, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 137–144 | Cite as

Avian communities in riparian forests of different widths in Maryland and Delaware

  • Cherry M. E. Keller
  • Chandler S. Robbins
  • Jeff S. Hatfield


In agricultural landscapes, much of the remaining forest is in linear tracts along streams. These riparian forests provide habitat for forest birds, but their use by forest interior birds may depend on forest width. We conducted point-count surveys of birds in riparian forests on the Eastern shore of Maryland and Delaware to assess whether the presence of any species was dependent on corridor width. We surveyed 117 corridors that ranged from 25- to 800-m wide. Several area-sensitive neotropical migrants were encountered more frequently in wider riparian forests, and probabilities of occurrence increased most rapidly between 25 and 100 m. Based on these surveys, we recommend that riparian forests be at least 100-m wide to provide some nesting habitat for area-sensitive species. Wider riparian forests would be preferable and should be preserved.

Key Words

forest fragmentation nongame birds riparian forests 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Andren, H. and P. Angelstam. 1988. Elevated predation rates as an edge effect in habitat islands: experimental evidence. Ecology 69:544–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambuel, B. A. and S. A. Temple. 1983. Area-dependent changes in the bird communities and vegetation of southern Wisconsin forests. Ecology 64:1057–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brittingham, M. C. and S. A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? BioScience 33:31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-79/31.Google Scholar
  5. Dickson, J. G. 1989. Streamside zones and wildlife in southern U.S. forests. p. 131–133.In R.E. Gresswell, B.A. Barton, and J.L. Kershner (eds.) Practical approaches to riparian resource management: an educational workshop. May 8–11 1989, Billings, MT. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Billings, MT, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Droege, S. and J. R. Sauer. 1990. North American Breeding Bird Survey Annual Summary, 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(8).Google Scholar
  7. Freiswyk, T. S. and D. M. DiGiovanni. 1988. Forest statistics for Maryland— 1976 and 1986. Resource Bulletin NE-107 U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Gates, J. E. and L. W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59:871–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gates, J. E. and N. R. Giffen. 1991. Neotropical migrant birds and edge effects at a forest-stream ecotone. Wilson Bulletin 103:204–217.Google Scholar
  10. Gosselink, J. G., G. P. Schaffer, L. C. Lee, D. M. Burdick, D. L. Childers, N. C. Leibowitz S. C. Hamilton, R. Boumans, D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Kock, and J. M. Visser. 1990. Landscape conservation in a forested wetland watershed. BioScience 40:588–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris, L. D. and J. Scheck. 1991. From implications to applications: the dispersal corridor principle applied to the conservation of biological diversity. p. 189–220.In D. A. Saunders and R. J. Hobbs (eds.) Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors, Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
  12. Harrell, F. E., Jr. 1983. The LOGIST procedure. p. 181–202.In S. P. Joyner (ed.) SUGI supplemental library user’s guide. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Jacobs, T. C. and J. W. Gilliam. 1985. Riparian losses of nitrate from agricultural drainage waters. Journal of Environmental Quality 14:472–478.Google Scholar
  14. Keller, C. M. E. and M. R. Fuller, in press. Comparison of birds detected from roadside and off-road point counts in the Shenandoah National Park.In C. J. Ralph, J. R. Sauer, and S. Droege (eds.) Proceedings of a Workshop on Point Count Techniques. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Google Scholar
  15. Kunishi, H. M. 1988. Sources of nitrogen and phosphorous in an estuary of the Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Environmental Quality 17:185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lynch, J. F. and D. A. Saunders. 1991. Response of bird species to habitat fragmentation in the wheatbelt of Western Australia: interiors, edges and corridors. p. 143–158.In D. A. Saunders and R. J. Hobbs (eds.) Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
  17. Lynch, J. F. and D. F. Whigham. 1984. Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding bird communities in Maryland, USA. Biological Conservation 28:287–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacClintock, L., R. F. Whitcomb, and B. L. Whitcomb. 1977. Evidence for the value of corridors and minimization of isolation in preservation of biotic diversity. American Birds 31:6–12.Google Scholar
  19. Noss, R. F. and L. D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: preserving diversity at all scales. Environmental Management 10: 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peterjohn, W. T. and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reay, W. G., S. B. Smedley, G. M. Simmons, Jr., D. L. Gallagher, and H. Beck. 1991. The effectiveness of a mesic forest in the reduction of nutrients from agricultural ground water drainage. p. 623–634.In J. A. Mihursky and A. Cheney (eds.) New Perspectives in the Chesapeake System, a research and management partnership. Proceedings of a Conference, Dec. 4–6 1990, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomons, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildlife Monograph 103.Google Scholar
  23. Sauer, J. R. and S. Droege. 1990. Survey designs and statistical methods for the estimation of avian population trends. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(1).Google Scholar
  24. Simberloff, D. and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology 1:64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stauffer, D. F. and L. B. Best 1980. Habitat selection by birds of riparian communities: evaluating effects of habitat alterations. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Photo interpretation conventions for the National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Verner, J. 1988. Optimizing the duration of point counts for monitoring trends in bird populations. Research Note PSW-395. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  28. Wegner, J. F. and G. Merriam. 1979. Movements of birds and small mammals between a wood and adjoining farmland habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology 16:340–357.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cherry M. E. Keller
    • 1
  • Chandler S. Robbins
    • 1
  • Jeff S. Hatfield
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicePatuxent Wildlife Research CenterLaurel

Personalised recommendations