Cargando…
Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems
Birds are a frequently chosen group for biodiversity monitoring as they are comparatively straightforward and inexpensive to sample and often perform well as ecological indicators. Two commonly used techniques for monitoring tropical forest bird communities are point counts and mist nets. General st...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5224979/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28072883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169786 |
_version_ | 1782493442005270528 |
---|---|
author | Martin, Thomas Edward Nightingale, Josh Baddams, Jack Monkhouse, Joseph Kaban, Aronika Sastranegara, Hafiyyan Mulyani, Yeni Blackburn, George Alan Simcox, Wilf |
author_facet | Martin, Thomas Edward Nightingale, Josh Baddams, Jack Monkhouse, Joseph Kaban, Aronika Sastranegara, Hafiyyan Mulyani, Yeni Blackburn, George Alan Simcox, Wilf |
author_sort | Martin, Thomas Edward |
collection | PubMed |
description | Birds are a frequently chosen group for biodiversity monitoring as they are comparatively straightforward and inexpensive to sample and often perform well as ecological indicators. Two commonly used techniques for monitoring tropical forest bird communities are point counts and mist nets. General strengths and weaknesses of these techniques have been well-defined; however little research has examined how their effectiveness is mediated by the ecology of bird communities and their habitats. We examine how the overall performance of these methodologies differs between two widely separated tropical forests–Cusuco National Park (CNP), a Honduran cloud forest, and the lowland forests of Buton Forest Reserves (BFR) located on Buton Island, Indonesia. Consistent survey protocols were employed at both sites, with 77 point count stations and 22 mist netting stations being surveyed in each location. We found the effectiveness of both methods varied considerably between ecosystems. Point counts performed better in BFR than in CNP, detecting a greater percentage of known community richness (60% versus 41%) and generating more accurate species richness estimates. Conversely, mist netting performed better in CNP than in BFR, detecting a much higher percentage of known community richness (31% versus 7%). Indeed, mist netting proved overall to be highly ineffective within BFR. Best Akaike's Information Criterion models indicate differences in the effectiveness of methodologies between study sites relate to bird community composition, which in turn relates to ecological and biogeographical influences unique to each forest ecosystem. Results therefore suggest that, while generalized strengths and weaknesses of both methodologies can be defined, their overall effectiveness is also influenced by local characteristics specific to individual study sites. While this study focusses on ornithological surveys, the concept of local factors influencing effectiveness of field methodologies may also hold true for techniques targeting a wide range of taxonomic groups; this requires further research. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5224979 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-52249792017-01-31 Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems Martin, Thomas Edward Nightingale, Josh Baddams, Jack Monkhouse, Joseph Kaban, Aronika Sastranegara, Hafiyyan Mulyani, Yeni Blackburn, George Alan Simcox, Wilf PLoS One Research Article Birds are a frequently chosen group for biodiversity monitoring as they are comparatively straightforward and inexpensive to sample and often perform well as ecological indicators. Two commonly used techniques for monitoring tropical forest bird communities are point counts and mist nets. General strengths and weaknesses of these techniques have been well-defined; however little research has examined how their effectiveness is mediated by the ecology of bird communities and their habitats. We examine how the overall performance of these methodologies differs between two widely separated tropical forests–Cusuco National Park (CNP), a Honduran cloud forest, and the lowland forests of Buton Forest Reserves (BFR) located on Buton Island, Indonesia. Consistent survey protocols were employed at both sites, with 77 point count stations and 22 mist netting stations being surveyed in each location. We found the effectiveness of both methods varied considerably between ecosystems. Point counts performed better in BFR than in CNP, detecting a greater percentage of known community richness (60% versus 41%) and generating more accurate species richness estimates. Conversely, mist netting performed better in CNP than in BFR, detecting a much higher percentage of known community richness (31% versus 7%). Indeed, mist netting proved overall to be highly ineffective within BFR. Best Akaike's Information Criterion models indicate differences in the effectiveness of methodologies between study sites relate to bird community composition, which in turn relates to ecological and biogeographical influences unique to each forest ecosystem. Results therefore suggest that, while generalized strengths and weaknesses of both methodologies can be defined, their overall effectiveness is also influenced by local characteristics specific to individual study sites. While this study focusses on ornithological surveys, the concept of local factors influencing effectiveness of field methodologies may also hold true for techniques targeting a wide range of taxonomic groups; this requires further research. Public Library of Science 2017-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5224979/ /pubmed/28072883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169786 Text en © 2017 Martin et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Martin, Thomas Edward Nightingale, Josh Baddams, Jack Monkhouse, Joseph Kaban, Aronika Sastranegara, Hafiyyan Mulyani, Yeni Blackburn, George Alan Simcox, Wilf Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems |
title | Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems |
title_full | Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems |
title_fullStr | Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems |
title_full_unstemmed | Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems |
title_short | Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems |
title_sort | variability in the effectiveness of two ornithological survey methods between tropical forest ecosystems |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5224979/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28072883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169786 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT martinthomasedward variabilityintheeffectivenessoftwoornithologicalsurveymethodsbetweentropicalforestecosystems AT nightingalejosh variabilityintheeffectivenessoftwoornithologicalsurveymethodsbetweentropicalforestecosystems AT baddamsjack variabilityintheeffectivenessoftwoornithologicalsurveymethodsbetweentropicalforestecosystems AT monkhousejoseph variabilityintheeffectivenessoftwoornithologicalsurveymethodsbetweentropicalforestecosystems AT kabanaronika variabilityintheeffectivenessoftwoornithologicalsurveymethodsbetweentropicalforestecosystems AT sastranegarahafiyyan variabilityintheeffectivenessoftwoornithologicalsurveymethodsbetweentropicalforestecosystems AT mulyaniyeni variabilityintheeffectivenessoftwoornithologicalsurveymethodsbetweentropicalforestecosystems AT blackburngeorgealan variabilityintheeffectivenessoftwoornithologicalsurveymethodsbetweentropicalforestecosystems AT simcoxwilf variabilityintheeffectivenessoftwoornithologicalsurveymethodsbetweentropicalforestecosystems |