Covariation in urban birds providing cultural services or disservices and people
Covariation in urban birds providing cultural services or disservices and people
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1365-2664.13146
复制
发表时间：
2018-09-01
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Gaston, Kevin J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cox, Daniel T. C.;Hudson, Hannah L.;Gaston, Kevin J.
1. 生物多样性和人口的空间分布因景观而异，对生态系统服务和危害的提供至关重要。城市地区人口和鸟类的高密度导致频繁的人鸟相互作用，这对人们的福祉可能是积极的，也可能是消极的。提供这些服务或危害的鸟类物种的特性往往非常不同；然而，目前尚不清楚它们的丰度和丰富度如何随人口密度而变化，因此也与这些服务和损害的潜在接受者有关。我们在英格兰南部一个174公里(2)的扩展城区调查了106块（500 × 500米）的鸟类种群。从文献中，我们确定了两组物种：那些与人类福祉积极互动相关的物种和那些表现出对人类福祉消极行为的物种。我们估计了每个群体的丰度（根据检测概率进行调整）和丰富度，并模拟了它们与人口密度的协同变化。对35种服务鸟类和9种有害鸟类的种群估计进行汇总，结果分别为593,128只（95%置信区间：541,817-657,046）和225,491只（200,134-235,066）。在调查的瓦片中，每人有1.09只服务鸟和0.42只伤害鸟。服务丰富度与人口密度呈二次曲线关系，但与人口密度呈负线性关系。相反，有害物种的丰度和丰富度与人类密度呈线性正相关。在人口密度中等的地区，有益鸟类与有害鸟类的比例为3.5-1，在人口密度较高的地区则为1-1。合成与应用。服务和有害物种分布的差异，以及鸟类与人的比例极低，特别是在社会经济落后的地区，意味着那里的人们很少有机会接触鸟类，而且他们确实接触过的鸟类对人类福祉的负面影响和正面影响同样可能。我们建议改善绿色基础设施的空间定位，结合有针对性地为服务物种提供食物和筑巢场所，以促进鸟与人之间的积极互动。
1. The spatial distributions of biodiversity and people vary across landscapes and are critical to the delivery of ecosystem services and disservices. The high densities of people and often of birds in urban areas lead to frequent human-avian interactions, which can be positive or negative for people's well-being. The identities of the bird species providing these services or disservices tend to be quite different; however, it is unclear how their abundance and richness covary with human population density, and hence with potential recipients of these services and disservices.2. We surveyed bird populations in 106 tiles (500x500m) across the 174 km(2) of an extended urban area in southern England. From the literature, we identified two groups of species: those associated with positive interactions for human well-being and those that display behaviours that are negative for human well-being. We estimated the abundance (adjusted for detection probability) and richness of each group and modelled how they covary with human population density.3. Aggregation of population estimates for the 35 service and nine disservice species observed revealed 593,128 (95% confidence interval: 541,817-657,046) and 225,491 (200,134-235,066) birds respectively. Across the surveyed tiles, there were 1.09 service and 0.42 disservice birds per person.4. There was a peaking quadratic relationship between service abundance and human population density, but a negative linear relationship between richness and human density. Conversely, there were positive linear relationships for both abundance and richness of disservice species with human density. The ratio of service to disservice birds shifted from 3.5-1 at intermediate human densities to 1-1 in more densely populated areas.5. Synthesis and applications. Differences in the distributions of service and disservice species, and the extremely low ratios of birds to people particularly in socioeconomically deprived areas, mean that people there have few opportunities for contact with birds, and the contact they do have is equally likely to be negative as positive for human well-being. We recommend spatial targeting of improvements in green infrastructure, combined with the targeted provisioning of food and nesting places for service species, to promote positive interactions between birds and people.