Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 1555–1562 | Cite as

Farmland bird responses to intersecting replanted areas

  • David B. Lindenmayer
  • Ross Cunningham
  • Mason Crane
  • Damian Michael
  • Rebecca Montague-Drake
Research Article

Abstract

Despite increasing revegetation of cleared landscapes around the world, there is limited research on the implications of different types of plantings for birdlife. We examined the “intersection effect”, whereby species richness is higher at the intersection of “corridors” or vegetation strips for birds inhabiting replanted areas. We also examined individual species responses. Replicated sites at the intersections of plantings were compared with “internal controls” (located in the same plantings ∼100 m from intersections), “external controls”(sites in isolated linear plantings), and block plantings. We surveyed the 39 sites in our experimental design repeatedly – on different days by different observers and in different seasons. We found no significant difference in species richness between intersections and block plantings, but intersections had higher species richness than isolated linear strips and the internal controls. Similar results were found for bird assemblage scores derived by correspondence analysis. We found evidence of extra-variation at the farm-level for species richness and derived assemblage scores, suggesting a farm-scale response. This suggests the importance of other (often unmeasured) factors at the farm level (e.g. baiting for feral animals). Our results suggest that replanting programs aimed at maximizing bird species richness may benefit from consideration of planting geometry. In particular, linking strip plantings to create intersections and/or establishing block plantings appear to be superior to isolated strips for aggregate species richness.

Keywords

Agricultural landscapes Replanting Temperate woodlands Australia 

References

  1. Barrett G (2000) Birds on farms: ecological management for agricultural sustainability. Supplement to Wingspan: Volume 10 (4). Birds Australia, Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  2. Baudry J (1984) Effects of landscape structure on biological communities: the case of hedgerow network landscapes. In: Brandt J, Agger P (eds) Proceedings of the first international seminar on methodology in landscape ecological research and planning. Roskilde Universitetsforlag GeoRuc, Roskilde, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett AF (1998) Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Google Scholar
  4. Bennett AF, Kimber S, Ryan P (2000) Revegetation and wildlife. A guide to enhancing revegetated habitats for wildlife conservation in rural environments. Bushcare Research Report 2/00. Bushcare National Research and Development Program Research Report, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  5. Benson J (1999) Setting the scene—the native vegetation of New South Wales. Native Vegetation Advisory Council. Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond SJ (2004) Do woodland birds breed in revegetated sites? Honours Thesis. The Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooker L (2002) The application of focal species knowledge to landscape design in agricultural lands. Landsc Urban Plan 60:185–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper CB, Walters JR, Ford H (2002) Effects of remnant size and connectivity on the response of Brown Treecreepers to habitat fragmentation. Emu 102:249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunningham RB, Lindenmayer DB, Nix HA, Lindenmayer BD (1999) Quantifying observer heterogeneity in bird counts. Aust J Ecol 24:270–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cunningham RB, Lindenmayer DB, Crane M, Michael D, MacGregor C (2007) Large scale revegetation and mammal and reptile response: novel multi-scale and interactive effects. Ecol Appl 17:609–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Er K, Tidemann CR (1996) Importance of Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum woodland remnants in maintaining bird species diversity: inferences from seasonal data. Corella 20:117–125Google Scholar
  12. Field SA, Tyre AJ, Possingham HP (2002) Estimating bird species richness: how should repeat surveys be organized in time? Austral Ecol 27:624–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer J Lindenmayer DB (2002) The conservation value of paddock trees for birds in a variegated landscape in southern New South Wales. I. Species composition and site occupancy patterns. Biodivers Conserv 11:807–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forman RF (1995) Landscape mosaics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  15. Freudenberger D (2001) Bush for the birds: biodiversity enhancement guidelines for the Saltshaker Project, Boorowa, NSW. CSIRO and Greening Australia, ACT and SE NSW IncGoogle Scholar
  16. Freudenberger D, Harvey J (2004) Predicting biodiversity benefits of the Saltshaker Project, Boorowa, NSW. Ecol Manage Restor 5:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fry GL (1989) Conservation in agricultural ecosystems. In: Spellerberg IF, Goldsmith FB, Morris MG (eds) The scientific management of temperate communities for conservation. Blackwell Scientific, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Galwey NW (2006) Introduction to mixed modelling: beyond regression and analysis of variance. John Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbons P, Boak M (2002) The value of paddock trees for regional conservation in an agricultural landscape. Ecol Manage Restor 3:205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenacre MJ (1984) Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Greening Australia (2001) Bringing birds back: a glovebox guide for bird identification and habitat restoration in ACT and SE NSW. Greening Australia ACT and SE NSW, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobbs RJ, Yates CJ (2000) Temperate eucalypt woodlands in Australia. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  23. Kavanagh R, Law B, Lemckert F, Stanton M, Chidle M, Brassil T, Towerton A, Herring M (2005) Biodiversity in eucalypt plantings established to reduce salinity. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Report 05/165. November 2005, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  24. Keast A (1968) Seasonal movements in the Australian honeyeaters (Meliphagidae) and their ecological significance. Emu 67:159–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kinross C (2004) Avian use of farm habitats, including windbreaks, on the New South Wales tablelands. Pac Conserv Biol 10:180–192Google Scholar
  26. Koenig WD (1998) Spatial autocorrelation in California land birds. Conserv Biol 12:612–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lack PC (1988) Hedge intersections and breeding bird distribution in farmland. Bird Study 35:133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lambeck RJ (1999) Landscape planning for biodiversity conservation in agricultural regions. A case study from the wheatbelt of Western Australia. Biodiversity Technical Paper No. 2. pp 1–96. Environment Australia, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  29. Levey DJ, Bolker BM, Tewksbury JJ, Sargent S, Haddad NM (2005) Effects of landscape corridors on seed dispersal by birds. Science 309:146–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindenmayer DB, Beaton E, Crane M, Michael D, MacGregor C, Cunningham R (2005) Woodlands: a disappearing landscape. CSIRO Publishing, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2007) Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends Ecol Evol 22:127–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin WK, Eyears-Chaddock M, Wilson BR, Lemon J (2004) The value of habitat reconstruction to birds at Gunnedah, New South Wales. Emu 104:177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Némethová D, Tirinda A (2005) The influence of intersections and dead-ends of line-corridors networks on the breeding bird distribution. Folia Zool 54:123–134Google Scholar
  35. Noss RF (1987) Corridors in real landscapes: a reply to Simberloff and Cox. Conserv Biol 1:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Noss RF, Beier P (2000) Arguing over little things: response to Haddad et al. Conserv Biol 15:1546–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pyke GH, Recher HF (1983) Censusing Australian birds: a summary of procedures and a scheme for the standardization of data presentation and storage. In: Davies SJ (ed) Methods of censusing birds in Australia. Proceedings of a symposium organised by the Zoology section of the ANZAAS and the Western Australian Group of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union. Department of Conservation and Environment, Perth, Australia, pp 55–63Google Scholar
  38. Riffell SK, Gutziller KJ (1996) Plant-species richness in corridor intersections: is intersection shape influential? Landsc Ecol 11:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robinson D (1992) Habitat use and foraging behaviour of the Scarlet Robin and the Flame Robin at a site of breeding season sympatry. Wildlife Res 19:377–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenberg DK, Noon BR, Meslow EC (1997) Biological corridors: form, function and efficacy. BioScience 47:677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryan PA (2000) The use of revegetated areas by vertebrate fauna in Australia: a review. In: Hobbs RJ, Yates C (eds) Temperate eucalypt woodlands in Australia: biology, conservation, management and restoration. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia, pp 318–335Google Scholar
  42. Salt D, Lindenmayer DB, Hobbs RJ (2004) Trees and biodiversity. a guide for Australian farm forestry. Joint Venture Agroforestry Program. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  43. Schall R (1991) Estimation in generalized linear models with random effects. Biometrika 78:719–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seddon, J, Briggs S, Doyle S (2001) Birds in woodland of the central wheat/sheep belt of New South Wales. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. February 2001Google Scholar
  45. Simberloff D, Farr JA, Cox J, Mehlman DW (1992) Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments? Conserv Biol 6:493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith PA (1994) Autocorrelation in logistic regression modeling of species’ distribution. Global Ecol Biogeogr 4:47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stirzaker R, Vertessy R, Sarre A (eds) (2002) Trees, water and salt: an Australian guide to using trees for healthy catchment and productive farms. Joint Venture Agroforestry Program, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Lindenmayer
    • 1
  • Ross Cunningham
    • 1
  • Mason Crane
    • 1
  • Damian Michael
    • 1
  • Rebecca Montague-Drake
    • 1
  1. 1.Fenner School of Environment and Society, W.K. Hancock Building West [43]The Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations