Year 2014, Volume 7 , Issue 3, Pages 78 - 86 2014-12-15

Isparta-Gölcük Tabiat Parkı ormanında meşcere yapısı ile kuş türü zenginliği arasındaki ilişkiler
Relationships between stand structure and bird species richness in the Isparta-Gölcük Nature Park forest

Tolgahan OSMANOĞLU [1] , İbrahim ÖZDEMİR [2]


Bu çalışmada, biyolojik çeşitliliğin önemli göstergelerinden birisi olarak kabul edilen kuş türü zenginliği ile meşcere yapısal özellikleri arasındaki ilişkilerin ortaya koyulması amaçlanmıştır. Gölcük Tabiat Parkında, seçilen 25 örnek alanda altı meşcere yapısal özelliği Orta çap, Gini Katsayısı, Shannon İndeksi, Karışım İndeksi, Baskınlık İndeksi, Kümelenme İndeksi belirlenmiştir. Örnek alanlar 10 kez ziyaret edilerek, noktada sayım yöntemiyle kuş türü zenginliği tespit edilmiştir. Meşcere özellikleri ile kuş türü zenginliği arasındaki ilişkiler spearman korelasyon analiziyle ortaya koyulmuştur. Analiz sonucunda, istatistiksel olarak önemli bir ilişki bulunamamıştır. Kuş türü zenginliğini tahmin edebilmek için meşcere yapısal özelliklerinin yanı sıra, meşecerelerin büyüklüklerinin ve coğrafi dizilişinin de dikkate alınmasının gerektiği sonucuna varılmıştır. Çalışmada ayrıca, meşcere özellikleri, indeks değerleri temel alınarak üçe bölünmüş ve kategorik veri durumuna getirilmiştir. Sonra, ayrılan üç kategoriyle kuş türlerinin ayrı ayrı ilişkileri ortaya koyulmuş ve bazı kuş türlerinin, habitat isteklerine bağlı olarak farklı özellikte meşcerelerle ilişkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir
This study aimed to explore the relationships between bird species richness, accepted as an important indicator of biodiversity, and stand structural characteristics. In the 25 sample plot chosen in the Gölcük Natural Park, six stand characteristics were determined including Mean tree height, Gini coefficient, Shannon index, Mixing index, Dominance index, Aggregation index. Bird species richness was calculated using a point counting method by visiting 10 times the plots. The relationships between these structural indices and bird species richness were determined by spearman correlation analyses. No relationship was found as a result of the analyses. Therefore, it was concluded that in addition to stand diversity, the sizes and geographic distribution of forest stands should take into consideration for estimating bird species richness. In the study, stand characteristics were also divided into three categories based on the index values. Then, the relationships were determined between three categories and each bird species. Some bird species depending on their habitat requirements were associated with some diversity categories
  • Aksan, Ş., Özdemir, İ., Oğurlu, İ., 2014. Türkiye/Gölcük Tabiat Parkı’nda bazı yabani memeli türlerinin dağılımlarının modellenmesi. Biological Diversity and Conservation. 7/1: 1-15.
  • Alkan, O. 2013. Meşcere bazlı orman envanterinde optimal örnekleme tasarımı; Sinop-Ayancık orman işletme şefliğinde bir uygulama çalışması. SDÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. 117.
  • Aloa, J.S. 2009. Need for biodiversity conservation in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Biological Diversity and Conservation. 2/1: 14-20.
  • Beese, W. J., Bryant, A. A. 1999. Effect of alternative silvicultural systems on vegetation and bird communities in coastal montane forests of British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management. 115/2: 231-242.
  • Cousin, J. A., Phillips, R. 2008. Habitat complexity explains species-specific occupancy but not species richness in a Western Australian woodland. Australian Journal of Zoology. 56: 95 - 102
  • Díaz, I. A., Armesto, J. J., Reid, S., Sieving, K. E., Willson, M. F. 2005. Linking forest structure and composition: avian diversity in successional forests of Chiloé Island, Chile. Biological Conservation, 123/1: 91-101.
  • Gadow, K.v., Hui, G. 2002. Characterising forest spatial structure and diversity. In: Bjoerk, L. (Ed.), Proceedings of the IUFRO International workshop ‘Sustainable forestry in temperate regions’. Lund, Sweden. 20–30.
  • Gardner, T. 2012. Monitoring forest biodiversity: improving conservation through ecologically-responsible management. Routledge. London.
  • Gini, C. 1912. Variabilità e Mutuabilità. Contributo allo Studio delle Distribuzioni e delle Relazioni Statistiche. C. Cuppini, Bologna.
  • Hobson, K. A., & Bayne, E. 2000. The effects of stand age on avian communities in aspen-dominated forests of central Saskatchewan, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management. 136/1: 121-134.
  • Hui, G.Y., Albert, M., Gadow, K.V. 1998. Das Umgebungsmaß als Parameter zur Nachbildung von Bestandesstrukturen. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt. 117 /1: 258-266
  • Hui, G.H., Hu, Y.B. 2001. Measuring species spatial segregation in mixed forest. For. Res. 14/1: 23-27.
  • Hutto, R.L., Pletschet, S.M., Hendricks, P., 1986. A fixed-radius point count method for nonbreeding and breeding season use. Auk. 103: 593–602.
  • James, C. F., Wamer, O. N. 1982. Relationships Between Temperate Forest Bird Communities and Vegetation Structure. Ecological Socicty of America. 63: 159-171.
  • Johnsingh A. J. T., Justus J. 1994. Avifauna in three vegetation types on Mundanthurai Plateau, South India. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 10/3: 323-335.
  • Khanaposhtani, M.G., Kaboli, M., Karami, M., Etemad, V. 2012. Effect of Habitat Complexity on Richness, Abundance and Distributional Pattern of Forest Birds. Environmental Management. 50/2: 296-303.
  • Karr. J.R., 1968. Habitat and avian diversity on strip mined land in east central Illinois. Condor. 70: 348-357.
  • Karr. J.R., Roth, R.R. 1971. Vegetation structure and avian diversity in several new world arcas. Am Nat. 105: 423-435.
  • Katayama, N., Amano, T., Naoe, S., Komatsu, I., Miyashita, T., Yamakita, T., Takagawa, S. I., Sato, N., Ueata, M. 2014. Landscape Heterogeneity–Biodiversity Relationship: Effect of Range Size. PloS one, 9/3: e93359.
  • Lexerod, N.L., Eid, T. 2006. An evaluation of different diameter diversity indices based on criteria related to forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management. 222: 17-28.
  • Loehle, C., Wigley, T.B., Shipman, P.A., Fox, S.F., Rutzmoser, S., Thill, R.E., Melchiors, M.A. 2005. Herpetofaunal species richness responses to forest landscape structure in Arkansas. Forest Ecology and Management. 209: 293– 308.
  • MacArthur, R.H., MacArthur, J.W. 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology. 42: 594-598.
  • MacArthur, R.H. 1964. Environmental factors afecting bird species diversity. Am Not. 98: 387-397.
  • Melles, S., Glenn, S., Martin. K. 2003. Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: Species–environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradient. Conservation Ecology. 7/1: 5.
  • Mills, L.S. 1994. “Book Review: Principles of Conservation Biology”. Northwest Science. 68: 303-304.
  • Mitchell, S. M., Rutzmoser, H. S., Wigley, B. T., Loehle, C., Gerwin, A. J., Keyser, D. P., Lancia, A. R., Perry, W. R., Reynolds, J. C., Thill, E. R., Weih, R., White, D., Wood, B. P. 2006. Relationships between avian richness and landscape structure at multiple scales using multiple landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management. 221: 155–169.
  • Özdemir, İ., Norton, DA., Özkan, UY., Mert, A., Şentürk, Ö. 2008. Estimation of Tree Size Diversity Using Object Oriented Texture Analysis and Aster Imagery. Sensors. 8: 4709-4724.
  • Ralph, C.J., Geupel, G.R., Pyle, P., Martin, T.E., DeSante, D.F. 1993. Handbook of Field Methods for Monitoring Landbirds. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-144. USDA Forest Service. 41 pp.
  • Recher, H.F. 1969. Bird species diversity and habitat diversity in Australia and North America. Am Not. 103: 75-80.
  • Robinson, S. K., Holmes, R. T. 1984. Effects of plant species and foliage structure on the foraging behavior of forest birds. The Auk. 672-684.
  • Roth. R.R., 1976. Spatial heterogeneity and bird species diversity. Ecology. 57: 773-783.
  • Shannon, C.E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27: 379–423.
  • Schieck, J., Nietfeld, M., Stelfox, J.B. 1995. Differences in bird species richness and abundance among three successional stages of aspen-dominated boreal forests, Kanada. Can. J. Zool. 73: 1471-1431.
  • Shiu, H.J., Lee, P.-F. 2003. A ssessing avian point-count duration and sample size using species accumulation functions. Zool. Stud. 42/2: 357–367.
  • Tews, J., Brose, U., Grimm, V., Tielbörger, K., Wichmann, M. C., Schwager, M., Jeltsch, F. 2004. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography. 31/1: 79-92.
  • Tomoff, C. S. 1974. Avian species diversity in desert scrub. Ecology. 55: 396-403.
  • Willson, M. F. 1974. Avian community organization and habitat structure. Ecology. 55: 1017-1029.
Primary Language tr
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Author: Tolgahan OSMANOĞLU
Institution: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi, Yaban Hayatı Ekolojisi ve Yönetimi Bölümü, Isparta, Turkey

Author: İbrahim ÖZDEMİR
Institution: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi, Yaban Hayatı Ekolojisi ve Yönetimi Bölümü, Isparta, Turkey

Dates

Application Date : May 7, 2021
Acceptance Date : May 7, 2021
Publication Date : December 15, 2014

APA Osmanoğlu, T , Özdemir, İ . (2014). Isparta-Gölcük Tabiat Parkı ormanında meşcere yapısı ile kuş türü zenginliği arasındaki ilişkiler . Biyolojik Çeşitlilik ve Koruma , 7 (3) , 78-86 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/biodicon/issue/55880/765575