Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

A Critical Analysis on the Use of Indicator Species in Management

Gerald J. Niemi, Joann M. Hanowski, Ann R. Lima, Tom Nicholls and Norm Weiland
The Journal of Wildlife Management
Vol. 61, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), pp. 1240-1252
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society
DOI: 10.2307/3802123
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3802123
Page Count: 13
  • Download ($42.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
A Critical Analysis on the Use of Indicator Species in Management
Preview not available

Abstract

We examined the habitat distributions of management indicator and sensitive species (MIS), as defined by the U.S. Forest Service within the Chequamegon National Forest (CNF) of northern Wisconsin and whether other bird species were positively associated with these MIS. We addressed these associations with 2 relatively large databases, annual breeding bird counts of 92 line transect segments gathered from 1986 to 1992 and counts of 122 "Forest Stands" gathered in 1992-1993. Of 25 MIS identified by the CNF, only 7 species were abundant enough for analyses. The other species were either too rare within the CNF or the censusing methods were not compatible with their life history. Only 2 of the MIS had nonrandom distributions associated with specific habitat types and warranted consideration as indicators. The yellow-bellied flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) was found primarily in lowland coniferous habitats, while the pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) was found primarily in upland coniferous habitats, especially pine. Although many positive species associations were found for most of the MIS, many inconsistencies among the 2 datasets also were identified. Most species responded to habitat attributes that satisfy their needs for survival and these autecological responses likely led to inconsistent patterns of species associations for most of the MIS. The lack of consistent patterns among most MIS casts doubt on the ability to use a few species as indicators for the well-being of many other species, especially for those that are uncommon and difficult to monitor. Developing more comprehensive techniques that improve habitat classifications and combine monitoring of trends in habitat and birds within those habitats likely will prove more fruitful than focusing on a few "representative" species.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
1240
    1240
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1241
    1241
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1242
    1242
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1243
    1243
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1244
    1244
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1245
    1245
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1246
    1246
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1247
    1247
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1248
    1248
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1249
    1249
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1250
    1250
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1251
    1251
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1252
    1252