Response of Forest Bird Communities to Managed Landscapes in the Acadian Forest
by
Lisa A. Venier
1,*,
Kevin Porter
2,
Gregory Adams
3,†,
Kenneth McIlwrick
1,† and
Emily Smenderovac
1 1
Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, 1219 Queen St. E., Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 2E5, Canada
2
Independent Researcher, Fredericton, NB E3B 6Y2, Canada
3
GWA Forestry and Applied Biosciences Consulting, 5 Rockridge Dr., Sussex Corner, Sussex, NB E4E 5R2, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Retired.
Forests 2024, 15(1), 184; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15010184
Submission received: 21 November 2023
/
Revised: 8 January 2024
/
Accepted: 11 January 2024
/
Published: 17 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest Biodiversity Conservation)
Abstract
:The loss of mature forests is a known stressor of forest management on biodiversity. Mature forests provide unique habitat for forest birds. Here, we examine the capacity of mature forest stands embedded in an intensively managed landscape to provide habitat for landbird species that are associated with mature, unfragmented habitats. We carry this out by comparing bird communities in forest stands in three landscapes with a gradient of management activity. We examined community-level indicators (richness, diversity, abundance and community structure), and trait-level indicators (species groups associated with cavity nesting, mature forests, interior forests and area sensitivity). We found no obvious negative effects on bird communities, species and trait groups in forest stands in the most intensively managed landscape relative to the less intensively managed landscapes. Our ability to draw inferences about the influence of management intensity is limited due to lack of replication; however, these results do provide evidence that mature forest stands within intensively managed landscapes can provide valuable habitat to mature forest associates. There are often trade-offs between generating wood products from the forest and the provision of mature forest habitats. Research on forest birds can provide some of the necessary information for assessing the size and shape of those trade-offs and help to inform the conversation about the desired structure, function and composition of forests.
1. Introduction
Forest management is often criticized for having negative impacts on forest health, forest biodiversity and forest landbirds in particular. Increasing the intensity of management is often associated with increasing impact, with implications for biodiversity decline worldwide [1,2]. There has been significant debate on the role of managed landscapes in supporting natural forest biodiversity [3,4,5]. Landscape-scale effects can be large drivers of community change at stand scales [6]. The impact of landscape on local scales in forested landscapes without land conversion is a matter of debate, however [7,8,9]. Much of the often-cited research on landscape-scale effects was conducted in deforested landscapes where forest patches are embedded in a sea of agriculture or non-forest [10,11,12,13]. In this study, we examine the evidence that in managed forested landscapes without significant land use change, local stands can continue to provide habitat for a range of forest birds, including those that are associated with older forests. We examine landbird communities in forested landscapes with limited land use change, but with intensive management, reflected by a high percentage of planted stands.
Sustainability is a widely held goal of forest management in Canada, including respecting the principles of conservation and biodiversity [14,15], and, in some cases, a legislated mandate [16]. Assessing sustainability is an extremely complex task [8], but one common approach is the use of indicators of sustainability, especially biodiversity indicators [17]. Birds have long been suggested as a good indicator of environmental sustainability [18,19] and forest sustainability in particular [18,20,21]. There are well-established standardized methods of measurement of the relative abundance and distribution of birds [22,23]. In particular, habitat specialists can be informative because they can be most sensitive to specific stressors to the system [24,25]. Here we focus on old forest associates.
Autonomous recording technology for collecting auditory data is also facilitating the collection of significantly more bird abundance data [26,27,28,29]. Auditory methods permit the collection of data for a large diversity of landbird species at the same time. This diversity provides increased potential to detect change in the bird community due to the large variety of habitats and resource use by distinct species. Forest birds also represent a fairly high trophic level, and, as such, they are integrators of the forest system and respond to multiple changes in the ecosystem. In addition, we know a lot about the life history of forest birds due to a long history of research and interest (Birds of the World online, https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/home, accessed on 15 October 2023). This knowledge allows us to interpret changes in bird communities based on their functional traits that can link changes directly to potential stressors in the forest. Lastly, there is extensive bird data collection across provinces and territories through the Breeding Bird Atlas program (e.g., [30,31]) and the United States Geological Survey’s Breeding Bird Survey (BBS; [32]).
The objective of this study is to compare landbird communities in terms of richness, diversity, abundance, community structure and specific abundance in relation to functional traits in mature forest stands in three landscapes with different levels of management intensity. Bird communities in these landscapes have been studied for many years, and the landscape is known to have a high diversity of forest birds [33,34,35,36]. We were interested in understanding the ecological value of mature forests in the context of intensive forest management. This is a landscape-scale investigation in that birds were measured in matched forest stands in all three landscapes that were comparable in terms of ecosystem characteristics but differed in management intensity. We had no a priori expectation for the comparison of richness, diversity and abundance overall, but we hypothesized that if management intensity was impacting mature forest habitat at landscape scales, we would see community composition differences between landscapes. Specifically, we anticipated that cavity nesters, mature and overmature habitat associates, interior habitat associates and area-sensitive species would all be less common in the mature habitat of the most intensively managed landscape. We are aware that our capacity for statistical inference is limited here due to the lack of replication [37], although parsimony allows us to draw some reasonable conclusions about the value of older forest patches in intensively managed landscapes. Landscapes were chosen for their ecological similarity, all within the Acadian Forest. Landscape replication is often prohibitively difficult and expensive, and we must draw conclusions from more limited but still valuable data. An assessment of the ecological value of mature forests in management contexts will improve our ability to manage forests sustainably by allowing us to better understand and map elements of the ecological value of these mature forest stands.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Area
The three landscapes, Black Brook (BBRO), Quisibis (QUIS) and Debouille (DEBU), are all located within 100 km of each other in the province of New Brunswick, Canada, and the state of Maine, United States of America (Figure 1), all within the Acadian Temperate Forest [38], which covers an area including the Maritime provinces of Canada as well as the northeastern United States. Forest canopies are coniferous (e.g., balsam fir (Abies balsamea), white spruce (Picea glauca), red spruce (Picea rubens), black spruce (Picea mariana), eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), deciduous (e.g., sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red maple (Acer rubrum), white birch (Betula papyrifera), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), American beech (Fagus grandifolia) or a mixture). Anthropogenic disturbance is widespread in the Acadian Forest and includes forest harvesting, road building, agricultural conversion, rail and utility corridors and urban development. Windthrow, ice loading and insect infestations are the most widespread forms of natural disturbance. Wildfire is generally not a factor in the study areas [38]. In the study areas, the disturbances are primarily due to roads and harvest. Understory structure varies from dense to sparse and includes cold-deciduous broad-leaved shrubs, perennial herbs, tree regeneration and bryophytes.
BBRO (209,679 ha) is land owned and managed by J.D. Irving, Limited since the mid-1940s. The planting of stands began in the late 1950s. Twenty-five-year forest management plans are in place, which are revised on a five-year interval. These plans include multiple strategies and objectives related to sustainable wood supplies to support mills and communities; maintaining environmental quality, including water, site productivity and biological diversity; maintaining forest health; supporting non-timber use; and public accountability through third-party certification. The QUIS forest (37,294 ha) is provincially owned Crown land, also managed under a 25-year management plan according to strategies and objectives of the Province of New Brunswick (Crown Lands and Forests Act) and managed by an industrial licensee (part of Crown License 10, Twin Rivers Paper Company). The DEBU Township Forest (8489 ha) is managed for timber production and was acquired by the State of Maine in 1975. The area was first logged in the 1800s, heavily logged in the 1950s and 1960s and affected by the spruce budworm outbreak in the 1970s and 1980s and includes a nearly 364 ha ecological reserve. Timber management has been ongoing, with harvest levels at half of the calculated sustainable limit. The Deboullie Forest is 33% softwood, 25% hardwood and 42% mixedwood, with a general lack of stems under 10 m noted in the management plan.
GIS analysis was performed on forest resource inventories from each landowner along with forest management GIS updates to assess 5 landscape indicators of management activity, including area planted, area in softwood regeneration, area thinned in the last 10 years, area operated for hardwood and the amount of mature forest. BBRO had the highest area planted by a large margin (Table 1), the highest area thinned and the highest area of softwood regeneration and the least amount of mature forest and area of hardwood operated. QUIS and DEBU were more similar. Based on these values, we identified the BBRO landscape as the most intensively managed followed by QUIS and then DEBU. Primarily though, the large percentage of area planted in BBRO relative to the other forests is the most significant indicator of the amount of management activity.
2.2. Bird Sampling
All bird sampling was conducted in 2018. We identified 6 forest types to sample (Table 2) and attempted to sample 7 stands in each forest type for a total of 42 stands per landscape. We struggled to identify enough stands in the DEBU landscape that met size (at least 5 ha) and spatial (at least 100 m to all stand edges from the sampling location and at least 250 m from the next sampling location) requirements but were able to sample at least two stands in each forest type (Table 2). Stands ranged from 5 ha to approximately 100 ha. In each selected forest stand, we placed an autonomous recording unit (Song Meter 2, 3 or 4 from Wildlife Acoustics, Maynard, MA, USA) at a sampling location for a minimum of 20 days between June 1 and June 30 and recorded in stereo each day for 80 min, 10 min each hour from 30 min before sunrise to the 8th hour after sunrise. From the recordings, we chose the first 4 days where the recordings were free from noise (wind, rain and industrial) and interpreted two 5 min recordings from each day, one 20–30 min before sunrise and one within an hour after sunrise. Interpretation of recordings involves listening to the recording while examining a spectrogram and identifying all individuals heard by species. It is possible to identify multiple individuals of the same species on recording through the identification of counter singing with the use of stereo microphones. This gives a total of 8 recordings (40 min) per sampling location in the breeding season. Estimates of bird abundance in samples were generated using the maximum abundance for each species in the 8 recordings in each sampling location.
2.3. Analysis
We performed analyses in R version 4.2.1 (2022-06-23). We compared mean richness, diversity and abundance between landscapes and forest types using a one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons (α = 0.05). Richness was estimated using the Margalef richness index [39], which controls for effort (number of samples). Diversity was measured using the Shannon diversity index [40]. We also conducted non-metric multidimensional scaling (metaMDS), PERMANOVA (Adonis II) and comparisons of Beta dispersion (Betadisp), all using the vegan package in R [41], to visually compare landscape types based on bird community structure and to compare bird community centroids and dispersion between landscapes (α = 0.05). Lastly, we grouped species by migration strategy, nesting strategy, habitat association, successional stage association, affinity for interior forest and area sensitivity (Table A1) and compared total abundance within groups between landscapes.
3. Results
3.1. Species Presence, Richness, Diversity and Abundance
Excluding rare species with fewer than five total observations, Scarlet Tanager was the only species not found in BBRO samples but present in QUIS (12 times) and DEBU (6 times). There were seven species absent from DEBU samples, excluding rare species (<5), American Bittern, American Crow, American Goldfinch, Bay-breasted Warbler, Evening Grosbeak, Fox Sparrow and White-winged Crossbill (Table A2). There were three species absent from QUIS samples: Alder Flycatcher, Mourning Warbler and Northern Flicker. The 10 most common species of each of the three landscapes had a high degree of overlap and included Ovenbird, Swainson’s Thrush, White-throated Sparrow, Ruffed Grouse, Hermit Thrush, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker and Black-throated Green Warbler (Table A2). We observed more individuals and more species in BBRO than QUIS and DEBU (Table 3).
A one-way ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the richness index, Shannon diversity and abundance between the landscapes (Table 4). Tukey’s HSD test for multiple comparisons supported that these differences are primarily between the BBRO and DEBU landscapes, with BBRO having higher richness, diversity and abundance (Table 3 and Table 4 and Figure 2). The data met the assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity of variance (assessed through visual examination of data) and independence (observations were spaced to maintain independence).
3.2. Community Composition
The non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) results point to considerable overlap between landscape polygons, suggesting limited differences in bird community composition between the selected stands of landscapes (Figure 3). The Permanova test showed a significant difference at p < 0.05 for the comparison of BBRO with QUIS and DEBU but with very little variance explained. The beta dispersion paired comparisons showed no significant differences in community variance between BBRO and other landscapes (Table 5), suggesting that the variance between landscapes is homogeneous and, therefore, that the comparison of centroids is robust.
3.3. Bird Functional Trait Analysis
We saw no evidence of significant differences between the abundance of cavity nesters, mature forest associates, interior species and area-sensitive species in the three landscapes (Figure 4a–d). Overmature forest associates were too infrequent to assess (Figure 4b). In general, none of the classifications demonstrated obvious differences between landscapes and between functional classifications (Figure 4a–f), including habitat association and migration strategy (Figure 4e–f).
4. Discussion
We saw no obvious negative effects of greater management intensity of the BBRO landscapes at the stand scale. The effect of landscape-level influence on stand-level community composition and species abundance has been hypothesized for a long time. Landscape ecology theory predicts the existence of threshold levels of habitat in landscapes required to maintain species because of decreasing colonization rates and in increasing local extinction rates [43]. This effect has been clearly demonstrated in deforested landscapes, in particular in agricultural contexts [44,45,46]. The results for landscape-level effects have always been more equivocal in forests within forest management contexts [47,48,49]. Some studies have shown important landscape-scale effects on richness in one year only to demonstrate stronger stand-scale effects the next year [49]. Local patch size has also been demonstrated to be an important driver of species abundance, which can be both a local and landscape measure [3]. The low sensitivity of many boreal songbirds to harvesting at a landscape scale has been reported in several studies [50,51,52,53], and it has been suggested by others [7,19,54]. This may be because birds in boreal forests are adapted to frequent disturbances in natural boreal forest landscapes. In addition, though, it may also be because the context for the fragmentation is still forest, where there are gradients of habitat value, soft edges between patches and good connectivity, unlike agricultural areas with hard edges and habitat loss [55]. This is a more likely explanation for the Acadian Forest. Our results indicate a lack of landscape-scale effect that is consistent with other studies in forest management rather than agricultural contexts.
Significantly, there were no differences in the abundance of mature forest associates. We suggest that this should be the most sensitive indicator of landscape effect. The age class distribution of a forested region is one of the key characteristics that dictate the provision of habitat to wildlife [8]. All forest ages provide habitat, but currently in New Brunswick, forest management is reducing the distribution of the mature forest age classes, which could put stress on the species most associated with older age classes [56]. Mature forests provide unique habitat features for birds and other species [57,58,59,60], including larger trees and deadwood, which can support cavity nesters and saproxylics [54,61]. A reduction in the area of older forests can also be associated with shorter rotation planted forests.
There are a few studies on the Acadian Forest that have looked at landscape thresholds in species occurrence, predicting that there may be a threshold of habitat loss at the landscape scale below which ecological processes change abruptly [33,62]. This suggests that landscape-scale effects may not be evident until landscape-level habitat change reaches this threshold. There is some evidence for thresholds at which some species responded to landscape-level habitat change, ranging from 8.6 to 28.7% [33]. These results suggest that effects of landscape context have been identified, although at fairly low levels of landscape habitat. Our results suggest that if a threshold exists, it has not been reached on the BBRO landscape. This result suggests that the relatively high intensity of silviculture in the intensively managed forest landscape is not reducing the ability of mature forests to provide important habitat. This lends confidence to habitat estimates based on the prevalence and distribution of mature forests in ecosystems with forest continuity. Other studies have shown the ecological value of plantations themselves, where they contain diverse avian communities relative to native stands [63] or where they improve connectivity in landscapes [4,64].
The use of indicators that are known to respond to forest management stressors has long been a recommended approach to evaluating forest management practices [18]. This is supported by research that has demonstrated that generalist species are becoming more dominant while specialists are becoming rarer through a process of homogenization in response to human disturbance [24,25]. Our approach examined species with functional traits expected to be most impacted by common hypothesized stressors of intensive forest management. Cavity nesters [65] species that are area-sensitive or, alternatively, species that are associated with interior habitat [11,66] and species associated with mature or overmature habitat are all more likely to be impacted by a landscape-level reduction in older forest through intensive management. One of the key mechanisms that is used to explain this landscape-scale effect is meta-population dynamics [11,67], which suggests that patch occupancy will be higher in landscapes with more habitat or more connectivity [68]. Our results showed no evidence that these indicator groups were responding to the landscape-level management intensity. We speculate that this may be due to very high connectivity in these landscapes that are primarily forested even when mature patches of habitat are dispersed. The data suggest that all of these potentially sensitive specialists can be supported on these highly managed landscapes. This narrowing of the focus to forest birds at the highest risk of turnover or loss in abundance adds additional support to the ecological value of mature forest stands in a planted stand-rich context. We are not suggesting that there are no landscape-scale effects here but only that mature forest stands in BBRO appear to be providing similar habitat quality to mature forests in landscapes with a much smaller area of planted stands.
These results must be interpreted considering several caveats. First, our landscapes represent a gradient in planted stand management intensity (BBRO > QUIS > DEBU), but we do not have replication at the landscape scale, and so the results are confounded with landscape identity and all of the possible differences that might occur between landscapes we did not measure. However, these landscapes occur in a single forest system (the Acadian Forest) and have considerable overlap in bird communities based on the NMDS, suggesting that they represent a common forest system. In addition, the difference in the area of planted stands in these landscapes is so significant that parsimony would suggest that if management intensity was important, it would be visible here. Second, the sample size in the DEBU landscape was small relative to the other landscapes, and so this comparison should hold less weight but is consistent with the interpretation that high management intensity in BBRO is not compromising bird habitat quality. The third caveat is that perhaps the level of landscape management intensity in QUIS and DEBU is already sufficient to impact bird communities in the oldest forest stands. A comparison with an unmanaged landscape would be ideal but was not available in a comparable forest. It may be possible to use more generalized data from the Breeding Bird Survey and Breeding Bird Atlas to understand the pool of species that is expected as a point of comparison or reference condition, but, in the end, the vast majority of these data will come from managed landscapes. The reality that we have a limited selection of primary, or at least mature, unmanaged forest landscapes to act as reference conditions for sustainability assessments is significant and problematic.
An important implication of these results is that mature stands in these landscapes are able to provide mature forest habitat despite their context. The presence of species in these stands is not proof of the ability to breed here. There is a long-standing debate about the relationship between abundance and productivity [69], where some habitats contain sink populations that rely on immigration from outside of the stand to maintain populations [70]. Research in Ontario has demonstrated that many old forest associates do breed successfully in small patches of mature forest in a forest management context [53]. In contrast, there is evidence from areas fragmented by agriculture that reproductive success can be lowered in habitat fragments such that they become population sinks that cannot be maintained without immigration [71]. The BBRO landscape has been intensively managed for 70 years, and the area planted has been stable for the last 10 years, suggesting that these are persistent populations. Haché et al. [35] used demographic data collected from the BBRO forest to model ovenbird population dynamics under forestry as usual and climate change scenarios. They found that ovenbird populations act as demographic sinks in an intensively managed landscape under climate change but that without climate change (i.e., under current conditions), the number of territorial males would remain relatively constant. Given the inevitability of climate change, however, forest management planning and approaches may need to be altered to conserve old forest associates on these managed landscapes into the future.
5. Conclusions
Old forests provide unique habitat for forest birds, and the loss of that habitat in the Acadian Forest of New Brunswick has been linked directly to the long-term decline in old forest associates [56]. There is an inevitable trade-off between generating wood products from the forest and the provision of older forest habitat, although balance may be achievable through natural disturbance-based silvicultural systems that can better support mature forest birds [72]. Research on forest birds can provide some of the necessary information to assess the size and shape of those trade-offs and help to inform the conversation about the desired structure, function and composition of those forests. Specifically, improving our knowledge of the ecological value of mature forest stands in this managed context is an important step in our ability to assess trade-offs and find balance.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, L.A.V.; Methodology, L.A.V. and K.M.; Investigation, L.A.V., K.P., G.A. and K.M.; Resources, L.A.V.; Data curation, L.A.V., K.P. and K.M.; Writing—original draft, L.A.V.; Writing—review & editing, L.A.V., K.P., G.A. and E.S.; Visualization, K.P. and E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
NSERC Collaborative Research and Development Grant no. CRDPJ 495007-16 with JD Irving Limited.
Data Availability Statement
Data generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Neil Thomson for his support in data collection and insights on the Debouille landscape.
Conflicts of Interest
Greg Adams has retired from his position as science director with JD Irving (owner of the Black Brook landscape). Kevin Porter is a consultant paid by JD Irving. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The JD Irving had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Functional classifications of bird species’ functional trait identities include (1) Migration Strategy: NEO = neotropical migrant, NOM = nomadic, RES = resident and SDM = short-distance migrant; (2) nesting strategy: C = cavity, G = ground, LTC = lower tree canopy, TC = tree canopy, TS = tall shrubs and W = wetland; (3) habitat association: CMI = conifer mixedwood, CON = conifer, HMI = hardwood mixedwood, HWD = hardwood, MIX = mixedwood and OHS = open herb and shrub; (4) successional association: G = generalist, HE = herbs, IM = immature, MA = mature, OM = overmature and TS = tall shrubs; (5) area sensitivity: Y = yes and N = no; (6) interior association: E = edge, I = Interior, I_E = both, S = shore and W = wetland.
Table A1.
Functional classifications of bird species’ functional trait identities include (1) Migration Strategy: NEO = neotropical migrant, NOM = nomadic, RES = resident and SDM = short-distance migrant; (2) nesting strategy: C = cavity, G = ground, LTC = lower tree canopy, TC = tree canopy, TS = tall shrubs and W = wetland; (3) habitat association: CMI = conifer mixedwood, CON = conifer, HMI = hardwood mixedwood, HWD = hardwood, MIX = mixedwood and OHS = open herb and shrub; (4) successional association: G = generalist, HE = herbs, IM = immature, MA = mature, OM = overmature and TS = tall shrubs; (5) area sensitivity: Y = yes and N = no; (6) interior association: E = edge, I = Interior, I_E = both, S = shore and W = wetland.
| Specie Code | Common_Name | Migration Strategy | Nesting Strategy | Habitat | Successional Association | Area Sensitive | Interior Association | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALFL | Alder Flycatcher | NEO | Tall Shrubs | OHS | Tall Shrubs | N | E | |
| AMBI | American Bittern | SDM | Ground | OHS | Herbs | N | W | |
| AMCR | American Crow | SDM | Tree Canopy | OHS | Generalist | N | E | |
| AMGO | American Goldfinch | SDM | Lower Tree Canopy | MIX | Tall Shrubs | N | E | |
| AMRE | American Redstart | NEO | Tall Shrubs | HMI | Immature | Y | I_E | |
| AMRO | American Robin | SDM | Lower Tree Canopy | MIX | Generalist | N | E | |
| BAOW | Barred Owl | RES | Cavity | HMI | Mature | Y | I | |
| BAWW | Black-and-white Warbler | NEO | Ground | CMI | Mature | Y | I | |
| BBCU | Black-billed Cuckoo | NEO | Lower Tree Canopy | HWD | Immature | N | I_E | |
| BBWA | Bay-breasted Warbler | NEO | Lower Tree Canopy | CMI | Overmature | N | I_E | |
| BBWO | Black-backed Woodpecker | RES | Cavity | CON | Mature | Y | I_E | |
| BCCH | Black-capped Chickadee | RES | Cavity | MIX | Generalist | N | I_E | |
| BHVI | Blue-headed Vireo | SDM | Lower Tree Canopy | CMI | Mature | Y | I_E | |
| BLBW | Blackburnian Warbler | NEO | Tree Canopy | MIX | Mature | Y | I | |
| BLJA | Blue Jay | SDM | Lower Tree Canopy | CMI | Generalist | N | I_E | |
| BLPW | Blackpoll Warbler | NEO | Lower Tree Canopy | MIX | Overmature | N | I | |
| BOCH | Boreal Chickadee | RES | Cavity | CON | Mature | N | I | |
| BRCR | Brown Creeper | SDM | Cavity | MIX | Mature | Y | I | |
| BTBW | Black-throated Blue Warbler | NEO | Tall Shrubs | HWD | Immature | Y | I | |
| BTNW | Black-throated Green Warbler | NEO | Lower Tree Canopy | MIX | Mature | Y | I | |
| CAWA | Canada Warbler | NEO | Ground | MIX | Immature | Y | I_E | |
| CEDW | Cedar Waxwing | SDM | Lower Tree Canopy | HMI | Immature | N | E | |
| CHSP | Chipping Sparrow | SDM | Tall Shrubs | MIX | Immature | N | E | |
| CMWA | Cape May Warbler | NEO | Tree Canopy | MIX | Mature | N | I_E | |
| CONI | Common Nighthawk | NEO | Ground | OHS | Herbs | N | E | |
| CONW | Connecticut Warbler | NEO | Ground | CON | Overmature | N | I_E | |
| CORA | Common Raven | RES | Tree Canopy | MIX | Generalist | N | I_E | |
| COYE | Common Yellowthroat | NEO | Ground | OHS | Tall Shrubs | N | E | |
| CSWA | Chestnut-sided Warbler | NEO | Tall Shrubs | HWD | Immature | N | E | |
| DEJU | Dark-eyed Junco | SDM | Ground | CON | Immature | N | E | |
| DOWO | Downy Woodpecker | RES | Cavity | HWD | Immature | N | I_E | |
| EAKI | Eastern Kingbird | NEO | Lower Tree Canopy | OHS | Tall Shrubs | N | E | |
| EAWP | Eastern Wood-Pewee | NEO | Tree Canopy | HWD | Mature | N | I_E | |
| EVGR | Evening Grosbeak | NOM | Tree Canopy | CON | Mature | N | I_E | |
| FOSP | Fox Sparrow | SDM | Ground | CON | Immature | N | E | |
| GCFL | GreatCrested Flycatcher | NEO | Cavity | HWD | Immature | N | I_E | |
| GCKI | Golden-crowned Kinglet | SDM | Tree Canopy | CON | Mature | N | I | |
| GHOW | Great Horned Owl | RES | Cavity | HMI | Mature | N | I_E | |
| GRAJ | Canada Jay | RES | Lower Tree Canopy | CMI | Overmature | N | I_E | |
| GRHE | Green Heron | NEO | Tall Shrubs | OHS | Tall Shrubs | N | E | |
| HAWO | Hairy Woodpecker | RES | Cavity | MIX | Mature | Y | I | |
| HETH | Hermit Thrush | SDM | Ground | MIX | Mature | Y | I_E | |
| HOWR | House Wren | SDM | Cavity | HWD | Tall Shrubs | N | E | |
| LEFL | Least Flycatcher | NEO | Tree Canopy | HWD | Immature | Y | E | |
| MAWA | Magnolia Warbler | NEO | Lower Tree Canopy | CON | Immature | Y | I_E | |
| MERL | Merlin | SDM | Tree Canopy | CON | Generalist | N | I_E | |
| MOWA | Mourning Warbler | NEO | Ground | HMI | Immature | N | E | |
| NAWA | Nashville Warbler | NEO | Ground | MIX | Immature | N | E | |
| NOFL | Northern Flicker | SDM | Cavity | MIX | Immature | N | E | |
| NOPA | Northern Parula | NEO | Tree Canopy | MIX | Mature | Y | I | |
| NOWA | Northern Waterthrush | NEO | Ground | CMI | Mature | N | I_E | |
| NSOW | Northern Saw-whet Owl | RES | Cavity | CMI | Mature | N | I_E | |
| OCWA | Orange-crowned Warbler | SDM | Ground | CMI | Tall Shrubs | N | E | |
| OSFL | Olive-sided Flycatcher | NEO | Tree Canopy | CON | Overmature | N | I_E | |
| OVEN | Ovenbird | NEO | Ground | HMI | Mature | Y | I | |
| PAWA | Palm Warbler | SDM | Ground | CON | Tall Shrubs | N | E | |
| PHVI | Philadelphia Vireo | NEO | Tree Canopy | HWD | Immature | N | I_E | |
| PIGR | Pine Grosbeak | NOM | Lower Tree Canopy | MIX | Mature | N | I_E | |
| PIWA | Pine Warbler | SDM | Tree Canopy | CON | Mature | Y | I | |
| PIWO | Pileated Woodpecker | RES | Cavity | MIX | Mature | Y | I | |
| PUFI | Purple Finch | SDM | Tree Canopy | MIX | Mature | N | I_E | |
| RBGR | Rose-breasted Grosbeak | NEO | Lower Tree Canopy | HMI | Immature | N | I_E | |
| RBNU | Red-breasted Nuthatch | RES | Cavity | CMI | Mature | Y | I | |
| RCKI | Ruby-crowned Kinglet | SDM | Tree Canopy | CON | Mature | N | I_E | |
| REVI | Red-eyed Vireo | NEO | Lower Tree Canopy | HWD | Mature | N | I_E | |
| RTHU | Ruby-throated Hummingbird | NEO | Lower Tree Canopy | HWD | Generalist | N | E | |
| RUBL | Rusty Blackbird | SDM | Lower Tree Canopy | MIX | Generalist | N | E | |
| RUGR | Ruffed Grouse | RES | Ground | HMI | Generalist | N | I_E | |
| RWBL | Red-winged Blackbird | SDM | Wetland | OHS | Tall Shrubs | N | W | |
| SCTA | Scarlet Tanager | NEO | Tree Canopy | HWD | Mature | Y | I | |
| SPSA | Spotted Sandpiper | NEO | Ground | OHS | Herbs | N | S | |
| SWTH | Swainson’s Thrush | NEO | Lower Tree Canopy | MIX | Mature | N | I | |
| TEWA | Tennessee Warbler | NEO | Ground | HMI | Immature | N | I_E | |
| TRES | Tree Swallow | SDM | Cavity | OHS | Immature | N | E | |
| VEER | Veery | NEO | Tall Shrubs | HMI | Immature | Y | I | |
| WAVI | Warbling Vireo | NEO | Tree Canopy | HWD | Immature | N | E | |
| WBNU | White-breasted Nuthatch | RES | Cavity | HWD | Mature | Y | I | |
| WISN | Wilson’s Snipe | SDM | Ground | OHS | Herbs | N | W | |
| WIWA | Wilson’s Warbler | NEO | Ground | OHS | Tall Shrubs | N | E | |
| WIWR | Winter Wren | SDM | Cavity | CMI | Mature | Y | I | |
| WOTH | Wood Thrush | NEO | Lower Tree Canopy | MIX | Mature | N | I_E | |
| WTSP | White-throated Sparrow | SDM | Ground | MIX | Generalist | N | I_E | |
| WWCR | White-winged Crossbill | NOM | Tree Canopy | MIX | Mature | N | I_E | |
| YBFL | Yellow-bellied Flycatcher | NEO | Ground | CON | Overmature | N | I_E | |
| YBSA | Yellow-bellied Sapsucker | SDM | Cavity | MIX | Mature | Y | I_E | |
| YEWA | Yellow Warbler | NEO | Tall Shrubs | HWD | Tall Shrubs | N | E | |
| YRWA | Yellow-rumped Warbler | SDM | Tree Canopy | MIX | Mature | N | I_E | |
Table A2.
Bird species lists including common name, scientific name and abundance in each landscape.
Table A2.
Bird species lists including common name, scientific name and abundance in each landscape.
| Species Code | Common Name | Scientific Name | BBRO | QUIS | DEBU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abundance | |||||
| ALFL | Alder Flycatcher | Empidonax alnorum | 11 | 0 | 5 |
| AMBI | American Bittern | Botaurus lentiginosus | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| AMCR | American Crow | Corvus brachyrhynchos | 9 | 5 | 0 |
| AMGO | American Goldfinch | Spinus tristis | 9 | 11 | 0 |
| AMRE | American Redstart | Setophaga ruticilla | 21 | 7 | 3 |
| AMRO | American Robin | Turdus migratorius | 52 | 41 | 14 |
| BAOW | Barred Owl | Strix varia | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| BAWW | Black-and-white Warbler | Mniotilta varia | 6 | 2 | 4 |
| BBCU | Black-billed Cuckoo | Coccyzus erythropthalmus | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| BBWA | Bay-breasted Warbler | Setophaga castanea | 7 | 5 | 0 |
| BBWO | Black-backed Woodpecker | Picoides arcticus | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| BCCH | Black-capped Chickadee | Poecile atricapillus | 46 | 31 | 4 |
| BHVI | Blue-headed Vireo | Vireo solitarius | 40 | 33 | 8 |
| BLBW | Blackburnian Warbler | Setophaga fusca | 30 | 26 | 8 |
| BLJA | Blue Jay | Cyanocitta cristata | 29 | 26 | 8 |
| BLPW | Blackpoll Warbler | Setophaga striata | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| BOCH | Boreal Chickadee | Poecile hudsonicus | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| BRCR | Brown Creeper | Certhia americana | 22 | 23 | 10 |
| BTBW | Black-throated Blue Warbler | Setophaga caerulescens | 42 | 47 | 17 |
| BTNW | Black-throated Green Warbler | Setophaga virens | 56 | 51 | 19 |
| CAWA | Canada Warbler | Cardellina canadensis | 12 | 5 | 2 |
| CEDW | Cedar Waxwing | Bombycilla cedrorum | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| CHSP | Chipping Sparrow | Spizella passerina | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| CMWA | Cape May Warbler | Setophaga tigrina | 7 | 7 | 1 |
| CONI | Common Nighthawk | Chordeiles minor | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| CONW | Connecticut Warbler | Geothlypis agilis | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| CORA | Common Raven | Corvus corax | 8 | 23 | 3 |
| COYE | Common Yellowthroat | Geothlypis trichas | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| CSWA | Chestnut-sided Warbler | Setophaga pensylvanica | 4 | 2 | 6 |
| DEJU | Dark-eyed Junco | Junco hyemalis | 2 | 7 | 5 |
| DOWO | Downy Woodpecker | Dryobates pubescens | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| EAKI | Eastern Kingbird | Tyrannus tyrannus | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| EAWP | Eastern Wood-Pewee | Contopus virens | 12 | 11 | 5 |
| EVGR | Evening Grosbeak | Coccothraustes vespertinus | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| FOSP | Fox Sparrow | Passerella iliaca | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| GCFL | Great Crested Flycatcher | Myiarchus crinitus | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GCKI | Golden-crowned Kinglet | Regulus satrapa | 37 | 35 | 10 |
| GHOW | Great Horned Owl | Bubo virginianus | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| GRAJ | Gray Jay | Perisoreus canadensis | 10 | 6 | 1 |
| GRHE | Green Heron | Butorides virescens | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| HAWO | Hairy Woodpecker | Dryobates villosus | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| HETH | Hermit Thrush | Catharus guttatus | 67 | 65 | 18 |
| HOWR | House Wren | Troglodytes aedon | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| LEFL | Least Flycatcher | Empidonax minimus | 8 | 12 | 9 |
| MAWA | Magnolia Warbler | Setophaga magnolia | 41 | 25 | 12 |
| MERL | Merlin | Falco columbarius | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| MOWA | Mourning Warbler | Geothlypis philadelphia | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| NAWA | Nashville Warbler | Oreothlypis ruficapilla | 42 | 21 | 10 |
| NOFL | Northern Flicker | Colaptes auratus | 8 | 0 | 1 |
| NOPA | Northern Parula | Setophaga americana | 53 | 50 | 14 |
| NOWA | Northern Waterthrush | Parkesia noveboracensis | 24 | 2 | 3 |
| NSOW | Northern Saw-whet Owl | Aegolius acadicus | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| OCWA | Orange-crowned Warbler | Oreothlypis celata | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| OSFL | Olive-sided Flycatcher | Contopus cooperi | 13 | 3 | 4 |
| OVEN | Ovenbird | Seiurus aurocapilla | 72 | 85 | 28 |
| PAWA | Palm Warbler | Setophaga palmarum | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| PHVI | Philadelphia Vireo | Vireo philadelphicus | 8 | 10 | 2 |
| PIGR | Pine Grosbeak | Pinicola enucleator | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| PIWA | Pine Warbler | Setophaga pinus | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| PIWO | Pileated Woodpecker | Dryocopus pileatus | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| PUFI | Purple Finch | Haemorhous purpureus | 9 | 18 | 4 |
| RBGR | Rose-breasted Grosbeak | Pheucticus ludovicianus | 20 | 19 | 3 |
| RBNU | Red-breasted Nuthatch | Sitta canadensis | 55 | 59 | 12 |
| RCKI | Ruby-crowned Kinglet | Regulus calendula | 35 | 24 | 6 |
| REVI | Red-eyed Vireo | Vireo olivaceus | 30 | 46 | 19 |
| RTHU | Ruby-throated Hummingbird | Archilochus colubris | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| RUBL | Rusty Blackbird | Euphagus carolinus | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| RUGR | Ruffed Grouse | Bonasa umbellus | 57 | 61 | 32 |
| RWBL | Red-winged Blackbird | Agelaius phoeniceus | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| SCTA | Scarlet Tanager | Piranga olivacea | 0 | 12 | 6 |
| SPSA | Spotted Sandpiper | Actitis macularius | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| SWTH | Swainson’s Thrush | Catharus ustulatus | 82 | 78 | 25 |
| TEWA | Tennessee Warbler | Oreothlypis peregrina | 5 | 9 | 1 |
| TRES | Tree Swallow | Tachycineta bicolor | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| VEER | Veery | Catharus fuscescens | 21 | 14 | 7 |
| WAVI | Warbling Vireo | Vireo gilvus | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| WBNU | White-breasted Nuthatch | Sitta carolinensis | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| WISN | Wilson’s Snipe | Gallinago delicata | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| WIWA | Wilson’s Warbler | Cardellina pusilla | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| WIWR | Winter Wren | Troglodytes hiemalis | 49 | 45 | 14 |
| WOTH | Wood Thrush | Hylocichla mustelina | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| WTSP | White-throated Sparrow | Zonotrichia albicollis | 94 | 61 | 28 |
| WWCR | White-winged Crossbill | Loxia leucoptera | 9 | 12 | 0 |
| YBFL | Yellow-bellied Flycatcher | Empidonax flaviventris | 37 | 19 | 6 |
| YBSA | Yellow-bellied Sapsucker | Sphyrapicus varius | 59 | 60 | 28 |
| YEWA | Yellow Warbler | Setophaga petechia | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| YRWA | Yellow-rumped Warbler | Setophaga coronata | 13 | 22 | 10 |
References
- Seddon, N.; Mace, G.M.; Naeem, S.; Tobias, J.A.; Pigot, A.L.; Cavanagh, R.; Mouillot, D.; Vause, J.; Walpole, M. Biodiversity in the Anthropocene: Prospects and policy. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 283, 20162094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rosenberg, K.V.; Dokter, A.M.; Blancher, P.J.; Sauer, J.R.; Smith, A.C.; Smith, P.A.; Stanton, J.C.P.; Helft, L.; Parr, M.; Marra, P.P. Decline of North American avifauna. Science 2019, 366, 120–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jokimäki, J.; Solonen, T. Habitat associations of old forest bird species in managed boreal forests characterized by forest inventory data. Ornis Fenn. 2011, 88, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockerhoff, E.G.; Jactel, H.; Parrotta, J.A.; Quine, C.P.; Sayer, J. Plantation forests and biodiversity: Oxymoron or opportunity? Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 925–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paquette, A.; Messier, C. The role of plantations in managing the world’s forests in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2010, 8, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Püttker, T.; Crouzeilles, R.; Almeida-Gomes, M.; Schmoeller, M.; Maurenza, D.; Alves-Pinto, H.; Pardini, R.; Vieira, M.V.; Banks-Leite, C.; Fonseca, C.R.; et al. Indirect effects of habitat loss via habitat fragmentation: A cross-taxa analysis of forest-dependent species. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 241, 108368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmiegelow FK, A.; Machtans, C.S.; Hannon, S.J. Are Boreal Birds Resilient to Forest Fragmentation? An Experimental Study of Short-Term Community Responses. Ecology 1997, 78, 1914–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venier, L.A.; Thompson, I.D.; Fleming, R.; Malcolm, J.; Aubin, I.; Trofymow, J.A.; Langor, D.; Sturrock, R.; Patry, C.; Outerbridge, R.O.; et al. Effects of natural resource development on the terrestrial biodiversity of Canadian boreal forests. Environ. Rev. 2014, 22, 457–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porro, Z.; Chiatante, G.; Bogliani, G. Associations between forest specialist birds and composition of woodland habitats in a highly modified landscape. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 458, 117732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dorp, D.; Opdam, P.F.M. Effects of patch size, isolation and regional abundance on forest bird communities. Landsc. Ecol. 1987, 1, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, S.K.; Thompson, F.R., III; Donovan, T.M.; Whitehead, D.R.; Faaborg, J. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 1995, 267, 1987–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, D.M.; Nol, E. Landscape and fragment size effects on reproductive success of forest-breeding birds in Ontario. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 1749–1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boulinier, T.; Nichols, J.D.; Hines, J.E.; Sauer, J.R.; Flather, C.H.; Pollock, K.H. Forest fragmentation and bird community dynamics: Inference at regional scales. Ecology 2001, 82, 1159–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- New Brunswick. Natural Resources and Energy Development, Forestry and Conservation. 2023. Available online: https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/erd/forestry-conservation.html (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Montreal Process. Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests. 2015. Available online: https://montreal-process.org/ (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Ontario Crown Forest Sustainability Act. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Province of Ontario, Canada. 1994. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/94c25 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Gao, T.; Nielsen, A.B.; Hedblom, M. Reviewing the strength of evidence of biodiversity indicators for forest ecosystems in Europe. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 420–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venier, L.A.; Pearce, J.L. Birds as indicators of sustainable forest management. For. Chron. 2004, 80, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraixedas, S.; Lindén, A.; Piha, M.; Cabeza, M.; Gregory, R.; Lehikoinen, A. A state-of-the-art review on birds as indicators of biodiversity: Advances, challenges, and future directions. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 118, 106728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niemi, G.; Hanowski, J.; Helle, P.; Howe, R.; Mönkkönen, M.; Venier, L.; Welsh, D. Ecological Sustainability of Birds in Boreal Forests. Ecol. Soc. 1998, 2, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLaren, M.A.; Thompson, I.D.; Baker, J.A. Selection of vertebrate wildlife indicators for monitoring sustainable forest management in Ontario. For. Chron. 1998, 74, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koskimies, P.; Vaisanen, R.A. Monitoring Bird Populations: A Manual of Methods Applied in Finland. Zoological Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History; University of Helsinki: Helsinki, Finland, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Ralph, C.J.; Droege, S.; Sauer, J.R. Managing and monitoring birds using point counts: Standards and applications. In Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts; Ralph, C.J., Sauer, J.R., Droege, S., Eds.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: Albany, CA, USA, 1995; pp. 171–175. [Google Scholar]
- Clavel, J.; Julliard, R.; Devictor, V. Worldwide decline of specialist species: Toward a global functional homogenization? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 9, 222–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gámez-Virués, S.; Perović, D.J.; Gossner, M.M.; Börschig, C.; Blüthgen, N.; De Jong, H.; Simons, N.K.; Klein, A.M.; Krauss, J.; Maier, G.; et al. Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venier, L.A.; Holmes, S.B.; Holborn, G.W.; McIlwrick, K.A.; Brown, G. Evaluation of an automated recording device for monitoring forest birds. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2012, 36, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobson, K.A.; Rempel, R.S.; Greenwood, H.; Turnbull, B.; Van Wilgenburg, S.L. Acoustic surveys of birds using electronic recordings: New potential from an omnidirectional microphone system. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2002, 30, 709–720. [Google Scholar]
- Acevedo, M.A.; Villanueva-Rivera, L.J. From the Field: Using Automated Digital Recording Systems as Effective Tools for the Monitoring of Birds and Amphibians. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2006, 34, 211–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Celis-Murillo, A.; Deppe, J.L.; Allen, M.F. Using soundscape recordings to estimate bird species abundance, richness, and composition. J. Field Ornithol. 2009, 80, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, R.L.M.; Bredin, K.A.; Couturier, A.R.; Horn, A.; Lepage, D.; Makepeace, S.; Taylor, P.D.; Villard, M.-A.; Whittam, R.M. Second Atlas of Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces; Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Natural History Society of Prince Edward Island: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Cadman, M.D.; Sutherland, G.G.; Lepge, D.; Couturier, A.R. Atas of the Breeding Birds on Ontario, 2001–2005. Auk 2007, 126, 469–472. [Google Scholar]
- Sauer, J.R.; Pardieck, K.L.; Ziolkowski, D.J.; Smith, A.C.; Hudson, M.-A.R.; Rodriguez, V.; Berlanga, H.; Niven, D.K.; Link, W.A. The first 50 years of the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Condor 2017, 119, 576–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betts, M.G.; Villard, M.-A. Landscape thresholds in species occurrence as quantitative targets in forest management: Generality in space and time? In Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes; Jonsson, B.G., Villard, M.-A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haché, S.; Pétry, T.; Villard, M.-A. Numerical Response of Breeding Birds Following Experimental Selection Harvesting in Northern Hardwood Forests. Réponse Numérique Huit. Espèces D’oiseaux Nicheurs Suite D’une Coupe Jard. Expérimentale Forêt Feuillue Septentr. 2013, 8, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haché, S.; Cameron, R.; Villard, M.-A.; Bayne, E.M.; MacLean, D.A. Demographic response of a neotropical migrant songbird to forest management and climate change scenarios. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 359, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacKay, A.; Allard, M.; Villard, M.-A. Capacity of older plantations to host bird assemblages of naturally-regenerated conifer forests: A test at stand and landscape levels. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 170, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurlbert, S.H. Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 1984, 54, 187–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldwin, K.; Allen, L.; Basquill, S.; Chapman, K.; Downing, D.; Flynn, N.; MacKenzie, W.; Major, M.; Meades, W.; Meidinger, D.; et al. Vegetation Zones of Canada: A Biogeoclimatic Perspective; Natural Resources Canada: Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada, 2020; Available online: https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/download-pdf/40507 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Margalef, R. Information theory in ecology. Gen. Syst. 1958, 3, 35. [Google Scholar]
- Magurran, A. Measuring Biological Diversity; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Oksanene, J.; Gavin, L.; Simpson, F.; Blanchet, G.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; Minchin, P.R.; O’Hara, R.B.; Solymos, P.; Stevens, M.H.H.; et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package; R Package Version 2.6-2; R Team: Vienna, Austria, 2022; Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- McCune, B.; Grace, J.B. Analysis of Ecological Communities; MjM Software Design: Gleneden Beach, OR, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Fahrig, L. When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival? Ecol. Model. 1998, 105, 273–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andren, H. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: A review. Oikos 1994, 71, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hinsley, S.A.; Bellamy, P.E.; Newton, I.; Sparks, T.H. Habitat and landscape factors influencing the presence of individual breeding bird species in woodland fragments. J. Avian Biol. 1995, 26, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sisk, T.D.; Haddad, N.M.; Ehrlich, P.R. Bird assemblages in patchy woodlands: Modeling the effects of edge and matrix habitats. Ecol. Appl. 1997, 7, 1170–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGarigal, K.; McComb, W.C. Relationships between Landscape Structure and Breeding Birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol. Monogr. 1995, 65, 235–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venier, L.A.; Pearce, J.L. Boreal forest landbirds in relation to forest composition, structure, and landscape: Implications for forest management. Can. J. For. Res. 2007, 37, 1214–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, K.; Böhm, S.M.; Boch, S.; Fischer, M.; Kalko, E.K.V. Local and landscape-scale forest attributes differ in their impact on bird assemblages across years in forest production landscapes. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2011, 12, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayne, E.M.; Hobson, K.A. Apparent survival of male ovenbirds in fragemented and forested boreal landscapes. Ecology 2002, 83, 1307–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitaker, D.M.; Taylor, P.D.; Warkentin, I.G. Survival of adult songbirds in boreal forest landscapes fragmented by clearcuts and natural openings. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 2008, 3, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalley, K.L.; Taylor, P.D.; Shutler, D. Success of Migratory Songbirds Breeding in Harvested Boreal Forests of Northwestern Newfoundland. Condor 2009, 111, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venier, L.A.; Dalley, K.; Goulet, P.; Mills, S.; Pitt, D.; Cowcill, K. Benefits of aggregate green tree retention to boreal forest birds. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 343, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imbeau, L.; Monkkonen, M.; Derochers, A. Long-term effects of forestry on birds of the easter Canadian boreal forests: A comparison with Fennoscandia. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15, 1151–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobson, K.A.; Bayne, E. Effects of forest fragmentation by agriculture on avian communities in the southern boreal mixedwoods of western Canada. Wilson Bull. 2000, 112, 373–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betts, M.G.; Yang, Z.; Hadley, A.S.; Smith, A.C.; Rousseau, J.S.; Northrup, J.M.; Nocera, J.J.; Gorelick, N.; Gerber, B.D. Forest degradation drives widespread avian habitat and population declines. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 6, 709–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betts, M.G.; Phalan, B.; Frey, S.J.K.; Rousseau, J.S.; Yang, Z. Old-growth forests buffer climate-sensitive bird populations from warming. Divers. Distrib. 2018, 24, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phalan, B.T.; Northrup, J.M.; Yang, Z.; Deal, R.L.; Rousseau, J.S.; Spies, T.A.; Betts, M.G. Impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan on forest composition and bird populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 3322–3327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, G.M.; Kramer, H.A.; Berigan, W.J.; Whitmore, S.; Gutiérrez, R.; Peery, M.Z. Megafire causes persistent loss of an old-forest species. Anim. Conserv. 2021, 24, 925–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindenmayer, D.; Bowd, E. Critical Ecological Roles, Structural Attributes and Conservation of Old Growth Forest: Lessons from a Case Study of Australian Mountain Ash Forests. Front. For. Glob. Change 2022, 5, 878570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stockland, J.N.; Siitonen, J.; Jonsson, B.G. Biodiversity in Dead Wood; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Betts, M.G.; Forbes, G.J.; Diamond, A.W. Thresholds in Songbird Occurrence in Relation to Landscape Structure. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 1046–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritter, C.; King, D.I.; DeStefano, S.; Clark, D. Bird communities reveal the ecological value of non-native Norway spruce plantations in Massachusetts, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 540, 120992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pawson, S.M.; Brin, A.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Lamb, D.; Payn, T.W.; Paquette, A.; Parrotta, J.A. Plantation forests, climate change and biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 1203–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tremblay, J.A.; Savard, J.-P.L.; Ibarzabal, J. Structural retention requirements for a key ecosystem engineer in conifer-dominated stands of a boreal managed landscape in eastern Canada. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 357, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robbins, C.S.; Dawson, D.K.; Dowell, B.A. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildl. Monogr. 1989, 103, 3–34. [Google Scholar]
- Fahrig, L.; Merriam, G. Conservation of Fragmented Populations. Conserv. Biol. 1994, 8, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanski, I. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 1998, 396, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Horne, B. Density as a Misleading Indicator of Habitat Quality. J. Wildl. Manag. 1983, 47, 893–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulliam, H.R. Sources, Sinks, and Population Regulation. Am. Nat. 1988, 132, 652–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donovan, T.M.; Thompson, F.R., III; Faaborg, J.; Probst, J.R. Reproductive Success of Migratory Birds in Habitat Sources and Sinks. Conserv. Biol. 1995, 9, 1380–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pohlman, C.K.; Roth, A.M.; Hartley, M.J.; Hunter, M.L.; McGill, B.J.; Seymour, R.S. Experimental natural disturbance-based silviculture systems maintain mature forest bird assemblage long-term in Maine (USA). For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 528, 120630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Study areas. The three landscapes, Black Brook (BBRO), Quisibis (QUIS) and Debouille (DEBU), blue polygons, are all located within 100 km of each other in the province of New Brunswick, Canada, and the state of Maine, United States of America. QUIS polygon was drawn using a fixed-width buffer, creating an artificial overlap with BBRO. Bird survey sites located within the BBRO polygon contributed only to the BBRO data.
Figure 1.
Study areas. The three landscapes, Black Brook (BBRO), Quisibis (QUIS) and Debouille (DEBU), blue polygons, are all located within 100 km of each other in the province of New Brunswick, Canada, and the state of Maine, United States of America. QUIS polygon was drawn using a fixed-width buffer, creating an artificial overlap with BBRO. Bird survey sites located within the BBRO polygon contributed only to the BBRO data.
Figure 2.
Boxplot comparison of (a) Margalef richness index per sampled stand, (b) Shannon diversity index and (c) abundance for the 3 landscapes (BBRO = Black Brook, QUIS = Quisibis and DEBU = Debouille). Data points are represented by black dots.
Figure 2.
Boxplot comparison of (a) Margalef richness index per sampled stand, (b) Shannon diversity index and (c) abundance for the 3 landscapes (BBRO = Black Brook, QUIS = Quisibis and DEBU = Debouille). Data points are represented by black dots.
Figure 3.
Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot of bird communities in the 3 landscapes. The overall stress value for the NMDS is 0.20. This level of stress suggests that too much reliance should not be placed on the details of the plot but that the overall plot can still correspond to a usable picture [42]. The non-metric R-squared is 0.96. Centroids of polygons are displayed as stars.
Figure 3.
Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot of bird communities in the 3 landscapes. The overall stress value for the NMDS is 0.20. This level of stress suggests that too much reliance should not be placed on the details of the plot but that the overall plot can still correspond to a usable picture [42]. The non-metric R-squared is 0.96. Centroids of polygons are displayed as stars.
Figure 4.
Comparison of landscapes according to functional traits for abundance (abun). Functional classifications include (a) nesting strategy: C = cavity, G = ground, LTC = lower tree canopy, TC = tree canopy, TS = tall shrubs and W = wetland; (b) successional associates: G = generalist, HE = herbs, IM = immature, MA = mature, OM = overmature and TS = tall shrubs; (c) interior associates: E = edge, I = interior, I_E = both, S = shore and W = wetland; (d) area sensitive: Y = yes and N = no; (e) habitat: CMI = conifer mixedwood, CON = conifer, HMI = hardwood mixedwood, HWD = hardwood, MIX = mixedwood and OHS = open herb and shrub; (f) migration strategy: NEO = neotropical migrant, NOM = nomadic, RES = resident and SDM = short-distance migrant. Box and whisker plots display quartiles and median values.
Figure 4.
Comparison of landscapes according to functional traits for abundance (abun). Functional classifications include (a) nesting strategy: C = cavity, G = ground, LTC = lower tree canopy, TC = tree canopy, TS = tall shrubs and W = wetland; (b) successional associates: G = generalist, HE = herbs, IM = immature, MA = mature, OM = overmature and TS = tall shrubs; (c) interior associates: E = edge, I = interior, I_E = both, S = shore and W = wetland; (d) area sensitive: Y = yes and N = no; (e) habitat: CMI = conifer mixedwood, CON = conifer, HMI = hardwood mixedwood, HWD = hardwood, MIX = mixedwood and OHS = open herb and shrub; (f) migration strategy: NEO = neotropical migrant, NOM = nomadic, RES = resident and SDM = short-distance migrant. Box and whisker plots display quartiles and median values.
Table 1.
Landscape-scale measures of management activity taken from aerially interpreted forest resource inventory polygons.
Table 1.
Landscape-scale measures of management activity taken from aerially interpreted forest resource inventory polygons.
| Management | BBRO | QUIS | DEBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| % Area planted to conifer (of total landbase) | 41.8 | 10.2 | 0 |
| % Area softwood regeneration (of total landbase) | 4.4 | 1.0 | 3 |
| % Area thinned in last 10 years (of total landbase) | 8.3 | 0.6 | 0 |
| % Hardwood Area operated (of total hardwood area) | 21.1 | 21.8 | 32 |
| % Mature forest (of total landbase) | 34.0 | 39.4 | 45.7 |
Table 2.
The number of stands sampled in six forest types in this study (classified by stand attributes in GIS).
Table 2.
The number of stands sampled in six forest types in this study (classified by stand attributes in GIS).
| Forest Type | BBRO | QUIS | DEBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cedar Mature/Over Mature 1 | 7 | 7 | 2 |
| Mixedwood Mature/Over Mature 2 | 7 | 7 | 3 |
| Spruce Fir (16–45 years old) 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 |
| Spruce Fir Mature/Over Mature 4 | 7 | 7 | 2 |
| Tolerant Hardwood Mature–Over Mature–No Recent Harvest 5 | 7 | 6 | 3 |
| Tolerant Hardwood Mature–Over Mature–Selection Harvest 6 | 7 | 7 | 2 |
| Total | 42 | 41 | 15 |
1 Cedar Mature/Over Mature: Eastern cedar-dominated stands, greater than 65 years old. Mature and overmature stands may have undergone selection harvest that favours cedar for retention and removes other softwood species unlikely to live another 25 years. 2 Mixedwood Mature/Over Mature: Natural stands with tolerant hardwoods and intolerant hardwoods mixed with softwood species that are older than 65 years and have had no silvicultural interventions. 3 Spruce Fir (16–45 years old): Natural spruce/fir forests that are 16 to 45 years old and have had no silvicultural interventions. 4 Spruce Fir Mature/Over Mature: Natural spruce/fir forests composed of white, red and/or black spruce and/or balsam fir. Stands are older than 45 years and have had no silvicultural interventions. 5 Tolerant Hardwood Mature–Over Mature–No Recent Harvest: Natural stands of tolerant hardwoods (sugar maple, yellow birch, American beech and red maple) that are older than 75 years and have had no silvicultural interventions. 6 Tolerant Hardwood Mature–Over Mature–Selection Harvest: Natural stands of tolerant hardwoods that are older than 75 years. Stands have typically undergone single tree selection or gap harvesting favouring healthy, vigorous stems conducive to selection harvest regimes (i.e., multiple entries in perpetuity).
Table 3.
Bird richness, abundance and diversity summaries with standard deviation (SD) for 3 landscapes in the Acadian Forest in 2018.
Table 3.
Bird richness, abundance and diversity summaries with standard deviation (SD) for 3 landscapes in the Acadian Forest in 2018.
| Total Number of Species | No. of Sampled Stands | Abundance | Mean Margalef Richness Per Sampled Stand (SD) | Mean Abundance Per Sampled Stand (SD) | Mean Shannon Diversity Per Sampled Stand (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Landscapes | 86 | 99 | 3193 | 6.01 | 31.16 | |
| BBRO | 77 | 42 | 1456 | 6.28 (0.84) | 34.7 (7.1) | 3.03 (0.17) |
| QUIS | 65 | 41 | 1278 | 5.95 (0.86) | 31.2 (7.4) | 2.96 (0.19) |
| DEBU | 56 | 16 | 459 | 5.48 (0.75) | 28.7 (5.8) | 2.83 (0.16) |
Table 4.
Results of one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test of multiple comparisons for the three landscapes. The F statistic is reported with degrees of freedom in brackets.
Table 4.
Results of one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test of multiple comparisons for the three landscapes. The F statistic is reported with degrees of freedom in brackets.
| Comparison | Richness | Shannon Diversity | Abundance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (one-way ANOVA) | F(2, 96) = 5.634, p = 0.0049 | F(2, 96) = 6.345, p = 0.0026 | F(2, 96) = 5.017, p = 0.0085 |
| BBRO vs. QUIS (Tukey’s HSD test for multiple comparisons) | p = 0.17 | p = 0.15 | p = 0.06 |
| QUIS vs. DEBU (Tukey’s HSD test for multiple comparisons) | p = 0.13 | p = 0.096 | p = 0.45 |
| BBRO vs. DEBU (Tukey’s HSD test for multiple comparisons) | p = 0.004 | p = 0.002 | p = 0.013 |
Table 5.
Pairwise comparisons of centroid and dispersion of the communities from the 3 landscapes.
| Comparisons | Df | Permanova F | Permanova p | R-Squared | Beta Dispersion F | Beta Dispersion p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BBRO: QUIS | 1 | 3.53 | 0.003 | 0.041 | 0.839 | 0.362 |
| BBRO: DEBU | 1 | 3.46 | 0.001 | 0.058 | 2.97 | 0.090 |
| QUIS: DEBU | 1 | 1.59 | 0.1 | 0.028 | 4.50 | 0.038 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Venier, L.A.; Porter, K.; Adams, G.; McIlwrick, K.; Smenderovac, E. Response of Forest Bird Communities to Managed Landscapes in the Acadian Forest. Forests 2024, 15, 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15010184
AMA Style
Venier LA, Porter K, Adams G, McIlwrick K, Smenderovac E. Response of Forest Bird Communities to Managed Landscapes in the Acadian Forest. Forests. 2024; 15(1):184. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15010184
Chicago/Turabian StyleVenier, Lisa A., Kevin Porter, Gregory Adams, Kenneth McIlwrick, and Emily Smenderovac. 2024. "Response of Forest Bird Communities to Managed Landscapes in the Acadian Forest" Forests 15, no. 1: 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15010184
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
