40 research outputs found
Los riesgos de la cosa vendida
Tesis Universidad de Madrid. Facultad de Derecho, leída en 1961.Fac. de DerechoTRUEProQuestpu
Los riesgos de la cosa vendida
Tesis Universidad de Madrid. Facultad de Derecho, leída en 1961.Fac. de DerechoTRUEProQuestpu
Recommended from our members
Provision of supplementary food for wild birds may increase the risk of local nest predation
In countries such as the UK, USA and Australia, approximately half of households provide supplementary food for wild birds, making this the public’s most common form of active engagement with nature. Year round supplementary feeding is currently encouraged by major conservation charities in the UK as it is thought to be of benefit to bird conservation. However, little is understood of how the provision of supplementary food affects the behaviour and ecology of target and non-target species. Given the scale of supplementary feeding, any negative effects may have important implications for conservation. Potential nest predators are abundant in urban areas and some species frequently visit supplementary feeding stations. We asked if providing supplementary food affected the likelihood of nest predation in the vicinity of the feeder, by acting as a point attractant for potential nest predators. We provided feeding stations (empty, peanut feeder, peanut feeder with guard to exclude potential nest predators) in an area of suburban parkland in the UK and monitored the predation rate experienced by eggs placed in artificial nests located at distances which replicate the size of typical suburban gardens. Nest predators (Magpies Pica pica, Grey Squirrels Sciurus carolinensis) were frequent visitors to filled feeders, and predation caused by Magpies, European Jays Garrulus glandarius and Grey Squirrels was significantly higher when nests were adjacent to filled feeders. The presence of a feeder guard did not significantly reduce nest predation. As supplementary feeding is becoming increasingly common during the breeding season in suburban habitats, we suggest that providing point attractants to nest predators at this time may have previously unconsidered consequences for the breeding success of urban birds
Recommended from our members
Supplementary feeding of the reintroduced Red Kite (Milvus milvus) in UK gardens
Capsule The provision of meat for garden birds is unusual in the UK but a reintroduced raptor, the Red Kite Milvus milvus, is now regularly fed in some areas. A questionnaire of garden kite feeders revealed that people were most often motivated to feed by a desire to see kites close up and that most provisioning falls within available guidelines. We estimated the median amount of food thought to be taken by kites per kite-feeding garden per day as 21 g, sufficient to support 0.12–0.26 individuals
Recommended from our members
Supplementary feeding of wild birds indirectly affects ground beetle populations in suburban gardens
Supplementary feeding of wild birds by domestic garden-holders is a globally widespread and popular form of human–wildlife interaction, particularly in urban areas. Vast amounts of energy are thus being added to garden ecosystems. However, the potential indirect effects of this activity on non-avian species have been little studied to date, with the only two previous studies taking place under experimentally manipulated conditions. Here we present the first evidence of a localised depletive effect of wild bird feeding on ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in suburban gardens under the usual feeding patterns of the garden-holders. We trapped significantly fewer ground beetles directly under bird-feeding stations than in matched areas of habitat away from feeders. Video analysis also revealed significantly higher activity by ground-foraging birds under the feeding stations than in the control areas. Small mammal trapping revealed no evidence that these species differ in abundance between gardens with and without bird feeders. We therefore suggest that local increases in ground-foraging activity by bird species whose diets encompass arthropods as well as seed material are responsible for the reduction in ground beetle numbers. Our work therefore illustrates that providing food for wild birds can have indirect negative effects on palatable prey species under typical conditions
Recommended from our members
Widespread supplementary feeding in domestic gardens explains the return of reintroduced Red Kites Milvus milvus to an urban area
Reintroductions are used worldwide to mitigate biodiversity loss. One prominent case is a charismatic raptor of conservation concern, the Red Kite Milvus milvus. This species has been reintroduced across the UK over the last 25 years following its near extinction after centuries of persecution. The species was not expected to recolonize urban areas; its historical association with human settlements is attributed to scavenging on human waste and refuse, a resource now greatly reduced on the streets of modern Western cities. However, the species has become a common day-time visitor to a large conurbation centred on the town of Reading, southern England, approximately 20 km from the first English reintroduction site. Given a near-absence of breeding and roost sites, we investigated foraging opportunities and habitat associations that might explain use by Red Kites of this urban area. Surveys of discarded human foods and road-kill suggested that these could support at most 13−29 kites/day. Face-to-face surveys of a cross-section of residents revealed that 4.5% (equivalent to 4349 households) provided supplementary food for kites. Using estimates of per-household resource provision from another study, we calculated that this level is potentially sufficient to provision 142−320 kites, a substantial proportion of the total estimated to visit the conurbation each day (between 140 and 440). Road transects found positive associations between Red Kites and residential areas. We therefore suggest that the decision made by thousands of individuals to provide supplementary food for Red Kites is the primary factor explaining their day-time abundance in this urban area
Recommended from our members
Use of anthropogenic material affects bird nest arthropod community structure: influence of urbanisation, and consequences for ectoparasites and fledging success
Nests are a critically important factor in determining the breeding success of many species of birds. Nevertheless, we have surprisingly little understanding of how local environment helps shape materials used in construction, how this differs among related species using similar nest sites, or if materials used directly or indirectly influence the numbers of offspring successfully reared. We also have little understanding of any potential links between nest construction and the assemblage of invertebrates which inhabit the nest and in particular, with ectoparasites. We addressed these questions by monitoring the success rates of nest-box using Blue Tits Cyanistes caeruleus and Great Tits Parus major, from rural, urban greenspace and urban garden settings. We collected used nests, identified arthropods present, and measured the proportions of highly processed anthropogenic materials used in their construction. Some 25% of Great Tit nest materials were of an anthropogenic source and this was consistent across habitats, while Blue Tits used little (1-2%) except in gardens (~16%), suggesting that Great Tits preferentially sought out these materials. In fledged nests, increasing use of anthropogenic material was associated with lower general arthropod diversity and ectoparasite predator abundance (Blue Tits only) but higher levels of Siphonapterans (fleas). Higher arthropod diversity was associated with lower flea numbers, suggesting that increased diversity played a role in limiting flea numbers. No direct link was found between breeding success and either anthropogenic material usage, or arthropod diversity and abundance. However, breeding success declined with increasing urbanisation in both species and increased with nest weight in Blue Tits. The interplay between urbanisation and bird ecology is complex; our work shows that subtle anthropogenic influences may have indirect and unexpected consequences for urban birds
Recommended from our members
Does urbanization explain differences in interactions between an insect herbivore and its natural enemies and mutualists?
Urbanization can alter the composition of arthropod communities. However, little is known about how urbanization affects ecological interactions. Using experimental colonies of the black bean aphid Aphis fabae Scopoli reared on Vicia faba L, we asked if patterns of predator-prey, host-parasitoid and ant-aphid mutualisms varied along an urbanization gradient across a large town in southern England. We recorded the presence of naturally occurring predators, parasitoid wasps and mutualistic ants together with aphid abundance. We examined how biotic (green areas and plant richness) and abiotic features (impervious surfaces and distance to town center) affected (1) aphid colony size, (2) the likelihood of finding predators, mutualistic ants and aphid mummies (indicating the presence of parasitoids), and (3) how the interplay among these factors affected patterns of parasitoid attack, predator abundance, mutualistic interactions and aphid abundance. The best model to predict aphid abundance was the number of mutualistic ants attending the colonies. Aphid predators responded negatively to both the proportion of impervious surfaces and to the number of mutualistic ants farming the colonies, and positively to aphid population size, whereas parasitized aphids were found in colonies with higher numbers of aphids and ants. The number of mutualistic ants attending was positively associated with aphid colony size and negatively with the number of aphid predators. Our findings suggest that for insect-natural enemy interactions, urbanization may affect some groups, while not influencing others, and that local effects (mutualists, host plant presence) will also be key determinants of how urban ecological communities are formed
Urban and rural habitats differ in number and type of bird feeders and in bird species consuming supplementary food
Bird feeding is one of the most widespread direct interactions between man and nature, and this has important social and environmental consequences. However, this activity can differ between rural and urban habitats, due to inter alia habitat structure, human behaviour and the composition of wintering bird communities. We counted birds in 156 squares (0.25 km(2) each) in December 2012 and again in January 2013 in locations in and around 26 towns and cities across Poland (in each urban area, we surveyed 3 squares and also 3 squares in nearby rural areas). At each count, we noted the number of bird feeders, the number of bird feeders with food, the type of feeders, additional food supplies potentially available for birds (bread offered by people, bins) and finally the birds themselves. In winter, urban and rural areas differ in the availability of food offered intentionally and unintentionally to birds by humans. Both types of food availability are higher in urban areas. Our findings suggest that different types of bird feeder support only those species specialized for that particular food type and this relationship is similar in urban and rural areas. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11356-015-4723-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users