首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems
【2h】

Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems

机译:热带森林生态系统之间两种鸟类学调查方法有效性的差异

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:鸟类是用于生物多样性监测的经常选择的群体,因为它们相对简单,采样便宜,并且通常作为生态指标表现良好。监视热带森林鸟类群落的两种常用技术是点数和薄雾网。这些技术的一般优点和缺点已经明确定义。然而,很少有研究检查鸟类群落及其栖息地的生态如何调节其有效性。我们研究了这两种方法的整体性能在两个广泛分离的热带森林之间的差异:Cusuco国家公园(CNP),洪都拉斯云雾森林和印度尼西亚Buton岛Buton森林保护区(BFR)的低地森林。在两个地点均采用了一致的调查规程,在每个地点都对77个点计数站和22个薄雾网站进行了调查。我们发现两种方法的有效性在生态系统之间差异很大。 BFR中的点计数比CNP中的点计数更好,可以检测到更大的已知社区丰富度百分比(60%比41%),并且可以得出更准确的物种丰富度估计值。相反,CNP的雾网效果优于BFR,检测到的已知社区丰富度百分比更高(分别为31%和7%)。的确,在BFR中,雾网被证明总体上是无效的。最佳赤池的信息准则模型表明,研究地点之间方法论有效性的差异与鸟类群落组成有关,而鸟类群落组成又与每种森林生态系统独特的生态和生物地理影响有关。因此,结果表明,尽管可以定义这两种方法的一般优势和劣势,但它们的总体有效性还受到各个研究地点特有的局部特征的影响。虽然本研究侧重于鸟类学调查,但影响田间方法论有效性的局部因素概念也可能适用于针对广泛分类学群体的技术。这需要进一步的研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号