Translator Disclaimer
1 July 2008 Perspectives in Ornithology: Effects of Disturbance or Loss of Tropical Rainforest on Birds
Author Affiliations +

INTRODUCTION

Extensive tropical deforestation is a major threat to bird biodiversity. Approximately 50% of the area originally covered by tropical forests has now been cleared, and much of what remains is being rapidly degraded (Wright 2005). This habitat loss is the primary cause of species endangerment and local extinctions (e.g., Brash 1987, Castelletta et al. 2000, Trainor 2007). Given that 70% of the world's threatened bird species occur in lowland and montane tropical forests (BirdLife International 2008), deforestation remains a major threat. It has been predicted that most of the currently threatened bird species could disappear by the end of this century if the present rate of deforestation continues (Pimm et al. 2006).

Although species disappearance is an expected consequence of outright habitat loss, much remains to be learned about the extinction process and how forest disturbance contributes to the decline of tropical birds. Here, we briefly highlight overall patterns of endangerment and extinction of bird species and discuss possible mechanisms (e.g., predation) and consequences (e.g., breakdown of ecosystem processes) of the loss of tropical forest species. We summarize current knowledge on the effects of deforestation and its associated drivers (e.g., fragmentation, agriculture) on forest birds. We end by identifying the conservation implications of the patterns we have highlighted and potential core areas for future research.

OVERALL PATTERNS

Forest loss and avian endangerment.—Humans have affected the structure and function of ecosystems around the world, but the threat to tropical forests is of primary conservation concern, because they contain at least half of the Earth's biodiversity (Dirzo and Raven 2003). Deforestation continues to accelerate in tropical countries, particularly in tropical Asia and Africa (Matthews 2001, Hansen and DeFries 2004). Countries with the largest annual net forest losses (e.g., Brazil and Indonesia) are located in the tropics, where collective losses averaged 8.2 million ha annually between 2000 and 2005 (Food and Agriculture Organization 2005). Global forest-loss trends over the past decade and a half reveal that deforestation has been more pronounced and widespread in the tropics, regardless of forest cover type examined (i.e., total, natural, or primary; left panels in Fig. 1, in green). There are also higher numbers of threatened and data-deficient birds in the tropics, particularly in Southeast Asia (right panels in Fig. 1, in dark red). These results broadly reinforce the connection between high tropical deforestation and increased avian endangerment suggested by other studies (e.g., Brooks et al. 1997, BirdLife International 2008).

FIG. 1.

Global distribution of average annual forest cover percent change (1990–2005) and richness of threatened and data-deficient terrestrial birds among countries. Data sources for rate of forest cover change and terrestrial birds were obtained from Global Forest Resources Assessment (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] 2005) and IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 2007), respectively. Our definitions of (A) total, (B) natural, and (C) primary forest areas follow those of FAO (2005). Tropical countries are those in which all the land area is situated within ~23.5°N and ~23.5°S (indicated by the dotted lines). (D) Globally threatened species (i.e., those classified on the IUCN Red List as "critically endangered," "endangered," or "vulnerable"). (E) Globally threatened species as defined for D, but excluding those species listed under the Red List criteria A1c, B1b(iii), and B2b(iii) (i.e., criteria related to decline of the habitat area, in extent, quality, or both). (F) Data-deficient species (i.e., those classified on the Red List as "data-deficient").

i0004-8038-125-3-511-f01.jpg

Avian extinctions.—Human actions have raised the rate of bird extinctions by several orders of magnitude, and rates are predicted to rapidly increase (Şekercioĝlu et al. 2004, Pimm et al. 2006). As much as 67% of local tropical-forest avifauna has been reported to disappear following deforestation (Sodhi et al. 2004), though species often persist for long periods in forest remnants, which leads to a "time lag" between the deforestation event and extinction (Brooks et al. 1999). Bird communities in forest fragments are predicted to undergo half the total number of extinctions they are likely to experience within 50 years of isolation (Brooks et al. 1999). This time lag may also account for the lower-than-expected number of global extinctions attributable to deforestation that have been recorded thus far, particularly in continental systems (Brooks and Balmford 1996). However, analyses have shown that the number of bird species expected to become extinct from deforestation is similar to the actual numbers of species classified as threatened (Brooks and Balmford 1996, Brooks et al. 1997).

Extinction risk is not distributed equally among bird species (Bennett and Owens 1997, Şekercioĝlu et al. 2004, Sodhi et al. 2004), but there has been little examination of which traits make tropical birds vulnerable. Various global analyses point to intrinsic biological traits (e.g., slow life history, large body size; Gaston and Blackburn 1995, Bennett and Owens 1997) and extrinsic factors that result in small populations (e.g., geographic range size; Blackburn and Gaston 2002) as being associated with high extinction risk. In addition, rare and specialized birds are particularly vulnerable to extinction following habitat loss (Owens and Bennett 2000, Şekercioĝlu et al. 2004, Sodhi et al. 2004). Other analyses have, however, shown that even species that are flexible in their habitat choice (e.g., can inhabit secondary forests) do not survive extensive deforestation (Harris and Pimm 2004).

Altered communities.—Disturbance and degradation alter forest communities and, thus, affect the survival of forest bird species in several ways. Increased access of open-country species to forests can lead to greater competition for resources and greater predation pressure (Yap and Sodhi 2004). Nest predation is also higher at the interface of forest and disturbed habitat (e.g., Gibbs 1991, Burkey 1993, Cooper and Francis 1998), where certain predators may be more efficient in detecting nests. The loss of large predatory species associated with overexploitation in deforested areas (Daily et al. 2003, Wright 2003) may increase populations of small and medium-sized mammals (i.e., mesopredator release) and, thus, exacerbate birds' vulnerability to predation. Typically, these mesopredators become more abundant following the decline of top predators and, thus, predation rates on avian young and eggs increase (Terborgh 1992, Crooks and Soulé 1999). Therefore, elevated mesopredator population densities may explain some species extinctions in forest fragments (Sieving 1992). Although some evidence points to predation pressure generally being lower in less disturbed forests (Cooper and Francis 1998, Wong et al. 1998), patterns across the tropics vary depending on the local fauna and the extent of disturbance (e.g., Carlson and Hartman 2001, Posa et al. 2007).

Altered processes.—Declining bird populations in the tropics have great implications for ecosystem processes, especially given that extinction threat is not uniformly distributed among avian functional groups, and some key groups such as scavengers, frugivores, and insectivores are more threatened than the global average (Şekercioĝlu et al. 2004). Disruptions of ecological processes through species loss in degraded forests may also lead to cascading and catastrophic co-extinctions (Koh et al. 2004). For instance, frugivory, a key interaction linking plant reproduction and dispersal with animal nutrition, is placed in jeopardy by habitat degradation. Because many tropical trees have evolved to produce large, lipid-rich fruits adapted for animal dispersal (Howe 1984), the demise of avian frugivores may have serious consequences for forest regeneration. Several examples exist (Brash 1987; Cordeiro and Howe 2001, 2003) of fruiting tropical trees that either failed to become re-established after harvest or became less numerous in fragments where the frugivorous bird responsible for the dispersal of their seeds has declined or disappeared. In turn, the declining availability of fruits in disturbed tropical forests that results from disrupted avian-mediated seed dispersal may prevent colonization and persistence of certain frugivores in disturbed habitats (Lambert 1991, Zakaria and Nordin 1998). The biological control of herbivorous insects by birds may be of value in both anthropogenic and natural forest settings (Tscharntke et al. 2008). However, although it is clear that insectivorous birds play an important role in controlling outbreaks of herbivorous insects in agroforests (Perfecto et al. 2004), there are fewer studies with comparable results in natural forest stands (Van Bael et al. 2003, Sekercioglu 2006). Generally, insect herbivores inflict high damage in both the canopy and understory of forest stands that lack avian insectivores (Van Bael et al. 2003, Van Bael and Brawn 2005, Dunham 2008); this ability of birds to control herbivorous insects complements that of other insectivorous predators (Greenberg et al. 2000). As we discuss in more detail below, understory insectivores and frugivores are predicted to decline with increased disturbance and fragmentation of the tropical forest (Şekercioĝlu et al. 2002); thus, the potential implications of the loss of birds of these two key trophic guilds for tropical forest productivity must be carefully examined. Although frugivory and insectivory are becoming better understood, more data are needed on how forest disturbance affects other avian functions such as pollination, vertebrate predation, and scavenging.

DEFORESTATION-RELATED DRIVERS

Forest fragmentation.—Currently, ~45 million ha of tropical forest exist as fragments (Achard et al. 2002) that are scattered among urban areas, pastures, agricultural areas, and other types of land uses. Numerous studies document avian losses and population declines in tropical fragments (reviewed in Turner 1996) and suggest that area, isolation, and quality of fragments all influence the rate and order of species disappearance. Also, several studies have found that traits related to population size and recovery rate, such as rarity (Newmark 1991), high population variability (Karr 1982), low annual survival rates, and low fecundity (Karr 1990, Sieving and Karr 1997), may predict or account for species loss in fragments.

Terrestrial insectivores are now widely recognized as a fragmentation-sensitive guild (Karr 1982, Kattan et al. 1994, Stouffer and Bierregaard 1995, Lambert and Collar 2002, Şekercioĝlu et al. 2002, Sigel et al. 2006). Their limited dispersal abilities, high habitat-specificity, and dietary specialization are thought to underlie their propensity to disappear from fragments. For instance, (Stratford and Stouffer 1999) found a 74% extinction rate for ground-foraging insectivores in Manaus, Brazil, even though some fragments were connected to contiguous forest by secondary growth. Species with specialized ecology, such as obligate ant-followers, are among the first to be lost from recently isolated fragments (Stouffer and Bierregaard 1995). Because they require a large foraging area, birds that forage in mixed-species flocks are also adversely affected (Stouffer and Bierregaard 1995, Sigel et al. 2006, Van Houtan et al. 2006).

Large-bodied frugivores are similarly fragmentation-sensitive, especially at higher elevations (Kattan et al. 1994, Renjifo 1999). Despite the typically high dispersal ability of canopy species, large frugivores are likely to depend on patchily distributed trees that fruit at different times, and the lowered vegetation diversity in small fragments may not support them (Willis 1979). Similarly, forest-interior raptors that require large tracts of forest are sensitive to fragmentation (Kattan et al. 1994, Thiollay 1996, Renjifo 1999). Moreover, large-bodied frugivores and forest raptors may also be subjected to human persecution in open habitats because of their size (Peres 2001).

Species persistence in fragmented landscapes is influenced by both patch-level and landscape-level factors. Forest-interior species are more affected by patch characteristics such as area, shape, plant species composition, vegetation structure, and extent of microclimatic change (Graham and Blake 2001). Edge-avoidance response has been found to be typical of Neotropical insectivores (Lindell et al. 2007), such that certain species are reluctant to cross even relatively narrow roads (Laurance 2004). For less restricted species, survival in fragments seems to be best predicted by their presence in the matrix of modified habitats surrounding the fragments (Gascon et al. 1999, Renjifo 2001, Sekercioglu et al. 2002). The type and quality of the matrix, largely determined by the history and intensity of land use, can strongly influence processes within the fragments (Marzluff and Ewing 2001, Kupfer et al. 2006). Some matrices can provide foraging or breeding habitats (Sekercioglu et al. 2007); structurally complex natural or anthropogenic matrices (i.e., tree plantations) have been found to provide the best fragment-connectivity (Gascon et al. 1999, Renjifo 2001). If suitable connecting habitat is present, it can allow individuals to recolonize fragments and even restore pre-isolation abundance of some species (Stouffer et al. 2006). In remnants that are completely isolated, however, species richness erodes over time because of continued loss of species and lack of recolonization (Diamond et al. 1987, Robinson 1999, Sodhi et al. 2006).

Our understanding of the effects of tropical fragmentation is still incomplete, because temporal observations have been recorded only for relatively short periods (~20 years; Sodhi et al. 2005, Stouffer et al. 2006; but see Robinson 1999). Similarly, results inferred from comparing patches with contiguous forests do not paint a complete picture, because sensitive species may already have been extinct before the research was initiated (Graham and Blake 2001, Manu et al. 2007). To what degree fragmentation exacerbates outright habitat loss is not well understood, but it is theorized to have a greater effect in the tropics than in temperate systems (Andrén 1994, Fahrig 2003). Modeling the effects of area and isolation on extinction and colonization dynamics, (Ferraz et al. 2007) found a stronger effect of area, suggesting that species are absent from small, isolated patches not because they are unable to colonize them but because they rarely occupy small patches, even in contiguous forest. Indeed, Van Houtan et al. (2007) showed that tropical forest birds may be better dispersers than assumed but also preferentially disperse from smaller to larger patches. It has been proposed that a critical threshold of 20–30% of habitat cover exists, below which the relative importance of habitat configuration for species persistence increases (Andrén 1994, Fahrig 2003). This is supported by a study that showed spatial organization to be important in sustaining source–sink dynamics and the retention of broader population structure in the face of some short-term local extinctions in the highly fragmented Brazilian Atlantic forest (Develey and Metzger 2006). Nonetheless, the general nature of this threshold needs to be verified, because minimum viable population sizes may depend on the level of connectivity in the landscape (Traill et al. 2007, Brook et al. 2008).

Timber harvesting practices.—Selective logging is practiced in many tropical countries, where gaps between successive harvests of timber species are meant to allow forests to regenerate, resulting in a forest structure with a mix of tree sizes and ages that mimics natural stands. Available data for tropical birds indicate that many forest species continue to survive in, or use, selectively logged forest. Although some species vacate an area when logging begins but return to it after it has been logged, this pattern is not universal (Thiollay 1992, Dranzoa 1998), and some communities remain distinct from the original for periods of 10–15 years (Johns 1996; Thiollay 1997, 1999). Logging can also result in significant changes in the relative abundance and composition of the avifauna, with an increase of widespread generalists or forest-edge species, compared with pristine forest (Johns 1996, Thiollay 1997, Dranzoa 1998, Aleixo 1999). This influx often accounts for the higher species richness in logged areas.

Selective logging affects various guilds differently. Some under-story insectivores, as well as mixed-species flock members, are intolerant of the changes in microclimate and vegetation that occur after logging, because of their physiology and foraging-habitat specializations (Johns 1986, Mason 1996, Dranzoa 1998, Marsden 1998, Thiollay 1999). However, in other cases, such species can benefit from understory regrowth (Cleary et al. 2007). Guilds such as bark-associated insectivores and large-canopy frugivores (e.g., hornbills) decline after large trees are lost (Johns 1989, Cleary et al. 2007). On the other hand, some studies report that nectarivores, generalist frugivores, omnivores, and gap or edge specialists seem to benefit from logging-related changes in vegetation (Lambert 1992, Johns 1996, Mason 1996, Dranzoa 1998, Owiunji and Plumptre 1998, Thiollay 1999). A global meta-analysis showed that insectivores and frugivores decrease after moderate disturbance of tropical forest, but patterns for carnivores, omnivores, and nectarivores differ among tropical regions (Gray et al. 2007). There is little evidence that logging disproportionately threatens rare species or those with restricted ranges (Thiollay 1997, Marsden 1998). There are, however, indications that populations that do not experience natural disturbance (e.g., hurricanes) may be more sensitive to logging (Aleixo 1999).

Many logging concessions are in proximity to pristine forest from which birds can disperse, which may account for the minimal species loss and occurrence of some forest-dependent species in logged areas. The magnitude of impact on the avifauna can also depend on the management regime adopted by timber companies (Frumhoff 1995, Mason 1996, Sekercioglu 2002). If harvest regimes do not allow logged forests to regenerate naturally, isolate them from unlogged compartments, or change regeneration dynamics, bird communities are unlikely to regain their pre-logging composition. However, one of the serious consequences of logging is increased access through roads, which can lead to hunting and a higher probability of further forest clearance (Thiollay 1999, Asner et al. 2006, Sodhi and Brook 2006).

Agricultural practices.—The term "countryside habitat" has been used to encompass the diverse array of active agriculture, plantation or managed forests, fallow land, gardens, and small remnants of native vegetation in human-dominated landscapes (Daily et al. 2001). Surveys in these landscapes have indicated that they can harbor a substantial proportion of the regional avifauna, forest species included (Estrada et al. 1997, Daily et al. 2001, Hughes et al. 2002, Sodhi et al. 2005). However, the value of the different land uses for maintaining avian biodiversity varies considerably (Peh et al. 2005, Posa and Sodhi 2006, Soh et al. 2006).

Conversion of forest into pasture for cattle grazing has had the greatest impact, resulting in a near-total absence of birds in the heavily modified landscapes of some regions (Saab and Petit 1992, Estrada et al. 1997, Petit et al. 1999). Low species richness is also observed in other intensively managed plantations, especially in monocultures of non-arboreal annual crops (Estrada et al. 1997, Matlock et al. 2002, Waltert et al. 2004). Open-country species dominate these habitats, because forest birds are sensitive to the extreme climatic conditions there. Arboreal crops such as shade coffee (Coffea spp.), Cacao (Theobroma cacao), and Cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum) support a greater number of forest bird species, particularly if natural vegetation is allowed to grow (Estrada et al. 1997, Greenberg et al. 1997, Shahabuddin 1997, Petit et al. 1999; but see Waltert et al. 2004). Remnant forest trees and riparian strips can be disproportionately important for forest birds persisting in tropical countryside (Sekercioglu et al. 2007). Some primary-forest birds can use older plantations of exotic trees that allow secondary growth (Mitra and Sheldon 1993) or traditional agroforests that are diverse and structurally complex (Thiollay 1995); however, species richness and diversity are still lower than in primary forest. Similarly, the successional vegetation that results from practices such as shifting cultivation (i.e., slash-and-burn) or from the abandonment of "permanent" agriculture can be colonized by forest birds. Species richness and abundance have been found to parallel recovery of vegetation (Bowman et al. 1990, Blankespoor 1991, Andrade and Rubio-Torgler 1994, Raman et al. 1998). Secondary forest regrowths from agricultural fallows can contain a significant proportion of forest avifauna, as well as secondary-growth specialists (Blankespoor 1991, Raman et al. 1998). However, these habitats are still suboptimal for forest-dependent species (Raman 2001), whereas traditional systems of shifting agriculture practiced on small scales, with long intervals between burning and recropping, may minimally affect the avifauna (Zhijun and Young 2003).

The degree of similarity between species assemblages in countryside habitats and in pristine forest appears to depend on land-use patterns and landscape context (Luck and Daily 2003). Pesticides adversely affect insectivores, as does the lack of leaf litter and low vegetational diversity in agriculture (Shahabuddin 1997), but the same birds benefit from insect pests in timber plantations (Mitra and Sheldon 1993). Although large frugivores generally do not benefit from the dominating crop trees of agroforests and are absent from plantations in some areas (Thiollay 1995, Shahabuddin 1997), they have been observed in other mixed rural habitats (Sodhi et al. 2005). However, such patterns may be attributable to the proximity of pristine forest to study areas (Barlow et al. 2007).

Infrastructure and urbanization.—Cities are expanding worldwide, and it is expected that more than half the world's total human population will be living in them by 2030 (Palmer et al. 2004). Unlike other land uses, urbanization makes natural successional recovery difficult or impossible; thus, the effects on biodiversity are long-term. Urbanization increases biological homogenization, causing the extirpation of native species and promoting the establishment of non-native, urban-adaptable species that are becoming increasingly widespread and locally abundant across the planet (McKinney 2006). There is a near-complete absence of forest species in tropical urban areas, and human commensals such as Rock Doves (Columba livia) and House Crows (Corvus splendens) can attain high densities (Sodhi et al. 1999, Lim and Sodhi 2004, Pauchard et al. 2006, Posa and Sodhi 2006). Some less sensitive native species, such as frugivores that can feed on fruit-bearing ornamental plants (Petit et al. 1999, Lim and Sodhi 2004, Posa and Sodhi 2006), are able to persist in city parks and low-density housing areas. The presence of remnant natural habitats may be the most important determinant of forest bird diversity in tropical cities (Sodhi et al. 1999, Lim and Sodhi 2004). Therefore, it is unfortunate that cities in developing tropical countries typically do not maintain natural elements in the urban environment (Pauchard et al. 2006, Posa and Sodhi 2006). Understanding of the effects of urbanization in regions of high avian diversity such as the tropics is still rudimentary (Chace and Walsh 2006), but measures for urban conservation will be crucial in the coming decades as urban sprawl is set to replace native and rural habitats.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Conserving large, continuous blocks of primary forest and extensive forest fragments is clearly imperative for conservation of tropical forest birds, many of which may be capable of using modified habitats only intermittently, if at all. With a large portion of the tropical landscape now deforested, it is critical to develop strategies that preserve the remaining forests' bird diversity and prevent further losses. On the basis of our review, we have identified the following research directions for tropical forest birds: (1) more research, especially in Oceanic, Asia and Africa, is needed to better understand the effects of forest disturbance on avian diversity, abundance, demographics, survivorship, and functionality (see Table 1); (2) better comprehension of the long-term persistence as well as habitat thresholds (minimum area requirements) is required with regard to forest bird populations in degraded tropical landscapes; and (3) the relative effects of different types of habitat disturbance (e.g., fragmentation vs. road construction) and synergies among different threats (e.g., fragmentation, fire, disease, invasive species, and global warming) need to be better studied. Among potential synergies, for instance, further work is needed to fully understand the link between forest disturbance and hunting and the susceptibility of rainforest bird populations to emerging infectious diseases and climate change in human-modified landscapes. Clearly, urgent actions are needed to mitigate human impacts on tropical forest birds.

TABLE 1.

Comparison of land areas, threatened bird species, and publications in the various tropical regions

i0004-8038-125-3-511-t01.gif

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National University of Singapore (R-154-000-264-112). I.G.W. received a sabbatical grant from Memorial University and was sponsored by Shirley Lim of Nanyang Technological University during his stay in Singapore. We thank L. P. Koh, C. Sekercioglu, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

  1. F. Achard, H. D. Eva, H-J. Stibig, P. Mayaux, J. Gallego, T. Richards, and J-P. Malingreau . 2002. Determination of deforestation rates of the world's humid tropical forests. Science 297:999–1002. Google Scholar

  2. A. Aleixo 1999. Effects of selective logging on a bird community in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Condor 101:537–548. Google Scholar

  3. G. I. Andrade and H. Rubio-Torgler . 1994. Sustainable use of the tropical rain forest: Evidence from the avifauna in a shifting-cultivation habitat mosaic in the Colombian Amazon. Conservation Biology 8:545–554. Google Scholar

  4. H. Andrén 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: A review. Oikos 71:355–366. Google Scholar

  5. G. P. Asner, E. N. Broadbent, P. J C. Oliveira, M. Keller, D. E. Knapp, and J. N M. Silva . 2006. Condition and fate of logged forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103:12947–12950. Google Scholar

  6. J. Barlow, L. A M. Mestre, T. A. Gardner, and C. A. Peres . 2007. The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for Amazonian birds. Biological Conservation 136:212–231. Google Scholar

  7. P. M. Bennett and I. P F. Owens . 1997. Variation in extinction risk among birds: Chance or evolutionary predisposition. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 264:401–408. Google Scholar

  8. BirdLife International. 2008. BirdLife Data Zone [Online.] Available at  www.birdlife.org/datazone/index.htmlGoogle Scholar

  9. T. M. Blackburn and K. J. Gaston . 2002. Extrinsic factors and the population sizes of threatened birds. Ecology Letters 5:568–576. Google Scholar

  10. G. W. Blankespoor 1991. Slash-and-burn shifting agriculture and bird communities in Liberia, West Africa. Biological Conservation 57:41–71. Google Scholar

  11. D. M J. S. Bowman, J. C Z. Woinarski, D. P A. Sands, A. Wells, and V. J. Mcshane . 1990. Slash-and-burn agriculture in the wet coastal lowlands of Papua New Guinea: Response of birds, butterflies and reptiles. Journal of Biogeography 17:227–239. Google Scholar

  12. A. R. Brash 1987. The history of avian extinction and forest conversion on Puerto Rico. Biological Conservation 39:97–111. Google Scholar

  13. B. W. Brook, N. S. Sodhi, and C. J A. Bradshaw . 2008. Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23.in press. Google Scholar

  14. T. Brooks and A. Balmford . 1996. Atlantic forest extinctions. Nature 380:115. Google Scholar

  15. T. M. Brooks, S. L. Pimm, and N. J. Collar . 1997. Deforestation predicts the number of threatened birds in insular Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology 11:382–394. Google Scholar

  16. T. M. Brooks, S. L. Pimm, and J. O. Oyugi . 1999. Time lag between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conservation Biology 13:1140–1150. Google Scholar

  17. T. V. Burkey 1993. Edge effects in seed and egg predation at two Neotropical rainforest sites. Biological Conservation 66:139–143. Google Scholar

  18. A. Carlson and G. Hartman . 2001. Tropical forest fragmentation and nest predation—An experimental study in an Eastern Arc montane forest, Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1077–1085. Google Scholar

  19. M. Castelletta, N. S. Sodhi, and R. Subaraj . 2000. Heavy extinctions of forest avifauna in Singapore: Lessons for biodiversity conservation in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology 14:1870–1880. Google Scholar

  20. J. F. Chace and J. J. Walsh . 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning 74:46–69. Google Scholar

  21. D. F R. Cleary, T. J B. Boyle, T. Setyawati, C. D. Anggraeni, E. E. Van Loon, and S. B J. Menken . 2007. Bird species and traits associated with logged and unlogged forest in Borneo. Ecological Applications 17:1184–1197. Google Scholar

  22. D. S. Cooper and C. M. Francis . 1998. Nest predation in a Malaysian lowland rain forest. Biological Conservation 85:199–202. Google Scholar

  23. N. J. Cordeiro and H. F. Howe . 2003. Low recruitment of trees dispersed by animals in African forest fragments. Conservation Biology 15:1733–1741. Google Scholar

  24. N. J. Cordeiro and H. F. Howe . 2003. Forest fragmentation severs mutualism between seed dispersers and an endemic African tree. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100:14052–14056. Google Scholar

  25. K. R. Crooks and M. E. Soulé . 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566. Google Scholar

  26. G. C. Daily, G. Ceballos, J. Pacheco, G. Suzán, and A. Sánchez-Azofeifa . 2003. Countryside biogeography of Neotropical mammals: Conservation opportunities in agricultural landscapes of Costa Rica. Conservation Biology 17:1814–1826. Google Scholar

  27. G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, and G. A. Sánchez-Azofeifa . 2001. Countryside biogeography: Use of human-dominated habitats by the avifauna of southern Costa Rica. Ecological Applications 11:1–13. Google Scholar

  28. P. F. Develey and J. P. Metzger . 2006. Emerging threats to birds in Brazilian Atlantic forest: The roles of forest loss and configuration in a severely fragmented ecosystem. 269–290. Emerging Threats to Tropical Forests. ( W. F C. Laurance and C. A C. Peres , editors. Eds.). University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois. Google Scholar

  29. J. M. Diamond, K. D. Bishop, and S. Van Balen . 1987. Bird survival in an isolated Javan woodland: Island or mirror. Conservation Biology 1:132–142. Google Scholar

  30. R. Dirzo and P. H. Raven . 2003. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28:137–167. Google Scholar

  31. C. Dranzoa 1998. The avifauna 23 years after logging in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:777–797. Google Scholar

  32. A. E. Dunham 2008. Above and below ground impacts of terrestrial mammals and birds in a tropical forest. Oikos 117:571–579. Google Scholar

  33. A. Estrada, R. Coates-Estrada, and D. A. Meritt Jr . 1997. Anthropogenic landscape changes and avian diversity at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:19–43. Google Scholar

  34. L. Fahrig 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:487–515. Google Scholar

  35. G. Ferraz, J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, P. C. Stouffer, R. O. Bierregaard Jr., and T. E. Lovejoy . 2007. A large-scale deforestation experiment: Effects of patch area and isolation on Amazon birds. Science 315:238–241. Google Scholar

  36. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. FAO Forestry Paper 147. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. Google Scholar

  37. P. C. Frumhoff 1995. Conserving wildlife in tropical forests managed for timber: To provide a more viable complement to protected areas. BioScience 45:456–464. Google Scholar

  38. C. Gascon, T. E. Lovejoy, R. O. Bierregaard Jr., J. R. Malcolm, P. C. Stouffer, H. L. Vasconcelos, W. F. Laurance, B. Zimmerman, M. Tocher, and S. Borges . 1999. Matrix habitat and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biological Conservation 91:223–229. Google Scholar

  39. K. J. Gaston and T. M. Blackburn . 1995. Birds, body size and the threat of extinction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 347:205–212. Google Scholar

  40. J. P. Gibbs 1991. Avian nest predation in tropical wet forest: An experimental study. Oikos 60:155–161. Google Scholar

  41. C. H. Graham and J. G. Blake . 2001. Influence of patch- and landscape-level factors on bird assemblages in a fragmented tropical landscape. Ecological Applications 11:1709–1721. Google Scholar

  42. M. A. Gray, S. L. Baldauf, P. J. Mayhew, and J. K. Hill . 2007. The response of avian feeding guilds to tropical forest disturbance. Conservation Biology 21:133–141. Google Scholar

  43. R. Greenberg, P. Bichier, and J. Sterling . 1997. Bird populations in rustic and planted shade coffee plantations of eastern Chiapas, México. Biotropica 29:501–514. Google Scholar

  44. R. Greenberg, P. Bichier, A. Cruz Angon, C. Macvean, R. Perez, and E. Cano . 2000. The impact of avian insectivory on arthropods and leaf damage in some Guatemalan coffee plantations. Ecology 81:1750–1755. Google Scholar

  45. M. C. Hansen and R. S. Defries . 2004. Detecting long-term global forest change using continuous fields of tree-cover maps from 8-km advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) data for the years 1982–99. Ecosystems 7:: 695–716. Google Scholar

  46. G. M. Harris and S. L. Pimm . 2004. Bird species' tolerance of secondary forest habitats and its effects on extinction. Conservation Biology 18:1607–1616. Google Scholar

  47. H. F. Howe 1984. Implications of seed dispersal by animals for tropical reserve management. Biological Conservation 30:261–281. Google Scholar

  48. J. B. Hughes, G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich . 2002. Conservation of tropical forest birds in countryside habitats. Ecology Letters 5:121–129. Google Scholar

  49. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 2007. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [ONLINE.] Available at  www.iucnredlist.orgGoogle Scholar

  50. A. D. Johns 1986. Effects of selective logging on the ecological organization of a peninsular Malaysian rainforest avifauna. Forktail 1:65–79. Google Scholar

  51. A. D. Johns 1989. Recovery of a Peninsular Malaysian rainforest avifauna following selective timber logging: The first twelve years. Forktail 4:89–105. Google Scholar

  52. A. G. Johns 1996. Bird population persistence in Sabahan logging concessions. Biological Conservation 75:3–10. Google Scholar

  53. J. R. Karr 1982. Avian extinction on Barro Colorado Island, Panama: A reassessment. American Naturalist 119:220–239. Google Scholar

  54. J. R. Karr 1990. Avian survival rates and the extinction process on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Conservation Biology 4:391–397. Google Scholar

  55. G. H. Kattan, H. Alvarez-López, and M. Giraldo . 1994. Forest fragmentation and bird extinctions: San Antonio eighty years later. Conservation Biology 8:138–146. Google Scholar

  56. L. P. Koh, R. R. Dunn, N. S. Sodhi, R. K. Colwell, H. C. Proctor, and V. S. Smith . 2004. Species coextinctions and the biodiversity crisis. Science 305:1632–1634. Google Scholar

  57. J. A. Kupfer, G. P. Malanson, and S. B. Franklin . 2006. Not seeing the ocean for the islands: The mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15:8–20. Google Scholar

  58. F. R. Lambert 1991. Fruit-eating by Purple-naped Sunbirds Hypogramma hypogrammicum in Borneo. Ibis 133:425–426. Google Scholar

  59. F. R. Lambert 1992. The consequences of selective logging for Bornean lowland forest birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 335:443–457. Google Scholar

  60. F. R. Lambert and N. J. Collar . 2002. The future for Sundaic lowland forest birds: Long-term effects of commercial logging and fragmentation. Forktail 18:127–146. Google Scholar

  61. S. G W. Laurance 2004. Responses of understory rain forest birds to road edges in central Amazonia. Ecological Applications 14:1344–1357. Google Scholar

  62. H. C. Lim and N. S. Sodhi . 2004. Responses of avian guilds to urbanisation in a tropical city. Landscape and Urban Planning 66:199–215. Google Scholar

  63. C. A. Lindell, S. K. Riffell, S. A. Kaiser, A. L. Battin, M. L. Smith, and T. D. Sisk . 2007. Edge responses of tropical and temperate birds. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:205–220. Google Scholar

  64. G. W. Luck and G. C. Daily . 2003. Tropical countryside bird assemblages: Richness, composition, and foraging differ by landscape context. Ecological Applications 13:235–247. Google Scholar

  65. S. Manu, W. Peach, and W. Cresswell . 2007. The effects of edge, fragment size and degree of isolation on avian species richness in highly fragmented forest in West Africa. Ibis 149:287–297. Google Scholar

  66. S. J. Marsden 1998. Changes in bird abundance following selective logging on Seram, Indonesia. Conservation Biology 12:605–611. Google Scholar

  67. J. M. Marzluff and K. Ewing . 2001. Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: A general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restoration Ecology 9:280–292. Google Scholar

  68. D. Mason 1996. Responses of Venezuelan understory birds to selective logging, enrichment strips, and vine cutting. Biotropica 28:296–309. Google Scholar

  69. R. B. Matlock Jr., D. Rogers, P. J. Edwards, and S. G. Martin . 2002. Avian communities in forest fragments and reforestation areas associated with banana plantations in Costa Rica. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 91:199–215. Google Scholar

  70. E. Matthews 2001. Understanding the FRA 2000. World Resources Institute Forest Briefing no. 1. World Resources Institute. Washington, D.C. Google Scholar

  71. M. L. Mckinney 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127:247–260. Google Scholar

  72. S. S. Mitra and F. H. Sheldon . 1993. Use of an exotic tree plantation by Bornean lowland forest birds. Auk 110:529–540. Google Scholar

  73. W. D. Newmark 1991. Tropical forest fragmentation and the local extinction of understory birds in the eastern Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Conservation Biology 5:67–78. Google Scholar

  74. I. P F. Owens and P. M. Bennett . 2000. Ecological basis of extinction risk in birds: Habitat loss versus human persecution and introduced predators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97:12144–12148. Google Scholar

  75. I. Owiunji and A. J. Plumptre . 1998. Bird communities in logged and unlogged compartments in Budongo Forest, Uganda. Forest Ecology and Management 108:115–126. Google Scholar

  76. M. Palmer, E. Bernhardt, E. Chornesky, S. Collins, A. Dobson, C. Duke, B. Gold, R. Jacobson, S. Kingsland, and R. Kranz . 2004. Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 304:1251–1252. Google Scholar

  77. A. Pauchard, M. Aguayo, E. Peña, and R. Urrutia . 2006. Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: The case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepción, Chile). Biological Conservation 127:272–281. Google Scholar

  78. K. S-H. Peh, J. De Jong, N. S. Sodhi, S. L-H. Lim, and C. A-M. Yap . 2005. Lowland rainforest avifauna and human disturbance: Persistence of primary forest birds in selectively logged forests and mixed-rural habitats of southern Peninsular Malaysia. Biological Conservation 123:489–505. Google Scholar

  79. C. A. Peres 2001. Synergistic effects of subsistence hunting and habitat fragmentation on Amazonian forest vertebrates. Conservation Biology 15:1490–1505. Google Scholar

  80. I. Perfecto, J. H. Vandermeer, G. L. Bautista, G. I. Nuñez, R. Greenberg, P. Bichier, and S. Langridge . 2004. Greater predation in shaded coffee farms: The role of resident Neotropical birds. Ecology 85:2677–2681. Google Scholar

  81. L. J. Petit, D. R. Petit, D. G. Christian, and H. D W. Powell . 1999. Bird communities of natural and modified habitats in Panama. Ecography 22:292–304. Google Scholar

  82. S[L] Pimm, P. Raven, A. Peterson, ÇH. ŞEkercioĝLu, and P. R. Ehrlich . 2006. Human impacts on the rates of recent, present, and future bird extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103:10941–10946. Google Scholar

  83. M. R C. Posa and N. S. Sodhi . 2006. Effects of anthropogenic land use on forest birds and butterflies in Subic Bay, Philippines. Biological Conservation 129:256–270. Google Scholar

  84. M. R C. Posa, N. S. Sodhi, and L. P. Koh . 2007. Predation on artificial nests and caterpillar models across a disturbance gradient in Subic Bay, Philippines. Journal of Tropical Ecology 23:27–33. Google Scholar

  85. T. R S. Raman 2001. Effect of slash-and-burn shifting cultivation on rainforest birds in Mizoram, northeast India. Conservation Biology 15:685–698. Google Scholar

  86. T. R S. Raman, G. S. Rawat, and A. J T. Johnsingh . 1998. Recovery of tropical rainforest avifauna in relation to vegetation succession following shifting cultivation in Mizoram, north-east India. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:214–231. Google Scholar

  87. L. M. Renjifo 1999. Composition changes in a Subandean avifauna after long-term forest fragmentation. Conservation Biology 13:1124–1139. Google Scholar

  88. L. M. Renjifo 2001. Effect of natural and anthropogenic landscape matrices on the abundance of Subandean bird species. Ecological Applications 11:14–31. Google Scholar

  89. W. D. Robinson 1999. Long-term changes in the avifauna of Barro Colorado Island, Panama, a tropical forest isolate. Conservation Biology 13:85–97. Google Scholar

  90. V. A. Saab and D. R. Petit . 1992. Impact of pasture development on winter bird communities in Belize, Central America. Condor 94:66–71. Google Scholar

  91. C. H. Sekercioglu 2002. Effects of forestry practices on the vegetation structure and bird community of Kibale National Forest, Uganda. Biological Conservation 107:229–240. Google Scholar

  92. C. H. Sekercioglu 2006. Increasing awareness of avian ecological function. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:464–471. Google Scholar

  93. ÇH. Şekercioĝlu, G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich . 2004. Ecosystem consequences of bird declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101:18042–18047. Google Scholar

  94. ÇH. Şekercioĝlu, P. R. Ehrlich, G. C. Daily, D. Aygen, D. Goehring, and R. F. Sandi . 2002. Disappearance of insectivorous birds from tropical forest fragments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99:263–267. Google Scholar

  95. C. H. Sekercioglu, S. R. Loarie, F. Oviedo Brenes, P. R. Ehrlich, and G. C. Daily . 2007. Persistence of forest birds in the Costa Rican agricultural countryside. Conservation Biology 21:482–494. Google Scholar

  96. G. Shahabuddin 1997. Preliminary observations on the role of coffee plantations as avifaunal refuges in the Palni Hills of the Western Ghats. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 94:10–21. Google Scholar

  97. K. E. Sieving 1992. Nest predation and differential insular extinction among selected forest birds of central Panama. Ecology 73:2310–2328. Google Scholar

  98. K. E. Sieving and J. R. Karr . 1997. Avian extinction and persistence mechanisms in lowland Panama. 156–70. Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management, and Conservation of Fragmented Communities. ( W. F C. Laurance and R. O C. Bierregaard Jr. , editors. Eds.). University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois. Google Scholar

  99. B. J. Sigel, T. W. Sherry, and B. E. Young . 2006. Avian community response to lowland tropical rainforest isolation: 40 years of change at La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica. Conservation Biology 20:111–121. Google Scholar

  100. N. S. Sodhi, C. Briffet, L. Kong, and B. Yuen . 1999. Bird use of linear areas of a tropical city: Implications for park connector design and management. Landscape and Urban Planning 45:123–130. Google Scholar

  101. N. S. Sodhi and B. W. Brook . 2006. Southeast Asian Biodiversity in Crisis. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

  102. N. S. Sodhi, L. P. Koh, D. M. Prawiradilaga, Darjono, I. Tinulele, D. D. Putra, and T. H T. Tan . 2005. Land use and conservation value for forest birds in Central Sulawesi (Indonesia). Biological Conservation 122:547–558. Google Scholar

  103. N. S. Sodhi, T. M. Lee, L. P. Koh, and D. M. Prawiradilaga . 2006. Long-term avifaunal impoverishment in an isolated tropical woodlot. Conservation Biology 20:772–779. Google Scholar

  104. N. S. Sodhi, L. H. Liow, and F. A. Bazzaz . 2004. Avian extinctions from tropical and subtropical forests. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:323–345. Google Scholar

  105. M. C K. Soh, N. S. Sodhi, and S. L H. Lim . 2006. High sensitivity of montane bird communities to habitat disturbance in Peninsular Malaysia. Biological Conservation 129:149–166. Google Scholar

  106. P. C. Stouffer and R. O. Bierregaard Jr . 1995. Use of Amazonian forest fragments by understory insectivorous birds. Ecology 76:2429–2445. Google Scholar

  107. P. C. Stouffer, R. O. Bierregaard Jr., C. Strong, and T. E. Lovejoy . 2006. Long-term landscape change and bird abundance in Amazonian rainforest fragments. Conservation Biology 20:1212–1223. Google Scholar

  108. J. A. Stratford and P. C. Stouffer . 1999. Local extinctions of terrestrial insectivorous birds in a fragmented landscape near Manaus, Brazil. Conservation Biology 13:1416–1423. Google Scholar

  109. J. Terborgh 1992. Maintenance of diversity in tropical forests. Biotropica 24:283–292. Google Scholar

  110. J-M. Thiollay 1992. Influence of selective logging on bird species diversity in a Guianan rain forest. Conservation Biology 6:47–63. Google Scholar

  111. J-M. Thiollay 1995. The role of traditional agroforests in the conservation of rain forest bird diversity in Sumatra. Conservation Biology 9:335–353. Google Scholar

  112. J-M. Thiollay 1996. Distributional patterns of raptors along altitudinal gradients in the northern Andes and effects of forest fragmentation. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12:535–560. Google Scholar

  113. J-M. Thiollay 1997. Disturbance, selective logging and bird diversity: A Neotropical forest study. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:1155–1173. Google Scholar

  114. J-M. Thiollay 1999. Responses of an avian community to rain forest degradation. Biodiversity and Conservation 8:513–534. Google Scholar

  115. L. W. Traill, C. J A. Bradshaw, and B. W. Brook . 2007. Minimum viable population sizes: A meta-analysis of 30 years of published estimates. Biological Conservation 139:159–166. Google Scholar

  116. C. R. Trainor 2007. Changes in bird species composition on a remote and well-forested Wallacean Island, South-East Asia. Biological Conservation 140:373–385. Google Scholar

  117. T. Tscharntke, C. H. Sekercioglu, T. V. Dietsch, N. S. Sodhi, P. Hoehn, and J. M. Tylianakis . 2008. Landscape contraints on functional diversity of birds and insects in tropical agroecosystems. Ecology 89:944–951. Google Scholar

  118. I. M. Turner 1996. Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forest: A review of the evidence. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:200–209. Google Scholar

  119. S. Van Bael and J. Brawn . 2005. The direct and indirect effects of insectivory by birds in two contrasting Neotropical forests. Oecologia 143:106–116. Google Scholar

  120. S. A. Van Bael, J. D. Brawn, and S. K. Robinson . 2003. Birds defend trees from herbivores in a Neotropical forest canopy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100:8304–8307. Google Scholar

  121. K. S. Van Houtan, S. L. Pimm, R. O. Bierregaard Jr., T. E. Lovejoy, and P. C. Stouffer . 2006. Local extinctions of flocking birds in Amazonian forest fragments. Evolutionary Ecology Research 8:129–148. Google Scholar

  122. K. S. Van Houtan, S. L. Pimm, J. M. Halley, R. O. Bierregaard Jr., and T. E. Lovejoy . 2007. Dispersal of Amazonian birds in continuous and fragmented forest. Ecology Letters 10:219–229. Google Scholar

  123. M. Waltert, A. Mardiastuti, and M. Mühlenberg . 2004. Effects of land use on bird species richness in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Conservation Biology 18:1339–1346. Google Scholar

  124. E. O. Willis 1979. The composition of avian communities in remanescent woodlots in Southern Brazil. Papeis Avulsos de Zoologia 33:1–25. Google Scholar

  125. T. C M. Wong, N. S. Sodhi, and I. M. Turner . 1998. Artificial nest and seed predation experiments in tropical lowland rainforest remnants of Singapore. Biological Conservation 85:97–104. Google Scholar

  126. S. J. Wright 2003. The myriad consequences of hunting for vertebrates and plants in tropical forests. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 6:73–86. Google Scholar

  127. S. J. Wright 2005. Tropical forests in a changing environment. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:553–560. Google Scholar

  128. C. A M. Yap and N. S. Sodhi . 2004. Southeast Asian invasive birds: Ecology, impact and management. Ornithological Science 3:57–67. Google Scholar

  129. M. Zakaria and M. Nordin . 1998. Comparison of frugivory by birds in primary and logged lowland dipterocarp forests in Sabah, Malaysia. Tropical Biodiversity 5:1–9. Google Scholar

  130. W. Zhijun and S. S. Young . 2003. Differences in birds diversity between two swidden agricultural sites in mountainous terrain, Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China. Biological Conservation 110:231–243. Google Scholar

Navjot S. Sodhi, Mary Rose C. Posa, Tien Ming Lee, and Ian G. Warkentin "Perspectives in Ornithology: Effects of Disturbance or Loss of Tropical Rainforest on Birds," The Auk 125(3), 511-519, (1 July 2008). https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2008.1708
Received: 21 December 2007; Accepted: 1 April 2008; Published: 1 July 2008
JOURNAL ARTICLE
9 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top