the importance of conserved caatinga forest to avifauna ...geo-processing was performed on the four...

Atualidades Ornitológicas, 212, novembro e dezembro de 2019 - www.ao.com.br 41

The importance of conserved Caatinga forest to avifauna biodiversity and the capacity to sustain livestock herds during dry periodsPedro Cerqueira Lima1, Ricardo Lustosa Brito, Ossival Lolato Ribeiro, Ianei de Oliveira Carneiro & Carlos Roberto Franke1

Recebido: 23/5/2019. Aprovado: 16/2/2020.

Resumo. A importância da floresta de Caatinga conservada para a biodiversidade da avifauna e a capacidade de sustentar os rebanhos de gado durante os períodos secos. O presente estu-do objetivou avaliar, durante a seca de 2011 a 2013, a relação entre porcentagem de floresta de Caatinga conservada, a biodiversidade da avifauna e a capacidade de sustentação do rebanho bovino em quatro fazendas da região semiárida do estado da Bahia, Brasil. Na fazenda I a produção de bovinos é associada à conservação do bioma Caatinga, sendo que nas fazendas II, III e IV as áreas de floresta de Caatinga são substituídas por pastagens para a alimentação animal, sendo essa a prática mais tradicional na região. O inventariado nas fazendas I, II, III e IV resultou em 43,1%, 1,2%, 1,7% e 2,4% de área da fazenda com floresta de Caatinga conservada, bem como, em 193, 73, 92 e 101 espécies de aves, respectivamente. As estimativa de perda no rebanho bovino foi de aproximadamente 30% em todas as quatro fazendas. No entanto, nas fazendas II, III, e IV, o restante do rebanho bovino teve que ser abatido ou transportado para outras regiões para evitar a perda total dos animais pela falta de alimento em virtude da seca. Na fazenda I não foi necessário o abate ou remoção dos animais, pois com o esgotamento das pastagens, os animais pas-saram a se alimentar nas áreas de floresta de Caatinga conservadas na propriedade. O estudo demonstra que a conservação das florestas de Caatinga nas fazendas localizadas no semiárido é uma estratégia que atende, ao mesmo tempo, à conservação da biodiversidade e à sustentabilidade social e econômica da produção animal na região do semiárido brasileiro.Palavras-chave: bioma Caatinga, bovinocultura, semiárido, susten-tabilidade, aves silvestres

Abstract. The purpose of this study is to evaluate, during the drought of 2011 to 2013, the relation between the percentage of conserved Caatinga forest, the biodiversity of the avifauna and the capacity to sustain livestock herds in four farms in the semi-arid region of the state of Bahia, Brazil. On Farm I, cattle production is associated with the conservation of the Caatinga biome, while on Farms II, III and IV, the areas of Caatinga forest have been substituted by pasture to feed the animals, the most widespread traditional practice in the region. The inventory performed on Farms I, II, III and IV resulted in the rates of 43.1%, 1.2%, 1.7% and 2.4% of farm area with conserved Caatinga, and 193, 73, 82 and 101 bird species, respectively. The estimate for livestock loss was approximately 30% in all four farms. However,

on Farms II, III and IV, the rest of the herd had to be slaughtered or transported to other regions to avoid the total loss of animals because of lack of food resulting from the drought. On Farm I, slaughter or removal of the animals was not necessary since after the pasture was exhausted, the animals came to feed on the conserved Caatinga forest areas on the property. This study demonstrates that the conservation of Caatinga forests on farms located in the Brazilian semi-arid region is a strategy which acts to conserve biodiversity, while at the same time sustaining social and economic animal production, especially during droughts characteristic of the Caatinga. Key-Words: Caatinga biome, cattle rearing, semi-arid, sustainability, wild birds.

IntroductionThe Caatinga biome is located in the northeast region of Brazil and

is characterized by a biodiversity that is adapted to the semi-arid cli-mate and the periodic occurrence of extended droughts which define the landscape and life of the region. It covers an area of about 735,000 km² and comprises most of the Brazilian Northeast, extending to the dry valley of the middle region of the Jequitinhonha River, in the state of Minas Gerais. The absence of rainfall in the dry season charac-terizes the region which is one of the largest areas of dry seasonal Neotropical Forests in South America. The average annual rainfall is low, with some central regions receiving less than 500 mm, and precipitation is concentrated during three consecutive months (ICM-BIO 2018).

The Caatinga is the least studied Brazilian biome and the most thre-atened by human actions (Cavalcanti & Resende 2006, Alves et al. 2009). In the 16th century, the colonization of Brazil started in the northeast region with the cultivation of sugar cane along the coast and cattle rearing in the semi-arid interior. Deforestation, frequent fires and the substitution of the Caatinga vegetation with pasture became the modus operandi of the cattle rearing culture practiced in the re-gion, which resulted in the current state of advanced degradation of the biome (Ehlers 1999, Balsan 2006, Alves et al. 2009), with 68% of its total area being impacted by man and around 710,000 km² suscep-tible to desertification (Brasil 2002). The substitution of nearly all of the native vegetation with pasture in order to increase the number of productive animals on the farms is a characteristic of the traditional practices of livestock farming in the northeast region of Brazil and one of the main causes of the reduction of the Caatinga Biome. The Brazilian Código Florestal Brasileiro (Forest Code), law nº 12.651, in Article 12, demands that in the area where the study was carried out, rural properties maintain a native vegetation cover of 20% of their total property. In the state of Bahia, the livestock herd has grown over the last ten years and reached almost 12 million head of livestock in

Atualidades Ornitológicas, 212, novembro e dezembro de 2019 - www.ao.com.br42

the middle of 2012, according to data from the Agência Estadual de Defesa Agropecuária da Bahia (State Agency for the Defense of Agri-culture of Bahia ADAB 2014). Over the pro-longed period of drought, (2011 to 2013) this growth was interrupted, and in 2013 the lives-tock herd in the state had already registered a reduction of around 504,000 animals (4.2%).

The current study aimed to evaluate, during the period of drought from 2011 to 2013, the relation between the percentage of conserved Caatinga forest, avifaunal biodiversity and the capacity to sustain livestock herds in four farms in the semi-arid region of the state of Bahia, Brazil.

Material and methodsFour farms located in the semi-arid region

of the State of Bahia (Figure 1) were selected. Farm I (3,256.1 ha), located in the micro-region of Jeremoabo, is distinguished from the others by its use of elevated zootechincal methods of cattle rearing with an emphaisis on the equilibrium between areas of pasture and areas with conserved Caatinga forest. Farms II (1,709.7 ha), III (1,501.1 ha) and IV (1,386.6 ha) are located in the micro-region of Feira de Santana and employ the more tradi-tional type of cattle rearing characterized by the cutting down of almost all the native Caat-inga vegetation cover and substituting it with pasture to feed the cattle. According to ADAB (Agência Estadual de Defesa Agropecuária da Bahia), the regions in which Farm I (Coor-dination of Paulo Afonso/ADAB) and in and Farms II, III and IV are located (Coordination of Feira de Santana/ADAB) experienced re-ductions in livestock herds of 15.5% (a loss of 114,283 animals) and 11.5% (loss of 34,497 animals), respectively.

Geo-processing was performed on the four farms to describe the water resources, the pasture areas and the areas covered by native vegetation (fragments of Caatinga Forest + ri-parian forest + scrub and tree patches) accord-ing to the physiognomic criteria for classifi-cation of Brazilian vegetation (IBGE 1991) (Figures 2 to 5).

In the preserved Caatinga, vegetation has a carrying capacity of 8 to 10 ha/head of cattle (Drumond et al. 2000). Lira et al. (2005) report that, in the Brazilian semi-arid region, the carrying capacity is 10 to 20 ha/head of cattle for native pasture, 4-5 ha/head of cattle for native pasture with Buffel grasses in consortium with leguminous vegetation and 1 to 2 ha/head of cattle for culti-vated native pasture. To estimate the number of cattle that could be reared on the four farms, we used the average carrying capactiy of conserved Caatinga vegetation to be 10 ha/head of cattle according to Drumond et al. (2000) and the carrying capactiy of 5 ha/head of cattle with native Buffel grasses, since no legumionous vegetation in consortium was observed. The calculation for the number of head of

cattle per property was performed by dividing the pasture areas and the conserved Caatinga area by their respective carrying capacities.

The four farms chosen have adequate water resources to maintain the animals, even during the periods of prolonged drought. The study was conducted during an episode of drought between 2011 and 2013, which was considered the most intense drought in the last 50 years.

To describe the relation between the areas with native vegetation cover and biodiversity of the avifauna, a survey of the bird species was undertaken at each of the four farms, using three methodologies: fixed points, mobile points and mist nets (Heimerdinger & Leberman 1966, Macarthur & Macarthur 1974, von Matter et al. 2010). The

Figure 1. Map of the state of Bahia with the climactic zone of the semi-arid region where the Caatinga Biome occurs and the location of the two micro-regions studied. (1) Jeremoabo, where Farm I is located and (2) Feira de Santana, where Farms II, III and IV are located. Source:

Developed from filed geo-referencing surveys, using the mapping base of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística/IBGE) 2006.

Figure 2. Map of Farm I, located in the micro-region of Jeremoabo, Bahia, indicating vegetation and existing water infrastructure. Source:

Developed from geo-referenced field surveys, with IBGE cartographic base, 2006.


fixed point and moving point methodology was applied in the four farms in 2011, 2012 and 2013 in January and February during the dry season in order to evaluate the diversity of species in this critical period for domestic and wild animals.

The fixed point method was carried out with ten random sampling points on each farm, each observed for ten minutes and with a dis-tance of 100 m between the points. The identification of the birds was done through naked-eye visualization or with binoculars (Swarovski 8 X 30), or through recognition of bird calls, complemented by the use of playback which reproduced the birdsongs of the birds of the Caatinga in order to stimulate a vocal response or the appearance of the bird (Motta-Junior et al. 2010).

The method of moving points was carried out also with ten sampling points on each farm, and each sampling corresponded to an arbitrary trajectory that was followed for ten minutes by foot at constant speed, in which the observer recorded all the birds detected on each side of the route using the same comple-mentary resources of visualization and hear-ing cited above were also used (Develey 2003).

The capture of the birds was performed with mist nets (12 m long, 2.5 m high and a mesh size of 10 mm) set up in areas which are potential sources of food for the birds in order to increase the rate of capture. A total of 10 nets was installed in the forest areas of each farm. Each net remained set up for a period of 11 hours/day (from 6:00 am to 5:00 pm) for three consecutive days with a total sampling time of 330 hours in each year of study and for each farm (Heimerdinger & Leberman 1966, Macarthur & Macarthur 1974, Develey 2003, von Matter et al. 2010).

The taxonomy of the recorded birds fol-lowed the guidelines of the Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos/CBRO (Brazilian Ornithological Records Committee) (Piacen-tini et al. 2015). For classification at the sub-species level, followed the Complete Guide for the Identification of the Birds of Brazil – Volume 1 and 2 (Guia Completo para Iden-tificação das aves do Brasil – Volume 1 e 2 (Grantsau 2010). The degree of threat of ex-tinction for each bird species was recorded ac-cording to the lists elaborated by the Interna-tional Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources/IUICN and the Brazilian Environmental Ministry (Brasil 2018). The classification of endemism and sensitivity to environmental alterations were based on the publication of Stotz et al. (1996). ). To relate the diversity of species in the four farms stu-died, the inventory of birds occurred in areas of native vegetation and pasture areas where cattle were kept.

Results and discussionFigures 2 and 5 show the geo-processed

data for the four farms studied. Farm I differs from the others due to its relatively high percentage of conserved vegetation cover (43%) and also the interlinked nature of Caatinga fragments by vegetation corridors that facilitate genetic flow between them. A large strip cor-ridor of primary forest can be observed along the margin of the river that belongs to the property. On Farms II, III and IV, the percentage of vegetation cover varies between 1.1 and 2.4% of the properties’ total area, and practically all the native vegetation on these farms is restricted to the margins of rivers, forming a narrow strip of riparian forest, with the rest of the area consisting of pasture.

In farm I the avian inventory resulted in the identification of 193 species, corresponding to 68.4% (193/282) of the avian species ac-

Figure 3. Map of Farm II, located in the micro-region of de Feira de Santana, Bahia, indicating vegetation cover and existing water infrastructure. Source:


Figure 4. Map of Farm III, located in the micro-region of de Feira de Santana, Bahia, indicating vegetation cover and existing water infrastructure. Source:



cording to the Caatinga Biome of the state of Bahia (Fiúza 1999, Lima 2005), 55.6% (193/347) of the birds according to the Bra-zilian Caatinga Biome (Pacheco & Bauer 2000) and 84% (193/510) of the birds of this same habitat according to Silva et al. (2003). In farms II, III and IV, only 73, 92 and 101 species of birds were identified, respectively, representing on average, 31% of the avifauna of the Caatinga Biome of the state of Bahia (Fiúza 1999, Lima 2005) and 14.3%, 18% and 19.8% of the species of birds throughout the Brazilian Caatinga Biome, according to Silva et al. (2003).(Table 1).

Among the birds captured and cataloged in farm I, three species considered to be rare were found, despite not being listed in lists of endangered species (Rhea Americana, Herpsilochmus sellowi and Herpsilochmus pectoralis). Also, two species withf migra-tory habits were recorded: Elaenia chilensis and Zenaida auriculata. Of the total of 193 species recorded from farm I, 72 of them are species characteristic of dense forest habitat (Figure 6).

On Farm I, a large group of Zenaida auri-culata (Eared Dove) was observed. This spe-cies, even though it uses open areas, feeds on a wide diversity of fruits and seeds from the flora of the Caatinga Biome and also seeks the safe shelter of this biome for its reproductive colony. In the other farms studied the presen-ce of this species was rare or reduced due to low vegetation cover. Hunting, the stealing of eggs and the sacrifice of the chicks are the main threats to the survival of this species in addition to the loss of habitat.

The hetereogenity of the habitat is princi-pally determined by the structure of the ve-getation. Each bird species presents a distinct response to the fragmentation of their habitat, and thus understanding the relationships be-tween birds and their chosen environments can help to predict the effects of environmental change and can in-form habitat and landscape management efforts (Rotemberry & Wiens 1980, Soares & Anjos 1999). Several effects of habitat frag-mentation on avifaunal communities are known. Predatory species at the top of the food chain, such as Falco femoralis, as well as seed predators/dispersers, large frugivorous species and specialists are tho-se species that suffer earliest from the transformation of their habitats. Mixed species flocks (several species foraging together looking for food) can be negatively impacted with respect to their stability, spe-cies richness, size and composition as a result of habitat loss and the formation of fragmented remnant vegetation (Maldonado-Coelho & Marini 2003).

Generalist frugivorous birds, such as Pitangus sulphuratus, were found at the three sampling points on Farms II, III and IV. These spe-cies are typical in more open areas or areas impacted by humans. These species have developed, also found on Farm I the ability to adapt to different habitats and to different food items. This characte-

ristic makes it possible for this species to colonize degraded areas and urban regions (Argel-de-Oliveira 1998).

The only bird species recorded on Farms II, III and IV that appears on the list of critically endangered species was Herpsilochmus pecto-ralis, also found on Farm I. This species is endemic to the Caatinga Biome (Cracraft 1985, Brasil 2018).

It is worth noting that Farm I is located in the micro-region of Jere-moabo (Bahia), considered the principal habitat for the Lears Macaw (Anodorhynchus leari). This species is endemic to the Caatinga Bio-me, more specifically in the area around the Raso da Catarina, loca-ted in the northeast of the state of Bahia and is listed as endangered. In the year 2000 its population was estimated to be 130 individuals. However, due to the research work performed and the involvement of the local community, it is estimated that the population of this spe-cies currently exceeds 1000 individuals (Munn 1995, Reynolds 1998, Lima2004). Another species worth mentioning is Penelope jacucaca considered to be vulnerable (Figure 7) (ICMBIO 2018).

Figure 5. Map of Farm IV, located in the micro-region of Feira de Santana, Bahia, indicating vegetation cover and existing water infrastructure. Source:


Figure 6. Number of bird species occurring in the forest areas and open fields in Farms I, II, III and IV located in the semi-arid region of Bahia – Years 2012-2013.


In the region of the Raso da Catarina, cited above, a new bird subs-pecies, Caprimulgus longirostris pedrolimai, was described (Grant-sau 2010), as well as a new species of bromeliad, Orthophytum catin-gae (Figure 8) (Leme 2007).

The most recent drought recoded in the semi-arid region of Bahia, from 2011 to 2013, during the undertaking of the field work for this research. It was considered the most rigorous drought of the last 50 years, severely affecting agriculture and livestock rearing in this se-mi-arid region. Cavalcanti & Resende (2006, 2007) studied the effect of drought on small producers in the semi-arid region and showed that during a prolonged drought lifestock suffers expressive losses.

The differences in herd size recorded during the dry season were the basis for the estimation of the loss of animals. It is already known that significant economic losses result from the impact of drought on the weight of cattle alone (Figura 9). It is estimated that the losses in this period were around 30 to 40%. On Farms II, III and IV the rest of herd was removed to avoid total loss. These are the same areas that had the smallest percentage of conserved Caatinga. Without enough drought-adapted Caatinga habitat, the maintenance of the animals on the property after the drought eliminated the pasture was impossible (Cavalcanti et al. 1999) (Table 2).

The estimates for the number of livestock removed and the num-ber of livestock surviving by feeding on the conserved Caatinga in the period of the drought clearly differ between Farm I and the other

farms, with two orders of magnitude more cattle in Caatinga and no cattle removal in Farm I (Table 3).

On Farm I, it was not necessary to remove the livestock because of the drought. This is due to the existence of a large area of conserved Caatinga forest which corresponds to 43.1% of the farm’s total area. When the pasture was exhausted, the animals sought food in the con-served Caatinga areas, consuming several native plant species, inclu-ding the bromeliads Encholirium brachypodium, Aechmea aquilega and Bromelia laciniosa, observed on Farm I (Figure 10). The species Neoglaziovia variegata was also used as food, even though if it is consumed in large quantities can cause obstruction of the digestive tract and leaqd to the death of the animal given the high level of fiber in its leaves, which are also used to make bags by local artesans. It is worth noting that, among the species of bromeliad used as feed for cattle, A. aquilega is the only one directly consumed by the cattle in the interior of the Caatinga. The other species needed to be collected and crushed before being offered to the animals, since their leaves have hard and resistant thorns which made direct ingestion impos-sible.

On Farm I, the cactus (Cereus jamacaru) was used as animal feed. This cactus is known as an excellent food source for a wide variety of birds as well. Only 50.0% of the branches of the cactus were cut so as to preserve the existing specimens on the property. Before being given to the livestock, it was crushed. The fruits and leaves of the licuri palm

Figure 7. (A) Anodorhynchus leari (Lear’s Macaw) and (B) Penelope jacucaca (Jacucaca). Photos: Pedro Lima.

Figure 8. (A) Caprimulgus longirostris pedrolimai and (B) Orthophytum catingae. Photos: Pedro Lima e Elton Leme.


(Syagrus coronata), which remain green even in the prolonged periods of drought, also were used to feed the cattle. The other farms had virtu-ally, no alternative food sources given the severely reduced amount of remnant Caatinga habitat. Water availability was not a factor since all four chosen farms had sufficient water resources available to maintain their herds during long periods of drought, thus allowing for this com-parative evaluation. The results highlight the importance of conserved Caatinga forest on the diversity of avifauna and the carrying capacity for livestock herds in periods of prolonged drought.

ConclusionAccording to the results, it is clear that the practice of livestock

rearing in the semi-arid region, in its traditional form where almost all the Caatinga forest is substituted with pasture, is not environmentally sustainable or economically viable, as observed on Farms II, III and IV where low vegetation cover has been shown to be poor in bird species diversity and unable to maintain livestock during drought pe-riods. The large native vegetation cover of Farm I contributed to both the conservation of a higher diversity of bird species and the mainte-nance of livestock herds in areas periodically impacted by drought.

Acknowledgements

We thank FAPESB, the Foundation to Support Research in the State of Bahia for the assistanship conceded. We are also grateful to the late biologist Rolf Grantsau, for his field studies developed in the Raso da Catarina, to the field helpers Zacarias de Jesus, Antonio Carlos Silva Ribeiro, Zezito de Jesus (Cancão) and Zildomar Souza Magalhães and to Dr. Elton Martinez Carvalho Leme for his contri-butions in the identification of the bromeliad species. I dedicate this article in memorian to my great friend Dr.Joãozito Andrade, a person with a futuristic vision who gave a great example to the other farmers

that: it is possible to reconcile livestock and the conservation of the Caatinga biome

ReferencesADAB (2014) Evolução da Cobertura Vacinal contra a Febre Aftosa na Bahia

Período: 2001 a 2013. Agência Estadual de Defesa Agropecuária da Bahia. Alves, J.J.A., M.A. Araújo & S.S. Nascimento (2009) Degradação da Caatinga: uma

investigação ecogeográfica. Caatinga 22(3): 126-135. Argel-de-Oliveira, M.M. (1998) Aves que plantam: frugivoria e dispersão de sementes

por aves. Bol. CEO 13: 9-23.Balsan, R. (2006) Impactos decorrentes da modernização da agricultura brasileira.

Campo-território: Revista de Geografia Agrária 1(2): 123-151.BRASIL (2002) Agenda 21 brasileira: ações prioritárias. Brasília: Ministério do

Meio Ambiente.BRASIL (2018) Livro Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção. Dis-

ponível em: <https://tinyurl.com/vhy3sfn>. Acesso em: 17/11/2019.Cavalcanti, N.B., C.A.V. Oliveira, G.M. Oliveira & L.T.L. Brito (1999) Impactos da

seca para os pequenos agricultores da regiao semi-arida do Nordeste e as alterna-tivas salvadoras. In: Anais do Congresso Brasileiro de Economia e Sociolo-gia Rural 37. Foz do Iguaçu. Brasília: SOBER. Disponivel em: <https://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/handle/doc/131737>. Acesso: 12/11/2019.

Cavalcanti, N.B. & G.M. Resende (2006) Consumo do mandacaru (Cereus jamacaru P. DC.) por caprinos na época da seca no semi-árido de Pernambuco. Caatinga 19(4): 402-408.

Cavalcanti, N.B. & G.M. Resende (2007) Efeito de diferentes substratos no desen-volvimento de mandacaru (Cereus jamacaru P. DC.), Facheiro (Pilosocereus pachycladus Ritter), Xiquexique (Pilosocereus gounellei (A. Webwr Ex K. Schum.) Bly. Ex Rowl.) e Coroa-de-Frade (Melocactus bahiensis Briton & Rose). Revista Caatinga 20(1): 28-35.

Cracraft, J. (1985) Historical biogeography and patterns of differentiation within the South American avifauna: areas of endemism. Ornithol. Monogr., Neotropical Ornithology 36: 49-84.

Develey, P. F. (2003) Métodos para estudos com aves. In: Cullen, L., R. Rudran & C.V. Pádua (Org.). Métodos de Estudos em Biologia, Conservação & Manejo da Vida Silvestre. Fundação O Boticário. p. 153-168.

Drumond, M. A., L.H.P. Kiill, P.C.F. Lima, M.C. Oliveira, V.R. Oliveira, S. Albuquer-que, C.E.S Nascimento & J. Cavalcanti (2000) Estratégias para o Uso Sus-

Figure 9. Common scene in the Bahian semi-arid region during the period of prolonged drought. (A) Animal with loss of weight and weakness. (B and C) Dead animal. (D) Dogs eating a dead cow. Photos: Pedro Lima.


tentável da Biodiversidade da Caatinga. Documento para discussão no GT Estratégias para o Uso Sustentável. Petrolina.

Ehlers, E (1999) Agricultura sustentável: origens e perspectivas de um novo para-digma. 2. ed. Guaíba: Agropecuária. p.157.

FIUZA, A. C. (1999) A avifauna da Caatinga do estado da Bahia: composição e distri-buição. Feira de Santana: Anor.

Grantsau, R. (2010) Guia completo para identificação das Aves do Brasil. São Paulo: Editora Vento Verde. 2 v.

Heimerdinger, M.A. & R.C. Leberman (1966) Comparative efficiency of 30 and 36 mm mesh in mist nets. Bird-Banding 37(4): 280-285.

IBGE (1991) Classificação da vegetação brasileira, adaptada a um sistema uni-versal. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.

IBGE (2006) Mapa das Divisões Regionais do Brasil. Instituto Brasileiro de Geo-grafia e Estatística.

ICMBIO (2018) Plano de Ação Nacional para Conservação das Aves da Caatinga (2º ciclo). Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade.

IUCN (2012) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Disponível em: <http://www.iucnredlist.org/>. Acesso em: 13/3/2012. International Union for Conser-vation of Nature.

Leme, E.M.C. (2007) Orthophytum catingae. Type: Bahia, Jeremoabo, Raso da Ca-tarina, APA da Arara Azul de Lear, on sandsoil, May 2003, S. Linhares 1224, P.

Lima, P.C. (2004) Novos registros da ornitofauna na Pátria da Arara-azul-de-lear (Ano-dorhynchus leari, Bonaparte, 1856), Bahia, Brasil. Destacando-se a presença de Cabeça-seca (Mycteria americana, Linné, 1758). Atual. Ornitol. 118: 6-6.

Lima, P.C. (2005) Novos Registros da Ornitofauna na Pátria da Arara-azul-de-Lear (Anodorhynchus leari, Bonaparte, 1856), Bahia, Brasil, destacando-se a presen-ça e reprodução da Saracura-da-praia, Aramides mangle (Spix, 1825). Atualida-des Ornitológicas, v. 125, p. 11-11.

Lira, M.A., M.V.F. Santos, M.V. Cunha, A.C.L. Mello, I. Farias & D.C. Santos (2005) Utilização da palma forrageira na pecuária leiteira do semi-árido. An. Acad. Per-namb. Ciênc. Agron. 2:107-120.

MacArthur A.T. & A. T. MacArthur (1974) On the use of mist nets for population stud-ies of birds. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 71: 3230-3233.

Maldonado-Coelho, M. & M.Â. Marini (2003) Composição de bandos mistos de aves em fragmentos de mata atlântica no sudeste do Brasil. Pap. Avulsos Zool. 43(3): 31-54.

Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2007) Metas nacionais de biodiversidade para 2010.

Motta-Junior, J.C., M.A.M. Granzinolli & A.R. Monteiro (2010) Miscellaneous eco-logical notes on Brazilian birds of prey and owls. Biota Neotrop. 10: 355-360.

Munn, C.A. (1995) Lears macaw: A second Population Confirmed. PsittaScene 7(4): 1-3.Pacheco, J.F. & C. Bauer (2000) As aves da Caatinga: apreciação histórica do processo

de conhecimento. In: Workshop avaliação e identificação de ações prioritárias para a conservação, utilização sustentável e repartição de benefícios da biodiver-sidade do bioma Caatinga. Seminário Biodiversidade da Caatinga, Petrolina.

Piacentini, V.Q., A. Aleixo, C.E. Agne, G.N. Mauricio, J.F. Pacheco, G.A. Bravo, G.R.R. Brito, L.N. Naka, F. Olmos, S. Posso, L.F. Silveira, G.S. Betini, E. Car-rano, I. Franz, A.C. Lees, L.M. Lima, D. Pioli, F. Schunck, F.R. Amaral, G.A. Bencke, M. Cohn-Haft, L.F.A. Figueiredo, F.C. Straube & E. Cesari (2015) An-notated checklist of the birds of Brazil by the Brazilian Ornithological Records Committee / Lista comentada das aves do Brasil pelo Comitê Brasileiro de Re-gistros Ornitológicos. Rev. Bras. Ornitol. 23(2): 91-298.

Reynolds, M. (1998) Lears Macaw. Some history, the current situation, and proposals for its preserva tion. PsittaScene 10 (4): 2-4.

Rotemberry, J.T. & J.A. Wiens (1980) Habitat Structure Patchiness and avian com-munities in North Amercican steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis. Ecology 61(61): 1228-1250.

Silva, J.M.C., M.A. Souza, A.G.D. Bieber & C.J. Carlos (2003) Aves da Caatinga: status, uso do habitat e sensitividade. In: Leal, I.R. , M. Tabarelli & J.M.C. Silva. (Org.). Ecologia e conservação da Caatinga. Recife: Editora Universitária. p. 237-273.

Soares, E.S. & L. Anjos, L. (1999) Efeito da fragmentação florestal sobre aves escala-doras de tronco e galho na região de Londrina, norte do Estado do Paraná, Brasil. Orn. Neotrop. 10: 61–68.

Stotz, D.F., J.W. Fitzpatrick, T.A. Parker III & D.K. Moskovits (1996) Neotropical birds, ecology and conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Von Matter, S., F.C. Straube, I.A. Accordi, V.Q. Piacentini, J.F. Cândido-Jr (Org.). (2010) Ornitologia e Conservação: Ciência Aplicada, Técnicas de Pesquisa e Levantamento. 1ed. Rio de janeiro: Technical Books.

1 Federal University of Bahia – School of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnology. Av. Adhemar de Barros 500,

Ondina. Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. 2 E-mail: [email protected]

Figure 10. Bromeliads consumed by cattle from Fazenda IV. (A) Bromelia laciniosa, (B) Neoglaziovia variegata, (C) Aechmea aff. aquilega, (D) Encholirium brachypodium. Photos: Pedro Lima.


Table 1 - General list of bird species registered on Farms I, II, III and IV, in the semiarid region of Bahia - Year 2012-2013.

TAXON FARMING SENSITIVITY ENDEMISM CONSERVATION HABITATI IV III II1. Crypturellus tataupa lepidotus YES LOW LC FC2. Crypturellus parvirostris YES LOW LC FC3. Nothura maculosa major YES YES YES LOW LC CA4. Rhynchotus rufescens catingae YES YES LOW LC CARHEIDAE LOW5. Rhea americana araneipes YES LOW NT CACICONIIFORMES ARDEIDAE LOW6. Ardea alba egretta YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA7. Egretta thula thula YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA8. Butorides striatus striatus YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA9. Bubulcus ibis ibis YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA10. Nycticorax nycticorax hoactli YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA11. Tigrisoma lineatum marmoratum YES YES YES YES LOW LC CACATHARTIDAE YES YES YES YES LOW12. Cathartes aura ruficollis YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA13. Coragyps atratus brasiliensis YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA14. Cathartes burrovianus urubitinga YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA15. Sarcoramphus papa YES LC CAANSERIFORMES ANATIDAE16. Amazonetta brasiliensis YES YES LC CA17. Cairina moschata YES LC CA18. Anas bahamensis bahamensis YES LC CA19. Sarkidiornis sylvicola YES LC CA20. Dendrocygna viduata YES YES LC CAFALCONIFORMES ACCIPITRIDAE21. Elanus leucurus YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA22. Gampsonyx swainsonii swainsonii YES YES YES LOW LC CA23. Rupornis magnirostris nattereri YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA24. Parabuteo unicinctus unicinctus YES LC FC25. Buteo albicaudatus YES LC CA26. Buteo brachyurus brachyurus YES LC CA27. Heterospizias meridionalis YES LC CA28. Geranospiza caerulescens gracilis YES LC FCFALCONIDAE29. Herpetotheres cachinnans queribundus YES YES LOW LC CA30. Milvago chimachima chimachima YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA31. Micrastur ruficollis ruficollis YES LC FC32. Micrastur semitorquatus semitorquatus YES LC FC33. Caracara plancus YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA34. Falco femoralis femoralis YES YES YES LOW LC CA35. Falco sparverius cearae YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA36. Falco rufigularis YES LC CACRACIDAE37. Ortalis guttata araucuan YES LC FCRALLIDAE38. Aramides cajanea cajanea YES YES YES HIGH LC FC39. Aramides mangle YES LC FC40. Porzana albicollis albicollis YES LC CA41. Laterallus melanophaius melanophaius YES LC CA42. Porphyrio martinica YES CA43. Gallinula galeata YES LC CA


TAXONFARMING

SENSITIVITY ENDEMISM CONSERVATION HABITATI IV III II

ARAMIDAE44. Aramus guarauna guarauna YES LC CACARIAMIDAE45. Cariama cristata YES YES YES LC CAJACANIDAE46. Jacana jacana jacana YES YES YES YES LOW LC CARECURVIROSTRIDAE LOW47. Himantopus mexicanus YES LOW MI LC CACHARADRIIDAE LOW48. Vanellus chilensis lampronotus YES YES YES YES LOW LC CASCOLOPACIDAE49. Tringa solitaria solitaria YES YES MI LC CACOLUMBIFORMESCOLUMBIDAE50. Columbina minuta YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA51. Columbina talpacoti talpacoti YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA52. Columbina picui strepitans YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA53. Columbina squammata squammata YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA54. Leptotila verreauxi approximans YES YES YES YES LC CA55. Patagioenas picazuro marginalis YES YES LOW LC CA56. Claravis pretiosa YES LC FC57. Zenaida auriculata virgata YES YES MI LC CAPSITTACIFORMESPSITTACIDAE58. Aratinga cactorum cactorum* YES YES EN LC FC59. Forpus xanthopterygius flavissimos YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA60. Amazonas aestiva aestiva YES LOW LC FCCUCULIFORMESCUCULIDAE61. Coccyzus melacoryphus YES YES YES LOW LC CA62. Piaya cayana pallescens YES YES YES YES YES LC CA63. Crotophaga ani YES YES YES YES YES LC CA64. Guira guira YES YES YES YES YES LC CA65. Tapera naevia naevia YES YES YES YES YES LC CASTRIGIFORMESTYTONIDAE66. Tyto furcata YES YES LOW LC CASTRINGIDAE67. Megascops choliba choliba YES LC FC68. Glaucidium brasilianum brasilianum YES LC FC69. Athene cunicularia grallaria YES LC CANYCTIBIDAE70. Nyctibius griseus griseus YES LC FCCAPRIMULGIDAE71. Chordeiles pusillus xerophilus YES LC CA72. Chordeiles acutipennis acutipennis YES LC FC73. Hydropsalis albicollis albicollis YES LC CA74. Hydropsalis torquata torquata YES LC CA75. Hydropsalis parvula parvula YES LC FC76. Hydropsalis hirundinacea cearae ** YES EN LC FC


TAXON FARMING SENSITIVITY ENDEMISM CONSERVATION HABITATI IV III IIAPODIFORMES TROCHILIDAE77. Eupetomena macroura simoni YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA78. Chlorostilbon lucidus pucherani YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA79. Heliomaster squamosus YES YES YES LC FC80. Chrysolampis mosquitus YES YES YES LC CA81. Anthracothorax nigricollis YES LC FC82. Amazilia nigricauda (fimbriata) YES LC FC83. Amazilia versicolor versicolor YES LC FCTROGONIDAE84. Trogon curucui curucui YES LC FCCORACIIFORMESALCEDINIDAE85. Ceryle torquata torquata YES LOW LC CA86. Chloroceryle americana americana YES YES YES YES LOW LC CAGALBULIDAE87. Galbula ruficauda rufoviridis YES LC FCBUCCONIDAE YES LC88. Bucco maculatus maculatus YES SIM SIM SIM LOW LC CAPICIDAE89. Picumnus pygmeus YES YES YES YES LOW LC FC90. Colaptes melanochloros nattereri YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA91. Celeus flavescens intercedens YES YES LC FC92. Campephilus melanoleucos cearae YES LC FC93. Veniliornis passerinus taenionatus YES YES YES YES LOW LC FC94. Piculus chrysochloros chrysochloros YES LC FCPASSERIFORMESFORMICARIIDADE95. Taraba major stagura YES YES LOW LC FC96. Herpsilochmus pectoralis ** YES YES EN VU FC97. Herpsilochmus sellowi YES NT FC98. Formicivora melanogaster bahiae YES YES LC FC99. Thamnophilus capistratus YES YES LC FC100. Myrmorchilus strigilatus strigilatus YES LC FCFURNARIIDAE101. Furnarius leucopus leucopus YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA102. Furnarius figulus figulus YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA103. Furnarius rufus YES YES YES LOW LC CA104. Synallaxis frontalis frontalis YES YES YES LOW LC CA105. Synallaxis albescens albescens YES LOW LC FC106. Certhiaxis cinnamomeus cearensis YES YES YES YES LC CA107. Phacellodomus rufifrons rufifrons YES YES YES YES AVERAGE LC CA108. Pseudoseisura cristata YES YES YES YES AVERAGE LC CA109. Synallaxis scutata scutata YES LC FC110. Megaxenops parnaguae YES LC FC111. Xenops rutilans rutilans YES LC FCDENDROCOLAPTIDAE112. Xiphorhynchus picus picus YES LC FC113. Xiphorhynchus fuscus YES LC FC114. Lepidocolaptes angustirostris bahiae YES LC FC115. Sittasomus griseicapillus sylviellus YES LC FC116. Campylorhamphus trochilirostris

trochilirostris YES LC FC


TAXONFARMING


TYRANNIDAE117. Camptostoma obsoletum cinerascens YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA118. Sublegatus modestus modestus YES YES LC FC119. Phaeomyias murina murina YES LC FC120. Elaenia flavogaster flavogaster YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA121. Elaenia spectabilis YES LOW LC FC122. Elaenia cristata cristata YES YES LOW LC CA123. Elaenia chilensis YES LC FC124. Myiopagis viridicata viridicata YES LC FC125. Cnemotricccus fuscatus fuscatus YES YES LC FC126. Stigmatura napensis SIM SIM SIM SIM AVERAGE LC FC127. Euscarthmus meloryphus meloryphus YES YES LOW LC FC128. Hemitriccus margaritaceiventer SIM SIM SIM SIM LOW LC CA129. Lathrotriccus euleri euleri YES LC FC130. Myiophobus fasciatus flammiceps YES LOW LC FC131. Pyrocephalus rubinus rubinus YES LC CA132. Empidonomus varius varius YES LOW LC FC133. Myiodynastes maculatus solitarius YES LOW LC FC134. Todirostrum cinereum cearae YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA135. Tolmomyias flaviventris flaviventris YES YES YES YES LOW LC FC136. Xolmis irupero nivea YES YES YES LOW LC CA137. Fluvicola nengeta nengeta YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA138. Fluvicola albiventer YES YES LOW LC CA139. Machetornis rixosa rixosa YES YES YES LOW LC CA140. Arundinicula leucocephala YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA141. Myiarchus tyrannulus bahiae YES YES YES LOW LC CA142. Myiarchus ferox ferox YES YES YES LOW LC CA143. Pitangus sulphuratus maximiliani YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA144. Megarynchus pitangua pitangua YES YES YES LOW LC FC145. Myiozetetes similis similis YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA146. Tyrannus melancholichus

melancholichus YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA

147. Pachyramphus polychopterus polychopterus YES YES LOW LC FC

148. Pachyramphus viridis viridis YES LC FC149. Suiriri affinis bahiae YES YES LC FCHIRUNDINIDAE150. Phaeoprogne tapera tapera YES LOW LC CA151. Stelgidoprteryx ruficollis ruficollis YES YES LOW LC CA152. Tachycineta albiventer YES YES LOW LC CA153. Tachycineta leucorrhoa YES LOW LC CA154. Pigochelidon cyanoleuca cyanoleuca YES LOW LC CACORVIDAE155. Cyanocorax cyanopogon YES LOW LC FCTROGLODYTIDAE156. Cantorchilus longirostris bahiae YES YES YES YES LOW LC FC157. Troglodytes musculus musculus YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA


TAXONFARMING


MUSCICAPIDAE SYLVIDAE158. Polioptila plumbea atricapilla SIM SIM SIM SIM LOW LC CATURDINAE159. Turdus leucomelas albiventer YES LOW LC CA160. Turdus amaurochalinus YES YES YES YES LOW LC FC161. Turdus rufiventris juensis YES YES YES YES LOW LC CAMIMIDAE162. Mimus saturninus arenaceus YES YES LOW LC CAVIREONIDAE163. Cyclarhis gujanensis cearensis YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA164. Hylophilus amaurocephalus YES YES YES LC FC165. Vireo chivi YES LOW LC FCEMBEREZIDAE PARULINAE166. Parula pitiayumi pitiayumi YES YES LC FC167. Basileuterus flaveolus YES LOW LC FCCOEREBINAE168. Coereba flaveola chloropyga YES YES YES YES LOW LC CATHRAUPINAE LC169. Compsotraupis loricata YES LOW LC FC170. Thlypopsis sordida sordida YES LOW LC FC171. Nemosia pileata pileata YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA172. Tachyphonus rufus YES LOW LC CA173. Tangara sayaca sayaca YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA174. Euphonia chlorotica chlorotica YES LOW LC CA175. Tangara cayana cayana YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA176. Dacnis cayana paraguayensis YES LOW LC CA177. Conirostrum speciosum speciosum YES LOW LC FC178. Schistochlamys ruficapillus capistratus YES LOW LC CAEMBEREZINAE179. Ammodramus humeralis humeralis YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA180. Volatinia jacarina YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA181. Sporophila nigricollis nigricollis YES YES LOW LC CA182. Sicalis luteola luteola YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA183. Sporophila albogularis YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA184. Coryphospingus pileatus pileatus YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA185. Sporophila leucoptera leucoptera YES CA186. Paroaria dominicana YES YES YES YES LOW LC CACARDINALINAE187. Passerina brissonii brissonii YES AVERAGE LC FCICTERINAE188. Icterus pyrrhopterus tibialis YES YES LC CA189. Icterus jamacaii YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA190. Molothrus bonariensis bonariensis YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA191. Agelaioides fringillarius YES YES YES LOW LC CA192. Gnorimopsar chopi YES YES YES LOW LC CA193. Sturnella superciliaris YES LOW LC CAASSERIDAE194. Passer domesticus YES YES YES YES LOW LC CA

the importance of conserved caatinga forest to avifauna ...geo-processing was performed on the four...

Documents