Abstract
The ongoing deforestation in southwestern Brazilian Amazonia is transforming the region’s landscape into a mosaic of forest fragments. The bamboo forests are threatened by the fragmentation and replacement of natural habitats due to anthropogenic activities. The bird fauna found in forest fragments and habitats dominated by bamboo is under the constant threat of local extinction due to the increasing isolation of populations. In the present study, we compared the structure of the understory bird communities (a) between an urban fragment and two rural fragments, and (b) between adjacent bamboo and non-bamboo habitats. We captured the birds in mist-nets, banded each individual, and georeferenced the capture sites. The results of the study indicate that the structure of the understory bird community varies both among the fragments and between bamboo and non-bamboo habitats. Most birds species are found in both types of habitats, although the structure of the bird community differs between habitats, due to the presence of specialist species to bamboo habitats. The structure of the bird community in each forest fragment is unique, and this must be taken into account in the formulation of strategies for the conservation and management of the region’s biodiversity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Alencar, L., Lima, J, Souza, V., Pedroza, D., Santos, E., & Guilherme, E. (2020). A Ornitologia na Fazenda Experimental Catuaba. In: Silveira, M., Guilherme, E., Vieira, L. J. S. (eds.), Fazenda Experimental Catuaba: o seringal que virou laboratório-vivo em uma paisagem fragmentada no Acre. Stricto Sensu Editora, Acre (pp 297–330).
Anderson, M. J. (2001). A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology, 26, 32–46.
Anjos, L. (2001). Bird communities in five Atlantic Forest fragments in southern Brazil. Ornitologia Neotropical, 12, 11–27.
Areta, J. I., Bodrati, A., & Cockle, K. (2009). Specialization on Guadua bamboo seeds by three bird species in the Atlantic Forest of Argentina. Biotropica, 41, 66–73.
Barbosa, K. V. C., Knogge, C., Develey, P. F., Jenkins, C. N., & Uezu, A. (2017). Use of small Atlantic Forest fragments by birds in Southeast Brazil. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 15, 42–46.
Barroso, J. G., Salimon, C. I., Silveira, M., & Morato, E. F. (2011). Influência de fatores ambientais sobre a ocorrência e distribuição espacial de cinco espécies madeireiras exploradas no Estado do Acre, Brasil. Scientia Forestalis, 39, 489–499.
Bierregaard, R. O., Lovejoy, T. E., Kapos, V., Santos, A. A. & Hutchings, R. W. (1992). The biological dynamics of tropical rainforest fragments. Bioscience, 42, 859–866.
Bierregaard, R. O., Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E., & Mesquita, R. (2001). Lessons from Amazonia: The ecology and conservation of a fragmented forest. Yale University Press.
Caughley, G. (1981). Overpopulation. In P. A. Jewell, S. Holt, & D. Hart (Eds.), Problems in management of locally abundant wild mammals (pp. 7–19). Academic Press.
Cintra, R. & Naka, L. N. (2012). Spatial variation in bird community composition in relation to topographic gradient and forest heterogeneity in a central Amazonian rainforest. International Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/435671.
Clarke, K. R. (1993). Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in Community structure. Austral Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x
Davidson, D. W., Arias, J. A., & Mann, J. (2006). An experimental study of bamboo ants in western Amazonia. Insectes Sociaux. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-005-0843-8
del Hoyo, J., Bates, J., Kirwan, G. M., & Collar, N., (2020a). Olivaceous Flatbill (Rhynchocyclus olivaceus), version 1.0. In: Billerman, S. M., Keeney, B. K., Rodewald, P. G., & Schulenberg, T. S. (eds.), Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.olifla1.01.
del Hoyo, J., Collar, N., & Kirwan, G. M. (2020b). Peruvian Warbling-Antbird (Hypocnemis peruviana), version 1.0. In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D. A., & Juana, E. (eds.), Birds of the World. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology, https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.perwaa1.01.
Dunnum, J. L., & Salazar-Bravo, J. (2004). Dactylomys Boliviensis. Mammalian Species, 745, 1–4.
Ferraz, G., Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E., Stoufer, P. C., Bierregaard, R. O., Jr., & Lovejoy, T. E. (2007). A large scale deforestation experiment: Effects of patch area and isolation on Amazon birds. Science, 315, 238–241.
Floriano, D. D., Lima, J., & Guilherme, E. (2020). Breeding biology of the Olivaceous Flatbill (Rhynchocyclus olivaceus) in an Amazonian forest fragment of northwest Brazil. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 132, 587–597.
Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E., Bierregaard, R. O., Malcolm, J. R., Stouffer, P. C., Vasconcelos, H. L., Laurence, W. F., Zimmerman, B., Tocher, M., & Borges, S. (1999). Matrix habitat and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biological Conservation, 91, 223–229.
Griscom, B. W., & Ashton, P. M. S. (2006). A self-perpetuating bamboo disturbance cycle in a neotropical forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 22, 587–597.
Guilherme E (2016) Aves do Acre. Editora Edufac, Acre.
Guilherme, E. (2001). Comunidade de Aves do Campus e Parque Zoobotânico da Universidade Federal do Acre, Brasil. Tangara, 1, 57–73.
Guimarães, D. P., & Guilherme, E. (2021). Structure and home range size of mixed-species bird flocks in a bamboo forest in southwestern Amazonia. Acta Ornithologica, 56, 1–14.
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., & Ryan, P. D. (2001). PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4, 1–9.
Hofmeister, J., Hošek, J., Brabec, M., & Kocvara, R. (2017). Spatial distribution of bird communities in small forest fragments in central Europe in relation to distance to the forest edge, fragment size and type of forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 401, 255–263.
Houtan, K. S. V., Pimm, S. L., Bierregaard, R. O., Jr., Lovejoy, T. E., & Stouffer, P. C. (2006). Local extinctions in flocking birds in Amazonian forest fragments. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 8, 129–148.
Hsieh, T. C., Ma, K. H., & Chao, A. (2016). iNEXT: An R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 1451–1456.
Isler, M. L., Isler, P. R., & Whitney, B. M. (2007). Species limits in Antbirds (Thamnophilidae): The Warbling Antbird (Hypocnemis cantator) complex. The Auk, 124, 11–28.
Jacobs, J. M., von May, R., Kavanaugh, D. H. & Connor, E. F. (2018). Beetles in bamboo forests: community structure in a heterogeneous landscape of southwestern Amazonia. PeerJ, 6, e5153. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5153.
Kratter, A. W. (1997). Bamboo specialization by Amazonian birds. Biotropica, 29, 100–110.
Kroodsma, D. E., & Brewer, D. (2020). Moustached Wren (Pheugopedius genibarbis), version 1.0. In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D. A., & Juana, E. (eds.), Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.mouwre2.01.
Lebbin, D. J. (2013). Nestedness and patch size of bamboo-specialist bird communities in southeastern Peru. The Condor., 115, 230–236.
Meneses-Filho, L. C. L., Ferraz, P. A., Pinha, J. F. M., Ferreira, L. A., & Brilhante, N. A. (1995). Comportamento de 24 espécies arbóreas tropicais madeireiras introduzidas no Parque Zoobotânico de Rio Branco-Acre. Editora Edufac, Acre.
Montibeller, B., Kmoch, A., Virro, H., Mander, Ü., & Uuemaa, E. (2020). Increasing fragmentation of forest cover in Brazil’s Legal Amazon from 2001 to 2017. Science and Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62591-x
Nascimento, E. S., Silva, S. S., Bordignon, L., Melo, A. W. F., Brandão, A., Jr., Souza, C. M., Jr., & Junior, C. H. S. L. (2021). Roads in the Southwestern Amazon, State of Acre, between 2007 and 2019. Land, 10, 106.
Nelson, B. W., Oliveira, A. C. A., Batista, G. T., Vidalenc, D., & Silveira, M. (2001). Modeling biomass of forests in the southwest Amazon by polar ordination of Landsat TM. In: Ribeiro, M. L., & Souza, Y. R. S. (eds.), Proceedings, Tenth Brazilian Remote Sensing Symposium. INPE, Paraná (pp. 1683–1690).
Nelson, B. W. (1994). Natural forest disturbance and change in the Brazilian Amazon. Remote Sensing Reviews, 10, 105–125.
Olmos, F., Galetti, M., Pashoal, M., & Mendes, S. L. (1993). Habits of the southern Bamboo Rat, Kannabateomys amblyonyx (Rodentia, Echimyidae) in Southeastern Brazil. Mammalia, 57, 325–333.
Pedroza, D., & Guilherme, E. (2019). Home range, population density, and foraging behaviour of the Yellowbreasted Warbling-Antbird (Hypocnemis subflava) in forest fragments in southwestern Brazilian Amazonia. Journal of Natural History. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2019.1667036
Pedroza, D., Melo, T. N., Silva, T. L., Guimarães, D. P., Lima, J. M., & Guilherme, E. (2020). Birds of Humaitá Forest Reserve, Acre, Brazil: An important forest fragment in south-west Amazonia. Bulletin of British Ornithology Club, 140, 58–79.
Piacentini, V. Q., Aleixo, A., Agne, C. E., Maurício, G. N., Pacheco, J. F., Bravo, G. A., et al. (2015). Annotated checklist of the birds of Brazil by the Brazilian Ornithological Records Commitee / Lista comentada das aves do Brasil pelo Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos. Rev Bras Orn, 23, 91–298.
Rasmussen, D. T., Rehg, J., & Guilherme, E. (2005). Avifauna da Fazenda Experimental Catuaba: Uma pequena reserva florestal no leste do Estado do Acre, Brasil. In: Drumond, P. M. (eds.), Fauna do Acre. Edufac, Acre (pp. 173–198).
Reid, S., Díaz, I. A., Armesto, J. J., & Willson, M. F. (2004). Importance of native bamboo for understory birds in Chilean temperate forests. The Auk, 121, 515–525.
Ribas, C. C., & Aleixo, A. (2019). Diversity and evolution of Amazonian birds: implications for conservation and biogeography. A Acad Bras Ciên 91, e20190218.
Ribon, R., & Marini, M. A. (2016). Small territory sizes and high densities of insectivorous birds in an Atlantic Forest secondary fragment, Brazil. Revista Brasileira De Ornitologia, 24, 303–313.
Ribon, R., Simon, J. E., & Mattos, G. T. (2003). Bird extinctions in Atlantic Forest fragments of the Viçosa region, southeastern Brazil. Conservation Biology, 17, 1827–1839.
Robinson, S. K., & Terborgh, J. (1995). Interspecific aggression and habitat selection by Amazonian birds. Journal of Animal Ecology, 64, 1–11.
Roriz, P. A. C., Yanai, A. M., & Fearnside, P. M. (2017). Deforestation and carbon loss in Southwest Amazonia: Impact of Brazil’s revised forest code. Environmental Management, 60, 367–382.
Rother, D. C., Alves, K. J. F., & Pizo, M. A. (2013). Avian assemblages in bamboo and non-bamboo habitats in a tropical rainforest. Emu, 113, 52–61.
Santana, C. R., & Anjos, L. (2010). Associação de aves a agrupamentos de bambu na porção Sul da Mata Atlântica, Londrina, Estado do Paraná, Brasil. Biota Neotropica, 10, 39–44.
Schulenberg, T. S., Stotz, D. F., Lane, D. F., O’Neill, J. P., & Parker, T. A., III. (2007). Birds of Peru (1st ed.). Princeton University Press.
Silveira, M. (2005). A floresta aberta com bambu no sudoeste da Amazônia. Padrões e processos em múltiplas escalas. Editora Edufac, Acre.
Silveira, M., Guilherme, E., & Vieira, L. J. S. (2020). Fazenda Experimental Catuaba: o seringal que virou laboratório-vivo em uma paisagem fragmentada no Acre. Stricto Sensu Editora, Acre.
Simon, M. F., & Garagorry, F. L. (2005). The expansion of agriculture in the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Conservation, 32, 203–212.
Socolar, S. J., Robinson, S. K., & Terborgh, J. (2013). Bird diversity and occurrence of bamboo specialists in two bamboo die-offs in Southeastern Peru. The Condor, 115, 253–262.
Souza, J. B., Guilherme, E., & Cornelius, C. (2020). Integrando fragmentos: uma proposta de conectividade para duas áreas verdes urbanas do município de Rio Branco, Acre. In: Pereira, H. S., & Mariosa, P. H. (eds.), Riscos e perspectivas da gestão ambiental na Amazônia. Appris, Curitiba (pp. 85–96).
Stotz, D. F., Fitzpatrick, J. W., Parker, T. A., III., & Moskovits, D. K. (1996). Neotropical birds: Ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press.
Stouffer, P. C., Jirinec, V., Rutt, C. L., Bierregaard, R. O., Jr., Hernández-Palma, A., Johnson, E. I., Midway, S. R., Powell, L. L., Wolfe, J. D., & Lovejoy, T. E. (2021). Long-term change in the avifauna of undisturbed Amazonian rainforest: Ground-foraging birds disappear and the baseline shifts. Ecology Letters, 24, 186–195.
Stouffer, P. C., Johnson, E. I., Bierregaard, R. O., Jr., & Lovejoy, T. E. (2011). Understory Bird Communities in Amazonian Rainforest Fragments: Species turnover through 25 years post-isolation in recovering landscapes. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020543
Tobias, J., & Seddon, N. (2009). Signal design and perception in Hypocnemis Antbirds: Evidence for convergent evolution via social selection. Evolution, 63, 3168–3189.
Willems, E. P., & Hill, R. A. (2009). Predator-specific landscapes of fear and resource distribution: Effects on spatial range use. Ecology, 90, 546–555.
Yates, D., Moore, D., & McCabe, G. (1999). The practice of statistics (1st ed.). W.H. Freeman.
Zimmer, K., & Isler, M. L. (2020b). White-throated Antbird (Oneillornis salvini), version 1.0. In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D. A., & Juana, E. (eds.), Birds of the World. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.whtant1.01.
Zimmer, K., & Isler, M. L. (2020a). Plumbeous Antbird (Myrmelastes hyperythrus), version 1.0. In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D. A., & Juana, E. (eds.), Birds of the World. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology, https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.pluant1.01.
Acknowledgements
We thank to the Universidade Federal do Acre—UFAC, to Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Manejo de Recursos Naturais, to Laboratório de Ornitologia da UFAC, to Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for granting the first author a scholarship for granting the first author a scholarship, to Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservação de Aves Silvestres (CEMAVE/ICMBio) for providing the bands used in project 1099, to biologist Richarlly Costa, and Dr Paulo A. Vieira Borges for help with the statistical analyses. We dedicate this work to biologist Felipe Wilian Santana Rocha (in memoriam) for his friendship and contribution during the field collections.
Funding
This work was supported by the CAPES—Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior [1652734].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix
Appendix
Population density of birds captured in three forest fragments in southwestern Amazonia. The Kruskal–Wallis test (applied only to species that occurred in all three grids) was used to possible differences in population density between the bamboo and non-bamboo habitats. The total number of captures in each grid and habitat is shown in the Supplementary Material 1. ZP = Zoobotanical Park, CEF = Catuaba Experimental Farm, HFR = Humaitá Forest Reserve and * = significant difference.
Family and species | Population density (ind/ha) | Kruskal–Wallis test | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forest fragments | Bamboo habitat | Non-bamboo habitat | ||||||||
ZP | CEF | HFR | ZP | CEF | HFR | ZP | CEF | HFR | ||
Columbidae | ||||||||||
Leptotila rufaxilla | 0.06 | 0.15 | Not tested | |||||||
Geotrygon montana | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.09 | Not tested | ||||||
Cuculidae | ||||||||||
Coccycua minuta | 0.06 | 0.09 | Not tested | |||||||
Coccyzus melacoryphus | 0.06 | 0.09 | Not tested | |||||||
Caprimulgidae | ||||||||||
Antrostomus sericocaudatus | 0.19 | 0.27 | 0.12 | Not tested | ||||||
Trochilidae | ||||||||||
Glaucis hirsutus | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.37 | 0.11 | 0.38 | 0.12 | 0.15 | H = 0.19, p = 0.27 | |
Phaethornis ruber | 0.19 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.56 | 0.22 | 0.12 | H = 1.19, p = 0.25 | |||
Phaethornis hispidus | 0.19 | 0.06 | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.56 | 0.73 | H = 1.19, p = 0.25 | |||
Phaethornis philippii | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.33 | 0.23 | Not tested | |||||
Phaethornis malaris | 0.12 | 0.29 | Not tested | |||||||
Chlorostilbon mellisugus | 0.06 | 0.11 | Not tested | |||||||
Thalurania furcata | 0.44 | 0.06 | 0.75 | 0.14 | 0.28 | Not tested | ||||
Hylocharis cyanus | 0.12 | 0.27 | Not tested | |||||||
Amazilia lactea | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.74 | 0.11 | Not tested | |||||
Heliomaster longirostris | 0.06 | 0.09 | Not tested | |||||||
Trogonidae | ||||||||||
Trogon curucui | 0.06 | 0.14 | Not tested | |||||||
Trogon collaris | 0.06 | 0.15 | Not tested | |||||||
Alcedinidae | ||||||||||
Chloroceryle aenea | 0.25 | 0.38 | Not tested | |||||||
Momotidae | ||||||||||
Electron platyrhynchum | 0.12 | 0.29 | Not tested | |||||||
Momotus momota | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.28 | 0.44 | Not tested | |||||
Bucconidae | ||||||||||
Bucco macrodactylus | 0.37 | 0.75 | 0.19 | Not tested | ||||||
Monasa nigrifrons | 0.19 | 0.28 | Not tested | |||||||
Monasa morphoeus | 0.06 | 0.12 | Not tested | |||||||
Capitonidae | ||||||||||
Capito auratus | 0.06 | 0.19 | Not tested | |||||||
Ramphastidae | ||||||||||
Pteroglossus inscriptus | 0.06 | 0.09 | Not tested | |||||||
Pteroglossus beauharnaisii | 0.12 | 0.23 | Not tested | |||||||
Picidae | ||||||||||
Picumnus rufiventris | 0.94 | 2.78 | Not tested | |||||||
Veniliornis affinis | 0.06 | 0.19 | Not tested | |||||||
Veniliornis passerinus | 0.31 | 0.43 | 0,58 | Not tested | ||||||
Celeus spectabilis | 0.06 | 0.19 | Not tested | |||||||
Campephilus melanoleucos | 0.06 | 0.14 | Not tested | |||||||
Thamnophilidae | ||||||||||
Microrhopias quixensis | 0.06 | 0.19 | Not tested | |||||||
Epinecrophylla leucophthalma | 0.06 | 0.19 | Not tested | |||||||
Epinecrophylla ornata | 0.31 | 0.55 | Not tested | |||||||
Myrmotherula axillaris | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.62 | 0.56 | 0.14 | 0.33 | 0.19 | 1.02 | H = 0.04, p = 0.83 | |
Myrmotherula longipennis | 0.12 | 0.23 | Not tested | |||||||
Isleria hauxwelli | 0.19 | 0.37 | 0.11 | 0.35 | 0.73 | Not tested | ||||
Thamnomanes ardesiacus | 0.19 | 0.44 | Not tested | |||||||
Thamnomanes schistogynus | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.44 | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.28 | 0.12 | 0.29 | H = 0.42, p = 0.51 | |
Thamnophilus schistaceus | 0.31 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.27 | 0.38 | 0.23 | Not tested | |||
Thamnophilus aethiops | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.46 | 0.44 | Not tested | |||
Myrmelastes hyperythrus | 0.62 | 1.30 | 0.03 | Not tested | ||||||
Myrmoborus myotherinus | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.29 | Not tested | ||||||
Sciaphylax hemimelaena | 0.81 | 0.94 | 0.69 | 1.48 | 1.23 | 0.55 | 0.47 | 0.69 | 0.88 | H = 1.19, p = 0.27 |
Cercomacroides fuscicauda | 0.19 | 0.44 | Not tested | |||||||
Hypocnemis subflava | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.43 | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.76 | H = 3.85, p = 0.04* | |||
Hypocnemis peruviana | 0.31 | 0.73 | Not tested | |||||||
Willisornis poecilinotus | 0.68 | 0.22 | 1.31 | Not tested | ||||||
Phlegopsis nigromaculata | 0.06 | 0.31 | 0.22 | 0.12 | 0.44 | Not tested | ||||
Oneillornis salvini | 0.69 | 0.87 | 0.44 | Not tested | ||||||
Conopophagidae | ||||||||||
Conopophaga peruviana | 0.06 | 0.15 | Not tested | |||||||
Grallaridae | ||||||||||
Hylopezus berlepschi | 0.12 | 0.37 | Not tested | |||||||
Formicariidae | ||||||||||
Formicarius colma | 0.12 | 0.31 | 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.58 | Not tested | ||||
Dendrocolaptidae | ||||||||||
Dendrocincla fuliginosa | 0.06 | 0.44 | 0.19 | 0.27 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.46 | 0.29 | H = 1.19, p = 0.27 | |
Dendrocincla merula | 0.25 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.19 | 0.29 | Not tested | |||
Sittasomus griseicapillus | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.27 | 0.12 | 0.15 | Not tested | ||||
Glyphorynchus spirurus | 0.62 | 0.12 | 0.27 | 0.11 | 0.92 | 0.15 | Not tested | |||
Xiphorhynchus elegans | 0.19 | 0.06 | 0.35 | 0.15 | Not tested | |||||
Xiphorhynchus guttatoides | 0.44 | 0.19 | 0.37 | 0.47 | 0.35 | Not tested | ||||
Campylorhamphus trochilirostris | 0.12 | 0.37 | Not tested | |||||||
Dendroplex picus | 0.06 | 0.14 | Not tested | |||||||
Dendrocolaptes picumnus | 0.06 | 0.12 | Not tested | |||||||
Xenopidae | ||||||||||
Xenops minutus | 0.06 | 0.31 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.43 | Not tested | ||||
Furnariidae | ||||||||||
Automolus rufipileatus | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.14 | Not tested | |||||
Automolus subulatus | 0.06 | 0.15 | Not tested | |||||||
Automolus ochrolaemus | 0.56 | 0.31 | 0.41 | 0.11 | 0.69 | 0.58 | Not tested | |||
Philydor erythrocercum | 0.06 | 0.94 | Not tested | |||||||
Synallaxis rutilans | 0.06 | 0.14 | Not tested | |||||||
Pipridae | ||||||||||
Neopelma sulphureiventer | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.09 | Not tested | ||||||
Pipra fasciicauda | 4.31 | 0.69 | 1.69 | 7.78 | 0.27 | 1.09 | 2.55 | 0.80 | 2.48 | H = 0.05, p = 0.82 |
Ceratopipra rubrocapilla | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.15 | Not tested | |||||
Lepidothrix coronata | 0.06 | 0.13 | Not tested | |||||||
Machaeropterus pyrocephalus | 1 | 2.22 | 0.38 | Not tested | ||||||
Onychorhynchidae | ||||||||||
Onychorhynchus coronatus | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.12 | 0.37 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.15 | H = 0.05, p = 0.82 | |
Terenotriccus erythrurus | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.15 | Not tested | ||||
Tityridae | ||||||||||
Laniocera hypopyrra | 0.06 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.12 | 0.29 | Not tested | ||||
Tityridae | ||||||||||
Pachyramphus polychopterus | 0.06 | 0.14 | Not tested | |||||||
Rhynchocyclidae | ||||||||||
Mionectes oleagineus | 0.06 | 0.25 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.29 | Not tested | ||||
Leptopogon amaurocephalus | 0.19 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.55 | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.73 | H = 1.19, p = 0.27 | |
Corythopis torquatus | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.29 | Not tested | |||||
Rhynchocyclus olivaceus | 2.31 | 3.15 | 2.07 | Not tested | ||||||
Hemitriccus flammulatus | 1 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 2.40 | 0.55 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.43 | H = 2.33, p = 0.13 | |
Lophotriccus eulophotes | 0.12 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.29 | Not tested | ||||
Tyrannidae | ||||||||||
Attila spadiceus | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.37 | 0.14 | 0.33 | Not tested | |||
Ramphotrigon megacephalum | 0.06 | 0.14 | Not tested | |||||||
Ramphotrigon ruficauda | 0.12 | 0.23 | Not tested | |||||||
Ramphotrigon fuscicauda | 0.12 | 0.29 | Not tested | |||||||
Myiarchus ferox | 0.06 | 0.19 | Not tested | |||||||
Cnemotriccus_fuscatus | 0.19 | 0.44 | Not tested | |||||||
Troglodytidae | Not tested | |||||||||
Microcerculus marginatus | 0.31 | 0.22 | 0.44 | Not tested | ||||||
Pheugopedius genibarbis | 2.25 | 0.19 | 0.25 | 4.63 | 0.41 | 0.44 | 1.04 | H = 1.19, p = 0.27 | ||
Cantorchilus leucotis | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.46 | Not tested | ||||||
Turdidae | ||||||||||
Catharus swainsoni | 0.06 | 0.15 | Not tested | |||||||
Turdus ignobilis | 0.06 | 0.19 | Not tested | |||||||
Turdus hauxwelli | 0.19 | 0.37 | 0.94 | Not tested | ||||||
Passerellidae | ||||||||||
Arremon taciturnus | 0.25 | 0.58 | Not tested | |||||||
Icteridae | ||||||||||
Cacicus cela | 0.12 | 0.37 | Not tested | |||||||
Thraupidae | ||||||||||
Ramphocelus carbo | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.43 | Not tested | |||||
Sporophila angolensis | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.12 | 0.15 | Not tested | ||||
Saltator maximus | 0.06 | 0.15 | Not tested | |||||||
Cardinalidae | ||||||||||
Habia rubra | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.23 | 0.29 | Not tested | |||||
Cyanoloxia rothschildii | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.29 | Not tested | |||||
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pedroza, D., Guilherme, E. Community structure and spatial distribution of understory birds in three bamboo-dominated forests in southwestern Amazonia. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 22, 277–293 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42974-021-00053-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42974-021-00053-8