The ecological traits of birds in the context of future changes of their ranges under the impact of global climate change

. Over the next 70 years, the average annual temperature in Europe is projected to increase by 4.1 °C. In Zhytomyr Oblast, this figure is likely to increase by 4.4 °C. The amount of precipitation in Europe is expected to increase by an average of 60.3 mm per year, with Zhytomyr Oblast experiencing an 87.2 mm per year increase in precipitation compared to the current state. As a consequence of the global climate change, the habitat-preference index will decline for 159 species (60.1%), remain virtually unchanged for 20 species (7.6%), and improve for 83 species (31.7%). The primary factors influencing the differentiation of avian ecological niches by climate regimes are thermal gradient, precipitation gradient, and temporal variability of precipitation throughout the year. With regard to the landscape aspect, bird species can be differentiated according to their campophi-lous/dendrophilous characteristics, their water-intensive/rural or urban/rural tendencies. Soil conditions are a determining factor in the landscape aspect of ecological niches. As a consequence of the global climate change, the habitat preference index will increase for species that are


Introduction
Our planet will experience an increase in both temperature and aridity over the course of the coming decades (Drobinski et al., 2020).This increases the risk of species extinction (Bateman et al., 2020).The vulnerability of ecosystems and species to the climate change varies considerably across the globe.The ability to predict the response of species to environmental change is a pressing concern in the field of biodiversity conservation (Germain et al., 2023).In the near future, the global warming, as well as increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, may inflict losses on biodiversity of numerous ecosystems.Biodiversity has already been affected by the climate change through the expansion, contraction, or displacement of habitats, which can potentially lead to negative effects and other challenges (Mota et al., 2022).It is imperative that conservationists identify species that are most susceptible to the detrimental effects of climate change in order to minimise global biodiversity loss.There are three principal methods for assessing species vulnerability to climate change: correlation, mechanistic, and trait-based (Pacifici et al., 2015).Correlation models are employed to ascertain the niche of a species, with the current geographic distribution and the range of climate change currently observed within that range serving as the basis for this identification.
Subsequently, the results are applied to climate projections in order to determine the species' potential future range.Although this method is the most commonly used for determining species vulnerability to climate change, it does have some limitations.These include the uncertainty of climate projections, differences in the methods and models used, and the fact that a species' fundamental niche is determined by its current realised niche (Advani, 2023).The mechanistic models are the most useful for this purpose.For example, the use of detailed information about the physiology of a species to determine its tolerance limits.However, the necessity for such comprehensive data restricts the application of this method to a limited number of species.Trait-based methods assess the sensitivity, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of a species based on its biological traits and exposure to weather and climate change (Foden et al., 2013).This method has rapidly become a mainstream evaluation method for conservation organisations, including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), due to its relatively rapid methodology and resulting practical management recommendations.In 2014, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) developed the Rapid Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Tool, an accessible methodology for conservation biologists lacking expertise in climate science (Advani, 2014).The tool assesses the vulnerability of species to climate change based on four distinct dimensions: sensitivity, adaptive capacity, impacts, and other threats.The observed changes in bird traits are indicative of the impact of climate change (McLean et al., 2022).
Birds are some of the most well-known living creatures, living throughout the globe.They are sensitive to environmental changes, and thereforea potential target group for assessing the impact of climate change on biodiversity (Bregman et al., 2014).Birds perform a number of vital ecological functions, including the dispersal of seeds, the pollination of flowers, and the control of insects, thus maintaining the health of both natural and artificial environments (Blount et al., 2021).However, these services may be threatened by the redistribution of habitat due to the climate change (Nowak et al., 2019).Birds display a remarkable degree of ecological diversity (Sandström et al., 2006).Birds evidently have a diversity of climatic requirements and utilise a variety of habitats for feeding (Pearman et al., 2014).The projected decline in the richness and composition of bird communities as a consequence of global warming is already evident.This could have a significant impact on the maintenance of ecosystems, as it would disrupt the provision of key ecological services (Mota et al., 2022).Avifauna can be distinguished using the available data to describe three components of a niche: a habitat niche, often called the Grinnell niche (Grinnell, 1917), a climatic niche (Austin et al., 1990), and a trophic niche, often called the Elton niche (Elton, 1927).Therefore, the objective of our study was to assess the role of ecological properties of birds, representted in terms of ecological niche markers, in the context of prospective changes in their ranges driven by the global warming.

Materials and methods
The trophic niche of birds.A total of 35 non-exclusive variables were employed to characterise the trophic niche of the birds in question.The variables included those characterising the type of food (14 variables), the behaviour used to obtain food (9 variables), the substrate from which food is obtained (9 variables), and the time of day during which the species is actively feeding (3 variables).The variables were scored as either 0 or 1, with the exception of body mass, which was scored as the average of individuals weighed during the breeding season.Body mass was included as a trophic variable because it is likely to correlate with overall energy requirements and prey size (Price et al., 2000).A variable indicating the type of food consumed (e.g.small birds, seeds, invertebrates, etc.) was scored 1 when the substance was reported to make up more than 10% of the stomach contents, 10% or more of the observed feeding success, or when the species was described as feeding preferentially on a particular object based on qualitative observations (Pearman et al., 2014).Objects described as consumed only "rarely" or "occasionally" or presented as a unique observation for the species were assigned a score of 0 for the type of food object considered.A score of one was allocated to each species for each food behaviour attributed to it, unless the species was described as engaging in that behaviour "rarely".A total of nine substrate variables were assigned a score of one if they were mentioned in the description of a species' foraging behaviour.Three variables (night, twilight and day) were used to describe the diurnal period of foraging activity.These were scored 1 if the species was active (or "occasionally active") during this period.

Table 1
Ecological properties of birds that characterise ecological niches (Pearman et al., 2014)  Should data be available on variations in trophic variables between breeding and non-breeding seasons, only data pertinent to the breeding season (e.g., food type) were scored as used.Behaviour and food types were scored as unused (0) if they were recorded for a species but only in a geographic area outside Europe.Prior to ordination, body mass was centred and normalised to one standard deviation (Pearman et al., 2014).
Habitat niche.A total of 38 habitat variables were extracted from the climate variables (Pearman et al., 2014), as the former are central to the initial definition of the habitat niche (Grinnell, 1917).A total of 18 variables were developed to describe the habitats where birds preferred nesting (nesting habitats).Three mutually exclusive variables were employed to describe the location of the nest (elevated nest position -in a tree or bush at a height of more than 1 m; in a tree hollow; on the ground or other substrate or surface).It should be noted that the other nesting habitat categories were not mutually exclusive, and that additional nesting habitat variables were assigned a score of 1 to describe the species' nesting preferences.An additional 19 variables were employed to describe the habitat utilised for feeding (foraging habitat).All types of wet grassland (wet tundra, marsh, sedge meadows, seasonally flooded meadows, etc.) were combined in both habitat types for the purposes of analysis.Dry meadows, steppes, and agricultural fields were collectively designated as the category of dry grassland.Individual trees, shrubs and bushes were aggregated into the category of shrubs.Similarly, sand, beach, and gravel were grouped together as a single category, which was presented as a variable niche for breeding and feeding.Silty shoals and muddy habitats deposited by wind or water were combined into one category, but only for the purpose of assessing them as foraging habitats.The coastal marine habitat was a foraging-niche variable that was assessed for species foraging in marine waters within 500 m of the shore during the breeding season.The forest edge was evaluated when the species description indicated that this habitat was utilized for feeding.For the purposes of this study, we combined natural open forests, disturbed open forests, and early successional forests into a single category, which was included in both the breeding and foraging habitats.Garden habitats and urban environments were identified to accommodate European species whose populations breed and/or feed in one or both of these types of anthropogenic habitats.

Results
The analysis of the ecological properties of birds in the region identified 10 functional axes (Table 2).Functional axis 1 positively correlates with bird weight (r = 0.52).Also, this functional axis has higher values when birds are able to feed on vegetative organs of plants, fish, small mammals and reptiles, and carrion.On the contrary, the axis values decrease when birds are able to feed on fruits.Positive values on the functional axis 1 correspond to birds that are able to forage and collect food in aquatic environments or from wet soil, but not in forest canopy, shrubs, or in the air.Positive values on functional axis 1 correspond to birds with nocturnal or twilight activity.These birds prefer herbaceous vegetation, aquatic and wetland ecosystems, but avoid both natural and planted forests.They lay their eggs on the soil surface in herbaceous and aquatic ecosystems, but avoid forest ecosystems of various origins.

Table 2
Correlation between ecological properties and functional axes: for continuous trait (body mass) a linear model is computed and R2 and P-value are returned (for other types of traits, a Kruskal-Wallis test is computed and eta2 statistics is returned) Birds with positive scores on axis 1 generally have good prospects in Zhytomyr Oblast in the context of the global climate change (Table 3).These species are usually thermophilic and tolerant of thermal gradients, and prefer open spaces, which is manifested through a positive correlation with the indicators of the landscape niche Campophilic/Dendrophilic and Wetland/Rural.The dependence of functional axes on taxonomic orders of birds was assessed using the General Linear Model (Table 4).The influence of orders was assessed in comparison with the reference taxon Passeriformes, and in fact, the regression coefficients indicated a difference in the values of the functional axis for a particular taxon compared to Passeriformes.That is why there is no explicit information about Passeriformes in Table 3.The values of functional axes 1 and 2 for Passeriformes were negative, while the other axes were not statistically significantly different from zero.In the taxonomic aspect, positive values of functional axis 1 are statistically significant for birds of the orders Anseriformes, Podicipediformes, Gruiformes, Charadriiformes, Gaviiformes, Pelecaniformes.Negative values of this axis are statistically significant for the orders Columbiformes, Cuculiformes, Strigiformes, Piciformes, and Falconiformes.
The functional axis 2 positively correlates with bird weight (r = 0.43).Also, this functional axis has higher scores when birds are able to feed on fish, small and large mammals, reptiles, large, and small birds, and carrion.By contrast, the axis values decrease if birds are able to feed on seeds, fruits, vegetative organs of plants, and invertebrates.The positive scores on functional axis 2 correspond to birds that are capable of chasing and attacking.In turn, negative values of this axis correspond to birds that are capable of foraging in the tree crowns or herbage, grazing, collecting food by pecking and picking with their beaks, and turning objects over.Species with positive axis scores obtain food from the ground or in the air.Species with negative scores on axis 2 obtain food from the forest canopy, shrubs, and other types of vegetation.The positive scores on functional axis 2 correspond to birds with nocturnal or twilight activity.Foraging habitats of such birds include dry or wet grassland, salt marshes or reeds.Nesting habitats are elevated nest sites.Negative scores on the functional axis 2 correspond to birds with nests on the ground.
The functional characteristics of birds represented by axis 2 do not contribute to the prospects of changes in the Habitat Preference Index in the context of global climate change over the next 70 years.The ecological groups of birds, allocated by both thermal preference and tolerance, did not differ in the values of axis 2 (F = 0.50, P = 0.61 and F = 0.78, P = 0.54, correspondingly).

Table 3
Correlation of functional axes with the forecast of changes in the bird habitat preference index within Zhytomyr region in the next 70 years and with the parameters of climatic, landscape and edaphic niche and (statistical correlation coefficients for P < 0.05 are presented) Notes: * -the changes in the index of bird habitat preference within Zhytomyr region in the next 70 years; ** -Climate 1 is an indicator of the position of the species' optimum in the thermal gradient; Climate 2 is the position of the species' optimum in the precipitation gradient; Climate 3 is the position of the species optimum in the precipitation variability gradient; *** -Edaphic 1 is the position of the species optimum in the soil nutrient content gradient; Edaphic 2 is the position of the species optimum in the soil aggregate structure gradient; **** -Campophilic/Dendrophilic is an ecological niche gradient that affects the variable of habitat conditions favourable to campophilic species at the expense of dendrophilic species; Wetland/Rural is an ecological niche gradient that affects the variable of habitat conditions favourable to water-loving species at the expense of rural species; Urban/Rural is an ecological niche gradient that affects the variable of habitat conditions favourable to urban species at the expense of rural species.
The positive scores of the functional axis 2 are statistically significant for birds of the orders Ciconiiformes, Pelecaniformes, Accipitriformes, Strigiformes, and Falconiformes.Negative values of this axis are statistically significant for the orders Anseriformes, Galliformes, Podicipediformes, Gruiformes, Charadriiformes, and Piciformes.
Functional axis 3 does not statistically significantly correlate with bird weight.This functional axis has higher values when birds are able to feed on seeds or small birds.On the contrary, the axis values decrease when birds are able to feed on invertebrates, fish, or a variety of vertebrates.Negative values on functional axis 3 correspond to birds that are able to forage in the treetops or herbaceous vegetation.Species with positive values on the axis obtain food from the ground.Species with negative values on axis 3 forage in the aquatic environment or in the canopy of trees.The values on functional axis 3 do not differ among birds with different diurnal activity rhythms.Foraging habitats of birds with positive values on functional axis 3 include dry or wet grass, sands, sparse forests, and shrubs.Birds with negative values on this axis are able to forage in aquatic environments, on coasts and salt marshes, and in forests.Nesting habitats of birds with positive values of axis 3 are the soil surface.Negative values of the functional axis 3 correspond to birds with nests located in tree hollows.
Functional features of birds, which are presented by axis 3, do not contribute to the prospects of changes in the habitat-preference index in the context of global climate change in the next 70 years.The ecological groups of birds identified by the thermal-preference index did not differ in the values of axis 3 (F = 1.83,P = 0.16).The ecological groups of birds, distinguished by the tolerance index, differed in the values of axis 3 (F = 2.89, P = 0.02).In the taxonomic aspect, positive values of functional axis 3 are statistically significant for birds of the orders Galliformes, Caprimulgiformes, and Falconiformes.Negative values of this axis are statistically significant for the orders Podicipediformes, Suliformes, Pelecaniformes, and Piciformes.
Functional axis 4 \negatively correlates with bird weight (r = -0.26).Negative values of functional axis 4 correspond to birds that are able to consume seeds, fruits and vegetative organs of plants, as well as carrion.Positive values of axis 4 indicate birds that are able to obtain prey by stalking or in the canopy of trees or herbage.Negative values on the axis indicate birds that obtain food by grazing, gathering, pecking, picking, digging or turning over objects.Species with positive axis values are those that forage in the treetops or in the air.Species with negative values on axis 4 obtain food in the aquatic environment or on the ground.Negative values on the functional axis 4 correspond to birds with twilight activity.Foraging habitats of birds with negative values on functional axis 4 include dry or wet grassland, salt marshes, muddy or clay plains, reedbeds, sparse forests and forest edges, as well as urban environments and gardens.Nesting habitats of birds with positive values of axis 4 are tree hollows.Negative values of functional axis 4 correspond to birds with nests that are elevated.Such nests are usually located around water bodies or in forested areas.
Functional axis 4 negatively correlates with the projected change in the habitat-preference index in the context of global climate change over the next 70 years.The ecological groups of birds, allocated by the thermal preference index, differed in the values of axis 4 (F = 3.02, P = 0.05).The microtherms have the highest values of axis 4 and, accordingly, the least prospects for changes in the habitat preference index.The ecological groups of birds, allocated by the tolerance index, did not differ statistically significant in the values of axis 4 (F = 1.04,P = 0.39).The positive scores of functional axis 4 are statistically significant for birds of the orders Coraciiformes and Piciformes.Negative values of this axis are statistically significant for the orders Anseriformes, Columbiformes, and Pelecaniformes.
Functional axis 5 positively correlates with bird weight (r = 0.38).The positive scores on functional axis 5 correspond to birds that are able to consume seeds, fruits, and vegetative organs of plants.Negative values indicate birds that feed on fish, invertebrates, and amphibians.Positive values on axis 5 indicate birds that are able to feed on grasses, sedges or their seeds in fields or meadows, or that obtain food by digging.Negative axis values indicate birds that forage by diving, foraging in the canopy of trees or grasses, and attacking.Species with negative values on axis 5 forage in aquatic environments, in shrubs, in various types of vegetation, and in the air.The values of axis 5 are not sensitive to the daily activity of birds.Foraging habitats with positive values on functional axis 5 are coniferous forests, and such with negative values are wet grasslands, salt marshes, and sandy coasts.Nesting habitats of birds with positive values of axis 5 are tree hollows in coniferous or mixed forests.Negative values of functional axis 5 correspond to birds with nests that are elevated.Such nests are usually located on sandy shores and in reeds.

Table 4
General linear models of dependence of functional axes on taxonomic orders of birds (statistically significant beta regression coefficients for P < 0.05 with respect to Passeriformes as a reference taxon are shown) Functional axis 6 does not statistically significant correlate with bird weight (r = -0.08).It contrasts birds that can eat fruit with those that eat small birds.It also contrasts stalking and diving with aerial foraging methods such as attacking in a stand of trees or searching in muddy substrate.Along functional axis 6, a distinction can be made between preferences for foraging habitats such as rocky slopes or buildings on the one hand and reeds and wet forests on the other.The building hypothesis is more likely, as additional detail is provided by the preference of urban development and gardens.Positive values on axis 1 indicate birds that prefer to build nests in tree hollows, while negative values indicate birds that build nests on the surface of a substrate, often with herbaceous vegetation.
Functional axis 7 negatively correlates with bird weight (r = -0.13Functional axis 9 does not correlate with bird weight (r = -0.11).Positive values of functional axis 9 correspond to birds that are able to feed on invertebrates.Negative values indicate birds that feed on vegetative organs of plants, fish, small mammals, other vertebrates, or carrion.In the taxonomic aspect, positive values of functional axis 9 are statistically significant for birds of the orders Ciconiiformes and Pelecaniformes.The negative values of this axis are statistically significant for the orders Anseriformes, Galliformes, Gaviiformes, and Strigiformes.Axis 10 distinguishes between the complex of species of the orders Anseriformes, Caprimulgiformes, and Strigiformes on the one hand (positive values of the axis) and Accipitriformes (negative values of the axis) on the other hand.Positive axis values unite a group of species that are able to exist in urban or garden environments.Adaptations of this group of birds to urban environments include feeding on grasses, sedges or their seeds in fields or meadows, nocturnal or twilight activity, and often association with wetlands.

Discussion
The phenomenon of global climate change is having a detrimental impact on the habitats of living organisms, which can alter species ranges and community compositions.As a consequence of alterations in temperature and precipitation, the distribution of species may undergo a variety of changes, including expansion, contraction, or relocation (Lenoir & Svenning, 2015).The future trajectory of such complex processes is difficult to predict accurately, but even conservative estimates suggest significant species extinction and changes in regional productivity (Lister, 2009).It is of paramount importance to ascertain the vulnerability of different species to climate change, and to develop practical measures based on these assessments (Advani, 2023).There are three general trends: improving climatic conditions, deteriorating conditions, and no change will affect certain species within a given area.Assessment of the impact of the climate change should take into account the Liebich law of limiting factors (Austin, 2007) and keep in mind that the general conditions for species depend not only on climate (Coelho et al., 2023).Landscape conditions, hydrological regimes, provision of trophic resources, the availability of which is a function of the impact of climate change on other groups of living organisms, will influence the actual change in the status of specific bird species along with climate (Koshelev et al., 2020).Consequently, the impact of climate change on birds can be both direct and indirect.It is therefore evident that forests play a pivotal role in moderating the effects of climate change (Duclos et al., 2019).Our study provides a methodological opportunity to make a forecast of changes in the state of bird populations as a result of the direct impact of climate change.Predicting the response of other landscape components and climate change is quite difficult, because such responses involve various interactions, the real direction of which is most likely not possible to identify in a long-term perspective.Even if a species is not directly affected by climate change, it may be affected indirectly through interactions with species that lose or alter their habitat (Thomas, 2010).It is in this context that several studies discuss the potential impact of climate change on biodiversity (Hidasi-Neto et al., 2019).
The positive impact of climate change may coincide with the neutral or positive impact of other climate-induced changes in landscape conditions.In this case, the climate projection will fully coincide with the actual dynamics of population processes over time.If the positive nature of climate change is accompanied by negative landscape changes, then they will be the ones that determine the trajectory of populations over time.In this case, favourable climatic conditions can ensure rapid recovery of populations, provided that the negative impact of landscape factors is mitigated.Thus, the positive effect of climatic factors will ensure greater sustainability of bird populations over time.Taking into account both negative impacts of climate change and positive landscape changes can produce accurate climate forecasts, as climate regimes will determine the state of bird populations.The positive direction of other factors in this case will provide a safety margin for bird populations and reduce the likelihood of their extinction due to random factors.Thus, although climate conditions will deteriorate for some birds, their populations will be able to maintain their stable state.The combined deterioration of climatic and other factors will have the potential to significantly affect some bird species, even to the point of extinction.In other words, our forecast is based on the assumption that climate change is the main driver of dynamics of bird populations, and that the impact on other ecosystem components is less important than climate.This assumption is quite realistic, given that we can expect quite significant climate change in the next 70 years.The landscape has a variety of mechanisms to maintain the sustainnability of its functioning processes, so it can be assumed that changes in landscape factors will not be as dynamic due to the fact that the landscape can be considered a factor of sustainability of terrestrial ecosystems.Another factor affecting forecast accuracy is that the resilience mechanism of landscape systems can be substantiatlly weakened by anthropogenic impacts.The resilience mechanisms of landscape systems are a consequence of ordered trajectories of vegetation succession, soil memory, and the rhythmic recurrence of hydrological phenolmena, determined by the inertia of dynamic processes within the river catchment.
The prediction of birds' response to climate change suggests that for some birds these changes will have positive consequences, for some -negative, and some will experience no consequences.The organisation of the ecological space of a region's avifauna can be reflected by means of functional axes, which are extracted on the basis of Grinnell and Elton's bird ecological niche markers.These axes are orthogonal, i.e. they reflect independent trends in the coverage of ecological space by birds.Three of the ten functional axes showed a dependence on the sensitivity of bird species to climate change.Thus, the response of birds to climate change depends on their ecological characteristics.Functional axis 1 is sensitive to the impact of climate change and is strongly correlated with bird weight.It is important to understand whether the sensitivity to climate change depends on bird weight, or whether this relationship is due to the taxonomic sensitivity of bird species to climate, and taxa already differ in bird weight.A positive correlation between bird weight and the predicted change in the habitat preference index over the next 70 years was found only for species of the order Charadriiformes.For all other orders, no correlation between sensitivity to climate change and bird weight was found.This indicates that for the vast majority of bird taxa, the dependence on weight is a consequence of different sensitivities of species depending on taxa, rather than bird weight per se.It should be noted that Charadriiformes is a species-rich and size-diverse group of birds.Within the order, the weight of birds ranges 20 to 2,000 g, and in the species of this order found in Zhytomyr Oblast, the weight varies 23.5 to 1100 g.It can be assumed that the weight of these birds correlates with the optimal average annual air temperature, but calculations show that this is not the case.The role of weight as an indicator that is sensitive to climate change within Charadriiformes can also be explained by the negative correlation between bird weight and the tolerance of their thermal ecological niche.Thus, the greater the weight of a bird within the order Charadriiformes , the less tolerant their ecological niches tend to be of environmental fluctuations.A similar negative relationship was found for birds of such genera as Galliformes and Pelecaniformes.However, Galliformes birds are not sensitive to variations in the ecological properties of birds described by functional axis 1, so we cannot explain the dependence of bird climate sensitivity on weight by a mechanism that would include species tolerance to thermal factors.The positive effect of weight on the likelihood of improving habitat conditions within the order Charadriiformes can most likely be explained by the fact that rurally occurring species of this order are usually heavier than those in natural ecosystems, and those in urban habitats are heavier than those in rural habitats.That is, species that are more adapted to life in the upward gradient of anthropogenic transformation undergo increase in weight, which is also associated with the prospect of improvement in living conditions, driven by the global climate change.The foraging behaviour of birds that consists of feeding on grasses, sedges or their seeds in fields or meadows is a common feature for birds whose habitat conditions will improve as a result of climate change.This highlights the role of high production potential of aquatic plants in supporting the trophic needs of birds.Conservation of water surface area will be a critical condition for waterbirds in the context of global climate change.The forecast of such changes is controversial.On the one hand, global warming contributes to increased evaporation of water from the surface of water bodies, which can cause them to dry up.On the other hand, global climate change is accompanied by an increase in precipitation, which will increase the water content of water bodies.The forecast of what changes will occur in wetlands depends on the spatial redistribution of precipitation within the catchment area in the near future.It should be noted that increased erosion can also significantly change the water balance of landscapes, and therefore, maintaining a diverse vegetation cover should be considered an anti-erosion factor that can protect the territory from undesirable fluctuations in the water regime.The role of erosion is also highlighted by rocky slopes, which are important foraging habitats for many bird species that are able to improve their living conditions in the context of global climate change.Slopes are the terrain that is most vulnerable to erosion, which can negatively affect the resilience and diversity of bird communities.
Positive prospects in connection with global climate change can be expected for birds living in areas close to water and wetlands (Anseriformes, Podicipediformes, Gruiformes, Charadriiformes, Gaviiformes, Pelecaniformes), while negative prospects are expected for forest birds (Columbiformes, Strigiformes, Piciformes) and birds of forests and open spaces (Falconiformes).Representatives of non-forest ecological groups are usually represented by more thermophilic species, which explains the positive expected effect for them in the context of global climate change, taking into account possible transformations of landscape cover, not taken into account in our study.In addition, projections for most Palearctic migratory waterbirds indicate that the loss of suitable areas along their current flyways and wintering grounds can be largely offset by new areas that become climatically suitable.The ecological profile, indicated by axis 1, also indicates the critical ecological conditions that are important for unlocking the potential of waterbird conditions.This is the presence of a trophic resource in the form of fish.Condition of fish resources is critical for the functioning of bird communities, which are likely to improve their living conditions as a result of global climate change.The representatives of the forest complex often include microthermal boreal species for which warming will have negative consequences.However, climate reconstructions should take into account the presence of the forest vegetation's pervasive influence, which is a reason for optimism.Preserving climax forests over large areas with significant pervasive potential can ensure the survival of forest bird species for which general climatic conditions may increasingly deviate from optimal regimes.The conservation of coniferous and mixed forests is an important factor in preserving foraging and nesting habitats for birds sensitive to the global warming.Functional axis 6 indicates positive prospects for Columbiformes and Coraciiformes.This axis indicates negative trends for Charadriiformes, Accipitriformes, and Strigiformes.This axis differentiates the inhabitants of the urban environment from the inhabitants of the most natural habitats and indicates a trend of positive response of urban dwellers to the global climate change.Thus, functional axes 1 and 6 indicate a positive trend in urban fauna in the context of global warming, whereas functional axis 4 identifies the group of urban birds whose living conditions will deteriorate in the near future.

Conclusion
The analysis of the ecological properties of birds in the region identified 10 functional axes, three of which correlate with the sensitivity of birds to the global climate change.Predicting the impact of landscape factors on species distribution is challenging, but the structure of the functional axes can reveal what ecological niche parameters deter-mined by landscape conditions are birds more sensitive to.Functional axes 1 and 6 indicate positive trends in life of urban birds in the context of global climate change.It can be anticipated that positive prospects will emerge in connection with global climate change for birds belonging to Anseriformes, Podicipediformes, Gruiformes, Charadriiformes, Gaviiformes, and Pelecaniformes, while negative prospects are expected for forest birds (Columbiformes, Strigiformes, Piciformes) and birds of forests and open spaces (Falconiformes).Functional axis 1 strongly correlates with bird weight.For the majority of bird taxa, the weight dependence is a consequence of sensitivities of different species depending on taxon, rather than bird weight per se.A positive correlation between bird weight and the predicted change in the habitat preference index over the next 70 years was found only for species of the order Charadriiformes.The positive effect of weight on the probability of habitat improvement for Charadriiformes is due to the fact that rural species of this order are usually heavier than those in natural ecosystems, and those in urban habitats are heavier than those in rural habitats.Functional axis 4 identifies the group of urban birds whose habitat conditions will deteriorate in the near future due to the global warming.This group includes woodpeckers, which can be considered an indicator of biodiversity of bird communities that are sensitive to global climate change.
). Positive values of functional axis 7 correspond to birds that are able to consume invertebrates.Negative values indicate birds that feed on seeds, fruits, and vegetative parts of plants.Positive values on axis 7 indicate birds that are able to feed by picking, pecking, and scratching.Negative values on the axis indicate birds that obtain food by foraging in the tree canopy or grassland or by feeding on grasses, sedges, or their seeds in fields or meadows.Species with positive values on axis 7 forage in silt.Positive values of axis 7 distinguish birds with nocturnal or twilight activity, and negative values -those with daytime activity.Foraging habitats of birds with positive values on functional axis 7 are dry grasslands, salt marshes and sandy coasts, and reeds with negative values.Nesting habitats of birds with positive values of axis 7 are tree hollows in open forests or gardens.Negative values of functional axis 7 correspond to birds with nests that are elevated.Such nests are usually located in reeds.Functional axis 8 does not correlate with bird weight (r = -0.08).Positive values of functional axis 8 correspond to birds that are able to consume large birds or are carrion eaters.Negative values indicate birds that feed on amphibians and reptiles.Positive values on axis 8 indicate birds that are able to feed by stalking or diving.Negative values on the axis indicate birds that obtain food by grazing.Species with positive values on axis 8 are aerial foragers.Positive values of axis 8 indicate birds with daytime activity, and negative values indicate birds with nighttime or twilight activity.Foraging habitats of birds with positive values on functional axis 8 include urban areas.