UBC Undergraduate Research

Special management in the human dominated landscape : bird species of the Georgia Basin Leclerc, Marc-Antoine 2013-04-08

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52966-LeClerc_MA_FRST_498_Graduating_Thesis_2013.pdf [ 533.91kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52966-1.0075625.json
JSON-LD: 52966-1.0075625-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52966-1.0075625-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52966-1.0075625-rdf.json
Turtle: 52966-1.0075625-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52966-1.0075625-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52966-1.0075625-source.json
Full Text
52966-1.0075625-fulltext.txt
Citation
52966-1.0075625.ris

Full Text

1                           Special Management in the Human  Dominated Landscape: Bird Species of the  Georgia Basin                        Marc-Antoine Leclerc  FRST 498 April 8 2013 2  Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   Abstract   The expansion of urban and rural areas is likely to effect bird species within these areas because some do well in these habitat types while others do not. I used size, nesting substrate, diet, migratory pattern, and sociability to investigate if these life history traits determine the presence or absence of species in habitats dominated by humans and what native species will not as a consequence require special management. Based on the 5 traits size, diet, nesting substrate, migratory pattern and sociability, 47 species of birds found in the Georgia Basin were organized into guilds to determine whether or not the individual traits were associated with the presence or absence of the species within a human dominated habitat. Organizing the species into guilds was also used to determine if the 47 species could be used to represent the response of all native species. The association of each individual species to human dominated habitats was also determined. Size and nesting substrate were found to be significant while the three other traits were not. However, the trends obtained from all traits indicate that medium sized, omnivorous, migratory, social species that nest above 2 metres in height and on man-made structures are more likely to be found in human dominated habitats.  Key words: Life History traits, species guilds, Novel ecosystems 3  Table of Contents   TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1  ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2  TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 3  INDEX OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................................................................... 3  INDEX OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4  INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5  METHODS................................................................................................................................................................................. 11  RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 16  DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 22  CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................................................ 27  APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL  OUTPUT ................................................................................................................................... 33  APPENDIX B: BIRD SPECIES SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 41    Index of Figures   FIGURE 1: A MAP OF THE STUDY AREA PROVIDED BY SCHUSTER AND ARCESE (2012) ........................................ 11  FIGURE 2: THE BOXPLOT OF THE MEANS, AND MEDIAN BETWEEN THE 25TH  AND 75TH  PERCENTILE  OF THE INDEX OF ASSOCIATION  FOR THE GUILDS THAT WERE PART OF THE  TRAIT 'SIZE' .................................................. 18  FIGURE 3: THE BOXPLOT OF THE MEANS, AND MEDIAN BETWEEN THE 25TH  AND 75TH  PERCENTILE  OF THE INDEX OF ASSOCIATION  FOR THE GUILDS THAT WERE PART OF THE TRAIT 'NESTING SUBSTRATE'..................... 19  FIGURE 4: THE BOXPLOT OF THE MEANS, AND MEDIAN BETWEEN THE 25TH  AND 75TH    PERCENTILE  OF THE INDEX OF ASSOCIATION  FOR THE GUILDS THAT WERE PART OF THE TRAIT 'MIGRATORY  PATTERN' ................... 20  FIGURE 5: THE BOXPLOT OF THE MEANS, AND MEDIAN BETWEEN THE 25TH  AND  75TH  PERCENTILE  OF THE INDEX OF ASSOCIATION  FOR THE GUILDS THAT WERE PART OF THE TRAIT 'SOCIABILITY' .................................... 21  FIGURE 6: THE BOXPLOT OF THE MEANS, AND MEDIAN BETWEEN THE 25TH  AND 75TH  PERCENTILE  OF THE INDEX OF ASSOCIATION  FOR THE GUILDS THAT WERE PART OF THE TRAIT 'DIET' .................................................. 22 4  Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   Index of Tables   TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF THE TRAIT 'SIZE' DISPLAYING  THE SAMPLE SIZE, MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR  EACH LEVEL .................................................................................................................................................................... 18  TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF THE TRAIT 'NESTING SUBSTRATE' DISPLAYING  THE SAMPLE SIZE AND MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR EACH LEVEL........................................................................................................................... 19  TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF THE TRAIT 'MIGRATORY  PATTERN' DISPLAYING  THE SAMPLE SIZE, MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR EACH LEVEL........................................................................................................................... 20  TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF THE TRAIT 'SOCIABILITY' DISPLAYING  THE SAMPLE SIZE, MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR EACH LEVEL................................................................................................................................................ 21  TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF THE TRAIT 'DIET' DISPLAYING  THE SAMPLE SIZE, MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR EACH LEVEL ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22  TABLE 6: INDIVIDUAL  SPECIES RESPONSE TO NON?HUMAN  DOMINATED  HABITATS ............................................. 33  TABLE 7: INDIVIDUAL  SPECIES RESPONSE TO NON?HUMAN  DOMINATED  HABITATS WITHOUT 'POLYGON AREA' AS A COVARIATE  ..................................................................................................................................................................... 37  TABLE 8: TRAIT AND GUILD RESPONSES BASED ON THE INDEX OF ASSOCIATION ................................................... 40  TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF THE TRAITS OF THE BIRD SPECIES .......................................................................................... 41 5  Introduction   Ecosystems are dynamic entities, and as a result are changing through time. Humans are an incredible force as they help guide the changing ecosystem by modifying the rates, and the types, of changes that occur (Hobbs et al. 2006). Landscape changes play a major role in determining the biodiversity within a region. As reported by Bender et al. (1998), these changes may fragment the landscape by increasing the number of patches and decreasing the contiguity of the habitat as well as reduce any available habitat or degrade what habitat is left, as found by Hepinstall et al. (2008). A major influence on plant and animal diversity of a region is human expansion (Marzluff 2008) and the settlement by humans on the landscape has long lasting and extreme effects (Marzluff and Ewing 2001). Human settlement at a local scale may result in increased diversity, as new or exotic species may now be found along with the native species already present in the area (Marzluff 2008). This assumes, however, that native species are not replaced or outcompeted by the exotics or new species that are later established (Marzluff 2008). As defined by Hobbs et al. (2006), a novel ecosystem involves new relative species abundances and compositions that have yet to be seen in the ecosystem found within that particular biome as well as changes in the function of the particular system. It is important to note that the temporal context is key in determining the ?novelty? of the ecosystem, as any ecosystem could be novel given the appropriate time frame (Hobbs et al. 2009). 6  Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   There may be direct and indirect effects on the species present in a novel ecosystem. The dispersal ability of species may be altered as a result of altered abiotic conditions and the abundances of species may change with the introduction of new species (Hobbs et al. 2006). Species communities, will reflect a change in the landscape, however, this may not be a predictable change (Lindenmayer et al. 2008). Furthermore, certain species may no longer be found in the novel ecosystem as they may not display behavioural, or demographic plasticity to adapt to the changes (Luniak 2004). Alternatively, there can be the extirpation, due to human activities, of a species that was originally present in an area (Hobbs et al. 2006). Novel ecosystems may arise as a result of heavily managed land by humans (Hobbs et al. 2006) and so the ecosystems that are present in these areas may form a fragmented network across the landscape and affect the distribution of habitats and which habitat types are available. As such, trying to return an ecosystem to its historical state, or trying to remove unwanted species will not be efficient (Seastedt et al. 2008).    Urbanization results in splitting a natural area into smaller segments, and the effects on wildlife in the area differ from species to species (Marzluff and Ewing 2001). Urbanization, spread out over the landscape, has profound effects as this type of land cover is drastically different from the natural land cover (Marzluff and Ewing 2001; McKinney 2006; Lepzyck et al.  2007). A critical component of species not being found in urban landscapes is habitat availability, as urbanization may alter the type and amount of food and, the size, and the quality habitat patches (Croci et al. 2008). 7     Changes in forest cover, through urban expansion, has been shown to have an effect on neotropical migrant bird species, such as influencing the habitat available, the size of the patches of forest, increasing the amount of ?edge? in the patches, and even increasing the distance between forested patches (Robinson et al. 1995). Fragmentation was found, on a temporal scale, by Boulinier et al. (1998b) to result in very variable species diversity. Andr?n (1994) found that fragmentation, along with loss of habitat tends to lower species richness and increase the probability of extinction of certain species. Furthermore, forest breeding bird species, especially those that require large forest habitat patches, were found to have higher turnover and extinction rates as well as a reduced species richness (Boulinier et al. 2001). As noted by Blair (1996), woodland species would gradually decrease in abundance approaching urban areas.    Housing development has a large impact at varying scales (Lepczyk et al. 2007), and as a type of habitat alteration, urbanization is an important player in species extinction and homogenization as it is linked with the establishment of exotic species (McKinney 2006; McKinney and Lockwood 1999). In general, most urban areas are similar to each other so similar species are favoured in urban areas (McKinney 2006). This is presumed to be due to the fact that similar local factors are present in urban areas and act in a way to favour similar local diversity (Ricklefs 1987). The effects of urbanization are also dependent on the species (Blair 1996). As such, regions in which development is occurring at the fastest rates should be focused on with regards to 8  Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   management, research and conservation (Lepczyk et al. 2007). Agriculture is also involved in the simplification of bird communities due to the introduction of new resources and a differential ability of species to utilize these resources (La Sorte 2006). Child et al. (2009) notes that in South Africa there is a balance between the amount of natural and agricultural land to maintain high bird species richness and this balance should be taken into consideration with any sort of expansion.    Bird species are good indicators of ecosystem integrity (Branton and Richardson   2011) and their abundance and diversity are tightly linked to the amount of human influence (Lepczyk et al. 2008). Native species richness and abundance tends to decrease as human settlement increases (Lepczyk et al. 2008; Pidgeon et al. 2007). Human settlement has been found to be a good predictor of species presence (Lepczyk et al. 2008). The presence or absence of species will change as an area gradually becomes urbanized and native species typically become less prominent (Blair 1996). Development, however, was found to have different effects on bird diversity. Landowners have been found to influence bird populations by providing seeds in feeders or bird houses for cavity nesters (Lepczyk et al.  2004). Even applying fertilizer may result in a change in the structure of the vegetation affecting nesting sites (Lepczyk et al. 2004). These actions may positively affect certain species, but the effects of urbanization are still felt even after 60 years since development as species richness continue to decrease (Hansen et al. 2005). 9  Maestas et al. (2003) found that on reserves, shrub and ground nesters typically do quite well, while in more exurban areas, tree nesters, human commensal species do better and even cavity nesters could be supported with the presence of nest boxes. In residential areas, human commensal species also did quite well due to the presence of resources such as bird feeders (Maestas et al. 2003).    Raptors, scavengers, pollinators, and insectivores are typically negatively affected by conversion of natural land cover to agriculture while granivores do not appear to be affected (Child et al. 2009). Synanthropes are species that are specifically linked to humans and human settlement (Francis and Chadwick 2012) and found to do well in urbanized areas (Hansen et al. 2005). At an intermediate level of disturbance, along the urban-rural gradient, overall bird species richness peaked, despite resulting in a drop of native species richness (Blair 1996). Alternatively, at greater levels of disturbance both types of species richness decreased (Blair 1996). Clergeau et al. (2001) suggest that features that may be unique to an urban area affect species? richness in that area.    What then, allows a species to persist in a human dominated landscape? Croci et al. (2008) looked at biological traits of bird species to determine if urban landscapes selected for certain species based on particular biological traits. Species traits have been found to play an important role in determining the range of a species (Laube et al. 2013). Croci et al. (2008) created a list of traits that was found to be associated with 10  Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   ?urban adapters? in Europe and that a combination of these traits help determine the presence of the species in urban environments.    Although studies have been conducted in Europe and Chile on bird abundance and distribution linked to life history and biological traits (Blackburn et al. 1996; Cofre et al. 2007; B?hning-Gaese and Bauer 1996), the Georgia Basin, in British Columbia, Canada in particular, has not been investigated using this method. This study intends on looking at which species in the human dominated landscape of the Georgia Basin are expected to be abundant, by grouping the species into guilds based on the list of biological traits created by Croci et al. (2008). The organizing of the species into guilds will also be examined for appropriateness to predict occurrence in a human dominated landscape.    In Canada, human populations have been more recently established and natural areas have been managed for shorter periods of time compared to Europe, this allows to compare if the same biological traits yield similar results to what was obtained by Croci et al. (2008). It was hypothesized that large, social, omnivorous, sedentary, or species that nest at or above 2 metres are more likely to be present in human dominated habitats. These traits were selected from the list created by Croci et al. (2008). By looking at the biological traits, and grouping species into guilds, this may allow for greater predictive power for future conservation efforts such as better land-use planning and efficient allocation of funding. Also, using human and non-human 11  commensal species abundances may allow quantifying the changes to the landscape due to human activities (Manor et al. 2008).  Methods   The Coastal Douglas Fir (CDF) Biogeoclimatic zone is an ecosystem found below 150 metres in elevation, and mainly found on the islands in the Gulf of Georgia, small portions on the mainland as well as on the southeast tip of Vancouver Island in British Columbia (Meidinger and Pojar 1991; Figure 1).                                  Figure 1: A map of the study area provided by Schuster and Arcese (2012)    Most of the forests found in this zone have experienced some form of disturbance; however, there are also old, and mature forest stands present (Meidinger 12  Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   and Pojar 1991). The diverse structure in the forests of the CDF allow for a variety of species to inhabit them (Meidinger and Pojar 1991).  With an expanding urban area, the CDF ecosystem is now threatened (Meidinger and Pojar 1991).     Data  Forty-seven bird species distribution maps using detection and non-detection data were used to predict the occurrence of these species in the Georgia Basin. The data were collected and provided by Schuster and Arcese from their 2012 study. These maps were generated from point count data collected from April 30th to July 11 from 2005, 2007-2010 on 45 different islands (Schuster and Arcese 2012). The data obtained was based on the entire Coastal Douglas Fir zone (Schuster and Arcese 2012). 712 sample locations that were recorded with a GPS (GPS 60, Garmin, KS, USA) were used (Schuster and Arcese 2012). For 10 minutes at each location, trained observers took note of all birds that were within a 50 metre radius between the hours of 5:00 and 12:00 (Schuster and Arcese 2012). The degree to which each species associate with existing habitat types in the Coastal Douglas Fir zone was estimated using expert rankings, from professional Ornithologists with 5 or more years of local experience (Schuster and Arcese 2012). Occupancy predictions were used for each bird species.    Five spatial and twenty-nine predictor covariates that incorporated information about the condition of the site and the landscape were created (Schuster and Arcese 2012). To reflect habitat features at fine (100 metres) and coarse scales (1 kilometre), 13  data were obtained from Terrain Resource Information Management, Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory: East Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, Earth Observation for Sustainable Development Landcover, aerial photographs, and Madrone Environmental Services (2008) Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping of the CDF (Schuster and Arcese 2012).    Life History Traits  Based on Croci et al. (2008), certain traits were selected to help determine whether a species would be present in human dominated and non-human dominated land cover types. The traits selected were body size (based on wingspan), nesting substrate, migratory pattern, degree of sociability, and diet. This information was obtained from the Birds of North America database, and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology (Appendix B).    Based on the criteria of Croci et al. (2008), the size of species was determined using wingspan: where small species had a wingspan less than 20 centimetres (cm), large species had wingspans greater than 30 cm, and medium sized species had wingspans greater than 20 and less than 30 cm. Somewhat similar to the classification of Croci et al. (2008), ground nesting was ground nesting unless otherwise specified, below 2 metres to ground was considered shrub nesting unless otherwise specified, and nesting substrate above two metres was considered tree nesting unless otherwise specified. Migratory pattern was determined by the presence of the species during the 14  Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   winter months. Sociability was defined as the interaction the species has with individuals other than its mate and offspring during the mating season. Diet was defined as what mainly composed the species regular food intake. In the case of mixed feeders, this category was a combination of species whose regular intake consisted of seeds and insects. The information used, if available, was that which applied to British Columbia. Species were then organized in their respective guilds based on the trait that they possessed. For example, within the trait ?Diet? there were the following guilds: predatory, granivorous, insectivorous, and omnivorous. Traits were analyzed individually. Predictions were formulated regarding the probability of the occurrence of species in human dominated landscapes based on the traits suggested by Croci et al. (2008).  Analysis  Non-human dominated and human dominated habitats were created by combining the TEM layers, provided by Schuster and Arcese (2012), FOR 1, FOR 2, SHR, HRB, SAV, WET and the TEM layers RUR and URB respectively. These represented respectively young forest, mature forest, shrub, herbaceous, savannah, wetland, rural and urban habitat types. This served to simplify the number of habitat features and provide a comparison between what was considered a human and non- human dominated habitat. An index of association, the degree to which each species associates to human or non-human habitat features, was created by running a general linear model in Minitab 16 Statistical Software (Minitab Inc.). The simplified TEM, human and non-human dominated habitats, was included as a variable in the model, and the polygon area was included as a co-variate. 15     A separate trial was also run without ?polygon area? as a co-variate to determine whether or not polygon area influenced a species? association to a particular habitat type. For every species, the index was calculated by taking the mean probability of occurrence in non-human dominated habitats and subtracting the mean probability of occurrence in human dominated habitats (Appendix A). If the value was more negative, the species associates more with human dominated habitats, but if more positive, the species associates more with non-human dominated habitats. One-way analyses of variance, using the index of association and the traits, were run to determine where, based on the traits, bird species would most likely be found. An ? value of 0.05 was used to test for significance of traits and Tukey?s Post-hoc test was run to determine if guilds were significantly different from one another.    In the trial that was run without ?polygon area?, only one species, the Song Sparrow, was found to have a significant preference for the non-human dominated habitat while in the trial with the co-variate, this association was not significant (Appendix A). For the most part there were very small differences in index of association means for most species, but all yielded the same result; if all species were significantly associated to their particular habitats with the co-variate, they were significantly associated to their particular habitats without the co-variate (Appendix A). Under the trial without ?polygon area?, the variable TEM, which represented the different habitat types, 16  Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   was significant in all species but the Swainson?s Thrush and the Yellow Warbler   (Appendix A).     When running the analysis for the trait ?Diet? the Bald Eagle was excluded, as it was the only species that was considered predatory and could not have been combined with any other category. This was also the case for the Rufous hummingbird, as its diet mainly consists of nectar and does not match any other species diet. Furthermore, when running for the trait ?Nesting substrate?, the Brown-headed Cowbird was excluded from the analysis as it was the only species that was a brood parasite.   Results   Individual Species  Of the 47 species included, 17 showed significant preference for human dominated habitats (Appendix A). Twenty-seven species significantly preferred non- human dominated habitats and 3 species showed no preference (Appendix A). The co- variate ?polygon area? in the analysis was significant in 36 species while the variable TEM, which included human dominated and non-human dominated habitats, was significant in 44 species (Appendix A). Only one species, the Swainson?s Thrush, was found in which neither ?polygon area? or TEM was significant (Appendix A).    Species that were strongly and significantly associated with human dominated habitats included: the Barn Swallow, European Starling, Northwestern Crow, Savannah Sparrow, and Violet-Green Swallow (Appendix A). Species that were strongly and 17  significantly associated with non-human dominated habitats included: the American Goldfinch, Bewick?s Wren, Brown Creeper, Chestnut-backed Chickadee, Golden- crowned Kinglet, Pileated Woodpecker, Pacific-slope Flycatcher, Purple Finch, Red- breasted Nuthatch, Townsend?s Warbler, Tree Swallow, Winter Wren, and Yellow- rumped Warbler (Appendix A). Finally, only the Song Sparrow, Swainson?s Thrush, and Yellow Warbler did not show a preference for either habitat type (Appendix A). Note that although the 25 other species significantly associated with their respective habitat types, they did not do so as strongly as the above-mentioned species.   Guilds  Body size predicted association patterns with smaller birds being more often associated with non-human dominated habitats and medium-sized birds not associating with a particular habitat (Figure 2). For larger birds, however, the association was not as strong for non-human dominated habitats as it was for smaller birds (Figure 2). Small and Medium birds were found to be significantly different, while large birds were not found to be significantly different from either small or medium sized birds (Appendix A). The trait ?size? was found to be significant (p=0.018) as all three means are not equal as medium and small sized birds have a different preference (Table 1). 18  Leclerc, Marc-Antoine                        Figure 2: The box plot of the means, and median between the 25th and 75th percentile of the index of association for the guilds that were part of the trait ?Size?    Level N Mean Standard Deviation Large 12 0.0281 0.1349 Medium 22 0.0024 0.1155 Small 13 0.1252 0.1128 Table 1: Summary of the trait ?Size? displaying the sample size, means and standard deviation for each level    Cavity nesting and tree nesting birds preferred non-human dominated habitats while ground nesters and species favouring man-made structures preferred human dominated habitats (Figure 3). Shrub nesting species were found to not associate with a particular habitat (Figure 3). Cavity and tree nesters were found to be significantly different from species using man-made structures (Appendix A). Furthermore, cavity and tree nesters were not found to be significantly different from each other (Appendix A). While shrub and ground nesters were not found to be significantly different from cavity, tree nesters, or species using man-made structures (Appendix A). The nesting substrate was found to be significant (p=0.002) as all five means are not found to be 19  equal as it looks like species that nest on man-made structure are different from all the other guilds (Figure 3; Table 2).                     Figure 3: The box plot of the means, and median between the 25th and 75th percentile of the index of association for the guilds that were part of the trait ?Nesting Substrate?  Level N Mean Standard Deviation Cavity 11 0.1308 0.1253 Ground 8 -0.0051 0.1045 Man-made 3 -0.1698 0.0879 Shrub 5 0.0096 0.0804 Tree 19 0.0603 0.1114 Table 2: Summary of the trait ?Nesting Substrate? displaying the sample size, means and standard deviation for each level     Migratory and sedentary species do not prefer non-human dominated habitats over human dominated (Figure 4). Furthermore, migratory and sedentary species were not significantly different from each other (Appendix A). The migratory pattern was not found to be significant (p=0.499) the means between the two patterns are statistically the same (Figure 4; Table 3). 20 Leclerc, Marc-Antoine                         Figure 4: The box plot of the means, and median between the 25th and 75th percentile of the index of association for the guilds that were part of the trait ?Migratory Pattern?  Level N Mean Standard Deviation Sedentary 15 0.0617 0.1254 Migratory 32 0.0342 0.1310 Table 3: Summary of the trait ?Migratory Pattern? displaying the sample size, means and standard deviation for each level  Social and non-social species, during their breeding season, were not found to prefer human dominated habitats over non-human dominated habitats (Figure 5). Social species and non-social species were not found to be significantly different (Appendix A). Furthermore, sociability was not found to be significant (p=0.135) meaning that the means of social and non-social are not statistically different (Figure 5; Table 4). 21                        Figure 5: The box plot of the means, and median between the 25th and 75th percentile of the index of association for the guilds that were part of the trait ?Sociability?  Level N Mean Standard Deviation Not Social 39 0.0557 0.1265 Social 8 -0.0191 0.1281 Table 4: Summary of the trait ?Sociability? displaying the sample size, means and standard deviation for each level  Omnivorous species appear to be most associated with human dominated habitats, followed by granivorous species (Figure 6). Mixed feeders and insectivorous species appear to be more associated with non-human dominated habitats (Figure 6). Diet was not found to be significant (0.165) as all the means of the different guilds were found to be statistically the same (Figure 6; Table 5). None of the guilds were found to be significantly different from each other (Appendix A). 22                         Figure 6: The box plot of the means, and median between the 25th and 75th percentile of the index of association for the guilds that were part of the trait ?Diet?   Level N Mean Standard Deviation Granivorous 3 -0.0009 0.1239 Insectivorous 21 0.0751 0.1318 Mixed feeder 17 0.0466 0.1214 Omnivorous 4 -0.0787 0.1259 Table 5: Table 4: Summary of the trait ?Diet? displaying the sample size, means and standard deviation for each level    Discussion   Thirteen bird species were found to be strongly associated with non-human dominated habitats, while only five species were found to strongly association with human dominated habitats. Which traits were determined to allow a species to better associate with humans? 23   Size  Contrary to what Croci et al. (2008) obtained, large bird species were not found to associate with human dominated habitats, while medium sized birds were not found to associate with any habitat in particular (Figure 2). Although body size may not directly predict abundance, it is thought to play a role in resources requirements in species (Blackburn et al. 1996). Large species are believed to require more food and space for body maintenance relative to smaller species (Blackburn et al. 1996). Potentially due to this relatively lower cost of maintenance, medium sized species may have been better able to utilize food sources in human dominated habitats, while larger species prefer non-human dominated landscapes where they can meet their metabolic needs as food sources are greater. Although having lower maintenance requirements, smaller species may put more energy towards reproduction, and so still require abundant food sources so as to be able to maintain themselves and produce many offspring. This may partly explain the preference of non-human dominated habitats in small species.    Nesting Substrate  Species that preferred nesting on man-made substrate such as lampposts, or structures with overhangs were found to be more associated with humans (Figure 3). What was surprising, however, was that ground nesters somewhat preferred human dominated habitats (Appendix A). This result is contrary to what Croci et al. (2008) found as they suggested that species that would nest at or above two metres would be more successful in urban areas. The availability of nesting substrate would explain the 24   Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   preference for human dominated habitats for species that nest on man-made substrate, as there are plenty of roofs with overhangs and lampposts to nest on in such a habitat. Ground nesters may be taking advantage of the fact that grassier areas are being created, for parks and recreation by humans, and generating more potential nesting areas for these species. However, this is contrary to what was suggested by Clergeau et al. (2006) as ground nesting species appear to prefer areas with less human influence. Shrubs nesters appear to not have a preference for either human or non- human dominated habitats (Figure 3), but the park-type habitats may serve as good nesting areas for these species along with the shrub areas in non-human dominated habitats.    Typically, cavity nesters are associated with non-human dominated habitats (Figure 3). However, with the growing numbers of bird houses in human dominated areas, it may be plausible that cavity nesters may begin utilizing these resources to establish in human dominated habitats as the addition of bird houses increased the abundance and diversity of cavity nesters in forests and may even increase the abundance of non-cavity nesters (S?nchez et al. 2007).  Tree nesting species are typically found in areas that are not human dominated most likely due to a greater number of trees in those areas. However, this association to non-human dominated habitats is not as strong as in cavity nesters (Figure 3) and may be due to the fact that in managed forests, such as in urban or rural areas, trees are typically younger (Keller 25   et al. 2003) and not always suitable for the cavity nesters. However, although trees may be found in urban areas, a suitable tree to nest in may not be extremely abundant.    Migratory Pattern  The trend observed for the trait ?Migratory pattern?, although not significant, was unexpected (Appendix A). Croci et al. (2008) suggested that sedentary species would be more associated with humans relative to migratory species. This would be assumed because a species that remains in the area year-round, would have better knowledge of the area in ways such as resource location, as well as better temporal awareness with regards to what is available when. Furthermore, species that do not migrate are said to be more at ease with fragmentation of habitats (Bender et al. 1998). In this case, however, migratory and sedentary species did not associate with one habitat more than another (Appendix A). It may be possible that migratory species are not more or less affected by non-human or human dominated habitats as they do not have to tolerate them for as long and so are indifferent just as sedentary species may be accustomed to these habitats too. This result should be further investigated.    Sociability  Sociability was not found to be significant (Appendix A), however, the trend observed reflects the results obtained by Croci et al. (2008). Social species appeared to have a greater association with human dominated habitats (Figure 5). Social species may be involved in the sharing of information within their groups about food sources 26   Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   whether new, familiar, or short-lived such as in short-tailed fruit bats (Ratcliffe and ter Hofstede 2005). Due to this information sharing, species are better able to navigate the human dominated areas and are more efficiently searching for food.    Diet  Diet was not significant, but, the trend observed was, as suggested by Croci et al. (2008), that omnivorous species had a greater association with human dominated habitats (Figure 6). Granivorous species were also more associated with humans (Figure 6). An ability to use a wide variety of food resources and being able to utilize sources of food provided by humans will play an influential role (Laube et al. 2013) in associating with human dominated landscapes and is best displayed by omnivorous species. The higher association of granivorous species with human dominated habitats may be due to the large amount of bird feeders being put up in urban and rural areas, as mentioned by Lepczyk et al. (2004). Granivores having a greater association with human dominated habitats was also found by Lim and Sodhi (2004).  Insectivorous species and mixed feeders weakly associated with non-human dominated habitats (Appendix A). In mixed feeders this may be because, similar to omnivorous species, mixed feeders can rely on multiple food sources and so are not as constrained to a particular habitat. As for the insectivorous species, the resource being utilized is quite abundant in non-human dominated habitat and so would explain of association to non- human dominated habitats. This is similar to what Lim and Sodhi (2004) have found, 27   and this has been attributed to a lower availability of insects (Sekercioglu et al. 2002) in human dominated habitats.    Conclusion   Looking at the individual traits, medium sized, migratory, social, omnivorous species, as well as species that nest on man-made structures, are expected to be more associated with human dominated habitats, and as a result are predicted to occur more frequently in these areas. Guilds that showed indifference or that were very weakly associated with one habitat over the other included large, ground and shrub nesting, and granivorous species. Finally, guilds that tended to associate with non-human dominated habitats included cavity and tree nesters, small, not social, mixed feeders, and insectivorous species.    In contrast to Croci et al. (2008), this study did not find that grouping species based on their respective life history traits prove effective in differentiating among species that associated with human positively or negatively. Although Laube et al. (2013) note that species? traits play an important role in determining the range that a species can occupy, only two out of the five traits were significant, body size and nesting substrate (Appendix A). For example, in the case of diet and nesting substrate, the latter seems to be more influential in determining presence in a human dominated habitat than the former (Clergeau et al. 2006). In situations like this, it may explain why certain traits were significant, as one trait may be more influential than the other. 28   Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   Despite this, the other traits did display trends that, for the most part, reflected the results of Croci et al. (2008) and may prove to be useful in terms of management.    When considering management, the use of the index of association will serve as the best predictor for each individual species. Although, human and non-human dominated habitats are conglomerates of several habitat types, this may still give predictive power as to where the specific species is most likely to be found. As 44 species were found to significantly associate with one habitat or another, this would then ideally allow to prioritize which species are likely to require special management or not. Species, in human dominated habitats, that are abundant and have strong associations with humans (Jeschke and Strayer 2006) and will not require special management include: the Barn Swallow, Brown-headed Cowbird, Dark-eyed Junco, European Starling, House Finch, House Sparrow, MacGillivray?s Warbler, Northwestern Crow, Northern Rough-Winged Swallow, Pine Siskin, Rufous Hummingbird, Red-Winged Blackbird, Savannah Sparrow, Spotted Towhee, Violet-Green Swallow, White-Crowned Sparrow, Western Tanager. The Yellow Warbler and Swainson?s Thrush do associate with human dominated habitats, however are not significantly associated with these and monitoring these species may be a good idea. In light of expanding cities and rural areas, management efforts should not be allocated towards the above-mentioned specie and focus on the 27 species that prefer non-human dominated habitats to be most efficient. 29   Analyzing traits individually and categorizing all the traits, even though some could have been treated as continuous variables, is an aspect of the study that if repeated, would be done differently. By only analyzing individual traits, one discovers which ones are more associated with human dominated habitats, however, no single trait will determine the occurrence of a species. Furthermore, using discrete categories for the traits may have been easier to organize the species into respective guilds but for some traits it may have been more effective to have them as continuous variables. Also, when categorizing the species there were some grey areas. For example, where species chooses to nest varies with height and substrate, and although the preferred combination was used in this study, species are not necessarily limited to one nesting height or substrate and may nest in areas other than the preferred ones. This was also the case with diet, where species are not necessarily limited to one type of food.    Areas of further research may include doing a similar study except as mentioned above, use a combination of continuous and categorical variables and also looking at more than one region in British Columbia, and even comparing between regions across the country. This study only looked into the effects of traits on the probability of occurrence, however, looking at climatic factors and the distribution of the species habitats may also be of interest. 30   Leclerc, Marc-Antoine     Acknowledgements   Peter Arcese for all the wisdom and insight as well as the patience to make this paper possible. Richard Schuster for all the tips, time, help and for providing the species distribution maps and data. A big thanks to Hannah Tench, Lauren Clarotto, John- Francis Lane, Jon Rothwell and Richard Schuster for their help and editing advice. A big thanks to Pasan Weerasinghe for last minute graphic detail.    Literature Cited  Andr?n, H. 1994 Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Birds and Mammals in Landscapes with Different Proportions of Suitable Habitat: A Review. Oikos 71 (3): 355-366  Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L. 1998. Habitat Loss and Population Decline: A Meta-Analysis of the Patch Size Effect. Ecology 79 (2): 517-533  Blackburn TM, Lawton JH, Gregory RD. 1996. Relationship Between Abundances and Life Histories of British Birds. Journal of Animal Ecology 65 (1): 52-62  Blair RB. 1996. Land Use and Avian Species Diversity Along an Urban Gradient. Ecological Applications 6 (2): 506-519  B?hning-Gaese K and Bauer 1996. Changes in Species Abundance, Distribution, and Diversity in a Central European Bird Community. Conservation Biology 10 (1): 175-187  Boulinier T, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Sauer JR, Flather CH, and Pollock KH. 1998. Higher Temporal Variability of Forest Breeding Bird Communities in Fragmented Landscapes. Proceedings of The National Academy of Science of the United States of America 95 (13): 7497-7501  Boulinier T, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Sauer JR, Flather CH, and Pollock KH. 2001. Forest Fragmentation and Bird Community Dynamics: Inference at Regional Scale. Ecology 82 (4): 1159-1169  Branton M, Richardson JS. 2011. Assessing the Value of the Umbrella-Species Concept for Conservation Planning with Meta-Analysis. Conservation Biology 25: 9-20  Child MF, Cumming GS, Amano T. 2009. Assessing the Broad-Scale Impact of Agriculturally Transformed and Protected Landscapes on Avian Taxonomic and Functional Richness. Biological Conservation 142 (11): 2593-2601  Clergeau P, Jokimaki J, Savard JPL. 2001. Are Urban Bird Communities Influence by the Bird Diversity of Adjacent Landscapes? Journal of Applied Ecology 38 (5): 1122-1134  Clergeau P, Croci S, Jokimaki J, Kaisanlahti-Jokimaki  M-L, Dinetti M. 2006. Avifauna Homogenisation by Urbanisation: Analysis at Different European Latitudes. Biological Conservation 127 (3): 336-344  Cofre HL, B?hning-Gaese K, Marquet RA. 2007. Rarity in Chilean Forest Birds: Which Ecological and Life-History Traits Matter? Diversity and Distributions. 13 (2): 203-212 31   Croci S, Butet A, Clergeau P. 2008. Does Urbanization Filter Birds on the Basis of their Biological Traits? Condor 110 (2): 223-240  Francis RA, Chadwick MA. 2012. What Makes a Species Synurbic? Applied Geography 32 (2): 514-521  Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM, Powell S, Brown K, Gude PH, Jones A. 2005. Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: Patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological Applications 15 (6): 1893-1905  Hepinstall JA, Alberti M, Marzluff JM. 2008. Predicting Land Cover Change and Avian Community Responses in Rapidly Urbanizing Environments. Landscape Ecology 23 (10): 1257-1276  Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Brown JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewell JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE, Norton D, Ojima D, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladares F, Vila M, Zamora R, Zobel M. 2006. Novel Ecosystems: Theoretical and Management Aspects of the New Ecological World Order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15 (1): 1-7  Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Harris JA. 2009. Novel Ecosystems: Implications for Conservation and Restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24 (11): 599-605  Jeschke JM, and Strayer DL. 2006. Determinants of Vertebrate Invasion Success in Europe and North America. Global Change Biology 12 (9): 1608-1619  Keller JK, Richmond ME, Smith CR. 2003. An Explanation of Patterns of Breeding Bird Species Richness and Density Following Clearcutting in Norhteastern USA Forests. Forest Ecology and Management  1 (3): 541-564  Laube I, Korntheuer H, Schwager M, Trautmann S, Rahbek C, B?hning-Gaese. 2013. Towards a More Mechanistic Understanding of Traits and Range Sizes.  Global Ecology and Biogeography. 22 (2): 233- 241  La Sorte FA. 2006. Geographical Expansion and Increased Prevalence of Common Species in Avian Assemblages: Implications for Large-Scale Patterns of Species Richness. Journal of Biogeography 33 (7): 1183-1191  Lepczyk CA, Mertig AG, Liu JG. 2004. Assessing Landowner Activities Related to Birds Across Rural-to- Urban Landscapes. Environmental Management 33 (1): 110-125  Lepczyk CA, Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Radeloff VC. 2007. Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Housing Growth Hotspots in the North Central US from 1940 to 2000. Landscape Ecology 22 (6): 939-952  Lepczyk CA, Flather CH, Radeloff VC, Pidgeon AM, Hammer RB, Liu JG. 2008. Human Impacts on Regional Avian Diversity and Abundance. Conservation Biology 22 (2): 405-416  Lim HC and Sodhi NS. 2004. Responses of Avian Guilds to Urbanisation in a Tropical City. Landscape and Urban Planning 66 (4): 199-215  Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J, Felton A, Crane M, Michael D, Macgregor C, Montague-Drake R, Manning A, Hobbs RJ. 2008. Novel Ecosystems Resulting from Landscape Transformation Create Dilemmas for Modern Conservation Practice.  Conservation Letters 1 (3): 129-135 32   Leclerc, Marc-Antoine   Luniak M. 2004. Synurbanization-adaptation of animal wildlife to urban development. In: Proceedings of the 4th Intertnational Symposium on Urban Wildlife Conservation (eds. Shaw WW, Harris LK, Vandruff L): 50-55 Tucons, AZ.  Maestas JD, Knight RL, Gilgert WC. 2001. Biodiversty and land-use change in the American Mountain West. Geographical Review 91 (3): 509-524  Maestas JD, Knight RL, Gilgert WC. 2003. Biodiversity Across a Rural Land-Use Gradient. Conservation Biology 17 (5): 1425-1434  Manor R, Cohen O, and Saltz D. 2008. Community Homogenization and the Invasiness of Commensal Species in Mediterranean Afforested Landscapes. Biological Invasions 10 (4): 507-515  Marzluff JM, Ewing K. 2001. Restoration of Fragmented Landscapes for the Conservation of Birds: A General Framework and Specific Recommendations for Urbanization Landscapes. 2001. Restoration Ecology 9 (3): 280-292  Marzluff JM. 2008. Island Biogeography for an Urbanizing World: How Extinction and Colonization May Determine Biological Diversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Urban Ecology 8:157-177  McKinney ML, and Lockwood JL. 1999. Biotic Homogenization: a Few Winners Replacing Many Losers in the Next Mass Extinction. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14 (11): 450-453  McKinney ML. 2006. Urbanization as a Major Cause of Biotic Homogenization. Biological Conservation 127 (3): 247-260  Meidinger DV, and Pojar J. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Forests  Pidgeon AM, Radeloff VC, Flather CH, Lepczyk CA, Clayton MK, Hawbaker TJ, Hammer RB. 2007. Associations of Forest Bird Species Richness with Housing and Landscape Patterns Across the USA. Ecological Applications 17 (7): 1989-2010  Ratcliffe JM and ter Hofstede HM. 2005. Roosts as Information Centres: Social Learning of Food Preference. Biology Letters 1 (1): 72-74  Ricklefs RE. 1987. Community Diversity: Relative Roles of Local and Regional Processes. Science 235 (4785): 167-171  Robinson SK, Thompson III FR, Donovan TM, Whitehead, DR, Faaborg J. 1995. Regional Forest Fragmentation and the Nesting Success of Migratory Birds. Science 267 (5206):1987-1990  S?nchez S, Cuervo JJ, Moreno E. 2007. Suitable Cavities as a Scarce Resource for Both Cavity and Non- Cavity Nesting Birds in Managed Temperate Forests. A Case Study in the Iberian Peninsula. Ardeola 54 (2): 261-274  Seastedt TR, Hobbs RJ, Suding, KN. 2008. Management of Novel Ecosystems: Are Novel Approaches Required? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6 (10): 547-553  Schuster R, and Arcese P. 2012. Using Bird Species Community Occurrence to Prioritize Forest for Old Growth Restoration. Ecography 35: 1-9 33   Sekercioglu CH, Ehrlich PR, Daily GC, Aygen D, Goehring D, Sandi RF. 2002. Disappearance of Insectivorous Birds from Tropical Forest Fragments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99 (1): 263-267     Appendices   Appendix A: Statistical Output   Table 6: Individual species response to non-human dominated habitats  Species  Differe nce of Means  Standard Error of Difference ? T- value?  Adjusted p-value  Polygon Area p- value  TEM p- value        American Goldfinch 0.1419 0.005847 24.27 0.0000 0.002 0.000  American Robin  0.0401 2  0.002965  13.53  0.0000  0.001  0.000  Bald Eagle  0.0297 8  0.003530  8.437  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Barn Swallow  -0.2478  0.005128  48.32  0.0000  0.0053  0.000  Bewick?s Wren  0.1292  0.004756  27.16  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Brown- headed Cowbird  - 0.0640 4  0.005818  11.01  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Brown Creeper  0.2451  0.004885  50.17  0.0000  0.973  0.000  Chestnut- backed Chickadee  0.1231  0.002995  41.11  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Chipping Sparrow  0.0650 1  0.003116  20.86  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Common Raven  0.0998 4  0.005748  17.37  0.0000  0.576  0.000 34 Leclerc, Marc-Antoine     Species  Differe nce of Means  Standard Error of Difference ? T- value?  Adjusted p-value  Polygon Area p- value  TEM p- value         Dark-eyed Junco  - 0.0212 4  0.005174  4.104  0.0000  0.000  0.000  European Starling  -0.1870  0.003361  55.64  0.0000  0.915  0.000  Fox Sparrow  0.0304 3  0.001826  16.67  0.0000  0.084  0.000  Golden- crowned Kinglet  0.1485  0.004180  35.53  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Hammond?s Flycatcher  0.2067  0.004374  47.26  0.0000  0.002  0.000  Hairy Woodpecker  0.0265 3  0.000922  28.79  0.0000  0.832  0.000  House Finch  - 0.0804 8  0.001308  61.52  0.0000  0.000  0.000  House Sparrow  - 0.0744 8  0.001960  37.99  0.0000  0.000  0.000  House Wren  0.0433 2  0.004460  9.713  0.0000  0.000  0.000  MacGillivray?s Warbler  - 0.0238 2  0.005152  4.624  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Northwestern Crow  -0.1413  0.004594  30.76  0.0000  0.001  0.000  Northern Flicker  0.0386 2  0.005426  7.117  0.0000  0.000  0.000 35     Species  Differe nce of Means  Standard Error of Difference ? T- value?  Adjusted p-value  Polygon Area p- value  TEM p- value         Northern Rough- winged Swallow  - 0.0102 9  0.002390  4.305  0.0000  0.719  0.000  Orange- crowned Warbler  0.1774  0.003566  49.75  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Olive-sided Flycatcher  0.0063 31  0.002959  2.140  0.0324  0.000  0.032  Pine Siskin  - 0.0656 4  0.004577  14.34  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Pileated Woodpecker  0.2741  0.004768  57.49  0.0000  0.007  0.000  Pacific-slope Flycatcher  0.1791  0.005683  31.51  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Purple Finch  0.1097  0.006234  17.60  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Red-breasted Nuthatch  0.2794  0.004832  57.82  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Rufous Hummingbird  - 0.0623 8  0.004040  15.44  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Red-winged Blackbird  - 0.0748 1  0.005026  14.89  0.0000  0.210  0.000  Savannah Sparrow  -0.1417  0.006185  22.91  0.0000  0.019  0.000  Song Sparrow  0.0069 15  0.004303  1.607  0.1081  0.000  0.108 36     Species  Differe nce of Means  Standard Error of Difference ? T- value?  Adjusted p-value  Polygon Area p- value  TEM p- value         Spotted Towhee  - 0.0862 8  0.004787  18.02  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Swainson?s Thrush  - 0.0020 31  0.004601  0.4415  0.6589  0.058  0.659  Townsend?s Warbler  0.2775  0.004702  59.02  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Tree Swallow  0.2007  0.006464  31.04  0.0000  0.068  0.000  Varied Thrush  0.1290  0.004888  26.39  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Violet-green Swallow  -0.1228  0.005637  21.78  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Warbling Vireo  0.0286 8  0.003266  8.781  0.0000  0.000  0.000  White- crowned Sparrow  - 0.0843 9  0.004118  20.49  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Western Tanager  - 0.0117 9  0.001096  10.76  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Wilson?s Warbler  0.0951 8  0.004615  20.62  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Winter Wren  0.2018  0.003973  50.78  0.0000  0.439  0.000  Yellow- rumped Warbler  0.1935  0.004394  44.04  0.0000  0.000  0.000  Yellow Warbler  - 0.0061 08  0.003341  1.828  0.0675  0.000  0.068 37    Table 7: Individual species response to non-human dominated habitats without ?Polygon Area? as a covariate  Species  Difference of Means  Standard Error of Difference ? T-value?  Adjusted p- value  TEM p- value       American Goldfinch 0.1427 0.005843 24.42 0.0000 0.000  American Robin  0.04052  0.002963  13.68  0.0000  0.000  Bald Eagle  0.03081  0.003530  8.729  0.0000  0.000  Barn Swallow  -0.2474  0.005124  48.28  0.0000  0.000  Bewick?s Wren  0.1282  0.004754  26.97  0.0000  0.000  Brown- headed Cowbird  -0.06186  0.005821  10.63  0.0000  0.000  Brown Creeper  0.2451  0.004881  50.21  0.0000  0.000  Chestnut- backed Chickadee  0.1240  0.002995  41.41  0.0000  0.000  Chipping Sparrow  0.06557  0.003114  21.05  0.0000  0.000  Common Raven  0.09970  0.005743  17.36  0.0000  0.000  Dark-eyed Junco  -0.02009  0.005172  3.883  0.0001  0.000  European Starling  -0.1870  0.003358  55.69  0.0000  0.000  Fox Sparrow  0.03056  0.001824  16.75  0.0000  0.000 38 Leclerc, Marc-Antoine     Species  Difference of Means  Standard Error of Difference ? T-value?  Adjusted p- value  TEM p- value        Golden- crowned Kinglet  0.1497  0.004180  35.81  0.0000  0.000  Hammond?s Flycatcher  0.2073  0.004371  47.42  0.0000  0.000  Hairy Woodpecker  0.02652  0.000921  28.80  0.0000  0.000  House Finch  -0.08077  0.001308  61.76  0.0000  0.000  House Sparrow  -0.07533  0.001963  38.38  0.0000  0.000  House Wren  0.04472  0.004461  10.02  0.0000  0.000  MacGillivray?s Warbler  -0.02195  0.005155  4.259  0.0000  0.000  Northwestern Crow  -0.1407  0.004591  30.64  0.0000  0.000  Northern Flicker  0.03967  0.005423  7.314  0.0000  0.000  Northern Rough- winged Swallow  -0.01033  0.002388  4.324  0.0000  0.000  Orange- crowned Warbler  0.1787  0.003568  50.09  0.0000  0.000  Olive-sided Flycatcher  0.007348  0.002960  2.483  0.0130  0.013  Pine Siskin  -0.06463  0.004576  14.13  0.0000  0.000  Pileated Woodpecker  0.2746  0.004764  57.64  0.0000  0.000 39     Species  Difference of Means  Standard Error of Difference ? T-value?  Adjusted p- value  TEM p- value        Pacific-slope Flycatcher  0.1808  0.005684  31.82  0.0000  0.000  Purple Finch  0.1109  0.006231  17.79  0.0000  0.000  Red-breasted Nuthatch  0.2807  0.004831  58.10  0.0000  0.000  Rufous Hummingbird  -0.06117  0.004040  15.14  0.0000  0.000  Red-winged Blackbird  -0.07508  0.005021  14.95  0.0000  0.000  Savannah Sparrow  -0.1423  0.006180  23.02  0.0000  0.000  Song Sparrow  0.009076  0.004311  2.105  0.0353  0.035  Spotted Towhee  -0.08540  0.004785  17.85  0.0000  0.000  Swainson?s Thrush  -0.002397  0.004597  0.5214  0.6021  0.602  Townsend?s Warbler  0.2791  0.004704  59.34  0.0000  0.000  Tree Swallow  0.2002  0.006459  30.99  0.0000  0.000  Varied Thrush  0.1280  0.004886  26.19  0.0000  0.000  Violet-green Swallow  -0.1198  0.005649  21.21  0.0000  0.000  Warbling Vireo  0.02941  0.003265  9.009  0.0000  0.000  White- crowned Sparrow  -0.08247  0.004124  20.00  0.0000  0.000 40     Species  Difference of Means  Standard Error of Difference ? T-value?  Adjusted p- value  TEM p- value        Western Tanager  -0.01132  0.001098  10.31  0.0000  0.000  Wilson?s Warbler  0.09595  0.004612  20.80  0.0000  0.000  Winter Wren  0.2016  0.003970  50.79  0.0000  0.000  Yellow- rumped Warbler  0.1951  0.004397  44.39  0.0000  0.000  Yellow Warbler  -0.005200  0.003340  1.557  0.1195  0.120    Table 8: Trait and guild responses based on the Index of association and grouping after Tukey?s Post Hoc test  Trait  p-value  Guild  Sample Size  Mean Index of Associati on  Standard Deviation  Grouping        Size 0.018 Large 12 0.0281 0.1349 AB  Medium  22  0.0024  0.1155  B  Small  13  0.1252  0.1128  A  Nesting Substrate  0.002  Cavity  11  0.1308  0.1253  A  Ground  8  -0.0051  0.1045  AB  Man-made  3  -0.1698  0.0879  B  Shrub  5  0.0096  0.0804  AB  Tree  19  0.0603  0.1114  A  Migratory Pattern  0.499  Migratory  32  0.0342  0.1310  A  Sedentary  15  0.0617  0.1254  A 41     Trait  p-value  Guild  Sample Size  Mean Index of Associati on  Standard Deviation  Grouping         Sociability  0.135  Not Social  39  0.0557  0.1265  A  Social  8  -0.0191  0.1281  A  Diet  0.165  Granivorous  3  -0.0009  0.1239  A  Insectivorous  21  0.0751  0.1318  A  Mixed Feeder  17  0.0466  0.1214  A  Omnivorous  4  -0.0787  0.1259  A    Appendix B: Bird Species Summary   Table 9: Summary of the traits of the bird species  Common Name  Latin Name  Nesting Substrate  Feeding guild  Social interactio n with other birds in same species  Migratory or Sedentary  Size (wingspan)        Chesnut- backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens Tree cavity nester, also use nest boxes Mixed feeder (insectivore, granivore) Not known Sedentary Small  American Robin  Turdus migratorius  Tree nester (preference), will nest from ground to tree tops  Insectivore/Fru givore  Social  Migratory  Medium  acific-slope Flycatcher  Empidonax difficilis  Tree nester (preference)/s hrub nester  Insectivore  Social  Migratory  Small 42     Common Name  Latin Name  Nesting Substrate  Feeding guild  Social interactio n with other birds in same species  Migratory or Sedentary  Size (wingspan)         Song Sparrow  Melospiza melodia  Shrub nester (preference), ground nester, also in trees  Omnivore  Not social  Migratory or Sedentary  Medium  Orange- crowned warbler  Oreothlypis celata  Shrub/ground nester (preference)  Insectivore/Fru givore  Not social  Migratory  Small  ownsend?s Warbler  Setophaga townsendi  Tree nester  Insectivore  Not social  Migratory  Small  Rufous ummingbir d  Selasphorus rufus  Tree nester  Nectarivore/Ins ectivore  Not social  Migratory  Small  Spotted Towhee  Pipilo maculatus  Ground nester  Omnivore  Not social  Sedentary, some migrate  Medium  Dark-eyed Junco  Junco hyemalis  Ground nester  Mixed feeder (Granivore/Ins ectivore)  Not Social  Migratory  Medium  Red- breasted Nuthatch  Sitta canadensis  Cavity nester  Mixed feeder (Insectivore/Gr anivore)  Not social  Partial Migrant  Small  Brown- headed Cowbird  Molothrus ater  Brood parasite  Mixed feeder (Granivore/Ins ectivore)  Social  Short distance migrant (within North America)  Medium  Pine Siskin  Spinus pinus  Tree nester (preference)/s hrub nester  Mixed feeder (Granivore/Ins ectivore)  Social  Migratory  Small 43     Common Name  Latin Name  Nesting Substrate  Feeding guild  Social interactio n with other birds in same species  Migratory or Sedentary  Size (wingspan)         Brown Creeper  Certhia americana  Cavity nester  Mixed feeder (Insectivore/Gr anivore)  Not social  Sedentary, some migrate  Small  inter Wren  Troglodytes hiemalis  Variable (cavity,ground, tree)  Insectivore  Not social  Sedentary  Small  urple Finch  Carpodacus purpureus  Tree nester (preference), shrub nester, sometimes ground  Mixed feeder (Granivore/Ins ectivore)  Not Social  Migratory  Medium  White- crowned Sparrow  Zonotrichia leucophrys  Shrub nester/ground nester (preference)  Mixed feeder (Granivore/Ins ectivore)  Not social  Migratory  Medium  Yellow- rumped Warbler  Setophaga coronata  Tree nester  Insectivore/Fru givore  Not Social  Migratory  Medium  iolet-green Swallow  Tachycineta thalassina  Cavity nester (tree or boxes)  Insectivore  Social  Migratory  Medium  Golden- crowned Kinglet  Regulus satrapa  Tree nester  Insectivore  Not social  Migratory  Small  ouse Wren  Troglodytes aedon  Tree cavities (prefer closer to ground)  Insectivore  Not social  Migratory  Small  ammond?s Flycatcher  Empidonax hammondii  Tree nester  Insectivore  Not social  Migratory  Medium 44     Common Name  Latin Name  Nesting Substrate  Feeding guild  Social interactio n with other birds in same species  Migratory or Sedentary  Size (wingspan)         American Goldfinch  Spinus tristis  Shrub nester  Granivore  Social  Migratory  Small  European Starling  Sturnus vulgaris  Cavity nester (trees, cliffs, nest-boxes)  Omnivore  Social  Migratory  Medium  Wilson?s Warbler  Cardellina pusilla  Ground nester  Insectivore  Not social  Migratory  Small  orthwester n Crow  Corvus caurinus  Tree (most nest in trees in Vancouver BC), ground, shrub nester  Omnivore  Not Social  Sedentary  Large  Northern Flicker  Colaptes auratus  Cavity nester  Mixed feeder (Insectivore/Gr anivore/Frugiv ore)  Not social  Migratory  Large  Warbling Vireo  Vireo gilvus  Tree nester (preference)/s hrub nester  Insectivore/Fru givore  Not social  Partial Migrant  Medium  ox Sparrow  Passerella iliaca  Ground nester (preference)/s hrub nester  Mixed feeder (Insectivore/Gr anivore/Frugiv ore)  Not Social  Migratory  Medium  Yellow Warbler  Setophaga petechia  Tree nester (preference)/s hrub nester  Insectivore/Fru givore  Not social  Migratory  Small 45    Common Name  Latin Name  Nesting Substrate  Feeding guild  Social interactio n with other birds in same species  Migratory or Sedentary  Size (wingspan)         Bald Eagle  Haliaeetus leucocephalus  Tree nester  Carnivore (predatory)  Not Social  Migration depends on food, severity of climate of breeding site  Large  Common Raven  Corvus corax  Tree nester  Omnivore  Not social  Sedentary  Large  Swainson?s Thrush  Catharus ustulatus  Shrub nester  Frugivore/Inse ctivore  Not social  Migratory  Medium  Barn Swallow  Hirundo rustica  Nests on any wall with an overhang (man made structures)  Insectivore  Not social  Migratory  Medium  live-sided Flycatcher  Contopus cooperi  Tree nester  Insectivore  Not social  Migratory  Medium  Red-winged Blackbird  Agelaius phoeniceus  marsh emergent vegetation nester/Tree nester  Mixed feeder (Granivore/Ins ectivore)  Not Social  Migratory  Medium  Savannah Sparrow  Passerculus sandwichensi s  Ground nester  Mixed feeder (Insectivore/Gr anivore/Frugiv ore)  Not Social  Migratory  Small  Bewick?s Wren  Thryomanes bewickii  Cavity nester (trees, cliffs, nest-boxes)  Insectivore  Not Social  Sedentary  Small                                          O 46     Common Name  Latin Name  Nesting Substrate  Feeding guild  Social interactio n with other birds in same species  Migratory or Sedentary  Size (wingspan)         Chipping Sparrow  Spizella passerina  Tree nester/shrub nester  Mixed feeder (Insectivore/Gr anivore/Frugiv ore)  Not Social  Migratory  Medium  Pileated oodpecker  Dryocopus pileatus  Cavity nester  Insectivore/Fru givore  Not Social  Sedentary  Large  acGillivray? s Warbler  Geothlypis tolmiei  Ground nester/shrub nester (preference)  Insectivore  Not social  Migratory  Small  House Sparrow  Passer domesticus  Hole type nest/tree nester  Mixed feeder (Granivore/Ins ectivore)  Social  Sedentary  Medium  Tree Swallow  Tachycineta bicolor  Cavity nester (trees, nest- boxes)  Mixed feeder (Insectivore/Gr anivore)  Not Social  Migratory  Medium  Varied Thrush  Ixoreus naevius  Tree nester (preference), shrub nester, sometimes ground  Mixed feeder (Insectivore/Fr ugivore/Graniv ore)  Not social  Unclear on coast  Medium  Western Tanager  Piranga ludoviciana  Tree nester  Insectivore/Fru givore  Not social  Migratory  Medium  Hairy oodpecker  Picoides villosus  Cavity nester  Mixed feeder (Insectivore/Fr ugivore/Graniv ore)  Not social  Sedentary  Medium 47     Common Name  Latin Name  Nesting Substrate  Feeding guild  Social interactio n with other birds in same species  Migratory or Sedentary  Size (wingspan)         ouse Finch  Carpodacus mexicanus  Tree nester, but will use variety of substrate like street lamps  Granivore/Frug ivore/  Not Social  Seasonal movement, after 5-10 years permanent resident  Medium  Northern Rough- winged Swallow  Stelgidopteryx serripennis  Ground nester, but will accept cavity in vertical surface  Insectivore  Not Social  Migratory  Medium  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52966.1-0075625/manifest

Comment

Related Items