Comparison of Bird Distribution Among Different Habitat Structures in Hundred Islands National Park,...

7/27/2019 Comparison of Bird Distribution Among Different Habitat Structures in Hundred Islands National Park, Alaminos, Pangasinan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparison-of-bird-distribution-among-different-habitat-structures-in-hundred 1/15

Comparison of Bird Distribution among Different Habitat Structures in

Hundred Islands National Park, Alaminos, Pangasinan

Acielle Angeli C. Garcera*, Jackieline D. Andit, Manuel Miguel V. Barnes,

Gaily Ann P. Chua, Shiela Mae A. San Diego, and Camille M. ValenzuelaStudents of Biology 160 Laboratory, Institute of Biology, College of Science

University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City 1101

Telephone No. +639274395273

Email: [email protected]

Date Submitted: 17 March 2008

ABSTRACT

Birds have specific feeding guilds that make them prefer certain kinds of habitats. This study aims

to compare bird distribution in microhabitat components in Hundred Islands National Park

(HINP), Alaminos, Pangasinan. Point counts were conducted in the mainland region and islands.

The distribution was then analyzed and compared using Morisita-Horn (MH) and Bay-Cutis (BC)

indices. Analysis showed that the bird distribution between islands and mainland were dissimilar (MH=0.499; BC=0.483). Shannon’s (island=3.11; mainland=3.21) index of diversity and

Simpson’s (island=0.062; mainland=0.057) index of dominance also shows that the islands and

mainland are both highly diverse (low dominance). These two regions, being both diverse but

dissimilar suggests that they provide different kinds of resources resulting to a set of birds

specialized for a region. Similarity of the stations in both the island and the mainland was then

compared using a pariwise matrix of Morisita-Horn similarity indices. Results showed that several

birds can utilize a wide range of habitats while some birds are found over a limited area only. This

has an implication on the birds’ primary feeding guilds and habits.

Keywords: bird distribution, Hundred Islands, habitat components

INTRODUCTION depend on ood si e and str ct re



INTRODUCTION depend on wood size and structure

Garcera et al., 2008

grounds for birds, thus increasing their

diversity (Salm et al., 2000). The islands

nearest to the mainland are connected toeach other by raised muddy flats ( pilapil)

creating artificial ponds – most of which are

abandoned thus giving birds another habitat.Immediately nearest the islands, the

mainland includes a secondary forest

(comprised mainly of bamboos), aquaculture

ponds, some with a nearby asinan – a place

where they make rock salt, severalmarshlands, and the coastal residential areas.

These mainland areas are all heavilyexposed to human activities.

Earlier reports on the biodiversity of

Hundred Islands National Park (HINP) done by de Villa (2006) and Lagunzad et al.

(2007) provided a species list of birds thatinhabit the HINP. However, no previousstudy that correlates the species with their

habitat characteristics, as well as compares

the bird distribution between the islands and

the mainland had been conducted.

The purpose of this study is to determine the

diversity of both the mainland and its nearbyislands and to compare their bird distributions. Specifically, it aims to produce

a list of bird species identified in study sites

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bird Census

The point count method described by Bibbyet al. (1998) was used with modification.

This method provides more time to identify

the bird species and the habitat featuresassociated with them.

Two major sites in the HINP were covered in the survey. The islands served as Site 1and the mainland as Site 2. Two groups,

comprised of three members each (2

observers and 1 recorder), surveyed the sites – one group in Site 1 and the other group in

Site 2.

The point stations in each site weredetermined randomly by walking along the

trail present and stopping every 250m for

the point station. A total of 52 stations (22

for Site 1 and 30 for Site 2) were randomlyselected for both sites. In every station, a 10-

minute period was allotted for the survey.

The observers identified and counted all the

birds detected and heard from the station.Bird calls were also recorded in every

station for later verification and proof. Thenumber of birds per species counted and the



Bird Distribution in Different Habitats in HINP

Habitat Census

A total of 11 habitat components weredetermined in the area and designated the

following codes.

Table 1. Habitat components identified in either

mainland a, island b or bothc

Code Habitat Component

Bamc

Secondary forest

predominantly composed of bamboo

Pond b

Abandoned aquaculture ponds

mainly found in the islands

Aquaa

Aquaculture ponds activelymaintained by owners

Seac

Seawater; applicable to areasnear the coast

Marshc Marshland comprised mainlyof muddy soil

Builtc

Man-made structures

Rocks b

Limestone karst and other large

boulders; present mostly inislands

Grassc

Rice fields and other grassy

areas

Shrubsc Small bushes

Leafy

Treesc

Trees with lush foliage

Analysis (CCA) determined the other habitat

components unique to only a few stations

and the associated birds to them.

RESULTS

Comparing island (1) and mainland (2) biodiversity using Shannon’s diversity index

revealed that both sites are highly diverse

(H1=3.11 and H2=3.21, t-value=1.96).

Simpson’s index of dominance supported these values by yielding a value of 0.062 for

the island and 0.054 for the mainland. These

indicate that both sites have low dominance – characteristic of a highly diverse area.

Assessing the similarity of the sites showed that they are dissimilar from each other in

terms of species assemblage. Morisita-HornIndex of similarity yielded a value of 0.499while Bay-Curtis Similarity Index yielded a

value of 0.483.

To isolate the habitat components that the

birds prefer, a pairwise matrix of the

Morisita-Horn similarity indices of all 52

stations was drawn (Appendix 5). Trendswere then elucidated from the matrix by

observing the specific similarities in the

h bi d bi d di ib i i




Figure 1. Graph showing selected bird species-habitat correlation trend observed using island-mainland

combination matrix of Morisita-Horn similarity indices (Appendix 4). These are the birds observed to be

associated with leafy trees, a primary habitat structure in HINP. The other habitat components represented above are those observed together with leafy trees in the stations of observation, and thus with these birds.

Canonical Correspondence Analysis was were more associated with the marsh

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Glossy Swiftlet

Pacific Swallow

Olive-Backed Sunbird

Grey-Backed Tailorbird

Lowland White Eye

White-Collared Kingfisher

Intermediate Egret

Little Egret

Yellow-Vented Bulbul

Golden-Bellied Flyeater

Scaly-Breasted Munia

Pied Triller

Zebra Dove

B i r d

S p e c i e s

Frequency of Occurence

leafy trees built shrubs marsh grass pond




Figure 2. CCA joint plot for species-stations-habitats relationships in HINP census sites. Blue triangles represent the

stations while the green ones represent the birds. Black arrow lines indicate habitat component vectors; the

farther they are from the center means that they account for most of the difference in the bird distribution

among the stations. Also listed are the top five birds associated with each major habitat component vector.

of organisms particularly avian species

(Posa and Sodhi, 2006; Reich et al., 2000).The thickness of the dwarf trees and their

useful for bird survival (Posa & Sodhi,

2006; Laiolo, 2003).

Vector scaling: 3.12

Top 5 birds associated to marsh:- Purple Heron- Intermediate Egret

- Little Egret

- Black-Winged Stilt

- Wood Sandpiper

Top 5 birds associated to pond water:- Philippine Duck - Brahminy Kite

- Asian Glossy Starling

- White-Breasted Waterhen- Common Sandpiper

Top 5 birds associated to grass,

shrubs and built structures:- Long-Tailed Shrike

- Yellow Bittern

- Scaly-Breasted Munia- Red Turtledove

- Pied Triller




human populations (Tan, 2001). This

accounts for the presence of Olive-backed

Sunbirds in an area with built structures.These are some of the birds identified to be

generalist – their habitat range is wide and

they thrive on almost anything. Thus their status is not at risk and conservation efforts

are not targeted to them particularly.

However, the loss of the major habitat

component to which they adhere may cause

significant decline in populations (Ockes et al., 2008; Sekercioglu et al., 2004).

Specialist birds are species whose habitat

range is only small due to their needs being

met by a particular habitat component.White-collared kingfisher feeds on fishes

and as thus will be expected to occur in

areas with pond water rich in their preferred

diet. Trees are also essential to their breeding months, as these provide areas for

building nests. Marshes are home to a lot of

egrets such as the Little Egret and theIntermediate Egret, as well as to Black-

Winged Stilt and Purple Heron (Van Weerd

and Van der Ploeg, 2004). These avianspecies feed on small arthropods such as

crabs and other invertebrates found in the

marshes (Tan, 2001).

more inclined to local extinction and then

recolonization.

The islands near the mainland were once

made in to aquaculture ponds and a lot of

them are connected by artificial mudflats.Aquaculture ponds attract a different set of

birds specially those that prey on small

fishes and invertebrates such as ducks,

waterfowls, and terns (Huner, 2006). Like

the aquaculture ponds, marshlands and coastal areas provide food and are

significant for staging, feeding and restingespecially for wintering migrants (Trainor,

2005). However, with the declaration of the

area as a protected area, a lot of the pondswere abandoned providing a suitable feeding

ground for marshland birds, as well as those

of the like of the White-Collared Kingfisher

(Van Weerd and Van der Ploeg, 2004;Milsom et al., 2000). Another factor that

contributes to their presence in habitats with

the said component is the fact that theseareas are abandoned already – there is little

or no anthropogenic disturbance that could

threaten their existence (Reale and Blair,2005).

The same can be said of for the Philippine




demonstration of speedy and effective

enforcement of RA 9147 to the Department

of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) and the Protected Areas and

Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) (Due, 2008).

Stricter rules should be implemented to preserve this diversity as there is a threat

that the two sites, although maintaining their

biodiversity, would become similar – losing

the unique assemblage of species they once

both possess. Assessing whether the protection of several aspects of traditional

landscapes where human pressure is high iseffective in limiting community

homogenization should be a promising step

forward (Devictor et al., 2006).

CONCLUSIONS

The mainland and island regions of theHINP are both low in dominance of bird

species thereby highly diverse. It has also

been elucidated that the mainland and island

regions are dissimilar in their distribution of bird species. Being so, it can be inferred that

each of the said regions provide a differentarray of resources, upon which the birdsthrive. This could account for the

differences in feeding guilds and habits of

teaching us on field techniques and being

with us during our site sampling; Kuya

Ruben, Kuya Rene, and Kuya Eleri for guiding us as we traversed the trails in the

islands and mainland regions; Kuya Ruben’s

family for accommodating us warmly intheir home for the duration of the field work;

Ms. Marianne Cena and Sir Dan Lagunzad

for helping us with the statistical analyses of

our data; and our sovereign God for

sustaining us through it all.

REFERENCES

Allen, J.C. 2001. Species-habitat

relationships for the breeding birds of a

longleaf pine ecosystem. Thesis. VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University.

Bibby, C, M. Jones and S. Marsden. 1998.Expedition field techniques: bird surveys.

London: Expedition Advisory Center.

Clements R., N.S. Sodhi, M. Schilthuizen,and P.K.L. Ng. 2006. Limestone karsts of

Southeast Asia: imperilled arks of

biodiversity. Bio Science 56(9): 733-742.

Curio, E. 2002. Prioritisation of Philippine

I l d if f i




http://www.malaya.com.ph/jan23/envi3.htm.

Accessed: 15 March 2008.

Gray, M.A., S.L. Baldauf, P.J. Mayhew, and

J.K. Hill. 2006. The Response of Avian

Feeding Guilds to Tropical ForestDisturbance. Biological Conservation 21(1):

133–141.

Hinsley S.A., P.E. Bellamy, I. Newton, and

T.H. Sparks. 1995. Habitat and landscapefactors influencing the presence of

individual breeding bird species inwoodland fragments. Journal of Avian

Biology, 26(2): 94-104.

Huner J.V. 2006. A perspective on

ecological considerations on crawfish pond

aquaculture. Journal of Shellfish Research.

25(2): 565-568.

IUCN 2007 Red List of Threatened Species.

Available at:http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.ph

p/1241/summ Accessed on: March 17, 2007

Kennedy R.S., P.C. Gonzales, E.C.

Dickinson, H.C. Miranda, Jr., and T.H.

Fisher. 2000. A Guide to the birds of the

Laiolo, P. 2003. Diversity and structure of

the bird community overwintering in the

Himalayan subalpine zone: is conservationcompatible with tourism? Biological

Conservation 115: 251-262.

Loman, J. and T.V. Schantz. 1991. Birds in

a farmland – more species in small than in

large habitat island. Conservation Biology

5(2): 176-188

Magurran A. 1988. Ecological diversity and

its measurement. Princeton University Press.

Marvier, M., P. Kareiva, and M. G. Neubert.

2004. Habitat destruction, fragmentation,and disturbance promote invasion by habitat

gener- alists in a multispecies

metapopulation. Risk Analysis 24(4):869– 878.

Milsom, T.P., S.D. Langton, W.K. Parkin, S.

Peel, J.D, Bishop, J.D. Hart, and N.P.Moore. 2000. Habitat models of bird

species’ distribution: an aid to the

management of coastal grazing marshes. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 706-727.

Ockes, N.C., P.A.R. Hockey and G.S.




Reale, J.A. and R.B. Blair. 2005. Nesting

success and life history attributes of bird

communities along an urbanization gradient.Urban Habitats 3(1): 1-24.

Reich, R.M., J. Lundquist, and V.A. Bravo.2000. Spatial relationship of resident and

migratory birds and canopy openings in

diseased ponderosa pine forests. Environmental Modelling & Software 15:

189-197.

Richardson B.A., M.J. Richardson, and F.N.Soto-Adames. 2005. Separating the effects

of forest type and elevation on the diversity

of litter invertebrate communities in a humid tropical forest in Puerto Rico. Journal of

Animal Ecology. 74: 926-936.

Salm R.V., J.R. Clark, and E. Siirila. 2000.Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A

Guide for Planners and Managers. 3rd

ed.

IUCN - The World Conservation Union.

Sekercioglu, C.H., G.C. Daily, and P.R.

Ehrlich. 2004. Ecosystem consequences of bird declines. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Science 101(52): 18042-18047.

Tan, R. 2001. Bird List: Mangrove and

wetland wildlife at Sungei Buloh Nature

Park. Available at:

http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/birds/birds.

htm. Accessed: 10 March 2008.

Trainor C.R. 2005. Waterbirds and coastalseabirds of Timor-Leste (East Timor): status

and distribution from surveys in August

2002–December 2004. Forktail. 21: 61-78.

Van Weerd, M. and J. Van der Ploeg. 2004.

Surveys of wetlands and waterbirds inCagayan Valley, Luzon, Philippines.Forktail 20: 33-39.




APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Species list in the mainland a, island

bor both

c

Common Name Scientific Name Feeding

Guild*

Sum of Counts in Both

Locations

Asian Glossy Starlingc Aplonis panayensis Omnivore 21

Barn Swallowc Hirundo rustica Insectivore 39

Black-Crowned Night-Heronc Nycticoraxnycticorax

Omnivore 4

Black-Naped OriolecOriolus xanthonotus Frugivore 8

Black-Winged Stiltc Himantopus

himantopus

Omnivore 10

Blue-Tailed Bee Eater c Merops viridis Insectivore 8

Brahminy Kite b Haliastur Indus Carnivore 1

Brown Shrikec Lanius cristatus Carnivore 17

Cattle Egreta Bubulcus ibis Insectivore 4

Cinnamon Bitterna Ixobrychus

cinnamomeus

Omnivore 1

Common Greenshank c Tringa nebularia Carnivore 14

Common Kingfisher c Alcedo atthis Carnivore 4

Common Sandpiper c Actitis hypoleucos Omnivore 29




Little Heronc Butorides striatus Carnivore 10

Little-ringed Plover b Charadrius dubius Omnivore 22

Long-Tailed Shrikea Lanius schach Carnivore 1

Lowland White-eyec Zosterops meyeni Omnivore 84

Mangrove Blue Flycatcher b Cyornis rufigastra Insectivore 2

Olive-backed sunbird c Nectarinia jugularis Nectarivore 77

Oriental Magpie Robin bCopsychus saularis Omnivore 2

Pacific Swallowc Hirundo tahitica Insectivore 123

Philippine Bulbulc Hypsipetes

philippinus

Omnivore 28

Philippine Coucal b Centropus viridis Omnivore 1

Philippine Duck

b

Anas luzonica Omnivore 95

Philippine Hawk-Cuckoo

(Hodgson's Hawk Cuckoo) bCuculus fugax Insectivore 1

Pied Fantailc Rhipidura javanica Insectivore 19

Pied Triller c Lalage nigra Insectivore 29

Pink-Necked Green PigeoncTreron vernans Frugivore 9

Purple Heron b Ardea purpurea Carnivore 4

Red TurtledoveaStreptopelia

tranquebarica

Granivore 4

Cont. Appendix 1. Bird Species List




White-Eared Brown DovecPhapitreron leucotis Frugivore 25

Wood Sandpiper c Tringa glareola Insectivore 32

Yellow Bitterna Ixobrychus sinensis Omnivore 1

Yellow-vented BulbulcPycnonotus goiavier Omnivore 67

Zebra DovecGeopelia striata Omnivore 56

Total Birds Observed 1240

*feeding guild classification based on Gray et al. (2006)

Appendix 2. Percentages (decimal form) of habitat components in each station in the mainland.

Habitat ComponentStation

bamboo built grass mangrove marsh pond

water

leafy

trees

sea

water

shrubs Grand

Total

1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 12 0.95 0.05 1

3 0.5 0.3 0.2 1

4 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 1

5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 1

6 0.9 0.1 1

7 0.9 0.1 1

8 0.1 0.65 0.2 0.05 1

9 0.1 0.05 0.2 0.65 1

10 0 25 0 4 0 15 0 2 1

Cont. Appendix 1. Bird Species List




24 0.1 0.3 0.6 1

25 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 1

26 0.3 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.2 1

27 0.1 0.6 0.3 1

28 0.2 0.3 0.35 0.15 1

29 0.6 0.05 0.35 1

30 0.1 0.2 0.35 0.2 0.15 1

Grand Total 0.8 5.35 5.15 1.1 0.45 5 6.05 3.35 2.75 30

Appendix 3. Percentages (decimal form) of habitat components in each station in the island.

Habitat ComponentStation

built wilted

trees

grass mangrove marsh pond

water

leafy

trees

rocks sea

water

shrubs Grand

Total

1 0.2 0.25 0.55 1

2 0.9 0.1 1

3 0.8 0.2 1

4 0.4 0.15 0.35 0.1 1

5 0.15 0.2 0.5 0.05 0.1 1

6 0.2 0.35 0.45 1

7 0.8 0.2 1

8 0.8 0.2 1

9 0.8 0.2 1

10 0.8 0.1 0.1 1

11 0.05 0.05 0.8 0.1 1

12 0.7 0.1 0.2 1

Cont. Appendix 2. Habitat Components in Mainland




14

Appendix 4. Pairwise matrix of the Morisita-Horn similarity indices of all 52 stations.




15

Appendix 4. (continued) Pairwise matrix of the Morisita-Horn similarity indices of all 52 stations.

Comparison of Bird Distribution Among Different Habitat Structures in Hundred Islands National Park,...

Documents

Transcript of Comparison of Bird Distribution Among Different Habitat Structures in Hundred Islands National Park,...