Bird sensitivity to disturbance as an indicator of forest patch conditions: An issue in environmental assessments

•Bird sensitivity to disturbance (Parker III et al., 1996) was tested as ecological indicator.•Parker's classification failed to predict environmental conditions in patches in HML.•Only high sensitivity species locally functioned well as an ecological indicator.•Although flawed, Parker's c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecological indicators 2016-07, Vol.66, p.369-381
Hauptverfasser: Alexandrino, Eduardo Roberto, Buechley, Evan R., Piratelli, Augusto João, Ferraz, Katia Maria Paschoaletto Micchi de Barros, de Andrade Moral, Rafael, Şekercioğlu, Çağan H., Silva, Wesley Rodrigues, Couto, Hilton Thadeu Zarate do
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Bird sensitivity to disturbance (Parker III et al., 1996) was tested as ecological indicator.•Parker's classification failed to predict environmental conditions in patches in HML.•Only high sensitivity species locally functioned well as an ecological indicator.•Although flawed, Parker's classification was very used in environmental assessments.•This is the first argument of how Parker's classification is wrongly used as ecological indicator. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is one of the steps within the Environmental Impact Assessment process. Birds are often used in EA to help decision makers evaluate potential human impacts from proposed development activities. A “sensitivity to human disturbance” index, created by Parker III et al. (1996) for all Neotropical species, is commonly considered an ecological indicator. However, this parameter was created subjectively and, for most species, there have been no rigorous field test to validate its effectiveness as such. Therefore, in this study, we aim to: (1) evaluate if, at the local scale, birds from forest patches in a human-modified landscape (HML) may differ in sensitivity from Parker's sensitivity classification; (2) evaluate the effectiveness of the species richness value at each sensitivity level as an ecological indicator; (3) gather information on how often and in which manner Parker's classification has been used in EA. To do so, bird sampling was performed in eight forest patches in a HML over one year. Then, we created a local sensitivity to disturbance using information about threat, endemism, spatial distribution and relative abundance of all species in the study area. We found that 37% of the forest birds showed different local sensitivity levels when compared with Parker's classification. Our results show that only the richness of high-sensitivity species from our local classification fitted the ecological indicator assumptions helping the environmental conditions evaluation of the studied patches. We conclude that species richness of each Parker's bird sensitivity levels do not necessarily perform as an ecological indicator at the local scale, and particularly in HML. Nevertheless, Parker's Neotropical bird sensitivity classification was used in 50% of EA we reviewed. In these, 76% assumed that it was an accurate ecological indicator of the local forest conditions for birds. The lack of clear criteria used in Parker's classification allows diverse interpretations by ornithologists, and there
ISSN:1470-160X
1872-7034
DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.006