Landscape and Yard-scale Characteristics Drive House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) Nest Site Selection in the Northeastern USA
Susannah B. Lerman1* and William V. DeLuca2
1USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Amherst, MA, USA 01003. 2National Audubon Society, Amherst, MA, USA 01075. *Corresponding author.
Urban Naturalist, No. 36 (2020)
Abstract
Urbanization alters wildlife habitat through the removal of native vegetation and replacement with more exotic plants, and installation of impervious surfaces. Thus, many urban areas have become unsuitable for some species, yet favorable for others, particularly generalist and invasive species. Understanding some of the habitat features enabling invasive species to exploit urban environments has important conservation implications. Here, we focus on the nest site characteristics of the introduced House Sparrow (Passer domesticus Linnaeus) in residential yards in Springfield, MA, US. First introduced to the US in the 1850s, the House Sparrow is one of North America’s most widespread and abundant species. To improve our understanding of nest site characteristics, we investigated how different habitat features, both at local and landscape scales, influence the presence of House Sparrow nests in yards. We located active House Sparrow nests along an urban intensity gradient and measured habitat features at both local and landscape scales. Our analysis indicated that the percent shrub cover in yards and the amount of impervious surface within a 1 km radius of a yard had the highest support for explaining the presence of a House Sparrow nest (specifically, yards with low shrub cover and high local impervious surface were more likely to support a nest). We applied the regression model to determine how much shrub cover at the yard scale is required to decrease the probability of a House Sparrow nesting in a particular yard. When impervious cover was 30%, yards with at least 13% shrub cover reduced the probability of a sparrow nest occurrence in a yard to below 50%. Our results have potential implications for conservation efforts of House Sparrow competitors in their introduced range and for House Sparrows in their native range, where they are a species of conservation concern. Here in the US, increasing shrub cover and structural complexity has the potential to discourage House Sparrow nesting.
Download Full-text pdf
Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
Urban Naturalist
S.B. Lerman and W.V. DeLuca
2020 No. 36
1
2020 Urban Naturalist 36:1–11
Landscape and Yard-scale Characteristics Drive House
Sparrow (Passer domesticus) Nest Site Selection
in the Northeastern USA
Susannah B. Lerman1* and William V. DeLuca2
Abstract - Urbanization alters wildlife habitat through the removal of native vegetation and replacement
with more exotic plants, and installation of impervious surfaces. Thus, many urban areas have
become unsuitable for some species, yet favorable for others, particularly generalist and invasive species.
Understanding some of the habitat features enabling invasive species to exploit urban environments
has important conservation implications. Here, we focus on the nest site characteristics of the
introduced House Sparrow (Passer domesticus Linnaeus) in residential yards in Springfield, MA, US.
First introduced to the US in the 1850s, the House Sparrow is one of North America’s most widespread
and abundant species. To improve our understanding of nest site characteristics, we investigated how
different habitat features, both at local and landscape scales, influence the presence of House Sparrow
nests in yards. We located active House Sparrow nests along an urban intensity gradient and measured
habitat features at both local and landscape scales. Our analysis indicated that the percent shrub cover
in yards and the amount of impervious surface within a 1 km radius of a yard had the highest support
for explaining the presence of a House Sparrow nest (specifically, yards with low shrub cover and
high local impervious surface were more likely to support a nest). We applied the regression model to
determine how much shrub cover at the yard scale is required to decrease the probability of a House
Sparrow nesting in a particular yard. When impervious cover was 30%, yards with at least 13% shrub
cover reduced the probability of a sparrow nest occurrence in a yard to below 50%. Our results have
potential implications for conservation efforts of House Sparrow competitors in their introduced range
and for House Sparrows in their native range, where they are a species of conservation concern. Here
in the US, increasing shrub cover and structural complexity has the potential to discourage House
Sparrow nesting.
Introduction
Urbanization alters wildlife habitat through the removal of native vegetation and replacement
with more exotic plants, and installation of impervious surfaces (McKinney
2008). This has rendered cities unsuitable for some species yet favorable for others (Aronson
et al. 2014, Blair 1996, Czech et al. 2000, Grimm et al. 2008). The shift in community
composition partially explains the proliferation and density of generalist and invasive species
in urban environments (Møller et al. 2012, Shochat et al. 2010). In addition to creating
optimal environmental conditions for invasive species, these species might have a competitive
advantage over their native counterparts (Didham et al. 2005, Shochat et al. 2010). A
meta-analysis on plant invasions demonstrated that invasive species had higher phenotypic
plasticity but not necessarily a fitness advantage (Davidson et al. 2011) suggesting invasive
species were better at adapting to and thriving in altered urban habitats. Invasive species
represent one of the primary drivers of animal extinctions (Bellard et al. 2016, Clavero and
García-Berthou 2005) and are largely responsible for the declines in biodiversity (Lebbin
et al. 2010). Thus, gaining a better understanding of some of the factors enabling invasive
species to exploit urban environments has important conservation implications.
1USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Amherst, MA, USA 01003. 2National Audubon
Society, Amherst, MA, USA 01075. *Corresponding author: susannah.b.lerman@usda.gov.
Manuscript Editor: Ian MacGregor-Fors
Urban Naturalist
S.B. Lerman and W.V. DeLuca
2020 No. 36
2
The House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) was introduced to the United States from Great
Britain in the 1850s and has subsequently became one of North America’s most widespread
and abundant species (Lowther and Cink 2006). Life history traits that give House Sparrows
an advantage to flourish in urban and novel environments include having aggressive
behavior towards competitors and predators, a generalist diet, being a colonial nester and
synanthropic, and a fast-lived strategy that prioritizes fecundity over survival (Lowther and
Cink 2006, Møller et al. 2015, Sol and Maspons 2016). For example, in a comparison of two
populations in similar environments of a western Mexican city, researchers found that areas
with recent House Sparrow invasions had lower bird community evenness, and House Sparrows
dominated the bird community when compared with sites without House Sparrows
(MacGregor-Fors et al. 2010). This demonstrated how House Sparrows had a homogenizing
force in the urban bird community (Morelli et al. 2016). Furthe r, remodeled urban parks in
southeastern Spain (i.e., those with increased impervious surfaces and artificial turf, and the
removal of natural vegetation and covering of bare soils) significantly reduced House Sparrow
abundance (Bernat-Ponce et al. 2020). When investigating how birds respond to the
urban landscape, the presence of built structures and impervious surface explained much of
the variation of House Sparrow distribution (Hostetler and Knowles-Yaniz 2003). Further,
in Phoenix, AZ, USA, House Sparrow increased their abundance in neighborhoods landscaped
predominantly with exotic turf grass and were largely absent in more native, desertlike
landscapes, suggesting a possible limitation in their ability to exploit certain vegetation
features in cities (Lerman and Warren 2011). These and other studies have begun to describe
some of the local and landscape features that might be attractive to House Sparrow in North
America (Chace and Walsh 2006).
Our understanding of House Sparrow breeding behaviors outside of Europe has largely
focused in more rural settings, without integrating local and landscape habitat features
into studies. Research from a long-term study of House Sparrow in Kentucky found that
older males and males that were born in the area (i.e., natal philopatry) were more likely to
occupy a particular nest box, whereas the extent of the black feathering on males did not
predict occupancy (Morrison et al. 2008). When investigating causes of hatching failures of
House Sparrow, small egg size and not environmental factors (e.g., seasonal, temperature)
played a primary role (Stewart and Westneat 2013). When comparing three different nesting
substrates (nest boxes, trees, crevices), nests located in trees experienced slightly lower
success and it appeared that females preferred nest boxes (Cink 1976). However, local and
landscape habitat features were not integrated into these studies, so it remains unclear how
these factors might influence nest selection and ultimately nest success outside of the species’
native range.
Detailed information on the environmental characteristics surrounding House Sparrow
nests is important for developing conservation strategies that discourage these
invasive birds. Because of its synanthropic nature (Blair 1996), yard management and
yard features, in addition to urban intensity influence their persistence in urban areas.
The primary goal of this study was to improve our understanding of nest site characteristics
of House Sparrows within residential landscapes of varying development intensity
in Springfield, MA, USA. We investigated how different habitat features, both
at local (e.g., shrub, tree canopy and herbaceous cover, and maintained turf within the
yard) and landscape scales (e.g., impervious surface within 1 km of the yard), influence
the presence of House Sparrow nests in yards. Yards surrounded by more impervious
surface at the landscape scale and with fewer shrubs at the local scale were expected to
have more nests.
Urban Naturalist
S.B. Lerman and W.V. DeLuca
2020 No. 36
3
Materials and Methods
Study Area
We conducted our study in the Springfield, MA, metropolitan area. Springfield is the
third largest city in Massachusetts and has a total population of 154,207 (US Census Bureau
2020). The study was part of the Smithsonian Institution’s Neighborhood Nestwatch project,
a mentored citizen science program that seeks to understand how urbanization impacts
backyard bird populations while teaching households about biology in their private yards
(Ryder et al. 2010). A major component of the project involves scientists visiting yards once
per year to collect data and train household members to locate and monitor nests. In 2014,
we visited 92 yards in the Springfield metropolitan area. Sites were equally distributed
along an urban intensity gradient (Fig. 1).
Nest Searching
Both scientists and citizen scientists searched for and found nests at each site of any
species during the breeding season (May–July) of 2014. Nest searching included examining
nest boxes as well as observing bird behaviors for activities such as carrying nesting material,
carrying food items and fecal sacs, actively defending a nest site, and territorial calls
at nest boxes and other nesting locations (Ralph et al. 1993). Nest searching was limited to
property boundaries due to access issues. While citizen scientists actively monitored nests
as part of the broader Neighborhood Nestwatch program, this study focused on nest presence
and habitat type.
Habitat Measurements
We measured habitat features at three different spatial scales: at the nest (when applicable),
within the yard and at a broader landscape scale to determine how different
Figure 1. Study map of Springfield, MA, with location and distribution of yards used to evaluate the influence
of habitat characteristics on the presence of House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) nests. The sites fell
along an impervious surface gradient, with ~30% representing relatively high levels of impervious surface
for our study system.
Urban Naturalist
S.B. Lerman and W.V. DeLuca
2020 No. 36
4
habitat features and urban intensity influenced nest presence. For the nest and yard scale,
we followed the i-Tree Eco protocol (www.itreetools.org), an urban forest assessment tool
developed by the US Forest Service to assess ecosystem services provided by urban forests,
including carbon sequestration, stormwater mitigation, and bird habitat potential (Lerman
et al. 2014). We incorporated five 11.4-m radial sampling plots, with one plot centered at
the nest and the remaining plots randomly placed within a 50 m radius of the nest. For yards
with no House Sparrow nests, one of the i-Tree plots was placed in the center of the yard
and the remaining four plots were randomly placed within a 50 m radius of that centered
plot. In the few instances when yards had multiple nests, we increased i-Tree sampling to 6
or 7 plots. The i-Tree variables we predicted to have the strongest association with House
Sparrow nest selection, and were thus considered in statistical analyses, included the percentage
of the following covers: shrub, canopy, impervious surface, building, cement, tar,
rock, soil, duff, herbaceous, maintained grass, and unmaintained grass (Lerman et al. 2014).
All vegetation surveys were conducted after birds had fledged. To account for landscape
scale features (i.e., urban intensity), we calculated the percent impervious surface within
a 1 km radius of each yard (Lerman and Warren 2011) using the impervious surface layer
from Massachusetts Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS 2007). Although House
Sparrows are known to respond at smaller scales (100–500 m; Hostetler and Knowles-Yanez
2003, Skórka et al. 2016), the1-km scale better reflects conservation efforts and the applicability
of the research (Rodewald et al. 2013).
Data Analysis
To determine whether House Sparrow nest sites were simply driven by the presences
of available nest boxes, we used a two-sided Fisher’s exact test to test whether yards with
nest boxes were more likely to have House Sparrow nests present. Then, we examined the
correlation matrix of potential nest site explanatory variables and removed those that were
excessively correlated with other variables such that the correlation coefficient between any
two final covariates was <0.40. The final set of variables for further consideration included
canopy cover, shrub cover, unmaintained grass (yard scale), and impervious surface within
1 km of the yard (landscape scale).
We used a generalized linear analysis of variance model with a binomial error distribution
to compare yards with and without House Sparrow nests to identify important variables
that influence the presence of House Sparrow nests. We compared residual deviance to degrees
of freedom to determine that overdispersion was not an issue in any of the candidate
models. All potential combinations of the reduced set of predictors were compared using
Akaike information criterion (AIC) to identify model support (Burnham and Anderson
2002). Models with delta AIC values of <2.0 were strongly supported. Variables included
in models with strong support and that were included in >1 multi-predictor candidate model
were deemed most useful in describing House Sparrow nest occurrence and used for further
interpretation. We then used the model with most support to illustrate the relationship between
important nest site predictors and nest occurrence. All analyses were conducted in R
(R Core Team 2019).
Results
While visiting 92 yards in 2014, we located 121 nests from 17 different bird species in
56 yards. These totals included 23 House Sparrow nests located in 19 yards. Some of these
yards with House Sparrow nests (n = 9) also had nests of other species. We documented
Urban Naturalist
S.B. Lerman and W.V. DeLuca
2020 No. 36
5
House Sparrows nesting in nest boxes (n = 12), on houses (e.g., eaves, siding, sheds; n = 8),
other anthropogenic structures (n = 2), and in a honeysuckle vine (n = 1). Due to access issues,
we were only able to collect vegetation data at 48 of the yards (15 of these yards had
House Sparrow nests), so the remaining analyses were limited to these 48 yards.
Yards with nest boxes were not more likely to have House Sparrow nests (Fisher’s Exact
Test; P = 0.14). Models with the strongest support included percent shrub cover, impervious
surface within 1 km of the yard, percent unmaintained grass, and percent canopy cover (see
Table 1 for descriptive statistics); however, only shrub cover and impervious surface within
1 km were included in all models with strong support with >1 predictor and were significant
in each model (Table 2). The model with the most support also only included percent shrub
cover and percent impervious surface within 1 km (Table 2). To examine how the percent of
shrub cover in the yard could be used to deter House Sparrow nesting in urban landscapes,
we applied the top model to the range of shrub cover values while holding impervious surface
within 1 km to 30% (relatively high for our study area). We found that when yard shrub
cover reached 13% it resulted in a 50% probability of a House Sparrow nest occurring in the
yard (Fig. 2).
Discussion
In our study area, yards with few shrubs and located amidst higher amounts of impervious
surface at the broader landscape had a greater probability of hosting House Sparrow
nests. By including both local and landscape features, our study addresses some of the
inherent factors driving landscape variation in sparrow nest occurrence. Further, illustrating
the relationship between these influential variables provides managers with targeted
information for discouraging this invasive species (Kroll and Haufler 2006). The extent of
impervious surfaces has been indicative of House Sparrow presence in other studies in the
US (e.g., Hostetler and Knowles-Yanez 2003, Rega et al. 2015). We recognize our small
sample size and caution the broad generalization of our research. Nonetheless, our results
concur with other studies that have demonstrated an inverse relationship between shrub
density and House Sparrow presence (Lerman and Warren 2011). Further, increasing shrub
coverage can benefit native species (Bernat-Ponce et al. 2020, Lerman et al. 2014). Taken
together, management that reduces impervious surfaces while simultaneously increasing
shrub layer and complexity has the potential to enhance habitat for native species, while
also making urban landscapes less desirable for invasive species such as House Sparrows.
We chose to model the probability of nest occurrence as a function of shrub cover while
holding the amount of impervious surface at 30% because this represented a high amount
of imperviousness relative to our study area. We therefore wanted to identify whether an
individual household could compensate for high impervious surface by increasing shrub
cover. Increasing shrub cover from 0–15% decreases the probability of a House Sparrow
nest in a particular yard by almost half. Further, we focused on alternative shrub density
rather than reducing impervious surfaces because increasing plantings, particularly berryproducing
shrubs, represents a feasible solution given that it can occur based on decisions at
the homeowner scale as opposed to the more complicated process of reversing impervious
or developed land uses (Belaire et al. 2014).
Our study also adds to the growing body of literature that local habitat features can
have significant importance in structuring urban bird communities (Daniels and Kirkpatrick
2006, Lerman and Warren 2011, Narango et al. 2017). However, other factors (e.g., phenotypic
stress markers) might respond to either the landscape or local scale (Strubbe et al.
2020). The majority of management recommendations aim to increase the suitability of urUrban
Naturalist
S.B. Lerman and W.V. DeLuca
2020 No. 36
6
Table 1. The influence of habitat features on House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) nesting in yards was investigated in Springfield, MA. Presented are descriptive statistics
(mean ± standard error, minimum and maximum, and n) for variables that were included in statistical models with strong support in predicting the presence of House Sparrows
nests. Impervious surface (%) was calculated at the landscape scale (1 km) and all other variables were calculated at the yard scale.
Nest Status Number Impervious Surface (%) Shrub Cover (%) Unmanaged Grass (%) Canopy Cover (%)
mean (se) min max mean (se) min max mean (se) min max mean (se) min max
Absent 33 10.21 ± 1.50 2 36 12.51 ± 0.84 3.4 22 6.71 ± 2.08 0 39 36.62 ± 2.98 9 71
Present 15 17.93 ± 2.92 3 35 8.67 ± 1.38 2.29 23 6.32 ± 3.03 0 40 28.12 ± 4.87 5 65
Table 2. The influence of habitat features on House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) nesting in yards was investigated in Springfield, MA. Presented are beta coefficient values
for logistic regression models that had the strongest support (ΔAIC <2) for predicting the presence of a House Sparrow nest. Habitat features included IMP1km = Impervious
surface (%) within 1 km at the landscape scale and SHRUBcov = Shrub cover (%), CANcov = Canopy cover (%), and UNMgrs = unmanaged grass (%) at the individual
yard scale.
Model Shrub Cover (%) Impervious surface1km (%) Canopy Cover (%) Unmanaged Grass (%) d2 Δ AIC
SHRUBcov+IMP1km 0.15** 0.07** - - 0.17 0
CANcov+SHRUB+IMP1km -0.13* 0.06* -0.02 - 0.18 1.72
SHRUBcov -0.17** - - - 0.1 1.74
SHRUBcov+UNMgrs+IMP1km -0.14* 0.08** - 0.02 0.18 1.93
IMP1km - 0.08** - - 0.1 1.95
**Significance at the α = 0.05 level
*Significance at the α = 0.10 level
Urban Naturalist
S.B. Lerman and W.V. DeLuca
2020 No. 36
7
ban areas for native biodiversity (Aronson et al. 2017). Including strategies that discourage
invasive species, especially when they have the potential to compete with native species,
is also an important factor to consider. We recognize that broad scale factors also play a
role in shaping urban bird communities, particularly the fragmentation and replacement of
contiguous forest with impervious surfaces and (Grimm et al. 2008).
The majority of House Sparrow nests in this study were in nest boxes, but half of the
study yards had nest boxes, yet no House Sparrow nests were detected. We were able to confirm
that the observed yards with nest boxes did not have more House Sparrow nests than
expected. Installing nest boxes has widespread support from households aiming to provide
nesting opportunities for cavity nesting species (Davies et al. 2009, Lepczyk et al. 2004).
However, these actions can have negative implications, for example, they might ease access
for predators (Bailey and Bonter 2017) or provide additional nesting opportunities for
invasive species and increased interspecific competition (Charter et al. 2013). Most of the
nest boxes in our study were installed to attract Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis Linnaeus),
Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus Linnaeus) and House Wren (Troglodytes
aedon Vieillot), with the latter nest box having smaller entry holes and thus, not as suitable
for the larger House Sparrows. Nest box predator guards represent another effective solution
to exclude potential predators or competitors’ access to nest boxes (Bailey and Bonter
2017). Our results suggest that the well-intentioned action of installing nest boxes has some
unintentional consequences but is not the only factor attracting House Sparrows to nest in
private yards.
Results from our study might benefit conservation efforts in the United Kingdom and
Europe, though it is not clear whether the two populations are comparable. Despite their
proliferation in North America and other introduced areas, House Sparrow populations have
declined in their native range, particularly in urban areas, where it has become a species
of conservation concern (Shaw et al. 2011). Numerous hypotheses have been suggested
Figure 2. Probability of House
Sparrow (Passer domesticus) nest
occurrence in yards in Springfield,
MA, as a function of shrub cover
while holding impervious surface
at 30%. Nest occurrence values
were derived from application
of the logistic regression model
with most support (shrub cover +
impervious surface) compared to
a suite of candidate models (that
also included the variables canopy
cover and unmanaged grass). For
management considerations, the
probability of a House Sparrow
nest in the yard is 0.50 when the
landscape is 30% impervious
surface and the yard shrub cover
is 13% (black dot on line).
Urban Naturalist
S.B. Lerman and W.V. DeLuca
2020 No. 36
8
regarding the cause of the decline, including increased cat predation, pollution, pesticide
use, and loss of nesting sites (Summers-Smith 2003). Research has also linked declines
with socioeconomic status whereby more affluent parts of cities have witnessed the greatest
decline (Shaw et al. 2008). The authors attribute these patterns largely to changes in
habitat structure and allude to implications on nest success, predation and foraging behavior
(Shaw et al. 2008). For example, House Sparrows often nest in building cavities such as the
wooden eaves of houses. When the material rots, more affluent householders might have
the means to repair or replace with plastic and other unsuitable nesting materials (Shaw et
al. 2008).
While shrub cover and impervious surface contributed strongly to our modeling framework,
additional explanatory variables that had some support included unmanaged grassy
areas and canopy cover. Having “messy” yards, including unmanaged areas can benefit
wildlife (van Heezik and Ludwig 2012). However, the differences we detected in our study
were nominal (Table 1), though taken together with shrub cover and impervious surface
could help contribute to making yards and neighborhoods less attractive for House Sparrows.
Increasing canopy cover through local tree planting efforts could augment citywide
canopy goals. In addition to the many ecosystem services a robust urban canopy provides
(Nowak et al. 2001), it also supports wildlife habitat for a host of many native species (Lerman
et al. 2014). High canopy coverage also has the benefit of discouraging House Sparrow
nesting. We recognize that our study did not capture high-density urban areas as indicated
by the relatively moderate percentage of impervious surface for our most urban site (36%)
and was limited in geographical scope. Nonetheless, even at this level of development, we
detected habitat features suitable for providing initial recommendations to better manage
for this species. Further, it is unclear how these habitat relationships compare with Western
European habitat relationships given different housing stock and urban development patterns
between the two continents. We recommend future research simultaneously address
the ecological contexts of these two populations of House Sparrows.
Conclusions
Our threshold provides urban planners and practitioners with realistic targets for managing
House Sparrow populations. Although reducing impervious cover would have the
greatest impact, this is often not feasible. Increasing shrub cover and structural complexity
has the potential to discourage House Sparrows, while possibly encouraging native species.
We demonstrated that when impervious cover was 30%, yards with at least 13% shrub cover
reduced the probability of a sparrow nest occurrence in a yard to below 50%. The ability to
exploit suburban and even a few rural properties indicates that House Sparrows are not restricted
to the most built up parts of our cities. Suburban areas make up a significant component
of urban areas (as much as 50%; Loram et al. 2007) and likely serve as connections for
disparate urban House Sparrow populations. Although protecting large tracts of contiguous
forest can both encourage the persistence of many forest interior specialists (Robinson et
al. 1995) and detract invasive species, once the land becomes developed, identifying other
opportunities for intervention, particularly at the yard scale, becomes essential for disrupting
metapopulation dynamics of this invasive species.
Acknowledgments
We thank Stephanie Clymer for assistance with data collection and data management. We are also
grateful to the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center’s Neighborhood Nestwatch participants for acUrban
Naturalist
S.B. Lerman and W.V. DeLuca
2020 No. 36
9
cess to their yards and for assistance with nest searching and monitoring. Thom Bullock, Evangeline
Shank, and Nathan Goodroe assisted with nest searching in the field. We also thank two anonymous
reviewers who provided thoughtful comments and suggestions which greatly improved this manuscript.
The US Forest Service and the Smithsonian Institution’s Youth Access Grant program provided
partial funding for this project.
Literature Cited
Aronson, M.F., C.A. Lepczyk, K.L. Evans, M.A. Goddard, S.B. Lerman, J.S. MacIvor, C.H. Nilon,
and T. Vargo. 2017. Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15:189–196.
Aronson, M.F.J., F.A. La Sorte, C.H. Nilon, M. Katti, M.A. Goddard, C.A. Lepczyk, P.S. Warren,
N.S.G. Williams, S. Cilliers, B. Clarkson, C. Dobbs, R. Dolan, M. Hedblom, S. Klotz, J.L. Kooijmans,
I. Kuehn, I. MacGregor-Fors, M. McDonnell, U. Mortberg, P. Pysek, S. Siebert, J. Sushinsky,
P. Werner, and M. Winter. 2014. A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and
plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological
Sciences 281:20133330.
Bailey, R.L., and D.N. Bonter. 2017. Predator guards on nest boxes improve nesting success of birds.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:434–441.
Belaire, J.A., C.J. Whelan, and E.S. Minor. 2014. Having our yards and sharing them too: the collective
effects of yards on native bird species in an urban landscape. Ecological Applications
24:2132–2143.
Bellard, C., P. Cassey, and T.M. Blackburn. 2016. Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biology
Letters 12:20150623.
Bernat-Ponce, E., J.A. Gil-Delgado, and G.M. López-Iborra. 2020. Replacement of semi-natural
cover with artificial substrates in urban parks causes a decline of house sparrows Passer domesticus
in Mediterranean towns. Urban Ecosystems 23:471–481.
Blair, R.B. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications
6:506–519.
Burnham, K.P., and D.R. Anderson. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical
Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA. 488 pp.
Chace, J.F., and J.J. Walsh. 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landscape and Urban
Planning 74:46–69.
Charter, M., Y. Leshem, and I. Izhaki. 2013. Asymmetric seasonal nest site competition between Great
Tits and House Sparrows. Journal of Ornithology 154:173–181.
Cink, C.L. 1976. The influence of early learning on nest site selection in the House Sparrow. The
Condor 78:103–104.
Clavero, M., and E. Garcia-Berthou. 2005. Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:110–110.
Czech, B., P.R. Krausman, and P.K. Devers. 2000. Economic associations among causes of species
endangerment in the United States. BioScience 50:593–601.
Daniels, G., and J. Kirkpatrick. 2006. Does variation in garden characteristics influence the conservation
of birds in suburbia? Biological Conservation 133:326–335.
Davidson, A.M., M. Jennions, and A.B. Nicotra. 2011. Do invasive species show higher phenotypic
plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecology Letters 14:419–431.
Davies, Z.G., R.A. Fuller, A. Loram, K.N. Irvine, V. Sims, and K.J. Gaston. 2009. A national scale
inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biological Conservation
142:761–771.
Didham, R.K., J.M. Tylianakis, M.A. Hutchison, R.M. Ewers, and N.J. Gemmell. 2005. Are invasive
species the drivers of ecological change? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:470–474.
Grimm, N.B., S.H. Faeth, N.E. Golubiewski, C.L. Redman, J. Wu, X. Bai, and J.M. Briggs. 2008.
Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760.
Hostetler, M., and K. Knowles-Yanez. 2003. Land use, scale, and bird distributions in the Phoenix
metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning 62:55–68.
Urban Naturalist
S.B. Lerman and W.V. DeLuca
2020 No. 36
10
Kroll, A.J., and J.B. Haufler. 2006. Development and evaluation of habitat models at multiple
spatial scales: a case study with the dusky flycatcher. Forest Ecology and Management
229:161–169.
Lebbin, D.J., M.J. Parr, and G.H. Fenwick. 2010. The American Bird Conservancy guide to bird conservation.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA. 456 p p.
Lepczyk, C.A., A.G. Mertig, and J. Liu. 2004. Assessing landowner activities related to birds across
rural-to-urban landscapes. Environmental Management 33:110–125.
Lerman, S.B., and P.S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards: linking birds and
people. Ecological Applications 21:1327–1339.
Lerman, S.B., K.H. Nislow, D.J. Nowak, S. DeStefano, D.I. King, and D.T. Jones-Farrand. 2014. Using
urban forest assessment tools to model bird habitat potential. Landscape and Urban Planning
122:29–40.
Loram, A., J. Tratalos, P.H. Warren, and K.J. Gaston. 2007. Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent
and structure of the resource in five major cities. Landscape Ec ology 22:601–615.
Lowther, P.E., and C.L. Cink. 2006. House Sparrow (Passer domesticus). In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds
of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Available online at https://doi.
org/10.2173/bna.12. Accessed 8 September 2020.
MacGregor-Fors, I., L. Morales-Pérez, J. Quesada, and J.E. Schondube. 2010. Relationship between
the presence of House Sparrows (Passer domesticus) and Neotropical bird community structure
and diversity. Biological Invasions 12:87–96.
MassGIS. 2007. MassGIS Data: Impervious Surface 2005. Available online at https://docs.digital.
mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-impervious-surface-2005. Accessed 1 June 2020.
McKinney, M.L. 2008. Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals.
Urban Ecosystems 11:161–176.
Møller, A.P., M. Diaz, E. Flensted-Jensen, T. Grim, J.D. Ibáñez-Álamo, J. Jokimäki, R. Mänd, G.
Markó, and P. Tryjanowski. 2012. High urban population density of birds reflects their timing of
urbanization. Oecologia 170:867–875.
Møller, A.P., M. Díaz, E. Flensted-Jensen, T. Grim, J.D. Ibáñez-Álamo, J. Jokimäki, R. Mänd, G.
Markó, and P. Tryjanowski. 2015. Urbanized birds have superior establishment success in novel
environments. Oecologia 178:943–950.
Morelli, F., Y. Benedetti, J.D. Ibáñez-Álamo, J. Jokimäki, R. Mänd, P. Tryjanowski, and A.P. Møller.
2016. Evidence of evolutionary homogenization of bird communities in urban environments
across Europe. Global Ecology and Biogeography 25:1284–1293.
Morrison, E.B., T.B. Kinnard, I.R.K. Stewart, J.P. Poston, M.I. Hatch, and D.F. Westneat. 2008. The
links between plumage variation and nest site occupancy in male house sparrows. The Condor
110:345–353.
Narango, D.L., D.W. Tallamy, and P.P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging
habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213: 42–50.
Nowak, D.J., M.H. Noble, S.M. Sisinni, and J.F. Dwyer. 2001. People and trees: Assessing the US
urban forest resource. Journal of Forestry 99:37–42.
R Core Team, 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Ralph, C.J., G.R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field methods
for monitoring landbirds. USDA Forest Service/UNL Faculty Publications 105.
Rega, C.C., C.H. Nilon, and P.S. Warren. 2015. Avian abundance patterns in relation to the distribution
of small urban greenspaces. Journal of Urban Planning and devel opment 141:A4015002.
Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson III, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional
forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds . Science 1987–1990.
Rodewald, A.D., L.J. Kearns, and D.P. Shustack. 2013. Consequences of urbanizing landscapes to
reproductive performance of birds in remnant forests. Biologica l Conservation 160:32–39.
Ryder, T.B., R. Reitsma, B. Evans, and P.P. Marra. 2010. Quantifying avian nest survival along
an urbanization gradient using citizen- and scientist-generated data. Ecological Applications
20:419–426.
Urban Naturalist
S.B. Lerman and W.V. DeLuca
2020 No. 36
11
Shaw, L.M., D. Chamberlain, and M. Evans. 2008. The house sparrow Passer domesticus in urban areas:
reviewing a possible link between post-decline distribution and human socioeconomic status.
Journal of Ornithology 149:293–299.
Shaw, L.M., D.E. Chamberlain, G. Conway, and M. Toms. 2011. Spatial distribution and habitat preferences
of the House Sparrow, Passer domesticus in urbanised landscapes. BTO Research Report
No. 599, British Trust for Ornithology, Norfolk, UK. 32 pp.
Shochat, E., S.B. Lerman, J.M. Anderies, P.S. Warren, S.H. Faeth, and C.H. Nilon. 2010. Invasion,
competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. BioScie nce 60:199–208.
Skórka, P., K. Sierpowska, A. Haidt, Ł. Myczko, A. Ekner-Grzyb, Z.M. Rosin, Z. Kwieciński, J.
Suchodolska, V. Takacs, Ł. Jankowiak, O. Wasielewski, A. Graclik, A.J. Krawczyk, A. Kasprzak,
P. Szwajkowski, P. Wylegała, A.W. Malecha, T. Mizera, and P. Tryjanowski. 2016. Habitat preferences
of two sparrow species are modified by abundances of other birds in an urban environment.
Current Zoology 62:357–368.
Sol, D., and J. Maspons. 2016. Life history, behaviour and invasion success. Pp. 63–81 In J.S. Weis
and D. Sol (Eds.). Biological Invasions and Animal Behaviour. Cambridge University Press, New
York, NY, USA. 364 pp.
Stewart, I.R.K., and D.F. Westneat. 2013. Patterns of hatching failure in the house sparrow Passer
domesticus. Journal of Avian Biology 44:69–79.
Strubbe, D., N. Salleh Hudin, A. Teyssier, P. Vantieghem, J. Aerts, and L. Lens. 2020. Phenotypic
signatures of urbanization are scale-dependent: A multi-trait study on a classic urban exploiter.
Landscape and Urban Planning 197:103767.
Summers-Smith, J.D. 2003. The decline of the House Sparrow: A review. British Birds 96:439–446.
US Census Bureau, Population Division. 2020. City and Town Population Totals: 2010-2019. Available
online at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-citiesand-
towns.html. Accessed 1 June 2020.
van Heezik, Y., and K. Ludwig. 2012. Proximity to source populations and untidy gardens predict occurrence
of a small lizard in an urban area. Landscape and Urba n Planning 104:253–259.