Bird surveys in grasslands: do different count methods present distinct results?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
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 |