Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems
Birds are a frequently chosen group for biodiversity monitoring as they are comparatively straightforward and inexpensive to sample and often perform well as ecological indicators. Two commonly used techniques for monitoring tropical forest bird communities are point counts and mist nets. General st...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2017-01, Vol.12 (1), p.e0169786 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | e0169786 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 12 |
creator | Martin, Thomas Edward Nightingale, Josh Baddams, Jack Monkhouse, Joseph Kaban, Aronika Sastranegara, Hafiyyan Mulyani, Yeni Blackburn, George Alan Simcox, Wilf |
description | Birds are a frequently chosen group for biodiversity monitoring as they are comparatively straightforward and inexpensive to sample and often perform well as ecological indicators. Two commonly used techniques for monitoring tropical forest bird communities are point counts and mist nets. General strengths and weaknesses of these techniques have been well-defined; however little research has examined how their effectiveness is mediated by the ecology of bird communities and their habitats. We examine how the overall performance of these methodologies differs between two widely separated tropical forests-Cusuco National Park (CNP), a Honduran cloud forest, and the lowland forests of Buton Forest Reserves (BFR) located on Buton Island, Indonesia. Consistent survey protocols were employed at both sites, with 77 point count stations and 22 mist netting stations being surveyed in each location. We found the effectiveness of both methods varied considerably between ecosystems. Point counts performed better in BFR than in CNP, detecting a greater percentage of known community richness (60% versus 41%) and generating more accurate species richness estimates. Conversely, mist netting performed better in CNP than in BFR, detecting a much higher percentage of known community richness (31% versus 7%). Indeed, mist netting proved overall to be highly ineffective within BFR. Best Akaike's Information Criterion models indicate differences in the effectiveness of methodologies between study sites relate to bird community composition, which in turn relates to ecological and biogeographical influences unique to each forest ecosystem. Results therefore suggest that, while generalized strengths and weaknesses of both methodologies can be defined, their overall effectiveness is also influenced by local characteristics specific to individual study sites. While this study focusses on ornithological surveys, the concept of local factors influencing effectiveness of field methodologies may also hold true for techniques targeting a wide range of taxonomic groups; this requires further research. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0169786 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1857360806</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A477004684</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_d3ff6938ad5b445583d6f2a4b1e4515c</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A477004684</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-8567fb40f006c5137b514e4092a29c59ac2da6f2158fb3e256add92806de9f863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk99v0zAQxyMEYmPwHyCIhITgocXxrzgvSNO0QaWhSqzs1XKcc-sqjYvtdPS_x12zqUV7QH6wdfe57_nOvix7W6BxQcriy9L1vlPteO06GKOCV6Xgz7LToiJ4xDEizw_OJ9mrEJYIMSI4f5mdYIFKLAQ5zRa3yltV29bGbW67PC4gvzQGdLQb6CCE3Jl8dufyqe9sXLjWza1WbX7T-w1s8x-QbE3Ia4h3AF0-8259779yHkLML7UL2xBhFV5nL4xqA7wZ9rPs19Xl7OL76Hr6bXJxfj3SJWZxJBgvTU2RQYhrlgqtWUGBogorXGlWKY0bxQ0umDA1Acy4apoq1cMbqIzg5Cx7v9ddty7IoUlBFoKVhKPEJWKyJxqnlnLt7Ur5rXTKynuD83OpfLS6BdkQY3hFhGpYTSljgjQpt6J1AZQVTCetr0O2vl5Bo6GLXrVHoseezi7k3G0kw5hWZZUEPg0C3v3uU8vkygYNbas6cP3u3lwQShHFCf3wD_p0dQM1V6kA2xmX8uqdqDynZYkQ5YImavwElVYDK6vTjzI22Y8CPh8FJCbCnzhXfQhycvPz_9np7TH78YBdgGrjIri2j9Z14Rike1B7F4IH89jkAsndQDx0Q-4GQg4DkcLeHT7QY9DDBJC_QLgGTA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1857360806</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Martin, Thomas Edward ; Nightingale, Josh ; Baddams, Jack ; Monkhouse, Joseph ; Kaban, Aronika ; Sastranegara, Hafiyyan ; Mulyani, Yeni ; Blackburn, George Alan ; Simcox, Wilf</creator><contributor>Pandit, Maharaj K</contributor><creatorcontrib>Martin, Thomas Edward ; Nightingale, Josh ; Baddams, Jack ; Monkhouse, Joseph ; Kaban, Aronika ; Sastranegara, Hafiyyan ; Mulyani, Yeni ; Blackburn, George Alan ; Simcox, Wilf ; Pandit, Maharaj K</creatorcontrib><description>Birds are a frequently chosen group for biodiversity monitoring as they are comparatively straightforward and inexpensive to sample and often perform well as ecological indicators. Two commonly used techniques for monitoring tropical forest bird communities are point counts and mist nets. General strengths and weaknesses of these techniques have been well-defined; however little research has examined how their effectiveness is mediated by the ecology of bird communities and their habitats. We examine how the overall performance of these methodologies differs between two widely separated tropical forests-Cusuco National Park (CNP), a Honduran cloud forest, and the lowland forests of Buton Forest Reserves (BFR) located on Buton Island, Indonesia. Consistent survey protocols were employed at both sites, with 77 point count stations and 22 mist netting stations being surveyed in each location. We found the effectiveness of both methods varied considerably between ecosystems. Point counts performed better in BFR than in CNP, detecting a greater percentage of known community richness (60% versus 41%) and generating more accurate species richness estimates. Conversely, mist netting performed better in CNP than in BFR, detecting a much higher percentage of known community richness (31% versus 7%). Indeed, mist netting proved overall to be highly ineffective within BFR. Best Akaike's Information Criterion models indicate differences in the effectiveness of methodologies between study sites relate to bird community composition, which in turn relates to ecological and biogeographical influences unique to each forest ecosystem. Results therefore suggest that, while generalized strengths and weaknesses of both methodologies can be defined, their overall effectiveness is also influenced by local characteristics specific to individual study sites. While this study focusses on ornithological surveys, the concept of local factors influencing effectiveness of field methodologies may also hold true for techniques targeting a wide range of taxonomic groups; this requires further research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169786</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28072883</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Altitude ; Analysis ; Animals ; Biodiversity ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Birds ; Birds - classification ; Birds - physiology ; Cloud forests ; Communities ; Community composition ; Ecological effects ; Ecological monitoring ; Ecological Parameter Monitoring - methods ; Ecological Parameter Monitoring - standards ; Ecology ; Ecology - methods ; Ecology - standards ; Ecology and Environmental Sciences ; Ecosystems ; Ecotourism ; Forest communities ; Forest ecology ; Forest ecosystems ; Forestry ; Forests ; Methods ; Mist ; National parks ; Nature reserves ; Netting (materials/structures) ; Ornithology ; People and Places ; Polls & surveys ; Species richness ; Stations ; Terrestrial ecosystems ; Tropical Climate ; Tropical forests</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2017-01, Vol.12 (1), p.e0169786</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2017 Martin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2017 Martin et al 2017 Martin et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-8567fb40f006c5137b514e4092a29c59ac2da6f2158fb3e256add92806de9f863</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-8567fb40f006c5137b514e4092a29c59ac2da6f2158fb3e256add92806de9f863</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5224979/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5224979/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28072883$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Pandit, Maharaj K</contributor><creatorcontrib>Martin, Thomas Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nightingale, Josh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baddams, Jack</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monkhouse, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaban, Aronika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sastranegara, Hafiyyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulyani, Yeni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blackburn, George Alan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simcox, Wilf</creatorcontrib><title>Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Birds are a frequently chosen group for biodiversity monitoring as they are comparatively straightforward and inexpensive to sample and often perform well as ecological indicators. Two commonly used techniques for monitoring tropical forest bird communities are point counts and mist nets. General strengths and weaknesses of these techniques have been well-defined; however little research has examined how their effectiveness is mediated by the ecology of bird communities and their habitats. We examine how the overall performance of these methodologies differs between two widely separated tropical forests-Cusuco National Park (CNP), a Honduran cloud forest, and the lowland forests of Buton Forest Reserves (BFR) located on Buton Island, Indonesia. Consistent survey protocols were employed at both sites, with 77 point count stations and 22 mist netting stations being surveyed in each location. We found the effectiveness of both methods varied considerably between ecosystems. Point counts performed better in BFR than in CNP, detecting a greater percentage of known community richness (60% versus 41%) and generating more accurate species richness estimates. Conversely, mist netting performed better in CNP than in BFR, detecting a much higher percentage of known community richness (31% versus 7%). Indeed, mist netting proved overall to be highly ineffective within BFR. Best Akaike's Information Criterion models indicate differences in the effectiveness of methodologies between study sites relate to bird community composition, which in turn relates to ecological and biogeographical influences unique to each forest ecosystem. Results therefore suggest that, while generalized strengths and weaknesses of both methodologies can be defined, their overall effectiveness is also influenced by local characteristics specific to individual study sites. While this study focusses on ornithological surveys, the concept of local factors influencing effectiveness of field methodologies may also hold true for techniques targeting a wide range of taxonomic groups; this requires further research.</description><subject>Altitude</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>Birds - classification</subject><subject>Birds - physiology</subject><subject>Cloud forests</subject><subject>Communities</subject><subject>Community composition</subject><subject>Ecological effects</subject><subject>Ecological monitoring</subject><subject>Ecological Parameter Monitoring - methods</subject><subject>Ecological Parameter Monitoring - standards</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecology - methods</subject><subject>Ecology - standards</subject><subject>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Ecotourism</subject><subject>Forest communities</subject><subject>Forest ecology</subject><subject>Forest ecosystems</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Mist</subject><subject>National parks</subject><subject>Nature reserves</subject><subject>Netting (materials/structures)</subject><subject>Ornithology</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Species richness</subject><subject>Stations</subject><subject>Terrestrial ecosystems</subject><subject>Tropical Climate</subject><subject>Tropical forests</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk99v0zAQxyMEYmPwHyCIhITgocXxrzgvSNO0QaWhSqzs1XKcc-sqjYvtdPS_x12zqUV7QH6wdfe57_nOvix7W6BxQcriy9L1vlPteO06GKOCV6Xgz7LToiJ4xDEizw_OJ9mrEJYIMSI4f5mdYIFKLAQ5zRa3yltV29bGbW67PC4gvzQGdLQb6CCE3Jl8dufyqe9sXLjWza1WbX7T-w1s8x-QbE3Ia4h3AF0-8259779yHkLML7UL2xBhFV5nL4xqA7wZ9rPs19Xl7OL76Hr6bXJxfj3SJWZxJBgvTU2RQYhrlgqtWUGBogorXGlWKY0bxQ0umDA1Acy4apoq1cMbqIzg5Cx7v9ddty7IoUlBFoKVhKPEJWKyJxqnlnLt7Ur5rXTKynuD83OpfLS6BdkQY3hFhGpYTSljgjQpt6J1AZQVTCetr0O2vl5Bo6GLXrVHoseezi7k3G0kw5hWZZUEPg0C3v3uU8vkygYNbas6cP3u3lwQShHFCf3wD_p0dQM1V6kA2xmX8uqdqDynZYkQ5YImavwElVYDK6vTjzI22Y8CPh8FJCbCnzhXfQhycvPz_9np7TH78YBdgGrjIri2j9Z14Rike1B7F4IH89jkAsndQDx0Q-4GQg4DkcLeHT7QY9DDBJC_QLgGTA</recordid><startdate>20170110</startdate><enddate>20170110</enddate><creator>Martin, Thomas Edward</creator><creator>Nightingale, Josh</creator><creator>Baddams, Jack</creator><creator>Monkhouse, Joseph</creator><creator>Kaban, Aronika</creator><creator>Sastranegara, Hafiyyan</creator><creator>Mulyani, Yeni</creator><creator>Blackburn, George Alan</creator><creator>Simcox, Wilf</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170110</creationdate><title>Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems</title><author>Martin, Thomas Edward ; Nightingale, Josh ; Baddams, Jack ; Monkhouse, Joseph ; Kaban, Aronika ; Sastranegara, Hafiyyan ; Mulyani, Yeni ; Blackburn, George Alan ; Simcox, Wilf</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-8567fb40f006c5137b514e4092a29c59ac2da6f2158fb3e256add92806de9f863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Altitude</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>Birds - classification</topic><topic>Birds - physiology</topic><topic>Cloud forests</topic><topic>Communities</topic><topic>Community composition</topic><topic>Ecological effects</topic><topic>Ecological monitoring</topic><topic>Ecological Parameter Monitoring - methods</topic><topic>Ecological Parameter Monitoring - standards</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecology - methods</topic><topic>Ecology - standards</topic><topic>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Ecotourism</topic><topic>Forest communities</topic><topic>Forest ecology</topic><topic>Forest ecosystems</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Mist</topic><topic>National parks</topic><topic>Nature reserves</topic><topic>Netting (materials/structures)</topic><topic>Ornithology</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Species richness</topic><topic>Stations</topic><topic>Terrestrial ecosystems</topic><topic>Tropical Climate</topic><topic>Tropical forests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Martin, Thomas Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nightingale, Josh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baddams, Jack</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monkhouse, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaban, Aronika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sastranegara, Hafiyyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulyani, Yeni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blackburn, George Alan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simcox, Wilf</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Martin, Thomas Edward</au><au>Nightingale, Josh</au><au>Baddams, Jack</au><au>Monkhouse, Joseph</au><au>Kaban, Aronika</au><au>Sastranegara, Hafiyyan</au><au>Mulyani, Yeni</au><au>Blackburn, George Alan</au><au>Simcox, Wilf</au><au>Pandit, Maharaj K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2017-01-10</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>e0169786</spage><pages>e0169786-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Birds are a frequently chosen group for biodiversity monitoring as they are comparatively straightforward and inexpensive to sample and often perform well as ecological indicators. Two commonly used techniques for monitoring tropical forest bird communities are point counts and mist nets. General strengths and weaknesses of these techniques have been well-defined; however little research has examined how their effectiveness is mediated by the ecology of bird communities and their habitats. We examine how the overall performance of these methodologies differs between two widely separated tropical forests-Cusuco National Park (CNP), a Honduran cloud forest, and the lowland forests of Buton Forest Reserves (BFR) located on Buton Island, Indonesia. Consistent survey protocols were employed at both sites, with 77 point count stations and 22 mist netting stations being surveyed in each location. We found the effectiveness of both methods varied considerably between ecosystems. Point counts performed better in BFR than in CNP, detecting a greater percentage of known community richness (60% versus 41%) and generating more accurate species richness estimates. Conversely, mist netting performed better in CNP than in BFR, detecting a much higher percentage of known community richness (31% versus 7%). Indeed, mist netting proved overall to be highly ineffective within BFR. Best Akaike's Information Criterion models indicate differences in the effectiveness of methodologies between study sites relate to bird community composition, which in turn relates to ecological and biogeographical influences unique to each forest ecosystem. Results therefore suggest that, while generalized strengths and weaknesses of both methodologies can be defined, their overall effectiveness is also influenced by local characteristics specific to individual study sites. While this study focusses on ornithological surveys, the concept of local factors influencing effectiveness of field methodologies may also hold true for techniques targeting a wide range of taxonomic groups; this requires further research.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>28072883</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0169786</doi><tpages>e0169786</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2017-01, Vol.12 (1), p.e0169786 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1857360806 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Altitude Analysis Animals Biodiversity Biology and Life Sciences Birds Birds - classification Birds - physiology Cloud forests Communities Community composition Ecological effects Ecological monitoring Ecological Parameter Monitoring - methods Ecological Parameter Monitoring - standards Ecology Ecology - methods Ecology - standards Ecology and Environmental Sciences Ecosystems Ecotourism Forest communities Forest ecology Forest ecosystems Forestry Forests Methods Mist National parks Nature reserves Netting (materials/structures) Ornithology People and Places Polls & surveys Species richness Stations Terrestrial ecosystems Tropical Climate Tropical forests |
title | Variability in the Effectiveness of Two Ornithological Survey Methods between Tropical Forest Ecosystems |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T13%3A57%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Variability%20in%20the%20Effectiveness%20of%20Two%20Ornithological%20Survey%20Methods%20between%20Tropical%20Forest%20Ecosystems&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Martin,%20Thomas%20Edward&rft.date=2017-01-10&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=e0169786&rft.pages=e0169786-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0169786&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA477004684%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1857360806&rft_id=info:pmid/28072883&rft_galeid=A477004684&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_d3ff6938ad5b445583d6f2a4b1e4515c&rfr_iscdi=true |