4.7 Article

Exploring nest webs in more detail to improve forest management

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 372, 期 -, 页码 93-100

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.04.010

关键词

Cavity-using birds; Interaction networks; Modules; Extinction simulations; Forest management; Piedmont forests

类别

资金

  1. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica (PICT) [2012-0892]
  2. CONICET [PIP 112-201201-00259 CO]
  3. CIT-JUJUY [PIO 1402014100133]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interactions between birds that use tree cavities for breeding, roosting and sheltering have been named 'nest webs'. We applied for the first time in nest-web studies some tools developed in network theory, in order to develop conservation and management recommendations of forest biodiversity. We recorded 109 interactions between 15 bird and 11 cavity-bearing tree species, in a subtropical piedmont forest (PF) of northwestern Argentina. Bird species in this nest-web included four woodpecker species, whose cavities were scarcely (9%) used by non-excavator birds, such as parrots, owls, and woodcreepers. Based on the Importance and Strength indices the most important tree species were Calycophyllum multiflorum (Rubiaceae) and Anadenanthera colubrina (Fabaceae). The nest web contained three main interaction modules: one composed by woodpeckers interacting with both living and standing dead trees; another by non-excavator birds using decay-formed cavities in living trees; and a third small module that had a few birds using woodpecker-excavated cavities in living trees. Important tree species were different for woodpecker and non-excavator modules. Extinction simulation of the most important tree species tripled the negative impact on cavity-using bird assemblage compared with the random extinction of tree species. In logging operations special consideration should be taken to ensure the maintenance of key tree species for the conservation of all the nest-web components in PF. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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