<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JEP</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Environmental Protection</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2152-2197</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jep.2022.1311051</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JEP-121138</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Understanding Changes in Wood Thrush and Ovenbird Populations in Virginia—The Role of Forest Fragmentation and Connectivity
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Iris</surname><given-names>Ekua Mensimah Fynn</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sub>1</sub></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><addr-line>Department of Geography, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>10</day><month>11</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>11</issue><fpage>797</fpage><lpage>818</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>17,</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>8,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>11,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  <b>Aim:</b> Yearly summaries of the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) indicate that populations of many North American bird species are in decline. Determining the causes of these declines is the focus of much current research in avian conservation. Forest fragmentation has been linked to declines in populations of many species. In this study, the effects of forest fragmentation and connectivity as well as slope and physiographic features on two migratory bird species are explored. 
  <b>Location:</b> This study area is Virginia, USA. 
  <b>Taxon:</b> The species focused on are Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) and the Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla). 
  <b>Methods:</b> We used the Markov Chain Monte Carlo Generalized Linear Mixed Models (MCMCglmm) package with a Poisson distribution and a Bayesian data analysis model with a 95% probability interval. Using the Repeated Measures ANOVA, the independent and treatment variables included time at 3 different levels in 2001, 2006 and 2011; three different forest types—Core, Connected and Fragmented; 8 slope categories and 5 physiographic regions. 
  <b>Results:</b> Results indicate that forest fragmentation has a significant impact on population sizes of Wood Thrush and Ovenbirds in Virginia and that recent changes in Virginia’s landscape have had negative impacts on the populations of these bird species. Specifically, slope characteristics that influence rates of urbanization are correlated with changes in bird populations. The Coastal Plain region in Virginia contributes significantly to the populations of both the Wood Thrush and Ovenbird currently. 
  <b>Main Conclusions:</b> Core forests areas in Virginia are in decline and this process affects the populations and distributions of Ovenbird and Wood thrush in the state.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Fragmentation</kwd><kwd> Connectivity</kwd><kwd> Forests</kwd><kwd> Wood Thrush</kwd><kwd> Ovenbird</kwd><kwd> Bird</kwd><kwd> Population</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Concerning biological diversity and conservation, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref1">1</xref>] highlights two non-overlapping scientific paradigms: small population paradigm and declining population paradigm. Of these two, this study focuses on the latter which seeks to identify the processes by which populations are driven to extinction by agents external to them. The declining population paradigm is rooted in empiricism and therefore focuses on detecting, diagnosing and halting population decline [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref1">1</xref>]. The tenet of this study is that there is a tangible cause for the decline in populations of biological species and that probing reveals this cause. Forest fragmentation is identified as a probable agent of species decline [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref2">2</xref>] and therefore forms a key part of this study.</p><p>Forest fragmentation not only affects population densities of forest bird species, but also affects their reproduction and dispersal [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref3">3</xref>]. Forest fragmentation can impact bird species negatively by reducing food resources available to birds as a result of a reduction in core forest patch sizes. Reduction in food resources for birds also has a consequent negative impact on their fecundity, causing a decline in their numbers within a particular area [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref5">5</xref>]. Forest breeding birds such as Wood Thrush and Ovenbird species, with particular preference for core forest areas, are most negatively affected by forest fragmentation.</p><p>The Wood Thrush (Hylocichlamustelina) breeds in North America, migrating to Central America during the winter [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref6">6</xref>]. Recently, Wood Thrushes have become a species of conservation concern because of their narrow tolerance of certain microclimatic conditions and their preference for the interior of moist deciduous forests, a forest condition that is fast declining due to timber harvesting activities. Wood Thrushes are highly sensitive to forest fragmentation due to increased nest predation and brood parasitism by the Brown-headed Cowbird [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref7">7</xref>] in forest fragments.</p><p>The Ovenbird (Seiurusaurocapilla) is also a fragmentation-sensitive Neotropical migrant [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref8">8</xref>] with a preference for mature deciduous or mixed forests with closed canopies and sparse understory. Pairing success of male Ovenbirds is lower in forest edges and small forest patches, compared to areas with large core forest patches [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref9">9</xref>]. Numbers of Ovenbirds are also dependent on the surrounding vegetation patterns as small forest patches with surrounding agricultural lands have fewer Ovenbirds compared with large contiguous forest patches [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref10">10</xref>]. Mechanisms of forest fragmentation effects on Ovenbirds are not completely understood as nest predation rates of Ovenbirds in large contiguous forests and in fragmented forests have been shown to be similar in certain studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref12">12</xref>].</p><p>There are specific threshold sizes for the patches formed by habitat fragmentation, beyond which particular species within the habitats cannot survive [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref13">13</xref>]. The relationship between habitat fragmentation and population density of the Wood Thrush and Ovenbird within Virginia can be used to identify impacts of forest fragmentation on the species in the state. These two migratory bird species were specifically chosen for this study because while they are both known to possess the ability to cross forest gaps [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref14">14</xref>], there have also been contrasting reports on how forest fragmentation driven by inter-patch distances, negatively affects their abundance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref16">16</xref>]. This presents a confusing theory on how both birds are influenced by forest fragmentation, driving a curiosity about the impact of forest patch sizes and patch connectivity on their population.</p><p>Given that human development is continuing, effective planning and management are needed to conserve biodiversity by determining minimum-area breeding requirements for Neotropical migrants such as Wood thrush and Ovenbird, and to identify landscape and vegetation features that support viable breeding populations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref18">18</xref>]. There is an opportunity to compare populations of these bird species with changing forested land areas over the years to identify correlation and subsequent impacts on the species. This research therefore aims to determine the impact that changes in forested land areas in Virginia, have had on Wood Thrush and Ovenbird populations.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Area</title><p>Out of the more than 900 bird species that can be found in North America, Virginia provides natural habitat for about 400. Virginia serves as either a permanent or transitory home to approximately 45% of the bird species in America, out of which Virginia’s Wildlife Action Plan has identified about 96 species to have declining populations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref19">19</xref>]. Virginia’s land cover is approximately 60% forestland, including both pine and hardwood forests. Mountainous areas, especially in the Appalachian region, contain tracts of various coniferous species and hardwoods such as hickory and oak. Virginia’s very high avian diversity is due to varied habitats found in its varied physiographic regions—Coastal Plain, Piedmont, Appalachian Plateau, Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref20">20</xref>]. Virginia’s oakhickory and oak-pine communities offer favorable habitat for both Ovenbirds and Wood Thrush.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Breeding Bird Survey</title><p>Initiated in 1966, the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is an international monitoring program, jointly coordinated by the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and the Canadian Wildlife Service, to track the status and trends of North American bird populations. With 88 survey routes in Virginia, buffers with differing radii were created around each of them and the numbers of birds detected at each survey route in 2001, 2006 and 2011, were used in this analysis.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Data Analysis</title><p>Five buffers of different radii were created around each survey route; 25 miles, 20 miles, 15 miles, 5 miles and 1 mile (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). Three National Land Cover Dataset satellite images with a 30 by 30 m resolution were used, each representing 2001, 2006 and 2011. Forest patches in Virginia were classified as either “Core”, “Connected” or “Fragmented” depending on neighboring pixels surrounding forest pixels (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). “Core” forests include pixels that are completely surrounded by other forest pixels while forest pixels surrounded by more than 60% but less than 100% forest pixels are labelled “Connected”. “Fragmented” forest areas include forest pixels surrounded by less than 60% other forest pixels.</p><p>Virginia’s topographic slopes were classified into 8 groups (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>), with 1 being the most gentle slope (between 0% and 2.5%) and 8 being very steep (above 60%). Virginia’s five physiographic regions (Appalachian Plateaus, Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge, Piedmont and Coastal Plain) were overlaid as a vector dataset (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>) on each of the 5 maps of Virginia representing the 5 different buffer zones used in the study. Slope and physiographic regions were examined because of their potential to affect forest fragmentation and also influence Wood Thrush and Ovenbird populations.</p><p>Using the Repeated Measures ANOVA in the R software, the hypothesis that the population means of the wood thrush and ovenbird do not change between 2001 and 2011, was made. In this design, the independent variable is time and the different levels are 2001, 2006 and 2011. The treatment variables are three different forest types—Core, Connected and Fragmented; 8 slope categories and 5 physiographic regions. The Markov Chain Monte Carlo Generalized Linear Mixed Models (MCMCglmm) package with a Poisson distribution was used and a Bayesian data analysis model with a 95% probability interval was employed.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Topographic slope categories used in this analysis</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Slope Categories</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Slope Percentage (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 - 0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;0.5 - 2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;2 - 5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;5 - 9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;9 - 15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;15 - 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;30 - 60</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Over 60</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Since all the treatment variables were calculated as percentages, they all add up to 100 and thus, one treatment of each variable had to be excluded from the model. Each treatment variable chosen for exclusion is based on a model selection from different combinations. Specifically, a deviance information criterion (DIC) is calculated from MCMCglmm with a lower DIC number identifying a better model. For the 3 forest types, only connected and fragmented forest types were included in the model because changes between 2001 and 2011 for these two were significant. These two forest types make up the research focus on forest fragmentation and connectivity. For the physiographic regions, a comparison of the combinations of ABCD, ABCE, ACDE, ABDE, and BCDE is made with Appalachian Plateau, Blue Ridge, Coastal Plain, Piedmont and Valley and Ridge represented by the letters A, B, C, D and E respectively. For the eight slope categories, the combinations of 1234567, 1234568, 1234578, 1234678, 1235678, 1245678, 1345678, and 2345678 are compared with each figure representing a slope category. The three year time periods and the 2 forest types are included in the model and run separately for Wood Thrush and Ovenbird multiple times, to identify which model has the lowest DIC. For the Ovenbird model, the model excluding the Appalachian Plateau and Slope category 3 had the lowest DIC and was therefore chosen. The model excluding the Appalachian Plateaus and Slope Category 2 was chosen for the Wood Thrush model. With the number of iterations, burnin and thinning set at 80,000, 10,000 and 10, respectively, the model was run with traceplots drawn for both fixed and random effects in the model.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>Between 2001 and 2011, populations of both Wood Thrush and Ovenbirds species have declined. On the average, the lowest numbers of Wood Thrush and Ovenbird species detected in each survey route have not gone any lower than previous years. However, the highest numbers detected in each survey route have varied considerably between 2001 and 2011 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>). The average number of Ovenbirds recorded per survey route in 2001 was approximately 13, compared to 12 in 2011. There is a more a drastic change among Wood Thrushes as the average number recorded per route in 2001 was 13 but declined to 7 by 2011.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> shows the significance of changes in forest fragmentation in Virginia between 2001 and 2011 in the various buffers. Whereas, changes in connected and fragmented forests are significant in the 15, 20 and 25 mile buffer radius, only connected forests are significant in the 5 mile buffer radius. Changes in core forests are not significant between 2001 and 2011. Generally, the trends are similar at all buffer sizes, with core forest declining and both connected and fragmented forest increasing (Figures 5-9), although these trends were statistically significant only for the latter two forest types at larger scale buffer sizes.</p><p>Using the 1 mile buffer radius, Ovenbird numbers were significantly lower in fragmented forest compared to other forest types, and significantly higher in the Coastal Plain physiographic region than in all the other regions (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). Also, slope categories 2, 5 and 8 have negative relationships with Ovenbird numbers, whereas 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 have positive relationships. Only the negative relationship with slope category 5 (9% - 15%) was significant. Ovenbird numbers did not differ significantly between time periods (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). Wood Thrush abundance was significantly lower in 2011 than in 2001 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Within the 1 mile buffer radius, the only environmental variable that had a sizeable effect on Wood Thrush numbers was the slope category 4 variable (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Results using the 5 mile buffer were identical to those for the 1 mile buffer (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Changes in forest types from 2001 and 2011 in the different buffer regions</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >BUFFER</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >FOREST TYPE</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >SIGNIFICANCE</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Core</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7557</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >1 mile</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7254</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7945</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Core</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7318</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >5 mile</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2e−16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3778</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Core</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6799</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >15 mile</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2e−16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.503e−05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Core</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6644</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >20 mile</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1e−16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.833e-06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Core</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5134</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >25 mile</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3e−16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.431e−08</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Significant variables affecting Ovenbird populations in 1 mile buffer</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Model Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Posterior Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Lower 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Upper 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pMCMC</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intercept (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.312304</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.61887</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.57661</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.447714</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2006)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00619</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.18303</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.166347</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.938571</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2011)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.008696</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.17462</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.201517</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.912571</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.016077</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.07289</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.113797</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.736571</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.05995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.09557</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01782</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.002</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blue Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00398</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01709</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01071</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.564857</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Coastal Plain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025478</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.003107</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.046312</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.017429</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piedmont</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000837</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.0157</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.020092</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.937429</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Valley and Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00514</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02004</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.010505</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.489714</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.024155</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02714</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.074963</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.343429</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.0481</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.12879</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.036577</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.252</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.065938</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.06455</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.209657</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.336286</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.06706</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.12555</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01046</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.023143</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.012682</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.08375</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.109229</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.792286</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.033509</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02592</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.094083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.263143</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.03242</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.25165</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.185129</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.765143</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>The Coastal Plain region had significantly higher numbers of Ovenbirds using the 15 mile buffer (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>), and again, Wood Thrush numbers were lower in year 2011 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>). None of the variables analyzed had a significant relationship to Ovenbird numbers using the 20 mile buffer, and for Wood Thrush, the only significant variable again was the year, 2011 having significantly lower numbers than 2001 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0). Using a 25 mile buffer radius around the survey routes, Wood Thrush numbers were significantly lower in year 2011 compared to 2001 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>1 and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2).</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>Many studies such as [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref21">21</xref>] hypothesized that population declines in migratory specialist species such as the Ovenbird and Wood Thrush, were caused by reduction and isolation of their breeding habitats. The three forest classes in this analysis, Core, Connected and Fragmented were categorized based on surrounding pixels and the connectivity of those pixels and as such, capture the forest conditions important to the Wood Thrush and Ovenbird.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Significant variables affecting Wood thrush populations in 1 mile buffer</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Model Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Posterior Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Lower 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Upper 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pMCMC</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intercept (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.93577</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−4.99489</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.933566</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.764</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2006)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.12754</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.29067</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.047477</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.137143</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2011)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.5801</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.75966</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.37993</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000143</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.07986</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.17886</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025016</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.130286</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.017619</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02669</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.058456</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.413143</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blue Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00038</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01717</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.015061</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.960857</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Coastal Plain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.019287</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00554</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04202</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.115143</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piedmont</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.007039</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01115</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.027924</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.472857</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Valley and Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005529</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01166</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.022874</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.507143</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00413</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.06304</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.053</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.897714</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01805</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.10938</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0726</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.692857</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.086443</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01114</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.192908</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.091714</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.04252</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.14857</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.077147</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.454857</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02756</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.04696</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.098633</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.457143</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.013383</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.06267</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09279</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.726</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.061436</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.18213</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.285244</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.596571</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Significant variables affecting Ovenbird populations in 5 mile buffer</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Model Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Posterior Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Lower 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Upper 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pMCMC</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intercept (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.484353</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−8.24956</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.85013</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.76171</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2006)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01121</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.18269</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.174739</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2011)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01102</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.22352</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.183804</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.91771</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.028748</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.08609</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.161252</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.65343</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.04882</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.09575</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00208</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04486</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blue Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.004797</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01596</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025751</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.666</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Coastal Plain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.035169</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.007757</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.062695</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00743</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piedmont</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00395</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01841</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.028955</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.76571</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Valley and Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.003563</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01886</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.024633</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.75629</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.019131</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.05742</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.098037</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62514</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.07822</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.24494</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.094051</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36086</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.099043</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.11767</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.308045</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36286</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.10699</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.19288</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01996</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.014</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00806</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.14285</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.157487</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.91314</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.043097</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.05303</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14831</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39686</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01976</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.34875</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.282534</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.91857</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Significant variables affecting Wood thrush populations in 5 mile buffer</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Model Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Posterior Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Lower 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Upper 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pMCMC</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intercept (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.125226</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−5.62165</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.21436</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2006)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.13946</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.32323</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.038706</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.134</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2011)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.52958</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.73731</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.31121</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;1e-04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.03348</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.14655</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.081077</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.571</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02275</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.07091</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02435</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.351</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blue Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00412</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02452</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.016293</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.681</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Coastal Plain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.007754</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02102</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.034935</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.583</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piedmont</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000503</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02198</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.024129</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.96</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Valley Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001423</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02061</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.021977</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.898</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.0029</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.11185</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.105045</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.955</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.05254</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.21237</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11144</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.512</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.060702</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.04611</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.172105</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.284</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.05155</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.22741</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.126136</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.577</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01197</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.10921</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083783</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.79</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00373</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.13764</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.127423</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.957</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.04415</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.33095</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.229077</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.752</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Significant variables affecting Ovenbird populations in 15 mile buffer</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Model Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Posterior Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Lower 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Upper 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pMCMC</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intercept (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.467754</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−10.0534</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.6905</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6046</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2006)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.06856</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.24851</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.098066</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4509</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2011)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.15539</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.36273</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.054095</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1497</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.084142</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.06021</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.233762</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2591</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00302</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.05952</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.055117</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9191</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blue Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01478</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02645</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.054716</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4757</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Coastal Plain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.042148</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00211</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.086049</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0657</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piedmont</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.018718</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.0222</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.060505</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3609</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Valley and Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.022316</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01584</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.058204</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.06002</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.16521</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.039055</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2354</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.14053</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.36105</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.081191</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.212</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.06048</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.38022</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.244216</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7097</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.04499</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.18405</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.097581</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5194</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.10631</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.33892</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12738</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3674</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04625</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.09564</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.190542</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5174</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.10376</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.41371</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.201941</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4983</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Significant variables affecting Wood thrush populations in 15 mile buffer</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Model Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Posterior Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Lower 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Upper 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pMCMC</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intercept (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.4672</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−10.064</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.424537</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9337</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2006)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.15083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.33825</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.034535</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1103</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2011)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.56545</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.77371</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.34914</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;1e-04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02856</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.14554</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.093548</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.644</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00731</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.05442</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04058</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7691</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blue Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.018125</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01233</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.049467</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2457</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Coastal Plain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02916</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.0047</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.063506</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0966</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piedmont</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.015938</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01562</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.046651</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3057</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Valley and Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.017606</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01184</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.045381</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2283</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01662</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.10633</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.133381</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7937</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02133</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.19763</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.138442</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.802</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.096409</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.03033</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.231501</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.0371</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.23824</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.154172</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.712</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00238</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.12029</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.111673</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9651</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.046688</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.08547</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.180339</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5011</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.015631</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.18666</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.200825</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8697</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table9" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref></label><caption><title> Significant variables affecting Ovenbird populations in 20 mile buffer</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Model Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Posterior Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Lower 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Upper 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pMCMC</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intercept (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.56E+00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.04E+01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.77E+01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.61</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2006)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−6.74E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−2.38E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.09E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.454</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2011)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.40E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.37E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.45E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.187</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.42E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.53E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.14E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.135</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−8.80E−03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−5.25E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.52E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.693</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blue Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.95E−04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−4.04E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.82E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.984</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Coastal Plain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.64E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.82E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.18E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.253</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piedmont</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.10E−03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.46E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.22E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.674</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Valley and Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.54E−03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−2.36E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.27E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.559</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−4.86E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.56E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.36E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.357</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.03E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.45E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.25E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.381</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−6.79E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.56E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.49E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.653</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−8.27E−03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.33E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.11E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.891</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.19E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.37E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.23E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.299</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.05E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−5.57E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.81E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.213</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.30E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−8.24E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.68E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.193</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table10" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0</label><caption><title> Significant variables affecting Wood thrush populations in 20 mile buffer</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Model Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Posterior Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Lower 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Upper 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pMCMC</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intercept (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.78E+00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.08E+01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.49E+00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.694</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2006)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.55E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.31E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.68E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0971</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2011)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−5.74E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−7.78E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.53E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;1e-04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−2.78E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.35E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.17E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6089</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−4.90E−03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−4.25E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.52E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8037</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blue Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.64E−04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−2.81E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.98E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9737</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Coastal Plain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.92E−03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−2.27E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.87E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5629</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piedmont</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.88E−04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−2.81E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.16E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.952</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Valley and Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.44E−03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−2.29E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.59E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8983</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.26E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−5.30E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.83E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2954</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.81E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−9.27E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.55E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3646</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.47E−03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.01E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.86E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9786</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.06E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−7.30E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.93E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−7.62E−03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.07E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.83E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8611</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−6.20E−02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.66E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2051</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.45E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−4.73E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.72E−01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.368</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table11" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>1</label><caption><title> Significant variables affecting Ovenbird populations in 25 mile buffer</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Model Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Posterior Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Lower 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Upper 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pMCMC</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intercept (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.177702</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.11725</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.50138</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.196</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2006)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.09856</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.27941</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083868</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2963</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2011)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.19009</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.39012</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.019169</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0706</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.078469</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02307</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18533</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.136</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.003198</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.03549</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.043324</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.874</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blue Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01595</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.04746</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.017702</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.336</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Coastal Plain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005291</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02798</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.038473</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7429</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piedmont</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01234</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.04632</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.021749</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4694</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Valley and Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001566</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02575</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.029716</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9109</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.07414</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.15675</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.008259</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0791</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.12348</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.29995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.060605</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1794</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.07567</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.3133</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.177085</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5346</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.08293</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.19051</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.017675</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1111</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.05211</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.21792</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.110791</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5263</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.04928</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.15866</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.062672</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3829</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.0496</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.16776</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.070577</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4066</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table12" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2</label><caption><title> Significant variables affecting Wood thrush populations in 25 mile buffer</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Model Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Posterior Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Lower 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Upper 95% CI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pMCMC</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intercept (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.785281</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−5.28637</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.534741</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6106</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2006)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.17731</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.35528</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.011997</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0671</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >as.factor (2011)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.62222</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.83117</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.40189</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;1e-04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Connected Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01035</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.10529</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083357</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8389</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fragmented Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.011201</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02224</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.047492</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.516</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blue Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005236</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02046</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.030702</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6911</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Coastal Plain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00516</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03188</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.698</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piedmont</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00091</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.028</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025485</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9437</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Valley and Ridge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.006333</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01654</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.028496</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5843</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00302</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.09396</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.090905</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9566</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.0251</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.14994</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.102159</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6934</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.046048</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.04494</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.146752</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3377</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02131</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.1627</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.113956</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7503</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00197</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.08227</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.078213</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9571</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.003322</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.08225</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.086437</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9354</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.00856</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.07652</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.066563</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8091</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>As our results show a significant increase in fragmented forests across all survey routes from 2001 to 2011, the decline in populations of Wood Thrush in Virginia over that period parallels an increase in forest fragmentation. Forest fragmentation leads to the creation of small forest patch sizes which limit the food resources available for the bird species. Thus, the link between the decline in Wood Thrush populations and forest fragmentation in Virginia is consistent with the findings of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref22">22</xref>] who found a direct relationship between forest patch sizes, reproductive success, and return rates for Wood Thrushes in Delaware.</p><p>Our results indicate a modest decline in Ovenbird populations between 2006 and 2011, whereas Wood Thrush declined significantly and consistently between 2001 and 2011. Since forest fragmentation significantly affected Ovenbirds in the 1 and 5 mile buffers, our results are consistent with the results of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref9">9</xref>] study suggesting that pairing success of Ovenbirds can be influenced by habitat fragmentation. Ovenbirds avoid forest fragments which might be the reason for their modest decline compared to the significant decline in Wood Thrush populations.</p><p>Core forest areas are important for buffering Wood Thrush and Ovenbird species from the incursions of predators as a result of the shield provided by the high and closed canopy structure with small canopy gaps [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref23">23</xref>]. However, our results show that the decline in core forest in Virginia is not significant. This means that the decline in Wood Thrush is caused by other factors such as increased forest fragmentation leading to increased predation.</p><p>For many migrating interior forest specialists like the Ovenbird and Wood Thrush, although small habitat spaces are not appropriate for breeding, they serve as stopover habitats and corridors that link core forest patches together. Our results show that the change in connected forests in all the buffer regions is significant which is important for ensuring the persistence of healthy Wood Thrush and Ovenbird populations.</p><p>Reductions in populations of migrant habitat specialists such as the Ovenbird and Wood Thrush could be a result of increasing urban development which directly leads to increased rates of nest predation in forest fragments close to development sites, changes in habitat structure and composition, and consequently, avoidance of developed areas by birds due to human habitation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref24">24</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref25">25</xref>]. Among effects of urban development, are increases in numbers of domestic pets from nearby homes in the area, which are likely to disturb nesting birds [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref27">27</xref>].</p><p>Our results show that at local scales (1, 5 and 15 mile buffer radius), fragmentation, slope and physiographic regions have significant effects on Wood Thrush and Ovenbird populations. At the regional scale (20 and 25 mile buffer radius), forest fragmentation has no effect either due to the fact that forests no longer dominate the matrix or the species do not respond to the landscape at these large scales. There was a similar trend in changes in core, connected and fragmented forest in every buffer area considered (Figures 5-9). Core forest areas declined from 2001 to 2011 while fragmented forest areas increased, demonstrating a general increase in forest fragmentation across Virginia. This means that a singular policy aimed at decreasing forest fragmentation can be effective across the entire state of Virginia. For instance, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref28">28</xref>] showed that economic research can rely on a model of net benefits that reflects or emphasizes the fragmentation or pattern of the landscape, rather than individual species or specific locations within the landscape. However, given that effects of all variables considered in each buffer zone on the populations of wood thrush and ovenbird differ, it is important that more specific deliberations are made, with particular species in mind. For example in the 5 mile buffer, fragmented forests, the Coastal Plain region and slope category 5 have significant effects on Ovenbird populations but none of these factors have significant effects on Wood thrush populations in the same buffer. Hence, results are dependent on the species under focus and policy makers should be cautious in the application of generalized concepts to all species.</p><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Specific Effects on Ovenbird Populations in Virginia</title><p>At local scales (i.e. 1 and 5 mile buffers), ovenbirds are less common in fragmented areas, more common in the Coastal Plain region and less common in slope category 5. BBS survey routes are roadside surveys which means that the count is influenced by conditions of forest edge areas. With a key result of forest fragmentation being an increase in edge areas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref29">29</xref>], fragmented forest types, usually characterized by small patch sizes and linear or irregularly shaped patches, are most likely present near survey routes where data on the birds are collected as they are more abundant near roads and pathways [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref29">29</xref>]. Therefore, roads likely create more negative impacts on forest interior species such as the Ovenbird, in the 1 and 5 mile buffer zones. The Ovenbirds’ tendency to nesting only within forest interiors and rarely near forest edges is due primarily to lower habitat quality in forest edges such as reduced cover, nesting and foraging sites [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref30">30</xref>].</p><p>The Coastal Plain, a low-relief terraced region that stair-steps down gently towards the coast and covers about 21% of Virginia, has higher densities of Ovenbirds than the other regions in the 1, 5 and 15 mile buffer zones. The Coastal Plain can be divided into inner and outer sections based on topographic features with the outer Coastal Plain characterized by an undulating to a nearly flat landscape [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref31">31</xref>]. A line through the town of Suffolk north to Gloucester Courthouse and Westmoreland County on the Potomac roughly divides the inner and outer Coastal Plain. It is therefore important for future research on the effect of the Coastal Plain region on Ovenbird populations in Virginia to take into consideration the differences in characteristics of the inner and outer regions.</p><p>During the Civil War, most of the old forests in the Coastal Plain were destroyed for lumber construction and firewood for the armies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref32">32</xref>]. With about 46% of the Coastal Plain forested, urban development in large cities like Roanoke, Newport News and Norfolk has led to broad-scale forest fragmentation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref31">31</xref>]. Currently, only 13% of the Coastal Plain region consists of unfragmented natural lands with high ecological integrity, with these areas limited to only the Great Dismal Swamp and the Fort A. P. Hill Military Reservation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref33">33</xref>]. This suggests that higher numbers of Ovenbirds occur in the Coastal Plain region despite high levels of fragmentation. However, there are natural mixed communities of the longleaf pine (Pinuspalustris) and pond pine (Pinusserotine) woodlands that are largely restricted to the southern part of the Coastal Plain [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref31">31</xref>]. With Ovenbirds having a preference for mixed-pine hardwood ecosystems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref34">34</xref>], it is typical for this region to have a significant positive effect on ovenbird populations.</p><p>Slope category 5 representing areas with slope percent greater than 9 but less than 15, has a significant negative relationship to Ovenbird numbers in the 1 and 5 mile buffer zones. For aesthetic and site drainage purposes as well as lower construction costs, most residential and road constructions are carried out in areas with grades between 10% and 15% slope. Thus, the relationship to slope category 5 may be due to greater residential development in such areas. As one moves further from the survey routes, in the 20 and 25 m buffer zones, there is increased possibility of finding areas with steeper slopes and therefore, the Slope 5 variable becomes less significant. Our results show that Ovenbirds are more responsive at the local scale compared to the regional scale.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref3">3</xref>] argued that despite low fecundity success of Ovenbird populations in small forest fragments, a system of interacting subpopulations allows for local sink populations to persist as a result of immigration from other source populations. As such, the overall dynamics of source-sink systems are not necessarily impacted by poor reproductive success in forest fragments at larger scales especially if the birds avoid those small fragments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref3">3</xref>]. This might be why none of the variables in the 25 m buffer analysis, had a significant effect on Ovenbird populations.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Significant Effects on Wood Thrush Populations in Virginia</title><p>In the smallest buffer analyzed in this study, the 1 m buffer, Slope category 4 had a sizeable, albeit insignificant relationship to Wood Thrush abundance. Slope 4 represent areas with slope percent between 5% and 9%. According to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref35">35</xref>], prime agricultural lands are characterized by slopes between 0% and 5% because they have low erosion hazards and are not prone to risks of damaging overflow. This means that forested lands with slopes in this category are more prone to agricultural conversion. Through the process of convective pre-heating, wildfires generally advance as slopes become steeper [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref36">36</xref>]. As a result, it is highly likely that medium slopes, between 5% and 9%, present ideal conditions for mature forests in Virginia which might be why this slope category has a positive relationship to Wood Thrush numbers in Virginia in areas close to survey routes.</p><p>The year 2011 has a significant negative relationship to Wood Thrush abundance at all buffer sizes analyzed, and the year 2006 also has a negative relationship to Wood Thrush in the 20 and 25 m buffer zones. This is best interpreted as indicating a decline in Wood Thrush populations in Virginia over the study period from 2001 to 2011 rather than indicative of annual variation. That Wood Thrushes are not less common in fragmented forest than core forest suggests they do not avoid forest fragments, rendering their populations susceptible to adverse effects of fragmentation on their reproduction and survival. If the year effects instead represent annual variation, one possible cause of their variation is drought, which reduces availability of food resources for birds, making them more susceptible to predation and starvation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref37">37</xref>]. According to the US Drought Monitor for Virginia, the state experienced severe to exceptionally severe droughts between 2007 and 2009. While drought severity reduced to abnormally dry conditions after 2009, Virginia again experienced severe drought in the latter months of 2010. These drought conditions might be responsible for a decline of Wood Thrush numbers being evident in 2006 and 2011.</p><p>Only in the 15 m buffer did the Coastal Plain region have a sizeable positive relationship to Wood Thrush abundance. The large composition of mixed-pine woodlands in the Coastal Plain region of Virginia can be a contributing factor to the positive significant effect of this region on Wood Thrush populations. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref38">38</xref>] found a positive correlation between mixed forests with high pine concentration and Wood Thrush populations. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121138-ref39">39</xref>] reported that the South Atlantic Coastal Plain has one of the largest forested floodplains and the largest remnants of former longleaf pine and woodland ecosystems.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusions</title><p>The study shows that populations of Wood Thrush and Ovenbird in Virginia decreased between 2001 and 2011, forest fragmentation increased over this period, and that Ovenbirds are less common in forest fragments than in core forests. Increased fragmentation could account for the significant decline in Wood Thrush since our results show that they do not avoid fragments whereas Ovenbirds avoid forest fragments and have therefore only declined moderately. This study also demonstrates how habitat conditions affect populations of Wood Thrush and Ovenbird. For example, slope has a significant effect on Wood Thrush and Ovenbird populations because it determines the intensity of development in an area. The Coastal Plain region harbors larger numbers of Wood Thrush and Ovenbird than other physiographic regions in Virginia as its mixed forested lands with high pine concentrations provide an ideal habitat for both the Wood Thrush and Ovenbird.</p><p>The study identifies factors whose consideration may allow policy makers to make more effective decisions to increase Ovenbird and Wood Thrush populations in Virginia. In particular, use of differing buffer zones showed that these species respond to their environment at relatively small (1 -5 miles) spatial scales. The trace plots of our results show effectiveness of our model in identifying the effects of multiple variables over a time gradient. Thus, our model can be replicated and improved by other studies to ensure that effective decisions are made to improve bird populations.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Fynn, I.E.M. (2022) Understanding Changes in Wood Thrush and Ovenbird Populations in Virginia—The Role of Forest Fragmentation and Connectivity. Journal of Environmental Protection, 13, 797-818. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2022.1311051</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.121138-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Caughley, G. (1994) Directions in Conservation Biology. Journal of Animal Ecology, 63, 215-244. https://doi.org/10.2307/5542</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Diamond, J.M. (1984) Historic Extinctions: A Rosetta Stone for Understanding Prehistoric Extinctions. In: Martin, P.S. and Klein, R.G., Eds., Quaternary Extinctions, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 824-862. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv264f91j.48</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Donovan, T.M. and Flather, C.H. (2002) Relationships among North American Songbird Trends, Habitat Fragmentation, and Landscape Occupancy. Ecological Applications, 12, 364-374. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0364:RANAST]2.0.CO;2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zanette, L., Doyle, P. and Tremont, S.M. (2000) Food Shortage in Small Fragments: Evidence from an Area-Sensitive Passerine. Ecology, 81, 1654-1666. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1654:FSISFE]2.0.CO;2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lampila, P., Monkkonen, M. and Desrochers, A. (2005) Demographic Responses by Birds to Forest Fragmentation. Conservation Biology, 19, 1537-1546. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00201.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">James, F.C., Johnston, R.F., Wamer, N.O., Niemi, G.J. and Boecklen, W.J. (1984) The Grinnellian Niche of the Wood Thrush. The American Naturalist, 124, 17-47. https://doi.org/10.1086/284250</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brittingham, M.C. and Temple, S.A. (1983) Have Cowbirds Caused Forest Song-Birds to Decline? BioScience, 33, 31-35. https://doi.org/10.2307/1309241</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Morimoto, D.C., Frankel, M.A., Hersek, M. and Wasserman, F.E. (2012) Forest Fragmentation Effects on Ovenbird Populations in the Urban Region of Eastern Massachusetts, USA. Urban Habitats, 7. http://www.urbanhabitats.org/v07n01/forestfragmentation_full.html</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bayne, E.M. and Hobson, K.E. (2001) Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Pairing Success of Ovenbirds: Importance of Male Age and Floater Behavior. The Auk, 118, 380-388. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/118.2.380</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Porneluzi, P., Bednarz, J.C., Goodrich, L.J., Zawada, N. and Hoover, J. (1993) Reproductive Performance of Territorial Ovenbirds Occupying Forest Fragments and a Contiguous Forest in Pennsylvania. Conservation Biology, 7, 618-622. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07030618.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rudnicky, T.C. and Hunter, M.L. (1993) Avian Nest Predation in Clearcuts, Forests, and Edges in a Forest-Dominated Landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management, 57, 358-364. https://doi.org/10.2307/3809434</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Andren, H. (1994) Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Birds and Mammals in Landscapes with Different Proportions of Suitable Habitat: A Review. Oikos, 71, 355-366. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545823</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Homan, R.N., Windmiller, B.S. and Reed, J.M. (2004) Critical Thresholds Associated with Habitat Loss for Two Vernal Pool-Breeding Amphibians. Ecological Application, 14, 1547-1553. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5125</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Macintosh, T., Strutchbury, B.J.M. and Evans, M.L. (2011) Gap-Crossing by Wood Thrushes in a Fragmented Landscape. Canada Journal of Zoology, 89, 1091-1097. https://doi.org/10.1139/z11-090</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Valente, J.J. and Betts, M.G. (2019) Response to Fragmentation by Avian Communities Is Mediated by Species Traits. Diversity of Distribution, 25, 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12837</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Desrochers, A., Belisle, M., Morand-Ferron, J. and Bourque, J. (2011) Integrating GIS and Honing Experiments to Study Avian Movement Costs. Landscape Ecology, 26, 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9532-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Donnelly, R. and Marzluff, J.M. (2004) Importance of Reserve Size and Landscape Context to Urban Bird Conservation. Conservation Biology, 18, 733-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00032.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Reale, J.A. and Blair, R.B. (2005) Nesting Success and Life-History Attributes of Bird Communities along an Urbanization Gradient. Urban Habitats, 3, 1-24.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Free, M. (2013) For the Birds, Butterflies &amp; Hummingbirds: Creating Inviting Habitats. Virginia Cooperative Extension, York County. https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/HORT/HORT-59/HORT-59-PDF.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nott, M.P., Gordon, K., Kaschube, D.R. and Morris, T. (2008) Landbird Monitoring in Virginia: An Analysis of Historical MAPS Data in Virginia and Surrounding Region. A Report to the State of Virginia, Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fazey, I. (2004) Appreciating Ecological Complexity: Habitat Contours as a Conceptual Landscape Model. Conservation Biology, 18, 1245-1253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00263.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nyadoi, P., Ogola, L., Kyakyo, H. and Okullo, J. (2020) Elucidating Environment Management Intervention Benefits and Underpinning Factors among Uganda’s Albertine Rift Communities. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 8, 157-174. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2020.810012</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Weinberg, H.J. and Roth, R.R. (1998) Forest Area and Habitat Quality for Nesting Wood Thrushes. Auk, 115, 879-889. https://doi.org/10.2307/4089507</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hagenbuch, S. (2010) Forest Bird Habitat Assessment: Hartford TF/Hurricane Forest Wildlife Refuge, Hartford, VT.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kluza, D.A., Griffin, C.R. and Degraaf, R.M. (2000) Housing Developments in Rural New England: Effects on Forest Birds. Animal Conservation, 3, 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2000.tb00083.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mancke, R.G. and Gavin, T.A. (2000) Breeding Bird Density in Woodlots: Effects of Depth and Buildings at Edges. Ecological Applications, 10, 598-611. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0598:BBDIWE]2.0.CO;2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Crooks, K.R. and Soule, M.E. (1999) Mesopredator Release and Avifaunal Extinctions in a Fragmented System. Nature, 400, 563-566. https://doi.org/10.1038/23028</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Odell, E.A. and Knight, R.L. (2001) Songbird and Medium-Sized Mammal Communities Associated with Exurban Development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conservation Biology, 15, 1143-1150. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.0150041143.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Albers, H.J. (1996) Modeling Ecological Constraints on Tropical Forest Management: Spatial Interdependence, Irreversibility, and Uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 73-94. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sisk, T.D. and Battin, J. (2002) Habitat Edges and Avian Ecology: Geographic Patterns and Insights for Western Landscapes. Studies in Avian Biology, 25, 30-48.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ortega, Y.K. and Capen, D.E. (1999) Effects of Forest Roads on Habitat Quality for Ovenbirds in a Forested Landscape. The Auk, 116, 937-946. https://doi.org/10.2307/4089673</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Fleming, G.P. (2012) The Nature of the Virginia Flora. In: Weakley, A.S., Ludwig, J.C., Townsend, J.F. and Crowder, B., Eds., Flora of Virginia, Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press, Fort Worth, 24-75.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Boutin, C. (2015) The Roles of Natural Environments in the American Civil War. Armstrong Undergraduate Journal of History, 5, Article No. 2. https://doi.org/10.20429/aujh.2015.050205</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Weber, J.T. (2007) Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment 2007. GIS Data, Hardcopy and Digital Maps, and Report, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/vclnavnla.shtml</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Masters, R.E. (2007) The Importance of Shortleaf Pine for Wildlife and Diversity in Mixed Oak-Pine Forests and in Pine-Grassland Woodlands. Shortleaf Pine Restoration and Ecology in the Ozarks: Proceedings of a Symposium, Springfield, 7-9 November 2006, 35-46.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Agricultural Land Classification (2008).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Estes, B.L., Knapp, E.E., Skinner, C.N., Miller, J.D. and Preisler, H.K. (2017) Factors Influencing Fire Severity under Moderate Burning Conditions in the Klamath Mountains, Northern California, USA. Ecosphere, 8, e01794. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1794</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hockman, C. (2017) Declining Baby Songbirds Need Forests to Survive Drought, Virginia Tech and Smithsonian Find. Virginia Tech Daily. https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2017/10/101817-fralin-thrush.html</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121138-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lindenmayer, D.B., Cunningham, R.B., Donnelly, C.F., Nix, H. and Lindenmayer, B.D. (2002) Effects of Forest Fragmentation on Bird Assemblages in a Novel Landscape Context. Ecological Monographs, 72, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(2002)072[0001:EOFFOB]2.0.CO;2</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>