My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9307 (2)
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9307 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:34 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 12:54:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9307
Author
Germaine, S. S.
Title
Relationships of Birds, Lizards, and Nocturnal Rodents to Their Habitat in the Greater Tucson Area, Arizona.
USFW Year
1995.
USFW - Doc Type
Phoenix, AZ.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
- RELATIONSHIPS OF BIRDS, LIZARDS, AND NOCTURNAL RODENTS TO "I'1-iFIR HABITAT IN TUCSON, ARIZONA <br />METHODS <br />Study Design <br />I sampled birds, lizards, and land cover across <br />the entire range of residential development present <br />in the study area. I used a randomized sampling <br />design to minimize biases associated with <br />misrepresentation of habitat availability (Johnson <br />1980). I used a Geographical Information System <br />(GIS) to generate 33 random points along roads <br />and trails throughout the study area to serve as <br />starting points for 5-km or 5.5-km census routes. <br />I placed a point every 0.5 km along each route as <br />the center of census plots for birds, lizards, and <br />land cover descriptors. This design resulted in 334 <br />census plots within the study area. All routes <br />followed existing roads or trails. <br />I used the following criteria to avoid <br />clustering census plots, to avoid censuring edges <br />between primary land cover types, and to keep <br />within-plot habitat uniform: <br />1. Starting points were placed >_ 1 km apart; <br />2. Census plots on adjacent transects had to be <br />>_ 200 m apart; <br />3. Census plots were not placed along 4-lane <br />roads; <br />4. Census plots were not placed within a 0.5-km <br />buffer zone around Interstates 10 and 19; <br />5. All census plots were located below 975 m <br />elevation; <br />6. No census plot was established adjacent to an <br />urban setting with residential densities <br />differing >_ 1 housing density class from that <br />of the plot itself (Shaw et al. 1993); and, <br />7. Commercial and industrial areas were <br />excluded (they were beyond the scope of this <br />study). <br />In addition, census plots adjacent to and <br />including portions of vacant lots were moved <br />entirely within the lots and as close as possible to <br />the lot center. <br />I rejected a plot if any of the above 7 criteria <br />were violated. If a plot was rejected, I added 1 to <br />the end of the route. If > 2 plots were rejected <br />per route, the entire route was replaced. <br />91Vildlife Data Collection <br />Breeding Birds. I collected abundance data for <br />breeding birds from March 15 through June 24, <br />1994. This period coincided with or overlapped <br />peak nesting activity for most species present <br />(Davis and Russell 1990, Corman 1993). For <br />several other species, the census period coincided <br />with the establishment of territories and nest site <br />selection. I did not consider migrant species in <br />this study. <br />I made no effort to eliminate unmated <br />individuals (floaters) from population estimates, so <br />my estimate of breeding habitat for individual <br />species was likely broader than actually used. <br />Since floaters often occur in marginal habitat, <br />comparisons of bird abundances among habitat <br />types may have artificially inflated probabilities, <br />thus differences would be harder to detect. Since <br />both females and males are likely under similar <br />energetic constraints during the breeding season, <br />and visually distinguishing between sexes of some <br />species is difficult, both sexes were included in <br />counts of abundance at each census plot. <br />I conducted censuses from 0530 to 1030 <br />Mountain Standard Time (MS'1~ using 50-m fixed- <br />radius, circular plots (Fowler and McGinnes 1973, <br />Verner 1988). This early morning period <br />coincided with the peak in avian daily activity <br />(Robbins 1980). I chose fixed-radius circular plots <br />because accurate distance estimation to singing <br />birds would have been too difficult with the <br />background noises in urban settings. In addition, <br />a stationary observer can detect slow moving <br />birds, cryptic birds, and birds moving into and out <br />of the census plot better than even a slow moving <br />observer (Verner 1988). Moreover, I selected fixed <br />plots over transects because a primary objective <br />was to collect data from independent and <br />homogeneous plots, and area is usually positively <br />correlated with habitat heterogeneity. <br />I completed 2 census routes each morning, <br />conducting a 5-min. census at each plot. Each <br />plot was visited 4 times. Visits were separated by <br />3-4 weeks. Iran each route twice in the early <br />morning and twice in the late morning. Iran <br />each route backward once during each time <br />period. <br />I conducted all censuses and identified all <br />birds by sight or sound. Censuses were <br />temporarily halted during interruptions due to jet, <br />traffic, or human distractions. Censuring was not <br />conducted in rainy (continual, heavy enough to <br />keep pavement wet) or windy (> 3 on Beaufort <br />scale) weather. <br />Wintering Birds. I censused winter resident <br />birds from January 2 through February 20, 1995, <br />using the same methods as described for breeding <br />~TEPHEN $. GERMAINE 1995 ARIZONA GAME Fs FISH DEPARTMENT, TECH. REP. 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.