Appreciated the effort. Here are my comments. Pls do not mind.
It will be better to post the methodology. Readers should know the methodoogy first prior to commenting on the results. Otherwise, we do not know how the surveyor(s) conducted the result and thus not sure whether the survey was conducted scientifically and systematically.
The observer effect (whether the observer(s) hold the same rule during the survey period) is sometimes very crucial when interpreting the data.
Recording birds in forest like Tai Po Kau is even more complicated. Kai set the boundary of 25 to 30 m (not sure the exact value, I may be wrong here) from each side of the survey route as it is near the visual limit of the detectability of birds in forest by a typical human being. Also, whether birds heard are considered. If so, how to quantify them.
The abundance of birds could be varied if these parameters have not been defined. The report should state clearly about this.
If the abundance of one single spp can influence the result, then a table/figure of the spp composition should be presented.
The report should also make reference to previous studies, e.g. Kai's studies about forest birds at Tai Po Kau. All previous studies in urban (By Fiona), shrubland (by Mike Leven), forest (by Kai) used the no of birds/ha. It will be great if the raw data at Tai Po Kau can be transformed to the density of birds as well for making meaningful comparison.
Just showing up and down means the seasonally variation only. Relating it to other abiotic and biotic factors could tell more.
Captain
[ Last edited by wcaptain at 15/07/2009 22:29 ]
