SJA_39_s1_101-112

Introduction

Being able to live in natural and artificial environments, the bird is the most commonly encountered wild animal in areas with plants. Having vast areal coverage makes this species a vital natural resource (Pei et al., 2018; Tryjanowski et al., 2017) as it serves the function as a parameter of areal metamorphosis (Sekercioglu, 2012; Xu et al., 2018) in ecological system harmony (Chanate et al., 2020; Machar et al., 2021). Perceptible to interaction among ecosystem elements, it is inevitable that birds support the environmental sustainability cycle (Batisteli et al., 2018) by distributing vegetation. Birds for agricultural activities can help control pests and pollinate crops.

A specific locale’s variety of living environments should impinge on its bird diversity (Lešo et al., 2019; Vale et al., 2018). As one fulfills certain birds’ needs for living and breeding (Shah and Sharma, 2022), different characteristics affect the ranges of birds found (Hagen et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2018). It is, therefore, imperative to conserve such areas to protect bird species (Hoek et al., 2017), and the attempt requires data on habitation, similar individual assemblage, and local situation.

Physical and human resource development has been underway in the capital of Riau province, Pekanbaru. Specifically, in the Umban Sari District of the Rumbai Region, more land has been opened for plantations, business spots, and residences, involving more people. The activity must be effective toward birds’ existence as less and less vegetation remains in their habitats. Birds (and other species of animals) subsist with sufficient food and dwellings (Benedetti et al., 2022), and their decrease in number and variety is often caused by ecological disturbance due to area function changes (Callaghan et al., 2018).

When plants are in their landscapes, residential areas can serve as bird dwellings in addition to homes for humans (Hagen et al., 2017). Notably, plant diversity supports more bird species (Vijay et al., 2016). Birds also play an essential role in agricultural activities, such as controlling pests and helping pollinate plants. Land cover changes in Riau Province from 2012 to 2020 were dominated by oil palm plantations and plantation forests, which tended to be homogeneous at 60.79 %, and there was a continuing upward trend (Forestry, 2021). This condition has an impact on bird habitat, which continues to decrease (Aronson et al., 2014). This is thought to affect the diversity of bird species. The presence of diverse birds can help reduce the need for pesticides and increase plant regeneration. Therefore, identifying plant diversity, bird diversity, and bird evenness levels based on vegetation to support sustainable agriculture in residential areas is appointed as the purpose of this study.

Materials and Methods

Conducted in Rumbai Region, Pekanbaru, Riau Province, Indonesia (101o 25’ 12.41’’ E and 0o 34’ 42.61’’ N), the research started in March 2023 and concluded in October 2023. Employing a tally sheet and the map of Pekanbaru to determine habitat types, birds in the area had been observed. Equipment covered a pair of binoculars (Arsson XB821PP 500 X 25, China), camera (Canon EOS 100D DS126191, Taiwan), GPS tracker (Garmin eTrex 10 SEA, Swiss), audio recorder (Sony ICD-PX333, China), timer (Casio G Shock GA 500, Thailand), the guide book of birds (MacKinnon et al., 2010) and stationery.

Operating line transect (Bibby et al., 2000), both direct and indirect information on birds’ activity, time of encounter, variant, quantity, and behavior was recorded while moving down the streets of residential areas. Following prearranged tracks, observation time ranges were 6:30 to 8:30 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. This time is the most active time for birds to do daily activities. Observations are made at least three times a week. The focused data were on the activity, name, and quantity of each bird variant found (Bibby et al., 2000).

Diversity index

Shannon-Wiener diversity index was exercised to assess the bird diversity level as per Equation 1 (Thukral, 2010):

H’ = - ∑ pi ln pi …(1)

Note: H’ = Shannon-Wiener diversity index; pi = (ni/N); ni = number of i variant; N = total individual; ln = natural logarithm.

The result of H’< 1.5 is considered low diversity, while H’ 1.5 to 3.5 average diversity and H’ = > 3.5 “high diversity.

Evenness index

To define the evenness level of a certain bird variant in a community, the Shannon-Wiener evenness index was utilized as per Equation 2 (Thukral, 2010).

E= H’/ln S …(2)

Note: E= evenness index (ranged from 0 to 1), H’= Shannon-Wiener diversity index, S= number of variants, ln= natural logarithm.

The result of 0 < E ≤ 0.4 is considered low evenness, while 0.4 < E ≤ 0.6 is average evenness, and 0.6 < E ≤ 1 is high evenness.

Richness index

To calculate the variety level, the Margalef richness index is applied as per Equation 3 (Thukral, 2010):

Note: R= Margalef richness index, S= number of variants, N= total individual, ln= natural logarithm.

While R < 2.5 means a low richness level, 2.5 ≤ R < 4 shows an average richness level, and R ≥ 4 represents a high level.

Dominance index

To establish the dominant, subdominant, and rare bird composition, the relative density was verified in regards to Thukral (2010) as per Equation 4 and Equation 5.

A bird species is dominant when the relative density rate is >5 %, subdominant 2 % to 5 %, and rare if it is < 2 %.

Encounter index

The encounter rate of bird species was revealed as per Equation 6 (Bibby et al., 2000).

The categories are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Encounter rate of birds as the basis of abundance level determination (Bibby et al., 2000).

Category (individual per 10 h observation)	Abundance rate	Abundance level
< 0.1	1	Rare
0.1 to 2.0	2	Uncommon
2.1 to 10.0	3	Frequent
10.1 to 40.0	4	Common
> 40.0	5	Abundant

Vegetation data

Types of plants and parts that become food for birds were recorded for the purpose.

Result and Discussion

Birds of a residential area

Overall, 1 006 individuals of 20 species belong to 14 families were detected during observation, as listed in Table 2.

Based on Table 2, the quite dominant bird species are Bondol Peking (Lonchura punctulate Linnaeus, 1758) at 19.38 %, Cucak Kutilang (Pycnonotus aurigaster Vieillot, 1818) at 12.43 %, and Burung Gereja (Passer domesticus Linnaeus, 1758) at 11.93 %. Those species are of the communal type that generally do their group activities. Sufficient vegetation for food and shelter in urban residential areas also allows them to breed (Callaghan et al., 2018; Pena et al., 2017) the birds above and others live in coconut, palm, and bamboo trees. Several nectarine family members also benefit from adequate flowering plants in the area. Cucak Kutilang birds, as insect eaters, will help control plant pests, while Bondol Peking and Burung Gereja help disperse plant seeds (Şekercioĝlu et al., 2012). This will support sustainable agricultural activities (Martinez et al., 2021).

Birds in residential landscapes serve as not only protectors of the ecosystem but also indicators of environmental change and assist agricultural activities (Batisteli et al., 2018; Dearborn and Kark, 2010; Lešo et al., 2019). The existence of varied bird species in an urban residential area should be cherished as they contribute to the natural diversity and balance (Hagen et al., 2017; Xie et al., 2020). Grain-eating, fruit-eating, and nectar-eating birds support seeding and pollination processes in plants (Şekercioĝlu et al., 2012) while insect-eating ones help to control human pests and also plant insect. Additionally, birds bring aesthetic value wherever they are. Their feathers come with assorted colors, patterns, and visually enjoyable textures. Their sounds have a calming effect that matches the purpose of a residence. The landscape of a residential area that focuses on the environment is critical to birds’ sustainability and diversity (Beninde et al., 2015). Among points of consideration are food accessibility and additional food (Ciach and Fröhlich, 2017; Tryjanowski et al., 2015), vegetation structure (Droz et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2016), and plant composition (Nooten et al., 2018).

Table 2: Birds of residential area.

No	Local name	Binomial nomenclature	Family	Individual		Type of feed
No	Local name	Binomial nomenclature	Family	Quantity	%	Type of feed
1	Bondol Peking	Lonchura punctulate Linnaeus, 1758	Estrildidae	195	19.38	Granivore
2	Cucak Kutilang	Pycnonotus aurigaster Vieillot, 1818	Pycnonotidae	125	12.43	Insectivore
3	Burung Gereja	Passer domesticus Linnaeus, 1758	Ploceidae	120	11.93	Granivore
4	Perkutut Jawa	Geopelia striata Linnaeus, 1766	Columbidae	98	9.74	Granivore
5	Burung Madu Kelapa	Antrheptes malacensis Scopoli, 1786	Nectariniidae	75	7.46	Nectarivore
6	Burung Madu Polos	Antrheptes simplex Müller, 1843	Nectariniidae	55	5.47	Nectarivore
7	Tekukur Biasa	Streptopelia chinensis Scopoli, 1786	Columbidae	50	4.97	Granivore
8	Burung Madu Sriganti	Nectarinia jagularis Linnaeus, 1766	Nectariniidae	45	4.47	Nectarivore
9	Cabai Jawa	Dicacum trchileum Sparrman 1789	Dicaeidae	40	3.98	Frugivore
10	Merbah Cerukcuk	Pycnonotus flavescens Scopoli, 1786	Pycnonotidae	40	3.98	Insectivore
11	Pijantung Kecil	Arachnothera longirostra Latham, 1790	Nectariniidae	35	3.48	Nectarivore
12	Cinenen Kelabu	Orthotomus ruficeps Temminck, 1836	Silviidae	32	3.18	Insectivore
13	Kerak Ungu	Acridotheres javanicus Cabanis, 1851	Sturnidae	20	1.99	Insectivore
14	Prenjak Jawa	Prinia familiaris Horsfield, 1821	Sylvidae	20	1.99	Insectivore
15	Cipoh jantung	Aegithina viridissima Bonaparte, 1850	Aegithinidae	15	1.49	Insectivore
16	Kapasan Kemiri	Lalage nigra Forster, 1781	Campephagidae	15	1.49	Insectivore
17	Gelatik Batu Kelabu	Parus major Linnaeus, 1758	Paridae	12	1.19	Granivore
18	Bondol Haji	Lonchura maja Linnaeus, 1766	Estrildidae	8	0.80	Granivore
19	Wiwik Kelabu	Cacomantis merulinus Scopoli, 1786	Cuculidae	4	0.40	Insectivore
20	Bentet Kelabu	Lanius schach Linnaeus, 1758	Pachycephalidae	2	0.20	Insectivore
Total				1 006	100

Society should recognize and prevent threats to birds’ existence in an urban residential area, such as habitat loss, pollution, and hunting. Environmentally friendly activities like tree planting and pesticide restriction should help conserve birds (Cox et al., 2017, 2018) and maintain urban ecosystem sustainability (Wood et al., 2018).

Diversity index, evenness index, and richness index

The data computing results came out with a diversity index (H’) of 2.59, an evenness index (E) of 0.86, and a richness index (R) of 2.75, as detailed in Table 3.

Table 3: Diversity index, evenness index, and richenness index.

No.	Index type	Value	Category
1	Diversity index (H')	2.59	Currently
2	Evenness index (E)	0.86	High
3	Richenness index (R)	2.75	Currently

The average diversity index shows that the studied residential areas are good enough for birds to live in. The geographical situation, management intensity, and landscape complexity are essential in expanding bird diversity (Dehling et al., 2014; Lešo et al., 2019), and the studied areas can meet the requirements. As bird diversity relies on the environment, particularly shade composition and vegetation size (Callaghan et al., 2018; Vale et al., 2018), shady trees, shrubbery, fruit trees, agricultural plants, decorative plants, and grasses found in the areas support their existence quite satisfactorily.

Residential areas can provide living space for several bird species. Any change in its diversity, particularly in urban/residential areas, is often influenced by urbanization and vegetation coverage (Benedetti et al., 2022; Hagen et al., 2017; Pei et al., 2018). Protecting and developing varied green open spaces (Callaghan et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2020) for a sustainable urban environment (Namood et al., 2021) should mitigate bird diversity decline. Knowing bird species diversity in residential areas opens possibilities to conserve their habitats, keep their ecosystem balance (Nowak and Greenfield, 2012), and ensure their sustainability for the sake of the locale (Hepburn et al., 2021; Żmihorski et al., 2019).

Table 4: Density, dominance, and abundance.

No.	Local name	Binomial nomenclature	K	KR (%)	Dominance category	Abudance	Abudance value	Sequence scale
1	Bondol Peking	Lonchura punctulate Linnaeus, 1758	19.50	19.38	Dominance	162.50	5	Abundant
2	Cucak Kutilang	Pycnonotus aurigaster Vieillot, 1818	12.50	12.43	Dominance	112.50	5	Abundant
3	Burung Gereja	Passer domesticus Linnaeus, 1758	12.00	11.93	Dominance	100.00	5	Abundant
4	Perkutut Jawa	Geopelia striata Linnaeus, 1766	9.80	9.74	Dominance	81.67	5	Abundant
5	Burung Madu Kelapa	Antrheptes malacensis Scopoli, 1786	7.50	7.46	Dominance	62.50	5	Abundant
6	Burung Madu Polos	Antrheptes simplex Müller, 1843	5.50	5.47	Dominance	45.83	5	Abundant
7	Tekukur Biasa	Streptopelia chinensis Scopoli, 1786	5.00	4.97	Sub dominance	41.67	5	Abundant
8	Burung Madu Sriganti	Nectarinia jagularis Linnaeus, 1766	4.50	4.47	Sub dominance	37.50	4	Common
9	Cabai Jawa	Dicacum trchileum Sparrman 1789	4.00	3.98	Sub dominance	33.33	4	Common
10	Merbah Cerukcuk	Pycnonotus flavescens Scopoli, 1786	4.00	3.98	Sub dominance	33.33	4	Common
11	Pijantung Kecil	Arachnothera longirostra Latham, 1790	3.50	3.48	Sub dominance	29.17	4	Common
12	Cinenen Kelabu	Orthotomus ruficeps Temminck, 1836	3.20	3.18	Sub dominance	26.67	4	Common
13	Kerak Ungu	Acridotheres javanicus Cabanis, 1851	2.00	1.99	Rare	33.33	4	Common
14	Prenjak Jawa	Prinia familiaris Horsfield, 1821	2.00	1.99	Rare	16.67	4	Common
15	Cipoh jantung	Aegithina viridissima Bonaparte, 1850	1.50	1.49	Rare	12.50	4	Common
16	Kapasan Kemiri	Lalage nigra Forster, 1781	1.50	1.49	Rare	12.50	4	Common
17	Gelatik Batu Kelabu	Parus major Linnaeus, 1758	1.20	1.19	Rare	10.00	4	Common
18	Bondol Haji	Lonchura maja Linnaeus, 1766	0.80	0.80	Rare	6.67	3	Frequent
19	Wiwik Kelabu	Cacomantis merulinus Scopoli, 1786	0.40	0.40	Rare	3.33	3	Frequent
20	Bentet Kelabu	Lanius schach Linnaeus, 1758	0.20	0.20	Rare	1.67	2	Unsommon

K= Density; KR= Relative density.

The evenness index is 0.86, meaning the individuals are almost evenly distributed throughout the studied areas. This index informs diversity and ecosystem stability (Tu et al., 2020), essential in prioritizing a conservation program. Foods and predators affect the index as food availability invites birds, and certain predators shape birds’ behavior and activity. Regular observation of bird population change should serve as an early warning towards ecosystem alteration, such as green area reduction and predator overgrowth. Although birds natural fluctuation may be a challenge in interpreting the evenness index, it is a valuable insight for sustainable environmental development.

With a richness index of 2.75, the areas are considered safe for birds on average. Factors supporting bird growth, like varied habitats (trees, shrubbery, water) (Redlich et al., 2018) and a balanced ecological system (Villaseñor et al., 2020), exist. Bird richness can indicate biodiversity and environmental wellness. Therefore, areas with a high richness index should be prioritized in conservation.

Deforestation, urbanization, and land function change often devastate bird richness as they lose their natural habitats (Hepburn et al., 2021; Proppe et al., 2013; Żmihorski et al., 2019), while climate change affects bird distribution and migration. Conserving bird habitats in urban areas is critical to recovering their abundance (Aronson et al., 2014) as it defines the environmental wellness of an area (Luck et al., 2013), so ecosystem restoration is called for when it is damaged. Motivating the society to actively conserve birds and care for the environment along with the government, related organizations, and researchers should prevent birds from extinction.

Density, dominance, and abundance

Table 4 shows the relatively high density, dominance, and abundance rates of Bondol Peking, Cucak Kutilang, and Burung Gereja in the studied areas.

Table 5: Foods, species, and individuals.

Type of food	Number of species	%	Number of individulas	%
Insectivore	9	45.00	273	27.14
Granivore	6	30.00	483	48.01
Nectarivore	4	20.00	210	20.87
Frugivore	1	5.00	40	3.98
Total	20	100	1 006	100

Bird density refers to the quantity in an area or habitat over a certain period. Table 5 demonstrates that Bondol Peking has the highest density at 19.50, followed by Cucak Kutilang and Burung Gereja at 12.50 and 12.00, respectively.

Vegetation type, food availability, and dwelling availability determine bird density in an area. Grains, insects, or fruits in a residential area correspond to varied species monitored. Dwellings in trees or buildings are in proportion to bird reproduction and survival. The land function changes in buildings, streets, and parks influence local bird density (Dehling et al., 2014), and residential areas can drive natural habitat fragmentation toward both density and diversity (Lerman et al., 2012). Moreover, noise and air pollution in urban areas can affect birds behavior and health. Parks, gardens, and other green spots in a residential area should affect bird diversity positively as they serve as habitat structures like trees, shrubbery, and open spaces (Lerman et al., 2014).

Bird dominance signifies the proportion of a bird species in the population of a particular area. A highly dominant species tends to excel in quantity and existence. Seven observed species are dominant in the regions studied as they were more frequently seen than the others. Habitat preference, food availability, and dwelling facility determine dominance. Some species are deduced to be dominant when able to adapt to new habitats like gardens or parks and build their nests on trees, stones, or home shades. Bird dominance can be seasonal due to food availability or other environmental factors. Since land management, plant cultivation, and habitat structure changes in a residential area incline bird dominance (Pellissier et al., 2012), regular observation of their population should give further information on population dynamics and species dominance. An ecological study of their behavior and habitat preference should identify dominance factors.

Bird abundance denotes the total quantity of a bird species in a particular habitat. Dominance is closely related to it as the more dominant a species is, the more abundant it likely is. Vegetation diversity affects bird abundance and diversity (Morelli et al., 2017; Zivanovic and Luck, 2016). Issues that may agitate them are communal activities (Cristaldi et al., 2017; Zhou and Chu, 2012), artificial disturbances (Jokimäki et al., 2020; Perillo et al., 2017), and noise (Fröhlich and Ciach, 2018). However, the abundance of Burung Gereja (Passer domesticus Linnaeus, 1758) seems to be unbothered by passers-by (MacGregor et al., 2017), possibly due to habit (Skórka et al., 2016).

Urban residential area management concerning bird needs can preserve biological diversity while benefiting society ecologically and aesthetically. Therefore, social conservation, which contributes to a sustainable ecosystem in such an area, should be encouraged so birds can coexist with humans.

Percentages of foods, species, and individuals

Based on food, insectivores and granivores are the dominant families, at 45 % and 30 %, respectively. Regarding individuals, granivores and insectivores are the dominant ones at 48.01 % and 27.14 %. The detailed observation result is provided in Table 5.

Birds obtain their foods from natural sources based on their biological needs, habitats, and seasons. Knowing the right foods should help ensure the availability and adequacy of their population while preserving their natural habitat (Harisha et al., 2021).

Vegetation

Table 6 lists the plants found in the studied residential areas: forest trees, fruit trees, palms, shrubbery, bamboo, agricultural plants, flowers, and grasses.

Vegetation in urban residential areas provides shelter, food, and dwellings for birds. Trees, shrubbery, and other plants are essential for bird nests (Luck et al., 2013; Zhou and Chu, 2012). Dense, leafy vegetation protects the nest and egg against predators and extreme weather. Most birds need specific vegetation structures for building their nests, such as branches, kindling, and leaves. While a lot of bird species make their nests on tall trees, shrubbery is favored by insect-eating birds. As urbanization and land function change diminish vegetation for bird dwelling (Batáry et al., 2014), retaining vegetation diversity and bird habitat by planting trees should be feasible. Expanding green space should follow as it is relevant to sustainable ecosystem management.

Vegetation and birds are linked in the food chain, so vegetation conservation in a residential area is a way to save birds (Huang et al., 2015; Lepczyk et al., 2017). Plants produce flowers for nectarines, fruit for frugivores, grain for granivores, and insects for insectivores.

Table 6: Vegetation functions for birds.

No	Name	Type of vegetation	Bird of food	Food part	Remark
1	Mahagony	Tree	Insectivore	Insect	Vegetation is for food as well as shelter and mating
2	Trembesi	Tree	Nectarivore, granivore, insectivore	Nectar, pollen, insect
3	Oil Palm	Tree	Insectivore, granivore	Insect.grain
4	Rubber	Tree	Insectivore, granivore	Insect.grain
5	Avocado	Tree	Nectarivore, insectivore	Nectar, insect
6	Melinjo	Tree	Frugivore, insectivore	Friut, insect
7	Matoa	Tree	Insectivore, nectarivore	Nectar, Insect
8	Jengkol	Tree	Insectivore	Insect
9	Durian	Tree	Nectarivore, granivore, insectivore	Nectar, pollen, insect
10	Rambutan	Tree	Frugivore, nectarivore, granivore, insectivore	Friut, nectar, pollen, insect
11	Manggo	Tree	Frugivore, insectivore, nectarivore	Fruit, insect, nectar
12	Water apple	Tree	Frugivore, insectivore, nectarivore	Fruit, insect, nectar
13	Guava	Tree	Frugivore, insectivore, nectarivore	Fruit, insect, nectar
14	Star Fruit	Tree	Frugivore, insectivore, nectarivore	Fruit, insect, nectar
15	Longan	Tree	Frugivore, insectivore, nectarivore	Fruit, insect, nectar
16	Cherry	Tree	Frugivore, insectivore, nectarivore	Fruit, insect, nectar
17	Soursop	Tree	Frugivore, insectivore, nectarivore	Fruit, insect, nectar
18	Jackfruit	Tree	Frugivore, insectivore, nectarivore	Fruit, insect, nectar
19	Ketapang	Tree	Insectivore	Insect
20	Coconut	Palm	Insectivore, granivore, nectarivore	Nectar, pollen, insect
21	Areca Nut	Palem	Insectivore, granivore, nectarivore	Nectar, pollen, insect
22	Palm	Palm	Insectivore, granivore, nectarivore	Nectar, pollen, insect
23	Bamboo	Bamboo	Insectivore	Insect
24	Banana	Horticulture	Frugivore, insectivore, nectarivore	Fruit, insect, nectar
25	Papaya	Horticulture	Frugivore, insectivore, nectarivore	Fruit, insect, nectar
26	Flowers	Herba	Granivore, insectivore, nectarivore	Grain, insect, nectar
27	Grasses	Grass	Granivore, insectivore	Grain, insect

Furthermore, plants feed other animals. These facts make vegetation in an urban residential area critical for a balanced ecosystem. Invasive plants are a good choice for marginal areas.

Vegetation provides choices of protection for birds (Gillings, 2019). Leafy, shady plants are suitable for hiding from predators and staying away from rain or intense sunlight; some birds can blend with the surrounding plants for their similar colors. Plant reduction makes birds more prone to predation. Conserving vegetation in urban residential areas should support bird survival and benefit humans (Belaire et al., 2015; Cox et al., 2017; Dallimer et al., 2012).

Vegetation, particularly trees and shrubbery, is a mating place for birds (Hadinoto et al., 2023). Tall trees are ideal spots for male birds to perch, interest the females with their chirps, and mark their territories. Perching points play an important role in bird reproduction, which, in the long run, determines an area’s abundance index. If vegetation in a residential area is cut down, bird diversity will drop (Hadinoto and Suhesti, 2017).

Conclusions and Recommendations

The study discovered 1 006 bird individuals of 20 species and 14 families. The most frequently encountered kinds of bird were Bondol Peking (Lonchura punctulate Linnaeus, 1758), Cucak Kutilang (Pycnonotus aurigaster Vieillot, 1818), and Burung Gereja (Passer domesticus Linnaeus, 1758). The diversity index (H’) in Rumbai urban residential areas averages 2.59, while the evenness index (E) is 0.86, and the richness index (R) is 2.75. Food source vegetation includes but is not limited to forest trees, fruit trees, palms, bamboo, shrubbery, agricultural plants, flowers, and grasses.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank “RP Editage” for providing guidance and assistance in organizing this manuscript.

Novelty Statement

Previous research (Bashan et al., 2020; Belaire et al., 2015; Hedblom et al., 2014; Lerman et al., 2021) has documented the presence of urban birds. However, previous investigations have only focused on people’s perceptions, attitudes, and appreciation of urban birds. The current research shows something new because it identifies bird species in urban residential landscapes for sustainable agriculture. Furthermore, this research found 20 unique bird species that can be used as recommendations for urban bird conservation.

Author’s Contribution

Hadinoto Hadinoto: Conceptualizing and designing research, outlining the contents of the paper, conducting literature searches, collecting data, analyzing data, formatting the manuscript, preparing the manuscript, and revising the manuscript.

Lili Zalizar, Joko Triwanto, and Ervayenri Ervayenri: Supervised the manuscript’s contents literature search and reviewed the manuscript.

Eni Suhesti, Endang Dwi Purbajanti, Hasni Ruslan and Imran Ullah: Conducted literature search and manuscript review.

All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Aronson, M.F.J., L.A. La Sorte, C.H. Nilon, M. Katti, M.A. Goddard, C.A. Lepczyk, P. S.Warren, N.S.G. Williams, S. Cilliers, B. Clarkson, C. Dobbs, R. Dolan, M. Hedblom, S. Klotz, J.L. Kooijmans, I. Kühn, I. Macgregor, M. Mcdonnell, U. Mörtberg and M. Winter. 2014. A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Biol. Sci., 281(1780). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3330

Bashan, D., A. Colléony and A. Shwartz. 2021. Urban versus rural? The effects of residential status on species identification skills and connection to nature. People Nat., 3(2):347–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10176

Batáry, P., S. Fronczek, C. Normann, C. Scherber and T. Tscharntke. 2014. How do edge effect and tree species diversity change bird diversity and avian nest survival in Germany’s largest deciduous forest? For. Ecol. Manag., 319: 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.02.004

Batisteli, A.F., M.O. Tanaka and A.L.T. Souza. 2018. Bird functional traits respond to forest structure in riparian areas undergoing active restoration. Diversity, 10(3): 8–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/d10030090

Belaire, J.A., L.M. Westphal, C.J. Whelan and E.S. Minor. 2015. Urban residents’ perceptions of birds in the neighborhood: Biodiversity, cultural ecosystem services, and disservices. Condor, 117(2): 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-14-128.1

Benedetti, Y., F. Morelli, C.T. Callaghan and R. Fuller. 2022. Distribution and protection of avian specialization in Europe. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 31(1): 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13405

Beninde, J., M. Veith and A. Hochkirch. 2015. Biodiversity in cities needs space: A meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecol. Lett., 18(6): 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12427

Bibby, C., M. Jones and S. Marsden. 2000. Expedition field techniques: Bird surveys. In: (eds. S. Kartikasari and J. Shanaz), 1st ed. BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme, Bogor, Indonesia.

Callaghan, C.T., R.E. Major, M.B. Lyons, J.M. Martin and R.T. Kingsford. 2018. The effects of local and landscape habitat attributes on bird diversity in urban greenspaces. Ecosphere, 9(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2347

Chanate, W., D. Wasan, Y. Pisarut and S.A. Rungtip. 2020. The diversity, population, ecology and conservation status of waterbirds in the wetland of Bangpu nature education center, Thailand. Biodiversitas, 21(8): 3910–3918. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d210862

Ciach, M. and A. Fröhlich. 2017. Habitat type, food resources, noise and light pollution explain the species composition, abundance and stability of a winter bird assemblage in an urban environment. Urban Ecosyst., 20(3): 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0613-6

Cox, D.T.C., D.F. Shanahan, H.L. Hudson, K.E. Plummer, G.M. Siriwardena, R.A. Fuller, K. Anderson, S. Hancock and K.J. Gaston. 2017. Doses of neighborhood nature: The benefits for mental health of living with nature. BioScience, 67(2): 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw173

Cox, D.T.C., H.L. Hudson, K.E. Plummer, G.M. Siriwardena, K. Anderson, S. Hancock, P. Devine-Wright, and K.J. Gaston. 2018. Covariation in urban birds providing cultural services or disservices and people. J. Appl. Ecol., 55(5): 2308–2319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13146

Cristaldi, M.A., A.R. Giraudo, V. Arzamendia, G.P. Bellini and J. Claus. 2017. Urbanization impacts on the trophic guild composition of bird communities. J. Nat. Hist., 51(39–40): 2385–2404. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2017.1371803

Dallimer, M., K.N. Irvine, A.M. Skinner, Z.G. Davies, J.R. Rouquette, L.L. Maltby, P.H. Warren, P.R. Armsworth and K.J. Gaston. 2012. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. BioScience, 62(1): 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.9

Dearborn, D.C. and S. Kark. 2010. Motivations to conserve urban biodiversity. Conserv. Biol., 24(2): 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01328.x

Dehling, D.M., S.A. Fritz, T. Töpfer, M. Päckert, P. Estler, K. Böhning-Gaese and M. Schleuning. 2014. Functional and phylogenetic diversity and assemblage structure of frugivorous birds along an elevational gradient in the tropical Andes. Ecography, 37(11): 1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00623

Droz, B., R. Arnoux, T. Bohnenstengel, J. Laesser, R. Spaar, R. Ayé and C.F. Randin. 2019. Moderately urbanized areas as a conservation opportunity for an endangered songbird. Landsc. Urban Plan., 181: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.09.011

Forestry, K.L.H. 2021. Recalculation of Indonesian land cover 2020. https://www.scribd.com/document/685336655/Rekalkulasi-Penutupan-Lahan-2020

Fröhlich, A. and M. Ciach. 2018. Noise shapes the distribution pattern of an acoustic predator. Curr. Zool., 64(5): 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zox061

Gillings, S., 2019. Bird responses to housing development in intensively managed agricultural landscapes. Urban Ecosyst., 22(6): 1007–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-00895-1

Hadinoto, H. and E. Suhesti. 2017. Species diversity and bird feed in residential complex. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 97(012001): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/97/1/012001

Hadinoto, H., L. Zalizar, J. Triwanto, E. Ervayenri, R.H. Setyobudi, M. Chanan, N.T. Waskitho, J.T. Ibrahim, E. Suhesti, N.V. Minh, R. Tonda, S. Satrio and T.A. Pakarti. 2023. Bird diversity, abundance, and evenness rates in ecotone area of Sutan Syarif Hasyim Forest Park, Riau, Indonesia. E3S Web Conf., 374(00014): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202337400014

Hagen, E.O., O. Hagen, J.D. Ibáñez-álamo, O.L. Petchey and K.L. Evans. 2017. Impacts of urban areas and their characteristics on avian functional diversity. Front. Ecol. Evol., 5: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00084

Harisha, M.N., K.S. Samad and B.B. Hosetti. 2021. Conservation status, feeding guilds, and diversity of birds in Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Karnataka, India. J. Threat. Taxa, 13(7): 18738–18751. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6855.13.7.18738-18751

Hedblom, M., E. Heyman, H. Antonsson and B. Gunnarsson. 2014. Bird song diversity influences young people’s appreciation of urban landscapes. Urban For. Urban Green., 13(3): 469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.04.002

Hepburn, L., A.C. Smith, J. Zelenski and L. Fahrig. 2021. Bird diversity unconsciously increases people’s satisfaction with where they live. Land, 10(2): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020153

Hoek, Y., G.V. Gaona and K. Martin. 2017. The diversity, distribution and conservation status of the tree-cavity-nesting birds of the world. Divers. Distrib., 23(10): 1120–1131. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12601

Huang, Y., Y. Zhao, S. Li and K. von Gadow. 2015. The effects of habitat area, vegetation structure and insect richness on breeding bird populations in Beijing urban parks. Urban For. Urban Green., 14(4): 1027–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.09.010

Jokimäki, J., J. Suhonen, Y. Benedetti, M. Diaz, M.L. Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki, F. Morelli, T. Pérez-Contreras, E. Rubio, P. Sprau, P. Tryjanowski, and J.D. Ibánez-Álamo. 2020. Land-sharing vs. land-sparing urban development modulate predator–prey interactions in Europe. Ecol. Appl., 30(3): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2049

Lepczyk, C.A., M.F.J. Aronson, K.L. Evans, M.A. Goddard, S.B. Lerman and J.S. Macivor. 2017. Biodiversity in the city: Fundamental questions for understanding the ecology of urban green spaces for biodiversity conservation. BioScience, 67(9): 799–807. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix079

Lerman, S.B., D.L. Narango, M.L. Avolio, A.R. Bratt, J.M. Engebretson, P.M. Groffman, S.J. Hall, J.B. Heffernan, S.E. Hobbie, K.L. Larson, D.H. Locke, C. Neill, K.C. Nielson, J.P. Cubino and T.L.E. Trammell. 2021. Residential yard management and landscape cover affect urban bird community diversity across the continental USA. Ecol. Appl., 31(8): e02455. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2455

Lerman, S.B., K.H. Nislow, D.J. Nowak, S. DeStefano, D.I. King and D.T. Jones-Farrand. 2014. Using urban forest assessment tools to model bird habitat potential. Landsc. Urban Plant., 122: 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.10.006

Lerman, S.B., V.K. Turner and C. Bang. 2012. Homeowner associations as a vehicle for promoting native urban biodiversity. Ecol. Soc., 17(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05175-170445

Lešo, P., R. Kropil and L. Kajtoch. 2019. Effects of forest management on bird assemblages in oak-dominated stands of the Western Carpathians– refuges for rare species. For. Ecol. Manage., 453: 117620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117620

Luck, G.W., A. Carter and L. Smallbone. 2013. Changes in bird functional diversity across multiple land uses: Interpretations of functional redundancy depend on functional group identity. PLoS One, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063671

Luck, G.W., L.T. Smallbone and K.J. Sheffield. 2013. Environmental and socio-economic factors related to urban bird communities. Aust. Ecol., 38(1): 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2012.02383.x

MacGregor, F.I., J. Quesada, J.G.H. Lee and P.J. Yeh. 2017. Invader alert: House Sparrow densities across three agricultural-urban landscapes. Avian Conserv. Ecol., 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01082-120211

Machar, I., K. Poprach, L. Praus and L. Úradníček. 2021. Floodplain forests and urban parks-a brief comparison of bird diversity. J. Landsc. Ecol., 14(3): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2478/jlecol-2021-0015

MacKinnon, J., K. Phillipps and B.V. Balen. 2010. A field guide to teh birds of Sumatera, Java, Bali, and Borneo. In: (eds. S. Sumadipura and A. Kartikasari); 1st ed. BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme, Bogor, Indonesia.

Martínez, N.C., P.J. Rey, A.J. Manzaneda, D. García, R. Tarifa and J.L. Molina. 2021. Insectivorous birds are not effective pest control agents in olive groves. Basic Appl. Ecol., 56: 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2021.08.006

Morelli, F., Y. Benedetti, T. Su, B. Zhou, D. Moravec, P. Šímová and W. Liang. 2017. Taxonomic diversity, functional diversity and evolutionary uniqueness in bird communities of Beijing’s urban parks: Effects of land use and vegetation structure. Urban For. Urban Green., 23: 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.009

Namood, E.S., F. Kishwar, A. Tahir and M.A. Ullah. 2021. Capitalizing trees for carbon sequestration as a co-benefit of biophilic urbanism. Proc. Pak. Acad. Sci. B, 58(4): 5–15. https://doi.org/10.53560/PPASB(58-4)671

Nooten, S.S., P. Schultheiss, J. Wright, C. Macdonald, B.K. Singh, J.M. Cook and S.A. Power. 2018. What shapes plant and animal diversity on urban golf courses? Urban Ecosyst., 21(3): 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-017-0728-4

Nowak, D.J. and E.J. Greenfield. 2012. Tree and impervious cover change in U.S. cities. Urban For. Urban Green., 11(1): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.11.005

Pei, N., C. Wang, J. Jin, B. Jia, B. Chen, G. Qie, E. Qiu, L. Gu, R. Sun, J. Li, C. Zhang, S. Jiang and Z. Zhang. 2018. Long-term afforestation efforts increase bird species diversity in Beijing, China. Urban For. Urban Green., 29: 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.007

Pellissier, V., M. Cohen, A. Boulay and P. Clergeau. 2012. Birds are also sensitive to landscape composition and configuration within the city centre. Landsc. Urban Plan., 104(2): 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.011

Pena, J.C.C., F. Martello, M.C. Ribeiro, R.A. Armitage, R.J. Young and M. Rodrigues. 2017. Street trees reduce the negative effects of urbanization on birds. PLoS One, 12(3): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174484

Perillo, A., L.G. Mazzoni, L.F. Passos, V.D.L.R. Goulart, C. Duca and R.J. Young. 2017. Anthropogenic noise reduces bird species richness and diversity in urban parks. Ibis, 159(3): 638–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12481

Proppe, D.S., C.B. Sturdy and C.C.S. Clair. 2013. Anthropogenic noise decreases urban songbird diversity and may contribute to homogenization. Glob. Change Biol., 19(4): 1075–1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12098

Redlich, S., E.A. Martin, B. Wende and I.S. Dewenter. 2018. Landscape heterogeneity rather than crop diversity mediates bird diversity in agricultural landscapes. PLoS One, 13(8): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200438

Sekercioglu, C.H., 2012. Bird functional diversity and ecosystem services in tropical forests, agroforests and agricultural areas. J. Ornithol., 153(Suppl. 1): 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-012-0869-4

Şekercioĝlu, C.H., R.E. Primack and J. Wormworth. 2012. The effects of climate change on tropical birds. Biol. Conserv., 148(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.019

Shah, S.B. and H.P. Sharma. 2022. Bird diversity and factors affecting bird abundance at Dullu Municipality, Dailekh, Nepal. Biodiversitas, 23(3): 1535–1545. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d230343

Skórka, P., K. Sierpowska, A. Haidt, L. Myczko, A. Ekner-Grzyb, Z.M. Rosin, Z. Kwiecinski, J. Suchodolska, V. Takacs, L. Jankowiak, O. Wasielewski, A. Graclik, A.J. Krawczyk, A. Kasprzak, P. Szwajkowski, P. Wylegała, A.W. Malecha, T. Mizera and P. Tryjanowski. 2016. Habitat preferences of two sparrow species are modified by abundances of other birds in an urban environment. Curr. Zool., 62(4): 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zow069

Thukral, A.K., 2010. Measurement of diversity in characterization of biological communities. Information theory and optimisation techniques in scientific research, pp. 89–98. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256456615

Tryjanowski, P., F. Morelli, P. Mikula, A. Krištín, P. Indykiewicz, G. Grzywaczewski, J. Kronenberg and L. Jerzak. 2017. Bird diversity in urban green space: A large-scale analysis of differences between parks and cemeteries in Central Europe. Urban For. Urban Green., 27: 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.08.014

Tryjanowski, P., P. Skórka, T.H. Sparks, W. Biaduń, T. Brauze, T. Hetmański, R. Martyka, P. Indykiewicz, L. Myczko, P. Kunysz, P. Kawa, S. Czyż, P. Czechowski, M. Polakowski, P. Zduniak, L. Jerzak, T. Janiszewski, A. Goławski, L. Duduś and D. Wysocki. 2015. Urban and rural habitats differ in number and type of bird feeders and in bird species consuming supplementary food. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 22(19): 15097–15103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4723-0

Tu, H.M., M.W. Fan and J.C.J Ko. 2020. Different habitat types affect bird richness and evenness. Sci. Rep., 10(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58202-4

Vale, M.M., L. Tourinho, M.L. Lorini, H. Rajão and M.S.L. Figueiredo. 2018. Endemic birds of the Atlantic Forest: traits, conservation status, and patterns of biodiversity. J. Field Ornithol., 89(3): 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofo.12256

Van, D.H.Y., G.V. Gaona and K. Martin. 2017. The diversity, distribution and conservation status of the tree-cavity-nesting birds of the world. Divers. Distrib., 23(10): 1120–1131. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12601

Villaseñor, N.R., L.A. Chiang, H.J. Hernández and M.A.H. Escobar. 2020. Vacant lands as refuges for native birds: An opportunity for biodiversity conservation in cities. Urban For. Urban Green., 49: 126632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126632

Vijay, V., S.L. Pimm, C.N. Jenkins and S.J. Smith. 2016. The impacts of oil palm on recent deforestation and biodiversity loss. PLoS ONE, 11(7): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159668

Wood, E., A. Harsant, M. Dallimer, A.C. de Chavez, R.R.C. McEachan and C. Hassall. 2018. Not all green space is created equal: Biodiversity predicts psychological restorative benefits from urban green space. Front. Psychol., 9: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02320

Xie, S., F. Lu, L. Cao, W. Zhou and Z. Ouyang. 2016. Multi-scale factors influencing the characteristics of avian communities in urban parks across Beijing during the breeding season. Sci. Rep., 6: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29350

Xie, S., X. Wang, W. Zhou, T. Wu, Y. Qian, F. Lu, C. Gong, H. Zhao and Z. Ouyang. 2020. The effects of residential greenspace on avian Biodiversity in Beijing. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 24: e01223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01223

Xu, X., Y. Xie, K. Qi, Z. Luo and X. Wang. 2018. Detecting the response of bird communities and biodiversity to habitat loss and fragmentation due to urbanization. Sci. Total Environ., 624: 1561–1576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.143

Yang, X., X. Tan, C. Chen and Y. Wang. 2020. The influence of urban park characteristics on bird diversity in Nanjing, China. Avian Res., 11(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-020-00234-5

Zhou, D. and L.M. Chu. 2012. How would size, age, human disturbance, and vegetation structure affect bird communities of urban parks in different seasons? J. Ornithol., 153(4): 1101–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-012-0839-x

Zivanovic, A.J. and G.W. Luck. 2016. Social and environmental factors drive variation in plant and bird communities across urban greenspace in Sydney, Australia. J. Environ. Manage., 169: 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.052

Żmihorski, M., G. Hebda, S. Eggers, J. Månsson, T. Abrahamsson, D. Czeszczewik, W. Walankiewicz and G. Mikusiński. 2019. Early post-fire bird community in European boreal forest: Comparing salvage-logged with non-intervention areas. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00636