Bird Behavior Indicating Preferences for Habitat: A Quantitative Data Survey in the Mountain Region of ColoradoRachel McKennaIntroductionThis review presents a noticeable relationship between bird behavior and human behavior obtained in two locations of Evergreen, Colorado while obtaining information about the bird species in our area. All data was collected on bird watching trips to two specific and consistent sites in the Three Sisters lower park between between 9/20/17 and 12/6/17. The information collected was quantitative based on identifying bird species and things affecting their environment. Although these data possesses some outliers, they show a definite relationship and pattern between bird behaviors and human behaviors. The method of how this data was obtained is not entirely efficient and cannot ensure that the birds were not disturbed by my own behavior, however, enough data was processed to verify that the thesis is a valid inference. The results confirm that birds, in fact, inhibit different behavior when humans are in their environment. This data from bird watching trips is compiled by myself which is unpublished. Other data is from environmental scientists on the following publications: Environmental Science, Scientific American, and Science Direct and the Libraries of UC Davis and the US National Institute of Health. I am the only who conducted and obtained this unique survey/data that shows the relation between bird species and humans in this complex habitat.MethodologyMy methodology was based on the basic biological principles that biotic factors are likely to react to a change in their environment; the change being auditory and visual disturbances. During each bird observation trip, I established my own specific sites I visited each week for 10 minutes, observations over longer times revealed that bird species in the area are consistent. The locations I visited were chosen for me by my instructor and are a good representation of the mountain area and the Three Sisters Park. The data from this survey was sorted by site and is associated with the various behaviors exhibited. These sites can be found at the topographic points 39.6236°, -105.3432° (site 1) and 39.6251°, -105.3444° (site 2) distancing approximately 150 meters apart. These sites are located directly off pre-established trails in a public park. As my points were less 1/8th of a mile apart, the ideal distance for this type of study, it is possible my data contains over-representation of species and bird calls from other sites.The advantages of my particular survey are:The two areas where these surveys were conducted exhibit different factors worthy of analyzing; ex: weather, sounds, or other animals.It allows for the counted repetition of common birds in the area.The first advantage is necessary to be able to draw well founded conclusions, in this case, the two areas offer insight to two different types of bird habitats. Additionally, these points for survey also were chosen to be random and representative, another necessary component of simple random sampling.The second advantage is necessary in the name of collecting representative data. I found, at least in my two areas, that the most common bird from surveying was the black capped chickadee at around 10 AM.During each survey, which consisted of a constant 10 minute survey at the two pre-selected points in the study area, I counted every distinct bird species heard or seen. Because more that 15% of the birds were counted auditorily, I learned to recognize the voices and calls of the species present. However, It is difficult to identify every species heard, there were consistently calls that were unknown or unusual. The extensive study of bird traits and calls within our community is necessary. Furthermore, the capability to take pictures of unknown birds during the survey is useful when compiling data to later identify and reduce the number of uncounted species. This was done using my Apple iPhone 6s camera.81% of birds counted were seen, however, it is impossible to count birds more than 30 feet away. Furthermore, depending on the distance from the bird, it is also impossible to determine a species’ traits, such as weight, color, beak size, or recognizing a tuft. Thus, I decided to count only distinguishable birds.For each site, a mean number of each species heard or seen was calculated: this will be defined as the Species Abundance per Area (SAA). This value is the estimate number of species in the area. The SAA will vary each week, however this serves to prove the relationship between disturbance and behavior. There is the possibility that some species were undetectable and were uncounted, however, the closer the species are to the observer, the more likely the species is in my area. It is possible that species too far away to distinguish were not in my area and were part of another bird watching group. This prevents over-representation in the class data pool.During the survey, while moving between the two sites and in other groups’ areas, additional observations were made. These data were not added to my personal data pool, but helped me become familiar with other factors that may be subject to my own area. This made my surveying more efficient. Taking note of species in other areas allows the observer to recognize what could be in their own area. These data should be collected every trip to reduce percent error. This sort of information is obtained with little effort but proves very useful when compiling the quantitative results.