Next Article in Journal
Examining the Influence of Corruption on the Practice of Trophy Hunting in South Africa
Next Article in Special Issue
Barn Owls as a Nature-Based Solution for Pest Control: A Multinational Initiative Around the Mediterranean and Other Regions
Previous Article in Journal
Investigating the Extent and Nature of the Primate Pet Trade on TikTok
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessing the Provisioning of Ecosystem Services Provided by the Relics Forest in Togo’s Mono Biosphere Reserve
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Conservation
Volume 4
Issue 4
10.3390/conservation4040034
conservation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Protected and Unprotected Areas as Refuges for Bird Conservation in Southeastern Coahuila, Mexico

by
Eber G. Chavez-Lugo
1,
Jorge E. Ramírez-Albores
2,*,
Marlín Pérez-Suárez
3,
Erika J. Cruz-Bazan
1,
Juan A. Encina-Domínguez
1 and
Arturo Cruz-Anaya
4
1
Departamento de Recursos Naturales Renovables, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Calzada Antonio Narro 1923, Col. Buenavista, Saltillo 25315, Coahuila, Mexico
2
Departamento de Botánica, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Calzada Antonio Narro 1923, Col. Buenavista, Saltillo 25315, Coahuila, Mexico
3
Instituto de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Rurales, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Carretera Toluca-Ixtlahuaca Km 15.5, El Cerrillo Piedras Blancas, Toluca de Lerdo 50295, State of Mexico, Mexico
4
Independent Researcher, Fray Alfonso de Montesinos 177, Col. Agua Azul, Saltillo 25030, Coahuila, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Conservation 2024, 4(4), 560-576; https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation4040034
Submission received: 27 July 2024 / Revised: 26 September 2024 / Accepted: 27 September 2024 / Published: 30 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Conservation Biology, Management of Natural Resources, and Protected Areas Policies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Information gaps about the distribution of species hamper the evaluation of conservation status and decisions on biodiversity conservation, affecting areas with high species richness and endemism to a greater extent. In this context, carrying out biological inventories in protected and unprotected areas is an important tool to fill these gaps by providing data on the composition, richness, and abundance of species in each locality. The southeastern region of Coahuila (northeast Mexico) is a region where biodiversity research is required, as anthropogenic activities pose a serious threat to the avian diversity of this region. The present study aimed to compare the capacity of protected and unprotected areas to support the richness, abundance, and composition of bird species, as well as providing a list of bird species from eight areas located in this region. The point count method was conducted at the sites, and one-way ANOVA was used to determine the effect of area type on species richness and abundance. Based on our field observations, literature review, and digital databases, the avifauna of these eight areas includes 388 species in 63 families. Of these, 5 species are endemic to Mexico, 6 species are of global conservation concern, and 35 species are of regional conservation concern. The species richness found in this study supports the importance of protected and unprotected areas in southeastern Coahuila. The results of our study highlight the need for further assessment to conserve the avian community, especially considering the increasing threats of anthropogenic disturbance, as well as additional studies that will allow for better characterization of the avifauna of the region. This will help to ensure the conservation of the birds currently threatened by strong anthropic pressure due to the conversion of semiarid ecosystems to agricultural and livestock areas as well as increasing urbanization.

1. Introduction

Loss of biodiversity can directly and adversely alter ecosystem processes which, in turn, can affect the resilience of ecosystems to environmental change [1,2,3]. For instance, human modifications in biodiversity may alter the composition of biological communities through a variety of activities that increase the rates of species invasions [4,5]. The composition and distribution of species are dependent on interactions with abiotic and biotic factors in the environment [6], with losses in biodiversity threatening ecosystems and the species communities living therein [1,2,3]. Biodiversity conservation is essential to ensure that ecosystems persist and function properly [7]. Critical transformation of the habitat alters community and species compositions [8,9,10]. Biodiversity losses can be irreversible; therefore, biodiversity should be monitored and protected [7,11]. In this context, protected areas play a crucial role in conserving biodiversity and maintaining ecological balance [12,13,14] and are essential for preserving natural heritage, sustaining ecosystem health, and ensuring the well-being of present and future generations [15,16,17,18].
An alternative mitigation measure recognizes that isolated protected areas and unprotected areas (e.g., private lands, ejidal lands, waterbodies with natural vegetation remnants) are an effective tool for improving the structural and functional connectivity of a landscape with a poorly connected network of protected areas [19,20,21], especially under mounting pressures related to land use and climate change [22,23]. These sites, located outside of or surrounding protected areas, are of key importance as they increase the effective habitat size [24] and act as buffers to reduce anthropogenic pressures on protected areas [25,26,27]. Therefore, identifying and delineating important land surrounding or isolated from protected areas may be critical in developing conservation strategies to sustain biodiversity [13]. Thus, to protect biodiversity and prevent further losses, it is important to determine the composition of species using tools such as species inventories [28,29]. In addition, the lack of baseline information can be problematic in monitoring habitats and species status due to environmental changes, as well as in decision-making for the conservation and protection of critical habitats [30,31]. Thus, the need for further studies to generate robust and complete data, especially in unprotected areas, is warranted [32,33].
One region suffering from the extensive loss and fragmentation of natural habitats is southeastern Coahuila (in northern Mexico). The continuous expansion of the agricultural and urban frontier into natural areas creates the imperative to analyze their impact on bird communities. In this study, we compared the capacity of protected and unprotected areas to support bird species richness, populations, or communities in southeastern Coahuila. We present the results of systematic surveys in important sites for bird conservation and, to obtain a more complete bird checklist, our records were supplemented with biological databases and citizen-science online platforms. Our study is intended to increase understanding of the Coahuila bird community, to aid in semiarid ecosystem conservation, and to determine whether unprotected areas can provide effective frameworks for bird conservation in northern Mexico. Based on the results derived from our study, we addressed the following questions: (i) Are there differences in bird diversity between protected and unprotected areas? and (ii) do information gaps about species distribution hamper conservation-related decisions in these protected and unprotected areas?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Coahuila is located in the northeastern region of Mexico, bound by coordinates 24°32′–29°53′ N and 99°51′–103°58′ W (Figure 1). To the north, it borders the United States of America; to the south, Zacatecas and San Luis Potosi; to the east, Nuevo León; and to the west, Chihuahua and Durango. It is in the region known as the Chihuahua Desert. Coahuila is approximately 150,656 km2 in size and represents 7.88% of the area of Mexico [34]. Due to its complex orography and an elevation gradient ranging from 130 to 3470 m, it is home to a great variety of climatic conditions and arid and semiarid ecosystems [34]. The climates are dry, with the driest climates predominating in the eastern part, except for some subhumid areas in the Sierra de Arteaga and towards the center–north of the state [35]. The region is characterized by semiarid ecosystems such as desert scrub, submontane scrub, coniferous forests, and grasslands [36]. The annual temperature ranges from 18° to 22° C with 500 mm–600 mm of precipitation per year [35]. The types of vegetation correspond to Chihuahua desert scrub, which covers 62% of the region and develops between 800 and 2600 m elevation; submontane scrub, which is distributed in 8.6% of the state, at elevations ranging from 1800 to 2600 m; Tamaulipas scrub, which covers approximately 11% of the region from 240 to 850 m; coniferous forest, which occupies 3% of the state at elevations above 2400 m; natural grasslands, which covers 8% of the state at elevations between 800 and 2500 m; and, riparian, aquatic, and underwater vegetation, which only covers 0.2% of the state at elevations from 300 to 1400 m [36]. The wide variety of environmental conditions has favored diversity and endemism in several vertebrate groups [37,38].

2.2. Data Collection

We collected data from 2008 to April 2024 at eight sites located in southeastern Coahuila (Table 1, Figure 1), using a systematic survey from 2020 in two protected areas.
The areas were Zapalinamé State Natural Reserve (Zapalinamé) and Voluntary Nature Reserve El Tulillo (El Tulillo), as well as six unprotected areas: Los Angeles Cattle Ranch (Los Ángeles), La Joya Dam (La Joya), Francisco I. Madero Sports City (FIM-SC), Nazario Ortiz Garza Dam (Gaviones), Palo Blanco Dam (Palo Blanco), and Antonio Narro Agrarian Autonomous University campus Saltillo (Narro campus). These study sites were selected (specifically the sites in non-protected areas) given that different bird population censuses have been carried out in these areas and that they are considered important refuges for various bird populations in the region (eBird, available at https://ebird.org/home). For the survey in all sites, we used point counts with a 50 m fixed radius and duration of 15 min to record all contacts [39] along trails or dirt roads (Table S1). Surveys had an approximate minimum duration of three hours each, at a time between 06:00 and 13:00 h.
To identify bird species, we used the specialized guides by Peterson and Chalif [40], Howell and Webb [41], Dunn and Alderfer [42], Kauffman [43], and Sibley [44]. Taxonomy and nomenclature followed the guidelines of the American Ornithologist’s Union [45]. Threatened species were determined according to the IUCN Red List criterion (available at https://www.iucnredlist.org) [46] and Semarnat [47]. We followed Navarro-Sigüenza and Benítez [48], Howell and Webb [41], and Gonzalez-García and Gómez de Silva [49] in classifying endemic species. The residence species status was based on Howell and Webb [41].

2.3. Literature Review

To complement our records, we analyzed the published results of Marsh and Stevenson [50], Burleigh and Lowery [51], van Hoose [52], Friedmann et al. [53,54], Miller et al. [55], Urban [56], Ely [57], Dickerman [58], Garza de León [59,60], Benson et al. [61], Navarro-Sigüenza et al. [62], Contreras-Balderas et al. [37], Garza de León et al. [38], Marines-Gómez and Cárdenas-Ollivier [63], Ruvalcaba-Ortega and Panjabi [64], Lerma-Quiroga et al. [65], and Gámez-Benavides and Ceyca-Contreras [66]; data from the citizen-science online platforms as eBird (available at https://ebird.org/home), EnclicoVida (available at https://enciclovida.mx/), and iNaturalistMX (available at https://mexico.inaturalist.org/); data from museum collections, which are available from the online platforms of Global Facility Biodiversity Information (GBIF, available at http://www.gbif.org/species (accessed on 6 October 2023)), Biodiversity Informatics Unit of the National Autonomous University of Mexico-Bird National Collection (UNIBIO-UNAM, available at https://unibio.unam.mx/), Museum of Comparative Zoology (available at http://www.mcz.harvard.edu/Departments/Ornithology/BirdSearch.cfm (accessed on 6 October 2023)), Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (available at http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/getmvzform?class=Aves&query=all (accessed on 8 October 2023)), Maculay Library (available at https://www.macaulaylibrary.org/), VertNet (available at http://vertnet.org/), Arctos Collaborative Collection Management Solution (available at https://arctos.database.museum/search.cfm?guid_prefix=MVZ%3ABird (accessed on 8 October 2023)), and University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (available at https://lsa.umich.edu/ummz/birds/bird-collections.html (accessed on 8 October 2023)); and data from Macualay Library (available at https://www.macaulaylibrary.org/), VertNet (available at http://vertnet.org/), Arctos Collaborative Collection Management Solution (available at https://arctos.database.museum/search.cfm?guid_prefix=MVZ%3ABird (accessed on 6 October 2023)), and University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (available at https://lsa.umich.edu/ummz/birds/bird-collections.html (accessed on 6 October 2023)); and data from Atlas de las Aves de México [67]. We did not include erroneous or dubious records in the list of birds (i.e., those which, according to the literature, do not correspond to the geographical distribution area of the species).

2.4. Data Analysis

To visualize the differences in bird species richness between protected and unprotected areas, we created heatmaps in JMP (available at https://www.jmp.com/). The effects of area type (protected and unprotected areas) on species richness and abundance were analyzed using a paired sample t-test and one-way ANOVA to analyze population differences between areas. Differences were considered statistically significant at the 5% level. The relative abundance (RA) of bird species was determined using RA percentages (RA % = n/N × 100, where n is the number of individuals of a particular species and N is the total number of individuals of the species). The statistical analysis was performed using JMP (available at https://www.jmp.com/), JASP v.0.19 (available at https://jasp-stats.org/), and RStudio [68]. We created heatmaps using ggplot2 [69] in RStudio [68] to visualize the differences in bird species composition using the Bray–Curtis similarity index. The cluster analysis was based on the bird species richness, not including the number of recordings and abundance of the species, using BiodiversityPro [70].

3. Results

We recorded a total of 388 bird species from 63 families and 23 orders for the eight sites in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico (Table S2, Figure 2). Of the total number of bird species recorded, 299 (~77%) were confirmed by field monitoring carried out by some of the authors, and the rest of the species (89) were identified from records from citizen-science databases, museum collection databases, and scientific bibliographic sources (Table S2). The highest species richness and abundance was recorded in protected areas (353; 91%), where Zapalinamé had the greatest species richness and abundance, with 290 species, followed by El Tulillo (228 species); meanwhile, in the unprotected areas, we recorded 307 species in total (79.1%), with Narro campus (197 species) and FIM-SC (195 species) having the highest species richness and abundance, followed by La Joya (161 species), Palo Blanco (149 species), Los Ángeles (136 species), and Gaviones (109 species) (Table S2). Passeriformes was the most representative order (51% of total species), with the richest families being Parulidae (N = 32), Tyrannidae (N = 29), and Passerilidae (N = 28) (Figure 3A). Anatidae (N = 27) and Accipitridae (N = 19) were the richest families among the non-Passerines (Figure 3A). Most families had higher or similar species richness in protected areas than in unprotected areas, with only Anatidae and Psittacidae having higher species richness in unprotected areas than protected areas (Figure 3A). According to their residency status, 157 species (40.4%) are residents, 189 (48.7%) are migrants, 17 (4.4%) are introduced, and 25 (6.4%) are vagrants in the region (Table S2, Figure 3B). Among the migrant species, 21 are summer residents, 105 are winter visitors, and 63 are transients (Table S2, Figure 3B).
A higher richness of resident, migratory, and vagrant species was recorded in protected areas than in non-protected areas, with only a higher richness of introduced species being recorded in non-protected areas than in protected areas. This bird community is composed of five endemic species (~1.5%) (Table S2). Among the endemic species, five species were recorded in Zapalinamé, three species in the Narro campus and Los Ángeles, respectively, and one in La Joya, FIM-SC, Gaviones, Palo Blanco, and El Tulillo (Figure 3C); these species included Mexican Duck (Anas diazi), Maroon-fronted Parrot (Rhynchopsitta terrisi), Aztec Thrush (Ridgwaya pinicola), Rufous-capped Brushfinch (Atlapetes pileatus), Hooded Yellowthroat (Geothlypis nelsoni), and Worthen’s Sparrow (Spizella wortheni) (Table S2). Six species are threatened, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Figure 3C): three are Near Threatened—Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapilla), and Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis)— and three are Endangered—R. terrisi, S. wortheni, and Golden-cheeked Warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia) (Table S2). Meanwhile, at the regional level, we found 37 species within NOM-059-Semarnat-2010 (Table S2, Figure 3C): 23 in under special protection, 10 threatened, and 4 endangered—Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), R. terrisi, S. chrysoparia, and S. wortheni. Greater species richness (39 species, 95%)—both endemic and with some vulnerability status—was recorded in protected areas than in unprotected areas (26 species, 63.4%). Only A. pileatus (endemic) and Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus, special protection) were recorded in the unprotected areas. Species such as A. diazi and R. terrisi had a higher number of individual records in protected areas than in unprotected areas (Figure 4); however, S. wortheni and L. ludovicianus had a higher number of records in unprotected areas than in protected areas. Other species such as A. chrysaetos had a similar representation in terms of the number of detections in both (Figure 4).
Our study added 20 species that had not been previously reported in the state of Coahuila: Elegant Euphonia (Chlorophonia elegantissima), Kentucky Warbler (Geothlypis formosa), Vaux’s Swift (Chaetura vauxi), Red-breaster Merganser (Mergus serrator), Clark’s Grebe (Aechmophorus clarki), Hook-billed Kite (Chondrohierax uncinatus), Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola), Dunlin (Calidris alpina), Semipalmated Sandpiper (C. pusilla), Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus), Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), Budgerigar (Melopssitacus undulatus), Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), Cape-May Warbler (Setophaga tigrina), Blue Bunting (Cyanocompsa parellina), Mexican Violetear (Colibri thalassinus), Buff-bellied Hummingbird (Amazilia yucatanensis), American Woodcock (Scolopax minor), Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), Mottled Owl (Strix virgata), and Mountain Trogon (Trogon mexicanus).
The correlations among the average number of bird detections and relative abundance indicated linear relationships, which means that birds with a higher number of bird detections had higher relative abundance (Figure 5). In the protected areas, the average number of bird detections was 19.90 ± 22.40 (±SD), while that in the unprotected areas was 22.30 ± 24.43. The average abundance of birds differed significantly between sites within protected areas (p < 0.001) and statistically significantly differed within sites in unprotected areas (p < 0.04). However, considering significant differences between the protected and unprotected areas, there was no significant variation in bird species abundance (F = 6.67, p = 0.010) and mean abundance (F = 2.46, p = 0.117). Bird species such as Northern Shoveler (Spatula clypeata), White-winged Dove (Zenaida asiatica), Mourning Dove (Z. macroura), Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis), Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura), House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata) had the highest relative abundance in protected and unprotected areas, while 54 bird species had the lowest relative abundance in both areas.
Cluster analysis revealed that birds were homogenously distributed in three separate clusters of sites (Figure 6A). The study sites moderately to strongly correlated with species diversity and species composition in the respective groups. In addition, the cluster analysis showed that avifauna were discretely distributed and had similar bird species composition in the sites within the protected and unprotected areas (Figure 6A,B); that is, the species composition varied slightly between study sites (between 70 and 171 shared species). Bird species composition in the Narro campus–La Joya (71.6%), Narro campus–Palo Blanco (70.3%), and La Joya–El Tulillo (70.4%) comparisons were more similar, compared to other sites (Figure 6A,B). Protected areas such as Zapalinamé and El Tulillo shared a high number of species (166); however, Zapalinamé also shared a high number of species with sites in unprotected areas such as Narro campus (171) and Los Ángeles (128), which may be due to their proximity, as occurred with El Tulillo and Palo Blanco (120).

4. Discussion

The number of bird species recorded in these eight sites represents ~90% of all known Coahuila avifauna [37,38,60] and 33.5% of the species recorded from the Mexican territory [71]. Bird diversity was higher than that documented for some arid and semiarid ecosystems such as Sierra del Carmen (301 species) [72], Janos Biosphere Reserve (227 species) [73], and Mapimí Biosphere Reserve (224 species) [74,75]. Our results support the idea that protected and unprotected areas represent refuges that are important for bird conservation in the region. The high bird richness in these eight sites in southeastern Coahuila can be attributed to the semiarid range of habitats such as scrubs–forest ecotone, inland waterbodies, natural grasslands, and original forest patches, leading to the high heterogeneity of environments inside and around the Zapalinamé mountains, as well as at the confluence of migratory routes in the Sierra Madre Oriental [62,76]. The high bird species richness and abundance found in unprotected areas can be attributed to such heterogeneous environments, which provide food and refuge for different bird species.
This result agrees with several studies demonstrating that human-disturbed areas provide heterogeneous habitats which are attractive to various bird populations [77,78]. Unfortunately, 95% of natural grasslands and 80% of shrublands are overgrazed [36,79,80]. The continuous degradation of semiarid ecosystems in the region due to anthropogenic activities and the absence of natural corridors to protect these environments threatens the viability of bird populations [81,82,83], especially species with restricted ranges and small population sizes. This idea has been supported by various studies that recognize the importance of areas outside and surrounding protected areas for species conservation [84,85,86]. According to Farías-Rivero et al. [87] and Tai et al. [88], birds are sensitive to environmental disturbances and can be found at different trophic levels. Thus, as the patterns observed in bird communities can predict the impact that past land use had on natural environments, they can be used as bioindicators of these environmental changes [89,90]. In this context, we found 41 species with vulnerable status and 5 with restricted range (i.e., endemics), the latter being more sensitive to anthropogenic threats and natural changes, which increases their risk of extinction in the region [49], especially in countries with emerging economies such as Mexico.
One of the most emblematic bird species is Aquila chrysaetos, which has undergone declines in Mexico mainly due to habitat loss, hunting, and pesticide poisoning [91,92]. Aquila chrysaetos inhabits grasslands and scrublands but has adapted to agricultural and livestock areas, albeit in low densities [93,94,95]. For example, this raptor makes use of places such as Zapalinamé and Los Ángeles as areas for movement, feeding, and nesting [93]. Other sites are also important for conservation; R. terrisi is an endemic bird that makes use of sites such as Zapalinamé as a refuge, feeding, and nesting area [96]. Spizella wortheni is another endemic bird that, like grassland birds, makes use of unprotected areas like Los Ángeles for nesting and feeding [64,97,98]. Meanwhile, sites such as Narro campus and FIM-SC are used as passage and refuge sites for different birds, and waterbodies (dams such as El Tulillo, Gaviones and La Joya) are used as refuge and feeding areas for many wintering aquatic birds such as ducks and shorebirds.
We added 20 species that had not been previously recorded in the region or in the state [37,38,60], as they are species with coastal affinity but which, due to some natural phenomena (e.g., hurricane, fires), were recorded mainly in the waterbodies of this study region. These results suggest that the core avian assemblage of southeastern Coahuila region is likely very well established by now and that future records will likely result from more nomadic aquatic species, transient migrants and possibly some widespread but uncommon species that have not yet been recorded. The occurrence of other bird species could be attributed to the high heterogeneity of local aquatic environments in protected and unprotected areas in the region and habitat selection, combined with seasonality and the absence of other locations in the surroundings [99,100]. This great variety of habitats in protected and unprotected areas can also promote the high diversity of migratory birds in southeastern Coahuila [62,76].
Southeastern Coahuila has been impacted by cattle grazing, irregular land occupation, dam construction, urban and industrial zones, and unsustainable use of the native forest [36,79]. As a result, the areas of native vegetation are the most impacted habitats in the region, which have become isolated small patches. These large alterations in land cover reduce the number of habitats and change their configuration, affecting biodiversity and, consequently, leading to species extinction [89,101]. The isolation negatively affects the persistence of species and decreases individual movements among habitat patches outside the protected areas [102,103]. In fact, small and isolated forest patches are strongly related to a decrease in animal population size, an interruption of gene flow, and the probability of local extinctions [104], especially when considering sensitive bird species [105].
Besides the anthropogenic pressures observed within this region, our results demonstrate that protected and unprotected areas still harbor valuable avian diversity, with the presence of range-restricted, threatened, and migratory species, highlighting their importance for bird conservation. Considering the implications of bird species to forest health and dynamics, proper conservation management and mitigation strategies should be implemented in protected and unprotected areas to conserve bird communities in southeastern Coahuila, especially in non-priority areas which are deforested and highly disturbed by mining [36,79]. Livestock pressure and anthropogenic disturbances are the prominent threats to birds in the study area, as the study sites are located near to human settlements. However, we emphasize the need for effective management inside, surrounding, and outside the boundaries of the protected areas, as pressures inside the reserve usually reflect those occurring outside it [106,107]. The establishment of corridors with native vegetation could facilitate recolonizations and community regeneration [108]. Thus, the maintenance, management, and expansion of protected area networks continue to be some of the most important tools for biodiversity conservation [106].

5. Conclusions

The increasing human population, improper waste disposal activities, urban pollution, and ecosystem fragmentation are greatly affecting birds [109]. Despite being under high anthropogenic pressure, our study demonstrated that the bird species richness in southeastern Coahuila is related to the rich mix of the semi-arid vegetation mosaic and other components of the landscape associated with human activities (agricultural and livestock land). Therefore, in addition to what is included in the regional protected and unprotected areas system, it is recommended that conservation strategies include participation of the owners of the surrounding lands to integrate biological corridors which include the various types of vegetation along the elevational gradient and relate to the protected area. Conservation of native habitats along the gradient of perturbation is paramount to ensure the conservation of most bird species, as well as many other associated flora and fauna species. To achieve the effective conservation of bird diversity in the protected areas and surrounding sites, it is thus necessary to integrate a connectivity scheme between the different plan associations along the gradient. This would not only be for the conservation of species but also for the maintenance of ecological functions, such as water collection, reductions in erosion, and the mitigation of climate change. A design with these characteristics could deliver a range of benefits to the inhabitants of the Saltillo, Arteaga, General Cepeda, and Ramos Arizpe municipalities, along with other surrounding areas.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/conservation4040034/s1: Table S1: Detailed information on the surveys in the study sites of southeastern Coahuila, Mexico; and Table S2: Searchable pdf file of checklist of bird species of eight study sites in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. This checklist contains residency, conservation status (IUCN, NOM-059), and endemic.

Author Contributions

E.G.C.-L. and J.E.R.-A. conceptualized and designed the study. E.G.C.-L., E.J.C.-B., J.E.R.-A. and A.C.-A. collected data in the field and identified the specimens. J.E.R.-A. and E.G.C.-L. carried out data compilation and analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by J.E.R.-A. and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Institutional Research Funds for projects 25311-425202001-2391, 38111-425104001-2178, and 38111-425104001-2389 of the Antonio Narro Agrarian Autonomous University and to the postgraduate scholarships (758841, 763362) from the CONAHCyT.

Data Availability Statement

All data are available upon request.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to PROFAUNA for the logistical support, especially Sergio Marines and Juan Cárdenas. Thanks to Ricardo Vásquez Aldape, Pedro Carrillo López, Marco Villarreal, and all the staff in charge of the Los Ángeles Cattle Ranch for the logistical support and the facilities provided. Thanks to Alejandro Gordillo and Adolfo G. Navarro-Sigüenza for providing us with access to the data from the National Atlas of the Birds of Mexico. Thanks to the CONAFOR Environmental Services Program. Special thanks to Daniel Garza for providing us some bird species records. Special thanks to Perla Rodríguez, Pedro Guevara, Juan Manuel Ramírez, and Gabo Verssi for providing us with the photos of Crested Caracara, American Krestel, Fulvous Whistling Duck, and Northern Goshawk, respectively. Thanks to Jerome Scorer for proofreading the manuscript text.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Correia, A.M.; Lopes, L.F. Revisiting Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning through the Lens of Complex Adaptive Systems. Diversity 2023, 15, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mantyka-Pringle, C.; Visconti, P.; Di Marco, M.; Martin, T.G.; Rondinini, C.; Rhodes, J.R. Climate change modifies risk of global biodiversity loss due to land-cover change. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 187, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Weiskpt, S.R.; Rubenstein, M.A.; Crozier, L.G.; Gaichas, S.; Griffis, R.; Halofsky, J.E.; Hyde, K.J.W.; Morelli, T.L.; Morisette, J.T.; Muñoz, R.C.; et al. Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystems services, and natural resource management in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 733, 137782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hooper, D.U.; Chapin, F.S., III; Ewel, J.J.; Hector, A.; Inchausti, P.; Lavorel, S.; Lawton, J.H.; Lodge, D.M.; Loreau, M.; Naeem, S.; et al. Effects of Biodiversity on Ecosystem Functioning: A Consensus of Current Knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 2005, 75, 3–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. McKinney, M.L. Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst. 2008, 11, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Potts, L.J.; Gantz, J.D.; Kawarasaki, Y.; Philip, B.N.; Gonthier, D.J.; Law, A.D.; Moe, L.; Unrine, J.M.; McCulley, R.L.; Lee, R.E.; et al. Environmental factors influencing fine-scale distribution of Antarctica´s only endemic insects. Oecologia 2020, 194, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chapin, T.S., III; Zavaleta, E.S.; Eviner, V.T.; Naylor, R.L.; Vitousek, P.M.; Reynolds, H.L.; Hooper, D.U.; Lavorel, S.; Sala, O.E.; Hobbie, S.E.; et al. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 2000, 405, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Dixo, M.; Metzger, J.P.; Morgante, J.S.; Zamudio, K.R. Habitat fragmentation reduces genetic diversity and connectivity among toad populations in the Brazilian Atlantic Coastal Forest. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1560–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. MacGregor-Fors, I.M.; Ortega-Álvarez, R. Ecología Urbana: Experiencias en América Latina; Instituto de Ecología A.C.: Ciudad de México, México, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ricketts, T.H. The matrix matters: Effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am. Nat. 2001, 158, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Isbell, F.; Balvanera, P.; Mori, A.S.; He, J.-S.; Bullock, J.M.; Regmi, G.R.; Seabloom, E.W.; Ferrier, S.; Sala, O.E.; Guerrero-Ramírez, N.R.; et al. Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2023, 21, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gray, C.L.; Hill, S.L.L.; Newbold, T.; Hudson, L.N.; Börger, L.; Contu, S.; Hoskins, A.J.; Ferrier, S.; Purvis, A.; Scharlemann, J.P.W. Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Belote, R.T.; Wilson, M.B. Delineating greater ecosystems around protected areas to guide conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2020, 2, e196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pacifici, M.; Di Marco, M.; Watson, J.E.M. Protected areas are now the last strongholds for many imperiled mammal species. Conserv. Lett. 2020, 13, e12748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jenkins, C.N.; Joppa, L. Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2166–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Joppa, L.N.; Pfaff, A. High and far: Biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e8273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Geldmann, J.; Barnes, M.; Coad, L.; Craigie, I.D.; Hockings, M.; Burgess, N.D. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 161, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Watson, J.E.M.; Dudley, N.; Segan, D.B.; Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 2014, 515, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Noss, R.F.; Dobson, A.P.; Baldwin, R. Bolder thinking for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Lindenmayer, D. Small patches make critical contributions to biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 116, 201820169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Magioli, M.; Rios, E.; Benchimol, M.; Casanova, D.C.; Ferreira, A.S.; Rocha, J.; Rodrigues, F.; Pinto, M.; Narezi, G.; Crepaldi, M.O.; et al. The role of protected and unprotected forest remnants for mammal conservation in a megadiverse Neotropical hotspot. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 259, 109173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. McGuire, J.L.; Lawler, L.L.; McRae, B.H.; Nuñez, T.A.; Theobald, D.M. Achieving climate connectivity in a fragmented landscape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 7195–7200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Belote, R.T.; Dietz, M.S.; Jenkins, C.N.; McKinley, P.S.; Irwin, G.H.; Fullman, T.J.; Leppi, J.C.; Aplet, G.H. Wild, connected, and diverse: Building a more resilient system of protected areas. Ecol. Appl. 2017, 27, 1050–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pimm, S.L.; Jones, H.L.; Diamond, J.M. On the risk of extinction. Am. Nat. 1988, 132, 757–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Laurance, W.F.; Lovejoy, T.E.; Vasconcelos, H.L.; Bruna, E.M.; Didham, R.K.; Stouffer, P.C.; Gascon, C.; Bierregaard, R.O.; Laurance, S.G.; Sampaio, E. Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: A 22-year investigation. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16, 605–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Haavik, A.; Dale, S. Are reserves enough? Value of protected areas for boreal forest birds in southeastern Norway. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2012, 49, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jones, K.R.; Venter, O.; Fuller, R.A.; Allan, J.R.; Maxwell, S.L.; Negret, P.J.; Watson, J.E.M. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 2018, 360, 788–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rico-Sánchez, A.E.; Sundermann, A.; López-López, E.; Torres-Olvera, M.J.; Mueller, S.A.; Haubrock, P.J. Biological diversity in protected areas: Not yet known but already threatened. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 22, e01006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nuñez-Penichet, C.; Cobos, M.E.; Soberón, J.; Gueta, T.; Barve, N.; Barve, V.; Navarro-Sigüenza, A.G.; Peterson, A.T. Selection of sampling sites for biodiversity inventory: Effects of environmental and geographical considerations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2022, 13, 1595–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Laurila-Pant, M.; Lehikoinen, A.; Uusitalo, L.; Venesjärvi, R. How to value biodiversity in environmental management. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 55, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wetzel, F.T.; Bingham, H.C.; Groom, Q.; Haase, P.; Kõljalg, U.; Kuhlmann, M.; Martin, C.S.; Penev, L.; Robertson, T.; Saarenmaa, H.; et al. Unlocking biodiversity data: Prioritization and filling the gaps in biodiversity observation data in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 221, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Andam, K.S.; Ferraro, P.J.; Hanauer, M.M. The effects of protected area systems on ecosystem restoration: A quasi-experimental design to estimate the impact of Costa Rica´s protected area system on forest regrowth. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Geldmann, J.; Manica, A.; Burgess, N.D.; Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected area at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 23209–23215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. González-Aldaco, S.X. Análisis espacial y temporal de la cobertura forestal. In La Biodiversidad en Coahuila. Estudio de Estado Vol. I; Conabio; Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza, Comps., Conabio, Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila: Ciudad de México, México, 2017; pp. 113–122. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mendoza-Hernández, J.M.; González-Aldaco, S.X. Clima. In La Biodiversidad en Coahuila. Estudio de Estado Vol. I; Conabio; Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza, Comps., Conabio, Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila: Ciudad de México, México, 2018; pp. 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  36. Encina-Domínguez, J.A.; Valdés-Reyna, J.; Villarreal-Quintanilla, J.A. Tipos de vegetación y comunidades vegetales. In La Biodiversidad en Coahuila. Estudio de Estado Vol. II; Conabio; Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza, Comps., Conabio, Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila: Ciudad de México, México, 2018; pp. 89–110. [Google Scholar]
  37. Contreras-Balderas, A.J.; Cotera-Correa, M.; García-Salas, J.A.; Guerrero-Madriles, M.; López de Aquino, S.; Heredia-Pineda, F.J.; Lozano-Cavazos, E.A.; Morán-Rosales, F.I.; Scott-Morales, L.M. Aves. In La Biodiversidad en Coahuila. Estudio de Estado Vol. II; Conabio; Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza, Comps., Conabio, Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza: Ciudad de México, México, 2018; pp. 361–374. [Google Scholar]
  38. Garza de León, A.; Moran, I.; Valdés, F.; Tinajero, R. Coahuila. In Avifaunas Estatales; Ortiz-Pulido, R., Navarro-Sigüenza, A.G., Gómez de Silva, H., Rojas-Soto, O., Peterson, A.T., Eds.; Cipamex: Pachuca, México, 2007; pp. 98–136. [Google Scholar]
  39. Blondel, J.; Ferry, C.; Frochot, B. La méthode des indices ponctuels d´abondance (I.P.A.) ou des relevés d´avifaune par “stations d´écoute”. Alauda 1970, 38, 55–71. [Google Scholar]
  40. Peterson, R.T.; Chalif, E.L. Aves de México, Guía de Campo; Edit. Diana: México, D.F., México, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  41. Howell, S.N.G.; Webb, S. A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  42. Dunn, J.L.; Alderfer, J. Field Guide to the Birds of North America; National Geographic Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kauffman, K. Kaufmann Field Guide to Birds of North America; Houghton Mifflin Co.: Boston, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sibley, D.A. The Sibley Guide to Birds, 2nd ed.; Knopf: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  45. Chesser, R.T.; Billerman, S.M.; Burns, K.J.; Cicero, C.; Dunn, J.L.; Hernández-Baños, B.E.; Jiménez, R.A.; Johnson, O.; Kratter, A.W.; Mason, N.A.; et al. Checklist of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. 2024. Available online: https://checklist.americanornithology.org/taxa/ (accessed on 22 July 2024).
  46. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). Red List of Threatened Species-International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2024. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/ (accessed on 22 July 2024).
  47. Semarnat (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-ECOL-2010; Protección Ambiental-Especies Nativas de México de Flora y Fauna Silvestres Categorías de Riesgo y Especificaciones Para su Inclusión, Exclusión o Cambio-Lista de Especies en Riesgo; Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales: Ciudad de México, México, 2010; Diario Oficial de la Federación 30 de diciembre de 2010. [Google Scholar]
  48. Navarro-Sigüenza, A.G.; Benítez, H. Patrones de riqueza y endemismo de las aves. Ciencias 1993, 7, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  49. González-García, F.; Gómez de Silva, H. Especies endémicas: Riqueza, patrones de distribución y retos para su conservación. In Conservación de aves. Experiencias en México; Gómez de Silva, H., Oliveras de Ita, A., Eds.; Cipamex; Conabio; NFWF: Ciudad de México, México, 2003; pp. 150–154. [Google Scholar]
  50. Marsh, E.G.; Stevenson, J.O. Birds records from northern Coahuila (General notes). Auk 1938, 55, 286–287. [Google Scholar]
  51. Burleigh, T.D.; Lowery, G.H. Notes on the Birds of Southeastern Coahuila. Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. La. State Univ. 1942, 12, 185–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. van Hoose, S.G. Distributional and breeding records of some birds from Coahuila (General Notes). Wilson Bull. 1955, 67, 302–303. [Google Scholar]
  53. Friedmann, H.; Griscom, L.; Moore, R.T. Distributional check list of the birds of México Parts I. Pac. Coast Avifauna 1950, 29, 9–183. [Google Scholar]
  54. Friedmann, H.; Griscom, L.; Moore, R.T. Distributional check list of the birds of México Parts II. Pac. Coast Avifauna 1950, 29, 1–204. [Google Scholar]
  55. Miller, A.H.; Friedmann, H.; Griscom, L.; Moore, R.T. Distributional checklist of the birds of México Parts II. Pac. Coast Avifauna 1957, 33, 1–436. [Google Scholar]
  56. Urban, E.K. Birds from Coahuila, México. Univ. Kans. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. 1959, 11, 443–516. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ely, C.A. The birds of southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. Condor 1962, 64, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dickerman, R.W. A critique of birds from Coahuila, Mexico. Condor 1963, 65, 330–332. [Google Scholar]
  59. Garza de León, A. Unusual records from Coahuila, Mexico. Condor 1987, 89, 672–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Garza de León, A. Aves de Coahuila, Guía de Campo; Museo de las Aves de México: Saltillo, México, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  61. Benson, K.L.P.; Benson, R.H.; Garza, A. Additions to the avifauna of Coahuila, México. Bull. Tex. Ornithol. Soc. 1989, 22, 22–23. [Google Scholar]
  62. Navarro-Sigüenza, A.G.; Garza-Torres, H.A.; López de Aquino, S.; Rojas-Soto, O.R.; Sánchez-González, L.A. Patrones biogeográficos de la avifauna. In Biodiversidad de la Sierra Madre Oriental; Luna, I., Morrone, J.J., Espinosa, D., Eds.; Las Prensas de Ciencias; Conabio; UNAM: Ciudad de México, México, 2004; pp. 439–467. [Google Scholar]
  63. Marines-Gómez, S.C.; Cárdenas-Ollivier, R.H. Monitoreo de las poblaciones de aves de la Zona Sujeta a Conservación Ecológica Sierra de Zapalinamé. In La Biodiversidad en Coahuila. Estudio de Estado Vol. II; Conabio; Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza, Comps., Conabio, Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila: Ciudad de México, México, 2018; pp. 391–399. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ruvalcaba-Ortega, I.; Panjabi, A.O. Aves de pastizal del Desierto Chihuahuense. In La Biodiversidad en Coahuila. Estudio de Estado Vol. II; Conabio; Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza, Comps., Conabio, Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza: Ciudad de México, México, 2018; pp. 375–384. [Google Scholar]
  65. Lerma-Quiroga, D.; Ruvalcaba-Ortega, I.; González-Rojas, J.I.; Colón, M.; Morrison, M.L. Nesting behavior of the Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapilla) from a newly discovered breeding population in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. Southwest. Nat. 2019, 64, 131–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gámez-Benavides, R.E.; Ceyca-Contreras, J.P. Primer registro del gavilán pico de gancho (Chondrohierax uncinatus) en el estado de Coahuila, México. Huitzil Rev. Mex. Ornitol. 2022, 24, e-659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Navarro-Sigüenza, A.G.; Peterson, A.T.; Gordillo-Martínez, A. Museums working together: The atlas of the birds of Mexico. Bull. Br. Ornithol. Club 2003, 123A, 207–225. [Google Scholar]
  68. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  69. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  70. McAleece, N.; Gage, J.D.G.; Lambshead, P.J.D.; Paterson, G.L.J. BioDiversity Professional Statistics Analysis Software; The Scottish Association for Marine Science and the Natural History Museum London: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  71. Navarro-Sigüenza, A.G.; Rebón-Gallardo, M.F.; Gordillo-Martínez, A.; Peterson, A.T.; Berlanga, H.; Sánchez-González, L.A. Biodiversidad de aves. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2014, S85, S476–S495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Miller, E.T.; McCormack, J.E.; Levandowski, G.; McKinney, B.R. Sixty years on: Birds of the Sierra del Carmen, Coahuila, Mexico, revisted. Bull. Br. Ornithol. Club 2018, 138, 318–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Manzano-Fisher, P.; List, R.; Ceballos, G.; Cartron, J.-L.E. Avian diversity in a priority area for conservation in North America: The Janos-Casas Grandes Praire Dog complex and adjacent habitats in northwestern Mexico. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 3801–3825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hernández, J.E.; Villarreal, C.; García, R.; Mariano, S.; Ibarra, E.N.; Ramos, B.; Barraza, S.P.; Maldonado, M.C. Monitoreo de aves en la Reserva de la Biosfera Mapimí. Huitzil Rev. Mex. Ornitol. 2019, 20, e-807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Semarnat (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales); Conanp (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas). Programa de Conservación y Manejo Reserva de la Biosfera Mapimí; Semarnat; Conanp: Ciudad de México, México, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  76. Stotz, D.F.; Fitzpatrick, J.W.; Parker III, T.A.; Moskovits, D.K. Neotropical Birds: Ecology and Conservation; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  77. Ramírez-Albores, J.E.; Prieto-Torres, D.A.; Gordillo-Martínez, A.; Sánchez-Ramos, L.E.; Navarro-Sigüenza, A.G. Insights for protection of high species richness areas for the conservation of Mesoamerican endemic birds. Divers. Distrib. 2021, 27, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tonetti, V.; Bocalini, F.; Schunck, F.; Vancine, M.H.; Butti, M.; Ribeiro, M.; Pizo, M. The Protected Areas network may be insufficient to protect bird diversity in a fragmented tropical hotspot under different climate scenarios. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2024, 22, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Jurado-Guerra, P.; Velázquez-Martínez, M.; Sánchez-Gutiérrez, R.A.; Álvarez-Holguín, A.; Domínguez-Martínez, P.A.; Gutiérrez-Luna, R.; Garza-Cedillo, R.D.; Luna-Luna, M.; Chávez-Ruiz, M.G. Los pastizales y matorrales de zonas áridas y semiáridas de México: Estatus actual, retos y perspectivas. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2021, 12, 261–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Valencia, C.M. Perdida y degradación de hábitat. In La Biodiversidad en Coahuila. Estudio de Estado Vol. I; Conabio; Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza, Comps., Conabio; Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila: Ciudad de México, México, 2017; pp. 475–483. [Google Scholar]
  81. Mansori, M.; Badehian, Z.; Ghobadi, M.; McIeknia, R. Assessing the environmental destruction in forest ecosystems using landscape metrics and spatial analysis. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 15165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Popradit, A.; Srisatit, T.; Kiratiprayoon, S.; Yoshimura, J.; Ishida, A.; Shiyomi, M.; Murayama, T.; Chantaranothai, P.; Outtaranakorn, S.; Phromma, I. Anthropogenic effects on a tropical forest according to the distance from human settlements. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 14689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wang, Y.; Qin, P.; Önal, H. An optimization approach for designing wildlife corridors with ecological and spatial considerations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2022, 13, 1042–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Balme, G.A.; Slotow, R.; Hunter, L.T.B. Edge effects and the impact of non-protected areas in carnivore conservation: Leopards in the Phinda-Mkhuze Complex, South Africa. Anim. Conserv. 2010, 13, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rayner, L.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Wood, J.T.; Gibbons, P.; Manning, A.D. Are protected areas maintaining bird diversity? Ecography 2014, 37, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Gálvez, N.; Hernández, F.; Laker, J.; Gilabert, H.; Petitpas, R.; Bonacic, C.; Gimona, A.; Hester, A.; Macdonald, D.W. Forest cover outside protected areas plays an important role in the conservation of the vulnerable guiña Leopardus guigna. Oryx 2013, 47, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Farías-Rivero, N.A.; Ramírez-Barajas, P.J.; Cedeño-Vázquez, J.R.; Sánchez-Sánchez, J.; Asselin-Nguyen, A.; Macario-Mendoza, P.A.; Tuz-Novelo, M. Cambios en la diversidad de aves ante la perturbación de hábitats del sur de Quintana Roo, México. Acta Zoológica Mex. (N.S.) 2022, 38, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Tai, D.; Chen, C.; Son, Y.; Tan, X.; Yang, X.; Wang, Y. Ecological traits and landscape characteristics predicting bird sensitivity to urbanization in city parks. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2022, 58, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hoekstra, J.M.; Boucher, T.M.; Ricketts, T.H.; Roberts, C. Confronting a biome crisis: Global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sodhi, N.S.; Şekercioğlu, C.H.; Barlow, J.; Robinson, S.K. Conservation of Tropical Birds; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. GBBO (Great Basin Bird Observatory). Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan, ver. 1.0; Great Basin Bird Observatory: Reno, NV, USA, 2010. Available online: https://www.gbbo.org/bird_conservation_plan.html (accessed on 14 October 2023).
  92. Katzner, T.; Smith, B.W.; Miller, T.A.; Brandes, D.; Cooper, J.; Lanzone, M.; Bildstein, K.L. Status, biology, and conservation priorities for North America’s eastern Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) population. Auk 2012, 129, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chavez-Lugo, E.G.; Cruz-Bazan, E.J.; Cruz-Anaya, A.; Encina-Domínguez, J.A.; Ramírez-Albores, J.E. De las montañas al valle: El Águila real (Aquila chrysaetos) en Coahuila, México. Huitzil Rev. Mex. Ornitol. 2023, 24, e-661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Flesch, A.D.; Rodríguez-Estrella, R.; Gallo-Reynoso, J.P.; Armenta-Méndez, L.; Montiel-Herrera, M. Distribution and habitat of the Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) in Sonora, Mexico, 1892-2015. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2020, 91, e913056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Rodríguez-Estrella, R. A survey of golden eagles in northern Mexico in 1984 and recent records in central and southern Baja California peninsula. J. Raptor Res. 2002, 36, 3–9. [Google Scholar]
  96. Ortiz-Maciel, S.G.; Hori-Ochoa, C.; Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E. Maroon-fronted Parrot (Rhynchopsitta terrisi) breeding home range and habitat selection in the northern Sierra Madre Oriental, Mexico. Wilson J. Ornithol. 2010, 122, 513–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Canales-del Castillo, R.; González-Rojas, J.I.; Ruvalcaba-Ortega, I.; García-Ramírez, A. New breeding localities of Worthen’s Sparrows in northeastern Mexico. J. Field Ornithol. 2010, 81, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Heredia-Pineda, F.J.; Lozano-Cavazos, E.A.; Romero-Figueroa, G.; Alanís-Rodríguez, E.; Tarango-Arámbula, L.A.; Ugalde-Lezama, S. Interspecific foraging relationships of the Worthen´s Sparrow (Spizella wortheni) during the non-breeding season in Coahuila, Mexico. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Zonas Áridas 2017, 16, 23–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Anderle, M.; Brambilla, M.; Hilpold, A.; Matabishi, J.G.; Paniccia, C.; Rocchini, D.; Rossin, J.; Tasser, E.; Torresani, M.; Tappeiner, U.; et al. Habitat heterogeneity promotes bird diversity in agricultural landscapes: Insights from remote sensing data. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2023, 70, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lorenzón, R.E.; Beltzer, A.H.; Olguin, P.F.; Ronchi-Virgolini, A.L. Habitat heterogeneity drives bird species richness, nestedness and habitat selection by individual species in fluvial wetlands of the Paraná River, Argentina. Austral Ecol. 2016, 41, 829–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hill, J.; Curran, P.J. Area, shape and isolation of tropical forest fragments: Effects on tree species diversity and implications for conservation. J. Biogeogr. 2003, 30, 1391–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34, 487–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fischer, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: A synthesis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2007, 16, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Temple, S.A.; Cary, J.R. Modeling dynamics of habitat-interior bird populations in fragmented landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 1988, 2, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Martensen, A.C.; Ribeiro, M.C.; Banks-Leite, C.; Prado, P.I.; Metzger, J.P. Associations of forest cover, fragment area and connectivity with Neotropical understory bird species richness and abundance. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26, 1100–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hofmann, D.D.; Behr, D.M.; McNutt, J.W.; Ozgul, A.; Cozzi, G. Bound within boundaries: Do protected areas cover movement corridors of their most mobile, protected species? J. Appl. Ecol. 2021, 58, 1133–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. van Broekhoven, S.; Boons, F. Managing boundaries overtime in integrative planning processes. A process analysis of boundary work in two cases of multifunctional land use. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2022, 65, 583–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Anderson, A.B.; Jenkins, C.N. Applying Nature’s Desing. Corridors as a Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  109. Fontana, C.S.; Burger, M.I.; Magnusson, W.E. Bird diversity in a subtropical South-American city: Effects of noise levels, arborization and human population density. Urban Ecosyst. 2011, 14, 314–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Conservation 04 00034 g001
Figure 1. Map showing the location of study sites in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico.
Figure 1. Map showing the location of study sites in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico.
Conservation 04 00034 g001
Conservation 04 00034 g002
Figure 2. Some bird species recorded in southeastern Coahuila: (A) Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris), (B) Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), (C) Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), (D) Say´s Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), (E) House finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), (F) Mexican Jay (Aphelocoma wollweberi), (G) Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), (H) Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), (I) Vermilion Flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus), (J) Crested Caracara (Caracara plancus), (K) American Krestel (Falco sparverius), (L) Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), (M) Elegant Euphonia (Chlorophonia elegantissima), (N) Mountain Trogon (Trogon mexicanus), (O) Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), (P) Maroon-fronted Parrot (Rhynchopsitta terrisi), (Q) Fulvous Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna bicolor), (R) Black-bellied Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis), (S) Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), (T) Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), (U) Sandhill Crane (Antigone canadensis), (V) Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), (W) Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and (X) White-tailed Hawk (Geranoaetus albicaudatus) (Photos: (A–F,H,I,L,S,W) by E.G.C.-L.; (J) by Perla Rodríguez; (K,T,X) by Pedro Guevara; (G,R) by E.J.C.-B.; (M–P,U) by A.C.-A.; (Q) by Juan Manuel Ramirez; and (V) by Gabo Vessi).
Figure 2. Some bird species recorded in southeastern Coahuila: (A) Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris), (B) Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), (C) Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), (D) Say´s Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), (E) House finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), (F) Mexican Jay (Aphelocoma wollweberi), (G) Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), (H) Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), (I) Vermilion Flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus), (J) Crested Caracara (Caracara plancus), (K) American Krestel (Falco sparverius), (L) Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), (M) Elegant Euphonia (Chlorophonia elegantissima), (N) Mountain Trogon (Trogon mexicanus), (O) Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), (P) Maroon-fronted Parrot (Rhynchopsitta terrisi), (Q) Fulvous Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna bicolor), (R) Black-bellied Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis), (S) Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), (T) Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), (U) Sandhill Crane (Antigone canadensis), (V) Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), (W) Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and (X) White-tailed Hawk (Geranoaetus albicaudatus) (Photos: (A–F,H,I,L,S,W) by E.G.C.-L.; (J) by Perla Rodríguez; (K,T,X) by Pedro Guevara; (G,R) by E.J.C.-B.; (M–P,U) by A.C.-A.; (Q) by Juan Manuel Ramirez; and (V) by Gabo Vessi).
Conservation 04 00034 g002
Conservation 04 00034 g003
Figure 3. Bird species composition (A), families with the highest bird species richness; (B), residency status; (C), vulnerability status) in the study sites in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. Residency status was based on Howell and Webb [28]; for vulnerability status: endemics was based in Navarro-Sigüenza and Benítez [34], Howell and Webb [28], and Gonzalez-García and Gómez de Silva [35]; Endangered * and Near threatened * were determined according to the IUCN Red List criterion [46] (available at https://www.iucnredlist.org), and threatened ‡, endangered ‡, and special protection ‡ were determined according to Semarnat [33].
Figure 3. Bird species composition (A), families with the highest bird species richness; (B), residency status; (C), vulnerability status) in the study sites in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. Residency status was based on Howell and Webb [28]; for vulnerability status: endemics was based in Navarro-Sigüenza and Benítez [34], Howell and Webb [28], and Gonzalez-García and Gómez de Silva [35]; Endangered * and Near threatened * were determined according to the IUCN Red List criterion [46] (available at https://www.iucnredlist.org), and threatened ‡, endangered ‡, and special protection ‡ were determined according to Semarnat [33].
Conservation 04 00034 g003
Conservation 04 00034 g004
Figure 4. Abundance comparison of vulnerable bird species between protected and unprotected areas in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. Vulnerable species considering endemics were based in Navarro-Sigüenza and Benítez [34], Howell and Webb [28] and Gonzalez-García and Gómez de Silva [35]; Endangered * and Near threatened * were determined according to the IUCN Red List criterion [46] (available at https://www.iucnredlist.org), and threatened ‡, endangered ‡, and special protection ‡ were determined according to Semarnat [33] (more details in Table S2).
Figure 4. Abundance comparison of vulnerable bird species between protected and unprotected areas in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. Vulnerable species considering endemics were based in Navarro-Sigüenza and Benítez [34], Howell and Webb [28] and Gonzalez-García and Gómez de Silva [35]; Endangered * and Near threatened * were determined according to the IUCN Red List criterion [46] (available at https://www.iucnredlist.org), and threatened ‡, endangered ‡, and special protection ‡ were determined according to Semarnat [33] (more details in Table S2).
Conservation 04 00034 g004
Conservation 04 00034 g005
Figure 5. Correlations among the metrics of six variables between protected and unprotected areas in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico.
Figure 5. Correlations among the metrics of six variables between protected and unprotected areas in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico.
Conservation 04 00034 g005
Conservation 04 00034 g006
Figure 6. Cluster analysis (A) and heatmap (B) showing the number of shared species between study sites in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. The color of the correlation between study sites represents the number of shared species. The diagonal line represents the total number of species recorded at each study site.
Figure 6. Cluster analysis (A) and heatmap (B) showing the number of shared species between study sites in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. The color of the correlation between study sites represents the number of shared species. The diagonal line represents the total number of species recorded at each study site.
Conservation 04 00034 g006
Table 1. Description of the study sites in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico.
Table 1. Description of the study sites in southeastern Coahuila, Mexico.
Study SitesArea TypeCoordinatesLocationElevation (m)Surface Area
(in km2)		Matrix Components
Zapalinamé State Natural Reserve
(Zapalinamé)		Protected25°20′16″ N, 100°54′59″ WSaltillo and Arteaga municipalities1590 to 3140257.68The mountain area is made up of canyons, with abrupt slopes and rugged topography: arid and semiarid scrub, pine, oyamel and oak forests, and rural zones.
Antonio Narro Autonomous Agrarian University
(Narro campus)		Unprotected25°21′31″ N, 101°01′34″ WSaltillo municipality17403.11Academic infrastructure with garden areas with native and non-native vegetation, agricultural land with irrigation, stables, charro canvas, nurseries, a small waterbody, a pecan walnut orchard, reforested areas of Pinus cembroides and P. halapensis, a botanical garden with native vegetation representative of the region, and small remnants of semiarid scrub.
Francisco I. Madero Sports City
(FIM-SC)		Unprotected25°25′49″ N, 100°58′40″ WSaltillo municipallity15600.17The sports area is made up of infrastructure for practicing different sports with garden areas with native and non-native vegetation, recreative areas, and two waterbodies.
La Joya Dam
(La Joya)		Unprotected25°17′13″ N, 101°09′27″ WSaltillo municipallity19080.60The waterbody is surrounded by semiarid scrubland, rural areas, and livestock grazing areas.
Voluntary Nature Reserve El Tulillo
(El Tulillo)		Protected25°39′52″ N, 101°26′25″ WGeneral Cepeda municipality11206.94The waterbody is surrounded by semiarid scrubland, eolic park, rural areas, and livestock grazing areas.
Nazario Ortiz Garza Dam (Gaviones)Unprotected25°22′53″ N, 101°02′11″ WSaltillo municipality16820.11The waterbody is surrounded by semiarid scrubland, urban areas, and livestock grazing areas.
Palo Blanco Dam
(Palo Blanco)		Unprotected25°34′41″ N, 101°04′52″ WRamos Arizpe municipality13650.21The waterbody is surrounded by semiarid scrubland, rural areas, and livestock grazing areas.
Los Ángeles Cattle Ranch
(Los Ángeles)		Unprotected25°06′34″ N, 100°59′17″ WSaltillo municipality214070.0Native semiarid grasslands with isolated patches of arid scrub and pine and oak forests, and exotic grasslands for livestock use.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chavez-Lugo, E.G.; Ramírez-Albores, J.E.; Pérez-Suárez, M.; Cruz-Bazan, E.J.; Encina-Domínguez, J.A.; Cruz-Anaya, A. Protected and Unprotected Areas as Refuges for Bird Conservation in Southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. Conservation 2024, 4, 560-576. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation4040034

AMA Style

Chavez-Lugo EG, Ramírez-Albores JE, Pérez-Suárez M, Cruz-Bazan EJ, Encina-Domínguez JA, Cruz-Anaya A. Protected and Unprotected Areas as Refuges for Bird Conservation in Southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. Conservation. 2024; 4(4):560-576. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation4040034

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chavez-Lugo, Eber G., Jorge E. Ramírez-Albores, Marlín Pérez-Suárez, Erika J. Cruz-Bazan, Juan A. Encina-Domínguez, and Arturo Cruz-Anaya. 2024. "Protected and Unprotected Areas as Refuges for Bird Conservation in Southeastern Coahuila, Mexico" Conservation 4, no. 4: 560-576. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation4040034

APA Style

Chavez-Lugo, E. G., Ramírez-Albores, J. E., Pérez-Suárez, M., Cruz-Bazan, E. J., Encina-Domínguez, J. A., & Cruz-Anaya, A. (2024). Protected and Unprotected Areas as Refuges for Bird Conservation in Southeastern Coahuila, Mexico. Conservation, 4(4), 560-576. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation4040034

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop