Skip to main content
Log in

Use of avian and mammalian guilds as indicators of cumulative impacts in riparian-wetland areas

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A new method of assessing cumulative effects of human activities on bird and mammal communities of riparian-wetland areas was developed by using response guilds to reflect how species theoretically respond to habitat disturbance on a landscape level. All bird and mammal species of Pennsylvania were assigned values for each response guild using documented information for each species, to reflect their sensitivity to disturbances; high guild scores corresponded to low tolerance toward habitat disturbance. We hypothesized that, given limited time and resources, determining how wildife communities change in response to environmental impacts can be done more efficiently with a response-guild approach than a single-species approach. To test the model, censuses of birds and mammals were conducted along wetland and riparian areas of a protected and a disturbed watershed in central Pennsylvania. The percent of bird species with high response-guild scores (i.e., species that had specific habitat requirements and/or were neotropical migrants) remained relatively stable through the protected watershed. As intensity of habitat alteration increased through the disturbed watershed, percentage of bird species with high response-guild scores decreased. Only 2%–3% of the neotropical migrants that had specific habitat requirements were breeding residents in disturbed habitats as compared to 17%–20% in reference areas. Species in the edge and exotic guild classifications (low guild scores) were found in greater percentages in the disturbed watershed. Composition of mammalian guilds showed no consistent pattern associated with habitat disturbance. Avian response guilds reflected habitat disturbance more predictively than mammalian response guilds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Adams, D. L., and F. W. Barrett. 1976. Stress effects on bird-species diversity within mature forest ecosystems.American Midland Naturalist 96:179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk, and W. D. Pitts. 1980. Terrestrial plant ecology. Benjamin Cummings Publishing, Menlo Park, California, 604 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, W. M., L. A. Brennan, and R. J. Gutierrez. 1984. The use of guilds and guild-indicator species for assessing habital suitability. Pages 109–113in J. Verner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph (eds.), Wildlife 2000: Modeling habitat relationships for terrestrial vertebrates. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. P., and M. J. Croonquist. 1990. Wetland, habitat, and trophic response guilds for wildlife species in Pennsylvania.Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 64:93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. P., D. E. Arnold, E. D. Bellis, C. S. Keener, and M. J. Croonquist, 1991. A methodology for biological monitoring of cumulative impacts on wetland, stream, and riparian components of watersheds. Pages (in press)in J. A. Kusler, and G. Brooks (eds), Proceedings of an international symposium: Wetlands and river corridor management. Association of Wetland Managers, Berne, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower, J. E., and J. H. Zar. 1984. Field and laboratory methods for general ecology, 2nd ed. William C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa. 226 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, R. N., and J. G. Dickson. 1980. Strip transect sampling and analysis for avian habitat studies.Wildlife Society Bulletin 8:4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's wetlands: an action agenda. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC, 69 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croonquist, M. J. 1990. Avian and mammalian community comparisons between protected and altered watersheds—a landscape approach. MS thesis. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 156 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doutt, J. K., C. A. Heppenstall, and J. E. Guilday. 1977. Mammals of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 283 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fager, E. W., and J. A. McGowan. 1963. Zooplankton species groups in the North Pacific.Science 140:453–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fienberg, S. E. 1987. Analysis of cross-classified categorical data, 3rd ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 198 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, F. 1965. An early reference of the techniques of owl calling.Auk 82:651–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, M. R., and J. A. Mosher. 1981. Methods of detecting and counting raptors: A review.Studies in Avian Biology 6:235–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. B. 1986. Wildlife use of wetlands on coal surface mines in western Pennsylvania. MS thesis. Pennsylvania State University, University Park 92 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmquist, C. L., and M. C. Brittingham. 1990. Stream bank fencerows for wildlife.,Pennsylvania Game News 61:21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M., D. P. Larsen, and J. M. Omernik. 1986. Regional reference sites: A method for assessing stream potentials.Environmental Management 10:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, C. 1985. The need for riparian habitat protection.National Wetlands Newsletter 7:5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, P. 1912. The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone.New Phytology 11:37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaksic, F. M. 1981. Abuse and misuse of the term “guild” in ecological studies.Oikos 37:397–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkland, G. L., Jr., P. M. Krim, and C. A. Klinedinst. 1988. Proposed standard protocol for pitfall sampling of small mammals, Shippensburg State University, Pennsylvania. 13 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacki, M. 1980. A survey of bats in Wayne National Forest. MS thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus, 70 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landres, P. B. 1983. Use of the guild concept in environmental impact assessment.Environmental Management 7:393–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leong, T. S., and J. C. Holmes. 1981. Communities of metazoan parasites in open water fishes of Cold Lake, Alberta.Journal of Fisheries Biology 18:693–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linscombe, G., N. Kinler, and V. Wright. 1983. An analysis of scent station response in Louisiana.Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast Association, Fish and Wildlife Agencies 37:190–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMahon, J. A. 1976. Species and guild similarity of North American desert mammal faunas: A functional analysis of communities. Pages 133–148in D. W. Goodall (ed.), Evolution of desert biota, University of Texas Press, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannan, R. W., M. L. Morrison, and E. C. Meslow. 1984. The use of guilds in forest bird management.Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:426–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikol, S. 1980. Field guidelines for using transects to sample nongame bird populations. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program OBS-80/58, 26 pp.

  • Morrell, T. E., and R H. Yahner. 1990. Status and habitat characteristics of the great horned owl in Pennsylvania. Final report. School of Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 133 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Farrell, M. J., and W. G. Bradley. 1970. Activity patterns of bats over a desert spring.Journal of Mammalogy 51:18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states.Wildlife Monographs 103:1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root, R. B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the bluegray gnatcatcher.Ecological Monographs 37:317–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, version 5 ed. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, North Carolina, 956 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severinghaus, W. D. 1981. Guild theory development as a mechanism for assessing environmental impact.Environmental Management 5:187–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, H. L., and K. P. Burnham. 1982. Technique for structuring wildlife guilds to evaluate impacts on wildlife communities. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report, Wildlife 244, 34 pp.

  • Springer, M. A. 1978. Foot surveys versus owl calling surveys: A comparative study of two great horned owl censusing techniques.Inland Bird-Banding News 50:83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szaro, R. 1986. Guild management: an evaluation of avian guilds as a predictive tool.Environmental Management 10:681–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDI. 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP). Ecological services manual number 102. Division of Ecological Services, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verner, J. 1983. An integrated system for monitoring wildlife on the Sierra National Forest.Transactions of the North American Natural Resources and Wildlife Conference 48:355–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verner, J. 1984. The guild concept applied to management of bird populations.Environmental Management 8:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Croonquist, M.J., Brooks, R.P. Use of avian and mammalian guilds as indicators of cumulative impacts in riparian-wetland areas. Environmental Management 15, 701–714 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02589628

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02589628

Key words

Navigation