Contribution of agroecosystems to the conservation of bird diversity in the department of Caldas

Published

2018-05-01

Aporte de los agroecosistemas a la conservación de la diversidad de las aves silvestres en el departamento de Caldas

Keywords:

Avifauna, Secondary forests, Structural complexity of the vegetation, Mixed-cropping, Mono-cropping, Plantations (en)
Avifauna, Bosques secundarios, Complejidad estructural de la vegetación, Cultivos mixtos, Monocultivos, Plantaciones (es)

Downloads

PDF
XHTML

Authors

Estefani Tatiana Martínez-Sánchez Universidad de Caldas https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1656-7573
Marelid Cardona Romero Universidad de Caldas https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3286-5896
Fredy Arvey Rivera Páez Universidad de Caldas https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8048-5818
Jorge Enrique Pérez Cárdenas Universidad de Caldas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7829-6505
Gabriel Jaime Castaño-Villa Universidad de Caldas https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5327-8063

Abstract (en)
Abstract (es)

In tropical regions, the contributions and limitations of agroecosystems have been identified with respect to bird diversity conservation. It has been suggested that agroecosystems can have different conservation values, according to the structural complexity of the vegetation (e.g., higher number of vegetation strata, cultivated species diversity, among others). Therefore, agroecosystems, especially those with a smaller area (e.g., small-holdings), could be crucial for developing bird conservation strategies. In order to establish the contribution of different agroecosystem types to bird conservation in the department of Caldas (Colombia), we compared bird richness, abundance, and similarity associated to three types of habitats: (1) type I agroecosystems (mono-cropping with bare soil), (2) type II agroecosystems (mixed-cropping, grazing pastures with weeds and dispersed trees, and plantations with understory), and (3) secondary forests. Type II agroecosystems did not differ in bird richness and similarity compared to secondary forests, and species with high sensitivity to disturbance were registered (Zentrygon frenata, Phaetornis guy, Phaetornis syrmatophorus, Lepidocolaptes lacrymiger and Sphenopsis frontalis). Additionally, we registered a species of global conservation interest (Chloropipo flavicapilla) and four migratory species (Catharus ustulatus, Parkesia noveboracensis, Setophaga fusca and Setophaga striata) in this type of agroecosystem. Thus, type II agroecosystem habitats are not completely negative on avifauna, and they could serve an important role within conservation strategies in rural landscapes.

En las regiones tropicales se han identificado los aportes y limitaciones de los agroecosistemas en el contexto de la conservación de la diversidad de las aves. Se ha sugerido que los agroecosistemas pueden presentar un valor diferente para la conservación, de acuerdo con la complejidad estructural de la vegetación (e.g., mayor número de estratos de la vegetación, diversidad de las especies cultivadas, entre otros). En este sentido, los agroecosistemas de una menor área (e.g., minifundios), pueden ser claves en el desarrollo de estrategias encaminadas a la conservación de la avifauna. Con el objetivo de establecer el aporte de diferentes tipos de agroecosistemas a la conservación de las aves en el departamento de Caldas (Colombia), se comparó la riqueza, abundancia y similitud de las aves asociadas a tres tipos de hábitats: (1) agroecosistemas tipo I (monocultivos con suelo limpio), (2) agroecosistemas tipo II (cultivos mixtos, potreros enmalezados con árboles dispersos y plantaciones con sotobosque) y (3) bosques secundarios. Los agroecosistemas tipo II no difirieron en la riqueza y en la similitud de las aves con respecto a los bosques secundarios, además se registraron especies con alta sensibilidad a la perturbación (Zentrygon frenata, Phaetornis guy, Phaetornis syrmatophorus, Lepidocolaptes lacrymiger y Sphenopsis frontalis). Adicionalmente en este tipo de agroecosistemas se registró una especie de interés para la conservación global (Chloropipo flavicapilla) y cuatro especies migratorias (Catharus ustulatus, Parkesia noveboracensis, Setophaga fusca y Setophaga striata). Los agroecosistemas tipo II no son hábitats completamente negativos para la avifauna y podrían desempeñar un rol importante dentro de las estrategias para la conservación en paisajes rurales.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arango N, Armenteras D, Castro M, Gottsmann T, Hernández OL, Matallana CL, Morales M, Naranjo LG, Renjifo LM, Trujillo AF y Villarreal HF. 2003. Vacíos de conservación del Sistema de Parques Nacionales de Colombia desde una perspectiva ecorregional. Primera edición. Editorial Sepia Ltda, Bogotá. 64 p.

Barlow J, Mestre LAM, Gardner TA and Peres CA. 2007. The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for Amazonian birds. Biological Conservation 136(2): 212-231. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.021

Blake JG and Loiselle BA. 2001. Bird assemblages in second-growth and old-growth forest, Costa Rica: Perspectives from mist nets and point counts. The Auk 118(2):304-326. doiI: 10.2307/4089793

Bruinsma J. 2003. World Agriculture: towards 2015/2030 an FAO perspective. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Earthscan Publications Ltd., London. 44 p.

Castaño-Villa GJ, Morales-Betancourt JA and Bedoya-Álvarez ML. 2008. contribution of a mixed forest plantation to avifauna conservation at rio Cauca canyon, Colombia. Rev.Fac.Nal.Agr.Medellìn 61(1):4358-4365. doi:10.15446/rfnam

Castaño-Villa GJ, Estévez JV and Fontúrbel FE. 2014. The role of native forest plantations in the conservation of Neotropical birds: the case of the Andean alder. Journal for Nature Conservation 22(6):547–551. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2014.08.010

Clarke KR. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18(1):117-143. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x

Colwell RK. 2013. EstimateS: Statistical stimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9.1.0.

Corporación Autónoma Regional de Caldas (Corpocaldas) y Asociación Calidris. 2010. Estado de conocimiento de las aves en el departamento de Caldas: Prioridades de conservación y vacíos de información, Manizales. 105 p.

Corporación Autónoma Regional de Caldas (Corpocaldas). 2016. Plan de acción institucional 2016-2019. Actualización ambiental del diagnóstico ambiental de Caldas, Manizales. 77 p.

Dinno A. 2017. Dunn's Test of Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums. Packege “dunn.test” Versión 1.3.4.

Faria D, Laps RR, Baumgarten J and Cetra M. 2006. Bat and Bird Assemblages from Forests and Shade Cacao Plantations in Two Contrasting Landscapes in the Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia, Brazil. Biodiversity & Conservation 15(2): 587-612. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-2089-1

Fontúrbel FE, Candia AB and Castaño-Villa GJ. 2016. Are abandoned eucalyptus plantations avifauna-friendly? A case study in the Valdivian rainforest. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 87(4): 1402-1406. doi: 10.1016/j.rmb.2016.09.011

Greenberg R, Bichier P and Sterling J. 1997. Bird populations in rustic and planted shade coffee plantations of eastern Chiapas, Mexico. Biotropica 29(4):501-514. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.1997.tb00044.x

Gentry A. 1992. Tropical Forest Biodiversity: Distributional Patterns and Their Conservational Significance. Oikos 63(1): 19-28. doi: 10.2307/3545512

Gibson L, Ming Lee T, Pin Koh L, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J, Peres CA, Bradshaw CJA, Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE and Sodhi NS. 2011. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity Nature 478(7369): 378-381. doi:10.1038/nature10425

Hammer Ø, Harper DAT and Ryan PD. 2001. PAST: Paleontological statistic software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1): 1-9.

Hanula JL, Horn S and O’Brien JJ. 2015. Have changing forests conditions contributed to pollinator decline in the southeastern United States? Forest Ecology and Management 348: 142-152. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.03.044

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. In: www.iucnredlist.org. 2307-8235. Accessed: March 2017.

Jaramillo-Robledo A, Ramírez-Builes VH, y Arcila-Pulgarín J. 2011. Patrones de distribución de la lluvia en la zona cafetera. Programa de Investigación Científica Fondo Nacional del Café. Cenicafé, Chinchiná. 12 p.

Lozano-Zambrano FH, Mendoza-Sabogal JE, Vargas-Franco AM, Renjifo LM, Jiménez E, Caycedo PC, Vargas W, Aristizábal SL y Ramírez DP. 2009. Capítulo 3: Oportunidades de conservación en el paisaje rural. pp. 41-80. En: Lozano-Zambrano FH (ed). 2009. Herramientas de manejo para la conservación de biodiversidad en paisajes rurales. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt y Corporación Autónoma Regional de Cundinamarca (CAR). Bogotá, D. C. 238 p.

MacGregor-Fors, I and Payton ME. 2013. Contrasting Diversity Values: Statistical Inferences Based on Overlapping Confidence Intervals. Plos One 8(2): e56794. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056794

Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural-MADR., Gobernación de Caldas, Fondo Nacional de Fomento Hortifrutícola-FNFH, Asociación Hortifrutícola de Colombia-Asohofrucol y Sociedad de Agricultores y Ganaderos del Valle del Cauca SAG. 2006. Plan Frutícola Nacional, desarrollo de la fruticultura en Caldas. Manizales. 80 p.

Nájera A and JA Simonetti. 2010. Enhancing avifauna in comercial plantations. Conservation Biology 24(1):319-324. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01350.x

Pejchar L, Pringle R, Ranganathana J, Zook JR, Duran G, Oviedo F and Daily GC. 2008. Birds as agents of seed dispersal in a human-dominated landscape in southern Costa Rica. Biological Conservation 141(2): 536-544. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.11.008

Petit LJ, Petit DR, Christian DG and Powell HDW. 1999. Bird communities of natural and modified habitats in Panama. 1999. Ecography 22(3):292-304. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1999.tb00505.x

Petit LJ and Petit DR. 2003. Evaluating the importance of human-modified lands for neotropical bird conservation. Conservation Biology 17(3):687-694. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.00124.x

Philpott SM and Bichier P. 2012. Effects of shade tree removal on birds in coffee agroecosystems in Chiapas, Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 149(1): 171-180. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.02.015

R Development Core Team. 2014. R: a Language and Enviroment for Statistical Computing, Reference Index Version 3.2.5. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Remsen JV, Cadena CD, Jaramillo A, Nores M, Pacheco JF, Perez-Eman J, Robbins MB, Stiles FG, Stotz DF and Zimmer KJ. 2016. Version 22-February-2016. A Classification of the Bird Species of South America. American Ornithologists' Union.

Restall R, Rodner C and Lentino M. 2007. Birds of Northern South America An Identification Guide. Volume 1. Yale University Press. 880 p.

Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber E, Huenneke LF, Jackson R, Kinzig A, Lodge D, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes M, Walker B, Walker M and Wall DH. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287 (5459): 1770-1774. doi: 10.1126/science.287.5459.1770

Simonetti JA, Grez AA and Estades CF. 2012. Biodiversity conservation in agroforestry landscapes. First edition. Editorial Universitaria S.A, Santiago de Chile. 162 p.

Stotz DF, Fitzpatrick JW, Parker III TA and Moskovist DK. 1996. Neotropical birds: Ecology and conservation. First edition. University of Chicago Pr, Chicago. 502 p.

Wood S, Sebastian K and Scherr SJ. 2000. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems. International Food Policy Research Institute and World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 111 p.

Zar JH. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. Third edition. Editorial Prentice Hall, Mexico. 751 p.

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The journal allows the author(s) to maintain the exploitation rights (copyright) of their articles without restrictions. The author(s) accept the distribution of their articles on the web and in paper support (25 copies per issue) under open access at local, regional, and international levels. The full paper will be included and disseminated through the Portal of Journals and Institutional Repository of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, and in all the specialized databases that the journal considers pertinent for its indexation, to provide visibility and positioning to the article. All articles must comply with Colombian and international legislation, related to copyright.

Author Commitments

The author(s) undertake to assign the rights of printing and reprinting of the material published to the journal Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín. Any quotation of the articles published in the journal should be made given the respective credits to the journal and its content. In case content duplication of the journal or its partial or total publication in another language, there must be written permission of the Director.

Content Responsibility

The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and the journal are not necessarily responsible or in solidarity with the concepts issued in the published articles, whose responsibility will be entirely the author or the authors.