Volumen 14(3) Noviembre de 2010 - Eco-Index

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mesoamericana 14 (3) Noviembre de 2010not record behavior if foliage blocked our view. We onlyrecorded foraging and reproductive behavior when theindividual was seen actively engaged in the activity (e.g.taking fruit, sampling nectar, copulating, carrying nestmaterials, feeding offspring). Sampling effort was gaugedby reviewing species accumulation curves (Figure 1)generated with EstimateS software (Colwell, 2009).In addition to testing for differences in overall birddiversity among fence type, we tested for differencesin richness and abundance of migratory birds andspecies observed in local forest patches and agroforestryplantations. We used long-term monitoring data from amist netting study conducted in different landuses at thesame study (Martínez-Salinas and DeClerck, 2009) andidentified 109 species captured in local forest patches andagroforestry plots. Of these, five of the species found inforest and 35 agroforestry species were observed in fencesduring point counts. Migratory species were identified usingdata in Stiles and Skutch (1989) and cross-referenced withmigratory activity observed at the study site by Martínez-Salinas and DeClerck (2009).We used analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests toevaluate relationships between overall species richnessand abundances and structural characteristics of livefences, as these data met assumptions for normality ofresiduals (Shapiro-Wilk test at p
Mesoamericana 14 (3) Noviembre de 2010Re s u l t sOur analysis of the trees in live fences supports the notionthat these systems are biologically and structurally distinct.Overall tree species richness was low and trees presentrepresented those planted by farm management withfew exceptions. Erythrina fusca (poró) was the dominantspecies representing 63% and 49% of all trees and postsfor simple and multistrata fences, respectively. We foundthat simple and multistrata fences differed significantlyin height and canopy radius (ANOVA F 1, 9= 14.89p
Page 1 and 2:
Volumen 14(3) Noviembre de 2010
Page 3 and 4: EDITORESJaime Raúl Bonilla-Barbosa
Page 5 and 6: PRESENTACIÓNConservación de la co
Page 7: ONG, gobierno, instituciones, acade
Page 11 and 12: Ba s e s d e Co n o c i m i e n t o
Page 13 and 14: Mesoamericana 14 (3) Noviembre de 2
Page 25 and 26: Iniciativa d e l Co r r e d o r d e
Page 35: El Pa p e l d e l o s Ag r o e c o
Page 41: Mesoamericana 14 (3) Noviembre de 2
Page 51 and 52: Th e Im p o r ta n c e o f Ma n a g
Page 65 and 66: Ef e c t o d e l a Co m p l e j i d
Page 73 and 74: No ta CientíficaDi s e ñ o d e u
Page 87 and 88: No ta CientíficaCo r r e d o r Bi
Page 95 and 96: No ta CientíficaIm p o r ta n c i
Page 105 and 106:
No ta CientíficaCo r r e d o r e s
Page 107 and 108:
Mesoamericana 14 (3) Noviembre de 2
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
REVISORES VOLUMEN 14 (3)Mesoamerica
show all

Volumen 14(3) Noviembre de 2010 - Eco-Index

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?