Established and empirically derived landbird focal species lists correlate with vegetation and avian metrics

Abstract

Surrogate species are commonly used in conservation science due to the fact that it is not feasible to measure and manage each component of biodiversity independently; yet, there is much debate about their efficacy. We use long‐term monitoring data from six national park units in northern California and southern Oregon to test the focal species approach, wherein a suite of species is selected whose habitat requirements collectively encompass those of co‐occurring species. Specifically, we examine how well existing Partners in Flight (PIF) habitat‐based focal species lists and empirically derived focal species lists represent vegetation and three avian assemblages of interest: the entire assemblage, species of concern, and common species in steep decline. Existing PIF focal species lists were significantly correlated with the three alternative matrices of avian assemblages and vegetation, but not all parks and alternate matrices performed with equal correlative strength and/or significance. For example, existing PIF focal species lists were significantly correlated to the entire assemblage at five of the six parks and had ecologically meaningful correlations (>0.70) at four. However, PIF focal species list correlations with park specific species of concern and common species in steep declined varied widely, with correlations between 0.040–0.943 and 0.210–0.556, respectively. Averaged across park units the empirical focal species lists developed to represent both vegetation metrics and species of concern improved correlation with all alternative matrices of avian assemblages and vegetation metrics. We found that the focal species approach generally represented the entire avian community, but did not adequately represent suites of species of concern or common species in decline. Empirical testing is a critical step in validating or refining suites of focal species at management relevant scales, and in some instances, a more refined focal species list may increase overall utility of the surrogate species approach.

Effectiveness of management zoning designed for flagship species in protecting sympatric species

“…; Stephens et al. ) and that multispecies strategies can often broaden the breadth of species protected under an umbrella‐species approach to yield better representation of habitat requirements for sympatric species (Lambeck ; Sattler et al. ).…”

Sagebrush Bird Communities Differ with Varying Levels of Crested Wheatgrass Invasion

“…We used indicator species analysis (ISA; Dufrêne and Legendre 1997) within PC-ORD to examine the degree to which each species was uniquely associated with different habitat types, in order to evaluate their potential value as management indicators and metrics of future restoration progress. While the Refuge's CCP puts forth species considered Priority Resources of Concern and an example list of those expected to benefit from upland habitat management actions (USFWS 2014), empirical testing with local data is an important step in refining the suite of focal species to be used as management indicators (Stephens et al 2019). Indicator values (IVs) were generated for each species based on a synthesis of their relative abundance and frequency within the different habitat groups.…”

“…Broader indicators of ecological function may be better predictors of overall success than short-term plant establishment targets alone (Bradford et al 1998). Birds are effective monitoring tools of ecological restoration for the following reasons: 1) they are easily and cost-effectively detected using standardized protocols, 2) different species are associated with various attributes of functioning habitat, and 3) they respond quickly to habitat change at multiple scales (Hutto 1998;Altman and Holmes 2000;Alexander et al 2007;Stephens et al 2019). Avian habitat choice is an integrative response to multiple environmental gradients (Wiens 1989 progress towards upland habitat goals through cycles of adaptive management.…”

Metrics for conservation success: Using the “Bird‐Friendliness Index” to evaluate grassland and aridland bird community resilience across the Northern Great Plains ecosystem

“…Yet single species rarely serve as effective proxies for larger communities, due to limited overlap in habitat requirements, functional roles and responses to management actions among species (Cushman et al., 2010; Johnson et al, 2019; Larsen et al., 2009; Lindenmayer et al., 2015; Winter et al., 2005). Single‐species indicator approaches are particularly ill‐suited to communities with threatened species, as more common species often perform poorly as surrogates for species of conservation concern (Stephens et al., 2019). Additionally, species‐specific abundance alone is rarely a reliable predictor of habitat quality (Johnson, 2008).…”