Cargando…

Linking Foraging Decisions to Residential Yard Bird Composition

Urban bird communities have higher densities but lower diversity compared with wildlands. However, recent studies show that residential urban yards with native plantings have higher native bird diversity compared with yards with exotic vegetation. Here we tested whether landscape designs also affect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lerman, Susannah B., Warren, Paige S., Gan, Hilary, Shochat, Eyal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3425485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22927974
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043497
_version_ 1782241381280907264
author Lerman, Susannah B.
Warren, Paige S.
Gan, Hilary
Shochat, Eyal
author_facet Lerman, Susannah B.
Warren, Paige S.
Gan, Hilary
Shochat, Eyal
author_sort Lerman, Susannah B.
collection PubMed
description Urban bird communities have higher densities but lower diversity compared with wildlands. However, recent studies show that residential urban yards with native plantings have higher native bird diversity compared with yards with exotic vegetation. Here we tested whether landscape designs also affect bird foraging behavior. We estimated foraging decisions by measuring the giving-up densities (GUD; amount of food resources remaining when the final forager quits foraging on an artificial food patch, i.e seed trays) in residential yards in Phoenix, AZ, USA. We assessed how two yard designs (mesic: lush, exotic vegetation; xeric: drought-tolerant and native vegetation) differed in foraging costs. Further, we developed a statistical model to calculate GUDs for every species visiting the seed tray. Birds foraging in mesic yards depleted seed trays to a lower level (i.e. had lower GUDs) compared to birds foraging in xeric yards. After accounting for bird densities, the lower GUDs in mesic yards appeared largely driven by invasive and synanthropic species. Furthermore, behavioral responses of individual species were affected by yard design. Species visiting trays in both yard designs had lower GUDs in mesic yards. Differences in resource abundance (i.e., alternative resources more abundant and of higher quality in xeric yards) contributed to our results, while predation costs associated with foraging did not. By enhancing the GUD, a common method for assessing the costs associated with foraging, our statistical model provided insights into how individual species and bird densities influenced the GUD. These differences we found in foraging behavior were indicative of differences in habitat quality, and thus our study lends additional support for native landscapes to help reverse the loss of urban bird diversity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3425485
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34254852012-08-27 Linking Foraging Decisions to Residential Yard Bird Composition Lerman, Susannah B. Warren, Paige S. Gan, Hilary Shochat, Eyal PLoS One Research Article Urban bird communities have higher densities but lower diversity compared with wildlands. However, recent studies show that residential urban yards with native plantings have higher native bird diversity compared with yards with exotic vegetation. Here we tested whether landscape designs also affect bird foraging behavior. We estimated foraging decisions by measuring the giving-up densities (GUD; amount of food resources remaining when the final forager quits foraging on an artificial food patch, i.e seed trays) in residential yards in Phoenix, AZ, USA. We assessed how two yard designs (mesic: lush, exotic vegetation; xeric: drought-tolerant and native vegetation) differed in foraging costs. Further, we developed a statistical model to calculate GUDs for every species visiting the seed tray. Birds foraging in mesic yards depleted seed trays to a lower level (i.e. had lower GUDs) compared to birds foraging in xeric yards. After accounting for bird densities, the lower GUDs in mesic yards appeared largely driven by invasive and synanthropic species. Furthermore, behavioral responses of individual species were affected by yard design. Species visiting trays in both yard designs had lower GUDs in mesic yards. Differences in resource abundance (i.e., alternative resources more abundant and of higher quality in xeric yards) contributed to our results, while predation costs associated with foraging did not. By enhancing the GUD, a common method for assessing the costs associated with foraging, our statistical model provided insights into how individual species and bird densities influenced the GUD. These differences we found in foraging behavior were indicative of differences in habitat quality, and thus our study lends additional support for native landscapes to help reverse the loss of urban bird diversity. Public Library of Science 2012-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3425485/ /pubmed/22927974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043497 Text en © 2012 Lerman et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lerman, Susannah B.
Warren, Paige S.
Gan, Hilary
Shochat, Eyal
Linking Foraging Decisions to Residential Yard Bird Composition
title Linking Foraging Decisions to Residential Yard Bird Composition
title_full Linking Foraging Decisions to Residential Yard Bird Composition
title_fullStr Linking Foraging Decisions to Residential Yard Bird Composition
title_full_unstemmed Linking Foraging Decisions to Residential Yard Bird Composition
title_short Linking Foraging Decisions to Residential Yard Bird Composition
title_sort linking foraging decisions to residential yard bird composition
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3425485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22927974
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043497
work_keys_str_mv AT lermansusannahb linkingforagingdecisionstoresidentialyardbirdcomposition
AT warrenpaiges linkingforagingdecisionstoresidentialyardbirdcomposition
AT ganhilary linkingforagingdecisionstoresidentialyardbirdcomposition
AT shochateyal linkingforagingdecisionstoresidentialyardbirdcomposition