Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 90, Issue 5, pp 905–916 | Cite as

Avian diversity in a temperate tree-based intercropping system from inception to now

  • Sophie Gibbs
  • Hanita Koblents
  • Brent Coleman
  • Andrew Gordon
  • Naresh Thevathasan
  • Peter Wiliams
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Migratory bird populations in North America have been declining over the last several decades, largely due to habitat loss and forest cover fragmentation in both their summer breeding ranges and overwintering territories. Tree-based intercropping (TBI), which is a land-use system incorporating trees with agricultural crops on the same unit of land, is an alternative to conventional agriculture that provisions many ecological and environmental benefits in conjunction with agricultural production. This study seeks to assess the contributions of temperate TBI systems on avian biodiversity, and to quantify these changes as they develop in time. Standard bird monitoring protocols were used to examine avian communities in a TBI system at the University of Guelph’s Agroforestry Research Site in 2014 and compared to a similar study completed by Williams et al. in 1995 at the same site. The TBI system surveys were then compared to present (2014) and past (1995) avian communities living in other nearby agro-ecosystems including an abandoned field, conventional monocrop field, a willow plantation and a mature woodlot. The avian species richness and diversity at the TBI site was higher in 2014 (32 species; diversity index of 2.9) than in 1995 (17 species; diversity index of 2.2). Among land-use types, avian species richness was highest at the TBI site in both 2014 (32 species vs. 26, 24, 21, and 15) and 1995 (17 species vs. 7 and 4). The results of this study suggest that TBI systems may help to maintain and even enhance avian diversity in North America.

Keywords

Temperate agroforestry Land-use change Fragmentation Habitat loss Avian biodiversity Migratory birds Agroecology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge past funding contributions from OMAFRA in support of agroforestry research at the University of Guelph.

References

  1. Aspinall A, Malik A, Satel A, He Z (2009) Urban forest strategic management plan for the Township of Centre Wellington. Elora Environment Centre. http://www.ecee.on.ca/docs/NeighbourWoods-CentreWellingtonSUFMP-2009apr08.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2014
  2. Bainard L, Koch A, Gordon A, Klironomos J (2013) Growth response of crops to soil microbial communities from conventional monocropping and tree-based intercropping systems. Plant Soil 363:345–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakermans M, Rodewald A, Vitz A, Rengifo C (2012) Migratory bird use of shade coffee: the role of structural and floristic features. Agroforest Syst 85:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bibby C, Burgess N, Hill D (1992) Bird census techniques. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird Studies Canada (2000) The marsh monitoring program quality assurance project plan. Bird Studies Canada. http://www.bsc-eoc.org/download/mmpqualplan.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2014
  6. Cormier R, Gardali T, Wood J (2013) Assessing migratory stopover site quality for birds during fall migration along two California rivers. Western N Am Nat 73:72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crins W, Gray P, Uhlig P, Wester M (2009) The ecosystems of Ontario, part I: ecozones and ecoregions. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. http://cnvc-cnvc.ca/uploads/the_ecosystems_of_ontario_part_1-ecozones_and_ecoregions_2009-corrected-june_2010.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2014
  8. DeGraaf R, Yamasaki M (2003) Options for managing early-successional forest and shrubland bird habitats in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecol Manag 185:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diaz I, Armesto J, Reid S, Sieving K, Willson M (2005) Linking forest structure and composition: avian diversity in successional forests of Chiloé Island, Chile. Biol Conserv 123:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Domokos E, Cristea V (2014) Effects of managed forests structure on woodpeckers (Picidae) in the Niraj valley (Romania): woodpecker populations in managed forests. North-West J Zool 10:110–117Google Scholar
  11. Frei B, Nocera J, Fyles J (2015) Interspecific competition and nest survival of the threatened Red-headed Woodpecker. J Ornithol 156:743–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillespie AR, Miller BK, Johnson KD (1995) Effects of ground cover on tree survival and growth in filter strips of the Cornbelt Region of the midwestern US. Agric Ecosyst Environ 53:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harvey CA, Gonzalez Villalobos JA (2007) Agroforestry sys- tems conserve species-rich but modified assemblages of tropical birds and bats. Biodivers Conserv 16:2257–2292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huff M, Bettinger K, Ferguson H, Brown M, Altman B (2000) A habitat-based point-count protocol protocol for terrestrial birds, emphasizing Washington and Oregon. USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr501.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2014
  15. Jablonski K, McNulty S, Schlesinger M (2010) A digital spot-mapping method for avian field studies. Wilson J Ornithol 122:772–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and envi- ronmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kabir EM, Webb EL (2009) Can homegardens conserve bio- diversity in Bangladesh? Biotropica 40:95–103Google Scholar
  18. Karp D, Mendenhall C, Sandí R, Chaumont N, Ehrlich P, Hadly E, Daily G (2013) Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield. Ecol Lett 16:1339–1347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kay Q (1985) Nectar from willow catkins as a food source for Blue Tits. Bird Study 32:40–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krzys G, Waite T, Stapanian M, Vucetich J (2002) Assessing avian richness in remnant wetlands: towards an improved methodology. Wetlands 22:186–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindell C, Riffell S, Kaiser S, Battin A, Smith M, Sisk T (2007) Edge responses of tropical and temperate birds. Wilson J Ornithol 119:205–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lohr S, Gauthreaux S, Kilgo J (2002) Importance of coarse woody debris to avian communities in loblolly pine forests. Conserv Biol 16:767–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lu Z, Zhu P, Gurr G, Zheng X, Read D, Heong K, Yang Y, Xu H (2014) Mechanisms for flowering plants to benefit arthropod natural enemies of insect pests: prospects for enhanced use in agriculture. Insect Sci 21:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. MacLeod C, Blackwell G, Benge J (2012) Reduced pesticide toxicity and increased woody vegetation cover account for enhanced native bird densities in organic orchards: orchard management and native birds. J Appl Ecol 49:652–660Google Scholar
  25. McCracken J (2014) Are aerial insectivores being ‘bugged out’? Bird Watch Canada. http://www.bsc-eoc.org/download/BWCwi08.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2014
  26. McMahon B, Carnus T, Whelan J (2013) A comparison of winter bird communities in agricultural grassland and cereal habitats in Ireland: implications for Common Agricultural Policy reform. Bird Study 60:176–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mody K, Spoerndli C, Dorn S (2011) Within-orchard variability of the ecosystem service “parasitism”: effects of cultivars, ants and tree location. Basic Appl Ecol 12:456–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murcia C (1995) Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 10:58–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Nagendra H (2002) Opposite trends in response for the Shannon and Simpson indices of landscape diversity. Appl Geogr 22:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009) Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 172:10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nebel S, Mills A, McCracken J, Taylor P (2010) Declines of aerial insectivores in North America follow a geographic gradient. Avian Conserv Ecol 5:1Google Scholar
  32. Nuttle T, Leidolf A, Burger L Jr, Loiselle B (2003) Assessing conservation value of bird communities with partners in flight-based ranks. Auk 120:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Partners in Flight Science Committee (2012) Species assessment database, version 2012. Partners in Flight. http://rmbo.org/pifassessment. Accessed 23 July 2014
  34. Pekin B, Pijanowski B (2012) Global land use intensity and the endangerment status of mammal species. Divers Distrib 18:909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poulsen B (2002) Avian richness and abundance in temperate Danish forests: tree variables important to birds and their conservation. Biodivers Conserv 11:1551–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ralph C, Droege S, Sauer J (1995) Managing and monitoring birds using point counts: standards and applications. USDA Forest Service. http://wwwtest.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-149/pg161_168.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2014
  37. Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment (2014) Forest birds survey protocol. Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=bcaf2087-feef-4e7e-acbf-e788a0734e71. Accessed 18 May 2014
  38. Schlossberg S (2009) Postlogging succession and habitat usage of shrubland birds. J Wildl Manag 73:226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Small E (2011) The new Noah’s Ark: beautiful and useful species only. Part 1. Biodiversity conservation issues and priorities. Biodiversity 12:232–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soderstrom B, Svensson B, Vessby K, Glimskar A (2001) Plants, insects and birds in semi-natural pastures in relation to local habitat and landscape factors. Biodiv Cons 10:1839–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stutchbury B (2007) Silence of the songbirds: how we are losing the world’s songbirds and what we can do to save them. Harper Canada, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  42. Thevathasan N, Gordon A (2004) Ecology of tree intercropping systems in the North temperate region: experiences from southern Ontario, Canada. Agroforest Syst 61:257–268Google Scholar
  43. Thogmartin W, Howe F, James F, Johnson D, Reed E, Sauer J, Thompson F III (2006) A review of the population estimation approach of the North American Landbird conservation plan. Auk 123:892–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tryjanowski P, Sparks T, Jerzak L, Rosin Z, Skórka P (2014) A paradox for conservation: electricity pylons may benefit avian diversity in intensive farmland. Conserv Lett 7:34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tscharntke T, Klein A, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Twedt D, Wilson A, Henne-Kerr J, Hamilton R (1999) Impact of forest type and management strategy on avian densities in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, USA. For Ecol Manag 123:261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vandermeer J, Perfecto I, Philpott S (2010) Ecological complexity and pest control in organic coffee production: uncovering an autonomous ecosystem service. Bioscience 60:527–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vasileiadis V, Moonen A, Sattin M, Otto S, Pons X, Kudsl P, Veres A, Dorner Z, van der Weide R, Marraccini E, Pelzer E, Angevin F, Kiss J (2013) Sustainability of European maize-based cropping systems: economic, environmental and social assessment of current and proposed innovative IPM-based systems. Eur J Agron 48:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilcove D, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams P, Koblents H, Gordon A (1995) Bird use of an intercropped corn field and old field in southern Ontario, Canada. In: Ehrenreich JH, Ehrenreich DL and Lee HW (eds) Proceedings of 4th North American agroforestry conference, Boise, 23–28 July 1995, pp 158–162Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sophie Gibbs
    • 1
  • Hanita Koblents
    • 2
  • Brent Coleman
    • 1
    • 3
  • Andrew Gordon
    • 1
  • Naresh Thevathasan
    • 1
  • Peter Wiliams
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  2. 2.HalifaxCanada
  3. 3.Department of GeographyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Williams and AssociatesRockwoodCanada

Personalised recommendations