RESUMO
Urban ecosystems are increasingly dominating landscapes globally, so it is critical to understand the effects of human settlements on biodiversity. Bird communities are effective indicators because they are impacted by the size and expansion of human settlements, exemplified by changes in their habitat use, breeding and foraging behaviours, as well as patterns of richness and abundance. Existing studies on bird community responses to human settlements have mainly focused on single ecoregions and large cities, leaving a gap in comparative research on how differently sized human settlements affect bird communities across various ecoregions. To address this gap, we examine species richness, bird abundances and community composition in human settlements, which exhibit variable sizes, populations, landscape configurations, and overall intensity of settlement in two tropical ecoregions in Guyana, Amazonia: forest and savannah. In each ecoregion we explored how different groupings of urban tolerance in birds responded to human settlements of differing population size and building densities. Overall, we found significant differences in bird communities across the varying levels of human settlement intensity in both ecoregions, with greater differences in bird community composition in the forest ecoregion than the savannah region. In both ecoregions, species richness and abundance were highest at the medium level of settlement of human settlement. Our findings suggest that bird tolerance to human settlements varies based on ecoregion and site-level factors. In the savannah, built features may be benefitting birds from all urban tolerance levels, but they have a negative impact on less urban-tolerant species in the forest ecoregion. Our comparative analysis reveals for the first time that the impact of human settlements on avian communities in northern Amazonia varies among ecoregions, indicating that species evolved to live in a savannah may be more tolerant to human settlements than those more evolved to a forest system.
RESUMO
Human activity affecting the welfare of wild vertebrates, widely accepted to be sentient, and therefore deserving of moral concern, is widespread. A variety of motives lead to the killing of individual wild animals. These include to provide food, to protect stock and other human interests, and also for sport. The acceptability of such killing is widely believed to vary with the motive and method. Individual vertebrates are also killed by conservationists. Whether securing conservation goals is an adequate reason for such killing has recently been challenged. Conventional conservation practice has tended to prioritise ecological collectives, such as populations and species, when their interests conflict with those of individuals. Supporters of the 'Compassionate Conservation' movement argue both that conservationists have neglected animal welfare when such conflicts arise and that no killing for conservation is justified. We counter that conservationists increasingly seek to adhere to high standards of welfare, and that the extreme position advocated by some supporters of 'Compassionate Conservation', rooted in virtue ethics, would, if widely accepted, lead to considerable negative effects for conservation. Conservation practice cannot afford to neglect consequences. Moreover, the do-no-harm maxim does not always lead to better outcomes for animal welfare.
