The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 124(3):558-571. 2012 
SPECIES, FUNCTIONAL GROUPS, AND HABITAT PREFERENCES OF 
BIRDS IN FIVE AGROFORESTRY CLASSES IN TABASCO, MEXICO 
HANS VAN DER WAL, 1,3,5 BEATRIZ PENA-ALVAREZ,' 
STEFAN L. ARRIAGA-WEISS, 1 2 * * 5 AND SALVADOR HERNANDEZ-DAUMAS j 
ABSTRACT.—We studied species, functional groups, and habitat preferences of birds in live classes of agroforestry 
systems: agroforests, animal agroforestry, linear agroforcsiry. sequential agroforeslry. and crops under tree cover in 
Tabasco, Mexico. Sampling sites were >2 km from natural forest fragments. Observations were made at 38 sites using 
30-min point and transect counts in the morning and afternoon in the rainy season, season ol northern winds, and dry season 
Irom June 2(108 to May 2009. We observed 3,551 birds, which were assigned to 102 species: 72 were resident and 30 were 
migratory species. Overall efficiency of sampling was 82.4% and varied from 68.7% in linear agroforestry to 81.5% in 
animal agroforestry. Total species richness varied from 43 in sequential agroforestry to 64 in animal agroforestry Species 
richness and Shannon diversity indices revealed no differences among agroforestry classes. Bird communities in animal 
agroforestry, linear agroforcsiry. and sequential agroforestry had similar species compositions, as did agroforcsls and crops 
under tree cover. Birds in all agroforestry classes were mainly forest generalists, although specialists of open areas were 
common, particularly in animal and sequential agroforestry. Only one individual of a forest specialist species was observed 
during sampling. Migrant species were mostly forest generalists, but some open area specialists occurred in animal 
■igrolorestry. Resident birds were distributed over all foraging guilds in all agroforestry classes, whereas migrants were 
mainly foliage-gleaning insectivotes, foraging guilds had different relative abundances among agroforestry classes. 
Structural diversity ol agrolorestry classes did not seem to influence bird species richness, forest specialist species were 
virtually absent in agroforestry classes, but the avifauna in agroforestry is diverse and valuable in itself. Received 9 Julv 
2010. Accepted 7 March 2012. 
Deforestation and biodiversity loss in recent 
decades (FAO 2006) have increased attenlion 
on the contribution of agroforestry systems to 
conservation (Reitsma et al. 2001. Harvey et al. 
2006. Harvey and Gonzalez-Villalobos 2007. 
Bhagwat et al. 2008, Scales and Marsden 2008, 
Najera and Simonetti 2010). Agroforestry systems 
are primarily production oriented and combine 
tree components with crops or animals (Nair 
1985, Sinclair 1999. Torquebiau 2000). They 
contribute to conservation by the inherent diver¬ 
sity of their components (trees, shrubs, crops, and 
tended animals) and by hosting associated species 
ol birds, invertebrates, reptiles, and mammals. The 
inherent diversity of agroforestry systems is fre¬ 
quently limited to a few species (Lamb et al. 2005). 
although home gardens (Kumar and Nair 2004. 
Scales and Marsden 2008). shifting cultivation Helds 
1 El Colegio de la Fronteru Stir. Dcpartamcnto de 
Agroecologfa. Carretera Villahermasa-Ref'orma Km 15.5 
sin ntimero. Ranchena Guineo 2“ Section. CYidigo Postal: 
86283, Municipio Centro, Tabasco, Mexico, 
* Universidad Juarez Autonoma de Tabasco, Avcnida 
Universidad sin numero, Cddigo Postal: 86040. Municipio 
Centro, Tabasco, Mexico. 
’Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group. Wagen- 
ingen University and Research, Drocvendaalsesteeg 3. 6708 
PB Wageningen, The Netherlands, 
Deceased. 
5 Corresponding author; e-mail: hvanderwal@ecosur.mx 
(Romero-Romero et al. 2000), and plantations of 
coffee (Coffea arahicu and C. robusta) (Soto-Pinlu 
et al. 2000), cacao (Theobroma cacao) (Oke and 
Odebiyi 2007), and chamaedorea palms (Cluunae- 
darea spp.) (Granados el al. 2004) maintain plan! 
biodiversity. 
Associated biodiversity has been studied in 
several agroforestry systems (Harvey et al. 2006. 
Beukema et al. 2007, Gordon et al. 2007). 
Diversity of land cover in the landscape favors 
species richness, as the composition of bird 
communities varies among cover types. Species 
richness of birds had a positive correlation with 
species richness of tree cover in a study in 
Nicaragua (Harvey et al. 2006). However, Lawton 
et al. (1998) and Beukema et al. (2007) recom¬ 
mend caution in supposing species richness of one 
taxon shows positive correlation with species 
richness in other taxa. A larger number of tree 
species in agroforestry systems does not neces¬ 
sarily imply larger species numbers of birds, 
invertebrates, or other groups. 
Structural diversity of agroforestry systems is 
frequently considered a biodiversity catalyst. 
Gordon cl al. (2007) found a positive correlation 
between height of the canopy, cover by shade 
trees, and percentage of epiphyte-bearing trees in 
coffee plantations and species richness of birds 
with a preference for forest habitats (generalists 
and specialists). However, the variables studied 
558 
