Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:09:25.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Population dynamics of the ruddy-capped nightingale thrush (Catharus frantzii) in Chiapas, Mexico: influences of density, productivity and survival

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

Jose Luis Rangel-Salazar ,
Kathy Martin ,
Peter Marshall  and
Robert W. Elner
Jose Luis Rangel-Salazar
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4 Canada Departamento de Ecología y Sistemática Terrestres, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Apartado Postal 63, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, 29290 Chiapas, México
Kathy Martin*
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4 Canada Pacific Wildlife Research Centre, Canadian Wildlife Service, 5421 Robertson Rd, RR1, Delta, BC, V4K 3N2 Canada
Peter Marshall
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Resource Management, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4 Canada
Robert W. Elner
Affiliation:
Pacific Wildlife Research Centre, Canadian Wildlife Service, 5421 Robertson Rd, RR1, Delta, BC, V4K 3N2 Canada
*
1Corresponding author. Email: kmartin@interchange.ubc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

We used long-term population data for the ruddy-capped nightingale thrush (Catharus frantzii Cabanis), to examine the influence of forest conditions on annual productivity, survival and growth rate (λ) in a montane forest reserve of Chiapas, southern Mexico, from 1995 to 2003. Productivity was higher in primary, mature forest than in secondary, young forest. More adults were captured in primary forest (n = 132) than in secondary forest (n = 64). Adult survival (φ = 0.79) and encounter rate (ρ = 0.36) did not vary across habitats. Males and females had similar survival between primary and secondary forests (φ = 0.80 vs. 0.83, and 0.77 vs. 0.79, respectively). Juvenile survival (φ = 0.67) was only 12% lower than for adults. Overall, the population of C. frantzii appeared to be declining at 3% y−1 (λ = 0.97, SE = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.88–1.03). Productivity and survival correlated positively with λ across years within habitats, although survival was the primary, significant demographic parameter determining λ. Although habitat alteration may have reduced the carrying capacity and productivity in secondary forest, there was no apparent negative effect on population persistence in this habitat. Thus, secondary forests represent habitats that may facilitate the long-term persistence of C. frantzii populations.

Keywords

demographic vital ratesforest conditionhabitat qualitysource-sink structuretropical montane forests
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 24 , Issue 6 , November 2008 , pp. 583 - 593
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

ANDERS, A. D. & MARSHALL, R. M. 2005. Increasing the accuracy of productivity and survival estimates in assessing landbird population status. Conservation Biology 19:66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLAKE, J. G. & LOISELLE, B. A. 2008. Estimates of apparent survival rates for forest birds in eastern Ecuador. Biotropica 40:485–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRAWN, J. D., ROBINSON, S. K. & Thompson, F. R. 2001. The role of disturbance in the ecology and conservation of birds. Annual Review Ecology and Systematics 32:251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BROWN, W. P. & ROTH, R. R. 2002. Temporal patterns of fitness and survival in the Wood Thrush. Ecology 83:958–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BURNHAM, K. P. & ANDERSON, R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York. 458 pp.Google Scholar
BURNHAM, K. P., ANDERSON, D. R., WHITE, G. C., BROWNIE, C. & POLLOCK, K. H. 1987. Design and analysis methods for fish survival experiments based on release-recapture. American Fisheries Association Monograph 5:1–437.Google Scholar
CAYUELA, L., REY-BENAYAS, J. M. & ECHEVERRÍA, C. 2006. Clearance and fragmentation of tropical montane forests in the Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico (1975–2000). Forest Ecology and Management 226:208–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CLEMENT, P., HATHWAY, R., BYERS, C. & WILCZUR, J. 2000. Thrushes. Christopher Helm Ltd., London. 463 pp.Google Scholar
DONCASTER, C. P., CLOBERT, J., DOLIGEZ, B., GUSTAFSSON, L. & DANCHIN, E. 1997. Balanced dispersal between spatially varying local populations: an alternative to the source-sink model. American Naturalist 150:425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DONOVAN, T. M. & THOMPSON, F. R. 2001. Modelling the ecological trap hypothesis: a habitat and demographic analysis for migrant songbirds. Ecological Applications 11:871–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FRANKLIN, A. B., ANDERSON, D. R., GUTIERREZ, R. J. & BURNHAM, K. P. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in Northern Spotted Owl populations in Northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70:539–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GHALAMBOR, C. K. & MARTIN, T. E. 2001. Seasonal productivity-survival trade-offs and parental risk-taking in birds. Science 292:494–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GITHIRU, M. & LENS, L. 2006. Demography of an Afrotropical passerine in a highly fragmented landscape. Animal Conservation 9:21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GONZÁLEZ-ESPINOSA, M., OCHOA-GAONA, S., RAMÍREZ-MARCIAL, N. & QUINTANA-ASCENCIO, P. 1995. Current land use trends and conservation of old growth forest habitats in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Pp. 190–197 in Wilson, M. H. & Sader, S. A. (eds.). Conservation of neotropical migratory birds in Mexico. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experimentation Station Misc., Maine.Google Scholar
GOTELLI, N. J. & ELLISON, A. M. 2004. A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland. 492 pp.Google Scholar
GRZYBOWSKI, J. A. & PEASE, C. M. 2005. Renesting determines seasonal productivity in songbirds: what do we know? What should we assume? Auk 122:280–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HANNON, S. J. & SCHMIEGELOW, F. K. 2002. Corridors may not improve the conservation value of small reserves for most boreal birds. Ecological Monographs 12:1457–1468.Google Scholar
HASTINGS, A. 1997. Population biology: concepts and models. Springer, New York. 220 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HIRON, M., RANGEL-SALAZAR, J. L. & CHRISTENSEN, B. 2006. Coexistence of resident and migratory Catharus thrushes in a montane forest reserve of the northern Neotropics: on habitat use and morphology. Ornitología Neotropical 17:383–394.Google Scholar
HOLMES, R. T., MARRA, P. P. & SHERRY, T. W. 1996. Habitat-specific demography of breeding Black-Throated Blue Warblers (Dendroica caerulescens): implications for population dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 65:183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HOLT, R. D., BARFIELD, M. & GONZÁLEZ, A. 2003. Impacts of environmental variability in open populations and communities: “inflation” in sink environments. Theoretical Population Biology 64:315–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
JOHNSON, M. A. 2007. Measuring habitat quality: a review. Condor 109:489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JOHNSTON, J. P., PEACH, W. J., GREGORY, R. D. & WHITE, S. A. 1997. Survival rates of tropical and temperate passerines: a Trinidadian perspective. American Naturalist 150:771–789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
JONZÉN, N., RHODES, J. R. & POSSINGHAM, H. P. 2005. Trend detection in source-sink systems: when should sink habitats be monitored? Ecological Applications 15:326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KARR, J. R., NICHOLS, J. D., KLIMKIEWICZ, K. M. & BRAWN, J. D. 1990. Survival rates of birds of tropical and temperate forests: will the dogma survive? American Naturalist 136:277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KAWECKI, T. J. 2004. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of source-sink population dynamics. Pp. 387–411 in Hanski, I. & Gaggiotti, O. E. (eds.). Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KNUTSON, M. G., POWELL, L. A., HINES, R. K., FRIBERG, M. A. & NIEMI, G. J. 2006. An assessment of bird habitat quality using population growth rates. Condor 108:301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KRISTAN, W. B. 2007. Expected effects of correlated habitat variables on habitat quality and bird distribution. Condor 109:505–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEBRETON, J.-D., BURNHAM, K. P., CLOBERT, J. & ANDERSON, D. R. 1992. Modelling survival and testing biological hypothesis using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecological Monographs 62:67–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LENS, L., VAN DONGEN, S., NORRIS, K., GITHIRU, M. & MATTHYSEN, E. 2002. Avian persistence in fragmented rainforest. Science 298:1236–1238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MAGUIRE, G. S. 2006. Territory quality, survival and reproductive success in Southern Emu-wrens Stipiturus malachurus. Journal of Avian Biology 37:579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MARTIN, K., HANNON, S. J. & ROCKWELL, R. F. 1989. Clutch size variation and patterns of attrition in fecundity of Willow Ptarmigan. Ecology 70:1788–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MARTIN, P. R. & MARTIN, T. E. 2001. Ecological and fitness consequences of species coexistence: a removal experiment with wood warblers. Ecology 82:189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MARTIN, T. E. 2004. Avian life-history evolution has an eminent past: does it have a bright future? Auk 121: 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MINTA, S. & MENGEL, M. 1989 A simple population estimate based on simulation for capture-recapture and capture-resight data. Ecology 70:1738–1751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MORÓN-RÍOS, A. & HUERTA-LWANGA, E. 2006. Soil macrofauna of two successional evergreen cloud forest stages from the Cerro Huitepec Nature Reserve, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, México. Interciencia 31:611–615.Google Scholar
MORTON, E. S. & STUCHBURY, B. J. 2000. Demography and reproductive success in the Dusky Antbird, a sedentary tropical passerine. Journal of Field Ornithology 71:493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MURPHY, M. T. 2001. Habitat-specific demography of a long-distance, neotropical migrant bird, the Eastern Kingbird. Ecology 82:1304–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NEWTON, I. 1998. Population limitation in birds. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
NICHOLS, J. D. & HINES, J. E. 2002. Approaches for the direct estimation of λ and demographic contributions to λ, using capture-recapture data. Journal of Applied Statistics 29:539–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OPDAM, P. & WIENS, J. A. 2002. Fragmentation, habitat loss and landscape management. Pp. 202–223 in Norris, K. & Pain, D. J. (eds.). Conserving bird biodiversity: general principles and their application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PARKER, T. H., BECKER, C. D., SANDERCOCK, B. K. & AGREDA, A. E. 2006. Apparent survival estimates for five species of tropical birds in an endangered forest habitat in western Ecuador. Biotropica 38:764–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PULLIAM, H. R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132:652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PULLIAM, H. R. 1996. Sources and sinks: empirical evidence and population consequences. Pp. 45–69 in Rhodes, O. E., Chesser, R. K. & Smith, M. H. (eds.). Population dynamics in ecological space and time. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
PULLIAM, H. R. & DANIELSON, D. J. 1991. Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. American Naturalist 137 (Supplement):S50–S66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RAITT, R. J. & HARDY, J. W. 1970. Relationships between two partially sympatric species of thrushes (Catharus) in Mexico. Auk 87:20–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RAMÍREZ-MARCIAL, N., OCHOA-GAONA, S., GONZÁLEZ-ESPINOSA, M. & QUINTANA-ASCENCIO, P. 1998. Análisis florístico y sucesional en la Estación Biológica Cerro Huitepec, Chiapas, México. Acta Botánica Mexicana 44:59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RANGEL-SALAZAR, J. L. 2006. Population dynamics of the Ruddy-capped Nightingale Thrush (Catharus frantzii) in the Central Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Ph. D. thesis. University of British Columbia, Canada. 105 pp.Google Scholar
RANGEL-SALAZAR, J. L., MARTIN, K., MARSHALL, P. & ELNER, R. 2008. Habitat variation, nest-site selection and parental behavior influences on breeding success of the Ruddy-capped Nightingale Thrush (Catharus frantzii) in Chiapas, Mexico. Auk 125:358–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RICKLEFS, R. E. 1997. Comparative demography of the new world population of thrushes (Turdus spp.). Ecological Monographs 67:23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROBINSON, W. D., ROBINSON, T. R., ROBINSON, S. K. & BRAWN, J. D. 2000. Nesting success of understory forest birds in central Panama. Journal of Avian Biology 31:151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SÆTHER, B.-E. & ENGEN, S. 2003. Variation in population growth rates. Pp. 66–84 in Sibbly, R. M., Hone, J. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. (eds.). Wildlife population growth rates. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SANDERCOCK, B. K. 2006. Estimation of demographic parameters from live-encounter data: a summary review. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1506–1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SANDERCOCK, B. K., BEISSINGER, S. R., STOLSON, S. H., MELLAND, R. R. & HUGHES, C. R. 2000. Survival rates of a neotropical parrot: implications for latitudinal comparisons of avian demography. Ecology 81:1351–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SIEVING, K. E. & KARR, J. R. 1997. Avian extinction and persistence mechanisms in lowland Panama. Pp. 156–170 in Bierregaard, R. O. & Laurance, W. F. (eds.). Tropical forest remnants: their ecology and management. Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
SKUTCH, A. F. 1985. Clutch size, nesting success, and predation on nests of Neotropical birds, reviewed. Ornithological Monographs 36:575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SMITH, J. N. M. & HELLMAN, J. J. 2002. Population persistence in fragmented landscapes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:397–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STILES, G. F. 1992. Effects of a severe drought on the population biology of a tropical hummingbird. Ecology 73:1375–1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STUTCHBURY, B. J. M. & MORTON, E. S. 2001. Behavioral ecology of tropical birds. Academic Press, London. 165 pp.Google Scholar
STYRSKY, J. N., BRAWN, J. D. & ROBINSON, S. K. 2005. Juvenile mortality increases with clutch size in a Neotropical bird. Ecology 86:3238–3244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SUTHERLAND, W. J. 1998. The effect of local change in habitat quality on populations of migratory species. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:418–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TEJEDA-CRUZ, C. & SUTHERLAND, W. 2004. Bird responses to shade coffee production. Animal Conservation 7:169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
THOMAS, C. D. & KUNIN, W. E. 1999. The spatial structure of populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 68:647–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TURCHIN, P. 1998. Quantitative analysis of movements: measuring and modelling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland. 396 pp.Google Scholar
UNDERWOOD, A. J. 1997. Experiments in ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 522 pp.Google Scholar
UNDERWOOD, T. J. & ROTH, R. R. 2002. Demographic variables are poor indicators of Wood Thrush productivity. Condor 104:92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VANDERHOFF, E. N. & EASON, P. K. 2008. Influence of environmental variables on foraging by juvenile American Robins. Journal of Field Ornithology 79:186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WATKINSON, A. R. & SUTHERLAND, W. J. 1995. Sources, sinks and pseudo-sinks. Journal of Animal Ecology 64:126–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHITE, G. C. & BURNHAM, K. P. 1999. Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:120–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WILLSON, S. K. 2004. Obligate army-ant-following birds: a study of ecology, spatial movement patterns, and behaviour in Amazonian Peru. Ornithological Monographs 55:1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WITH, K. A. & KING, A. W. 2001. Analysis of landscape sources and sinks: the effect of spatial pattern on avian demography. Biological Conservation 100:75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YOUNG, B. E., DEROSIER, D. & POWELL, G. V. N. 1998. Diversity and conservation of understory birds in the Tilarán Mountains, Costa Rica. Auk 115:998–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZANETTE, L. 2000. Fragment size and the demography of an area-sensitive songbird. Journal of Animal Ecology 69:458–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZANETTE, L. & JENKINS, B. 2000. Nesting success and nest predators in forest fragments: a study using real and artificial nests. Auk 117:445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar