Why Are Exotic Birds So Successful in Urbanized Environments?

  • Daniel Sol
  • Cesar González-Lagos
  • Oriol Lapiedra
  • Mario Díaz
Chapter

Abstract

Many nonindigenous organisms, including birds, are often restricted to human-altered environments within the region of introduction. The classical explanation is that human-related alterations make the environment easier to invade by reducing biotic resistance and offering new niche opportunities. However, the pattern may also reflect that many more species have been introduced in human-altered environments and/or that traits associated with invasion success and the ability to thrive in these environments are related. In this chapter, we argue that if we want to fully understand why exotic organisms are mainly successful in human-altered environments, we need to see the invasion process as a set of stages with different probabilities of being transited. Applied to birds, this framework suggests that there is a high probability that an exotic species ends up associated with human-altered environments if the species: (1) is more abundant (and hence more available for introduction) in urbanized environments; (2) has a higher chance to be successfully transported, as it is already habituated to humans; and (3) has a higher probability to be introduced in an urbanized environment, where most humans live. If these arguments are true, then the exotic species is likely to successfully establish itself in the new region because the species should already have the traits needed to persist in the novel environment. Although more supporting evidence is needed, the proposed framework provides a general solution for the paradox that many invaders are more successful in the new environment than most native species.

Keywords

Biological invasions Invasion success Biotic resistance Novel niches Life history Anthropocene 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Enrique Murgui and Marcus Hedblom for inviting us to contribute to the present book, and to Louis Lefebvre, Richard Duncan, Tim Blackburn, Phill Cassey, Joan Maspons, Miquel Vall-llosera, Nacho Bartomeus, Montse Vilà, Joan Pino, Salit Kark, Sven Bacher, Wojciech Solarz, Wolfgang Nentwig, Simon Reader and Diego Vasquez for fruitful discussions over the past years. This work was supported by a Proyecto de Investigación (ref. CGL2013-47448-P) from the Spanish government to DS and is a contribution by MD to the thematic networks GlobiMed and REMEDINAL. CGL is supported by the project PUC1203-MECESUP P. Universidad Católica de Chile and Ministerio de Educación, Chile.

References

  1. Amiel JJ, Tingley R, Shine R (2011) Smart moves: effects of relative brain size on establishment success of invasive amphibians and reptiles. PLoS One 6:e18277CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronson MFJ, La Sorte F, Nilon CH et al (2014) A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proc R Soc Lond B 281:20133330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnagaud J, Barbaro L, Papaïx J (2013) Habitat filtering by landscape and local forest composition in native and exotic New Zealand birds. Ecology 95:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartomeus I, Sol D, Pino J et al (2011) Deconstructing the native-exotic richness relationship in plants. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:524–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batllori X, Nos R (1985) Presencia de la Cotorrita gris (Myiopsitta monachus) y de la Cotorrita de collar (Psittacula krameri) en el área metropolitana de Barcelona. Misc Zool 9:407–411Google Scholar
  6. Blackburn TM, Duncan RP (2001) Establishment patterns of exotic birds are constrained by non-random patterns in introduction. J Biogeogr 28:927–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S et al (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 26:333–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonier F, Martin P, Wingfield J (2007) Urban birds have broader environmental tolerance. Biol Lett 3:670–673CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Carrete M, Tella JL (2008) Wild-bird trade and exotic invasions: a new link of conservation concern? Front Ecol Environ 6:207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrete M, Tella JL (2011) Inter-individual variability in fear of humans and relative brain size of the species are related to contemporary urban invasion in birds. PLoS One 6:e18859. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018859 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Case TJ (1996) Global patterns in the establishment and distribution of exotic birds. Biol Conserv 78:69–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Sol D et al (2004) Global patterns of introduction effort and establishment success in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B271:S405–S408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapple DG, Simmonds SM, Wong BBM (2012) Can behavioral and personality traits influence the success of unintentional species introductions? Trends Ecol Evol 27:57–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamond JM, Veitch CR (1981) Extinctions and introductions in the New Zealand avifauna: cause and effect? Science 211:499–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Sol D (2003) The ecology of bird introductions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:71–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ehrlich P (1989) Attributes of invaders and the invading process: vertebrates. In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F et al (eds) Biological invasions, a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 315–328Google Scholar
  17. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans K, Gaston K, Frantz A et al (2009) Independent colonization of multiple urban centres by a formerly forest specialist bird species. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:2403–2410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans K, Chamberlain D, Hatchwell BENJ et al (2011) What makes an urban bird? Glob Change Biol 17:32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hernández-Brito D, Carrete M, Popa-Lisseanu AG et al (2014) Crowding in the city: losing and winning competitors of an invasive bird. PLoS One 9:e100593CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hufbauer R, Facon B (2012) Anthropogenically induced adaptation to invade (AIAI): contemporary adaptation to human altered habitats within the native range can promote invasions. Evol Appl 5:89–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Husby A, Husby M (2014) Interspecific analysis of vehicle avoidance behavior in birds. Behav Ecol 25:504–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holt RDR, Barfield M, Gomulkiewicz R (2005) Theories of niche conservatism and evolution: could exotic species be potential tests? In: Sax D, Stachowicz JJ, Gaines S (eds) Species invasions. W. H. Freeman, Gordonsville, VA, pp 259–290Google Scholar
  24. Janiga M (1991) Interclutch interval and territoriality in the feral pigeon, Columba livia Gm. 1789. Biologia 46:961–966Google Scholar
  25. Kark S, Iwaniuk A, Schalimtzek A et al (2007) Living in the city: can anyone become an “urban exploiter”? J Biogeogr 34:638–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kövér L, Gyüre P, Balogh P et al (2015) Recent colonization and nest site selection of the Hooded Crow (Corvus corone cornix L.) in an urban environment. Landsc Urban Plan 133:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Křivan V, Cressman R, Schneider C (2008) The ideal free distribution: a review and synthesis of the game-theoretic perspective. Theor Popul Biol 73:403–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Liker A, Bókony V (2009) Larger groups are more successful in innovative problem solving in house sparrows. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:7893–7898CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lowry H, Lill A, Wong BBM (2012) Behavioural responses of wildlife to urban environments. Biol Rev 88:537–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. MacLeod CJ, Newson SE, Blackwell G et al (2009) Enhanced niche opportunities: can they explain the success of New Zealand’s introduced bird species? Divers Distrib 15:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maklakov A, Immler S, Gonzalez-Voyer A et al (2011) Brains and the city: big-brained passerine birds succeed in urban environments. Biol Lett 7:730–732CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Marzluff JM (2001) Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer, Boston, pp 19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (2001) A historical perspective on urban bird research: trends, terms, and approaches. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer, Boston, pp 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mason G, Burn C, Dallaire JA et al (2013) Plastic animals in cages: behavioural flexibility and responses to captivity. Anim Behav 85:1113–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayr E (1965) The nature of colonising birds. In: Baker HG, Stebbins GL (eds) The genetics of colonizing species. Academic, New York, pp 29–43Google Scholar
  37. McDougall PT, Réale D, Sol D et al (2006) Wildlife conservation and animal temperament: causes and consequences of evolutionary change for captive, reintroduced, and wild populations. Anim Conserv 9:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McKinney M (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKinney M (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McLain DK, Moulton MP, Sanderson J (1999) Sexual selection and extinction: the fate of plumage-dimorphic and plumage-monomorphic birds introduced onto islands. Evol Ecol Res 1:549–565Google Scholar
  41. Miranda AC (2016) Mechanisms of behavioural change in urban animals: the role of microevolution and phenotypic plasticity. In: Murgui E, Hedblom M (eds) Ecology and conservation of birds in urban environments. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 113–134Google Scholar
  42. Møller AP (2008) Flight distance of urban birds, predation, and selection for urban life. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Møller AP (2009) Successful city dwellers: a comparative study of the ecological characteristics of urban birds in the Western Palearctic. Oecologia 159:849–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Møller AP (2010) Interspecific variation in fear responses predicts urbanization in birds. Behav Ecol 21:365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Møller AP, Diaz M, Flensted-Jensen E et al (2012) High urban population density of birds reflects their timing of urbanization. Oecologia 170:867–875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Møller AP, Díaz M, Flensted-Jensen E et al (2015) Urbanized birds have superior establishment success in novel environments. Oecologia 178:943–950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Murgui E (2001) Factors influencing the distribution of exotic bird species in Comunidad Valenciana (Spain). Ardeola 48:149–160Google Scholar
  48. Murgui E, Valentín A (2003) Relación entre las características del paisaje urbano y la comunidad de aves introducidas en la ciudad de Valencia (España). Ardeola 50:201–214Google Scholar
  49. Sax D, Brown JH (2000) The paradox of invasion. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 9:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sax D, Gaines S (2008) Species invasions and extinction: the future of native biodiversity on islands. PNAS 105:11490–11497CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) Cities and biodiversity outlook. Executive SummaryGoogle Scholar
  52. Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shochat E, Ovadia O (2011) Invasion, evenness, and species diversity in human-dominated ecosystems. In: Lopez-Pujol J (ed) The importance of biological interactions in the study of biodiversity. TechOpen Access Publisher, doi: 10.5772/24385
  54. Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SHH (2006) Future directions in urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:661–662. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shochat E, Lerman SB, Anderies JM et al (2010) Invasion, competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. Bioscience 60:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simberloff D (1995) Why do introduced species appear to devastate islands more than mainland areas? Pac Sci 49:87–97Google Scholar
  57. Simberloff D (2009) The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:81–102. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sol D (2008) Artificial selection, naturalization, and fitness: Darwin’s pigeons revisited. Biol J Linn Soc 93:657–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sol D, Santos DMM, Feria E et al (1997) Habitat selection by the Monk Parakeet during colonization of a new area in Spain. Condor 99:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sol D, Lefebvre L (2000) Behavioural flexibility predicts invasion success in birds introduced to New Zealand. Oikos 90:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sol D, Timmermans S, Lefebvre L (2002) Behavioural flexibility and invasion success in birds. Anim Behav 63:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sol D, Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Cassey P et al (2005) Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments. PNAS 102:5460–5465CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Sol D, Bacher S, Reader SM et al (2008) Brain size predicts the success of mammal species introduced into novel environments. Am Nat 172:S63–S71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Sol D, Griffin AS, Bartomeus I et al (2011) Exploring or avoiding novel food resources? The novelty conflict in an invasive bird. PLoS One 6:e19535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Sol D, Bartomeus I, Griffin AS (2012a) The paradox of invasion in birds: competitive superiority or ecological opportunism? Oecologia 169:553–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Sol D, Maspons J, Vall-llosera M et al (2012b) Unraveling the life history of successful invaders. Science 337:580–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Sol D, Lapiedra O, González-Lagos C (2013) Behavioural adjustments for a life in the city. Anim Behav 85:1101–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sol D, González-Lagos C, Moreira D et al (2014) Urbanisation tolerance and the loss of avian diversity. Ecol Lett 17:942–995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Tomiałojć L (2016) Human initiation of synurbic populations of waterfowl, raptors, pigeons and cage birds. In: Murgui E, Hedblom M (eds) Ecology and conservation of birds in urban environments. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 271–286Google Scholar
  70. Vall-llosera M, Llimona F, de Cáceres M, Sales S, Sol D (2016) Biotic resistance, niche opportunities and the invasion of natural habitats. Biol Invasions. doi: 10.1007/s10530-016-1246-7 Google Scholar
  71. Von Holle B, Simberloff D (2005) Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–3218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Williamson MH (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  73. Yeh PJ, Price TD (2004) Adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the successful colonization of a novel environment. Am Nat 164:531–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Sol
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cesar González-Lagos
    • 3
    • 4
  • Oriol Lapiedra
    • 5
  • Mario Díaz
    • 6
  1. 1.CREAF (Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications)Barcelona, EspanyaSpain
  2. 2.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council)Bellaterra, CataloniaSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias BiológicasPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  4. 4.Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES)Pontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  5. 5.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  6. 6.Department of Biogeography and Global Change (BGC-MNCN-CSIC)National Museum of Natural SciencesMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations