Habitat associations and survey effort for shrubland birds in an urban pine barrens preserve

Bried, Jason T.; Langwig, Kate E.; DeWan, Amielle; Gifford, Neil A.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.10.003

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(107 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These trade‐offs in survey effort have been considered across bats (Weller and Lee ), birds (Bried et al. ), reptiles (Sewell et al. ), and plants (Garrard et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, MacKenzie and Royle (2005) suggest the temporal resolution of SOD should scale with species rarity: Surveying more sites less frequently is more efficient for rare species, whereas surveying few sites more frequently may be better for conspicuous species. These trade-offs in survey effort have been considered across bats (Weller and Lee 2007), birds (Bried et al 2011), reptiles (Sewell et al 2012), and plants (Garrard et al 2008). Much less frequently has movement variability been considered when interpreting the SOD generated by those designs, but this could be evaluated with the methods described here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Species occurrence data reflect the magnitude of animal movements better than the proximity of animal space use

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 2018. Species occurrence data reflect the magnitude of animal movements better than the proximity of animal space use. Ecosphere 9(2):e02112. 10. 1002/ecs2.2112 Abstract. Animal ecologists often use stationary point-count surveys, such as camera traps, to collect presence-absence data and infer distribution, abundance, and density of species. Rarely do these surveys explicitly consider variations in the magnitude of animal movement despite movement assumptions being implicit in their interpretation. For example, ecologists assume the frequency of species detections at a site is associated with the intensity of local space use, but it may be more indicative of transit through that point en route to other areas. This assumption remains untested, and a resolution is critical to accurate interpretation of species occurrence data. We compared fisher (Pekania pennanti) detections collected from a camera trap array with detailed Global Positioning System-telemetry data to test whether, at the population level, the spatial and temporal patterns of detections reflected the proximity of space use to sampling sites, or variability in the magnitude of animal movement across the study area. We also used an occupancy modeling framework to quantify the relative contributions of space use proximity and movement magnitude to estimated probabilities of site occupancy and detectability. We demonstrate that, at the population level, detection frequency and estimates of detection probability and occupancy are more closely associated with the magnitude of animal movement around a survey device than the proximity of animal space use. Variations in the magnitude of animal movement within and between species should receive greater consideration when interpreting occurrence data to correctly infer ecological processes. Not accounting for species movement, especially in multi-species surveys, may bias inferences of ecologic processes and result in misspecified management recommendations.

show abstract

“…These trade‐offs in survey effort have been considered across bats (Weller and Lee ), birds (Bried et al. ), reptiles (Sewell et al. ), and plants (Garrard et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species occurrence data reflect the magnitude of animal movements better than the proximity of animal space use

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Field research projects face logistical, time and monetary constraints (Tyre et al 2003), which inherently limit the affordable survey intensity. Dense sampling schemes-such as those that use survey protocols which aim to cover at least three percent of the area of a landscape with at least five repeats (Bried et al 2011)-are rarely feasible. Typically, only small portions of the landscape can be surveyed (Stohlgren et al 1997).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To collect reliable data using limited resources, ecologists thus face a trade-off between the number of survey sites and the number of repeated surveys at each sample site (Bried et al 2011;Reed et al 2011;Reynolds et al 2011;Bailey et al 2007;Suarez-Seoane et al 2002;Guillera-Arroita and Lahoz-Monfort 2012;Guillera-Arroita et al 2010). One tool to investigate tolerable information loss when survey effort is reduced is to evaluate the statistical power of the different survey designs (Field et al 2005;Legg and Nagy 2006;Bailey et al 2007;Vellend et al 2008;Guillera-Arroita and Lahoz-Monfort 2012;Sewell et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing robust field survey protocols in landscape ecology: a case study on birds, plants and butterflies

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable land management requires scientists to provide reliable data on diversity distribution patterns. Resource restrictions limit the affordable sampling effort, both with respect to number of survey sites and amount of effort per site. We compared different levels of survey effort in a case study in Central Romania, varying the number of repeats per site and number of survey sites. Target taxa were plants, birds and butterflies. For plants, we surveyed three 10 m 2 plots and ten plots of 1 m 2 at each site. For birds, we used point counts and for butterflies Pollard walks, in both cases with four repeats. We fitted hierarchical community models to estimate true species richness per site. Estimates of true species richness per site strongly correlated with observed species richness. However, hierarchical community models yielded unrealistically high estimates of true species richness per site, hence we used observed richness for further analyses. For each species group, we compared diversity indices from subsets of the dataset with the full dataset. Findings obtained with a reduced survey effort reflected well those obtained with full effort. Moreover, we conducted a power analysis to assess how the number of survey sites affected the minimum detectable effect of landscape heterogeneity on species richness, and found there was an exponential decrease in the minimum detectable effect with increasing number of sites. In combination, our findings suggest that assessing broad 123Biodivers Conserv (2015) 24:33-46 DOI 10.1007 diversity patterns in abundant and readily detectable organisms may be possible with relatively low survey effort per site. Our study demonstrates the utility of conducting pilot studies prior to designing large-scale studies on diversity distribution patterns.

show abstract

“…Although the effects of time of day on bird observation were not tested prior to the actual field survey; several other studies have reported that the detection rate of most bird species is greater in morning (Bried et al 2011) with another peak in activity in the late afternoon, 2-3 h before sunset (Kessler and Milne 1982). In general, birds tend to reduce activity during the midday heat (Pizo et al, 1997).…”

Section: Bird Surveysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of habitat extent and forest disturbance on bird communities in lowland nepal

Dahal¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat loss and degradation are recognized as the major contributors to species decline and extinction, and therefore represent a key conservation challenge for biodiversity conservation. Key to the protection of biodiversity is acquisition of ecological knowledge about how anthropogenic forest disturbances affect species and how species respond to emergent landscape characteristics.Furthermore, it is also important to assess how different management approaches and land tenures influence retention of the biota of particular sites and of landscapes. However, this crucial ecological knowledge is yet to be obtained for the threatened lowland landscapes of Nepal.Protected areas cover only a small proportion of forests in lowland Nepal; the majority of forests outside the protected areas (off-reserve) have been managed by the state government. However, in recent years, community forestry programs have been increasingly popular as attempts to protect biodiversity while permitting consumptive forest use by people. It is therefore important to understand effectiveness of different forest management tenures for avifaunal conservation. I compared species richness, abundance, diversity and community composition of birds among sites in community forests, state forests and protected areas. Although sites in protected areas had the greatest richness of birds, community forests and state managed forests had complementary assemblages, supporting species not represented in protected areas. Vegetation characteristics such as large tree density, tree canopy cover and shrub density were also greater in community forests than in state-managed forests. The findings suggest that the community forestry approach appears to improve habitat quality compared to state-managed forests, and therefore can be an alternative tenure type for conservation of off-reserve forests and avifauna in the region.Subsistence forestry practices such as logging, lopping, and grazing are sources of forest disturbance in lowland Nepal. Such activities do not reduce forest area, but change habitat characteristics, potentially affecting biodiversity directly, and through interactions with landscape characteristics. I examined effects of forest use practices on species richness and abundance of forest birds, and whether landscape context such as the extent of forest cover moderates disturbance effects on birds. I found that extraction of forest products reduced forest structural complexity and altered the avifaunal community of a site. At the site level, large tree density, tree canopy cover and shrub density were important habitat characteristics, while the extent of forest cover in the landscape had the greatest influence on richness of birds. The effects of forest disturbance (livestock grazing and logging) intensity on birds depended on the extent of forest in the surrounding landscape, with strongest effects in sites with less surrounding forest. Thus, although iii site-level vegetation structure is important, maintenance of forest extent in the lan...

show abstract

Habitat associations and survey effort for shrubland birds in an urban pine barrens preserve

Cited by 18 publications

References 56 publications

Species occurrence data reflect the magnitude of animal movements better than the proximity of animal space use

Species occurrence data reflect the magnitude of animal movements better than the proximity of animal space use

Developing robust field survey protocols in landscape ecology: a case study on birds, plants and butterflies

Effects of habitat extent and forest disturbance on bird communities in lowland nepal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About