&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-13/163 | October 2013
www.epa.gov/ord
* toattiniitiiw\
A Framework for Enhancing
Bird Habitat Value of Urban Greenspaces
in the Woonasquatucket Watershed,
Rhode Island, USA
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division
-------
Front Cover landscape photos: top photo Greystone Mills, North Providence, RI; bottom photo Woonasquatucket
River Greenway, Onlneyville; Woonasquatucket River, Johnston, RI.
Photos by Marisa Mazzotta.
Front Cover Bird photos (top to bottom): Eastern Towhee; Northern Mockingbird; Downy Woodpecker. Photos
courtesy of US FWS National Digital Library.
Back Cover Photo: Chipping sparrow
-------
&EPA
EPA/600/R-13/163 I October 2013
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
A framework for enhancing bird habitat value
of urban greenspaces in the Woonasquatucket watershed,
Rhode Island USA
Richard A. McKinney*
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882, USA
Meghan E. Nightingale
Department of Natural Resources Science,
MESM Program
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881, US A
Corresponding author
Phone: (401)782-3133; Fax: (401)782-3030
E-mail address: mckinney.rick@epa.gov
-------
Notice
The research in this document has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. This report has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. The mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or a recommendation for use. This report is ORD Tracking Number
ORD-005195 of the Atlantic Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.
Abstract
Modifying greenspaces to enhance habitat value has been proposed as a means towards protecting or
restoring biodiversity in urban landscapes. In this report, we provide a framework for developing low-
cost, low-impact enhancements that can be incorporated during the restoration of greenspaces to enhance
their wildlife habitat value. We focus on breeding bird habitat value of urban greenspaces in the
Woonasquatucket watershed, a southern New England coastal plain watershed located near Providence,
Rhode Island. The report is in two parts: the first is a description of a framework for enhancing bird
habitat value of urban greenspaces, and the second describes an empirical study examining bird use of
existing greenspaces in the Woonasquatucket watershed. The framework uses existing information on
bird-plant associations to provide the elements needed to suggest specific greenspace modifications in
terms of plantings that would enhance habitat value for target bird species. Our approach involves i)
describing the landscape context of the Woonasquatucket watershed, and, from a bird habitat perspective,
identifying advantages and constraints that the surrounding landscape imparts on urban greenspaces in the
watershed; ii) identifying a regional bird pool of breeding bird species whose range currently or
potentially includes the Woonasquatucket watershed; and iii) identifying a candidate plant list of native
woody plant species that support birds in the regional species pool. From these elements a specific target
list of bird species can be identified for a restoration of a specific greenspace, which in turn can be used to
identify appropriate supporting plants to enhance habitat value. The empirical study investigated bird use
of existing greenspace habitats in the Woonasquatucket watershed, and examined links between plant and
bird species present at the sites. We surveyed 17 existing greenspaces for breeding birds and woody plant
species (trees, shrubs, and vines) during the spring and early summer 2012. Mean bird species richness
across all sites was 6.94 ± 0.56 species, and mean abundance was 14.4 ± 8.31 birds. There was a
significant positive correlation between bird species richness and the proportion of urban land within 1
km of a site; however, the mean number of human-intolerant species observed was 0.59 ± 0.72 species,
suggesting that the increase was a result of an increase in human-tolerant species. Greater than two-thirds
of observed bird species had multiple supporting woody plant species present at a site at which they were
observed. The mean number of supporting woody plant species per regional bird pool species observed at
a site was 3.87 ± 0.26 plants, versus 1.50 ± 0.11 plants for regional bird pool species not observed even
though there were supporting plants present for that species. Our results suggest that greenspace
restorations that include plantings of multiple supporting plants for a target bird species will have a better
chance of attracting the species, and hence increasing bird habitat value. This information may help
inform regional resource managers and stakeholders including urban planning departments and local
resource conservation organizations involved in planning and carrying out restoration of urban
greenspaces.
Key words: greenspace; avian diversity; urban biodiversity; New England; bird-plant associations
A framework for enhancing bird habitat value
-------
Table of Contents
Notice ii
Abstract ii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables iv
I Introduction 1
II The Woonasquatucket Watershed: a bird habitat perspective 4
III Target list of bird species 9
IV Candidate plant species list 14
V Breeding bird use of habitat greenspace 21
Acknowledgements 29
Literature Cited 30
Table of Contents | Pageiii
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Conceptual model for development of suggested plant species 3
Figure 2-1 Woonasquatucket River watershed, maj or rivers and streams 5
Table 2-1 Ecological communities known or with the potential to appear in the
Woonasquatucket River watershed 6
Table 3-1 Territory size and Partners in Flight population trend classification 11
Table 4-1 Candidate list of woody plant species proposed to have habitat value 15
Table 5-1 Bird species richness and abundance within 50 m and proportion of urban land 24
Table 5-2 Woody plant species richness and vegetation characteristics measured in 2012 24
Table 5-3 Comparison of the number of supporting plant species per observed bird species. ...25
Table 5-4 Mean number of supporting woody plant species per regional bird pool species 26
Table 5-5 Regional bird pool species not observed during 2012 sampling 27
IV
A framework for enhancing bird habitat
-------
I. Introduction
Ruderal vegetation in an area that was formerly a city park. Photo: R. McKinney
Urban greenspaces include remnant natural lands, areas of ruderal vegetation, parks or
nature trails, and vegetated areas created for stormwater management or water quality
enhancement. Most cities support the restoration, enhancement, or creation of
greenspaces under community development initiatives that promote the integration of built and
natural environments. In many
areas, urban planners are
working to implement
stormwater management plans
that encourage best
management practices such as
vegetated buffers, stormwater
wetlands, bioretention
facilities, and vegetated
swales. Urban greenspaces
in general are recognized as
having many benefits over
built environments, but their
potential as wildlife habitat is
often not realized. This is in
part because scientific
knowledge about the potential wildlife habitat value of greenspaces is not at the point where it
can consistently inform planning and restoration efforts. As a result, management practices that
could enhance wildlife habitat of greenspaces are often discounted in the restoration process
(Harrison and Davies 2002). With this project we hope to provide information that will facilitate
the recognition of the potential habitat value of urban greenspaces, and provide a means by
which low-cost, low-impact enhancements can be incorporated during the restoration of
greenspaces to enhance their wildlife habitat
value. We focus on birds as an indicator species
for wildlife habitat value because of their high
visibility and positive impacts on the attitudes
of urban residents (Bjerke and Ostdahl 2004,
Luck et al. 2011), as well as the ready
availability of field techniques and modeling
approaches to describe their use of urban
habitats.
The project features a two-phased approach: the
first phase focuses on the development of a
regional bird pool from which a target list of
Song Sparrow, Melospiza melodia.
Photo: us FWS National Digital Library bird species appropriate to a given restoration
Introduction
-------
project can be identified, as well as a candidate list of native woody plants derived from the
habitat requirements of species in the regional bird pool. This phase also includes empirical
studies to assess the habitat value of existing greenspaces for breeding birds. Empirical studies
include collecting breeding bird abundance and species richness data at urban vegetated patches
and greenspaces and using multi-metric modeling to evaluate the effect of habitat and landscape
characteristics on bird use of the areas. The second phase of the project used the models
developed in phase one to guide the development of a protocol that can be used by planners and
restoration managers to optimize an urban greenspace restoration site for bird habitat value
(Figure 1-1). The protocol uses habitat requirements of site-specific target bird species to derive
a list of appropriate plant species and a landscape plan that, when incorporated into the site
design, can help enhance bird habitat value.
This document describes some of the preliminary results of the initial phase of this project, and
includes 1) an overview of the Woonasquatucket watershed from a bird's perspective;
2) development of a target list of bird species; 3) identification of a candidate plant species list of
native woody plants for use in greenspace restoration; and 4) results of a preliminary study
investigating bird use of current greenspace habitats in the watershed. The overall goal of the
study is to provide input to support greenspace restoration strategies that include the
enhancement of bird habitat value through low-cost, low-impact design practices. We hope this
information will be helpful to regional resource managers and stakeholders including urban
planning departments, property owners, developers, engineers, consultants, contractors,
municipal staff, and local resource conservation organizations involved in planning and carrying
out restoration of urban greenspaces. While the target bird species and planting
recommendations are specific to the Woonasquatucket watershed, the general principles
underlying the development of the various project components will be useful in developing
similar recommendations in other urban watersheds.
A framework for enhancing bird habitat
-------
Potential Restoration Site
Site-specific 1)Size 3} Restrictions on
conditions: 2) Type of restoration: vegetation type
- BMP 4) Surrounding landuse
- multi-use
- mitigation
5) Proximity criteria'
State Bird Checklist
Breeding birds
Habitat requirements
Human tolerance
Regional Bird Pool
Restrictions on bird species
Optimization goal2
Target List of Site-Specific Potential Bird Species
Candidate plant list
1) Bird species: specific requirements
2) Site limitations
3) Restoration goals
Suggested Plant Species and Vegetative Structure
'Proximity criteria: proximity to existing natural habitats (e.g., wetlands, woodlands), or to
known breeding habitat
'Optimize for i) breeding habitat or ii) foraging habitat based on proximity criteria
Figure 1-1. Conceptual model for development of suggested plant species and vegetative
structure for greenspace restoration in the Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode Island, USA.
Introduction
-------
II.The Woonasquatucket Watershed: A bird
habitat perspective
Use of a specific urban area by birds for nesting or foraging is ultimately driven by the type
and arrangement of natural habitats present, and the nature and extent of human activity
in the surrounding landscape. A number of proximate factors will also come into play in
determining habitat selection; for example, utilization of specific niches within a habitat by a
given bird species, and the presence of predators in a given area (Fuller 2012). However, as a
starting point it is useful to get a sense of the specific habitat types occurring in the
Woonasquatucket watershed and the landscape setting of these habitats with respect to areas of
human activity.
Merino Park, a multi-use greenspace adjacent to the Woonasquatucket River in the lower
watershed. Photo: R. McKinney
Brief description of the watershed
The 26 km long Woonasquatucket River is located in north-central Rhode Island and a tributary
of the Providence River, which empties into Narragansett Bay (RIDEM 2007). The
Woonasquatucket flows through six towns of varying urban character, and parts of these towns
comprise its 135 km2 watershed (Figure 2-1). It was formed at the end of the last ice age during
the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet that covered much of New England and extended to the
south coast of Rhode Island (WRWC 2013). Sand and gravel deposited during melting was
scoured by melt water to form the original river channel. In the adjacent floodplain and
watershed early-successional wildflowers and fast-growing shrubs helped to establish topsoil,
which was subsequently colonized by conifers and ultimately the hardwood forests that
dominated prior to human settlement (WRWC 2013). Today the climate associated with the
watershed is typical of New England ecoregions: warm, moist summers and cold, snowy winters,
with annual average precipitation of about 120 cm yr"1 (RIDEM 2007). The watershed is located
in the Northeast Coastal Zone ecoregion (Omernik 1987), but perhaps more informative is the
ecoregion
A framework for enhancing bird habitat
-------
A
N
• Point Count Sites
— Rivers and Streams
^| Vtetersried Boundary
Figure 2-1. Woonasquatucket River watershed, major rivers and streams,
and point count sites sampled as part of the empirical study.
classification developed by The Nature Conservancy (Groves et al. 2002), under which the upper
watershed is located in the Lower New England Northern Peidmont ecoregion and the lower
watershed in the North Atlantic Coast ecoregion. This better describes the somewhat dual nature
of the watershed with the upper, more sparsely populated reaches containing a variety of habitat
types more characteristic of inland forested habitats and the lower, more densely populated part
of the watershed with habitats characteristic of the Atlantic coastal plain.
Ecological communities
A total of 7 upland ecological communities have been identified or potentially appear as small
patches in the watershed (Table 2-1). Of these the Mixed Oak / White Pine Forest community is
found predominantly in the upper watershed, interspersed with oak and northern hardwood forest
communities if present. Sub-dominant tree species in this community will vary by soil type but
can include birches (Betula), maple (Acer), black gum (Nyssa), hickory (Carya), and American
holly (Ilex). These communities often have an associated mixed shrub understory, with species
again dependent upon soil type and canopy composition. These communities in pristine
condition and within an undisturbed landscape setting will provide habitat for forest-dwelling
birds including wood warblers, vireos, tanagers, thrushes, woodpeckers, nuthatches, and
chickadees. However, upland forest communities in the Woonasquatucket, while often in pristine
condition, may be too small to provide significant habitat for many of these species, particularly
The Woonasquatucket Watershed: A bird habitat perspective
-------
Table 2-1. Ecological communities known or with the potential to appear in the
Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode Island, USA. From Enseret al. (2011)
Upland
Oak forest
Northern Hardwood Forest
Hemlock Hardwood Forest
Mixed Oak/White Pine Forest
Ruderal Forest
Ruderal Grassland / Shrubland
Urban / Recreational Grasses
Palustrine
Emergent Marsh
Wet Meadow
Shrub Swamp
Northern Peatlands
Forested Swamp
Seeps, Springs, Bogs
those that require large areas of core forest habitat. The relative proximity of these areas to urban
land may also limit the number of species that will utilize upland forested habitats (Blair and
Johnson 2008). Ruderal communities can be found throughout the watershed including Ruderal
Forests and Ruderal Grassland / Shrubland. Ruderal forests formed through succession on areas
previously cleared for human activity consist of a
variety of early-successional woody plant species
including red maple (Acer), cherry (Primus), white pine
(Finns), red cedar (Jimiperus), birch (Betula), and
sassafras (Sassafras; Enser et al. 2011). This
community can exhibit a diversity of plant species and
as a result may provide significant habitat for a variety
of urban adapter bird species, given their somewhat less
restrictive patch size and landscape setting
requirements. Similarly, Ruderal Grassland / Shrubland
communities, which include old agricultural fields,
clearcuts, hedgerows, and utility rights of way, may
harbor a number of urban adapter species. Urban and
Recreational Grasses communities, found primarily in
the lower watershed, also have the potential to provide
habitat for some urban adapters and urban exploiters
that can take advantage of the proximity to
supplemental food resources (e.g., feeders, seeded
lawns, discarded food).
The Woonasquatucket watershed contains about
1400 ha of wetlands, including several ponds, lakes,
and reservoirs (RIDEM 2007). Dispersed throughout Rudera, grassiand/shrubiand plant community
the watershed are a variety of palustrine wetland in a utility right-of-way. Photo: R. McKinney
A framework for enhancing bird habitat
-------
communities including Emergent Marshes, Wet Meadows, Shrub Swamps, Forested Swamps,
Floodplain Forests, and Modified / Managed Marshes (Enser et al. 2011). In addition there may
be scattered occurrences of the Seeps, Springs, Vernal Pools community. These wetlands will
provide potential habitat for wetland obligate bird species; however, the same caveats apply as in
the case of forested habitats: community patch size and landscape setting may be the
predominant determinant of which if any of these species will utilize wetland habitats. Riparian
habitats in the urban areas of the Woonasquatucket (e.g., Floodplain Forests) may provide
enhanced resources for some urban adapter and urban exploiter species, and may be highly
utilized despite their size and degree of fragmentation (McKinney et al. 2011). Modified /
Managed Marsh communities in the Woonasquatucket are most commonly represented by
ruderal marshes, or created wetlands and retention ponds designed to receive stormwater
diverted along major roads and industrial areas. They are often dominated by non-native
vegetation (e.g., Phragmites australis, Lythrum salicaria) and as such are thought to have limited
wildlife habitat value; however, in urban settings several urban adapter species, including red-
winged blackbirds and song sparrows, may utilize these wetlands as breeding habitat (McKinney
and Paton 2009).
Human activity and land use
The Woonasquatucket River's steep descent and narrow width resulted in swift-flowing waters
that were harnessed to provide power to industry in the early to mid nineteenth century
(Greenwood 2013). A number of factories and mills were built and the river played a pivotal role
in the onset of the American Industrial Revolution. Along with industrialization came extensive
attempts at water management through the building of dams and reservoirs which changed the
landscape in the upper watershed. The Woonasquatucket watershed also became a center for
human population growth as the region shifted from an agricultural to industrial based economy
(WRWC 2013). This ultimately led to the development of several densely-populated urban areas,
particularly in the lower watershed.
Today the watershed remains a mixture of urban and natural land cover. The northwest portion is
dominated by wooded hills interspersed with low-density housing (Millar 2004). This part of the
watershed contains many natural vegetative communities with the potential to be exploited by
urban avoider bird species that are intolerant of human activity. In the upper to mid watershed
are a series of narrow valleys that drain into the river; this area is somewhat more heavily
populated with areas of medium-density housing in the towns of Johnston and Smithfield. A
number of natural areas and small wetlands are found here; in areas removed from human
activity they may be used by urban avoider along with urban adapter species. The lower
watershed is dominated by dense human settlement and industrial activity in the towns of
Providence and North Providence. However, despite the urban character of the lower watershed,
there still exist a number of remnant natural areas and urban greenspaces that can be utilized by
urban adapter species. Many of these areas are being targeted for acquisition and restoration
which could help to preserve and enhance their value as bird habitat (Millar 2004).
The Woonasquatucket Watershed: A bird habitat perspective
-------
Several other considerations are
worth noting at this point. First,
despite the urban character of
much of the mid and lower
watershed, the river itself, along
with associated tributaries and
riparian areas, provides a backbone
of natural habitat that can be
utilized by birds for breeding and
foraging, and can function as
movement corridors between patches
of fragmented habitat (Millar 2004).
Their close proximity to wetlands and
the river will presumably allow for
continued protection from development
through existing state wetlands regulations.
Second, while construction of several major
highways in the watershed (notably US
Route 6 and Interstate Route 95) resulted in
fragmentation of traditional neighborhoods
and led to negative socio-economic impacts,
residual lands from these projects have
evolved into significant natural areas in parts
of the watershed (WRWC 1998). Several of
these areas, particularly those created by the
construction of State Route 6, are fairly large,
somewhat secluded and inaccessible, and are in
relatively close proximity to the river, all of
which make them ideal habitat for many urban
adapter bird species and possibly some urban
avoiders. Many of the areas already have a diversity
of plant species that support a variety of wildlife
(WRWC 1998). These areas are part of the right-of-
way for the roads (i.e., buffer areas around the roads
within which development is prohibited), and as a
result should escape development pressure. Finally,
trends over the past 20 to 30 years have diminished the
economic importance of the region leading to plant
closures and job dislocation, which in turn contributes
to neighborhood destabilization. This has led to vacant
factory buildings that can be destroyed by fire and
vandalism, and the resulting vacant lands are interspersed
The lower Woonasquatucket watershed has a variety of natural habitats
interspersed with built areas: a) Several areas have been restored as
multi-use greenspaces.
b) The Woonasquatucket River flows under US Rte 6.
c) The river is surrounded by a vegetated buffer
even in commercial and residential areas.
A framework for enhancing bird habitat
-------
with residential areas (WRWC 1998).
Many communities, along with the
Woonasquatucket River Watershed
Council and a number of other
organizations, are working very hard to
maintain and restore the integrity of
neighborhoods and to incorporate these
remnant natural lands into community
redevelopment plans (Millar 2004).
These areas, along with other urban
greenspaces, are currently being utilized
by many bird and wildlife species and
hold the potential after restoration to
contribute to a significant increase in
biodiversity in the watershed.
d) High-density residential areas include some natural vegetation
and interspersed greenspaces. Photos: R. McKinney
.Target list of bird species
A key step in developing guidelines for incorporating low-cost, low-impact enhancements
to increase bird habitat value of restored greenspaces is to be selective with the species of
birds that a restoration will attempt to support. It is well established that many bird
species will not utilize habitats in urban landscapes, regardless of condition or in many cases
even size of the habitat (Blair 1996, Marzluff et al. 2001, Chace and Walsh 2006). In order to
conserve resources during the restoration it's important to exclude these urban avoider species
from consideration, and focus on those species that, given the right habitat conditions, will
potentially utilize urban greenspaces. Equally important is to exclude species that, although their
reported range may encompass the watershed, are not currently found in the region. Some
species have undergone historic range contraction or alteration, some with the potential to inhabit
the region may not because the required habitat types are not present. The approach taken in this
study is to first identify a regional pool of bird species based on these considerations, and from
that to develop site-specific target lists of bird
species.
A target list of bird species will help identify
required habitat characteristics that can be
addressed in a landscape plan to enhance bird
habitat value as part of a restoration project. In
order to minimize the cost of proposed habitat
enhancements, the target list should be small
(on the order of 10 or fewer species) and
specific to a site. Depending on the location of
Although fairly common to the region, the yellow-billed the site in the watershed, the target list of bird
cuckoo. Cuccyzus americanus, will tend to avoid urban areas. • p i , ,1- , p
n, t '. IC _..,_.. .. .,.. .. ..., species may vary; for example, a target list for
Photo: US FWS National Digital Library ' J J' i o
Target list of bird species
-------
a site near a river or stream will include birds that inhabit riparian areas, whereas an inland
restoration site list may consist of birds that primarily utilize upland habitats such as shrubland or
urban forest. To identify birds to be considered for inclusion in a site-specific target list, we
developed a regional bird pool for the Woonasquatucket watershed. The pool included species
that breed in southern New England and, based on life history traits and the ecology of the
species, could potentially utilize restored greenspace habitats in the watershed.
Developing a regional bird pool for the Woonasquatucket watershed
Our starting point was the AviBase list of bird species observed in Rhode Island (LePage 2013).
AviBase includes a series of species checklists for specific locations throughout the world
compiled from a variety of sources including state, regional, and national sightings databases. In
North America, as in many other locations, the checklists are regularly updated by local experts
in the scientific community and citizen
scientists with extensive local experience and
expertise gained through bird-watching and
other activities. As a first step, the AviBase
Rhode Island checklist of 426 species was
refined to include only those whose breeding
range includes the Woonasquatucket
watershed. Using range maps included in
avian species accounts in the Birds of North
America Online database (Poole 2005), the
AviBase list was reduced to 164 breeding
species. We then carried out 4 additional
refinements to arrive at the target list. First we
used data describing the breeding habitats of
each species (Ehrlich et al. 1988) to eliminate
those species not known to breed in habitats
found in the Woonasquatucket: freshwater
wetlands, riparian areas, open fields, forests and woodlands, shrublands, and cultivated land.
Next we eliminated species classified as urban avoiders according to the urban bird guild
classification system proposed by Shwartz et al. (2008). This eliminated species unlikely to
inhabit restored urban greenspaces and other fragmented natural areas characteristic of urban
landscapes. In the next step we eliminated species that are obligate users of open water habitat,
and finally we eliminated rarely-occurring species and those that are considered to be noxious or
pest species (e.g., Common Pigeon Columba livid). The resulting regional bird pool consisted of
40 species (Table 3-1) from which a site-specific target list of birds can be chosen.
Gray catbirds, Dumetella carolinensi,s are common breeders
in the watershed. Globally this species is not considered
threatened due to its large range and numbers, however
there is some conservation concern in North America
because of loss of early successional and grassland habitat.
Photo: USFWS National Digital Library
10
A framework for enhancing bird habitat
-------
Table 3-1. Territory size and Partners In Flight Population Trend classification of regional bird
pool species for the Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode Island, USA
Scientific name
Buteo jamaicensis
Meleagris gallopavo
Zenaida macroura
Bubo virginianus
Chaetura pelagica
Archilochus colubris
Dryocopus pileatus
Melanerpes carolinus
Picoides villosus
Picoides pubescens
Myiarchus crinitus
Sayornis phoebe
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax minimus
Hirundo rustica
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Progne subis
Cyanocitta cristata
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvus ossifragus
Poecile atricapillus
Baeolophus bicolor
Sitta carolinensis
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Troglodytes aedon
Mimus polyglottos
Dumetella carolinensis
Turdus migratorius
Sialia sialis
Vireo olivaceus
Setophaga petechia
Passer domesticus
Agelaius phoeniceus
Quiscalus quiscula
Cardinalis cardinalis
Carpodacus mexicanus
Spinus tristis
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Spizella passerina
Melospiza melodia
1 NT = non-territorial; NN =
Common name
red-tailed hawk
wild turkey
mourning dove
great horned owl
chimney swift
ruby-throated hummingbird
pileated woodpecker
red-bellied woodpecker
hairy woodpecker
downy woodpecker
great crested flycatcher
eastern phoebe
willow flycatcher
least flycatcher
barn swallow
cliff swallow
purple martin
blue jay
American crow
fish crow
black-capped chickadee
tufted titmouse
white-breasted nuthatch
Carolina wren
house wren
northern mockingbird
gray catbird
American robin
eastern bluebird
red-eyed vireo
yellow warbler
house sparrow
red-winged blackbird
common grackle
northern cardinal
house finch
American goldfinch
eastern towhee
chipping sparrow
song sparrow
Territory
size (ha)1
425
IN
IN
212
NT
IN2
<3.14
8.80
1.05
5.10
2.40
1.77
1.09
0.18
NN
NN
NN
NT
1.25
IN3
3.30
4.20
20.0
0.12
0.40
0.40
0.11
0.12
1.01
0.73
0.04
NT
0.29
NN
0.15
NT
IN4
1.90
0.60
0.16
only territorial in immediate area around the
2 depending on food resources available can range from
0.07 -3000 ha
Reference PIF PT-c5
P
h
I
P
g
0
e
s
a
V
t
i
r
P
d
c
u
k
f
b
k
n
k
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
k
k
q
m
P
k
j
k
P
P
nest; IN
1
1
2
2
5
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
4
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
4
2
2
1
1
2
5
4
4
2
2
2
4
3
4
= indeterminate
3 nests colonially or semi-colonially
Target list of bird species
-------
Table 3-1 Continued
4 varies with type of nesting habitat and nest location
a Allison 1947
b Bent 1946
c Brown & Brown 1 995
d Brown & Brown 1 999
e Bull & Jackson 2011
f Caffrey 1 992
9
Cink& Collins 2002
h Eaton 1992
1 Hill & Gates 1988
j McGraw & Middleton 2009
k McKernan & Hartvigsen 2001
' Otis et al. 2008
m Peer & Bellinger 1997
nPielou1957
0 Robinson et al. 1996
pSchoener 1968
q Searcy & Yakusawa 1 995
r Sedgewick 2000
s Shackleford et al. 2000
' Stewart & Robbins 1958
"Tarof & Brown 2013
v Twomey 1 945
5Partners in Flight Population Trend descriptions (Panjabi et al. 2012):
1 = Significant large increase (pop'n change > 50%; P < 0.1)
2 = Significant small increase or stable (pop'n change 0% to 50%; P < 0.1)
3 = Uncertain pop'n change, stable, or possible small decrease (P > 0.33; unreliable trend)
4 = Moderate decrease, possible large decrease (pop'n change -15% to -50%; 0.1 < P < 0.33)
5 = Significant large decrease (pop'n change < -50%; P < 0.1) _
Factors to consider when developing a target list of bird species for a site
The regional bird pool can be used as a basis for developing a target list of bird species
appropriate for a specific restoration site. The target list should be determined in part by any
existing conditions at the restoration site (Figure 1-1). Conditions include i) size of the site; ii) the
type of restoration planned; iii) any restrictions on vegetation at the site; iv) land use surrounding
the site; and v) proximity of the site to existing natural habitats or known breeding habitat.
Size of the site
Site size is important in that many bird species have specific area requirements for breeding
territories, or defended areas used for mating, nesting, and from which food is gathered to feed
young. Territory size can range from less than a meter for some colonial-nesting species to ten to
several hundred hectares for birds of prey (Nice 1941). A recent review of territory size for forest-
dwelling passerines listed territory sizes ranging from 0.5 to 6.5 ha (Whitaker and Warkentin
12 | A framework for enhancing bird habitat
-------
2010). This study also focuses on passerines although not strictly forest-dwelling species but
those that utilize urban environments; territory size may be smaller in these birds because of
enhanced availability of food resources (Emlen 1974). In spite of this, there may be potential
greenspace restoration sites that are too small for certain species. Where available, territory sizes
of birds included in the regional bird pool are included in Table 3-1.
Type of restoration and restrictions on vegetation
Type of restoration and restrictions of vegetation types at a site may impact what bird species are
feasible to include in the target list. For example, a common goal of greenspace restoration is to
enhance stormwater retention in order to meet water quality criteria. Restoring areas as wet
vegetated treatment systems, infiltration practices, filtering systems, green roofs, or open channel
practices will help meet this goal (RTDEM 2010). Of these, wet vegetated systems (surface wet
stormwater basins that provide water quality treatment primarily in a shallow vegetated
permanent pool), green roofs, and open channels (vegetated swales) have specific vegetation
requirements that may preclude targeting some bird species. Infiltration practices (areas that
facilitate retention of surface water into underlying soils), depending on their design, may have
more flexibility in the types of vegetation that can be included, or may simply consist of un-
vegetated areas. Filtering systems may consist of structural filters with no associated vegetation,
but may also include bioretention ponds that may require specific vegetation types. Common
among all these is the need to tailor the target list of bird species to the type and characteristics of
the greenspace. Many other types of urban greenspaces are not specifically designed for
stormwater retention or water quality enhancement, and these may be a target for greenspace
restoration as well. Included are formal parks and gardens, remnant natural areas, green corridors,
community gardens, and informal recreational areas. While having specific structural
requirements (e.g., urban parks often consist primarily of mowed lawns and managed wooded
areas), these areas may present options with regard to specific species of plants that may be
included.
Surrounding land use and land cover
Landscape setting, or the mix of surrounding land use and land cover, has been shown to play a
role in determining use of a site by bird species (Marzluff et al. 2001, Chace and Walsh 2006,
Bierwagen 2008). For example, a primary response noted in numerous studies is the absence of
human-intolerant species, or 'urban avoiders', at locations in urban areas (Chace and Walsh 2006,
Shwartz et al. 2008). We used an urban bird guild classification system proposed by Shwartz et
al. (2008) to eliminate those species from the regional bird pool, hence this factor should not have
to be explicitly considered when developing a target bird list for a site from our regional bird
pool. However, proximity to other natural and semi-natural areas may be worth considering; for
example, close proximity of urban wetlands has been shown to influence bird communities in
nearby areas (McKinney et al. 2011). Similarly, if a site is near an area known to support
breeding birds of a particular species, it may be prudent to consider targeting these species and to
include plantings that will provide habitat both for foraging and, if practical, nesting.
Target list of bird species | 13
-------
Once identified, a site-specific target list of bird species can be used to develop a list of specific
plant species whose use could potentially enhance the habitat value of a restoration site for target
bird species (Figure 1-1). To simplify this process we developed a candidate plant species list for
the Woonasquatucket watershed consisting of woody plants with known habitat value for birds
on our regional bird pool.
IV. Candidate Plant Species List
A candidate list of plants to be considered for planting at a specific restoration site was
developed on the basis of published bird-plant associations of woody plant species
common to New England (DeGraaf 2002). Because a number of the bird species in the
regional bird pool are insectivores or rely on insects for at least part of their food, we also
incorporated data on the use of plants by Lepidoptera to identify plants that would provide high
habitat value if utilized in a restoration (Tallamy and Shropshire 2009). This approach also added
value to our candidate list by including woody plant species that support native insect species, an
identified conservation concern for southern New England (Tallamy 2007).
Developing a list of potential woody plant species
As a first step, we considered all woody
plant species (trees, shrubs, and vines)
described by DeGraaf (2002) as having
value as food, nesting habitat, or cover for
at least one of the bird species in our
regional bird pool. This reference describes
most of the commonly-available native
woody plants and hence forms a good basis
for a list of potential plants to be used in a
restoration. We augmented this list with
173 species of woody plants shown to
provide habitat for at least one species of
Lepidoptera (Tallamy and Shropshire
2009). In order to fine-tune this list we:
i) developed a bird-Lepidoptera index to
rank the species common between the two
lists; ii) added a bird use score to emphasize
the importance of the ranked plant species for
birds; and iii) eliminated a number of species through a series of filters, including growing range
and non-native status, in order to arrive at a final list of 36 candidate woody plant species
(Table 4-1). Described below are the specific steps taken to arrive at the candidate plant species
list.
Downy serviceberry, Amelanchier arborea, grows in a variety
of habitats, and its fruits are eaten by many bird and mammal
species. Photo: Missouri Botanical Garden
14
A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
Table 4-1. Candidate list of woody plant species proposed to have habitat value for birds and Lepidoptera in the Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode Island
Family
Rosaceae
Pinaceae
Rosaceae
Cornaceae
Rosaceae
Rosaceae
Juglandaceae
Fagaceae
Caprifoliaceae
Fagaceae
Genus
Rubus
Pinus
Prunus
Cornus
Amelanchier
Malus
Juglans
Quercus
Sambucus
Fagus
Bird - Bird Most utilized
Lepidoptera use (by birds)
index score species
226 259
223 253 Eastern
white pine,
pitch pine
236 212 pin cherry
211 241 alternate-leaf
dogwood
214 214 downy
serviceberry
227 157 common
apple
201 171 butternut
227 109
190 237 common elder,
scarlet elder
197 129 American
beech
Primary Growing /planting
bird use comments
fruit fast growing, good in
(June-Aug) places where human
presence is minimal
nest, seeds good in sandy soil
fruit good in dry disturbed
(July-Sept) locations
fruit shady, moist areas
(July-Sept)
fruit fruit production greater
(June-Aug) when grown in full sun
nest grow rapidly, but mod life
span and may need
maintenance
fruit fast growing, good in
(Sept-Nov) open areas and borders
nuts
(Oct)
fruit hardy, grow rapidly, need
(June-Sept) full sun, good for thickets
fruit shade tolerant, slow
(Sept-Nov) growing, long lived,
produce fruit after 40 yrs
General
comments
raspberry,
blackberry,
dewberry
red pine seeds
preferred food of
PISI; Scots pine
seeds RECR
grow slowly; red
ossier preferred
nest site of AMGO
common apple
preferred nest site
ofAMRO, GCFL,
REVI, others
butternut fruit
preferred food of
BCCH, WBNU,
RBWO, CAWR
scarlet oak occ nest
site
Included species
Rubus allegheneisis,
R. flagellaris, R. idaeus,
R. occidentalis, R. oderatus
Pinus strobus, P. rigida,
P. resinosa, P. sylvestris
Prunus pensylvanica,
P. serotina, P. virginiana
Cornus alternifolia,
C. amomum, C. canadensis,
C. racemosa, C. sericea
Amelanchier arborea,
A. canadensis, A. laevis
Malus "Bob White",
Malus "Dorothea"
Juglans cinerea, J. nigra
Quercus alba, Q. coccinea,
Q. palustris, Q. rubra,
Q. velutina
Sambucus canadensis,
S. racemosa
Fagus grandifolia
Candidate plant species list
-------
Table 4-1 Cont'd
Family
Myricaceae
Ulmaceae
Ericaceae
Vitaceae
Anacardiaceae
Ulmaceae
Aquifoliaceae
Nyssaceae
Pinaceae
Grossulariaceae
Bird - Bird
Lepidoptera use
Genus index1 score
Myrica 201 124
Ulmus 211 98
Vaccinium 199 120
Parthenocissus 175 169
Rhus 187 124
Celtis 178 121
Ilex 172 146
Nyssa 164 164
Picea 202 77
Ribes 182 108
Most utilized
(by birds)
species
northern
bayberry
American elm
lowbush
blueberry
Virginia
creeper
staghorn
sumac
common
hackberry
inkberry,
common
winterberry
black tupelo
white spruce
pasture
gooseberry
Primary
bird use
Growing /planting
comments
fruit grows in wide range of
(June-April) soils, good for controlling
soil erosion; berries
persist through winter
nest, seeds
fruit
(July-Sept)
fruit
(Aug-Feb)
fruit
(Aug-Sept)
fruit
(Sept-Nov)
fruit
(Mar-June)
fruit
(Aug-Oct)
nest
nest, fruit
(July-Sept)
grows to 100 ft; problem
with Dutch elm disease
hardy, slow-growing,
good as ground cover
high-climbing vine,
spreads rapidly
grows well on steep
banks and low nutrient
soils; hardy, grow rapidly,
little or no care
only grows among other
trees, in alkaline soil,
lower branches occur
high on trunk
hardy, slow-growing,
tolerates dry, shady,
windy locations
good for wet sites,
lowlands, moderate
growth rate
large areas only
grows in shade and poor
soil, good for borders,
hedges; good understory
shrub
General
comments
preferred nest site
of RWBL
preferred nest site
of BAOR
preferred food of
thrushes, fruits
persist through
winter
fruits persist into
winter
preferred food of
woodpeckers
white and Colorado
spruce preferred
nest site of AMRO,
MODO, NOMO,
CHSP
alternate hosts for
white pine blister
rust
Included species
Myrica pensylvanica
Ulmus americana
Vaccinium augustifolium,
V. corymbosum
Parthenocissus
quinquefolia
Rhus hirta
Celtis occidentalis
Ilex glabra, 1. verticillata,
1. laevigata
Nyssa sylvatica
Picea glauca, P. pungens,
P. rubens
Ribes cynosbati,
R. americanum
A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
Table 4-1 Cont'd
Family
Moraceae
Betulaceae
Aceraceae
Rosaceae
Rosaceae
Caprifoliaceae
Ericaceae
Juglandaceae
Rosaceae
Betulaceae
Bird-
Lepidoptera
Genus index
Morus 1 48
Betula 208
Acer 205
Crataegus 1 94
Rosa 1 88
Viburnum 1 93
Gaylussacia 1 74
Can/a 164
Sorbus 163
/A/nus 1 89
Bird
use
score
297
62
63
78
81
67
86
101
94
34
Most utilized
(by birds)
species
red mulberry
paper birch
red maple
Washington
hawthorn
Virginia rose
nannyberry,
arrowoods
highbush
huckleberry
shagbark
hickory
American
mountain-ash
speckled alder,
smooth alder
Primary
bird use
fruit
(July-Aug)
seeds
nest,
seeds
fruit,
nest
fruit,
cover
fruit
(Aug-Oct)
fruit
(July-Sept)
fruit
(Sept-Dec)
fruit
(Aug-Oct)
seeds,
cover
Growing /planting
comments
attractive, fast growing,
hardy trees 30-60 ft
grow rapidly, short
(80 yr) life span
good roadside trees
attractive border, plant
close together; suscept-
ible to rust, blight: keep
away from E. red cedar
most common rose in
New England
most are understory
shrubs, hardy, moderate
growing, good as
foundation plantings or
background screens
(nannyberry)
grows to 3 ft.,
commonly found
among blueberries
grows to 80 ft.,
long-lived
grows to 40 ft., cool,
moist, sunny locations
grows well along
watercourses, leaves
appear early in spring,
General
comments
white mulberry may
be preferred if
allowed
fruits persist
through winter so
can be good as an
emergency food
preferred food for
GRCA
varieties developed
for high nut
production
good choice for
small suburban
lawns
speckled alder
seeds imp food for
AMGO
Included species
Morus rubra, M. alba
Betula papyrifera, B. lenta,
B. alleghaniensis,
B. populifolia
Acer rubrum, A. negundo,
A. platanoides, A.
saccharinum, A. saccharum
Crataegus phaenopyrum,
C. crusgalli
R. virginiana, R. Carolina
Viburnum dentatum,
V. lent ago
Gaylussacia baccata,
G. brachycera, G. dumosa,
G. frondosa
Carya ovata, C. glabra,
C. alba
Sorbus americana
Alnus incana, A. serrulata
form thickets
Candidate plant species list
-------
Table 4-1 Cont'd
Family
Oleaceae
Salicaceae
Cupressaceae
Rosaceae
Betulaceae
Caprifoliaceae
Genus
Fraxinus
Populus
Juniperus
Spiraea
Carpi n us
Symphoricarpos
Bird-
Lepidoptera
index
169
181
153
165
148
132
Bird
use
score
35
27
60
31
32
40
Most utilized
(by birds)
species
green ash
quaking aspen
common
juniper
narrowleaf
meadowsweet
American
hornbeam
coralberry
Primary
bird use
seeds
nest,
buds
fruit
fruit
cover
fruit,
cover
Growing /planting
comments
fast growing, insect
resistant, moderately
long-lived
rapid growing but
short-lived
hardy, slow-growing,
colonizes disturbed areas
hardy, grow rapidly
hardy, slow-growing,
relatively short-lived
adapt well to rigorous
conditions, hardy, tolerate
air pollution
General
comments
good for streets,
parks
quaking aspen
preferred nest site
for BAOR
good for sandy
areas,
embankments
good for mass
plantings and low
borders
begins fruiting 15
years after planting
nectar attracts
RTHU, form
thickets good for
borders and erosion
control along steep
embankments
Included species
Fraxinus americana,
F. nigra, F. pennsylvanica
Populus tremuloides,
P. deltoides,
P. grandidentata
Juniperus communis
Spiraea alba, S. latifolia,
S. tomentosa
Carpi n us Carolinian a
Symphoricarpos albus,
S. orbiculatus
1 Higher values of the Bird-Lepidoptera Index and Bird Use Score indicate higher conservation value for regional bird pool species.
A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
Bird-Lepidoptera index
The woody plant species from DeGraaf (2002) were cross-referenced with those described as
supporting Lepidoptera and ranked according to a bird-lepidoptera index. The index was
developed at the genus level; e.g., all species of the genus Pinus (Pinus strobus, P. rigida,
P. resinosa, and P. sylvestris) found in the study area were grouped together and their utility as
bird and lepidoptera habitat reflected in the index. To create the index we first ordered the
DeGraaf (2002) species from least (Arctostaphylos spp., bearberry: 1 species) to most (Morus
spp., mulberry: 29 species) bird species supported and assigned them a ranking where a higher
number reflects more bird species supported. Support is defined as having demonstrated value as
food, a nesting site, or cover for a bird species. For example, black-capped chickadee, Poecile
atricapillus, have been reported to eat eastern white pine, Pinus strobus, seeds; eastern white
pine therefore supports black-capped chickadee. We then ordered the 173 species described in
Tallamy and Shropshire (2009) from least (23 plant species with 1 species supported) to most
(Quercus spp., oaks: 532 species) Lepidoptera species supported and assigned a ranking as
above. Where species occurred on both lists we added the rankings, and arranged the resulting
65 woody plant species in order from highest combined ranking (reflecting the most combined
species of birds and lepidoptera supported) to lowest.
Bird use score
The bird use score was developed from information presented in DeGraaf (2002) and Martin et
al. (1951). These publications are summaries of published literature listing birds associated with
woody plants, and each publication contains categories of the extent to which bird species rely
on a given plant. The intent was to include the extent or degree to which plants provide support
to different bird species in the ranking process. We focused on the three resource use categories
food, nest, and cover, and summarized use
extent categories as normal or preferred.
Resource and extent categories were assigned
numerical values based on presumed importance
to birds (order of importance: nest > food >
cover; preferred > normal) resulting in 11
possible combinations of nest, food, and cover
along with normal or preferred. These
combinations, or use scores, ranged in value
from cover only (value 1) through preferred nest,
food, and cover (value 19). We then summed the
use scores for all bird species using a given
woody plant species to arrive at a bird use score
for the plant (Table 4-1). A higher score
indicates that the plant's resources are utilized to
Witch hazel, Hamamelis spp., is a popular ornamental a §reater extent bY birds- Sc°reS ran§ed fr°m 27
plant used in landscape design, although it has limited (Populus Spp.) to 297 (Morus Spp.).
wildlife habitat value. Photo: R. McKinney
Candidate plant species list
19
-------
Candidate plant list
Woody plant species were ordered in two lists according to bird-Lepidoptera index value
(highest to lowest) and bird use score (highest to lowest). The ranks for each plant species were
summed, and the plants ordered from lowest to highest according to the sum of ranks. We then
eliminated 14 plant species that exhibited little or no habitat value to our target bird species (less
than 10% of the highest bird use value), and 6 species that are classified as non-native in
southern New England. Several other species were eliminated from the list according to criteria
that we felt rendered them unsuitable for use in a restoration setting: 2 species were injurious to
humans, 3 species their northern range limit did not include the Woonasquatucket watershed, 2
species exhibited inappropriate growing habits, one species had a propensity to be heavily grazed
by deer, and one species was known to harbor injurious plant pest species. The resulting list of
36 woody plants comprises the candidate list of plant species (Table 4-1). The 36 plants on the
candidate list comprised 63.9% of the total cumulative bird-Lepidoptera index value for all
woody plant species, and 72.9% of the total cumulative bird use score.
Summary
Knowledge of the type and arrangement of natural habitats present, along with their setting the
surrounding human-dominated landscape, allowed us to develop a regional bird pool comprised
of 40 bird species that could potentially utilize appropriate habitats within the watershed and
hence could be included as target species for greenspace restorations. The mean territory size of
passerine (songbird) species on the list was 1.95 ± 4.41 ha, and about half of these species had
territory sizes under 0.5 ha. It would be reasonable to assume that these species may be able to
take advantage of suitable habitats in all but the smallest greenspace restorations for nesting.
Thirteen of the 40 species had Partners-in-Flight Population Trend values of 3 or greater, an
indication of potential conservation concern for these species (Panjabi et al. 2012). Several of
these, including least flycatcher (Empidonax minimus), northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos), red-winged blackbird (Agelaiusphoeniceus), and song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia) also have relatively small territory requirements of less than 0.5 ha. Efforts to enhance
urban greenspace habitats for these species could be viewed as helping towards their
conservation in general, and would add further value to a greenspace restoration.
A candidate list of 36 native woody species was also derived as potential species for inclusion in
greenspace restoration efforts in the Woonasquatucket watershed; these plants were ranked in
order of the extent to which they support bird species identified as part of the regional pool. As a
whole, these candidate plant species represented greater than 50% of the habitat value to birds of
all woody plants (native, non-native, ornamental) that were originally considered, and are
therefore a good representation of plants with relatively high bird habitat value.
As a first step towards validating the target lists, we undertook an empirical study examining
breeding bird use of existing greenspace habitats in the Woonasquatucket watershed. Below are
reported results of the study and findings relevant to the potential enhancement of bird habitat
value of urban greenspaces during restoration.
20 | A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
V. Breeding bird use of greenspace habitats in
an urban southern New England watershed
Introduction
Historical studies of urban birds for the most part focused on describing patterns of community
composition and distribution and the effects of urbanization and human disturbance on bird
communities (Marzluff et al. 2001, Chace and Walsh 2006). More recently studies have begun to
examine the relationship between both the types of vegetation present and vegetative structure
and habitat use by birds. For example, a study of bird communities in an urban ecosystem in
Brazil showed that species richness had a direct relationship with vegetation complexity
(Barbosa de Toledo et al. 2012), and bird-habitat relationships in greenspaces in Delhi, India
suggested that high vegetative structural diversity may help maintain bird diversity in these
urban habitats (Khera et al. 2009). To date most of these studies have focused on landscape-scale
effects of broad vegetation patterns; few studies have looked at finer-scale interactions between
birds and specific species of plants present in urban habitats, although some have suggested that
these factors may be important (Ortega-Alvarez and MacGregor-Fors 2010, Pennington and
Blair 2011).
While few ecological studies have examined bird-plant interactions in urban areas, there have
been a number of very effective practical publications geared towards landowners linking the
natural history requirements of urban tolerant birds to management actions to enhance their use
of urban landscapes (e.g., Roth 1998, DeGraaf 2002, Kress 2006, NWF 2013,and BIB 2013).
These guides work from established relationships gleaned from avian literature and past studies
linking bird species to specific plant species and the height or structure of vegetation. Analysis of
these resources allows the identification of plant species that will support specific bird species by
providing food and cover for nests. The result of one such analysis is described in an earlier
section of this report, where 36 candidate plant species are ranked in order of providing support
for species identified in the regional bird pool for the Woonasquatucket watershed. While this
analysis was based ultimately on information from the avian literature, it's not clear whether and
to what extent these relationships will be upheld in the Woonasquatucket. The objective of this
study was to investigate bird use of existing greenspace habitats in the Woonasquatucket
watershed, and to examine links between plant and bird species present at the sites.
In addition to areas targeted for restoration, there are a number of existing urban greenspaces in
the Woonasquatucket watershed that can be utilized by birds. Most visible are city parks, which
often contain multi-use sports or recreational areas. These greenspaces are the most actively
managed, and often are dominated by vegetation not conducive to bird use such as mowed grass,
pavement, or gravel surfaces. However these areas may have vegetated buffers consisting of a
variety of woody plant species that could be utilized by birds, but this use is often tempered by
elevated levels of direct human disturbance in close proximity. Remnant natural areas can
include patches of urban forest, shrub, or grassland that were never developed, or developed
areas that have reverted back to a semi-natural state. Both of these types of greenspaces can be
Breeding bird use of greenspace habitats | 21
-------
heavily utilized by birds as they often contain a diversity of plant species and often are free from
direct human disturbance. However they can also be dominated by non-native vegetation,
particularly in developed areas that have reverted back to a semi-natural state, which may inhibit
their use by some bird species. Also present in the watershed are green corridors, including a
bike path and several relic transportation rights of way, which can provide habitat for birds.
Amenity greenspaces include informal recreation areas associated with housing complexes,
apartments, and condominiums, and greenspaces in and around these facilities. Because of their
close proximity to humans, these areas generally support a limited number of bird species,
although some human-tolerant species can take advantage of these resources. Often discounted
as sources of bird habitat are allotments and areas set aside for community gardens. These
greenspaces are often not directly used by birds during the growing season, but can be important
areas for foraging during the fall and winter months. Considerable amounts of urban land are
dedicated to use as cemeteries and churchyards, and because of their semi-natural state and
relative lack of human disturbance they can provide bird habitat. As in the case of parks and
recreational areas, these greenspaces are often intensely managed, this limits their habitat value
to birds.
In this study we examined bird use and vegetation characteristics in 17 urban greenspaces in the
Woonasquatucket watershed to determine patterns of association between birds and supporting
plant species. The chosen sites represented urban parks, remnant natural areas, green corridors,
and amenity greenspaces. By verifying known patterns of bird - plant association, the results will
aid in the development of guidelines to enhance the bird habitat value of restored greenspaces.
Results will provide information about bird - habitat relationships at the individual patch level,
which will compliment broader scale approaches towards enhancing urban bird habitat
(McCaffrey and Mannan 2012). Ultimately these guidelines will help inform regional resource
managers and stakeholders, including urban planning departments and local resource
conservation organizations involved in planning and carrying out restoration of urban
greenspaces.
Methods
Sites were randomly selected from a pool of potential greenspace restoration sites identified by
the Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council (Providence, RI; www.woonasquatucket.org).
Since a majority of the sites were located on private land, we moved the sampling location to the
nearest greenspace with public access (Figure 2-1). We established point count locations in an
accessible area as close as possible to the center of the greenspace, and conducted 10 min point
counts at each station from mid-May to the end of June 2012. All birds seen or heard within a
50 m radius were recorded using a dependent-observer approach. Survey teams consisted of a
primary observer who noted bird species and abundance, and a secondary observer who recorded
data and noted any individuals missed by the primary observer (Nichols et al. 2000, Forcey et al.
2006). All point counts were conducted between 06:00 and 10:00 hours. As a basis for analysis
of plant-bird relationships we used the Woonasquatucket watershed regional bird pool developed
previously (Table 3-1 in this document).
22 | A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
We classified vegetation within a 50 m radius around each point count location using vegetation
formations described in the National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS 2008). Also
within a 50 m radius around each point count location we identified all woody plant species
present by walking the perimeter of the radius, and a series of transects through each 50 m radius
area. Woody plant species were classified as supporting species for birds in the regional bird
pool using published information about plant-bird relationships (Martin et al. 1951, DeGraaf
2002).
Additional land-use characteristics were quantified using Geographic Information System (GIS)
topographic databases. We obtained GIS data (land use and land cover) from Rhode Island
Geographic Information System (RIGIS 2013) and processed data using Environmental Systems
Research Institute ARC GIS software (Redlands, CA). Land use and land cover data were
summarized from 2004 aerial photography (1:24,000 scale) coded to Anderson modified level 3
(Anderson et al. 1976) to 0.1 ha minimum polygon resolution. We used this information to
calculate the percent urban land (residential, commercial, institutional, transportation
infrastructure, and industrial land) within a 1 km buffer around the each point count station.
Results
Mean bird species richness measured at the 18 sites was 6.94 ± 0.56 species and mean abundance
was 14.4 ± 8.31 birds (Table 5-1). The mean number of human-intolerant species (i.e., urban
avoiders; Shwartz et al. 2008) observed was 0.59 ± 0.72 species, therefore, birds detected at the
sites were predominantly human-tolerant, mostly urban adapters with a few urban exploiters.
There was a significant positive correlation between species richness and the proportion of urban
land within 1 km (r = 0.644, F = 10.6, p = 0.005) of a site. Bird abundance also increased
significantly with increasing proportion of urban land within 1 km (r = 0.612, F = 8.99,
p = 0.009) of a site.
Woody plant species richness ranged from 7 to 14 with a mean of 11.9 ± 0.64 species per site
(Table 5-2), and 24.3 ± 2.76% of species observed were non-native. Trees were the dominant
woody plant life form at 10 of the sites, followed by shrubs (4 sites). Other plant life forms
dominant at the sites were perennials (2 sites) and mowed lawn (1 site). The mean coverage of
dominant life forms across the sites was 62.9 ± 3.63%.
Breeding bird use of greenspace habitats | 23
-------
Table 5-1. Bird species richness and abundance within 50 m and proportion of urban land
within 1 km of 17 study sites in the Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode Island, USA
Species richness
Site 0-50 m
22
41
43
66
188
198
234
248
258
259
349
379
424
425
427
452
454
8
6
2
5
7
7
7
5
11
7
6
4
10
7
9
9
8
Abundance
0-50m
15
9
2
11
11
14
11
6
21
21
10
6
16
13
15
34
30
Prop URB
1 km1
0.65
0.41
0.31
0.32
0.57
0.88
0.21
0.51
0.85
0.93
0.55
0.57
0.88
0.83
0.81
0.67
0.96
Proportion of urban land in a 1 km buffer around the site
Table 5-2. Woody plant species richness (SR) and vegetation characteristics measured in
2012 at 17 study sites in the Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode Island, USA
Site
22
41
43
66
188
198
234
248
258
259
349
379
424
425
427
452
454
Woody plant
SR
10
15
10
7
13
13
14
10
16
16
9
14
12
8
11
14
11
Proportion non-
native species
0.40
0.33
0.10
0.43
0.15
0.23
0.29
0.10
0.19
0.19
0.44
0.21
0.25
0.38
0.18
0.07
0.18
Dominant Life
Form (DLF)
tree
shrub
tree
shrub
tree
tree
shrub
tree
tree
tree
tree
tree
tree
perennial
shrub
perennial
mowed
Percent cover
of DLF (%)
60
60
100
50
65
70
50
60
50
50
60
90
80
55
40
60
70
A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
A majority (91.3 ± 2.68%) of the bird species observed at the sites had at least one supporting
woody plant species present, and greater than two-thirds (73.2 ± 4.94%) had multiple supporting
woody plant species present at a site at which they were observed (Table 5-3; supporting plants
are defined as having demonstrated value as food, a nesting site, or cover for a bird species).
Table 5-3. Comparison of the number of supporting plant species per observed
bird species in 2012 at 18 study sites in the Woonasquatucket River watershed,
Rhode Island, USA
Site
22
41
43
66
188
198
234
248
258
259
349
379
424
425
427
452
454
Percent of bird species
where 1 or more of the
plants at the site were
supporting plant species
100
89
100
70
88
100
100
100
100
100
100
86
100
67
86
80
86
Percent of bird species
where 2 or more of the
plants at the site are
supporting plant species
88
67
100
50
71
100
43
60
73
71
100
50
40
100
67
78
86
Total
bird species
observed
8
6
2
4
7
6
7
5
11
7
5
4
10
6
9
9
7
Across all sites the mean number of supporting woody plant species per regional bird pool
species observed at a site was 3.87 ± 0.26 plants (Table 5-4). For regional bird pool species
observed at the sites, supporting plants comprised 33.0 ± 2.11% of all the woody plants reported.
At some sites regional bird pool species were not observed even though there were supporting
plants present for that species; the mean number of supporting woody plant species per regional
bird pool species not observed at a site was 1.50 ± 0.11 plants, and the supporting plants present
comprised 12.5 ± 0.67% of the woody plants reported. The five most frequently observed
regional bird pool species were American robin, Turdus migratorius (present at 16 sites), gray
catbird, Dumetella carolinensis (13 sites), song sparrow, Melospiza melodia (12 sites), common
grackle, Quiscalus quiscula (7 sites), and house sparrow, Passer domesticus (7 sites; Appendix
1). Fifteen regional bird pool species were not observed at any of the sites, and an additional six
Breeding bird use of greenspace habitats | 25
-------
Table 5-4. Mean number of supporting woody plant species per regional bird pool
species in 2012 at 17 study sites in the Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode
Island, USA
Supporting plant species per
regional bird pool species
observed at the site
Supporting plant species per
regional bird pool species
not observed at the site
Total plant
Site species
22
41
43
66
188
198
234
248
258
259
349
379
424
425
427
452
454
10
15
10
7
13
14
14
10
16
16
9
14
12
8
11
14
11
Mean
4.00
3.50
6.00
2.50
4.43
4.00
4.29
3.20
4.82
6.29
3.40
4.00
2.70
2.83
3.33
3.44
3.14
Percent of
all plants
40.0
23.3
60.0
35.7
34.1
28.6
30.6
32.0
30.1
39.3
37.8
28.6
22.5
35.4
30.3
24.6
28.5
Mean
1.45
1.92
1.40
0.64
1.58
1.53
2.58
1.63
1.47
2.10
1.06
1.22
1.90
0.81
1.26
1.44
1.48
Percent of
all plants
14.5
12.8
14.0
9.1
12.2
10.9
18.4
16.3
9.2
13.1
11.7
8.7
15.8
10.1
11.5
10.3
13.5
were only observed at a single site (Appendix 1). The mean number of regional bird pool species
not observed at a site even though greater than 33.0% of the woody plants present were
supporting plants was 4.35 ± 0.54 species (Table 5-5). Several regional bird pool species
(Eastern bluebird, Sialia sialis; Northern mockingbird, Mimuspolyglottos; Eastern towhee,
Pipilo erythrophthalmus; Mourning dove, Zenaida macroura; American Crow, Corvus
brachyrhynchos) were not observed or observed at only a single site even though greater than
33.0% of the woody plants present were supporting plants at more than a third of the sites
(Table 5-5).
A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
Table 5-5. Regional bird pool species not observed during 2012 sampling at 17 sites in the
Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode Island, USA even though greater than 33.0% of all plant
species at the site were supporting plant species: a) list of all regional bird pool species not observed;
b) ranked list of regional bird pool species unobserved at two or more sites with supporting plant species
a)
Site
Regional bird pool species with >
33.0% supporting plants at the
site but not observed1
22 AMCR, DOWO, EABL, EATO,
NOMO, RBWO
41 AMRO, EABL, NOCA, NOMO
43 BLJA, EATO, GRCA, MODO,
NOCA, TUTI
66 REVI
188 EABL, EATO, GRCA, MODO
198 NOCA, NOMO
234 AMCR, AMGO, BLJA, COGR,
EABL, HAWO, MODO, NOCA,
NOMO
248 AMGO, COGR, EATO, HAWO,
MODO, NOCA, RBWO, TUTI
258 BCCH, EABL
259 AMCR, DOWO, EABL, NOMO
349 EABL, MODO, NOMO
379 EATO, MODO
424 AMCR, AMGO, EABL, MODO,
NOMO
425 EABL, NOCA, NOMO, REVI
427 AMCR, EABL, EATO, NOMO
452 BLJA, EATO, NOCA
454 AMCR, DOWO, GRCA, HAWO,
NOCA, NOMO, RBWO
b)
Sites with > 33.0% Number
Regional supporting plants observed
bird pool present but not across all
species observed at a site sites
EABL
NOMO
NOCA
EATO
MODO
AMCR
AMGO
BLJA
DOWO
GRCA
HAWO
RBWO
REVI
TUTI
10
10
8
7
7
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
0
1
6
1
1
0
2
6
1
13
0
2
1
2
AMCR = American Crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos
AMGO = American goldfinch, Spinus tristis
BCCH = Black-capped chickadee, Poecile atricapillus
BLJA = Blue jay, Cyanocitta cristata
COGR = Common grackle, Quiscalus quiscula
DOWO = Downy woodpecker, Picoides pubescens
EABL = Eastern bluebird, S/a//a s/a//s
EATO = Eastern towhee, Pipilo erythrophthalmus
GRCA = Gray catbird, Dumetella carolinensis
HAWO = Hairy woodpecker, Picoides villosus
MODO = Mourning dove, Zenaida macroura
NOCA = Northern cardinal, Cardinalis cardinalis
NOMO = Northern mockingbird, Mimus polyglottos
RBWO = Red-bellied woodpecker, Melanerpes carolinus
REVI = Red-eyed vireo, Vireo olivaceus
TUTI = Tufted titmouse, Baeolophus bicolor
Breeding bird use of greenspace habitats
-------
Discussion
An increase in bird species richness with increasing urbanization around a site has been observed
in several urban habitat types including urban wetlands (McKinney et al. 2011), urban forest
remnants (Blair and Johnson 2008), and early-successional habitats (Schlossberg et al. 2011).
The increase in bird species richness with increasing urbanization across a variety of greenspace
types observed in this study is consistent with these trends, and may be a result of human-
tolerant bird species taking advantage of increased resources, or a lack of competition from
human-intolerant species at sites with more urban character. For example, some human-tolerant
birds may be passing up the less urban sites, even though supporting plants are present, to take
advantage of abundant resources at more urban sites. Greenspaces in urban landscapes may also
offer some protection from avian or mammalian predators, especially those who will avoid areas
of human habitation. Regardless of the cause of this increase in species richness, it is important
to note that it may come at an ecological cost as human-tolerant bird species are displacing
human-intolerant species once resident at urban sites, resulting in a shift in bird community
composition. One consequence of this is the potential for a shift in foraging strategies of resident
birds, which in turn may have unforeseen consequences on ecosystem structure and function
(Blair and Johnson 2008).
We did not observe any relationship between woody plant species richness and the extent of
urbanization at our sites; however, almost a quarter of the species present at a site were
categorized as non-native species. It is not clear whether this degree of non-native plant species
coverage is higher than that found in natural areas, or just reflects a regional level of non-native
species occurrence regardless of landscape setting of a site. Equally important is whether woody
plant species community composition changes across a gradient of urbanization, as a result of
differing susceptibility to human-generated pollutants. Both of these issues are beyond the scope
of the present study, but may have implications for bird use of urban greenspace habitats.
Our results suggest that birds may be focusing on woody plant species that have been identified
as providing some habitat value to them, and suggest that the presence of multiple supporting
woody plant species increases the probability of finding a bird species at a site. This may be a
result of birds looking to utilize the sites for multiple uses, for example for foraging and nesting,
which may require the presence of multiple plant species to provide those resources. It may also
reflect that different plant species provide their resources at different times, and birds utilizing a
site may want to assure that resources are available throughout their period of use. Or it may just
be the result of birds' need for a certain level of resource availability that can't be provided by a
single plant species. Whatever the driving mechanism, it does appear that from a practical
standpoint providing multiple supporting plant species at a site will enhance habitat value.
Our observation that some birds known to inhabit the watershed were not present even though
there were multiple supporting plant species present may be the result of human-intolerant birds
avoiding the more urban sites in our study. Anecdotally it is well known that a number of bird
species are less likely to use areas in the presence of human disturbance; scientific studies have
28 | A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
verified this for several species (Blair 1996). What is not as well known is the tolerance
threshold, if any, for species in the regional bird pool. The degree to which birds will avoid
human-dominated areas may be species specific, and may further preclude some species from
being considered as targets for enhancement of greenspace bird habitat value. For example, in
our study several species were not observed even though there were abundant supporting plants
at more than a third of the sites. This may indicate that these are not possibilities as target species
for our study area. However, several of these species have been documented to use urban
habitats, including northern mockingbird (Stracey and Robinson 2012) and American crow (Bent
1946), although the relative extent of urbanization at sites where they were observed was not
clear.
Greater than half of the species in our regional bird pool for the Woonasquatucket were not
observed or observed at only a single site. It may therefore be possible, with adequate habitat
enhancement, to increase bird diversity by creating greenspaces with vegetation specifically
targeting these species. Some particularly promising candidate species are American goldfinch
(Spinus tristis), downy woodpecker (Picoidespubescens), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus),
red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), and red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus). All of
these species are somewhat human-tolerant and have been observed in urban habitats (McKinney
et al. 2011), so may be attracted to the study area if there are more sites with abundant supporting
plants. Other studies have suggested that urban bird diversity can be enhanced by management
actions in small greenspaces, particularly where vegetation structure can be modified to better
reflect foraging height requirements (Shanahan et al. 2011, McCaffrey and Mannan 2012). These
actions would also be consistent with providing additional resources for birds that are scarce in
urban areas, which has been suggested to help promote avian biodiversity (Evans et al. 2011).
These efforts at the local scale will have to be combined with landscape-scale efforts, such as
regional planning initiatives (Pennington and Blair 2011), to move towards the goal of enhancing
bird diversity in urban habitats.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Marissa Mazzotta, Autumn Oczkowski, and Cathy Wigand for providing
comments on the manuscript. Kristen DeMoranville assisted with the preparation of Appendix 3.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation. Although the research described in this article has been funded wholly by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it has not been subjected to Agency-level review.
Therefore, it does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. This is ORD Tracking
Number ORD-005195 of the Atlantic Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Breeding bird use of greenspace habitats | 29
-------
VI. Literature Cited
Allison DG. 1947. Bird populations of forest and forest edge in central Illinois. Master's Thesis.
Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Anderson JR, Hardy EE, Roach JT, and Whitmer RW. 1976. A land use and land cover
classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964.
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., USA.
Barbosa de Toledo M, Donatelli RJ, Batista GT. 2012. Relation between green spaces and bird
community structure in an urban area in Southeast Brazil. Urban Ecosystems 15:111-131.
Bent AC. 1946. Life histories of North American jays, crows and titmice. U.S. National Museum
Bulletin 191.
BIB 2013. Birds in Backyards: Guidelines for creating bird habitat. Birdlife Australia,
http://www.birdsinbackyards.net/Guidelines-Creating-Bird-Habitats (Accessed June 2013).
Bierwagen BG. 2008. Connectivity in urbanizing landscapes: The importance of habitat
configuration, urban area size, and dispersal. Urban Ecosystems 10, 29-42.
Bjerke T, Ostdahl T. 2004. Animal-related attitudes and activities in an urban population.
Anthrozoos 17:109-129.
Blair RB. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological
Applications 6:506-519.
Blair RB, Johnson EM. 2008. Suburban habitats and their role for birds in the urban-rural habitat
network: points of local invasion and extinction? Landscape Ecology 23:1157-1169.
Brown CR, Brown MB. 1995. Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonotd), The Birds of North
America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of
North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/149
Brown CR, Brown MB. 1999. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), The Birds of North America
Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North
America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/452 (Accessed June 2013).
Bull EL, Jackson JA. 2011. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), The Birds of North
America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of
North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/148 (Accessed June 2013).
Caffrey C. 1992. Female-biased delayed dispersal and helping in American Crows. Auk
109:609-619.
Cink CL, Collins CT. 2002. Chimney Swift (Chaeturapelagicd), The Birds of North America
Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North
30 | A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/646 (Accessed June 2013).
Chace JF, Walsh JJ. 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landscape and Urban
Planning 74:46-69.
DeGraff RM. 2002. Trees, shrubs, and vines for attracting birds. Hanover, N.H: University Press
of New England.
Eaton SW. 1992. Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), The Birds of North America Online (A.
Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America
Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/022 (Accessed June 2013).
Ehrlich PR, Dobkin DS, Wheye D. 1988. The birder's handbook: a field guide to the natural
history of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster Inc., New York, NY.
Emlen JT. 1974. An urban bird community in Tucson, Arizona: derivation, structure, regulation.
Condor 76:184-197.
Enser R, Gregg D, Sparks C, August P, Jordan P, Coit J, Raithel C, Tefft B, Payton B, Brown C,
LaBash C, Comings S, Ruddock K. 2011. Rhode Island ecological communities classification.
Technical Report. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston, RI, www.rinhs.org (Accessed
May 2013).
Evans KL, Chamberlain DE, Hatchwell BJ, Gregory RD, Gaston KJ. 2011. What makes an
urban bird? Global Change Biology 17:32-44.
Forcey GM, Anderson JT, Ammer FK, Whitmore RC. 2006. Comparison of two double-observer
point-count approaches for estimating breeding bird abundance. Journal of Wildlife Management
70:1674-1681.
Fuller RJ. 2012. The bird and its habitat: an overview of concepts. Pages 4-36 In Fuller, RJ,
(Ed.) Birds and habitat: Relationships in changing landscapes, Cambridge University Press.
Greenwood RE. 2013. A brief assessment of the historical significance of the Woonasquatucket
River valley. Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council, http://www.woonasquatucket.org/
history.php (Accessed June 2013).
Groves CR, Jensen DB, Valutis LL, Redford KH, Shaffer ML, Scott JM, Baumgartner JV,
Higgins JV, Beck MW, Anderson MG. 2002. Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting
conservation science into practice. Bioscience 52:499-512.
Harrison G, and Davies C. 2002. Conserving biodiversity that matters: Practitioners' perspectives
on brownfield development and urban nature conservation in London. Journal of Environmental
Management 65:95-108.
Hill SR, Gates JE. 1988. Nesting ecology and microhabitat of the Eastern Phoebe in the central
Appalachians. American Midlands Naturalist 120:313-324.
Literature cited 31
-------
Khera N, Mehta V, Sabata BC. 2009. Interrelationship of birds and habitat features in urban
greenspaces in Delhi, India. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 8:187-196.
Kress SW 2006. The Audubon Society guide to attracting birds, 2n edition. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, New York.
LePage D 2013. AviBase - the world bird database. Bird Life International, http://avibase.bsc-
eoc.org/ (Accessed June 2013).
Luck GW, Davidson P, Boxall D, Smallbone L. 2011. Relations between urban bird and plant
communities and human well-being and connection to nature. Conservation Biology 25:816-
826.
Martin AC, Zim HS, Nelson AL. 1951. American wildlife and plants. New York: Dover
Publications.
Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R. 2001. A historical perspective on urban bird research:
trends, terms, and approaches. Pgs 1-17 In J. M. Marzluff, R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly [EDS.],
Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA.
McCaffrey RE, Mannan RW. 2012. How scale influences birds' responses to habitat features in
urban residential areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 105:274-280.
McGraw KJ, Middleton AL. 2009. American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis), The Birds of North
America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of
North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/080 (Accessed June 2013).
McKernan P, Hartvigsen G. 2001. The territory distribution of breeding songbirds in the Roemer
Arboretum, Geneseo, NY. SUNY Geneseo Journal of Science and Mathematics 2:7-15.
McKinney RA, Paton PWC. 2009. Breeding birds associated with seasonal pools in the
northeastern United States. Journal of Field Ornithology 80:380-386.
McKinney RA, Raposa KB, Cournoyer RM. 2011. Wetlands as habitat in urbanizing landscapes:
patterns of bird abundance and occupancy. Landscape and Urban Planning 100:144-152.
Millar S. 2004. Woonasquatucket greenspace protection strategy. Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management, Office of Sustainable Watersheds, Providence, RI, 121 pgs.
Nice MM. 1941. The role of territory in bird life. American Midland Naturalist 26:441-447.
Nichols JD, Hines JE, Sauer R, Fallen FW, Fallen JE, Heglund PJ. 2000. A double-observer
approach for estimating detection probability and abundance from point counts. Auk 117:393-
408.
32 | A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
NWF. 2013. Create a bird-friendly habitat. National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA USA,
http://www.nwf.org/how-to-help/garden-for-wildlife/gardening-tips/how-to-attract-birds-to-your-
garden.aspx (Accessed June 2013).
NVCS. 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. Vegetation Subcommittee,
Federal Geographic Data Committee, February 2008., http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/
FGDC-standards-projects/vegetation/NVCS_V2_FINAL_2008-02.pdf (Accessed June 2013).
Omernik JM. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000).
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118-125.
Ortega-Alvarez R, MacGregor-Fors I. 2010. What matters most? Relative effect of urban habitat
traits and hazards on urban park birds. Ornitologia Neotropical 21:519-533.
Otis DL, Schulz JH, Miller D, Mirarchi RE, Baskett TS. 2008. Mourning Dove (Zenaida
macroura), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of
Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/117 (Accessed June 2013).
Panjabi AO, Blancher PJ, Dettmers R, Rosenberg KV. 2012. The Partners in Flight handbook on
species assessment. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory
website: http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handbook2012.pdf (Accessed June 2013).
Peer BD, Bellinger EK. 1997. Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), The Birds of North
America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of
North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/271 (Accessed June 2013).
Pennington DN, Blair RB. 2011. Habitat selection of breeding riparian birds in an urban
environment: untangling the relative importance of biophysical elements and spatial scale.
Diversity and Distributions 17:506-518.
Pielou WP. 1957. A life-history study of the Tufted Titmouse, Parus bicolor Linneaus PhD.
Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Poole A. 2005. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology;
Retrieved from The Birds of North America Online database: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/
(Accessed June 2013).
RIDEM. 2007. Woonasquatucket River Fecal Coliform Bacteria and Dissolved Metals Total
Maximum Daily Loads. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Office of
Water Resources, Providence, RI, 121 pgs.
RIDEM. 2010. Rhode Island Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual. Rhode
Island Department of Environmental Management and Coastal Resources Management Council,
Providence, RI, 487 pgs.
Literature cited 33
-------
RIGIS. 2013. Rhode Island Geographic Information System Data Repository,
http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis/ (Accessed June 2013).
Robinson TR, Sargent RR, Sargent MB. 1996. Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus
colubris), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of
Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/204
Roth S. 1998. Attracting birds to your backyard. Rodale Press Emmaus, Pennsylvania.
Schoener TW. 1968. Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology 49:123-141.
Schlossberg S, King DI, Chandler RB. 2011. Effects of low-density housing development on
shrubland birds in western Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 103:64-73.
Searcy WA, Yasukawa K. 1995. Polygyny and sexual selection in Red-winged Blackbirds.
Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
Sedgwick JA. 2000. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii\ The Birds of North America Online
(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America
Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/533 (Accessed June 2013).
Shackelford CE, Brown RE, Conner RN. 2000. Red-bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes
carolinus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of
Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/500 (Accessed June 2013).
Shanahan DF, Possingham HP, Martin TG. 2011. Foraging height and landscape context predict
the relative abundance of bird species in urban vegetation patches. Austral Ecology 36:944-953.
Shwartz A, Shirley S, Kark S. 2008. How do habitat variability and management regime shape
the spatial heterogeneity of birds within a large Mediterranean urban park? Landscape and Urban
Planning 84:219-229.
Stewart RE, Robbins CS. 1958. Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Fish and
Wildlife Service, North American Fauna No. 62.
Stracey CM, Robinson SK. 2012. Are urban habitats ecological traps for a native songbird?
Season-long productivity, apparent survival, and site fidelity in urban and rural habitats. Journal
of Avian Biology 43:50-60.
Tallamy DW. 2007. Bringing nature home. Timberland Press, London.
Tallamy DW, Shropshire KJ. 2009. Ranking Lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants.
Conservation Biology 23: 941-947.
Tarof S, Brown CR. 2013. Purple Martin (Progne subis\ The Birds of North America Online
34 | A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America
Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/287 (Accessed June 2013).
Twomey AC. 1945. The bird population of an elm-maple forest with special reference to
aspection, territorialism and coactions. Ecological Monographs 15:173-205.
Whitaker DM, Warkentin 1C. 2010. Spatial ecology of migratory passerines on temperate and
boreal forest breeding grounds. Auk, 127:471-484.
WRWC. 1998. Woonasquatucket river greenway plan. Woonasquatucket River Watershed
Council, http://www.wwrc.org/documents/Greenway_Master_Plan.pdf (Accessed June 2013).
WRWC. 2013. Woonasquatucket watershed overview. Woonasquatucket River Watershed
Council, http://www.woonasquatucket.org/overview.php (Accessed June 2013).
Literature cited 35
-------
Appendix 1. Presence (1) /absence (0) of bird species* within 0-50m of point count sites during 2012 at 17 study sites in the Woonasquatucket River
watershed, Rhode Island, USA
Common name
Scientific name
22 41 43 66 188 198 234
Site number
248 258 259 349
379 424 425 427 452 454
Red-tailed Hawk
Wild Turkey
Mourning Dove
Great Horned Owl
Chimney Swift
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Northern Flicker
Pileated Woodpecker
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Kingbird
Great Crested Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Willow Flycatcher
Least Flycatcher
Barn Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Purple Martin
Blue Jay
American Crow
Fish Crow
Black-capped Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted Nuthatch
Carolina Wren
House Wren
Northern Mockingbird
Buteo jamaicensis
Meleagris gallopavo
Zenaida macroura
Bubo virgin! anus
Chaetura pelagica
Archilochus colubris
Colaptes auratus
Dryocopus pileatus
Melanerpes carolinus
Picoides villosus
Picoides pubescens
Tyrannus tyrannus
Myiarchus crinitus
Sayornis phoebe
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax minimus
Hirundo rustica
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Progne subis
Cyanocitta cristata
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvus ossifragus
Poecile atricapillus
Baeolophus bicolor
Sitta carolinensis
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Troglodytes aedon
Mimus polyglottos
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
Appendix 1 Cont'd
Common name
Scientific name
22 41 43 66 188 198 234
Site number
248 258 259 349 379
424 425 427 452 454
Brown Thrasher
American Robin
Eastern Bluebird
European Starling
Red-eyed Vireo
Black-and-white Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Prairie Warbler
House Sparrow
Red-winged Blackbird
Common Crackle
Baltimore Oriole
Northern Cardinal
Indigo Bunting
House Finch
American Goldfinch
Eastern Towhee
Chipping Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Toxostoma rufum
Turdus migratorius
Sialia sialis
Sturnus vulgaris
Vireo olivaceus
Mniotilta varia
Setophaga petechia
Setophaga coronata
Setophaga discolor
Passer domesticus
Agelaius phoeniceus
Quiscalus quiscula
Icterus galbula
Cardinalis cardinalis
Passerina cyanea
Carpodacus mexicanus
Spinus tristis
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Spizella passerine
Spizella pusilla
Melospiza melodia
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
'Species in bold are not included in the regional bird pool.
Appendix 1
-------
Appendix 2. Presence (1) / absence (0) of woody plant species within 0-50m of point count sites during 2012 at 17 study sites in the
Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode Island, USA
Common name
Norway Spruce
Blue Spruce
White Pine
Pitch Pine
Atlantic White Cedar
Eastern Red Cedar
Tulip tree
Sassafras
Witch Hazel
American Elm
Chinese Elm
Mulberry
Black Walnut
Sweet Fern
Sweetgale
Chestnut
White Oak
Red Oak
Black Birch
River Birch
Grey Birch
Bigtooth Aspen
Quaking Aspen
Black Willow
Pussy Willow
Clethra
Low-bush Blueberry
High-bush Blueberry
Climbing Hydrangea
Meadowsweet
Scientific name
Picea abies
Picea pungens
Pinus strobus
Pinus rigida
Chamaecyparis thyroides
Juniperus virginiana
Liriodendron tulipifera
Sassafras albidium
Hamamelsis virginiana
Ulmus americana
Ulmus parvifolia
Morus alba
Juglans nigra
Comptonia peregrine
Myrica gale
Castanea dentata
Quercus alba
Quercus borealis
Betula lenta
Betula nigra
Betula populifolia
Populus grandidentata
Populus tremuloides
Salix nigra
Salix discolor
Clethra alnifolia
Vaccinium angustifolium
Vaccinium corymbosum
Hydrangea anomala
Spiraea alba
22
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
188
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
198
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
234
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Site number
248 258 259
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
349
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
379
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
424
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
425
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
427
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
452
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
454
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
Appendix 2 Cont'd
Common name
American Red Raspberry
Blackberry
Multiflora Rose
Black Cherry
Pear
Crabapple
Wisteria
Black Locust
Autumn Olive
Redtwig Dogwood
Kousa Dogwood
Black Gum
Oriental Bittersweet
Winterberry
Virginia Creeper
Grapevine
Norway Maple
Silver Maple
Red Maple
Boxelder
Smooth Sumac
Tree of Heaven
Staghorn Sumac
Winged Sumac
Poison Ivy
Privet
Green Ash
Catalpa
Japanese Honeysuckle
Southern Arrowwood
Mapleleaf Viburnum
Greenbriar
Scientific name
Rubus idaeus
Rubus allegheniensis
Rosa multiflora
Prunus serotina
Pyrus spp.
Malus spp.
Wisteria sinensis
Robinia pseudoacacia
Eleagnus umbellata
Cornus sericea
Cornus kousa
Nyssa sylvatica
Celastrus orbiculatus
Ilex verticullata
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Vitis spp.
Acer platenoides
Acer sachharinum
Acer rubrum
Acer negundo
Rhus glabra
Ailanthus altissima
Rhus typhina
Rhus copallinum
Toxicodendron radicans
Ligustrum spp.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Catalpa bignonioides
Lonicera japonica
Viburnum dentatum
Viburnum acerifolia
Smilax rotundifolia
22
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
43
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
66
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
188
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
198
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
234
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Site number
248 258 259
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
349
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
379
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
424
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
425
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
427
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
452
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
454
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix 2
39
-------
Appendix 3. Growth requirements and life history characteristics of woody plants either observed during 2012 at 17 study sites in the
Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode Island, USA, or identified in the candidate plant species list
Species
Acer negundo
Acer rubrum
Acer saccharinum
Acer saccharum
Alnus incana
Alnus serrulata
Amelanchier arborea
Amelanchier
canadensis
Amelanchier laevis
Betula alleghaniensis
Betula lenta
Observed
?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Common
name
boxelder
red maple
silver maple
sugar maple
gray alder
hazel alder
common
service berry
Canadian
serviceberry,
shadbush,
June berry
allegheny
serviceberry
yellow birch
cherry birch,
sweet birch
Invasive/
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
Sun
amount
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade
full sun,
part shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade
full sun,
part shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade
full shade,
part shade
Soil
texture
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
Growth
rate
rapid
rapid
rapid
slow
rapid
rapid
slow
moderate
moderate
slow
moderate
Growth
habit
tree
tree
tree
tree,
shrub
tree,
shrub,
thicket
tree,
shrub
tree,
shrub
tree,
shrub
tree,
shrub
tree
tree
Size Hardiness
class (ft) (Rl 5-7) Lifespan Commercial
35-60 3-8 short available
35-68 3-9 short available
45-95 3-9 moderate available
60-80 3-8 long available
15-25 2-6 short available
12-30 3-8 moderate available
25-36 5-8 moderate available
20-23 4-10 long available
30-35 4-8 short available
25-75 3-7 moderate field
collections
only
15-60 4-9 moderate field
collections
only
Additional
does best in
riparian zones
does best in
wet environments
looks un-kept if
un-pruned; lifts
sidewalks; good
tree for away from
homes
nitrogen fixing
nitrogen fixing
used as a street
plant-attractive
found naturally
in bogs
sensitive to
drought
usually found in
moist soils
A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
Appendix 3 Cont'd
Species
Betula papyrifera
Betula populifolia
Carpinus caroliniana
Carya alba
Carya glabra
Carya ovata
Celtis occidentalis
Cornus alternifolia
Cornus amomum
Cornus canadensis
Cornus racemosa
Cornus sericea
Observed
?
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Common
name
paper birch
gray birch
American
hornbeam
mockernut
hickory
pignut
hickory
shagbark
hickory
common
hackberry
dogwood
silky
dogwood
bunchberry
dogwood
gray
dogwood
redosier
dogwood
Invasive/
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
Sun
amount
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun, part
shade, full
shade
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
part shade
Soil
texture
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium
fine,
medium
fine,
medium,
coarse
Growth
rate
rapid
rapid
slow
slow
slow
slow
rapid
moderate
moderate
slow
moderate
rapid
Growth Size Hardiness
habit class (ft) (Rl 5-7)
tree 40-70 2-7
tree, 25 3-6
thicket
tree 20 3-8
tree 18-85 5-8
tree 30-80 5-9
tree 15-75 5-8
tree, 26-60 3-9
shrub
tree 25 3-8
shrub 7-20 4-8
subshrub, 0.5 2-6
shrub,
herb
shrub 6-10 5-8
tree, 7-10 2-7
shrub
Lifespan
moderate
short
short
moderate
moderate
long
moderate
moderate
moderate
long
moderate
moderate
Commercial
available
available
available
field
collections
only
contracting
only
available
available
no known
source
available
contracting
only
available
available
Additional
prefers well
drained soils,
ridges, hillsides
grows well in dry
conditions;
very drought
tolerant
nuts can damage
cars; do not put
near streets
prefers moist soils
prefers moist soils
highly adaptable
naturally found
near wetlands
Appendix 3
41
-------
Appendix 3 Cont'd
Species
Crataegus crus-galli
Crataegus
phaenopyrum
Fagus grand/folia
Fraxinus spp.
Gaylussacia spp.
Ilex glabra
Ilex laevigata
Ilex verticillata
Juglans cinerea
Juglans nigra
Juniperus communis
Malus spp.
Morus rubra
Myrica pensylvanica
Nyssa sylvatica
Observed Common
? name
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
cockspur
hawthorn
Washington
hawthorn
American
beech
ash
huckleberry
gray inkberry
gray smooth
winterberry
common
winterberry
butternut
black walnut
common
juniper
crabapple
red mulberry
northern
bayberry
marshall
blackgum
Invasive/
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
Sun
amount
full sun,
partial
shade
full sun,
part shade
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
partial
shade
full sun,
partial
shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun
full sun,
part shade
full sun,
part shade
full sun
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
Soil
texture
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine
fine,
medium
medium,
coarse
medium
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
sand,
loam,
clay
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
Growth
rate
moderate
moderate
slow
rapid
rapid
slow
moderate
moderate
rapid
rapid
slow
moderate
moderate
slow
moderate
Growth Size Hardiness
habit class (ft) (Rl 5-7) Lifespan
tree, 30
shrub
tree, 25-30
shrub
tree 30-80
tree 30
shrub 3-6
shrub 5 to
shrub 10-12
tree, 6-10
shrub
tree 20-80
tree 35-100
shrub 4
tree, 30
shrub
tree, 12-36
shrub
tree, 9-12
shrub
tree 30-95
3-7
4-8
3-9
4-9
3-8
4-9
5-8
3-9
3-7
4-9
4-9
4-9
5-9
3-6
5-9
long
long
long
moderate
moderate
long
short
moderate
short
moderate
long
long
long
(120yr)
long
moderate
Commercial
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
Additional
used as
ornamental
used as
ornamental
male and female
specific plants
prefers woodland
swamps
endangered in
CT.MA
nitrogen fixing;
male and female
plants separate;
berries only on F
wetland indicator
A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
Appendix 3 Cont'd
Species
Parthenocissus
quinquefolia
Picea glauca
Picea pungens
Picea rubens
Pinus rigida
Pinus strobus
Pinus sylvestris
Populus deltoides
Populus grandidentata
Populus tremuloides
Prunus pensylvanica
Prunus serotina
Prunus virginiana
Quercus alba
Observed
?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Common
name
Virginia creeper
white spruce
blue spruce
red spruce
pitch pine
eastern white
pine
scotch pine
eastern
cottonwood
bigtooth aspen
quaking aspen
pin cherry,
fire cherry
black cherry,
rum cherry
chokecherry
northern
white oak
Invasive/
native
native
native
introduced
native
native
native
introduced
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
Sun
amount
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
part sun,
part shade
full sun,
full shade
full sun
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
Soil
texture
fine,
medium
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
Growth
rate
rapid
moderate
slow
slow
rapid
rapid
rapid
rapid
rapid
rapid
rapid
rapid
rapid
slow
Growth
habit
vine
tree
tree
tree
tree
tree
tree
tree
tree
tree
shrub,
tree
shrub,
tree
shrub,
tree
tree
Size
class (ft)
1
18-20
20-100
30-100
20-80
20-80
30-110
80-190
40-65
40-65
25-30
40-80
15-25
25-100
Hardiness
(Rl 5-7)
3-10
5-7
4-7
5-7
4-7
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-9
1-8
3-8
4-9
2-7
3-8
Lifespan
moderate
long
long
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
short
short
short
short
moderate
short
long
Commercial Additional
available
available early serai
available
available
available inhabits coast
available requires early
weed control
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
Appendix 3
43
-------
Appendix 3 Cont'd
Species
Quercus coccinea
Quercus palustris
Quercus rubra
Quercus velutina
Rhus hirta
Ribes americanum
Rosa Carolina
Rosa virginiana
Rubus allegheniesis
Rubus flagellaris
Rubus idaeus
Rubus occidentalis
Rubus odoratus
Observed
?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Common
name
scarlet oak
pin oak
northern
red oak
black oak
staghorn
sumac
American
black currant
Carolina rose
Virginia rose
Allegheny
blackberry
common
dewberry
American red
raspberry
black raspberry
purple flowering
raspberry
Invasive/
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
Sun
amount
full sun
full sun,
part shade,
full shade
full sun,
part shade
full sun,
part shade
full sun
full shade,
part shade,
full sun
part shade,
full sun
part shade,
full sun
full, partial
full, partial
full sun
part shade,
full sun
part shade,
full sun
Soil
texture
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
clay,
loam,
sand,
rocky
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium
fine,
medium,
coarse
Growth
rate
rapid
rapid
moderate
moderate
rapid
rapid
moderate
moderate
rapid
rapid
moderate
rapid
rapid
Growth Size Hardiness
habit class (ft) (Rl 5-7) Lifespan
tree 30-70 4-8 long
tree 40-100 4-8 moderate
tree 36-81 4-8 long
tree 25-80 4-9 moderate
shrub, 30 4-7 short
tree
shrub 15-30 3-6 short
subshrub 5 5-8 moderate
subshrub 6 4-7 moderate
thicket 1-6 6-9 short
thicket, 3 6-9 short
vine
subshrub 6-9 5-9 short
subshrub 5-6 4-9 short
subshrub 5 3-8 short
Commercial Additional
no known
source
available
available
available
available
available
available disturbed areas,
roadside
available
available
available threatened in
Indiana
available
available
no known
commercial
source
A frame work for enhancing bird habitat
-------
Appendix 3 Cont'd
Observed Common
Species ? name
Sambucus canadensis
Sambucus racemosa
Sorbus americana
Spiraea spp.
Symphoricarpos spp.
Ulmus americana
Vaccinium angustifolium
Vaccinium corymbosum
Viburnum dentatum
Viburnum lentago
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
common
elderberry
red elderberry
American
mountain ash
meadowsweet
snowberry
American Elm
low bush
blueberry
high bush
blueberry
southern
arrowwood
nannyberry
Invasive/
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
Sun
amount
part shade,
full sun
part shade,
full sun
full sun
part shade,
full sun
part shade,
full sun
part shade,
full sun
full shade,
part shade,
full sun
full shade,
full sun
part shade,
full sun
part shade,
full sun
Soil
texture
medium
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium,
coarse
medium,
coarse
fine,
medium
Growth
rate
rapid
moderate
moderate
rapid
rapid
rapid
moderate
moderate
moderate
slow
Growth Size Hardiness
habit class (ft) (Rl 5-7) Lifespan
shrub, 7
tree
shrub, 10-20
tree
shrub, 30
tree
shrub 4
shrub 4
tree 50-120
subshrub, 1-2
shrub
shrub 12
shrub 3-9
shrub, 28
tree
4-9
1-5
3-8
4-9
4-9
3-9
2-5
6-10
5-7
5-7
moderate
moderate
moderate
long
long
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
long
Commercial Additional
available
available historical; early
serai; inhabits
riverbanks
available
available
available grows well in
urban areas
available
available
available
available
available
Appendix 3
45
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, Rl 02882
Official Business
Penalty for Private use
$300
------- |