Golden-cheecked Warbler in Central
America Pine-oak Forest Ecoregion
Ana José Cóbar-Carranza1, Efraín Castillejos-Castellanos2, Manolo
García Vettorazzi1, and Claudia Macias Caballero2. 1Universidad San
Carlos de Guatemala . 2Pronatura Sur A.C.
2016 Golden-cheeked Warbler and Black-capped
Vireo Symposium
Austin Texas January 2016
GCWA migrates through the
mountains of eastern Mexico along the
Sierra Madre Oriental in the states of
Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila,
Queretaro, Veracruz and Chiapas.
•  When arrive to winter grounds, It spends winter in temperate forests of
Chiapas (Mexico), Guatemala, Salvador Honduras & Nicaragua.
Timeline GCWA Studies in winter
Pronatura Sur grounds….
Pronatura
Sur studies
winter
ecology of
GCWA in
Highlands
of Chiapas
1990-1
993
SalvaNatura
starts birds
monitoring in
pine-oak
forest
(Montecristo,
El Salvador)
The Alliance was
established
during
mesoamerican
society for
biological
conservation
meeting in
Chiapas
(México) and
defensores de
la Naturaleza
(Guatemala)
studies
distribution
and ecology of
GCWA in
winter grounds
1999
20002003
Defensores de
la Naturaleza
establishes
conservation
project for
GCWA in Sierra
de las Minas
Biosphere
Reserve
(Guatemala)
2001
2003
Defensores de la
Naturaleza
facilitate a
regional
workshop for
GCWA
Conservation in
winter grounds.
First protocol.
First regional
proyect.
The Alliance apply
standard protocol
to monitoring
GCWA in winter
grounds
(TPWD)
2004
The Alliance
develop a
standar
protocol for a
regional
monitoring of
GCWA
2006-2
010
Standard Methodologies & Regionals
Monitoring Projects
Increase knowledge about GCWA in
winter grounds
What we know…..
•  Habitat use
•  Populations tendencies of GCWA
•  Potential distribution of GCWA in the
Central America Pine-oak Forest
Ecoregion
•  Mixed species flocks dynamic
ECOLOGY AND MONITORING OF GOLDEN-­‐CHEEKED WARBLERS THROUGHOUT THEIR WINTER RANGE
Institutional collaboration among
•  Pronatura Sur (Mexico).
•  Defensores de la Naturaleza (Guatemala).
•  SalvaNATURA (El Salvador).
•  Fundacion-Gaia, ALAS, The Nature Conservancy &
MARENA (Nicaragua).
•  Fundación EDUCA, The Nature Conservancy, Centro
Zamorano de Biodiversidad & SERNA (Honduras).
•  The Nature Conservancy-Texas & Zoo Conservation
Outreach Group (USA).
•  With the support of Section 6 Endangered Species Act
funds (U.S.F.W.S.), administered by Texas Parks &
Wildlife Department. Methodology
•  Four-­‐year project (2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and
2009-2010). •  Each winter from November to February •  5 teams in 5 countries (Chiapas-­‐Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua).
•  5 localiHes per country. •  Each locality studied 5 mixed foraging flocks of insecHvorous birds. •  Protocol included 2 observers following each flock for 4 h in the morning and describing vegetaHon in area occupied by flock. •  AOer four seasons, we have data from over 600 flocks (440 Golden-­‐cheeked Warblers records). Why do we study mixed foraging flocks
•  GCWA has a special
behavior when arrives to
winter grounds.
•  GCWA join mixed
foraging flocks during
the morning to search
food into the forests.
Golden Cheeked Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Black-and-white Warbler
Townsend´s Warbler
Hermit Warbler
Slate-throated Redstart
RESULTS
Efect of habitat characteristics
•  Applied Multiple regression - 19 variables
–  midlevel encino cover (2-10 m) (P=0.000, R2= 11.9%)
–  Tree Maximum height (P=0.005, R2= 2.0%)
–  Canopy encino cover (alto, > 10 m) (P=0.007, R2=
1.0%)
Tree where GCWA were first sighted
300
individuals
250
200
male type
150
female type
all
100
50
0
pine
roble
encino
Quercus sp.
tree taxon
sweetgum
broadleaf
Population Tendencies
Table. GLM analysis of absolute abundance of GCWA per migration
season
Intercept Season 07-­‐08 Season 08-­‐09 Season 09-­‐10 Es8mator Standard Error Z Value Pr(>|z|) 1.0335 0.1880 0.2160 0.0175 0.0000 0.1297 0.0906 0.8954 0.0981 0.1241 0.1276 0.1332 10.54 1.52 1.69 0.13 - No significant differences
between migration season
-  The abundance of GCWA is
stable
Figure. Absolute abundance of GCWA per migraHon season
Table. GLM analysis of absolute abundance of GCWA by country and
migration season
Country GUATEMALA Intercept Season 07-­‐08 Season 08-­‐09 Season 09-­‐10 HONDURAS Intercept Season 07-­‐08 Season 08-­‐09 Season 09-­‐10 MÉXICO Intercept Season 07-­‐08 Season 08-­‐09 Season 09-­‐10 NICARAGUA Intercept Season 07-­‐08 Season 08-­‐09 Season 09-­‐10 EL SALVADOR Intercept Season 07-­‐08 Season 08-­‐09 Season 09-­‐10 Es8mator Standard Error z Value Pr(>|z|) 0.4055 0.3677 0.4055 0.3567 0.3333 0.4336 0.3849 0.4216 1.22 0.85 1.05 0.85 0.2238 0.3964 0.2921 0.3976 1.1451 0.6466 1.3563 0.7156 0.2132 0.2575 0.2487 0.2601 5.37 2.51 5.45 2.75 0.0000 0.0120* 0.0000* 0.0059* 1.3499 0.0249 -­‐0.4336 -­‐0.1067 0.1361 0.1732 0.2086 0.1943 9.92 0.14 -­‐2.08 -­‐0.55 0.0000 0.0376* 0.8855 0.5828 0.1823 0.0800 0.6650 -­‐0.1067 0.4082 0.4935 0.4880 0.1943 0.45 0.16 1.36 -­‐0.55 0.6552 0.8712 0.1729 0.5828 0.9555 -­‐0.0800 -­‐0.2624 -­‐0.3677 0.2773 0.4003 0.4494 0.4336 3.45 -­‐0.20 -­‐0.58 -­‐0.85 0.0006 0.8415 0.5593 0.3964 •  In Mexico the season 2007-2008 a
higher number of GCWA was recorded
(season 2007-2008 No. GCWA= 41,
χ=26.2 ± 5) and more monitoring sites
were surveyed.
•  In Honduras the season 2006-2007
showed the lowest number of GCWA in
comparison to other seasons (season
2006-2007 No. GCWA= 19, χ=26.3 ±
2.6).
RELATIVE ABUNDANCE
55 monitoring sites
44 presence of S. chrysoparia is reported
Country México Guatemala Honduras El Salvador Nicaragua Monitoring site Reforma Sierra Morena Laguna Cochi Arcotetes Moxviquil Tres Picos Buenos Aires Cubulco San Jerónimo San Lorenzo Mármol Uyuca La Tigra La Muralla Parque Nacional Montecristo El Manzano Miramar No. GCWA/ flock 3 1.5 1.1 1 1 1 1 1.4 0.95 0.8 2.43 1.61 1 1.05 0.75 0.5 Status Very common Very common Common Very common Very common Common Common Potential Distribution
Variables:
- Altitud
- 19 bioclimatic var.
Record of presence
Less probability
More probability
Countries Guatemala Honduras México Nicaragua El Salvador TOTAL Central America Pine Oak Ecoregion
GCWA potential habitat
Potential habitat
(km2) 21,552.8 15,553.12 12,768.91 3,684.56 402.14 53,961.53 % 40
29
24
7 1 Challenges for the future
•  Determine population density of GCWA
–  Are there changes in population of GCWA
in the monitoring sites?
•  Characterize the habitat of the GCWA
–  Which are the key species of the habitat?
–  Which are determining factors in the
habitat (plant species richness, structure,
others) to ensure the presence and
abundance of GCWA?
Acknowledges:
•  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 6 grant program
(Endangered Species Act fund) and Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department for the grants for fieldwork
•  Neotropical Migratory Conservation Act grant for the
analysis
•  Pronatura‐Sur in México, Fundación Defensores de la
Naturaleza in Guatemala,SalvaNATURA in El Salvador and
FUNDECI/GAIA in Nicaragua
•  Members of the Alliance for the Conservation of Pine‐Oak
Forests in Mesoamerica.
THANKS!!
Foto Carlos Funes.