Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
1 July 2006 Species Richness of Breeding Birds at a Landscape Scale: Which Habitat Type is the Most Important?
Piotr Skórka, Rafał martyka, Joanna D. Wójcik
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare different habitat types according to species richness and estimate their value for total species richness at a landscape level. The study was carried out in the years 1995–2001 in the Tarnów region (1400 km2, S Poland). All bird species were classified according to broadly defined breeding habitat type. Four main, easily distinguishable habitat types were specified: forests (18% of the area), open areas (70%), wetlands (1%) and anthropogenic areas (11%). Birds were classified as habitat specialists if they bred in only one habitat type, or as habitat generalists, if they bred in two or more habitat types. Altogether, 151 species nested in the study area, and a total of 87 species were habitat specialists. There were statistically more endangered species (so called “losers”) among the habitat specialists than in the habitat generalists' group. Habitat specialists were also statistically less abundant than habitat generalists. The following numbers of species were recorded in the specific habitats: forests — 70, open areas — 75, wetlands — 61, anthropogenic areas — 46. Among these, the percentages of habitat specialists were the following: forests — 41.4%, open areas — 18.7%, wetlands — 52.5%, anthropogenic areas — 26.1%. It was found that the numbers of species inhabiting the various habitat types differed from the number to be expected on the basis of their area. This was especially apparent in the case of wetlands, which constituted only a small part of the total area, but as many as 32 species (21.1% of all) occurred only there. For conservation purposes, wetlands appear to play the most important role in shaping species richness in the landscape studied here. However, each habitat type contained some species that were not noted in other habitats.

REFERENCES

1.

S. Barcena , R. Real , J. Olivero , J. M. Vargas 2004. Latitudinal trends in breeding waterbird species richness in Europe and their environmental correlates. Biodiver. Conserv. 13: 1997–2014. Google Scholar

2.

M. Cieślak 1994. The vulnerability of breeding birds to forest fragmentation. Acta Ornithol. 29: 29–38. Google Scholar

3.

M. Cieślak , A. Dombrowski 1993. The effect of forest size on breeding bird communities. Acta Ornithol. 27: 97–111. Google Scholar

4.

P. Clergeau , J. Jokimaki , J. P. L. Savard 2005. Are urban bird communities influenced by the bird diversity of adjacent landscapes? J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 1122–1134. Google Scholar

5.

M. L. Cody 1985. Habitat Selection in Birds. Academic Press. New York. Google Scholar

6.

K. Dobrowolski 1995. Environmental-Economic Evaluation of Fish Ponds in Poland. IUCN, Warszawa. Google Scholar

7.

J. Elmberg , P Nummi , H. Pöysä , K. Sjöberg 1994. Relationship between species number, lake size and resource diversity in assemblages of breeding waterfowl. J. Biogeogr. 21: 75–84. Google Scholar

8.

K. J. Gaston , J. I. Spicer 1998. Biodiversity — an introduction. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Google Scholar

9.

Z. Głowaciński 1990. [Long-term changes of the polish land vertebrate fauna — decrease and increase process.] In: K. Klimek (ed.) [Protected areas and species conservation in southern Poland — functioning, evaluation, perspectives]. Studia Naturae 34. Suppl: 169–211. Google Scholar

10.

M. Huston 1994. Biological Diversity. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge. Google Scholar

11.

J. Jacobs 1974. Quantitative measurement of food selection. Oecologia 14: 413–417. Google Scholar

12.

E. D. A. Jayson , D. N. Mathew 2003. Vertical stratification and its relation to foliage in tropical forest birds in Western Ghats (India). Acta Ornithol. 38: 111–116. Google Scholar

13.

E. Jedicke 2000. Sadt- und Dorfökosysteme: Umweltfaktoren, Siedlungsbindung von Vogelarten, Avizönosen, Verstädterungsprozesse und Naturschtz — ein Uberblick. Vogelwelt 121: 67–86. Google Scholar

14.

J. R. Karr , Roth , R. R. 1971. Vegetation structure and avian diversity in several New Word areas. Am. Nat. 105: 423–435. Google Scholar

15.

J. Kondracki 1988. [The physical geography of Poland]. PWN Warszawa. Google Scholar

16.

Z. Kosiński 1999. Effect of lake morphometry, emergent vegetation and shore habitat on breeding bird communities. Acta Ornithol. 34: 27–35. Google Scholar

17.

Z. Kosiński , P. Tryjanowski 2000. Habitat selection of breeding seed-eating passerines on farmland in western Poland. Ekologia (Bratislava) 19: 307–316. Google Scholar

18.

J. Kubes , R. Fuhs 1998. Village as a bird refuge in cultural landscape (largely agricultural landscape, the Czech Republic). Ekologia (Bratislava) 17: 208–220. Google Scholar

19.

K. Kujawa 1997. Relationship between the structure of midfield woods and their breeding bird communities. Acta Ornithol. 32: 175–184. Google Scholar

20.

K. Kujawa 2004. Importance of young shelterbelts for breeding avifauna in agricultural landscape (Turew area, West Poland). Pol. J. Ecol. 52: 433–443. Google Scholar

21.

J. M. Levine , C. M. D'Antonio 1999. Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87: 15–26. Google Scholar

22.

Arthur R. H. Mac , Arthur J. W. Mac 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42: 594–598. Google Scholar

23.

Arthur R. H. Mac , H. Recher , M. Cody 1966. On the relation between habitat selection and species diversity. Am. Nat. 100: 319–327. Google Scholar

24.

J. Markowski 1997. [The characteristics of urban populations of animals]. In: A. Kurnatowska (ed.). [Ecology — its connections with other scientific disciplines]. PWN Warszawa — Łódź. Google Scholar

25.

R. Martyka , P. Skórka , J. D. Wójcik , K. Majka 2002 [Birds of the Tarnów Region]. Not. Ornitol. 43: 29–48. Google Scholar

26.

R. M. May 1975. Patterns of species abundance and diversity. In: M. L. Cody , J. M. Diamond (eds). Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 81–120. Google Scholar

27.

R. J. O'Connor , M. Shrubb 1986. Farming and birds. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge. Google Scholar

28.

T. Parish , K. H. Lakhani , T. H. Sparks 1994. Modelling the relationship between bird population variables and hedgerow, and other field margin attributes. I. Species richness of winter, summer and breeding birds. J. Appl. Ecol. 31: 764–775. Google Scholar

29.

T. Parish , K. H. Lakhani , T. H. Sparks 1995. Modelling the relationship between bird population variables and hedgerow, and other field margin attributes. II. Abundance of individual species and of groups of similar species. J. Appl. Ecol. 32: 362–371. Google Scholar

30.

B. S. Petersen 1998. The distribution of Danish farmland birds in relation to habitat characteristics. Ornis Fennica 75: 105–118. Google Scholar

31.

M. L. Rosenzweig 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. Google Scholar

32.

R. R. Roth 1976. Spatial heterogeneity and bird species diversity. Ecology 57: 773–782. Google Scholar

33.

L. Ryszkowski , G. Pearson , S. Bałazy (eds). 1996. Landscape diversity: a chance for the rural community to achieve a sustainable future. PAS, Poznań. Google Scholar

34.

D. Schluter , R. E. Ricklefs (eds). 1993. Species diversity in ecological communities. Chicago Univ. Press. ChicagoLondon. Google Scholar

35.

J. Schwarz , M. Flade 2000. Ergebrüsse dess DDA — Monitoringprogramms. Teil 1: Bestandsänderungen von Vogelaren der Siedlungen seit 1989. Vogelwelt 121: 87–106. Google Scholar

36.

A. Surmacki 1998. Breeding avifauna of small mid-field ponds in north-western Poland. Acta Ornithol. 33: 149–157. Google Scholar

37.

J. A. Thomas , M. G. Telfer , D. B. Roy , C. D. Preston , J. J. D. Greenwood , J. Asher , R. Fox , R. T. Clarke , J. H. Lawton 2004. Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303: 1879–1881. Google Scholar

38.

D. Tilman , D. Wedin , J. Knops 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379: 718–720. Google Scholar

39.

L. Tomiałojć 1990. [Birds of Poland — their distribution and abundance]. PWN Warszawa. Google Scholar

40.

P. Tryjanowski 1999. Effect of habitat diversity on breeding birds: comparison of farmland bird community in the region of Wielkopolska (W Poland) with relevant data from other European studies. Pol. J. Ecol. 47: 153–174. Google Scholar

41.

S. Tworek 2002. Different bird strategies and their response to habitat changes in a agricultural landscape. Ecol. Res. 17: 339–359. Google Scholar

42.

S. Tworek 2004. Factors affecting temporal dynamics of avian assemblages in a heterogeneous landscape. Acta Ornithol. 39: 155–163. Google Scholar

43.

R. B. Waide , M. R. Willig , C. F. Steiner , G. Mittelbach , L. Gough , S. I. Dodson , P. G. Juday , R. Parmenter 1999. The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30: 257–300. Google Scholar

44.

D. Whited , S. Galatowitsch , J. R. Tester , K. Schik , R. Lehtinen , J. Husveth 2000. The importance of local and regional factors in predicting effective conservation — planning strategies for wetland bird communities in agricultural and urban landscapes. Land. Urban Plan. 49: 49–65. Google Scholar

45.

K. Witt 2000. Situation der Vögel im städtischen Bereich: Beispiel Berlin. Vogelwelt 121: 107–128. Google Scholar

46.

K. Witt , A. Mitschke , M. Luniak 2005. A comparison of common bird populations in Hamburg, Berlin and Warsaw. Acta Ornithol. 40: 139–146. Google Scholar

47.

A. Zięba (ed). 1995. [Wildlife of the Tarnów Province]. WFOŚiGW, Asterias, Ekofundusz. Tarnów. Google Scholar
Piotr Skórka, Rafał martyka, and Joanna D. Wójcik "Species Richness of Breeding Birds at a Landscape Scale: Which Habitat Type is the Most Important?," Acta Ornithologica 41(1), 49-54, (1 July 2006). https://doi.org/10.3161/068.041.0111
Received: 1 January 2006; Accepted: 1 June 2006; Published: 1 July 2006
JOURNAL ARTICLE
6 PAGES


Share
SHARE
KEYWORDS
biodiversity
birds
habitat selection
landscape scale
regional studies
Wetlands
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top