Search Results

1 results returned.
To copy the URL of a document, Right Click on the document title, select "Copy Shortcut/Copy Link", then paste as needed. Only documents available to the public have this feature enabled.
Title Sort descending Sort ascending Primary
Author Sort ascending Sort descending
Date Sort ascending Sort descending
Abstract / Details
View
Hard
copy
Species-level test of ecological representation in the Arrow TSA: distribution and density of birds in Spring and Winter Herbers, Jim
2004
A
D
Abstract: Over the past 4 years, the Arrow Innovative Forestry Practices Agreement (IFPA) has been developing a framework for maintaining biological diversity in the Arrow timber supply area (TSA). One of the main components of this framework is the development of a coarse-filter strategy of ecological representation. Ecological representation is about representing ecosystems in an unmanaged state and, as such, is an important first step towards maintaining biodiversity because it helps to account for species that are too poorly known or numerous to manage individually. To date, research conducted by the Arrow IFPA has largely focused on quantifying how well the non-harvestable landbase represents ecosystem types and key habitat elements in the harvestable landbase. The first stages of this work revealed that the overall level of unmanaged area in the Arrow TSA was high (43%), and that all 15 ecosystem types in the TSA were equitably represented in non-harvestable areas. However, sampling habitat attributes in the 5 largest ecosystems revealed several important differences between the harvestable and non-harvestable landbase. Key among these differences was lower deadwood resources (snags and coarse-woody debris) and less productivity in non-harvestable forests, particularly in the ESSF. These differences were not as pronounced in the ICH, but well-decayed snags were at very low levels in the non-harvestable portion of the ICH. Recently, the Arrow IFPA began examining if the structural differences between landbase types are biologically meaningful to the organisms that depend on this structure. During winter 2003, a species-level test of ecological representation in the Arrow TSA was initiated in the harvestable and non-harvestable landbases of the 3 largest ecosystems (Serrouya et al. 2003). Serrouya et al. concluded that non-migratory birds were generally well 'represented' in the non-harvestable landbase of ESSF ecosystems. However, they found 45% fewer birds in the ICH non-harvestable landbase despite similar levels of forest structure. This raised concern that the ICH non-harvestable landbase may not be doing a good job representing the avian community found in the ICH harvestable landbase. In this study we built upon previous research by examining spring breeding bird diversity and density in the harvestable and non-harvestable landbases of the 3 largest ecosystems. We also followed up on the results from the non-migratory bird project conducted during winter 2003 by re-surveying harvestable, non-harvestable and partially harvested stands in the ICH ecosystem. We chose to re-survey the ICH because of differences noted the previous winter. Our overall objectives were: 1) to examine breeding birds in the 3 largest ecosystems in the Arrow TSA, 2) to examine breeding birds between the harvestable and non-harvestable landbases in the 3 largest ecosystems, 3) to examine winter birds between the harvestable and non-harvestable landbases in the ICH ecosystem, and 4) to examine winter birds in 2 commonly implemented partial harvesting treatments. We used the point transect method to measure bird community composition and density. Point counts were systematically spaced at 200-m intervals within each stand and were a minimum 100 m from stand boundaries. During the breeding season 8 stands were sampled 2 times each in the harvestable and non-harvestable landbases of the three largest ecosystems. The 8 sampled stands were a random subset of the 12 stands sampled within each ecosystem and landbase during winter 2003 and winter 2004. Only mature unharvested stands between 101-140 years were sampled and sampling was conducted from mid May to mid July, 2003. We found that the ICH ecosystem had an average 27% higher number of species relative to the ESSF, but that the ESSF ecosystems had a 15% higher density of breeding birds. Community similarity, bird diversity, and bird density were similar between ESSF ecosystems and ESSF landbase types. In ad
 
Herbers, Jim, Serrouya, Robert; Maxcy, Katherine; Martin, Kathy. 2004. Species-level test of ecological representation in the Arrow TSA: distribution and density of birds in Spring and Winter. Forest Investment Account (FIA) - Land Base Investment Program. Forest Investment Account Report
 
Topic: FLNRORD Research Program
Keywords: Forest, Investment, Account, (FIA), Birds, British, Columbia, Habitat
ISSN:  Scientific Name: 
ISBN:  English Name: 
Other Identifier: 
 
To copy the URL of a document, Right Click on the document title, select "Copy Shortcut/Copy Link", then paste as needed. Only documents available to the public have this feature enabled.

EIRS Search Options

Useful Contacts