Lecture 14 - Landand B

How Landscape Bird

dscape Ecology Birds

Patterns Affect ds

Historical Vie• Animals and their en

equilibrium (i.e., stab– carrying capacity, k– logistic population m

• The environment is h– gave rise to overly sim– theory and reality ofte

ew of Ecologynvironments are in ble or steady state)

modelhomogeneousmplistic theoriesen clashed

Landscap

• Legitimized the concenvironment is heteropatchy)

• Focuses on spatial coinfluence do the surrhave?

• What effect does doeunderlying process(e

e Ecology

ept that an animal’s ogeneous (i.e.,

ontext - what ounding patches

es scale have on the es)

Importance of Lan

• To the individual– survival rates– reproductive success– movement (e.g., with

• To the population– recruitment of new in– movement between lo– extinction probability

• Why?

ndscape Patterns

sin a territory)

ndividualsocal populations

y

Landscape Pa

• Movement– Movement between p

rate)– “Suitability” of patch

• Demographic parame– survival rate– fecundity

atterns Affect

patches (colonization

es (extinction rate)eters

0.950.9

High Permmeability

0.950.9

Low Permmeability

0.06

Issues o• Community patterns are

the scale (spatial and temthey are viewed

• Species select habitat at(hierarchy theory)– Coarse-scale selection - is– Fine-scale selection - is th

patch or appropriate micr

of Scaledependent on

mporal) at which

different scales

s there a forest?here a spruce/fir rohabitat?

Rock Creek

• Embedded in urban eyears

• First bird censuses inprofusion of forest bi

• By mid-1970’s– total number of breedi– long-distance migrant– several species locally

Park, D.C.

environment > 100

n 1940’s showed rds

ing birds down by 30%ts down by 90%y extinct

Species

Red-eyed VireoOvenbird

Wood ThrushBlack-and-white

WarblerNorthern Parula

WarblerEastern Wood

Peewee

Population DeCreek

% Change 1940’s to1980’s-86.0-91.5-76.1

-100.0

-100.0

-49.1

clines in Rock k Park

Similar • New Jerse• Maryland• West Virgi• Connectic• Illinois• Wisconsin

Patterney

niaut

n

What are the pot

• Fragmentation (i.e., parea?

• Avoidance of edges –• Unable to locate sma

But many unoccupiedspring migrants

• Tropical deforestatioinconsistent results

tential reasons?

patch size) – suitable

–why?all patches?d patches contained

on

Spatial P

Fragmentat

Gap Format

Patterns

tion

tion

Causes of Fr• Agriculture

– major initial disturbanforest

– no longer major caus• Forestry

– economics brought la– public outcry - aesthe

• Urbanization– population pressure,

increased wealth

ragmentation

nce to eastern deciduous

se in eastern US

arge clear cutsetically unacceptable

increased mobility,

Forest FragmenTownsh

From Wiens 1989after Curtis 1959

ntation in Cadiz hip, WI

Fragmentatio

• Reduction in patch s– if smaller than territo

“unsuitable”

on Results In

sizery size then becomes

Patch Siz(Area Se

No.

of I

ndiv

idua

ls

PatchSmall

0

Threshold

ze Effect nsitivity)

h SizeLarge

Forest Associated Ne

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 20 40% D

Abu

ndan

ce (t

rans

form

ed)

Miller, Regal, Niemi- Journal of Great

otropical Migrants

60 80 100Developed

OvenbirdRed-eyed VireoChestnut-sided WarblerAmerican RedstartBlack-throated Green WarblerVeery

t Lakes Research 33: 2007

A. Hooded Warbler- “forest interior

species”

B. Northern Cardinal

C. Indigo Bunting –- “edge associated

species”

Source of Fragme

Nest Predation– Dave Wilcove studied

urban, rural and undi– In the undisturbed sit

Mountains Nat’l Park)predated

– In the urban and ruranest were predated

Many similar results in

entation Problems

d nest predation rates in sturbed siteste (Great Smoky ) only 1 in 50 nests were

al sites up to 100% of the

n many areas

Preda

• On Nest– thought to be respon

decline of Neotropica– reduction of interior t

predators to forage fu– alteration of habitats

“generalist” predatorcrow, etc.)

ation

sible for population al migrantsto edge ratio allows urther into a patchhave led to increase in

rs (e.g., raccoon, skunk,

Predator • Aggressive Program

– Active killing of younpredator population scontrol gull populatio

– alternative: shake egg• Passive Programs

– predator exclosures; typically using fencin

– used for ducks, shore

Controlssg / adults to reduce

size; typically used to onsgs to kill embryos

cordons off nest ngebirds, terns, etc.

Nest Pr

• Most early studies in alandscapes– fewer studies in mostly

(Maine, New HampshirWisconsin, Ontario)

– recent studies have shpredation rates

– some show lower pred(Maine, Minnesota)

edation

agricultural or urban

y forested settings re, Minnesota,

hown mixed results of

dation rates in clearcuts

Nesting Success Fores

• Hanski, Fenske, Niemi113:578-585

• Nest predation accounnest failures

• Nest predation was higthan in clearcuts (42%stands (47%)

• Nest parasitism was lo

in Minnesota’s stsi. 1996. The Auk

nted for 89% of all

gher in forests (62%) %) and regenerating

ow (10%)

Minnesota’s N

• Fenske-Crawford andCondor 99:14-24

• 85 % predation (n = 5• 28 predation events

– fisher, Eastern chipm– red squirrel, deer mo– gray squirrel, striped

Nest Predators

d Niemi. 1997. The

540) of artificial nestscaptured on film

munk, red-backed voleuse, black bear skunk

Effects of forest edge ground-nes

• Manolis et al. (2000) – Wildlife So– Predation greater at edges– Retrospective analysis – 70%

• Manolis et al. (2002) – The Auk– Nest success increased with d

• Flaspohler et al. (2001) – Ecologic– Lower nest success w/in 300m

• Mattsson and Niemi (2006) – The – Lower nest survival as edge d

patch size decreased• Knutson, Hammer, Niemi, and Ne

- Parasitism rates not associated

and fragmentation on sting birds

ociety Bulletin

of studies w/ edge effects

distance from clearcut edges

cal Applicationsm of clearcut edges

Aukdensities increased and forest

ewton. 2004. The Condor d with edges, high predation rates

Source of Fragme• Nest Parasitism – good

– Brittingham and Templenote wide-spread parasheaded Cowbird

– 65% of nests near edge– Parasitism found up to

• Cowbirds require large

entation Problems d general resulte were among first to sitism by the Brown-

e had cowbird eggs300 meters from edge

e herbivores

Fragmentatio

• Reduction in patch s– if smaller than territo

“unsuitable”• Increased edge to int

– less “core” or interio

on Results In

sizery size then becomes

terior (core area) ratior area

Other probfragme

• Less area equals lowand higher extinction

• Habitat simplificationhabitat complexity –populations

• Lower plant diversitybird diversity

blems with ntation

wer populations n ratesn – reduced lower

y results in lower

Minneesota’s Change in Logging

What’s a• Minnesota’s 150 spec

are a vital part of the f• Direct benefits provid

– They eat insects that hmillions of dollars of eforest

– Bird watching contribuannually to local econ

at Stake?cies of forest birds forest ecosystem

ded by forest birdsharm trees, contributing economic benefits to our

utes $400 million omies

Economic

• Songbird predation, Evening Grosbeak, obudworm was worth mile in comparison wpesticides (TakekawJournal of Forestry 8

Examples

primarily by the on western spruce

$4,720/year/square with the costs to use wa and Garton. 1984. 82:426-428)

Ecological andConside

• Consider patch size– bigger is usually better– in mid-Atlantic region i

that 3,000 ha fragmentsspecies (Robbins et al.

• Consider patch shape– determines edge to inte– ratio largest for long na

for circular or square p

d Management erations

rt has been estimated s would retain all 1989)

erior ratioarrow patches, smallest patches

Ecological andConsidera

• Consider location of – birds in patches are n

with other local popuimportant to the regio

• Consider connectivit– does not have to be t

whether individuals cpatches for dispersal

d Management ations (2)patch

not isolated but interact ulations and thus are onal populationtytraditional corridors, but can move between l and to meet daily needs

Ecological andConsidera

• Consider landscape nstand prescriptions

• Consider alternative s– Even-aged manageme

structure of forests, re– Placement of cuts on t

d Management ations (3)

needs first, then

silvicultural practicesnt changes age

educes heterogeneitythe landscape

Conservation by Design

For the protection and restoration of habitat