Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 241–248 | Cite as

Modelling forest bird community richness using CORINE land cover data: a study at the landscape scale in Hungary

  • Zs. Mag
  • T. Szép
  • K. Nagy
  • T. StandovárEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this study we (1) examined the applicability of the widely available CORINE land cover map of Europe in predicting several components of the richness of forest breeding bird community, and (2) analysed how different ecologically meaningful species groups respond to the differences in landscape composition and how these differences are reflected in the relationships between total species richness and richness of these species groups at the 2.5 x 2.5 km2 scale. We found that landscape composition had only moderate success in predicting the richness components of the forest bird community. The predictive power of the applied general linear models differed very much: roughly 60% of the observed variance was explained when the dependent variables (species richness and abundance) were calculated using data of all the 21 studied forest bird species or that of common forest birds. However, species richness and abundance of groups of more vulnerable species were predicted with much less success (30% variance explained), suggesting that CORINE is not an adequate tool in predicting the conservation status of these sensitive forest birds. Forest cover explicated 90 to 100% of the explained variance in the models suggesting that forest bird community was much less sensitive to the type of land cover occuring in the surroundings. We showed that richness and abundance of selected species groups had different non-linear relationships with total species richness, suggesting that ‒ if used alone ‒, total species richness is a weak predictor of other richness components of the forest bird community.

Keywords

Habitat cover Land cover map Landscape composition Predicting species richness Temperate deciduous forest Woodland bird community 

Nomenclature

Hagemeier and Blair (1997) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Åberg, J., Jansson, G., Swenson, J.E. and Angelstam, P. 1995. The effect of matrix on the occurrence of hazel grouse (Bonasia bonasia) in isolated habitat fragments. Oecologia 103:265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov B.N. and Csáki F. (eds) 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. pp. 267–281.Google Scholar
  3. Brotons, L., Mönkönnen, M., Huhta, E., Nikula, A. and Rajasärkä, A. 2003. Effects of landscape structure and forest reserve location on old-growth forest bird species in Northern Finland. Landscape Ecol. 18:377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnham, K.P. and Anderson, D.R. 1992. Data-based selection of an appropriate biological model: the key to modern data analysis. In: McCullough D.R. and Barret R.H. (eds), Wildlife 2001: Populations. Elsevier, London. pp. 16–30.Google Scholar
  5. CEC 1994. CORINE land cover. Technical guide. Office for Official Publications of European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  6. Cody M.L. 1985. Habitat Selection in Birds. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  7. EEA 2000. CORINE land cover technical guide - Addendum 2000. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  8. EEA 2006. Land accounts for Europe 1990–2000. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  9. ESRI 2002. ArcView GIS version 3.3. Redlands, California, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Everitt, B.S. and Hothorn, T. 2006. A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using R. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  11. Faraway, J.J. 2005. Linear Models with R. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  12. Faraway, J.J. 2006. Extending the Linear Model with R. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  13. Fernández-Juricic, E. 2004. Spatial and temporal analysis of the distribution of forest specialists in an urban-fragmented landscape (Madrid, Spain). Implications for local and regional bird conservation. Lands. Urb. Plan. 69:17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuller, R.J. 1995. Bird Life of Woodland and Forest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Hagemeier, E.J.M. and Blair, M.J. (eds) 1997. The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds: Their Distribution and Abundance. T. & A.D. Poyser, London.Google Scholar
  16. Heikkinen, R.K., Luoto, M., Virkkala, R. and Rainio, K. 2004. Effects of habitat cover, landscapes structure and spatial variables on the abundance of birds in an agricultural-forest mosaic. Appl. Ecol. 41:824–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jansson, G. and Angelstam, P. 1999. Threshold levels of habitat composition for the presence of the long-tailed tit (Aegithalos caudatus) in a boreal landscape. Landscape Ecol. 14:283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiguet, F., Julliard, R., Couvet, D. and Petiau, A. 2005. Modeling spatial trends in estimated species richness using breeding bird survey data: a valuable tool in biodiversity assessment. Biodivers. Conserv. 14:3305–3324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawler, J.J., O’Connor, R.J., Hunsaker, C.T., Jones, K.B., Loveland, T.R. and White, D. 2004. The effects of habitat resolution on models of avian diversity and distributions: a comparison of two land-cover classifications. Landscape Ecol. 19:515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loehle, C, Wigley, T.B., Rutzmoser, S., Gerwin, J.A., Keyser, P.D., Lancia, R.A., Reynolds, C.Y., Thill, R.E., Weih, R., Don White, Jr and Wood, P.B. 2005. Managed forest landscape structure and avian species richness in the southeastern US. Forest Ecol. Manage. 214:279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGarigal, K. and McComb, W.C. 1995. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol. Monogr. 65:235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Melles, S., Glenn, S. and Martin, K. 2003. Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: Species-environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradient. Conserv. Ecol. 7:5. Available from http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/art5 (accessed July 2011).
  23. Monitoring Centre of MME/Birdlife Hungary 2011. Magyarországon elõfoduló madárfajok adatbázisa (Database of bird species of Hungary). Available from http://www.mme-monitoring.hu/ (Accessed July 2011).
  24. Mikusiński, G., Gromadzki, M. and Chylarecki, P. 2001. Woodpeckers as indicators of forest bird diversity. Conserv. Biol. 15:208–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitchell, M.S., Rutzmoser, S., Wigley, T.B., Loehle, C, Gerwin, J.A., Keyser, P.D., Lancia, R.A., Perry, R.W., Reynolds, C.Y., Thill, R.E., Weih, R., White, D. and Wood, P.B. 2006. Relationships between avian richness and landscape structure at multiple scales using multiple landscapes. Forest Ecol. Manage. 221:155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. PECBMS 2007. The State of Europe’s Common Birds 2007. CSO/RSPB, Prague.Google Scholar
  27. PECBMS 2010a. Trends of Common Birds in Europe. 2010 Update. Available from http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=387 (accessed July 2011).
  28. PECBMS 2010b. European Wild Bird Indicators. 2010 Update. Available from http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=389 (accessed July 2011).
  29. Pino, J., Rodà, F., Ribas, J. and Pons, X. 2000. Landscape structure and bird species richness: implications for conservation in rural areas between natural parks. Lands. Urb. Plan. 49:35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  31. Robbins, C.S., Sauer, J.R. and Peterjohn, B.G. 1993. Population trends and management opportunities for neotropical migrants. In: Finch DM, Stangel PW (eds) Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds, USDA Press, Bloomington. pp. 17–23.Google Scholar
  32. Roberge, J.-M. and Angelstam, P. 2006. Indicator species among resident forest birds - A cross-regional evaluation in Northern Europe. Biol. Conserv. 130:134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanderson, F.J., Donald, P.F., Pain, D.J., Burfield, I.J. and van Bommel, F.P.J. 2006. Long-term population declines in Afro-Palaearctic migrant birds. Biol. Conserv. 131:93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seonare, J., Bustamante, J. and Diaz-Delgado, R. 2004. Are existing vegetation maps adequate to predict bird distributions? Ecol. Model. 175:137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Szép, T. and Gibbons, D.W. 2000. Monitoring of common breeding birds in Hungary using a randomised sample design. The Ring 22:45–55.Google Scholar
  36. Villard, M.A., Trzcinsky, M.K. and Merriam, G. 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conserv. Biol. 13:774–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zurita, G.A. and Bellocq, M.I. 2010. Spatial patterns of bird community similarity: bird responses to landscape composition and configuration in the Atlantic forest. Landscape Ecol. 25:147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2019

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Taxonomy and EcologyLoránd Eötvös UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental SciencesCollege of NyíregyházaHungary
  3. 3.Monitoring CentreMME/BirdLife HungaryNyíregyházaHungary

Personalised recommendations