Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Matt Betts, Tana Ellis Forest Ecosystems and Society, OSU Collaborators: Joan Hagar, Brenda McComb, Kevin McGarigal, Jim R...
 
Area decrease = ~40% Mean patch size decrease = ~35% Kennedy and Spies 2005 Biol. Cons. (1939)
Historical and future ES <ul><li>Paleo- &dendroecological studies + simulation modelging </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Very open’ + ...
 
 
<ul><li>“ Structurally and compositionally diverse early seral forest habitats are now the scarcest habitat in the region”...
Orange-crowned warbler Rufous hummingbird
<ul><li>“ Structurally and compositionally diverse early seral forest habitats are now the scarcest habitat in the region”...
Stand Structure ~
~
<ul><li>Which songbird species are associated with early seral broadleaf forest?  </li></ul><ul><li>Is the occurrence of t...
Habitat variable ‘x’(Stand or landscape scale) Betts and Villard 2009 – Cons. Targets. Betts et al. 2007 – Cons. Biol. Pop...
 
<ul><li>Authors of 14 studies contacted </li></ul><ul><li>Klamath Bird Observatory (southern OR) </li></ul><ul><li>McGarig...
4375 sample points 127,164 bird detections  110 species
Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) method for predictive vegetation mapping Regional forest survey + Remote sensing data + Im...
Coastal Oregon Oregon Attribute table (joined to ArcGIS grid) Each pixel, or ArcGIS grid cell
 
<ul><li>% Broadleaf </li></ul><ul><li>% Early seral broadleaf (<10 cm dbh) </li></ul><ul><li>Spatial extents: 150, 500, 20...
2 km 0.5 km
p  = exp (β0  +  β1 x  + β2( x –  ψ)+)  /  1 + exp   (β0  +  β1 x  + β2( x –  ψ)+)  Segmented logistic regression: Muggeo ...
 
<ul><li>11/ 27 models showed threshold response </li></ul>Pacific-slope flycatcher Ranged broadly from 1.35 – 24.5%cc Bett...
<ul><li>Positive response to early-seral broadleaf by 8/12 species </li></ul>Coast Range Klamath LARGE REGIONAL VARIATION ...
GNN Species distribution performance:  Mean AUC = 0.83 ± 0.002 s.e.  Best spatial scale = 2000 m
 
Betts et al. Ecol. Apps.  In Press
<ul><li>Positive influence of early and late seral broadleaf forest on many species </li></ul><ul><li>Population consequen...
Stand Structure ~
Tana Ellis and Matt Betts Oregon State University Forest Ecosystems  & Society
<ul><li>Does   amount of hardwood cover  within a stand  influence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>occurrence of songbirds? </li></u...
<ul><li>28 Douglas-fir plantations of the  </li></ul><ul><li>central Oregon Coast Range </li></ul><ul><li>Aged 5 to 9 year...
 
<ul><li>6,013 total net captures </li></ul><ul><li>Banded 4,639  </li></ul><ul><li>Recaptured 837 </li></ul><ul><li>53 spe...
<ul><li>White-crowned Sparrow  n= 375 </li></ul><ul><li>Swainson’s Thrush n= 375 </li></ul><ul><li>Orange-crowned Warbler ...
<ul><li>Need to take into account number of individuals (using rarefaction) </li></ul>
 
Full model  R 2  = 0.45 Foliage gleaners= 12.8%  (SE=3.5)  Model Wi AIC Δ  AIC THRESHOLD SE Segmented 0.98 2.19 0.00 6.456...
Adult orange-crowned warbler HY (juvenile) orange-crowned warbler
β SE t P (Intercept) -2.09 0.06 -35.44 0.000 Log(Hardwood) 0.08 0.03 2.84 0.009 β SE t P (Intercept) -2.017 0.077 -26.143 ...
Migrant Bird Demography Nest success Juvenile survival Migratory survival Adult survival Overwinter survival Faaborg et al...
<ul><li>Does nest success = ‘habitat quality’? </li></ul><ul><li>Do conditions at the nest influence subsequent juvenile s...
 
 
 
SWTH nest
 
SWTH nest
Fledgling SWTH with transmitter
 
What happened to fledgling #150.781?
<ul><li>22 juveniles tagged, 36% survived </li></ul><ul><li>68% of mortality occurred within first 8 days </li></ul><ul><l...
Summary <ul><li>Bird distributions at stand and landscape scales are influenced by abundance of early seral forest </li></...
<ul><li>Manipulative study (funded by USDA) </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Top-down’ effects of birds on insect control </li></ul><ul...
THANKS!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thresholds In Songbirds In Relation To Early Seral Forest At Stand And Landscape Scales

439

Published on

Thresholds In Songbirds In Relation To Early Seral Forest At Stand And Landscape Scales

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
439
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Early seral (Whimbery et al.) included high AND moderate severity disturbance
  • Previous proposal tests effects of intensive forest management at stand level. However, it is well known that many species respond to forest structure at larger (landscape) scales. Scales larger than the home range.
  • Hardwood. 60% prediction success at pixel scale. 96% within one class.
  • Used an exploratory approach where we looked
  • Previous proposal tests effects of intensive forest management at stand level. However, it is well known that many species respond to forest structure at larger (landscape) scales. Scales larger than the home range.
  • Transcript of "Thresholds In Songbirds In Relation To Early Seral Forest At Stand And Landscape Scales"

    1. 1. Matt Betts, Tana Ellis Forest Ecosystems and Society, OSU Collaborators: Joan Hagar, Brenda McComb, Kevin McGarigal, Jim Rivers Thresholds in songbirds in relation to early seral forest at stand and landscape scales
    2. 3. Area decrease = ~40% Mean patch size decrease = ~35% Kennedy and Spies 2005 Biol. Cons. (1939)
    3. 4. Historical and future ES <ul><li>Paleo- &dendroecological studies + simulation modelging </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Very open’ + ‘Patchy open’ = ~6% of historical landscape (Nokala & Spies 2005, Ecol. Apps .) </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Early seral’ (<30 years) = 30% ~historical (Wimberly et al. 2000 Cons. Biol .) </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Diverse early succession’ projected decline by 100% from HRV (Spies et al. 2007 Ecol. Apps.) </li></ul>
    4. 7. <ul><li>“ Structurally and compositionally diverse early seral forest habitats are now the scarcest habitat in the region” (Thomas et al. 2006 – Cons. Biol.) </li></ul>
    5. 8. Orange-crowned warbler Rufous hummingbird
    6. 9. <ul><li>“ Structurally and compositionally diverse early seral forest habitats are now the scarcest habitat in the region” (Thomas et al. 2006 – Cons. Biol.) </li></ul>
    7. 10. Stand Structure ~
    8. 11. ~
    9. 12. <ul><li>Which songbird species are associated with early seral broadleaf forest? </li></ul><ul><li>Is the occurrence of these bird species influenced by landscape composition? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there threshold levels of broadleaf in stands/landscapes? </li></ul><ul><li>Is habitat change ‘driving’ pop. declines? </li></ul>
    10. 13. Habitat variable ‘x’(Stand or landscape scale) Betts and Villard 2009 – Cons. Targets. Betts et al. 2007 – Cons. Biol. Population size/ occurrence/ density
    11. 15. <ul><li>Authors of 14 studies contacted </li></ul><ul><li>Klamath Bird Observatory (southern OR) </li></ul><ul><li>McGarigal & McComb (Coast range) </li></ul><ul><li>Hagar et al. (Coast range) </li></ul><ul><li>Fontaine (Biscuit fire) </li></ul>Total N (after removing sites due to missing data) = 4375
    12. 16. 4375 sample points 127,164 bird detections 110 species
    13. 17. Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) method for predictive vegetation mapping Regional forest survey + Remote sensing data + Imputation = spatial data
    14. 18. Coastal Oregon Oregon Attribute table (joined to ArcGIS grid) Each pixel, or ArcGIS grid cell
    15. 20. <ul><li>% Broadleaf </li></ul><ul><li>% Early seral broadleaf (<10 cm dbh) </li></ul><ul><li>Spatial extents: 150, 500, 2000 m </li></ul>
    16. 21. 2 km 0.5 km
    17. 22. p = exp (β0 + β1 x + β2( x – ψ)+) / 1 + exp (β0 + β1 x + β2( x – ψ)+) Segmented logistic regression: Muggeo (2003) Statistics in Medicine Threshold Detection
    18. 24. <ul><li>11/ 27 models showed threshold response </li></ul>Pacific-slope flycatcher Ranged broadly from 1.35 – 24.5%cc Betts et al. Ecol. Apps. In Press
    19. 25. <ul><li>Positive response to early-seral broadleaf by 8/12 species </li></ul>Coast Range Klamath LARGE REGIONAL VARIATION IN THRESHOLDS
    20. 26. GNN Species distribution performance: Mean AUC = 0.83 ± 0.002 s.e. Best spatial scale = 2000 m
    21. 28. Betts et al. Ecol. Apps. In Press
    22. 29. <ul><li>Positive influence of early and late seral broadleaf forest on many species </li></ul><ul><li>Population consequences may have already occurred </li></ul><ul><li>High variation in thresholds among species and regions </li></ul><ul><li>More research needed at stand and landscape scales (manipulations) </li></ul>
    23. 30. Stand Structure ~
    24. 31. Tana Ellis and Matt Betts Oregon State University Forest Ecosystems & Society
    25. 32. <ul><li>Does amount of hardwood cover within a stand influence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>occurrence of songbirds? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>productivity of songbirds? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Are there threshold levels of hardwood within a stand? </li></ul>
    26. 33. <ul><li>28 Douglas-fir plantations of the </li></ul><ul><li>central Oregon Coast Range </li></ul><ul><li>Aged 5 to 9 years old </li></ul><ul><li>Hardwood cover </li></ul><ul><li>gradient 0-35% </li></ul>
    27. 35. <ul><li>6,013 total net captures </li></ul><ul><li>Banded 4,639 </li></ul><ul><li>Recaptured 837 </li></ul><ul><li>53 species </li></ul>
    28. 36. <ul><li>White-crowned Sparrow n= 375 </li></ul><ul><li>Swainson’s Thrush n= 375 </li></ul><ul><li>Orange-crowned Warbler n= 370 </li></ul><ul><li>MacGillivray’s Warbler n= 362 </li></ul><ul><li>Willow Flycatcher n= 268 </li></ul>
    29. 37. <ul><li>Need to take into account number of individuals (using rarefaction) </li></ul>
    30. 39. Full model R 2 = 0.45 Foliage gleaners= 12.8% (SE=3.5) Model Wi AIC Δ AIC THRESHOLD SE Segmented 0.98 2.19 0.00 6.456 1.709 Linear 0.02 10.18 8.00 - - Hardwood threshold at 6.7 % (SE=1.6)
    31. 40. Adult orange-crowned warbler HY (juvenile) orange-crowned warbler
    32. 41. β SE t P (Intercept) -2.09 0.06 -35.44 0.000 Log(Hardwood) 0.08 0.03 2.84 0.009 β SE t P (Intercept) -2.017 0.077 -26.143 0.000 logHWD 0.058 0.037 1.586 0.125 AGE-HY -0.139 0.097 -1.429 0.165 logHWD:AGEHY 0.043 0.046 0.926 0.363
    33. 42. Migrant Bird Demography Nest success Juvenile survival Migratory survival Adult survival Overwinter survival Faaborg et al 2010 Ecol. Monogr.
    34. 43. <ul><li>Does nest success = ‘habitat quality’? </li></ul><ul><li>Do conditions at the nest influence subsequent juvenile survival? </li></ul>Nest success Juvenile survival
    35. 47. SWTH nest
    36. 49. SWTH nest
    37. 50. Fledgling SWTH with transmitter
    38. 52. What happened to fledgling #150.781?
    39. 53. <ul><li>22 juveniles tagged, 36% survived </li></ul><ul><li>68% of mortality occurred within first 8 days </li></ul><ul><li>Best predictors: </li></ul><ul><li>1. Hardwood during post-fledging period (HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.76-1.00) </li></ul><ul><li>2. Corticosterone in the nest (HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.71-1.04]) </li></ul>
    40. 54. Summary <ul><li>Bird distributions at stand and landscape scales are influenced by abundance of early seral forest </li></ul><ul><li>Demographic effects are apparent </li></ul><ul><li>This might be partly due to post-fledging survival on the breeding grounds </li></ul>
    41. 55. <ul><li>Manipulative study (funded by USDA) </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Top-down’ effects of birds on insect control </li></ul><ul><li>More extensive tests of thresholds </li></ul>
    42. 56. THANKS!
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×