Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14578/jkfs.2019.108.4.663

Comparison of Population Monitoring Methods for Breeding Forest Birds in Korean Temperate Mixed Forests  

Nam, Hyun-Young (School of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University)
Choi, Chang-Yong (Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University)
Park, Jin-Young (National Migratory Bird Research Center, National Institute of Biological Resources)
Hur, Wee-Haeng (Division of Animal Resources, National Institute of Biological Resources)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science / v.108, no.4, 2019 , pp. 663-674 More about this Journal
Abstract
Birds are effective ecological indicators but there is no national protocol in place to monitor population dynamics of forest birds in Korea. To support the establishment of future monitoring protocols, we compared the results of two generally used monitoring methods for forest bird surveys in two temperate mixed forests in central Korea. There was no statistical difference in the number of species and individuals detected per unit survey effort when comparing line transects and point counts. The number of species and individuals were higher in a five-minute count than in a three-minute point count, but the total accumulated number of expected observed species showed no difference between the two count durations. The number of observed species and individuals increased in both methods as plot radius or transect width increased, suggesting that multi-layer or multi-band surveys may be useful for quantitative and qualitative objectives. The decreasing number of observed species and individuals after sunrise suggested that bird monitoring should be conducted earlier in the morning, within four hours after sunrise. To detect 70% of the total number of species, 7.0 to 7.6 survey hours, equivalent to 42 three-minute counts (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26 to 61) or 33 five-minute counts (95% CI: 19 to 53) were needed for unlimited radius point counts. On the other hand, 4.8 survey hours, equivalent to 26 line transect counts (95% CI: 15 to 45) using 200-m transects with unlimited width, were required to achieve the same level of species detection. Therefore, the line transect method may be more effective than the point count method, at least in terms of local species richness assessment. For national forest bird monitoring, our data indicated that one or both survey methods can be selected as a basic protocol, based on the goals and scales of monitoring, forest types, and the conditions of the target areas.
Keywords
line transect; point count; survey effort; temperate forest; forest bird;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Robbins, C.S. 1981a. Bird activity levels related to weather. Studies in Avian Biology 6: 301-310.
2 Robbins, C.S. 1981b. Effect of time of day on bird activity. Studies in Avian Biology 6: 275-286.
3 Rosenstock, S.S., Anderson, D.R., Giesen, K.M., Leukering, T. and Carter, M.F. 2002. Landbird counting techniques: current practices and an alternative. Auk 119(1): 46-53.   DOI
4 SAS Institute Inc. 2011. SAS/STAT(R) 9.3 user's guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA.
5 Stephen, P.A. et al. 2016. Consistent response of bird populations to climate change on two continents. Science 352(6281): 84-87.   DOI
6 Sung, Y.-H., Tse, I.W.-L. and Yu, Y.-T. 2018. Population trends of the Black-faced Spoonbill Platalea minor: analysis of data from international synchronised censuses. Bird Conservation International 28(1): 157-167.   DOI
7 Sutherland, W.J. 2006. Ecological census techniques. 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press. New York, USA.
8 Thompson, W.L. 2002. Towards reliable bird surveys: accounting for individuals present but not detected. Auk 119(1): 18-25.   DOI
9 US Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. Instructions for conducting the North American Breeding Bird Survey. https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/participate/index.html [cited 27 Mar 2019].
10 Richards, D.G. 1981. Environmental acoustics and censuses of singing birds. Studies in Avian Biology 6: 297-300.
11 Vorisek, P., Klvanova, A., Wotton, S. and Gregory, R.D. 2008. A best practice guide for wild bird monitoring schemes. CSO/RSPB. Trebon, Czech Republic.
12 Andren, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355-366.   DOI
13 Bart, J. and Herrick, J. 1984. Diurnal timing of bird surveys. Auk 101: 384-387.   DOI
14 Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. and Mustoe, S.H. 2000a. Bird census techniques. Academic Press. London, UK. pp. 302.
15 Canterbury, G.E., Martin, T.E., Petit, D.R., Petit, L.J. and Bradford, D.F. 2000. Bird communities and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. Conservation Biology 14(2): 544-558.   DOI
16 Bibby, C., Jones, M. and Marsden, S. 2000b. Expedition field techniques - bird survey. Bird Life International. Cambridge, UK. pp. 137.
17 British Trust for Ornithology (BTO). 2019. BTO/JNCC/RSPB breeding bird survey instructions. https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/bbs/taking-part/download-forms-instructions. British Trust for Ornithology [cited 29 May 2019].
18 Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Laake, J.L., Borchers, D.L. and Thomas, L. 2001. Introduction to distance sampling. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK. pp. 448.
19 Choi, C.-Y., Lee, E.-J., Nam, H.-Y. and Lee, W.-S. 2007. Effects of postfire logging on bird populations and communities in burned forests. Journal of Korean Forest Society 96(1): 115-123.
20 Choi, C.-Y., Lee, E.-J., Nam, H.-Y., Lee, W.-S. and Lim, J.-H. 2014. Temporal changes in the breeding bird community caused by post-fire treatments after the Samcheok forest fire in Korea. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 10(1): 203-214.   DOI
21 Clark, R.G. 2016. Statistical efficiency in distance sampling. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0149298.   DOI
22 Cody, M.L. 1981. Habitat selection in birds: The roles of vegetation structure, competitors, and productivity. BioScience 31(2): 107-113.   DOI
23 Jarvinen, O., Vaisanen, R.A. and Haila, Y. 1977. Bird census results in different years, stages of the breeding season and times of the day. Ornis Fennica 54: 108-118.
24 Colwell, R.K. 2018. EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9. User's guide and application. http://purl.oclc.org/estimates.
25 Colwell, R.K., Chao, A., Gotelli, N.J., Lin, S.-Y., Mao, C.X., Chazdon, R.L. and Longino, J.T. 2012. Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation, and comparison of assemblages. Journal of Plant Ecology 5(1): 3-21.   DOI
26 Farnsworth, G.L., Pollock, K.H., Nichols, J.D., Simons, T.R., Hines, J.E. and Sauer, J.R. 2002. A removal model for estimating detection probabilities from point-count surveys. Auk 119(2): 414-425.   DOI
27 Gill, J.A. and Sutherland, W.J. 2000. Predicting the consequences of human disturbance from behavioural decisions. pp. 51-64. In: Gosling, L.M. and Sutherland, W.J. (Eds.). Behaviour and conservation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
28 Gregory, R.D., Gibbons, D.W. and Donald, P.F. 2004. Bird census and survey techniques. pp. 17-56. In : Sutherland, W.J., Newton, I. and Green, R. (Eds.) Bird ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press. New York, USA.
29 Gregory, R.D., Willis, S.G., Jiguet, F., Vorisek, P., Klvanova, A., van Strien, A., Huntley, B., Collingham, Y.C., Couvet, D. and Green, R.E. 2009. An indicator of the impact of climatic change on European bird populations. PLoS ONE 4(3): e4678.   DOI
30 Haselmayer, J. and Quinn, J.S. 2000. A comparison of point counts and sound recording as bird survey methods in Amazonian southeast Peru. Condor 102(4): 887-893.   DOI
31 Ko, J.C., Fan, M.W., Lin, R.S., Lee, P.F. and Tsai, S.P. 2017. Point count sampling data from the Taiwan Breeding Bird Survey. Taiwan Journal of Biodiversity 19(4): 243-254.
32 National Institute of Forest Science (NIFS). 2017. Climate change effect assessment manual on the forestry and forest sciences. National Institute of Forest Science. Seoul, Korea.
33 Koskimies, P. and Vaisanen, R.A. 1991. Monitoring bird populations - a manual of methods applied in Finland. https://www.luomus.fi/en/methods-bird-monitoring. Helsinki, Finland: Zoological Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History [cited 29 May 2019].
34 Kulaga, K. and Budka, M. 2019. Bird species detection by an observer and an autonomous sound recorder in two different environments: Forest and farmland. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0211970.   DOI
35 National Institute of Biological Resources (NIBR). 2017. 2016-2017 winter waterbird census of Korea. National Institute of Biological Resources. Incheon, Korea.
36 National Institute of Ecology (NIE). 2017. Data book of national ecosystem survey. National Institute of Ecology. Seocheon, Korea.
37 National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). 2012. 4th national ecosystem survey manual. National Institute of Environmental Research. Incheon, Korea.
38 National Park Research Institute (NPRI). 2018. Annual Report on the Bird Research. National Park Research Institute. Wonju, Korea.
39 O'connell, T.J., Jackson, L.E. and Brooks, R.P. 2000. Bird guilds as indicators of ecological condition in the central Appalachians. Ecological Applications 10(6): 1706-1721.   DOI
40 Paillet, Y. et al. 2009. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conservation Biology 24(1): 101-112.   DOI
41 Ralph, C.J. and Scott, J.M. 1981. Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Allen Press Inc. Lawrence, USA.