The dynamics of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia L.) occurrence in habitat fragments

Canadian Journal of Zoology

Volumn 78, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 352-358

  Åberg, Johan ^a   Swenson, Jon E ^b   Andrén, Henrik ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GAMEBIRD; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT USE; ISOLATION EFFECT; PATCH DYNAMICS; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SIZE EFFECT;

BONASA BONASIA;

EID: 0034040972     PISSN: 00084301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/cjz-78-3-352     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Åberg, J., Jansson, G., Swenson, J.E., and Angelstam, P. 1995. The effect of matrix on the occurrence of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) in isolated habitat fragments. Oecologia, 103: 265-269.
2. Ahti, T., Hämet-Ahti, L., and Jalas, J. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 5: 169-175.
3. Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos, 71: 355-366.
4. Andrén, H. 1996. Population responses to habitat fragmentation: statistical power and the random sample hypothesis. Oikos, 76: 235-242.
5. Bergmann, H.-H., Klaus, S., Müller, F., Scherzinger, W., Swenson, J.E., and Wiesner, J. 1996. Die Haselhühner Bonasa bonasia und B. sewerzowi. Westarp Wissenschaften, Magdeburg, Germany.
6. Connor, E.F., and McCoy, E.D. 1979. The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. Am. Nat. 113: 791-833.
7. Eiberle, K., and Koch, N. 1975. Die Bedeutung der Waldstruktur für die Erhaltung des Haselhuhns. Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 126: 876-888.
8. Enoksson, B., Angelstam, P., and Larsson, K. 1995. Deciduous forest and resident birds: the problem of fragmentation within a coniferous forest landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 10: 267-275.
9. Gardner, R.H., Milne, B.T., Turner, M.G., and O'Neill, R.V. 1987. Neutral models for analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 1: 19-28.
10. Haila, Y. 1983. Land birds on northern islands: a sampling metaphor for insular colonization. Oikos, 3: 334-351.
11. Haila, Y. 1990. Toward an ecological definition of an island: a northwest European perspective. J. Biogoegr. 17: 561-568.
12. Hanski, I., and Gilpin, M. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42: 3-16.
13. Ivanter, E.V. 1962. On the biology of hazel grouse in Karelia. [In Russian.] Ornitologiya, 4: 87-98.
14. Klaus, S. 1995. Hazel grouse in the Bohemian Forest-results of a 20-year study. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Grouse, Udenses, August 1995. Edited by D. Jenkins. World Pheasant Association, Reading, England. pp. 27-33.
15. Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G., O'Neill, R.V, and Coleman, P.R. 1987. Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos, 48: 321-324.
16. Lindén, H., and Wikman, M. 1983. Goshawk predation on tetraonids: availability of prey and diet of the predator in breeding season. J. Anim. Ecol. 52: 953-968.
17. Löfgren, T., and Ihse, M. 1991. Lövskog i barrskogslandskapet -landskapsekologiska studier av struktur och dynamik. [Deciduous forest in the coniferous landscape - landscape ecological studies on the structure and dynamics.] Department of Physiological Geography, University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
18. Marcström, V., Brittas, R., and Engren, E. 1982. Habitat use by tetraonids during summer - a pilot study. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Grouse. World Pheasant Association, Reading, England. pp. 148-153.
19. Müller, F. 1987. Habitat linking - a means of saving remnant grouse population in Central Europe. In the Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Grouse. World Pheasant Association, Reading, England. pp. 218-234.
20. Orians, G.H., and Wittenberger, J.F. 1991. Spatial and temporal scales in habitat selection. Am. Nat. 137(Suppl.): S29-S49.
21. Pimm, S.L., Jones, H.L., and Diamond, J.M. 1988. On the risk of extinction. Am. Nat. 132: 757-785.
22. SAS Institute Inc. 1997. SAS/STAT software: changes and enhancements through release 6.12. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C.
23. Scherzinger, W. 1979. Zum Feindverhalten des Haselhuhnes (Bonasa bonasia). Vogelwelt, 100: 205-217.
24. Skogsstyrelsen, E.S. 1988. Grundbok för skogsbrukare. [The basis for forestry.] The Swedish National Board of Forestry, Jönköping.
25. Stamps, J.A., Buechner, M., and. Krishnan, V.V. 1987. The effect of edge permeability and habitat geometry on emigration from patches of habitat. Am. Nat. 129: 532-552.
26. Swedish National Forest Enterprise. 1986. Forest maps, accompanied by tables describing the forest stands owned by the Swedish National Forest Enterprise in the area of Kloten, Lindesberg, Sweden. Swedish National Forest Enterprise, Stockholm.
27. Swenson, J.E. 1991a. Is the hazel grouse a poor disperser? In Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Game Biologists. pp. 347-352.
28. Swenson, J.E. 1991b. Social organization of hazel grouse and ecological factors influencing it. Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
29. Swenson, J.E. 1991c. Evaluation of a density index for territorial male Hazel Grouse Bonasa bonasia in spring and autumn. Ornis Fenn. 68: 57-65.
30. Swenson, J.E. 1993a. Hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) pairs during the nonbreeding season: mutual benefits of a cooperative alliance. Behav. Ecol. 4: 14-21.
31. Swenson, J.E. 1993b. The importance of alder to hazel grouse in Fennoscandian boreal forest: evidence from four levels of scale. Ecography, 16: 37-46.
32. Swenson, J.E. 1995. The habitat requirements of hazel grouse. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Grouse, Udenese, August 1995. Edited by D. Jenkins. World Pheasant Association, Reading, England. pp. 155-159.
33. Swenson, J.E., and Angelstam, P. 1993. Habitat separation by sympatric forest grouse in Fennoscandia in relation to boreal forest succession. Can. J. Zool. 71: 1303-1310.
34. Swenson, J.E., and Boag, D.A. 1995. Are hazel grouse Bonasa bonasia monogamous? Ibis, 135: 463-467.
35. Swenson, J.E., and Danielsen, J. 1991. Status and conservation of the hazel grouse in Europe. Ornis Scand. 22: 297-298.
36. Swenson, J.E., and Danielsen, J. 1995. Seasonal movements by hazel grouse in south-central Sweden. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Grouse, Udenese, August 1995. Edited by D. Jenkins. World Pheasant Association, Reading, England. pp. 37-40.
37. Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., and Merriam, G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos, 68: 571-573.
38. Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., Dale, H.H., and O'Neill, R.V. 1989. Predicting the spread of disturbance across heterogeneous landscapes. Oikos, 55: 121-129.
39. Villard, M.-A., and Taylor, P.D. 1994. Tolerance to habitat fragmentation influences the colonization of new habitat by forest birds. Oecologia, 98: 393-401.
40. Wiens, J.A. 1995. Habitat fragmentation: island vs. landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis, 137: S97-S104.
41. Wieslander, G. 1936. The shortage of forest in Sweden during the 17th and 18th centuries. Sver. Skogsvardsforb. Tidskr. 34: 593-633.
42. Wiesner, J., Bergman, H-.H., Klaus, S., and Müller, F. 1977. Siedlungsdichte und Habitatstruktur des Haselhuhns (Bonasa bonasia) in Waldgebieten von Bialowieza (Polen). J. Ornithol. 118: 1-20.
43. With, K.A., and Crist, T.O. 1995. Critical thresholds in species' responses to landscape structure. Ecology, 76: 2446-2459.