Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-vmcqm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-13T04:52:25.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparative range use by three Atlantic Forest understorey bird species in relation to forest fragmentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2008

Miriam M. Hansbauer*
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Management, Faculty of Forest and Environmental Sciences, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
Ilse Storch
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Management, Faculty of Forest and Environmental Sciences, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
Rafael G. Pimentel
Affiliation:
Institute of Biosciences, Department of Ecology (DESP), University of São Paulo, Rua do Matão, trav. 14, 321, 05508-901 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
Jean Paul Metzger
Affiliation:
Institute of Biosciences, Department of Ecology (DESP), University of São Paulo, Rua do Matão, trav. 14, 321, 05508-901 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
*
1Corresponding author. Email: Miriam.Hansbauer@wildlife.uni-freiburg.de

Abstract:

In this paper, we report on range use patterns of birds in relation to tropical forest fragmentation. Between 2003 and 2005, three understorey passerine species were radio-tracked in five locations of a fragmented and in two locations of a contiguous forest landscape on the Atlantic Plateau of São Paulo in south-eastern Brazil. Standardized ten-day home ranges of 55 individuals were used to determine influences of landscape pattern, season, species, sex and age. In addition, total observed home ranges of 76 individuals were reported as minimum measures of spatial requirements of the species. Further, seasonal home ranges of recaptured individuals were compared to examine site fidelity. Chiroxiphia caudata, but not Pyriglena leucoptera or Sclerurus scansor, used home ranges more than twice as large in the fragmented versus contiguous forest. Home range sizes of C. caudata differed in relation to sex, age, breeding status and season. Seasonal home ranges greatly overlapped in both C. caudata and in S. scansor. Our results suggest that one response by some forest bird species to habitat fragmentation entails enlarging their home ranges to include several habitat fragments, whereas more habitat-sensitive species remain restricted to larger forest patches.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

ANDRÉN, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355366.Google Scholar
AWADE, M. & METZGER, J. P. 2008. Importance of functional connectivity to evaluate the effects of habitat fragmentation for three Atlantic Rainforest birds. Austral Ecology 33.Google Scholar
BAILLIE, J. E., HILTON-TAYLOR, C. & STUART, S. N. (eds.) 2004. IUCN Red List of threatened species. A global species assessment. IUCN, Gland, and Cambridge. 191pp.Google Scholar
BEEHLER, B. M. & FOSTER, M. S. 1988. Hotshots, hotspots, and female preference in the organization of lek mating systems. The American Naturalist 131:203219.Google Scholar
BOSCOLO, D., CANDIA-GALLARDO, C., AWADE, M. & METZGER, J. P. in press. Importance of inter-habitat gaps and stepping-stones for a bird species in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Biotropica.Google Scholar
CANADAY, C. 1997. Loss of insectivorous birds along a gradient of human impact in Amazonia. Biological Conservation 77:6377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CARPENTER, F. L. 1987. The study of territoriality: complexities and future directions. The American Zoologist 27:401409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CRESSWELL, B. H. & ALEXANDER, I. 1992. Activity patterns of foraging Nightjars Caprimulgus europaeus. Pp. 642647 in Priede, I. G. & Swift, S. M. (eds.). Wildlife telemetry. Ellis Horwood Series in Environmental Management, Science and Technology, Ltd, Chichester.Google Scholar
DANIELS, S. J. & WALTERS, J. R. 2000. Inbreeding depression and its effects on natal dispersal in red-cockaded woodpeckers. The Condor 120:482491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEL HOYO, J., ELLIOTT, A. & CHRISTIE, D. A. 2003. Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 8: Broadbills to tapaculos. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 845 pp.Google Scholar
DEL HOYO, J., ELLIOTT, A. & CHRISTIE, D. A. 2004. Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 9: Cotingas to pipits and wagtails. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 863 pp.Google Scholar
DESROCHERS, A. & HANNON, S. J. 1997. Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds during the post-fledging period. Conservation Biology 11:12041210.Google Scholar
DEVELEY, P. F. & MARTENSEN, A. C. 2006. As aves da reserva florestal do Morro Grande (Cotia, SP). Biota Neotropica 6 (2): http://www.biotaneotropica.org.br/v6n2/pt/abstract?article+bn00706022006.Google Scholar
DEVELEY, P. F. & METZGER, J. P. 2006. Emerging threats to birds in Brazilian Atlantic forests: the roles of forest loss and configuration in a severely fragmented ecosystem. Pp. 269290 in Laurance, W. F. & Peres, C. A. (eds.). Emerging threats to tropical forests. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
DEVELEY, P. F. & STOUFFER, P. C. 2001. Effects of roads on movements by understory birds in mixed-species flocks in Central Amazonian Brazil. Conservation Biology 15:14161422.Google Scholar
FAHRIG, L. & MERRIAM, G. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8:5059.Google Scholar
FERRAZ, G., NICHOLS, J. D., HINES, J. E., STOUFFER, P. C., BIERREGAARD, R. O. & LOVEJOY, T. E. 2007. A large-scale deforestation experiment: effects of patch area and isolation on Amazon birds. Science 315:238241.Google Scholar
FONSECA, G. A. B. 1985. The vanishing Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biological Conservation 34:1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FOSTER, M. S. 1987. Delayed maturation, neoteny, and social system differences in two manakins of the genus Chiroxiphia. Evolution 41:547558.Google Scholar
GREENBERG, R. & GRADWOHL, J. 1986. Constant density and stable territoriality in some tropical insectivorous birds. Oecologia 69:618625.Google Scholar
HANSBAUER, M. M. 2007. Responses of forest understory passerines to fragmented landscapes in the Atlantic Rainforest, South-Eastern Brazil. PhD Dissertation at the University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
HANSBAUER, M. M., STORCH, I., LEU, S., NIETO-HOLGUIN, J. P., PIMENTEL, R. G., KNAUER, F. & METZGER, J. P. 2008. Movements of neotropical understory passerines affected by anthropogenic forest edges in the Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest. Biological Conservation 141:782791.Google Scholar
KARR, J. R., ROBINSON, S., BLAKE, J. G. & BIERREGAARD, R. O. 1990. Birds of four neotropical forests. Pp. 237269 in Gentry, A. H. (ed.). Four neotropical rainforests. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
KENWARD, R. 2001. A manual for wildlife radio tagging. Academic Press, London. 311 pp.Google Scholar
KÖPPEN, W. 1948. Climatologia. Ed. Fondo Cultura Economica, Mexico City. 478 pp.Google Scholar
LAURANCE, S. G. W., STOUFFER, P. C. & LAURANCE, W. F. 2004. Effects of road clearings on movement patterns of understory rainforest birds in Central Amazonia. Conservation Biology 18:10991109.Google Scholar
LAURANCE, W. F. 1997. Physical processes and edge effects. Introduction. Pp. 2931 in Laurance, W. F. & Bierregaard, R. O. (eds.). Tropical forest remnants; ecology, management, and conservation of fragmented communities. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
LOVEJOY, T. E., BIERREGAARD, R. O., RYLANDS, A. B., MALCOLM, J. B., QUINTELA, C., HARPER, L. H., BROWN, K. S., POWELL, A. H., POWELL, G. B. N., SCHUBART, H. O. R. & HAYS, M. B. 1986. Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazon forest fragments. Pp. 257285 in Soulé, M. A. (ed.). Conservation biology. The science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland.Google Scholar
METZGER, J. P., ALVES, L. F., GOULART, G., TEIXEIRA, A. M. G., SIMÕES, S. J. C. & CATHARINO, E. L. M. 2006. Uma área de relevante interesse biológico, porém pouco conhecida: a Reserva Florestal do Morro Grande. Biota Neotropica 6 (2): http://www.biotaneotropica.org.br/v6n2/pt/abstract?article+bn00406022006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MOHR, C. O. 1947. Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. American Midland Naturalist 37:223249.Google Scholar
MYERS, N., MITTERMEIER, R. A., MITTERMEIER, C. G., DA FONSECA, G. A. B. & KENT, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853858.Google Scholar
RIDGELY, R. S. & TUDOR, G. 1994. The birds of South America Vol. II – The suboscine passerines. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 814 pp.Google Scholar
SECRETARIA DO MEIO AMBIENTE DO ESTADO / INSTITUTO FLORESTAL. 2005. Inventário florestal da vegetação natural do Estado de São Paulo. Imprensa Oficial, São Paulo, Brazil. 200 pp.Google Scholar
SICK, H. 1997. Ornitologia Brasileira. Editora Nova Fronteira, Rio de Janeiro. 912 pp.Google Scholar
SIEVING, K. E., WILLSON, M. F. & DE SANTO, T. L. 1996. Habitat barriers to movement of understory birds in fragmented south-temperate rainforest. The Auk 113:944949.Google Scholar
SILVA, W. G. S., METZGER, J. P., SIMÕES, S. & SIMONETTI, C. 2007. Relief influence on the spatial distribution of the Atlantic Forest cover at the Ibiúna Plateau, SP. Brazilian Journal of Biology 67:631640.Google Scholar
SKUTCH, A. F. 1996. Antbirds and ovenbirds. University of Texas Press, Austin. 288 pp.Google Scholar
STORCH, I. 1994. Habitat and survival of Capercaillie nests and broods in the Bavarian Alps. Biological Conservation 70:237243.Google Scholar
STOTZ, D. F., FITZPATRICK, J. W., PARKER, T. A. & MOSKOVITS, D. K. 1996. Neotropical birds: ecology and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 478 pp.Google Scholar
STOUFFER, P. C. 2007. Density, territory size, and long-term spatial dynamics of a guild of terrestrial insectivorous birds near Manaus, Brazil. The Auk 124:291306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STOUFFER, P. C. & BIERREGAARD, R. O. 1995. Use of Amazonian forest fragments by understory insectivorous birds. Ecology 76:24292445.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J. 1992. Maintenance of diversity in tropical forests. Biotropica 24:283292.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J., ROBINSON, S. K., PARKER, T. A., MUNN, C. A. & PIERPONT, N. 1990. Structure and organization of an Amazonian forest bird community. Ecological Monographs 60:213238.Google Scholar
THÉRY, M. 1992. The evolution of leks through female choice: differential clustering and space utilization in six sympatric manakins. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 30:227237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
THIOLLAY, J. M. 1992. Influence of selective logging on bird species diversity in a Guianan rain forest. Conservation Biology 6:4763.Google Scholar
UEZU, A., METZGER, J. P. & VIELLIARD, J. M. E. 2005. Effects of structural and functional connectivity and patch size on the abundance of seven Atlantic Forest bird species. Biological Conservation 123:507519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VAN HOUTAN, K. S., PIMM, S. L., HALLEY, J. M., BIERREGAARD, R. O. & LOVEJOY, T. E. 2007. Dispersal of Amazonian birds in continuous and fragmented forest. Ecology Letters 9:111.Google Scholar
WALLS, S. S. & KENWARD, R. E. 1998. Movements of radio-tagged common buzzards in early life. Ibis 140:561568.Google Scholar
WALTERS, J. R. 2000. Dispersal behavior: an ornithological frontier. The Condor 102:479481.Google Scholar
WILLIS, E. O. 1979. The composition of avian communities in remanescent woodlots in southern Brazil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 33:125.Google Scholar
WILLIS, E. O. 1981. Diversity in adversity: the behaviors of two subordinate antbirds. Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo. Arquivos de Zoologia 30:159234.Google Scholar
WILLIS, E. O. & ONIKI, Y. 1978. Birds and army ants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9:243263.Google Scholar
WILLIS, E. O. & ONIKI, Y. 1982. Behavior of Fringe-backed Fire-eyes (Pyriglena atra, Formicariidae): a test case for taxonomy versus conservation. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 42:213223.Google Scholar