EVALUATION OF AN ARTHROPOD SAMPLING TECHNIQUE FOR MEASURING FOOD AVAILABILITY FOR FOREST INSECTIVOROUS BIRDS

100 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Legacy of top-down herbivore pressure ricochets back up multiple trophic levels in forest canopies over 30 years (2011, methodology): “Branches of 5 individual trees of each of the eight most common species in the low canopy (4–10 m above ground) at each of the four sites were clipped using a net and clippers each mounted on extendable poles up to ca. 10 m high (Johnson 2000, Leather 2005).”
Active or Passive Forest Restoration? Assessing Restoration Alternatives with Avian Foraging Behavior (2011, methodology): “The weighted sample totals were used in the calculation of arthropod biomass for active sites (Johnson 2000).”
EDGE- AND AREA-SENSITIVITY OF SHRUBLAND BIRDS (2005, methodology): “Other studies have indicated that biomass is strongly related to the energetic value of an arthropod food item (Krebs and McCleery 1984, Karasov 1990, Johnson 2000).”
Effects of food availability on the distribution of migratory warblers among habitats in Jamaica (2001, background): “Branch clipping tends to under sample keen sighted aerial insects such as Odonata and large Diptera (Johnson 2000a), which could result in underestimating food availability in habitats with proportionately high abundances of flies, such as those with standing water (e.g. mangroves).”
The Value of Animal Behavior in Evaluations of Restoration Success (2008, background): “Behavioral patterns often reflect habitat quality (e.g., Vaughan et al. 1996; Johnson 2000; Persson & Stenberg 2006).”