Community Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 99–110 | Cite as

Bird species distributions across woodland canopy structure gradients

  • S. A. HinsleyEmail author
  • R. A. Hill
  • R. J. Fuller
  • P. E. Bellamy
  • P. Rothery


The tree canopy characteristics of two broadleaved woods in southern England were quantified in terms of two independent measures of structure, canopy height (calculated using heights ≥ 1 m) and percentage canopy cover (derived using heights < 1 m), using airborne Light Detection and Ranging. The woods differed strikingly in structure due to their management systems; one was predominantly mature oak and the other coppice, comprising a patchwork of growth stages. Fine-scale relationships between breeding bird species distributions, determined by mapping censuses, and canopy height and canopy cover were assessed. Despite the differences in structure, species showed great consistency between the woods in their rank positions across gradients of canopy height (rank correlation between woods, r = 0.77, p < 0.001) and canopy cover (r = 0.61, p = 0.003). In both woods, and especially the mature oak (R2> 0.90, p < 0.001), there was a positive correlation across bird species between the mean values of canopy height and canopy cover associated with the mapped locations of each species. We suggest that canopy height acts as an effective surrogate of woodland structure and can be applied as a predictor of woodland bird composition and distribution, at least in lowland British conditions. Species associated with young growth were more restricted by habitat structure, as measured by differences in canopy height and canopy cover between the two woods, than were species associated with taller canopies. Remote sensing of canopy height potentially offers a simple, effective way of assessing habitat availability for many species, at both woodland and landscape scales. This may be especially relevant for species dependent on highly transient vegetation structures associated with the early pre-canopy closure stages of forest growth.


Bird habitat associations Canopy height and cover Forest management Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) Remote sensing and ecology 



Digital canopy height model


Digital surface model


Digital terrain model


Light detection and ranging


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackermann, F. 1999. Airborne laser scanning – present status and future expectations. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 54:64–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amar, A., C.M. Hewson, R.M. Thewlis, K.W. Smith, R.J. Fuller, J.A. Lindsell, G. Conway, S. Butler and M. MacDonald. 2006. What’s happening to our woodland birds? Long-term changes in the populations of woodland birds. BTO Research Report 169 and RSPB Research Report 19. BTO and RSPB.Google Scholar
  3. Annand, E.M. and F.R.Thompson. 1997. Forest bird response to regeneration practices in central hardwood forests. J. Wildl. Manage. 61:159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bibby, C.J., N.D. Burgess and D.A. Hill. 1992. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  5. Bradbury, R.B., R.A. Hill, D.C.. Mason, S.A. Hinsley, J.D. Wilson, H. Balzter, G.Q.A. Anderson, M.J. Whittingham, I.J. Davenport and P.E. Bellamy. 2005. Modelling relationships between birds and vegetation structure using airborne LiDAR data: a review with case studies from agricultural and woodland environments. Ibis 147:443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broughton, R.K., S.A. Hinsley, P.E. Bellamy, R.A. Hill and P. Rothery. 2006. Marsh Tit territory structure in a British broadleaved woodland. Ibis 148:744–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canterbury, G.E., T.E. Martin, D.R. Petit, L.J. Petit and D.F. Bradford. 2000. Bird communities and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. Conserv. Biol. 14:544–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dellasala, D.A., J.C. Hagar, K.A. Engel, W.C. McComb, R.L. Fairbanks and E.G., Campbell. 1996. Effects of silvicultural modifications of temperate rainforest on breeding and wintering bird communities, Prince of Wales Island, southeast Alaska. Condor 98:706–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donald, P.F., R.J. Fuller, A.D. Evans, and S.J. Gough. 1998. Effects of forest management and grazing on breeding bird communities in plantations of broadleaved and coniferous trees inwestern England. Biol. Conserv. 85:183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Easton, W.E. and K. Martin. 1998. The effect of vegetation management on breeding bird communities in British Columbia. Ecol. Appl. 8:1092–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuller, R.J. 2000. Influence of treefall gaps on distributions of breeding birds within interior old-growth stands in Bialowieza Forest, Poland. Condor 102:267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuller, R.J. 2001. Responses of woodland birds to increasing numbers of deer: a review of evidence and mechanisms. Forestry 74:289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuller, R.J. and A.C.B. Henderson. 1992. Distribution of breeding songbirds in Bradfield Woods, Suffolk, in relation to vegetation and coppice management. Bird Study 39:73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuller, R.J. and G.H. Green. 1998. Effects of woodland structure on breeding bird populations in stands of coppiced lime (Tilia cor-data) in western England over a 10-year period. Forestry 71:199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuller, R.J., P. Stuttard and C.M. Ray. 1989. The distribution of breeding songbirds within mixed coppiced woodland in Kent, England, in relation to vegetation age and structure. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 26:265–275.Google Scholar
  16. Fuller, R.J., D.G. Noble, K.W. Smith and D. Vanhinsbergh. 2005. Recent declines in populations of woodland birds in Britain: a review of possible causes. Brit. Birds 98:116–143.Google Scholar
  17. Fuller, R.J., K.W. Smith, P.V. Grice, F.A. Currie and C.P. Quine. 2007. Habitat change and woodland birds in Britain: implications for management and future research. Ibis 149 suppl. 2:261–268.Google Scholar
  18. Gaveau, D.L.A. and R.A. Hill. 2003. Quantifying canopy height underestimation by laser pulse penetration in small-footprint airborne laser scanning data. Can. J. Remote Sens. 29:650–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Germaine, S.S., S.H. Vessey and D.E. Capen. 1997. Effects of small forest openings on the breeding bird community in a Vermont hardwood forest. Condor 99:708-718.Google Scholar
  20. Goetz, S., D. Steinberg, R. Dubayah and B.Blair. 2007. Laser remote sensing of canopy habitat heterogeneity as a predictor of bird species richness in an eastern temperate forest, USA. Remote Sens. Environ. 108:254–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gram, W.K., P.A. Porneluzi, R.L. Clawson, J. Faaborg and S.C. Richter. 2003. Effects of experimental forest management on density and nesting success of bird species in Missouri Ozark Forests. Conserv. Biol. 17:1324–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hayes, J.P., J.M. Weikel and M.P. Huso. 2003. Response of birds to thinning young Douglas-fir forests. Ecol. Appl.13:1222–1232.Google Scholar
  23. Helle, P. 1985. Effects of forest regeneration on the structure of bird communities in northern Finland. Holarct. Ecol. 8:120–132.Google Scholar
  24. Helle, P. and R.J. Fuller. 1988. Migrant passerine birds in European forest successions in relation to vegetation height and geographical position. J. Anim. Ecol. 57:565–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Helle, P. and M. Mönkkönen. 1990. Forest successions and bird communities: theoretical aspects and practical implications. In: A. Keast (ed), Biogeography and Ecology of Forest Bird Communities. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp. 299–318.Google Scholar
  26. Hewson, C.M., A. Amar, J.A. Lindsell, R.M. Thewlis, S. Butler, K. Smith, and R.J. Fuller. 2007. Recent changes in bird populations in British broadleaved woodland. Ibis 149, suppl. 2:14–28.Google Scholar
  27. Hill, R.A., S.A. Hinsley, D.L.A. Gaveau and P.E. Bellamy. 2004. Predicting habitat quality for Great Tits (Parus major) with airborne laser scanning data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 25:4851–4855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hinsley, S.A., R.A. Hill, D.L.A. Gaveau and P.E. Bellamy. 2002. Quantifying woodland structure and habitat quality for birds using airborne laser scanning. Funct. Ecol. 16:851–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hinsley, S.A., R.A. Hill, P.E. Bellamy and H. Balzter. 2006. The application of LiDAR in woodland bird ecology: climate, canopy structure and habitat quality. Photogramm. Engineer. Remote Sens. 72:1399–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hinsley, S.A., J.E. Carpenter, R.K. Broughton, P.E. Bellamy, P. Rothery, A. Amar, C.M. Hewson and A.G. Gosler. 2007. Habitat selection by Marsh Tits Poecile palustris in the UK. Ibis 149 suppl. 2:224–233.Google Scholar
  31. Holmes, R.T. 2007. Understanding population change in migratory songbirds: long-term and experimental studies of Neotropical migrants in breeding and wintering areas. Ibis 149, suppl. 2:2–13.Google Scholar
  32. Holmes, R.T. and T.W. Sherry. 2001. Thirty-year bird population trends in an unfragmented temperate deciduous forest: importance of habitat change. Auk 118:589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hopkins, J.J. and K.J. Kirby. 2007. Ecological change in British broadleaved woodland since 1947. Ibis 149, suppl. 2:29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. James, F.C. andN.O. Wamer. 1982. Relationships between temperate forest bird communities and vegetation structure. Ecology 63:159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karr, J. R. and R.R. Roth. 1971. Vegetation structure and avian diversity in several New World areas. Am. Nat. 105:423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Korňan, M. and P. Adamík. 2007. Foraging guild structure within a primaeval mixed forest bird assemblage: a comparison of two concepts. Community Ecol. 8:133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lefsky, M.A., W.B. Cohen, G.G. Parker and D.J. Harding. 2002. Lidar remote sensing for ecosystem studies. BioSci. 52:19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lim, K., P. Treitz, M. Wulder, B. Stonge and M. Flood. 2003. Li-DAR remote sensing of forest structure. Prog. Phys. Geog. 27:88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lovejoy, T.E., J.M. Rankin, R.O. Bierregaard, jr., K.S. Brown, jr., L.H. Emmons and M.E. van derVoort. 1984. Ecosystem decay of Amazon forest remnants. In: M.H. Nitecki (ed.), Extinctions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, pp. 295–325.Google Scholar
  40. Mason, W.L. 2007. Changes in the management of British forests between 1945 and 2000 and possible future trends. Ibis 149, suppl. 2:41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McShea, W.J. and J.H. Rappole. 2000. Managing the abundance and diversity of breeding bird populations through manipulation of deer populations. Conserv. Biol. 14:1161–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mills, G.S., J.B. Dunning and J.M. Bates. 1991. The relationship between breeding bird density and vegetation volume. Wilson Bull. 103:468–479.Google Scholar
  43. Moorman, C. E. and D.C. Guynn. 2001. Effects of group-selection opening size on breeding bird habitat use in a bottomland forest. Ecol.Appl. 11:1680–1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moskát, C. and T. Fuisz. 1994. Forest management and bird communities in the beech and oak forests of the Hungarian Mountains. In: E.J.M. Hagemeijer and T.J. Verstrael (eds), Bird Numbers 1992. Distribution, Monitoring and Ecological Aspects. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of IBCC and EOAC, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands. Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg/Heerlen & SOVON, Beek-Ubbergen, pp. 29–38.Google Scholar
  45. Moskát, C. and T. Fuisz. 1995. Conservational aspects of bird-vegetation relationships in riparian forests along the river Danube: a multivariate study. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 41:151–164.Google Scholar
  46. Næsett, E. 2004. Practical large-scale forest stand inventory using small-footprint airborne scanning laser. Scand. J. Forest Res. 19:164–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peterken, G.F. 1993. Woodland Conservation and Management (2nd edition). Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  48. Petzold, B., P. Reiss and W. Stössel. 1999. Laser scanning – surveying and mapping agencies are using a new technique for the derivation of digital terrain models. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 54:95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Popescu, S.C., R.H. Wynne and R.F. Nelson. 2003. Measuring individual tree crown diameter with lidar and assessing its influence on estimating forest volume and biomass. Can. J. Remote Sens. 29:564–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Quine, C.P., R.J. Fuller, K.W. Smith and P.V. Grice. 2007. Stand management: a threat or opportunity for birds in British woodland? Ibis 149, suppl. 2:161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reutebuch, S.E., R.J. McGaughey, H.E. Anderson and W.W. Carson. 2003. Accuracy of a high-resolution lidarterrain model under a conifer forest canopy. Can. J. Remote Sens. 29:527–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rice, J., B.W. Anderson and R.D. Ohmart. 1984. Comparison of the importance of different habitat attributes to avian community organization. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:895–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Robinson, W. D. and S.K. Robinson. 1999. Effects of selective logging on forest bird populations in a fragmented landscape. Conserv. Biol. 13:58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv. Biol. 5:18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Verner, J. and T.A. Larson. 1989. Richness of breeding bird species in mixed-conifer forests of the Sierra-Nevada, California. Auk 106:447–463.Google Scholar
  56. Vierling, K.T., L.A. Vierling, W.A. Gould, S. Martinuzzi and R.M. Clawges. 2008. Lidar: shedding new light on habitat characterization and modeling. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6:90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wehr, A. and U. Lohr. 1999. Airborne laser scanning – an introduction and overview. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 54:68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wesolowski, T. 2005. Virtual conservation: how the European Union is turning a blind eye on its vanishing primeval forests. Conserv.Biol. 19:1349–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Willson, M. F. 1974. Avian community organization and habitat structure. Ecology 55:1017–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Willson, M. F. and T.A. Comet. 1996. Bird communities of northern forests: ecological correlates of diversity and abundance in the understory. Condor 98: 350–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2008

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. A. Hinsley
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. A. Hill
    • 1
  • R. J. Fuller
    • 2
  • P. E. Bellamy
    • 1
  • P. Rothery
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) Monks WoodAbbots Ripton, HuntingdonUK
  2. 2.British Trust for Ornithology (BTO)The NunneryThetfordUK

Personalised recommendations