In order to find why a community consists of certain species, surveies mensurating home ground construction and floristics are conducted every bit good as the study of avifauna species present within those home grounds ( Macnally 1990 ; Johnson 2007 ) . Both floristics and home ground construction play an of import portion in finding the community composing of avifauna within home grounds ( Kikkawa 1968 ; Rotenberry 1985 ; Tews, Brose et Al. 2004 ; Johnson 2007 ) . There is strong grounds to propose that floristics is the dominant factor at a local graduated table ( Rotenberry 1985 ) . The consequences of this survey are in support of the position that riparian zones in peculiar seem to stand out from other home grounds in footings of copiousness, profusion, diverseness and composing in general ( Woinarski, Brock et Al. 2000 ; Schneider and Griesser 2009 ) .
It is good documented that different avian species are associated with peculiar home grounds ( Kikkawa 1968 ) . Of much argument and the topic of many surveies is what really determines avifauna community composing ; is it habitat construction or floristics that influences these distributions? ( Macnally 1990 ) . In an effort to explicate why some communities have a peculiar penchant for certain home grounds, avifauna surveies conducted have measured characteristics of home grounds like flora composing and its structural diverseness ( Johnson 2007 ) . Most home grounds offer a scope of structural niches that allow species the chance to center activities in different parts of flora ( Cody 1985 ) . Therefore, in mensurating the characteristics of home grounds, it is possible to measure forms of copiousness, species richness, the diverseness and evenness within a community ( Johnson 2007 ) . Abundance is defined as the sum of all birds recorded within a community while species richness is the figure of species within the community ( Smith 2001 ) . Species diverseness relates to species profusion in the community and the comparative copiousness of those species and eventually evenness steps how persons of each species are numerically distributed within the community ( Smith 2001 ) .
The purpose of this avifauna community study is to mensurate copiousness, profusion, diverseness and evenness of 9 different home grounds, and find any likely association between these findings and their home grounds.
HO – Riparian zones back up a distinguishable community composing and are greater in copiousness, profusion and diverseness than other habitat types
Ha – Riparian zones do non back up a distinguishable community composing and are non greater in copiousness, profusion and diverseness than other habitat types
Avifauna studies were carried out at 9 different locations in order to stand for a suite of different home ground types and their community composings ( refer to Figure 1 ) . The 3 chief locations for each of the 9 sites include the Palmetum, Ross River and the JCU campus. Brief descriptions about the home ground for each of the 9 sites are listed in Table 1.
Figure 1. Site Map of all 9 sites for avifauna studies
Table 1 – Site Descriptions for all 9 sites
Closed canopy Rainforest at the Palmetum
Savannah around pool at the Palmetum
Riparian flora along Ross River
Dry rain forest on the JCU campus
Open mown eucalypt forest on JCU campus
Creek-line paperbark forest on JCU campus
Eucalypt forest with understorey bushs on JCU campus
Open ironbark forest with grassy understorey on JCU campus
Creek-line Leucaena brush, opposite Technical College
Surveies for sites 1, 2 and 3 were conducted on Tuesday forenoon ; sites 4, 5 and 6 on Wednesday forenoon and sites 7, 8 and 9 on Thursday forenoon. Each group on their several twenty-four hours collected informations for 30 proceedingss between 6.45am and 7.15am. At each site, the group made their manner along a pronounced transect and record all species sighted. At this clip, habitat information such as blossoming and fruiting trees, canopy screen, bush and herb bed, H2O handiness, topography and anthropogenetic perturbations were recorded.
The site 6 group collected informations at the creek-line paperbark forest on JCU campus ( refer to Figure 2 ) . The group recorded all birds sighted within the dry brook bed and in the environing flora near the brook bed. A full site description is listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Description of Site 6 ( creek-line paperbark forest )
Melaleuca leucadendra, besides Lophostemon ( Swamp Box ) , Lysiphyllum ( Native Bauhinia ) , Pongamia pinnata ( Indian Beech ) , Acacias dominant, Zizyphus ( Chinee apple ) , Corymbia tesselaris ( Moreton Bay Ash ) on upper bank with grassy understorey
Present ( Pongamia )
Creek bed, stoney substrate, steep inclining Bankss
Water available in little pools
Animal noises from vet scientific discipline compound
Melaleuca woodland 2010.JPG
Melaleuca woodland2 2010.JPG
Figure 2. Locate 6 – riparian paperbark forest on JCU campus ( Photos taken by Carrie Preite )
The information for all groups was collated into a spreadsheet and analyzed. Entire copiousness, species richness, evenness and diverseness were calculated for each site utilizing the computing machine plan Excel. Entire copiousness is calculated by summing all birds within a site and profusion by summing the figure of different species. Diversity, a step of species profusion and copiousness was calculated utilizing the Simpsons Diversity Index D = 1/ a?‘ Pi2. This is a laterality index and by squaring Pi, rare species within the community have small consequence on the consequences. Species evenness measures how numerically equal a community is distributed and is calculated by E = D/S. When E = 1 the community is equally distributed, when E = 0 it is unevenly distributed. A hierarchal bunch analysis was performed utilizing Wards method in the statistical plan SPSS. This is a categorization analysis and it measures the sites based on similarity or unsimilarity. Similar communities are clustered together and dissimilar communities are dispersed apart on the dendogram.
The entire copiousness of each site is displayed in Figure 3. Sites 3 and 5 were most abundant entering a sum of 95 and 93 birds. Sites 2 and 7 follow in order of copiousness entering 68 and 55 birds and sites 6 and 9 record 45 and 37 birds. At the lower terminal of copiousness are sites 1 and 4 entering 27 and 23 birds. Site 8 was lowest in entire copiousness entering 13 birds, a difference of 82 birds between sites 3 and 8. The copiousness over all sites is rather varied.
Figure 3. Histogram of entire copiousness for all bird species across all nine sites
Speciess richness displayed in Figure 4, records site 3 as highest profusion with 21 species. Site 6 records 16 species and is followed by sites 5, 7 and 9, all entering the same profusion of 15 species. Sites 1, 4 and 2 follow on, with site 1 entering 12 species, site 4 with 11 and site 2 with 10 species. Site 8, lowest in profusion records merely 8 species, a difference of 13 species between highest and lowest copiousness. A gradual lessening in profusion can be seen through all the sites.
Figure 4. Histogram of species profusion for all bird species across all nine sites
Diversity, displayed in Figure 5 records site 9 holding the highest diverseness with an index of 8.8, followed by site 3 with an index of 8.4. In the in-between scope of the index is site 6 with 7.4, site 7 with 7.2 and site 1 with 7.1. At the lower terminal of the index is site 5 with 5.6 and site 2 with 5.0. The sites of lowest diverseness are site 8 with 4.8 and site 4 with 4.4 on the index.
Figure 5. Histogram of diverseness for all bird species across all nine sites
Speciess evenness is displayed in Figure 6. Site 8 was highest in evenness entering 0.604, followed by site 1 with 0.590 and site 9 with 0.589. Following on is site 2 entering 0.500, site 7 with 0.479 and site 6 with 0.460 ; these sites are closely matched in evenness. At the lower terminal of evenness are sites 3 with 0.401 and site 4 with 0.397 and in conclusion site 5 entering 0.376.
Figure 6. Histogram of evenness distribution of species in community composing across all 9 sites
The bunch analysis of the 9 sites is summarized in a dendogram shown in Figure 7. The first bunch of sites 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are most similar to each other in composing but dissimilar to constellate 3 which consists of sites 2 and 3. Bunch 2 consists entirely of site 5 and has similarities to constellate 1 and cluster 3 but is dissimilar plenty to be placed in a bunch entirely.
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine
C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num + — — — — -+ — — — — -+ — — — — -+ — — — — -+ — — — — -+
Site 4 4 -+
Site 8 8 -+-+
Site 9 9 -+ + — -+
Site 1 1 — -+ + — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -+
Site 6 6 — -+ — -+ + — — — — — -+
Site 7 7 — -+ | |
Site 5 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -+ |
Site 2 2 — — — — — — — -+ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -+
Site 3 3 — — — — — — — -+
Figure 7. Dendogram of Hierarchical Cluster Analysis for all 9 sites utilizing the Ward Method
Figure 8 displays the entire copiousness for each of the clustered sites. Cluster 2 has the highest copiousness with 93 birds, followed by bunch 3 with 81 birds and in conclusion, bunch 1 with sum of 33 birds.
Figure 8. Histogram of entire copiousness for the bunchs 1,2 and 3
Figure 9 shows species richness for each of the bunchs. Cluster 3 records the highest species profusion of about 16 species followed by bunch 2 with 15 and eventually constellate 1 with about 13 species.
Figure 9. Histogram of species richness for bunchs 1, 2 and 3
Figure 10 displays the diverseness index for each of the clustered sites. Cluster 3 has the highest diverseness index of 6.7 followed by bunch 1 with an index of 6.6 and eventually is cluster 2 with an index of 5.6.
Figure 10. Histogram of diverseness for the bunchs 1, 2 and 3
Figure 11 displays the distribution of evenness between the clustered sites. Cluster 1 records the highest evenness of 0.51 followed by bunch 3 with 0.45 and eventually constellate 2 with 0.37.
Figure 11. Histogram of evenness for bunchs 1, 2 and 3
The consequences show site 3 ( riparian zone at Ross River ) as being the highest in entire copiousness and profusion of all the sites surveyed. Previous surveies of riparian zones show grounds in support of higher copiousness and profusion within these home grounds ( Woinarski, Brock et Al. 2000 ; Schneider and Griesser 2009 ) . It is suggested this is due to higher resource handiness, and in northern Australia, is attributed to vegetation cover dwelling of Melaleuca spp, Eucalyptus spp and rain wood workss ( Woinarski, Brock et Al. 2000 ; Schneider and Griesser 2009 ) . Habitat construction, in peculiar, one that is structurally complex, has frequently been connected to high species copiousness, profusion and diverseness ( Kikkawa 1968 ; Tews, Brose et Al. 2004 ; Johnson 2007 ) . The logical thinking is, the more complex the home ground construction, the greater possible for resource segregation ( Kikkawa 1968 ; Tews, Brose et Al. 2004 ; Johnson 2007 ) . Site 9 ( creek-line Leucaena brush ) , and once more site 3 record the highest diverseness index for all sites. Both of these sites are more structurally complex than other sites with canopy and bush screen plus a herb bed, leting for greater resource segregation and hence higher diverseness. It is noted that site 9 has low copiousness in comparing to the other sites, but has comparatively high species richness which accounts for the high diverseness index. Site 8, the unfastened ironbark forest with grassy understorey at JCU recorded the most even distribution of species within the community. Evenness is sensitive to try size and therefore it is suggested that site 8, holding the smallest sample size may account for the high evenness of species.
The dendogram groups sites 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 together in bunch 1 as being most similar to each other. There are a figure of honeyeater species found within bunch 1. The blue-faced honeyeater ( sites 1, 6 & A ; 9 ) , noisy mendicant ( site 4 ) , helmeted mendicant ( sites 1, 4 & A ; 7 ) plus a figure of other honeyeater species ( sites 1, 4 & A ; 7 ) . Eucalyptus spp. , Melaleuca spp. and Acacia spp. are common to the sites in bunch 1 and it is noted that honeyeaters prefer these species of flora ( Frith 1976 ) . Blue-faced honeyeaters favour Eucalyptus spp. and Melaleuca spp. and can be found around the borders of rain forests ( Frith 1976 ) . Noisy friar prefers sclerophyll woods ( wet/dry ) or unfastened forests and the helmeted mendicant can be found in paperbark swamps or monsoon woods ( Frith 1976 ) . The noisy mendicant and helmeted mendicant may be found in association with each other ( Frith 1976 ) . Another common characteristic in bunch 1 is the presence of H2O either in little pools or located nearby. In the dry season blue-faced honeyeaters stay near to H2O beginnings ( Frith 1976 ) . It is suggested that the Numberss of honeyeaters found within bunch 1 are related to the floristics within bunch 1 every bit good as H2O handiness. Previous surveies have found an association between flora species composing and avifauna composing ( Rotenberry 1985 ) . Furthermore, this association is important at a local population degree ( Rotenberry 1985 ) .
Cluster 2 consists of site 5 ( Eucalypt woodland at JCU ) . There are high Numberss of rainbow lorikeets found within bunch 2. Rainbow lorikeets are found in many different home grounds including, schlerophyll woods ( wet/dry ) , tropical rain forests and tall unfastened Eucalyptus forests ( Frith 1976 ) . Rainbow lorikeets prefer Eucalyptus spp. but will work blooming Callistemon spp. and Grevillea spp. for nectar ( Frith 1976 ) . Unless understorey species are blooming, physical construction of a home ground appears undistinguished and communities even inhabit forests with an understorey bed wholly of grass ( Frith 1976 ) . Vegetation composing of bunch 2 is dominated by Eucalyptus platyphylla. Flowers of Callistemon spp. are present plus an extended herb bed. Again, it appears that flora composing is the dominant factor for species composing within this site ( Rotenberry 1985 ) .
Cluster 3 consists of site 2, ( savannah around pool at Palmetum ) and 3, ( riparian zone at Ross River ) grouped together in footings of similarity to each other. The common factor for both sites is the riparian zone. High Numberss of welcome sups and magpie geese are recorded in bunch 3. Welcome sups feed predominately on insects, which are often found around riparian zones and hence, welcome sups are normally found around riparian home grounds but are besides found in Savannah and unfastened forests ( Frith 1976 ) . Magpie geese ( waterbird species ) are normally found in wet grasslands and in flood plains ( Frith 1976 ) . As antecedently stated, there is strong grounds for distinguishable communities populating riparian zones ( Schneider and Griesser 2009 ) .
There is plentifulness of grounds in support of home ground construction and floristics impacting the composing of avifaunistic communities ( Macnally 1990 ) . It appears within this study, at a local graduated table, floristics is the dominant factor for avifaunistic community composing ( Rotenberry 1985 ) . Riparian zones in peculiar, with complex home ground construction and the presence of H2O, are high in copiousness, profusion and diverseness and have quite distinguishable communities from those of other home grounds ( Kikkawa 1968 ; Tews, Brose et Al. 2004 ; Johnson 2007 ; Schneider and Griesser 2009 ) .