Introduction
Changes in land-cover and land-use are some of the greatest threats to biodiversity worldwide (Díaz et al.
2019; Newbold et al.
2015; Sala et al.
2000). Increases in anthropogenic pressures, for example through urbanisation, intensification and expansion of agricultural areas, are the main culprits regarding range contractions, population declines and extinctions (IPBES
2018,
2019). Considering the growing human population and the subsequent increased urbanisation globally (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs
2019), understanding species’ responses to anthropogenic pressures are paramount for guiding conservation measures (Newbold et al.
2018).
It has been shown that land-cover and land-use determine species richness differently among different taxa, groups of conservation concern, and functional groups (Petersen et al.
2020,
2021a). In addition to differences in species richness, land-cover affects community composition; changes in land-cover are thus likely to cause species turnover. Urbanisation, a type of land-cover change of particular concern globally, greatly alters the physical environment (Kaye et al.
2006), and potentially creates new niches, allowing for a new suite of species to colonise areas. With changes in land-cover and physical structures, the structure of the local vegetation will be greatly affected, which will cascade through the food web, affecting all trophic levels and trophic interactions (Chace and Walsh
2006). Likewise, with increasing amounts of built infrastructure comes a change in the vertical structure of the landscape, affecting which feeding guilds might be more likely to succeed. During urbanisation, specialists are often replaced by generalist species (Hagen et al.
2017; MacLean et al.
2018), as the latter are often better equipped to thrive in a changing environment.
Urban areas are frequently identified as the point of entry of alien species (Gaston
2005; Padayachee et al.
2017). Species richness (α diversity) can therefore potentially increase following anthropogenic land-cover changes. However, urbanisation can also cause species homogenisation across large spatial scales (decreasing β diversity): as the urban environment across cities globally is relatively alike, cities across the world become more similar biologically (Blair
1996; Chace and Walsh
2006; McKinney
2006). To assess whether such a homogenisation is taking place, it can therefore be relevant to assess changes in community composition rather than changes in species richness as such, from a conservation point-of-view.
Several studies of biodiversity and land-cover/land-use have assessed the relation between species richness or species composition and current landscape features (e.g. Rittenhouse et al.
2012; Newbold et al.
2018; Petersen et al. (
2020)). This approach potentially neglects the effects of past disturbances and biotic lag in the local community; species responses to changes in environmental variables can be time-lagged due to factors including species growth rates and/or resilience (Ernoult et al.
2006; Metzger et al.
2009). Several studies have used space-for-time substitution to infer the effects of land-cover changes and/or urbanisation (Bregman et al.
2016; La Sorte et al.
2018). Despite being a convenient approach in the paucity of time-series data, such substitution might misestimate the effects of habitat changes (Bonthoux et al.
2013; Johnson and Miyanishi
2008), and neglect the dynamics and history of the local community. Thus, using data from different points in time rather than inferring temporal relations extrapolated from spatial patterns is preferable. In the absence of structured time-series data, using species occurrence records from collated datasets from open databases, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (GBIF.org
2019), is an alternative. This however comes with great trade-offs. Species occurrence records in GBIF are compiled from vastly different data contributors (Petersen et al.
2021b; Speed et al.
2018). This causes great variation in sampling effort in both time and space (Newbold
2010; Powney and Isaac
2015; Tiago et al.
2017), as well as issues with inaccurate identification. Nevertheless, such records are increasingly used in research, and continuous work on how to best account for the inherent caveats is underway (Amano et al.
2016; Gaiji et al.
2013). The vast majority of the species occurrence data available through GBIF are records of birds (Amano et al.
2016); this abundance of bird records is likely driven by societal interest and the increasing number of observational records from amateur ornithologists (Troudet et al.
2017). Birds serve important ecological functions (Sekercioglu
2006) and can be used as indicators/surrogates of overall biodiversity in use for conservation planning (Rodrigues and Brooks
2007). Considering their diverse roles in food webs and their large variety in use of microhabitats, assessing the effects of land-cover change on changes in bird biodiversity is a reasonable approach to elucidate changes in ecosystem functioning (Hausner et al.
2003).
Rather than assessing responses of single species, an ecologically meaningful approach is to assess the responses of different functional groups (Hausner et al.
2003; Ikin et al.
2012). Several species are registered infrequently on their own accord, but can potentially fulfil the same ecological function as other species; thus, investigating functional groups rather than species identities provides a mechanistic link between ecosystem characteristics and species communities (Ikin et al.
2012; Palacio et al.
2018). Multiple traits have been shown to affect species responses to land-cover characteristics and urbanisation, including diet, forage strata, body size and longevity (Bregman et al.
2016; Conole and Kirkpatrick
2011; Evans et al.
2018; Pinho et al.
2016). Overall, species responding positively to urban areas predominantly appear to be granivorous and/or omnivorous, forage in the understorey, mid-storey, canopy and in the air (in contrast to lower prevalence of species feeding near- or below the water surface) (Chace and Walsh
2006, Evans et al.
2018, La Sorte et al.
2018). Omnivorous species are versatile in their dietary choices, and thus capable of taking advange of the food sources provided by humans (Chace and Walsh
2006). In a similar fashion, granivores are more likely to thrive as they have been able to take advantage of anthropogenic wastes, such as dropped grain and seeds provided through feeding stations (Chace and Walsh
2006). The low prevalence of species feeding near- or below the water surface likely stem from a lack of suitable water bodies within the urban boundaries. Generalist species are better equipped for a changing urban habitat than are specialists (MacLean et al.
2018; Palacio et al.
2018). Some studies have found urban birds mostly having a medium body size (in contrast to species of more natural habitats, which tend to be either relatively small or large), which fits with a lower prevalence of specialists (Palacio et al.
2018). In contrast, another meta-study found no general patterns in body size (Sepp et al.
2018). Sepp et al. (
2018) found urban birds to generally have a slower pace-of-life (and thus higher longevity). This might be explained by cities potentially being stochastic environments, with long-lived species being capable of having multiple reproduction attempts, thus not being as vulnerable to poor breeding conditions in single seasons (Kinnunen et al.
2022).
In this study, we aim to examine the effects of land-cover change in a northern boreal setting on local bird biodiversity by asking: (I) What characterises the land-cover changes which have occurred in a midsized urban municipality (Trondheim, Norway) within the studied time frame; (II) whether the degree of bird species composition change over time (β-diversity) is associated with the changes in built-up area (i.e. urbanisation); and (III) how bird species belonging to different functional groups respond to urbanisation. We expect β-diversity (species replacement) to increase with increasing amounts of urbanisation, and we expect contrasting responses from various functional groups; bird species with flexible habitat requirements or associated with urban areas to respond positively to urbanisation, whereas woodland specialists are expected to respond negatively. Likewise, species predominantly feeding on seeds should benefit from urbanisation, whereas insectivores are disadvantaged. Additionally, to put the results into local management context, we aim to assess the potential land-cover changes described in the municipal master plan for Trondheim municipality, and evaluate the potential consequences for local avian communities.
Discussion
Changes in land-cover, particularly urbanisation, are known to pose threats to biodiversity worldwide. Given the increasing urbanisation globally (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs
2019), understanding species’ responses to such pressures are essential for guiding conservation measures (Newbold et al.
2018).
In this study we investigated (I) what characterised the land-cover changes within the study area between 2011 and 2018; (II) whether bird species composition change over time could be predicted by the amount of land-cover change; and (III) how various avian functional groups respond to changes in land-cover.
The predominant type of land-cover change within the municipality has been an increase in built-up area, which can be interpreted as extensive urbanisation. Different functional groups respond contrastingly to urbanisation, causing a species turnover over time. βturnover could not be predicted by the change in area classified as “developed” (built-up areas and roads). However, the probability of a bird species either disappearing or appearing in a grid cell depended on both the change in Developed area within the grid cell and on the traits of the species – specifically longevity, habitat association, main dietary component, and forage stratum. Additionally, sampling effort affects the observed changes in community composition. Thus, urbanisation affects which species are either appearing or disappearing. The results thus indicate how urbanisation function as an ecological filter, favouring or impeding different functional groups.
βturnover for birds in relation to changes in land-cover
The (spatially explicit) null-model outperformed the model including change in Developed area as a predictor of β
turnover. Thus, contrary to expectation, the amount of change in Developed area does not directly correlate with the extent of bird species turnover on the investigated spatiotemporal scale. This is in concordance with the results of MacLean et al. (
2018), who found bird species richness to be relatively stable over time, despite considerable changes in land-cover. However, our model only assesses the extent of species turnover, not the characteristics of the species being replaced; as was also pointed out by MacLean et al. (
2018), stability in community level metrics can cover deviations in species composition. An important note is that if the patterns in β
turnover were truly random, one would not find any spatial structure in the residuals; the appropriate predictors have simply not been identified in this study at the investigated spatial scale. Direct effects of land-cover change on species turnover is also affected by the degree of spatial autocorrelation identified in the models. Changing the spatial resolution of the study could potentially decrease this effect. This approach is nevertheless complicated by the home ranges of the individual species (and variations therein, see Godet et al. (
2018)) – as the different species have large differences in their requirements, finding a single spatial scale appropriate for all species is highly unlikely (Concepción et al.
2015).
The timespan covered in this study is relatively short (approximately seven years). This might be insufficient time for the full effects of urbanisation to have influenced the avian communities, as a considerable biotic lag is expected (Brooks et al.
1999).
Species’ appearance or disappearance
In the probabilistic models of appearance and disappearance, the same predictors were retained in both models: change in developed area, habitat association, main dietary component, forage stratum and longevity. Additionally, variables concerning sampling effort (total number of sampling events and the difference in sampling effort between time periods). However, the interaction terms were different for the two models: disappearance was predicted by an interaction between change in developed area and diet type, while appearance was predicted by an interaction between change in developed area and forage stratum.
The effects of sampling effort are not surprising. The probability of species disappearance decreased with increasing number of sampling events in total, whereas the probability of appearance increased. Both effects are highly intuitive. The same pattern was seen for the difference in sampling effort (here illustrated by the proportional difference in number of sampling events compared to the first time period). This result highlights the importance of including measures of sampling effort in biodiversity modelling, and in particular the importance of accounting for differences in sampling effort (whether that be spatially or temporally) when using open-source, compiled species occurrence records (Isaac et al.
2014; Petersen et al.
2021b).
The models and predictions show that the probability of species disappearance differs somewhat for the different functional groups. Overall, bird species with decreasing probability of disappearing are generally granivorous, urban-associated species or species associated with open habitats. Species with an increasing probability of appearing are generally urban-associated or generalist species, or species associated with open areas or open woodland; however the probability of appearance decreased for ground-feeding species, for generalists and species from open woodland. This trend towards urban- and generalist species is similar to the results of MacLean et al. (
2018), who showed an increase in occupancy for species associated with human settlements within landscapes modified over time. In contrast, they found a decrease in occupancy of species associated with open habitat. These urban-associated species responded positively to cities in other studies as well: House Sparrow (
Passer domesticus), Rock Pigeon (
Columba livia) and Collared Dove (
Streptopelia decaocto) (Conole and Kirkpatrick
2011; Evans et al.
2009; Husté and Boulinier
2011). Aronson et al. (
2014) found House Sparrow and Rock Pigeon to be cosmopolitan and appearing in more than 80% of their investigated cities globally. The observed effects of feeding guild are somewhat in concordance with the results of Evans et al. (
2011), who found birds with plant-based diets to have higher densities in urban- relative to rural areas, and Pinho et al. (
2016), who found granivorous species to be associated with urban areas. This is likely related to the relatively low availability of invertebrates in urban- compared to rural areas, and in increase in plant/seed material due to supplementary feeding (Chace and Walsh
2006). Omnivores are more likely to find suitable food items in a heterogeneous landscape. However, the models presented here show that a clear distinction only based on feeding guild is inadequate, as this may interact with other traits.
Forage stratum interacted with the effects of change in developed area on the probability of appearance. Generally, ground-feeding species have decreasing probability of appearing (unless they are associated with urban- or open habitats), whereas above-ground feeding species have positive response to increasing land-cover change more frequently. La Sorte et al. (
2018) found that urban bird assemblages had a higher mean percentage use of understorey, mid-storey, canopy and aerial strata for foraging. This is in line with the observed response by species from different forage strata in this study. This likely relates to direct conversion of substrate during urbanisation.
The probability of disappearance decreased with increasing longevity, whereas the probability of appearance increased with increasing longevity. In the first case, the relation can potentially be explained if the species included in the analyses display a higher degree of site fidelity. Long-lived species are less likely to have disappeared within the study period, whereas short-lived ones might have died, and new individuals have not recolonised due to the unfavourable habitat (i.e. species with short lifespans are more dependent on recruitment). The persistence of long-lived species within areas exhibiting great extents of land-cover change and/or urbanisation can thus represent a community not in equilibrium with the environment, with a pending extinction debt to pay, rather than species capable of adapting to disturbance and new conditions (Ramalho and Hobbs
2012). To determine this, longer time-series are needed (Dornelas et al.
2018; Magurran et al.
2019). Secondly, the positive effect of longevity on the probability of appearance is less intuitive. A potential explanation is related to the reasoning behind the relationship seen in the model of disappearance: long-lived species will likely show a greater time-lag in their response to environmental changes (Metzger et al.
2009). Coupled with site fidelity and spatial autocorrelation (individuals originating in nearby grid cells are likely to be observed within the focal grid cell regardless of the environmental suitability), the increasing probability of appearing with increasing life-span might be an artefact rather than a genuine, biological response.
Based on the retention of interaction terms in the models, our results agree with the conclusions of Croci et al. (
2008) and Kark et al. (
2007) – only combinations of traits indicates whether a bird species is (pre-)adapted for urban life and changing land-cover, not any single traits. Croci et al. (
2008) found that urbanisation functions as a biological filter on bird functional traits, but only on a regional (not local) scale; they found traits to differ between urban avoiders and –adapters at a regional (city-wide) scale, but not between very- and moderately urbanophilic species at a local (0.5 – 2 ha) scale. For comparison, the spatial resolution of this study is intermediate (0.25 km
2 = 25 ha).
Changes in land-cover
“LNFR” was a rather ambiguous category covering most of the terrestrial area of Trondheim, including both forests, cultivated land, mires and open areas; thus, specific planned land-cover changes for this category were unavailable. Additionally, conversion between “LNFR” and “Green structures” is unlikely to lead to significant changes in actual land-cover, as the land-use element of the municipal master plan refers to human (economic) activities (Kommunal- og moderniseringsdepartementet
2020). However, transition from “LNFR” or “Green structures” to “Developed area” or anthropogenic “Open areas” entail the possibility of vegetation removal and urban development. As the land-cover index used in models of bird’s responses to land-cover change mainly correlated with changes in built-up area (urbanisation), the potential land-cover conversion from “LNFR” or “Green structures” towards either “Developed area” or anthropogenic “Open areas” are of primary concern.
Consequences for conservation and management
Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of the examined functional groups show negative responses to increasing urbanisation (i.e. increasing probability of disappearance or decreasing probability of appearance); urbanisation thus have the potential to impoverish local avian biodiversity. Particularly species associated with wetlands, woodlands and marine areas are at risk of disappearing with increasing urbanisation. Petersen et al. (
2020) predicted coastal areas and open mires in Trondheim to harbour relatively high numbers of threatened species, and mires and bogs have been a habitat strongly affected by land-use changes since the 1950s (IPBES
2018). In combination, this warrants particular focus on the protection of these areas.
Given the planned potential land-cover changes within the municipality in the near future, this calls for concern (Trondheim
2013). Ca. forty km
2 (11.5%) of the municipality’s non-marine area potentially face changes in land-cover within the current management plan, which lasts until 2024; of these, approximately 11 km
2 (3%) could be converted to built-up areas. In comparison, ca. 15 km
2 (4%) changed land-cover category between 2011 and 2018 (approximately 10.9 km
2 changed category to Developed area). The second largest change category is conversion to developed/built-up area, which will direly affect the local avian communities. Specifically, ca. 7 km
2 are conversions from forest, cultivated land, open (natural) areas, mires and grasslands to developed area. If these potential land-cover changes are realised, it will likely affect local community composition direly. A large area can potentially be converted from developed area to land-cover types with a smaller anthropogenic pressure and thus reflect maintenance of “blue-green” areas; in the suggested plan program of the municipal sector plan for biodiversity 2021–2032 (Miljøenheten
2020), the concept of “area neutrality” has been suggested as a further management tool. “Area neutrality” refers to the practice of ecological compensation, and thus requires the restoration of an equal area as is destroyed otherwise. However, given the inherent disturbance and biotic lag following such a conversion, this is unlikely to compensate within a foreseeable future. It is important to note that the local development plan covers the period from 2012 to 2024, and thus includes the time periods used in the analyses, complicating the interpretations. Nevertheless, as the potential changes in land-cover management identified here are relative to the land-cover maps latest updated in 2018, the conclusions are still valid.
Biodiversity dynamics in urban areas are found to be complex and maintenance complicated (Elmqvist et al.
2013,
2016); but as the city expands, wood- and wetland specialists disappear, and urban species and generalists take over. Based on these results, a recommendation for local management to maintain bird biodiversity is to minimise the anthropogenic pressure on vulnerable habitats and –species.