ArticleScientific reports2026
Influence of new residential construction varying in housing density on bird species, human tolerance guilds, and communities.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human population growth and changing settlement patterns fuel the development of urban fringe lands worldwide, with implications for biodiversity. We conducted a 12-year study of birds in the fast-developing urban fringe lands of the central Puget Sound region, Washington, USA, to examine the effect of development configuration on birds. We hypothesized that lower-intensity conservation developments, compared to higher-intensity planned community developments, would benefit the overall bird community, as well as native forest birds (avoiders of human development) and avian generalist species (adapters to human development), but that higher-intensity planned community developments would benefit synanthropic species (exploiters of human development). We fit single-species and multi-species occupancy models to test these hypotheses. Consistent with our hypotheses, we found that a greater proportion of the overall community, avoiders, and adapters occupied lower-intensity conservation developments compared to higher-intensity planned community developments. However, we did not detect an effect of development type on the exploiter guild, and we found that species in the exploiter guild are variable in their response to the configuration of suburban developments. We also hypothesized that human tolerance guilds would be a useful predictor of individual species responses to development type. This hypothesis was somewhat supported: we found that, for avoiders, 87% of species in the guild had the same response to development type as the overall guild; for adapters, 63% had the same response as the overall guild, and for exploiters, only 44% had the same response as the overall guild. Our results indicate that the configuration of suburban developments can have a meaningful impact on bird communities, particularly on those species that are most sensitive to any level of development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.