BIRDS DIVERSITY AND FAUNOGENETIC STRUCTURE OF AVIFAUNA IN FORESTS PARKS OF TWO MEGALOPOLISES (UKRAINE)

T. Shupova, A. Chaplygina


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30970/sbi.1503.657

Abstract


Background. In the 21st century, landscape transformation processes are underway in large cities, which affects the stability of wildlife habitats. Habitat transformations often reduce species richness due to a decrease in the population sizes of some species, and therefore, small in number and rare species are eliminated from bird communities. Rare species can have unique consortive relationships, which makes them particularly important for the long-term ecosystem functioning. A study of the avifauna of forest parks makes it possible to develop an algorithm for the coexistence of human and birds.
Methods. The number and distribution of birds were determined by route counting. The total length of the fixed route was 5.7 km in Kyiv and 3.5 km in Kharkiv. On each route, observations were carried out annually with three repetitions during the nesting period when the birds are most attached to their habitats (end of April–May–June). The average data for the total study period (2013–2017) were calculated for each city. For the average number, the standard deviation was calculated. An analysis of the faunogenetic structure of avifauna was carried out according to the method developed by V.P. Belik. A faunogenetic complex is a group of animal species associated by a common origin with ecosystems of a certain landscape-geographical zone. We also classified bird species into ecological groups according to the patterns of microhabitat choice. To compare the α-diversity of bird in the forest-park zones of cities, a number of commonly accepted indices that express the correlation between the number and density of species were calculated:
1) Berger–Parker dominance index: DBP = Nimax / N;
2) Shannon diversity index: H´ = -(Pi × LnPi);
3) Pielou evenness index: E = H´ / LnS;
where: Nі– the number of each species; Nimax – the maximum value of NіN = Ni – the total number of all species (pairs/km); Pi = Ni / N – the ratio of each species; S – total number of the species.
Results. The study presents a comparative analysis of diversity and faunogenetic structure of avifauna in the forest park zones of Kyiv and Kharkiv, inhabited by 71 breeding species of birds that belong to 10 orders. In the eastern region, the proportion of birds of the boreal and the European forest-steppe complex decreases, but the share of the desert-mountain complex increases. The fauna of the European nemoral complex dominates (32.8 % in Kyiv and 40.4 % in Kharkiv). The basis of the communities are dendrophils: 83.6 % (n = 67) in Kyiv and 82.7 % (n = 52) in Kharkiv. The dominant species in all forest parks are the great tit (Parus major) and chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs). 
Conclusions. The differences in the faunogenetic structure of bird communities are due to the proximity of model forest parks on the territory of Kyiv to the forest natural geographical zone, and on the territory of Kharkiv to the steppe, which leads in the eastern region to a decrease in the proportion of birds of the boreal and the European forest-steppe complex while the proportion of desert-mountain complex increases. Dendrophils predominate significantly, and the share of sclerophils and limnophils in total is less than 20 % of the bird community in the forest parks of each city. As a consequence of the fragmentation of the Kiev forest park zone, the diversity of nesting birds communities in the forest-park zone of Kyiv is slightly lower than of Kharkiv, and the pressure of the dominant species is more significant.


Keywords


bird communities, faunogenetic structure, α-diversity, ecological groups, forest parks, Forest-steppe zon

Full Text:

PDF

References


1. Belik, V.P. (2006). Faunogenetic structure of the Palearctic avifauna. Entomological Review, 86(S1), S15-S31.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

2. Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A., & Mustoe, S. (2000). Bird census techniques, 2nd edn. Academic Press, London.
Google Scholar

3. Blinkova, O., & Shupova, T. (2018). Bird communities and vegetation composition in natural and semi-natural forests of megalopolis: correlations and comparisons of diversity indices (Kyiv city, Ukraine). Ekológia (Bratislava), 37(3), 259-288.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

4. Blinkova, O.I., Shupova, T.V., & Raichuk, L.A. (2020). Syn-Ecological Connections and Comparison of Α-Diversity Indices of Plant and Bird Communities on Cultivated Coenosises. Journal of Landscape Ecology, 13(2), 62-78.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

5. Chaplygina, A.B. (2015). Ecofaunistic analysis and breeding success of dendrophilous on transformed territories of North-Eastern Ukraine. Studia Biologica, 9(2), 133-146. [In Ukrainian]
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

6. Croci, S., Buter, A., & Clergeau, P. (2008). Does urbanization filter birds on the basis of their biological traits? The Condor, 110(2): 223-240.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

7. Evans, K.L. (2010). Individual species and urbanisation. Urban Ecology (ed. K.J. Gaston), pp. 53- 87. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

8. Díaz, M., Parra, A., & Gallardo, C. (2011). Serins respond to anthropogenic noise by increasing vocal activity. Behavioral Ecology, 22(2), 332-336.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

9. Domokos, E., & Domokos, J. (2016). Bird communities of different woody vegetation types from the Niraj Valley, Romania. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 40: 734-742.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

10. Gabbe, A.P., Robinson, S.K., & Brawn, J.D. (2002). Tree-species preferences of foraging insectivorous birds: implications for floodplain forest restoration. Conservation Biology, 16(2), 462-470.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

11. Gil-Tena, A., Saura, S., & Brotons, L. (2007). Effects of forest composition and structure on bird species richness in a Mediterranean context: Implications for forest ecosystem management. Forest Ecology and Management, 242(2-3), 470-476.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

12. Graham, C.T., Wilson, M.W., Gittings, T., Kelly, T.C., Irwin, S., Sweeney, O.F.M., & O'Halloran, J. (2014). Factors affecting the bird diversity of planted and semi-natural oak forests in Ireland. Bird Study, 61(3), 309-320.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

13. Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., Redman, C.L., Wu, J., Bai, X., & Briggs, J.M. (2008). Global change and the ecology of cities. Science, 319(5864), 756-760.
CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

14. Güneralp, B., & Seto, K.C. (2013). Futures of global urban expansion: uncertainties and implications for biodiversity conservation. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 014025.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

15. Kooiker, G. (2007). Vogelmonitoring in Osnabrück: Ergebnisse langjähriger Bestandserfassungen (1986 bis 2006) im innerstädtischen Siedlungsraum. Vogelkundliche Berichte aus Niedersachsen, 39: 61-75.
Google Scholar

16. Lawlor, K., & Meng, Y. (2019). The changing trend in songbirds' abundance, variety and physical condition in Connecticut's forestry habitat. Forestry Studies, 70(1), 17-30.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

17. Magurran, E. (1988). Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

18. Sweeney, O.F.M., Wilson, M.W., Irwin, S., Kelly, T.C., & O'Halloran, J. (2010). Are bird density, species richness and community structure similar between native woodlands and non-native plantations in an area with a generalist bird fauna? Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(8), 2329-2342.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

19. Møller, A.P., Díaz, M., Flensted-Jensen, E., Grim, T., Ibáñez-Álamo, J.D., Jokimäki, J., Mänd, R., Markó, G., & Tryjanowski, P. (2015). Urbanized birds have superior establishment success in novel environments. Oecologia, 178(3), 943-950.
CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

20. Moreno-Rueda, G., & Pizarro, M. (2008). Relative influence of habitat heterogeneity, climate, human disturbance, and spatial structure on vertebrate species richness in Spain. Ecological Research, 24(2), 335-344.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

21. Palomino, D., & Carrascal, L.M. (2007). Threshold distances to nearby cities and roads influence the bird community of a mosaic landscape. Biological Conservation, 140(1-2), 100-109.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

22. Tews, J., Brose, U., Grimm, V., Tielbörger, K., Wichmann, M.C., Schwager, M., & Jeltsch, F. (2003). Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography, 31(1), 79-92.
CrossrefGoogle Scholar


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 T. Shupova, A. Chaplygina

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.