Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 95–111 | Cite as

Birds in North American Great Lakes coastal wet meadows: is landscape context important?

  • Samuel K. Riffell
  • Brian E. Keas
  • Thomas M. Burton
Article

Abstract

Landscape context can influence species richness, abundance, or probability of patch-use by birds. Little is known, however, about the effects of landscape context on birds in wetland-dominated landscapes. This lack of knowledge is alarming because many wetlands are threatened by development and other human impacts, while serving critical functions as migratory, breeding and foraging habitat. To address this lack of knowledge, we censused birds in North American Great Lakes coastal wet meadows located along the northern Lake Huron shoreline in Michigan (USA) during 1997 and 1998. Using a suite of multivariate techniques, we first accounted for effects of area and within-patch habitat characteristics before testing for effects of landscape context. Most bird variables were significantly related to landscape context, and two major patterns were apparent. First, avian species richness, abundance, and probability of patch-use by some species were higher for wet meadows located in complex contexts (adjacent to many patch types) compared to simpler contexts (adjacent to only one patch type). Second, these variables were higher for wet meadows located in wetland contexts compared to contexts that were terrestrial and road-impacted, dominated by open water habitats, or dominated by forested wetland habitats. Conservation plans for wetlands have focused on saving large wetlands and creating the vegetative habitat structure required by birds, but they should go further and explicitly consider the landscape context of wetlands as well. Specifically, wetlands located in complex and/or wetland contexts should have a higher conservation value than similar wetlands located in simpler, more terrestrial contexts.

Birds Great Lakes coastal wetlands Landscape context Michigan Principal component analysis Regression analysis Wet meadows Wetland conservation and management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Andrén H. 1995. Effects of landscape composition on predation rates at habitat edges. In: Hansson L., Farhig L. and Merriam G. (eds), Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, pp. 225–255.Google Scholar
  2. Bayne E.R. and Hobson K.A. 1997. Comparing the effects of land-scape fragmentation by forestry and agriculture on predation of artificial nests. Conservation Biology 11: 1418–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedford K.W. 1992. The physical effects of the Great Lakes on tributaries and wetlands. Journal of Great Lakes Research 18: 571–589.Google Scholar
  4. Bergin T.M., Best L.B. and Freemark E.K. 1997. An experimental study of predation on artificial nests in roadsides adjacent to agricultural habitats in Iowa. Wilson Bulletin 109: 437–448.Google Scholar
  5. Blair R.B. 1996. Landuse and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications 6: 506–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloutin C. and Jobin B. 1998. Intensity of agricultural practices and effects on adjacent habitats. Ecological Applications 8: 544–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bock C.E., Bock J.H. and Bennett C.B. 1999. Songbird abundance in grasslands at a suburban interface on the Colorado high plains. Studies in Avian Biology 19: 131–136.Google Scholar
  8. Bolger D.T., Scott T.A. and Rotenberry T.J. 1997. Breeding bird abundance in an urbanizing landscape in coastal southern Cali-fornia. Conservation Biology 11: 406–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowers M.A. and Breland B. 1996. Foraging of gray squirrels on and urban-rural gradient: use of the GUD to assess anthropo-genic impact. Ecological Applications 6: 1135–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brewer R., McPeek G.A. and Adams J.R. 1991. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Brown M. and Dinsmore J.J. 1986. Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Man-agement 50: 392–397.Google Scholar
  12. Brown M. and Dinsmore J.J. 1991. Area-dependent changes in bird densities in Iowa marshes. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Sciences 98: 124–126.Google Scholar
  13. Calme S. and Desrochers A. 2000. Biogeographic aspects of the distribution of bird species breeding in Quebec's peatlands. Journal of Biogeography 27: 725–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cam E., Nichols J.D., Sauer J.R., Hines J.E. and Flather H.C. 2000. Relative species richness and community completeness: birds and urbanization in the mid-Atlantic states. Ecological Applications 10: 1196–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cantero J.J., Partel M. and Zobel M. 1999. Is species richness de-pendent on the neighboring stands? An analysis of the commu-nity patterns in mountain grasslands of central Argentina. Oikos 87: 346–354.Google Scholar
  16. Craig R.J. and Beal G.K. 1992. The influence of habitat variables on marsh bird communities of the Connecticut River estuary. Wilson Bulletin 104: 295–311.Google Scholar
  17. Draper N.R. and Smith H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Ehrenfeld J.G. and Schneider P.J. 1990. The response of Atlantic white cedar wetlands to varying levels of disturbance from sub-urban development in the New Jersey Pinelands. In: Wingham D.F., Good R.E. and Kvet J. (eds), Wetland Ecology and Man-agement: Case Studies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dor-drecht, The Netherlands, pp. 63–78.Google Scholar
  19. Estades C.F. and Temple S.A. 1999. Deciduous-forest bird com-munities in a fragmented landscape dominated by exotic pine plantations. Ecological Applications 9: 573–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fairbairn S.E. and Dinsmore J.J. 2001. Local and landscape-level influences on wetland bird communities of the prairie pothole region of Iowa, USA. Wetlands 21: 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forman R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Forys E. and Humphrey S.R. 1999. The importance of patch at-tributes and context to the management and recovery of an en-dangered lagomorph. Landscape Ecology 14: 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freemark K.E., Dunning J.B., Hejl S.J. and Probst J.R. 1995. A landscape ecology perspective for research, conservation and management. In: Martin T.E. and Finch D.M. (eds), Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migrant Birds. Oxford Uni-versity Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 381–427.Google Scholar
  24. Friesen L.E., Eagles P.F. and MacKay R.J. 1995. Effects of residential development on forest-dwelling Neotropical migrant songbirds. Conservation Biology 9: 1408–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gathman J.P., Burton T.M. and Armitage B.J. 1999. Coastal wet-lands of the upper great lakes: distribution of invertebrate com-munities in response to environmental variation. In: Batzer D.P., Rader R.B. and Wissinger S.A. (eds), Invertebrates in Freshwater Wetlands of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA, pp. 949–1013.Google Scholar
  26. Gibbs J.P. and Melvin S.M. 1993. Call-response surveys for moni-toring breeding waterbirds. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 27–34.Google Scholar
  27. Grover A.M. and Baldassare G.A. 1995. Bird species richness within beaver ponds in south-central New York. Wetlands 15: 108–118.Google Scholar
  28. Gutzwiller K.J. and Anderson S.H. 1987. Multi-scale associations between cavity-nesting birds and features of Wyoming stream-side woodlands. Condor 89: 534–548.Google Scholar
  29. Gutzwiller K.J. and Barrow W.C. 2001. Bird-landscape relations in the Chihauhaun Desert: coping with uncertainties about predic-tive models. Ecological Applications 11: 1517–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Helzer C.J. and Jelinski D.E. 1999. The relative importance of patch area and perimeter-area ratio to grassland breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9: 1448–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herkert J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwest-ern grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4: 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holm S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test proce-dure. Scandanavian Journal of Statistics 6: 65–70.Google Scholar
  33. Hosmer D.W. and Lemeshow S. 1989. Applied Logistic Regres-sion. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Jobin B. and Picman J. 1997. Factors affecting predation on artifi-cial nests in marshes. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 792–800.Google Scholar
  35. Kaldec J.A. and Smith M.L. 1992. Habitat management for breeding areas. In: Batt B.D.J., Afton A.D., Anderson M.G., Ankney C.D., Johnson D.H., Kaldec J.A. et al. (eds), Ecology and Management of Breeding Waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, pp. 590–610.Google Scholar
  36. Keough J.R., Thompson T.A., Gunterspergen G.R. and Wilcox D.A. 1999. Hydrogeomorphic factors and ecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands 19: 821–834.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis D.B. and Magnuson J.J. 2000. Landscape spatial patterns in freshwater snail assemblages across Northern Highland catch-ments. Freshwater Biology 43: 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu J. and Ashton P.S. 1999. Simulating effects of landscape con-text and timber harvest on tree species diversity. Ecological Applications 9: 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Minc L.D. and Albert D.A. 1998. Great Lakes coastal wetlands: abiotic and floristic characterization. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report., Lansing, Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Miller R.G. Jr 1981. Simultaneous Statistical Inference. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Mitsch W.J. and Gosselink J.G. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Mitsch W.J. and Gosselink J.G. 2000. The value of wetlands: im-portance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological Economics 35: 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morrison M.L., Marcot B.G. and Mannan R.W. 1998. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Myers R.H. 1989. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications. PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  45. Naugle D.E., Higgins K.F., Nusser S.M. and Johnson W.C. 1999. Scale-dependent habitat use in three species of prairie wetland birds. Landscape Ecology 14: 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orians G.H. 1980. Some Adaptations of Marsh-Nesting Blackbirds. Monographs in population biology # 14. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Paton P.W.C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? Conservation Biology 8: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pearson S.M. 1993. The spatial extent and relative influence of landscape-level factors on wintering bird populations. Landscape Ecology 8: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Picman J., Milks M.M. and Leptich M. 1993. Patterns of predation on passerine nests in marshes: effects of water depth and distance from edge, Auk 110: 89–94.Google Scholar
  50. Prince H.H. and Flegel C.S. 1995. Breeding avifauna of Lake Huron. In: Munawar M., Edsall T. and Leach J. (eds), The Lake Huron Ecosystem: Ecology, Fisheries and Management. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 247–272.Google Scholar
  51. Prince H.H., Padding P.I. and Knapton R.W. 1992. Waterfowl use of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 18: 673–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rahbek C. 1997. The relationship among area elevation and re-gional species richness in neotropical birds. American Naturalist 149: 875–902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Ralph C.J., Sauer J.R. and Droege S. [Technical eds.] 1995. Moni-toring bird populations by point counts. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-149. USDA Forest Serv. Sta. Pac. Southwest Res., Albany, California, USA.Google Scholar
  54. Rencher A.C. 1992. Interpretation of canonical discriminant func-tions canonical variates and principal components. The American Statistician 46: 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rice W.R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Riffell S.K. 2000. The effects of landscape context and coastline complexity on birds in Great Lakes coastal wet meadows. Dissertation, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
  57. Riffell S.K., Keas B.E. and Burton T.M. 2001. Area-and habitat-relationships of birds in Great Lakes coastal wet meadows. Wetlands 21: 492–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Risch S.J., Andow D. and Altieri M.A. 1983. Agroecosystem di-versity and pest control: data tentative conclusions and new re-search direction. Environmental Entomology 12: 625–629.Google Scholar
  59. Robbins C.S. 1981. Bird activity levels related to weather. Studies in Avian Biology 6: 301–310.Google Scholar
  60. Rotenberry J.T. and Wiens J.A. 1980. Habitat structure patchiness and avian communities in North American steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis. Ecology 61: 1228–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Saab V.A. 1999. Importance of spatial scale to habitat use by breed-ing birds in riparian forests: a hierarchical analysis. Ecological Applications 9: 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. SAS Institute Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide, version 6. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  63. SAS Institute Inc 1997. SAS/STAT Software: Changes and En-hancements through Release 6.12. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  64. Sisk T.D., Haddad N.M. and Erlich P.R. 1997. Bird assemblages in patchy woodlands: modeling the effects of edge and matrix habitats. Ecological Applications 7: 1170–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Skagen S.K. and Knopf F.L. 1994. Migrating shorebirds and habitat dynamics at a prairie wetland complex. Wilson Bulletin 106: 91–105.Google Scholar
  66. Szaro R.C. and Jackle M.D. 1985. Avian use of a desert riparian island and its adjacent scrub habitat. Condor 87: 511–519.Google Scholar
  67. Taylor P.D., Fahrig L., Henein K. and Merriam H.G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68: 571–573.Google Scholar
  68. Terres J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  69. Thompson F.R. and Schwalbach M.J. 1995. Analysis of sample size counting time and plot size from an avian point count survey on Hoosier National Forest Indiana. In: Ralph C.J., Sauer J.R. and Droege S. (eds), Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-149. USDA Forest Serv. Pac. Southwest Res. Sta., Albany, California, USA, pp. 45–48.Google Scholar
  70. Tilton D.L. and Schwegler B.R. 1978. The values of wetland habitat in the Great Lakes basin. In: Greeson P.E., Clark J.R. and Clark J.E. (eds), Wetland Function and Values: The State of our Understanding. American Water Resources Association, Min-neapolis, Minnesota, USA, pp. 267–277.Google Scholar
  71. Trexler J.C. and Travis J. 1993. Nontraditional regression analysis. Ecology 74: 1629–1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Verner J. and Willson M.F. 1966. The influence of habitats on mat-ing systems of North American passerine birds. Ecology 47: 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vickery P.D., Hunter M.L. and Melvin S.M. 1994. Effects of habitat area on the distribution of grassland birds in Maine. Con-servation Biology 8: 1087–1097.Google Scholar
  74. Vickery P.D., Tubaro P.L., Cardoso da Silva J.M., Peterjohn B.G., Herkert J.R. and Cavalcanti R.B. 1999. Conservation of grass-land birds in the western hemishpere. Studies in Avian Biology 19: 2–26.Google Scholar
  75. Villard M.A., Trzcinski M.K. and Merriam G. 1999. Fragmenta-tion effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conservation Biology 13: 774–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Webb N.R. and Hopkins P.J. 1984. Invertebrate diversity on a fragmented Calluna heathland. Journal of Applied Ecology 21: 921–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weller M.W. 1999. Wetland Birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  78. Westfall P.H., Tobias R.D., Rom D., Wolfinger R.D. and Hochberg Y. 1999. Multiple Comparisons and Multiple Tests using the SAS System. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  79. Westmoreland D. and Best L.B. 1985. The effect of disturbance on Mourning Dove nesting success. Auk 102: 774–780.Google Scholar
  80. Wilcox D.A. 1995. The role of wetlands as nearshore habitat in Lake Huron. In: Munawar M., Edsall T. and Leachm J. (eds), The Lake Huron Ecosystem: Ecology Fisheries and Management. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 223–245.Google Scholar
  81. Zedler J.B. 2000. Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 402–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel K. Riffell
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brian E. Keas
    • 1
    • 3
  • Thomas M. Burton
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Center for Integrative Studies – General ScienceMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesOhio Northern UniversityAdaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations