Site Selection and Nest Success of Ring-Necked Pheasants as a Function of Location in Iowa Landscapes

Clark, William R.; Schmitz, Richard A.; Bogenschutz, Todd R.

doi:10.2307/3802812

Cited by 61 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regression and classification trees allow evaluation of hierarchy among variables as well as relationships among them. Moreover, biases derived from multicolinearity problems are avoided using such techniques (see Hastie and Tibshirani, 1990;Hayden and Hamilton, 1997;Breiman et al, 1984;and De'Ath and Fabricius, 2000 for more information), this is very useful when complex analytical situations are considered, like those describing species habitat selection patterns (e.g., Hayden and Hamilton, 1997;Rodewald and Smith, 1998;Clark et al, 1999;Robinson and Robinson, 1999;De'Ath and Fabricius, 2000;Drapeau et al, 2000). The process is based on iterative splitting of the original data into groups that relate through tree diagrams.…”

Section: Habitat Scalementioning

confidence: 98%

Influences of forest type and forest structure on bird communities in oak and pine woodlands in Spain

Díaz

2006

Forest Ecology and Management

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Habitat Scalementioning

confidence: 98%

Influences of forest type and forest structure on bird communities in oak and pine woodlands in Spain

Díaz

2006

Forest Ecology and Management

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There are many studies that have been performed on the relationships between landscape parameters and specific species -owls (Carey et al, 1992;Ribe et al, 1998), sparrows (Perkins and Conner, 2003), turkeys (Chamberlain et al, 2000;Miller and Conner, 2007), woodpeckers (Wigley et al, 1999), bobwhites (Guthery et al, 2001;Twedt et al, 2007), grouses (Fearer and Stauffer, 2003), pheasants (Clark et al, 1999) and ducks (Stephens et al, 2005). Different studies have shown that most bird species responded more strongly to the composition of land-cover classes than to the configuration of the landscape (Table 1).…”

Section: Biodiversity and Habitat Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape Metrics and Indices: An Overview of Their Use in Landscape Research

Uuemaa¹,

Antrop²,

Roosaare³

et al. 2009

Living Rev. Landscape Res.

311

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this overview paper is to analyze the use of various landscape metrics and landscape indices for the characterization of landscape structure and various processes at both landscape and ecosystem level. We analyzed the appearance of the terms landscape metrics/indexes/indices in combination with seven main categories in the field of landscape ecology [1) use/selection and misuse of metrics, 2) biodiversity and habitat analysis; 3) water quality; 4) evaluation of the landscape pattern and its change; 5) urban landscape pattern, road network; 6) aesthetics of landscape; 7) management, planning and monitoring] in the titles, abstracts and/or key words of research papers published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals indexed by the Institute of Science Information (ISI) Web of Science (WoS) from 1994 to October 2008. Most of the landscape metrics and indices are used concerning biodiversity and habitat analysis, and also the evaluation of landscape pattern and its change (up to 25 articles per year). There are only a few articles on the relationships of landscape metrics/indices/indexes to social aspects and landscape perception.

show abstract

“…Studies on the habitats and populations of wild fauna were produced later, using the landscape structure analysis (Fahrig and Merrian, 1985;Fahrig and Paloheimo, 1988;Dunning et al, 1992;Johnson et al, 1992;Anderson and Gutzwiller, 1994;Danielson and Anderson, 1999;With, 1999). The influences of the territory space-structure were investigated on single species and their home-range (Temple, 1986;Haila et al, 1987;Robbins et al, 1989;McGarigal and McComb 1995;Clark, 1999;Glennon and Porter, 1999;Kie et al, 2001;Fearer and Stauffer, 2004;Said and Servanty, 2005;Jimenez-Garcia et al, 2006;Belda et al, 2007;Martinez-Perez et al, 2007). Different authors produced a series of indices (landscape ecology metrics, LEM) to estimate the space structure of the territory (Shannon and Weaver, 1949;Simpson, 1949;O'Neill et al, 1988;Gustafson and Parker, 1992;Li and Reynolds, 1995;Ritters et al, 1995;Gustafson, 1998;Hargis et al, 1998;Jaeger 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat use and home range traits of resident and relocated hares (Lepus europaeus, Pallas)

Ferretti

Paci

Porrini³

et al. 2010

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to identify the habitat preferences and home range of resident and relocated brown hares during the nohunting period. The trial was carried out in a protected area and in a free-hunting territory (FHT), both located in the Florence province. During the captures, 21 hares were equipped with a necklace radio-tag: seven hares (resident group) were released in the same area of capture and 14 hares (relocated group) were relocated in six different locations within the FHT. The effect of the place of release was analysed by ANOVA and/or nonparametric methods. Results showed that the home ranges of the resident group were characterized by a greater amount of fallow land and shrub land than of the relocated group (P<0.05). Home range sizes and maximum distances from the releasing sites were greater in the relocated group. Resident hares preferred landscape characterized by a higher density of patches (152 vs. 70 n/100 ha), patch richness (43 vs. 12 n/100 ha), and patch area (4703 vs. 8142 m 2 ) than the relocated hares (P<0.01). The landscape structure indices, the home range sizes and the maximum distance from the releasing sites suggest that the relocated hares, even if released in suitable habitats, will move from their releasing point to look for better habitats. The landscape with the most complexity is preferred by the resident hares. This result should be considered when a project is programmed to reintroduce this lagomorph into a territory, or when it is necessary to improve the dynamics of a natural population.

show abstract

Site Selection and Nest Success of Ring-Necked Pheasants as a Function of Location in Iowa Landscapes

Cited by 61 publications

References 32 publications

Influences of forest type and forest structure on bird communities in oak and pine woodlands in Spain

Influences of forest type and forest structure on bird communities in oak and pine woodlands in Spain

Landscape Metrics and Indices: An Overview of Their Use in Landscape Research

Habitat use and home range traits of resident and relocated hares (Lepus europaeus, Pallas)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About