Resolving the urban nest predator paradox: The role of alternative foods for nest predators
Introduction
The amount of land area being converted to urban land-use is rapidly increasing and by 2050, the United Nations estimates that the global urban population will equal ∼6.5 billion (United Nations, 2006). Urbanization is one of the leading causes of species endangerment in the United States (Czech and Krausman, 1997) and although many native species are extirpated from urban areas, some seemingly adapt well (Blair, 1996, Shochat et al., 2006). Species that are more abundant in urban settings have been referred to as urban exploiters (commensals of humans) and urban adapters (native species that maintain urban populations), while species that are less abundant or absent from urban areas have been termed urban avoiders (Blair, 1996, Shochat et al., 2006). These terms, however, do not simply describe relative abundances of species, but also imply processes that determine the abundance of these species in relation to urbanization. For the vast majority of species, however, we do not yet know the processes that are driving their observed abundance in urban habitats. For example, the term urban avoiders implies a behavioral response to urbanization whereby individual birds choose not to settle in urban habitats. While this may be the case for many species, other species may have attempted to settle in urban habitats and failed. I therefore suggest the following process-neutral terms that simply reflect the relative abundances of species in different habitats. Human commensals are species that only occur in human-dominated habitats. Urban-positive species are more abundant in urban habitats than non-urban habitats. Urban-neutral species are equally abundant in urban and non-urban areas, while urban-negative species are more abundant in non-urban than urban habitats. Urban-absent species are only found in non-urban settings.
Populations of urban-positive species that reside in towns and cities can form a significant proportion of the global population of these species (Mason, 2003, Bland et al., 2004, Chamberlain et al., 2009, Fuller et al., 2009). Understanding the factors that promote the success of urban-positive species is necessary if we are to gain a complete understanding of the processes that shape urban wildlife communities and provide meaningful recommendations to urban planners and concerned citizens that will allow us to retain or even enhance urban wildlife communities.
The predator refuge hypothesis (Gering and Blair, 1999, Shochat et al., 2004, Shochat et al., 2006, Faeth et al., 2005, Chamberlain et al., 2009) proposes that the success of urban bird species is the result of a reduction in nest predation rates in urban habitats. Evidence for this hypothesis is mixed. Some studies have documented reduced rates of urban nest predation (e.g., Gering and Blair, 1999, Kosinski, 2001), whereas others have documented increased urban nest predation rates (e.g., Jokimaki and Huhta, 2000, Thorington and Bowman, 2003) or no differences (e.g., Melampy et al., 1999, Haskell et al., 2001, Reidy et al., 2008, Rodewald and Shustack, 2008). Thus, the general applicability of the predator refuge hypothesis as an explanation for the success of urban-positive species is far from clear. Our ability to interpret these conflicting results is hampered by our lack of knowledge about (1) how different potential nest predator populations respond to urbanization and (2) the relative importance of these different potential predators in determining nest predation rates.
One possible explanation for reduced urban nest predation rates is that there are simply fewer nest predators in urban areas. In general, research has demonstrated increased nest predation rates with increasing predator abundance and/or activity (e.g., Andrén, 1992, Zanette and Jenkins, 2000, Schmidt and Ostfeld, 2003, Cain et al., 2006, Sperry et al., 2008); therefore if there are fewer predators in urban habitats, then there should be reduced nest predation rates. Although we lack data on how most groups of nest predators respond to urbanization (Stracey and Robinson, in press), the abundance of at least some nest predators is actually higher in urban habitats. For example, many avian nest predators (Gregory and Marchant, 1996, Jokimaki and Huhta, 2000, Marzluff et al., 2001, Sorace, 2002, Sorace and Gustin, 2009, Rodewald et al., in press), raccoons (Prange et al., 2003, Randa and Yunger, 2006, Rodewald et al., in press), and cats (Sorace, 2002, Rodewald et al., in press) are consistently more abundant in urban than in non-urban habitats. This mismatch between predation rates, which are often lower in urban areas, and predator abundance, which is often higher in urban areas, has been termed the “urban nest predator paradox” (Shochat et al., 2006, Stracey and Robinson, in press).
While we can generate a laundry list of species that have been documented as nest predators, in most cases the species included are based upon anecdotal eyewitness accounts of predation events and not on systematic studies of nest predator identity. Not all predators are created equal: certain species likely only infrequently depredate nests, whereas other species are consistently important nest predators (Schmidt et al., 2001). If important nest predators are replaced with species that only occasionally depredate bird nests (weak predators), then the absolute abundance of potential nest predators may not be a good predictor of actual predation rates (Haskell et al., 2001, Marzluff et al., 2001, Schmidt et al., 2001). Instead, predation rates may reflect the abundance of a few strong predators (species that are responsible for the majority of predation events and thus drive rates of nest predation; sensu Schmidt et al., 2001). I define the strong predator abundance hypothesis as the loss of strong predators in urban habitats leading to a reduction in nest predation rates. Until we know more about the actual identity of the predators that attack nests and on how this varies between urban and non-urban habitats, we cannot evaluate this hypothesis.
Alternatively, whether or not a species acts as a strong nest predator could be context-dependent (Navarrete and Menge, 1996). If urban predators undergo prey switching (e.g., Miller et al., 2006, Randa et al., 2009, Rodewald et al., in press), then predation rates on urban bird nests might be reduced and otherwise strong predators may become weak predators in urban environments. I term this the urban prey switching hypothesis. Urban habitats are characterized by abundant anthropogenic food that can subsidize generalist nest predators (Prange et al., 2004, Marzluff and Neatherlin, 2006, Whithey and Marzluff, 2009). Prey switching may therefore result in reduced nest predation rates despite abundant nest predators (Schmidt, 1999, Miller et al., 2006). Indeed, Rodewald et al. (in press) found that predation rates were correlated with predator abundance in rural areas, but were not correlated in urban habitats.
An additional factor that must be considered in studies of nest predation in urban communities is nest defense behavior, both in terms of nest placement and predator mobbing. Active nest defense can be an effective means of decreasing rates of nest predation (reviewed in Martin, 1992). Some species may be able to persist or even thrive in the face of high predator populations because they are able to defend their nests effectively against the dominant predators in a habitat (the predator defense hypothesis: Stracey and Robinson, in press). Mobbing may be especially effective in urban areas because many of the numerically dominant predators are birds such as crows and blackbirds that can potentially be chased away by aggressively mobbing parents.
Before we can test these hypotheses, we need data on which of the many potential predators are responsible for the majority of nest predation events and on how the identity of predators differs in urban and rural communities. Reidy et al. (2008) found no differences between urban and non-urban habitats in nest predation rates or in predator identity. This comparison, however, was made between patches of natural vegetation surrounded by either residential development or by rural areas. In this study I attempt to resolve the urban nest predator paradox for one urban-positive species, the Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), by using video cameras to compare the identity of nest predators at nests in the urban matrix and non-urban habitats. Data on mockingbirds from 2005–2006 support the hypothesis that urban nest predation rates are lower than non-urban nest predation rates (Stracey and Robinson, in press), yet many potential avian nest predators (fish crow, common grackle, boat-tailed grackle) are more abundant in urban habitats in North Florida (Stracey and Robinson, in press). The urban nest predator paradox (e.g., lower rates of nest predation in urban habitats that have more abundant nest predators) assumes that there is a tight correlation between nest predation rates and predator abundance. This assumption, however, may not reflect, (1) prey switching and (2) the disproportionate effect of a few strong, but less abundant, predators. In both cases, the most abundant avian nest predators in urban habitats would account for relatively few predation events. If prey switching drives the urban predator paradox, then I would expect to see higher relative rates of predation in non-urban habitats by predators that are common to both habitats. If the predator paradox can be explained by the strong predator abundance hypothesis, then I predict that the dominant non-urban predators would be uncommon in urban habitats. Future research on the diet of urban predators and the abundance in urban areas of the dominant non-urban predators will be necessary to further test both of these hypotheses.
Section snippets
Nest predation rates
I collected data on nest predation rates at seven study sites (two parking lots, three residential neighborhoods, two pastures, and one wildlife preserve) in areas in and around Gainesville, FL between February and August of 2007–2008 (Stracey, 2010). In 2009, I did not collect data from one of the residential neighborhoods, one of the parking lots, and one of the pastures. I located nests and checked their contents every one to 4 days. For each year I calculated habitat specific nest survival
Nest predation rates
In 2007, there was strong support (ΔAICc < 2) for two models that included nest stage and ordinal date (Table 2). In 2007, nest survival probability increased in the laying and nestling stage as the breeding season progressed but there was little change in nest survival across the breeding season for the egg stage. In 2008, there were five models with strong support (Table 2). All five models included nest stage as a variable, with eggs surviving at a higher rate than nestlings (based on
Is there an urban refuge from nest predation?
Urban areas are not always a refuge from nest predation relative to non-urban areas for the Northern mockingbird. Nest predation rates did not differ by habitat in 2007 or 2008 (Table 2, Fig. 1). These data contrast with previous results from 2005 and 2006 when Stracey and Robinson (in press) documented reduced nest predation in urban habitats at many of the same study sites. Across the 3 years of this study and the 2 years from the previous study, predation rates in urban habitats, and parking
Acknowledgements
I thank S. Daniels, T. Richard, R. Hanauer, and R. Anderson for assistance with data collection. I thank S. Robinson and D. Levey for comments on the manuscript. I also thank the private landowners and businesses that permitted me to work on their property. Funding was provided by a student research award from the American Ornithologist’s Union, a Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant from the National Science Foundation (Grant # 0709646), and the Katharine Ordway Endowment of the Florida
References (61)
Sex differences in defense of eggs and nestlings by Northern Mockingbirds, Mimus polyglottos
Animal Behaviour
(1988)- et al.
Corvid response to human settlements and campgrounds: causes consequences, and challenges for conservation
Biological Conservation
(2006) - et al.
From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
(2006) - et al.
Distribution of generalist and specialist predators along urban gradients
Landscape and Urban Planning
(2009) - et al.
Do domestic cats impose an unsustainable harvest on urban bird populations?
Biological Conservation
(2010) Corvid density and nest predation in relation to forest fragmentation: a landscape perspective
Ecology
(1992)- et al.
Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis catus in an urban area
Mammal Review
(2005) - et al.
Cats about town: is predation by free-ranging pet cats Felis catus likely to affect urban bird populations?
Ibis
(2008) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient
Ecological Applications
(1996)- et al.
Birds breeding in British gardens: an underestimated population?
Bird Study
(2004)
Model Selection and Multimodel Inferences: A Practical Information-theoretic Approach
Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of passerines
Journal of Wildlife Management
Avian productivity in urban landscapes: a review and meta-analysis
Ibis
Responses of songbirds to magpie reduction in an urban habitat
Journal of Wildlife Management
Distribution and causation of species endangerment in the United States
Science
Predator Abundance and predation of artificial nests in natural and anthropogenic coniferous forest edges in southeast Alaska
Journal of Field Ornithology
Feeding behavior of Cooper’s Hawks at urban and rural nests in southeastern Arizona
Condor
Trophic dynamics in urban communities
Bioscience
How many birds are there in a city of half a million people?
Diversity and Distributions
Predation on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: predatory risk or relaxation in urban environments?
Ecography
Population trends of Jays, Magpies, Jackdaws and Carrion Crows in the United Kingdom
Bird Study
Nest predator abundance and urbanization
Artificial nest predation and abundance of birds along an urban gradient
Condor
Effects of urbanization on nest site selection and nesting success of the Greenfinch Carduelis chloris in Krotoszyn, Poland
Ornis Fennica
Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes
Biological Conservation
Interaction of nest predation and food limitation in reproductive strategies
Causes and consequences of expanding American Crow populations
Consequences of habitat utilization by nest predators and breeding songbirds across multiple scales in an urbanizing landscape
Condor
Some correlates of density in an urban Blackbird Turdus merula population
Bird Study
Nest predation in suburban and rural woodlots of northern Ohio
American Midland Naturalist
Cited by (71)
What do we know (and need to know) about the role of urban habitats as ecological traps? Systematic review and meta-analysis
2021, Science of the Total EnvironmentCharacteristics of residential backyards that contribute to conservation and diversity of urban birds: A case study in a Southeastern Brazilian city
2021, Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningNo consistent diversity patterns in terrestrial mammal assemblages along rural-urban forest gradients
2021, Basic and Applied EcologyDoes predation pressure drive heronry birds to nest in the urban landscape?
2019, Journal of Asia-Pacific BiodiversityCitation Excerpt :However, in support of this hypothesis, we found less abundance of avian predators, less number of predation attempts, and less number of successful predation in heronries of urban sites than mangrove heronries. Our results are in congruence with previous reports on other bird species (Chamberlain et al 2009; Shochat et al 2010; Rodewald et al 2011; Stracey 2011). The members of Corvidae (crows) have been identified as the major nest predators of heronry birds globally, and that considerably affected nest success in water birds, such as black-crowned night heron, little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), and snowy egret (Egretta thula) (Baker 1940; Jha 2012; Jayson 2001, Chozhiyattel 2009, Blus et al 1997; Stiehl and Trautwein 1991; Liebezeit and George 2002).
How urban green management is influencing passerine birds’ nesting in the Mediterranean: A case study in a Catalan city
2019, Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningCitation Excerpt :The vast majority of studies about richness and diversity of birds in urban environments focus on the breeding success, e.g. by analysing nests’ depredation rates and showing that it is higher when associated with specific mammals and predatory birds (Miller et al., 1998; Matthews et al., 1999; Jokimäki and Huhta, 2000; Reale and Blair, 2005; Phillips et al., 2005; Bakermans and Rodewald, 2006; Burhans and Thompson, 2006; Smith-Castro, 2008). In the case of mediterrenean cities, nest depredation is caused mainly by the presence of cats (Stracey, 2011) and magpies (Bonnington et al., 2015), though the only magpie species present in the city (Pica pica) prefers the nearby rural areas instead of the urban ones (Andrén, 1992). Similarly, other works performed in peri-urban areas show that the rate of depredation of nests at low height may be higher due to the high influx of domestic animals (Miller et al., 1998) whereas those located at higher height remain better conserved (Smith-Castro, 2008).
A meta-analysis indicates reduced predation pressure with increasing urbanization
2018, Landscape and Urban PlanningCitation Excerpt :This lower number of predators also reduces the need for vigilance, allowing more time for alternative activities, such as looking for better quality food, better progeny care, thereby also bringing indirect benefits to prey species (Valcarcel & Fernández-Juricic, 2009). In the case of birds, the lack of major nest predators in urban habitats, prey switching of urban predators, or efficient nest defence against nest predators are reasons for predation relaxation (Stracey, 2011). Notably, Gray's increasing disturbance hypothesis (Gray, 1989) predicts species loss along the rural-urban gradient and some of the lost species will be predators.