Michelle García-Arroyo, Miguel A. Gómez-Martínez, Ian MacGregor-Fors. 2023: Litter buffet: On the use of trash bins by birds in six boreal urban settlements. Avian Research, 14(1): 100094. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100094
Citation: Michelle García-Arroyo, Miguel A. Gómez-Martínez, Ian MacGregor-Fors. 2023: Litter buffet: On the use of trash bins by birds in six boreal urban settlements. Avian Research, 14(1): 100094. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100094

Litter buffet: On the use of trash bins by birds in six boreal urban settlements

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    E-mail address: michelle.garciaarroyo@helsinki.fi (M. García-Arroyo)

  • Received Date: 16 Feb 2023
  • Rev Recd Date: 07 Mar 2023
  • Accepted Date: 07 Mar 2023
  • Available Online: 14 Jun 2023
  • Publish Date: 14 Mar 2023
  • Unintentional food resources in urban areas (street litter, food leftovers, overflowing trash bins) are dietary components of some urban-exploiter bird species. In this study, we report on 13 bird species in six southern Finnish cities using urban trash bins and describe differences in their activity when provided with food resources (i.e., bait) in different bin types. We used generalized linear models (GLM) and classification and regression trees (CART) to test for associations between environmental variables and bird activity at the binscapes. Bird activity at the binscapes significantly differed among all cities and among types of bins and was significantly higher after placing bait in all cases. Bins with the largest opening had more activity as opposed to those with smaller openings or lids. Corvids and gulls had the highest activity, with corvids usually being present before the bait was placed and gulls increasing their activity thereafter. These differences show that trash bin foraging is highly malleable and thus susceptible to management preventing its occurrence. Suitable waste management measures could aid in reducing the number of species close to bins and their surroundings, benefiting both bird and human health.

  • With complex geographical and climatic conditions, the forest areas in southeastern Tibet are home to many species of Galliformes. Previous fauna surveys in the region, either by foreigners during earlier times (Bailey, 1914; Battye, 1935; Ludlow and Kinnear, 1944) or by Chinese ornithologists since the 1960s (Cheng et al., 1983), only provided general information about the occurrence of Galliforme species. To understand the conservation status of these species in primary forests, we should have more quantitative data on habitat use and population abundance. Moreover, Galliforme species are susceptible to habitat change and are often treated as indicators of ecosystem health (Fuller et al., 2000; Fuller and Garson 2000; Storch, 2000). Data from areas with original ecosystems may provide a baseline for assessing the degree of habitat degradation in contrast to these highly human-disturbed areas.

    From May to October 1995, I investigated the habitat use of Galliformes in the upper Yigong Zangbu River, an area never explored by biologists. A further survey aimed at assessing the conservation status of the taxa in the area was made in May 2001.

    Fieldwork was carried out in the Sawang area (93°39′E, 32°24′N; Fig. 1), in Jiali county, southeastern Tibet, from May to October in 1995. Topographically, the study area is characterized by high mountains and deep canyons, with elevations ranging from 3700 to 6870 m, where most valley bottoms are less than 100 m wide. My survey area covered 32 km of the main valley and 14 km of three branches of the valley (Fig. 1). The vegetation is still original and varies vertically. On north-facing slopes < 4300 m in elevation, plant communities in the forest are dominated by Halfour spruce (Picea likiangensis) and between 4300–4800 m, by forests and scrubs of Rhododendron spp.; on south-facing slopes, between 3700–4300 m, the forest is dominated by Hollyleaf-like oak (Quercus aquifolioldes) between 4200–4700 m, by Tibetan juniper (Sabina tibetica) and at elevations > 4700 m, by alpine scrubs and meadows.

    Figure  1.  Spatial patterns of habitat in t survey area. Vertical lines: oak forests; crossed lines: spruce forests; circles: juniper forests; dots: Rhododendron shrubs; short oblique lines: alpine shrub-meadows; white sections: rocky zones; black sections: glaciers; thick lines: rivers and streams; black squares: villages.

    Along the entire valley of 50 km, there are only five Tibetan villages, with a very low population density (one person per 100 km2). Farmland is restricted to the bottom of the mountains. The villagers cut the oaks near the foot of the mountains for firewood, resulting in secondary scrub oak forests.

    Because the birds are shy in dense cover, I had few opportunities to catch sight of them. However, I found that feathers, fallen from their plumage, could survive for at least one month and were easy to identify in the field and distinguishable among species. The detection rate of feathers of each species in a defined habitat should be positively related with the number of birds and the time they spent in their habitat. Thus, encounter rates of molted feather samples were used as indicators of the relative abundance of Galliformes. The methodology of feather-counting was described by Lu and Zheng (2001). When collecting feather samples along the transects, I also noted individual birds, their flock size and membership. The data on individual sightings were provided in contrast to the results of feather-counting. I compared the flock size of each Galliforme species during the nesting period (late May to early July) to that in the chick-rearing period (mid-July to mid-October).

    All of seven species of Galliformes in the study area were found on south-facing slopes and only two species, the Chinese Grouse (Bonasa sewerzowi) and the Blood Pheasant (Ithaginis cruentus) also appeared on north-facing slopes (Table 1). A hybrid of the White Eared-pheasant (Crossoptilon crossoptilon) × the Tibetan Eared-pheasant (C. harmani) was the most predominant component of the Galliforme community, followed by Blood Pheasants and Chinese Grouse. These three species were relatively well adapted to the various types of vegetation in the area. Two other forest-dependent species, the Snow Partridge (Lerwa lerwa) and the Pheasant Grouse (Tetraophasis obscurus), were limited to the upper part of the forests with relatively low population densities, while a third species, the Crimson-bellied Tragopan (Tragopan temminckii) was only rarely sighted. Two meadow-dependent species, the Tibetan Snow Cock (Tetraogallus tibetanus) and the Tibetan Partridge (Perdix hodgsoniae), were relatively uncommon.

    Table  1.  Mean hourly encounter rates of Galliforme feather and individual (in parentheses) samples from the study area in summer
    Habitat Elevation (m) Survey time (h) Chinese Grouse Snow Partridge Tibetan Snow Cock Pheasant Grouse Tibetan Partridge Blood Pheasant Crimson-bellied Tragopan Hybrid Eared-pheasant
    Farmland 3700−3800 46.0 (0.04)
    South-facing slopes
    Secondary oak shrubs 3700−3900 39.6 0.05 (0.03) 0.81 (0.15)
    Oak forest 3800−4300 82.2 0.02 (0.02) 0.09 (0.04) 0.02 (0.01) 3.21 (0.34)
    Shrub-meadow above tree line 4300−4500 19.5 0.92
    Juniper forests 4200−4700 62.0 0.70 (0.13) 0.03 (0.03) 1.00 (1.00) 0.03 (0.02) 1.69 (0.27)
    Shrub-meadows above tree line 4600−4900 25.5 (0.04) (0.04) 0.75 (0.24)
    North-facing slopes
    Spruce forests 3700−4300 16.6 0.12 (0.12) 0.18 (0.18)
    Rhododendron 4300−4800 8.5 0.12
    Shrub-meadows above tree line 4600−4900 7.0
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The following provides further information about each species.

    The Chinese Grouse: This survey discovered a new distribution of the species, which extends its range from 98°40′ to 93°39′E. In the survey area, often 2–5 birds (3.4 ± 0.3, n = 11) were encountered in their preferred habitat with streams and dense scrub, sometimes in small open plots in the forest, feeding or dusting. If suddenly disturbed, the birds fly up to nearby trees.

    The Snow Partridge: In late June, three groups with five, five and six birds respectively were flushed from a juniper woodland close to the tree line, where their dusting sites were located. In late July, two birds were found in a scrub-grassland above the tree line.

    The Tibetan Snow Cock: Because of limited time of investigation in its preferred habitat, i.e., high-elevation meadows with rocks, I only saw one group of seven birds. One young bird, caught, weighted 0.53 kg, suggesting that the date of egg-laying of this bird was early April.

    The Pheasant Grouse: This bird limited its activities to the upper part of the forest dominated by oak but never moved out of the forest into the scrub-grassland above the tree line. If disturbed by dogs, this bird flew up to the top of trees. Its microhabitats consisted often of rocks and streams. Dusting sites beside a path visited by the birds were found at least three times.

    The Tibetan Partridge: Despite considerable efforts in investigating this species in the alpine scrub-meadows, believed suitable for this bird, I did not manage to find a single bird there. Only one pair was continuously seen at the foot of the mountains from June through July.

    The Blood Pheasant: The birds occurred in various habitats but their densities on south-facing slopes were higher than on north-facing slopes. They preferred microhabitats close to streams. Usually two birds (46.5%) (2.0 ± 0.3, ranging from 1–4, n = 11) remained together during the breeding season. I found in late September that these birds and Hybrid Eared-pheasants used the same dusting hollows. In winter, according to the villagers, flocks are formed of more than 10 individual birds, appearing at lower elevations.

    The Crimson-bellied Tragopan: Only two single birds were found in an oak woodland and a dusting site in the juniper forest.

    The Hybrid Eared-pheasant: This bird has the largest population among the Galliformes in the area and appeared in various habitats on south-facing slopes, with oak forests as its most preferred habitat. During the nesting period (May to July), flock size varied between 1 to 7 birds (2.9 ± 0.3, n = 43) and then increased (7.0 ± 1.0, 2–15, n = 14) during the brood-rearing period (August to October).

    My results showed that the Galliforme species in the study area tended to avoid coniferous forests dominated by Balfour spruce, an environment widely encountered on the eastern Qinghai-Tibet plateau and preferred by many species of Galliformes (Cheng et al., 1978; Johnsgard, 1999). The reason is thought to be that the climate in the woodland is so humid that ground-dwellers have difficulties in breeding and foraging (Lu and Zheng, 2001).

    Before the 1980s, rifles were available to local people. It is generally known that game animals, including Galliformes, were frequently killed during that period. In the mid 1990's, the Firearm Law of the People's Republic of China was issued, forbidding anybody to own and keep any kind of gun privately. As a result, pressure from hunting of wildlife has declined considerably. However, trapping, especially by people from outside Tibet, has not been entirely prohibited, causing a certain loss of Galliformes. Oak-cutting in nearby villages has led to the emergence of second scrub oak forests, not suitable to Galliformes. To encourage local people to use firewood in more effective ways (for example by promoting more efficient stoves), is one means of reducing the loss of oak forests.

    However, overall, because of low population densities, poor communication and less developed economies, as well as protection by local religious and government policies, Galliformes in the region have been facing relatively fewer threats. But it should be kept in mind that developing local economies and improved communication will inevitably pose a threat to wildlife. Therefore, development plans for unexplored areas should be carefully made, because once loss of biodiversity, derived from a long-term evolutionary trend, reestablishment is almost impossible.

    I suggest for government agencies to establish a nature reserve in the region. This will prevent large-scale landscape use in the future and also provide a foundation for enhancing public conservation awareness. To aid conservation, further studies on the biology and ecology of the Galliformes are needed.

    I would like to thank Duojicipei and his family for accommodation in the area. I am grateful to Bingyuan Gu, Soulong Ciren and Cangjue Zhuoma for their assistance in the survey. The field survey was supported by the Tibetan Bureau of Science and Technology, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 39800016) and the Tibet Important Bird Area Survey Programme organized by BirdLife International.

  • Auman, H.J., Meathrel, C.E., Richardson, A., 2008. Supersize me: does anthropogenic food change the body condition of Silver Gulls? A comparison between urbanized and remote, non-urbanized areas. Waterbirds 31, 122-126.
    Benmazouz, I., Jokimäki, J., Lengyel, S., Juhász, L., Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki, M-L., Kardos, G., et al., 2021. Corvids in urban environments: a systematic global literature review. Animals 11, 3226.
    Bernat-Ponce, E., Gil-Delgado, J.A., Guijarro, D., 2018. Factors affecting the abundance of House Sparrows Passer domesticus in urban areas of southeast of Spain. Hous. Theor. Soc. 65, 404-416.
    Bernat-Ponce, E., Ferrer, D., Gil-Delgado, J.A., López-Iborra, G.M., 2022. Effect of replacing surface with underground rubbish containers on urban House Sparrows Passer domesticus. Urban Ecosyst. 25, 121-132.
    Bonter, D.N., Greig, E.I., 2021. Over 30 Years of standardized bird counts at supplementary feeding stations in North America: a citizen science data report for project FeederWatch. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 619682.
    Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Stone, C.J., Olshen, R.A., 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
    Bugnyar, T., Kijne, M., Kotrschal, K., 2001. Food calling in ravens: are yells referential signals? Anim. Behav. 61, 949-958.
    Buijs, J.A., Van Wijnen, J.H., 2001. Survey of feral rock doves (Columba livia) in Amsterdam, a bird-human association. Urban Ecosyst. 5, 235-241.
    Burt, S.A., Vos, C.J., Buijs, J.A., Corbee, R.J., 2021. Nutritional implications of feeding free-living birds in public urban areas. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 105, 385-393.
    Chong, K.Y., Teo, S., Kurukulasuriya, B., Chung, Y., Rajathurai, S., Lim, H., et al., 2012. Decadal changes in urban bird abundance in Singapore. Raffles Bull. Zool. 25, 181-188.
    Coccon, F., Fano, S., 2020. Effects of a new waste collection policy on the population of yellow-legged gulls, Larus michahellis, in the historic centre of Venice (Italy). Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 66, 50.
    Coulson, J.C., Butterfield, J., Duncan, N., Thomas, C., 1987. Use of refuse tips by adult British Herring Gulls Larus argentatus during the week. J. Appl. Ecol. 24, 789-800.
    Crawley, M.J., 2013. The R Book, second ed. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex.
    De’ath, G., Fabricius, K.E., 2000. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81, 3178-3192.
    Dmowski, K., Golimowski, J., 1993. Feathers of the magpie (Pica pica) as a bioindicator material for heavy metal pollution assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 139-140, 251-258.
    Dunn, E.H., 1986. Feeder counts and winter bird population trends. Am. Birds 40, 61-66.
    Elgar, M.A., 1986. House sparrows establish foraging flocks by giving chirrup calls if the resources are divisible. Anim. Behav. 34, 169-174.
    Eronen, E., Johnson, D., Wan, K.M., 2022. Understanding Trash Foraging Practices In Bird Populations on The UBC Vancouver Campus (Student Research Report). University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
    Faeth, S.H., Warren, P.S., Shochat, E., Marussich, W.A., 2005. Trophic dynamics in urban communities. BioScience 55, 399-407.
    Fuirst, M., Veit, R.R., Hahn, M., Dheilly, N., Thorne, L.H., 2018. Effects of urbanization on the foraging ecology and microbiota of the generalist seabird Larus argentatus. PLoS One 13, e0209200.
    Haemig, P., Luna, S.S., de Blank, H., Lundqvist, H., 2015. Ecology and phylogeny of birds foraging at outdoor restaurants in Sweden. Biodivers. Data J. 3, e6360.
    Harris, M.P., 1970. Rates and causes of increases of some British gull populations. Hous. Theor. Soc. 17, 325-335.
    Heinrich, B., Marzluff, J.M., 1991. Do common ravens yell because they want to attract others? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28, 13-21.
    Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., Westfall, P., 2008. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom. J. 50, 346-363.
    Iemmi, T., Menozzi, A., Pérez-López, M., Basini, G., Grasselli, F., Menotta, S., et al., 2021. Heavy metal assessment in feathers of Eurasian Magpies (Pica pica): a possible strategy for monitoring environmental contamination? Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 18, 2973.
    Jämsen, E., 2015. Näin Karkotat Lokit: Viritä Liukas Pressu Katollesi Tai Pelota Linnut “Liekehtivillä” Karkoituspikareilla (How to Repel Seagulls: Hang a Slippery Tarp on Your Roof or Scare the Birds with “Flamming” Repellent Goblets). Yle Uut. . (Accessed 18 January 2023).
    Jerzak, L., 2001. Synurbanization of the magpie in the Palearctic. In: Marzluff, J.M., Bowman, R., Donnelly, R. (Eds.), Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World. Springer US, Boston, MA, pp. 403-425.
    Julian, K.G., Eidson, M., Kipp, A.M., Weiss, E., Petersen, L.R., Miller, J.R., et al., 2002. Early season crow mortality as a sentinel for West Nile virus disease in humans, northeastern United States. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2, 145-155.
    Kark, S., Iwaniuk, A., Schalimtzek, A., Banker, E., 2007. Living in the city: can anyone become an “urban exploiter”. J. Biogeogr. 34, 638-651.
    Kim, S., Srygley, R.B., Lee, J.Y., Lee, S., Choe, J.C., 2012. Urban and natural components of Korean Magpie (Pica pica sericea) territories and their effects on prey density. Pol. J. Ecol. 60, 407-417.
    Korpela, E., 2022. Korona-aika Näyttää Pahentaneen Kaupunkien Rottaongelmaa – Etätyöläisten Lounasjämät Ovat Helppoa Ruokaa Jyrsijoille (The Corona Era Seems to Have Worsened the City’s Rat Problem – Remote Workers’ Lunch Leftovers Are Easy Food for Rodents). Yle Uut. . (Accessed 18 January 2023).
    Koskinen, V., 2014. Lahden Satamassa Pesii 6000 Lokkia – “Yhdyskunta on Saavuttanut Lakipisteensä” (6000 Seagulls Nest in Lahti Harbor – “The Colony Has Reached its Breaking Point”). Yle Uut. . (Accessed 18 January 2023).
    Kövér, L., Lengyel, S., Takenaka, M., Kirchmeir, A., Uhl, F., Miller, R., et al., 2019. Why do zoos attract crows? A comparative study from Europe and Asia. Ecol. Evol. 9, 14465-14475.
    Kubetzki, U., Garthe, S., 2007. Nests with a view: distribution, nest habitats and diets of roof-breeding Common Gulls (Larus canus) in northern Germany. Waterbirds 30, 602-608.
    LaDeau, S.L., Calder, C.A., Doran, P.J., Marra, P.P., 2011. West Nile virus impacts in American crow populations are associated with human land use and climate. Ecol. Res. 26, 909-916.
    Marzluff, J.M., Boone, R.B., Cox, G.W., 1994. Historical changes in populations and perceptions of native pest bird species in the West. Stud. Avian Biol. 15, 202-220.
    Mehra, S.P., Mehra, S., Uddin, M., Verma, V., Sharma, H., Singh, T., et al., 2017. Waste as a resource for avifauna: review and survey of the avifaunal composition in and around waste dumping sites and sewage water collection sites (India). Int. J. Waste Resour. 7, 289.
    Monaghan, P., Metcalfe, N.B., Hansell, M.H., 1986. The influence of food availability and competition on the use of a feeding site by Herring Gulls Larus argentatus. Hous. Theor. Soc. 33, 87-90.
    Morelli, F., Mikula, P., Blumstein, D.T., Díaz, M., Markó, G., Jokimäki, J., et al., 2022. Flight initiation distance and refuge in urban birds. Sci. Total Environ. 842, 156939.
    Mudge, G.P., Ferns, P.N., 1982. The feeding ecology of five species of gulls (Aves: Larini) in the inner Bristol Channel. J. Zool. 197, 497-510.
    Newsome, T.M., Van Eeden, L.M., 2017. The effects of food waste on wildlife and humans. Sustainability 9, 1269.
    Niemistö, E., 2015. Roskaamiselle Vaikea Löytää Hintalappua, Mutta Kalliiksi Se Tulee (It’s Hard to Find a Price Tag for Littering, but it Will Be Expensive). Yle Uut. . (Accessed 28 October 2022).
    Noreen, Z., Sultan, K., 2021. A global modification in avifaunal behavior by use of waste disposal sites (waste dumps/rubbish dumps): a review paper. Pure Appl. Biol. 10, 603-616.
    Nowakowski, J.J., 1996. Changes in the breeding avifauna of Olsztyn [NE Poland] in the years 1968-1993. Acta Ornithol. 1, 39-44.
    Pitkänen, L., 2022. Tampereella Puluissa Todettu Herkästi Tarttuvaa Lintuvirusta – Virus Ei Ole Ihmiselle Vaarallinen (In Tampere, a Highly Contagious Bird Virus Was Detected in the Flocks – the Virus Is Not Dangerous for Humans). Yle Uut. . (Accessed 18 January 2023).
    Plaza, P.I., Lambertucci, S.A., 2017. How are garbage dumps impacting vertebrate demography, health, and conservation? Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 12, 9-20.
    Przybylska, K., Haidt, A., Myczko, Ł., Ekner-Grzyb, A., Rosin, Z.M., Kwieciński, Z., et al., 2012. Local and landscape-level factors affecting the density and distribution of the Feral Pigeon Columba livia var. domestica in an urban environment. Acta Ornithol. 47, 37-45.
    Ralph, C.J., Geupel, G.R., Pyle, P., Martin, T.E., DeSante, D.F., 1996. Handbook of Field Methods for Monitoring Landbirds. U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-144, Albany.
    Rantanen, A., 2017. Vältä Rottariesa: Pidä Piha Siistinä, Äläkä Ruoki Lintuja Maassa (Avoid Rodent Problems: Keep the Yard Clean and Don’t Feed the Birds on the Ground). Yle Uut. . (Accessed 18 January 2023).
    Schultz, P.W., Bator, R.J., Large, L.B., Bruni, C.M., Tabanico, J.J., 2013. Littering in context: personal and environmental predictors of littering behavior. Environ. Behav. 45, 35-59.
    Sebastián-González, E., Morales-Reyes, Z., Naves-Alegre, L., Durá Alemañ, C.J., Gonçalves Lima, L., Machado Lima, L., et al., 2020. Which bait should I use? Insights from a camera trap study in a highly diverse cerrado forest. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 66, 99.
    Shochat, E., 2004. Credit or debit? Resource input changes population dynamics of city-slicker birds. Oikos 106, 622-626.
    Siltanen, M., 2022. Lappeenrannasta Löytyi Lintuja Tappava Virus – Voi Aiheuttaa Myös Ihmisille Silmätulehduksen (A Bird-Killing Virus Was Found in Lappeenranta – it Can Also Cause Eye Infections in Humans). Yle Uut. . (Accessed 18 January 2023).
    Skórka, P., Sierpowska, K., Haidt, A., Myczko, Ł., Ekner-Grzyb, A., Rosin, Z.M., et al., 2016. Habitat preferences of two sparrow species are modified by abundances of other birds in an urban environment. Curr. Zool. 62, 357-368.
    Spelt, A., Soutar, O., Williamson, C., Memmott, J., Shamoun-Baranes, J., Rock, P., et al., 2021. Urban gulls adapt foraging schedule to human-activity patterns. Ibis 163, 274-282.
    Stofberg, M., Cunningham, S.J., Sumasgutner, P., Amar, A., 2019. Juggling a “junk-food” diet: Responses of an urban bird to fluctuating anthropogenic-food availability. Urban Ecosyst. 22, 1019-1026.
    Suzuki, T.N., 2012. Calling at a food source: context-dependent variation in note composition of combinatorial calls in Willow Tits. Ornithol. Sci. 11, 103-107.
    Therneau, T., Atkinson, B., 2022. rpart: Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees. R package version 4.1.16. .
    Tornick, J.K., Gibson, B.M., 2013. Tests of inferential reasoning by exclusion in Clark’s nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana). Anim. Cognit. 16, 583-597.
    Townsend, A.K., Staab, H.A., Barker, C.M., 2019. Urbanization and elevated cholesterol in American Crows. Condor 121, duz040.
    Tryjanowski, P., Skórka, P., Sparks, T.H., Biaduń, W., Brauze, T., Hetmański, T., et al., 2015. Urban and rural habitats differ in number and type of bird feeders and in bird species consuming supplementary food. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 15097-15103.
    Tryjanowski, P., Jankowiak, Ł., Czechowski, P., Dulisz, B., Golawski, A., Grzywaczewski, G., et al., 2022. Summer water sources for temperate birds: use, importance, and threats. Eur. Zool. J. 89, 913-926.
    Vlahović, K., Prukner-Radovčić, E., Horvatek, D., Pavlak, M., Gomerčić, T., Rumiha, Z., et al., 2010. Bacterial and fungal flora in faecal samples from rooks (Corvus frugilegus) in the City of Zagreb, Croatia. Vet. Arh. 80, 81-92.
    Vuorisalo, T., Lahtinen, R., Laaksonen, H., 2001. Urban biodiversity in local newspapers: a historical perspective. Biodivers. Conserv. 10, 1739-1756.
    Vuorisalo, T., Andersson, H., Hugg, T., Lahtinen, R., Laaksonen, H., Lehikoinen, E., 2003. Urban development from an avian perspective: causes of hooded crow (Corvus corone cornix) urbanisation in two Finnish cities. Landsc. Urban Plann. 62, 69-87.
    Wells, J.V., Rosenberg, K.V., Dunn, E.H., Tessaglia-Hymes, D.L., Dhondt, A.A., 1998. Feeder counts as indicators of spatial and temporal variation in winter abundance of resident birds. J. Field Ornithol. 69, 577-586.
    Yap, C.A-M., Sodhi, N.S., Brook, B.W., 2002. Roost Characteristics of Invasive Mynas in Singapore. J. Wildl. Manag. 66, 1118-1127.
    Helsinki, Yle, 2010. Roskaamisesta Aiheutuva Lasku Kasvaa Kohisten (The Bill Caused by Littering Is Growing Rapidly). Yle Uut. . (Accessed 28 October 2022).
    Turku, Yle, 2011. Miten karkotetaan laitureita sotkevat lokit? (How do you get rid of the seagulls that mess up the docks?) Yle Uut. . (Accessed 18 January 2023).
    Zarrintab, M., Mirzaei, R., 2018. Tissue distribution and oral exposure risk assessment of heavy metals in an urban bird: magpie from central Iran. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 17118-17127.
    Zarrintab, M., Mirzaei, R., Mostafaei, G., Dehghani, R., Akbari, H., 2016. Concentrations of metals in feathers of magpie (Pica pica) from Aran-O-Bidgol City in central Iran. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 96, 465-471.
  • Related Articles

Catalog

    Figures(6)  /  Tables(2)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (62) PDF downloads (18) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return