COUNTS AND MIS IST-NETTING IN IN AFROTEMPERATE FORESTS Study Area - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

counts and mis ist netting in in afrotemperate
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

COUNTS AND MIS IST-NETTING IN IN AFROTEMPERATE FORESTS Study Area - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

BIR IRD SPECIES DETECTION EFFIC ICACY OF POIN INT COUNTS AND MIS IST-NETTING IN IN AFROTEMPERATE FORESTS Study Area 6 Afrotemperate forests in the Eastern Cape Per forest: 10 point count stations 1700 mist-net hours How


slide-1
SLIDE 1

BIR IRD SPECIES DETECTION EFFIC ICACY OF POIN INT COUNTS AND MIS IST-NETTING IN IN AFROTEMPERATE FORESTS

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Study Area

  • 6 Afrotemperate forests in the

Eastern Cape

  • Per forest:
  • 10 point count stations
  • 1700 mist-net hours
  • How well can these methods

detect bird species?

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Checklist construction

  • QDGCs over each forest
  • SABAP2 + survey species lists
  • Assess for forest-utilization
  • Migrants included
  • Nocturnal birds + vagrants omitted
  • 187 forest-utilising species in EC
  • Functional trait categories from Martin et
  • al. (2017)
  • Functional traits from local literature
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Variable Level Number

  • f species

% of Total Odds ratio P Intercept

  • 0.04

<0.001 Method Point 118 68.6 10.39 <0.001 Net 55 32.0 1.00

  • Size

Small 77 70.64 5.11 <0.001 Medium 22 88 4.49 0.004 Large 20 52.63 1.00

  • Stratum

Understorey 15 100 18.36 <0.001 Mid-storey 5 100 22.17 0.015 Canopy 48 96.00 13.63 <0.001 Edge 41 48.24 1.94 0.19 Aerial 10 58.82 1.00

  • Specialisation

Specialist 31 100 1.17 0.76 Generalist 28 87.50 1.00

  • Woodland

40 57.97 0.37 0.03 Open 20 50 0.51 0.19

Bush Blackcap Lioptilus nigricapillus

Best-ranked model predicting species detection

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Discussion

  • Martin et al. (2017) assessed survey methods in

two global forest:

  • Point counts > mist-netting in both forests
  • Point counts better in higher canopied forests
  • Mist-netting comparatively better in the low-

canopied forests with species-rich understorey

  • Species-poor understoreys in EC forests
  • Point counts are more reliable in EC forests
  • Biases need to be determined for different

habitats + regions

  • Survey biases to be understood for accurate

ecological inferences

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Acknowledgements

  • Foundational Biodiversity Information Programme (FBIP) of the

National Research Foundation (NRF) for project funding

  • Managers of DAFF state forests and ECPTA reserves for permission and

assistance with fieldwork

  • Andrew Wannenburgh for assistance in creating the map of surveyed

forests

  • Daan Nel for assistance with logistic regression modelling