Effects of Set-aside Conservation Practices on Bird Community Structure within an Intensive Agricultural Landscape

Creating and restoring patches of noncrop early-succession vegetation within agricultural landscapes may mitigate grassland bird population declines caused by agricultural land use and intensification. Achieving this goal requires an ability to balance avian benefits with agronomics, which may be fa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American midland naturalist 2014-07, Vol.172 (1), p.61-75
Hauptverfasser: Conover, Ross R, Dinsmore, Stephen J, Burger, L. Wes
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 75
container_issue 1
container_start_page 61
container_title The American midland naturalist
container_volume 172
creator Conover, Ross R
Dinsmore, Stephen J
Burger, L. Wes
description Creating and restoring patches of noncrop early-succession vegetation within agricultural landscapes may mitigate grassland bird population declines caused by agricultural land use and intensification. Achieving this goal requires an ability to balance avian benefits with agronomics, which may be facilitated by understanding how bird communities respond to various conservation practices. We evaluated bird richness, abundance, Shannon diversity, and Total Avian Conservation Value in 20 replicates of four Conservation Reserve Program practices in an intensive rowcrop agricultural landscape in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley from May–Jul., 2005–2007. Conservation practices included: (1) large blocks of structurally-diverse early-succession vegetation (6–8 y old trees) and three buffer types; (2) 30 m wide monotypic filter strips with tall dense switchgrass (Panicum virgatum); (3) 30 m wide diverse filter strips with a forb-native warm season grass mixture; and (4) 60 m wide early-succession riparian forest buffers (1–3 y old trees). The breeding bird community was dominated by red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus; 43% of total) and dickcissels (Spiza americana; 42% of total) but commonly included eastern meadowlarks (Sturnella magna), indigo buntings (Passerina cyanea), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), and northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). We observed ≥1.8 × more dickcissels in large blocks and diverse filter strips than other buffers and greater Shannon diversity in large blocks than any buffers (P < 0.05). Diverse filter strips had ≥1.6 × greater overall bird density (7.2 birds/0.6 ha), on average, than all other practices. Based on these data, we conclude that buffers are attractive to farmland breeding birds and may provide important ecological benefits to supplement a conservation management system founded on large blocks of early-succession vegetation.
doi_str_mv 10.1674/0003-0031-172.1.61
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1547849231</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A375696836</galeid><jstor_id>43822749</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A375696836</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b534t-7373ef019aa66f4f673e9204dcf668ba76c2a026102c8af989540fb0ef9dd0733</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl2LEzEUhgdRsK7-AUEMeKMXU_PVzOSyW1YtFBTrXoc0c1JTpklNMqv7780wslLphYQQTs7zniQnb1W9JHhORMPfY4xZXSapSUPnZC7Io2pGJGtrTln7uJo9AE-rZykdSii55LMq3lgLJicULNpCrnVyHaBV8Aninc4uePQlapOdgcJ4dO1iV9LH4-BdvkfbHAeThwjop8vfnUfao7XP4JO7A7TcR2eGvuR1jzbad8noEzyvnljdJ3jxZ72qbj_cfFt9qjefP65Xy029WzCe64Y1DCwmUmshLLeihJJi3hkrRLvTjTBUYyoIpqbVVrZywbHdYbCy63DD2FX1dqp7iuHHACmro0sG-l57CENSZMGblkvKSEHf_IMewhB9ud1ILQSjnLZ_qb3uQTlvQy6tGYuqJWsWQoqWiULVF6g9eChdCB6sK9tn_PwCX0YHR2cuCt6dCQqT4Vfe6yEltd5-PWfpxJoYUopg1Sm6o473imA1OkeNxlCjMVRxjiJKjN14NYkOKYf4oOCspbThsuRfT3mrg9Llj5O63VJMRKlFyxc1hcATsXOhvOB_Dv0NDkLUqg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1545632428</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of Set-aside Conservation Practices on Bird Community Structure within an Intensive Agricultural Landscape</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Conover, Ross R ; Dinsmore, Stephen J ; Burger, L. Wes</creator><creatorcontrib>Conover, Ross R ; Dinsmore, Stephen J ; Burger, L. Wes</creatorcontrib><description>Creating and restoring patches of noncrop early-succession vegetation within agricultural landscapes may mitigate grassland bird population declines caused by agricultural land use and intensification. Achieving this goal requires an ability to balance avian benefits with agronomics, which may be facilitated by understanding how bird communities respond to various conservation practices. We evaluated bird richness, abundance, Shannon diversity, and Total Avian Conservation Value in 20 replicates of four Conservation Reserve Program practices in an intensive rowcrop agricultural landscape in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley from May–Jul., 2005–2007. Conservation practices included: (1) large blocks of structurally-diverse early-succession vegetation (6–8 y old trees) and three buffer types; (2) 30 m wide monotypic filter strips with tall dense switchgrass (Panicum virgatum); (3) 30 m wide diverse filter strips with a forb-native warm season grass mixture; and (4) 60 m wide early-succession riparian forest buffers (1–3 y old trees). The breeding bird community was dominated by red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus; 43% of total) and dickcissels (Spiza americana; 42% of total) but commonly included eastern meadowlarks (Sturnella magna), indigo buntings (Passerina cyanea), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), and northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). We observed ≥1.8 × more dickcissels in large blocks and diverse filter strips than other buffers and greater Shannon diversity in large blocks than any buffers (P &lt; 0.05). Diverse filter strips had ≥1.6 × greater overall bird density (7.2 birds/0.6 ha), on average, than all other practices. Based on these data, we conclude that buffers are attractive to farmland breeding birds and may provide important ecological benefits to supplement a conservation management system founded on large blocks of early-succession vegetation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-0031</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-4238</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1674/0003-0031-172.1.61</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AMNAAF</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>The University of Notre Dame, P.O. Box 369, Notre Dame, IN 46556-0369: American Midland Naturalist</publisher><subject>Agelaius phoeniceus ; agricultural land ; Agricultural management ; Agriculture ; alluvial plains ; Analysis ; Animal populations ; Aves ; Aviculture ; Biodiversity ; Bird nesting ; Birds ; breeding ; Colinus virginianus ; Community ; community structure ; Conservation practices ; Conservation Reserve Program ; Crops ; doves ; Farms ; filter strips ; Freshwater ; Grasses ; Grasslands ; Habitat conservation ; indigo ; intensive farming ; land use ; Panicum virgatum ; Passerina cyanea ; Planting ; population dynamics ; Protection and preservation ; Riparian buffers ; Spiza americana ; Sturnella magna ; trees ; Vegetation ; warm season grasses ; Wildlife conservation ; Zenaida ; Zenaida macroura</subject><ispartof>The American midland naturalist, 2014-07, Vol.172 (1), p.61-75</ispartof><rights>2014, American Midland Naturalist</rights><rights>2014, The American Midland Naturalist</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 University of Notre Dame, Department of Biological Sciences</rights><rights>Copyright American Midland Naturalist Jul 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b534t-7373ef019aa66f4f673e9204dcf668ba76c2a026102c8af989540fb0ef9dd0733</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b534t-7373ef019aa66f4f673e9204dcf668ba76c2a026102c8af989540fb0ef9dd0733</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43822749$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43822749$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,804,27929,27930,58022,58255</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Conover, Ross R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dinsmore, Stephen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burger, L. Wes</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of Set-aside Conservation Practices on Bird Community Structure within an Intensive Agricultural Landscape</title><title>The American midland naturalist</title><description>Creating and restoring patches of noncrop early-succession vegetation within agricultural landscapes may mitigate grassland bird population declines caused by agricultural land use and intensification. Achieving this goal requires an ability to balance avian benefits with agronomics, which may be facilitated by understanding how bird communities respond to various conservation practices. We evaluated bird richness, abundance, Shannon diversity, and Total Avian Conservation Value in 20 replicates of four Conservation Reserve Program practices in an intensive rowcrop agricultural landscape in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley from May–Jul., 2005–2007. Conservation practices included: (1) large blocks of structurally-diverse early-succession vegetation (6–8 y old trees) and three buffer types; (2) 30 m wide monotypic filter strips with tall dense switchgrass (Panicum virgatum); (3) 30 m wide diverse filter strips with a forb-native warm season grass mixture; and (4) 60 m wide early-succession riparian forest buffers (1–3 y old trees). The breeding bird community was dominated by red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus; 43% of total) and dickcissels (Spiza americana; 42% of total) but commonly included eastern meadowlarks (Sturnella magna), indigo buntings (Passerina cyanea), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), and northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). We observed ≥1.8 × more dickcissels in large blocks and diverse filter strips than other buffers and greater Shannon diversity in large blocks than any buffers (P &lt; 0.05). Diverse filter strips had ≥1.6 × greater overall bird density (7.2 birds/0.6 ha), on average, than all other practices. Based on these data, we conclude that buffers are attractive to farmland breeding birds and may provide important ecological benefits to supplement a conservation management system founded on large blocks of early-succession vegetation.</description><subject>Agelaius phoeniceus</subject><subject>agricultural land</subject><subject>Agricultural management</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>alluvial plains</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>Aves</subject><subject>Aviculture</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Bird nesting</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>breeding</subject><subject>Colinus virginianus</subject><subject>Community</subject><subject>community structure</subject><subject>Conservation practices</subject><subject>Conservation Reserve Program</subject><subject>Crops</subject><subject>doves</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>filter strips</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Grasses</subject><subject>Grasslands</subject><subject>Habitat conservation</subject><subject>indigo</subject><subject>intensive farming</subject><subject>land use</subject><subject>Panicum virgatum</subject><subject>Passerina cyanea</subject><subject>Planting</subject><subject>population dynamics</subject><subject>Protection and preservation</subject><subject>Riparian buffers</subject><subject>Spiza americana</subject><subject>Sturnella magna</subject><subject>trees</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><subject>warm season grasses</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Zenaida</subject><subject>Zenaida macroura</subject><issn>0003-0031</issn><issn>1938-4238</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl2LEzEUhgdRsK7-AUEMeKMXU_PVzOSyW1YtFBTrXoc0c1JTpklNMqv7780wslLphYQQTs7zniQnb1W9JHhORMPfY4xZXSapSUPnZC7Io2pGJGtrTln7uJo9AE-rZykdSii55LMq3lgLJicULNpCrnVyHaBV8Aninc4uePQlapOdgcJ4dO1iV9LH4-BdvkfbHAeThwjop8vfnUfao7XP4JO7A7TcR2eGvuR1jzbad8noEzyvnljdJ3jxZ72qbj_cfFt9qjefP65Xy029WzCe64Y1DCwmUmshLLeihJJi3hkrRLvTjTBUYyoIpqbVVrZywbHdYbCy63DD2FX1dqp7iuHHACmro0sG-l57CENSZMGblkvKSEHf_IMewhB9ud1ILQSjnLZ_qb3uQTlvQy6tGYuqJWsWQoqWiULVF6g9eChdCB6sK9tn_PwCX0YHR2cuCt6dCQqT4Vfe6yEltd5-PWfpxJoYUopg1Sm6o473imA1OkeNxlCjMVRxjiJKjN14NYkOKYf4oOCspbThsuRfT3mrg9Llj5O63VJMRKlFyxc1hcATsXOhvOB_Dv0NDkLUqg</recordid><startdate>20140701</startdate><enddate>20140701</enddate><creator>Conover, Ross R</creator><creator>Dinsmore, Stephen J</creator><creator>Burger, L. Wes</creator><general>American Midland Naturalist</general><general>University of Notre Dame</general><general>University of Notre Dame, Department of Biological Sciences</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140701</creationdate><title>Effects of Set-aside Conservation Practices on Bird Community Structure within an Intensive Agricultural Landscape</title><author>Conover, Ross R ; Dinsmore, Stephen J ; Burger, L. Wes</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b534t-7373ef019aa66f4f673e9204dcf668ba76c2a026102c8af989540fb0ef9dd0733</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Agelaius phoeniceus</topic><topic>agricultural land</topic><topic>Agricultural management</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>alluvial plains</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>Aves</topic><topic>Aviculture</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Bird nesting</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>breeding</topic><topic>Colinus virginianus</topic><topic>Community</topic><topic>community structure</topic><topic>Conservation practices</topic><topic>Conservation Reserve Program</topic><topic>Crops</topic><topic>doves</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>filter strips</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Grasses</topic><topic>Grasslands</topic><topic>Habitat conservation</topic><topic>indigo</topic><topic>intensive farming</topic><topic>land use</topic><topic>Panicum virgatum</topic><topic>Passerina cyanea</topic><topic>Planting</topic><topic>population dynamics</topic><topic>Protection and preservation</topic><topic>Riparian buffers</topic><topic>Spiza americana</topic><topic>Sturnella magna</topic><topic>trees</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><topic>warm season grasses</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Zenaida</topic><topic>Zenaida macroura</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Conover, Ross R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dinsmore, Stephen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burger, L. Wes</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</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>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>The American midland naturalist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Conover, Ross R</au><au>Dinsmore, Stephen J</au><au>Burger, L. Wes</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of Set-aside Conservation Practices on Bird Community Structure within an Intensive Agricultural Landscape</atitle><jtitle>The American midland naturalist</jtitle><date>2014-07-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>172</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>61</spage><epage>75</epage><pages>61-75</pages><issn>0003-0031</issn><eissn>1938-4238</eissn><coden>AMNAAF</coden><abstract>Creating and restoring patches of noncrop early-succession vegetation within agricultural landscapes may mitigate grassland bird population declines caused by agricultural land use and intensification. Achieving this goal requires an ability to balance avian benefits with agronomics, which may be facilitated by understanding how bird communities respond to various conservation practices. We evaluated bird richness, abundance, Shannon diversity, and Total Avian Conservation Value in 20 replicates of four Conservation Reserve Program practices in an intensive rowcrop agricultural landscape in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley from May–Jul., 2005–2007. Conservation practices included: (1) large blocks of structurally-diverse early-succession vegetation (6–8 y old trees) and three buffer types; (2) 30 m wide monotypic filter strips with tall dense switchgrass (Panicum virgatum); (3) 30 m wide diverse filter strips with a forb-native warm season grass mixture; and (4) 60 m wide early-succession riparian forest buffers (1–3 y old trees). The breeding bird community was dominated by red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus; 43% of total) and dickcissels (Spiza americana; 42% of total) but commonly included eastern meadowlarks (Sturnella magna), indigo buntings (Passerina cyanea), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), and northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). We observed ≥1.8 × more dickcissels in large blocks and diverse filter strips than other buffers and greater Shannon diversity in large blocks than any buffers (P &lt; 0.05). Diverse filter strips had ≥1.6 × greater overall bird density (7.2 birds/0.6 ha), on average, than all other practices. Based on these data, we conclude that buffers are attractive to farmland breeding birds and may provide important ecological benefits to supplement a conservation management system founded on large blocks of early-succession vegetation.</abstract><cop>The University of Notre Dame, P.O. Box 369, Notre Dame, IN 46556-0369</cop><pub>American Midland Naturalist</pub><doi>10.1674/0003-0031-172.1.61</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-0031
ispartof The American midland naturalist, 2014-07, Vol.172 (1), p.61-75
issn 0003-0031
1938-4238
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1547849231
source JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Agelaius phoeniceus
agricultural land
Agricultural management
Agriculture
alluvial plains
Analysis
Animal populations
Aves
Aviculture
Biodiversity
Bird nesting
Birds
breeding
Colinus virginianus
Community
community structure
Conservation practices
Conservation Reserve Program
Crops
doves
Farms
filter strips
Freshwater
Grasses
Grasslands
Habitat conservation
indigo
intensive farming
land use
Panicum virgatum
Passerina cyanea
Planting
population dynamics
Protection and preservation
Riparian buffers
Spiza americana
Sturnella magna
trees
Vegetation
warm season grasses
Wildlife conservation
Zenaida
Zenaida macroura
title Effects of Set-aside Conservation Practices on Bird Community Structure within an Intensive Agricultural Landscape
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T01%3A16%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20Set-aside%20Conservation%20Practices%20on%20Bird%20Community%20Structure%20within%20an%20Intensive%20Agricultural%20Landscape&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20midland%20naturalist&rft.au=Conover,%20Ross%20R&rft.date=2014-07-01&rft.volume=172&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=61&rft.epage=75&rft.pages=61-75&rft.issn=0003-0031&rft.eissn=1938-4238&rft.coden=AMNAAF&rft_id=info:doi/10.1674/0003-0031-172.1.61&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA375696836%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1545632428&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A375696836&rft_jstor_id=43822749&rfr_iscdi=true