nena masthead
NENA Home Staff & Editors For Readers For Authors

Forest Bird Populations in Massachusetts: Breeding Habitat Loss and Other Influences
Timothy J. Gardner, Caroline R. Eagan, and Robert I. Bertin

Northeastern Naturalist, Volume 24, Issue 3 (2017): 267–288

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers. To subscribe click here.)

 

Access Journal Content

Open access browsing of table of contents and abstract pages. Full text pdfs available for download for subscribers.



Current Issue: Vol. 30 (3)
NENA 30(3)

Check out NENA's latest Monograph:

Monograph 22
NENA monograph 22

All Regular Issues

Monographs

Special Issues

 

submit

 

subscribe

 

JSTOR logoClarivate logoWeb of science logoBioOne logo EbscoHOST logoProQuest logo

Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 3 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 267 2017 NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 24(3):267–288 Forest Bird Populations in Massachusetts: Breeding Habitat Loss and Other Influences Timothy J. Gardner1, Caroline R. Eagan1, and Robert I. Bertin1,* Abstract - Our objective was to determine whether changes in populations of forest-interior bird species were related to changes in extent of interior forest along Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) census routes in Massachusetts. We first identified a suite of 28 forest-interior bird species (FIA species), based on correlations between bird abundance (in 2003–2007) and extent of interior forest (in 2005) along BBS routes. From this group, we eliminated 13 species whose breeding habitats were described in the literature as including forest edge or second growth, resulting in a more stringently defined subset of 15 (FIB) species. We quantified the extent of forest and interior forest (>100 m from a forest edge) along BBS routes based on digitized aerial photographs from 1971, 1985, and 1999. We also quantified changes in abundance of the 28 forest bird species along BBS survey routes over the same time period. Overall, changes in abundance of FIB species paralleled changes in extent of interior forest, with 13 of 15 species showing positive correlations, 5 of which were significant. However, substantial variation occurred among species, including conspicuous declines in Hylocichla mustelina (Wood Thrush) and Piranga olivacea (Scarlet Tanager) and conspicuous increases in Vireo solitarius (Blue-headed Vireo) and Setophaga coronata (Yellow-rumped Warbler). Changes were not significantly related to either migratory status (Neotropical vs. other) or nest location (ground vs. arboreal). Several differences could be attributed to species-specific factors, such as reintroductions of Meleagris gallopavo (Wild Turkey) and Corvus corax (Common Raven) or introduction of competitors, such as Haemorhous mexicanus (House Finch) impacting Haemorhous purpureus (Purple Finch). Changes in some bird populations seem to reflect forest succession, e.g., Hylatomus pileatus (Pileated Woodpecker), while others are unexplained and may be due to changes on migratory routes or wintering grounds. Overall, loss of interior forest is an important incremental factor in forest bird population declines, although other factors had a greater impact in the period under study. Introduction Declines in abundance of forest bird species (particularly Neotropical migrants) in eastern North America have been noted in numerous studies in recent decades (Buchanan et al. 2016, Hall 1984, Sauer and Link 2011, Terborgh 1992, Whitcomb et al. 1981). Because the extent and contiguity of forests in many parts of eastern North America have also declined during this period, a causative relationship has been suggested (Askins et al. 1990, Donovan and Flather 2002, Lynch and Whigham 1984, Parker et al. 2005, Robinson and Wilcove 1994, Suarez-Rubio and Lookingbill 2016), although it is widely recognized that habitat changes on the wintering and migratory grounds or other factors might also be involved (Keller and Yahner 2006, Robbins et al. 1989, Taylor and Stutchbury 2016). 1Biology Department, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA 01610. *Corresponding author - rbertin@holycross.edu. Manuscript Editor: Peter Paton Northeastern Naturalist 268 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 Vol. 24, No. 3 While a regional decline in populations of a given species in an area that is undergoing widespread habitat loss is certainly consistent with a causative role for such habitat losses in the population decline, it does not rule out other factors. More compelling evidence can be provided if an association between these 2 variables can be demonstrated in an area where both the extent of habitat loss and changes in bird populations vary. Such analyses have become practical with the widespread availability of long-term bird-census data (Sauer et al. 2014) and high-resolution digitized land-use data covering the same time period. Human activities in forested areas tend not only to reduce the extent of forest but also fragment the remaining forest parcels. Fragmentation increases the ratio of edge to interior forest, and forest edge differs from interior in various physical factors and vegetation characteristics (Chen et al. 1993, Matlack and Litvaitis 1999, Williams-Linera 1990). In at least some circumstances, nest predation and parasitism are also greater along forest edges than in interior forest (Brittingham and Temple 1983, Chalfoun et al. 2002, Donovan et al. 1997, Gering and Blair 1999, Phillips et al. 2005). Paton (1994) concluded that edge-related increases in nest predation extend less than 50 m into forest in most circumstances, although some studies suggest edge effects extend greater distances (Brittingham and Temple 1983, Wilcove et al. 1986). We use “forest-interior” birds to refer to species associated with large forest tracts, realizing that such associations might reflect either area sensitivity or edge avoidance (Parker et al. 2005, Villard 1998). We also note that designations of forest-interior birds sometimes differ among studies (Askins et al. 1987, Dunford and Freemark 2004, Mancke and Gavin 2000, Phillips et al. 2005, Villard 1998), making empirical determination of such status desirable. Variation in responses of forest-interior species to fragmentation have been noted, reflecting factors such as migratory status, nesting location (ground vs. arboreal) and landscape context (Chalfoun et al. 2002, Dunford and Freemark 2004, Hagan and Meehan 2002, Lee et al. 2002, Lindenmayer et al. 2002, Sauer et al. 1996). Given these varied responses, studies in multiple geographic areas and in different landscape contexts (Richmond et al. 2012, Thompson et al. 2002) are essential to develop a comprehensive picture of the effects of forest loss and fragmentation on forest birds. New England forests have undergone dramatic changes in the past several hundred years. As agriculture spread across the landscape, unbroken forest was reduced in area and fragmented. In Massachusetts, deforestation peaked around 1860, when nearly 70% of forest had been cleared (O’Keefe and Foster 1998). Abandonment of agricultural land followed, with forest areas increasing in area and maturity and becoming less fragmented. More recently, reduction and fragmentation of forests have again increased, driven in most areas by increased use of land for residential and commercial purposes and for infrastructure such as roads and utility corridors. This study examines patterns of change in forest-interior bird species in Massachusetts in relation to changes in the extent of forest and interior forest. We use bird data from the Breeding Bird Survey (USGS 2016) and land-use data from digitized aerial photographs from MassGIS (2016). Unlike some previous studies, Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 3 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 269 we evaluated land-use changes in the specific zone of detection along the bird census routes. By examining the association between changes in bird abundance and extent of interior forest, we sought to shed light on the likely role of destruction and fragmentation of breeding habitat vs. other factors in causing changes in forest bird populations. Our specific goals were to (1) identify a suite of forest-interior bird species for Massachusetts, (2) estimate changes in forest and forest-interior habitat along Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes in Massachusetts, (3) estimate changes in densities of forest-interior birds and avian-nest predators and parasites along the same BBS routes, (4) determine whether temporal changes in bird abundances and habitat variables are correlated, and (5) determine whether changes in forest-interior bird species are influenced by the regional habitat context. Methods Data sources Data on bird abundances came from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (USGS 2016). This survey has been conducted on hundreds of routes throughout the country, starting in 1966. Routes are sampled by competent observers during the height of the breeding season in June. Starting 0.5 h before sunrise, the observer drives the route, stopping at 50 points 0.8 km apart. During each 3-minute stop, the observer records all bird species heard as well as those seen within 400 m of the sampling point (Sauer et al. 2014). We obtained data for the 27 Massachusetts routes that had been surveyed over a period of at least 10 years each. Our measure of bird abundance was the total number of individuals of a species recorded at all stops on a route in a particular year. We obtained data on land use along each bird route from a website maintained by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (MassGIS 2016). Land-use layers on this website are based on digitized aerial photographs taken in 1971, 1985, 1999, and 2005. We used land-use categories 3 (forest) and 37 (forested wetland) to represent forest. The Commonwealth hand-digitized land-use polygons in 1971, 1985, and 1999, but then switched to semi-automated methods in 2005, causing a slightly more liberal interpretation of forest in 2005 than in preceding surveys. Thus, while comparisons of land use among sites in any sampling year were valid, comparisons of land use in 2005 with earlier years may be subject to error. Accordingly we relied on the 1971–1999 data for assessing changes in forest area along individual routes. Interior forest We defined interior forest as forest at least 100 m from an edge bordering nonforested habitat (e.g., Bayne and Hobson 1997), a distance that should exclude edge-associated modifications in physical and vegetation variables and most depredations of edge-associated species like corvids, cowbirds, or mammalian predators. Defining interior forest using a larger buffer would cause very little habitat in eastern Massachusetts to qualify as interior forest, despite the presence in this area of breeding populations of forest-interior bird species. Northeastern Naturalist 270 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 Vol. 24, No. 3 Identifying focal bird species Because decisions about whether a bird species is a forest-interior species vary in previous studies, we defined these groups ourselves, using empirical data from Massachusetts supplemented by published habitat descriptions. The empirical approach involved assessing correlations between bird abundance and extent of interior forest along Massachusetts BBS routes. We began with all bird species recorded along Massachusetts BBS routes. We deleted obvious non-forest species, including those associated with grasslands, open habitat, and urban areas, as well as shorebirds, waders, waterfowl, aerial insectivores, and (because they are difficult to survey using BBS methods) hawks and owls. To minimize sampling error, we also eliminated species recorded on fewer than 5 routes. We used 2005 habitat information in this analysis, and included all 19 Massachusetts BBS routes that had data for at least 3 of the 5 years from 2003 to 2007, to minimize the chance fluctuations involved in a single year of data. For each bird route, we obtained the average number of individuals detected along the route per year. We also calculated the extent of interior forest within 400 m of the route (and presumably therefore within the detection zone of the observers). We calculated a correlation coefficient between these 2 variables across the 19 routes for each bird species. We also performed correlations using interior forest within 200 m and 100 m of the route to guard against the possibility that the detection zone was smaller than the nominal 400 m. The trends were similar using these smaller buffers, but correlations were consistently lower than when using 400 m, thus supporting the use of the 400-m detection band. Species whose abundance showed significant positive correlation with the extent of interior forest we designated FIA species (Table 1). We reviewed habitat descriptions of each species in The Birds of North America (Rodewald 2015) and eliminated from the list all species whose breeding habitats regularly extend into forest edge or second growth. The species on this smaller list we designated FIB species (Table 1). In addition, we tracked 3 nest predators (Corvus brachyrhynchos [American Crow], Cyanocitta cristata [Blue Jay], Quiscalus quiscula [Common Grackle]; see Table 1 for authorities) and 1 nest parasite (Molothrus ater [Brownheaded Cowbird]), here referred to as agonistic species. Migratory status of each species (permanent resident, short-distance migrant, Neotropical migrant) was determined from Freemark and Collins (1992). Landscape context We assessed the relevance of landscape context to our analysis by examining land use at 2 distances beyond the 400-m detection radius, also using 2005 land-use data: 5 km and 10 km. However, the extent of forest in these wider bands around the BBS routes generally was not useful in explaining changes in bird abundance, and these data are not discussed further. Extracting forest-cover data We copied relevant shapefiles from MassGIS (2016) into ArcMap 10.1. For each bird route in each of the 4 years (1971, 1985, 1999 and 2005), we created a layer of forest habitat. Internal boundaries between adjacent forest parcels were dissolved Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 3 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 271 Table 1. Focal bird species. Forest Interior B (FIB) species are those whose abundance is significantly correlated with forest cover in Massachusetts and which Rodewald (2015) treats as a forest species. Other Forest Interior species are those whose abundance was significantly correlated with forest cover in Massachusetts but which Rodewald (2015) indicates also frequent non-forest habitat. These species, together with FIB species, comprise FIA species. Agonist species are those likely to pose problems for nesting species due to nest predation or brood parasitism. Sp ch refers to the change in bird abundance between 1971 and 1999 as detected by BBS censuses. See Methods for formula. 2005 IF reports the correlation between 2003-2007 bird abundance and extent of interior forest within 400 m of the survey route using 2005 land cover data. Change F and Change IF report the correlation between change in bird abundance from 1971 to 1999 and change in extent of forest (F) or interior forest (IF), respectively, within 400 m of the survey route. Significant correlation coefficients are denoted with asterisks. Neotropical migrants are noted with † and ground nesting species with ‡. [Table continued on next page.] Common name Latin name Sp ch 2005 IF Change F Change IF Forest Interior B Species Black-and-white Warbler†‡ Mniotilta varia L. -18.2 0.524* 0.168 0.377 Blackburnian Warbler† Setophaga fusca Müller -13.4 0.673* 0.550 0.792* Black-throated Blue Warbler† Setophaga caerulescens Gmelin -5.7 0.801* 0.106 0.332 Black-throated Green Warbler† Setophaga virens Gmelin 26.4 0.616* 0.403 0.572* Blue-headed Vireo† Vireo solitarius Wilson 56.1 0.804* -0.067 -0.273 Dark-eyed Junco‡ Junco hyemalis L. -36.1 0.619* 0.774 0.890* Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus L. +3.0 0.677* -0.087 0.005 Hermit Thrush‡ Catharus guttatus Pallas +8.7 0.652* 0.408 0.078 Ovenbird†‡ Seiurus aurocapilla L. +5.4 0.793* 0.508* 0.580* Pileated Woodpecker Hylatomus pileatus L. +45.3 0.667* -0.314 -0.302 Red-eyed Vireo† Vireo olivaceus L. -18.7 0.645* 0.052 0.412 Scarlet Tanager† Piranga olivacea Gmelin -21.8 0.758* -0.163 0.208 Winter Wren‡ Troglodytes hiemalis Viellot +40.6 0.672* 0.501 0.426 Wood Thrush† Hylocichla mustelina Gmelin -41.7 0.661* -0.059 0.230 Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata L. +58.8 0.705* 0.845* 0.812* Northeastern Naturalist 272 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 Vol. 24, No. 3 Table 1, continued. Common name Latin name Sp ch 2005 IF Change F Change IF Other Forest Species American Redstart† Setophaga ruticilla L. +6.7 0.701* 0.169 0.334 Common Raven Corvus corax L. +100.0 0.586* -0.024 -0.234 Least Flycatcher† Empidonax minimus Baird -55.1 0.612* -0.139 0.120 Magnolia Warbler† Setophaga magnolia Wilson +33.2 0.645* 0.338 0.813* Nashville Warbler†‡ Oreothlypis ruficapilla Wilson -32.3 0.682* 0.114 0.358 Northern Waterthrush†‡ Parkesia noveboracensis Gmelin +15.3 0.566* 0.418 -0.212 Purple Finch Haemorhous purpureus Gmelin -50.4 0.649* 0.417 0.413 Rose-breasted Grosbeak† Pheucticus ludovicianus L. -10.2 0.753* 0.052 0.444 Ruby-throated Hummingbird† Archilochus colubris L. +85.7 0.730* -0.346 -0.227 Veery† Catharus fuscescens Stephens -1.9 0.897* -0.198 0.219 White-throated Sparrow‡ Zonotrichia albicollis Gmelin -78.0 0.625* -0.514 -0.092 Wild Turkey‡ Meleagris gallopavo L. +98.3 0.510* -0.074 -0.610 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius L. +22.1 0.505* 0.012 -0.009 Agonist Species American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Brehm +36.9 0.071 -0.133 -0.261 Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata L. -21.4 0.171 0.427 -0.075 Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Boddaert +5.1 -0.461 -0.079 0.246 Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula L. -16.4 -0.544 -0.024 -0.349 Other Species Mentioned House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus Müller Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 3 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 273 so that these boundaries were not detected as forest edge. We created a forest layer for each bird route and year by clipping the forest layer to within 400 m of the bird route. A forest-interior layer was also created for each bird route and year by applying a 100-m interior buffer to all forest patches in the dissolved forest layer and clipping to within 400 m of the bird route. Trends in forest cover and bird abundance We calculated trends in interior forest along each bird route by regressing the area of interior cover on date, using data for the years 1971, 1985, and 1999. The regression coefficient was taken as the average annual rate of change in interior forest over this period. To prepare bird data for analysis, we first entered zero values for years in which the route had been sampled but the bird species was not recorded. We analyzed trends in bird abundance in relation to changes in extent of interior forest in 2 ways. In one, we used only bird data from two 5-year time blocks, 1969–1973 and 1997– 2001. These years were chosen because they were centered on the earliest and latest years for which we had comparable forest cover data (1971 and 1999, respectively). We included only routes containing bird census data for at least 3 years in each time block, to minimize sampling error. Although percent change would be an intuitive measure of abundance change, the presence of zero abundances for several species on particular routes during the earlier time period meant that this quantity could not always be calculated. Thus, instead of using the 1969–1973 abundance in the denominator, we used the average of the 1969–1973 and 1997–2001 abundances, leading to the formula [N99 - N71] x 50) / ([N99 + N71] / 2), where N71 and N99 are the average number of birds of that species recorded along the route in 1969–1973 and 1997–2001, respectively. The 50 in the numerator causes the theoretical range of this index to lie between +100 and -100. Routes where a species was absent in both time periods were excluded from the calculation. To be consistent, we calculated an index of change in forest and an index of change in interior forest based on forest cover data from 1971 and 1999 in the same manner. Each index was calculated as ([F99 - F71] x 50) / ([F99 - F71] / 2), where F99 and F71 refer to the extent of forest (or interior forest) in the years 1999 and 1971, respectively. We then performed a correlation between the index of forest change and the index of change in bird abundance for each bird species. Our second approach involved regressing bird abundance on year for each bird species on each route for the years 1967–2003, using the resulting regression coefficient as the annual rate of change in bird abundance. To minimize sampling error, we used only routes that had been censused a minimum of 10 times and bird species whose presence had been recorded in a minimum of 5 censuses. We then calculated a product-moment correlation coefficient between the regression coefficients for bird abundance and the regression coefficients for extent of interior forest. Positive correlations thus indicated an association between change in bird abundance and change in extent of interior forest. In addition to examining the significance of individual correlation coefficients, we sought evidence of an overall (across-species) Northeastern Naturalist 274 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 Vol. 24, No. 3 pattern in the data by using a binomial test to determine whether positive correlation coefficients were more frequent than expected by chance under the null hypothesis that positive and negative coefficients were equally likely. Finally, we made an independent assessment of changes in populations of focal bird species using information from the one other comprehensive set of bird surveys in Massachusetts over the past several decades. This work involved a pair of breeding bird atlases (hereafter BBA) completed under the auspices of MassAudubon (formerly the Massachusetts Audubon Society) in 1974–1979 and 2007–2011 (MassAudubon 2016). The atlases were based on occurrence data in roughly 1000 blocks distributed throughout the state, each consisting of 1/6th of a United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic map, about 25 km2 (10 mi2). Based on block occupancy, population trends for different species in this study were reported in 1 of 5 categories: strongly decreasing, likely decreasing, stable, likely increasing, and strongly increasing. To assess the correspondence of these results with BBS results, these 5 categories were assigned numbers -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, respectively, and a nonparametric correlation (Spearman’s rho) was performed between these ranks and the change indexes calculated for the 28 FIA bird species. Forest extent and human population size Because trends in interior forest seemed likely to be associated with changes in human population, we sought to quantify the relationship between these 2 variables. We obtained decadal county population data for 1970 and 2000 from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER 2016). We then assigned each bird route to 1–3 counties as follows. If at least 90% of the route was confined to 1 county, then the population change of this county was recorded. If the bird route entered several counties, the average population change for those counties containing at least 10% of the route was assigned to the route. We then ran a correlation between change in interior forest between 1971 and 1999 and change in human population between 1970 and 2000 across all bird routes. Results Focal bird species A total of 28 bird species (designated FIA species) showed significant positive correlations with extent of interior forest within 400 m of the 19 BBS routes (Table 2). Habitat descriptions in Rodewald (2015) suggested that 13 of these are often found in habitats other than forest, such as thickets, gardens, and forest edges. Eliminating these left 15 (FIB) species that both exhibited a significant correlation with extent of forest interior habitat and were described as forest birds in Rodewald (2015). Forest changes Changes in the extent of forest and interior forest between 1971 and 1999 differed dramatically among the BBS routes (Fig. 1). Change in total forest varied from a decline of 0.4% to a decline of 24.8%. The greatest declines were in eastern Massachusetts and on Cape Cod. Declines in interior forest followed the same Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 3 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 275 geographical pattern as declines in total forest, but were larger, varying from 2.0% to 69.5% (Fig. 1) The extent of loss would be even higher (up to 80%) if the denominator in the percentages was the extent of 1971 forest rather than the average of data from 1971 and 1999. Changes in interior forest were negatively correlated with changes in human population density (R = -0.41, n = 25, P < 0.05). Figure 1. Percent change in interior forest and total forest within 400 m of 25 breeding bird survey routes in Massachusetts between 1971 and 1999. Northeastern Naturalist 276 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 Vol. 24, No. 3 Changes in bird abundance Between 1971 and 1999, population trends of different forest interior bird species varied widely (Table 1). Among all forest-interior species, the mean change was +8 (not significantly different from 0 by 1-tailed t-test: t = 0.93, P > 0.05, df = 27), but with wide variation from +100 for the Common Raven and +98 for the Wild Turkey to -78 for the White-throated Sparrow. As noted below, populations of Corvus corax (Common Raven), Meleagris gallopavo (Wild Turkey) and Haemorhous purpureus (Purple Finch) are likely to be changing for reasons unrelated to landuse change. Excluding these 3 species yielded a mean change index of +3, also not significantly different from 0 (1-tailed t-test: t = 0.39, P > 0.05, df = 24). Changes in bird abundance showed no significant relationship to migration status or nest position. Mean change index was +1 for Neotropical migrants and +19 for short-distance migrants and residents (t = 1.07, P > 0.05, df = 26), (+8 for the latter group if Common Raven, Wild Turkey, and Purple Finch are excluded). With these 3 species excluded, the mean change index was -11 for ground nesters and +11 for above-ground nesters (t = 1.37, P > 0.05, df = 23). Table 2. Correlations between 2003–2007 bird abundances and extent of interior and total forest within 400 m of the census routes. Species Interior forest 400 m Forest 400 m American Redstart 0.701 0.548 Black-and-white Warbler 0.524 0.522 Blackburnian Warbler 0.673 0.427 Black-throated Blue Warbler 0.801 0.632 Black-throated Green Warbler 0.616 0.543 Blue-headed Vireo 0.804 0.735 Common Raven 0.586 0.459 Dark-eyed Junco 0.619 0.553 Hairy Woodpecker 0.677 0.730 Hermit Thrush 0.652 0.552 Least Flycatcher 0.612 0.615 Magnolia Warbler 0.645 0.531 Nashville Warbler 0.682 0.584 Northern Waterthrush 0.566 0.458 Ovenbird 0.793 0.742 Pileated Woodpecker 0.667 0.551 Purple Finch 0.649 0.565 Red-eyed Vireo 0.645 0.573 Rose-breasted Grosbeak 0.753 0.661 Ruby-throated Hummingbird 0.730 0.638 Scarlet Tanager 0.758 0.737 Veery 0.897 0.767 White-throated Sparrow 0.625 0.526 Wild Turkey 0.510 0.492 Winter Wren 0.672 0.518 Wood Thrush 0.661 0.601 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 0.505 0.433 Yellow-rumped Warbler 0.705 0.658 Average 0.672 0.589 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 3 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 277 Figure 2. Association between changes in abundance of 28 forest birds along Massachusetts BBS routes and estimated changes from MassAudubon’s Bird Atlas project. Bird Atlas changes were given qualitatively in the source ( M a s s A u d u b o n 2016) and were assigned ranked numerical values as follows: -2 = strong decrease, -1 = likely decrease, 0 = stable, 1 = likely increase, 2 = strong increase. The Spearman’s rho correlation between the two variables is 0.865. Changes among agonist species were variable. The American Crow (+37) and Brown-headed Cowbird (+5) increased, whereas the Blue Jay (-21) and Common Grackle (-16) declined. Changes in abundance of FIA bird species obtained from BBS data were highly correlated with changes in block occupancy of the same species estimated from the bird atlases (Spearman’s rho: Rs = 0.865, P < 0.001; Fig. 2). Relationship between change in interior forest and change in bird abundance For 20 of the 28 FIA bird species, a positive correlation coefficient existed between change in abundance (1971–1999) and change in extent of interior forest (Table 1). A binomial test (P = 0.018) reveals that it is unlikely to get this many positive correlation coefficients by chance alone. For individual species, 6 correlation coefficients were significant, all positive. Among the 15 FIB bird species, 13 had positive correlations, of which 5 were significant. A binomial test indicates that the probability of having 13 of 15 coefficients positive by chance alone is 0.004. Patterns of change in bird abundance were marginally more strongly correlated with changes in extent of interior forest than with changes in total forest area. For the 15 FIB species, 11 showed higher (more positive) correlations with changes in interior forest than changes in total forest. The likelihood of 11 or more species showing such a pattern by chance is 0.059 (binomial test). Among the 28 FIA species, 19 showed greater correlations with change in interior forest than total forest. The likelihood of this or more extreme outcomes occurring by chance is 0.044. Among the 4 agonist species, none showed a population change that was significantly related to the change in extent of either forest or interior forest (Table 1). For both forest and interior forest, however, 3 of the 4 correlation coefficients were negative, hinting at the possibility of population increases as forest extent declined. Northeastern Naturalist 278 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 Vol. 24, No. 3 Discussion Classifying forest-interior species The suite of forest-interior bird species identified in this study shows considerable overlap with sets of forest-interior species defined in other studies. For example, 13 of the 15 FIB species in this study were included in at least 1 of the 3 studies by Askins et al. (1987), Dunford and Freemark (2004) and Freemark and Collins (1992). All were reported as forest-interior species, except that Picoides villosus (Hairy Woodpecker) and Vireo olivaceus (Red-eyed Vireo) were treated as an interior/edge species by Dunford and Freemark (2004) and the Wood Thrush was treated as an interior/edge species in all 3 studies. Most of the other 13 forest species that contributed to the FIA group were not classified as interior species in these other studies. A few that were treated as interior species in some studies were not included in our FIB list because they are sometimes associated with early successional habitats (Setophaga magnolia [Magnolia Warbler], Catharus fuscescens [Veery]) or with forest openings and edge (Setophaga ruticilla [American Redstart], Parkesia noveboracensis [Northern Waterthrush]) (R.I. Bertin, pers. observ.; Rodewald 2015). Complete consensus on habitat classifications of species is unlikely (and some real geographic variation undoubtedly exists), but our classification seems reasonable in light of published information. Changes in forest habitat Several trends have been evident in Massachusetts forests in the past half century. Forest area has declined markedly in some parts of the state, especially eastern Massachusetts and Cape Cod, while it has been stable or increasing elsewhere (MacConnell et al. 1991). The extent of interior forest has declined much more rapidly than the area of total forest. The 5 most affected routes in this study, all in eastern Massachusetts, each lost over 38% of interior forest between 1971 and 1999 (the percent loss is actually higher if expressed relative to 1971 rather than relative to the average of the 2 years). It is important to note that changes along BBS routes may differ from those in the broader landscape, because BBS routes typically follow secondary roads. However, 2 lines of evidence suggest that this bias is not substantial. First, studies comparing vegetation changes along BBS routes elsewhere in the eastern United States to those in the broader landscape typically find little difference (Bart et al. 1995, Keller and Scallan 1999). Second, our results are consistent with those of other studies not tied to BBS routes (de la Crétaz et al. 2010). Although not quantified in this study, changes in forest successional status have also occurred during the past several decades. Many agricultural fields were abandoned in the late 1800s and early 1900s, replaced by early successional forest in the next few decades. MacConnell and Niedzwiedz (1974) report that maturity of central Massachusetts forests increased during the period 1951–1971. Similarly, de la Crétaz et al. (2010) documented an increase in the area of Massachusetts forests dominated by large-diameter trees between 1985 and 1998. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 3 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 279 Validity of bird abundance data Most census data, including BBS data, are subject to various biases, and these have been discussed extensively elsewhere (Harris and Haskell 2007, O’Connor et al. 2000, Ralph and Scott 1981, Sauer et al. 1994). Possible issues include inadequacy of roadside surveys for evaluating forest-interior species, influences of habitat changes on detectability, interspecific differences in detectability, and observer biases. Of most concern for this study are biases that would change over time, either producing spurious changes or obscuring real changes in bird abundance. Thus, interspecific differences in detectability are unlikely to affect our major conclusions, which involve temporal trends in individual species. As noted above, BBS surveys are unlikely to be entirely representative of changes across the landscape, because census routes lie primarily along secondary roads. These areas probably have suffered more habitat alteration than more remote areas, but less than areas along major thoroughfares or in more-developed areas. However, other studies in the Northeast suggest that changes along BBS routes were generally similar to those taking place in the broader landscape (Bart et al. 1995, Keller and Scallan 1999). Furthermore, Harris and Haskell (2007) concluded that late successional birds (e.g., those used in this study) were not subject to the same sorts of negative biases that affected roadside censuses of early successional species. Sauer et al. (1994) described a slight positive bias in BBS census data due to the improving quality of observers. This factor would slightly inflate population trends reported in this study. However, this bias is only likely to be relevant when interpreting subtle trends in bird populations (Sauer et al. 1994). Here we focus on conspicuous trends, and our main interest is whether these shifts are related to changes in interior forest. Unless observer biases were large and correlated with habitat changes along routes, which seems improbable, this bias seems unlikely to have had a major influence on our results. Bird census data are always subject to uncontrolled variables, such as weather and differences in observer quality. However, the high correlation between the BBS abundance data used in this study and independent BBA occupancy data (Rs = 0.865) suggests that BBS data are consistent with broader trends. This correlation is particularly impressive given the difference in methodology (census blocks vs. point counts), and the area and time period covered. Thus, we consider the BBS bird abundance data to be a valid indicator of population changes along bird routes in Massachusetts that can be extrapolated with caution to broader geographical areas. Forest fragmentation and bird decline Our major result is that changes in abundance of forest-interior bird species as a group are associated with changes in the extent of interior forest but that this effect is relatively weak, indicating that other factors are likely to have had larger effects on populations of most species over the period examined. This general association between bird abundance and extent of interior forest is shown by the fact that changes in abundance of 13 of the 15 FIB species exhibited positive correlation coefficients with change in abundance of interior forest, including 5 that were significant. Northeastern Naturalist 280 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 Vol. 24, No. 3 The decline of forest bird species in reduced, fragmented, and/or isolated forest plots has been demonstrated in many parts of eastern North America and is predicted to continue (Askins et al. 1990, Betts et al. 2007, Brown et al. 2014, Whitcomb et al. 1981). Reductions are often attributed to increased predation of eggs and nestlings and/or greater nest parasitism by the Brown-headed Cowbird (Brittingham and Temple 1983, Chalfoun et al. 2002). Nest parasitism seems unlikely to be an important factor in the trends noted on Massachusetts BBS routes because Brown-headed Cowbird populations were not correlated with the extent of either forest or interior forest (Table 1). Kluza et al. (2000) similarly concluded that cowbirds were unlikely to have caused declines of forest understory bird populations in residential areas elsewhere in Massachusetts. Avian nest predators also seem unlikely to be associated with bird population declines as population trends in 2 of the 3 predator species were negative despite declines in forest extent. Mammalian predators, including both native species and cats, could have been important as populations of these species typically increase where intact forest is fragmented by residential development (Phillips et al. 2005, Wilcove 1985).. While the effects of breeding habitat on populations of forest interior birds in Massachusetts were relatively minor during the study period, this does not mean that efforts to maintain and restore interior forest habitat are unimportant. Gradual declines and fragmentation in forest habitat lead to substantial changes over long time periods, with detrimental effects for forest-interior birds. This relationship is well illustrated by the changes in forest-interior bird species along the East Dennis route, which experienced an interior-forest decline exceeding 69% during the study period. Several forest bird species disappeared completely, including the American Redstart, Catharus guttatus (Hermit Thrush), Veery, and Wood Thrush, and others declined by more than 60%, including the Mniotilta varia (Black-and-white Warbler), Seiurus aurocapilla (Ovenbird), Purple Finch, and Red-eyed Vireo. These changes echo those reported during a 37-year period from a forested area altered by residential development in Virginia (Aldrich and Coffin 1980). Similar changes would be likely along other Massachusetts routes if they suffered comparable losses of interior forest. A second reason that our results do not justify a relaxation of conservation efforts on the breeding grounds is that nesting success is undoubtedly influenced by habitat quality. Several studies have suggested that pairing success and nest productivity decline near forest edges or in fragmented forest (Donovan et al. 1995, Driscoll and Donovan 2004, Villard et al. 1993). Thus, even if the extent of interior forest were unrelated to the numbers of individuals of forest-interior bird species detected on the breeding grounds, the numbers of fledged offspring likely would be lower in areas with less interior forest, reducing their value as forestbird breeding habitat. The primary driver of the decrease in interior forest over the period examined has been conversion of forest for residential use and associated infrastructure (MacConnell et al. 1991). Detrimental effects of the spread of housing into previously forested areas have been predicted or demonstrated in several studies (Brown Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 3 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 281 et al. 2014, Friesen et al. 1995, Kluza et al. 2000, Phillips et al. 2005, Suarez-Rubio and Lookingbill 2016, Wood et al. 2014), and are usually attributed to increases in nest predation and nest parasitism. Human population size is a reasonable proxy for the residential footprint, and the association between extent of interior forest and human population density is shown by the significant negative correlation between these 2 variables. The areas of the state most affected in the interval under study were in eastern Massachusetts, including Cape Cod and nearby islands. Between 1970 and 2000, human population increased by 57% in these areas, compared to 18% in central Massachusetts and just 8% in the western counties (NEBR 2016). Because eastern Massachusetts is already heavily developed, subsequent population increases will likely push westward, leading to declines of interior forests and the species they support in central and perhaps western forests in the decades ahead. Initial evidence of this population trend is shown by the 6.3% human population increase between 2000 and 2010 in central Massachusetts, greater than the 3.7% increase in eastern counties (NEBR 2016). Patterns of development often exacerbate forest fragmentation. The common zoning practice of establishing moderately large (0.5–3 acre; 0.25–1.5 ha) minimum lot sizes in semi-rural areas impacts more total land and more interior forest than clustered development of the same number of housing units (Steel 1999). Thoughtful zoning standards and land-use management practices could help retain forest interior birds in the Massachusetts landscape. Other factors affecting bird populations As noted above, factors other than the decline in interior forest were responsible for most bird population changes between 1971 and 1999 (Table 1). Wide variation in population trends was documented among the 15 FIB species, and 5 species showed substantial population increases (change index of +25 or higher) between 1971 and 1999, despite the decline of interior forest along every BBS route during this period. Such interspecific differences in population trends are common (Germaine and Vessey 1997, Mancke and Gavin 2000, Sauer et al. 2014). Evidence of the importance of factors other than habitat decline comes from studies showing substantial changes in forest bird populations in areas of relatively unfragmented forest, perhaps related to successional changes, food availability, or habitat changes on migration routes or wintering grounds (Ambuel and Temple 1982, Blodgett et al. 2009, Holmes and Sherry 2001). Numerous authors have suggested that Neotropical migrants are at particular risk for population declines (Sauer et al. 1996, Whitcomb et al. 1981). However, among Neotropical migrants in our more stringently defined FIB group, we see both apparent increases (+56 for Vireo solitarius [Blue-headed Vireo], +26 for Setophaga virens [Black-throated Green Warbler]) and declines (-42 for Wood Thrush, -22 for Piranga olivacea [Scarlet Tanager]). Notably, those species showing the greatest declines, including the 2 species mentioned above, do not have changes that are significantly correlated with changes in interior forest. This observation suggests that the population declines are regionwide phenomena unrelated to the local extent of interior-forest breeding habitat. Supporting this interpretation are the findings of Sauer and Droge (1992) that the Northeastern Naturalist 282 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 Vol. 24, No. 3 Blue-headed Vireo and Magnolia Warbler showed significant population increases for all BBS census routes between 1966 and 1988. In their work, the Wood Thrush showed a significant decrease over this period, whereas the Scarlet Tanager showed a significant increase for 1966–1988 but a significant decline for 1978–1988. The lack of consistent declines among Neotropical migrants in our study parallels the findings of Blodgett et al. (2009) at a site in western Massachusetts, an analysis of 11 BBS census routes in coastal Maine and New Hampshire by Witham and Hunter (1992), and a general analysis of BBS results by Sauer et al. (1996). They are also consistent with data collected during migratory periods at a bird-banding station in coastal Massachusetts, which found greater declines among migratory species wintering in the southeastern US than among those wintering in the Tropics (Hagan et al. 1992). However, other studies have shown greater declines among Neotropical migrants (Ambuel and Temple 1982, Hall 1984, Lynch and Whigham 1984, Robbins et al. 1989, Terborgh 1992, Whitcomb et al. 1981). Resolution of this issue is likely to require detailed understanding of the factors acting on particular species. Among trends in individual species in our study, several have been noted in other studies and, in some cases, have evident explanations. Wild Turkeys showed one of the largest increases (+98; Table 1). This species was extirpated from Massachusetts during the 1800s, followed by successful reintroduction in the 1970s and subsequent population increases (EEA 2016). Hence, the large negative correlation (r = ‑0.61) between Wild Turkey abundance and extent of interior forest very likely results largely from the chance juxtaposition of 2 events: reintroduction and forest decline. Common Ravens showed the largest percent increase of any species in our data. These birds were extirpated from the state in the 1800s, and the first Massachusetts Breeding Bird Atlas reported no confirmed breeding records during the 1974–1979 census (MassAudubon 2016). Ravens subsequently spread into the state from the north and west and are now confirmed breeders in all but the southeastern portion of the state. Declines in the Purple Finch may be linked to spread of Haemorhous mexicanus (House Finch), introduced from the western United States (Wootton 1987). Changes in the forest successional stage are likely to have influenced populations of several species. Conspicuous increases in Hylatomus pileatus (Pileated Woodpecker) numbers were seen in our study and along BBS routes more generally, as well as in BBA occupancy data (Table 3). Changes along Massachusetts routes are not due to increasing forest area because our data show that forest extent along BBS routes decreased during this period. Instead, this increase is likely to reflect increasing maturity of Massachusetts forests (de la Crétaz et al. 2010), with larger trunk diameters important for both the food supply and appropriate nesting sites for this species (Lemaître and Villard 2005, Savignac et al. 2000). Increasing tree sizes may also explain increases in Sphyrapicus varius (Yellowbellied Sapsucker) in Massachusetts and elsewhere (Table 3), by providing more “suitable trees for feeding, drumming and nesting” (Blodgett et al. 2009). Increasing forest maturity was suggested to underlie increases in populations of the Black-throated Green Warbler and Setophaga coronata (Yellow-rumped Warbler) in New Hampshire and western Massachusetts (Blodgett et al. 2009, Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 3 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 283 Holmes and Sherry 2001) and may underlie similar trends in Massachusetts. The conspicuous increase in Archilochus colubris (Ruby-throated Hummingbird) along Massachusetts routes was mirrored in BBS and BBA data (Table 3). This change was attributed by MassAudubon (2016) to the “proliferation of natural beaver clearings and cultivated suburban gardens,” to which we might add the popularity of hummingbird feeders. Changes in vegetation diversity or composition, including successional changes, could have influenced some bird species (Buchanan et al. 2016, Holmes and Sherry Table 3. Population trends from 4 studies. Bird atlas results are from 2 projects in Massachusetts, one in 1974–1979 and the other in 2007–2011 (MassAudubon 2016). BBS refers to Breeding Bird Survey results as summarized in MassAudubon (2016). Blodgett et al. (2009) monitored an intact forest area in western Massachusetts; numbers reported are slopes of population regression lines, with asterisks denoting those significantly different from zero. Common name Bird atlas BBS Blodgett et al. This study Forest Interior B Species Black-and-white Warbler Likely decrease Likely decrease -0.04 -18 Blackburnian Warbler Likely increase 0 0.02 -13 Black-throated Blue Warbler Likely increase 0 0.02 -6 Black-throated Green Warbler Likely increase 0 0.06* +28 Blue-headed Vireo Likely increase Likely increase -0.02 +56 Dark-eyed Junco 0 0 -0.16* -36 Hairy Woodpecker Likely increase 0 0.00 +3 Hermit Thrush Likely increase 0 -0.04* +9 Ovenbird Likely increase 0 -0.01 +5 Pileated Woodpecker Strong increase Strong increase - +45 Red-eyed Vireo 0 0 0.02* -17 Scarlet Tanager Stable Likely Decrease -0.02 -22 Winter Wren Strong increase 0 -0.02 +41 Wood Thrush Likely decrease Likely decrease 0.01 -42 Yellow-rumped Warbler Likely increase 0 0.01 +59 Other Forest Species American Redstart Likely increase 0 -0.03* +7 Common Raven Strong increase 0 - +100 Least Flycatcher 0 Likely Decrease -0.08* -55 Magnolia Warbler Likely increase 0 0.13* +33 Nashville Warbler Strong decline Strong decline - -32 Northern Waterthrush Strong increase 0 -0.05* +15 Purple Finch Strong decline Likely decrease - -50 Rose-breasted Grosbeak Likely increase Likely decrease 0.00 -10 Ruby-throated Hummingbird Strong increase Likely increase - +86 Veery Likely increase 0 0.00 -2 White-throated Sparrow Strong decline Strong decline - -78 Wild Turkey Strong increase 0 - +98 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Strong increase Likely increase 0.04* +15 Agonist Species American Crow Stable Likely Increase 0.04 +33 Blue Jay Stable Likely Decrease -0.02 -21 Brown-headed Cowbird Likely increase 0 0.00 +5 Common Grackle Stable Likely Decrease - -17 Northeastern Naturalist 284 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 Vol. 24, No. 3 2001). Zonotrichia albicollis (White-throated Sparrow) numbers declined more than those of any other species (-78), a pattern mirrored in coastal Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts (Hagan et al. 1992, Witham and Hunter 1992) and in BBA data. MassAudubon (2016) concluded that habitat loss was “mostly to blame”. More specifically, the maturing of forests in areas that were previously in thicket and shrubland may be a factor, since the breeding habitat for this species includes forests “with numerous openings”, “second growth”, and “brushy field edges and overgrown pastures” (Rodewald 2015). Other likely influences on abundance of forest birds include habitat changes on migration routes or wintering grounds (Dugger et al. 2004, Keller and Yahner 2006, Norris et al. 2004, Rappole and McDonald 1994, Sauer et al. 1996, Sillett et al. 2000, Taylor and Stutchbury 2016). Such effects would not be surprising given the extensive destruction of Neotropical forests in some areas and the dramatic effects on local populations of Neotropical migrants (Askins et al. 1992, Bradshaw et al. 2009, Rappole and Morton 1985). Conclusion The extent of forest and especially interior forest declined along BBS routes in Massachusetts between 1971 and 1999. Populations trends in forest interior birds varied widely among species during these decades. Overall, bird population trends were significantly associated with forest trends, but the effect was weak. Other factors, including species recovery from reduced populations, changes in forest maturity, and events during migration and on wintering grounds, likely had much greater effects during this period. Acknowledgments We thank Richard Lent for help in extracting data files from the Breeding Bird Survey and the George I. Alden Trust for providing summer support to T.J. Gardner through an Excellence in Career Related Undergraduate Education Award. Thanks to Peter Paton and 2 anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Literature Cited Aldrich, J.W., and R.W. Coffin. 1980. Breeding bird populations from forest to suburbia after thirty-seven years. American Birds 34:3–7. Ambuel, B., and S.A. Temple. 1982. Songbird populations in southern Wisconsin forests: 1954 and 1979. Journal of Field Ornithology. 53:149–158. Askins, R.A., M.J. Philbrick, and D.S. Sugeno. 1987. Relationship between the regional abundance of forest and composition of forest bird communities. Biological Conservation 39:129–152. Askins, R.A., J.F. Lynch, and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines in migratory birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithology 7:1–57. Askins, R.A., D.N. Ewert, and R.L. Norton. 1992. Abundance of wintering migrants in fragmented and continuous forests in the US Virgin Islands. Pp. 197–206, In J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston (Eds.) Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 609 pp. Bart, J., M. Hofschen, and B. G. Peterjohn. 1995. Reliability of the breeding bird survey: Effects of restricting surveys to roads. Auk 112:758–761. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 3 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 285 Bayne, W.L., and K.A. Hobson. 1997. Comparing the effects of landscape fragmentation by forestry and agriculture on predation of artificial nests. Conservation Biology 11:1418–1429. Betts, M.G., G.J. Forbes, and A.W. Diamond. 2007. Thresholds in songbird occurrence in relation to landscape structure. Conservation Biology 21:1046–1058. Blodgett, B.G., R. Dettmers, and J. Scanlon. 2009. Status and trends of birds in an extensive western Massachusetts forest. Northeastern Naturalist 16:423–44 2. Bradshaw, C.J.A., N.S. Sodhi, and B. Brook. 2009. Tropical turmoil, a biodiversity tragedy in progress. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 7:79–87. Brittingham, M.C., and S.A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? BioScience 33:31–35. Brown, M.L., T.M. Donovan, W.S. Schwenk, and D.M. Theobald. 2014. Predicting impacts of future population growth and development on occupancy rates of forest-dependent birds. Biological Conservation 170:311–320. Buchanan, M.L., R.A. Askins, and C.C. Jones. 2016. Response of bird populations to longterm changes in local vegetation and regional forest cover. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:704–718. Chalfoun, A.D., F.R. Thompson III, and M.J. Ratnaswamy. 2002. Nest predators and fragmentation: A review and meta-analysis. Conservation Biology 16:1–16. Chen, J., J.F. Franklin, and T.A. Spies. 1993. Contrasting microclimates along clearcut, edge, and interior old growth Douglas-fir forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 63:219–237. de la Crétaz, A.L., L.S. Fletcher, P.E. Gregory, W.R. VanDoren, and P.K. Barten. 2010. An assessment of the forest resources of Massachusetts. Prepared for the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 175 pp. Available online at http://www.mass. gov/eea/docs/dcr/stewardship/forestry/assessment-of-forest-resources.pdf. Donovan, T.M., and C.H. Flather. 2002. Relationships among North American songbird trends, habitat fragmentation, and landscape occupancy. Ecological Applications 12:364–374. Donovan, T.M., F.R. Thompson III, J. Faaborg, and J.R. Probst. 1995. Reproductive success of migratory birds in habitat sources and sinks. Conservation Biology 9:1380–1395. Donovan, T.M., P.W. Jones, E.M. Annand, and F.R. Thompson III. 1997. Variation in localscale edge effects: Mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 78:2064–2075. Driscoll, M.J.L., and T.M. Donovan. 2004. Landscape context moderates edge effects: Nesting success of Wood Thrushes in central New York. Conservation Biology 18:1330–1338. Dugger, K.M., J. Faaborg, W.J. Arendt, and K.A. Hobson. 2004. Understanding survival and abundance of overwintering warblers: Does rainfall matter? Condor 106:744–760. Dunford, W., and K. Freemark. 2004. Matrix matters: Effects of surrounding land uses on forest birds near Ottawa, Canada. Landscape Ecology 20:497–51 1. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). 2016. Wild Turkey FAQ. Available online at http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/fish-wildlife-plants/ wild-turkey-faq.html. Accessed 13 October 2016. Freemark, K.E., and B. Collins. 1992. Landscape ecology of birds breeding in temperate forest fragments. Pp. 443–454, In J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston (Eds.) Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 609 pp. Friesen, L.E., P.F.J. Eagles, and R.J. Mackay. 1995. Effects of residential development on forest-dwelling Neotropical migrant songbirds. Conservation Bio logy 9:1408–1414. Northeastern Naturalist 286 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 Vol. 24, No. 3 Gering, J.C., and R.B. Blair. 1999. Predation risk on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: Predatory risk or relaxation in urban environments? Ecography 22:532–541. Germaine, S.S., and S.H. Vessey. 1997. Effects of small forest openings on the breeding bird community in a Vermont hardwood forest. Condor 99:708–718. Hagan, J.M., and A.L. Meehan. 2002. The effectiveness of stand-level and landscapelevel variables for explaining bird occurrence in an industrial forest. Forest Science 48:231–242. Hagan, J.M., III, T.L. Lloyd-Evans, and J.L. Atwood. 1992. Long-term changes in migrating landbirds in the northeastern United States: Evidence from migration capture data. Pp. 115–130, In J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston (Eds.) Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 609 pp. Hall, G.A. 1984. Population decline of neotropical migrants in an Appalachian forest. American Birds 38:14–18. Harris, J.B.C., and D.G. Haskell. 2007. Land cover sampling biases associated with roadside bird surveys. Avian Conservation and Ecology 2(2):12. Holmes, R.T., and T.W. Sherry. 2001. Thirty-year bird population trends in an unfragmented temperate deciduous forest: Importance of habitat change. Auk 118:589–609. Keller, C.M.E., and J.T. Scallan. 1999. Potential roadside biases due to habitat changes along breeding bird survey routes. Condor 101:50–57. Keller, G.S., and R.H. Yahner. 2006. Declines of migratory songbirds: Evidence for wintering ground causes. Northeastern Naturalist 13:83–92. Kluza, D.A., C.R. Griffin, and R.M. DeGraaf. 2000. Housing developments in rural New England: Effects on forest birds. Animal Conservation 3:15–26. Lee, M., L. Fahrig, K. Freemark, and D.J. Currie. 2002. Importance of patch scale vs landscape scale on selected forest birds. Oikos 96:110–118. Lemaître, J., and M.-A. Villard. 2005. Foraging patterns of Pileated Woodpeckers in a managed Acadian forest: A resource-selection function. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:2387–2393. Lindenmayer, D.B., R.B.Cunningham, C.F. Donnelly, H. Nix, and B.D. Lindenmayer. 2002. Effects of forest fragmentation on bird assemblages in a novel landscape context. Ecological Monographs 72:1–18. Lynch, J.F., and D.F. Whigham. 1984. Effect of forest fragmentation on breeding bird communities in Maryland, USA. Biological Conservation 28:287–324. MacConnell, W.P., and W. Niedzwiedz. 1974. Remote sensing: 20 years of change in Worcester County, Massachusetts, 1951–1971. Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 625. Amherst, MA. 110 pp. MacConnell, W.P., D.W. Goodwin, and K.M.L. Jones. 1991. Land-use update for Massachusetts with area statistics for 1971 and 1984/85. Massachusetts Agriculture Experiment Station Research Bulletin 740. Amherst, MA. 97 pp. Mancke, R.G., and T.A. Gavin. 2000. Breeding bird density in woodlots: Effects of depth and buildings at edges. Ecological Applications 10:598–611. MassAudubon. 2016. Breeding Bird Atlas 2. Available online at http://www.massaudubon. org/our-conservation-work/wildlife-research-conservation/statewide-bird-monitoring/ breeding-bird-atlases/bba2. Accessed 15 September 2016. MassGIS. 2016. MassGIS datalayers. Available online at http://www.mass.gov/anf/research- and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographic-informationmassgis/ datalayers/layerlist.html. Accessed 1 February 2016. Matlack, G., and J. Litvaitis. 1999. Forest edges. Pp. 210–233, In M.L. Hunter Jr. (Ed.) Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 698 pp. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 3 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 287 National Bureau of Economic Research (NEBR). 2016. Census: US intercensal county population data, 1970–2014. Available online at http://www.nber.org/data/census-intercensal- county-population.html. Accessed 13 October 2016. Norris, D.R., P.P. Marra, T.K. Kyser, T.W. Sherry, and L.M. Ratcliffe. 2004. Tropical winter habitat limits reproductive success on the temperate breeding grounds in a migratory bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences 271:59–64. O’Connor, R.J., E. Dunn, D.H. Johnson, S.L. Jones, D. Petit, K. Pollock, C.R. Smith, J.L. Trapp, and E. Welling. 2000. A programmatic review of the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Report of a peer review panel. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA. Available online at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/bbsreview/bbsfinal. pdf. Accessed 1 April 2017. O’Keefe, J., and D.R. Foster. 1998. An ecological history of Massachusetts forests. Arnoldia 58(2):2–31. Parker, T.H., B.M. Stansberry, C.D. Becker, and P.S. Gipson. 2005. Edge and area effects on the occurrence of migrant forest songbirds. Conservation Biology 19:1157–1167. Paton, P.W.C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: How strong is the evidence? Conservation Biology 8:17–26. Phillips, J., E. Nol, D. Burke, and W. Dunford. 2005. Impacts of housing developments on Wood Thrush nesting success in hardwood forest fragments. Condor 107:97–106. Ralph, C.J., and J.M. Scott. 1981. Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology No. 6. 630 pp. Rappole, J.H., and M.V. McDonald. 1994. Cause and effect in population declines of migratory birds. Auk 111:652–660. Rappole, J.H., and E.S. Morton. 1985. Effects of habitat alteration on a tropical forest community. Ornithological Monographs 6:1013–1021. Richmond, S., E. Nol, and D. Burke. 2012. Local- versus landscape-scale effects on the demography of three forest-breeding songbirds in Ontario, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 90:815–828. Robbins, C.S., J.R. Sauer, R.S. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989. Population declines in North American birds that migrate to the neotropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 86:7658–7662. Robinson, S.K. and D.S. Wilcove. 1994. Forest fragmentation in the temperate zone and its effects on migratory songbirds. Bird Conservation International 4:233–249. Rodewald, P. (Ed.). 2015. The Birds of North America. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available online at https://birdsna.org. Accessed 1 April 2017. Sauer, J.R., and S. Droge. 1992. Geographic patterns in population trends of Neotropical migrants in North America. Pp. 26–42, In J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston (Eds.) Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 609 pp. Sauer, J.R., and W.A. Link. 2011. Analysis of the North American Breeding Bird Survey using hierarchical models. Auk 128:87–98. Sauer, J.R., B.G. Peterjohn, and W.A. Link. 1994. Observer differences in the North American breeding bird survey. Auk 111:50–62. Sauer, J.R., G.W. Pendleton, and B.G. Peterjohn. 1996. Evaluating causes of population change in North American insectivorous songbirds. Conservation Biology 10:465–4 78. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski Jr., and W.A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966–2013. Version 01.30.2015 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD Available online at http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/. Accessed 15 September 2016. Northeastern Naturalist 288 T.J. Gardner, C.R. Eagan, and R.I. Bertin 2017 Vol. 24, No. 3 Savignac, C., A. Desrockers, and J. Huot. 2000. Habitat use by Pileated Woodpeckers at two spatial scales in eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:219–225. Sillett, T.S., R.T. Holmes, and T.W. Sherry. 2000. Impacts of a global climate cycle on population dynamics of a migratory songbird. Science 288:2040–2042. Steel, J. 1999. Losing ground: An analysis of recent rates and patterns of development and their effects on open space in Massachusetts, second edition. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA. 17 pp. Suarez-Rubio, M., and T.R. Lookingbill. 2016. Forest birds respond to the spatial pattern of exurban development in the Mid-Atlantic region, USA. PeerJ 4:e2039. DOI:10.7717/ peerj.2039. Taylor, C.M. and B.J.M. Stutchbury. 2016. Effects of breeding versus winter habitat loss and fragmentation on the population dynamics of a migratory songbird. Ecological Applications 26:424–437. Terborgh, J. 1992. Why American songbirds are vanishing. Scientific American 266(5):98–104. Thompson, F.R., III, T.M. Donovan, R.M. DeGraaf, J. Faaborg, and S.K. Robinson. A multi-scale perspective of the effects of forest fragmentation on birds in eastern forests. Studies in Avian Biology 25:8–19 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. North American Breeding Bird Survey. Available online at https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/. Accessed 1 February, 2016. Villard, M.-A. 1998. On forest-interior species, edge avoidance, area sensitivity, and dogmas in avian conservation. Auk 115:801–805. Villard, M.-A., P.R. Martin, and C.G. Drummond. 1993. Habitat fragmentation and pairing success in the Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus). Auk 110:759–768. Whitcomb, R.E., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. Whitcomb, M.K. Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. Pp. 125–205, In R.L. Burgess, and D.M. Sharpe (Eds.). Forest Island Dynamics in Man-dominated Landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 310 pp. Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66:1211–1214. Wilcove, D.S., C.H. McLellan, and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pp 237–259, In M.E. Soulé (Ed.). Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 584 pp. Williams-Linera, G. 1990. Vegetation structure and environmental conditions of forest edges in Panama. Journal of Ecology 78:356–373. Witham, J.W., and M.L. Hunter Jr. 1992. Population trends of Neotropical migrant landbirds in northern coastal New England. Pp. 85–95, In J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston (Eds.) Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 609 pp. Wood, E.M., A.M. Pidgeon, and V.C. Radeloff. 2014. Housing development erodes avian community structure in US protected areas. Ecological Applications 24:1445–1462. Wootton, J.T. 1987. Interspecific competition between introduced House Finch populations and two associated passerine species. Oecologia 71:325–331.