Data for the paper: "The Effects of Restoring Logged Tropical Forests on Avian Phylogenetic and Functional Diversity"
These data relate to the paper: Cosset, C. C. P. and Edwards, D. P. (2017), The effects of restoring logged tropical forests on avian phylogenetic and functional diversity. Ecol Appl, 27: 1932–1945. doi:10.1002/eap.1578
Community matrix for avian point count data (Sp.Matrix.point1) and mist-net data (Sp.Matrix.Mist) containing species names and avian abundance for each point count station/transect.
Sp.Matrix.point1: Column 1 are the different point-count stations numbered 1-108 (1-48 are in unlogged forests, 49-72 are in naturally regenerating logged forests, 73-108 are in restored logged forests). Row 1 are the scientific names for the avian species and below them are the abundances or absences (0) of the species that occur at the different point-count stations.
Sp.Matrix.Mist: Column 1 are the different transects with names UL in unlogged forests, NR in naturally regenerating logged forests and R in restored logged forests. Row 1 are the scientific names for the avian species and below them are the abundances or absences (0) of the species that occur at the different transects.
Data collection method:
Two avian communities (overall bird community, understorey bird community) were sampled in 3 habitat types (unlogged forests, naturally regenerating logged forests, restored logged forests) in the lowland dry dipterocarp forests of the one million hectare Yayasan Sabah (YS) logging concession in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. Data for both communities were extracted from Ansell et al. (2011) and Edwards et al. (2013, 2014a).
Overall bird community (Point Count Data): Point count surveys with unlimited-radius were conducted from May – September 2008 and May – June 2009. At sites created within each habitat type, we sampled 12 point-count stations per site with each station separated by 250 m (48 point-count stations in unlogged forests, 24 in naturally regenerating forests, and 36 in restored forests). Point-count surveys occurred for 15 minutes on three consecutive days from 0545 – 1000 h. Each site was only sampled in one year, and any temporal effects (within or between years) were minimized by rotating sampling between the different habitat types. The highest number of individual birds recorded for a certain species on any of the three days was taken as our estimate of maximum abundance but not the species’ true abundance, which is unknown. All point counts were conducted by a single experienced observer (D. P. Edwards) to minimise the potential for observer bias.
Understorey bird community (Mist Net Data): Mist netting was conducted from June – October 2007, May – September 2008 and May – July 2009. Fifty-four transects were created (18 transects in unlogged primary forests, 18 in naturally regenerating logged forests and 18 in restored logged forests) with transects within each habitat placed at least 500 m apart. Each transect contained 15 mist nets (12 x 2.7 m; mesh size 25 mm) placed end to end. Sampling occurred for three consecutive days from 0600 – 1200 h. Each site was only sampled in one year, and any temporal effects (i.e., within or between years) were minimized by rotating sampling between the different habitat types. To ensure that individual birds were sampled only once, each bird was marked with a uniquely numbered metal leg ring. Totalling the unique individuals of each species across the three sampling days gave an estimate of maximum abundance, but not a species’ true abundance, which is unknown.
Ansell, F. A., D. P. Edwards, and K. C. Hamer. 2011. Rehabilitation of logged rain forests: avifaunal composition, habitat structure, and implications for biodiversity-friendly REDD+. Biotropica 43:504–511.
Edwards, F. A., D. P. Edwards, K.C. Hamer, and R. G. Davies. 2013. Impacts of logging and conversion of rainforest to oil palm on the functional diversity of birds in Sundaland. Ibis 155:313–326.
Edwards, D. P., et al. 2014a. Selective-logging and oil palm: multi-taxon impacts, biodiversity indicators, and trade-offs for conservation planning. Ecological Applications 24:2029-2049.
Read the peer-reviewed publication
EthicsThere is no personal data or any that requires ethical approval
PolicyThe data complies with the institution and funders' policies on access and sharing
Sharing and access restrictionsThe data can be shared openly
- The file formats are open or commonly used
Methodology, headings and units
- Headings and units are explained in the files