Table 1 Article inclusion and exclusion criteria for the avian group, summarised from the manuscript. The use of italics indicates changes that were made after the protocol [28] was published.
Screening criteria | Included | Excluded |
|---|---|---|
Population | Any bird species and/or species at risk in the North (23.5°N to 66.5°N) or South (23.5°S to 66.5°S) temperate regions. Bird species can be residents (e.g., non-migratory) or migratory at any life stage. Exotic species and non-natives that have been naturalized to North America will be included (e.g., European starling). Only studies located in urban ecosystems are considered. | Studies that evaluated the effects of urban forest management on avian or species at risk in rural areas. If it is unclear whether the area is urban, we will use the UN Statistical Commissions international threshold to include cities, towns, and semi-dense areas with a population of at least 5000 inhabitants and a density of at least 300 inhabitants per km². If information cannot be sourced, it will be excluded. |
Intervention | Studies that evaluated the effect of urban forest management strategies (e.g., habitat protection, tree planting, composition, structure, reforestation, diversity) as it relates to avian or species at risk. Relevant causes of change include urbanization, habitat loss, fragmentation, human-caused green space interventions, tree management, urban forestry related strategies (restoration, conservation (e.g., habitat area or configuration), regeneration, protection (maintaining forest buffer zones)). Forest component must be a tree or woody species with DBH > 5cm. | Not sufficient for work to be conducted in urban forest or its related components. Research must relate trees or urban forest management and its characteristics to bird success directly (e.g., insecticide application to fruit trees, tree species composition, urban forest area). Forest components indirectly related to trees such as: lawns, non-tree related vegetation (e.g., perennial plants, annuals, soil, grasses etc.) Studies that include urban pixels or land-use types, however, don’t reference or define urban forest components. Roadways connecting urban areas. |
Outcome | The reported measured outcome should indicate some change in avian or species at risk success, broadly defined to include any measurement related to a change in avian/bird or species at risk at one (or all) three levels: (1) community (richness, diversity, relative abundance, species presence and absence) (2) population (trends, patterns, abundance), and (3) individual (fecundity, survival and mortality, performance). Only studies that evaluated a direct response (outcome) of some aspect of avian or species at risk success listed above. | Studies that only evaluated an indirect response to altered urban forest management. For example, authors make an indirect link between the measured outcome of urban forest management and its “potential” impact on avian or species art risk. Social behaviour (E.g., associations, social stability). |
Comparator | Relevant comparators included: (1) urban and rural, (2) separate but similar green space types with no intervention, (3) an alternative level of urban forest interventions on the same or different study green space. Studies that look at trends without true comparators: temporal trends of species success (urbanization), or spatial trends that do not include “control” sites. | |
Language | English as full text | Any study that is not in English at full text |