Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 685–700 | Cite as

Avian diversity in pine forests along an urban–rural/agriculture-wildland gradient

  • Myung-Bok Lee
  • John P. Carroll
Article
  • 396 Downloads

Abstract

To understand the role of pine forests in an urban/agricultural matrix for avian diversity conservation, we investigated how avian species richness (number of species) changes along an urban–rural/agriculture-wildland gradient. We conducted bird surveys and vegetation surveys in pine forests in central-east Georgia, during 2010–2011 breeding seasons. We classified an urban–rural/agriculture-wildland gradient into seven classes. We performed the rank analysis of covariance and pairwise comparisons (based on the overlap of 90 % confidence intervals). Significant differences in avian species richness were found among seven classes (P < 0.05). Species richness was lower in pine patches embedded in wildland matrix compared to those in urban and/or agricultural matrix. Lower diversity was associated with relatively low structural diversity of vegetation in pine patches within the wildland matrix. Although most results of pairwise comparisons were insignificant, species richness of shrub nesting species, migrant species, and pine-grassland species was higher at pine patches in a mixture of low level of urban and agricultural land use and/or in low level of agricultural land use. Our results suggest that while pine forests in wildland are crucial habitats for conservation-important species, pine forests in some human-altered landscapes may also play a positive role for avian diversity conservation.

Keywords

Agricultural land use Avian community Habitat heterogeneity Pine-grassland Richness Urban development 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The project was primarily funded through the Piedmont CESU from the Department of Defense and McIntire-Stennis Project GEOZ 136. We would like to thank the Georgia Ornithological Society and Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources for additional research grants. We thank Dr. Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman and Dr. James Martin for their review and comments. We also thank all staff, especially, Robert Drumm and Paul Grimes at the Fort Gordon Natural Resources Branch for their help and support, field technicians for their hard work, and land owners for allowing us to access to sites under their ownership or management for this study.

References

  1. Bennett AF, Radford JQ, Haslem A (2006) Properties of land mosaics: implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biol Conserv 133:250–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair RB (1999) Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecol Appl 9:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair RB (2004) The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple levels of biological organization. Ecol Soc 9(5):2Google Scholar
  5. Boal CW, Mannan RW (1999) Comparative breeding ecology of Cooper’s Hawks in urban and exurban areas of Southeastern Arizona. J Wildl Manag 63:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cerezo A, Cecilia Conde M, Poggio SL (2011) Pasture area and landscape heterogeneity are key determinants of bird diversity in intensively managed farmland. Biodivers Conserv 20:2649–2667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman KA, Reich PB (2007) Land use and habitat gradients determine bird community diversity and abundance in suburban, rural and reserve landscapes of Minnesota, USA. Biol Conserv 135:527–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chase JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Devictor V, Jiguet F (2007) Community richness and stability in agricultural landscapes: the importance of surrounding habitats. Agric Ecosyst Environ 120:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunford E, Freemark K (2004) Matrix matters: effects of surrounding land uses on forest birds near Ottawa, Canada. Landsc Ecol 20:497–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrlich PR, Dobkin DS, Wheye D (1988) The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraterrigo JM, Wiens JA (2005) Bird communities of the Colorado Rocky Mountains along a gradient of exurban development. Landsc Urban Plan 71:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM, Powell S, Brown K, Gude PH, Jones K (2005) Effects of exurban development on biodiversity; patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecol Appl 15:1893–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee M (2013) Avian biodiversity in pine forests along an urban–rural/agriculture-wildland gradient. Dissertation, University of GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee M, Carroll JP (2014) Relative importance of local and landscape variables on site occupancy by avian species in a pine forest, urban, and agriculture matrix. For Ecol Manag 320:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luck GW, Korodaj TN (2008) Stand and landscape-level factors related to bird assemblages in exotic pine plantations: implications for forest management. For Ecol Manag 255:2688–2697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maestas JD, Knight RL, Gilgert WC (2003) Biodiversity across a rural land-use gradient. Conserv Biol 17:1425–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marzluff JM (2001) Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 19–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marzluff JM (2005) Island biogeography for an urbanizing world: how extinction and colonization may determine biological diversity in human-dominated landscapes. Urban Ecosyst 8:155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marzluff JM, Rodewald AD (2008) Conserving biodiversity in urbanizing areas: nontraditional views from a bird’s perspective. Cities Environ 1:1–27Google Scholar
  23. Mastrangelo ME, Gavin MC (2012) Trade-offs between cattle production and bird conservation in an agricultural frontier of the Gran Chaco of Argentina. Conserv Biol 26:1040–1051CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Medley KE, McDonnell MJ, Pickett ST (1995) Forest-landscape structure along an urban-to-rural gradient. Prof Geogr 47:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchell MS, Rutzmser SH, Wigley TB, Loehle C, Gerwin JA, Keyser PD, Lancia RA, Perry RW, Reynolds CJ, Thill RE, Weih R, White D, Wood PB (2006) Relationship between avian richness and landscape structure at multiple scales using multiple landscapes. For Ecol Manag 221:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parrish MC, Hepinstall-Cymerman J (2012) Associations between multiscale landscape characteristics and breeding bird abundance and diversity across urban–rural gradient in Northeastern Georgia, USA. Urban Ecosyst 15:559–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pino J, Rodà F, Ribas J, Pons X (2000) Landscape structure and bird species richness: implications for conservation in rural areas between natural parks. Landsc Urban Plan 49:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Porter EE, Forschner BR, Blair RB (2001) Woody fragmentation and canopy fragmentation along a forest-to-urban gradient. Urban Ecosyst 5:131–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Purcell KL, Verner J (1998) Density and reproductive success of California Towhee. Conserv Biol 12:442–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ralph, CJ, Geupel GR, Pyle P, Martin TE, DeSante DF (1993) Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GRT-144Google Scholar
  32. Robertson BA, Hutto RL (2006) A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology 87:1075–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Roxburgh SH, Shea K, Wilson JB (2004) The intermediate disturbance hypothesis: patch dynamics and mechanisms of species coexistence. Ecology 85:359–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Sallabanks R, Arnett EB (2005) Accomodating birds in managed forests of north America: a review of bird-forestry relationships. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191Google Scholar
  36. Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG (2000) Nonparametric methods. In: Categorial data analysis using the SAS system, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc, North Carolina, pp 159–180Google Scholar
  37. Stratford JA, Robinson WD (2005) Distribution of neotropical migratory bird species across an urbanizing landscape. Urban Ecosyst 8:59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trammell EJ, Weisberg PJ, Bassett S (2011) Avian response to urbanization in the arid riparian context of Reno, USA. Landsc Urban Plan 102:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turner JC, Gerwin JA, Lancia RA (2002) Influences of hardwood stand area and adjacency on breeding birds in an intensively managed pine landscape. For Sci 48:323–330Google Scholar
  40. Wilson CW, Masters RE, Bukenhofer GA (1995) Breeding bird response to pine grassland community restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers. J Wildl Manag 59:56–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Warnell School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and AquacultureMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  3. 3.School of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations