Suitability of the urban environment for birds is not so much a matter of the
density of people and their houses, but the form these houses take. Traditional
neighbourhoods in my old country, the Netherlands, used to be quite rich in
birds. Houses are built with multiple storeys, most often three, and
neighbouring houses share a wall. This is a ground-saving building method which
leaves more room for urban green (not to mention the immense heating costs
saved when heat moves not up and away through the roof and walls, but to the
floor above or the house next door).
Small and varied gardens with hedges and native herbs and grasses were ideal
habitat for birds who like semi-open habitats like the song thrush (a native to
the country), while green parks offer refuge for forest birds. Having worked as
an urban ornithologist, it is amazing how rich birdlife in a city can be as
long as the type of green is right.
Urban ecologists in my old country speak of the present century as "the new
stone age". Partially due to the success with which popular gardening programs
for years have promoted exotic plants in pots (no insects) and ornamental tiles
instead of lawns and herbs. Undoubtedly it has a lot to do with making gardens
as low-maintenance as possible without reducing green altogether. Sadly, the
more insect-resistant garden plants are, the less useful they are for
insectivorious birds. This difference is very clear when comparing insect
richness and birdlife in native European Oak trees with those in the closely
related but non native American Oak. The fact that the house sparrow does so
well in Eastern Australia while it has been in steep decline in Europe for the
past 30 years shows how important the type of urban nature is, and that drastic
changes in gardening style comprise habitat destruction in no less form than
degradation of native bushland. Anyone who wants to get rid of the little brown
breadcrumb muncher need only look at European cities to know how to go about it.
I greatly cheer efforts of increasing the density of buildings inside cities in
order to limit urban sprawl. Native bushland is being squished out everywhere
and if land needs to be "sacrificed" for housing, it better be areas that are
already disturbed. However, adjusting the style of building would make a huge
difference with respect to how much land one human being needs to claim to live
comfortably. Not to mention the many options available to include nesting
opportunities in roof spaces and walls (without affecting the hygiene of the
building - so much is possible and has already been done!) for higher-up
nesting birds like tree martins.
And why do I see English rosegardens everywhere, despite the fact that I live
in a country with the most amazing wildflowers imaginable?
Some interesting examples (sorry folks, it's all in Dutch) with pictures can be
found at:
http://www.vogelbescherming.nl/content.aspx?cid=2366
http://www.vogelbescherming.nl/content.aspx?cid=2513
http://www.vogelbescherming.nl/documents/pdf-files/actieplan_stadsvogels.pdf
Maree
Perth, WA
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/==============================www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
=============================
|
