English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

T management for any animal, including birds, is habitat management. Even with endangered species that require intensive measures such as captive breeding, successful habitat management is ultimately judged by the successful release and subsequent establishment of these species in their appropriate natural or restored habitat. In the earliest days of wildlife management, the focus was on manipulating habitat disturbance regimes (such as forest succession or grassland burning) to provide the appropriate habitats for the target species, o en with an emphasis on maximizing the edge between diff erent habitat stages (Leopold 1933). Because the focal species were mostly game species that preferred edge habitat, li le eff ort was put into categorizing habitats once they matured past the early successional stages. As late as the 1980s, many wildlife management schemes tended to lump mature forest habitats and their resident species into a single category of “mature forest,” with the implication that diversity in these habitats was low and their resident species of somewhat less value, refl ecting the focus on harvestable species prevalent at the time (Faaborg 1980, Noss 1983). Of course, good birders knew that mature forest involved a variety of microhabitat types supporting diverse species, depending on variation in habitat structure and composition. James (1971) and James and Shugart (1970) were the fi rst to measure the structure of a bird’s habitat and describe it using multivariate statistical techniques. James’s methodology quickly spread through the ornithological world, and habitat structural measures are a part of most research projects even today. Her work initiated what one might call the “era of habitat structure,” as quantitative habitat suitability index (HSI) models for many species were developed (Kahl et al. 1985). The logic behind these models was simple: by knowing the detailed habitat structure required by a target species, forest managers could manipulate habitat to favor such structures and, thus, that species. For example, in parts of Missouri, mature oak forests protected from fi re develop thick understory growth that is preferred by Kentucky Warblers (Oporornis formosus); with fi re, the understory disappears and Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla) become common. In the late 1980s, a focus on forest fragmentation and the development of landscape ecology reduced the use of HSI models. Fragmentation studies began to show how, despite the occurrence of acceptable habitat according to the HSI models (Robbins et al. 1989), area-sensitive species disappeared from a location as habitat size was reduced. Studies incorporating landscapeand local-level eff ects demonstrated that the severity of the local response to patch size Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, 225 Tucker Hall, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA MARISSA A. AHLERING AND JOHN FAABORG1 AVIAN HABITAT MANAGEMENT MEETS CONSPECIFIC ATTRACTION: IF YOU BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME? The Auk 123(2):301–312, 2006 © The American Ornithologists’ Union, 2006. Printed in USA.