Avian response to conservation buffers in agricultural landscapes during winter

ABSTRACT Native herbaceous vegetation cover along row‐crop field edges (i.e., field buffers) increases breeding densities of many bird species. However, the effect of field buffers on bird species during the non‐breeding season is less understood. We compared density, avian richness, and avian conse...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kristine O. Evans, L. Wes Burger Jr., Samuel K. Riffell, Mark D. Smith, Daniel J. Twedt, R. Randy Wilson, Shawchyi Vorisek, Catherine Rideout, Kate Heyden
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2014-06-01
Series:Wildlife Society Bulletin
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.405
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850115877248172032
author Kristine O. Evans
L. Wes Burger Jr.
Samuel K. Riffell
Mark D. Smith
Daniel J. Twedt
R. Randy Wilson
Shawchyi Vorisek
Catherine Rideout
Kate Heyden
author_facet Kristine O. Evans
L. Wes Burger Jr.
Samuel K. Riffell
Mark D. Smith
Daniel J. Twedt
R. Randy Wilson
Shawchyi Vorisek
Catherine Rideout
Kate Heyden
author_sort Kristine O. Evans
collection DOAJ
description ABSTRACT Native herbaceous vegetation cover along row‐crop field edges (i.e., field buffers) increases breeding densities of many bird species. However, the effect of field buffers on bird species during the non‐breeding season is less understood. We compared density, avian richness, and avian conservation value on row‐crop fields containing buffers strategically designed for wildlife versus fields without buffers in 3 southeastern U.S. states during winter 2007 and 2008. Fields with buffers were enrolled in U.S. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Reserve Program practice Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds (CP33), which targets restoration of northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) and other upland bird species. Overall species richness did not differ on fields with buffers versus fields without buffers in 2007, but was 29% greater on fields with buffers in 2008. Swamp sparrows (Melospiza georgiana), song sparrows (M. melodia), field sparrows (Spizella pusilla), and red‐bellied woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus) had greater densities on fields with buffers compared with fields without buffers. Increasing field‐buffer width did not result in greater bird densities. Our results suggest a small change in primary land use (≈7%) produced a disproportionate population response by some grassland‐dependent and woodland bird species during winter. Because field buffers provide a direct source of winter food and cover resources, they may be a pragmatic means to provide critical non‐breeding habitat with little alteration of existing agricultural systems. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.
format Article
id doaj-art-e28fd589782242528c3edb38b2c5a12f
institution OA Journals
issn 2328-5540
language English
publishDate 2014-06-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Wildlife Society Bulletin
spelling doaj-art-e28fd589782242528c3edb38b2c5a12f2025-08-20T02:36:28ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402014-06-0138225726410.1002/wsb.405Avian response to conservation buffers in agricultural landscapes during winterKristine O. Evans0L. Wes Burger Jr.1Samuel K. Riffell2Mark D. Smith3Daniel J. Twedt4R. Randy Wilson5Shawchyi Vorisek6Catherine Rideout7Kate Heyden8Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and AquacultureMississippi State UniversityBox 9690Mississippi StateMS39762USADepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries, and AquacultureMississippi State UniversityBox 9690Mississippi StateMS39762USADepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries, and AquacultureMississippi State UniversityBox 9690Mississippi StateMS39762USADepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries, and AquacultureMississippi State UniversityBox 9690Mississippi StateMS39762USAUnited States Geological SurveyPatuxent Wildlife Research Center2524 S Frontage RoadVicksburgMS39180USAUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite BJacksonMS39213USAKentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources1 Sportsman's LaneFrankfortKY40601USAArkansas Game and Fish Commission2 Natural Resources DriveLittle RockAR72205USAKentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources1 Sportsman's LaneFrankfortKY40601USAABSTRACT Native herbaceous vegetation cover along row‐crop field edges (i.e., field buffers) increases breeding densities of many bird species. However, the effect of field buffers on bird species during the non‐breeding season is less understood. We compared density, avian richness, and avian conservation value on row‐crop fields containing buffers strategically designed for wildlife versus fields without buffers in 3 southeastern U.S. states during winter 2007 and 2008. Fields with buffers were enrolled in U.S. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Reserve Program practice Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds (CP33), which targets restoration of northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) and other upland bird species. Overall species richness did not differ on fields with buffers versus fields without buffers in 2007, but was 29% greater on fields with buffers in 2008. Swamp sparrows (Melospiza georgiana), song sparrows (M. melodia), field sparrows (Spizella pusilla), and red‐bellied woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus) had greater densities on fields with buffers compared with fields without buffers. Increasing field‐buffer width did not result in greater bird densities. Our results suggest a small change in primary land use (≈7%) produced a disproportionate population response by some grassland‐dependent and woodland bird species during winter. Because field buffers provide a direct source of winter food and cover resources, they may be a pragmatic means to provide critical non‐breeding habitat with little alteration of existing agricultural systems. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.405agricultural landscapesconservation buffersconservation programshabitat buffers for upland birdssoutheasttargeted conservation
spellingShingle Kristine O. Evans
L. Wes Burger Jr.
Samuel K. Riffell
Mark D. Smith
Daniel J. Twedt
R. Randy Wilson
Shawchyi Vorisek
Catherine Rideout
Kate Heyden
Avian response to conservation buffers in agricultural landscapes during winter
Wildlife Society Bulletin
agricultural landscapes
conservation buffers
conservation programs
habitat buffers for upland birds
southeast
targeted conservation
title Avian response to conservation buffers in agricultural landscapes during winter
title_full Avian response to conservation buffers in agricultural landscapes during winter
title_fullStr Avian response to conservation buffers in agricultural landscapes during winter
title_full_unstemmed Avian response to conservation buffers in agricultural landscapes during winter
title_short Avian response to conservation buffers in agricultural landscapes during winter
title_sort avian response to conservation buffers in agricultural landscapes during winter
topic agricultural landscapes
conservation buffers
conservation programs
habitat buffers for upland birds
southeast
targeted conservation
url https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.405
work_keys_str_mv AT kristineoevans avianresponsetoconservationbuffersinagriculturallandscapesduringwinter
AT lwesburgerjr avianresponsetoconservationbuffersinagriculturallandscapesduringwinter
AT samuelkriffell avianresponsetoconservationbuffersinagriculturallandscapesduringwinter
AT markdsmith avianresponsetoconservationbuffersinagriculturallandscapesduringwinter
AT danieljtwedt avianresponsetoconservationbuffersinagriculturallandscapesduringwinter
AT rrandywilson avianresponsetoconservationbuffersinagriculturallandscapesduringwinter
AT shawchyivorisek avianresponsetoconservationbuffersinagriculturallandscapesduringwinter
AT catherinerideout avianresponsetoconservationbuffersinagriculturallandscapesduringwinter
AT kateheyden avianresponsetoconservationbuffersinagriculturallandscapesduringwinter