Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 133–149 | Cite as

Foraging guild structure within a primaeval mixed forest bird assemblage: a comparison of two concepts

  • M. KorňanEmail author
  • P. Adamík
Article

Abstract

Two basic concepts of guild definition were developed in community ecology that enable simplification of complex communities or ecosystems into structural building blocks of species with similar niches. Root defined guild as a group of species utilising the same environmental resources by a similar foraging method. MacMahon et al. simplified the original definition even more by excluding a foraging method. This concept is focused on utilisation patterns of resources by species regardless the purpose of use. Our objectives were: (1) to test guild structure within a model ecosystem from matrices reflecting the differences between the two concepts, (2) to compare guild patterns detected by the two concepts, (3) to test whether the mixed forest ecosystem consists of significantly different groups of species representing deciduous and coniferous faunal elements. The study was conducted in a primeval beech-fir forest in NW Slovakia during 1997–2000. In total, 26 bird species were used for further numerical analyses. Two data matrices were constructed reflecting the differences between the two guild concepts. To statistically determine guild structure without arbitrary fusion criteria, a bootstrapped cluster analysis (UPGMA) of chord distances was employed to analyse the data matrices. Symmetric correspondence analysis (CA) was applied for extraction of eigenvectors responsible for the segregation of species into guilds. The classification proposed by Root produced two guild models at the levels of 6 or 9 group partitions at α = 0.10, while the classification following MacMahon et al. detected 7 guild types. The guild structures based on the two concepts were significantly different when tested by two-tailed Wilcoxon paired sample tests and the Monte Carlo among-cluster error sum of squares (SSQ) distance simulation test. Six out of the eight interpretable factors (75%) indicated analogous environmental gradients when comparing two CA ordinations. The most important environmental gradients were: (1) vertical foraging substrate — habitat structure, (2) water — terrestrial foraging substrate gradient, (3) spatial tree morphology, (4) terrestrial foraging substrate gradient, (5) arboreal — airspace gradient, and (6) mountain stream environmental gradient. We did not detect significantly different guilds for generalists and for coniferous and deciduous forest specialists.

Keywords

A posteriori approach Bootstrap testing Cluster analysis Generalist species Guild concepts Ordination Specialist species Šrámková National Nature Reserve 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adamík, P. and M. Korňan. 2004. Foraging ecology of two bark foraging passerine birds in an old-growth temperate forest. Ornis Fenn. 81:13–22.Google Scholar
  2. Adamík, P., M. Korňan and J. Vojtek 2003. The effect of habitat structure on guild patterns and the foraging strategies of insectivorous birds in forests. Biologia, Bratislava 58:275–286.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, J. 1985. The definition and interpretation of guild structure in ecological communities. J. Anim. Ecol. 54:43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alatalo, R.V. 1982. Multidimensional foraging niche organization of foliage-gleaning birds in northern Finland. Ornis Scand. 13:56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alatalo, R.V., L. Gustafsson, M. Lindén and A. Lundberg. 1985. Interspecific competition and niche shifts in tits and the goldcrest: an experiment. J. Anim. Ecol. 54:977–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alatalo, R.V. and J. Moreno. 1987. Body size, interspecific interactions, and use of foraging sites in tits (Paridae). Ecology 68:1773–1777.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Blondel, J. 2003. Guilds or functional groups: does it matter? Oikos 100:223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandl, R., A. Krištín and B. Leisler. 1994. Dietary niche breadth in a local community of passerine birds: an analysis using phylogenetic contrasts. Oecologia 98:109–116.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Brennan, L.A. and M.L. Morrison. 1990. Influence of sample size on interpretations of foraging patterns by Chestnut-backed Chickadees. Stud. in Avian. Biol. 13:187–192.Google Scholar
  10. Cody, M.L. 2000. Antbird guilds in the lowland Carribbean rainforest of souteast Nicaragua. Condor 102:784–794.Google Scholar
  11. Cummins, K.W. 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. Bioscience 24:631–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connor, E.F. and D. Simberloff. 1979. The assemblyof species communities: chance or competition? Ecology 60:1132–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornell, H.V. and D.M. Kahn. 1989. Guild structure in the British arboreal arthropods: is it stable and predictable? J. Anim. Ecol. 58:1003–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper, R.J., P.J. Martinat and R.C. Whitmore. 1990. Dietary similarity among insectivorous birds: influence of taxonomic versus ecological categorization of prey. Stud. in Avian. Biol. 13:104–109.Google Scholar
  15. Diamond, J.M. 1975. Assembly of species communities. In: Cody, M.L. and J.M. Diamond (eds), Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 342–444.Google Scholar
  16. Drake, J.A. 1990. Communities as assembled structures: do rules govern pattern? Trend. Ecol. Evol. 5:159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eckhardt, R.C. 1979. The adaptive syndromes of two guildsof insectivorous birds in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Ecol. Monogr. 49:129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, H.A., L. Bridges and S. Noske. 1990. Interobserver differences in recording foraging behavior of Fuscous Honeyeaters. Stud. in Avian Biol. 13:199–201.Google Scholar
  19. Gauch, H.G., Jr., R.H. Whittaker and T.R. Wentworth. 1977. A comparative study of reciprocal averaging and other ordination techniques. J. Ecol. 65:157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giannini, N.P. and E.K.V. Kalko 2004. Trophic structure in a large assemblage of phyllostomid bats in Panama. Oikos 105: 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilpin, M.E. and J.M. Diamond. 1982. Factor contributing to nonrandomness in species co-occurrences on islands. Oecologia 52:75–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Gotelli, N.J. 2000. Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81:2606–2621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hairston, N.G. 1981. An experimental test of a guild: salamander competition. Ecology 62:65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hejl, S.J. and J. Verner. 1990. Within-season and yearly variations in foraging locations. Stud. in Avian Biol. 13:202–209.Google Scholar
  25. Hintze, J.L. 1997. NCSS ’97. User’s guide. Kaysville.Google Scholar
  26. Holmes, R.T., R.E. Bonney, Jr. and S.W. Pacala. 1979. Guild structure of the Hubbard Brook bird community: a multivariate approach. Ecology 60:512–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holmes, R.T. and H.F. Recher. 1986. Determinants ofguild structure in forest bird communities: an intercontinental comparison. Condor 88:427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hutchinson, G.E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 22:415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Inger, R.F. and R.K. Colwell. 1977. Organization of contiguous communities of amphibians and reptiles in Thailand. Ecol. Monogr. 47:229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, D.A. 1997. Compositional data in community ecology: the paradigm or peril of proportions? Ecology 78:929–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jaksic, F.M. 1981. Abuse and misuse of the term “guild” in ecological studies. Oikos 37:397–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jaksic, F.M. and R.G. Medel. 1990. Objective recognition of guilds: testing for statistically significant species clusters. Oecologia 82:87–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaksić, F.M., P. Feinsinger and J.E. Jiménez. 1993. A long-term study on the dynamics of guild structure among predatory vertebrates at a semi-arid Neotropical site. Oikos 67:87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jongman, R.H.G., C.J.F. Ter Braak and O.F.R. VanTongeren. 1997. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. Keane, J.J. andM.L. Morrison. 1999. Temporal variation in resource use by Black-throated Gray Warblers. Condor 101:67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Korňan, M. 1996. Analyses of Lowland Forest Bird Communities in Slovakia and Effect of Migratory Guilds on Forming Forest Bird Community Structure in an Elevational Gradient. M.Sc. thesis, Faculty of Sciences of Comenius University, Bratislava.Google Scholar
  37. Korňan, M. 2000. Interspecific foraging substrate preferences among flycatchers in a primeval mixed forest (Šrámková National Nature Reserve). Oecologia Montana 9:36–43.Google Scholar
  38. Korňan, M. 2004a. Structure of the breeding bird assemblage of a primaeval beech-fir forest in the Šrámková National Nature Reserve, the Malá Fatra Mts. Biologia, Bratislava 59:219–231.Google Scholar
  39. Korňan, M. 2004b. Structure of Bird Foraging Guilds and Resource Partitioning in a Primaeval Beech-fir Forest. PhD dissertation, Faculty of Sciences of Comenius University, Bratislava.Google Scholar
  40. Korňan, M. 2005. Concept of structural and functional organization of communities: guilds and functional groups. Biological papers 70:81–106.Google Scholar
  41. Krištín, A. 1992. Trophische beziehungen zwischen singvögeln und wirbellosen im eichen-buchenwald zur brutzeit. Orn. Beob. 89:157–169.Google Scholar
  42. Landres, P.B. and J.A. MacMahon. 1983. Community organization of arboreal birds in some oak woodlands of western North America. Ecol. Monogr. 53:183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lawlor, L.R. 1980. Structure and stability in natural and randomly constructed competitive communities. Am. Nat. 116:394–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Legendre, L. and P. Legendre. 1983. Numerical Ecology. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  45. Lincoln, R., R. Boxshall and P. Clark. 1998. A Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  46. MacFadyen, A. 1957. Animal ecology: Aims and Methods. Pitman and Sons, London.Google Scholar
  47. MacMahon, J.A., D.J. Schimpf, D.C. Andersen, K.G. Smith and R.L. Bayn, Jr. 1981. An organism-centered approach to some community and ecosystem concepts. J. Theor. Biol. 29:287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mac Nally, R.C. 1983. On assessing the significance of interspecific competition to guild structure. Ecology 64:1646–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mac Nally, R.C. 1994. Habitat-specific guild structure of forest birds in south-eastern Australia: a regional scale perspective. J. Anim. Ecol. 63:988–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marhold, K. and F. Hindák. (eds) 1998. Checklist of Non-vascular and Vascular Plants of Slovakia. Veda, Bratislava.Google Scholar
  51. Mitchell, M. 1997. An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  52. Moreno, E. and L.M. Carrascal. 1993. Leg morphology and feeding postures in four Parus species: an experimental ecomorphological approach. Ecology 74:2037–2044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Muñoz, A.A. and F.P. Ojeda. 1998. Guild structure of carnivorous intertidal fishes of the Chilean coast: implications of ontogenetic dietary shifts. Oecologia 114:563–573.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Noon, B.R. 1981. Techniques for mapping avian habitats. In: Copen, D.E. (ed), The Use of Multivariate Statistics in Studies of Wildlife Habitat. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM–87, Fort Collins. pp. 42–49.Google Scholar
  55. Pillar, V.D. 1999. How sharp are classifications? Ecology 80:2508–2516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pillar, V.D. 2004. MULTIV – Multivariate Exploratory Analysis, Randomization Testing and Bootstrap Resampling. User’s guide v.2.3.9. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.Google Scholar
  57. Pianka, E.R. 1988. Evolutionary Ecology. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  58. Podani, J. 1997. SYN-TAX 5.10-pc. Supplement to the User’s Manual. Scientia Publishing, Budapest.Google Scholar
  59. Podani, J. 2000. Simulation of random dendrograms and comparison tests: some comments. J. Classif. 17:123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Podani, J. and T. A. Dickinson. 1985. Comparison of dendrograms: a multivariate approach. Can. J. Bot. 62:2765–2778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Remsen, J.V.,Jr. and S.K. Robinson. 1990. A classification scheme for foraging behaviour of birds in terrestrial habitats. Stud. in Avian Biol. 13:144–160.Google Scholar
  62. Rohlf, F.J. 1974. Methods of comparing classifications. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Root, R.B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher. Ecol. Monogr. 37:317–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sabo, S.R. 1980. Niche and habitat relations in subalpine bird communities of the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Ecol. Monogr. 50:241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schoener, T.W. 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Simberloff, D. and T. Dayan. 1991. The guild concept and the structure of ecological communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22:115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Snow, D.W. and C.M. Perrins. 1998. Birds of the Western Palearctic. Concise Edition. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  68. Strauss, R.E. 1982. Statistical significance of species clusters in association analysis. Ecology 63:634–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Suhonen, J., M. Halonen and T. Mappes. 1993. Predation risk and the organization of the Parus guild. Oikos 66:94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Székely, T. and C. Moskát. 1991. Guild structure and seasonal changes in foraging behaviour of birds in a Central-European oak forest. Ornis Hungarica 1:10–28.Google Scholar
  71. Tebbich, S., M. Taborsky, B. Fessl, M. Dvorak and H. Winkler. 2004. Feeding behaviour of four arboreal Darwin’s finches: adaptations to spatial and seasonal variability. Condor 106:95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ulfstrand, S. 1976. Feeding niches of some passerine birds in a South Swedish coniferous plantation in winter and summer. Ornis Scand. 7:21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vološčuk, I. 1986. The forest vegetation of the State Nature Reserve Šrámková. Ochrana prírody 7:237–251.Google Scholar
  74. Wagner, J.L. 1980. Seasonal change in guild structure: oak woodland insektivorous birds. Ecology 62:973–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wiens, J.A. 1989. The Ecology of Bird Communities. Vol. I. Foundations and Patterns. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Winemiller, K.O. and E.R. Pianka. 1990. Organization in natural assemblages of desert lizards and tropical fishes. Ecol. Monogr. 60:27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wilson, J.B. 1999. Guilds, functional types and ecological groups. Oikos 86:507–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilson, J.B. and Roxburgh. 1994. A demonstration of guild-based assembly rules for a plant community, and determination of intrinsic guilds. Oikos 69:267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wilson, J.B., R.B. Allen and W.G. Lee. 1995a. An assembly rule in the ground and herbaceous strata of a New Zealand rainforest. Funct. Ecol 9: 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wilson, J.B., M.T. Sykes and R.K. Peet. 1995b. Time and space in the community structure of a species-rich grassland. J. Veg. Sci. 6:729–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wilson, J.B., J.B. Steel, J.E. Newman and R.S.Tangney. 1995c. Are bryophyte communities different? J. Bryol. 18:689–705.Google Scholar
  82. Wilson, J.B. and H. Gitay. 1999. Alternative classifications in the intrinsic guild structure of a New Zealand tussock grassland. Oikos 86:566–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2007

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.Centre for Ecological StudiesVel’ké RovnéSlovakia
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyPalacký University TřOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations