ACTA UNIVERSITATIS AGRICULTURAE ET SILVICULTURAE MENDELIANAE BRUNENSIS

Volume 63 92 Number 3, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.11118/actaun201563030825

DOMINANCE AND DIVERSITY OF BIRD COMMUNITY IN FLOODPLAIN FOREST ECOSYSTEM

Karel Poprach1, Jana Vrbková2

1 TYTO, Nenakonice 500, 783 75 Věrovany, Czech Republic 2 Institute of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Hněvotínská 5, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic

Abstract

POPRACH KAREL, VRBKOVÁ JANA. 2015. Dominance and Diversity of Bird Community in Floodplain Forest Ecosystem. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63(3): 825–833.

The paper is aimed to assessment of diversity and structure of bird community in fl oodplain forest ecosystem. Authors present results of analyses data on bird communities obtained at two transects in the Litovelské Pomoraví Protected Landscape Area (Czech Republic) in the period 1998–2012. Research of bird communities was carried out using the point-count method. The article deals with qualitative and quantitative representation of breeding bird species, including their relation to habitat type (closed fl oodplain forest, ecotone). Altogether 63 breeding species were recorded at the Vrapač transect and 67 at the Litovelské luhy transect, respectively. To be able to detect all recorded species, 11 out of 14 years of monitoring were needed at the Vrapač transect and all 8 years of monitoring at the Litovelské luhy transect, respectively. Authors show that the values in dominant bird species change signifi cantly among the particular census dates within one season, mainly with respect to their activity and detectability. Results are discussed in the frame of sustainable forest management in fl oodplain forest ecosystems. The presented article can promote to discussion aimed to management strategy for fl oodplain forest ecosystems, which ranks among natural habitat types of Community interest protected under the Natura 2000 European network.

Keywords: Chao2 estimation, dominance, hardwood fl oodplain forest, forest management, species richness, Litovelské Pomoraví, Natura 2000 European network

INTRODUCTION of Community interest protected under the Natura Monitoring of birds is an important tool to 2000 network. In the paper we assess qualitative enhance the knowledge of population status and and quantitative representation of breeding bird population trends of rare, declining as well as species at the two transects, including their relation common species (Hora et al., 2010). Monitoring to habitat type (closed fl oodplain forest, ecotone). of birds carried out on a long time scale gives Taking into consideration the results, we discuss basic information on species composition and the issue of species richness of bird communities in development of a bird community in space and time fl oodplain forests of central Moravia in the frame of (Bibby et al., 2007). Results of monitoring can be forest management strategy. used to understand long-term changes in numbers of birds at a particular site with respect to possible MATERIAL AND METHODS habitat changes, to plan suitable management of the Research of birds using the point-count method sites and more eff ective conservation of birds. was carried out in the Litovelské Pomoraví Protected The aim of this paper is to assess diversity and Landscape Area (Poprach, Machar, 2012). Census structure of a bird community in fl oodplain forest of birds was carried out at the Vrapač transect ecosystem, which ranks among natural habitat types (A transect) in the years 1998–2003 and 2005–2010

825 826 Karel Poprach, Jana Vrbková

and at the Litovelské luhy transect (B transect) in the be able to detect all 67 recorded species, all 8 years period 2005–2012. At each transect, 20 monitoring of monitoring were needed (Tab. I). Diff erences in points were established (Janda, Řepa, 1986). Habitats the number of recorded species between the two belong to the hardwood forest of elm-oak stands of transects in the statistical regression model, where the Querco-Ulmetum association (Chytrý et al., 2001). the eff ect of transect, environment and date of The counts were carried out three times during the census in the given year, as well as meteorological breeding season at both transects: in mid April – factors were assessed, were not statistically 1st census, in mid May – 2nd census and in mid June signifi cant (Wald test for regression coeffi cient – 3rd census (in 2005, both transects were censused corresponding to the factor „transect“, P = 0.477). only in mid May and mid June). Three census dates However, the number of individual registrations per year were chosen because of the fact that some (with constant values of the other parameters) bird species (resident or arriving early in spring) was signifi cantly aff ected by transect (P < 0.001). start breeding earlier and their singing activity The chance of registration is 0.890x lower at the during territory defense may be rather intensive Litovelské luhy transect compared to the Vrapač already during April. During the census in mid transect (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Curves of total species April, the determination of species and individuals richness (estimated by the rarefaction method) are was 70–80 percent acoustic, while in mid May when shown with closed circles, curves of the estimated most of the trees had already come into leaf, the species richness (Chao2 extrapolation) with open share of acoustic registrations increased to 90–100%. circles. In mid June, when the trees are already covered by Using the available data, rough values of leaves and the canopy is closed, the share of acoustic dominance were obtained for the two transects. registrations at the particular points was up to At the Vrapač transect, 10 dominant species were 100 percent. recorded – Fringilla coelebs, Sylvia atricapilla, Parus Species diversity of bird community at the studied major, Sitta europaea, Sturnus vulgaris, Cyanistes caeruleus, transects was compared using the rarefaction Ficedula albicollis, Phylloscopus collybita, Dendrocopos curves. The analysis was carried out in the EstimateS major, Turdus merula. The number of dominant so ware (http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates/), species and their representation in dominance Chao2 estimator, with the standard setting of the varied between particular census dates (Tab. I). number of repetitions (50). Altogether 9 dominant species were recorded on the 1st census date – Sturnus vulgaris, Parus major, Cyanistes RESULTS caeruleus, Sitta europaea, Fringilla coelebs, Phylloscopus collybita, Sylvia atricapilla, Coccothraustes coccothraustes, At the Vrapač transect, altogether 63 breeding bird Dendrocopos major, 7 dominant species on the species were recorded. In the fi rst year of monitoring 2nd date – Sylvia atricapilla, Fringilla coelebs, Ficedula in 1998, we registered 43 species. To be able to albicollis, Sturnus vulgaris, Parus major, Turdus merula, detect all 63 recorded species, 11 out of 14 years of Cyanistes caeruleus and 7 dominant species on the 3rd monitoring were needed. At the Litovelské luhy date – Fringilla coelebs, Sitta europaea, Sylvia atricapilla, transect, 67 breeding birds species were recorded. In the fi rst year (2005) we registered 39 species. To

I: Number of bird species recorded at the Vrapač and Litovelské luhy transects in particular research years Vrapač transect Litovelské luhy transect Year number of species (n) % number of species (n) % 1998 43 68.3 1999 43 68.3 2000 48 76.2 2001 57 90.5 2002 58 92.1 2003 59 93.7 2004 2005 59 93.7 39 58.2 2006 59 93.7 51 76.1 2007 60 95.2 53 79.1 2008 62 98.4 54 80.6 2009 63 100 57 85.1 2010 63 100 60 89.6 2011 63 100 62 92.5 2012 63 100 67 100 Dominance and Diversity of Bird Community in Floodplain Forest Ecosystem 827 (No. of species) of (No. Ĥ et druh et þ rarefaction po Chao2 estimation 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

poþet sþítání (No. of counting) 1: Relationship between census effort and the number of recorded species at the Vrapač transect (No. of species) of (No. Ĥ et druh et þ

po rarefaction Chao2 estimation 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0 100 200 300 400

poþet sþítání (No. of counting)

2: Relationship between census effort and the number of recorded species at the Litovelské luhy transect

Turdus merula, Parus major, Dendrocopos major, Cyanistes in particular research years. For each analysed year caeruleus. (covering all censuses in the given year), number At the Litovelské Luhy, 9 dominant species of all bird species recorded since the beginning of were recorded – Sylvia atricapilla, Fringilla coelebs, the monitoring is provided. It shows the number of Phylloscopus collybita, Cyanistes caeruleus, Parus major, years needed to be able to detect all recorded species Sitta europaea, Ficedula albicollis, Dendrocopos major, at the particular point-count transects. Sturnus vulgaris. Altogether 8 dominant species were recorded on the 1st census date – Cyanistes caeruleus, DISCUSSION Parus major, Sylvia atricapilla, Phylloscopus collybita, Sturnus vulgaris, Fringilla coelebs, Sitta europaea, Ficedula Polášek (1991) mentions altogether 7 dominant albicollis, 7 dominant species on the 2nd date – Sylvia species at the locality Vrapač in 1989–1990: atricapilla, Fringilla coelebs, Ficedula albicollis, Phylloscopus the Common Starling, Common Chaffi nch, collybita, Parus major, Sturnus vulgaris, Cyanistes caeruleus Eurasian Blackcap, Collared Flycatcher, Great Tit, and 7 dominant species on the 3rd date – Sylvia Eurasian Nuthatch and Hawfi nch. Bureš, Maton atricapilla, Fringilla coelebs, Sitta europaea, Dendrocopos (1984/1985) found 7 dominant species near the major, Phylloscopus collybita, Cyanistes caeruleus, Turdus locality Litovelské luhy between the municipalities merula. of Hynkov and Střeň in 1982–1984: Eurasian Tab. II shows in detail number of bird species Blackcap, Common Starling, Common Chiff chaff , recorded at the Vrapač and Litovelské luhy transects Common Chaffi nch, Eurasian Blue Tit, Great Tit 828 Karel Poprach, Jana Vrbková Vrapač transect Litovelské luhy transect abundance (n) dominance (%) abundance (n) dominance (%) 20 0 0 240 0 4 00 0 0.06 01 02 0.00 1 0 0.000 2 0.08 44 30 0.00 1 03 0.05 0 3 0.00 0.128 7 1 0.00 2 0 0.00 0.00 1 0 65 0.00 3 39 6 0.00 0.00 0 1 0 0.00 0.03 0 0.06 0.05 0.04 3 3 11 0.00 0.07 2 1.06 0 0.04 0.00 45 0 0.12 7 14 0.125 0.28 1 0.02 0.00 0 0.09 0.046 1 0.07 0 0 0.25 0.45 15 0.000 16 4 0.04 0.24 0 0.00 0.11 2 1 0.00 1 0.15 1 1 0 0.00 0.13 5 1 0.06 0.12 0 0 0.00 0.11 2 0.05 25 22 2 0 0.00 6 0.160 0 26 0.11 0.28 0 20 1 0 33 0.02 0 20 15 0.15 0.00 9 0.17 0.00 2 0.15 2 1 0.06 6 59 0.00 0 0.04 0.00 0 43 0.56 0 4 0.19 4 1 0.00 0 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.22 0.20 0.06 0.04 0 0 0.00 2 3 4 0.07 0.04 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.30 3 1.23 0.08 2 0.02 0.00 2.17 0.13 0 0.11 0 1 22 1.32 0.10 3 1 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.16 0.12 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.11 2 0.07 3 11 1 0.00 0 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.22 0.04 0 0 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.06 0 0.02 0 0.22 0.00 0.43 0.00 0 4 0 0.20 2 0 0 0.22 0.06 2 0.06 1 0 0.17 2 0.06 0.11 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.00 1 0.00 2 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 23 113612 31 0 15 4538 34 0 112 0.71 53 27 1.11 0.39 36 1.09 0.00 0.37 127 1.79 0.40 0.53 1.17 1.31 0.0013 10 1.87 0.31 17 5 1.44 048 7 16 1.4822 5 0 26 45 8 3 3 23 10 12 41 41 4 10 0.40 0.56 8698 27 0.95 0.18 0.0034 14 35 1.48 0.89 78 113 0.20 0.00 0.39 0.68 19 0.92 0.53 2.53 0.27 109 0.20 0.17 0.11 0.48 0.81 17 2.29 285 9 0.26 0.40 1.00 1.78 70 3.02 0.28 0.41 52 8 2.22 2.75 1.05 8 19 4.35 0.67 7 3.32 0.68 0 11 24 0.82 21 82 1 0.51 14 32 2.92 0.45 9 1.06 8 32 0.46 0.45 0.72 0.47 85 7 0.00 1.61 1.18 0.07 29 1.79 0.18 0.79 2.11 0.45 1.67 0.46 0.57 A1 A2 A3 A∑ D1 D2 D3 D∑ A1 A2 A3 A∑ D1 D2 D3 D∑ 168 121 157 446 5.19 4.27132 6.26 47 5.20 69 84 263 88 4.07 115 1.66 272 3.35 3.87 3.06 4.92 89 7.57 5.34 45 50 184 5.00 2.52 3.29 3.61 Species Number of species and species composition recorded at the Vrapač and Litovelské luhy transects luhy transects and Litovelské the Vrapač at species recorded and species of composition Number Pernis apivorus Phasianus colchicus Actitis hypoleucos Streptopelia decaocto Dryocopus martius Dendrocopos medius Dendrocopos minor Anthus trivialis Prunella modularis Erithacus rubecula Luscinia megarhynchos Ciconia nigra Anas platyrhynchos Buteo buteo Columba oenas Columba palumbus Streptopelia turtur Cuculus canorus Strix aluco Alcedo atthis Jynx torquilla Picus canus Picus viridis Dendrocopos major Motacilla cinerea Motacilla alba Cinclus cinclus Troglodytes troglodytes Phoenicurus phoenicurus II: Dominance and Diversity of Bird Community in Floodplain Forest Ecosystem 829 Vrapač transect Litovelské luhy transect abundance (n) dominance (%) abundance (n) dominance (%) 400 10 10 61 21 10 00 11 5 71 4 0 1 72 5 2 0.12 39 14 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 1 78 22 0.00 2.15 0.04 0.08 10 0.35 0.44 0.00 0.00 60 62 0.08 2 0.031 0.16 0.84 0.01 0.18 0 0.03 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.16 0 0.085 0 53 0 1.38 0.18 0 0.00 0.08 6 0 0 10 0.88 0.04 58 0.01 22 8 0 0 0 0.72 0.07 0.25 2 0 112 00 0 4 6 0 0.00 0.070 3 2 1 0.03 0.000 9 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 26 19 1.87 0 21 12 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.00 0 0 2.31 0.15 0 0 0.00 0.00 11 0.00 7 0.34 0 13 1.23 1.31 0.285 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.13 0 0 8 35 0.26 0.24 21 0.00 3 0 0.00 0 0.00 75 1 0.18 0.51 0.00 0 0.22 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.06 2 0.00 21 2 46 0.00 1.17 0.00 0 0.00 0.67 0.00 6 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.72 31 0.00 126 18 0.46 0.00 0.02 0 0.00 8 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.15 0.41 0.00 52 15 0.73 0.00 2.65 1 0 0.00 6 0.17 0.00 0.45 7 1.83 0.13 0.06 1.17 0.11 1 1 20 1.47 0.35 0.00 8 2.04 0.33 0.34 0 20 0 0.00 1.02 0.29 5 0.45 0.02 45 2 1 0.39 20 35 0.39 0.00 3 0.39 100 0.06 0.06 0.45 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.33 0.02 2.52 0.13 0.39 2.30 0.06 1.96 8117 18767 16 176 72 444 3 91 2.50 36 230 6.60 0.52 2.07 7.02 0.56 2.54 5.17 0.1212 3.63 45 0.42 2.68 4 87 3 23 2 91 53 1 223 18 42 010 2.53 0.37 118 4.86 0.14 14 4 1.29 5.99 0.08 22 0.17 2.96 4.38 0.21 0.06 2.76 46 1567 0.00 2.32 0.3145 0.08 5 63 0.49 24 0.88 3 34 15 0.54 164 23 84 9 2.07 0.84 1.39 2.22 0.28 8 0.85 1.36 0.20 21 0.60 1.91 0.45 0.98 38 15 1 0.51 12 0.45 2 13 1.38 40 0.75 1 0.84 4 0.67 0.06 0.86 0.11 0.79 0.07 0.08 A1 A2 A3 A∑ D1 D2 D3 D∑ A1 A2 A3 A∑ D1 D2 D3 D∑ 177 294210 245 115 716 122 5.46 447112 10.37 6.48 262 9.77 4.06294 106 8.34339 4.87 155 480 152 209 5.21 139 3.46 209 157 145 588 9.24259 185 705 138 4.23 9.07 101 546 10.46 102 5.59 5.47 299 8.53 7.37 385 5.54 91 11.68 659 6.26 8.14 6.85 12.17 143 7.99 8.22 10.73 7.71 172 3.56 161 50 6.71 11.93 91 120 284 7.56 7.68 99 61 5.11 99 362 7.99 342 52 3.29 9.66 9.04 5.58 143 5.09 6.71 6.51 294 4.01 7.11 5.56 6.72 2.91 9.41 5.78 Species uviatilis Turdus pilaris Turdus philomelos Turdus viscivorus Phylloscopus sibilatrix Phylloscopus collybita Phylloscopus trochilus Aegithalos caudatus Cyanistes caeruleus Parus major Lophophanes cristatus Certhia familiaris Certhia brachydactyla Oriolus oriolus Turdus merula Locustella naevia Locustella fl Acrocephalus palustris Hippolais icterina Sylvia curruca Sylvia communis Sylvia borin Sylvia atricapilla Regulus regulus Regulus ignicapilla Muscicapa striata Ficedula albicollis Poecile palustris Periparus ater Poecile montanus Sitta europaea 830 Karel Poprach, Jana Vrbková d April, mid May and mid June mid May d April, Vrapač transect Litovelské luhy transect abundance (n) dominance (%) abundance (n) dominance (%) 00 0 04 0 29 0 0 22 2 1 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 4 51 0.00 1 0.000 0 15 0.08 0.12 0.00 0 1 0.02 0.00 0 0.28 20 0 0 0.04 2 0.07 0 0 0.06 0.06 0 0.16 1 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0.17 0 0.04 0 0 0.00 0.03 0 0.04 0.00 2 0.02 0.00 1 0 1 0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.06 0 1 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 5 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0 4 0.00 0.06 0 0.11 1 0 0 0.00 7 0.06 2 0.06 0.02 0 0.13 0.17 0 0.00 2 0.10 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.00 2 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.04 4417 17 14 14 12 75 43 1.3615 0.52 0.60 0.49 1 0.56 0.4814 0.87 3 0.50 32 21 19 7 17 23 0.46 2 14 0.04 58 0.12 0 0.43 63 0.22 0.74 1.80 9 0.92 1 0.95 0.39 0.68 0.92 1 0.11 49 1.24 0.00 1 53 0.18 3 48 0.06 150 0.06 2.75 0.07 2.96 0.06 3.16 2.95 A1 A2 A3 A∑ D1 D2 D3 D∑ A1 A2 A3 A∑ D1 D2 D3 D∑ 351 225222 21 277 597 323 10.83 822 7.94177 6.85 0.84 30 9.77 6.96 12.88 28 123 9.58 235 118 113 5.46 158 22 1.06 152 263 1.12 423 6.91 2.74 6.34 6.60 84 8.83 1.45 39 10.00 5.17 8.31 28 151 4.72 2.18 1.84 2.97 Species Corvus cornix Corvus corax Passer montanus Serinus serinus Carduelis cannabina Emberiza citrinella Emberiza schoeniclus Lanius collurio Lanius excubitor Garrulus glandarius Sturnus vulgaris Fringilla coelebs Carduelis chloris Carduelis carduelis Loxia curvirostra Coccothraustes coccothraustes ∑∑ No. of individuals/transect 295 236 209 245 3240 2834 2507 8581 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1781 1789 356 1520 5090 298 100.00 253 100.00 100.00 299 100.00 A1, A2, A3 – summary abundance from the census in mid April, mid May and mid June; D1, D2, D3 – dominance from the census in mi D1, D2, D3 – dominance from and mid June; mid May the census in mid April, from A1, A2, A3 – summary abundance Dominance and Diversity of Bird Community in Floodplain Forest Ecosystem 831

and Eurasian Tree Sparrow. Among other authors, standards (Mezera, 1956), a cattle grazing was also e.g. Toman (1984) mentions the Eurasian Blackcap, usual. For instance at the end of the 17th century, Common Chaffi nch, Common Chiff chaff , Great Vrapač was characterised as a sparse fl oodplain Tit and Dunnock as dominant species, Chytil forest, partly with individual solitary trees as a result (1984) found the Common Starling, Great Tit, of grazing, mainly of pigs. Historical maps from the Eurasian Blue Tit, Eurasian Blackcap, Eurasian Tree end of the 18th century already show the Vrapač Sparrow and Common Chaffi nch to be dominant fl oodplain forest as compact (Machar, 2008a). species. Dominant representation of the Dunnock It is well known that the current „primeval forest recorded by Toman (1984) is interesting, as well reserves“ of fl oodplain forests in southern Moravia as a relatively high representation of the Reeves’s are not original primeval forests but former grazed Pheasant mentioned by Chytil (1984) – 3.8 percent forests (Vrška et al., 2006). Infl uencing of water in 1978 and 1.7 percent in 1979, which is certainly regime of the forest (Maděra, 2001) as well as of related to the number of introduced individuals at fl uvial dynamics (Machar, Pechanec, 2011) should the site. In this study, I recorded a marked decline be also stressed. The main cause of high diversity of dominance of the Common Starling during the of plant and animal communities of fl oodplain 3rd census date (less than 2 percent of dominance) forests in a human-aff ected landscape of central – at that time, Starlings already aggregate in fl ocks Europe seems to be the high intensity of forestry and wander the countryside. Chytil (1984) considers (coppicing) practices in the past (Machar, 2009a), the method of nest searching (checking occupancy which has recently instigated establishment of of potential nest holes) to be the most suitable way activities and methodologies aimed at restoration to assess the Common Starling numbers, as using of this type of management in fl oodplain forests the territory mapping method the numbers were (Kadavý et al., 2007; Machar, 2008b). The current underestimated. eff ort is focused on the comeback of the optimal Dominant representation of the Eurasian Tree form of management – coppice with standards Sparrow mentioned by Bureš, Maton (1984/1985) (Kadavý, 2013) with two main levels: the upper layer – 5.6 percent and by Chytil (1984) – 6.4 percent in consisting of individual old reserved trees (oak, ash, 1978 and 5.0 percent in 1979 is noteworthy. Svoboda elm) of a seed origin le to the age of approx. 150– (1991) considers the Eurasian Tree Sparrow to be 300 years, and the lower level (coppiced wood) one of the commonest species in the Žebračka which was logged in short intervals of 7–35 years National Nature Reserve. However, in this study, the (Machar, 2009b). The coppice-with-standard forest dominance of the Eurasian Tree Sparrow reached was thus repeatedly thinned in large areas (Hudec, only 0.13 percent at the Vrapač and 0.11 percent at 2001; Klimo et al., 2008; Machar et al., 2010). Studies the Litovelské Luhy. Toman (1984) mentions the carried out in the last decades in the fl oodplain dominance value of 1.2 percent for the species forests of Litovelské Pomoraví show that natural „P. montanus“ (Eurasian Tree Sparrow or Willow regeneration does not take place there due to Tit, authors comment) in 1983. Neither Koleček the impact of the overpopulated cloven-hoofed et al. (2011) reported the species from the localities game (Čermák, Mrkva, 2006). In the fl oodplain Žebračka and Království from the breeding forest reserves of southern Moravia with a non- seasons of 2007–2008. The above fi ndings indicate intervention regime, species composition of woody disappearance of the Eurasian Tree Sparrow from plants changes signifi cantly: the Field Maple (Acer fl oodplain forests of central Moravia. The question campestre) has prevailed on the studied (fenced) plots, remains whether the presence of the Eurasian Tree however, natural regeneration of oak (Quercus sp.) has Sparrow in fl oodplain forests was indigenous or not been recorded (Janík et al., 2008). whether the species was rather associated with Considering the eff ect of forestry practices on secondary fl oodplain forest habitats altered by man. the structure and diversity of the bird community, Comparison of the results of the above mentioned diff erences in preferred breeding habitat should be studies of bird communities of fl oodplain forests taken into account, distinguishing interior species shows that bird diversity in this habitat changes in and ecotone species of birds (Schlaghamerský, time, which is primarily due to changes in structure Hudec, 2008). The two groups show diff erent of the fl oodplain forest and also due to population responses to forest management – with increasing trends of the studied species. Bureš, Maton fragmentation of a continuous fl oodplain forest, (1984/1985) point to some unsuitable interventions interior species disappear from the community to the forest ecosystem, such as disruption of forest while ecotone species increase in numbers. For complexity, changes in species composition of instance Koleček et al. (2011) recorded one third woody plants and planting of the non-native spruce, more bird species in the Království u Grygova segmentation of forest stands, forest drainage or fl oodplain forest, which is managed more creation of open areas for the game. Obviously, intensively and represents a patchwork of diff erent certain human impacts are not benefi cial or are even types of woods and open areas (thickets, clearings, harmful to fl oodplain forests (Machar, 2012). In openings, forest roads) than in the Žebračka the past, however, fl oodplain forests went through u Přerova fl oodplain forest which consists of a complex dynamic development. In central Europe a full-grown closed wood. The overall diversity they were intensively managed as coppice with due to habitat fragmentation increases depending 832 Karel Poprach, Jana Vrbková

on the size of the study area (Reichholf, 1985). while only few studies are aimed at younger stands. Interventions to a continuous fl oodplain forest are Younger age categories of the deciduous managed refl ected diff erently by particular breeding bird forest can be considered as succession stages where guilds – as a result of thinning in the understorey, a certain general succession model of changes in species from the guild of birds breeding in the bush diversity and structure of the bird community exists. layer may disappear, on the other hand, species At the same time, habitat heterogeneity aff ects the from the guild of hollow nesting birds may grow diversity of bird communities in younger woods. For in numbers due to the increased harvesting age instance LEŠO (2003) showed a signifi cant eff ect of (Machar, 2011). Age of the particular forest stand the number of old reserved trees on the diversity of also needs to be taken into account. Most authors a bird community in a young oak forest in Slovakia. focus on old forest stands (in the harvesting age),

CONCLUSION Bird communities are considered as an important bioindicator of quality of forest ecosystem. Information from analyses of dominance and diversity of bird communities can support sustainable forest management aimed to conservation of biodiversity of forest ecopsystems. The presented paper deals with assessment of dominance and diversity of bird breeding community in fl oodplain forest ecosystem. Authors present results of analyses data on bird communities obtained at two transects in the Litovelské Pomoraví Protected Landscape Area (Czech Republic) in the period 1998–2012 in study plots of the research grant TARMAG. Research of bird communities was carried out using the point-count method. The article deals with qualitative and quantitative representation of breeding bird species, including their relation to habitat type (closed fl oodplain forest, ecotone), because the current state of forest habitat is infl unced by forest management. Altogether 63 breeding species were recorded at the Vrapač transect and 67 at the Litovelské luhy transect, respectively. To be able to detect all recorded species, 11 out of 14 years of monitoring were needed at the Vrapač transect and all 8 years of monitoring at the Litovelské luhy transect, respectively. Authors show that the values in dominant bird species change signifi cantly among the particular census dates within one season, mainly with respect to their activity and detectability. Results are discussed in the frame of sustainable forest management in fl oodplain forest ecosystems. The presented article can promote to discussion aimed to management strategy for fl oodplain forest ecosystems, which ranks among natural habitat types of Community interest protected under the Natura 2000 European network.

Acknowledgement Research was supported by a grant from the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic TARMAG – Biodiversity and Target Management of Habitats of Coppiced Forests in the Frame of NATURA 2000 System, which was developed at Mendel University in Brno and Palacky University in Olomouc. Authors thank Eva Cepáková for translation into English.

REFERENCES CHYTIL, J. 1984. Srovnání produkce ptáků a savců BIBBY, C. J., BURGESS, N. D., HILL, D. A., MUSTOE, v lužním lese. Zprávy MOS, 42: 81–88. S. 2007. Bird census Techniques. London: Academic CHYTRÝ, M., KUČERA, T., KOČÍ, M. 2001. Katalog Press. biotopů České republiky. Praha: Agentura ochrany BUREŠ, S. and MATON, K. 1984/1985. Ptačí složka přírody a krajiny ČR. segmentu skupiny typů geobiocenů Ulmi- JANDA, J. and ŘEPA, P. 1986. Metody kvantitativního fraxineta populi v navrhované CHKO Pomoraví. výzkumu v ornitologii. Praha: Státní zemědělské Sylvia, 23/24: 37–46. nakladatelství. ČERMÁK, P. and MRKVA, R. 2006. Eff ects of game JANÍK, D., ADAM, D., VRŠKA, T., HORT, L., UNAR, on the condition and development of natural P., KRÁL, K., ŠAMONIL, P., HORAL, D. 2008. regeneration in the Vrapač National Nature Tree layer dynamics of the Cahnov-Soutok near- Reserve (Litovelské Pomoraví). Journal of Forest natural fl oodplain forest a er 33 years (1973– Science, 52(7): 329–336. 2006). European Journal of Forest Research, 127: 337– HORA, J., BRINKE, T., VOJTĚCHOVSKÁ, E., 345. HANZAL, V., KUČERA, Z. 2010. Monitoring druhů KADAVÝ, J. 2013. Historie a současnost převodů lesa přílohy I směrnice o ptácích a ptačích oblastí v letech 2005– výmladkového na les vysoký v evropském kontextu. 2007. 1. vydání. Praha: Agentura ochrany přírody Monografi e. Brno: Mendelova univerzita v Brně. a krajiny ČR. KADAVÝ, J., KNEIFL, M., SERVUS, M., KNOTT, HUDEC, K. 2001. Changes in the avifauna of the R. 2007. Střední les jako přírodě blízký způsob North Moravia fl oodplain (in Czech). In: KVĚT, hospodaření. In: GROHMANOVÁ, J. (ed.), Význam R., ŘEHOŘEK, V. (eds.), Niva z multidisciplinárního přírodě blízkých způsobů pěstování lesů pro jejich stabilitu, pohledu IV. Brno: Geotest, 101–102. Dominance and Diversity of Bird Community in Floodplain Forest Ecosystem 833

produkční a mimoprodukční funkce. Kostelec nad KLIMÁNEK, M., KOSTKAN, V., KUPEC, P., Černými Lesy, 17.–18. 10. 2007. 35–43. LAŠTŮVKA, Z., MADĚRA, P., MAUER, O., KLIMO, E., HAGER, H., MACHAR, I., BUČEK, PALÁTOVÁ, E., PECHANEC, V., PRAX, A., A., SCHMALFUS, R. 2008. Revitalization and RULÍK, M., ŘEPKA, R., SCHNEIDER, J., protection of fl oodplain forests. In: KLIMO, E., VYBÍRAL, J., VYSKOT, I. 2010. Biodiversity and HAGER, H., MATIĆ, S. ANIĆ, I., KULHAVÝ, J. Target Management of Floodplain Forests in the Morava (eds.), Floodplain forests of the temperate zone of Europe. River Basin (Czech Republic). Olomouc: Univerzita Kostelec nad Černými lesy: Lesnická práce, 301– Palackého v Olomouci. 323. MACHAR, I. and PECHANEC, V. 2011. Application KOLEČEK, J., PACLÍK, M., PRAUS, L., VYMAZAL, of geoecological concept of the alluvial landscape M., TYLLER, Z., TURČOKOVÁ, L., SEDLÁČEK, in the creation of nature reserve (Case study from J. 2011. Hnízdní a zimní početnost ptáků dvou Czech Republic). Acta Universitatis Agriculturae středomoravských lužních lesů. Zprávy MOS, 69: et Silviculturae Mendelinae Brunensis, 59(3): 123–134. 4–17. MEZERA, A. 1956. Středoevropské nížinné luhy I. Praha: LEŠO, P. 2003. Hniezdne ornitocenózy dvoch Československá akademie zemědělských věd. mladších vekových štádií dubového lesa. Sylvia, POLÁŠEK, V. 1991. Výzkum ornitocenózy lužního lesa 39: 67–78. v Litovelském Pomoraví. Diplomová práce. Olomouc: MADĚRA, P. 2001. Eff ect of water regime changes on Katedra zoologie PřF, Univerzita Palackého the diversity of plant communities in fl oodplain v Olomouci. forests. Ekológia (Bratislava), 20(1): 116–129. POPRACH, K. 2001. Plán péče o Národní přírodní MACHAR, I. 2008a. Historical development of rezervaci Vrapač. Ms., depon. in Správa CHKO fl oodplain forests in the Upper Moravian Vale Litovelské Pomoraví, Litovel. (Vrapač National Nature Reserve, Czech Republic). POPRACH, K. and MACHAR, I. 2012. Historie Journal of Forest Science, 54(9): 426–437. vývoje avifauny, biotopů a ornitologického MACHAR, I. 2008b. A proposed target state for výzkumu v Litovelském Pomoraví. Zprávy MOS, a fl oodplain forest ecosystem within an ecological 70: 63–75. network, with reference to the ecological REICHHOLF, J. 1985. Composition of bird fauna in requirements of an umbrella bird species. Journal riverine forests. In: IMBODEN, E. (ed.), Riverine of Landscape Ecology, 2: 80–98. Forests in Europe: Status and conservation. International MACHAR, I. 2009a. Coppice-with-standards in Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge: 20–25. fl oodplain forests – a new subject for nature SCHLAGHAMERSKÝ, J. and HUDEC, K. 2008. The protection. Journal of Forest Science, 55(7): 306–311. fauna of temperate European fl oodplain forest. MACHAR, I. 2009b. The history of the fl oodplain In: KLIMO, E., HAGER, H., MATIĆ, S. ANIĆ, I., forests and the benefi ts of understanding this one KULHAVÝ, J. (eds.), Floodplain forests of the temperate for conservation nature in the fl oodplain. Příroda, zone of Europe. Kostelec nad Černými lesy: Lesnická 28: 123–140. práce, 160–230. MACHAR, I. 2010. Struktura ptačích společenstev SVOBODA, J. 1991. Ornitologická inventarizace SPR lužního lesa v Litovelském Pomoraví. Přírodovědné Žebračka. Olomouc: Ms., dep. in archiv AOPK ČR. studie muzea Prostějovska, 12–13: 113–130. TOMAN, A. 1984. Avifauna státní přírodní rezervace MACHAR, I. 2011. The impact of fl oodplain forest Zástudánčí. Diplomová práce. Olomouc: Katedra habitat conservation on the structure of birds zoologie PřF, Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. breeding communities. Ekológia, 30(1): 36–50. VRŠKA, T., ADAM, D., HORT, L., ODEHNALOVÁ, MACHAR, I. 2012. The eff ect of fl oodplain forest P., HORAL, D., KRÁL, K. 2006. Dynamika vývoje fragmentation on the bird community. Journal of pralesovitých rezervací v ČR. Svazek II: Lužní lesy – Forest Science, 58(5): 213–224. Cahnov-Soutok, Ranšpurk, Jiřina. Praha: Academia. MACHAR, I., BEZDĚČKA, P., BUČEK, A., ČELECHOVSKÝ, A., HORAL, D., HOUŠKOVÁ, K., HYBLER, V., JOHN, F., KILIÁNOVÁ, H.,

Contact information Karel Poprach: [email protected] Jana Vrbková: [email protected]