, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 194–205 | Cite as

Consideration of Geography and Wetland Geomorphic Type in the Development of Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Bird Indicators

  • JoAnn HanowskiEmail author
  • Nick Danz
  • Robert Howe
  • Gerald Niemi
  • Ron Regal
Wetlands Health Indicators


We examined how geographic distribution of birds and their affinities to three geomorphic wetland types would affect the scale at which we developed indicators based on breeding bird communities for Great Lakes coastal wetlands. We completed 385 breeding bird surveys on 222 wetlands in the US portion of the basin in 2002 and 2003. Analyses showed that wetlands within two ecoprovinces (Laurentian Mixed Forest and Eastern Broadleaf Forest) had different bird communities. Bird communities were also significantly different among five lakes (Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario) and among three wetland types (lacustrine, riverine, barrier-protected). Indicator values illustrated bird species with high affinities for each group (ecoprovince, lake, wetland type). Species with restricted geographic ranges, such as Alder and Willow Flycatchers (Empidonax alnorum and E. traillii), had significant affinities for ecoprovince. Ten bird species had significant affinities for lacustrine wetlands. Analyses on avian guild metrics showed that Lake Ontario wetlands had fewer long-distant migrants and warblers than other lakes. Numbers of short-distant migrants and total individuals in wetlands were higher in the Eastern Broadleaf Forest ecoprovince. Number of flycatchers and wetland obligate birds were not different among provinces, lakes, or wetland type. One potential indicator for wetland condition in Great Lakes wetlands, proportion of obligate wetland birds, responded negatively to proportion of developed land within 1 km of the wetland. We conclude that, although a guild approach to indicator development ameliorates species-specific geographic differences in distribution, individual species responses to disturbance scale will need to be considered in future indicator development with this approach.


Great Lakes wetlands indicators birds 


  1. Adamus PR, Clairain EJ, Smith RD, Young RE (1987) Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Vol II: Methodology. NTIS No. ADA 189968, Vicksburg, MS: Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment StationGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamus PR, Stockwell LT, Clairain EJ, Morrow ME, Rozas LD, Smith RD (1991) Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Vol I: Literature Review and Evaluation Rationale. Technical Report WRP-DE-2, Vicksburg, MS: US Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, pp 287Google Scholar
  3. Ambuel B, Temple SA (1983) Area-dependent changes in the bird communities and vegetation of southern Wisconsin forests. Ecology 64:1057–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey RG (1989) Explanatory supplement to the ecoregions map of the continents. Environmental Conservation 15:307–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradford DF, Franson SE, Miller GR, Neale AC, Canterbury GE, Heggem DT (1998) Bird species assemblages as indicators of biotic integrity in great basin rangeland. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 49:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks RP, Croonquist MJ, D’Silva ET, Gallagher JE (1991) Selection of biological indicators for integrating assessments of wetland, stream, and riparian habitats. In: Proceedings of Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation, Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of WaterGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks RP, O’Connell TJ, Wardrop DH, Jackson LE (1998) Towards a regional index of biological integrity: the example of forested riparian ecosystems. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Browder SF, Johnson DH, Ball IJ (2002) Assemblages of breeding birds as indicators of grassland condition. Ecological Indicators 2:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryce SA, Hughes RM, Kaufmann PR (2002) Development of a bird integrity index: using bird assemblages as indicators of riparian condition. Environmental Management 30:294–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canterbury GE, Martin TE, Petit DR, Petit LJ, Bradford DF (2000) Bird communities and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. Conservation Biology 14:544–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cramp S, Conder PJ (1961) The Deaths of Birds and Mammals Connected with Toxic Chemicals, Report No. 1 of the BTO-RSPB Toxic Chemicals CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  12. Danz NP, Regal RR, Niemi GJ, Brady V, Hollenhorst T, Johnson LB, et al. (2005) Environmentally stratified sampling design for the development of Great Lakes environmental indicators. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 102:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeLuca WV, Studds CE, Rockwood LL, Marra PP Influence of land use on the integrity of marsh bird communities of the Chesapeake Bay, USA (in review)Google Scholar
  14. Dufrene M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67:345–366Google Scholar
  15. Forman RT, Galli AE, Leck CF (1976) Forest size and avian diversity in New Jersey woodlots with some land use implications. Oecologia 26:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frederick PC, Hylton B, Heath JA, Spalding MG (2004) A historical record of mercury contamination in southern Florida (USA) as inferred from avian feather tissue. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23:1474–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freemark KE, Merriam HG (1986) Importance of area and habitat heterogeneity to bird assemblages in temperate forest fragments. Biological Conservation 36:115–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guzy MJ, Ritchison G (1999) Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas). In: The Birds of North America, No. 448, Poole A, Gill F (editors), Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, IncGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanowski J, Danz N, Lind J, Niemi G, Salés J (2003) Birds of Western Great Lakes Forests. Available:
  20. Hanowski JM, Niemi GJ (1995) Experimental design considerations for establishing an off-road, habitat specific bird monitoring program using point counts. In: Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts. General Technical Report PSW- GTR-149, Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, pp 145–150Google Scholar
  21. Hickey JJ (1969) Peregrine Falcon Populations: Their Biology and Decline, Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Holland JD, Bert DG, L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bioscience 54:227–233Google Scholar
  23. Howe RW, Regal RR, Niemi GJ, Danz NP, Hanowski JM (2006) A probability-based indicator of ecological condition. Ecological Indicators (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Keough JR, Thompson TA, Guntenspergen GR, Wilcox DA (1999) Hydrogeomorphic factors and ecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands 19:821–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowther PE, Celada C, Klein NK, Rimmer CC, Spector DA (1999) Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia). In: The Birds of North America, No. 454, Poole A, Gill F (editors), Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, IncGoogle Scholar
  26. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Version 4.25, Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM SoftwareGoogle Scholar
  27. Mielke PW (1984) Meteorological applications of permutation techniques based on distance functions. In:, Krishnaiah PR, Sen PK (editors), Handbook of Statistics, Vol. 4, North Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp 813–830Google Scholar
  28. Niemi GJ, McDonald ME (2004) Application of ecological indicators. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 35:89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Niemi GJ, Wardrop D, Brooks R, Anderson S, Brady V, Paerl H, et al. (2004) Rationale for a new generation of indicators for coastal waters. Environmental Health Perspectives 112:979–986Google Scholar
  30. O’Connell TJ, Jackson LE, Brooks RP (1998) A bird community index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic highlands. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Connell TJ, Jackson LE, Brooks RP (2000) Bird guilds as indicators of ecological condition in the central Appalachians. Ecological Applications 10:1706–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Connor RJ, Shrubb M (1986) Farming and Birds, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Connor RJ, Walls TE, Hughes RM (2000) Using multiple taxonomic groups to index the ecological condition of lakes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 61:207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Price SJ, Marks DR, Howe RW, Hanowski JM, Niemi GJ (2005) The importance of spatial scale for conservation and assessment of anuran populations in coastal wetlands of the western Great Lakes, USA. Landscape Ecology 20:441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ribic CA, Lewis S, Melvin S, Bart J, Peterjohn B (1999) Proceedings of the Marshbird Monitoring Workshop, Fort Snelling, MN: USFWS Region 3 Administrative Report, pp 52Google Scholar
  36. Riffell SK, Keas BE, Burton TM (2003) Birds in North American Great Lakes coastal wet meadows: Is landscape context important? Landscape Ecology 18:95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Terborgh J (1989) Where Have All the Birds Gone? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Venier LA, Pearce JE, McKee JE, McKenney DW, Niemi GJ (2004) Climate and satellite derived land cover for predicting breeding bird distribution in the Great Lakes basin. Journal of Biogeography 31:315–331Google Scholar
  39. Wilcove DS, Terborgh JW (1984) Patterns of population decline in birds. American Birds 38:10–13Google Scholar
  40. Zedler JB (2000) Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:402–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecohealth Journal Consortium 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • JoAnn Hanowski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nick Danz
    • 1
  • Robert Howe
    • 2
  • Gerald Niemi
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ron Regal
    • 4
  1. 1.Natural Resources Research InstituteUniversity of Minnesota DuluthDuluthUSA
  2. 2.Natural and Applied SciencesUniversity of WisconsinGreen BayUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of Minnesota DuluthDuluthUSA
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Minnesota DuluthDuluthUSA

Personalised recommendations