Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 701–714 | Cite as

Use of avian and mammalian guilds as indicators of cumulative impacts in riparian-wetland areas

  • Mary Jo Croonquist
  • Robert P. Brooks
Article

Abstract

A new method of assessing cumulative effects of human activities on bird and mammal communities of riparian-wetland areas was developed by using response guilds to reflect how species theoretically respond to habitat disturbance on a landscape level. All bird and mammal species of Pennsylvania were assigned values for each response guild using documented information for each species, to reflect their sensitivity to disturbances; high guild scores corresponded to low tolerance toward habitat disturbance. We hypothesized that, given limited time and resources, determining how wildife communities change in response to environmental impacts can be done more efficiently with a response-guild approach than a single-species approach. To test the model, censuses of birds and mammals were conducted along wetland and riparian areas of a protected and a disturbed watershed in central Pennsylvania. The percent of bird species with high response-guild scores (i.e., species that had specific habitat requirements and/or were neotropical migrants) remained relatively stable through the protected watershed. As intensity of habitat alteration increased through the disturbed watershed, percentage of bird species with high response-guild scores decreased. Only 2%–3% of the neotropical migrants that had specific habitat requirements were breeding residents in disturbed habitats as compared to 17%–20% in reference areas. Species in the edge and exotic guild classifications (low guild scores) were found in greater percentages in the disturbed watershed. Composition of mammalian guilds showed no consistent pattern associated with habitat disturbance. Avian response guilds reflected habitat disturbance more predictively than mammalian response guilds.

Key words

Guilds Wetlands Cumulative impacts Birds Mammals Environmental assessment Riparian-watershed restoration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Adams, D. L., and F. W. Barrett. 1976. Stress effects on bird-species diversity within mature forest ecosystems.American Midland Naturalist 96:179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk, and W. D. Pitts. 1980. Terrestrial plant ecology. Benjamin Cummings Publishing, Menlo Park, California, 604 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Block, W. M., L. A. Brennan, and R. J. Gutierrez. 1984. The use of guilds and guild-indicator species for assessing habital suitability. Pages 109–113in J. Verner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph (eds.), Wildlife 2000: Modeling habitat relationships for terrestrial vertebrates. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, R. P., and M. J. Croonquist. 1990. Wetland, habitat, and trophic response guilds for wildlife species in Pennsylvania.Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 64:93–102.Google Scholar
  5. Brooks, R. P., D. E. Arnold, E. D. Bellis, C. S. Keener, and M. J. Croonquist, 1991. A methodology for biological monitoring of cumulative impacts on wetland, stream, and riparian components of watersheds. Pages (in press)in J. A. Kusler, and G. Brooks (eds), Proceedings of an international symposium: Wetlands and river corridor management. Association of Wetland Managers, Berne, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Brower, J. E., and J. H. Zar. 1984. Field and laboratory methods for general ecology, 2nd ed. William C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa. 226 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Conner, R. N., and J. G. Dickson. 1980. Strip transect sampling and analysis for avian habitat studies.Wildlife Society Bulletin 8:4–9.Google Scholar
  8. Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's wetlands: an action agenda. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC, 69 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Croonquist, M. J. 1990. Avian and mammalian community comparisons between protected and altered watersheds—a landscape approach. MS thesis. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 156 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Doutt, J. K., C. A. Heppenstall, and J. E. Guilday. 1977. Mammals of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 283 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Fager, E. W., and J. A. McGowan. 1963. Zooplankton species groups in the North Pacific.Science 140:453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fienberg, S. E. 1987. Analysis of cross-classified categorical data, 3rd ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 198 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Foster, F. 1965. An early reference of the techniques of owl calling.Auk 82:651–653.Google Scholar
  14. Fuller, M. R., and J. A. Mosher. 1981. Methods of detecting and counting raptors: A review.Studies in Avian Biology 6:235–246.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, J. B. 1986. Wildlife use of wetlands on coal surface mines in western Pennsylvania. MS thesis. Pennsylvania State University, University Park 92 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Holmquist, C. L., and M. C. Brittingham. 1990. Stream bank fencerows for wildlife.,Pennsylvania Game News 61:21–26.Google Scholar
  17. Hughes, R. M., D. P. Larsen, and J. M. Omernik. 1986. Regional reference sites: A method for assessing stream potentials.Environmental Management 10:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunt, C. 1985. The need for riparian habitat protection.National Wetlands Newsletter 7:5–8.Google Scholar
  19. Jaccard, P. 1912. The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone.New Phytology 11:37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jaksic, F. M. 1981. Abuse and misuse of the term “guild” in ecological studies.Oikos 37:397–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirkland, G. L., Jr., P. M. Krim, and C. A. Klinedinst. 1988. Proposed standard protocol for pitfall sampling of small mammals, Shippensburg State University, Pennsylvania. 13 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Lacki, M. 1980. A survey of bats in Wayne National Forest. MS thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus, 70 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Landres, P. B. 1983. Use of the guild concept in environmental impact assessment.Environmental Management 7:393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leong, T. S., and J. C. Holmes. 1981. Communities of metazoan parasites in open water fishes of Cold Lake, Alberta.Journal of Fisheries Biology 18:693–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linscombe, G., N. Kinler, and V. Wright. 1983. An analysis of scent station response in Louisiana.Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast Association, Fish and Wildlife Agencies 37:190–200.Google Scholar
  26. MacMahon, J. A. 1976. Species and guild similarity of North American desert mammal faunas: A functional analysis of communities. Pages 133–148in D. W. Goodall (ed.), Evolution of desert biota, University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  27. Mannan, R. W., M. L. Morrison, and E. C. Meslow. 1984. The use of guilds in forest bird management.Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:426–430.Google Scholar
  28. Mikol, S. 1980. Field guidelines for using transects to sample nongame bird populations. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program OBS-80/58, 26 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Morrell, T. E., and R H. Yahner. 1990. Status and habitat characteristics of the great horned owl in Pennsylvania. Final report. School of Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 133 pp.Google Scholar
  30. O'Farrell, M. J., and W. G. Bradley. 1970. Activity patterns of bats over a desert spring.Journal of Mammalogy 51:18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states.Wildlife Monographs 103:1–34.Google Scholar
  32. Root, R. B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the bluegray gnatcatcher.Ecological Monographs 37:317–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. SAS Institute. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, version 5 ed. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, North Carolina, 956 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Severinghaus, W. D. 1981. Guild theory development as a mechanism for assessing environmental impact.Environmental Management 5:187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Short, H. L., and K. P. Burnham. 1982. Technique for structuring wildlife guilds to evaluate impacts on wildlife communities. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report, Wildlife 244, 34 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Springer, M. A. 1978. Foot surveys versus owl calling surveys: A comparative study of two great horned owl censusing techniques.Inland Bird-Banding News 50:83–92.Google Scholar
  37. Szaro, R. 1986. Guild management: an evaluation of avian guilds as a predictive tool.Environmental Management 10:681–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. USDI. 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP). Ecological services manual number 102. Division of Ecological Services, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. Verner, J. 1983. An integrated system for monitoring wildlife on the Sierra National Forest.Transactions of the North American Natural Resources and Wildlife Conference 48:355–366.Google Scholar
  40. Verner, J. 1984. The guild concept applied to management of bird populations.Environmental Management 8:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Jo Croonquist
    • 1
  • Robert P. Brooks
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Forest Resources, Forest Resources LaboratoryPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations