Effects of small‐scale habitat disturbance on the ecology of breeding birds in a Vermont (USA) hardwood forest

Abstract

Lent, R A and Capen, D E 1995 Effects of small-scale habitat disturbance on the ecology of breeding birds in a Vermont (USA) hardwood forest -Ecography 18 97-108We studied territory placement and foraging behavior of breeding birds in relation to juxtaposition of forest vegetation and logged patches in southern Vermont, USA Different bird species used disturbed vegetation at differing spaual scales, depending on temtory size Four species Dendroica pensylvamca. Geothlypis trichas, Zonotrichia albicollii, Oporornis Philadelphia showed strong clumping of their smaJl (< 0 5 ha) territories m logged patches and were absent or rare in undisturbed forest Eleven species (e g Seiurus aurocapillus, Vireo ohvaceus) tended to avoid logged areas, especially the centers of cut patches An additional 17 species fell between these two extremes, using a mixture of dismrbed and undismrbed forest and showing no tendency to prefer one or the other These 17 species tended to have larger (1 to > 3 ha) territories than disturbance specialists We used ordination and quantitative matnx compansons to describe and test relationships among 14 of the most common bird species according to their similanties in temtory habitat structure, tree species composition, and foraging behavior These analyses did not reveal any strong associations between foraging behavior and use of cut versus uncut forest Habitat use by birds occupying this forest mosaic, with its strong local gradient of vegetation structure, was thus not associated with concurrent vanation in foraging behavior The sizes of cut patches of forest (0 7-1 6 ha) in our study area may be close to the minimum required to attract distinct breeding assemblages of non-forest birds to otherwise undisturbed forest ecosystems Bird species that use patches of early-successional vegetation embedded m a forested landscape may adopt a fugitive strategy as they seek nesting habitats in the spnng Careful use of forest management techniques may permit both forest-intenor and early-successional bird species to coexist in the landscape R A Lent and D E Capen, Univ of Vermont, School of Natural Resources, Burlington, VT 05405, USA {present address of RAL Harvard Umv ,

The Effects of Urbanization and Human Disturbance Upon Plant Community Structure and Bird Species Richness, Diversity, and Abundance in a Natural Forested Area (Forest Park) in Portland, Oregon

“…Concomitant with the greater numbers of edge birds, there were fewer forest birds and fewer forest bird species such as winter wrens and Swainson's thrushes. These results are consistent with those from other studies (Askins 1995;Askins and Philbrick 1987;Blair 1996;Blake et al 1994;Bollinger and Linder 1994;Donovan et al 1995a;Hoover et al 1995;Keller and Anderson 1992;Kroodsma 1984;Lent and Capen 1995;Mcintyre 1995;McLellan et al 1986;Stouffer and Bierregaard 1995;Temple and Wilcox Terborgh 1989;Wilcove 1985). However, unlike the previous studies where forested areas were adjacent to developed areas of differing land uses, my findings were conf'med to a forested area contiguous with a city.…”

“…Forest bird species, on the other hand, frequently have specialized habitat requirements and are more sensitive to habitat fragmentation (Lent and Capen 1995;Lynch and Whigham 1984;Whitcomb et al 1981;Wilcove 1985). I found that the richness and abundance of both edge birds and urban birds were greater in edge habitats.…”

“…Much of the interest, which began in the 1970's, grew out of concern for the seeming decline of certain neotropicai migratory bird species throughout the eastern and midwestern regions of the United States (Askins and Philbrick 1987;Galli et al 1976;Terborgh 1989;Whitcomb et al 1981;Wilcove 1985). This concern led to research into the reasons for the decline (Aldrich and Coffin 1980;Askins 1994;Askins 1995;Askins and Philbrick 1987;Beissinger and Osborne 1984;Blake et al 1994;Blake and Karr 1987;Bollinger and Linder 1994;Brown and Robinson 1996;Donovan et al 1995aDonovan et al , 1995bEdgar and Kershaw 1994;Friesen et al 1995;Graber and Graber 1983;Hagan et al 1996;Herkert 1995;Kroodsma 1984;Lent and Capen 1995;Levenson 1981;Lynch and Whigham 1984;Martinet al 1996;Mauer and Heywood 1993;Mcintyre 1995;Peterjohn and Sauer 1994;Rappole and McDonald 1994;Rich et aL 1994;Robinson and Holmes 1984;Robinson et aL 1995;Stouffer and Bierregaard 1995;Taper et aL 1995;Temple 1986;Temple and Wilcox 1986;Terborgh 1980;…”

“…and/or aerial gleaners (Aldrich and Coffm 1980;Beissinger and Osborne 1984;Blake 1983;Block et al 1986;Carey et al 1991;DeGraaf 1991;DeGraaf and Wentworth 1986;Lancaster and Rees 1979;Lent and Capen 1995;Manuwal1991;Manuwal and Huff 1987;Rosenberg et al 1987).…”

“…In part, this is believed to be because the matrix separating the "islands" is, unlike water, capable of supporting terrestrial life. Most researchers have found greater diversity in larger forests (Askins 1994(Askins , 1995Blake 1983;Blake and Karr 1987;DeGraaf 1991DeGraaf , 1995Donovan et al 1995b;Gavareski 1976;Hoover et aL 1995;Lent and Capen 1995;Lynch and \Vhigham 1984;Mcintyre 1995;McLellan et al 1986;Robinson et al 1995;Rosenberg and Raphael 1986;Temple 1986;Verner 1986;Wiens 1994;Wilcove 1985), although neither area (size) nor distance from the nearest large forest ("the mainland") have been shown adequately to predict the number of species a forest of a given size can support (Blake 1983;Blake and Karr 1987;Blondel 1985;Laster 1988, 1989;Gavareski 1979;Haila 1986;Levenson 1981;Lovejoy and Oren 1981;McLellan et al 1986;Rowntree 1986;Tramer and Subrweir 1975;Weaver and Kellman 1981;Whitcomb et al 1981;Zacharias and Brandes 1990). There does, however, seem to be a minimum critical size that a forest remnant must be in order to support a near normal avian biodiversity (Blake 1983;Dzwonko and Laster 1989;Gotfryd and Hansell 1986;Johnson et al 1981;…”