Journal of Tropical Ecology (2018) 34:341–350. © Cambridge University Press 2018 doi:10.1017/S0266467418000317 The effect of urbanization on the functional and scale-sensitive diversity of bird assemblages in Central India Manoj Kale 1 , Nandkishor Dudhe 2 , Marco Ferrante 3 , Tatiana Ivanova 4 , Raju Kasambe 2 , Irina S. Trukhanova 5 , Prosun Bhattacharya 1 and Gabor L. Lövei 3, ∗ 1 Department of Sustainable Development and Environmental Science and Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen, 76, SE-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden 2 Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai, 400001, Maharashtra, India 3 Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Flakkebjerg Research Centre, Forsøgsvej 1, DK-4200 Slagelse, Denmark 4 ICPO ‘Biologists for Nature Conservation’, 24 line V. O. 3–7, 199106 St Petersburg, Russia 5 Applied Physics Laboratory, Polar Science Center, University of Washington, 1013 NE 40th St., Seattle, WA 98105, USA (Received 5 April 2018; revised 28 August 2018; accepted 28 August 2018; first published online 26 September 2018) Abstract: Diversity changes can be evaluated at various spatial scales, and the relationship between changes in diversity at the local, landscape and regional scales is not evident. The overall patterns of functional and beta diversity of bird assemblages were evaluated along a fve-stage urbanization gradient, censused over the months of January to April in the years 2010–2013, in and around Amravati city, Deccan Plateau, Central India. We expected the abundance of large and predatory species to decline along the gradient, and urbanization to homogenize species richness at the landscape level. Overall, 112,829 birds belonging to 89 species were identifed in the region, and species richness decreased from the rural forest (73 species) to more urbanized areas (lowest at the centre of Amravaty city with 29 species). Along the urbanization gradient, bird assemblages contained more small species, and the share of frugivorous and omnivorous species also increased, while that of insectivorous species decreased. Diversity partitioning indicated that of the overall pattern, local (alpha) diversity accounted for 50.1% of the total (gamma) diversity, and urbanization stages another 36.2%; the contribution of within-stage, local diversity was rather small (2.7%), indicating fairly homogeneous assemblages. Key Words: anthropogenic activities, Aves, biotic homogenization, disturbance, forest-urban gradient, frugivory, Indian Peninsula, omnivory, scale-sensitive diversity, size effects INTRODUCTION Urbanization dramatically transforms natural environ- ments, perpetuating habitat loss and fragmentation worldwide and changing the original fora and fauna, but also concentrating resources and energy (Wagner 2008). Together with increased density of humans, urbanized areas have higher temperatures, modifed pre- cipitation regimes, altered nutrient cycling and increased concentration of various xenobiotics (McKinney 2006). Urbanization also promotes biotic homogenization, as only a few, usually non-native, species can tolerate the urban conditions (McKinney 2006). As more than half of the world’s population lives in cities (United Nations 2014), urban biodiversity is particularly valuable, both ∗ Corresponding author. Email: gabor.lovei@agro.au.dk as a link between humans and nature and for providing ecosystem services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). In general, higher levels of urbanization cause a decline in ecosystem services (Eigenbrod et al. 2011, Ferrante et al. 2014) and in biodiversity (see Ahrné et al. 2009 for bumble bees; McKinney 2008 for plants; Marzluff 2001 for invertebrates and vertebrates excluding birds; Sol et al. 2014 for birds), although negative effects are not universal (Magura et al. 2010, Marzluff 2005, McKinney 2008). Birds are a fagship group in studies of urbanization on biodiversity, being a favoured group by many people, taxonomically well-known, and quick to react to envir- onmental changes in easily detectable ways (Chazdon et al. 2009, Gibson et al. 2011). Bird densities show both negative (Aronson et al. 2014) and positive (Galushin 1971, Marzluff 2001, Sengupta et al. 2014) responses https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467418000317 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 98.159.41.186, on 13 Apr 2019 at 15:45:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at