Bird surveys in grasslands: do different count methods present distinct results?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Fontana, Carla Suertegaray
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Chiarani, Eduardo, Menezes, Luciana da Silva, Andretti, Christian B., Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221512
Resumo: We compared two methods routinely used to conduct bird community surveys: point counts and transects. Our aim was to look for differences between these two methods regarding detection of bird richness and abundances. Additionally, we analyzed if one of the methods provided higher correlation of bird data with vegetation structure as an important habitat descriptor. From September 2014 to January 2015, we surveyed birds in 264 point counts and 258 transects spread across the southern Brazilian grasslands. We conducted one method in direct sequence of the other, in the same place with the same observers and at the same weather conditions. We standardized data to eliminate the effort bias caused by area covered and time employed in each method. Total abundance of birds recorded by the two methods did not differ (point counts 4753 and transects 4436, P = 0.31), but we found a significant difference in species richness (point counts 187 and transects 173, P = 0.01). Abundance of birds sampled with the transect method showed a slightly higher correlation with vegetation height (r2 = 0.07; P = 0.004) than the point counts method (r2 = 0.03; P = 0.05). While results from both methods were similar, richness detection was more effective in point counts, indicating that this method might be more useful than it currently is. We discuss potential factors that may influence effectiveness of both methods and suggest issues that should be addressed in further research in order to develop standardized sampling methods for bird communities.
id UFRGS-2_eead8bb04e9fc7d75b4c4e05ed48207b
oai_identifier_str oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/221512
network_acronym_str UFRGS-2
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
repository_id_str
spelling Fontana, Carla SuertegarayChiarani, EduardoMenezes, Luciana da SilvaAndretti, Christian B.Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst2021-05-26T04:36:19Z20180103-5657http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221512001120525We compared two methods routinely used to conduct bird community surveys: point counts and transects. Our aim was to look for differences between these two methods regarding detection of bird richness and abundances. Additionally, we analyzed if one of the methods provided higher correlation of bird data with vegetation structure as an important habitat descriptor. From September 2014 to January 2015, we surveyed birds in 264 point counts and 258 transects spread across the southern Brazilian grasslands. We conducted one method in direct sequence of the other, in the same place with the same observers and at the same weather conditions. We standardized data to eliminate the effort bias caused by area covered and time employed in each method. Total abundance of birds recorded by the two methods did not differ (point counts 4753 and transects 4436, P = 0.31), but we found a significant difference in species richness (point counts 187 and transects 173, P = 0.01). Abundance of birds sampled with the transect method showed a slightly higher correlation with vegetation height (r2 = 0.07; P = 0.004) than the point counts method (r2 = 0.03; P = 0.05). While results from both methods were similar, richness detection was more effective in point counts, indicating that this method might be more useful than it currently is. We discuss potential factors that may influence effectiveness of both methods and suggest issues that should be addressed in further research in order to develop standardized sampling methods for bird communities.application/pdfengArarajuba : Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia. Vol. 26, no. 2 (jun. 2018), p. 116-122PássarosVegetaçãoPastagemBrazilFixed-radius point-countsFixed-width transectsSESA grasslandsStandard surveyVegetation parametersBird surveys in grasslands: do different count methods present distinct results?info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/otherinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGSinstname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGSTEXT001120525.pdf.txt001120525.pdf.txtExtracted Texttext/plain32079http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221512/2/001120525.pdf.txte6c047fdce1b0b52d89a0a645b579387MD52ORIGINAL001120525.pdfTexto completo (inglês)application/pdf2553966http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221512/1/001120525.pdf73a86912a25faf8872f0f92644e511acMD5110183/2215122021-06-12 04:45:49.711598oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/221512Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://lume.ufrgs.br/oai/requestopendoar:2021-06-12T07:45:49Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv Bird surveys in grasslands: do different count methods present distinct results?
title Bird surveys in grasslands: do different count methods present distinct results?
spellingShingle Bird surveys in grasslands: do different count methods present distinct results?
Fontana, Carla Suertegaray
Pássaros
Vegetação
Pastagem
Brazil
Fixed-radius point-counts
Fixed-width transects
SESA grasslands
Standard survey
Vegetation parameters
title_short Bird surveys in grasslands: do different count methods present distinct results?
title_full Bird surveys in grasslands: do different count methods present distinct results?
title_fullStr Bird surveys in grasslands: do different count methods present distinct results?
title_full_unstemmed Bird surveys in grasslands: do different count methods present distinct results?
title_sort Bird surveys in grasslands: do different count methods present distinct results?
author Fontana, Carla Suertegaray
author_facet Fontana, Carla Suertegaray
Chiarani, Eduardo
Menezes, Luciana da Silva
Andretti, Christian B.
Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst
author_role author
author2 Chiarani, Eduardo
Menezes, Luciana da Silva
Andretti, Christian B.
Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Fontana, Carla Suertegaray
Chiarani, Eduardo
Menezes, Luciana da Silva
Andretti, Christian B.
Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Pássaros
Vegetação
Pastagem
topic Pássaros
Vegetação
Pastagem
Brazil
Fixed-radius point-counts
Fixed-width transects
SESA grasslands
Standard survey
Vegetation parameters
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv Brazil
Fixed-radius point-counts
Fixed-width transects
SESA grasslands
Standard survey
Vegetation parameters
description We compared two methods routinely used to conduct bird community surveys: point counts and transects. Our aim was to look for differences between these two methods regarding detection of bird richness and abundances. Additionally, we analyzed if one of the methods provided higher correlation of bird data with vegetation structure as an important habitat descriptor. From September 2014 to January 2015, we surveyed birds in 264 point counts and 258 transects spread across the southern Brazilian grasslands. We conducted one method in direct sequence of the other, in the same place with the same observers and at the same weather conditions. We standardized data to eliminate the effort bias caused by area covered and time employed in each method. Total abundance of birds recorded by the two methods did not differ (point counts 4753 and transects 4436, P = 0.31), but we found a significant difference in species richness (point counts 187 and transects 173, P = 0.01). Abundance of birds sampled with the transect method showed a slightly higher correlation with vegetation height (r2 = 0.07; P = 0.004) than the point counts method (r2 = 0.03; P = 0.05). While results from both methods were similar, richness detection was more effective in point counts, indicating that this method might be more useful than it currently is. We discuss potential factors that may influence effectiveness of both methods and suggest issues that should be addressed in further research in order to develop standardized sampling methods for bird communities.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2018
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2021-05-26T04:36:19Z
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/other
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221512
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv 0103-5657
dc.identifier.nrb.pt_BR.fl_str_mv 001120525
identifier_str_mv 0103-5657
001120525
url http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221512
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv Ararajuba : Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia. Vol. 26, no. 2 (jun. 2018), p. 116-122
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
instacron:UFRGS
instname_str Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
instacron_str UFRGS
institution UFRGS
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
collection Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221512/2/001120525.pdf.txt
http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221512/1/001120525.pdf
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv e6c047fdce1b0b52d89a0a645b579387
73a86912a25faf8872f0f92644e511ac
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1801225018754990080