Post on 14-Jun-2015
transcript
Fauna monitoring in urban forests of Slovenia: birds and insects
Maarten de Groot, Katarina Flajšman & Tomaž Mihelič
17.6.2014, Final conference Urban forests: Lungs of the city
Urban forests vs other forests
Habitat fragmentation
Habitat quality
Disturbance
Aims
• Monitoring hoverflies in urban forests as a indicator for biodiversity
– Investigate which methods are the best for monitoring hoverflies
• Setting up a network for monitoring birds in Ljubljana
• Investigating factors influencing the bird species assemblage
Hoverflies
Methods
• Transect
– 1x per month
– April - October
– 3 transects
– Only sunny days
• Malaise trap
– Every 2 weeks
– April - October
Trends Rožnik
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
nu
mb
er
of
ho
ve
rfli
es transect
2012
2013
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/4 21/5 10/7 29/8 18/10
nu
mb
er
of
ho
ve
rfli
es malaise trap
2012
2013
Trends Rožnik
0
5
10
15
20
25
transect malaise trap
Nu
mb
er
of
sp
ecie
s
increase
decrease
stable
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
transect malaise trap
nu
mb
er
of
sp
ecie
s
microphagous species
increase
decrease
stable
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
transect malaise trap
nu
mb
er
of
sp
ecie
s
phytophagous species
increase
decrease
stable
0
5
10
15
transect malaise trapn
um
be
r o
f sp
ecie
s predatory species
increase
decrease
stable
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
transect malaise trap
nu
mb
er
of
sp
ecie
s saproxylic species
increase
decrease
stable
Malaise trap vs transect
Trends Gameljne
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
April Maj Junij Julij Avgust September
nu
mb
er
of
ho
ve
rfli
es
Gameljne 1
Gameljne 2
Birds
Methods
• Methods
25m
50m
- 39 point counts - Three belts
Results
• 50 species
• 1246 individuals
number of species
cuckoos
herons
pigeons
song bird
woodpeckers
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50
nu
mb
er
of
sp
ecie
s
sample number
Number of birds
periurban urban
05
10
15
20
num
ber
of bird s
pecie
s
forest park
05
10
15
20
num
ber
of bird s
pecie
s
0e+00 2e+06 4e+06 6e+06
05
10
15
20
surface of the forest patch (m3)
num
ber
of bird s
pecie
s
Not significant!
Urban vs peri-urban areas
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5
-0.6
-0.2
0.2
0.6
NMDS1
NM
DS
2
Black line = urban area Dashed line = peri-urban area
Forest vs parks
Black line = forest Dashed line = park
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5
-0.6
-0.2
0.2
0.6
NMDS1
NM
DS
2
Forest patch size
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5
-0.6
-0.2
0.2
0.6
NMDS1
NM
DS
2 surface
Conclusions
• Hoverflies: – Trends can be found within hoverflies
– Trends can compared between different groups
– Different methods should be used together
• Birds: – Establishment of a monitoring network
– Different species in urban and peri-urban forests
– Forest surface affect species assemblage
– In order to setup a monitoring network the above mentioned factors should be taken into account
Acknowledgments
• Cofinancers of EMonFUr
– Slovenian Ministery of Agriculture and Environment
– Municipality of Ljubljana
– LIFE+
• Project partners
• photographers