|
(a)
|
|
Sziemer and Holzer (2005), Shaw et al. (2008), Kumar et al. (2015)
|
High incidence of House Sparrow breeding in low socio-economic areas
|
Low socio-economic areas have more neglected buildings thus more nesting opportunities
|
No evidence of nest site limitation in areas of high socio-economic status. Low socio-economic areas could attract House Sparrows through alternative factors, e.g. invertebrate abundance
|
|
Wotton et al. (2002)
|
House Sparrows are more abundant in older building in rural, but not (sub) urban areas
|
Older, rural buildings are not renovated thus have more crevices for nesting
|
Public survey data overstates the proportion of older, rural houses available for nesting
|
|
Singh et al. (2013), Balaji (2014)
|
Fewer House Sparrows in urban buildings
|
Urban buildings are more renovated, thus offer fewer nest sites than rural ones
|
Studies assume urban areas are more renovated than rural/sub-urban ones without examining the frequency of potential nest-sites in the different settings
|
|
(b)
|
|
Von Post and Smith (2015)
|
Although House Sparrows show a preference for nesting under tiles, nest site availability is not a critically limiting resource
|
No relationship between the availability and addition of preferred or artificial nest sites affected population numbers
| |
|
Wegrzynowicz (2012)
|
Nest site availability does not affect House Sparrow population trends
|
No relationship between the number of available nest sites and House Sparrow population number
| |
