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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martin, Thomas Edward, Nightingale, Josh, Baddams, Jack, Monkhouse, Joseph, Kaban, Aronika, Sastranegara, Hafiyyan, Mulyani, Yeni, Blackburn, George Alan, Simcox, Wilf
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