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

Mesoamericana 14 (3) Noviembre de 2010Pitangus sulphuratus 1 2 11Psarocolius montezuma x 1 9Quiscalus mexicanus 4Ramphastos sulfuratus 1Ramphocelus passerinii x 1 14 10Saltator atriceps 6Saltator maximus 1Sayornis nigricans 1 1 3Seiurus noveboracensis x x 4Sporophila aurita 34 33 12Sporophila nigricollis 3 3Sporophila torqueola 10 7Stelgidopteryx serripennis 1 3Sturnella magna 2 7Sturnella militaris 2 5Tachyphonus rufus 6Tangara larvata x 2 3Thamnophilus doliatus x 2Thraupis episcopus x 71Thraupis palmarum x 5Thryothorus modestus x 1 5Tiaris olivacea 23 11 5Todirostrum cinereum x 3 33Troglodytes aedon x 3 5 48Turdus grayi x 19Tyrannus melancholicus 4 3 22Vermivora peregrina x x 2Vireo flavifrons x 3Vireo flavoviridis x 8Volatinia jacarina 92 37 26Wilsonia canadensis x x 1Zonotrichia capensis 1Total individuals observed per fence 247 244 603more abundant species weighted more heavily than rarespecies. The simple and control fences did not differsignificantly according to this diversity index. This may bebecause both simple and control fences are most frequentlyvisited by generalist species (e.g. granivores and generalistspecies that frequent pasture areas as well as perch infences). Diversity indices are just one description of thecommunity, on par with species lists or other metrics(Barbour et al., 1999). However, both indices suggest thatmultistrata fences may have the higher conservation valuesince we expect richness to be one of the best predictorsof areas or patches with highest conservation potential(Bock et al., 2007).Data from a mist netting study conducted in differentplots at the same study site have shown that individualrecaptures are less common in agroforestry plots and livefences than local forest patches (Martínez-Salinas andDeClerck, 2009). This suggests that agroforestry plots andlive fences may facilitate movement between other elementsof the agricultural matrix, but do not provide high qualitypermanent habitat. The behavioral observations collected61