History of birds of cities and fields

[the middle]

Hello everybody
One thing bothers me since a while...
I live in the countryside, and in the morning I wake up with the song of birds. Nice...
But my wife talks every day with her daughter who is in a big city in Germany, and each time, she says to me "I hear lots of birds at her place ... (more than at my place in the countryside)
She repeats this to me so often that it bothers me.
I have my personal opinion on this subject, and ask your opinion.
It is in my opinion the same problem as in beekeeping, city bees are doing better in big cities than in the countryside.
Reason? pesticides in my opinion.
So .. okay or disagree?

[Christophe]

Good question.

Answer: neither of them, on the contrary!

I have always heard conflicting studies on this subject ....

On the one hand, the absence of pesticides promotes the life of birds in the city, in winter they take advantage of heat losses from cities and the urban heat island, food waste can be more accessible than in the countryside? The absence of predators also must be a positive factor.

But on the other hand the city can be a nightmare for certain birds: night light pollution which completely disrupts their rhythm, benzene from petrol or other pollution which poisons them directly or via their food chain (sparrows I think ...)

There are also certain neighborhoods (with parks?) Where some non-native birds have been introduced and have become unwanted invaders.

I believe there is a case in Brussels but I don't remember the details at all. Could this be the case for your wife's neighborhood?

In short: city or field birds? It must depend on the species ...

[sen-no-sen]

It all depends on a set of parameters, and in no case should you generalize a situation.
There are indeed areas where the fauna has succeeded admirably in adapting to urban life, this can be caused, as Christophe mentioned, by factors such as the absence of predators, an "opportunistic" food source (garbage cans, waste etc ...) or at suitable nesting sites (buildings etc ...).

In the zones located in "cereal plains", the destruction of the groves, the parceling out of the islands of greenery, the use of pesticides and the regular transformation of the sites (intensive agriculture, harvesting) one transformed some of our campaigns into true deserts making the increasingly harsh flora / fauna life.

However, to say that life would develop as well in town as in the countryside, if not better, as implied by some media, is an exaggeration!
The cities are very largely polluted, moreover the modernization of many districts has eradicated the nesting sites of many species (swallows, swifts).
For my part, living in the countryside (up on the hill, with only cattle breeding and forestry), I have nothing to complain about in terms of biodiversity!

[the middle]

But still, please

[Christophe]

However, to say that life would develop as well in town as in the countryside, if not better, as implied by some media, is an exaggeration!

Well, I don't think so: it all depends on what life ... sewer rats, for example?

I think it was said that there were as many rats (understood as sewers) in Paris as there were French in France ...

Fight against rats: report on a rodent control campaign carried out by the Pasteur Institute in Saint Jean de Luz with the support of the population: production of a virus that is deadly for the rat but harmless to humans in the laboratories of the Institut Pasteur, distribution to the population of a dose of poison mixed with bait, spreading the product in sewers, stations, on banks, docks, boats

http://www.ina.fr/economie-et-societe/e ... es.fr.html

In Paris the proliferation of rats stopped in the Halles were moved to Rungis ...

http://www.ina.fr/economie-et-societe/v ... 52.fr.html

[Ahmed]

I heard a conference by Hubert REEVES during which he effectively explained that cities are becoming a refuge for biodiversity.
He even drew some satisfaction from it, which I presume to be relative ... because, if not, I find that particularly distressing.

It seems obvious that cities, despite the drawbacks mentioned above, are exempt from the use of weapons of mass destruction of nature that plague our countryside (those where "great culture" thrives).

Paris is thus favorable to the breeding of bees which find flowers sufficiently spared by chemistry.

As for rats, this species being a human commensal, there is a relationship between the number of the 2 species.
These intelligent, social animals also play a very useful role in reducing the volume of waste from Paris sewers.
Only their proliferation calls for regulation of their population.

[Christine]

Biodiversity can also be encouraged in cities, see the case of Brussels: http://www.bruxellesenvironnement.be/up ... leu_FR.pdf

This is called the "green mesh", that is to say that not only creates areas such as parks, but we also promote communication between the different areas (by planting along roads, assistance in setting up gardens in private homes, development around infrastructure - stadiums, train tracks, etc.).

We realize that wildlife and life in general does not need much to flourish discreetly and that it is easy to leave a few corners close to us. Only it is a notion that we have lost, accustomed that we are to take the whole place and make our ramdam without respect for what (ux) around us.

[sen-no-sen]

That biodiversity is encouraged in cities is an excellent thing, certainly, but these should not overshadow life outside the urban fabric.

Christine wrote:

This is called the "green mesh", that is to say that not only creates areas such as parks, but we also promote communication between the different areas (by planting along roads, assistance in setting up gardens in private homes, development around infrastructure - stadiums, train tracks, etc.).

The same principle should develop in the French countryside where the parcelling of natural habitats is very important.
The reason is often the intensive monoculture which has seen the disappearance of grove landscapes in favor of "agricultural deserts".
The return to polyculture would be a definite step forward.