Effectiveness of nature reserves for bird conservation in urban parks in Tokyo

Abstract

In some urban parks in Tokyo, semi-natural habitat patches are maintained as nature reserves for birds, called bird sanctuaries. Bird censuses and vegetation surveys were conducted in eight urban parks in Tokyo from December 2015 to July 2016 to determine the effectiveness of bird sanctuaries on avian species composition. The relationship between avian species composition and environmental conditions was analyzed by partial redundancy analysis (partial RDA) using vegetation variables, number of visitors, presence or absence of reserves within the same park, area of wooded parts, and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) in the surrounding area. The results of the partial RDA are as follows: (1) Area, lower vegetation cover, higher vegetation cover, tree species composition obtained from detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) on vegetation survey data, and NDVI in the surrounding area were considered as covariates and explained 17.4–33.6% of the total variation in bird species composition, (2) The presence or absence of sanctuary significantly explained bird species compositional variation regardless of season, indicating that the sanctuaries were beneficial for urban avoider species not only in the sanctuaries but also in the surrounding wooded area, and (3) Tree coverage within a 100 m range and leaf litter coverage also influenced avian species composition. We concluded that bird sanctuaries and other nature reserves can be beneficial to bird conservation, even within Tokyo. The positive effect of sanctuaries could be due to the limited influence of human presence and the developed vegetation within them. These reserves may play the role of core habitats within the studied urban parks.

Keywords

Avian species composition / Leaf litter / Nature reserve / Tree coverage / Urban biodiversity / Vegetation structure

References

Aronson MF, Lepczyk CA, Evans KL, Goddard MA, Lerman SB, MacIvor JS, Nilon CH, Vargo T. Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management. Front Ecol Environ, 2017, 15: 189-196.

Beier P, Noss RF. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity?. Conserv Biol, 1998, 12: 1241-1252.

Beninde J, Veith M, Hochkirch A. Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecol Lett, 2015, 18: 581-592.

Blake JG, Karr JR. Breeding birds of isolated woodlots: area and habitat relationships. Ecology, 1987, 68: 1724-1734.

Bötsch Y, Tablado Z, Scherl D, Kéry M, Graf RF, Jenni L. Effect of recreational trails on forest birds: human presence matters. Front Ecol Evol, 2018, 6: 175.

Cannon A. The significance of private gardens for bird conservation. Bird Conserv Int, 1999, 9: 287-297.

Dale S. Urban bird community composition influenced by size of urban green spaces, presence of native forest, and urbanization. Urban Ecosyst, 2018, 21: 1-14.

Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G, García Marquéz JR, Gruber B, Lafourcade B, Leitão PJ, Münkemüller T, McClean C, Osborne PE, Reineking B, Schröder B, Skidmore AK, Zurell D, Lautenbach S. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography, 2013, 36: 27-46.

ESRI Inc. ArcGIS desktop release 10, 2011, Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.

Fontana S, Sattler T, Bontadina F, Moretti M. How to manage the urban green to improve bird diversity and community structure. Landscape Urban Plan, 2011, 101: 278-285.

Forman RTT. Urban ecology—science of cities, 2014, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 476

Forman RTT, Alexander LE. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 1998, 29: 207-231.

Gauch HG. Multivariate analysis in community ecology, 1982, New York: Cambridge University Press 298

Harris M, Hochstrasser T, Foley K, Cave C. Francis RA, Millington JDA, Chadwich MA. Urban biodiversity management on Ireland. Urban landscape ecology—science, policy and practice, 2018, Oxford: Routledge 293 311

Hedblom M, Söderström B. Woodlands across Swedish urban gradients: status, structure and management implications. Landscape Urban Plan, 2008, 84: 62-73.

Heyman E. Clearance of understory in urban woodlands: assessing impact on bird abundance and diversity. Forest Ecol Manag, 2010, 260: 125-131.

Hill MO, Gauch HG. Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio, 1980, 42: 47-58.

Hostetler M, Allen W, Meurk C. Conserving urban biodiversity? Creating green infrastructure is only the first step. Landscape Urban Plan, 2011, 100: 369-371.

Kanai Y. The fluctuation in the number of wintering ducks at Hikarigaoka bird sanctuary. Strix, 1991, 10: 127-139. in Japanese with English summary

Kanai Y. The bird sanctuary of Yoyogi Park. Public Parks, 2018, 220: 24-27. in Japanese

Katoh K. Relationship between vegetation structure and wintering avifauna in urban openspace woods. J Japan Inst Landsc Archit, 1996, 59(5): 77-80. in Japanese with English summary

Katoh K. A proposal of an environmental evaluation index for avian habitats in urban areas using avian species composition. J Japan Inst Landsc Archit, 2009, 72(5): 805-808. in Japanese with English summary

Katoh K, Kamiyama T. Relationship between species composition of birds crossing over boundaries of patchy woodlands and surrounding landcover. J Japan Inst Landsc Archit, 2014, 77(5): 613-618. in Japanese with English summary)

Katoh K, Yoshida R, Takahashi T, Kasahara S, Ichinose T. Factors influencing avian species composition recorded in urban and suburban small wooded patches. J Japan Inst Landsc Archit, 2015, 78(5): 671-676. in Japanese with English summary)

Lepš J, Šmilauer P. Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO, 2003, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 269

Leveau LM, Isla FI, Bellocq MI. Predicting the seasonal dynamics of bird communities along an urban-rural gradient using NDVI. Landscape Urban Plan, 2018, 177: 103-113.

Loss SR, Ruiz MO, Brawn JD. Relationships between avian diversity, neighborhood age, income, and environmental characteristics of an urban landscape. Biol Conserv, 2009, 142: 2578-2585.

McCune B, Mefford MJ. PC-ORD—multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 7.02, 2016, Gleneden Beach: MjM Software.

McCune B, Grace JB, Urban DL. Analysis of ecological communities, 2002, Gleneden Beach: MjM Software Design 300

McKinney ML. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation: the impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. Bioscience, 2002, 52: 883-890.

Mörtberg UM. Resident bird species in urban forest remnants; landscape and habitat perspectives. Landscape Ecol, 2001, 16: 193-203.

Ornithological Society of Japan. Checklist of Japanese birds, 2012 7 Tokyo: Ornithological Society of Japan 438

Osborne P. Bird numbers and habitat characteristics in farmland hedgerows. J Appl Ecol, 1984, 21: 63-82.

Patten MA, Burger JC. Reserves as double-edged sword: Avoidance behavior in an urban-adjacent wildland. Biol Conserv, 2018, 218: 233-239.

Pimm SL, Ayres M, Balmford A, Branch G, Brandon K, Brooks T Can we defy nature's end?. Science, 2001, 293: 2207-2208.

Rouse Jr J, Haas RH, Schell JA, Deering DW (1974) Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. In: Third ERTS Symposium, NASA SP-351, Washington DC, pp 309–317

SAS Institute Inc. (2018) JMP 14.0. SAS Institute Inc. Cary

Stagoll K, Manning AD, Knight E, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. Using bird–habitat relationships to inform urban planning. Landscape Urban Plan, 2010, 98: 13-25.

Ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P. CANOCO 5, 2012, Biometris, Plant Research International: Wageningen.

Threlfall CG, Williams NS, Hahs AK, Livesley SJ. Approaches to urban vegetation management and the impacts on urban bird and bat assemblages. Landscape Urban Plan, 2016, 153: 28-39.

Yokohari M, Amati M. Nature in the city, city in the nature: case studies of the restoration of urban nature in Tokyo, Japan and Toronto, Canada. Landsc Ecol Eng, 2005, 1: 53-59.