( PDF ) Composição, estrutura e sazonalidade dos bandos mistos de aves em um remanescente de floresta paludosa no sul do Brasil

Download PDF

ads:

UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO SUL – UFRGS

PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ECOLOGIA

COMPOSIÇÃO, ESTRUTURA E SAZONALIDADE DOS BANDOS MISTOS

DE AVES EM UM REMANESCENTE DE FLORESTA PALUDOSA NO SUL DO

BRASIL

André Barcelos Silveira

Orientador: Prof. Dr. Andreas Kindel

Dissertação apresentada ao Programa de

Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Universidade

Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, como parte

dos requisitos para a obtenção do título de

Mestre em Ecologia

Porto Alegre, abril de 2006.

ads:

Livros Grátis

http://www.livrosgratis.com.br

Milhares de livros grátis para download.

Resumindo o ano de 2005...

“Ando sozinho pelas ruas

Nas esquinas de qualquer lugar

Vejo um menino

Um velho pássaro

Que não se cansa de voar

Ares de uma mulher

Corpo que seduz

Me leva um pouco para lá

Paro e vejo uma luz

Pode ser o sol

E nada poderá mudar”

Duca Leindecker, Cidadão Quem

ads:

DEDICATÓRIA

Dedica esta dissertação à minha mãe, Neusa Barcelos, que de tão coruja chega a colocar

faixas de parabéns na frente de casa (um tanto embaraçosas, digo).

Também dedico à memória de meu avô, Florindo Barcellos, o único homem que eu

queria imitar quando crescesse.

Por final, também dedico à minha corujíssima avó Isabel Barcellos, que sabe como

ninguém o significado da palavra “amor”.

AGRADECIMENTOS

Nem em mil vidas eu poderei retribuir à altura o auxílio de todos aqueles que

cruzaram o meu caminho na senda do mestrado. Desta forma, esta lista de

agradecimento é uma tosca tentativa de mostrar minha gratidão.

A primeira pessoa a quem devo agradecer, e que merece figurar com honra no

topo desta lista, é Andreas Kindel, meu orientador, que encampou a idéia de trabalhar

com comportamento de aves na floresta paludosa.

A Sandra Hartz, Adriano Melo, Iury Accordi e Pedro Develey, pelas críticas e

sugestões ao projeto original.

As seguintes pessoas foram valiosas por sua companhia em campo e pela ajuda

na “construção” da “Trans-Faxinal”: Clarissa Britz, Ricardo Dobrowolski, Roberson

“Boliviano”, Ricardo Dalbem, e Anelise Azevedo. Estas corajosas criaturas foram

companheiros de desbravamento e de “Camboja” (eles sabem do que estou falando).

A Patrick Colombo, então diretor do Parque de Itapeva, que permitiu a abertura

da “Trans” e sempre foi muito prestimoso, em tudo.

A Cláudia Brandt, que cedeu com camaradagem algumas das fotos que ilustram

o seminário, e cuja companhia no último (e mais difícil) campo ajudou a segurar a

minha onda.

Glauco Schüssler, Mariane Beretta, Igor Pfeiffer Coelho e Iury Accordi

tornaram possível a tomada de dados de estrutura de hábitat. Sem eles, esta atividade

seria impossível.

Aos amigos e colegas Júlio de Sá, Priscila Miorando, Karina Amaral, Luciane

Diehl, Ana Luiza, Josielma e Igor Coelho, que amenizaram a solidão e foram

companheiros valiosos na claustrofobia do “Inferno Arbóreo”.

A CAPES pela concessão da bolsa, aos funcionários do PPG Ecologia, e a

SEMA (DUC-DEFAP) pelas inúmeras autorizações para a entrada no Parque Estadual

de Itapeva.

A Leandro Duarte, pelo auxílio na análise estatística.

A Jéssica Schmitz, pela revisão do Inglês.

Aos Guardas-Parque Ariel, Antonio, Andraino, Noé, Jaime e Chico, pela

geladeira, pelos churrascos, pela paciência e, sobretudo, pela companhia.

Aos meus familiares e amigos por respeitarem minha ausência, mesmo quando

não a compreenderam.

SUMÁRIO

Lista de tabelas..................................................................................................................8

Lista de figuras................................................................................................................10

Lista de anexos…………………………………………………………………………12

Resumo…….…………………………………………………………………………...13

Abstract….…………………………………………………………………………….15

Apresentação……………………………………………………………………..…….17

Composition, structure and seasonality of mixed-species bird flocks in a swamp forest

of southern Brazil……………………………………………………………..……..…28

Abstract (Resumo)………………………………...............................................28

Introduction (Introdução).....................................................................................31

Methods (Métodos)..............................................................................................33

Study area (Área de estudo).....................................................................33

Field sampling (Amostragem de campo).................................................35

Mixed-species flock sampling (Amostragem de bandos

mistos)..........................................................................................35

Bird counts (Contagem de aves)..................................................36

Conventions (Convenções)......................................................................37

Statistical analyses (Análises estatísticas)................................................38

Results (Resultados)............................................................................................41

Flock composition and structure (Composição e estrutura dos

bandos).....................................................................................................41

Flock seasonality (Sazonalidade dos bandos)..........................................47

Discussion (Discussão)........................................................................................48

Flock composition and structure (Composição e estrutura dos

bandos).....................................................................................................48

Flock seasonality (Sazonalidade dos bandos)..........................................62

Acknowledgments (Agradecimentos)..................................................................64

Literature cited (Literatura citada).......................................................................65

Tables (Tabelas)...................................................................................................78

Figures (Figuras)..................................................................................................92

Considerações finais........................................................................................................99

Anexos...........................................................................................................................103

LISTA DE TABELAS

TABLE 1. Attributes of 47 landbirds species found in mixed-species flocks at Faxinal,

southern Brazil. Weights in g. (TABELA 1. Atributos de 47 espécies

terrestres de aves encontradas em bandos mistos no Faxinal, sul do Brasil.

Peso em g).....................................................................................................78

TABLE 2. Richness and relative abundance by diet type or residence statuses of birds

recorded in flocks and/or point counts in Faxinal, southern Brazil (TABELA

2. Riqueza e abundância relativa por dieta e status de residência das aves

registradas em bandos mistos e/ou em pontos de contagem no Faxinal, sul do

Brasil)............................................................................................................83

TABLE 3. Number of co-occurrences in mixed-species flocks flocks of the eighteen

most regular flocking species (those recorded in more than four flocks) in

Faxinal, southern Brazil. Significant positive co-occurrences, according Chi-

square and G-test (P < 0.05) are underlined. Significant negative co-

occurrences are in bold and underlined (TABELA 3. Número de co-

ocorrências em bandos mistos das dezoito espécies mais regulares (aquelas

registradas em mais do que quatro bandos) no Faxinal, sul do Brasil. Co-

ocorrências significativamente positivas, conforme teste de Qui-quadrado e

teste-G (P < 0.05) estão sublinhadas. Co-ocorrências significativamente

negativas estão em negrito e sublinhadas).....................................................84

TABLE 4. Coefficient of interspecific association of significant positive and negative

co-occurrences of flocking bird species according to vertical distribution and

diet type of species paired in flocks at the swamp forest of Faxinal, southern

Brazil. Understory and midlevel ensembles categories pulled as understory.

Significant negative co-occurrences are in bold. Both chi-square and G-test

with df = 1 and P < 0.05. (TABELA 4. Coeficiente de associação

interespecífica das co-ocorrências positivas e negativas das duplas de

espécies de aves em bandos mistos conforme sua distribuição vertical e dieta

na floresta paludosa do Faxinal, sul do Brasil. “Ensembles” de sub-bosque e

estrato médio foram agrupadas como sub-bosque. Co-ocorrências

significativamente negativas estão em negrito. Tanto o Qui-quadrado quanto

o teste-G com GL = 1 e P < 0.05).................................................................86

TABLE 5. The mean flock size and mean species richness of flocks where each of the

ten most regular flocking species were recorded in Faxinal, southern Brazil.

An asterisk indicates species means (or medians) that significantly differs

from the total mean (median) of 92 mixed-species flocks sampled, at P <

0.05. (Tamanho médio de bando e riqueza média de espécies dos bandos

onde cada uma das dez espécies mais regulares em bandos mistos foi

registrada no Faxinal, sul do Brasil. Um asterisco indica médias (ou

medianas) das espécies que significativamente diferiram da média (ou

mediana) total dos 92 bandos mistos amostrados, em P < 0.05)...................88

TABLE 6. Composition and structure attributes of mixed-species flocks in different

areas of Atlantic Forest in Brazil. (TABELA 6. Atributos de composição e

estrutura dos bandos mistos em diferentes áreas de Mata Atlântica no

Brasil)............................................................................................................90

LISTA DE FIGURAS

FIGURE 1. Percentual distribution of ensembles along the flocking species and the total

pool the of three clades of birds in Faxinal, southern Brazil: (AO) aquatic

omnivores, (CF) large canopy frugivores, (CI) canopy insectivores, (CO)

small canopy omnivores, (EI) edge insectivores, (EO) edge omnivores, (ES)

edge seedeaters, (GF) ground frugivores, (GO) grassland omnivores, (MI)

midlevel insectivores, (NI) nectarivores-insectivores, (TI) trunk and twig

insectivores, (UF) understory birds eating small foliage arthropods, (UL)

understory birds eating large ground arthropods, (UO) understory

omnivores, and (US) understory birds eating small ground arthropods

(FIGURA 1. Distribuição percentual de “ensembles” entre as espécies de

bandos mistos e o “pool” total dos três clados de aves no Faxinal, sul do

Brasil: (AO) onívoros aquáticos, (CF) grandes frugívoros de copa, (CI)

insetívoros de copa, (CO) pequenos onívoros de copa, (EI) insetívoros de

borda, (EO) onívoros de borda, (ES) granívoros de borda, (GF) frugívoros de

solo, (GO) onívoros campestres, (MI) insetívoros de estrato médio, (NI)

nectarívoros-insetívoros, (TI) insetívoros de tronco e galhada, (UF)

insetívoros de sub-bosque que forrageiam pequenos artrópodes de folhagem,

(UL) insetívoros de sub-bosque que forrageiam grandes artrópodes de solo,

(UO) onívoros de sub-bosque, e (US) insetívoros de sub-bosque que

forrageiam pequenos artrópodes de solo)......................................................93

FIGURE 2. Cluster dendrogram of similarity between all mixed-species flocks sampled

in Faxinal, southern Brazil (N = 92). Horizontal line indicates significance

partition at three groups (distance 4 in the distance axis) (FIGURA 2.

Dendrograma de similaridade entre todos os bandos mistos amostrados no

Faxinal, sul do Brasil (N = 92). Linhas horizontais indicam a significância da

partição em três grupos (distância 4 no eixo de distâncias)).........................95

FIGURE 3. Monthly number of mixed-species flocks per hour of field work in Faxinal,

southern Brazil, from February 2005 to January 2006, except December

2005 (FIGURA 3. Número mensal de bandos mistos por hora de campo no

Faxinal, sul do Brasil, de fevereiro de 2005 a janeiro de 2006, exceto

dezembro de 2005)........................................................................................96

FIGURE 4. Monthly variation in mean numbers of species (richness) and individuals

(flock size) of mixed-species flocks at Faxinal, southern Brazil, between

February 2005-January 2006, except December 2005 (FIGURA 4. Variação

mensal no número médio de espécies (riqueza) e de indivíduos (tamanho de

bando) de bandos mistos no Faxinal, sul do Brasil, entre fevereiro de 2005-

janeiro de 2006, exceto dezembro de 2005)..................................................97

FIGURE 5. Curves of sample sufficiency (accumulated richness) for Faxinal bird

assemblage (a) and for Faxinal mixed flocks participants (b). Monthly

samples from September 2004 until January 2006. Not all the months in this

interval were sampled (Curvas de suficiência amostral (riqueza acumulada)

da assembléia de aves do Faxinal (a) e das espécies participantes em bandos

mistos no Faxinal (b). Amostras mensais de setembro de 2004 até janeiro de

2006. Nem todos os meses neste intervalo foram amostrados).....................98

LISTA DE ANEXOS

ANEXO 1. Imagem de satélite do Parque Estadual de Itapeva (PEVA, limites em

vermelho), mostrando a transecção utilizada para acompanhamento dos

bandos mistos e onde foram estabelecidos 15 pontos de contagem na

mancha de floresta paludosa do Faxinal...................................................103

ANEXO 2. Instruções aos autores do periódico “The Condor” (extraído de

http://www.cooper.org/pdf/instrucauth.pdf).............................................104

ANEXO 3. Dados de 92 bandos mistos na floresta paludosa do Faxinal, Torres, Rio

Grande do Sul, Brasil................................................................................116

RESUMO

Analisou-se a composição, estrutura e padrão sazonal de formação dos bandos

mistos de aves em um remanescente de floresta paludosa na planície costeira do Rio

Grande do Sul, sul do Brasil. Efetuaram-se amostragens mensais de fevereiro de 2005 a

janeiro de 2006, com observações ocasionais em 2004 e janeiro de 2005. Pontos de

contagem foram utilizados para estimar a abundância relativa das espécies integrantes

dos bandos, e transecções foram efetuadas para as observações dos bandos mistos.

Quarenta e sete espécies foram registradas como participantes em 92 bandos

amostrados. O número de indivíduos foi positivamente correlacionado com o número de

espécies dentro dos bandos. O pool dos não-passeriformes foi pobremente representado

nos bandos, enquanto passeriformes suboscines e oscines foram igualmente

representados na riqueza dos bandos. Onívoros e insetívoros foram bem representados,

mas os nectarívoros tiveram apenas uma espécie integrante; frugívoros e granívoros

foram ausentes nos bandos mistos. Espécies migratórias foram pouco representadas nos

bandos, como havia sido verificado para outras áreas de Floresta Atlântica. A

regularidade de uma espécie em integrar bandos mistos foi uma função de sua

abundância relativa, e as espécies mais conspícuas tenderam a ser os integrantes mais

regulares. Detectaram-se quinze co-ocorrências significativas em 153 combinações

possíveis (10%), onze delas positivas e quatro negativas. Nenhum tipo estrutural de

bandos foi distinguido por meio de análise de agrupamento. Associações positivas e

negativas talvez estejam relacionadas a similaridades e dissimilaridades na distribuição

vertical de cada par de espécies. Os atributos de freqüência, tamanho e riqueza dos

bandos foram os menores encontrados em qualquer outro estudo na Floresta Atlântica.

Os bandos formaram-se o ano inteiro no Faxinal, mas a freqüência, o tamanho e a

riqueza dos bandos diferiram significativamente entre os meses e entre as estações. Os

valores máximos destes três atributos foram encontrados na estação não-reprodutiva,

lembrando os padrões encontrados em outros locais da Floresta Atlântica. A

combinação de um pequeno grupo de espécies abundantes e bem distribuídas, junto com

uma baixa riqueza local talvez torne a estrutura dos bandos mistos no Faxinal menos

variável do que em outros locais da Floresta Atlântica.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: bandos mistos, ecologia comportamental, Floresta Atlântica

paludosa, sazonalidade, sociobiologia, riqueza, diversidade.

ABSTRACT

The composition, structure and seasonal pattern of formation of mixed-species

bird flocks were analyzed in a swamp forest remnant in the coastal plain of Rio Grande

do Sul state, southern Brazil. Field work was carried out monthly from February 2005

to January 2006, plus occasional observations in 2004 and January 2005. Point counts

estimated the relative abundance of flocking species, and transects were performed to

access data relative to the flocks. Forty seven species were recorded as participants in

92 flocks sampled. The number of individuals was positively correlated with the

number of species within the flocks. Non-passerines pool is less represented in the

flocks, while suboscines and oscines were equally represented in the flock richness.

Omnivores and insectivores were well represented, but nectarivores had only one

flocking species while frugivores and granivores were absent in flocks. Migrants had

low representation on the composition and structure of flocks, as predicted for lowland

Atlantic Forest areas. The regularity of a given species in to integrate flocks was a

function of its relative abundance, and the species more conspicuous tended to be the

more regular flock joiners. Fifteen significant co-occurrences of 153 possible pairs

(10%) were detected, eleven positively and four negatively associated. None structural

type of flocks was recognized through cluster analyses. Positive and negative

associations were better explained by similarities or dissimilarities on vertical

distribution of each species pair. The attributes of frequency, flock size and flock

richness were the lowest found in any study on Atlantic Forest. Flocks were formed

throughout the year at Faxinal, but frequency, flock size and flock richness differed

significantly between months and between seasons. Higher values of these three

attributes were found in non-breeding season, reaching the pattern found elsewhere in

Atlantic Forest. The combination of a little set of abundant and well distributed species

and low richness perhaps makes the flock structure at Faxinal less variable than that of

Atlantic Forest elsewhere.

KEY WORDS: Mixed-species flocks, behavioral ecology, swamp Atlantic Forest,

seasonal pattern, sociobiology, richness, diversity.

APRESENTAÇÃO

Em 1975, Edward Wilson lançou um dos livros mais polêmicos dos últimos

tempos, “Sociobiology: the new synthesis”. Como o mesmo autor enfatizou em edições

posteriores (WILSON, 2000), o livro causou celeuma não em razão de sua proposta de

unificar a biologia do comportamento com a ecologia de populações, a fim de

compreender os detalhes do comportamento social, mas apenas em razão de sua útima

parte, lidando sobre seres humanos. Intitulado “Man: from sociobiology to sociology”,

este capítulo foi alcunhado de reducionista por seus críticos, ao que Wilson rebateu que

não apenas este capítulo, mas o livro como um todo, é caracterizado justamente por sua

proposta holística e de síntese. Entretanto, o reducionismo é a ferramenta primária da

ciência, e como tal o seu uso não pode ser estritamente evitado. A leitura deste livro

motivou em primeira análise a execução da dissertação aqui apresentada, não apenas

por sua visão ao mesmo tempo reducionista e holística, mas também porque o tema das

associações multiespecíficas é nele pouco explorado. Embora exista um rol crescente de

trabalhos sobre o tema, a recorrência deste fenômeno sociobiológico nos ambientes

neotropicais contrasta com a relativamente ainda pobre literatura abordando-o.

A escolha do tema bandos mistos também surgiu em razão da freqüência com

que o autor desta dissertação encontrava tais agregações em campo. Desta constatação,

surgiu o interesse em buscar informação mais detalhada sobre o tema na literatura,

priorizando a informação porventura oriunda da Mata Atlântica do Rio Grande do Sul.

Não tão surpreendentemente assim, esta busca resultou quase infrutífera. Encontrou-se

uma meia dúzia de trabalhos, todos executados por seus autores na Mata Atlântica do

Sudeste do Brasil. A constatação final é a de que o sul do país é um terreno inexplorado

quanto ao estudo deste e de outros fenômenos sociobiológicos e comportamentais. Nada

surpreendente, quando se sabe que a imensa maioria das espécies de aves brasileiras

carece de informações básicas sobre sua biologia, morfometria e história natural.

Trabalhos sobre assembléias de aves, embora crescentes em número, são escassos, e

especialmente a estrutura e processos das assembléias florestais do estado mais

meridional do Brasil são virtualmente desconhecidos.

Para o neotrópico, os estudos sobre bandos mistos de aves concentram-se

principalmente na América Central (MOYNIHAN, 1962; POWELL, 1979; HUTTO,

1987, 1988, 1994; LATTA e WUNDERLE Jr., 1996; GRAM 1998), Bacia Amazônica

(MUNN e TERBORGH, 1979; MUNN, 1985; TERBORGH et al., 1990), Cerrado

(ALVES, 1990; ALVES e CAVALCANTI, 1996; RAGUSA-NETTO, 2000; TUBELIS,

2004, TUBELIS et al., 2006) e Floresta Atlântica do sudeste do Brasil (DAVIS, 1946;

STOTZ, 1993; ALEIXO, 1997; DEVELEY e PERES, 2000; MALDONADO-COELHO

e MARINI 2000, 2003, 2004). Embora o Rio Grande do Sul seja um dos estados

brasileiros melhor estudados ornitologicamente (SICK, 1997; BELTON, 1994;

BENCKE e KINDEL, 1999; BENCKE, 2001), praticamente não há informação

disponível acerca dos bandos mistos na porção mais meridional do Brasil. Embora haja

um aumento crescente no conhecimento distribucional da avifauna de Santa Catarina

(e.g., BORNSCHEIN e REINERT, 1996; BENCKE e BENCKE, 2000; NAKA et al.,

2000; BORNSCHEIN et al., 1997, 2001; AMARAL, 2002; OLMOS, 2002; BARNETT

et al., 2004; BORNSCHEIN et al., 2004; CARLOS et al., 2004; MAURÍCIO, 2005;

AMORIM e PIACENTINI, 2006), ainda não existe uma revisão e sumarização recente

desta informação desde Rosário (1996), a exemplo do que fez Bencke (2001) no Rio

Grande do Sul. A situação se repete para o estado do Paraná, embora, a exemplo do Rio

Grande do Sul, esta unidade da federação possua um conhecimento razoável acerca da

sua riqueza de aves (SCHERER-NETO e STRAUBE, 1995). Os poucos dados sobre

bandos mistos na região sul estão dispersos em trabalhos mais abrangentes de avifauna

(e.g., BELTON, 1994; BENCKE, 1996a,b; MARTERER, 1996; ALBUQUERQUE e

BRÜGGEMANN, 1996; BARNETT et al., 2004), e existem apenas dois trabalhos

versando exclusivamente sobre bandos mistos em Santa Catarina (MORAES e KRUL,

1995; GHIZONI-Jr. e AZEVEDO, 2006).

Além do interesse regional, a presente dissertação também pretende contribuir

com informação generalizada sobre os mecanismos responsáveis pela estruturação dos

bandos mistos, os quais são pouco conhecidos (POWELL, 1979). Mais estudos

descritivos são necessários para a compreensão tanto das causas próximas como das

causas remotas atuando sobre a formação de bandos mistos de aves (HUTTO 1994).

Assim, toda informação adicional é contributiva, no sentido de direcionar para uma

teoria abrangente de causa-e-efeito a respeito dos bandos mistos.

As florestas paludosas são dos ambientes menos conhecidos nos domínios do

bioma Mata Atlântica (KINDEL 2002). Pouco se sabe sobre a estrutura das assembléias

de aves desta fisionomia, e menos ainda sobre as interações desta assembléia. A floresta

paludosa do Parque Estadual de Itapeva (PEVA), localmente conhecida como “Mata do

Faxinal” (ANEXO 1), foi escolhida como área para efetuar um estudo de caso sobre os

bandos mistos no Rio Grande do Sul. O objetivo fundamental deste estudo foi descrever

padrões básicos associados aos bandos mistos, tais como composição de espécies

integrantes, estrutura e o comportamento sazonal destes atributos. Esta primeira

aproximação resultou no artigo ora apresentado, inédito em sua proposta para o sul do

Brasil. Ademais, a situação geográfica do PEVA, situado no limite sul de distribuição

da Floresta Ombrófila Densa (sensu IBGE, 1986), torna a área de extrema valia para

uma futura compreensão da influência de fatores biogeográficos como latitude e altitude

na dinâmica e evolução de bandos mistos de aves na América do Sul.

O Parque Estadual de Itapeva possui pelo menos 14 espécies ameaçadas de

extinção no Rio Grande do Sul (BENCKE et al., 2003), algumas das quais são

mencionadas como integrantes freqüentes de bandos mistos de aves, entre elas: o

arapaçu-liso Dendrocincla turdina, o limpa-folha-coroado Philydor atricapillus, a

choquinha-cinzenta Myrmotherula unicolor e o capitão-de-saíra Atilla rufus

(DEVELEY e PERES, 2000; BENCKE et al., 2003). A compreensão do grau de

dependência destas espécies em relação ao forrageio e evitação de predadores em

bandos mistos pode fornecer informação auxiliar ao manejo e conservação das mesmas

nos fragmentos de florestas de planície do litoral norte do Rio Grande do Sul.

Desta forma, a presente dissertação reflete seu aspecto de pioneirismo não

apenas em sua tentativa de descrever os atributos dos bandos mistos no Rio Grande do

Sul, como também por ser o primeiro trabalho descrevendo processos ecológicos das

assembléias de aves em uma floresta paludosa na Mata Atlântica.

Questões adicionais como atividade de forrageio e distribuição das espécies

integrantes no espaço horizontal (influência da heterogeneidade) foram abordadas em

campo, mas não foram incluídas na presente dissertação. Em razão de restrições

operacionais para a realização do trabalho de campo, outros estudos como

territorialidade, taxa de movimentação e experimentos sobre a importância das espécies-

nucleares não foram abordados.

Alguns dos métodos aqui empregados foram os mesmos utilizados em outros

trabalhos para responder ou ilustrar as mesmas questões. Na verdade, muitos dos

estudos referidos na lista do artigo ora apresentado são “incompletos”, mesmo quando

possuem caráter absolutamente descritivo. Certas questões sobre composição e

estrutura, abordadas em determinado estudo, não são consideradas em outro. O presente

trabalho pretendeu unificar todas as questões elaboradas a respeito da descrição da

composição e estrutura dos bandos, bem como acrescentar novas análises, como, por

exemplo, a representação das espécies integrantes por “ensembles” (sensu FAUTH et

al., 1996) e por clados.

O artigo está estruturado conforme a exigências do periódico “The Condor”

(ANEXO 2). A escolha deste periódico resultou de certa tradição do mesmo em publicar

estudos acerca do tema ora abordado. (Como exemplo, cita-se a seguinte seqüência de

autores: HUTTO 1987, 1988, 1994, LATTA e WUNDERLE 1996, GRAM 1998, KING

e RAPPOLE 2000).

A título de ilustração, bem como visando disponibilizar tal informação para que

outros possam replicar as análises estatísticas, o ANEXO 3 exibe a informação

completa a respeito de cada bando amostrado durante o período de estudo.

REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS

ALBUQUERQUE, J. L. B.; BRÜGGEMANN, F. M. A avifauna do Parque Estadual da

Serra do Tabuleiro, Santa Catarina, Brasil, e as implicações para sua conservação. Acta

Biologica Leopoldensia, v. 18, n. 1, p. 47-68, 1996.

ALEIXO, A. Composition of mixed-species flocks and abundance of flocking species in

a semideciduous forest of southeastern Brazil. Ararajuba, v. 5, n. 1, p. 11-18, 1997.

ALVES, M. A. S. Social system and helping behavior in the White-banded Tanager

(Neothraupis fasciata). Condor, v. 92, p. 470-474, 1990.

ALVES, M. A. S.; CAVALCANTI, R. B. Sentinel behaviour, seasonality, and the

structure of bird flocks in Brazilian savanna. Ornitologia Neotropical, v. 7, p. 43-51,

1996.

AMARAL, C. Ocorrência do gavião-belo Busarellus nigricollis no estado de Santa

Catarina. Ararajuba, v. 10, n. 2, p. 245, 2002.

AMORIM, J. F.; PIACENTINI, V. de Q. Novos registros de aves raras em Santa

Catarina, Sul do Brasil, incluindo os primeiros registros documentados de algumas

espécies para o Estado. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, vol. 14, n. 2, p. 145-149,

2006.

BARNETT, J. M.; MINNS, J.; KIRWAN, G. M.; REMOLD, H. Informações adicionais

sobre as aves dos estados do Paraná, Santa Catarina e Rio Grande do Sul. Ararajuba, v.

12, n. 1, p. 55-58, 2004.

BELTON, W. Aves do Rio Grande do Sul: distribuição e biologia. São Leopoldo:

Editora Unisinos, 1994.

BENCKE, G. A. Annoted list of birds of Monte Alverne, central Rio Grande do Sul.

Acta Biologica Leopoldensia, v. 18, p. 17-42, 1996a.

BENCKE, G.A. New records and habits of the White-browed Foliage-gleaner

(Anabacerthia amaurotis) (Passeriformes: Furnariidae) in Rio Grande do Sul, southern

Brazil. Ararajuba v. 4, p. 24-28, 1996b.

BENCKE, G. A. Lista de referência das aves do Rio Grande do Sul. Publicações

Avulsas FZB, 10. Porto Alegre: Fundação Zoobotânica do Rio Grande do Sul, 2001.

BENCKE, G. A.; BENCKE, C. S. C. More road-killed owls and a new record for Santa

Catarina, Brazil. Cotinga, v. 13, p. 69, 2000.

BENCKE, G. A.; KINDEL, A. Bird counts along an altitudinal gradient of Atlantic

forest in northeastern Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Ararajuba, v. 7, n. 2, p. 91-107, 1999.

BENCKE, G. A.; FONTANA, C. S.; DIAS, R. A.; MAURÍCIO, G. N.; MÄHLER, J. K.

F., Jr. Aves. In: FONTANA, C. S.; BENCKE, G. A.; REIS, R. E. (eds.) Livro

Vermelho da Fauna Ameaçada de Extinção no Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre:

EDIPUCRS, 2003. p. 189-479.

BORNSCHEIN, M. R.; MAURÍCIO, G. N.; SOBÂNIA, R. L. First records of the

Silvery Grebe Podiceps occipitalis Garnot, 1826 in Brazil. Ararajuba, v. 12, n. 1, p.

61-63, 2004.

BORNSCHEIN, M. R.; PICHORIM, M.; REINERT, B. L. Novos registros de

Scytalopus iraiensis. Nattereria, v. 2, p. 29-33, 2001.

BORNSCHEIN, M. R.; REINERT, B. L. Novos registros de Tiaris fuliginosa

(Emberizidae) no Paraguai e no sul do Brasil. Ararajuba, v. 4, n. 2, p. 105-106, 1996.

BORNSCHEIN, M. R.; REINERT, B. L.; PICHORIM, M. Notas sobre algumas aves

novas ou pouco conhecidas no sul do Brasil. Ararajuba, v. 5, n. 1, p. 53-59, 1997.

CARLOS, C. J.; COLABUONO, F. I.; VOOREN, C. M. Notes on the Northern Royal

Albatross Diomedea sanfordi in south Brazil. Ararajuba, v. 12, n. 2, p. 166-167, 2004.

DAVIS, D. E. A seasonal analysis of mixed flocks of birds in Brazil. Ecology, v. 27, p.

168-181, 1946.

DEVELEY, P. F.; PERES, C. A. Resource seasonality and the structure of mixed

species bird flocks in a coastal Atlantic forest of southeastern Brazil. Journal of

Tropical Ecology, v. 16, p. 33-53, 2000.

FAUTH, J. E., BERNARDO, J.; CAMARA, M.; RESETARITS Jr., W. J.; VAN

BUSKIRK, J.; MCCOLLUM, S. A. Simplifying the jargon of community ecology: a

conceptual approach. American Naturalist, v. 147, p. 282-286, 1996.

GHIZONI-Jr., I. R.; AZEVEDO, M. A. G. Composição de bandos mistos de aves

florestais de sub-bosque em áreas de encosta e planície da Floresta Atlântica de Santa

Catarina, sul do Brasil. Biotemas, vol. 19, n. 2, p. 47-53, 2006.

GRAM, W. K. Winter participation by neotropical migrant and resident birds in mixed-

species flocks in northeastern Mexico. Condor, v. 100, p. 44-53, 1998.

HUTTO, R. L. A description of mixed-species insectivorous bird flocks in western

Mexico. Condor, v. 89, p. 282-292, 1987.

HUTTO, R. L. Foraging behavior patterns suggest a possible coast associated with

participation in mixed-species bird flocks. Oikos, v. 51, p. 79-83, 1988.

HUTTO, R. L. The composition and social organization of mixed-species flocks in a

tropical deciduous forest in western Mexico. Condor, v. 96, p. 105-118, 1994.

INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA (IBGE). Folha

SH.22 Porto Alegre e parte das folhas SH.21 Uruguaiana e SI.22 Lagoa Mirim:

geologia, geomorfologia, pedologia, vegetação, uso potencial da terra.

Levantamento de Recursos Naturais, v. 33. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE, 1986.

KINDEL, A. Diversidade e estratégias de dispersão de plantas vasculares em uma

floresta paludosa do sul do Brasil. Tese de Doutorado não-publicada. Programa de

Pós-Graduação em Botânica da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto

Alegre, 2002.

KING, D. I.; RAPPOLE, J. H. Winter flocking of insectivorous birds in montane pine-

oak forests in Middle America. Condor, v. 102, p. 664-672, 2000.

LATTA, S. C.; WUNDERLE, J. M. The composition and foraging ecology of mixed-

species flocks in pine forests of Hispaniola. Condor, v. 98, p. 595-607, 1996.

NAKA, L.N.; BARNETT, J. M.; KIRWAN, G. M.; TOBIAS, J. A.; AZEVEDO,

M.A.G. de. 2000. New and noteworthy bird records from Santa Catarina state, Brazil.

Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 120:237-250.

MALDONADO-COELHO, M.; MARINI, M. Â. Effects of forest fragment size and

successional stage on mixed-species bird flocks in Southeastern Brazil. Condor vol.

102, p. 585-594, 2000.

MALDONADO-COELHO, M.; MARINI, M. Â. Composição de bandos mistos de aves

em fragmentos de mata atlântica no Sudeste do Brasil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia, v.

43, n. 3, p. 31-54, 2003.

MALDONADO-COELHO, M.; MARINI, M. Â. Mixed-species bird flocks from

Brazilian Atlantic forest: the effects of forest fragmentation and seasonality on their

size, richness and stability. Biological Conservation, v. 116, p. 19-26, 2004.

MAURÍCIO, G. N. Taxonomy of southern populations in the Scytalopus speluncae

group, with description of a new species and remarks on the systematics and

biogeography of the complex (Passeriformes: Rhinocryptidae). Ararajuba, v. 13, n. 1,

p. 7-28, 2005.

MORAES, V. S.; KRUL, R. Composição e finalidades de agrupamentos

heteroespecíficos de aves em ambientes naturais do Paraná e Santa Catarina. Biotemas,

vol. 8, n. 2, p. 63-73, 1995.

MOYNIHAN, M. The organization and probable evolution of some mixed-species

flocks of neotropical birds. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, v. 143, p. 1-140,

1962.

MUNN, C. A. Permanent canopy and understory flocks in Amazonia: species

composition and population density. In: BUCKLEY, P.A.; FOSTER, M. S.; MORTON,

E. S.; RIDGELY, R. S.; BUCKLEY, F. G. (eds.). Neotropical Ornithology.

Ornithological Monographs. 36, 1985. p. 683-712.

MARTERER, B. T. P. Avifauna do Parque Botânico do Morro do Baú. Riqueza,

aspectos de freqüência e abundância. Florianópolis: FATMA, 1996.

MUNN, C. A.; TERBORGH, J. W. Multi-species territoriality in neotropical foraging

flocks. Condor, v. 81, p. 338-347, 1979.

OLMOS, F. First record of Northern Royal Albatross (Diomedea sanfordi) in Brazil.

Ararajuba, v. 10, n. 2, p. 271-273, 2002.

POWELL, G. V. N. Structure and dynamics of interespecific flocks in a neotropical

mid-elevation forest. Auk, v. 96, p. 375-390, 1979.

RAGUSA-NETTO, J. Raptors and “campo-cerrado” bird mixed flock led by Cypsnagra

hirundinacea (Emberizidae: Thraupinae). Revista Brasileira de Biologia, v. 60, n. 3, p.

461-467, 2000.

ROSÁRIO, L. A. do. As aves em Santa Catarina: distribuição geográfica e meio

ambiente. Florianópolis: FATMA, 1996.

SCHERER-NETO, P.; STRAUBE, F. C. Aves do Paraná. História, lista anotada e

bibliografia. Curitiba: Ed. dos Autores, 1995

SICK, H. Ornitologia brasileira: uma introdução. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira,

1997.

STOTZ, D. F. Geographic variation in species composition of mixed species flocks in

lowland humid forest in Brazil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia, v. 38, n. 4, p. 61-75,

1993.

TERBORGH, J.; ROBINSON, S. K.; PARKER, T. A. III; MUNN, C. A.; PIERPONT,

N. Structure and organization of an Amazonian forest bird community. Ecological

Monographs, v. 60, n. 2, p. 213-238, 1990.

TUBELIS, D. P. Species composition and seasonal ocurrence of mixed-species flocks

of forest birds in savannas in central cerrado, Brazil. Ararajuba, v. 12, n. 2, p. 105-111,

2004.

TUBELIS, D. P.; COWLING, A.; DONNELLY, C. Role of mixed-species flocks in the

use of adjacent savannas by forest birds in the central Cerrado, Brazil. Austral Ecology,

vol. 31, p. 38-45, 2006.

WILSON, E. O. Sociobiology: the new synthesis. 25th aniversary edition. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 2000.

Mixed-species bird flocks in southern Brazil

COMPOSITION, STRUCTURE AND SEASONALITY OF MIXED-SPECIES BIRD

FLOCKS IN A SWAMP FOREST OF SOUTHERN BRAZIL

André Barcellos

, Andreas Kindel

Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do

Sul, Avenida Bento Gonçalves, 9500, Prédio 43422, 91540-000, Porto Alegre, RS,

Brazil. E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract. The composition, structure and seasonal pattern of formation of mixed-species

bird flocks were analyzed in a swamp forest of coastal Rio Grande do Sul, southern

Brazil. Field work was carried out monthly from February 2005 to January 2006. Point

counts estimated the relative abundance of 47 flocking species, and transects were

performed to access data relative to the 92 flocks sampled. Non-passerines pool was

less represented in the flocks, while suboscines and oscines were equally represented in

the flock richness. Omnivores and insectivores were well represented, but nectarivores

had only one flocking species while frugivores and granivores were absent in flocks.

Migrants had relative low representation on flocks. The regularity of a given species in

to integrate flocks was a function of its relative abundance, and the species more

conspicuous tended to be the more regular flock joiners. Fifteen significant co-

occurrences of 153 possible pairs were detected, eleven positively and four negatively

associated. None structural type of flocks was recognized through cluster analyses.

Positive and negative associations may be related to similarities or dissimilarities on

vertical distribution of each species pair. The attributes of frequency, flock size and

flock richness were the lowest found on Atlantic Forest. Flocks were formed year round

at Faxinal, but higher values of frequency, flock size and flock richness were found in

non-breeding season. The combination of a little set of abundant and well distributed

species and low richness perhaps makes the flock structure at Faxinal less variable than

that of Atlantic Forest elsewhere.

Key words: Mixed-species flocks, behavioral ecology, swamp Atlantic Forest, seasonal

pattern, sociobiology, richness, diversity.

Composición de especies, estructura y estacionalidad de las bandadas mixtas de aves en

un bosque pantanoso en el sur de Brasil.

Resumen. Analisamos la composición, estructura y los patrones estacionales de

formación de bandadas mixtas de aves en un bosque pantanoso costero en el sur de

Brasil, desde Febrero 2005 hasta Enero 2006. Puntos de conteo estimaran la abundancia

relativa de las 47 especies de bandadas, y se utilizaran transectas para las observaciones

de las 92 bandadas amostradas. Los no-passerinos fueron poco representados entre las

especies participantes, mientras que soboscinos and oscinos fueron igualmente

representados en la riqueza de las bandadas. Omnivoros y insectivoros fueron bien

representados, pero nectarívoros tuvieron una única especie participante y los frugivoros

y granivoros estubiéran fuera de las bandadas. Los migrantes tubiéran baja

representación en las bandadas. Las especies mas detectadas en los puntos de conteo

tendieron a ser las más regulares em las bandadas. Onze co-ocurriencias positivas y

cuatro negativas fueron detectadas. Ninguno tipo estructural de bandadas fué

reconocido por promedio de analisis de agrupamiento. Co-ocurriencias pueden

relacionarse a similaridades y disimilaridades em la distribucion vertical de los pares de

especies. La riqueza de especies, frecuencia y tamaño de las bandadas fueron los más

bajos encontrados en la Selva Atlantica. Las bandadas fueron conspicuas durante todo el

año, pero valores mas altos de frecuencia, tamaño y riqueza de especies de las bandadas

occurieron em la estacion no-reproductiva. La combinación de un pequeña grupo de

especies abundantes y bien distribuidas con uma baja riqueza local probablemente

hacen la estructura de las bandadas mixtas en Faxinal poco variables en relación a otras

áreas estudiadas en la Selva Atlantica.

INTRODUCTION

Mixed-species flocks are multispecific associations found in taxonomic groups as

diversified as birds (Moynihan 1962, Munn 1985, Powell 1985, Stotz 1993, Develey

and Peres 2000), primates (Peres 1992, Bshary and Noë 1997, Chapman and Chapman

2000), marine fishes (Robertson et al. 1976), and miscellaneous (e.g., between birds and

primates, Ferrari 1990, Passos 1997). A typical trait of these ecological associations is

the close moving of individuals pertaining to distinct species, independently of some

resource aggregation. So, the motivation for an individual to integrate these associations

is the group by itself (Powell 1985). In this aspect, the mixed flocks differ from

aggregations, where the individuals are attracted by a resource distributed in patches, as

fruits, seeds, or water (Powell 1979, 1985).

Mixed flocks are conspicuous components of forest bird assemblages, both in

temperate and tropical regions (Winterbotton 1949, McClure 1967, Morse 1970,

Partridge e Ashcroft 1976, Munn 1985, Hutto 1994, Yaukey 1995, Hino 2002), being

more stable and complex in the last situation (Munn e Terborgh 1979, Powell 1985,

Greenberg 2000). In the Neotropics, these interactions were studied in Central America

(Moynihan 1962, Powell 1979, Hutto 1987, 1988, 1994, Latta and Wunderle, 1996,

Gram 1998), Patagonia (Vuilleumier 1967, Ippi and Trejo 2003), Amazon Basin (Munn

and Terborgh 1979, Munn 1985, Terborgh et al. 1990), Cerrado (Alves 1990, Alves and

Cavalcanti 1996, Ragusa-Netto 2000, Tubelis 2004) and southeastern Atlantic Forest.

Bird flocks studies in Atlantic Forest focused mainly on structure (Davis 1946, Moraes

e Krul 1995, Aleixo 1997, Ghizoni-Jr. and Azevedo 2006), seasonality (Davis 1946,

Develey and Peres 2000, Maldonado-Coelho and Marini 2004), effects of fragmentation

and successional stage (Maldonado-Coelho and Marini 2000, 2003, 2004), and possible

adaptive reasons (Machado and Rodrigues 2000).

In temperate forests of northern hemisphere, bird flocks are basically restricted

to the cold season, being absent during reproductive months (Morse 1970, Austin and

Smith 1972, Thiollay 1988). On tropical forests, flocks occur during all year, including

reproductive season (Munn and Terborgh 1979, Munn 1985, Powell 1985). However, in

certain tropical regions as the Atlantic Forest, the flocks tend to be less diversified and

frequent at this time (Davis 1946, Develey and Peres 2000). Seasonal variation in flock

composition and size was verified in southeastern Brazil, both in lowlands (Develey and

Peres 2000) and highlands (Davis 1946, Machado 1999, 2002, Maldonado-Coelho and

Marini 2004). Indeed, Develey and Peres (2000) hypothesized the presence of a

latitudinal gradient of species richness in flocks in Atlantic Forest, where the number of

flocking species would be negatively correlated with the increase in latitude. The scant

information on mixed flocks in southern limits of Atlantic Forest biome prevents the

investigation of this conjecture.

Some authors had verified the relative impoverishment and lower stability of

eastern Brazilian mixed flocks when compared with the Amazonian ones (Stotz 1993,

Aleixo 1997, Develey and Peres 2000). The absence of a true nuclear species, as

Thamnomanes antshrikes (Thamnophilidae) in Amazonia (Munn and Terborgh 1979)

would be responsible for the absence of cohesion among Atlantic flocks members, wich

lacks the presence of a species fully nuclear as Thamnomanes spp. Even in Atlantic

Forest areas where Thamnomanes caesius occurs, the species do not behave as a typical

nuclear species (Stotz 1993, but see Silveira et al. 2005 for a different observation). In

its absence, the function of nuclear species is assumed by less specialized birds as the

Red-crowned Ant-Tanager (Habia rubica) and the Black-goggled Tanager

(Trichothraupis melanopis) (Develey and Peres 2000, Maldonado-Coelho and Marini

2004), leading to a highly variable and less predictable flock structure (Aleixo 1997).

This paper inspect certain ecological aspects of mixed-species bird flocks in

southern Brazil, by means of the study case in a coastal, swamp forest fragment. We

describe the following attributes of flocks: (1) richness and composition of flocking

species; (2) structure, understood here as flock size (intra-flock diversity), pattern of

association between species, and the representation of distinct ensembles and clades

inside flocks; (3) flocking regularity of flocking species; (4) seasonal pattern of

variation in the preceding aspects; and (5) social role of each flocking species.

METHODS

STUDY AREA

Mixed flocks were studied at Parque Estadual de Itapeva (PEVA), located in northern

coastal plain of Rio Grande do Sul state, southern Brazil (29º20’S, 49º45’W). This c.

1000-ha protected area has several vegetation types characteristics of “restinga”

formations (sensu IBGE 1986), including dry and wet grasslands, swamps, sandy

vegetation, arboreal restinga and swamp forest (Dobrovolski et al. 2004). The restingas

are a very diversified vegetation complex, included in the domains of Atlantic Forest

biome (Falkenberg 1999). Detailed descriptions of local flora can be found in Lindeman

et al. (1975) and Kindel (2002). Field work was concentrated in a swamp forest

remnant, locally known as “Faxinal”, whose encompass 115 ha of the PEVA. This

forest is, actually, a mosaic of several fitophysiognomies, ranging from formations with

high canopy (20-25 m) growing over seldom inundated soils, to low formations (4-6 m

high) with extremely dense understory, growing over almost inundated areas. Dominant

trees include species pertaining chiefly to the families Moraceae (Ficus spp.),

Cecropiaceae (Coussapoa microcarpa, Cecropia catarinensis), Arecaceae (Syagrus

romanzoffiana), and Myrtaceae (many genera). Ferns, Bromeliaceae, and the palms

Bactris setosa, Euterpe edulis and Geonoma schottiana predominate in the understory.

Epiphytes and lianas are abundant, including many species of Bromeliaceae,

Orchidaceae, Cactaceae, Piperacae, and Polypodiaceae, among others (Waechter 1986).

The local climate is humid subtropical (Cfa) according to Köppen system, with mean

annual precipitation of 1452 mm, with well-distributed rains throughout the year

(Kindel 2002). Mean annual temperature is 18.9ºC, with the minimum mean 15.1ºC

registered in austral winter (July), and maximum mean 23.6ºC in austral summer

(February).

At least five globally threatened and near-threatened bird species (BirdLife

International 2004) regularly occur in the study area: White-breasted Tapaculo

(Scytalopus indigoticus), Unicolored Antwren (Myrmotherula unicolor), Restinga

Tyrannulet (Phylloscartes kronei), Black-backed Tanager (Tangara peruviana), and

Azure-shouldered Tanager (Thraupis cyanoptera). Nine additional species are currently

categorized as threatened at a regional scale (Bencke et al. 2003). Many of them have

on mixed flocks an important component of their life cycle, as could be seen here and in

others works (Stotz 1993, Aleixo 1997, Develey and Peres 2000, Bencke et al. 2003).

Besides the anthropogenic impact directly affecting the swamp forest, like

harvesting, clearing and hunting, there was in March 2004 a hurricane-like

phenomenon, called “Catarina” (an animated view can be found in

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2004/mar/brazilcane.html), wich strongly

affected the arboreal structure in many forest portions, by the fall of large trees.

Furthermore, in summer 2005, Rio Grande do Sul experienced a strong and unexpected

drought period, less severe in northern coastal plain, but sufficient to dry formerly water

saturated soils. Although there are documented records of alterations in the behavior of

mixed flocks’ memberships after the struck of a typhoon (Seki and Sato 2002), the

consequences of these dramatic weather phenomena on Faxinal’s bird assemblage are

unknown, do to the lack of previous field work there.

FIELD SAMPLING

Mixed-species flock sampling. The flocks were searched for along a c. 2.3 km transect,

cut on the north to south axis of forest fragment, crossing six distinct physiognomies.

This trail was divided in three distinct sectors, all of them surveyed in three day periods:

(1) morning, from one hour after the sunrise until three hours latter; (2) middle-of-day,

from three hours after sunrise until three hours before down; and (3) evening. The

physiognomies will be described in details in a future work dealing with their effect on

the patterns of bird assemblage distribution and on mixed flocks. The transect was

sampled in three days each month, from February 2005 to January 2006, giving a total

of 373 field hours. In each day, one day period was used to inspect one of the three

sectors. Sectors and periods were combined in the three field days until a given sector

was trailed in all day periods. Additional data on flocking species and individual

numbers were gathered in September and October 2004, and January 2005. These last

data were used in all but seasonality analysis. We avoided to work on extremely misty,

windy or rainy days.

As the same transect was performed three times at month, we recognize that the

same flocks may have been recorded more than one time on subsequent days. However,

each flock has equal chance of being counted twice or more, so we assume that this

possibility not influenced our analysis. Furthermore, flocks of the same area in distinct

days may behave as nearly independent units, as their species composition varies even

during a period of few minutes (see below).

We recognized a flock in field as a group of two or more distinct species,

moving together in the same direction for at least five min, and independently of

external resource concentration (as applied by Latta and Wunderle 1986, and Stotz

1993). This procedure was adopted latter in other Atlantic Forest works (Aleixo 1997,

Develey and Peres 2000, Maldonado-Coelho and Marini 2000, 2004), thus making our

data feasible to comparisons. Once a flock was encountered, it was followed as long as

possible. Flocks were followed during five to thirty five min (mean = 10.8 ± 6.5 SD),

and many flocks were accompanied only by the minimum interval of five min. Flocks

followed for more than 15 min had their number of individuals and their species

composition recorded each 15 min-interval (Austin and Smith 1972, Gram 1998), and

resultant flocks’ data were considered as distinct sample units. The lower follow mean

time of flocks, when compared with other studies, was do to the very thick vegetation,

either in understory and canopy, as well as to the wet nature of the soil, who prevented

to proceed with the faster flocks.

For each flock we recorded: (1) species number, (2) number of individuals per

species, and (3) flock duration. For each flocking individual were recorded, when

possible: (1) species, (2) relative horizontal position in flock, classified as front, middle,

and back; (3) agonistic behavior, inter or intraspecific. Data collected were related on a

cassette recorder and latter transcribed to data sheets.

Bird counts. The bird abundance in study area was estimated by point counts with

unlimited distance (Blondel et al. 1981). According to Vielliard (2000), this is the count

method that work well in tropical forest environments. Fifteen points were surveyed

monthly, from February 2005 to January 2006, except for December 2005. Points were

established in the same transect of the mixed flocks study, embracing all the length and

physiognomies of Faxinal. The standard distance between one point to another was 200

m, in order to guarantee independence (Bibby et al. 1992). Every individual detected by

voice or sight during a 15 min period at each point was considered a contact (as defined

by Ralph 1981). Counts were conducted from sunrise until three hours later. The

relative abundance of a given species was obtained dividing the total number of species

contacts by the total number of counts (N = 160). This computation gives the so called

Index of Punctual Abundance (IPA), applied in others works conducted in Atlantic

Forest (Aleixo e Vielliard 1995, Aleixo 2001, Anjos 2001).

CONVENTIONS

Each flocking species was classified according to its flocking regularity (Hutto 1994),

obtained dividing the number of flocks where a given species was recorded, by the total

number of flocks sampled. This computation resulted in proportions, categorized

according Machado (1999) as (1) regular species, occurring in more than 25% of flocks;

(2) common species, from 10 to 24.99%; (3) uncommon species, from 3 to 9.99%; and

(4) rare species, those recorded in less than 3% of flocks. We adopted these categories

in order to better compare our results with works made elsewhere, and to avoid the

subjectivity in the determination of the level of flocking participation for each species

(Develey 2001).

Quantitative and qualitative data were used to assign each flocking species to

previously defined social roles, following the terminology in Greenberg (2000:528).

Core species includes all the regular species, and represents the set of more frequent

species in flocks. Attendant species are the remainder categories, representing the

species commonly or seldom recorded as flock members, whose few records prevented

certain analysis. Nuclear species was recognized according the following quantitative

criteria (Hutto 1994, after Moyninhan 1962): (1) they are intraspecifically gregarious

(mean number of individuals per flock > 3 and, as a consequence, they are conspicuous

in colors and/or noisy in vocalization, (2) they are core species, (3) they are usually seen

leading the flocks, being followed by other species more than themselves follow others.

Nuclears are thought as playing a role on the flock formation and cohesion. Leading

behavior was recognized during food search and gap-cross activities. A leader species

was the one that was recorded searching for food in the front of flocks, as well as that

was the first to cross gaps in the forest. The remaining species were recognized as

followers.

We assigned each species to groups defined as “guilds” in Willis (1979). These

groups are arranged according to habitat affinities, diet type, and/or body size (for

example, small canopy omnivores, and ground frugivores). However, in accordance

with the nomenclature proposed by Fauth et al. (1996), we adopted the term

“ensembles”, instead “guilds”, to designate these groups. Willis’ classification was

checked for each species, reclassifying them when appropriate according to local data.

The niche dimension of vertical strata was one attribute of habitat affinities, and each

species was classified according their mean relative height of foraging (height of a

foraging bird from the soil divided by the higher height of the canopy in the immediate

vicinity of the bird, Walther 2002). Vertical strata were the same in Willis (1979), but

defined numerically as: soil (relative height of 0), understory (> 0  0.3), midlevel (>

0.3  0.7) and canopy (> 0.7  1). Insectivores are understood here as birds eating

arthropods in general, not only insects. Omnivore category includes species taking

nearly equal amounts of arthropods and plant matter (mainly fruits) in their diet. Body

size was represented in terms of mass obtained from literature sources (Belton 1994,

Reinert et al. 1996, Bugoni et al. 2002), prioritizing data from southern Brazil and with

greatest sample size. Taxonomic sequence and Latin nomenclature are according CBRO

(2005); English names follow Bencke (2001). Residence statuses in Rio Grande do Sul

follow Belton (1994).

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

In order to inspect the association between regularity of a given species in flocks with

its relative frequency in point counts, as well as if the flocking regularity of a given

species was correlated with the mean flock’s size occupied by it, we used simple linear

regression. Flocking regularity and IPA data was normalized through logarithmic

transformation, as original data deviated from normality (according to D’Agostino-

Pearson test, Zar 1996).

We used two-tailed t-test to test if the mean flock size and mean species richness

of flocks where each of the ten most frequent flocking species were recorded differed

from the total mean of the 92 flocks sampled. Original data were linear transformed.

Mann-Whitney U-test was used for those data where the variances can not be equalized

by linear transformation. Chi-square was used to investigate if proportional abundances

of distinct dietary groups and residence statuses differed between mixed flocks and

point counts.

We analyzed the patterns of memberships associations in two opposite trends:

pair of species that significantly occur in flocks where the respective flock mate was

present (positive co-occurrence) and pair of species that significantly occur in flocks

where the respective flock mate was not present (negative co-occurrences, checkerboard

distributions). The independence of co-occurrences between each pair of species was

tested with a chi-square test or a G-test with Williams correction for that pair

combination where cells in the 2 x 2 contingency table had values inferior to five

(Fowler and Cohen 1995). Significant co-occurrences (either negative or positive) were

expressed by the coefficient of interspecific association (Cole 1949), ranging from +1

(perfectly positive association between two species) from -1 (perfect avoidance) (Hart

and Freed 2003).

According to Graves and Gotelli (1993), mixed-species flocks constitute a

model system appropriate to test the assembly rules hypothesis, based in checkerboard

distributions originated by competitively structured communities (Diamond 1975),

because flocks occur in relatively homogeneous forest tracts and because resident

species are potentially interactive full time. In addition to chi-square or G-test, we

applied null models (Gotelli 2000, Gotelli and McCabe 2002) to verify the associations

between pairs of species inside the flocks, through the analysis of either positive or

negative co-occurrences. Random matrices (5000 simulations) and values of the co-

occurrences indices were achieved using EcoSim software (Gotelli and Entsminger

2006). We used the proportional algorithm both in rows (species) and in columns

(flocks) as simulation procedure, and V-ratio was employed as co-occurrence metric. In

a competitively structured community, the observed V-ratio should be significantly

smaller than expected by chance, usually less than 1.0 (Gotelli and Entsminger 2006).

Cluster analysis was used to recognize structural types of mixed flocks,

classified according to presence-absence of species. The farthest-neighbor (Pielou 1984,

Valentin 2000) was used as clustering technique, with Euclidian distance utilized as

similarity measure. Cluster analysis and significance of groups partition by bootstrap

(1000 iterations,  = 0.1) was performed using Multiv 2.3.17 statiscal package (Pillar

2004).

One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction was employed to test for

differences in the mean number of species (richness) and mean number of individuals

(flock size) in flocks between months. The data were normalized and variances of

blocks equalized by linear transformation. After, months were grouped in two blocks,

corresponding to breeding (September to March) and non-breeding seasons (April to

August) of southern hemisphere. For effect of this work, we established the initial

month of breeding season as September, based on reproductive evidences recorded in

field (e.g., breeding plumage, pair formation, territoriality, arrival of migrants)

compared to August. Decrease of the same indicia, including the leave of many migrant

species, lead us to determine the end of breeding season at March. The nonparametric

Mann-Whitney U-test was employed to investigate if there were significant differences

between the two periods in the mean richness and mean size of flocks.

Other statistical tests are indicated between parenthesis, after their respective

results, including transformation method used. Means are given ± SE. The statistical

package BioEstat 3.0 (Ayres et al. 2003) was employed and significance level of  =

0.05 was accepted in all analyses unless stated otherwise.

RESULTS

FLOCK COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE

Forty seven flocking species in a total of 92 flocks were registered during the study

(TABLE 1). This richness of memberships represents 43% of bird species found at

Faxinal by means of quantitative and qualitative surveys (N = 109, excluding raptors

and swallows, Barcellos, pers. obs.). Flocks had a mean species number of 4.2 ± 0.2

(range = 2-13 species) and a mean individuals number of 6.8 ± 0.4 (range = 2-19). Mean

biomass of flocks was of 98.4 ± 7.2 g (range = 15.8-628.5, n = 87). The number of

individuals (flock size) was positively correlated with the number of species within the

flocks (r

= 0.89, n = 92, P < 0.001, Spearman correlation).

Passerine birds composed the bulk of flocking species, in a ratio of 1 non-

passerine for 10.75 passerines (coefficient of 0.09, calculated according to Fowler and

Cohen 1995). Only four non-passerines were recorded in flocks: one cuculid (Squirrel

Cuckoo [Piaya cayana]), and three woodpeckers (Ochre-collared Piculet [Picumnus

temminckii], White-spotted Woodpecker [Veniliornis spilogaster] and Blond-crested

Woodpecker [Celeus flavescens]). Among them, the Ochre-collared Piculet was the

unique common participant, occurring in at least 16% of flocks recorded (TABLE 1).

Suboscines and oscines passerines had almost equal representation in flock

composition, with 20 and 23 species each, respectively (ratio of 1:1.15, or a coefficient

of 0.87). This composition assimilates the ratio found in the bird assemblage of Faxinal

as a whole, where non-passerines (excluding raptors) are outnumbered by passerines

(ratio of 1:2.6, coefficient of 0.38) and suboscines and oscines (excluding swallows)

have almost equal numeric relationship (ratio of 1:1.19, coefficient of 0.84) (Barcellos,

pers. obs.). Clearly, the non-passerine pool is few represented in the flock richness (

= 7.7, P = 0.005). While 66% of oscines and 47% of suboscines species of Faxinal are

represented in mixed flocks (pools with n = 36 and n = 43, respectively), only 13% of

the non-passerine species pool (n = 30) integrates the flocks.

The classification of joining species by ensembles shows the predominance of

omnivores and insectivores (FIGURE 1). Certain ensembles of Faxinal’s bird

assemblage were not represented in mixed flocks: large canopy frugivores, ground

frugivores, edge seedeaters, grassland omnivores, and aquatic omnivores (FIGURE 1).

The proportion of flocking/non flocking species was larger in understory birds eating

small foliage arthropods (0.9), canopy insectivores (0.8), midlevel insectivores (0.7),

and small canopy omnivores (0.7), indicating that these groups have the major number

of species prone to integrate the flocks. Understory omnivores, edge omnivores, and

trunk and twig insectivores had equal representation of flocking and non-flocking

species (0.5). Under-represented ensembles are edge insectivores (0.3), understory birds

eating large ground arthropods (0.2), and nectarivores-insectivores (0.1). In suboscines,

understory birds eating small foliage arthropods predominated among participant

species (20%), while other ensembles was nearly equally represented. In oscines, most

flocking species were edge omnivores (35%) and small canopy omnivores (30%).

Aggregating the ensembles by diet type, we found that insectivores had greater

relative abundance (summing the relative abundances of all species) in flocks than in

point counts, in a greatly significant way (

= 58.1, P < 0.001; TABLE 2). On the

contrary, the relative abundances of nectarivores in flocks was significantly less than

relative abundances derived from point count data (

= 10.3, P = 0.001). There are not

significant difference between the relative abundances of omnivores in flocks and its

relative abundances in point counts (

= 2.0, P = 0.15). Frugivores and granivores

were absent from flocks. With regard to residence statuses, the relative abundances of

migratory birds in flocks was significantly lower than their relative abundances derived

from point count data (

= 24.5, P < 0.001; TABLE 2).

With regard to regularity, six species were regular participants in swamp forest

flocks: Golden-crowned Warbler (Basileuterus culicivorus) (54.4), Unicolored Antwren

(48.9), Tropical Parula (Parula pitiayumi) (38.0), Variable Antshrike (Thamnophilus

caerulescens) (31.5), Red-crowned Ant-Tanager (30.4) and Restinga Tyrannulet (27.2).

Thus, they perform the set of core memberships of Faxinal’s flocks. Only four species

were classified as having common regularity: Bananaquit (Coereba flaveola), Ochre-

collared Piculet, Ruby-crowned Tanager (Tachyphonus coronatus) and Chestnut-bellied

Euphonia (Euphonia pectoralis). Eighteen species were uncommon and nineteen were

rare, both embracing 78% of birds recorded in flocks. Among the uncommon and rare

species are the few migrants recorded as flock participants (Fuscous Flycatcher

[Cnemotriccus fuscatus] Variegated Flycatcher [Empidonomus varius] White-winged

Becard [Pachyramphus polychopterus] and Red-eyed [Chivi] Vireo [Vireo olivaceus]).

Regarding to the regular species, the Red-crowned Ant-Tanager was the one with the

highest average number of individuals per flock (3.6), followed by the Unicolored

Antwren (2.0) (TABLE 1). Most species (87%, n = 41) averaged fewer than two

individuals per flock, giving a grand mean of only 1.35 individual per species per flock.

The flocking regularity was correlated with the index of relative abundance in a

highly significant way (R

= 0.21, F = 12.5, P < 0.001). To exemplify, three regular

(Golden-crowned Warbler, Tropical Parula and Variable Antshrike) and one common

(Bananaquit) species in flocks figures between the eight most abundant species in point

counts. The White-tipped Dove (Leptotila verreauxi) was the species with the highest

IPA value (1.6), but columbids are not customary flock joiners, and this dove was never

seen as a member of Faxinal flocks. On the other hand, two species found in flocks

were not recorded in point counts: Epaulet Oriole (Icterus cayanensis) and Golden-

rumped Euphonia (Euphonia cyanocephala). These species was encountered in a few

flocks and in qualitative avifaunal surveys too. The Streaked Xenops (Xenops rutilans)

represents a special case: whenever recorded, this species was associated with flocks (n

= 7), even on the unique occasion when it was contacted in point counts. Among the

two common dietary groups and clades in flocks, insectivores and omnivores

passerines, there was a significant difference on relative abundance between flocking

and non-flocking species (U = 252.0, P = 0.005, Mann-Whitney U-test). Fifteen species

of omnivores and insectivores recorded in point counts were not recorded in mixed-

species flocks, 60% of them with IPA inferior to 0.1. Twelve others species were not

detected nor in flocks, neither in point counts – each was recorded only one or two

times since 2004 year at Faxinal during qualitative surveys.

Eighty seven flocks contacted (95% of 92 flocks) had at least one of the seven

core species, and 71% (n = 65 flocks) had two or more core species co-occurring.

Considering the characters listed to be attributable to a nuclear species, the only core

species that played the role of nuclear was the Red-crowned Ant-tanager. This bird was

the fifth more regular species in flocks, had a highly gregarious behavior and is

unusually conspicuous in voice and behavior. Furthermore, it behaved as leader in most

flocks where it participated.

We investigated the independence of co-occurrences inside flocks for 18 species

that occurred in five or more flocks. Of the 153 possible pairwise comparisons, there

were 12 significant positive associations (TABLE 3), indicating that these species’ pairs

joined flocks together more frequently than expected by chance. Analyzing the pattern

of pair formation in the significant positive co-occurrences, we can note that all

involved species pairs shared the same vertical strata, more than the same diet type

(TABLE 4). In the same way, all the three negative co-occurrences involved species

utilizing distinct forest strata. Marginally significant positive co-occurrence were

recorded between Tropical Parula and Chestnut-bellied Euphonia (G = 3.3; P = 0.07).

Nearly significant negative co-occurrences occurred between Tropical Parula and Red-

crowned Ant-Tanager (

= 3.8, P = 0.05), as well as Bananaquit and Mottle-cheeked

Tyrannulet (G = 3.6; P = 0.06). Bananaquit was the unique species that had more

negative than positive co-occurrences, and only White-throated Spadebill (Platyrinchus

mystaceus) had no significant co-occurrences among pairwise comparisons. The total

number of significant occurrences, either positive or negative, represents 10% of the

153 pair combinations.

The observed V-ratio for the null model comprising all flocking species was not

significantly smaller than expected by chance (observed index = 1.63, expected index =

1.86, p = 0.05). A second analysis was performed isolating the microhabitat requirement

variable, and null models were generated for canopy and understory/midlevel species

isolated. Again, the observed V-ratio for canopy species was not significantly smaller

than that expected by chance (observed index = 0.99, expected index = 1.14, p = 0.05),

but was significantly smaller for understory/midlevel species, (observed index = 1.10,

expected index = 1.30, p = 0.03), although we interpret this difference as biologically

meaningless, considering the little difference between observed and expected values.

By and large, the mean richness and size of flocks occupied by the ten most

regular joining species was greater than the average mean of the attributes, i.e., 4.2

species per flock and 6.8 individuals per flock (TABLE 5). The difference in mean

richness was significant for Golden-crowned Warbler, Tropical Parula, Variable

Antshrike, and Ruby-crowned Tanager, indicating that flocks where each of these

species joins are richer than the average of flocks found in Faxinal. By its turn, the

difference in mean size was significant for Golden-crowned Warbler, Variable

Antshrike, Red-crowned Ant-Tanager, Ruby-crowned Tanager, and Chestnut-bellied

Euphonia, indicating that flocks where each of these species participated are larger than

the average of flocks found in study site. However, the flocking regularity of a given

species was not correlated with the mean size of flocks occupied by him (r = - 0.24, F =

1.6, P = 0.2, Pearson correlation, linear transformation). None of the ten most regular

species occurred in flocks where the mean was less than 4.2 species or 6.8 individuals

per flock. A reversal tendency was found in flocks where only one core species was

present, being these flocks significantly smaller and less rich than the average.

The cluster analysis resulted in three significant groups or flock types with very

dissimilar sizes (FIGURE 2). One unique group clustered almost all the sample units

(95% of flocks recorded). The remainder two groups are composed by few sample units,

representing flocks with occasional and rare flocking species. (For instance, sample unit

4 was a flock composed by Blue Dacnis [Dacnis cayana] and Rufous-headed Tanager

[Hemithraupis ruficapilla]). As the classification is highly dependent on the cluster and

similarity methods employed (Pielou 1984, James and McCulloch 1990), we performed

subsequent analysis varying both cluster method (average linkage) and similarity

measures (percentage remoteness). All of them resulted in similar dendrograms. These

results attest the great similarity in the composition of flocks in Faxinal.

Agonistic interactions were noted five times among five species. All interactions

were intraspecific – a pair of Squirrel Cuckoo, a group of Restinga Tyranulet in

persecution, two males of Chestnut-bellied Euphonia, two males of Ochre-collared

Piculet (displaying as in Sick 1997:508), and one male Red-crowned Ant-Tanager

attacking an immature individual.

FLOCK SEASONALITY

Flocks’ formation was a year-round phenomenon at Faxinal (FIGURE 3). May was the

month with the maximum number of flocks detected per hour of field work (0.37 flocks

per hour), followed by July (0.35 flock per hour). After July, there was a decrease in the

monthly number of flocks encountered, reaching the minimum values in November

(0.08 flocks per hour). After that, number of flocks returns to increase in February, with

a new but less pronounced decrease in March, followed by an increase in April. Another

fall was observed in June, roughly during the middle of southern hemisphere winter.

The richness of flocking species varied significantly between months (F = 2.1,

df = 10, P = 0.03) and between breeding and non-breeding season (U = 637.5, P = 0.01)

(FIGURE 4). The mean number of species per flocks was higher in non-breeding (4.7 ±

0.3, 2 to 13 species) than in breeding season (3.3 ± 0.2, 2-6 species). Highest means

were found in May and June (5.7 ± 0.7 for both months); lowest means were found in

September and October (2.5 ± 0.3 and 2.3 ± 0.3, respectively). The same monthly

difference was observed in flock size (F = 2.4, df = 10, P = 0.01), with the number of

individuals per flock significantly higher in the non-breeding season (U = 669.0, P =

0.02) (FIGURE 4). The mean number of individuals per flocks was 7.5 ± 0.5 in non-

breeding season (2-19 individuals) and 5.5 ± 0.5 in breeding season (2-13 individuals).

Again, highest means were found in May and June (8.9 ± 0.9 and 9.4 ± 1.6,

respectively) and lowest means were found in September and October (4.0 ± 0.8 and 4.0

± 1.3, respectively), that is, the same months of highest and lowest richness values.

DISCUSSION

FLOCK COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE

Mean flock richness and size at Faxinal was the lowest known for the Atlantic Forest

(TABLE 6), may be reflecting the latitudinal situation of the study area and/or his

fragmented nature. It is known that there is a latitudinal gradient of richness for many

taxa, which decrease from southeastern to southern Atlantic Forest (Costa and Leite

2000, Brown and Freitas 2000, Bini et al. 2004). Therefore, Develey and Peres (2000)

suggest that flock species richness reflects the total species richness gradient, wich thus

should be lower in higher latitudes. Similar trends in decreasing number of joining

species according the increase of latitude were reported for Middle America (King and

Rappole 2000). Indeed, the fragmentation is a process that culminates in local extinction

of some sensitive bird species, as has been documented in some sites of Atlantic Forest

(Willis 1979, Aleixo e Vielliard 1995, Christiansen and Pitter 1997, Aleixo 2001, Willis

and Oniki 2002, Ribon et al. 2003, Santos 2004, Antunes 2005). One effect found on

mixed flocks, attributable to fragmentation, is the loss of species and the consequent

reduction on flock species richness (Maldonado-Coelho and Marini 2000, Tellería et al.

2001, Maldonado-Coelho and Marini 2004). So, biogeographic trends and anthropic

impacts must probably reduce the richness of bird assemblage in Faxinal, diminishing

the available species pool to sustain the composition of mixed-species flocks.

Other possible explanation for the low richness and size of flocks in Faxinal may

be related to habitat structure. Seki and Sato (2002) showed that the mixed-species flock

attendance rate by tits (Paridae) increased after the severe disturbance caused by a

typhoon in Japan. Reduced vegetation cover could have caused the observed behavioral

changes as a result of the increased predation risk. Inversely, high vegetation density, at

least in understory, can reduce the propensity of some species to join the flocks, as a

result of increased protection against visually oriented predators. Furthermore, it is

possible that richness and size values of Faxinal’s flocks were underestimated, as some

shiny species may have been overlooked do to the foliage thickness (Oniki 1971).

However, we think that shiny species eventually not detected in flocks are so rare that

their non-inclusion in the analysis will not change substantially the results discussed

here.

At Faxinal, most species were represented in flocks by single individuals, less

frequently by pairs or couples. Red-crowned Ant-Tanager had the highest average

number of individual per flocks, what is related to its gregarious behavior. This species

is commonly found on small familiar groups (Isler and Isler 1987). However, their

groups are not numerous, and the maximum number of individuals inside flocks was of

six (n = 3 of 28 records in flocks), being more common see three to four individuals

integrating mixed-species flocks (n = 8 and n = 11, respectively). This tanager was the

unique species that fulfilled all the attributes of a nuclear species in Faxinal. Nuclear

function has been commonly attributed to the Red-crowned Ant-Tanager in a number of

studies in Atlantic Forest (Bencke 1996, Maldonado-Coelho and Marini 2003, 2004), as

well as in other neotropical forests (Willis 1960), although some authors put doubts

about its fully efficacy on maintenance of the flocks’ cohesion, in view of its non-

specialized mixed flock behavior (Develey and Peres 2000). Unicolored Antwren was

more frequently seen in couples (n = 33) than isolated (n = 6) or in little groups ( 3, n =

6) in mixed-flocks. Number of individuals per flock of Restinga Tyrannulet, Ruby-

crowned Tanager, Golden-crowned Warbler, and Tropical Parula suggest a year-round

bond couple. The remainder regular joining species has mean number of individuals per

flocks more compatible with the pattern of pair or solitary habits.

Although the Unicolored Antwren has not reached the previously defined mean

number of individuals, we recognize it as a nuclear species, along with Red-crowned

Ant-tanager, because they show all the remaining attributes of nuclears, including the

gap-crossing behavior (n = 6 of N = 28). Golden-crowned Warbler remained most of the

time in front of flocks (67% of 21 records), uttered persistent calls when flocking, and

was a core species, but it do not characterize as a nuclear species because it was not

intraspecifically gregarious. Furthermore, even so staying in front of flocks, it does not

leaded them, limiting itself to close follows the nuclears in most situations. However,

we do not discard the possible leading and nuclear role of the warbler, as recorded for

this and other Basileuterus species elsewhere (Powell 1979, Maldonado-Coelho and

Marini 2000, 2003, Ghizoni-Jr, and Azevedo 2006), as it was recorded crossing gaps

first then other associates in the few flocks where Red-crowned Ant-tanager or

Unicolored Antwren was not present (n = 3 of N = 13). Evidently, the designation of a

species as nuclear is highly dependent on the number and importance of sociobiological

characters thought to be attributable to them. For instance, Goodale and Kotagama

(2005) showed that a nuclear species less gregarious, but more prone to emit alarm

calls, was as effective as a nuclear and very gregarious species in to promote the

attraction of satellite species. Perhaps intraspecifically gregariousness and related

characters are as important as alarm or leading behavior itself. A more embracing and

ecologically reasonable number of nuclear species is achieved if we consider leading as

the chief behavioral trait responsible for the organization of the membership

movements.

In the tropics, mixed-species flocks are generally comprised by a pair, or

familiar group, of each flocking species (Croxall 1976, Munn and Terborgh 1979,

Powell 1979, Gradwohl and Greenberg 1980, Alves and Cavalcanti 1996, Jullien and

Thiollay 1998). As long we know, in Atlantic Forest it is not different (Davis 1946,

Stotz 1993, Machado 1999). Hence, the size of tropical flocks is highly correlated with

their richness, and the increase in flock size is do to addition of species instead the

addition of individuals (Powell 1985, Graves and Gotelli 1993). At Faxinal we verified

that the bulk of flocking species are represented by a mean of one or two individual per

flock, what are according to the pattern found in forest and open areas from tropical

sites. Another data reinforcing the idea of increase of flock size by addition of species

are that: (1) monthly peaks of higher and smaller mean number of individuals are the

same for the mean number of species; (2) few intraspecific agonistic interactions were

observed inside the flocks, indicating a structure based on pair formation or solitary

birds; (3) none species exceed the mean of four individuals per flocks, and only two

species reached or exceeded the limit of two individuals per flock. A different pattern

was found in Taiwan, a subtropical site, where the abundance of only one species (the

Grey-cheeked Fulvetta, Alcipe morrisonia) was the chief factor affecting flock size

(Chen and Hsieh 2002). Although Rio Grande do Sul lies within the range of

subtropical region as Taiwan, the relationship between flock size and number of

flocking species are the same seen in more tropical regions. This pattern is almost

certainly related to phylogenetic constraints. The means of the species with larger

number of individuals per flock is not much different from the total mean of flocks in

Faxinal. Instead what is exemplified by migrants in Central America and residents in

Taiwan (Hutto 1994, Chen and Hsieh 2002), no Atlantic Forest species form

monospecific flocks with hundreds of individuals (except certain parrots and nomadic

finches, which are species not prone to integrate mixed flocks). In fact, few species

average more than ten or twenty individuals either in monospecific or multispecific

flocks, and the exceptions include some ovenbirds and tanagers (Davis 1946, Willis

1989, Sick 1997, Machado 1999, 2002).

Davis (1946) found that young individuals do not integrate the flocks in large

numbers, probably because there are not large numbers of fledged youngs in the

neotropics, instead the large levels found in temperate regions. Hence, the mean number

of individuals of each species in flocks throughout the year is nearly constant, with

perhaps few exceptions (see comments on tanagers in Davis 1946:179). The negligible

addition of youngs to flock structure is another factor influencing the relationship

between flock size and joiners richness.

It is noteworthy that no species preferentially occurred on flocks whose richness

and size averaged fewer than the overall means. It indicates that no joiner species avoid

the bigger flocks or, alternatively, no species had preference by small flocks, although

many of them where detected in small flocks some of the time. The same was found by

Hutto (1994) in western Mexico. Indeed, occasional or rare species are must probable to

be seen in the larger flocks, what is another data that corroborates the observation of

increase in flock size by increase in species number. However, this do not imply that,

the rarer a species is, the larger must be the size of the flock where it will join, as shown

by regression analysis. But we must take care in to generalize that affirmation, in order

to recognize the effect of increasing sample errors derived from decreasing species’

sample sizes (Fowler and Cohen 1995).

Most species with significant differences had as size as richness of their flocks

larger than the overall mean. Exceptions were found in some species. For instance,

flocks having the Red-crowned Ant-Tanager was bigger than the average, but had no

more species than the overall mean richness in Faxinal. This could be explained by the

gregarious habits of that species, whose mean of 3.6 individuals per flock indicates an

inflation in the size of flocks occupied by it. The reason why flocks with only one core

species had fewer species and individuals than the average remains obscure, and may be

better attributed to a statistical artifact.

Flock species richness was a subset of overall richness of bird assemblage of

Faxinal. Although the low values of mean flock richness and abundance, the percentage

of the species pool represented as membership in flocks was similar to that found

elsewhere in Atlantic Forest biome (TABLE 6). Indeed, the pattern of taxonomic

representation in flocks agrees with what was found by other researchers (Davis 1946,

Machado 1999). At Faxinal, a nearly equal representation of his respective pools is

presented by suboscines and oscines passerines. However, non-passerines had a

negligible set of flocking species representing its pool. The same was found by Davis

(1946) and Machado (1999) in eastern Brazil, including the same or much related

species that flocked in Faxinal (the Squirrel Cuckoo and four woodpeckers). Regarding

to woodpeckers, they are commonly cited members of flocks throughout the world,

although in most cases they usually are not classified as regular participants (Steering

and Ickes 2001). Apparently, there is a distinguishable trend of taxonomic participation

on flocks of Atlantic Forest. Why so? The reasons for that disparate participation of

passerines and non-passerines, related to the number of species, should be investigated

in terms of the distribution of dietary niches and habitat preferences among the clades.

Although the number of ensembles was even distributed through clades (11, 10 and 9

ensembles for non-passerines, suboscines and oscines, respectively), the non-passerines

have some unique ensembles that do not participated in mixed flocks, as soil frugivores,

grassland omnivores and aquatic omnivores, whose habitat preferences hinder their

adjoin to flocks. Indeed, other ensembles where also not or poorly represented as among

non-passerine as in passerines flocking species, such as nectarivores, large canopy

frugivores and edge seedeaters. Regarding to the nectarivores, they were the most rich

ensemble of non-passerines, composed by nine species of hummingbirds, all of them

primarily non-flocking species. The unique flock member among this ensemble was the

Bananaquit, an oscine bird. By its turn, suboscines and oscines are less diversified in

dietary niches, and small to medium-sized insectivores and omnivores predominate

among passerines. Not surprisingly, the few non-passerines flocking species are canopy

or twig insectivores. On the other hand, almost all ensembles in suboscines and oscines

are represented in mixed flocks. Aleixo (1997) observed the same pattern of non-

participation related to certain ensembles. Again, frugivores and nectarivores were in its

majority non-flocking species, although among them there were some common birds in

the assemblage studied by him.

One singularity of Faxinal, in relation to many sites, is the rarity of

woodcreepers (dendrocolaptids) as flock members. Woodcreepers figures among the

most regular flock joiners in virtually all published works in Atlantic Forest, detaching

Sittasomus griseicapillus. Once again, the positive correlation between flocking

regularity and relative abundance explain that singularity. Woodecreepers are almost

absent in Faxinal’s flocks because they are not common on the avian assemblage.

Despite the high richness found at Faxinal (six species, corresponding to 85% of forest

woodcreepers listed for Rio Grande do Sul, Bencke 2001) the unique flocking species

was Dendrocolaptes platyrostris, by the way the most contacted woodcreeper in point

counts, as well as the most frequently observed in qualitative surveys. Even so, this

species qualifies as a rare flock joiner, what is in accordance with its low IPA.

Fragmentation and absence of certain microhabitat requirements can be the main reason

of local rarity of dendrocolaptids, as this group is one of the most affected by reduction

and impoverishment of forest area (Marantz et al. 2003, Poletto et al. 2004).

At Faxinal, the regularity of occurrence on flocks of a given species can be

predicted on basis of its relative abundance. Apparently, this is a generalized mixed

flock pattern throughout the world (Hutto 1994, Latta and Wunderle 1996, Aleixo 1997,

Gram 1998). Indeed, we found a significant difference in relative abundance of flocking

and non-flocking species, analyzing the two richest groups in flocks, the insectivores

and omnivores passerines. That difference reinforces the strong correlation between

abundance and flock regularity.

We found that most flocks in our study area had at least two regular species co-

occurring. This indicate that there are a core of flock participants in Faxinal, giving a

certain predictability in terms of species composition, instead of what was found by

Stotz (1993) and Aleixo (1997) in eastern Brazil. Aleixo (1997) argued that, in his study

area, the flocks will be composed by whichever co-occurring species within the home

range of the most abundant species (White-bellied Warbler [Basileuterus hypoleucus]

and Rufous-winged Antwren [Herpsilochmus rufimarginatus]), wich are not able to

influence the formation and cohesion of flocks. Therefore, the structure of that flocks

are highly variable in terms of component species. Indeed, as the pool of species in

southeastern Brazil is richer than in southern forests, the composition of these flocks is

more diversified. At Faxinal, flock structure appears to be more predictable than the

observed for southeastern Atlantic Forest sites. Most flocks had not only one core

species, but two or more of them. The great factor influencing the composition of flocks

appears to be the almost omnipresence of a restricted group of abundant and well

distributed species. Yet, the majority of species was uncommon or rare in flocks,

occurring in less than ten percent of the flocks sampled. Therefore, the somewhat stable

group of core species of mixed flocks in Faxinal is more correlated with the low

diversity in bird assemblage than to particular behavioral traits of these species. That

low diversity may lead to density compensation, where the abundance of few species

increases with the local extinction of others (MacArthur et al. 1972, Wright 1980, Anjos

2004). In an Atlantic Forest fragment in southeastern Brazil, the density compensation

was used to explain the high density of Golden-crowned Warbler (Aleixo and Vielliard

1995), the most abundant species in that, as well as in our study area. The same may be

true for others passerines inhabiting different forest strata, as Tropical Parula in the

canopy (Ghizoni-Jr. and Azevedo 2006), and Unicolored Antwren in thick understory.

Moreover, all the regular species in flocks are well distributed in the swamp forest

fragment, occurring in all point counts spread over the different forest physiognomies of

Faxinal. Wherever a flock was formed, there are at least one or two core species in that

local, making the flock composition predictable in certain manner. So, core species at

Faxinal can be identified not only in basis of its high abundance, but by its high

frequency on forest as a whole.

The pattern of a group of core species found in Faxinal, including one to three

nuclear species, resembles the “nucleus-complex” described by Machado (2002). This

“nucleus-complex” is a group of at least five species that play together the role of

aggregation and maintenance of the flock cohesion, in the absence of a typical nuclear

species.

Another evidence for the somewhat stable nature of flock species composition in

our study area is the tendency of accumulation curve of species for flocks, when

compared to the curve of Faxinal bird assemblage (FIGURE 5). Whereas Faxinal curves

proceeds on accumulating new species, probably as an effect of the turnover

characteristic of fragments (Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977, Opdam 1991, Haila et al.

1993), the curve of sufficiency for flocks seems to reach its asymptote. This may

indicate that, whatever species is incorporated to bird assemblage of Faxinal, few of

them will increase the richness of flock composition. Most of this occasional species

should have low chances of establishment, perhaps do to “empty niches” promoted by

the most abundant and regular flock species members. It is notorious that all of the

twelve species not recorded in flocks or in point counts were recorded only one or two

times in qualitative surveys at Faxinal. Therefore, they have minimal chance to integrate

flocks. In resume, it is possible that low diversity, chance colonization and density

compensation are key processes influencing the composition and stability of flocks in

small southern Atlantic Forest fragments, leading to a more predictable species

composition.

That stable composition of core species possibly lead to the impossibility of

recognize different flock structural types as nearly discrete entities. In fact, the cluster

analysis did not recognized well separated types of flocks. The three groups formed

involved one major group containing 95% of all flocks, and two others with discrepant

flock members (very occasional associations of edge species or between rare canopy

species). The high similarity between flocks demonstrates once more their predictability

in terms of species composition, what preclude the recognition of well defined structural

types. A clear dichotomy is described for some neotropical sites (Munn 1985, Aleixo

1997, Maldonado-Coelho and Marini 2003), involving canopy and understory flocks.

However, these two types of flocks related to distinct strata may coalesce to form larger

flocks where the forest canopy is low (Stotz 1993). By and large, we could recognize in

our study area canopy and understory flocks as well, but that separation was not clear

on dendrogram, at least by the chosen significance level. (See in FIGURE 4 the

dichotomy involving the major group, by the distance value of 3.5. The group at left

represents understory flocks; the group at right represents canopy flocks). Moreover,

many flocks from a given strata contained one or more species from the other, showing

that Faxinal’s flocks may be formed around a nucleus of core species from a certain

forest layer, but being able to attract supplemental species from distinct habitats,

possibly as an effect of the low canopy height. This mix of species from different layers

homogenizes the flock composition, attenuating the effect of habitat preference on the

formation of strict structural types.

Although no distinct flock types can be recognized in Faxinal based on species

composition, certain pairs of species tended to co-occur in the same flocks more than

expected by chance. Inversely, a few pairs showed negative co-occurrences. One factor

for positive (and negative) co-occurrences is the share or not of the same habitat

preference (Hutto 1994, Latta and Wunderle 1996). Therefore, two species are more

probable to be encountered in the same flocks as a result of them being restricted to the

same habitat. If we consider two different forest strata (understory and canopy) as two

distinct habitats, we will find that all positive co-occurrences involved species

occupying the same strata. In the same way, all the significant negative co-occurrences

involved species from distinct strata. However, at least some of these few negative co-

occurrences may be reflecting a statistical artifact rather than an authentic ecological

phenomena (Latta and Wunderle 1996). Distinct habitats can be recognized in Faxinal

not only vertically, but also horizontally (heterogeneity), and again co-occurrences may

be recognized as a result of two species having mutual horizontal habitat preference.

Hutto (1994) presumed that another possible phenomenon explaining the

positive co-occurrences is the mutual or unilateral dependence, when at least one

member of the species-pair joins the flocks more likely if their counterpart is present. At

Faxinal, only one unilateral dependence was observed, involving the Black-capped

Foliage-gleaner, who only joined flocks where Red-crowned Ant-Tanager was present.

Social mimicry may be the chief factor influencing this restricted interaction (see

below). The rest of positive interactions involved species that also occurred in flocks

where their counterparts were not present. Therefore, positive associations are possibly

not obligate associations, and the presence of a given species is not a crucial factor

influencing the joining of another species. Hutto (1994) found similar results in

Mexican tropical deciduous forests.

Some of these positive co-occurrences may be explained by the hypothesis

involving associations among species sharing similar color patterns, what is related to

social mimicry working in mixed flocks (Moynihan 1962, 1968, Barnard 1979, Willis

1989). A possible adaptive reason for the social mimicry is the enhancement on the

effectiveness of the confusion effect, providing better protection against predation

(Chen and Hsieh 2002). Aleixo (1997) suggested that association patterns, linked to

species with similar plumage coloration, might occur in flocks without nuclear or

sentinel species and low stability. Using ordination techniques, he recognized a “brown

group”, formed by Red-crowned Ant-Tanager, White-eyed Foliage-gleaner (Automolus

leucophthalmus), and Lesser Woodcreeper (Xiphorhynchus fuscus). Perhaps the above

cited co-occurrence between Red-crowned Ant-Tanager and Black-capped Foliage-

gleaner is related to this “brown group”, wich seems to be a recurrent association in

Atlantic Forest (Willis 1989, Bencke 1996). At Faxinal, besides the “brown” group, we

recognized another association of similar type, composed by Tropical Parula and

Bananaquit, two species that are small, canopy dwellers, and blue-and-yellow colored.

This association may be called “blue-and-yellow” group, and additional studies over the

vast area of sympatry between these two passerines (see distributional maps in Ridgely

and Tudor 1989) will reveal if it is a common and recurrent aspect of their behavioral

ecology. Another species possibly linked to this “blue-and-yellow” group seems to be

the Chestnut-bellied Euphonia, as judged by his nearly significant positive co-

occurrence with Tropical Parula. Similar “blue-and-yellow” groups are found in

northern Andes, formed by tanagers (Tangara spp.) and honeycreepers (Diglossa spp.)

(Moynihan 1962, Barnard 1979). A third type of co-occurrences attributed to similar-

colored species involved the Ruby-crowned Tanager, the Sayaca Tanager (Thraupis

sayaca) and the Blue Dacnis. All are omnivores and predominantly blue birds, although

varying strongly in tonality. They may perform a “blue omnivore” group, as one species

positively co-occurred with each of the two others more then expected by chance.

However, the association between “blue-and-yellow” and “blue omnivore” species in

Faxinal not leaded to the formation of flocks having exclusively these species. In other

words, the preferential co-occurrence of those species does not avoid the entrance of

“disparate” species in the flocks. This probably prevented the recognition of these

similar-colored species groups as well defined structural types in cluster analysis.

The null model analysis showed that the number of negative co-occurrences,

which is related to the checkerboard distribution pattern (Diamond 1975), is lower than

expected by chance. Therefore, we can reasonably infer that competitive processes are

not working in to limit the number of species co-occurrences within flocks of Faxinal.

Alternatively, we can suppose that territoriality do not play a role in to limit the number

of species inside a given flock in the study area. One reason is the limited number of

cogenerics and niche correlated species with similar abundances present in Faxinal’s

flocks. No genera had two cogenerics nearly equally frequent in flocks (for instance,

Chestnut-bellied Euphonia against other euphonias, and Sayaca Tanager against Azure-

shouldered Tanager), so the dissimilar abundances may explain the limited numbers of

negative co-occurrences. An exception to the low number of niche correlates is the great

number of edge and canopy tanagers and correlates, wich looks very similar in size,

microhabitat requirements and foraging maneuvers (Barcellos, pers. obs.). Perhaps more

subtle habitat preferences or nuances of foraging behavior not easily perceptive to

observers are acting in to promote the co-existence of apparently similar species.

Our initial null model analysis included in the same original matrix species

usually encountered in distinct vertical strata and flocks recorded in distinct

physiognomies. It would be predicted, therefore, a higher number of negative co-

occurrences, by reason of that dissimilarities among the species and the flocks.

However, even so the observed negative co-occurrences involved pairs of distinct strata-

dweller species, this number of co-occurrences was fewer than the expected by chance,

indicating again that habitat preferences were not a barrier to the coexistence on flocks

of species with very dissimilar habitat selection. The same may be with regard to the

occurrence by physiognomies. These results are in consonance with that achieved by

cluster analysis, showing that the low canopy perhaps prevents the split of flocks in the

vertical space. An additional explanation involves the behavior of flocking members

themselves, being possible that flock memberships consistently alter their foraging

heights when flocking (Pearson 1971, Suhonen 1993, Machado and Rodrigues 2000),

leading them to forage in not normally explored strata or physiognomies.

Migrants had a practically null participation on composition and structure of

Faxinal’s flocks. The absence of migrants is another factor explaining the low richness

of flocks in Faxinal, as their presence contributes to enlarge the richness and size of

flocks elsewhere (Develey 2001). However, this participation of migrants may be more

pronounced in montane than in lowland Atlantic Forest (Develey and Peres 2000).

Develey and Peres (2000) working on the lowland Atlantic Forest of São Paulo, and

Ghizoni-Jr. and Azevedo (2006), studying the flocks of Santa Catarina, found the same

little influence of migrants on flock richness and size. Additional studies involving more

areas are needed in order to verify if this is a widespread pattern in southern Brazilian

coastal plain.

The nearly negligible participation of migrants in the few lowlands of Atlantic

Forest studied contrast with their great participation on Central American forests

situated at corresponding latitudes on northern hemisphere. Why are there so many

differences in social behavior of migrants on both high latitudes? The explanation

seems to be somewhat obvious. While in Central America the migrants arrive in a non-

reproductive condition, the reverse occurs in southern South America. When they arrive

at its southern migration grounds, South American migrants strike just at their breeding

season. As soon as arrive, they begin to involve in reproductive activities, specially

territory settlement (Sick 1983).

FLOCK SEASONALITY

A clearly seasonal pattern emerged from the data of frequency, composition and

structure of mixed-species flocks in Faxinal swamp forest. Flocks were more frequent,

significantly richer and had larger number of individuals in non-breeding season (fall

and winter) than during breeding season (spring and summer). The frequency of flocks

was highest from May to July, but the low value observed in June can be attributed to

unsavory weather conditions, when winter had more severe days during the sample

period and should have affected bird activity or their detection. A decrease on flock

detectability observed after July, may be represents either the beginning of reproductive

moult (Davis 1945, Mallet-Rodrigues 2005) and the first territorial activities both from

migrants and residents. A new increase in flock frequency occurred after November,

may be representing the final of breeding for many species.

Number of mixed flocks detected per hour of field work is a measure that

permits direct comparisons with other works, allowing the inspection of frequency of

flock formation from different areas. At Parque Estadual de Intervales, in the highlands

of southeastern Brazil, Machado (1999) found overall higher values of flocks per hour

than we did in Faxinal. In that site, maximum number of flocks per hour was found in

August (1.27) and the minimum in January (0.26), either well above our respective data.

Unfortunately, we were unable to find other works that expressed their results in terms

of flocks per hour, so we cannot affirm that flock formation is more frequent in

southeastern than southern Brazil.

Months of highest (May and June) and lowest (September and October) values

were the same for both flock size and number of flocking species. These consonance

shows once more the close relationship between flock size and flock richness. Again,

the Faxinal’s pattern of flock seasonality agrees with the observed elsewhere in Atlantic

Forest (Davis 1946, Machado 1999, Develey and Peres 2000). Differential availability

of food resources in time and the increase of investment in breeding activities are

largely accepted explanations for temporal changes in flock attributes worldwide

(Moynihan 1962, Powell 1985, Develey and Peres 2000).

Working on montane Atlantic Forest of eastern Brazil, Davis (1946) and

Machado (1999) found a diverse relationship between frequency and size of flocks, with

a reduction on flock frequency during the breeding season (as found elsewhere), but

with an increase in mean richness and abundance of flocks during the same period. That

inverse relationship between frequency and diversity of flocks was explained by

Machado (1999) in terms of an “accumulation” of species in the few flocks formed, as if

the major diversity was a consequence of the lower frequency. However, the same

author recognizes that other factors possibly are acting over the enlarging mean size of

flocks during the breeding season, suggesting that the “nucleus-complex” maybe

another explanation. By his turn, Davis (1946) argued that the large peaks found by him

in January and March are do to several immature tanagers joining the few flocks.

Perhaps that inverse relationship is characteristic of flocks formed in montane forests,

but additional data focusing on a possible altitudinal influence are necessary.

Concluding, mixed-species flocks in Faxinal resembles other Atlantic Forest

flocks, especially that from lowlands, in representation of migrants/residents and

passerines/non-passerines species, as well as in peaks of richness in non-breeding

season. However, even in the season of higher richness, the number of species in

Faxinal is the smallest known in Atlantic Forest.The low mean richness of these flocks

probably is a result of latitudinal trends, or of fragmentation, or both.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Departamento de Florestas e Áreas Protegidas of Secretaria do Meio

Ambiente of Rio Grande do Sul state, for the pemissions to work in Parque Estadual de

Itapeva. We thank the CAPES for research grants. Patrick Colombo provided logistic

support, and Pedro Develey, Sandra Hartz, J. M. Vielliard, Iury Accordi and Adriano

Melo provided valuable suggestions, specially during planning phase of this work.

Clarissa Britz Hassdenteufel, Ricardo Dobrowolski, Roberson “Boliviano”, Ricardo

Dalbem, Anelise Azevedo and Cláudia Brandt assisted in field work. Leandro Duarte

helped with cluster analysis, and Jéssica Schmitz with the English. AB wishes to

dedicate this work to his mother, Neusa Barcelos, and to his grandfather, Florindo

Barcellos (in memorian).

LITERATURE CITED

Aleixo, A. 1997. Composition of mixed-species bird flocks and abundance of flocking

species in a semideciduous forest of southeastern Brazil. Ararajuba 5:11–18.

Aleixo, A. 2001. Conservação da avifauna da Floresta Atlântica: efeitos da

fragmentação e a importância de florestas secundárias, p. 199–206. In J. L. B.

Albuquerque, J. F. Cândido Jr., F. C. Straube, and A. L. Roos [org.], Ornitologia e

conservação: da ciência às estratégias. Editora da Universidade do Sul de Santa

Catarina, Tubarão, SC, Brazil.

Aleixo, A., and J. M. E. Vielliard. 1995. Composição e dinâmica da comunidade de

aves da Mata de Santa Genebra, Campinas, SP. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 12:493–

511.

Alves, M. A. S. 1990. Social system and helping behavior in the White-banded Tanager

(Neothraupis fasciata). Condor 92:470–474.

Alves, M. A. S., and R. B. Cavalcanti. 1996. Sentinel behaviour, seasonality, and the

structure of bird flocks in Brazilian savanna. Ornitologia Neotropical 7:43–51.

Anjos, L. dos. 2001. Comunidades de aves florestais: implicações na conservação, p.

17–37. In J. L. B. Albuquerque, J. F. Cândido Jr., F. C. Straube, and A. L. Roos [org.],

Ornitologia e conservação: da ciência às estratégias. Editora da Universidade do Sul de

Santa Catarina, Tubarão, SC, Brazil.

Anjos, L. dos. 2004. Species richness and relative abundance of birds in natural and

anthropogenic fragments of Brazilian Atlantic forest. Anais da Academia Brasileira de

Ciências 76:429–434.

Antunes, A. Z. 2005. Alterações na composição da comunidade de aves ao longo do

tempo em um fragmento florestal no sudeste do Brasil. Ararajuba 13:47–61.

Austin, G. T., and E. L. Smith. 1972. Winter foraging ecology of mixed insectivorous

bird flocks in oak woodland in Southern Arizona. Condor 74:17–24.

Ayres, M., M. Ayres Jr., D. L. Ayres, and A. A. S. dos Santos. 2003. BioEstat:

aplicações estatísticas das áreas das ciências bio-médicas. Sociedade Civil Mamirauá

and CNPq, Belém and Brasília, Brazil.

Barnard, C. J. 1979. Predation and the evolution of social mimicry in birds. American

Naturalist 113:613–618.

Belton, W. 1994. Aves do Rio Grande do Sul: distribuição e biologia. Editora Unisinos,

São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil.

Bencke, G. A. 1996. New records and habits of the White-browed Foliage-gleaner

(Anabacerthia amaurotis) (Passeriformes: Furnariidae) in Rio Grande do Sul, southern

Brazil. Ararajuba 4:24–28.

Bencke, G. A. 2001. Lista de referência das aves do Rio Grande do Sul. Publicações

Avulsas FZB, 10. Fundação Zoobotânica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS,

Brazil.

Bencke, G. A., C. S. Fontana, R. A. Dias, G. N. Maurício, and J. K. F. Mähler Jr. 2003.

Aves, p. 189–479. In C. S. Fontana, G. A. Bencke, and R. E. Reis [eds.], Livro

Vermelho da Fauna Ameaçada de Extinção no Rio Grande do Sul. EDIPUCRS, Porto

Alegre, RS, Brazil.

Bibby, C. J., N. D. Burgess, and D. A. Hill. 1992. Bird census techniques. Academic

Press, London, UK.

Bini, L. M., J. A. F. Diniz-Filho, and B. A. Hawkins. 2004. Macroecological

explanations for differences in species richness gradients: a canonical analysis of South

American birds. Journal of Biogeography

31:1819

–

1827.

Birdlife International. 2004. Threatened birds of the world 2004. CD-Rom. Birdlife

International, Cambridge, UK.

Blondel, J., C. Ferry, and B. Frochot. 1981. Point counts with unlimited distance.

Studies in Avian Biology 6:414–420.

Brown, J. H., and A. Kodric-Brown. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect

of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449.

Brown, K. S., and A. V. L. Freitas. 2000. Atlantic Forest butterflies: indicators for

landscape conservation. Biotropica 32:934–956.

Bshary, R., and R. Noë. 1997. Red colobus and Diana monkeys provide mutual

protection against predators. Animal Behaviour 54:1461–1474.

Bugoni, L., L. V. Mohr, A. Scherer, M. A. Efe, and S. Barbosa. 2002. Biometry, molt

and brood patch parameters of birds in southern Brazil. Ararajuba 10:85–94.

Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos - CBRO [online]. 2005. Listas das aves do

Brasil. Versão 1/2/2005. <http://www.ib.usp.br/cbro> (3 March 2005).

Chapman, C. A., and L. J. Chapman. 2000. Interdemic variation in mixed-species

association patterns: common diurnal primates of Kibale National Park, Uganda.

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 47:129–139.

Chen, C. C., and F. Hsieh. 2002. Composition and foraging behaviour of mixed-species

flocks led by the Grey-cheeked Fulvetta in Fushan Experimental Forest, Taiwan. Ibis

144:317–330.

Christiansen, M. B., and E. Pitter. 1997. Species loss in a forest bird community near

Lagoa Santa in southeastern Brazil. Biological Conservation 80:23–32.

Cole, L. C. 1949. The measurement of interspecific association. Ecology 30:411–424.

Croxall, J. P. 1976. The composition and behavior of some mixed-species bird flocks in

Sarawak. Ibis 118:333-346.

Costa, L. P., and Y. L. R. Leite. 2000. Biogeography of South American forest

mammals: endemism and diversity in the Atlantic Forest. Biotropica 32:872–881.

Davis, D. E. 1945. The annual cycle of plants, mosquitoes, birds and mammals in two

Brazilian forests. Ecological Monographs 15:243–295.

Davis, D. E. 1946. A seasonal analysis of mixed flocks of birds in Brazil. Ecology

27:168–181.

Develey, P. F. 2001. Os bandos mistos de aves nas florestas neotropicais, p 17–37. In J.

L. B. Albuquerque, J. F. Cândido Jr., F. C. Straube, and A. L. Roos [org.], Ornitologia e

conservação: da ciência às estratégias. Editora da Universidade do Sul de Santa

Catarina, Tubarão, SC, Brazil.

Develey, P. F., and C. A. Peres. 2000. Resource seasonality and the structure of mixed

species bird flocks in a coastal Atlantic forest of southeastern Brazil. Journal of Tropical

Ecology 16:33–53.

Diamond, J. M. 1975. Assembly of species communities, p. 342–444. In M. L. Cody

and J. M. Diamond [eds.], Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University

Press, Cambridge.

Dobrovolski, R., H. Hasenack, and A. Kindel. 2004. Análise da cobertura do terreno do

Parque Estadual de Itapeva – RS, p. 474–480. In IV Congresso Brasileiro de Unidades

de Conservação (1.:2004: Curitiba). Anais, Vol. 1. Fundação O Boticário de Proteção à

Natureza and Rede Nacional Pró Unidades de Conservação, 2004, Curitiba.

Falkenberg, D.B. 1999. Aspectos da flora e da vegetação secundária da restinga de

Santa Catarina, sul do Brasil. Insula 28:1–30.

Fauth, J. E., J. Bernardo, M. Camara, W. J. Resetarits Jr., J. Van Buskirk, and S. A.

McCollum. 1996. Simplifying the jargon of community ecology: a conceptual approach.

American Naturalist 147:282–286.

Ferrari, S. F. 1990. A foraging association between two kite species (Ictinea plumbea

and Leptodon cayanensis) and Buffy-headed Marmosets (Callitrix flaviceps) in

Southeastern Brazil. Condor 92:781–783.

Fowler, J., and L. Cohen. 1995. Statistics for Ornithologists. 2 ed. BTO Guide n. 22.

British Trust for Ornithology, Norfolk, UK.

Goodale, E., and S. W. Kotagama. 2005. Testing the roles of species in mixed-species

bird flocks of a Sri Lankan rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21:669–676.

Gotelli, N. J. 2000. Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology

81:2606–2621.

Gotelli, N. J., and G. L. Entsminger. 2006. EcoSim: Null models software for ecology.

Version 7. <http://garyentsminger.com/ecosim.htm> (24 January 2006).

Gotelli, N.J., and D. J. McCabe. 2002. Species co-occurrence: a meta-analysis of J. M.

Diamond’s assembly rules model. Ecology 83:2091–2002.

Gradwohl, J., and R. Greenberg. 1980. The formation of antwren flocks on Barro

Colorado Island, Panama. Auk 97:385–395.

Gram, W. K. 1998. Winter participation by neotropical migrant and resident birds in

mixed-species flocks in northeastern Mexico. Condor 100:44–53.

Graves, G. R., and N. J. Gotelli. 1993. Assembly of avian mixed-species flocks in

Amazonia. Proceedings of National Academy of Science USA 90:1388–1391.

Greenberg, R. 2000. Birds of many feathers: the formation and structure of mixed

species flocks of forest birds, p. 521–558. In S. Boinski, and P. A. Garber. [eds.], On the

move. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Ghizoni-Jr., I. R., and M. A. G. Azevedo. 2006. Composição de bandos mistos de aves

florestais de sub-bosque em áreas de encosta e planície da Floresta Atlântica de Santa

Catarina, sul do Brasil. Biotemas 19(2):47-53.

Haila, Y., I. K. Hanski, and S. Raivio. 1993. Turnover of breeding birds in small forest

fragments: the “sampling” colonization hypothesis corroborated. Ecology 74:714–725.

Hart, P. J., and L. A. Freed. 2003. Structure and dynamics of mixed-species flocks in a

Hawaiian rain forest. Auk 120:82–95.

Hino, T. 2002. Breeding bird community and mixed-species flocking in a deciduous

broad leaved forest in western Madagascar. Ornithological Science 1:111–116.

Hutto, R. L. 1987. A description of mixed-species insectivorous bird flocks in western

Mexico. Condor 89:282–292.

Hutto, R. L. 1988. Foraging behavior patterns suggest a possible coast associated with

participation in mixed-species bird flocks. Oikos 51:79–83.

Hutto, R. L. 1994. The composition and social organization of mixed-species flocks in a

tropical deciduous forest in western Mexico. Condor 96:105–118.

INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA [IBGE]. 1986. Folha

SH.22 Porto Alegre e parte das folhas SH.21 Uruguaiana e SI.22 Lagoa Mirim:

geologia, geomorfologia, pedologia, vegetação, uso potencial da terra. Levantamento de

Recursos Naturais, v. 33. IBGE, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Ippi, S. and A. Trejo. 2003. Dinámica y estructura de bandadas mixtas de aves en un

bosque de lenga (Nothofagus pumilio) del noroeste de la Patagonia argentina.

Ornitologia Neotropical 14:353–362.

Isler, M. L., and P. R. Isler. 1987. The Tanagers: Natural history, distribution, and

identification. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

James, F. C., and C. E. McCulloch. 1990. Multivariate analysis in ecology and

systematics: Panacea or Pandora’s box? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

21:129–166.

Jullien, M., and J. -M. Thiollay. 1998. Multi-species territoriality and dynamic of

neotropical forest understory bird flocks. Journal of Animal Ecology 67:227–252.

Kindel, A. 1996. Interações entre plantas ornitocóricas e aves frugívoras na Estação

Ecológica de Aracuri, Muitos Capões, RS. Marter’s dissertation, Universidade Federal

do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.

Kindel, A. 2002. Diversidade e estratégias de dispersão de plantas vasculares em uma

floresta paludosa do sul do Brasil. Doctor’s dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio

Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.

King, D. I., and J. H. Rappole. 2000. Winter flocking of insectivorous birds in montane

pine-oak forests in Middle America. Condor 102:664–672.

Latta, S.C., and J. M. Wunderle. 1996. The composition and foraging ecology of mixed-

species flocks in pine forests of Hispaniola. Condor 98:595–607.

Lindeman, J. C., L. R. M. Baptista, B.E. Irgang, M. L. Porto, A. M. Girardi-Deiro, and

M. L. L. Baptista. 1975. Estudos botânicos no Parque Estadual de Torres, Rio Grande

do Sul – Brasil. II. Levantamento florístico da Planície do Curtume,da área de Itapeva e

da área colonizada. Iheringia, Série Botânica 21:15–52.

MacArthur, R. H., J. M. Diamond, and J. R. Karr. 1972. Density compensation in island

faunas. Ecology 53: 330–342.

Machado, C. G. 1999. A composição dos bandos mistos de aves na Mata Atlântica da

Serra do Paranapiacaba, no sudeste Brasileiro. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 59:75–85.

Machado, C. G. 2002. As espécies-núcleo dos bandos mistos de aves da mata atlântica

da Serra de Paranapiacaba, no sudeste brasileiro. Sitientibus Série Ciências Biológicas

2(1/2):85-90.

Machado, C. G., and N. M. R. Rodrigues. 2000. Alteração na altura de forrageamento

das espécies de aves quando associadas a bandos mistos, p. 231–239. In M. A. S. Alves,

J. M. C. da Silva, M. Van Sluys, H. de G. Bergallo and C. F. D. da Rocha [org.], A

Ornitologia no Brasil – Pesquisa atual e perspectivas. Editora Universidade Estadual do

Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Maldonado-Coelho, M., and M. Â. Marini. 2000. Effects of forest fragment size and

successional stage on mixed-species bird flocks in Southeastern Brazil. Condor

102:585–594.

Maldonado-Coelho, M., and M. Â. Marini. 2003. Composição de bandos mistos de aves

em fragmentos de mata atlântica no Sudeste do Brasil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia

43:31–54.

Maldonado-Coelho, M., and M. Â. Marini. 2004. Mixed-species bird flocks from

Brazilian Atlantic forest: the effects of forest fragmentation and seasonality on their

size, richness and stability. Biological Conservation 116:19–26.

Mallet-Rodrigues, F. 2005. Molt-breeding cycle in passerines from a foothill forest in

southeastern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 13:155–160.

Marantz, C., A. Aleixo, L. R. Bevier, and M. A. Patten. 2003. Family Dendrocolaptidae

(Woodcreepers), p. 358–447. In J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott and D. Christie [eds.], Handbook

of the Birds of the World, Volume 8, Broadbills to Tapaculos. Lynx Edicions,

Barcelona, Spain.

McClure, H. E. 1967. The composition of mixed species flocks in lowland and sub-

montane forests of Malaya. Wilson Bulletin 79:130–154.

Moraes, V. S., and R. Krul. 1995. Composição e finalidades de agrupamentos

heteroespecíficos de aves em ambientes naturais do Paraná e Santa Catarina. Biotemas

8(2):63-73.

Morse, D. H. 1970. Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds.

Ecological Monographs 40:119–168.

Moynihan, M. 1962. The organization and probable evolution of some mixed-species

flocks of neotropical birds. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 143:1–140.

Moynihan, M. 1968. Social mimicry: character convergence versus character

displacement. Evolution 22:315–331.

Munn, C. A. 1985. Permanent canopy and understory flocks in Amazonia: species

composition and population density. Ornithological Monographs 36:683–712.

Munn, C. A., and J. W. Terborgh. 1979. Multi-species territoriality in Neotropical

foraging flocks. Condor 81:338–347.

Oniki, Y. 1971. Wandering interespecific flocks in relation to ant-following birds at

Belém, Brazil. Condor 73:372–374.

Opdam, P. 1991. Metapopulation theory and habitat fragmentation: a review of

holarctic breeding bird studies. Landscape Ecology 5:93–106.

Partridge, L., and R. Ashcroft. 1976. Mixed-species flocks of birds in hill forest in

Ceylon. Condor 78:449–453.

Passos, F. C. 1997. A foraging association between the olivaceus woodcreeper

Sittasomus griseicapillus and black lion tamarin Leontopithecus chrysopygus in

southeastern Brazil. Ciência e Cultura 49:144–145.

Pearson, D. L. 1971. Vertical stratification of birds in a tropical dry forest. Condor

73:46–55.

Peres, C. A. 1992. Prey-capture benefits in a mixed-species group of Amazonian

tamarins, Saguinus fuscicollis and S. mystax. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 31:

339–347.

Pielou, E. C. 1984. The interpretation of ecological data: a primer on classification and

ordination. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Pillar, V. D. 2004. MULTIV; Mutivariate exploratory analysis, randomization testing

and bootstrap resampling. User’s Guide v. 2.3. <http://ecoqua.ecologia.ufrgs.br> (24

May 2004).

Poletto, F., L. dos Anjos, E. V. Lopes, F. de L. Favaro, G. H. Volpato, and P. P.

Serafini. 2004. Caracterização do microhabitat e vulnerabilidade de cinco espécies de

arapaçus (Aves: Dendrocolaptidae) em um fragmento florestal do norte do estado do

Paraná, sul do Brasil. Ararajuba 12:89–96.

Powell, G. V. N. 1979. Structure and dynamics of interespecific flocks in a neotropical

mid-elevation forest. Auk 96:375–390.

Powell, G. V. N. 1985. Sociobiology and adaptive significance of interspecific foraging

flocks in the neotropics. Ornithological Monographs 36:713–732.

Ragusa-Netto, J. 2000. Raptors and “campo-cerrado” bird mixed flock led by

Cypsnagra hirundinacea (Emberizidae: Thraupinae). Revista Brasileira de Biologia

60:461–467.

Ralph, C. J. 1981. Terminology used in estimating numbers of birds. Studies in Avian

Biology 6:577–578.

Reinert, B. L., J. C. Pinto, M. R. Bornschein, M. Pichorim, and M. Â. Marini. 1996.

Body masses and measurements of birds from southern atlantic forest, Brazil. Revista

Brasileira de Zoologia 13:815–820.

Ribon, R., J. E. Simon, and G. T. de Mattos. 2003. Bird extinctions in Atlantic Forest

fragments of the Viçosa region, southeastern Brazil. Conservation Biology 17:1827–

1839.

Ridgely, R. S., and G. Tudor. 1989. The Birds of South America. Vol. 1, The Oscine

Passerines. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Robertson, D. R., H. P. A. Sweatman, E. A. Fletcher, and M. G. Cleland. 1976.

Schooling as a mechanism for circumventing the territoriality of competitors. Ecology

57:1208–1220.

Santos, A. M. R. dos. 2004. Comunidades de aves em remanescentes florestais

secundários de uma área rural no sudeste do Brasil. Ararajuba 12:43–51.

Seki, S. -I., and T. Sato. 2002. The effect of a typhoon on the flocking and foraging

behavior of tits. Ornithological Science 1:53–61.

Sick, H. 1983. Migrações de aves na América do Sul continental. Publicação técnica

no.2. CEMAVE, Brasília, DF, Brazil.

Sick, H. 1997. Ornitologia brasileira. Nova Fronteira, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Silveira, L. F., P. F. Develey, J. F. Pacheco, and B. M. Whitney. 2005. Avifauna of the

Serra das Lontras–Javi montane complex, Bahia, Brazil. Cotinga 24:45–54.

Stotz, D.F. 1993. Geographic variation in species composition of mixed species flocks

in lowland humid forest in Brazil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 38:61–75.

Styring, A. R., and K. Ickes. 2001. Woodpecker participation in mixed species flocks in

Peninsular Malaysia. Wilson Bulletin 113:342–345.

Suhonen, J. 1993. Predation risk influences the use of foraging sites by tits. Ecology

74:1197–1203.

Tellería, J. L., E. Virgós, R. Carbonell, J. Pérez-Tris, and T. Santos. 2001. Behavioural

responses to changing landscapes: flock structure and anti-predator strategies of tits

wintering in fragmented forests. Oikos 95:253–264.

Terborgh, J., S. K. Robinson, T. A. Parker III, C. A. Munn, and N. Pierpont. 1990.

Structure and organization of an Amazonian forest bird community. Ecological

Monographs 60:213–238.

Thiollay, J. -M. 1988. Comparative foraging success of insectivorous birds in tropical

and temperate forests: ecological implications. Oikos 53:17–30.

Tubelis, D. P. 2004. Species composition and seasonal ocurrence of mixed-species

flocks of forest birds in savannas in central cerrado, Brazil. Ararajuba 12:105–111.

Valentin, J. L. 2000. Ecologia numérica. Interciência, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Vielliard, J. M. E. 2000. Bird community as an indicator of biodiversity: results from

quantitative surveys in Brazil. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 72:323–330.

Vuilleumier, F. 1967. Mixed species flocks in Patagonian forests, with remarks on

interespecies flock formation. Condor 69:400–404.

Waechter, J. L. 1986. Epífitos vasculares da mata paludosa do Faxinal, Torres, Rio

Grande do Sul, Brasil. Iheringia, Série Botânica 34:39–49.

Walther, B. A. 2002. Vertical stratification and use of vegetation and light habitats by

Neotropical forest birds. Journal of Ornithology 143:64–81.

Willis, E. O. 1960. A study of the foraging behaviour of two species of Ant-Tanagers.

Auk 77:150–170.

Willis, E. O. 1979. The composition of avian communities in remanescent woodlots in

southern Brazil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 33:1–25.

Willis, E. O. 1989. Mimicry in bird flocks of cloud forests in southeastern Brazil.

Revista Brasileira de Biologia 49:615–619.

Willis, E. O., and Y. Oniki. 2002. Birds of a central São Paulo woodlot: 1. Censuses

1982-2000. Brazilian Journal of Biology 62:197–210.

Winterbotton, J. M. 1949. Mixed bird parties in the tropics, with special reference to

Northern Rhodesia. Auk 66:258–263.

Wright, S. J. 1980. Density compensation in island avifaunas. Oecologia 45:385–389.

Yaukey, P. H. 1995. Effects of food supplementation and predator simulation on

nuthatches and parids within mixed-species flocks. Wilson Bulletin 107:542–547.

Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatiscal analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

TABLE 1. Attributes of 47 landbirds species found in mixed-species flocks at Faxinal, southern Brazil. Weights in g.

English name Species FR

IPA

Ensemble

Weight

NON-PASSERINES

Squirrel Cuckoo Piaya cayana 4.35 4 0.069 1.5 6 U MI 134

Ochre-collared Piculet Picumnus temminckii 16.30 15 0.388 1.2 18 C TI 11

White-spotted Woodpecker Veniliornis spilogaster 1.09 1 0.131 1 1 R TI 40

Blond-crested Woodpecker Celeus flavescens 1.09 1 0.556 3 3 R TI 154.5

SUBOSCINE PASSERINES

Variable Antshrike Thamnophilus caerulescens 31.52 29 0.706 1.28 37 Re UF 21.2

Rufous-capped Antshrike Thamnophilus ruficapillus 1.09 1 0.150 1 1 R EI 23

Unicolored Antwren Myrmotherula unicolor 48.91 45 0.350 2.02 91 Re MI 6.8

Rufous Gnateater Conopophaga lineata 2.17 2 0.400 1.5 3 R US 23

Planalto Woodcreeper Dendrocolaptes platyrostris 1.09 1 0.163 1 1 R UL 65

Chicli Spinetail Synallaxis spixi 2.17 2 0.100 1.5 3 R EI 12.5

Buff-browed Foliage-gleaner Syndactyla rufosuperciliata 1.09 1 0.050 1 1 R TI 25

English name Species FR

IPA

Ensemble

Weight

Black-capped Foliage-gleaner Philydor atricapillus 7.61 7 0.038 1.14 8 U UF 21.5

Streaked Xenops Xenops rutilans 7.61 7 0.006 1 7 U TI 12.5

Sepia-capped Flycatcher Leptopogon amaurocephalus 1.09 1 0.094 1 1 R UF 13.7

Southern Beardless-Tyrannulet Camptostoma obsoletum 3.26 3 0.619 1 3 U CO 8.8

Mottle-cheeked Tyrannulet Phylloscartes ventralis 9.78 9 0.125 1.67 15 U MI 9

Restinga Tyrannulet Phylloscartes kronei 27.17 25 0.331 1.56 39 Re CI 9

Phylloscartes Tyrannulet Phylloscartes sp. 1.09 1 0.000 1 1 R – –

Yellow-olive Flycatcher Tolmomyias sulphurescens 2.17 2 0.031 1 2 R MI 17

Fuscous Flycatcher Cnemotriccus fuscatus* 1.85 1 0.030 1 1 R EO 14

White-throated Spadebill Platyrinchus mystaceus 6.52 6 0.250 1.33 8 U UF 9

Variegated Flycatcher Empidonomus varius* 3.13 1 0.100 1 1 U EO 26.8

Unidentified Flycatcher – 1.09 1 0.006 1 1 R – –

Swallow-tailed Manakin Chiroxiphia caudata 7.61 7 1.175 1 7 U UO 24.9

White-bearded Manakin Schiffornis virescens 1.09 1 0.331 1 1 R UO 25.4

English name Species FR

IPA

Ensemble

Weight

White-winged Becard Pachyramphus polychopterus* 3.13 1 0.091 1 1 U CI 24.5

OSCINE PASSERINES

Rufous-browed Peppershrike Cyclarhis gujanensis 3.26 3 0.756 1 3 U CI 31

Red-eyed (Chivi) Vireo Vireo olivaceus* 3.13 1 0.700 1 1 U CO 16

Southern House-Wren Troglodytes musculus 2.17 2 0.569 1.5 3 R EI 12

Rufous-bellied Trush Turdus rufiventris 3.26 3 0.613 1 3 U EO 73.4

Creamy-bellied Trush Turdus amaurochalinus 2.17 2 0.575 1 2 R EO 65

White-necked Trush Turdus albicollis 2.17 2 0.263 1 2 R UO 64.7

Bananaquit Coereba flaveola 22.83 21 0.881 1.14 24 C NI 10.2

Red-crowned Ant-Tanager Habia rubica 30.43 28 0.275 3.61 101 Re UO 40

Ruby-crowned Tanager Tachyphonus coronatus 13.04 12 0.506 1.92 23 C EO 26.5

Sayaca Tanager Thraupis sayaca 6.52 6 0.338 1.67 10 U EO 32.1

Azure-shouldered Tanager Thraupis cyanoptera 2.17 2 0.063 1.5 3 R EO 44

Fawn-breasted Tanager Pipraeidea melanonota 2.17 2 0.088 2 4 R CO 21

English name Species FR

IPA

Ensemble

Weight

Tangara Tanager Tangara spp. 4.35 4 0.069 1 4 U EO 23

Blue Dacnis Dacnis cayana 5.43 5 0.038 1 5 U CO 15

Rufous-headed Tanager Hemithraupis ruficapilla 3.26 3 0.013 1 3 U CO 13

Unidentified Finch – 1.09 1 0.000 1 1 R – –

Green-winged Saltator Saltator similis 6.52 6 0.438 1.33 8 U EO 43.5

Tropical Parula Parula pitiayumi 38.04 35 1.425 1.5 51 Re CI 9.1

Masked Yellowthroat Geothlypis aequinoctialis 4.35 4 1.106 1.25 5 U UF 13

Golden-crowned Warbler Basileuterus culicivorus 54.35 50 1.113 1.72 86 Re UF 10.1

Epaulet Oriole Icterus cayanensis 1.09 1 0.000 3 3 R EO 32.3

Purple-throated Euphonia Euphonia chlorotica 1.09 1 0.088 1 1 R CO 10.7

Golden-rumped Euphonia Euphonia cyanocephala 1.09 1 0.000 2 2 R CO 12.5

Chestnut-bellied Euphonia Euphonia pectoralis 10.87 10 0.531 1.2 12 C CO 15.5

Unidentified Euphonia Euphonia sp. 2.17 2 0.006 1 2 R – –

Proportion of flocks occupied by the species (flocking regularity).

Number of flocks in wich the species was recorded.

Index of punctual abundance.

Mean number of individuals per flock.

Total number of individual detections in flocks.

Status as participant in flocks: regular (Re), common (C), uncommon (U), rare (R).

Ensemble: (CI) canopy insectivores, (CO) small canopy omnivores, (EI) edge insectivores, (EO) edge omnivores, (MI) midlevel insectivores,

(NI) nectarivores-insectivores, (TI) trunk and twig insectivores, (UF) understory birds eating small foliage arthropods, (UL) understory birds

eating large ground arthropods, (UO) understory omnivores, and (US) understory birds eating small ground arthropods.

* Migratory species (summer resident, Belton 1994). Flocking regularity for these species was computed using only the number of flocks

recorded during the months of the species permanence in study area.

TABLE 2. Richness and relative abundance by diet type or residence statuses of birds

recorded in flocks and/or point counts in Faxinal, southern Brazil.

Flocks Point counts

Categories

Richness Abundance Richness Abundance

Total

richness

All species 47 618 88 3688 90

Insectivores 24 394 40 1737 40

Omnivores 22 200 32 1306 34

Nectarivores 1 24 8 278 8

Frugivores 0 0 5 348 5

Granivores 0 0 3 19 3

Migrants 4 4 12 193 12

Residents 43 614 77 3495 79

TABLE 3. Number of co-occurrences in mixed-species flocks of the eighteen most regular flocking species (those recorded in more than four

flocks) in Faxinal, southern Brazil. Significant positive co-occurrences, according Chi-square and G-test (P < 0.05) are underlined. Significant

negative co-occurrences are in bold and underlined.

Species

Species n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CO

1 Golden-crowned Warbler 50 27 16 21 20 12 10 10 6 8 4 6 1 6 4 4 2 1 1/0

2 Unicolored Antwren 45 – 14 20 14 11

12 6 4 3 1 3 4 5 1 2 1 2/1

3 Tropical Parula 35 – 12 6 17 14

4 7 5 3 0 3 0 1 3 2 2/1

4 Variable Antshrike 29 – 9 8 5 4 5 6 2 4 1 3 2 3 3 1 2/0

5 Red-crowned Ant-Tanager 28 – 5

2 2 4 1 4 7 2 3 3 2 0 1/1

6 Restinga Tyrannulet 25 – 5 3 2 6 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 2/0

7 Bananaquit 21 – 1 6 2 3 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 1/2

8 Ochre-collared Piculet 15 – 2 3 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 1/1

9 Ruby-crowned Tanager 12 – 1 0 2 0 1 2 3 4 3 2/0

10 Chestnut-bellied Euphonia 10 – 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1/0

Species

Species n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CO

11 Mottle-cheeked Tyrannulet 9 – 2 0 3 0 0 1 1 1/0

12 Swallow-tailed Manakin 7 – 0 2 0 3 2 0 1/0

13 Black-capped Foliage-gleaner 7 – 0 0 0 0 0 1/0

14 Streaked Xenops 7 – 1 0 1 1 1/0

15 White-throated Spadebill 6 – 0 0 0 0/0

16 Green-winged Saltator 6 – 2 1 1/0

17 Sayaca Tanager 6 – 3 2/0

18 Blue Dacnis 5 – 2/0

Total 92 12/3

Total number of significant positive/negative co-occurrences of each species.

TABLE 4. Coefficient of interspecific association of significant positive and negative co-occurrences of flocking bird species according to

vertical distribution and diet type of species paired in flocks at the swamp forest of Faxinal, southern Brazil. Understory and midlevel ensembles

categories pulled as understory. Significant negative co-occurrences are in bold. Both chi-square and G-test with df = 1 and P < 0.05.

Significant

association

Test value C

/CI CI/CO CI/CN CI/UI CO/CO CN/UO CN/UI UO/UO UO/UI UI/UI

1-4 

= 4.558; P = 0.0328 0.23

2-4 

= 5.693; P = 0.0170 0.25

2-7 G = 8.6595; P = 0.0033

-0.27

2-8 G = 5.7551; P = 0.0164 0.21

3-6 

= 8.332; P = 0.0039 0.30

3-7 

= 7.950; P = 0.0048 0.26

3-8 G = 3.8432; P = 0.049

-0.11

5-7 G = 5.0215; P = 0.0250

-0.23

5-13 G = 13.3238; P = 0.0003 0.24

6-10 G = 3.9137; P = 0.0479 0.18

Significant

association

Test value C

/CI CI/CO CI/CN CI/UI CO/CO CN/UO CN/UI UO/UO UO/UI UI/UI

9-16 G = 7.6232; P = 0.0058 0.21

9-17 G = 4.6935; P = 0.0303 0.23

11-14 G = 3.8961; P = 0.0484 0.29

12-15 G = 6.0526; P = 0.0139 0.39

16-17 G = 8.0795; P = 0.0045 0.48

Total 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3

Number codes of significant associations: 1 - Golden-crowned Warbler, 2 – Unicolored Antwren, 3 – Tropical Parula, 4 - Variable Antshrike, 5

- Red-crowned Ant-Tanager, 6 - Restinga Tyrannulet, 7 – Bananaquit, 8 - Ochre-collared Piculet, 9 - Ruby-crowned Tanager, 10 - Chestnut-

bellied Euphonia, 11 - Mottle-cheeked Tyrannulet, 12 - Swallow-tailed Manakin, 13 - Black-capped Foliage-gleaner, 14 - Streaked Xenops, 15 -

Green-winged Saltator, 16 - Sayaca Tanager, 17 - Blue Dacnis.

Codes for vertical distribution: (C) canopy, (U) understory.

Codes for diet type: (I) insectivores, (O) omnivores, (N) nectarivores.

TABLE 5. The mean flock size and mean species richness of flocks where each of the

ten most regular flocking species were recorded in Faxinal, southern Brazil. An asterisk

indicates species means (or median) that significantly differs from the total mean

(medians) of 92 mixed-species flocks sampled, at P < 0.05.

Species

Mean size

(± SE)

Test

Mean species

richness

(± SE)

Test

Golden-crowned Warbler 8.1 (1.4)*

140

= 2.2,

P = 0.03

4.9 (1.3)*

140

= 2.1,

P = 0.04

Unicolored Antwren 7.0 (0.5)

U = 1921.5,

P = 0.5

4.2 (0.3)

135

= 0.6,

P = 0.5

Tropical Parula 7.6 (0.7)

124

= 1.0,

P = 0.3

4.9 (0.4)*

124

= 7.4,

P < 0.001

Variable Antshrike 8.9 (0.6)*

U = 833.0,

P = 0.002

5.7 (0.4)*

119

= 3.5,

P < 0.001

Red-crowned Ant-Tanager 8.7 (0.8)*

118

= 2.3,

P = 0.02

4.6 (0.5)

118

= 0.7,

P = 0.5

Restinga Tyrannulet 7.3 (0.7)

115

= 0.8,

P = 0.4

4.6 (0.4)

115

= 1.1,

P = 0.3

Bananaquit 7.6 (0.9)

111

= 0.7,

P = 0.4

5.1 (0.5)

111

= 1.7,

P = 0.09

Ochre-collared Piculet 7.1 (1.0)

105

= 0.4,

P = 0.7

4.4 (0.5)

105

= 0.7,

P = 0.5

Ruby-crowned Tanager 10.3 (1.1)* U = 252.0, 6.5 (0.5)* U = 221.0,

Species

Mean size

(± SE)

Test

Mean species

richness

(± SE)

Test

P = 0.002 P < 0.001

Chestnut-bellied Euphonia 10.0 (1.1)*

100

= 2.5,

P = 0.01

6.6 (0.5)

U = 163.5,

P = 3.3

Flocks with one core species 4.1 (0.4)*

112

= -3.5,

P < 0.001

2.6 (0.2)*

U = 566.0,

P < 0.001

Flocks with more than one

core species

7.6 (0.4)

U = 1.7,

P = 0.1

4.6 (0.3)

156

= 1.5,

P = 0.1

Flocks without core species 7.6 (2.6)

= 0.0,

P = 0.9

4.6 (1.3)

= 0.3,

P = 0.7

All flocks 6.8 (0.4) – 4.2 (0.2) –

TABLE 6. Composition and structure attributes of mixed-species flocks in different areas of Atlantic Forest in Brazil.

Reference Study area Forest type

Altitude

(m)

Richness (%

of local pool)

Mean

number of

species

Mean

number of

individuals

Fazenda Boa Fé, Rio de Janeiro Montane 800 55 6.77 10

Davis (1946)

Fazenda Comari, Rio de Janeiro Montane 800 50 – –

Stotz (1993)

Reserva Florestal Rio Doce,

Espírito Santo

Lowland

Semideciduous

50 82 (23.4) 9.77

16.02

Aleixo (1997) Barreiro Rico, São Paulo

Montane

Semideciduous

550 51 (54.2) 10.2 –

Machado (1999) Serra de Paranapiacaba, São Paulo Montane 950 120 (37.5) 6.71 17.26

Develey and Peres (2000) Juréia-Itatins, São Paulo Coastal lowland 20-250 72 6.6 –

Maldonado-Coelho and

Marini (2000)

Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais

Dry 900 41 7.6 14.6

Maldonado-Coelho and Zona da Mata, Minas Gerais Montane 650? 78 – –

Reference Study area Forest type

Altitude

(m)

Richness (%

of local pool)

Mean

number of

species

Mean

number of

individuals

Marini (2003) Semideciduous

Maldonado-Coelho and

Marini (2004)

Zona da Mata, Minas Gerais

Montane

Semideciduous

650 68 (59.1) 12.4 20.3

Santa Catarina Island, Santa

Catarina

Hillside Sea level? 34 6.49 –

Ghizoni-Jr. and Azevedo

(2006) Volta Velha Reserve, Santa

Catarina

Coastal lowland Sea level? 51 6.23 –

Faxinal (this study) Torres, Rio Grande do Sul

Lowland

Swampy

5-20 47 (43.1) 4.2 6.8

Without Thamnomanes caesius.

This study was made in forest fragments with different sizes. For comparison purposes, we selected the richness and size values of the 200 ha-

fragment, wich was the more similar in size with our study area.

120 ha-fragment, dry season.

FIGURE 1. Percentual distribution of ensembles along the flocking species and the total pool the of three clades of birds in Faxinal, southern

Brazil: (AO) aquatic omnivores, (CF) large canopy frugivores, (CI) canopy insectivores, (CO) small canopy omnivores, (EI) edge insectivores,

(EO) edge omnivores, (ES) edge seedeaters, (GF) ground frugivores, (GO) grassland omnivores, (MI) midlevel insectivores, (NI) nectarivores-

insectivores, (TI) trunk and twig insectivores, (UF) understory birds eating small foliage arthropods, (UL) understory birds eating large ground

arthropods, (UO) understory omnivores, and (US) understory birds eating small ground arthropods.

Distance

FIGURE 2. Cluster dendrogram of similarity between all mixed-species flocks sampled in Faxinal, southern Brazil (N = 92). Horizontal line

indicates significance partition at three groups (distance 4 in the distance axis).

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

F M A M J J A S O N J

Month

Number of flocks per hour

FIGURE 3. Monthly number of mixed-species flocks per hour of field work in Faxinal,

southern Brazil, from February 2005 to January 2006, except December 2005.

F M A M J J A S O N J

Month

Mean

species

individuals

FIGURE 4. Monthly variation in mean numbers of species (richness) and individuals (flock

size) of mixed-species flocks at Faxinal, southern Brazil, between February 2005-January

2006, except December 2005.

(a)

100

110

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Accumulated richness

(b)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

FIGURE 5. Curves of sample sufficiency (accumulated richness) for Faxinal bird

assemblage (a) and for Faxinal mixed flocks participants (b). Monthly samples from

September 2004 until January 2006. Not all the months in this interval were sampled.

Month sample

CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS

Powell (1979) diferenciou entre causas próximas e causas remotas agindo no

comportamento de integrar ou não bandos mistos. Entre as causas remotas estariam as

pressões seletivas que moldaram este tipo de comportamento: distinguindo-se duas

hipóteses principais: a de maximização do sucesso de forrageio e o incremento na evitação

da predação. Se por um lado é difícil mensurar os determinantes remotos dos bandos mistos

(necessariamente implicando em manipulação e experimentação), a mensuração das causas

últimas é mais factível, e necessária para uma abordagem inicial e descritiva. A presente

dissertação discorre essencialmente sobre as causas próximas, cuja identificação pode em

última análise auxiliar na compreensão do significado adaptativo dos bandos mistos de

aves.

Estudos apontam para os bandos mistos como um fenômeno ocorrente ao longo do

ano todo nas regiões quentes do neotrópico (MUNN e TERBORGH 1979). Entretanto,

variações sazonais foram detectadas em todos os sítios de Mata Atlântica onde este

fenômeno foi estudado (DEVELEY 2001). Os resultados destes estudos sugerem

fortemente que há uma influência das atividades reprodutivas na flutuação sazonal no

tamanho dos bandos mistos, pelo menos em hábitats abertos e em florestas de altitudes e

latitudes elevadas (DEVELEY e PERES 2000). Aparentemente, os bandos do Faxinal

recordam o padrão até agora encontrado na Mata Atlântica, onde os bandos são maiores e

mais ricos em espécies durante a estação não-reprodutiva. Investigações futuras

relacionando estas alterações sazonais com possíveis modificações na disponibilidade de

recursos alimentares, a exemplo do que foi efetuado por Develey e Peres (2000) em São

Paulo, contribuiriam para a compreensão destes padrões no sul do Brasil.

100

Porém, para serem melhor compreendidos, estes padrões sazonais precisam ser

averiguados em uma escala regional, sendo fundamental um estudo dos padrões de

formação dos bandos mistos em outros hábitats florestais, representativos da região de

planície costeira do sul do Brasil. Em um segundo momento, portanto, é fundamental a

realização de estudos que busquem descrever os caracteres básicos dos bandos mistos

florestais no Brasil meridional. Desta forma, projetos futuros visariam replicar o estudo

realizado no Faxinal, e uma área de interesse para o campo seria a planície costeira do

nordeste do Rio Grande do Sul e do sul de Santa Catarina, verificando a relação dos

atributos dos bandos mistos com a latitude e a sazonalidade. Trabalhos adicionais em

fragmentos de floresta paludosa no sul do País também podem auxiliar na compreensão da

evolução e do impacto da fragmentação nos bandos mistos.

Os resultados aqui apresentados podem representar uma homogeneização da

composição dos bandos mistos nos fragmentos de pequeno tamanho, tornando-os

previsíveis em termos de espécies constituintes, em vista do “pool” reduzido. Se verdadeira

e recorrente, tal constatação pode lançar luz sobre o controverso tema da evolução dos

bandos mistos, unindo conceitos da biogeografia de ilhas, ecologia da paisagem e teoria dos

refúgios.

Nestas considerações finais, também se pretende frisar a importância da integração

entre a Etologia e a Biologia da Conservação (ANTHONY e BLUMSTEIN, 2000), em um

claro exemplo de aliança entre Ciência básica e Ciência aplicada. Ao que tudo indica, os

bandos mistos são um componente importante da história de vida de uma boa parcela da

avifauna florestal neotropical, incluindo espécies ameaçadas de extinção e outras

relacionadas com importantes processos ecológicos como a dispersão e a polinização. A

101

interação acima citada entre as duas formas de fazer Ciência deve ser fomentada por todos

os setores responsáveis, incluindo órgãos financiadores, educacionais e administradores do

patrimônio natural. Nota-se também a importância de disponibilizar os resultados das

pesquisas futuras a serem realizadas com as aves do Parque Estadual de Itapeva. Esta

informação poderá gerar subsídios para o incremento do plano de manejo de Parque e a

elaboração de atividades de sensibilização ambiental. Tal veiculação de resultados pode

ocorrer tanto na forma de artigos publicados em periódicos científicos quanto na forma de

textos direcionados ao público leigo, ficando a equipe do presente projeto comprometida

com a pronta divulgação das análises e interpretações geradas a partir dos dados de campo.

REFERÊNCIAS BIBILIOGRÁFICAS

ANTHONY, L.L.; BLUMSTEIN, D.T. Integrating behaviour into wildlife conservation:

the multiple ways that behaviour can reduce N

Biological Conservation

v. 95, p. 303-

315, 2000.

DEVELEY, P. F. Os bandos mistos de aves nas florestas neotropicais. In:

ALBUQUERQUE, J. L. B.; CÂNDIDO Jr., J. F.; STRAUBE, F. C.; ROOS, A. L. (org.)

Ornitologia e conservação: da ciência as estratégias

. Tubarão: Editora da Universidade

do Sul de Santa Catarina, 2001. p 39-47.

DEVELEY, P. F.; PERES, C. A. Resource seasonality and the structure of mixed species

bird flocks in a coastal Atlantic forest of southeastern Brazil.

Journal of Tropical Ecology,

v. 16, p. 33-53, 2000.

MUNN, C. A.; TERBORGH, J. W. Multi-species territoriality in neotropical foraging

flocks.

Condor

, v. 81, p. 338-347, 1979.

102

POWELL, G. V. N. Structure and dynamics of interespecific flocks in a neotropical mid-

elevation forest.

Auk

, v. 96, p. 375-390, 1979.

103

ANEXO 1. Imagem de satélite do Parque Estadual de Itapeva (PEVA, limites em

vermelho), mostrando a transecção utilizada para acompanhamento dos bandos mistos e

onde foram estabelecidos 15 pontos de contagem na mancha de floresta paludosa do

Faxinal.

104

ANEXO 2. Instruções aos autores do periódico “The Condor” (extraído de

http://www.cooper.org/pdf/instrucauth.pdf).

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

The Condor publishes original research reports and review articles pertaining to the biology

of wild species of birds. Submit two paper copies of all materials, including text, tables,

figures, and illustrations, to Dr. David S. Dobkin, Editor, The Condor, High Desert

Ecological Research Institute, 15 S.W. Colorado Avenue, Suite 300, Bend, OR 97702,

USA (telephone: 541-382-1117, e-mail: [email protected]). Please DO NOT staple

hardcopies. We encourage authors to submit a PDF version of their manuscript in addition

to paper copies. Send PDF files on a CD, 3.5” floppy disk, (both MacIntosh and PC are

acceptable), or zip disk. Be aware that in some software applications, some symbols do not

convert to PDF, so proofread PDF files carefully before submitting.

A cover letter should accompany the manuscript. Authors should suggest names of

three or four potential reviewers (including their postal and electronic addresses) for their

manuscript, but the use of such reviewers is at the discretion of the Editor. In the cover

letter, the author must indicate the extent to which the data have been used in other papers

and reports that are published, in press, submitted elsewhere, or soon to be submitted.

Please also provide an e-mail address for the corresponding author.

TYPES OF PAPERS

Manuscripts are published as Feature Articles, Short Communications, Commentaries,

Book Reviews, or items for News and Notes.

Feature Articles

are longer manuscripts,

whereas

Short Communications

are generally fewer than 10 typed pages (excluding

Literature Cited) or deal with one primary finding.

Commentaries

are brief papers that

105

comment on articles published previously in The Condor. Ornithological books are

reviewed in the

Book Reviews

section. Interested book reviewers should contact Dr. David

L. Swanson, Biology Department, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 57069 (e-

mail: [email protected]).

News and Notes

is devoted to noncommercial ornithological

news. Contributors of announcements and requests for assistance should note that the

Ornithological Newsletter, edited by Dr. Cheryl L. Trine, 3889 Valley View, Berrien

Springs, MI 49103 (e-mail: [email protected]), is published more frequently and more

quickly than The Condor.

FORMAT FOR SUBMITTED MATERIAL

GENERAL GUIDELINES

Authors should read these instructions carefully before preparing a manuscript for

submission. Papers that are not in Condor format will be returned.

1. Double-space and left-justify the entire manuscript, including the title page, text,

literature cited, figure legends, and tables. Use the same size font (at least 12 point)

throughout the manuscript. Provide at least 3-cm margins and use only one side of standard

(8.5 × 11 inch) or A4 (21 × 30 cm) paper. If your word processing program permits, please

number every other line of text.

2. Make sure that all figures meet the specifications given under “

FIGURES

.”

3. Put the first author’s name in the upper right-hand corner of every page. Number

text pages beginning with the Abstract through the list of references. Avoid footnotes in the

text.

4. Write in the active voice and use U.S. English and spelling throughout the

manuscript, except for foreign literature citations.

106

5. Use real italics not underlines, and real superscripts and subscripts, not raised or

lowered characters. Use normal font, not bold.

6. Give the scientific name in parentheses at the first mention of a species, both in

the abstract and in the article. Scientific and English names of birds should follow the AOU

Checklist of North American Birds (7th ed., 1998; and supplements published in Auk) or an

authoritative source for other regions. Do not give subspecific identification unless it is

pertinent and has been critically determined. Capitalize common names of bird species

(e.g., Red-winged Blackbird), but not bird groups (e.g., blackbirds), throughout the

manuscript. This rule includes all references, figures, and tables.

7. Minimize use of nonstandard abbreviations or acronyms that readers must

memorize in order to follow your paper.

MANUSCRIPT

Correct sequence for sections of a submitted manuscript is Title page, Abstract, Key words,

Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Acknowledgments, Literature Cited, Figure

legends, Figures, and Tables. Indent each new paragraph (use 0.5-inch tabs), except the first

paragraph that follows a heading. Each main heading is capitalized (INTRODUCTION,

METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, LITERATURE

CITED). Second-order headings are also capitalized and appear on their own line. Third-

order headings are italicized, followed by a period, and set in to the first line of the

paragraph. Like other paragraphs, third-order headings are indented unless they follow a

main or second-order heading (see examples in recent issues and these instructions).

Title page. Place the title, all authors’ names, affiliations and addresses, and the e-

mail address of the corresponding author on the title page. Provide an abridged title shorter

107

than 60 characters in the upper portion of the same sheet. Current addresses not given

above should be given as footnotes in the lower portion of the title page. Titles usually do

NOT include scientific names of species. Start the Abstract on the next page.

Abstract. Feature Articles, Short Communications, and Commentaries should have

an abstract that informs readers of essential points in the text. The abstract should be

concise, informative, and intelligible without reference to the article itself. Avoid statistical

information in the abstract. Abstracts are to be shorter than 250 words for Feature Articles

and shorter than 150 words for Short Communications and Commentaries. Indent and

italicize the word Abstract; the first sentence of the Abstract follows immediately. Authors

are encouraged to provide a technically competent Spanish translation of the title and

abstract if possible. This abstract is in addition to the English version and does not

substitute for it.

Key words: The term Key words: is indented and in italics, followed by up to seven

key words in alphabetical order. The key words are also in italics, except for genus and

species, which are in roman (normal) type.

Introduction. The Introduction begins on a new page; it should provide the aims and

significance of the research and place it within the framework of existing work. Limit the

use of citations; in general there are few points that cannot be supported by three or fewer

references. Long lists of citations are seldom required and detract from the readability of

the manuscript. Avoid parenthetical phrases and “i.e.,” “e.g.,” “cf.,” and “see.…”

Methods. This section should provide enough information for the reader to be able

to replicate and critically evaluate the research. The Methods should contain a subsection

(STATISTICAL ANALYSES) describing the statistical tests and procedures used. Cite

108

statistical software and any other analysis programs (e.g., Avisoft, DISTANCE, Paup*)

here and in the Literature Cited. End this subsection with a statement to the effect that the

values reported in the Results section are means ± SE (or SD). Then in the Results section,

simply present the values. Indicate the significance level of statistical tests. If reporting the

results of analyses using the information-theoretic method, describe and justify the a priori

hypotheses and models in the candidate set, identify exploratory analyses, and state here the

criterion used to evaluate models, e.g., 2nd order AIC corrected for small sample sizes

(AIC

), AIC differences (

), and Akaike weights (w

). In general, follow the suggestions of

Anderson et al. (2001), Suggestions for presenting the results of data analyses, Journal of

Wildlife Management 65:373–378.

Results. The Results section should include only results pertinent to the hypotheses

or questions raised in the Introduction and treated in the Discussion. Use the same number

of decimal places for means and SE or SD (e.g., 38.9 ± 1.2, not 38.9 ± 1.23); usually only

one or two decimal places are necessary. Round off percentages to whole numbers. The text

should not duplicate material presented in tables or figures. The text should make clear the

relevant sample sizes, degrees of freedom, values of statistical tests, and P-values. Test

statistics should be rounded to one (t-test, 

, F, etc.) or two (r, r

, etc.) decimal places.

When reporting the results of AIC analyses, please follow the advice of Anderson et al.

(2001; as above), except only report the lowest AIC (or AIC

, QAIC

) value—see recent

issues for examples.

Discussion. It is useful to start the Discussion with a statement that summarizes the

main results. The Discussion should develop the significance and importance of the results

and set them into a framework of previous research. The discussion should follow logically

109

from the results. Additional statistical tests and results are usually inappropriate here and

should be treated in the Results section, except in unusual cases. In general, do not

parenthetically cite Figures or Tables in the Discussion that have already been cited

elsewhere in the paper.

Literature Cited. Cite references in the text as, for example, Darwin and Huxley

(1993), or in parentheses as (Darwin and Huxley 1993). Do not use commas between

author and year; do use a comma, and never a semicolon, between different citations by the

same or different authors. List multiple citations in chronological order and use lowercase

letters to indicate separate papers by the same author in the same year, e.g., (Zar 1973,

Giles 1994a, 1994b). For citations with three or more authors, give the first author’s

surname followed by “et al.” and then the date, e.g., (Schmuckvogel et al. 1999).

Cite references in the Literature Cited section in alphabetical order according to the

authors’ surnames. Do not abbreviate names of publications. Type references in upper and

lower case (including all authors’ names) in the following form:

Ankney, C. D., and R. T. Alisauskas. 1991. The use of nutrients by breeding waterfowl.

Proceedings of the International Ornithological Congress 20:2170–2176.

Fraga, R. M. 1986. The Bay-winged Cowbird (Molothrus badius) and its brood parasites:

interactions, coevolution, and comparative efficiency. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

California, Santa Barbara, CA.

Nolan, V., Jr. 1978. The ecology and behavior of the Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor.

Ornithological Monographs 26.

110

Ralph, C. J., G. L. Hunt Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt [eds.]. 1995. Ecology and

conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report

PSW-GTR-152.

Rappole, J., and D. Warner. 1980. Ecological aspects of migrant bird behavior in Veracruz,

Mexico, p. 353–393. In A. Keast and E. S. Morton [eds.], Migrant birds in the Neotropics:

ecology, behavior, distribution, and conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, DC.

SAS Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT user’s guide. Version 6, 4th ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary,

NC.

Cite papers in proceedings from international ornithological congresses, Current

Ornithology, and Studies in Avian Biology as journal articles rather than edited volumes.

Spell out journal names and institutions completely. Cite Internet resources only if they are

important, reasonably permanent, and not readily available in print. Include the date you

last accessed the website and use the following format:

Shipman, J. W. [online]. 2000. The Christmas Bird Count database project.

<http://www.nmt.edu/~shipman/z/cbc/homepage.html> (15 March 2004).

FIGURES

Figures should be simple and easily comprehended without reference to the manuscript. All

figures should use the same style of lettering (in a sans serif font such as Arial or Tahoma)

and presentation, with details and text made large enough to allow for reduction; figures are

generally reduced to fit one column (7 cm wide) of the journal. Figures will be published

directly from the submitted material and MUST meet the following specifications:

111

1. Halftone and color images should be scanned at a MINIMUM of 300 pixels per inch

(dpi). Line art should be scanned at 1200 dpi. Note that nearly all images that are in JPEG

or GIF format will be 72 dpi and not acceptable for the printing process.

2. Figures should be submitted in TIFF, Adobe Photoshop (.psd), Adobe Acrobat (.pdf—

use the Press setting under Job Option), PowerPoint (.ppt), or Word (.doc) format.

Figures must be monochrome unless the author has funds to support color printing.

Do not use three-dimensional graphs or odd fills. Preferred shadings are black, white, and

crosshatching. Preferred point symbols are circles, squares, and triangles. Give keys and

other explanations either in the figure legend or on the figure itself; however, symbols

themselves should not appear in the legend. Do not describe unfilled symbols as “open.”

Legends for all figures should be typed on a separate sheet labeled “Figure

Legends.” Number the figures in the order they appear in the text (e.g., FIGURE 1,

FIGURE 2, etc.). Figure legends should not repeat information already mentioned in the

text or in tables.

Illustrations should be submitted either as original artwork/photographs or digital

images. Hardcopies must be no larger than 21 × 28 cm (8.5 × 11 inches). Digital images

must meet the specifications outlined above. Each figure or illustration should have the

authors’ names and figure number (e.g., Fig. 1) written lightly in pencil (not pen) either in a

corner or on the back.

For sound spectrograms (sonograms), use the actual tracing if it is sharp, clear and

relatively short. If intensity differences are not important, then submit a high-contrast

photograph or scan that meets the above specifications. Make sure all axes are labeled. All

figures will be destroyed after publication unless we are otherwise notified by the author.

112

TABLES

Keep tables as simple as possible. They should be intelligible without reference to the

manuscript and should not restate results given in the text. Each table should begin on a

separate, unnumbered page, and should be numbered with an Arabic numeral in the same

order as it appears in the text (i.e., TABLE 1, TABLE 2, etc.). Do not use vertical lines in

the table; use horizontal lines for the main heading and the end of the table, but not in the

body of the table. The table must be typed in 12-point font and double-spaced throughout,

including caption and footnotes (if necessary, use more than one sheet of paper for a table).

Do not include extensive raw tabular material either as tables or appendices. Such data can

be made available to interested readers by request from the author or posted on the author’s

web site. If birds are listed in several tables included with the manuscript, Latin names

should be given only in the table with the comprehensive species list.

TIME AND DATE

Use the 24-hour clock and retain the colon (18:30, 07:00). Times should be reported as

local time together with appropriate time zone. Give dates as day month year (20

September 1968) and year ranges as 1989–1991, not 1989–91. Abbreviate seconds (sec),

minutes (min) and hours (hr), but not day, week, month, or year. Names of months may be

abbreviated in figures or long tables.

NUMERALS

Spell out numbers less than 10, except for measurements, such as 5 km (but nine

blackbirds). Hours, minutes, and seconds are units of measurement. Use metric

measurements throughout. There are neither a comma nor a space in numbers less than 10

000 (e.g., 1232 larks). In numbers greater than 9999, separate the hundreds and thousands

113

places using a space, e.g., 22 432 murres. Precede decimal fractions by a zero, (0.97, not

.97). Round percentages to the nearest whole number (57%, not 57.3%; <1%, not 0.3 or

0.8%), unless there is some compelling reason not to do so. Do not use slant lines in

expressions of units; instead, use exponential form or the word per throughout text, tables,

and figures (e.g., use kJ day

-1

, not kJ/day).

STATISTICAL FORMAT

Follow Condor format for statistical indices, including capitalization, italics, superscripts,

and subscripts. The following are in italics:

n (sample size, lowercase)

P (probability rounded to two decimal places, unless P < 0.01, in which case reduce

to three decimal places; use P < 0.001 as the smallest P-value). Examples:

If P = 0.019, report as P = 0.02

If P = 0.003, report as P = 0.003

If P = 0.564, report as P = 0.56

(t-test, with subscript a = degrees of freedom; specify independent or paired t-test

and two-tailed or one-tailed test in Methods: Statistical Analyses)

a,b

(F-ratio, with subscripts a,b = appropriate degrees of freedom)

U (Mann-Whitney U-test)

r (simple correlation coefficient; Pearson r)

z (Wilcoxon test)

(Spearman rank-order correlation)

R (multiple regression coefficient)

G (G-test)

114

K (number of parameters in AIC analyses)

The following statistical information is set in normal font, not italics:

SD (standard deviation)

SE (standard error)



(chi-square, where subscript a = degrees of freedom)

CV (coefficient of variation)

df (degrees of freedom)

AIC

(note that the subscript c is italicized)

Note that all variables are italicized, unless they are denoted by a Greek letter in which case

they

are not italicized.

ELECTRONIC VERSIONS OF ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTS

Accepted manuscripts will be published directly from an electronic version. We will

provide instructions for preparation of the electronic version once a manuscript is accepted.

Upon final acceptance of the manuscript, payment of page charges ($100 per printed page)

is requested if funds are available for this purpose.

REVISIONS

Revisions of tentatively accepted manuscripts must be completed and returned to the Editor

within 75 days. Manuscripts returned beyond that time likely will be treated as new

submissions.

Authors of accepted manuscripts are invited to submit sharp

photographs or slides for use as cover illustrations for

The Condor.

PROOFS AND REPRINTS

Proofs and reprint order forms ordinarily will be sent to the first author. Please inform the

115

editorial office well in advance of any change in address or alternate system for handling

proofs. Check proofs carefully for errors. Author-related changes will be charged to the

author at $3.50 per change.

Please send any proof changes via e-mail (preferred) or

courier, within 48 hours to

The Condor

, High Desert Ecological Research Institute, 15

S.W. Colorado Ave., Bend, OR 97702 ([email protected]).

ANEXO 3. Dados de 92 bandos mistos na floresta palud osa do Faxinal, Torres, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

1 18.set.2004 2 11:15' 11:22’ 7 6 Habirubi, 2 Philatri 2 8

2 10.out.2004 11 08:06' 08:14' 8 2 Habirubi, 2 Myrmunic, 1

Philatri

3 5

3 18.out.2004 48 10:40' 10:54' 14 2 Phylvent, 1 Coerflav, 1

Parupiti, 1 Xenoruti

5 5

4 29.I.2005 20 08:00' 08:20' 20 3 Ictecaya, 4 Tachcoro, 2

Saltsimi, 2 Thrasaya, 3

Celeflav, 1 Dacncaya, 1

Empivari, 1 Turdamau, 1

Coerflav, 1 Euphonia sp.

10 19

5 01.fev.2005 81 13:40' 14:00' 20 29 3 Phylkron, 2 Basiculi, 1 3 6

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

Picutemm

6 03.fev.2005 14 07:50' 08:05' 15 3 Parupiti, 2 Coerflav, 2

Basiculi, 1 Hemithraupis sp.,

1 Tachcoro, 1 Thracyan

6 10

7 03.fev.2005 29 09:20' 09:55' 35 3 Habirubi, 2 Myrmunic, 1

Platmyst, 2 Basiculi, 2

Tachcoro

5 10

8 03.fev.2005 45 10:45' 10:51' 5 2 Parupiti, 2 Phylvent, 3

Piprmela, 1 Pachpoly

4 8

9 03.fev.2005 59 12:0' 12:14' 14 23 1 Dacncaya, 1 Tangara sp. 2 2

10 03.fev.2005 82 13:29' 13:35' 5 22 2 Platmyst, 2 Myrmunic, 1 3 5

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

Thamcaer

11 03.fev.2005 93 13:55' 14:15' 20 22 2 Myrmunic, 1 Phylvent, 2

Basiculi, 1 Picutemm, 1

Thamcaer

5 7

12 03.fev.2005 123 14:40' 14:47' 7 2 Myrmunic, 1 Picutemm 2 3

13 03.fev.2005 145 15:23’ 15:51’ 18 1 Syndrufo, 1 Picutemm, 1

Basiculi, 2 Myrmunic, 2

Thamcaer

5 7

14 03.fev.2005 170 16:04' 16:10' 5 23 1 Picutemm, 2 Myrmunic, 2

Parupiti.

3 5

15 08.fev.2005 169 10:26' 10:32' 5 1 Picutemm, 2 Myrmunic, 2

Basiculi

3 5

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

16 11.fev.2005 215 15:36' 15:58' 22 24 2 Habirubi, 2 Basiculi 2 4

17 12.fev.2005 214 09:20' 09:25’ 5 2 Habirubi, 1 Basiculi, 1

Myrmunic

3 4

18 04.mar.2005 24 08:34' 08:45' 11 20 2 Thamcaer, 3 Tachcoro, 2

Myrmunic, 1 Parupiti, 1

Coerflav

5 9

19 04.mar.2005 30 09:10' 09:25' 15 21 2 Myrmunic, 1 Basiculi, 1

Tangara sp., 1 Thamcaer

4 5

20 04.mar.2005 60 10:30' 10:36' 5 27 1 Phylkron, 1 Hemithraupis

sp.

2 2

21 04.mar.2005 127 16:35' 16:41' 5 26 3 Habirubi, 1 Chircaud, 1

Basiculi, 2 Myrmunic

4 7

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

22 05.mar.2005 117 09:17' 09:23" 5 1 Phylkron, 1 Parupiti 2 2

23 05.mar.2005 104 10:30' 10:37' 7 25 1 Myrmunic, 1 Platmyst, 1

Picutemm

3 3

24 07.mar.2005 145 08:10' 08:30' 20 21 1 Parupiti, 1 Phylkron, 1

Euphpect, 2 Picutemm, 1

Basiculi, 1 Myrmunic

6 7

25 07.mar.2005 223 18:00' 18:06' 5 4 Habirubi, 1 Basiculi 2 5

26 08.mar.2005 78 17:00' 17:05' 5 1 Myrmunic, 1 Basiculi 2 2

27 08.mar.2005 64 17:30' 17:36' 6 3 Habirubi, 1 Platmyst, 2

Basiculi, 2 Myrmunic, 1

Thamcaer, 1 Campobso

6 10

28 11.mar.2005 217 10:20' 10:35' 15 25 3 Habirubi, 2 Myrmunic, 1 3 6

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

Philatri

29 04.abr.2005 38 09:19' 09:25' 6 19 2 Phylkron, 1 Picutemm, 1

Euphpect

3 4

30 04.abr.2005 40 09:30' 09:47' 17 19 3 Myrmunic, 2 Basiculi, 2

Thamcaer, 1 Parupiti

4 8

31 04.abr.2005 50 10:22' 10:28’ 6 20 1 Dacncaya, 2 Tachcoro, 1

Cnemfusc, 1 Thrasaya

4 5

32 04.abr.2005 120 14:20' 14:25’ 5 22 1 Parupiti, 2 Basiculi, 2

Myrmunic

3 5

33 04.abr.2005 150 16:30' 16:45' 15 23 2 Myrmunic, 2 Phylkron, 1

Basiculi

3 5

34 07.abr.2005 120 10:50' 10:55' 5 26 1 Parupiti, 1 Phylkron, 1 5 5

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

Euphpect, 1Thamcaer, 1

Trogmusc

35 07.abr.2005 170 14:00' 14:08' 8 28 2 Myrmunic. 1 Picutemm 2 3

36 07.abr.2005 237 16:30' 16:40' 10 28 2 Phylkron, 2 Coerflav,

Tachcoro, 2 Basiculi, 1

Parupiti

5 8

37 07.abr.2005 212 17:42' 17:50' 12 25 3 Habirubi, 1 Basiculi 2 4

38 09.abr.2005 36 13:00' 13:05' 5 2 Habirubi, 1 Basiculi 2 3

39 10.abr.2005 226 10:10' 10:15' 5 23 1 Basiculi, 1 Coerflav, 1

Turdrufi

3 3

40 08.mai.2005 Ppatrick 08:40' 08:47' 7 21 4 Myrmunic, 1 Thamcaer, 1

Phylkron

3 6

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

41 10.mai.2005 24 12:15' 12:45' 30 24 3 Piaycaya, 1 Dendplat, 1

Coerflav, 3 Habirubi, 1

Basiculi, 1 Thamcaer

6 10

42 10.mai.2005 45 13:50' 13:56' 5 22 2 Phylkron, 2 Parupiti 2 4

43 10.mai.2005 79 15:05' 15:12' 7 23 2 Phylkron, 2 Myrmunic, 1

Parupiti

3 5

44 10.mai.2005 45 16:48' 17:00' 12 22 4 Habirubi, 2 Parupiti, 1

Saltsimi, 1 Phylloscartes sp,

1 Coerflav, 1 Chircaud, 1

Thamcaer, 1 Basiculi, 1

Euphpect

9 13

45 11.mai.2005 69 08:07' 08:17' 10 17 4 Habirubi, 1 Euphpect, 1 7 12

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

Parupiti, 1 Thamcaer, 1

Phylkron, 1 Basiculi, 3

Myrmunic

46 14.mai.2005 215 11:05' 11:35' 30 23 3 Myrmunic, 2 Basiculi, 1

Schivire, 1 Coerflav, 1

Xenoruti

5 8

47 14.mai.2005 205 11:38 11:50' 12 24 1 Tachcoro, 1 Chircaud, 1

Thamcaer, 1 Campobso, 1

Turdrufi, 2 Euphpect, 1

Basiculi, 1 Synaspix

8 9

48 15.mai.2005 44 10:00' 10:13' 13 23 1 Thrasaya, 1 Coerflav, 1

Phylkron, 1 Leptamau, 1

10 11

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

Tachcoro, 1 Parupiti, 1

Thamcaer, 2 Myrmunic, 1

Dacncaya, Tyrannidae ni

49 15.mai.2005 77 11:20' 11:40' 20 23 3 Habirubi, 1 Basiculi, 1

Thamcaer, 2 Myrmunic, 2

Parupiti, 2 Thrasaya, 1

Tangara sp.

7 12

50 15.mai.2005 88 12:00' 12:10' 10 23 2 Parupiti, 1 Euphpect, 1

Cyclguja, 1 Pícutemm, 4

Basiculi, 4 Habirubi, 1

Piaycaya

7 14

51 15.mai.2005 99 12:40' 12:47' 7 23 2 Basiculi, 2 Thamcaer 2 4

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

52 15.mai.2005 189 16:20' 16:33' 13 24 2 Basiculi, 2 Myrmunic, 1

Thamcaer, 1 Picutemm, 1

Xenoruti

5 7

53 07.jun.2005 Ppatrick 09:10' 09:15' 5 17 2 Basiculi, 1 Myrmunic 2 3

54 07.jun.2005 215 10:50' 11:15' 25 22 2 Myrmunic, 2 Basiculi, 1

Picutemm, 1 Thamcaer, 1

Xenoruti

5 7

55 08.jun.2005 217 10:50' 11:15' 25 19 2 Myrmunic, 2 Basiculi, 6

Habirubi, 3 Picutemm, 2

Tachcoro, 1 Xenops, 1

Platmyst

7 17

56 10.jun.2005 190 14:10' 14:20' 10 21 2 Basiculi, 1 Parupiti, 2 8 13

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

Thamcaer, 3 Myrmunic, 1

Conoline, 2 Phylkron, 1

Piaycaya, 1 Euphpect

57 10.jun.2005 195 14:30' 14:40' 10 21 2 Basiculi, 1 Parupiti, 2

Thamcaer, 3 Myrmunic, 1

Geotaequ

5 9

58 11.jun.2005 69 08:33' 08:43' 10 22 1 Parupiti, 1 Tangara sp., 1

Coerflav, 2 Euphpect, 2

Basiculi, 1 Tolmsulp, 1

Emberizidae ni

7 9

59 11.jun.2005 8 12:50' 13:00' 10 23 1 Saltsimi, 1 Chircaud, 2

Thrasaya, 1 Turdalbi, 1

6 8

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

Thamcaer, 2 Tachcoro

60 13.jul.2005 20 08:55' 09:05' 10 17 2 Thracyan, 1 Hemithraupis

sp., 2 Euphcyan, 1 Coerflav

4 6

61 13.jul.2005 20 08:55' 09:05' 10 17 4 Habirubi, 1 Thamcaer, 2

Basiculi, 1 Cyclguja, 1

Saltsimi

5 9

62 13.jul.2005 30 10:00' 10:10' 10 17 2 Phylkron, 2 Parupiti, 2

Basiculi, 1 Tolmsulp, 1

Coerflav,, 1 Thamcaer

6 9

63 13.jul.2005 65 11:30' 11:36' 5 21 2 Basiculi, 1 Geotaequ 2 3

64 13.jul.2005 122 14:00' 14:06' 5 21 2 Basiculi, 2 Phylvent, 1

Thamcaer, 1 Coerflav

4 6

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

65 13.jul.2005 173 16:33' 16:45' 12 20 2 Myrmunic, 1 Thamcaer 2 3

66 13.jul.2005 195 17:10' 17:20' 10 19 2 Platmyst, 2 Basiculi, 2

Conoline

3 6

67 14.jul.2005 43 08:05' 08:14' 9 11 2 Basiculi, 1 Parupiti, 1

Turdrufi, 2 Thrasaya, 1

Thamcaer, 1 Xenoruti, 1

Campobso, 2 Phylvent, 1

Cyclguja, 4 Habirubi, 1

Chircaud, 1 Euphchlor, 1

Turdalbi

13 19

68 14.jul.2005 69 08:32' 08:38' 5 13 5 Habirubi, 1 Euphpect, 2

Basiculi, 2 Phylkron, 2

6 14

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

Thamcaer, 2 Myrmunic

69 14.jul.2005 70 11:50' 12:00' 10 20 2 Phylkron, 2 Parupiti, 1

Coerflav, 2 Phylvent, 1

Euphonia sp.

5 8

70 15.jul.2005 163 13:10' 13:23' 13 21 2 Parupiti, 2 Coerflav 2 4

71 18.jul.2005 153 11:10 11:19' 9 15 2 Parupiti, 2 Phylkron 2 4

72 18.jul.2005 99 14:50' 15:10' 20 16 1 Xenoruti, 2 Parupiti, 2

Phylvent, 1 Chircaud, 1

Dacncaya, 2 Phylkron, 2

Basiculi, 1 Piaycaya

8 12

73 19.jul.2005 Pcecropia 07:34' 07:44' 10 4 4 Habirubi, 2 Phylkron, 2

Basiculi, 1 Chircaud, 1

6 11

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

Turdamau, 1 Saltsimi

74 12.ago.2005 58 11:12' 11:20' 8 16 4 Habirubi, 2 Myrmunic 2 6

75 12.ago.2005 125 14:20' 14:26' 6 19 1 Phylvent, 2 Myrmunic 2 3

76 12.ago.2005 167 16:20' 16:25' 5 16 2 Parupiti, 1 Coerflav, 1

Phylkron

3 4

77 13.ago.2005 144 08:45' 09:00' 15 16 1 Parupiti, 1 Coerflav 2 2

78 14.ago.2005 70 11:17' 11:23' 5 19 2 Myrmunic, 2 Thamcaer, 2

Basiculi, 1 Venispil

4 7

79 15.ago.2005 122 13:51' 14:05' 14 24 2 Myrmunic, 2 Basiculi, 1

Picutemm, 1 Geotaequ, 2

Saltsimi, 2 Tachcoro, 1

Coerflav

7 11

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

80 15.ago.2005 115 14:20' 14:36' 16 25 2 Myrmunic, 1 Piprmela, 2

Tahcoro, 1 Thamcaer, 1

Parupiti

5 7

81 09.set.2005 210 11:20 11:26' 5 20 2 Parupiti, 2 Basiculi, 1

Phylkron

3 5

82 13.set.2005 118 09:10' 09:16' 5 13 1 Myrmunic, 1 Phylvent 2 2

83 14.set.2005 Pcapoeira 07:45' 07:51' 5 13 2 Trogaedo, 2 Synaspix, 2

Geotaequ

3 6

84 16.set.2005 160 10:20' 10:26' 5 16 2 Parupiti, 1 Coerflav 2 3

85 30.out.2005 144 08:18' 08:30' 12 21 1 Coerflav, 1 Parupiti 2 2

86 31.out.2005 48 06:25' 06:35' 10 15 2 Habirubi, 1 Philatri 2 3

87 31.out.2005 99 07:40' 07:50' 10 18 3 Habirubi, 2 Myrmunic, 2 3 7

Nº Data Ponto

Horário

inicial

Horário

final

Tempo

(min)

Temperatura Integrantes

Número

espécies

Número

indivíduos

Basiculi

88 16.nov.2005 99 12:16' 12:21' 5 1 Phylkron, 2 Parupiti, 2

Myrmunic

3 5

89 21.nov.2005 70 07:18' 07:30' 12 4 Habirubi, 2 Myrmunic, 1

Phylkron, 1 Vireoliv

4 8

90 03.jan.2006 5 07:15' 07:20' 5 4 Habirubi, 1 Philatri 2 5

91 04.jan.2006 48 06:35' 06:40' 5 6 Habirubi, 1 Thamcaer, 1

Phylkron, 2 Myrmunic, 2

Basiculi, 1 Philatri

6 13

90 04.jan.2006 217 08:08' 08:13' 5 4 Habirubi, 1 Philatri 2 5

Basiculi = Basileuterus culicivorus, Campobso = Camptostoma obsoletum, Chircaud = Chiroxiphia caudata, Celeflav = Celeus flavescens,

Cnemfusc = Cnemotriccus fuscatus, Coerflav = Coereba flaveola, Conoline = Conopophaga lineata, Cyclguja = Cyclarhis gujanensis, Dacncaya

= Dacnis cayana, Dendplat = Dendrocolaptes platyrostris, Empivari = Empidonomus varius, Euphchlo = Euphonia chlorotica, Euphcyan =

Euphonia cyanocephala, Euphpect = Euphonia pectoralis, Geotaequ = Geothlypis aequinoctialis, Habirubi = Habia rubica, Hemirufi =

Hemithraupis ruficapilla, Ictecaya = Icterus cayanensis, Leptamau = Leptopogon amaurocephalus, Myrmunic = Myrmotherula unicolor,

Pachypoly = Pachyramphus polychopterus, Parupity = Parula pitiayumi, Piaycaya = Piaya cayana, Picutemm = Picumnus temminckii, Phylkron

= Phylloscartes kronei, Phylvent = Phylloscartes ventralis, Philatri = Philydor atricapillus, Piprmela = Pipraeidea melanonota, Platmyst =

Platyrinchus mystaceus, Saltsimi = Saltator similis, Schivire = Schiffornis virescens, Synaspix = Synallaxis spixi, Syndrufo = Syndactyla

rufosuperciliata, Tachycoro = Tachyphonus coronatus, Thamcaer = Thamnophilus caerulescens, Thamrufi = Thamnophilus ruficapillus,

Thrasaya = Thraupis sayaca, Thracyan = Thraupis cyanoptera, Tolmsulp = Tolmomyias sulphurescens, Trogmusc = Troglodytes musculus,

Turdalbi = Turdus albicollis, Turdamau = Turdus amaurochalinus, Turdrufi = Turdus rufiventris, Venispil = Veniliornis spilogaster, Vireoliv =

Vireo olivaceus, Xenoruti = Xenops rutilans.

Livros Grátis
( http://www.livrosgratis.com.br )
 
Milhares de Livros para Download:
 
Baixar livros de Administração
Baixar livros de Agronomia
Baixar livros de Arquitetura
Baixar livros de Artes
Baixar livros de Astronomia
Baixar livros de Biologia Geral
Baixar livros de Ciência da Computação
Baixar livros de Ciência da Informação
Baixar livros de Ciência Política
Baixar livros de Ciências da Saúde
Baixar livros de Comunicação
Baixar livros do Conselho Nacional de Educação - CNE
Baixar livros de Defesa civil
Baixar livros de Direito
Baixar livros de Direitos humanos
Baixar livros de Economia
Baixar livros de Economia Doméstica
Baixar livros de Educação
Baixar livros de Educação - Trânsito
Baixar livros de Educação Física
Baixar livros de Engenharia Aeroespacial
Baixar livros de Farmácia
Baixar livros de Filosofia
Baixar livros de Física
Baixar livros de Geociências
Baixar livros de Geografia
Baixar livros de História
Baixar livros de Línguas

Baixar livros de Literatura
Baixar livros de Literatura de Cordel
Baixar livros de Literatura Infantil
Baixar livros de Matemática
Baixar livros de Medicina
Baixar livros de Medicina Veterinária
Baixar livros de Meio Ambiente
Baixar livros de Meteorologia
Baixar Monografias e TCC
Baixar livros Multidisciplinar
Baixar livros de Música
Baixar livros de Psicologia
Baixar livros de Química
Baixar livros de Saúde Coletiva
Baixar livros de Serviço Social
Baixar livros de Sociologia
Baixar livros de Teologia
Baixar livros de Trabalho
Baixar livros de Turismo
 
 