Landscape Ecology

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 3–18 | Cite as

The spatial extent and relative influence of landscape-level factors on wintering bird populations

  • Scott M. Pearson
Article

Abstract

The influences of the landscape matrix (complex of habitats surrounding a study plot) and within-patch vegetation were studied in bird communities wintering in the piedmont of Georgia, USA. Variation at the landscape and within-patch levels was controlled to reduce the likelihood of confounding and spurious relationships. The landscape matrix within 500 m of each study plot was quantified from aerial photographs. Statistical models using landscape matrix and within-patch vegetation variables explained 73–84% of variation in bird abundance and diversity among sites with landscape matrix variables accounting for 30–90% of the variation. Variation in bird species richness and diversity was explained solely by landscape variables. Models for individual species such as Carolina Wrens (Thyrothorus ludovicianus) and Rufous-sided Towhees (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) had r2 > 0.80, with the landscape matrix variables accounting for the majority of this variation. However, other species like Northern Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis) and White-throated Sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis) were most strongly influenced by within-plot vegetation. The landscape influence extended beyond habitats immediately adjacent to the study plots as indicated by significant variables describing variation in more distant habitat patches. These analyses illustrate a technique for comparing the strength of within-patch versus landscape influences and measuring the spatial extent of the landscape influence in fine-grained landscapes.

Report No. 3955, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Keywords

species diversity patches grain Georgia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Addicott, J.F., Aho, J.M., Antolin, M.R., Padilla, D.K., Richardson, J.S. and Soluk, D.A. 1987. Ecological neighborhoods: scaling environmental patterns. Oikos 49: 340–346.Google Scholar
  2. Askins, R.A. and Philbrick, M.J. 1987. Effect of changes in regional forest abundance on the decline and recovery of a forest bird community. Wilson Bull. 99: 7–21.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, O.L. 1968. Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 237.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, C.E. 1988. Effects of host plant patch size on herbivore density: underlying mechanisms. Ecology 69: 1103–1117.Google Scholar
  5. Blake, J.G. and Karr, J.R. 1987. Breeding birds of isolated woodlots: area and habitat relationships. Ecology 68: 1724–1734.Google Scholar
  6. Butcher, G.S., Niering, W.A., Barry, W.J. and Goodwin, R.H. 1981. Equilibrium biogeography and the size of nature preserves: an avian case study. Oecologia 49: 29–37.Google Scholar
  7. CERL. 1989. GRASS-GRID, version 3.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Construction Engineering and Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  8. Dunning, J.B. Jr., Danielson, B.J. and Pulliam, H.R. 1991. Processes that affect populations at the level of the landscape. Oikos (in review).Google Scholar
  9. Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Freemark, K.E. and Merriam, H.G. 1986. Importance of area and habitat heterogeneity to bird assemblages in temperate forest fragments. Biol. Conserv. 36: 115–141.Google Scholar
  11. Gardner, R.H., O'Neill, R.V., Turner, M.G. and Dale, V.H. 1989. Quantifying scale-dependent effects of animal movement with simple percolation models. Landsc. Ecol. 3: 217–227.Google Scholar
  12. Hamel, P.B., Legrand, H.E., Lennartz, M.R. and Gauthreaux, S.A. 1982. Bird habitat relationships on southeastern forest lands. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report SE-22. 417 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54: 187–211.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, R.A. and Wichern, D.W. 1988. Applied multivariate statistical analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  15. Kendeigh, S.C. 1944. Measurement of bird populations. Ecol. Monogr. 14: 67–106.Google Scholar
  16. Kroodsma, R.L. 1982. Bird community ecology on power-line corridors in east Tennessee. Biol. Conserv. 23: 79–94.Google Scholar
  17. Lima, S.L., Wiebe, K.L. and Dill, L.M. 1987. Protective cover and the use of space by finches: is closer better? Oikos 50: 225–230.Google Scholar
  18. Mills, G.S., Dunning, J.B. Jr. and Bates, J.M. 1991. The relationship between breeding bird density and vegetation volume. Wilson Bull. 103: 468–479.Google Scholar
  19. Morgan, K.A. and Gates, J.E. 1982. Bird population patterns in forest edge and strip vegetation at Remington Farms, Maryland. J. Wildl. Manage. 46: 933–944.Google Scholar
  20. O'Neill, R.V., Milne, B.T., Turner, M.G. and Gardner, R.H. 1988. Resource utilization scales and landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 2: 63–69.Google Scholar
  21. Pearson, S.M. 1991a. Food patches and the spacing of individual foragers. Auk 108: 355–362.Google Scholar
  22. Pearson, S.M. 1991b. Influence of the surrounding landscape on wintering bird communities of old field habitats. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  23. Pulliam, H.R. and Danielson, B.J. 1991. Sources, sinks and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. Am. Nat. 137: S50-S66.Google Scholar
  24. Pulliam, H.R. and Enders, F.A. 1971. The feeding ecology of five sympatric finch species. Ecology 52: 557–566.Google Scholar
  25. Pulliam, H.R. and Mills, G.S. 1977. The use of space by wintering sparrows. Ecology 58: 1393–1399.Google Scholar
  26. Quay, T.L. 1947. Winter birds of upland plant communities. Auk 64: 382–388.Google Scholar
  27. Radford, A.E., Ahles, H.E. and Bell, C.R. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  28. Raivio, S. and Haila, Y. 1990. Bird assemblages in silvicultural habitat mosaics in southern Finland during the breeding season. Ornis Fennica 67: 73–83.Google Scholar
  29. SAS. 1987. SAS, version 6.03. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC 27512–8000 U.S.A.Google Scholar
  30. Schneider, K.J. 1984. Dominance, predation and optimal foraging in white-throated sparrow flocks. Ecology 65: 1820–1827.Google Scholar
  31. Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W. 1948. The mathematical theory of communication. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  32. Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Strong, T.R. and Bock, C.E. 1990. Bird species distribution patterns in riparian habitats in southeastern Arizona. Condor 92: 866–885.Google Scholar
  34. Temple, S.A. and Cary, J.R. 1988. Modeling dynamics of habitat-interior bird populations in fragmented landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 4: 340–347.Google Scholar
  35. Watts, B.D. 1990. Cover use and predator-related mortality in song and savannah sparrows. Auk 107: 775–778.Google Scholar
  36. Watts, B.D. 1991. Segregation of an old field sparrow community along a cover gradient: effects of cover-dependency on spatial co-occurrence. Submitted.Google Scholar
  37. Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Func. Ecol. 3: 385–397.Google Scholar
  38. Wiens, J.A. and Milne, B.T. 1989. Scaling of ‘landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle's perspective. Landsc. Ecol. 3: 87–96.Google Scholar
  39. Wilcove, D.S., McLellan, C.H. and Dobson, A.P. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. In Conservation Biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. pp. 237–256. Edited by M.E. Soule. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing bv 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott M. Pearson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology and Institute of EcologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations