Two basic concepts of guild definition were developed in community ecology that enable simplification of complex communities or ecosystems into structural building blocks of species with similar niches. Root defined guild as a group of species utilising the same environmental resources by a similar foraging method. MacMahon et al. simplified the original definition even more by excluding a foraging method. This concept is focused on utilisation patterns of resources by species regardless the purpose of use. Our objectives were: (1) to test guild structure within a model ecosystem from matrices reflecting the differences between the two concepts, (2) to compare guild patterns detected by the two concepts, (3) to test whether the mixed forest ecosystem consists of significantly different groups of species representing deciduous and coniferous faunal elements. The study was conducted in a primeval beech-fir forest in NW Slovakia during 1997–2000. In total, 26 bird species were used for further numerical analyses. Two data matrices were constructed reflecting the differences between the two guild concepts. To statistically determine guild structure without arbitrary fusion criteria, a bootstrapped cluster analysis (UPGMA) of chord distances was employed to analyse the data matrices. Symmetric correspondence analysis (CA) was applied for extraction of eigenvectors responsible for the segregation of species into guilds. The classification proposed by Root produced two guild models at the levels of 6 or 9 group partitions at α = 0.10, while the classification following MacMahon et al. detected 7 guild types. The guild structures based on the two concepts were significantly different when tested by two-tailed Wilcoxon paired sample tests and the Monte Carlo among-cluster error sum of squares (SSQ) distance simulation test. Six out of the eight interpretable factors (75%) indicated analogous environmental gradients when comparing two CA ordinations. The most important environmental gradients were: (1) vertical foraging substrate — habitat structure, (2) water — terrestrial foraging substrate gradient, (3) spatial tree morphology, (4) terrestrial foraging substrate gradient, (5) arboreal — airspace gradient, and (6) mountain stream environmental gradient. We did not detect significantly different guilds for generalists and for coniferous and deciduous forest specialists.
Adamík, P. and M. Korňan. 2004. Foraging ecology of two bark foraging passerine birds in an old-growth temperate forest.
Korňan M., 'Foraging ecology of two bark foraging passerine birds in an old-growth temperate forest' (2004) 81Ornis Fenn.: 13-22.
Korňan M.Foraging ecology of two bark foraging passerine birds in an old-growth temperate forestOrnis Fenn.2004811322)| false
Korňan, M. 1996.
Analyses of Lowland Forest Bird Communities in Slovakia and Effect of Migratory Guilds on Forming Forest Bird Community Structure in an Elevational Gradient
. M.Sc. thesis, Faculty of Sciences of Comenius University, Bratislava.
Korňan M., '', in Analyses of Lowland Forest Bird Communities in Slovakia and Effect of Migratory Guilds on Forming Forest Bird Community Structure in an Elevational Gradient, (1996) -.
Korňan M.Analyses of Lowland Forest Bird Communities in Slovakia and Effect of Migratory Guilds on Forming Forest Bird Community Structure in an Elevational Gradient1996)| false
Korňan, M. 2000. Interspecific foraging substrate preferences among flycatchers in a primeval mixed forest (Šrámková National Nature Reserve).
Korňan M., 'Interspecific foraging substrate preferences among flycatchers in a primeval mixed forest (Šrámková National Nature Reserve)' (2000) 9Oecologia Montana: 36-43.
Korňan M.Interspecific foraging substrate preferences among flycatchers in a primeval mixed forest (Šrámková National Nature Reserve)Oecologia Montana200093643)| false
Noon, B.R. 1981. Techniques for mapping avian habitats. In: Copen, D.E. (ed),
The Use of Multivariate Statistics in Studies of Wildlife Habitat
. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-87, Fort Collins. pp. 42–49.
Pillar, V.D. 1999. How sharp are classifications?
Pillar V.D., 'How sharp are classifications?' (1999) 80Ecology: 2508-2516.
Pillar V.D.How sharp are classifications?Ecology19998025082516)| false
Madhur Anand, CAN (forest ecology, computational ecology, and ecological complexity)
S. Bagella, ITA (temporal dynamics, including succession, community level patterns of species richness and diversity, experimental studies of plant, animal and microbial communities, plant communities of the Mediterranean)
P. Batáry, HUN (landscape ecology, agroecology, ecosystem services)
P. A. V. Borges, PRT (community level patterns of species richness and diversity, sampling in theory and practice)
A. Davis, GER (supervised learning, multitrophic interactions, food webs, multivariate analysis, ecological statistics, experimental design, fractals, parasitoids, species diversity, community assembly, ticks, biodiversity, climate change, biological networks, cranes, olfactometry, evolution)
Z. Elek, HUN (insect ecology, invertebrate conservation, population dynamics, especially of long-term field studies, insect sampling)
T. Kalapos, HUN (community level plant ecophysiology, grassland ecology, vegetation-soil relationship)
G. M. Kovács, HUN (microbial ecology, plant-fungus interactions, mycorrhizas)
W. C. Liu,TWN (community-based ecological theory and modelling issues, temporal dynamics, including succession, trophic interactions, competition, species response to the environment)
L. Mucina, AUS (vegetation survey, syntaxonomy, evolutionary community ecology, assembly rules, global vegetation patterns, mediterranean ecology)
P. Ódor, HUN (plant communities, bryophyte ecology, numerical methods)
F. Rigal, FRA (island biogeography, macroecology, functional diversity, arthropod ecology)
D. Rocchini, ITA (biodiversity, multiple scales, spatial scales, species distribution, spatial ecology, remote sensing, ecological informatics, computational ecology)
F. Samu, HUN (landscape ecology, biological control, generalist predators, spiders, arthropods, conservation biology, sampling methods)