Foraging patterns of pileated woodpeckers in a managed Acadian forest: A resource selection function

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 35, Issue 10, 2005, Pages 2387-2393

  Lemaître, Jérôme ^a,b   Villard, Marc André ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONCTON   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROBABILITY; WOOD;

CONIFEROUS SUBSTRATES; RESAMPLING;

FORESTRY;

BIRD; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; FOREST MANAGEMENT; KEYSTONE SPECIES;

FORESTRY; PROBABILITY; WOOD;

CANADA; NEW BRUNSWICK; NORTH AMERICA;

CAMPONOTUS; DRYOCOPUS PILEATUS; FAGUS; FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA; FORMICIDAE;

EID: 33644589970     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/x05-148     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bohn, K.K., and Nyland, R.D. 2003. Forecasting development of understory American beech after partial cutting in uneven-aged northern hardwood stands. For. Ecol. Manage. 180: 453-461.
2. Bonar, R.L. 2000. Availability of pileated woodpecker cavities and use by other species. J. Wildl. Manage. 64: 52-59.
3. Bonar, R.L. 2001. Pileated woodpecker habitat ecology in the Alberta foothills. Ph.D. disseration, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
4. Bull, E.L., and Holthausen, R. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 57: 335-345.
5. Bull, E.L., and Jackson, J.A. 1995. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In The birds of North America, No. 148. Edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Penn.; American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
6. Bull, E.L., and Meslow, E.C. 1977. Habitat requirements of the pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. J. For. 75: 335-337.
7. Bull, E.L., Holthausen, R., and Henjum, M.G. 1992. Roost trees used by pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 56: 786-792.
8. Conner, R.N., Jones, S.D., and Jones, G.D. 1994. Snag condition and woodpecker foraging ecology in a bottomland hardwood forest. Wilson Bull. 106: 242-257.
9. Environment Canada. 2003. Normales climatiques au Canada 1985-2002 pour St-Léonard, Nouveau-Brunswick [online]. Environment Canada Weather Office. Available from http://weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/canada_f.html [accessed on 11 March 2005].
10. Fernandez, C., and Azkona, P. 1996. Influence of forest structure on the density and distribution of the white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) and black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius) in Quinto Real (Spanish western Pyrenees). Bird Study, 43: 305-313.
11. Fielding, A.H., and Bell, J.F. 1997. A review for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 24: 38-49.
12. Flemming, S.P., Holloway, G.L., Watts, E.J., and Lawrance, P.S. 1999. Characteristics of foraging trees selected by pileated woodpeckers in New Brunswick. J. Wildl. Manage. 63: 461-469.
13. Guénette, J.-S., and Villard, M.-A. 2005. Thresholds in forest bird response to habitat alteration as quantitative targets for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 19: 1168-1180.
14. Hansen, L.D., and Akre, R.D. 1985. Biology of carpenter ants in Washington State (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Camponotus). Melanderia, 43: 1-62.
15. Hosmer, D. W., and Lemeshow, S. 2000. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
16. Houston, D.R. 1994. Major new tree disease epidemics: beech bark disease. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 32: 75-87.
17. Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54: 187-211.
18. Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology, 61: 65-71.
19. Johnson, D.H. 2002. The importance of replication in wildlife research. J. Wildl. Manage. 66: 919-932.
20. Lafleur, P.-É., and Blanchette, P. 1993. Développement d'un indice de qualité de l'habitat pour le Grand Pic (Dryocopus pileatus L) au Québec, 1-35. Gouvernement du Québec, ministère du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Pêche, Direction générale de la ressource faunique, Gestion intégrée des ressources, Québec.
21. Manel, S., Ceri Williams, H., and Ormerod, S.J. 2001. Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 921-931.
22. Manly, B.F.J., McDonald, L.L., and Thomas, D.L. 1993. Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Chapman & Hall Ltd., London, UK.
23. Mannan, R.W., Meslow, E.C., and Wight, H.M. 1980. Use of snags by birds in Douglas-fir forest, western Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 44: 787-797.
24. Martin, K., and Eadie, J.M. 1999. Nest webs: a community-wide approach to the management and conservation of cavity-nesting forest birds. For. Ecol. Manage. 115: 243-257.
25. Maser, C., Anderson, R.G., Cromack, K., Williams, J., and Martin, R.E. 1979. Dead and down woody material. In Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA For. Serv. Agric. Handb. 553.
26. McClelland, B.R., and McClelland, P.T. 1999. Pileated woodpecker nest and roost trees in Montana: links with old-growth and forest health. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27: 846-857.
27. Mellen, T.K., Meslow, E.C., and Mannan, R.W. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 56: 96-103.
28. Pavlik, S. 1996. Habitat distribution of woodpeckers (Aves, Picidae): beech and oak forests. Biologia (Bratisl.), 51: 213-217.
29. Renken, R.B., and Wiggers, E.P. 1989. Forest characteristics related to pileated woodpecker territory size in Missouri. Condor, 91: 642-652.
30. Sanders, C.J. 1970. The distribution of the carpenter ant colony in the spruce-fir forests of northwestern Ontario. Ecology, 51: 865-873.
31. Savignac, C., Desrochers, A., and Huot, J. 2000. Habitat use by pileated woodpeckers at two spatial scales in eastern Canada. Can. J. Zool. 78: 219-225.
32. Tjernberg, M., Johnsson, K., and Nilsson, S.J. 1993. Density variation and breeding success of the black woodpecker Dryocopus martius in relation to forest fragmentation. Ornis Fenn. 70: 155-162.