route A and the new route as Circle route B. In order to test the significance 

 of this change on the sample results, the following breeding season runs of the | 

 Circle routes were made. On June 15, Circle route B was run as it had been since 

 January. Immediately upon completing the 50th stop, stops 38 through 45 of Circle 

 route A were run in reverse sequence. By substituting these for the correspond- 

 ing stops on Circle route B, a complete run of Circle route A was approximated. 

 Circle route B was run again on June 22 for comparison with the June 16 runs. 



For each month, data were summarized for each route and for the four routes 

 combined. In e\jery case, S (the total number of species seen), H (the total 

 number of registrations or individuals seen), n^- (the total number of registra- 

 tions or individuals seen of the i species), and fj (the frequency or number 

 of stops at which the i^ species was seen), were calculated from the raw data. 

 Birds and mammals were analyzed separately. Single-species dominance (the pro- 

 portion of individuals belonging to the most abundant species) and two-species 

 dominance (the proportion of individuals belonging to the two most abundant 

 species) vjere also calculated. 



Table 5 summarizes the percentage of representation of the various habitat 

 categories within each area sampled by a roadside wildlife survey route. Since 

 these routes were set up to sample representative habitats of the reconnaissance 

 level study area, the percent habitat representation of the five routes combined 

 can be considered to approximate that of the entire reconnaissance study area. 

 Thus, it was assumed that these percentages represented the relative availabil- 

 ity of habitats to vertebrates sampled by ground and aerial surveys, and these 

 percentages were used in determining habitat preferences of certain vertebrates 

 (see the section entitled Species Narratives). 



Prominence values for each bird species were calculated using the method 

 of Beals (1960): 



Prominence value = P- = (n^)(f.'2) 



Percent similarity was calculated among three groups of counts including: 

 the six June runs of the Circle route conducted since 1968; the three runs of 

 the Circle route conducted in June of 1977; and the five different routes run 

 in June of 1977. The coefficient of similarity described by Bray and Curtis 

 (1957) was used: 



c = 2w 

 a+b 



where a = E prominence values P. for route a, 



b = I prominence values P^ for route b, and 



\i = Z of the lower of the prominence values for each species 

 which the two routes have in common. 



A great many different alpha and gamma diversity indices have been applied 

 to ecological data (Pielou 1966; Peet 1974), the most simple and perhaps the 

 most meaningful of which is simply the number of species in the sample (S). 



30 



