Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 691

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Structure and Organization of an Amazonian Forest Bird Community

Terborgh, John, Robinson, Scott K., Parker, Theodore A., Munn, Charles A., Pierpont, Nina·1990·Ecological Monographs

Abstract

To help fill the gap in detailed knowledge of avian community structure in tropical forests, we undertook a census of a 97—ha plot of floodplain forest in Amazonian Peru. The plot was censused over a 3—mo period spanning the 1982 breeding season. The cooperative venture entailed ≈12 person—months of effort. Conventional spot—mapping was the principal method used, but several additional methods were required to estimate the numbers of non—territorial and group—living species: direct counts of the members of mixed flocks, saturation mist—netting of the entire plot, opportunistic visual registrations at fruiting trees, determination of the average size of parrot flocks, color banding of colonial icterids, etc. Two hundred forty—five resident species were found to hold territories on the plot, or to occupy all or part of it. Seventy—four additional species were detected as occasional—to—frequent visitors, wanderers from other habitats, or as migrants from both hemispheres. By superimposing territory maps or the areas of occupancy of individual species, we determined that point (alpha) diversities exceeded 160 species in portions of the plot. About 1910 individual birds nested in 100 ha of this floodplain forest, making up a biomass conservatively estimated at 190 kg/km 2. The total number of breeding birds was equivalent to that in many temperate forests, but the biomass was about five times as great. Predominantly terrestrial granivores contributed the largest component of the biomass (39%), followed by largely arboreal frugivores (22%). Considering only insectivores, the biomass (34 kg/km 2) is somewhat less than that in the forest at Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire (40 kg/km 2), although it is greater (55 kg/km 2) if one includes omnivores. The number of insectivores was considerably less than at Hubbard Brook, due to their 60% larger average body size (32 vs. 20 g). Even though a large majority of the species were patchily distributed, the 97—ha plot was found to include 99% of the bird species that regularly occupy mature floodplain forest at Cocha Cashu. The most abundant species occupied territories of 4—5 ha, and 84 species (26%) had population densities of ≤1 pair per square kilometre. Of these, 33 (10% of the total community) were judged to be constitutively rare (i.e., having low population densities everywhere), rather than being merely locally rare. Many of these are predicted to be vulnerable to forest fragmentation and disturbance. Comparison of these results with those from other tropical forests proved difficult due to a lack of standardized methodology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1943045

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 691

Metadata

Authors
Terborgh, J., Robinson, S. K., Parker, T. A., Munn, C. A., & Pierpont, N.
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1990-06
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
213-238
ISSN
  • 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7015
OpenAlex
W2134091342
Cited by
691
References
0
FWCI
5.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Structure and Organization of an Amazonian Forest Bird Community. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1943045
The paper
Terborgh, J., Robinson, S. K., Parker, T. A., Munn, C. A., & Pierpont, N. (1990). Structure and Organization of an Amazonian Forest Bird Community. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.2307/1943045

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.