| Literature DB >> 25668338 |
Rachakonda Sreekar1, Kai Zhang2, Jianchu Xu3, Rhett D Harrison3.
Abstract
The primary approach used to conserve tropical biodiversity is in the establishment of protected areas. However, many tropical nature reserves are performing poorly and interventions in the broader landscape may be essential for conserving biodiversity both within reserves and at large. Between October 2010 and 2012, we conducted bird surveys in and around a recently established nature reserve in Xishuangbanna, China. We constructed a checklist of observed species, previously recorded species, and species inferred to have occurred in the area from their distributions and habitat requirements. In addition, we assessed variation in community composition and habitat specificity at a landscape-scale. Despite the fact that the landscape supports a large area of natural forest habitat (~50,000 ha), we estimate that >40% of the bird fauna has been extirpated and abundant evidence suggests hunting is the primary cause. A large proportion (52%) of the bigger birds (>20 cm) were extirpated and for large birds there was a U-shaped relationship between habitat breadth and extirpation probability. Habitat specificity was low and bird communities were dominated by widespread species of limited conservation concern. We question whether extending tropical protected area networks will deliver desired conservation gains, unless much greater effort is channeled into addressing the hunting problem both within existing protected areas and in the broader landscape.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25668338 PMCID: PMC4323245 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117920
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Map of the study site in Xishuangbanna Prefecture, China, and 28 plots across a disturbance gradient (green: near-pristine forest; blue: degraded forest; red: open landscape) in the Mengsong Township.
Each plot comprised nine subplots in a 3 × 3 array with 50 m spacing between subplots.
Numbers of resident bird species in Mengsong, including species occurring there in 2011–2012, in 1998–2000 (Wang and Young 2003) , and inferred .
| Total resident species | Wide-range | Medium-range | Restricted-range | IUCN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010–2012 | 148 | 102 (68.9) | 32 (21.6) | 14 (9.4) | 1 |
| 1998–2000 | 185 | 129 (69.7) | 38 (20.5) | 18(9.7) | 1 |
| Inferred | 254 | 171 (67.3) | 51 (20.1) | 32 (12.6) | 8 |
aThe survey in 1998–2000 only yielded 98 resident species. A further 87 species were added by us and assumed to be present during the earlier period.
bInferred is a checklist of birds that ought to occur in the study area based on range, elevation and habitat data by referring to MacKinnon and Phillipps [31], Cheng and Cheng [36, 37], Ivanov [38], Yang [39], Yang et al. [40], Yang and Yang [41].
cThe numbers in parentheses refer to the percentage of species.
dIUCN Red Book Status: Near Threatened or Vulnerable or Endangered or Critically Endangered.
Differences in species richness across disturbance gradients.
Multiple comparisons were Bonferroni corrected, and only significant multiple comparisons are shown.
| Species richness | F2, 25 | P | Multiple comparisions | t | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All species | 3.97 | 0.03 | Near-pristine vs Degraded | 2.96 | 0.02 |
| Degraded vs Open | 1.51 | 0.48 | |||
| Near-pristine vs Open | 0.84 | 1 | |||
| Wide distributions | 3.51 | 0.04 | Near-pristine vs Degraded | 2.68 | 0.04 |
| Degraded vs Open | 1.75 | 0.33 | |||
| Near-pristine vs Open | 0.24 | 1 | |||
| Medium to restricted distributions | 0.45 | 0.67 |
Fig 2Estimated (Chao) bird species richness per plot by habitat type.
Bar heights show mean estimated richness per plot and error bars represent standard deviation. Black bars represent all species, grey bars represent species with wide distributions (WD), and white bars represent species with medium and restricted distributions (MD and RD).
Fig 3A non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination of the bird assemblages in near pristine forests (black), degraded forests (grey) and open habitats (white).
Ellipses are 95% confidence intervals of treatment-level centroids and points are census plots. There was a significant difference between forest bird assemblages and open land assemblages (P = 0.001), but not between near-pristine and degraded forests. The contours indicate the leaf area index and the size of the circle is proportional to the distance to open habitat.
Fig 4Classification tree showing extinction probabilities of birds in Mengsong based on life history and ecological traits.
Body size, habitat breadth and minimum clutch size emerged as the only important factors in our analysis. The percentage in ovals refer to the probability of extinction and numbers below the ovals are the number of species at each node. Species with higher extinction risk are to the right of each branch point.
Fig 5Extirpation probability of large birds (>20.25 cm) as a function of habitat breadth in Mengsong.
The line is the prediction of the model fitted to the data with 95% confidence interval.