A Comparison of Two Bird Survey Techniques Used in a Subtropical Forest

Abstract

Mist netting and point counting have been used equally in the Neotropics for the purpose of surveying bird communities, although their effectiveness is poorly known. We compared mist netting and point counting data collected from the same survey points in a mature subtropical forest in Belize to assess their descriptions of a bird community within a small region and across many survey points. We surveyed each point for three consecutive days using one technique and then for three additional days using the other technique. Mist netting and point counting detected only 25% and 60%, respectively of all forest species. The species lists from mist netting and point counting had similar proportions of species in groupings based on families, abundance, and migratory status, and in diet, habitat use, and foraging substrate guilds. Species lists from mist netting had a greater proportion of understory and small species than the species list from point counting. Species lists from mist netting and point counting had smaller proportions of large-bodied and rare species than a local checklist. Point counting detected more species per point with greater time efficiency and more species per point in 25 of 28 guilds than did mist netting. Point counting detected three common species less frequently than mist netting, whereas mist netting detected 38 common species less frequently than point counting. Point counting detected understory species as frequently as mist netting did at individual points. The two methods had > 50% agreement on the presence of only four species at individual points. Both techniques detected different sets of common species with similar frequency, although point counting detected many more uncommon species. Although using both techniques was more effective than using either alone, point counting alone was significantly more efficient for conducting bird surveys.