Tourism development is an important driver of forest fragmentation in some countries in tropical areas, in addition to the historic clearing for cattle and agriculture (Bierregaard & Stouffer, 1997; Lambin, Geist, & Lepers, 2003). Construction of tourism developments and associated infrastructure (golf courses, residential zones, recreational parks, roads, etc.) result in fragmentation of forest habitats (Fahrig, 1997; Christ, Hillel, Matus, & Sweeting, 2003; White et al., 2012), leaving many different shapes and sizes of forest remnants. Further, selective extraction of native vegetation and introduction of exotic species to increase the value of tourism complexes (Chettri, Chandra, Sharma, & Jackson, 2005; Schlaepfer, Sax, & Olden, 2011), modify plant species composition, and forest structure and complexity (vertical stratification and plant species composition). Altogether, these environmental modifications reduce the availability of habitats with suitable attributes (e.g., food resources and shelter) to forest-dependent wild fauna, including bird communities (McGarigal & McComb, 1995; Newsome, Moore, & Dowling, 2002; Buckley, 2004).

In addition, if the number of remnants increases, distance between them increases and the exposed edge becomes larger (Fahrig, 1997; Sodhi, 2002; Sekercioglu, 2007), resulting as plausible scenario a higher mortality of bird species by high nest predation as well lower food availability near to the edge of remnants with respect to their interior (e.g., Whyte, Didham, & Briskie, 2005; Newmark & Stanley, 2011). However, these effects depend on the attributes of avian community such as: migratory status, feeding guilds, species richness, and abundance (Stouffer & Bierregaard, 1995; Bierregaard & Stouffer, 1997); as well as forest type and the local threats facing each of them. Nevertheless, some bird species are able to use forest remnants surrounded by secondary growth, in a matrix with pasture and crops and other land uses, with stable population sizes and even experiencing significant increases in their populations (Hughes, Daily, & Ehrlich, 2002; Sekercioglu, Loarie, Oviedo, Ehrlich, & Daily 2007). Thus, this biodiversity corresponds to species generalists or species associated with anthropogenic activities (Krauss et al., 2010). Forest-interior bird species (i.e., specialist species) abilities to use the matrix of modified habitats surrounding forest fragments may affect their vulnerability in fragmented landscapes i.e. species that avoid the matrix tend to decline or disappear in fragments, while those (i.e., generalist bird species) that tolerate or exploit the matrix often remain stable or increase. However, it is not known what happens in a tourism development where forest remnants are interspersed by residential buildings and tourism activities, which are increasing across the tropical forest in Latin American.

During the period 2000-2010, world tropical forest deforestation was 62 % (Keenan et al., 2015), resulting in 6.5 million hectares lost per year. However, in Mexico showed the largest deforestation rates, with 197 651 hectares lost from the 2001 to 2015 period (see details in http://www.globalforestwatch.org/country/MEX). Tropical forest originally covered about 8 % of the country, being considered a world “hotspot” because of its high biodiversity and endemism (Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, Da Fonseca, & Kent, 2000). Unfortunately, this ecosystem has experienced high deforestation rates, particularly since the early 1970´s, because of conversion to pastures and crops, and the establishment of tourism development. Nonetheless, it is still possible to find considerable amount of tropical forest in the Yucatan Peninsula. However, these tropical forest area consist of forest remnants surrounded by mosaics of agricultural land, tourism development and secondary growth. Therefore, it is very important to know the characteristics and extension of these remnants of tropical forest and evaluate if it possible to conserve bird diversity and richness compared to other areas with different land uses. In order to know if the tropical forest remnants are functioning as bird diversity shelters within a matrix dominated by tourism development in one of the most important tourism area in Mexico, our goal was to better understand differences in bird species richness among natural and modified habitats in Akumal region in Quintana Roo, Mexico. In addition, to investigate the role of the different habitat types in a matrix dominated by tourism development. This study aims to provide a general understanding of how bird communities are affected by tourism development. We expected to find a lower species richness and a distinctive bird species composition in modified environments compared with natural environments (mature tropical forest and tropical forest remnants).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area: The present study was carried out in Akumal, an area with several tourism developments (covering approximately 143 km2) located in the Yucatan Peninsula between 20°30’ N - 87°12’ W & 20°10’ N - 87°26’ W (Fig. 1), at the municipality of Tulum in Quintana Roo, Mexico. This site ranges in elevation from 0 to 20 masl, climate of warm subhumid type with abundant rainfalls in summer. Annual average temperature ranges from 25 to 28 °C, and annual precipitation between 1 300 and 1 500 mm. Dominant natural vegetation in the area is tropical semideciduous forest, tropical deciduous forest, and tropical flooded forest associated with secondary growth; as well as relicts of dunes coast vegetation and mangrove. Common tree species in the study area included Brosimum alicastrum, Bursera simaruba, Manilkara zapota, Talisia olivaeformis, Metopium brownei, Caesalpinia gaumeri, Thrinax radiata, Coccothrinax readi and Pseudophoenix sargentü. The mangrove relicts founded are dominated by Rhizophora mangle and Laguncularia racemose. From the tide line, where the sand accumulates and the soil is very unstable plants, are established Sesuvium portulacastrum, trailblazers like Ambrosia hispida, Salicornia and Hymenocallis littoralis bigelavii. This vegetation is the limit to stable dunes where there is a thicket forming shrub species complex as Cocoloba uvifera, Ipomoea pes-caprae, Camavelia rosea, Sophora tomentosa, and Ernodea littoralis, among others (Miranda, 1959; Rzedowski, 1978).

Habitat classification: Habitat classification was based on main vegetation cover, land uses, and the pattern of utilization by settlements as follow: (a) mature tropical forest: tropical semideciduous and tropical deciduous forest >2 ha with mature trees >10 years with canopy height 8 to 15 m and, diameters >20 cm; (b) tropical forest remnants: tropical semideciduous and tropical deciduous forest remnants <2 ha with mature trees <10 years, with canopy height 4 to 8 m and, diameters <20 cm within golf courses and residential zones; (c) modified environments by tourism developments, that include golf course and artificial water bodies in golf course; hotels zones and residential with natural and introduced vegetation; (e) modified environments by urban developments, crops and livestock, that include urban zone with natural and introduced vegetation, cattle pastures and agricultural fields; (f) coast dunes, beach zone and small remnants mangrove.

Bird surveys: Point counts surveys were conducted along transects in the different habitat types (see above; Hutto, Pletschet, & Hendricks, 1986) from April 2009 to November 2010, for a total of 412 point counts in 96 days. Points were randomly selected to represent different types of natural vegetation and land uses in the area (107 km2). Distance between sampling points were at least 250 m to avoid double-counting of highly local species (Hutto et al., 1986; Ralph, Saber, & Droege, 1995). Observation time by point was 20 min, as proposed for tropical environments (Vielliard, 2000). Points were located in both edge and interior of the forest remnants. Sampling was conducted monthly mostly in the morning (06:00 to 11:30 h) and in the afternoon (15:30 to 20:00 h), additional to nocturnal observations. Birds were identified by sight and sound (mostly), excluding birds that overflew the sampling points. Sampling was avoided on rainy days. Species richness was expressed as the total number of species recorded in each habitat, because effort was approximately equal at all habitats (21 days of sampling effort per habitat, with exception of coast dunes, beach zone and small remnants mangrove, which was 12 days). For species identification, Peterson and Chalif (1989), and Howell and Webb (1995) guides were used, and nomenclature and taxonomic status followed AOU (2017), as well as some supplements.

Bird attributes: Birds were categorized as resident or migratory species according to their presence during the study period and complemented with Howell and Webb (1995). Feeding habits were categorized according to which the species was feeding most frequently, which was complemented with literature sources (Peterson & Chalif, 1989; Howell & Webb, 1995) and field observations: omnivores, nectarivores, carnivores, frugivores, granivores, and insectivores (included aquatic invertebrates as well as bark insectivores, aerial insectivores, trunk insectivores, generalist insectivores, ground insectivores, and leaf insectivores). Habitat use preferences were categorized based on Blair (1996), and based on main cover vegetation of the land uses (see above).

Statistical analyses: Species richness was calculated as the cumulative number of species observed in the study area. EstimateS v.9 was used to compute species accumulation curves for the species detected by survey (number of sampling days) (Colwell, 2013). Species accumulation curves estimate the number of species expected in the study area and to compare qualitatively avian richness among habitat types, based on randomized re-sampling from all pooled samples. Asymptote from species accumulation curves was constructed by Michaelis-Menton species richness estimation function using EstimateS v.9 (Colwell & Coddington, 1994). This method estimates of total species richness based on successively larger numbers of samples from the data set. Non-parametric estimator Jackknife 2 was selected based for having the slightest bias in the accuracy data (Walther & Moore, 2005; Hortal, Borges, & Gaspar, 2006). The Shannon diversity index (H´) and Simpson´s index (D) were obtained to estimate diversity among habitats (Krebs, 2000). Point Abundance Index (PAI) was calculated by dividing the number of detections for each species by the total number of point’s sampled (Blondel, Ferry, & Frochot, 1970). To understand how community composition differs, and what species are present and how the habitats differ in the mix of species they have, we conducted a hybrid multidimensional scaling ordination (HMDS), using the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index on untransformed species abundance. The hybrid MDS was introduced by Faith, Michin and Belbin (1987) and combines both the PCoA (principal coordinate analysis or classical MDS) and the non-metric MDS (NMDS). It has the advantage of assuming a linear relationship between the ecological distances obtained by the ordination and the dissimilarity measures where it is most often straight (the PCoA part), and only monotonicity where ecological distances (in the ordination space) are too high to be accurately measured (the NMDS part; Faith et al., 1987). Differences between natural environments and modified environments (see above) were tested using a permutation multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA; Anderson, 2005). Data of the coast dunes, beach zone and mangrove were not included given the low number of sampling points made in those areas. All analyses were conducted using Minitab (see details http://www.minitab.com/).

RESULTS

We recorded a total of 1 914 bird sightings during the study period, with a bird density of 54.3 individuals/observation-hour. A total of 160 species and 50 families was recorded, from which only five species are considered endemic, and 10 species were most frequently recorded (Appendix). Accumulation curves for sampling by census reached an asymptote (Fig. 2A) in the value of 170 species. In this context, Jackknife´s 2 estimator resulted in a value of 177 species, indicating that the probability of encountering more species increasing sampling effort is very low (Fig. 2B). From all detected bird species, 99 were permanent residents, 47 were winter visitors, 11 were transients, and three introduced (Appendix). The avian community in the study have a predominance of insectivore species (N= 97, see Appendix).

Bird community attributes by habitats: A total of 96 species were found in mature tropical forest, 92 in tropical forest remnants, 79 in modified environments by tourism developments and, 40 in modified environments by urban developments, crops and livestock (Appendix). Accumulation curves showed that the expected species richness present in mature tropical forest had the highest bird richness (Jackknife 2 = 114), followed by tropical forest remnants with expected species (Jackknife 2 = 110), modified environments by tourism developments (Jackknife 2 = 91), and (Jackknife 2 = 57; Fig. 2B). Only 17 species were exclusively found in mature tropical forest, three in tropical forest remnants, and the rest was shared, and four in modified environments by tourism developments and two in modified environments by urban development, crops and livestock, while the rest were found in two to four habitat types (Appendix). The species richness and diversity values were highest in mature tropical forest (96 species, H‘ = 3.78±0.006, D= 0.93±0.010) and tropical forest remnants (94 species, H‘= 3.32±0.008, D= 0.90±0.010); while, modified environments by tourism developments (72 species, H‘= 2.89±0.014, D= 0.73±0.030), and modified environments by urban developments, crops and livestock (40 species, H‘= 2.73±0.012, D= 0.69±0.029) presented the lowest species richness and diversity values (Fig. 3). Bird species richness and diversity values (H‘, D) varied significantly among habitats (Fig. 3; P< 0.001), with few species detected in modified environments compared with mature tropical forest and tropical forest remnants. This was supported also by the HMDS ordination explained 55 % of the variation in species composition among habitats. Clear gradients in community composition were observed along both axes, with the centroids for mature tropical forest sites and tropical forest remnants having negative values on both axes and the centroids for modified environments (by tourism developments and by urban developments, crops and livestock) having positive values (Fig. 4). Mature tropical forest and tropical forest remnants sites were clearly separated from modified environments, and grouping of same land-use sites was significant (F2 = 28.632, R2 = 0.412, P< 0.05) showing that bird richness differ significantly between the four analyzed habitats (Fig. 4). Similarly, with migratory status, the highest species richness of resident and migratory species was recorded in mature tropical forest (69 resident species and 26 migratory species) and tropical forest remnants (62 resident species and 35 migratory species) while modified environments by tourism developments (45 resident species, 26 migratory species, and one introduced species) and modified environments by urban developments, crops and livestock (30 resident species, eight migratory species, and two introduced species) recorded the lowest species richness; but not significant difference depending on migratory status, both migratory and resident species respond the same way. Insectivore species were better represented in the mature tropical forest, and tropical forest remnants (>16). Frugivores and nectarivores species were slightly higher and abundant in mature tropical forest and, tropical forest remnants (with six species in each habitat). Carnivores (18), granivores (10) and omnivores (10) species were better represented in modified environments (particularly in cattle pastures and agricultural fields), and insectivore species were better represented in mature tropical forest (65 species) and, tropical forest remnants (59; Appendix). Results in this study are consistent with respect to that modified environments (i.e., agricultural and livestock areas) had a higher proportion of carnivores and granivores species in comparison with tropical forest.

DISCUSSION

Our study revealed that mature and tropical forest remnants in Akumal region had higher bird species diversity that the modified environments, which is expected because modified environments lack suitable vegetative remnants, shrubs and canopy cover that limits food density and diversity, nest placement, and predator avoidance. Above mentioned reveals the importance of tropical forest remnants for bird diversity conservation in a tourism area, as an important shelters to the bird community. According with our results, Bennet and Saunders (2010) mentioned that the forest remnants are very important in terms of shelter, feeding and nesting areas, particularly to birds that depend on native vegetation.

Bird species recorded accounted for 32 % of all species reported for Quintana Roo by Correa and MacKinnon (2011), being the order Passeriformes the most representatives with 52 % (83 species) from the total recorded. Abundance index values (PAI) showed a large number of species with low PAI, as well as few species with intermediate to high PAI compared to the pattern observed in other surveys (Aleixo & Vielliard, 1995; Lyra-Neves, Martins, Mendes, Rodrigues, & Lacerda, 2004). Bird species richness in the study was similar to other tropical forest areas with a predominance of insectivore species (e.g., Estrada, Coates-Estrada, & Meritt, 1997; Blake & Loiselle, 2001). Omnivore species abundance can be directly related to the variety of available resources for change in land use and declining native resources like fruits. However, the presence of frugivore species, also some bark insectivore species indicate that the study area is relatively well conserved (Blake & Loiselle, 2015). Others signs of relative adequate habitat conditions included the occurrence of mixed-species flocks (Stotz, Fitzpatrick, Parker, & Moskovits, 1996), and trunk insectivores. Frequency and structure of mixed-species flocks also suggests habitat conditions at the study area were adequate for many common in tropical forest bird species according to Stotz et al. (1996). Most bird species recorded in this study were dependent on forest edge, these results suggest that the sensitivities of bird species to vegetation are associated with their dependence of food resources as availability of native fruit (Hasiu, Gomes, & Silva, 2007).

The differences in the species richness and diversity found in this study indicated that the mature tropical forest and tropical forest remnants present greater diversity and richness compared with modified environments. This accords with other studies in tropical environments, and indicates that the loss of original habitats directly influences the presence, abundance and persistence of species (Kattan, Álvarez-López, & Giraldo, 1994; Laurance & Bierregaard, 1997; Rocha, Virtanen, & Cabeza, 2015). The higher avian diversity found in tropical forest may be due to high numbers of individuals and mature vegetation that provide many different microhabitats, which promote varieties of bird species compared with habitats with different land covers (e.g., with human infrastructure or tourism development). However, others studies have found highest richness in modified environments than natural environments (Petit, Petit, Christian, & Powell, 1999; Martin, Viano, Ratsimisetra, Laloë, & Carrière, 2012), but this may be due to the environmental heterogeneity that can get to present the area.

Tropical forest remnants had a significant contribution to the bird species richness and diversity in the study area which is consistent with those reported by Estrada et al. (1997) in Los Tuxtlas region in Veracruz, Mexico. On the other hand, bird composition in terms of the feeding guilds is related to vegetation structure (Laurance & Bierregaard, 1997). Different groups of bird species were found that respond differently to the conversion of forest to modified environments. Not surprisingly, tropical forest assemblages were characterized by a high proportion of forest-associated species, whereas modified habitats were dominated by generalists and open habitat specialists. However, modified environments by urban developments, crops and livestock are very important to a lot of carnivores, granivores and insectivores species because of temporarily or permanently provide such resources depending on their phenology and seasonality (Loiselle & Blake, 1994).

In general, the tropical forest remnants that presents the study area appears to contribute to the relatively high species richness, especially considering the number of species occurring in mature tropical forest. Results of this study showed evidence that tropical forest remnants are significantly important in tourism zones as an available habitat for birds. The continuing expansion of tourism complex, particularly large-scale, will likely result in the simplification and loss of bird diversity. That is particularly important in tourism zones from Quintana Roo because these remnants representing shelters, feeding or nesting areas for birds dependent from natural environments; as well as responsible for maintaining an important proportion of regional avian diversity. The importance of tropical forest remnants provides important habitats for many species of resident and migrant birds in Yucatan Peninsula. Our results confirm the great need for conservation (preserved areas), restoration with native vegetation, and ecological studies of tropical forests remnants, because represent the first step to take actions for conservation of regional avian diversity in the Yucatan Peninsula subjected to anthropogenic activities. An added potential value to this tourist area to attract other tourism type (as birdwatchers) as an alternative to preserve and promote ecological tourism. Furthermore, create incentives for protection and preservation on natural areas and, native biota, which allow preserve these tropical forest remnants.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to C. Vázquez and L. del Villar for the help and support in the field work. To Akumal municipally authorities, Villas Jade Beach, Golf and Spa, Naj K´aax Residential, Bahía Principe Residences and Golf, Bahía Principe Hotels and Resorts properties for the facilities during the field work.

RESUMEN

Remanentes de bosque tropical como refugios de la diversidad de aves dentro de una matriz de desarrollo turístico en la Península de Yucatán, México. Los bosques tropicales han sufrido una transformación extensa debido al aumento de los desarrollos turísticos, además de la compensación histórica de las actividades agrícolas y de pastoreo del ganado. En conjunto, estas actividades han tenido un efecto importante en la diversidad de aves, reduciendo el hábitat disponible para muchas especies. En este estudio, se evaluó el papel de los remanentes de bosque tropical para la diversidad de especies y composición de la comunidad de aves ubicados en diferentes tipos de uso de suelo en la región de Akumal en Quintana Roo, México. Se utilizaron puntos de conteo para caracterizar la avifauna por hábitat, y se utilizó el índice de diversidad de Shannon y Simpson para determinar la diversidad de aves. Además, las especies de aves se clasificaron según la estacionalidad y el gremio alimenticio. Se registraron 160 especies, distribuidas entre 50 familias; 100 especies fueron residentes permanentes, 47 visitantes de invierno y 11 transitorias. El bosque tropical maduro y remanentes de bosque tropical tuvieron una mayor riqueza de especies y valores de diversidad que los ambientes modificados. La composición de las especies de aves de los remanentes de bosque tropical fue similar a la del bosque tropical maduro, pero mayor que los ambientes modificados. Este estudio demuestra la importancia de los remanentes forestales tropicales como refugios y corredores biológicos en paisajes con desarrollos turísticos, y la relevancia de estos remanentes en el mantenimiento de una alta diversidad de aves.

Palabras clave: comunidad de aves; conservación; riqueza de especies; fragmentación; Akumal; Quintana Roo.

REFERENCES

Aleixo, A., & Vielliard, J. M. E. (1995). Composição e dinâmica da avifauna da Mata de Santa Genebra, Campinas, São Paulo, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 12, 493-511.

Anderson, M. (2005). PERMANOVA: a fortran Computer Program for Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance. Auckland: Department of Statistics, University of Auckland.

AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union). 2017. Checklist of North American birds. American Ornithologists’ Union. Available at http://checklist.aou.org

Bennet, A. F., & Saunders, D. A. (2010). Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. In N. S. Sodhi & P. R. Ehrlich (Eds.), Conservation Biology for All (pp. 88-106). NY: Oxford University Press.

Bierregaard Jr., R. O., & Stouffer, P. C. (1997). Understory birds and dynamic habitat mosaics in Amazonian rainforest. In W. F. Laurance & Jr., R. O. Bierregaard (Eds.), Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management, and Conservation of Fragmented (pp. 138-155). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Blair, R. B. (1996). Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications, 6, 506-519.

Blake, J. G., & Loiselle, B. A. (2001). Bird assemblages in second-growth and old-growth forest, Costa Rica: perspectives from mist nest and point counts. Auk, 118, 304-326.

Blake, J. G., & Loiselle, B. A. (2015). Enigmatic declines in bird numbers in lowland forest of eastern Ecuador may be a consequence of climate change. Peer Journal, 3, e1177.

Blondel, J., Ferry, C., & Frochot, B. (1970). La méthode des indices ponctuels d‘abondance (I.P.A.) ou des relevés d‘avifaune par „stations d‘écoute“. Alauda, 38, 55-71.

Buckley, R. (2004). Impacts of ecotourism on birds. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Environmental impacts of ecotourism (pp. 187-210). Cambridge: CAB International.

Chettri, N., Chandra, D., Sharma, E., & Jackson, R. (2005). The relationship between bird communities and habitat. A study along a trekking corridor in the Sikkim Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development Journal, 25, 235-243.

Christ, C., Hillel, O., Matus, S., & Sweeting, J. (2003). Tourism and biodiversity: mapping tourism’s global footprint. Washington, D.C.: Conservation International & United Nations Environment Programme.

Colwell, R. K. (2013). EstimateS v.9. Available at http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates

Colwell, R. K., & Coddington, J. A. (1994). Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 345, 101-118.

Correa, J., & MacKinnon, B. (2011). Aves. In C. Pozo (Ed.), Riqueza biológica de Quintana Roo. Un análisis para su conservación Tomo 2 (pp. 252-266). Chetumal, México: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur-CONABIO-Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo-Programa de Pequeñas Donaciones.

Estrada, A., Coates-Estrada, R., & Meritt, D. A. (1997). Anthropogenic landscape changes and avian diversity at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6, 19-43.

Fahrig, L. (1997). Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal of Wildlife Management, 61, 603-610.

Faith, D. P., Michin, P. R., & Belbin, L. (1987). Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio, 69, 57-68.

Hasui, E., Gomes, V. S. M., & Silva, W. R. (2007). Effects of vegetation traits on habitat preferences of frugivorous birds in Atlantic rainforest. Biotropica, 39, 502-509.

Hortal, J., Borges, P. A. V., & Gaspar, C. (2006). Evaluating the performance of species richness estimators: sensitivity to sample grain size. Journal of Animal Ecology, 75, 274-287.

Howell, S., & Webb, S. (1995). A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hughes, J. B., Daily, G. C., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2002). Conservation of tropical forest birds in countryside habitats. Ecology Letters, 5, 121-129.

Hutto, R. L., Pletschet, S. M., & Hendricks, P. (1986). A fixed-radius point count method for non-breeding and breeding season use. Auk, 103, 593-602.

Kattan, G. H., Álvarez-López, H., & Giraldo, M. (1994). Forest fragmentation and bird extinction: San Antonio eighty years later. Conservation Biology, 8, 138-146.

Keenan, R. J., Reams, G., Achards, F., De Freitas, J., Grainger, A., & Lindquist, E. (2015). Dynamics of global forest area: results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Forest Ecology and Management, 352, 9-20.

Krauss, J., Bommarco, R., Guardiola, M., Heikkinen, R. K., Helm, A., Kuussaari, M., … & Steffan-Derenter, I. (2010). Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels. Ecology Letters, 13, 597-605.

Krebs, C. J. (2000). Ecología: estudio de la distribución y la abundancia (2ª. ed.). México: Oxford University Press.

Lambin, E. F., Geist, H. J., & Lepers, E. (2003). Dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 28, 205-241.

Laurance, W. F., & Bierregaard, Jr., R. O. (1997). Tropical forest remnants: ecology, management, and conservation of fragmented communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Loiselle, B., & Blake, J. G. (1994). Annual variation in birds and plants of a tropical second-growth woodland. Condor, 96, 368-380.

Lyra-Neves, R. M., Martins, M., Mendes, S., Rodrigues, W., & Lacerda, M. E. (2004). Comunidade de aves da Reserva Estadual de Gurjaú, Pernambuco, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 21, 581-592.

Martin, E. A., Viano, M., Ratsimisetra, L., Laloë, F., & Carrière, S. M. (2012). Maintenance of bird functional diversity in a traditional agroecosystem of Madagascar. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 149, 1-9.

McGarigal, K., & McComb, W. C. (1995). Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon coast range. Ecological Monographs, 65, 235-260.

Miranda, F. (1959). La vegetación de la península yucateca en los recursos naturales del sureste y su aprovechamiento II parte: estudios particulares. México: IMRNR.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858.

Newmark, W. D., & Stanley, T. R. (2011). Habitat fragmentation reduces nest survival in an Afrotropical bird community in a biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 108, 11488-11493.

Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., & Dowling, R. K. (2002). Natural area tourism: ecology, impacts and management. Sydney: Channel View Publications.

Peterson, R. T., & Chalif, E. L. (1989). Aves de México. Guía de campo. México: Ed. Diana.

Petit, L. J., Petit, D. R., Christian, D. G., & Powell, H. D. W. (1999). Bird communities of natural and modified habitats in Panama. Ecography, 22, 292-304.

Ralph, C. J., Saber, J. R., & Droege, S. (1995). Monitoring bird populations by point counts. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Rocha, R., Virtanen, T., & Cabeza, M. (2015). Bird assemblages in a Malagasy forest-agricultural frontier: effects of habitat structure and forest cover. Tropical Conservation Science, 8, 681-710.

Rzedowski, J. (1978). Vegetación de México. México: Edit. Limusa.

Schlaepfer, M. A., Sax, D. F., & Olden, J. D. (2011). The potential conservation value of non-native species. Conservation Biology, 25, 428-437.

Sekercioglu, C. H. (2007). Conservation ecology: area trumps mobility in fragment bird extinctions. Current Biology, 17, 283-286.

Sekercioglu, C. H., Loarie, S., Oviedo, F., Ehrlich, P. R., & Daily, G. C. (2007). Persistence of forest birds in the Costa Rican agricultural countryside. Conservation Biology, 21, 482-494.

Sodhi, N. S. (2002). A comparison of bird communities of two fragmented and two continuous Southeast Asian rainforests. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11, 1105-1119.

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

Stouffer, P., & Bierregaard Jr., R. O. (1995). Use of Amazonian forest fragments by understory insectivorous birds. Ecology, 76, 2429-2445.

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.

Walther, B. A., & Moore, J. L. (2005). The concepts of bias, precision and accuracy, and their use in testing the performances of species richness estimators, with a literature review of estimator performance. Ecography, 28, 815-829.

White, R. L., Baptiste, T. J. N., Dornelly, A., Morton, M. N., O´Connell, M. J., & Young, R. P. (2012). Population responses of the endangered White-breasted Thrasher Ramphocinclus brachyurus to a tourist development in Saint Lucia-conservation implications from a spatial modeling approach. Bird Conservation International, 22, 468-485.

Whyte, B. I., Didham, R. K., & Briskie, J. V. (2005). The effect of forest edge and nest height on nest predation in two differing New Zealand forest habitats. New Zealand Natural Sciences, 30, 19-34.

APPENDIX

Bird species recorded were classified according to their migratory status and feeding

habits in each habitat type in Akumal region, Quintana Roo, Mexico

Species	Migratory status	Feeding habits*	PAI	Habitat use preferences**
Species	Migratory status	Feeding habits*	PAI	Habitat use preferences**
Dendrocygna autumnalis	Resident	I	0.9856	Td (Gc)
Anas discors	Winter visitor	I	0.6312	Td (Gc)
Nomonyx dominicus	Resident	I	0.9856	Td (Gc)
Ortalis vetula	Resident	Fr	1.8874	Td (Gc), Cbm
Phoenicopterus ruber	Resident	I	0.1322	Cbm
Podilymbus podiceps	Winter visitor	I	0.6312	Td (Gc), Cbm
Columba livia	Introduced	Om	2.2480	Ca (Us)
Patagioenas flavirostris	Resident	Fr	0.8523	Mt
Streptopelia decaocto	Introduced	Om	0.8523	Td (Rh), Ca (Us)
Columbina passerina	Resident	Gr	1.2340	Tfr, Td (Rh)
Zenaida asiatica	Resident	Gr	1.2340	Mt, Tfr, Td (Gc, Rh), Ca (Cp, Us)
Zenaida aurita	Resident	Gr	1.2003	Td (Rh), Ca (Cp, Us)
Coccyzus minor	Resident	Fr, I	0.0045	Mt, Tfr
Chordeiles acutipennis	Resident	I	0.0987	Mt, Tfr, Td (Gc)
Nyctidromus albicollis	Resident	I	0.0846	Mt
Chaetura vauxi	Resident	I	1.0084	Mt, Tfr, Td (Gc, Rh), Ca (Cp, Us)
Anthracothorax prevostii	Resident	Ne	0.0012	Mt
Archilochus colubris	Winter visitor	Ne	0.0458	Mt, Tfr
Chlorostilbon canivetii	Resident	Ne	0.0683	Mt, Tfr
Amazilia yucatanensis	Resident	Ne	0.0879	Mt, Tfr
Amazilia rutila	Resident	Ne	0.0879	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Us)
Gallinula chloropus	Winter visitor	I	0.0875	Td (Gc), Cbm
Fulica americana	Winter visitor	I	0.0875	Td (Gc), Cbm
Himantopus mexicanus	Transient	I	0.0987	Td (Gc)
Pluvialis squatorola	Winter visitor	I	0.0784	Cbm
Pluvialis dominica	Transient	I	0.0012	Td (Gc), Cbm
Charadrius semipalmatus	Winter visitor	I	0.5489	Cbm
Charadrius vociferus	Winter visitor	I	0.6231	Td (Gc), Cbm
Jacana spinosa	Resident	I	0.0023	Td (Gc), Cbm
Actitis macularius	Winter visitor	I	0.0987	Td (Gc), Cbm
Tringa solitaria	Winter visitor	I	0.0846	Td (Gc), Cbm
Arenaria interpres	Winter visitor	I	0.0846	Cbm
Calidris minutilla	Winter visitor	I	0.0846	Cbm
Calidris pusilla	Transient	I	0.0784	Cbm
Leucophaeus atricilla	Winter visitor	Ca	0.0784	Cbm
Hydroprogne caspia	Winter visitor	Ca	0.0458	Cbm
Chlidonias niger	Transient	I, Ca	0.0030	Cbm
Thalasseus elegans	Winter visitor	Ca	0.0458	Cbm
Thalasseus maximus	Winter visitor	Ca	0.0458	Cbm
Fregata magnificens	Resident	Ca	0.6307	Td (Gc), Cbm
Sula leucogaster	Resident	Ca	0.5543	Td (Gc), Cbm
Phalacrocorax brasilianus	Resident	Ca	0.9936	Td (Gc), Cbm
Anhinga anhinga	Resident	Ca	0.9701	Td (Gc), Cbm
Pelecanus occidentalis	Resident	Ca	0.6111	Td (Gc), Cbm
Ardea herodias	Winter visitor	Ca	0.0224	Td (Gc), Cbm
Ardea alba	Resident	Ca	0.0458	Td (Gc), Cbm
Egretta thula	Resident	I, Ca	0.1322	Td (Gc), Cbm
Egretta caerulea	Winter visitor	I, Ca	0.1322	Td (Gc), Cbm
Egretta tricolor	Winter visitor	I, Ca	0.0112	Td (Gc), Cbm
Bubulcus ibis	Resident	I	0.7789	Ca (Cp)
Butorides virescens	Resident	I, Ca	0.0112	Td (Gc), Cbm
Euducimus albus	Resident	I	0.6803	Td (Gc), Cbm
Coragyps atratus	Resident	Ca	1.9635	Mt, Tfr, Td (Gc, Rh), Ca (Cp, Us)
Cathartes aura	Resident	Ca	1.9648	Mt, Tfr, Td (Gc, Rh), Ca (Cp, Us)
Pandion haliaetus	Winter visitor	Ca	0.0112	Cbm
Buteogallus anthracinus	Resident	Ca	0.0157	Tfr, Cbm
Rupornis magnirostris	Resident	Ca	0.1002	Mt, Tfr, Ca (Cp, Us)
Buteo nitidus	Resident	Ca	0.0875	Mt, Tfr, Ca (Cp)
Tyto alba	Resident	Ca	0.0045	Td (Rh), Ca (Cp, Us)
Megascops guatemalae	Resident	Ca	0.0012	Mt, Tfr
Glaucidium brasilianum	Resident	Ca	0.0012	Mt
Trogon melanocephalus	Resident	Fr	0.0085	Mt, Tfr
Trogon caligatus	Resident	Fr	0.0088	Mt,
Momotus coeruliceps	Resident	Om	0.0654	Mt
Eumomota superciliosa	Resident	Om	0.0879	Mt, Tfr
Megaceryle alcyon	Winter visitor	Ca	0.0085	Td (Gc), Cbm
Chloroceryle americana	Resident	Ca	0.0084	Td (Gc), Cbm
Melanerpes pygmaeus	Resident	I	0.0879	Mt, Tfr
Melanerpes aurifrons	Resident	I	0.6321	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Us)
Picoides scalaris	Resident	I	0.6004	Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Us)
Campephilus guatemalensis	Resident	I	0.0081	Mt, Tfr
Herpetotheres cachinans	Resident	Ca	0.0879	Tfr, Ca (Cp)
Falco sparverius	Winter visitor	Ca	0.0701	Tfr, Ca (Cp)
Falco columbarius	Winter visitor	Ca	0.0556	Mt, Tfr, Td (Gc), Ca (Cp)
Eupsittula nana	Resident	Fr	0.7540	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Cp, Us)
Amazona xantholora	Resident	Fr	0.6412	Mt
Sittasomus griseicapillus	Resident	I	0.0683	Mt
Xiphorhynchus flavigaster	Resident	I	0.0023	Mt
Synallaxis erythrothorax	Resident	I	0.0023	Mt
Camptostoma imberbe	Resident	I	0.0023	Mt, Tfr
Myiopagis viridicata	Resident	I	0.0245	Mt, Tfr
Elaenia flavogaster	Resident	I	0.0023	Mt, Tfr
Oncostoma cinereigulare	Resident	I	0.0245	Mt
Todirostrum cinereum	Resident	I	0.0023	Mt
Rhynchocyclus brevirostris	Resident	I	0.0023	Mt
Contopus virens	Transient	I	0.0245	Mt, Tfr
Contopus cinereus	Resident	I	0.0335	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Cp)
Attila spadiceus	Resident	I	0.0335	Mt, Tfr
Myiarchus yucatanensis	Resident	I	0.0335	Tfr
Myiarchus tuberculifer	Resident	I	0.0278	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Cp, Us)
Myiarchus tyrannulus	Resident	I	0.1150	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Cp, Us)
Pitangus sulphuratus	Resident	Om	0.2369	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh, Gc), Ca (Us)
Myiozetetes similis	Resident	I	0.4481	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Us)
Myiodynastes luteiventris	Resident	I	0.1150	Mt, Tfr
Tyrannus melancholicus	Resident	I	0.2369	Tfr, Td (Gc, Rh), Ca (Cp, Us)
Tyrannus couchii	Resident	I	0.2369	Mt, Tfr, Td (Gc), Ca (Cp)
Tyrannus tyrannus	Transient	I	0.1150	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Cp)
Tityra semifasciata	Resident	Fr, I	0.2369	Mt, Tfr
Pachyramphus aglaiae	Resident	I	0.1123	Mt, Tfr
Vireo pallens	Resident	I	0.2369	Mt
Vireo philadelphicus	Winter visitor	I	0.2369	Mt, Tfr
Vireo magister	Resident	I	0.1123	Mt
Psilorhinus morio	Resident	Om	1.0523	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca(Cp)
Cyanocorax yucatanicus	Resident	Om	1.1238	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh)
Stelgidopteryx serripennis	Winter visitor	I	1.0523	Mt, Tfr, Td (Gc, Rh), Ca (Cp, Us)
Riparia riparia	Transient	I	1.0035	Td (Gc), Cbm
Petrochelidon fulva	Resident	I	1.0523	Td (Gc), Cbm, Ca (Cp)
Hirundo rustica	Transient	I	1.0035	Td (Rh, Gc), Ca (Cp, Us)
Thryothorus maculipectus	Resident	I	0.1123	Mt, Tfr
Thryothorus ludovicianus	Resident	I	0.1122	Mt, Tfr
Uropsila leucogastra	Resident	I	0.2369	Mt, Tfr
Polioptila caerulea	Resident	I	0.2035	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Us)
Catharus ustulatus	Transient	I	0.1122	Mt, Tfr
Turdus grayi	Resident	Om	0.2369	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh)
Hylocichla mustelina	Winter visitor	I	0.1122	Mt, Tfr
Dumetella carolinensis	Resident	I	0.2369	Mt, Tfr
Melanoptila glabirostris	Resident	I	0.1123	Mt, Tfr
Mimus gilvus	Resident	Fr, I	0.2369	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Us)
Arremonops rufivirgatus	Resident	Gr	0.1123	Mt, Tfr
Euphonia hirundinacea	Resident	Fr	0.2369	Mt
Dives dives	Resident	Om	0.9856	Mt, Tfr, Td (Gc, Rh), Ca (Us)
Quiscalus mexicanus	Resident	Om	3.4522	Td (Gc, Rh), Ca (Us)
Molothrus aeneus	Resident	Gr	0.9856	Td (Gc, Rh), Ca (Us)
Icterus prosthemelas	Resident	I	0.2369	Mt, Tfr
Icterus cucullatus	Resident	Om	0.2568	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh)
Icterus chrysater	Resident	I	0.1148	Mt, Tfr
Icterus auratus	Resident	I	0.1148	Mt, Tfr
Icterus galbula	Winter visitor	Om	0.1148	Tfr, Td (Rh)
Seiurus aurocapilla	Winter visitor	I	0.1123	Mt, Tfr
Helmitheros vermivorum	Winter visitor	I	0.1123	Mt, Tfr
Parkesia noveboracensis	Winter visitor	I	1.0035	Mt, Tfr
Mniotilta varia	Winter visitor	I	0.1123	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh)
Protonotaria citrea	Transient	I	0.0041	Mt, Tfr
Oreothlypis peregrina	Transient	I	0.0041	Mt, Tfr
Oreothlypis ruficapilla	Winter visitor	I	0.1148	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh)
Geothlypis poliocephala	Resident	I	0.0245	Mt, Tfr
Geothlypis trichas	Winter visitor	I	0.0041	Tfr
Setophaga citrina	Winter visitor	I	0.0041	Mt, Tfr
Setophaga ruticilla	Winter visitor	I	0.0041	Mt, Tfr
Setophaga americana	Winter visitor	I	0.0041	Mt, Tfr
Setophaga magnolia	Winter visitor	I	0.1123	Mt, Tfr
Setophaga petechia	Winter visitor	I	0.1148	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh)
Setophaga caerulescens	Winter visitor	I	0.0041	Mt, Tfr
Setophaga virens	Winter visitor	I	0.0041	Mt, Tfr
Cardellina canadensis	Winter visitor	I	0.0041	Mt, Tfr
Cardellina pusilla	Winter visitor	I	0.0245	Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Us)
Icteria virens	Winter visitor	I	0.0041	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh)
Thraupis abbas	Resident	Fr, I	0.1148	Mt, Tfr
Piranga roseogularis	Resident	I	0.2035	Mt
Piranga rubra	Winter visitor	I	0.2369	Mt, Tfr
Cardinalis cardinalis	Resident	Gr	0.1148	Tfr
Pheucticus ludovicianus	Winter visitor	I, Gr	0.2035	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh)
Cyanocompsa parellina	Resident	Gr	0.2369	Mt, Tfr, Td (Rh)
Passerina caerulea	Winter visitor	Gr	0.2568	Tfr, Td (Rh), Ca (Us, Cp)
Passerina cyanea	Winter visitor	Gr	0.1148	Tfr, Ca (Cp)
Volatinia jacarina	Resident	Gr	0.1123	Tfr, Ca (Cp)
Cyanerpes cyaneus	Resident	Ne	0.1123	Mt, Tfr
Sporophila torqueola	Resident	Gr	0.1148	Tfr, Ca (Cp)
Saltator atriceps	Resident	Gr	0.2035	Mt, Tfr
Saltator coerulescens	Resident	Gr	0.2369	Mt, Tfr

* Feeding habits: Omnivores (Om); Nectarivores (Ne); Carnivores (Ca); Frugivores (Fr); Granivores (Gr); Invertebrates (I, included aquatic invertebrates, bark insectivores aerial insectivores, trunk insectivores, generalist insectivores, ground insectivores, and leaf insectivores.

** Habitat use preferences: Mature tropical forest (Mt); Tropical forest remnants (Tfr), Modified environments by tourism developments (Td): Golf course and artificial water bodies in golf course (Gc), Hotel and residential zones with native and introduced vegetation (Rh); Modified environments by urban development, crops and livestock (Ca): Urban zone with native and introduced vegetation (Us), Cattle pastures and agricultural fields (Cp); and, Coast dunes, beach and mangrove zones (Cbm).