429 to ADR). The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center and The Ohio State University provided fellowship funding to JSM. We appreciate review of initial drafts of this manuscript by J. Bruskotter and S. Gehrt. Thanks to the many residents who allow access to yards, technicians for assistance in the field, and our lab for feedback and support.
Funding
Funding sources did not play a role in study design; collection, analysis or interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(PDF 48.8 KB)
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Locations of seven paired forest-matrix sites in the greater metropolitan area of Columbus, Ohio, USA
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Malpass, J.S., Rodewald, A.D., Matthews, S.N. et al. Nest predators, but not nest survival, differ between adjacent urban habitats. Urban Ecosyst 21, 551–564 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-017-0725-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-017-0725-7