Habitat Selection of Breeding Birds in an East Tennessee Deciduous Forest

Anderson, Stanley H.; Shugart, Herman H.

doi:10.2307/1934418

Cited by 163 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results were consistent with the widely held view that vegetation structure and habitat configuration ("physiognomy";Whittaker 1975) are more important to the determination of habitat occupancy patterns of birds than the particular plant taxonomic composition (" floristics") of the vegetation (e.g., Hild6n 1965;Wiens 1969;James 1971;Anderson and Shugart 1974). Indeed, a variety of studies have shown strong associations between physiognomy and patterns of species distributions and community structure (e.g., MacArthur and MacArthur 1961;MacArthur et al t966;Willson 1974;James and Wamer 1982).…”

supporting

confidence: 87%

The role of habitat in avian community composition: physiognomy or floristics?

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 87%

The role of habitat in avian community composition: physiognomy or floristics?

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A number of quantitative and observable 3D forest structure characteristics are 273 needed to characterize habitat (canopy cover, tree and canopy height, vertical structure, 274 and tree volume) [MacArthur and MacArthur, 1961;Anderson and Shugart 1974; 275 Willson 1974;Morgan and Freedman 1986]. As described in section 1.3 these same 276 variables are also needed to estimate biomass.…”

Section: Information Needs For Habitat and Biodiversity 272mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The total amount of carbon contained in the forest's biomass is not known to even 232 one significant Figure. Estimates range from 385 to 650 PgC (Saugier et al 2001, FAO 233 2001, Goodale et al 2002 and tree volume) [MacArthur and MacArthur, 1961;Anderson and Shugart 1974;275 Willson 1974;Morgan and Freedman 1986]. As described in section 1.3 these same 276 variables are also needed to estimate biomass.…”

Section: Information Needs For the Global Carbon Budget 231mentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing 3D vegetation structure from space: Mission requirements

Hall¹,

Bergen²,

Blair³

et al. 2011

Remote Sensing of Environment

190

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

18Human and natural forces are rapidly modifying the global distribution and 19 structure of terrestrial ecosystems on which all of life depends, altering the global carbon 20 cycle, affecting our climate now and for the foreseeable future, causing steep reductions 21 in species diversity, and endangering Earth's sustainability. 22To understand changes and trends in terrestrial ecosystems and their functioning 23 as carbon sources and sinks, and to characterize the impact of their changes on climate, 24 habitat and biodiversity, new space assets are urgently needed to produce high spatial 25 resolution global maps of the three-dimensional (3D) structure of vegetation, its biomass 26 above ground, the carbon stored within and the implications for atmospheric green house 27 gas concentrations and climate. These needs were articulated in a 2007 National 28Research Council (NRC) report (NRC, 2007) recommending a new satellite mission, 29DESDynI, carrying an L-band Polarized Synthetic Aperture Radar (Pol-SAR) and a 30 multi-beam lidar (Light RAnging And Detection) operating at 1064 nm. The objectives 31 of this paper are to articulate the importance of these new, multi-year, 3D vegetation 32 structure and biomass measurements, to briefly review the feasibility of radar and lidar 33 remote sensing technology to meet these requirements, to define the data products and 34 measurement requirements, and to consider implications of mission durations. The paper 35 addresses these objectives by synthesizing research results and other input from a broad 36 community of terrestrial ecology, carbon cycle, and remote sensing scientists and 37 working groups. We conclude that: 38(1) current global biomass and 3-D vegetation structure information is unsuitable 39 for both science and management and policy. The only existing global datasets of 40 biomass are approximations based on combining land cover type and representative 41 carbon values, instead of measurements of actual biomass. Current measurement attempts 42 based on radar and multispectral data have low explanatory power outside low biomass 43areas. There is no current capability for repeatable disturbance and regrowth estimates. 44(2) The science and policy needs for information on vegetation 3D structure can 45 be successfully addressed by a mission capable of producing (i) a first global inventory of 46 forest biomass with a spatial resolution 1km or finer and unprecedented accuracy (ii) 47 annual global disturbance maps at a spatial resolution of 1 ha with subsequent biomass 48 accumulation rates at resolutions of 1km or finer, and (iii) transects of vertical and 49 horizontal forest structure with 30 m along-transect measurements globally at 25 m 50 spatial resolution, essential for habitat characterization. 51 We also show from the literature that lidar profile samples together with wall-to-52 wall L-band quad-pol-SAR imagery and ecosystem dynamics models can work together 53 to satisfy these vegetation 3D structure and biomass measurement requirements. ...

show abstract

“…Habitat structure and floristic composition may be used to discriminate among habitats and possible nest sites (Anderson & Shugart 1974;Bergin 1992;Bence et al 1999;Wagner et al 2000;Kershner et al 2001). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nest site preference of common dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) in two different habitat types of Central Italy

Panchetti

Sorace²,

Amori

et al. 2007

Italian Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nest site preference of common dormouse was studied in two different habitat types of central Italy: a mesophilous deciduous forest dominated by Fagus sylvatica, and a thermophilous deciduous oak wood with Quercus cerris and Q. pubescens. In each site, 50 nest boxes were fixed to trees and monitored monthly for two years (May 1998-April 2000. Moreover, in both study sites, 19 habitat variables were measured within a 3-m radius circular plots centred on each nest box. We hypothesised that specific habitat features may induce common dormice to choose a particular site for nesting. Therefore, we compared habitat variables, recorded at the neighbourhood of either occupied or unoccupied nest boxes, in order to identify the importance of factors in nest site preference. In both beech and oak woodlands, the choice of nest site was affected by understorey vegetation structure rather than species diversity. In particular, the common dormouse prefers sites with high understorey density probably for the presence of route-ways through branches and visual protection from predators.

show abstract

Habitat Selection of Breeding Birds in an East Tennessee Deciduous Forest

Cited by 163 publications

References 16 publications

The role of habitat in avian community composition: physiognomy or floristics?

The role of habitat in avian community composition: physiognomy or floristics?

Characterizing 3D vegetation structure from space: Mission requirements

Nest site preference of common dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) in two different habitat types of Central Italy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About