References | Summary | Reasoning | Weakness of the study in respect to the conclusion drawn |
---|---|---|---|
(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 |
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 |