4.7 Article

Estimating the potential effects of sudden oak death on oak-dependent birds

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 127, 期 2, 页码 146-157

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.08.005

关键词

California birds; sudden oak death; Quercus agrifolia; oak woodlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sudden oak death (SOD), a disease induced by the fungus-like pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, threatens to seriously reduce or eliminate several oak species endemic to the west coast of North America. We investigated how the disappearance of one of these species, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), may affect populations of five resident oak-affiliated California birds - acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), Hutton's vireo (Vireo huttoni), western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), and oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) - using geocoded data from Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, North American Breeding Bird Surveys, and the California Gap Analysis. Capitalizing on observed relationships between the focal bird species and both oak species diversity and areal extent, we modeled relative bird abundance while assuming complete loss of Q. agrifolia and complete, partial, or no loss of oak habitat following a disease sweep. Post-SOD projections of bird populations occurring within the range of coast live oak were on average 25-68% smaller and 13-49% more variable relative to pre-SOD estimates. SOD effects were greatest for habitats with low initial oak species diversity. Climatic SOD models predicted that the disease stands to negatively impact populations of all five focal bird species throughout 20% of California's coast live oak habitats. This study provides the first spatially explicit insights into the potential effects of SOD on avian distribution and abundance. Results may be used to help prioritize conservation plans aimed at minimizing overall community level disturbances resulting from the disease. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据