Abstract
Understory birds are especially vulnerable to habitat fragmentation because of the reduction in habitat quality and bird movement. We study the separate effects of understory, overstory and landscape on four understory birds (tapaculos), in Central Chile, comprising a landscape mosaic of pine (Pinus radiata D. Don) plantations and native Maulino forest fragments. We also determined whether habitats with poor understory could be barrier to tapaculos movements. Abundance was measured using stationary playbacks and habitat barrier through playbacks. Understory structure was the main factor that predicted tapaculos presence and abundance. Two species, the Andean Tapaculo (Scytalopus magellanicus fuscus Gmelin) and the Ochre-flanked Tapaculo (Eugralla paradoxa Kittlitz), were positively associated with dead pine branches and negatively to forest fragment size. Tapaculos were less abundant in mature native forest, but appeared willing to cross between different habitat types. However, the Chestnut-throated Huet-huet (Pteroptochos castaneus Philippi and Landbeck), did not move from forest fragments to pine with poor understory. Overall, tapaculos species varied in their response to fragmentation depending on their habitat selection and movement capacities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acosta-Jamett G. and Simonetti J.A. (2004). Habitat use by Oncifelis guiga and Pseudalopex culpaeus in a fragmented forest landscape in central Chile. Biodivers. Conserv. 13: 1135–1151
Bare B.B. and Hann B.W. (1981). Application of ridge regression in forestry. For. Sci. 27: 339–348
Estades C. and Escobar M.A. 2005. In: Smith-Ramírez C. Armesto J.J. and Valdovinos C. (eds), Historia, biodiversidad y ecología de los bosques costeros de Chile. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, pp. 600–616.
Falls J.B. (1981). Mapping territories with playback: an accurate census method for songbirds. Stud. Avian Biol. 6: 86–91
Grez A.A. 2005. In: Smith-Ramírez C. Armesto J.J. and Valdovinos C. (eds), Historia, biodiversidad y ecología de los bosques costeros de Chile. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, pp. 565–572.
Grez A.A., Moreno P. and Elgueta M. (2003). Coleópteros (Insecta: Coleoptera) epígeos asociados al bosque Maulino y plantaciones de pino aledañas. Rev. Chil. Entomol. 29: 9–18
Higgins F.K. Oldemeyer J.L., Jenkins K.J. Clambey G.K. and Harlow R.F. 1996. In: Bookhout T.A. (eds), Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats, 5th ed. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, pp. 567–588.
Hosmer D.W. and Lemeshow S. (1998). Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley and Sons, New York
Johnson A.W. (1967). The birds of Chile and adjacent regions of ArgentinaBolivia and Peru. Platt Establecimientos Gráficos, Buenos Aires
Krabbe N.K. and Schulenberg T.S. 2003. In: del Hoyo J.Krabbe N.K. and Schulenberg T.S. (eds), Handbook of the Bords of the World. Lynx Ediciones and BirdLife International, Barcelona, pp. 748–787.
Lara A.Echeverría C. and Reyes R. 2002. In: Gligo N. (eds) Estado del medio ambiente en Chile 2002. LOM Ediciones, Santiago, pp. 133–160.
Lindenmayer D.B. and Lacy R.C. (1995). Metapopulation viability of arboreal marsupials in fragmented old-growth forests: comparison among species. Ecol. Appl. 5: 183–199
Lindenmayer D.B. and Hobbs R.J. (2004). Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests – a review. Biol. Conserv. 119: 151–168
López G. and Moro M.J. (1997). Birds of Aleppo pine plantations in south-east Spain in relation to vegetation composition and structure. J. Appl. Ecol. 34: 1257–1272
Reid S., Díaz I.A., Armesto J.J. and Willson M.F. (2004). Importance of native bamboo for understory birds in Chilean temperate forests. Auk 121: 515–525
San Martín J. and Donoso C. 1995. In: Armesto J.J. Villagrán C. and Arroyo M.K. (eds), Ecología de los bosques nativos de Chile. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, pp. 153–168.
Sekercioglu C.H., Ehrlich P.R., Daily G.C., Aygen D., Goehring D. and Sandi R. (2002). Disappearance of insectivorous birds from tropical forest fragments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99: 263–267
Sieving K.E., Willson M.F. and de Santo T.L. (1996). Habitat barriers to movement of understory birds in fragmented south-temperate rainforest. Auk 113: 944–949
Sieving K.E., Willson M.F. and de Santo T.L. (2000). Defining corridor functions for endemic birds in fragmented south-temperate rainforest. Conserv. Biol. 14: 1120–1132
Simonetti J.A., Grez A.A. and Bustamante R.O. (2002). El valor de la matriz en la conservación ambiental. Ambiente y Desarrollo 18: 116–118
St.Clair C.C., Belisle M., Desrochers A. and Hannon S. 1998. Winter responses of forest birds to habitat corridors and gaps. Conserv. Ecol. 2: 13 (http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss2/art13).
Stouffer P.C. and Bierregaard R.O. (1995). Use of Amazonian forest fragments by understory insectivorous birds. Ecology 76: 2429–2445
Vergara P.M. and Simonetti J.A. (2003). Forest fragmentation and rhinocriptid nest predation in central Chile. Acta Oecol. 24: 285–288
Vergara P.M. and Simonetti J.A. (2004a). Avian responses to fragmentation of the Maulino in central Chile. Oryx 38: 383–388
Vergara P.M. and Simonetti J.A. (2004b). Does nest-site cover reduce nest predation for rhinocryptids?. J. Field Ornithol. 75: 188–191
Wiens J.A. 1990. Habitat fragmentation and wildlife populations: the importance of autoecology, time and landscape structure. Transactions 19th International Union of Game Biologists Congress, Trondheim 1989, pp. 381–391.
Willson M.F. (2004). Loss of habitat connectivity hinders pair formation and juvenile dispersal of Chucao tapaculos in Chilean rainforest. Condor 106: 166–171
Willson M.F., de Santo T.L., Sabag C. and Armesto J.J. (1994). Avian communities of fragmented south-temperate rainforests in Chile. Conserv. Biol. 8: 508–520
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vergara, P.M., Simonetti, J.A. Abundance and Movement of Understory Birds in a Maulino Forest Fragmented by Pine Plantations. Biodivers Conserv 15, 3937–3947 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-2355-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-2355-2