Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 203–216 | Cite as

Long-Term Community Dynamics of Small Landbirds with and Without Exposure to Extensive Disturbance from Military Training Activities

  • James W. RiversEmail author
  • Philip S. Gipson
  • Donald P. Althoff
  • Jeffrey S. Pontius
Article

Abstract

Military training activities are known to impact individual species, yet our understanding of how such activities influence animal communities is limited. In this study, we used long-term data in a case study approach to examine the extent to which the local small landbird community differed between a site in northeast Kansas that experienced intensive disturbance from military training activities (Ft. Riley Military Installation) and a similar, nearby site that experienced minimal human disturbance (Konza Prairie Biological Station). In addition, we characterized how the regional pool of potential colonizers influenced local community dynamics using Breeding Bird Survey data. From 1991 to 2001, most species of small terrestrial landbirds (73%) recorded during breeding surveys were found at both sites and the mean annual richness at Ft. Riley (39.0 ± 2.86 [SD]) was very similar to that of Konza Prairie (39.4 ± 2.01). Richness was maintained at relatively constant levels despite compositional changes because colonizations compensated local extinctions at both sites. These dynamics were driven primarily by woodland species that exhibited stochastic losses and gains and were present at a low local and regional abundance. Our results suggest that military training activities may mimic natural disturbances for some species in this area because the small landbird community did not differ markedly between sites with and sites without extensive human disturbance. Although our results suggest that military training is not associated with large changes in the avian community, additional studies are needed to determine if this pattern is found in other ecological communities.

Keywords

Anthropogenic disturbance Community dynamics Grassland birds Military training Songbird conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by the U.S. Army through the Land Condition Trend Analysis program at Fort Riley and the Division of Biology at Kansas State University. Data from Konza Prairie were collected as part of the Konza Prairie Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program (NSF Grant DEB-9632851). We thank J. Zimmerman, C. Smith, and B. Sandercock for conducting bird surveys at Konza Prairie; J. Keating, K. Cherry, and G. Suleiman for conducting bird surveys at Fort Riley; and B. Brock and P. Woodford for providing logistical support of this research. We thank M. Smith for her extensive assistance with this project and M. Betts, J. Goheen, S. Yelenik, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback on an early version of the manuscript. This paper is dedicated to the memory of J. S. Pontius—an exceptional scientist, educator, and friend.

References

  1. Althoff DP, Rivers JW, Pontius JS, Gipson PS, Woodford PB (2005) A comprehensive approach to identifying monitoring priorities of small landbirds on military installations. Environmental Management 24:887–902Google Scholar
  2. Althoff DP, Gipson PS, Pontius JS, Woodford PB (2006) Plant community and bare ground trends on Fort Riley, Kansas: implications for monitoring of a highly disturbed landscape. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 109:101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Althoff DP, Lambrecht ND, Gipson PS, Pontius JS, Woodford PB (2007) Soil properties and perceived disturbance of grasslands subjected to mechanized military training: evaluation of an index. Land Degradation and Development 18:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Ornithologists Union (1998) Checklist of North American birds. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Askins RA (1993) Population trends in grassland, shrubland, and forest birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithology 11:1–34Google Scholar
  6. Ayers PD (1994) Environmental damage from tracked vehicle operation. Journal of Terramechanics 31:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bart J, Klosiewski SP (1989) Use of presence-absence to measure changes in avian density. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:847–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brawn JD, Robinson SK, Thompson FR (2001) The role of disturbance in the ecology and conservation of birds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:251–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Briggs JM, Knapp AK, Blair JM, Heisler JL, Hoch GA, Lett MS, McKarron JK (2005) An ecosystem in transition: causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland. Bioscience 55:243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown JH, Ernest SKM, Parody JM, Haskell JP (2001) Regulation of diversity: maintenance of species richness in changing environments. Oecologia 126:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Laake JL (1980) Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildlife Monographs 72:1–202Google Scholar
  12. Cohn JP (1996) New defenders of wildlife. Bioscience 46:11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins SL (2000) Disturbance frequency and community stability in native tallgrass prairie. American Naturalist 155:311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins SL, Michelli F, Hartt L (2000) A method to determine rate and pattern of variability in ecological communities. Oikos 91:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins SL, Glenn SM, Briggs JM (2002) Effect of local and regional processes on plant species richness in tallgrass prairie. Oikos 99:571–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornell HV (1999) Unsaturation and regional influences on species richness in ecological communities: a review of the evidence. Ecoscience 3:303–331Google Scholar
  17. Cully JF Jr, Michaels HL (2000) Henslow’s sparrow habitat associations on Kansas tallgrass prairie. Wilson Bulletin 112:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Delaney DK, Grubb TG, Beier P, Pater LL, Reiser MH (1999) Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diersing VE, Shaw RW, Tazik DJ (1992) U.S. Army land condition-trend analysis (LCTA) program. Environmental Management 16:405–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foster JR, Ayers PD, Lombardi-Przybylowicz AM, Simmons K (2006) Initial effects of light armored vehicle use on grassland vegetation at Fort Lewis, Washington. Journal of Environmental Management 81:315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuhlendorf SD, Engle DM (2001) Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: ecosystem management based on evolutionary grazing patterns. Bioscience 51:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuhlendorf SD, Engle DM (2004) Application of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a shifting mosaic on tallgrass prairie. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:604–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graham JH, Krzyski AJ, Kovacic DA, Duda JJ, Freeman CD, Emlen JM, Zak JC, Long WR, Wallace MP, Chamberlain-Graham C, Nutter JP, Balbach HE (2008) Ant community composition across a gradient of disturbed military landscapes at Fort Benning, Georgia. Southeastern Naturalist 7:429–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grantham WP, Redente EF, Bagley CF, Paschke MW (2001) Tracked vehicle impacts to vegetation structure and soil erodibility. Journal of Range Management 54:711–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayden BP (1998) Regional climate and the distribution of tallgrass prairie. In: Knapp AK, Briggs JM, Hartnett DC, Collins S (eds) Grassland dynamics: long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  26. Heisler JL, Briggs JM, Knapp AK (2003) Long-term patterns of shrub expansion in a C4-dominated grassland: fire frequency and the dynamics of shrub cover and abundance. American Journal of Botany 90:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herl BK, Doe WW, Jones DS (2005) Use of military training doctrine to predicted patterns of maneuver disturbance on the landscape. I. Theory and methodology. Journal of Terramechanics 42:353–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoch GA, Briggs JM, Johnson LC (2002) Assessing the rate, mechanisms, and consequences of the conversion of tallgrass prairie to Juniperus virginiana forest. Ecosystems 5:578–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hunter WC, Buehler DA, Canterbury RA, Confer JL, Hamel PB (2001) Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:440–455Google Scholar
  30. Jensen WE, Cully JF (2005) Geographic variation in brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism on dickcissels (Spiza americana) in Great Plains tallgrass prairie. The Auk 122:648–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson FL (1982) Effects of tank training activities on botanical features at Fort Hood, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist 27:309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knapp AK, Seastedt TR (1998) Grasslands, Konza Prairie, and long-term ecological research. In: Knapp AK, Briggs JM, Hartnett DC, Collins S (eds) Grassland dynamics: long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie. Oxford University Press, New York, USA, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  33. Knapp AK, Blair JM, Briggs JM, Collins SL, Hartnett DC, Johnson LC, Towne EG (1999) The keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie. Bioscience 49:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Elsevier Sciences, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  35. Leis SA, Leslie DM, Engle DM, Fehmi JS (2008) Small mammals as indicators of short-term and long-term disturbance in mixed prairie. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 137:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Litvaitis JA (2001) Importance of early successional habitats to mammals in eastern forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:466–473Google Scholar
  37. Loreau M, Mouquet N (1999) Immigration and the maintenance of local species diversity. American Naturalist 154:427–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  39. McKale W, Young WD (2000) Fort Riley: citadel of the frontier west. Kansas State Historical Society, TopekaGoogle Scholar
  40. Milchunas DG, Schulz KA, Shaw RB (2000) Plant community structure in relation to long-term disturbance by mechanized military maneuvers in a semiarid region. Environmental Management 25:525–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peterjohn BG, Sauer JR (1999) Population status of North American grassland birds from the North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966–1996. Studies in Avian Biology 19:27–44Google Scholar
  42. Powell AFLA (2006) Effects of prescribed burns and bison (Bos bison) grazing on breeding bird abundances in tallgrass prairie. The Auk 123:183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prosser CW, Sedivec KK, Barker WT (2000) Tracked vehicle effect on vegetation and soil characteristics. Journal of Range Management 53:666–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rivers JW, Althoff DP, Gipson PS, Pontius JS (2003) Evaluation of a reproductive index to estimate dickcissel reproductive success. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:136–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robbins CJ, Sauer JR, Greenberg RS, Droege S (1989) Population declines in North American birds that migrate to the Neotropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 86:7658–7662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Samson F, Knopf F (1994) Prairie conservation in North America. Bioscience 44:418–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schaeffer DJ, Seastedt TR, Gibson DJ, Hartnett DC, Hetrick BAD, James SW, Kaufman DW, Schwab AP, Herricks EE, Novak EW (1990) Field bioassessments for selecting test systems to evaluate military training lands in tallgrass prairie. Ecosystem health. V. Environmental Management 14:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schueck LS, Marzluff JM, Steenhof K (2001) Influence of military activities on raptor abundance and behavior. The Condor 103:606–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Severinghaus WD, Severinghaus MC (1982) Effects of tracked vehicle activity on bird populations. Environmental Management 6:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith MA, Turner MG, Rusch DH (2002) The effect of military training activity on eastern lupine and the Karner blue butterfly at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin USA. Environmental Management 29:102–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turner MG, Collins SL, Lugo AL, Magnuson JJ, Rupp TS, Swanson FJ (2003) Disturbance dynamics and ecological response: the contribution of long-term ecological research. Bioscience 53:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Verner J (1985) Assessment of counting techniques. Current Ornithology 2:247–302Google Scholar
  53. Vickery PD, Tubaro PL, Cardosa da Silva JM, Peterjohn BG, Herkert JR, Cavalcanti RB (1999) Conservation of grassland birds in the Western Hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 19:2–26Google Scholar
  54. Warren SD, Büttner R (2008a) Active military training areas as refugia for disturbance-dependent endangered insects. Journal of Insect Conservation 12:671–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Warren SD, Büttner R (2008b) Relationship of endangered amphibians to landscape disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:738–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Warren SD, Herl BK (2005) Use of military training doctrine to predict patterns of maneuver disturbance on the landscape. II. Validation. Journal of Terramechanics 42:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Warren SD, Holbrook SW, Dale DA, Whelan NL, Elyn M, Grimm W, Jentsch A (2007) Biodiversity and the heterogeneous disturbance regime on military training lands. Restoration Ecology 15:606–612Google Scholar
  58. Wilson SD (1988) The effects of military tank traffic on prairie: a management model. Environmental Management 12:397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zimmerman JL (1993) The birds of Konza. University Press of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • James W. Rivers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philip S. Gipson
    • 2
  • Donald P. Althoff
    • 3
  • Jeffrey S. Pontius
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Forest Ecosystems and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resources ManagementTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  3. 3.School of SciencesUniversity of Rio GrandeRio GrandeUSA
  4. 4.Department of StatisticsKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations