Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Citation: Ibarra, J. T., and K. Martin. 2015. Beyond species richness: an empirical test of top predators as surrogates for
functional diversity and endemism. Ecosphere 6(8):142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES15-00207.1
Abstract. Using surrogate species to monitor the status of target biodiversity in areas undergoing
exceptional habitat loss requires extending the traditional assessment of surrogates for taxonomic diversity
to validating surrogates for functional diversity. This validation will be critical to inform about broader
ecosystem processes and stability. We compared the surrogacy reliability of the habitat-specialist Rufous-
legged Owl (Strix rufipes) and the habitat-generalist Austral Pygmy-Owl (Glaucidium nana), and we
examined potential underlying mechanisms for surrogacy relationships in Andean temperate forests, a
global biodiversity hotspot in southern Chile. During 20112013, we conducted 1,145 owl surveys, 505
vegetation surveys, and 505 avian point-transect surveys across 101 sites comprising a range of conditions
from degraded forest habitat to structurally complex old-growth forest stands. The habitat-specialist S.
rufipes was a reliable surrogate for all avian biodiversity measures, including avian endemism and
functional diversity measures (degree of community specialization and density of large-tree users,
understory users, and cavity-nesters). On the contrary, the habitat-generalist G. nana did not function as a
surrogate. With increasing occurrence of S. rufipes, the density of target specialized biodiversity (species,
guilds, and communities) increased nonlinearly and peaked at the least degraded sites. This specialist
aggregation might be driven by stand structural complexity available in older, more stable, forests. These
results suggest that management actions tailored to promote occurrence of habitat-specialist owls, such as
the S. rufipes, may result in enhanced density of endemic species, specialized communities, and likely
ecosystem stability.
Key words: Austral Pygmy-Owl; detectability; ecosystem stability; Glaucidium nana; indicators; South America; Strix
rufipes; Rufous-legged Owl; temperate forests.
Received 17 April 2015; accepted 21 April 2015; published 27 August 2015. Corresponding Editor: D. P. C. Peters.
Copyright: 2015 Ibarra and Martin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original author and source are credited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Email: kathy.martin@ubc.ca
by proxy has been implemented increasingly in may thus act as reliable surrogates (Sergio et al.
both environmental science and biodiversity 2006, Burgas et al. 2014). Top predators represent
management (Lindenmayer and Likens 2011). the apex of food webs with effects that can
For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service from cascade through the ecosystem, require large
the United States implemented policy for using areas that cover populations of other less area-
biodiversity surrogates as a chief strategy to demanding species, often select areas with high
assess ecological conditions across their national structural complexity, and if they are sensitive
network of Protected Areas (U.S. Fish and (respond negatively) to habitat disturbance may
Wildlife Service 2012). The criteria for selecting provide early indications of habitat degradation
and testing surrogates should be specified and loss (Sergio et al. 2008). However, few
explicitly and the species chosen should meet as studies have attempted to elucidate the ecolog-
many of the criteria as possible (Caro 2010). Key ical mechanisms behind a spatial correlation
criteria to be met by surrogates include that they between top predators and enhanced biodiversi-
are (1) sufficiently sensitive to offer a warning of ty (Lindenmayer and Likens 2011). Some forest
habitat degradation and loss, (2) able to provide structural attributes increase stand-level com-
an estimate of the status of target biodiversity plexity (McElhinny et al. 2005), providing the
across wide environmental gradients, (3) easy necessary conditions for wildlife in general.
and cost-effective to survey, (4) distributed over a Therefore, stand-level structural complexity
broad geographical area, and (5) relevant to may be the driver of a positive association
either ecologically or conservation important between the surrogate candidate and target
phenomena (Noss 1990, Caro 2010). biodiversity (Drever et al. 2008, Lindenmayer et
Studies assessing the impacts of forest degra- al. 2014a). Furthermore, it can expected that not
dation and loss often assume that these processes all members of the top predator guild will be
reduce taxonomic diversity or species richness, reliable surrogates because those that are habitat-
resulting in similar losses of ecosystem function- generalists may be able to adapt to degraded
ing and stability (Milder et al. 2008). This habitats (Ozaki et al. 2006, Rodrguez-Estrella et
assumption, however, has not been validated al. 2008). Studies identifying the potentially
either empirically or with theory (Schwartz et al. contrasting role of specialist and generalist
2000). Conservation approaches based on func- predators as surrogates for functional diversity
tional diversity, as a complement to taxonomic and endemism will contribute significantly to
diversity, include the value and range of func- applied ecology (Martin et al. 2015).
tional traits (e.g., phenological, behavioral, phys- The biodiversity hotspot Winter Rainfall-Val-
iological, or morphological) present in a divian Forest of South America is a globally
community, and thus are able to link diversity exceptional ecoregion given its high concentra-
with ecosystem stability and processes (Julliard tion of endemic species. This ecoregion is also
et al. 2006, Daz et al. 2007). For example, higher one of the most endangered on Earth for its high
densities of habitat-specialist species in a com- rates of anthropogenic habitat degradation and
munity could engender higher complementarity loss (Myers et al. 2000). Earlier, we assessed the
in resource utilization, potentially increasing detectability and occurrence rates for two owls
ecosystem productivity and indicating higher across a gradient from degraded forest sites to
ecosystem stability (Julliard et al. 2006). Further, zones comprising old-growth forests within
taxonomic diversity may not be spatially corre- protected areas in this ecoregion (Ibarra et al.
lated to biodiversity hotspots where exceptional 2014a, b).
concentrations of endemic species coexist (Kerr Having thus set the stage in terms of detect-
1997). Endemic species commonly have small ability (Fig. 1a) and habitat occurrence (Fig. 1b),
populations and few areas assigned to conserva- in this paper we (1) compare the surrogacy
tion; thus, they are intrinsically vulnerable to reliability of two forest owl species (a habitat-
extinction (Gaston 1998). specialist and a habitat-generalist) for taxonomic
A suite of studies conducted in the northern diversity, endemism, and functional diversity
hemisphere has shown that top predators are (Fig. 1c), and (2) test whether and which
spatially correlated with high biodiversity and surrogate candidate and target biodiversity
Fig. 1. Approach for testing a surrogacy relationship. Before testing for surrogacy reliability, (a) factors
associated with the detectability ( p) of two sympatric forest owls were identified (Ibarra et al. 2014a). After
accounting for the estimated variation in detectability, (b) Ibarra et al. (2014b) assessed the occurrence rates (w)
from the stand to the landscape-level for these owls. In this paper, (c) the predicted occurrence (w) for specialist
and generalist owls were tested as predictors of avian taxonomic diversity, endemism, and functional diversity.
We also examined (d) whether and which surrogate candidate and target biodiversity measures have similar
habitat correlates (exploring underlying mechanisms that may drive surrogacy relationships) across forest
conditions ranging from highly degraded to old growth stands in Andean temperate ecosystems.
measures have similar habitat correlates and predict (1) the habitat-specialist owl will outper-
responses to anthropogenic habitat degradation form the generalist as a surrogate for all target
(exploring underlying mechanisms that may biodiversity measures and (2) forest stand-level
drive surrogacy relationships; Fig. 1b, d). We complexity may be the underlying mechanism
driving a positive surrogacy relationship. To test we could have detected an owl using call-
these predictions, our study design was set up to broadcast surveys (Ibarra et al. 2014a). We
explicitly validate surrogacy relationships in a conducted owl call-broadcast surveys along rural
poorly studied biodiversity hotspot in southern roads and trails. Playbacks of calls of both species
South America. were played two times, in a different random
sequence from the center of the site (Ibarra et al.
METHODS 2014a). Each site was visited repeatedly from
October to February for two breeding seasons
Study area, model species, and field surveys (20112012 and 20122013), for a total of 1,145
We conducted our study in an area of 2,585 surveys. In 20112012, we conducted 5.85 (range
km2 in the Villarrica watershed, Andean zone of 36) surveys per site. In 20122013, we
the La Araucana Region (39815 0 S 718 W), Chile. conducted 5.83 (range 36) surveys per site.
Forests in the area range from 200 m to 1,500 m Temporal, abiotic, and biotic factors that might
above sea level and are dominated by deciduous affect calling rates were collected for each survey,
Nothofagus species at lower elevations and mixed and their influence on owl detectability are
deciduous species with the coniferous Araucaria detailed in (Ibarra et al. 2014a).
araucana at higher elevations (Ibarra et al. 2012). To test the spatial correlation between owls
We evaluated the reliability as biodiversity and target biodiversity, we compared probability
surrogates of two forest owls: Rufous-legged of occurrence of owl species with three measures
Owls (Srix rufipes) and Austral Pygmy-Owls of avian biodiversity (1) taxonomic diversity, (2)
(Glaucidium nana). Strix rufipes are strictly noc- endemism, and (3) functional diversity. We chose
turnal habitat-specialists that hunt and nest only birds because they are often used in biodiversity
within forests, whereas G. nana are nocturnal and monitoring and are known to be affected, either
diurnal habitat-generalists that can hunt and/or taxonomically or functionally, by habitat degra-
nest within forests and more open habitats dation in temperate forests and elsewhere (Daz
(Ibarra et al. 2014b). These two owls are upper et al. 2005, Flynn et al. 2009). To survey diurnal
trophic level consumers and are free from birds (target biodiversity), each of the 101 sites
predation themselves in temperate forests (Fig- was surveyed once, from November to January,
ueroa et al. 2014); thus, they were considered top over the two seasons; 81 (80.2%) sites were
predators (sensu Sergio et al. 2014). Both species surveyed in 20112012 and 20 (19.8%) were
occur extensively across South American tem- surveyed in 20122013. Based on species accu-
perate forests (35558 S). mulation curves, five point-transect surveys per
site are considered sufficient to provide a
Owl and target biodiversity surveys complete characterization of bird species assem-
We located 101 sites at a minimum distance of blages in temperate forests (Jimenez 2000, Daz et
1.5 km apart, ranging from 221 to 1,361 m al. 2005). Therefore, we established five multi-
elevation. Using ArcGIS 10.1 (Environmental species point-transect surveys systematically
Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, separated by 125 m from adjacent point-transects
USA), we identified all the headwaters of smaller within each site, for a total of 505 point-transect
basins that were accessible by rural roads or surveys of 50 m radius. We recorded all species
hiking trails within the Villarrica watershed. We heard or seen for a period of 6 min per point-
randomly selected 13 of these 19 basins and transect survey. The distances to all birds
placed the first site within all basins near the detected were recorded and grouped into two
headwater (within 1 km of the tree line). We distance intervals (025 and 2650 m) for
systematically established the remaining sam- analysis. Surveys were conducted from dawn to
pling units at every 1.5 km within drainages 10:30. For each point-transect survey, we record-
descending from the headwaters (Ibarra et al. ed date, time, temperature (8C), and wind speed
2014a). We defined the spatial scale of sites (m/s) using a handheld weather monitor (Kestrel
according to a 500-m detection radius, capturing 4 200, Kestrel-meters, Birmingham, Michigan,
the total area within which the detected owl may USA). We assigned habitat type within 50 m of
have occurred, based on the distance over which each point-transect to one of the following: old
growth, mid-successional or early successional sen 2009). We used corrected Landsat (2012
forest, mixed shrubland, exotic forestry planta- 2013) scenes and quantified landscape metrics
tion, or openfield. within two circular areas (180 ha and 1,206 ha)
around each site using Fragstat 4.1 (McGarigal et
Measures of avian functional diversity: al. 2002). These areas corresponded to the
habitat-specialization minimum (1.8 km2) and maximum (12.8 km2)
We used both discrete and continuous mea- home ranges reported for S. rufipes (Martnez
sures of functional diversity (Petchey and Gaston 2005). No information exists on home range sizes
2006). We followed Daz et al. (2005) to catego- for G. nana; therefore, we used the same areas
rize each species into habitat-use guilds based on considered appropriate for S. rufipes for evaluat-
its primary use of temperate forest structure for ing habitat associations for G. nana, which
nesting and/or feeding at the stand-level. These allowed us to compare results between the two
guilds were: large-tree users, understory users, species. Landscape covariates included: forest
vertical-profile generalists, and shrub users. extent, shrubland extent, core habitat, forest
Further, we followed Altamirano (2014) to patch shape index, and relative habitat diversity
classify species into cavity-nesting and non- (Ibarra et al. 2014b).
cavity-nesting species, as the former guild is
known to be sensitive to logging (Drever et al. Modeling owl occurrence and bird density
2008). For continuous functional traits, we The assumption of perfect detectability can
followed Julliard et al. (2006) to quantify the result in misleading inferences about surrogacy
degree of habitat-specialization for a species (SSI) relationships as the probability of detecting both
as the coefficient of variation (standard devia- top predators and target biodiversity depends on
tion/average) of its estimated densities across the many factors, including wind speed, tempera-
six habitat types described previously. ture, and date and time of survey (Ibarra et al.
2014a, Martin et al. 2015). Therefore, we used
Vegetation and habitat measures models that adjust for detectability of both
Stand-level structural attributes in temperate surrogate candidates and target biodiversity
forests of southern Chile have been degraded by measures, providing the basis for stronger
large-scale farming and plantation forestry, neg- inferences by removing the need to rely on
atively affecting species with the greatest need assumptions of perfect detectability.
for large decaying trees, understory vegetation, Presence/absence data for owls were analyzed
and coarse woody debris (Reid et al. 2004, Daz using a multi-season occupancy framework
et al. 2005). We used previous studies conducted (MacKenzie et al. 2003), and bird counts using
in southern temperate forests to choose habitat distance sampling in a multinomial-Poisson
attributes (hereafter covariates) associated with mixture model framework (MPMM; Royle et al.
stand-level complexity that could drive a spatial 2004). We used the program R-Unmarked (Fiske
correlation between owls and avian diversity and Chandler 2011), which uses maximum-
(Martnez and Jaksic 1996, Reid et al. 2004, Daz likelihood methods to estimate probabilities of
et al. 2005, Ibarra et al. 2012). Around each point occurrence (w) and detection ( p) for owls, and
count-transect, we established a vegetation plot density (D) and detection ( p) for other bird
(22.4 m diameter) with the point count-transect species.
located at the center of the plot (N 505 plots; To model w and D, we first assessed collinear-
Table 1). For each plot we measured: tree density, ity for reducing the number of covariates (Table
tree diameter at breast height (DBH), canopy 1). We did not use collinear (r . 0.7) covariates in
cover, volume of coarse woody debris, density of the same model, retaining for analysis only those
bamboo understory, and elevation (Table 1). considered to be most biologically meaningful
As forest raptors commonly require different for most of our study species (Reid et al. 2004,
habitat patches for breeding and foraging, for Daz et al. 2005, Ibarra et al. 2014b). In total, four
owl analyses we added spatial covariates that stand-level covariates (SD of tree DBH, canopy
were correlated with raptor occurrence in other cover, volume of coarse woody debris, and
studies (Finn et al. 2002, Henneman and Ander- bamboo density) were used in the modeling of
Table 1. Stand-level covariates used to examine how the occurrence of owls and the density of all other birds
responded to the same set of habitat structural components in Andean temperate forests (details in Ibarra et al.
2014b).
w and D. For owls, we included four covariates at function always received stronger support and
the 180 ha landscape-level (forest extent, shrub- thus it was used in all further analyses. To
land extent, forest-patch shape index, and rela- estimate detectability ( p), we used four covari-
tive habitat diversity) and one at the 1,206 ha ates potentially associated with p (covariates
landscape-level after reducing collinearity (for- affect the scale parameter of the detection
est-patch shape index; see Ibarra et al. 2014b for function): date (number of days since start of
details). surveys in October), time of survey (minutes
For owls, all w models contained the top- since 5:00), wind speed (m/s), and temperature
ranked sources of variation in p previously (8C). For each species, we used the stepwise
identified for both species using the same dataset covariate selection procedure described above
(Ibarra et al. 2014a). Details of the approach for (without parameterizing density, D) and then
modeling occurrence (w) for both owl species are ranked each model by AIC to select top-ranked
provided in Ibarra et al. (2014b) and briefly models for further modeling for density (D). To
described here. To obtain the best w model, we obtain the best models for D (covariates affect the
used a stepwise covariate selection procedure Poisson mean), we followed the approach de-
linked to R-Unmarked to create a candidate set of scribed for owls. We evaluated a range from 16 to
models based on model weights (wi ) and the 20 D models for each bird species. We averaged
precision of the estimated coefficients, using an models with DAIC 4 in the final confidence set
information-theoretic approach (Akaikes infor- for owls and each other bird (Burnham and
mation criterion [AIC]; Burnham and Anderson Anderson 2002). Averaged models were used to
2002). Models within 2 AIC units of the top predict owl w for each site and D of all birds for
model were considered as the competitive set of each point-transect survey. Values of D for the
best-supported models (Burnham and Anderson five point-transect surveys conducted per site
2002). We analyzed residuals to test for spatial were averaged to obtain one density value per
autocorrelation using the Morans index (Moran site for each species.
1950). We followed Moore and Swihart (2005) to
calculate an autocovariate (Aut) term for G. nana, Testing owl surrogacy reliability
as only this owl showed spatially correlated We used generalized linear models (GLMs) to
residuals. The inclusion of an Aut term resulted relate the averaged w of habitat-specialist and
in six additional models for G. nana. In total, we generalist owls to avian diversity measures
evaluated 16 w models for S. rufipes and 26 across sites. We also tested second order polyno-
models for G. nana (Ibarra et al. 2014b). mial models as the association between surro-
For all other birds (data collected by point- gates and target biodiversity may follow
transect surveys), we first used AIC to identify curvilinear relationships (Lindenmayer et al.
whether the half-normal or the hazard rate was 2014a). We first explored bird richness as a
the most suitable distance function for each response variable, without accounting for detect-
species (Royle et al. 2004). The half-normal ability, to examine whether the most commonly
reported correlation between top predators and independent variable for species richness, densi-
taxonomic diversity (Sergio et al. 2006, Jenkins et ty (D) of endemic species, and measures of
al. 2012, Burgas et al. 2014) was also observed in functional diversity had stronger support from
our system. We then related owl occurrence (w) the data than those using w of G. nana, according
to (1) D of endemic species, (2) D of avian to AICc values and model weights (wi; Table 3,
habitat-use guilds, (3) D of cavity-nesting species, Fig. 2). For overall species richness, the evidence
and (4) community specialization index (CSI) ratio for the linear model S. rufipes relative to a
across sites, where CSI for a site k was nonlinear model was 2.93, indicating these two
models had similar support, such that model fit
RN1 SSIi 3 Di
CSIk did not improve with the addition of a second
RN1 Di degree quadratic function of S. rufipes occurrence
with N as the total number of bird species in the (w; Table 3). Similarly, for the density (D) of shrub
analysis, SSI as the species specialization index users we found that the evidence ratio for the
for species i, and D as the estimated density of nonlinear model S. rufipes S. rufipes2 relative to
species i (Devictor et al. 2008). To assess the a linear model was 1.95, indicating these two
strength of evidence for each tested model, we models had similar support. The relationship
calculated the value of AIC for small sample sizes between D of shrub users and occurrence of S.
(AICc) and model weight (wi ). The latter was rufipes was negative. There was strong evidence
used to compare pairs of models by calculating of nonlinearity (second degree quadratic func-
evidence ratios (Burnham and Anderson 2002). tion) for the correlation between occurrence (w)
All bird data were log10 (x 1) transformed of S. rufipes and the D of (1) endemic species, (2)
before statistical analyses to improve normality cavity-nesting species, (3) large-tree users, (4)
and variance homogeneity. Species with too few understory users, and (5) the community spe-
observations to use multinomial-Poisson mixture cialization index (Table 3). For all these response
models were excluded from the analysis. variables, we found peak values when w of S.
rufipes approximated 1 (Fig. 2). For easier
RESULTS interpretation, we calculated the estimated val-
ues of target avian biodiversity that spatially co-
We recorded 292 detections of S. rufipes and occurred with predicted low (00.33), moderate
334 detections of G. nana over two years. (0.340.66), and high (0.671) occurrence (w) of S.
Probabilities of occurrence (w; mean 6 standard rufipes in Andean forests based on model
error) across sites ranged from 0.05 6 0.04 to 1.00 averaged predictions (Table 4).
6 0.00 for S. rufipes and from 0.67 6 0.18 to 0.98
6 0.04 for G. nana (Ibarra et al. 2014b). Ecological mechanisms:
The density (D) of 21 species was estimated habitat correlates for owls and target biodiversity
using a multinomial-Poisson mixture model Details on results for habitat relationships for
(Table 2). Nine (42.9%) species inhabit areas both owl species are provided in Ibarra et al.
restricted to the southern portion of South (2014b) and briefly described here. Strix rufipes
America and eight (38.1%) were endemic to responded more strongly to stand-level whereas
South American temperate forests. Seven G. nana to landscape-level covariates. Model
(33.3%) species were large-tree users, six selection results indicated that occurrence (w)
(28.6%) vertical profile generalists, four (19%) for S. rufipes responded positively to both the
understory users, and four (19%) shrub users. variability (SD) in the DBH distribution of trees
Eleven species (52.38%) were cavity-nesters. (logit-scale estimates: intercept [SE] 3.29
[0.93], beta coefficient 2.59 [1.12]) and bamboo
Spatial relationships: understory density (beta coefficient 0.98 [0.49];
owls and target biodiversity Ibarra et al. 2014b). Landscape-level habitat data
All biodiversity measures had stronger associ- did not improve our ability to predict S. rufipes
ations with the specialist owl S. rufipes than with occurrence in Andean temperate forests as the
the generalist owl G. nana. Models using model- estimated beta coefficients were imprecise (i.e.,
averaged occurrence (w) of S. rufipes as an 95% CI overlapped zero). For G. nana, the spatial
Table 2. Avian species with their geographical and ecological attributes, and stand-level covariates associated
with the density (D) of bird species in Andean temperate forests, according to model selection statistics based
on Akaikes information criterion (AIC).
Notes: Parameter estimates [SE] for covariates present in the top model set with DAIC values , 2 and with estimates of their
95% confidence intervals that do not overlap 0 are shown. The and indicate the direction of the relation. SSI is species
specialization index, and DBH is diameter at breast height.
Geographic distribution abbreviations are E, endemic; SSA, southern South America; SA, wide spread South America; and
PA, Pan America (Vuilleumier 1985).
Habitat-use guild abbreviations are SU, shrub user; VPG, vertical profile generalist; LTU, large tree user; and UU,
understory user (Daz et al. 2005).
Cavity-nesting species abbreviations are Y, yes; N, no. Y considered species relying on tree cavities for more than 10% of
their nests (Altamirano 2014).
Table 3. Ranking of models relating measures of avian diversity and owl probabilities of occurrence (w) in
Andean temperate forests.
auto-covariate (Aut) term (beta coefficient [SE] [SE] 1.09 [2.22], beta coefficient 0.72 [1.61])
1.84 [1.04]) controlled for intra-landscape data and forest cover extent at 180 ha (beta coefficient
dependence as it improved the AIC weight of 0.16 [1.43]) and negatively to shrubland cover
best models (0.09 and 0.07 units higher than at 180 ha (intercept [SE] 0.02 [1.47], beta
models without the Aut term). The best models coefficient 0.57 [2.67]). However, none of beta
for G. nana indicated that w responded positively coefficients for any covariates were informative
to both forest shape index at 1206 ha (intercept for G. nana w, as they all overlapped zero (see
Fig. 2. Relationship between probabilities of occurrence (w) of habitat-specialist owls Strix rufipes and (1)
species richness/site, (2) density (individuals/ha 3 site), and (3) community specialization index/site in Andean
temperate forests.
Table 4. Estimated mean [SE] for (1) species richness/site, (2) density (individuals/ha 3 site) of different diversity
measures, and (3) community specialization index/site, associated with low (00.33), moderate (0.340.66),
and high (0.671) probabilities of occurrence (w) for Strix rufipes in Andean temperate forests, based on model-
averaged predictions.
Density
Community
Species Cavity Large-tree Understory Vertical profile Shrub specialization
Predicted w richness Endemics nesters users users generalists users index
Low (00.33) 4.77 3.04 10.30 6.48 1.95 15.93 7.46 0.38
[1.16] [0.81] [1.22] [0.91] [0.53] [1.24] [0.45] [0.05]
Moderate (0.340.66) 5.49 4.08 11.89 7.64 2.66 17.00 7.01 0.44
[1.261] [1.11] [1.68] [1.22] [0.78] [1.14] [0.60] [0.06]
High (0.671) 7.12 8.06 17.46 10.96 5.42 19.66 6.15 0.67
[1.57] [3.29] [4.27] [2.41] [2.23] [2.18] [0.57] [0.19]
et al. 2014). However, our empirical assessment explains the particularly high rates of endemism
stresses that the degree of habitat-specialization (e.g., 41% for forest bird species; Vuilleumier
of top predators will likely affect their reliability 1985). Our analysis included a high proportion
as biodiversity surrogates. (38.1%) of endemics, all of which have been
This is the first study on terrestrial vertebrates reported as habitat-specialists in previous studies
that has accounted for detectability of both (Daz et al. 2005).
potential surrogates and target biodiversity. Our The use of functional diversity rests on the
results indicate that habitat-specialist S. rufipes assumption that the density of functional traits
always had a stronger relationship with target will provide insight into ecosystem stability and
biodiversity than did the habitat-generalist G. processes beyond that given by taxonomic
nana. The broad range of predicted occurrence diversity (Petchey and Gaston 2006, Devictor et
probabilities (w) across our sites for specialist al. 2010). Focusing on a diversity of functional
owls suggests that they may act as reliable traits rather than on species richness facilitates
surrogates across a wide range of sites in the synthesis between community ecology and
temperate forests: from highly degraded habitat ecosystem ecology (e.g., monitoring from func-
to structurally complex old-growth forests, with tional traits through niche relationships to
low and high values for both owl occurrence (w) communities can generate links to an ecosys-
and avian diversity, respectively. In contrast, the tem-based view) and allows applied ecologists to
relatively high occurrence for generalist owls make predictive statements of community as-
across all sites makes them less reliable surro- sembly that may help policy makers make
gates. This result for the generalist owl is similar informed conservation decisions (McGill et al.
with patterns suggested by Ozaki et al. (2006) for 2006). We chose discrete and continuous habitat-
Accipiter gentilis, who found that this raptor was specialization traits for all target avian species,
not an efficient biodiversity surrogate because it which can inform us about niche relationships
often used anthropogenically degraded habitat and ecosystem stability (Julliard et al. 2006). For
that were poor in taxonomic diversity. The latter example, in a niche context species fall on
study, however, did not account for the detect- different places along a specialist-generalist
ability of both the surrogate candidate and target continuum, with specialists being favored under
biodiversity, and it did not test for other relatively stable conditions and generalists under
dimensions of target biodiversity such as ende- unstable conditions and degraded habitats (De-
mism or functional diversity. victor et al. 2010). We found that measures of
Our findings suggest that the habitat-specialist avian functional diversity that were associated
S. rufipes could be used as a surrogate for avian with habitat-specialization increased nonlinearly
endemism. Biodiversity in South American tem- and peaked at sites with highest occurrence of
perate forests evolved in isolation from other habitat-specialist owls. Julliard et al. (2006) also
similar forests within the continent since at least found that specialist species tend to dispropor-
the late Tertiary (Vuilleumier 1985). This isolation tionately aggregate at sites that are expected to be
more stable. Our results suggest that such a fore, the validated-surrogate S. rufipes and cavity-
pattern of specialist aggregation might be driven excavator species rely on old-living and dead
by high stand structural complexity in temperate trees, and the latter group of birds positively
forests. influences the richness of other forest vertebrates
(Drever et al. 2008).
Untangling ecological mechanisms As detailed by Ibarra et al. (2014b), S. rufipes
Understanding the mechanisms underlying are more likely to occur in forest stands with a
surrogacy relationships is a key component for relatively dense bamboo understory (Martnez
improving the use of the surrogate species in and Jaksic 1996, Ibarra et al. 2012, 2014b). Native
conservation efforts (Lindenmayer and Likens bamboo provides habitat for arboreal and scan-
2011). In Andean temperate forests, relatively sorial rodents and marsupials, which constitute
low densities of canopy cover, high variability the main prey of S. rufipes in temperate forests
(SD) in tree diameter at breast height (DBH), and (Figueroa et al. 2006). Bamboo understory has
relatively high density of bamboo understory also been identified as providing critical protec-
may drive a positive correlation between owls tive cover and feeding habitat for ground-gleaner
and avian taxonomic and functional diversity. birds such as Pteroptochos tarnii and Scelorchilus
When compared to early and mid-successional rubecula, and leaf-gleaners Scytalopus magellanicus
forests, structurally complex older forests tend to and Sylviorthorhynchus desmursii; all species with
have less dense canopy cover due to a mosaic of poor flying abilities (Reid et al. 2004). In our
canopy gaps produced by tree-falls in mid- study, bamboo understory was a good predictor
elevations (500900 m altitude) and naturally of the density of P. tarnii and S. rubecula. Further,
open canopies (5481% canopy cover) and a lack the four understory specialists responded posi-
of shade-tolerant trees in high-elevations (.900 tively to the variability (SD) in DBH. Because P.
m altitude; Veblen et al. 1980, Ibarra et al. 2012). tarnii, S. rubecula, and S. magellanicus nest in
Complex Andean forest-stands are also charac- cavities available in trees with DBH ranging from
terized by their variability (SD) in DBH (i.e., 61.3 to 193.8 cm (Altamirano 2014), our results
multi-aged forest stands), with relatively high suggest that understory users, as well as S.
frequency of large old-living and dead trees, rufipes, require stands that combine a relatively
combined with dense clumps of bamboo under- dense bamboo understory with large old-living
story in mid-elevations and a homogeneously trees and snags (Ibarra et al. 2014b). Thus, the co-
distributed bamboo in high-elevation stands occurrence of these species likely results from
(Veblen et al. 1980). similar habitat requirements.
Stand structural complexity in Andean tem- Meeting the requirements of habitat-specialists
perate forests relates to the habitat requirements is expected to also provide for the needs of
of both the surrogate owl and target biodiversity habitat-generalist species, unless the validated
species. For example, nesting S. rufipes occupy surrogate species is so highly specialized it has a
cavities available in large trees (mean DBH very narrow niche (Martin et al. 2015). This may
122.8 6 36.2 cm) that are .100 years old be the case in our study system as the habitat-
(Beaudoin and Ojeda 2011). Similarly, species in specialist owl was positively associated with
the large tree-user guild of birds also rely on species included in the vertical-profile generalist
large trees for both nesting and foraging (Daz et guild. These species use the entire vertical profile
al. 2005). Cavity-excavating species Colaptes of forests for most of their activities including the
pitius, Campephilus magellanicus, Veniliornis lignar- canopy, sub-canopy, and understory vegetation
ius, and Pygarrhichas albogularis feed dispropor- (Daz et al. 2005). Interestingly, we found a
tionately more on larger and more decayed trees negative spatial correlation between forest-spe-
than on healthy trees with smaller diameters cialist owls and species included in the shrub
(Ojeda et al. 2007, Altamirano 2014). These four user guild, which comprises species that exploit
excavators produce cavities that are subsequently degraded areas but occasionally use forests;
used by several secondary cavity nesters, includ- therefore, S. rufipes potentially can be considered
ing owls, parakeets, swallows, rayaditos, ducks, as an anti-surrogate (sensu Lindenmayer et al.
and small mammals (Altamirano 2014). There- 2014b) for species using degraded or open stands
Crane, D. Michael, S. Okada, and P. S. Barton. ty: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology
2014b. An empirical assessment of the focal species 4:355364.
hypothesis. Conservation Biology 28:15941603. Ojeda, V. S., M. L. Suarez, and T. Kitzberger. 2007.
Lindenmayer, D. B., and G. E. Likens. 2011. Direct Crown dieback events as key processes creating
measurement versus surrogate indicator species for cavity habitat for magellanic woodpeckers. Austral
evaluating environmental change and biodiversity Ecology 32:436445.
loss. Ecosystems 14:4759. Olden, J. D., N. LeRoy Poff, M. R. Douglas, M. E.
MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, M. G. Douglas, and K. D. Fausch. 2004. Ecological and
Knutson, and B. Franklin, Alan. 2003. Estimating evolutionary consequences of biotic homogeniza-
site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction tion. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:1824.
when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology Ozaki, K., M. Isono, T. Kawahara, S. Iida, T. Kudo, and
84:22002207. K. Fukuyama. 2006. A mechanistic approach to
Martin, K., J. T. Ibarra, and M. C. Drever. 2015. Avian evaluation of umbrella species as conservation
surrogates in terrestrial ecosystems: theory and surrogates. Conservation Biology 20:15071515.
practice. Pages 3344 in D. Lindenmayer, P. Barton, Petchey, O. L., and K. J. Gaston. 2006. Functional
and J. Pierson, editors. Indicators and surrogates of diversity: back to basics and looking forward.
biodiversity and environmental change. CSIRO Ecology Letters 9:74158.
Publishing, Melbourne, Australia. Reid, S., I. Daz, and J. Armesto. 2004. Importance of
Martnez, D. R. 2005. El concon (Strix rufipes) y su native bamboo for understory birds in Chilean
habitat en los bosques templados australes. Pages temperate forests. Auk 121:515525.
477484. in C. Smith-Ramrez, J. J. Armesto, and C. Rodrguez-Estrella, R., J. A. Donazar, and F. Hiraldo.
Valdovinos, editors. Historia, biodiversidad y 2008. Raptors as indicators of environmental
ecologa de los bosques costeros de Chile. Editorial change in the scrub habitat of Baja California Sur,
Universitaria, Santiago, Chile. [In Spanish.] Mexico. Conservation Biology 12:921925.
Martnez, D. R., and F. M. Jaksic. 1996. Habitat, relative Royle, J. A., D. K. Dawson, and S. Bates. 2004.
abundance, and diet of rufous-legged owls (Strix Modeling abundance effects in distance sampling.
rufipes King) in temperate forest remnants of Ecology 85:15911597.
southern Chile. Ecoscience 3:259263. Schwartz, M. W., C. A. Brigham, J. D. Hoeksema, K. G.
McElhinny, C., P. Gibbons, C. Brack, and J. Bauhus. Lyons, M. H. Mills, and P. J. van Mantgem. 2000.
2005. Forest and woodland stand structural com- Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: impli-
plexity: its definition and measurement. Forest cations for conservation ecology. Oecologia
Ecology and Management 218:124. 122:297305.
McGarigal, K., S. A. Cushman, M. C. Neel, and E. Ene. Sergio, F., T. Caro, D. Brown, B. Clucas, J. Hunter, J.
2002. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis pro- Ketchum, K. McHugh, and F. Hiraldo. 2008. Top
gram for categorical maps. University of Massa- predators as conservation tools: ecological ratio-
chusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA. nale, assumptions, and efficacy. Annual Review of
McGill, B. J., B. J. Enquist, E. Weiher, and M. Westoby. Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:119.
2006. Rebuilding community ecology from func- Sergio, F., I. Newton, L. Marchesi, and P. Pedrini. 2006.
tional traits. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Ecologically justified charisma: preservation of top
21:178185. predators delivers biodiversity conservation. Jour-
Milder, J. C., J. P. Lassoie, and B. L. Bedford. 2008. nal of Applied Ecology 43:10491055.
Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem function Sergio, F., et al. 2014. Towards a cohesive, holistic view
through limited development: an empirical evalu- of top predation: a definition, synthesis and
ation. Conservation Biology 22:7079. perspective. Oikos 123:12341243.
Moore, J. E., and R. K. Swihart. 2005. Modeling patch U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Draft guidance on
occupancy by forest rodents: incorporating detect- selecting species for design of landscape-scale
ability and spatial autocorrelation with hierarchi- conservation. http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/
cally structured data. Journal of Wildlife collection/document/id/1789
Management 69:933949. Veblen, T. T., F. M. Schlegel, and B. Escobar. 1980.
Moran, P. A. P. 1950. Notes on continuous stochastic Structure and dynamics of old-growth Nothofagus
phenomena. Biometrika 37:1723. forests in the Valdivian Andes, Chile. Journal of
Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, Ecology 68:131.
G. A. B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity Vuilleumier, F. 1985. Forest birds of Patagonia:
hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature ecological geography, speciation, endemism, and
403:853858. faunal history. Ornithological Monographs 36:255
Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversi- 304.