Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 547–561 | Cite as

Spatial dynamics of coastal forest bird assemblages: the influence of landscape context, forest type, and structural connectivity

  • Christina A. BuelowEmail author
  • Ronald Baker
  • April E. Reside
  • Marcus Sheaves
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Complex structural connectivity patterns can influence the distribution of animals in coastal landscapes, particularly those with relatively large home ranges, such as birds. To understand the nuanced nature of coastal forest avifauna, where there may be considerable overlap in assemblages of adjacent forest types, the concerted influence of regional landscape context and vegetative structural connectivity at multiple spatial scales warrants investigation.

Objectives

This study determined whether species compositions of coastal forest bird assemblages differ with regional landscape context or with forest type, and if this is influenced by structural connectivity patterns measured at multiple spatial scales.

Methods

Three replicate bird surveys were conducted in four coastal forest types at ten survey locations across two regional landscape contexts in northeast Australia. Structural connectivity patterns of 11 vegetation types were quantified at 3, 6, and 12 km spatial scales surrounding each survey location, and differences in bird species composition were evaluated using multivariate ordination analysis.

Results

Bird assemblages differed between regional landscape contexts and most coastal forest types, although Melaleuca woodland bird assemblages were similar to those of eucalypt woodlands and rainforests. Structural connectivity was primarily correlated with differences in bird species composition between regional landscape contexts, and correlation depended on vegetation type and spatial scale.

Conclusions

Spatial scale, landscape context, and structural connectivity have a combined influence on bird species composition. This suggests that effective management of coastal landscapes requires a holistic strategy that considers the size, shape, and configuration of all vegetative components at multiple spatial scales.

Keywords

Species composition Avifauna Structural connectivity Coastal forests Spatial scale Landscape context Keystone structure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the following for funding support: BirdLife Australia, Wet Tropics Management Authority, Birds Queensland, and Ecological Society of Australia.

Supplementary material

10980_2016_461_MOESM1_ESM.docx (368 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 367 kb)

References

  1. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for nonparametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  2. Brennan SP, Schnell GD (2005) Relationship between bird abundances and landscape characteristics: the influence of scale. Environ Monit Assess 105:209–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brennan SP, Schnell GD (2007) Multiscale analysis of tyrannid abundances and landscape variables in the central plains, USA. Wilson Bull 119:631–647Google Scholar
  4. Brittain RA, Schimmelmann A, Parkhurst DF, Craft CB (2012) Habitat use by coastal birds inferred from stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes. Estuaries Coasts 35:633–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgess EE, Maron M (2016) Does the response of bird assemblages to fire mosaic properties vary among spatial scales and foraging guilds? Landscape Ecol 31:687–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  7. Drielsma M, Manion G, Ferrier S (2007a) A raster-based technique for analysing habitat configuration: the cost-benefit approach. Ecol Model 202:324–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drielsma M, Manion G, Ferrier S (2007b) The spatial links tool: automated mapping of habitat linkages in variegated landscapes. Ecol Model 200:403–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elliott CP, Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham SA, Young AG (2012) Landscape context affects honeyeater communities and their foraging behaviour in Australia: implications for plant pollination. Landscape Ecol 27:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ford J (1982) Origin, evolution and speciation of birds specialized to mangroves in Australia. Emu 82:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franklin DC, Noske RA (1998) Local movements of honeyeaters in a sub-coastal vegetation mosaic in the Northern Territory. Corella 22:97–103Google Scholar
  12. Franklin DC, Noske RA (1999) Birds and nectar in a monsoonal woodland: correlations at three spatio-temporal scales. Emu 99:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franklin DC, Noske RA (2000) Nectar sources used by birds in monsoonal north-wetstern Australia: a regional survey. Aust J Bot 48:461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galitsky C, Lawler JJ (2015) Relative influence of local and landscape factors on bird communities vary by species and functional group. Landscape Ecol 30:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grover DR, Slater PJ (1994) Conservation value to birds of remnants of Melaleuca forest in suburban Brisbane. Wildl Res 21:433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heffernan JB, Soranno PA, Angilletta MJ Jr, Buckley LB, Gruner DS, Keitt TH, Kellner JR, Kominoski JS, Rocha AV, Xiao J, Harms TK, Goring SJ, Koenig LE, McDowell WH, Powell H, Richardson AD, Stow CA, Vargas R, Weathers KC (2014) Macrosystems ecology: understanding ecological patterns and processes at continental scales. Front Ecol Environ 12:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IBRA (2012) Interim biogeographic regionalisation for Australia, version 7. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson AKL, Ebert SP, Murray AE (2000) Land cover change and its environmental significance in the Herbert river catchment, north-east Queensland. Aust Geogr 21:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kemp JE, Kutt AS (2005) The vertebrate fauna of the Clemant state forest lowlands: a significant coastal woodland remnant in the southern wet tropics bioregion, North-eastern Queensland. Aust Zool 32:508–542Google Scholar
  20. Kemp JE, Lovatt RJ, Bahr JC, Kahler CP, Appelman CN (2007) Pre-clearing vegetation of the coastal lowlands of the Wet Tropics Bioregion, North Queensland. Cunninghamia 10:285–329Google Scholar
  21. Kutt AS (2007) Bird assemblage in a dune-mangrove mosaic, Cairns, Queensland. Aust Zool 34:158–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luque S, Saura S (2012) Landscape connectivity analysis for conservation: insights from combining new methods with ecological and genetic data. Landscape Ecol 27:153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin TG, McIntyre S, Catterall CP, Possingham HP (2006) Is landscape context important for riparian conservation? Birds in grassy woodland. Biol Conserv 127:201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
  25. Mohd-Azlan J, Lawes MJ (2011) The effect of the surrounding landscape matrix on mangrove bird community assembly in north Australia. Biol Conserv 144:2134–2141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mohd-Azlan J, Noske RA, Lawes MJ (2012) Avian species-assemblage structure and indicator bird species of mangroves in the Australian monsoon tropics. Emu 112:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mohd-Azlan J, Noske RA, Lawes MJ (2014) The role of habitat heterogeneity in structuring mangrove bird assemblages. Diversity 7:118–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Noske RA (1996) Abundance, zonation and foraging ecology of birds in mangroves of Darwin Harbour, Northern Territory. Wildl Res 23:443–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. NVIS (2012) National vegetation information system, version 4.1. Department of the Environment and Heritage, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  30. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Henry M, Stevens H, Wagner H (2015) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.3-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
  31. Radford JQ, Bennett AF (2007) The relative importance of landscape properties to woodland birds in agricultural environments. J Appl Ecol 44:737–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Radford JQ, Bennett AF, Cheers GJ (2005) Landscape-level thresholds of habitat cover for woodland-dependent birds. Biol Conserv 124:317–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rempel RS, Kaukinen D, Carr AP (2012) Patch analyst and patch grid. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder BayGoogle Scholar
  34. Riffell SK, Keas BE, Burton TM (2003) Birds in North American Great Lakes coastal wet meadows: is landscape context important? Landscape Ecol 18:95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saab V (1999) Importance of spatial scale to habitat use by breeding birds in riparian forests: a hierarchical analysis. Ecol Appl 9:135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sattler PS, Williams RD (eds) (1999) The conservation status of Queensland’s bioregional ecosystems. Environmental Protection Agency, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheaves M (2009) Consequences of ecological connectivity: the coastal ecosystem mosaic. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 391:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shriver WG, Hodgman TP, Gibbs JP, Vickery PD (2004) Landscape context influences salt marsh bird diversity and area requirements in New England. Biol Conserv 119:545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steffan-Dewenter I, Muzenberg U, Burger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/
  41. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielborger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watson JEM, Whittaker RJ, Dawson TP (2004) Habitat structure and proximity to forest edge affect the abundance and distribution of forest-dependent birds in tropical coastal forests of southeastern Madagascar. Biol Conserv 120:311–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Westphal MI, Field SA, Tyre AJ, Paton D, Possingham HP (2003) Effects of landscape pattern on bird species distribution in the Mt. Lofty Ranges, South Australia. Landscape Ecol 18:413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiens JA (1995) Habitat fragmentation: island v landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Woinarski JCZ (1993) A cut-and-paste community: birds of monsoon rainforests in Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory. Emu 93:100–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woinarski JCZ (2004) The forest fauna of the Northern Territory: knowledge, conservation and management. In: Lunney D (ed) Conservation of Australia’s forest fauna, 2nd edn. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, pp 36–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woinarski JCZ, Brock C, Armstrong M, Hempel C, Cheal D, Brennan K (2000a) Bird distribution in riparian vegetation in the extensive natural landscape of Australia’s tropical savannah: a broad-scale survey and analysis of a distributional data base. J Biogeogr 27:843–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Woinarski JCZ, Connors G, Franklin DC (2000b) Thinking honeyeater: nectar maps for the Northern Territory, Australia. Pac Conserv Biol 6:62–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Woinarski JCZ, Tidemann SC (1991) The bird fauna of a deciduous woodland in the wet-dry tropics of northern Australia. Wildl Res 18:479–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Woinarski JCZ, Tidemann SC, Kerin S (1988) Birds in a tropical mosaic: the distribution of bird species in relation to vegetation patterns. Aust Wildl Res 15:171–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecol 19:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ziolkowska E, Ostapowicz K, Radeloff VC, Kuemmerle T (2014) Effects of different matrix representations and connectivity measures on habitat network assessments. Landscape Ecol 29:1551–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Estuary and Coastal Wetland Ecosystems Research Group (ATSIP Building 145), College of Science and EngineeringJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.TropWATER, Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem ResearchJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation ScienceThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations