Environmental Management

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 797–801 | Cite as

Evaluation of a guild approach to habitat assessment for forest-dwelling birds

  • Mary Bayer
  • William F. Porter
Research

Abstract

The applicability of the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) was assessed for several nongame bird species in the central Adirondack Mountains of New York. Measures for 24 avian species and 33 associated habitat variables were collected during the summers of 1985 and 1986. The accuracy of four published Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models was examined: pileated and downy woodpeckers, black-capped chickadee, and veery. Chickadee and veery models were judged successful and were then used to predict habitat quality for respective avian foragingguild members. The HSI model/guild approach provided poor predictors of habitat quality for ubiquitous and uncommon species. Information on relative abundance within the geographic region and specific cover types must be included when designing habitat evaluations using the guild approach.

Key Words

Habitat evaluation Songbirds Guild Northern hardwood forest 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Black, H., Jr., and J. W. Thomas. 1978. Forest and range wildlife habitat management: ecological principles and management systems. Pages 47–55in R. M. DeGraaf, (tech. coord.), Proceedings of the workshop on nongame bird habitat management in the coniferous forests of the western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-64, Portland, OR. 100 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Block, W. M., L. A. Brennan, and R. J. Gutierrez. 1986. The use of guilds and guild-indicator species for assessing habitat suitability. Pages 109–113in J. Verner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph (eds.), Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Google Scholar
  3. Dawson, D. 1981a. Counting birds for a relative measure (index) of density. Pages 12–16in C. J. Ralph and J. M. Scott (eds), Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Cooper Ornithological Society, Lawrence, KS.Google Scholar
  4. Dawson, D. 1981b. The usefulness of absolute (“census”) and relative (“sampling” of “index”) measures of abundance. Pages 554–558in C. J. Ralph and J. M. Scott, (eds.), Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Cooper Ornithological Society, Lawrence, KS.Google Scholar
  5. DeGraff, R. M., and N. L. Chadwick. 1984. Habitat classification: a comparison using avian species and guilds.Environmental Mangement 8:511–518.Google Scholar
  6. Elton, C. S., and R. S. Miller. 1953. The ecological survey of animal communities with a practical system of classifying habitats by structural characters.Journal of Ecology 42:460–496.Google Scholar
  7. Gilbert, N. 1981. Statistics, 2nd ed. Saunders College Publishing, San Francisco, CA. 434 pp.Google Scholar
  8. James, F. C. 1971. Ordinations of habitat relations among breeding birds.Wilson Bulletin 83:215–236.Google Scholar
  9. Landres, P. 1983. Use of the guild concept in environmental impact assessment.Environmental Management 7:393–398.Google Scholar
  10. MacArthur, R. H., and J. MacArthur. 1961. On bird species diversity.Ecology 42:594–598.Google Scholar
  11. Noon, B. 1981. Techniques for sampling avian habitats. Pages 42–51in D. E. Capen, (ed.), The use of multivariate statistics in studies of wildlife habitat: proceedings of a Workshop. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report Number 87,Google Scholar
  12. Root, R. B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the Bluegray Gnatcatcher.Ecological Monographs 37:317–350.Google Scholar
  13. Samson, F. B. 1979. Lowland hardwood bird communities. Pages 49–66in R. M. DeGraaf, and K. E. Evans (eds.), Management of North-central and northeastern forests for nongame birds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-51,Google Scholar
  14. SAS 1985. SAS user's guide: statistics, version 5. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC. 956 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Schroeder, R.L. 1982a. Habitat suitability index model: pileated woodpecker. US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.37, Washington, D.C. 12 PP.Google Scholar
  16. Schroeder, R. L. 1982b. Habitat suitability index model: downy woodpecker. US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS82/10.38, Washington, D.C. 10 PP.Google Scholar
  17. Schroeder, R. L. 1982c. Habitat suitability index model: black-capped chickadee. US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.37, Washington, D.C. 12 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Scott, J. M., and F. L. Ransey. 1981. Length of count period as a possible source of bias in estimating bird density. Pages 360–365in C.J. Ralph and J. M. Scott (eds.), Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Cooper Ornithological Society, Lawrence, KA.Google Scholar
  19. Severinghaus, W. 1981. Guild theory development as a mechanism for assessing environmental impact.Environmental Management 5:187–190.Google Scholar
  20. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, CA. 859 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Sousa, P.J. 1982. Habitat suitability index model: veery. US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/10.22, Washington, D.C. 12 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Szaro, R. C. 1986. Guild management: an evaluation of avian guilds as a predictive tool.Evironmental Management 10:681–688.Google Scholar
  23. Thomas, J. 1982. Needs for and approaches to wildlife habitat assessment.Transactions of the North American Natural Resources Conference 47:35–46.Google Scholar
  24. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP). ESM 102. Division of Ecological Services, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  25. Verner, J. 1984. The guild concept applied to management of bird populations.Environmental Management 8:1–14.Google Scholar
  26. Webb, W. L., D. F. Behrend, and B. Saisorn. 1977. Effect of logging on songbird populations in a northern hardwood forest.Wildlife Monographs 55. 35 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Zar, J. H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 620 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Bayer
    • 1
  • William F. Porter
    • 2
  1. 1.Wetlands Preservation, Inc.GeorgetownUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Environmental and Forest BiologyState University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations