Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Tropical Life Sciences Research logoLink to Tropical Life Sciences Research
. 2010 Dec;21(2):7–26.

Bird Species Composition and Feeding Guilds Based on Point Count and Mist Netting Methods at The Paya Indah Wetland Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia

Mohamed Zakaria 1,*, Muhammad Nawaz Rajpar 1
PMCID: PMC3819076  PMID: 24575196

Abstract

A comparison study was conducted to determine the bird species composition, relative abundance, species diversity and feeding guilds based on point count (PC) and mist netting (MN) at the Paya Indah Wetland Reserve (PIWR), Peninsular Malaysia. A total of 13872 bird observations belonging to 100 species and 38 families were recorded using the PC method over 15 consecutive months, and a total of 1478 bird individuals belonging to 65 species and 33 families were captured using the MN method over 1260 netting hours. The results showed that Treron vernans (1723 observations; 12.42%) was the most abundant bird species using the PC method, whereas Pycnonotus goiavier (378 individuals; 25.64%) was the most abundant bird species using the MN method. The Ardeidae (9 species; 23.68%) was the most dominant family using the PC method, but the Rallidae (6 species; 18.18%) was the most dominant family using the MN method. The PC method produced higher species diversity (Shannon’s N1 = 31.22) and richness (Margalef’s R1 = 10.42) than MN, whereas the MN method produced higher species evenness (McIntosh’s E = 0.86) than the PC method. Frugivore/insectivore comprised of bulbuls, orioles, pigeons and starlings was the most dominant feeding guild in both methods (PC = 27.81% and MN = 32.88%). In contrast, carnivore was the rarest feeding guild in both methods (i.e. PC = 0.17% and MN = 0.20%). These findings indicate that the PC method is more efficient and produces better results than the MN method.

Keywords: Distance Sampling, Mist Netting, Species Abundance, Diversity, Feeding Guild

INTRODUCTION

Wetlands are areas where water plays an important role in the development of aquatic plants and animal life. The global wetland size ranges between 5.3 to 12.8 million km2 (Zedler & Kercher 2005). These wetlands provide important ecosystem functions such as supplying a wildlife habitat, water filtration and flood control (Houlahan et al. 2006). Wetlands are frequently used by a diverse number of bird species for foraging, nesting and roosting due to their heterogeneity of microhabitats and available rich food resources (Mitsch & Gosselink 2007; Zakaria et al. 2009).

Birds are an extremely diverse, conspicuous and significant component of freshwater wetland ecosystems, and they may fly to different areas in order to feed, mate and nest (Furness & Greenwood 1993; Kushlan 1993). The presence or absence of birds may indicate the ecological conditions of wetland habitats and form an important link between the food web and nutrient cycle. Moreover, birds may respond quickly to any change in habitat and climatic condition (Fuller et al. 1995; Gregory & Baillie 1998; Siriwardena et al. 1998; Krebs et al. 1999).

The distance sampling point count (PC) and mist netting (MN) methods are the two most commonly used standard techniques to sample population parameters of different bird species in different habitats. A combination of the two techniques might be the most effective methodological approach for monitoring bird assemblages (Wallace et al. 1996; Gram & Faaborg 1997; Rappole et al. 1998; Poulin et al. 2000; Blake & Loiselle 2001; Wang & Finch 2002).

The distance sampling PC method has been widely used to monitor the density, diversity and relative abundance of bird species in different habitats (Blake 1992; Thompson et al. 1999; Verner & Purcell 1999; Mills et al. 2000). This method involves the visual and auditory detection of birds within fixed or variable radius plots and provides information on species abundance (Codesido & Bilenca 2000; Mills et al. 2000). However, the detections of birds may vary depending on foliage density, canopy cover, visibility and perception of sounds and the observer’s skill (Schieck 1997; Whitman et al. 1997; Blake & Loiselle 2001).

The MN method has been widely used in avian studies and is a more effective method for detecting small, highly cryptic and shy bird species that have secretive behaviours and/or that vocalise infrequently (Ralph et al. 1993; Rappole et al. 1998; Blake & Loiselle 2000, 2001; Wang & Finch 2002; Barlow et al. 2006). However, MN is time consuming and requires large efforts to install (Humphrey et al. 1968; Meyers & Pardieck 1993). In addition, this method provides data on species distribution rather than abundance (Remsen & Good 1996).

Despite being rich in avifauna, freshwater wetlands are poorly documented, even in regards to basic avian parameters such as species composition, relative abundance, diversity indices, density and feeding guilds (Kantrud & Stewart 1984). The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the distance sampling PC and MN techniques in obtaining information on bird species composition, relative abundance, species diversity and feeding guilds in the Paya Indah Wetland Reserve (PIWR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Site

The Paya (swamp) Indah (beautiful) Wildlife Sanctuary encompasses 3050 ha, of which 450 ha are under the administration of the Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Peninsular Malaysia. The study area was located adjacent to Malaysia's administrative capital Putrajaya, within the quadrant of 101° 10′ to 101° 50′ longitude and 2° 50′ and 3° 00′ latitude (Fig. 1).

Figure 1:

Figure 1:

Open in a new tab

Location map of point count and mist netting stations at PIWR, Peninsular Malaysia.

Point Count (PC)

The bird surveys were carried out using the distance sampling PC method from November 2007 to January 2009 at the PIWR. We established 61 PC stations that were at least 300 m apart throughout the study area. Each PC station was surveyed for 15 consecutive months to obtain reliable estimates. The surveys were done for 10 minutes at each PC station. The 10-minute count was used to record a sufficient number of individuals with minimal effort and disturbance. During each PC visit, we recorded species and number of individuals detected by sight or sound. Flushed birds were recorded with original position and were included in the record, whereas flying birds were not recorded due to unknown original positions. The survey was conducted between 0730 h and 1100 h. The detail of the methodology was previously described by Buckland et al. (2004) and Nadeau et al. (2008).

Mist Netting (MN)

Ten mist nets (14 m x 4 m with 3 pockets) were used to catch birds, particularly those with cryptic or secretive behaviour. Netting was conducted for a total of 105 days, or 1260 netting hours. The nets were fixed and stretched between 2 bamboo poles randomly throughout the area in different locations, such as open terrestrial areas, along the paths and 1–3 feet inside the water. The nets were opened at 0700 h and closed at 1900 h. The nets were placed for 3 days at the same location before they were moved to other locations and were monitored at 2-hour intervals. Three days of netting was sufficient to capture most of the birds. After 3 days, birds may become familiar with the mist nets (Robbins et al. 1992). Each captured bird was banded with a numbered aluminium ring on the right tarsus before they were released. Recaptured birds were not included in the current analysis.

Data Analysis

The efficiencies of the PC and MN methods were evaluated based on the relative abundance (%) of bird species using the expression: n/N x 100, where n is the number of recorded bird species and N is the total observations recorded (Zakaria et al. 2009). In addition, species diversity, richness and evenness were determined using the Community Analysis Package (CAP) Version 4.0 by Henderson and Seaby (2007), and feeding guilds of bird species was based on the observed feeding behaviour (Zakaria et al. 2009). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s HSD test was used to assess the consistency of detecting relative abundance, families and feeding guilds between the two methods. A linear regression analysis with standardised PC detection as the dependent variable and standardised netting capture as the independent variable was performed for species detected by both techniques.

RESULTS

We recorded a total of 15349 birds belonging to 110 bird species and 40 families using the distance sampling PC and MN methods from November 2007 to January 2009 at the PIWR.

Bird Species

The PC method recorded a total of 13872 bird observations that belonged to 100 species and 38 families. Treron vernans (1723 observations; 12.42%), Pycnonotus goiavier (1683 observations; 12.13%), Geopelia striata (1052 observations; 7.58%), Porphyrio porphyrio (954 observations; 6.88%) and Streptopelia chinensis (879 observations; 6.37%) were the five most abundant bird species recorded by this method. In addition, 14 species (0.01% each; e.g., Phylloscopus inornatus, Gallirallus striatus, Dicrurus leucophaeus, Haliastur Indus, etc.) were only observed once (see Appendix).

The MN method captured a total of 1478 birds belonging to 64 species and 33 families. Pycnonotus goiavier (379 captures; 25.64%), Geopelia striata (152 captures; 10.28%) and Ploceus philippinus (141 captures; 9.54%) were the 3 most abundant bird species, whereas 18 other species (0.07%) (e.g., Gallinula chloropus, Eurystomus orientalis, Porzana cinerea, Orthotomus ruficep, etc.) were rarely recorded by this method (see Appendix).

The relative abundance of bird species based on the PC and MN methods was compared using ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test. Values obtained using the PC and MN methods were found to be significantly different [F(1, 218) = 16.80, p < 0.05] (Table 1).

Table 1:

Comparison of bird observations recorded by the PC and MN methods at the PIWR, Peninsular Malaysia.

Methods Mean value Standard error (SE ±)
PC 126.12a 2.42
MN 13.418b 1.02
Open in a new tab

Notes: The mean values with different letters are significant at p = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test critical value = 53.88.

Bird Families

The PC method recorded a total of 38 bird families during the study period. Four families, namely Columbidae (3721 observations; 26.82%), Pycnonotidae (1696 observations; 12.23%), Rallidae (1485 observations; 10.71%) and Sturnidae (1333 observations; 9.61%), were the most dominant families and had the highest number of observations recorded by the PC method, whereas Dicruridae and Emberizidae were the rarest families with only one observation each (0.01%). The MN method captured a total of 33 bird families. Pycnonotidae (385 individuals; 26.05%), Columbidae (283 individuals; 19.15%) and Ploceidae (141 individuals; 9.54%) were the three most dominant families and had the highest number of individuals captured using the MN method. Phasianidae, Coraciidae and Muscicapidae were the rarest families with only one capture each (0.07%) (Table 2).

Table 2:

Ranking of bird families based on the PC and MN methods at the PIWR, Peninsular Malaysia.

Family name PC method MN method
No. of species No. of observations % No. of species No. of individuals %
Columbidae 6 3721 26.82 3 283 19.15
Pycnonotidae 2 1696 12.23 2 385 26.05
Rallidae 7 1485 10.71 6 28 1.89
Sturnidae 5 1333 9.61 4 18 1.22
Estrildidae 3 637 4.59 2 40 2.71
Ardeidae 9 616 4.44 5 84 5.68
Meropidae 2 386 2.78 2 35 2.37
Ploceidae 1 378 2.72 1 141 9.54
Hirundinidae 1 353 2.54 1 5 0.34
Anatidae 2 337 2.43 1 2 0.14
Alcidinidae 2 334 2.41 3 68 4.60
Charadriidae 1 261 1.88 2 13 0.88
Motacillidae 1 257 1.83 1 31 2.10
Aegithinidae 2 227 1.64 2 24 1.62
Turdidae 1 203 1.46 1 49 3.32
Cisticolidae 3 189 1.36 2 12 0.81
Oriolidae 1 178 1.28 1 3 0.20
Cuculidae 6 170 1.23 3 19 1.29
Rhipiduridae 1 167 1.20 1 39 2.64
Laniidae 2 163 1.18 1 31 2.10
Passeridae* 1 112 0.81 0 0 0
Sylviidae 7 102 0.74 5 37 2.50
Phasianidae 2 88 0.63 1 1 0.07
Nectariniidae 7 84 0.61 2 10 0.68
Campephagidae 2 80 0.58 1 17 1.15
Picidae 4 78 0.57 1 13 0.88
Corvidae** 2 50 0.36 0 0 0
Coraciidae 1 40 0.29 1 1 0.07
Scolopacidae 2 37 0.27 1 6 0.41
Accipitridae 5 24 0.17 2 3 0.20
Caprimulgidae 2 24 0.17 2 62 4.19
Turnicidae 1 20 0.14 1 10 0.68
Muscicapidae 1 14 0.10 1 1 0.07
Podicipedidae* 1 11 0.08 0 0 0
Pachycephalidae* 1 8 0.06 0 0 0
Jacanidae 1 7 0.05 0 0 0
Dicruridae** 1 1 0.01 0 0 0
Emberizidae** 1 1 0.01 0 0 0
Apodidae* 0 0 0 1 3 0.20
Strigidae* 0 0 0 2 4 0.27
Total 100 13872 65 1478
Open in a new tab

Notes:

*

families missed by the PC method,

**

families missed by the MN method.

The number of bird families based on the PC and MN methods were compared using ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD. The results showed that bird families based on PC and MN methods were significantly different [F(1, 78) = 8.33, p < 0.05] (Table 3).

Table 3:

Comparison of bird families based on the PC and MN methods at The PIWR, Peninsular Malaysia.

Method Mean value Standard error (SE ±)
PC 346.80 a 5.75
MN 36.95 b 1.96
Open in a new tab

Notes: The mean values with different letters are significant at p = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test critical value = 213.67.

Diversity Indices

The diversity of birds at the PIWR was determined using the CAP (Version 4.0) by Henderson and Seaby (2007) based on relative abundance recorded by the PC and MN methods. The species diversity and richness was higher in the PC method (Shannon’s Index N1 = 31.22 and Margalef’s Index R1 = 10.42), whereas the species evenness was higher when using MN (McIntosh’s Index E = 0.86) (Table 4).

Table 4:

Comparison of diversity indices of bird results obtained using the PC and MN methods at the PIWR, Peninsular Malaysia.

Indices PC method MN method
Diversity indices
  Shannon’s index (N1) 31.22 26.48
  Simpson’s index (N2) 19.11 16.68
Richness indices
  Margalef’s index (R1) 10.42 9.14
  Menhinik’s index (R2) 0.89 1.96
Evenness indices
  McIntosh’s index (E) 0.77 0.86
  Pielou J index (E) 0.73 0.69
Open in a new tab

Feeding Guilds

The foraging behaviours of bird species based on the PC and MN methods were grouped into nine trophic structures to determine the feeding behaviours of different bird species and the food resources of the study area. The PC method showed that frugivore/insectivore (27.81%), omnivore (22.64%) and insectivore (16.90%) were the three most abundant feeding guilds. Carnivore (0.17%), which was comprised of raptors, was the rarest feeding guild in the study area. The MN method showed that frugivore/insectivore (32.88%), insectivore (25.10%) and granivore/insectivore (20.57%) were the three most abundant feeding guilds. Carnivore (0.20%) was again found to be the rarest feeding guild in the study area using MN (Table 5).

Table 5:

Comparison of feeding guilds based on the PC and MN methods at the PIWR, Peninsular Malaysia.

Feeding guilds Point count method Mist netting method
No. of species No. of observations % No. of species No. of individuals %
Frugivore/insectivore 8 3858 27.81 5 486 32.88
Omnivore 19 3141 22.64 12 53 3.59
Insectivore 36 2345 16.90 25 371 25.10
Granivore/insectivore 6 1581 11.40 4 304 20.57
Granivore 3 1503 10.83 3 75 5.07
Carnivore/piscivore/insectivore 15 1230 8.87 9 164 11.10
Carnivore/insectivore 1 106 0.76 3 12 0.81
Nectarivore/insectivore 8 85 0.61 2 10 0.68
Carnivore 4 23 0.17 2 3 0.20
Total 100 13872 65 1478
Open in a new tab

The feeding guilds based on the PC and MN methods were compared using ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test. The result showed that feeding guilds identified using the PC and MN methods were significantly different [F(1, 16) = 8.86, p < 0.05] (Table 6).

Table 6:

Comparison of feeding guilds based on the PC and MN methods at the PIWR, Peninsular Malaysia.

Methods Mean value Standard error (SE ±)
PC 1541.3 a 11.72
MN 164.22 b 4.68
Open in a new tab

Notes: The mean values with different letters are significant at p = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test critical value = 981.45.

DISCUSSION

It is highly important to monitor the species composition, relative abundance, diversity and habitats of wetland-dependent birds to examine population trends and thus identify and highlight the main causes of species decline due to growing pressure from anthropogenic activities. The PIWR is a natural wetland and dynamic habitat for different bird species due to heterogeneous vegetation, abundant food resources, and the presence of suitable loafing, roosting and breeding sites (Rajpar & Zakaria 2009).

The efficiency of methods applied to estimate bird populations has received considerable attention (Smith et al. 1993; Petit et al. 1995; Whitman et al. 1997; Rappole et al. 1998). We used the distance sampling PC method to record the species composition, relative abundance, species richness and feeding guilds in different habitats because it is an easy and efficient method to obtain information on population trends, affects of disturbance, habitat selection and to compare bird diversity among different sites. This type of research method was previously performed by Ralph et al. (1995), Dobkin and Rich (1998), Bibby et al. (2000), Thompson et al. (2002), Kaminski et al. (2006), Aborn (2007) and Zakaria et al. (2009). Terborgh et al. (1990) reported that no sampling technique is free of bias or is effective for all groups of birds, and a combination of techniques is most useful in many cases. We therefore used the MN method as a supplement to PC rather than as a sole source of data, as reported by Faaborg et al. (1984). MN may aid in identifying different bird species and sampling cryptic and secretive species of small size (Ralph et al. 1995; Mason 1996; Blake & Loiselle 2000; Wang & Finch 2002). The advantages of using the MN method are the reduction of bias, the detection of bird species that were missed by the PC method, close examination of the birds (Ralph et al. 1995) and the simplification of species identification compared to other methods (Ralph et al. 1996).

We recorded a total of 110 species using the distance sampling PC and MN methods. The PC method detected 100 species (90.90%), whereas the MN captured 64 (58.18%) of the 110 species encountered during the study. Thus, the PC method failed to detect 10 species (9.09%), and the MN method failed to capture 44 (40.0%) of all the species encountered in this study. Moreover, 56 species (50.91%) were common bird species recorded by both methods (see Appendix). The estimates of relative abundance, bird families (Table 3) and feeding guilds (Table 6) indicated significantly different results for both methods. Overall, the detection rate of species composition, relative abundance, families, diversity indices and feeding guilds was higher using the PC method compared to the MN method.

Species that the PC method failed to detect were small and had cryptic behaviour, e.g., the Inornate Warbler. In addition, migratory species such as the Golden Pacific Plover, Japanese Sparrow Hawk and Black-caped Kingfisher, migratory and resident species such as the Violet Cuckoo, nocturnal species such as the Oriental Scops Owl and Collared Scops Owl, sallying foragers on the wing such as the edible-nest Swiftlet and species with a small population size such as the Besra and Stork-billed Kingfisher were also missed using the PC method.

MN recorded with greater frequency bird species with secretive behaviours and those that were ground foraging and non-singing species, such as the Yellow Bittern, Lesser Coucal, Cinnamon Bittern, Pintail Snipe, Plaintive Cuckoo, Barred Button Quail, Slaty-breasted Rail, Inornate Warbler, Large-tailed Nightjar, Schrenck’s Bittern and Savanna Nightjar. Similar results have also been reported by Rappole et al. (1998, 1993), Wallace et al. (1996), Whitman et al. (1997), and Blake and Loiselle (2001).

Some species that MN failed to capture were abundant using the PC method (e.g., Purple Swamphen, Red Junglefowl, Large-billed Crow, House Crow and Greater Coucal). Moreover, arboreal and canopy foragers (e.g., Orange-breasted Green Pigeons, Little Green Pigeon, Thick-billed Green Pigeon, Hill Myna, Ashy Minivet, Ashy Drongo, Common Asian Koel, Plain Sunbird, Mangrove Whistler, Rufous Woodpecker, Little Spiderhunter, Plain Sunbird, Copper-throated Sunbird, Purple-throated Sunbird, Red-throated Sunbird, Black-throated Sunbird, Rufous Tailorbirds and Eurasian Tree Sparrow) were also missed by MN. In addition, migratory species (e.g., Rusty-rumped Warbler, Rufescent Prinia, Yellow-breasted Bunting, Common Sandpiper, Long-tailed Shrike, Chestnut-winged Cuckoo and Common Sandpiper), sallying raptors (e.g., Black-shoulder Kite, Black Baza, Western Marsh Harrier, White-bellied Fish Eagle and Brahminy Kite), resident species with low population size (e.g., Greater Flameback, Speckled Piculet and White-headed Munia), resident and migratory species (e.g., Little Egret, Great Egret and Common Kingfisher), nocturnal foragers (Black-crowned Nightheron), open water body surface foragers (Cotton Pygmy Goose), floating vegetation foragers (Pheasant-tailed Jacana) and divers (Little Grebes) were also missed by MN. The PC method failed to record two families (Apodidae and Strigidae), whereas the MN method failed to record six families (Corvidae, Dicruridae, Emberizidae, Jacanidae, Pachycephalidae and Podicipedidae) in the study area. The results of this study showed that MN was a less efficient method compared to the PC method in terms of species composition, relative abundance, diversity and feeding guilds.

Consistent with past studies, we detected more species using the PC method than with the MN method. For example, Aborn (2007) recorded 91 species by PC and 41 species by MN from all Neotropical migrant species at the Lula Lake Land Trust. Derlindati and Caziani (2005) detected 78 species (85.71%) by PC and captured 48 species (52.75%) using the MN method in the Chaco forest. Blake and Loiselle (2000) recorded 226 species (86.59%) with PC and captured 168 of all 261 species (64.37%) with MN in Costa Rica. Whitman et al. (1997) reported that the PC method detected 60% and MN captured 25% of all forest species in northern Belize. The results of this study suggest that the PC and MN methods are relatively consistent and effective, especially when applied together to sample bird species composition, relative abundance, species diversity and feeding guilds in wetland ecosystems. Finally, it is recommended that the MN method should be used together with PC to obtain more accurate estimates of different parameters of bird species.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that PC provides better results and is a more efficient method compared to MN. When applied together, however, results are even more reliable than for either single method. Thus, we recommended that the PC and MN methods should be applied together to survey birds that are present in open areas such as wetlands.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Peninsular Malaysia for allowing us to conduct this research at the PIWR. This research was partially funded by Fundamental Grant Research Scheme (01-10-07-291FR) and the Forestry Sector Research Division Project, Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar, Pakistan.

Appendix: List of bird species with relative abundance based on the PC and MN methods at the PIWR, Peninsular Malaysia.

Family name Common name Scientific name PC method MN method
No. of observations % No. of individuals %
Columbidae Pink-necked Green Pigeon Treron vernans 1723 12.42 96 6.5
Pycnonotidae Yellow-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus goiavier 1683 12.13 379 25.64
Columbidae Peaceful Dove Geopelia striata 1052 7.58 152 10.28
Rallidae Purple Swamphen** Porphyrio porphyrio 954 6.88 0 0
Columbidae Spotted Dove Streptopelia chinensis 879 6.34 35 2.37
Sturnidae Jungle Myna Acridotheres fuscus 571 4.12 4 0.27
Sturnidae Common Myna Acridotheres tristis 454 3.27 2 0.14
Estrildidae Scaly-breasted Munia Lonchura punctulata 410 2.96 19 1.29
Ploceidae Baya Weaver Ploceus philippinus 378 2.72 141 9.54
Rallidae White-breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus 376 2.71 23 1.56
Hirundinidae Pacific Swallow Hirundo tahitica 353 2.54 5 0.34
Meropidae Blue-tailed Bee-eater Merops philippinus 349 2.52 20 1.35
Alcidinidae White-throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis 330 2.38 66 4.67
Ardeidae Purple Heron Ardea purpurea 269 1.94 2 0.14
Charadriidae Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus 261 1.88 12 0.81
Motacillidae Richard’s Pipit Anthus richardi 257 1.85 31 2.1
Ardeidae Yellow Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis 246 1.77 49 3.32
Anatidae Lesser Whistling Duck Dendrocygna javanica 244 1.76 2 0.14
Estrildidae Black-headed Munia Lonchura malacca 214 1.54 21 1.42
Turdidae Oriental Magpie Robin Copsychus saularis 203 1.46 49 3.32
Sturnidae Philippine Glossy Starling Aplonis panayensis 194 1.4 2 0.14
Oriolidae Black-napped Oriole Oriolus chinensis 178 1.28 3 0.2
Cisticolidae Yellow-bellied Prinia Prinia flaviventris 175 1.26 11 0.74
Rhipiduridae Pied Fantail Rhipidura javanica 167 1.2 39 2.64
Aegithinidae Green Iora Aegithina viridissima 164 1.18 19 1.29
Laniidae Brown Shrike Lanius cristatus 160 1.15 31 2.1
Passeridae Eurasian Tree Sparrow** Passer montanus 112 0.81 0 0
Sturnidae White-vented Myna Acridotheres grandis 108 0.78 10 0.68
Cuculidae Lesser Coucal Centropus bengalensis 106 0.76 8 0.54
Rallidae Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 97 0.7 1 0.07
Anatidae Cotton Pygmy Goose** Nettapus coromandelianus 93 0.67 0 0
Phasianidae Red Jungle-fowl** Gallus gallus 82 0.59 0 0
Picidae Common Flameback Dinopium javanense 68 0.49 13 0.88
Aegithinidae Common Iora Aegithina tiphia 63 0.45 5 0.34
Campephagidae Pied Triller Lalage nigra 55 0.4 17 1.15
Columbidae Orange-breasted Green Pigeon** Treron bicincta 55 0.4 0 0
Coraciidae Dollar Bird Eurystomus orientalis 40 0.29 1 0.07
Ardeidae Cinnamon Bittern Ixobrychus cinnamomeus 38 0.27 19 1.29
Meropidae Blue-throated Bee-eater Merops viridis 37 0.27 15 1.01
Sylviidae Oriental Reed Warbler Acrocephalus orientalis 35 0.25 27 1.83
Scolopacidae Pintail Snipe Gallinago stenura 32 0.23 6 0.41
Rallidae White-browed Crake Porzana cinerea 31 0.22 1 0.07
Sylviidae Common Tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius 29 0.21 6 0.41
Corvidae Large-billed Crow** Corvus macrorhynchos 29 0.21 0 0
Nectariniidae Brown-throated Sunbird Anthreptes malacensis 28 0.2 7 0.47
Cuculidae Plaintive Cuckoo Cacomantis merulinus 27 0.19 10 0.68
Sylviidae Ashy Tailorbird Orthotomus ruficeps 25 0.18 1 0.07
Campephagidae Ashy Minivet** Pericrocotus divaricatus 25 0.18 0 0
Ardeidae Little Heron Butorides striatus 23 0.17 3 0.2
Nectariniidae Olive-backed Sunbird Nectarinia jugularis 23 0.17 3 0.2
Corvidae House Crow** Corvus splendens 21 0.15 0 0
Turnicidae Barred Button Quail Turnix suscitator 20 0.14 10 0.68
Cuculidae Little Bronze Cuckoo** Chrysococcyx minutillus 20 0.14 0 0
Nectariniidae Plain Sunbird** Anthreptes simplex 18 0.13 0 0
Accipitridae Black-shouldered Kite** Elanus caeruleus 17 0.12 0 0
Cuculidae Greater Coucal** Centropus sinensis 15 0.11 0 0
Muscicapidae Asian Brown Flycatcher Muscicapa dauurica 14 0.1 1 0.07
Rallidae Ballion's Crake Porzana pusilla 14 0.1 1 0.07
Pycnonotidae Olive-winged Bulbul Pycnonotus plumosus 13 0.09 6 0.41
Cisticolidae Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis 13 0.09 1 0.07
Ardeidae Black-crowned Night Heron** Nycticorax nycticorax 13 0.09 0 0
Estrildidae White-headed Munia** Lonchura maja 13 0.09 0 0
Caprimulgidae Large-tailed Nightjar Caprimulgus macrurus 12 0.08 48 3.25
Caprimulgidae Savanna Nightjar Caprimulgus affinis 12 0.08 14 0.95
Rallidae Water Cock Gallicrex cinerea 12 0.08 1 0.07
Ardeidae Grey Heron** Ardea cinerea 12 0.08 0 0
Podicipedidae Little Grebe** Tachybaptus ruficollis 11 0.07 0 0
Columbidae Little Green Pigeon** Treron olax 11 0.07 0 0
Pachycephalidae Mangrove Whistler** Pachycephala grisola 8 0.06 0 0
Ardeidae Schrenck’s Bittern Ixobrychus eurhythmus 7 0.05 11 0.74
Jacanidae Pheasant-tailed Jacana** Hydrophasianus chirurgus 7 0.05 0 0
Phasianidae Blue-breasted Quail Coturnix chinensis 6 0.04 1 0.07
Nectariniidae Black-throated Sunbird** Aethopyga saturata 6 0.04 0 0
Sturnidae Hill Myna** Gracula religoisa 6 0.04 0 0
Picidae Rufous woodpecker** Celeus brachyurus 6 0.04 0 0
Sylviidae Rufous-tailed Tailorbird** Orthotomus sericeus 6 0.04 0 0
Scolopacidae Common Sandpiper** Tringa hypoleucos 5 0.036 0 0
Nectariniidae Little Spiderhunter** Arachnothera longirostra 5 0.036 0 0
Accipitridae Black Baza** Aviceda leuphotes 4 0.028 0 0
Alcidinidae Common Kingfisher** Alcedo atthis 4 0.028 0 0
Ardeidae Great Egret** Casmerodius albus 4 0.028 0 0
Ardeidae Little Egret** Egretta garzetta 4 0.028 0 0
Sylviidae Arctic Warbler Phylloscopus borealis 3 0.021 1 0.07
Nectariniidae Copper-throated Sunbird** Nectarinia calcostetha 3 0.021 0 0
Picidae Greater Flameback** Chrysocolaptes lucidus 3 0.021 0 0
Laniidae Long-tailed Shrike** Lanius schach 3 0.021 0 0
Sylviidae Rusty-rumped Warbler** Locustella certhiola 3 0.021 0 0
Rallidae Slaty-breasted Rail Gallirallus striatus 1 0.007 1 0.07
Dicruridae Ashy Drongo** Dicrurus leucophaeus 1 0.007 0 0
Accipitridae Brahminy Kite** Haliastur indus 1 0.007 0 0
Cuculidae Chestnut-winged Cuckoo** Clamator coromandus 1 0.007 0 0
Cuculidae Common Asian Koel** Eudynamys scolopacea 1 0.007 0 0
Nectariniidae Purple-throated Sunbird** Nectarinia sperata 1 0.007 0 0
Nectariniidae Red-throated Sunbird** Anthreptes rhodolaemus 1 0.007 0 0
Cisticolidae Rufescent Prinia** Prinia rufescens 1 0.007 0 0
Picidae Speckled Piculet** Picumnus innominatus 1 0.007 0 0
Columbidae Thick-billed Green Pigeon** Treron curvirostra 1 0.007 0 0
Accipitridae Western Marsh Harrier** Circus aeruginosus 1 0.007 0 0
Accipitridae White-bellied Sea Eagle** Haliaeetus leucogaster 1 0.007 0 0
Emberizidae Yellow-breasted Bunting** Emberiza aureola 1 0.007 0 0
Strigidae Collared Scops Owl* Otus lettia 0 0 3 0.2
Apodidae Edible-nest Swiflet* Aerodramus fuciphagus 0 0 3 0.2
Sylviidae Inornate Warbler Phylloscopus inornatus 0 0 2 0.14
Accipitridae Japanese Sparrow Hawk* Accipiter gularis 0 0 2 0.14
Alcidinidae Black-caped Kingfisher* Halcyon pileata 0 0 1 0.07
Accipitridae Besra* Accipiter virgatus 0 0 1 0.07
Alcidinidae Stork-billed Kingfisher* Pelargopsis capensis 0 0 1 0.07
Charadriidae Pacific Golden Plover* Pluvialis fulva 0 0 1 0.07
Strigidae Oriental Scops Owl* Otus sunia 0 0 1 0.07
Cuculidae Violet Cuckoo* Chrysococcyx xanthorhynchus 0 0 1 0.07
Total 13872 1478
Open in a new tab

Notes:

*

Species missed by the PC method,

**

species missed by the MN method.

REFERENCES

  1. Aborn DA. Abundance, density and diversity of Neotropical migrants at the Lula Lake Land Trust, G A. South Eastern Naturalist. 2007;6(2):293–304. doi: 10.1656/1528-7092. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barlow J, Peres CA, Henriques LMP, Stouffer PC, Wunderle JM. The responses of understorey birds to forest fragmentation, logging and wildfires: An Amazonian synthesis. Biological Conservation. 2006;128(2):182–192. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA, Mustoe S. Bird census techniques. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  4. Blake JG. Temporal variation in point counts of birds in a lowland wet forest in Costa Rica. The Condor. 1992;94(1):265–275. [Google Scholar]
  5. Blake JG, Loiselle BA. Diversity of birds along an elevational gradient in the Cordillera Central, Costa Rica. The Auk. 2000;117(3):663–686. doi: 10.1642/0004-8038(2000)117[0663:DOBAAE]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Blake JG, Loiselle BA. Bird assemblages in second-growth and old growth forests, Costa Rica: Perspectives from mist nets and point counts. The Auk. 2001;118(2):304–326. doi: 10.1642/0004-8038(2001)118[0304:BAISGA]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Lake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L. Advanced distance sampling: Estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  8. Codesido M, Bilenca DN. Comparacion de los metodos de transecta de faja y de conteo de puntos de radio fijo en un a comunidad de aves del bosque semiarido santiagueno. EI Hornero. 2000;15:85–91. [Google Scholar]
  9. Derlindati EJ, Caziani SM. Using canopy and understory mist nets and point counts to study bird assemblages in Chaco forests. The Wilson Bulletin. 2005;117(1):92–99. doi: 10.1676/03-063. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dobkin DS, Rich AC. Comparison of line-transect, spot-map, and point count surveys for birds in riparian habitats of the Great Basin. Journal of Field Ornithology. 1998;69(3):430–443. [Google Scholar]
  11. Faaborg J, Arendt WJ, Kaiser MS. Rainfall correlates of bird population fluctuations in a Puerto Rican dry forest: A nine-year study. The Wilson Bulletin. 1984;96(4):575–593. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fuller RJ, Gregory RD, Gibbons DW, Marchant JH, Wilson JD, Baillie SR, Carter N. Population declines and range contractions among lowland farmland birds in Britain. Conservation Biology. 1995;9(6):1425–1441. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09061425. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Furness RW, Greenwood JJD. Birds as monitors of environmental change. London: Chapman and Hall; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gram WK, Faaborg J. The distribution of Neotropical migrant birds wintering in the El Cielo Biosphere Reserve, Tamaulipas, Mexico. The Condor. 1997;99(3):658–670. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gregory RD, Baillie SR. Large-scale habitat use of some declining British birds. Journal of Applied Ecology. 1998;35(5):785–799. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.355349. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Henderson PA, Seaby RMH. Community analysis package 4.0. Lymington, UK: Pisces Conservation Ltd; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  17. Houlahan JE, Keddy PA, Makkay K, Findlay CS. The effects of adjacent land use on wetland species richness and community composition. Wetlands. 2006;26(1):79–96. doi: 10.1672/0277-5212. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Humphrey PS, Bridge D, Lovejoy TE. A technique for mist-netting in the forest canopy. Bird-Banding. 1968;39:43–50. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kaminski MR, Baldassarre GA, Pearse AT. Waterbird responses to hydrological management of wetlands reserve program habitats in New York. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2006;34(4):921–926. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kantrud HA, Stewart RE. Ecological distribution and crude density of breeding birds on prairie wetlands. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 1984;48(2):426–437. [Google Scholar]
  21. Krebs JR, Wilson JD, Bradbury RB, Siriwardena GM. The second silent spring? Nature. 1999;400:611–612. doi: 10.1038/23127. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kushlan JA. Colonial waterbirds as bioindicators of environmental change. Colonial Waterbirds. 1993;16(2):223–251. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mason D. Responses of Venezuelan Understory birds to selective logging, enrichment strips, and vine cutting. Biotropica. 1996;28(3):296–309. [Google Scholar]
  24. Meyers JM, Pardieck KL. Evaluation of three elevated mist-net systems for sampling birds. Journal of Field Ornithology. 1993;64:270–277. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mills TR, Rumble MA, Flake LD. Habitats of birds in ponderosa pine and aspen/birch forest in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Journal of Field Ornithology. 2000;71(2):187–206. doi: 10.1648/0273-8570(2000)071[0187:HBIP]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG. Wetlands. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nadeau CP, Conway CJ, Smith BS, Lewis TE. Maximizing detection probability of wetland dependent birds during point count surveys in North-western Florida. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 2008;120(3):513–518. doi: 10.1676/07-041.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Petit DR, Petit LJ, Saab VA, Martin TE. Fixed radius point counts in forests: Factors influencing effectiveness and efficiency. In: Ralph CJ, Sauer JR, Droege S, editors. Monitoring bird populations by point counts. Albany, CA: US Department of Agriculture; 1995. pp. 49–56. [Google Scholar]
  29. Poulin B, Lefevbr G, Pilard P. Quantifying the breeding assemblage of reedbed passerines with mist-net and point-count surveys. Journal of Field Ornithology. 2000;71(3):443–454. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rajpar MN, Zakaria M. Assessment of waterbirds in Paya Indah Wetland Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. 8th International Annual Symposium on Sustainability Science and Management; 3–4 May; Terengganu. 2009. pp. 606–612. UMTAS, [Google Scholar]
  31. Ralph CJ, Geupel GR, Pyle P, Martin TE, DeSante DF. Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. Albany, CA: US Department of Agriculture; 1993. p. 41. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ralph CJ, Geupel GR, Pyle P, Martin TE, DeSante DF, Milá B. Manual de métodos de campo para el monitoreo de aves terrestres. Albany, CA: US Department of Agriculture; 1996. p. 46. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ralph CJ, Sauer JR, Droege S. Monitoring bird populations by point counts. Albany, CA: US Department of Agriculture; 1995. p. 187. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rappole JH, Winker K, Powell GVN. Migratory bird habitat use in Southern Mexico: Mist nets versus point counts. Journal of Field Ornithology. 1998;69(4):635–643. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rappole JH, McShea WJ, Vega-Rivera J. Evaluation of two survey methods in upland avian breeding communities. Journal of Field Ornithology. 1993;64(1):55–70. [Google Scholar]
  36. Remsen JV, Jr, Good DA. Misuse of data from mist-net captures to assess relative abundance in bird populations. The Auk. 1996;113(2):381–398. [Google Scholar]
  37. Robbins CS, Dowell BA, Dawson DK, Colon JA, Estrada R, Sutton A, Sutton R, Weyer D. Comparison of neotropical migrant land bird populations wintering in tropical forests, isolated fragments, and agricultural habitats. In: Hagan JM, Johnston DW, editors. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migratory landbirds. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Instituition Press; 1992. pp. 207–250. [Google Scholar]
  38. Schieck J. Biased detection of bird vocalizations affects comparisons of bird abundance among forested habitats. The Condor. 1997;99(1):179–190. [Google Scholar]
  39. Siriwardena GM, Baillie SR, Buckland ST, Fewster RM, Marchant JH, Wilson JD. Trends in the abundance of farmland birds: A quantitative comparison of smoothed Common Birds Census indices. Journal of Applied Ecology. 1998;35(1):24–43. [Google Scholar]
  40. Smith WP, Twedt DJ, Wiedenfeld DA, Hamel PB, Ford RP, Cooper RJ. Point counts of birds in bottomland hardwood forests of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Duration, minimum sample size, and points versus visits. New Orleans, Louisiana: US Department of Agriculture; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  41. Terborgh J, Robinson SK, Parker TA, Munn CA, Pierpont N. Structure and organization of an Amazonian forest bird community. Ecological Monographs. 1990;60(2):213–238. doi: 10.2307/1943045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Thompson FR, Burhans DE, Root B. Effects of point count protocol on bird abundance and variability estimates and power to detect population trends. Journal of Field Ornithology. 2002;73(2):141–150. doi: 10.1648/02738570(2002)073[0141:EOPCPO]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Thompson ID, Hogan HA, Montevecchi WA. Avian communities of mature balsam fir forests in Newfoundland: Age-dependence and implications for timber harvesting. The Condor. 1999;101(2):311–323. [Google Scholar]
  44. Verner J, Purcell KL. Fluctuating populations of House Wrens and Bewick’s Wrens in foothills of the western Sierra Nevada of California. The Condor. 1999;101(2):219–229. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wallace GE, Alonso HG, Mcnicoll MK, Batista DR, Prieto RO, Sosa AL, Oria BS, Wallace EAH. Winter survey of forest-dwelling Neotropical migrant and resident birds in three regions of Cuba. The Condor. 1996;98(4):745–768. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang Y, Finch DM. Consistency of mist-netting and point counts in assessing landbird species richness and relative abundance during migration. The Condor. 2002;104(1):59–72. doi: 10.1650/0010-5422(2002)104[0059:COMNAP]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Whitman AA, Hagan JM, Brokaw NVL. A comparison of two bird survey techniques used in a subtropical forest. The Condor. 1997;99(4):955–965. [Google Scholar]
  48. Zakaria M, Rajpar MN, Sajap SA. Species diversity and feeding guilds of birds in Paya Indah Wetland Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. International Journal of Zoological Research. 2009;5(3):86–100. DOI: ijzr.0000.12157.12157. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zedler JB, Kercher S. Wetland resources: Status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2005;30:39–74. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144248. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Tropical Life Sciences Research are provided here courtesy of Universiti Sains Malaysia Press

RESOURCES