, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 492–507

Area and habitat relationships of birds in Great Lakes coastal wet meadows

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


Although relationships of birds to patch area and habitat characteristics have been dominant themes in avian ecology over the past few decades, relatively little is known about these relationships in wetland-dominated landscapes of the Great Lakes coastline. During 1997 and 1998, we surveyed birds and measured habitat characteristics along transects in wet meadows associated with the northern Lake Huron shoreline (NLHS) in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Using a suite of multivariate techniques, we related abundance and presence/absence of individual species to wet meadow area and habitat characteristics. Nine species were positively associated with increasing wet meadow area, which underscores the importance of large wetlands to avian conservation in the region. Bird variables also were related to habitat characteristies. Higher values of bird variables were generally associated with a suite of characteristics: more robust and dense grass/sedge vegetation, structural diversity in the horizontal and vertical planes, and increased frequency of willow shrubs. Individual species that require particular aspects of these characteristics for nesting or foraging were associated with principal components containing those aspects. In the NLHS, large wet meadows that possess these characteristics would support the greatest diversity and benefit the majority of species. However, conservation efforts that focus only on these traits will not be sufficient for all species because habitat requirements for some species are very specific (e. g., open water for mallard), and for others, habitat preferences may change from year to year in response to lake-level changes. While our results provide important insights, continued research is needed to further the successful conservation and management of birds in Great Lakes coastal wetlands.

Key Words

area birds Great lakes habitat perimeter lake-level changes principal component analysis wet meadows 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Andren, H. 1992. Corvid density and nest predation in relation to forest fragmentation: a landscape perspective. Ecology 73:794–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andren, H. 1995. Effects of landscape composition on predation rates at habitat edges. p. 225–255. In L. Hansson, L. Farhig, and G. Merriam (eds.) Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Blake, J. G. and J. R. Karr 1987. Breeding birds of isolated woodlots: area and habitat relationships. Ecology 68: 1724–1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer, R., G. A. McPeek, and R. J. Adams. 1991. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, M and J. J. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 50: 392–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, M. and J. J. Dinsmore. 1991. Area-dependent changes in bird densities in Iowa marshes. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Sciences 98: 124–126.Google Scholar
  7. Cody, M. L. 1985. Habitat Selection in Birds. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Draper, N. R. and H. Smith. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Estades, C. F. and S. A. Temple. 1999. Deciduous-forest bird communities in a fragmented landscape dominated by exotic pine plantations. Ecological Applications 9: 573–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forman, R. T. T. and Alexander, L. E. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freemark, K. E., J. B. Dunning, S. J. Hejl, and J. R. Probst. 1995. A landscape ecology perspective for research, conservation, and management. p. 381–427. In T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch (eds.) Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Friesen, L. E., P. F. Eagles, and R. J. MacKay. 1995. Effects of residential development on forest-dwelling Neotropical migrant songbirds. Conservation Biology 9: 1408–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galli, A. E., C. F. Leck, and R. T. T. Forman. 1976. Avian distribution patterns in forest islands of different sizes in central New Jersey. Auk 93: 356–364.Google Scholar
  14. Gibbs, J. P. and S. M. Melvin. 1993. Call-response surveys for monitoring breeding waterbirds. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Götmark, F. 1992. The effects of investigator disturbance on nester birds. Current Ornithology 9: 63–104.Google Scholar
  16. Gutzwiller, K. J. and S. H. Anderson. 1987. Multi-scale associations between cavity-nester birds and features of Wyoming streamside woodlands. Condor 89: 534–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gutzwiller, K. J. and W. C. Barrow, Jr. 2001. Bird-landscape relations in the Chihauhaun Desert: coping with uncertainties about predictive models. Ecological Applications 11: 1517–1532.Google Scholar
  18. Gutzwiller, K. J., R. T. Wiedenmann, K. L. Clements, and S. H. Anderson. 1994. Effects of human intrusion on song occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk 103: 593–602.Google Scholar
  19. Helzer, C. J. and D. E. Jelinski. 1999. The relative importance of patch area and perimeter-area ratio to grassland breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9: 1448–1458.Google Scholar
  20. Herkert, J. R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4: 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holm, S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandanavian Journal of Statistics 6: 65–70.Google Scholar
  22. Horak, G. J. 1970. A comparative study of the foods of the Sora and Virginia Rail. Wilson Bulletin 82:206–213.Google Scholar
  23. Hosmer, D. W. and S. Lemeshow. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Kantrud, H. A., and K. F. Higgins. 1992. Nest and nest site characteristics of some ground-nester, non-passerine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie Naturalist 24: 67–84.Google Scholar
  25. Kowalski, K. P. and D. A. Wilcox. 1999. Use of historical and geospatial data to guide the restoration of a Lake Erie coastal marsh. Wetlands 19:858–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacArthur, R. H. and J. MacArthur. 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mine, L. D. and D. A. Albert. 1998. Great Lakes coastal wetlands: abiotic and floristic characterization. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, R. G., Jr. 1981. Simultaneous Statistical Inference, second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Myers, R. H. 1989. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications. PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Naugle, D. E., K. F. Higgins, S. M. Nusser, and W. C. Johnson. 1999. Scale-dependent habitat use in three species of prairie wetland birds. Landscape Ecology 14:267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Naugle, D. E., R. R. Johnson, M. E. Estey, and K. F. Higgins. 2000. A landscape approach to conserving wetland bird habitat in the prairie pothole region of eastern South Dakota. Wetlands 20:588–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ott, L. 1988. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, third edition. PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston, MA. USA.Google Scholar
  33. Petit, L. J. and D. R. Petit. 1999. Factors governing habitat selection by Prothonotary Warblers: field tests of Fretwell-Lucas models. Ecological Monographs 66:367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prince, H. H. and C. S. Flegel. 1995. Breeding avifauna of Lake Huron. p. 247–272. In M. Munawar, T. Edsall, and J. Leach (eds.) The Lake Huron Ecosystem: Ecology, Fisheries and Management. SPB Academic Publishing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  35. Prince, H. H., P. I. Padding, and R. W. Knapton. 1992. Waterfowl use of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 18:673–699.Google Scholar
  36. Prosser, D. J. and R. P. Brooks. 1998. A verified habitat suitability index for the Louisiana Waterthrush. Journal of Field Ornithology 69:288–298.Google Scholar
  37. Ralph, C. J., J. R. Sauer, and S. Droege (tech. eds.). 1995. Monitoring bird populations by point counts. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, USA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-149Google Scholar
  38. Rencher, A. C. 1992. Interpretation of canonical discriminant functions, canonical variates, and principal components. The American Statistician 46:217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rice, W. R. 1989. Analyzing table of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Riffell, S. K., K. J. Gutzwiller, and S. H. Anderson. 1996. Does repeated human intrusion cause cumulative declines in avian richness and abundance? Ecological Applications 6: 492–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Riffell, S. K. 2000. Effects of landscape context and coastline complexity on birds in Great Lakes coastal wet meadows. Ph. D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Riffell, S. K., B. E. Keas, and T. M. Burton. Birds in Great Lakes coastal wet meadows: is landscape context important? Landscape Ecology, in press.Google Scholar
  43. Robbins, C. S. 1981. Bird activity levels related to weather. Studies in Avian Biology 6:301–310.Google Scholar
  44. Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic States. Wildlife Monographs 103.Google Scholar
  45. Rotenberry, J. T. and J. A. Wiens. 1980. Habitat structure, patchiness, and avian communities in North American steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis. Ecology 61:1228–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. SAS Institute, Inc. 1990. SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 6, 4th edition, volume 2. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Schmiegelow, F. K., C. S. Machtans, and S. j. Hannon. 1997. Are boreal birds resilient to forest fragmentation? An experimental study of short-term community responses. Ecology 78: 1914–1932.Google Scholar
  48. Swift, B. L., J. S. Larson, and R. M. DeGraaf. 1984. Relationship of breeding bird density and diversity to habitat variables in forested wetlands. Wilson Bulletin 96:48–59.Google Scholar
  49. Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  50. Tewksbury, J. J., S. J. Hejl, and T. E. Martin. 1998. Breeding productivity does not decline with increasing fragmentation in a western landscape. Ecology 79: 2890–2903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thompson, F. R. and M. J. Schwalbach. 1995. Analysis of sample size, counting time, and plot size from an avian point count survey on Hoosier National Forest, Indiana p. 45–48. In C. J. Ralph, J. R. Sauer, and S. Droege (Technical eds.) Monitoring bird populations by point counts. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, USA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-149.Google Scholar
  52. Trexler, J. C. and J. Travis. 1993. Nontraditional regression analysis. Ecology 74:1629–1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tyser, R. W. 1983. Species-area relations of cattail marsh avifauna. Passenger Pigeon 45:125–128.Google Scholar
  54. Verner, J. 1985. Assessment of counting techniques. p. 247–302. In R. F. Johnston (ed.) Current Ornithology, Volume 2. Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  55. Vickery, P. D., M. L. Hunter, and S. M. Melvin. 1994. Effects of habitat area on the distribution of grassland birds in Maine. Conservation Biology 8: 1087–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vickery, P. D., P. L. Tubaro, J. M. Cardoso da Silva, B. G. Peter-john, J. R. Herkert, and R. B. Cavalcanti. 1999. Conservation of grassland birds in the western hemishpere. Studies in Avian Biology 19: 2–26.Google Scholar
  57. Villard, M. A., M. K. Trzcinski, and G. Merriam. 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conservation Biology 13:774–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiens, J. A. 1981. Single-sample surveys of communities: are the revealed patterns real? American Naturalist 117:90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weller, M. W. 1999. Wetland Birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  60. Westfall, P. H., R. D. Tobias, R. D. Wolfinger, and Y. Hochberg. 1999. Multiple comparisons and multiple tests using the SAS System. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  61. Whitt, M. B., H. H. Prince, and R. R. Cox. 1999. Avian use of purple loosestrife dominated habitat relative to other vegetation types in a Lake Huron wetland complex. Wilson Bulletin 111:104–114.Google Scholar
  62. Wilcox, D. A. 1993. Effects of water level regulation on wetlands of the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Wetlands 4: 1–2 11.Google Scholar
  63. Wilcox, D. A. 1995. The role of wetlands as nearshore habitat in Lake Huron. p. 223–245. In M. Munawar, T. Edsall, and J. Leach (eds.) The Lake Huron Ecosystem: Ecology, Fisheries and Management. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  64. Willson, M. F. 1974. Avian community organization and habitat structure. Ecology 55: 1017–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Winter, M. and J. Faaborg. 1999. Patterns of area sensitivity in grassland birds. Conservation Biology 13: 1424–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2001

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations