Inventario de las aves de un bosque altoandino: comparación de dos métodos

Capturing birds with mist-nets has been the sole method used or proposed for making species inventories of several Neotropical forests, but this method has rarely been evaluated relative to the use of visual and auditory observations in these forests. This study compares the effectiveness and efficiency of these two methods in the elaboration of the list of bird species on a 15 ha study plot of forest and subparamo vegetation in the Eastern Andes of Colombia. Over ten months we made 11 visits of 4-6 days each, observing and running nets along ca. 3 km of study trails. Of 102 total species recorded, 101 were observed and 50 captured; 52 were observed but not captured vs. only one that was only recorded with the nets. The observations were more efficient in accumulating species, with a mean of 68.4 per visit vs. 17.1 species captured. More than half of the species observed had been recorded after a single visit, and over 90% in six visits; the corresponding figures for mist-net captures were four and nine visits. Compared with the totallist, the mist net sample was biased towards small species « 50 g); some diet groups or foraging guilds were over- or underrepresented in this sample. We conclude that visual and auditory observations are more effective and efficient for making inventories of birds in these forests. Mist nets are a useful supplement to these observations, but not a substitute; their greatest utility lies in obtaining other sorts of data.La captura con redes de niebla ha sido utilizada o propuesta como método único para realizar inventarios de aves en varios bosques neotropicales, pero pocas veces ha sido evaluado en este medio en relación a otros métodos como el de las observaciones visuales y auditivas. Este estudio compara la efectividad y eficiencia de estos dos métodos en la elaboración de la lista de las especies de aves de una parcela de 15 ha de bosque altoandino y subpáramo en la Cordillera Oriental de Colombia. Durante diez meses hicimos once visitas de 4-6 días al área; observamos y pusimos redes a lo largo de ca. 3 km de senderos. Registramos 102 especies durante el estudio, 101 mediante las observaciones y 50 con capturas; 52 especies fueron observadas pero no capturadas y solamente una fue capturada sin ser observada. Las observaciones fueron más eficientes en la acumulación de especies, con un promedio de 68.4 especies por visita, vs. 17.1 capturadas. Una visita bastó para anotar 50% del total de las especies observadas y seis pa