3.8 Article

The birds of Parque Nacional da Serra do Cipo: The Rio Cipo valley, Minas Gerais, Brazil

期刊

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ZOOLOGIA
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 326-338

出版社

SOCIEDADE BRASILEIRA DE ZOOLOGIA, UNIV FEDERAL PARANA
DOI: 10.1590/S0101-81752005000200005

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is presented a bird survey of Rio Cipo valley from May 1998 to November 2002. The region is within the premises of 'Parque Nacional da Serra do Cipo', one of the most important conservation units of southeastern Brazil. Bird census were carried out through transect, mist-net captures and recording bird vocalizations. Species richness was estimated by jackknife method. It was recorded 226 species, belonging to 43 families. This represents 27% of all 837 bird species recorded at the Cerrado (a Savannah-like biome) region of central Brazil. A total of 2,249 bird individuals were captured with 4,486.82 net-hours. This represented 119 bird species of 23 families. Species richness was estimated at 239 +/- 5 species. Six species are considered endemic to this biome: Augastes scutatus (Temminck, 1824) (Trochilidae), Hylocryptus rectirostris (Wied-NeuWied, 1821) (Furnariidae), Antilophia galeata (Lichtenstein, 1832) (Pipridae), Cyanocorax cristatellus (Temminck, 1823) (Corvidae), Charitospiza eucosma (Oberholser, 1905), Saltator atricollis (Vieillot, 1817), and Porphyrospiza caerulescens (Wied-Neuwied, 1830) (Emberizidae). Three species are considered near-threatened to extinction: Sarcoramphus papa (Linnaeus, 1758) (Cathartidae), Cypsnagra hirundinacea (Lesson, 1831), and Charitospiza eucosma (Emberizidae). The Rio Cipo valley holds a significant number of the Cerrado bird species. Some habitats within this biome are becoming rare in the Cerrado region such as gallery forests, and the temporary lagoons along the rivers. Even waterfalls are disappearing in other regions of Brazil. In this sense, the 'Parque Nacional da Serra do Cipo' is achieving one of its aims, which is biodiversity conservation.

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

3.8
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