4.7 Article

Comparison of bird diversity between temperate floodplain forests and urban parks

Journal

URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING
Volume 67, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127427

Keywords

Bird counting; Heritage city; Management of urban green areas; Urban ecology; Urban parks

Funding

  1. Significant Trees-Living Symbols of National and Cultural Identity [DG18P020VV027]
  2. Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic from NAKI II

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study emphasizes the importance of urban green areas, particularly urban parks, for maintaining bird diversity. The study also highlights the significance of certain native vegetation structures in urban parks for preserving urban bird biodiversity.
Biodiversity in urban green areas has been widely explored in several bird studies because birds are known to be important bio-indicators. Many studies have investigated the different responses of bird communities to ur-banization and land use changes in urban environments. However, there are still important knowledge gaps related to the impacts of the heterogeneity, spatial structure, and connectivity of green areas on avian diversity. Such information is needed for sustainable urban planning. In this study, we focused on the comparison of bird communities between urban parks in the heritage city of Olomouc and hardwood floodplain forests in the vi-cinity of the city. The results of the study indicate the high importance of urban parks for the maintenance of bird diversity even though urban parks are man-made habitats. The results highlight the importance of some native vegetation structures in urban parks (old trees, bush ecotones) for maintaining urban bird biodiversity. Some implications of the results can be widely used as a decision support tool for the management of urban green areas and for the planning of ecological networks in urban landscapes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available