Impact of different anthropogenic disturbances on bird communities of Nothofagus antarctica forests and shrublands in NW Patagonia

Para poder planificar usos productivos compatibles con la conservación de la biodiversidad, es esencial evaluar los cambios que éstos provocan. Los bosques andino-patagónicos sufren disturbios de origen antrópico, como incendios, pastoreo, extracción de madera o leña y reemplazo por plantaciones de coníferas exóticas, habiéndose descartado a priori actividades productivas sin conocer los impactos que estos disturbios producen sobre la biodiversidad de los bosques. El objetivo de este trabajo fue evaluar en qué medida los diferentes usos de los bosques y matorrales de Nothofagus antarctica de la cuenca del río Foyel (Prov. Río Negro) provocan cambios sobre sus comunidades de aves. Se censaron aves por el método de conteo por puntos de radio variable en bosques y matorrales con distintos niveles de alteración por pastoreo y extracción de leña (cerrado, semiabierto, abierto), y en plantaciones de coníferas exóticas. Las densidades de aves no mostraron diferencias entre los tipos de vegetación. La riqueza y la diversidad (Índice de Shannon) en las forestaciones fueron similares a la vegetación no disturbada, aumentando en bosques y matorrales con tala y pastoreo de intensidad media, y siendo máximas en ambientes con tala y pastoreo intenso. Un Análisis de Correspondencia Canónico y un análisis de similitud de la composición de especies mostraron que existen dos comunidades bien diferenciadas: las de ñirantales más alterados, donde dominan aves de ambientes abiertos, y otra comunidad en el resto de los tipos de vegetación, dominada por especies características del bosque. La composición de las comunidades de aves está determinada principalmente por los cambios estructurales y no por los cambios en la composición florística. Las plantaciones de coníferas presentan una comunidad de aves similar a la de los sistemas originales, mientras que la tala y el pastoreo intenso, provocan cambios importantes, incorporando algunas especies al área, y eliminando otras que son dependientes del bosque.To be able to plan productive uses of the land compatible with the conservation of the biodiversity, it is essential to evaluate the changes that they cause. The Andean patagonic forests undergo different anthropogenic disturbances, like fires, grazing, wood extraction and substitution by exotic coniferous plantations. These activities cause changes on the vegetation and animal communities, and could be affecting the functioning of the forest ecosystems. In Argentine Patagonia, there is a growing opposition to productive activities, particularly to pine plantations, because of its supposed negative ecological consequences, however their impacts are unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate in which measure different uses of the vegetation of the basin of Foyel river (NO Argentine Patagonia) cause changes on bird communities, especially on the functionally important and the endangered species. Birds counts were conducted from November 2004 to March 2005 (summer) using the variable circular-plot method, in twenty four sites of Nothofagus antarctica native forests and scrubs with different levels of grazing and wood extraction (closed, semiopened, opened), and in eight exotic plantations of Pseudotsuga menziesii and Pinus spp. Although, the vegetation structure of each site was characterized, to identify structural elements of the forests that could be important for bird habitat. Population densities of birds did not differ between vegetation types (25.4 ± 8.4 individuals/ha) associated to different disturbances. Bird richness and diversity (Shannon Index), however, were different among the vegetation types, in forestations both were similar to the undisturbed vegetation types, whereas they increased in vegetations with a medium intensity of wood extraction and grazing, and were highest in those sites whit a high intensity of wood extraction and grazing. A Canonical Correspondence Analysis and an analysis of species composition similarity showed that there are two differentiated communities: those of the more altered N. antarctica forests (by grazing and wood extraction), dominated by birds of opened areas; and another community in the rest of the vegetation types, dominated by species characteristic of forests. Among the key species for the Andean patagonic forests processes, foliage insectivores (Elaenia albiceps and Aphrastura spinicauda) were not seriously affected by any of the anthropogenic disturbances; ground insectivores (Scelorchilus rubecula and Pteroptochos tarnii) used the coniferous plantations, but not the areas opened by intense wood extraction and grazing; whereas the wood insectivore species (Campephilus magellanicus) was rare in all types of vegetation. Our results suggest that the structure and composition of the forest bird communities is mainly determined by changes in the structure of the vegetation, and not by changes in the floristic composition. The bird community of the coniferous plantations is similar to the community of the original systems. Intensive wood extraction and grazing, however, cause great changes, incorporating some species to the area, but eliminating others that are forest dependent

BIOFRAG: A new database for analysing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Habitat fragmentation studies are producing inconsistent and complex results across which it is nearly impossible to synthesise. Consistent analytical techniques can be applied to primary datasets, if stored in a flexible database that allows simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. Method: We developed a relational database linking data collected in the field to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes and further environmental variables (e.g. information on biogeographic region. Typical field assessments include measures of biological variables (e.g. presence, abundance, ground cover) of one species or a set of species linked to a set of plots in fragments of a forested landscape. Conclusion: The database currently holds records of 5792 unique species sampled in 52 landscapes in six of eight biogeographic regions: mammals 173, birds 1101, herpetofauna 284, insects 2317, other arthropods: 48, plants 1804, snails 65. Most species are found in one or two landscapes, but some are found in four. Using the huge amount of primary data on biodiversity response to fragmentation becomes increasingly important as anthropogenic pressures from high population growth and land demands are increasing. This database can be queried to extract data for subsequent analyses of the biological response to forest fragmentation with new metrics that can integrate across the components of fragmented landscapes. Meta-analyses of findings based on consistent methods and metrics will be able to generalise over studies allowing inter-comparisons for unified answers. The database can thus help researchers in providing findings for analyses of trade-offs between land use benefits and impacts on biodiversity and to track performance of management for biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes.Fil: Pfeifer, Marion. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lefebvre, Veronique. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Gardner, Toby A.. Stockholm Environment Institute; SueciaFil: Arroyo Rodríguez, Víctor. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Baeten, Lander. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Banks Leite, Cristina. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Barlow, Jos. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Betts, Matthew G.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Brunet, Joerg. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: Cerezo Blandón, Alexis Mauricio. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Sistemas de Información; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros, Laura M.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Collard, Stuart. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia; AustraliaFil: D´Cruze, Neil. The World Society for the Protection of Animals; Reino UnidoFil: Da Silva Motta, Catarina. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Duguay, Stephanie. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Eggermont, Hilde. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Eigenbrod, Félix. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Hadley, Adam S.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Hanson, Thor R.. No especifíca;Fil: Hawes, Joseph E.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Heartsill Scalley, Tamara. United State Department of Agriculture. Forestry Service; Puerto RicoFil: Klingbeil, Brian T.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Kolb, Annette. Universitat Bremen; AlemaniaFil: Kormann, Urs. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Kumar, Sunil. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Lachat, Thibault. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest; SuizaFil: Lakeman Fraser, Poppy. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lantschner, María Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Laurance, William F.. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Leal, Inara R.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Lens, Luc. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Marsh, Charles J.. University of Leeds; Reino UnidoFil: Medina Rangel, Guido F.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Melles, Stephanie. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Mezger, Dirk. Field Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Oldekop, Johan A.. University of Sheffield; Reino UnidoFil: Overal , Williams L.. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Departamento de Entomologia; BrasilFil: Owen, Charlotte. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Peres, Carlos A.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Phalan, Ben. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Pidgeon, Anna Michle. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Pilia, Oriana. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Possingham, Hugh P.. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The University Of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Possingham, Max L.. No especifíca;Fil: Raheem, Dinarzarde C.. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences; Bélgica. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Ribeiro, Danilo B.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Ribeiro Neto, Jose D.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Robinson, Douglas W.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Robinson, Richard. Manjimup Research Centre; AustraliaFil: Rytwinski, Trina. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Scherber, Christoph. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Slade, Eleanor M.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Somarriba, Eduardo. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza; Costa RicaFil: Stouffer, Philip C.. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Struebig, Matthew J.. University of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Tylianakis, Jason M.. University College London; Estados Unidos. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Teja, Tscharntke. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Tyre, Andrew J.. Universidad de Nebraska - Lincoln; Estados UnidosFil: Urbina Cardona, Jose N.. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; ColombiaFil: Vasconcelos, Heraldo L.. Universidade Federal de Uberlandia; BrasilFil: Wearn, Oliver. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Wells, Konstans. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Willig, Michael R.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Wood, Eric. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Richard P.. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Bradley, Andrew V.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Ewers, Robert M.. Imperial College London; Reino Unid

The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project

The PREDICTS project—Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems (www.predicts.org.uk)—has collated from published studies a large, reasonably representative database of comparable samples of biodiversity from multiple sites that differ in the nature or intensity of human impacts relating to land use. We have used this evidence base to develop global and regional statistical models of how local biodiversity responds to these measures. We describe and make freely available this 2016 release of the database, containing more than 3.2 million records sampled at over 26,000 locations and representing over 47,000 species. We outline how the database can help in answering a range of questions in ecology and conservation biology. To our knowledge, this is the largest and most geographically and taxonomically representative database of spatial comparisons of biodiversity that has been collated to date; it will be useful to researchers and international efforts wishing to model and understand the global status of biodiversity