| Literature DB >> 26312181 |
Sievert Rohwer1, Emily Grason2, Adolfo G Navarro-Sigüenza3.
Abstract
Irrigation in desert ecosystems can either reduce or increase species diversity. Groundwater pumping often lowers water tables and reduces natural wetlands, whereas canal irrigation often creates mesic habitat, resulting in great increases in avian diversity from irrigation. Here we compare a dataset of potential natural vegetation to recent datasets from areal and satellite imagery to show that 60% of the land in the coastal plain of southern Sonora and northern Sinaloa lying below 200 m elevation has been converted by irrigation to more mesic habitats. We then use the record of bird specimens in the world's museums from this same region of Mexico to examine the avian community before and after the development of extensive irrigation. In general these museum records show an increase in the abundance and diversity of breeding birds associated with mesic habitats. Although thorn forest birds have likely decreased in total numbers, most are common enough in the remaining thorn forest that collection records did not indicate their probable decline. Four migrants having most of their breeding ranges in the US or Canada, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Cliff Swallow, Bell's Vireo, and Orchard Oriole, apparently have increased dramatically as breeders in irrigated habitats of NW Mexico. Because these species have decreased or even largely disappeared as breeding birds in parts of the US or Canada, further research should assess whether their increases in new mesic habitats of NW Mexico are linked to their declines as breeding birds in Canada and the US For Bell's Vireo recent specimens from Sinaloa suggest its new breeding population in NW Mexico may be composed partly of the endangered Least Bell's Vireo.Entities:
Keywords: Avifaunal change; Connectivity; Desert irrigation; Land use change; Thorn forest
Year: 2015 PMID: 26312181 PMCID: PMC4548487 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1187
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Summary of habitat changes for regions of southern Sonora and northern Sinaloa below 200 m elevation.
Early (pre-1970) collecting localities are indicated on (A) and late (1970 to present) collecting localities on (C). (A) represents the study area, a subset of lowland habitat (<200 m above sea level) in southern Sinaloa and northern Sonora. Grey areas of (B) and (C) right panels show the extent of mesic habitat developed by irrigation in this region by 1976 and by 2012, respectively. Coastal wetlands and river corridors were excluded from the mesic habitat designations in the middle and right panels; these areas accounted for 4.4% of the land area below 200 m, most of which was coastal wetlands. This convention means that all of the grey areas in (B) and (C) result from irrigation.
Thorn forest and mesic species used in the AI analyses with breeding status indicated by month.
Breeding was assessed from field observations of behavior and nests, and from the condition of collected specimens. “No” signifies species that were not breeding and blanks signify species for which we had too few observations to assess active nesting.
| May | Jun | Jul | Aug | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thorn forest species | ||||
|
| No | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | x | |
|
| x | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | x | |
|
| x | x | x | x |
|
| No | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | x | x |
|
| No | x | x | |
|
| x | x | x | x |
|
| ||||
|
| x | x | x | No |
|
| x | x | x | No |
|
| No | x | x | x |
|
| No | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | x | x |
|
| No | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | x | No |
|
| x | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | x | No |
|
| x | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | x | No |
|
| x | x | x | No |
|
| x | x | x | |
|
| x | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | x | No |
|
| x | x | x | No |
|
| x | x | x | |
|
| No | x | x | Mostly no |
|
| x | x | x | |
|
| x | x | x | |
|
| x | x | x | |
|
| x | x | x | |
|
| x | x | x | No |
|
| x | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | x | Mostly no |
|
| x | x | x | No |
|
| x | x | x | No |
|
| ? | x | x | x |
Numbers of individuals collected in pre and post irrigation periods for focal species and their AI values.
The final numeric column presents AI ratios, with increases indicated by positive numbers and decreases indicated by negative numbers (see text for details).
| Early collecting | Recent collecting | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total | AI | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total | AI | AI change | Notes on potential collecting bias |
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
| 9 | 9 | 1 | 19 | 1.57 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 20 | 2.25 | 1.44 | |||
|
| 8 | 6 | 1 | 15 | 1.24 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 14 | 1.58 | 1.28 | |||
|
| 2 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 0.58 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 10 | 1.13 | 1.95 | ||
|
| 5 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 16 | 1.32 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.34 | −3.90 | |||
|
| 2 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 0.66 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.23 | −2.87 | ||||
|
| 7 | 10 | 1 | 18 | 1.48 | 3 | 13 | 16 | 2 | 31 | 3.49 | 2.36 | Breeds in thorn scrub but abundant forager in weedy edges. | |
|
| 12 | 12 | 0.99 | 1 | 1 | 0.11 | −8.77 | |||||||
|
| 3 | 4 | 7 | 0.58 | 2 | 2 | 0.23 | −2.56 | ||||||
|
| 6 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 17 | 1.40 | 8 | 5 | 13 | 1.47 | 1.05 | |||
| Totals/Mean AI values | 119 | 1.09 | 96 | 1.20 | 1.02 | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
| 1 | 1 | 0.08 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0.23 | 2.74 | Abundant breeder in cattails where we seldom collected | |||||
|
| 27 | 27 | 2.23 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 0.56 | −3.95 | Under sampled with nets. The 27 early specimens were taken in June 2004 at a single locality. | |||||
|
| 1 | 6 | 7 | 0.58 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0.45 | −1.28 | Under sampled with nets. | ||||
|
| 3 | 3 | 0.25 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 1.47 | 5.93 | Settles in late June, breeds Jul–Aug. The three early specimens, taken 9, 14, 22 Jun, are likely migrants. | |||||
|
| 8 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 23 | 1.90 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 13 | 1.47 | −1.29 | Under sampled with nets. | |
|
| 1 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 18 | 1.48 | 8 | 3 | 11 | 1.24 | −1.20 | |||
|
| 6 | 7 | 13 | 1.07 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.34 | −3.17 | Common near coast where we seldom collected. | |||
|
| 3 | 1 | 4 | 0.33 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 1.24 | 3.76 | Large colonies under most bridges. | |||
|
| 5 | 10 | 4 | 19 | 1.57 | 14 | 12 | 26 | 2.93 | 1.87 | Common in brushy edges. | |||
|
| 18 | 1 | 19 | 1.57 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 20 | 2.25 | 1.44 | ||||
|
| 4 | 1 | 5 | 0.41 | 1 | 26 | 4 | 31 | 3.49 | 8.48 | Now an abundant breeder. | |||
|
| 2 | 2 | 0.16 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 0.68 | 4.10 | Common along coastal canals. | ||||
|
| 1 | 1 | 0.08 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 1.01 | 12.31 | Now an abundant breeder in ecotones. | ||||
|
| 9 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 20 | 1.65 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 1.01 | −1.62 | |||
|
| 3 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 0.66 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 13 | 1.47 | 2.22 | August increase could be birds moving in to exploit late breeding hosts. | ||
|
| 13 | 9 | 22 | 1.81 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 1.35 | −1.34 | Under sampled with nets. | |||
|
| 5 | 5 | 0.41 | 1 | 1 | 0.11 | −3.66 | Under sampled with nets. | ||||||
|
| 7 | 8 | 4 | 19 | 1.57 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 0.68 | −2.32 | Under sampled with nets. | |||
|
| 8 | 12 | 6 | 26 | 2.14 | 4 | 4 | 0.45 | −4.75 | Under sampled with nets. | ||||
|
| 4 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 14 | 1.15 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 0.68 | −1.71 | Under sampled with nets. | ||
|
| 4 | 7 | 3 | 14 | 1.15 | 7 | 8 | 16 | 7 | 31 | 3.49 | 3.03 | Many nesting colonies near canals close to coast. | |
|
| 4 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 1.07 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 1.13 | 1.05 | ||||
|
| 2 | 2 | 0.16 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0.56 | 3.42 | Under sampled with nets. Common along canals. | |||||
|
| 3 | 3 | 0.25 | 10 | 8 | 18 | 2.03 | 8.21 | Common along canals. | |||||
|
| 2 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0.91 | 3 | 11 | 8 | 22 | 2.48 | 2.74 | ||
|
| 1 | 7 | 8 | 0.66 | 2 | 2 | 0.23 | −2.92 | ||||||
|
| 11 | 19 | 2 | 5 | 37 | 3.05 | 4 | 15 | 10 | 29 | 3.27 | 1.07 | Under sampled with nets. | |
|
| 4 | 1 | 5 | 0.41 | 3 | 21 | 3 | 27 | 3.04 | 7.38 | Now an abundant breeder in mesquite forest. | |||
|
| 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.25 | 1 | 9 | 13 | 23 | 2.59 | 10.48 | Now an abundant breeder in ecotones. | |||
|
| 3 | 1 | 4 | 0.33 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 0.90 | 2.74 | Now common in weedy fields. Flies through nets, so under sampled in recent collecting. | ||||
| Totals/Mean AI values | 356 | 0.98 | 380 | 1.43 | 2.97 | |||||||||
Number of specimens taken per decade from coastal regions of southern Sonora and northern Sinaloa below 200 m from May through August.
Most of the specimens from the 1930s were collected by Chester C. Lamb, who lived in Los Mochis and collected extensively in areas worked by the UWBM from 2003–2011. Preirrigation collecting occurred earlier in the season than the recent UWBM collecting.
| Decades | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Totals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1870s | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 1880s | 16 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 23 |
| 1890s | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| 19002 | 2 | 77 | 1 | 0 | 80 |
| 1910s | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 1920s | 7 | 40 | 1 | 0 | 48 |
| 1930s | 233 | 273 | 173 | 89 | 768 |
| 1940s | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 |
| 1950s | 0 | 66 | 6 | 0 | 72 |
| 1960s | 5 | 106 | 26 | 18 | 155 |
| 1970s | 26 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1980s | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 1990s | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2000s | 0 | 0 | 433 | 276 | 709 |
| 2010s | 25 | 152 | 0 | 0 | 177 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in pooled AI values split by thorn forest and mesic species.
The final numeric column presents AI ratios, with increases indicated by positive numbers and decreases indicated by negative numbers (see text for details).
| Number of individuals | All specimens | Normalized AI values (per species AI) | Chi-square (Yates correction) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Early collecting | 119 | 1,213 | 1.09 | |
| Recent collecting | 100 | 887 | 1.25 | |
|
| ||||
| Early collecting | 356 | 1,213 | 0.98 | |
| Recent collecting | 380 | 887 | 1.48 |
Figure 2Histograms of the distribution of the AI ratios for the thorn forest taxa (9 species) and for the species associated with mesic habitats or large trees (30 species).
Positive values represent species that have increased in relative abundance from the pre- to post-irrigation period and negative values represent species that have decreased. Note that these ratios cannot fall between ±1. Large changes are most likely to reliably indicate actual changes in relative population sizes, but AI values closer to ±1 may largely reflect random volatility in the index.
Migrant species breeding in NW Mexico that have most of their breeding range in the US and Canada.
Positive AI ratios signify an increase in the relative frequency of specimens in collections from coastal Sinaloa and Sonora after extensive development of irrigation; Breeding Bird Survey trends are from the 1966 to 2011. For the first four species we suggest that population increases in Mexico may be linked to population declines in the US and Canada.
| Species | AI ratio | Population trends to the north | Notes for irrigated regions of NW Mexico |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| +5.93 | Mostly lost in the west; BBS shows significant declines in most of its eastern range. | Common breeder; seldom netted, but some collected with gun. |
|
| +3.76 | BBS: significant declines in the west; sharply declining in Canada. | Seriously under-sampled in our recent collecting in NW Mexico. |
|
| +10.48 | Somewhat oversampled in NW Mexico because of late summer singing. | |
|
| +8.48 | BBS: significant survey-wide declines; sharpest declines in southern states. | Common new breeder for Sinaloa and southern Sonora; migrates further south to molt |
|
| +8.21 | BBS: significant declines in the west, but not in Canada. | Our AI ratio overestimates increases in breeders because breeders and molt migrants were not distinguished. |
|
| +7.38 | BBS: slight, non-significant increase in the US; but large declines are reported in the mid 1980s for a long-term study in AZ ( | Common new breeder for Sinaloa, but our AI ratio does not distinguish breeders and molt migrants. |
|
| +1.87 | BBS: Mostly stable in the west. | Common breeder with more available habitat. |
|
| −3.17 | BBS: Stable in the west | Occasional breeder in interior wetlands; common along the coast where we seldom collected. |