城市绿地是生物多样性保护的重要载体, 大学校园作为城市建成区的缩影, 对提升小微绿地质量有重要意义。然而, 已有大学校园生物多样性研究缺乏连续的时间与空间信息, 且未明确物种与绿地内部植被结构的关联, 可能影响小微绿地内部结构质量的优化。本文以清华大学校园鸟类为研究对象, 通过实地调查鸟类与植物群落, 运用广义线性模型和冗余分析, 探讨大学校园的鸟类分布时空格局以及鸟类组成与绿地特征的关联。研究发现, 鸟类在大学校园绿地内部呈现集中分布且存在季节差异。鸟类组成与木本食源植物丰富度、灌木均匀度、地被盖度、人工草地盖度、乔木盖度存在关联。其中木本食源植物丰富度与鸟类多度、丰富度及Shannon多样性指数呈正向关联, 灌木均匀度与鸟类丰富度及Shannon多样性指数呈正向关联, 乔木盖度和人工草地盖度仅同时分别低于37.5%与39.8%时与鸟类多度呈正向关联, 而地被盖度则与鸟类丰富度及Shannon多样性指数呈负向关联。此外, 不同居留型鸟类的生境选择存在差异, 秋季的过境鸟分布仅关联于植被结构, 留鸟和冬候鸟分布同时关联于绿地物理特征和植被结构。我们建议在遵循自然规律营造城市小微绿地时, 应控制乔木盖度和人工草地盖度同时在约40%以下, 提升木本食源丰富度和灌木均匀度, 并增加自然地被覆盖和植被结构层次。研究面向城市小微绿地提出定量与定性结合的近自然绿地营造建议, 为落实《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》、《中国生物多样性保护战略与行动计划》的城市蓝绿空间质量提升目标提供科学依据。

Aims: Urban green spaces are crucial for biodiversity conservation, and university campuses, as microcosms of urban built environments, are crucial for enhancing the quality of micro green spaces. However, existing studies on campus biodiversity often lack continuous spatial and temporal information, and fail to clarify the relationships between species and the internal structure of green spaces. This gap may hinder the optimization of small green spaces, ultimately limiting the achievement of targets set forth in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) and the China’s National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) (2023–2030). 

Methods: This study focused on the bird species of Tsinghua University campus, employing generalized linear models and redundancy analysis to investigate the spatiotemporal patterns of bird distribution and analyze the associations between bird community composition and green space characteristics. 

Results: The study revealed that birds in university campus green spaces exhibited concentrated distributions with seasonal variations. Bird community composition was associated with the food plants richness, shrub evenness, ground coverage, artificial grass coverage, and tree coverage. Among these factors, food plants richness promoted bird abundance, species richness, and diversity, while shrub evenness promoted bird richness and diversity. Tree and artificial grass coverage promoted bird abundance only when both are simultaneously below 37.5% and 39.8%, respectively. Ground coverage negatively impacted bird richness and diversity. Furthermore, different bird residency types displayed distinct habitat preferences: Migratory birds in autumn were solely associated with vegetation structure, whereas resident and wintering birds were jointly influenced by both the physical characteristics and vegetation structure of green spaces. 

Conclusion: This study suggests that, when designing urban micro green spaces in alignment with natural principles, tree and artificial grass coverage should be kept below 40% simultaneously, while enhancing the richness of food plants and shrub evenness. Additionally, increasing natural ground coverage and vertical vegetation is recommended. The study provides both quantitative and qualitative recommendations for creating near-natural urban micro green spaces, providing a scientific foundation for achieving the goals of KMGBF and NBSAP in improving urban blue and green spaces quality.