Environmental Management

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 493–536 | Cite as

Foraging guilds of North American birds

  • Richard M. De Graaf
  • Nancy G. Tilghman
  • Stanley H. Anderson


We propose a foraging guild classification for North American inland, coastal, and pelagic birds. This classification uses a three-part identification for each guild—major food, feeding substrate, and foraging technique—to classify 672 species of birds in both the breeding and nonbreeding seasons. We have attempted to group species that use similar resources in similar ways. Researchers have identified foraging guilds generally by examining species distributions along one or more defined environmental axes. Such studies frequently result in species with several guild designations. While the continuance of these studies is important, to accurately describe species' functional roles, managers need methods to consider many species simultaneously when trying to determine the impacts of habitat alteration. Thus, we present an avian foraging classification as a starting point for further discussion to aid those faced with the task of describing community effects of habitat change.


Waste Water Water Management Water Pollution Environmental Management Functional Role 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. American Ornithologists Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds, 6th edn. American Ornithologists' Union, Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Landres, P. B. 1983. Use of the guild concept in environmental impact assessment.Environmental Management 7:393–398.Google Scholar
  3. Root, R. B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher.Ecological Monographs 37:317–350.Google Scholar
  4. Severinghaus, W. D. 1981. Guild theory development as a mechanism for assessing environmental development.Environmental Management 5:187–190.Google Scholar
  5. Short, H. L., and K. P. Burnham. 1982. Techniques for structuring wildlife guilds to evaluate impacts of wildlife communities. USDI Fish and Wildlife SSR-Wildlife 244. 33 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Thomas, J. W., R. J. Miller, C. Maser, R. G. Anderson, and B. E. Carter. 1979. Plant communities and successional stage. Pages 22–39in J. W. Thomas (tech. ed.) Wildlife habitats on managed forests. The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service Agricultural Handbook no. 553.Google Scholar
  7. Verner, J. 1984. The guild concept applied to the management of bird populations.Environmental Management 8:1–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard M. De Graaf
    • 1
  • Nancy G. Tilghman
    • 2
  • Stanley H. Anderson
    • 3
  1. 1.USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment StationUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Northeastern Forest Experiment StationUSDA Forest ServiceWarrenUSA
  3. 3.USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Cooperative Wildlife Research UnitUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations