Landscape Ecology

, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 1157–1169 | Cite as

Suburban habitats and their role for birds in the urban–rural habitat network: points of local invasion and extinction?

  • Robert B. Blair
  • Elizabeth M. Johnson
Research Article


Suburban habitats in naturally forested areas present a conundrum in the urban–rural habitat network. Typically, these habitats contain less than half of the native woodland bird species that would exist at these sites if they were not developed. They also contain more total bird species than if these sites were left in a natural state. This apparent contradiction raises the question of “How do suburban habitats function in the urban–rural habitat network?” In this study, we analyze bird distributions on three rural-to-urban gradients in different ecoregions of the United States: Oxford, Ohio; Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Palo Alto, California. All three gradients exhibit similar patterns of extinction of native species followed by invasion of common species and subsequent biotic homogenization with urbanization. This patterning suggests that suburban land uses, those represented by the intermediate levels of development on the gradients, are a point of extirpation for woodland birds as well as an entry point for invasive species into urban systems. Furthermore, there are consistent patterns in the functional characteristics of the bird communities that also shift with intensifying urbanization, providing insight on the possible mechanisms of homogenization and community structure in urban ecosystems including an increase in the number of broods per year, a shift in nesting strategies, a decrease in insectivorous individuals, an increase in granivorous individuals, and a decrease in territoriality. Consequently, it appears that there are specific traits that drive the shift in community composition in response to urban and suburban land use. These results have significant implications for improving understanding of the mechanisms of suburban community ecology and conserving birds in urban habitat networks.


Urbanization Suburbanization Biotic homogenization Birds Life history Community functionality Rural–urban gradient 



Land cover information was provided by a variety of sources including Stanford University, the City of Palo Alto, and the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve in California; the City of Oxford and the Department of Geography at Miami University in Ohio; and the Minnesota State Department of Natural Resources in Minnesota. Thanks are in order to the many field assistants who have collected the data for this work. They include (but probably aren’t limited to) Alistair Hobday, Charlie Quinn, John Minturn, Tom Minturn, Joe Reale, Scott Schmidt, Josh Dekan, Sarah Kempke, and Jenn Gillen. Thanks, too, are in order for the undergraduate research programs at Miami University and the University of Minnesota, which supported many of these students in their work. Finally, thanks go to Erica Fleishman, our intellectual muse on all things biological.

Supplementary material

10980_2008_9267_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (59 kb)
(PDF 69 kb)


  1. Antrop A (2004) Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc Urban Plan 67(1–4):9–26. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blair RB (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 6:506–519. doi: 10.2307/2269387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair RB (2001a) Creating a homogeneous avifauna: local extinction and invasion along urban gradients in California and Ohio. In: Marzluff J, McGowan K, Bowman R (eds) Avian ecology in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Norwell, Massachusetts, pp 459–486Google Scholar
  4. Blair RB (2001b) Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the United States: is urbanization creating a homogeneous fauna? In: Lockwood JL, McKinney ML (eds) Biotic homogenization: the loss of diversity through invasion and extinction. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Norwell, Massachusetts, pp 33–56Google Scholar
  5. Blair RB (2004) The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple levels of biological organization. Ecol Soc 9(2) Available from
  6. Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74(1):46–69. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R (2000) Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 404:990–992. doi: 10.1038/35010105 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clergeau P, Jokimaki J, Savard JPL (2001) Are urban bird communities influenced by the bird diversity of adjacent landscapes? J Appl Ecol 38:1122–1135. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00666.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clergeau P, Croci S, Jokimäki J, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki M, Dinetti M (2006) Avifauna homogenisation by urbanisation: analysis at different European latitudes. Biol Conserv 127(3):336–344. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.06.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50:593–601. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0593:EAACOS]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrlich PR, Dobkin DS, Wheye D (1988) The Birder’s handbook: a field guide the natural history of North America. Simon & Schuster, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Jokimäki J (2000) Occurrence of breeding species in urban parks: effects of park structure and broad-scale variables. Urban Ecosyst 3:21–34. doi: 10.1023/A:1009505418327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jokimäki J, Huhta E (2000) Artificial nest predation and abundance of birds along an urban gradient. Condor 102:838–847. doi: 10.1650/0010-5422(2000)102[0838:ANPAAO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jokimäki J, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki ML (2003) Spatial similarity of urban bird communities: a multiscale approach. J Biogeogr 30:1183–1193. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00896.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jokimäki J, Clergeau P, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki ML (2002) Winter bird communities in urban habitats: a comparative study between central and northern Europe. J Biogeogr 29:69–79. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00649.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jokimäki J, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki ML, Sorace A, Fernández-Juricic E, Rodriguez-Prieto I, Dolores Jimenez M (2005) Evaluation of the “safe nesting zone” hypothesis across an urban gradient: a multi-scale study. Ecography 28:59–70. doi: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.04001.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. McCune B, Mefford MJ (2006) PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 5. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, OregonGoogle Scholar
  19. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McKinney ML, Lockwood JL (2001) Biotic homogenization: a sequential and selective process. In: Lockwood JL, McKinney ML (eds) Biotic homogenization. Kluwer Academic, New York, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  22. Menge BA, Olson AM (1990) Role of scale and environmental factors in regulation of community structure. Trends Ecol Evol 5:52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol 16(2):330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olden JD (2006) Biotic homogenization: a new research agenda for conservation biogeography. J Biogeogr 33(12):2027–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Olden JD, Poff NL, Douglas MR, Douglas ME, Fausch KD (2004) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends Ecol Evol 19:18–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olden JD, Poff NL, McKinney ML (2006) Forecasting faunal and floral homogenization associated with human population geography in North America. Biol Conserv 127:261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanyake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, D’Amico JA, Iitoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, Wettengel C, Hedao P, Kassem K (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience 51:933–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poole A (ed) (2005) The birds of North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Available from http://bnc.birds/cornell/edu/BNA. Accessed February 2007
  29. Reynolds RT, Scott JM, Nussbaum RA (1980) A variable circular-plot method for estimating bird numbers. Condor 82:309–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. SAS Institute (2003) JMP 5.1. SAS Institute, Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  31. Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D (2006) From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:186–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Suhonen J, Jokimäki J (1988) A biogeographical comparison of the breeding bird species assemblages in twenty Finnish parks. Ornis Fennica 65:76–83Google Scholar
  33. Whittaker RH (1972) Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Conservation BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.Conservation Biology Graduate ProgramUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations