4.3 Article

Seasonal and interannual variation in waterbird abundance and species composition in the Melincue saline lake, Argentina

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 1-13

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10344-005-0078-z

关键词

Pampas; shallow lakes; waterfowl censuses; wetlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We conducted 14 bird surveys in the Melincue saline lake from 1992 to 2002 (7 in winter and 7 in summer), and we detected 223,643 individuals belonging to 71 species from 17 families. The more abundant species were Fulica leucoptera, Larus maculipennis, Phoenicopterus chilensis, Plegadis chihi, Anas platalea, Himantopus mexicanus, and Rollandia rolland. Bird abundance was similar in winter and summer, whereas species composition differed between seasons. We recorded 65 species in summer and 59 in winter. P. chilensis and A. sibilatrix were more abundant in winter, whereas Ajaia ajaja, Phalacrocorax olivaceus, Ardea ibis, Sterna nilotica, Egretta thula, Mycteria americana, Charadrius collaris, A. versicolor, Calidris fuscicollis, and Ciconia maguari were more abundant in summer. Bird abundance in each survey was positively associated with the lake level. In summer surveys, the highest variation in species composition through the years was associated with water level fluctuations. Shorebirds predominated in those years with lower level, whereas the species that fed mainly on plants or vertebrates predominated in years with higher levels. Those species that fed on invertebrates (not shorebirds) and those that fed on invertebrates and plants predominated in years with intermediate level. The omnivorous species predominated in years of lower level. There were differences among transects in the proportion of different trophic groups. Short-term studies that do not take into account the particular dynamic of these systems may lead to erroneous generalisations. Thus, the long-term information of this study may be useful for management and conservation of species and system.

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

4.3
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