Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-kjzhn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T10:11:58.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A rapid assessment of Bolivian and Ecuadorian montane avifaunas using 20-species lists: efficiency, biases and data gathered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

Bent Otto Poulsen ,
Niels Krabbe ,
Amy Frølander ,
Marcelo B. Hinojosa  and
Carmen O. Quiroga
Bent Otto Poulsen
Affiliation:
Centre for Research on the Cultural and Biological Diversity of Andean Rainforests (DIVA), Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Niels Krabbe
Affiliation:
Centre for Research on the Cultural and Biological Diversity of Andean Rainforests (DIVA), Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Amy Frølander
Affiliation:
Centre for Research on the Cultural and Biological Diversity of Andean Rainforests (DIVA), Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Marcelo B. Hinojosa
Affiliation:
Museo National de Historia Natural, Universidad Mayor de San Andres, Casilla 10077, La Paz, Bolivia.
Carmen O. Quiroga
Affiliation:
Museo National de Historia Natural, Universidad Mayor de San Andres, Casilla 10077, La Paz, Bolivia.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Tropical forests are disappearing very rapidly, so there is often not time for thorough quantitative studies. It therefore becomes increasingly important to use rapid, reliable and informative methods which are also adjusted to tropical logistic constraints. In this paper we use data from seven dry and semi-humid temperate forest patches in Bolivia and three humid, temperate forests in Ecuador to estimate the efficiency, potential biases and the amount of information obtained by the 20-species list method, which we applied in a rapid assessment of avian species richness. Even when used without any standardizations, 20-species lists produce more data than simple species lists, particularly on the amount of survey effort, the order of species richness, the relative abundances of species and the α-diversity index. This approach precludes comparisons with lists from other sites. However, when applied with standardization of area, altitude and effort, the method is neither easier to use nor superior to point counts (based upon vocalizations) in combination with dawn chorus tape-recordings. In species-poor habitats, it is more appropriate to use lists of fewer species. The method is recommended due to its simplicity and the increased quantity of information produced, but it requires a reasonable amount of observer competence and is therefore unfit for use by people ignorant of local avifaunas.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bird Conservation International , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 53 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Birdlife International 1997

References

Bibby, C. J., Burgess, N. D. and Hill, D. A. (1992) Bird census techniques. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Collar, N. J., Gonzaga, L. P., Krabbe, N., Madroño Nieto, N., Naranjo, L. G., III,Parker, T. A. and Wege, D. C. (1992) Threatened Birds of the Americas. Cambridge, U. K.: International Council for Bird Preservation.Google Scholar
Dale, V. H., Pearson, S. M., Offerman, H. L. and O'Neill, R. V. (1994) Relating patterns of land-use change to faunal biodiversity in the central Amazon. Conserv. Biol. 8: 1027–1036.Google Scholar
Fjeldså, J. (1993) The avifauna of the Polylepis woodlands of the Andean highlands: the efficiency of basing conservation priorities on patterns of endemism. Bird Conserv. Internatn. 3: 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fjeldså, J. and Krabbe, N. (1990) Birds of the High Andes. Copenhagen: Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen and Svendborg: Apollo Books.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., Corbet, A. S. and Williams, C. B. (1943) The relation between the number of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. J. Anim. Ecol. 12: 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J. A. and Martinez, P. (1995) Measurement and mapping of avian diversity in southern Africa: implications for conservation planning. Ibis 137: 410–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, R. T., Sherry, T. W. and Sturges, F. W. (1986) Bird community dynamics in a temperate deciduous forest: long-term trends at Hubbard Brook. Ecol. Monogr. 56: 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) (1992) Putting biodiversity on the map: priority areas for global conservation. Cambridge: Burlington Press.Google Scholar
Kempton, R. A. and Taylor, L. R. (1974) Log-series and log-normal parameters as diversity discriminants for the Lepidoptera. J. Anim. Ecol. 43: 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, R. A. and Taylor, L. R. (1976) Models and statistics for species diversity. Nature 262: 818–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kessler, M. (1995) Polylepis-Wälder Boliviens: Taxa,öokologie, verbreitung und geschichte. Berlin: J. Cramer.Google Scholar
Krebs, C. J. (1989) Ecological methodology. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, J. and Phillipps, K. (1993) A field guide to the birds of Borneo, Sumatra, Java and Bali. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Magurran, A. E. (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. London: Croom Helm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okia, N. O. (1976) Birds of the understorey of lake-shore forests on the Entebbe peninsula, Uganda. Ibis 118: 1–13.Google Scholar
Oniki, Y. and Willis, E. O. (1982a) Breeding records of birds from Mànaus, Brazil: Formicariidae to Pipridae. Rev. Brasil. Biol. 42: 563–569.Google Scholar
Oniki, Y. and Willis, E. O. (1982b) Breeding records of birds from Manaus, Brazil, II. Apodidae to Furnariidae. Rev. Brasil. Biol. 42: 745–752.Google Scholar
Oniki, Y. and Willis, E. O. (1983) Breeding records of birds from Manaus, Brazil, IV. Tyrannidae to Vireonidae. Rev. Brasil. Biol. 43: 45–54.Google Scholar
Parker, T. A. III. (1991) On the use of tape-recorders in avifaunal surveys. Auk 108: 443–444.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, D. and Tengecho, B. (1986) Studies of birds in a semi-arid area of Kenya, III. The use of “Timed Species- counts” for studying regional avifaunas. J. Trop. Ecol. 2: 231–247.Google Scholar
Poulsen, B. O. (1994) Mist-netting as a census method for determining species richness and abundances in an Andean cloud forest bird community. Gerfaut 84: 39–49.Google Scholar
Poulsen, B. O. and Krabbe, N. (in press) Avifaunal diversity of five high-altitude cloud forests on the Andean western slope of Ecuador: testing a rapid assessment method. J. Biogeogr.Google Scholar
Remsen, J. V. Jr. (1994) Use and misuse of bird lists in community ecology and conservation. Auk 111: 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, J. M. C. and Constantino, R. (1988) Aves de um trecho de mata no baixo Rio Guamá - uma reanálise: riqueza, raridade, diversidade, similaridade e preferencias ecologicas. Bol. Mus. Para. Emílio Goeldi, sér. Zool. 4: 201–210.Google Scholar
Soberón M., J. and Llorente B., J. (1993) The use of species accumulation functions for the prediction of species richness. Conserv. Biol. 7: 480–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L. R., Kempton, R. A. and Woiwod, I. P. (1976) Diversity statistics and the log-series model. J. Anim. Ecol. 45: 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terborgh, J., Robinson, S. K., Parker, T. A., Munn, C. A. and Pierpont, N. (1990) Structure and organization of an Amazonian forest bird community. Ecol. Monogr. 60: 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomialojc, L. and Wesolowski, T. (1990) Bird communities of the primaeval temperate forest of Bialowieza, Poland. In A., Keast, ed. Biogeography and ecology of forest bird communities. The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
U. N. Food and Agriculture Organization (F.A.O.) (1993) Forest resources assessment 1990 project: Project findings and recommendations. Rome: F.A.O.Google Scholar