Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Landscape heterogeneity affects the use of sampling methods: a case study of bird communities in mountains of Central Italy

  • Published:
RENDICONTI LINCEI Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The point count method (PCM) and time species count (TSC) are thought to be applicable to specific bird assemblages and habitat types and to give different kind of outputs: quantitative (abundances) and qualitative (scores), respectively. In this work, we tested if the faster TSC method can be used instead of the time-consuming PCM. We compared results obtained from the application of both methods to bird assemblages in three different habitat types in mountains of Central Italy with different levels of spatial heterogeneity (oak and beech woods, and open-forest mosaics). The application of both methods to the forest ecosystems revealed the absence of a direct correlation between PCM abundance values and TSC mean scores, highlighting that the latter method did not explain the variation in species abundance. The opposite was true in the mosaic habitats. In the Apennine forest ecosystems, species sampled first in the TSC sampling sessions did not correlate with species abundance values evaluated by means of PCM. The species with the highest PCM values (i.e., the more abundant species) were randomly distributed in all of the TSC 10-min sampling subsessions. Therefore, we rejected the hypothesis that the species sampled first (e.g., in the first 10 min) in TSC are more abundant than those sampled in the next 10 min subsession, and so on. This result differs greatly from that found for non-Mediterranean habitat types that are richer in species number (e.g., tropical forests and savannahs), where scores obtained for single bird species when applying the TSC method correlate well with the species abundance parameters obtained using quantitative methods. In the mountainous complex of the Mediterranean area, the TSC method should only be applied in mosaic habitats, which are richer in species, more spatially heterogeneous, and possess a high γ-diversity at the landscape scale, and thus show a direct correlation between species abundance and TSC scores.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bennun LA, Waiyaki EM (1993) Using times species count to compare avifaunas in the Mau Forests, south-west Kenya. In: Wilson RT (ed) Birds of African environments (Proceedings of the Eighth Pan-African Congress). Ann Mus Royal Afr Centr (Zool.), Tervuren, 268:366

  • Bibby CJ, Burgess ND (1992) Bird census techniques. Academic, London

  • Blondel J, Aronson J (1999) Biology and wildlife of the Mediterranean region. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman SN, Pomeroy DE, Tushabe H (2003) On the use of times species counts to estimate avian abundance indices in species-rich communities. Afr J Ecol 41:337–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koleff P, Lennon JJ, Gaston KJ (2003) Are there latitudinal gradients in species turnover. Global Ecol Biogeogr 12:483–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran A (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, Malden

  • Pirone G (1995) Alberi, arbusti e liane d’Abruzzo. Cogecstre Edizioni, Penne

  • Pomeroy DE (1992) Counting birds. African Wildlife Foundation, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomeroy DE, Dranzoa C (1997) Methods of studying the distribution, diversity and abundance of birds in East Africa—some quantitative approaches. Afr J Ecol 35:110–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomeroy DE, Tengecho B (1986) Studies of birds in a semi-arid area of Kenya III—the use of “times species count” for studying regional avifaunas. J Tropic Ecol 2:231–247

    Google Scholar 

  • SPSS Inc. (2006) SPSS for Windows (version 15.0). SPSS Inc., Chicago

  • Sutherland WJ (2006) Ecological census techniques—a handbook, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Tammaro F, Pirone G (1995) Il Parco nazionale della Majella. Natura e Montagna 42:45–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielbörger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 22:1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH (1970) Community and ecosystems. Macmillian, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH (1972) Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1976) Population responses to patchy environments. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 7:81–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1989) The ecology of bird communities—vol 2: processes and variations (Cambridge Studies in Ecology). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the students on the Animal Ecology course, Biological Sciences, University of Roma Tre (academic year 2008–2009).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco A. Bologna.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vignoli, L., Battisti, C. & Bologna, M.A. Landscape heterogeneity affects the use of sampling methods: a case study of bird communities in mountains of Central Italy. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei 21, 315–322 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-010-0091-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-010-0091-3

Keywords

Navigation