4.7 Article

The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for Amazonian birds

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 136, 期 2, 页码 212-231

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.021

关键词

avifauna; tropical forests; tree plantations; land-use change; biodiversity; Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Secondary forests and exotic tree plantations are rapidly expanding across tropical landscapes, yet we currently have a very poor understanding of the value of these human-dominated forest landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Mist netting, point counts and transect walks were used to compare the bird communities of these habitats and neighboring primary forest in north-east Brazilian Amazonia. The extensive spatial scale of plantations and second-growth in our study area enabled us to implement a robust replicated design, with survey plots approximately two to three orders of magnitude larger than most previous studies of land-use change in the tropics, thus minimising the influence of the surrounding landscape. Species richness was highest in primary forest and lowest in Eucalyptus plantations, and community turnover between habitats was very high whether based upon matrices of relative abundance or species presence-absence data, and for both point count and mist net data. Monthly line-transect censuses conducted over an annual cycle showed an increase in the detection of canopy frugivores and seed predators during the peak of flower and fruit availability in primary forest, but failed to suggest that second-growth or Eucalyptus stands provide suitable foraging habitat at any time of the year. The conservation value of both secondary forest and plantations was low compared to conclusions from previous studies. Our results indicate that while large-scale reforestation of degraded land can increase regional levels of diversity, it is unlikely to conserve most primary forest species, such as understorey insectivores and canopy frugivores. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据