birds of kenaboi forest reserve, jelebu, negri sembilan

Malaysian Journal of Science 28 (4): 465-480 (2009)

465

Diversity of Birds In Kenaboi Forest Reserve, Jelebu, Negeri Sembilan,

Malaysia

Ramli R.*, Ya’cob Z. and Hashim R.

Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia. *[email protected] (Corresponding author)

ABSTRACT Estimating abundance and documenting species richness are two main components in

biodiversity study of tropical rainforest. The aim of this study was to estimate abundance and document

species richness of birds inhabiting Kenaboi Forest, an area that had been extensively logged before it

was gazetted as a forest reserve some twenty years ago. A total of sixteen visits were conducted to the

area from May 2006 to December 2007. Mist-netting and direct observation techniques were used in

documenting bird diversity. A total of 1647 birds, belonging to 152 species were recorded. Of this, 1165

birds (114 species) were captured while 482 individuals (112 species) were observed. Some canopy

specialists were captured by mist nets indicating that the birds foraged at understory area, perhaps due to

lack of food resources at higher level. On the other hand, the presence of 31 nearly threatened species and

two vulnerable species (Brown-chested Jungle Flycatcher, Rhinomyias brunneata and Blue-banded

Kingfisher, Alcedo euryzona) shows that the reserve has sufficient resources for critical species to survive

even after severe disturbance. The study revealed that if secondary forests were left untouched for

sufficient period to allow regeneration, they will be able to play an important role in forest bird

conservation.

ABSTRAK Penganggaran kelimpahan dan perekodan kekayaan spesies merupakan dua komponen

utama di dalam kajian biodiversiti hutan hujan tropika. Tujuan utama kajian ini adalah untuk

menganggarkan kelimpahan dan merekodkan kekayaan spesies burung yang mendiami hutan Kenaboi,

satu kawasan yang telah dibalak secara menyeluruh sebelum ianya diwartakan sebagai hutan simpan lebih

kurang dua puluh tahun lalu. Sebanyak enam belas lawatan telah dijalankan ke kawasan kajian dari Mei

2006 hingga Disember 2007. Kaedah pemerangkapan menggunakan jaring kabus dan pemerhatian

langsung telah digunakan bagi merekodkan kepelbagaian burung. Sebanyak 1647 ekor burung, tergolong

dalam 152 spesies telah direkodkan dari kawasan kajian. Daripada jumlah ini, 1165 ekor burung (114

spesies) telah berjaya ditangkap manakala 482 ekor burung telah diperhatikan. Beberapa spesies burung

kanopi telah diperangkap oleh jaring kabus menunjukkan burung ini mencari makanan di kawasan

understori, mungkin disebabkan oleh kekurangan sumber makanan di paras tinggi. Sebaliknya, kehadiran

31 spesies hampir terancam dan dua spesies terdedah kepada bahaya dan memerlukan perlindungan

(Sambar Hutan, Rhinomyias brunneata dan Pekaka Bukit, Alcedo euryzona) di kawasan kajian

menunjukkan walaupun setelah mengalami gangguan hutan simpan ini masih mempunyai sumber

mencukupi bagi membolehkan spesies kritikal meneruskan hidup. Kajian membuktikan sekiranya hutan

sekunder dibiarkan tanpa gangguan untuk tempoh mencukupi bagi membenarkan proses regenerasi

berlaku, ia akan berupaya memainkan peranan penting di dalam pemuliharaan spesies burung hutan.

(resources availability, understory birds, mist-netting, secondary forests, protected areas)

INTRODUCTION

Most ecologists recognize two main aspects that

must be considered in quantifying biodiversity.

One is species richness, which is the number of

species in a community. The other is relative

abundance or equitability, which is the evenness

with which the individuals are spread out among

the species in a community. Species richness is not

only the simplest way in describing community or

regional diversity but also forms the basis of many

ecological models of community structure [1].

mailto:*[email protected]


466

Thus, although it is not fully comprehensive, bird

diversity of a particular area can be measured by

estimating its species richness and relative

abundance [1]. Although measuring bird diversity

in tropical rainforest is very challenging and

requires a variety of approaches [2], it is crucial to

perform this task since tropical forests biodiversity

has been lost at alarming rate due to forest

destruction [3, 4]. Furthermore, documenting and

monitoring biodiversity changes are the only way

to understand the effects of biodiversity losses on

ecosystem function [5].

Most of the remaining forests in Malaysia have

been gazetted either as forest reserves or national

parks and usually are left untouched. Some of

these areas that are closely located are also

connected by established forest corridors to

increase mobility of forests animals. National

parks were established as a balanced system to

maintain all wildlife in their natural environments

and relations that will serve scientific, recreational,

and aesthetic purposes [6]. Therefore, national

parks (either at federal or state levels) enjoy better

protection since no development can take place.

However, even permanent forest reserves can be

degazetted and exploited in the future. Therefore,

documenting biodiversity of forest reserves is a

paramount effort, not only for documentation

purpose but also for determining the extent in

which biodiversity will be affected by forest

disturbance if development do take place in the

future. In addition, documenting biodiversity of

protected areas such as forest reserves and national

parks should be given high priority since these

areas were established mainly for conserving

biodiversity and are better regulated than other

non-protected areas [7, 8]. Thus, inadequate

information regarding biodiversity of forest

reserves will hinder the process of understanding

the roles and function of protected areas and its

contribution towards maintaining biodiversity [9].

Many studies have been carried out to document

Malaysia’s bird species richness and abundance

either in primary forests [e.g. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

15], disturbed or secondary forests [e.g. 16, 17, 18,

19, 20, 21], or in both types of forest to compare

bird diversity [e.g. 22, 23, 24]. More studies were

focussing on primary forest or protected areas as

they are more attractive to conservationist. Perhaps

researchers were encouraged by the fact that at

least 70% of resident bird species in this region are

partly or exclusively dependent upon the primary

forest [25]. Furthermore, most of human-modified

areas in the tropics have largely been considered

hostile to biodiversity. Consequently, only a few

conservation initiatives have focus on secondary

forests, agro-forestry, or other human-modified

areas. On the contrary, recent finding suggests that

more investigation needs to be conducted beyond

protected area or primary forest to better preserve

biodiversity [26]. This is because 90% of the

world’s tropical forests exist outside of protected

areas and 60% of the world’s remaining tropical

forests are either degraded or secondary forests

[27]. Previous report discovered that 42 tropical

countries have higher coverage of secondary forest

or degraded habitat [28], suggesting that

biodiversity of these countries can only be

significantly conserved if more consideration were

given to non primary forests in conservation

programme.

Some secondary forests were also able to support a

large fraction of a region’s native bird species (due

to the complexity of resources available in that

forest fragments) but it would not be able to

support large bird species (such as hornbills) that

require a lot of resources. Resources such as food,

suitable habitat and shelter, and minimum

competition and predation influence the presence

of birds in a particular area. These resources are

the basic need for birds to survive and as a result

birds always associated with the area that has the

resources. Previous study in Pasoh Forest Reserve

discovered that less species and abundance were

recorded in disturbed forest than primary forest

[22]. This is because primary forest has plentiful

resources to support more birds. Increase in fig-

fruit biomass had caused population size of Red-

knobbed Hornbill (Aceros cassidix) in Indonesia to

increase [29], while variations in food distribution

and microclimate have influenced bird ecology in

Kenya [30]. In conclusion, food supply, seasonal

breeding, migratory movements and habitat shifts

are primary factors in determining bird’s

population size in particular area.

Therefore, it is necessary to gather complete

information regarding biodiversity of any forest

reserves, preferably since its inception until recent.

The data need to be regularly updated to be used in

explaining the effect of deforestation (either

directly, i.e. how many species were lost

immediately after habitat destruction or indirectly,


467

i.e. how many species eventually disappeared after

a given period) and the success of reforestation

(i.e. how many species were established from

reserve gazetted date until fully grown forest was

achieved). For this purpose, species richness and

abundance of birds inhabiting Kenaboi forest

reserve were estimated. The aim of this study is to

investigate the roles of logged forest reserve in

conserving forest birds. Later, the relationship

between bird diversity and resources availability

were assessed based on the presence of particular

bird species and resources in the study area. This

will provide appropriate information to measure

recovery rate of reserve biodiversity and permit

associating between bird diversity and resources

availability. Ultimately, the effectiveness of forest

reserve in conserving biodiversity can be estimated

using birds as flagship species. In making

assessment, available data on bird diversity from

other forest reserves throughout Peninsular

Malaysia will also be used for comparison purpose.

STUDY AREA

Kenaboi Forest Reserve is situated in the main

range of Peninsular Malaysia. It consists of

lowland and hill dipterocarp forests. This

permanent forest reserve is located in the district of

Jelebu, Negeri Sembilan, approximately 85

kilometers from Kuala Lumpur. The highest peak

in Negeri Sembilan, Gunung Besar Hantu which

stood at 1462 meters is situated in this forest

reserve. Three main rivers i.e. Kenaboi, Semong,

and Kering and its tributaries flow throughout the

reserve. The highest waterfall in Negeri Sembilan

known as Lata Kijang (115 meters high) is also

located within this forest reserve. In addition, the

reserve also has few caves and other natural

wonders that always attract local and international

tourists. This had prompted the state government to

declare an area of 9420 hectares of the Kenaboi

forest reserve as State Jungle Park (Taman

Belantara Negeri) in October 2008. On top of

nurturing nature awareness among local

community, the declaration also intend to promote

recreational, adventure, and tourism activities into

the reserve.

Almost all lowland forests within the reserve were

subjected to logging process approximately thirty

years ago. However few forest patches were left

untouched possibly due to low trees value or

difficulty in accessibility. These forest fragments

were resemblance of the original forest and

become a hotspot for birds. In addition to logging

activity, encroachment by local community and

indigenous people that are evidence in some parts

of the reserve was also contributes to forest

degradation. In some areas, forest was severely

destructed that all big trees (even smaller than 30

cm dbh) were removed, caused failure in forest

regeneration and the areas were occupied by

shrubs or bamboo clumps or other pioneer species

such as Macaranga sp. This creates a variety of

habitats within the forest reserve ranging from an

open areas, shrubs, bamboo clumps, secondary

forest, and fragment of primary forest. Adjacent to

this forest reserve, there are many agricultural

areas that consist mainly of rubber estates, oil palm

plantations, orchards, vegetable farms, and cash

crops such as banana and tapioca.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of sixteen visits (consist of three days each)

was conducted to Kenaboi Forest Reserve from

May 2006 until December 2007. Two standard

methods i.e. direct observation using 8 X 40

binoculars and mist netting were used to document

bird species richness and abundance. A total of

twenty mist nets (five shelves nets with dimension

of 12 meters long, 2.5 meters high and 36mm2

mesh) were setup during each visit. The nets were

operated for three days from 0800 hours until 1800

hours depending on weather condition (the nets

were closed in the events of heavy precipitation or

strong wind). All nets were inspected hourly to

extract trapped birds which were identified up to

species level. Standard field guides such as Strange

& Jeyarajasingam [31], Lekagul & Round [32] and

Robson [33] were used to resolve any ambiguity

related to bird identification. For each bird, its

morphological characters (such as body, wing, tail

and tarsus length, culmen and gape length/width,

and keel) were measured following criteria

proposed by McCracken et al. [34], its weight was

recorded by digital balance, and aluminium ring

with serial number was applied to the bird’s tarsus

for future identification.

In addition to mist netting, direct observation using

binoculars was conducted in early morning (from

0800 to 1000 hours) or late afternoon (from 1600

to 1800 hours). Birds are active during this period,

allowing better sighting for easier identification

and data collection. Available trails within the


468

reserve (usually skid trails or old logging road)

were used as transect for bird observation.

Whenever the bird was sighted, its species, total

number, and behaviour were recorded for future

analysis. To avoid duplication, observation and

mist-netting were never repeated at the same study

site. Captured birds can be easily recognised as

recapture by the presence of aluminium rings while

for directly observed birds, individuals that fly

from backward direction were excluded from the

record during each sighting.

RESULTS

In this study, 1647 birds belonging to 152 species

and 39 families were recorded (Table 1). This

includes five species that are recorded for the first

time in Peninsular Malaysia. These new records

are Slaty-backed Flycatcher (Ficedula hodgsonii),

Ultramarine Flycatcher (Ficedula superciliaris),

White-headed Bulbul (Hypsipetes thompsoni),

Vivid Niltava (Niltava vivida), and Grey-eyed

Bulbul (Iole propinqua). Since each species

(except Grey-eyed Bulbul) were represented by

only a single bird, further analysis on

morphological characteristics and species

description need to be carried out before any

confirmation can be made. This is necessary to rule

out possibility of misidentification.

The majority of birds (70% or 1165 individuals

belong to 114 species and 27 families) were

captured by mist nests compared to 482 individuals

(belong to 112 species and 33 families) that were

recorded by direct observation technique.

Approximately half of the total recorded species

(74 species or 48.7%) were successfully detected

by both techniques while the remaining species

were recorded only by either approach. A total of

38 species were detected by direct observation

only (14 species were observed only once) while

40 species were recorded by mist-nets only (13

species were represented by only a single capture).

Overall result seemingly suggests that mist netting

technique was more efficient in recording forest

birds than direct observation. However further

analysis discovers that study effort was not fairly

distributed between two approaches. Mist-netting

was conducted for much longer period (860 netting

hours) compare to direct observation (96

observation hours). Therefore, direct observation is

more effective in sampling forest birds when

success rate (i.e. number of birds recorded per

hourly effort) and study effort were taken into

consideration. The overall success rate for direct

observation technique was 5.02 compare to mist-

netting success rate which stood at 1.35.

Although direct observation enjoy better success

rate than mist-netting technique, each method had

advantage and disadvantage in documenting bird

diversity. Some birds were successfully captured

by mist-nets while others can only be detected by

direct observation technique. For example, four

species were successfully captured in substantial

number (between 21 to 43 birds) by mist nets but

not even a single bird was detected by direct

observation technique. These species are Grey-

throated Babbler (Stachyris nigriceps), Striped Tit-

Babbler (Macronous gularis), Hairy-backed

Bulbul (Tricholestes criniger), and Chestnut-

winged Babbler (Stachyris erythroptera). On the

other hand, three species were significantly

observed (between 10 to 21 individuals) but were

never captured in the nets. These are Whiskered

Treeswift (Hemicprone comate), House Crow

(Corvus splendens), and Common Myna

(Acridotheres tristis).

Most of the species recorded in this study were

resident (125 species represented by 1496 birds),

12 species were migrants (represented by 49 birds),

9 species (represented by 71 birds) have both

resident and migratory population, and a single

species (House Crow) is classified as introduced

species (Figure 1). In term of composition, most

families were either represented by only by a

single species (18 families) or between two to nine

species (18 families). However, three families i.e.

Muscicapidae (Flaycatchers), Timaliidae

(Babbler), and Pycnonotidae (Bulbuls) were well

represented by either 16 or 17 species. Comparing

result of this study with Peninsular Malaysia

species diversity discover that forest bird’s families

are satisfactorily represented by this forest reserve.

Most of the forest’s bird families were represented

by between 40% to 100% of its species. This

adequate representation is assisted by the fact that

some families such as Coracidae (Dollarbirds),

Irenidae (Bluebirds), Hemiprocnidae (Treeswifts),

Pardalotidae (Gerygones), Paridae (Tits),

Turnicidae (Buttonquails), and Zosteropidae

(White-eyes) have a poor species representation in

Peninsular Malaysia. Since these families only


469

Figure 1. Composition of birds community inhabiting Kenaboi Forest Reserve according to migration

status

Figure 2. Comparison between species composition of each family that were recorded in Kenaboi Forest

Reserve with Peninsular Malaysia.

Resident;

85%

Migratory;

8%

Resident &

Migratory;

6%

Introduced;

1%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Acc

ipit

riid

ae

Alc

edin

idae

Apo

did

ae

Bu

cero

tidae

Cam

pep

hag

idae

Cap

rim

ulg

idae

Ch

loro

pse

idae

Co

lum

bid

ae

Co

raci

idae

Co

rvid

ae

Cu

culi

dae

Dic

aeid

ae

Dic

ruri

dae

Est

rild

idae

Eury

laim

idae

Hem

ipro

cnid

ae

Iren

idae

Lan

iidae

Meg

alai

mid

ae

Mer

op

idae

Mo

nar

chid

ae

Mu

scic

apid

ae

Nec

tari

nii

dae

Ori

oli

dae

Par

dal

oti

dae

Par

idae

Phas

ianid

ae

Pic

idae

Pit

tid

ae

Pycn

onoti

dae

Rh

ipid

uri

dae

Str

igid

ae

Stu

rnid

ae

Sylv

iid

ae

Tim

alii

dae

Tro

gonid

ae

Turd

idae

Turn

icid

ae

Zost

ero

pid

ae

Nu

mb

er o

f S

pec

ies

Family

This study Peninsular Malaysia


470

Table 1. List of Birds Recorded from Kenaboi Forest Reserve, Jelebu, Negeri Sembilan (Legend: Status; R = resident, M = Migrant, I = Introduced. Protection; TP = Totally Protected, NP = Not Protected,

P(I) & P(II) = partially protected; IUCN Status; NT = Nearly Threatened, VU = Vulnerable; Distribution Status; C =

Common, UC = Uncommon, A = Abundant, RA = Rare)

No. Species Common Name Status Protection IUCN Distribution

1 Spizaetus alboniger Blyth Hawk Eagle R TP ~ C

2 Lacedo pulchella Banded Kingfisher R TP ~ UC

3 Halcyon capensis Stork-billed Kingfisher R TP ~ C 4 Halcyon smyrnensis White-throated Kingfisher R TP ~ C

5 Actenoides concretus Rufous collared Kingfisher R TP NT UC

6 Alcedo euryzona Blue-banded Kingfisher R TP VU UC 7 Ceyx erithacus Oriental-dwarf Kingfisher R/M TP ~ C

8 Halcyon coromanda Ruddy Kingfisher R/M TP ~ UC

9 Collocalia esculenta Glossy Swiftlet R TP ~ C

10 Apus affinis House Swift R TP ~ C

11 Anthracoceros albirostris Oriental Pied Hornbill R TP ~ C

12 Berenicornis comatus White-crowned Hornbill R TP NT UC 13 Pericrocotus igneus Fiery Minivet R TP NT UC

14 Eurostopodus temminckii Malaysian Eared-Nightjar R TP ~ C

15 Chloropsis cochinchinensis Blue-winged Leafbird R TP ~ C 16 Chloropsis cyanopogon Lesser Green Leafbird R TP NT C

17 Chalcophaps indica Green-winged Pigeon R P(I) ~ C

18 Eurystomus orientalis Dollarbird R,M TP ~ C 19 Corvus splendens House Crow I NP ~ A

20 Corvus macrohynchus Large-billed Crow R NP ~ C 21 Platysmurus leucopterus Black Magpie R TP NT C

22 Platylophus galericulatus Crested Jay R TP NT UC

23 Phaenicophaeus curvirostris Chestnut-breasted Malkoha R NP ~ C 24 Cacomantis sonneratii Banded-Bay Cuckoo R TP ~ C

25 Centropus sinensis Greater Coucal R TP ~ C

26 Phaenicophaeus chlorophaeus Raffles’s Malkoha R TP ~ C 27 Cacomantis sepulcralis Rusty-breasted Cuckoo R TP ~ C

28 Phaenicophaeus diardii Black-bellied Malkoha R TP NT UC

29 Phaenicophaeus sumatranus Chestnut-bellied Malkoha R TP NT C

30 Surniculus lugubris Drongo Cuckoo R/M TP ~ C

31 Hierococcyx sparveriodes Large-hawk Cuckoo R/M TP ~ C

32 Prionochilus percussus Crimson breasted Flowerpecker R TP ~ C 33 Dicaeum trigonostigma Orange-bellied Flowerpecker R TP ~ C

34 Dicaeum cruentatum Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker R TP ~ C

35 Dicaeum agile Thick-billed Flowerpecker R TP ~ RA 36 Prionochilus maculatus Yellow-breasted Flowerpecker R TP ~ UC

37 Dicrurus annectans Crow-billed Drongo M TP ~ UC

38 Dicrurus paradiseus Greater Racket-Tailed Drongo R TP ~ C 39 Dicrurus remifer Lesser Racquet-tailed Drongo R TP ~ C

40 Lonchura malacca Black-Headed Munia R NP ~ C

41 Lonchura leucogastra White-bellied Munia R NP ~ UC 42 Lonchura striata White-rumped Munia R NP ~ UC

43 Erythrura prasina Pin-tailed Parrotfinch R TP ~ UC

44 Eurylaimus javanicus Banded Broadbill R TP ~ C 45 Serilophus lunatus Silver-breasted Broadbill R TP ~ C

46 Eurylaimus ochramalus Black and Yellow Broadbill R TP NT C

47 Calyptomena viridis Green Broadbill R TP NT C 48 Hemicprone comata Whiskered Treeswift R TP ~ C

49 Irena peulla Asian-Fairy Bluebird R TP ~ C

50 Lanius tigrinus Tiger Shrike M TP ~ C 51 Megalaima mystacophanos Red-throated Barbet R TP NT C

52 Nyctyornis amictus Red-bearded Bee-eater R TP ~ C

53 Tersiphone atrocaudata Japanese Paradise Flycatcher M TP NT UC 54 Hypothymis azurea Black-naped Monarch R TP ~ C

55 Philentoma pyrhopterum Rufous-winged Philentoma R TP ~ UC

56 Tersiphone paradisi Asian-Paradise Flycatcher R/M TP ~ C 57 Muscicapa dauurica Asian Brown Flycatcher M TP ~ C

58 Cyanoptila cyanomelana Blue and White Flycatcher M TP ~ UC

59 Cyornis rubeculoides Blue-throated Flycatcher M TP ~ UC


471

Table 1: ...cont.. No. Species Common Name Status Protection IUCN Distribution

60 Ficedula zanthopygia Yellow-rumped Flycatcher M TP ~ C 61 Rhinomyias brunneata Brown-chested Jungle Flycatcher M TP VU UC

62 Culicicapa ceylonensis Grey-headed Flycatcher R TP ~ UC

63 Cyornis unicolor Pale Blue Flycatcher R TP ~ UC 64 Ficedula hyperythra Snowy-browed Flycatcher R TP ~ C

65 Eumyias thalassina Verditer Flycatcher R TP ~ C

66 Rhinomyias umbratilis Grey-chested Jungle Flycatcher R TP NT UC 67 Ficedula dumetoria Rufous-chested Flycatcher R TP NT UC

68 Cyornis banyumas Hill-blue Flycatcher R/M TP ~ C

69 Cyornis tickelliae Tickle-blue Flycatcher R/M TP ~ C 70 Ficedula hodgsonii Slaty-backed Flycatcher - - ~ -

71 Ficedula superciliaris Ultramarine Flycatcher - - ~ -

72 Niltava vivida Vivid Niltava - - ~ - 73 Arachnothera modesta Grey-breasted Spiderhunter R TP ~ C

74 Arachnothera longirostra Little Spiderhunter R TP ~ C

75 Arachnothera robusta Long-billed Spiderhunter R TP ~ UC 76 Anthreptes simplex Plain Sunbird R TP ~ UC

77 Hypogramma hypogrammicum Purple-naped Sunbird R TP ~ UC

78 Anthreptes singalensis Ruby-cheeked Sunbird R TP ~ C 79 Aethopyga temminckii Scarlet Sunbird R TP ~ UC

80 Archnothera flavigaster Spectacled Spiderhunter R TP ~ UC

81 Arachnothera magna Streaked Spiderhunter R TP ~ C 82 Oriolus xanthonotus Dark-throated Oriole R TP NT UC

83 Gerygone sulphurea Golden-bellied Gerygone R TP ~ C

84 Melanochlora sultanea Sultan Tit R TP ~ C 85 Gallus gallus Red Junglefowl R P(I) ~ C

86 Gecinulus viridis Bamboo Woodpecker R TP ~ UC

87 Picus mentalis Chequer-throated Woodpecker R TP ~ C 88 Picus puniceus Crimson-winged Yellownape R TP ~ C

89 Blythipicus rubiginosus Maroon Woodpecker R TP ~ UC

90 Reinwardtipicus validus Orange-backed Woodpecker R TP ~ UC 91 Sasia abnormis Rufous Piculet R TP ~ UC

92 Celeus brachyurus Rufous Woodpecker R TP ~ C

93 Meiglyptes tukki Buff-necked Woodpecker R TP NT UC 94 Pitta sordida Hooded Pitta R/M TP ~ UC

95 Pycnonotus melanicterus Black-crested Bulbul R TP ~ C

96 Pycnonotus atriceps Black-headed Bulbul R TP ~ C 97 Pycnonotus simplex Cream-vented Bulbul R TP ~ C

98 Tricholestes criniger Hairy-backed Bulbul R TP ~ UC 99 Pycnonotus plumosus Olive-winged Bulbul R TP ~ C

100 Alophoixus ochraceus Orhraceous Bulbul R TP ~ C

101 Pycnonotus brunneus Red-eyed Bulbul R TP ~ C 102 Pycnonotus erythrophthalmos Spectacled Bulbul R TP ~ UC

103 Pycnonotus finlaysoni Stripe-throated Bulbul R TP ~ C

104 Alophoixus phaeocephalus Yellow-bellied Bulbul R TP ~ C 105 Iole olivacea Buff-vented Bulbul R NP NT C

106 Alophoixus finschii Finsch's Bulbul R TP NT UC

107 Pycnonotus cyaniventris Grey-bellied Bulbul R TP NT C 108 Pycnonotus squamatus Scaly-breasted Bulbul R TP NT UC

109 Ixos malaccensis Streaked Bulbul R TP NT UC

110 Iole propinqua Grey-eyed Bulbul - - ~ - 111 Hypsipetes thompsoni White-headed Bulbul - - ~ -

112 Rhipidura perlata Spotted Fantail R TP ~ UC

113 Otus rufescens Reddish Scoop Owl R TP NT UC 114 Acridotheres tristis Common Myna R NP ~ A

115 Gracula religiosa Hill Myna R P(II) ~ C

116 Phylloscopus borealis Arctic Warbler M TP ~ C 117 Orthotomus cuculatus Mountain Tailorbird R NP ~ C

118 Orthotomus sepium Ashy Tailorbird R TP ~ C

119 Orthotomus sutorius Common Tailorbird R TP ~ C 120 Orthotomus atrogularis Dark-necked Tailorbird R TP ~ C

121 Prinia rufescens Rufescent Prinia R TP ~ C

122 Orthotomus sericeus Rufous-tailed Tailorbird R TP ~ UC 123 Abroscopus superciliaris Yellow-bellied Warbler R TP ~ C


472

Table 1: ....cont... No. Species Common Name Status Protection IUCN Distribution

124 Malacocincla abbotti Abbots's Babbler R TP ~ C 125 Pellorneum capistratum Black-Capped Babbler R TP ~ UC

126 Stachyris erythroptera Chestnut-winged Babbler R TP ~ C

127 Trichastoma bicolor Ferruginous Babbler R TP ~ UC 128 Stachyris poliocephala Grey-headed Babbler R TP ~ UC

129 Malacocincla sepiarium Horsefield’s Babbler R TP ~ UC

130 Malacopteron magnirostre Moustached Babbler R TP ~ C 131 Malacopteron cinereum Scaly-crowned Babbler R TP ~ C

132 Macronous gularis Striped Tit-Babbler R TP ~ C

133 Yuhina zantholeuca White-bellied Yuhina R TP ~ UC 134 Stachyris nigriceps Grey-throated Babbler R TP ~ UC

135 Stachyris maculata Chestnut-rumped Babbler R TP NT C

136 Macronous ptilosus Fluffy-backed Tit-Babbler R TP NT C 137 Malacopteron magnum Rufous-crowned Babbler R TP NT C

138 Malacocincla malaccencis Short-tailed Babbler R TP NT C

139 Malacopteron affine Sooty-capped Babbler R TP NT C 140 Harpactes orrhophaeus Cinnamon-rumped Trogon R TP NT UC

141 Harpactes diardii Diard’s Trogon R TP NT UC

142 Harpactes duvaucelli Scarlet-rumped Trogon R TP NT UC 143 Zoothera citrina Orange-headed Thrush M TP ~ UC

144 Luscinia cyane Siberian-blue Robin M TP ~ C

145 Copsychus saularis Oriental Magpie Robin R NP ~ C 146 Copsychus malabaricus White-rumped Shama R P(I, II) ~ C

147 Enicurus leschenaulti White-Crowned Forktail R TP ~ UC

148 Myiomela leucura White-tailed Robin R TP ~ C 149 Enicurus ruficapillus Chestnut-naped Forktail R TP NT UC

150 Turnix suscitator Barred Buttonquail M P(I) ~ C

151 Zosterops palpebrosa Oriental White-eye R P(II) ~ C 152 Zosterops everetti Everetts's White-eye R TP ~ C

have either one or two species throughout

Peninsular Malaysia, the possibility that all of its

species will be sampled is higher (Figure 2).

Result showed that Little Spiderhunter

(Arachnothera longirostra) was the most abundant

species in the study area. Collectively, both

approaches managed to record a total of 224

individuals of this species (or 13.6% of total bird

recorded) throughout study period. Most birds (196

individuals) were captured while some (28

individuals) were observed during many visits to

various sites. Other abundant species in the study

area include Yellow-bellied Bulbul (Alophoixus

phaeocephalus) which represented by 78

individuals, Black-headed Bulbul (Pycnonotus

atriceps) represented by 67 birds, Short-tailed

Babbler (Malacocincla malaccencis) represented

by 68 birds, and Yellow-breasted Flowerpecker

(Prionochilus maculates) represented by 50 birds.

Fifty one species were commonly found in the

study area (represented by between 7 to 45 birds),

49 species were uncommonly found in the reserve

(only three to six individuals of each species were

recorded), and 46 species can be considered rarely

found in the forest (only one or two birds were

detected throughout study period). Result of

current study shows that local bird distribution

pattern is not exactly concurs with nationwide

distribution pattern. Among recorded species, only

Common Myna and House Crow were classified as

abundant throughout Peninsular Malaysia [31].

Truly enough, these species were frequently

detected by direct observation but never captured

by mist-nets. Other species that are abundant in the

study area were classified as nationally common

except Yellow-breasted Flowerpecker that was

classified as nationally uncommon [31].

Interestingly, the study also managed to record two

individuals of Thick-billed Flowerpecker

(Dicaeum agile), species that was classified as

nationally rare [31].

Recording frequency data indicates that not all

species were regularly recorded as species

composition and representation are varies from one

to another. Only Little Spiderhunter was

represented by more than 200 birds (i.e 224

individuals), other species were represented by less

than 80 birds. Most species (41.45%) were

represented by only between one to three birds (27

species were represented by single bird, 19 species

were represented by two individuals, while 17

species were represented by three individuals).


473

Thirty two species (21.05%) were represented by

between four to six individuals, 45 species

(29.61%) were represented by seven to 30 birds, 11

species (7.24%) were represented by between 31 to

80 birds (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Frequency of sample size that represents species recorded from Kenaboi Forest Reserve

DISCUSSION

This study had documented that Kenaboi forest

reserve harbours 24% of Peninsular Malaysia bird

species (38% if only forest birds were considered).

In term of family representation, the study

recorded almost half of the bird families that are

present in Peninsular Malaysia. The reserve had

higher bird species diversity than other disturbed

forests such as Sepang [17] and Pasoh [22], or

primary forest reserve or national parks such as

Endau-Rompin National Park [15], Sayap

Kinabalu Park [10], Matang Wildlife Sanctuary

and Gunung Gading National Park [35], Gunung

Rara Forest Reserve [11], or mixed habitat

(primary and secondary forests) such as Crocker

Range National Park [13]. However, it is

unjustified to directly compare previous studies

with current result due to dissimilarity in research

methodologies and sampling period. Most of these

previous studies (except Pasoh and Endau-Rompin

National Park) were briefly conducted, usually less

than eight cumulative days. On the same note, bird

studies in Pasoh and Endau Rompin were

conducted for longer period but used only mist-

netting technique in recording bird diversity.

Previous findings showed that detailed quantitative

studies on bird diversity can only be achieved

through prolong sampling period and application

of multiple approaches such as mist-netting, spot-

mapping, point counts, and observation of mixed

species flocks [36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41]. Locally, this

was proven by studies in Ulu Segama Forest

Reserve and Tabin Conservation Centre, Sabah

[19], Sabah [42], and Belumut and Bekok, Johor

[24] which were conducted for longer sampling

period. However these practices are highly labour

intensive (e.g. 12 person-months in [37]) and

incurring higher cost, causing biodiversity

documentation in tropical forest very costly.

The current study employed direct observation and

mist-netting techniques, two standard methods that

are well known for studying bird diversity. The

27

19

17

13

9 10

21

15

9

5

3 3

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 b

ird

2 b

irds

3 b

irds

4 b

irds

5 b

irds

6 b

irds

7 - 1

0 b

irds

11 - 2

0 b

irds

21 - 3

0 b

irds

31 - 4

0 b

irds

41 - 5

0 b

irds

51 - 8

0 b

irds

> 2

00

bird

s

No

. o

f S

pec

ies

Frequency of Sample Sizes


474

result had confirmed suggestion by previous

studies that applying multiple approaches will

produce better result [36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41]. Only

half of the species present in the study area were

successfully recorded by both mist-netting and

direct observation techniques. Another half of the

species was recorded either by direct observation

only (25%) and mist-netting only (25%).

Therefore, if only a single technique (i.e. either

direct observation or mist-netting) was applied in

this study, the maximum number of species that

can be recorded by this study is up to 75% only.

Mist-net has been used in many bird studies

throughout Malaysia such as in Mount Kinabalu

[10], Ulu Senagang [13], and Endau-Rompin

National Park [15]. Results from these studies

confirmed that mist-netting has the ability to

supply adequate information regarding the

diversity of understory forest birds. On the other

hand, direct observation technique was also used in

many studies to document bird species richness

[such as 17, 22, 24]. Although direct observation

may underestimate numbers of cryptic and silent

species, it is generally agreed that the technique is

the most time-efficient way of sampling forest

birds since it can cover larger area. There are two

main factors that influence the accuracy of direct

observation data; observer’s skill in bird

identification and selection of transects line.

Observer must be a highly trained birdwatcher

since sometimes he/she will only have a brief

opportunity in identifying bird species and observe

its behaviour. To minimise these problems, bird

was usually observed for predetermined period

either in fixed sampling sites (the approach is

known as point count) or along transect or within

fixed quadrate. Ex-logging road or available tracts

were usually chosen as transect line to survey birds

in secondary forest. This may influence result as

the study has higher tendency to sample roadside

species. Although walking inside the forest (or by

following elephant trails) is more preferable but

bias in bird detection also can arise due to

differential visibility within the understory forest

[19]. However, this bias has negligible effect on

current results since all observations were

conducted in almost standardised type of habitat;

logged forest.

In contrast to direct observation technique, mist

netting also has several advantages. In many cases,

it is necessary to capture the bird in order to make

a positive identification. Captured birds could be

ringed or banded to facilitate individual

recognition during recapture. In addition, the

marking process will also provide information on

productivity and longevity of particular bird [43].

Mist netting facilitates studies such as

morphological measurements, collecting museum

specimens, extracting blood or other tissues for

genetic studies, examining parasites infestation,

and to determine the breeding and moulting status

of birds [23]. As understory birds are small,

inconspicuous, and very mobile, mist-netting

technique is the only method that is able to

adequately sample this animal. Furthermore,

sampling effort can be intensified by increasing the

total number of mist-nets used. This will allow

wider coverage within the same sampling duration

but with more data been accumulated. In this

aspect, it is almost impossible for the same

observer to increase his/her observation efforts.

Even if he/she intends to do that, species detected

will be minimally increased since the observation

was conducted outside the peak hours of bird

activity and the data will be incomparable.

In documenting species diversity, individual

representation is important since this will influence

bird abundance. Species rarity, therefore, should

not be taken lightly in any biodiversity survey.

This study had recorded 27 species that were

represented by only a single record, either by direct

observation (14 species) or mist-netting (13

species). There are two possibilities whenever the

species recorded is represented by only a single

bird or sole detection. It can be caused either by

small population size of the respective species

(therefore representative of the particular species is

rarely sampled or the same individual was

repeatedly recorded) or influenced by the

inefficiency of the sampling technique. In this

study, two samplings techniques were used to

ensure more comprehensive samplings and

therefore overcoming the possibility of sampling

technique inefficiency. In addition samplings were

also conducted at greater frequency and at various

sites within the study area with the purpose to

increase coverage area. Although this will cause

species that have limited distribution or small

home range size to be excluded from subsequent

samplings, it will sample more birds from wider

areas.

Another factor that needs to be considered in any

documenting species diversity is study efforts.


475

Both methods used in this study have different

study efforts. Mist netting had higher study effort

(860 netting hours) than direct observation (96

observation hours). Increasing study effort can

sometimes increase number of recorded species

particularly if the species accumulation curve is

not reaching asymptote yet. As discussed earlier,

previous studies on other forest reserves or

national parks have little investment in study

efforts resulting less bird species being recorded

[10, 11, 13, 17, 35]. Revisiting study site especially

during different seasons will indeed prolong study

period and increase study efforts and perhaps this

will also increase the accuracy of bird diversity

information.

It is obvious that some species are effectively

recorded only by certain method while other

species were detected by other techniques. Canopy

level birds such as House Crow and Whiskered

Treeswift can be easily detected by direct

observation technique since the species occupy

canopy level and rarely go down to understory

level. Open country birds such as Common Myna,

Common Tailorbirds (Orthotomus sutorius), and

Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) can

also be recorded by direct observation technique

because they actively forage in open area or forest

edges but rarely entering forest, causing mist-

netting ineffective in capturing them. On the other

hand, birds that forage at understory or ground

levels such as Babblers (Grey-headed Babbler

(Stachyris poliocephala), Grey-throated Babbler,

and Striped-Tit Babbler) will be effectively

sampled by mist-nets. Furthermore, these birds are

difficult to observe due to their small size and

cryptic behaviour. Bird behaviour also influences

the pattern of detection. Species that frequently

visit similar food resources or resources that are

located within the same areas and species that

move in big numbers will be better represented

either by mist nets or direct observation. When

particular species deviate slightly from their

original behaviour or feeding tracts, it will be

unexpectedly recorded by alternative method.

Some canopy species have changed their foraging

behaviour, causing them to be caught by mist nets.

Although the reserve only harbours 12 migratory

species (7.89%) from all bird species recorded in

this study (species that have both migrants and

resident populations were excluded), this already

comprises 8.45% of the total Malaysia migratory

species. However, this figure is very minimal

compared to the total Malaysian migratory species

(142 species or 21.84%). Therefore, it can be

concluded that Kenaboi forest reserve is not

attractive to migratory species. This may be

attributed to two factors. Firstly, most migratory

birds prefer coastal or freshwater habitats (which

were absence from the reserve area) than lowland

forest. Even at national level, only few forest

species are migrants [31]. Secondly, the reserve

does not have ample resources to attract migratory

species. This may be caused by forest disturbance

that lead to resources depletion. Therefore,

migratory species avoid the forest reserve to avoid

resources competition with resident birds.

Not all species were badly affected by forest

disturbance. Some birds thrive well in disturbed

forests due to modification of habitat structure.

Usually species that prefer open areas and forest

gaps such as Bulbuls and Spiderhunters benefit

from logging process [14] but not ground dwelling

species or most understory species that feed on

ground or understory insects [24]. The most

abundant bird recorded in this study, Little

Spiderhunter, is the common lowland rainforest

bird that sometimes extends its territory into

montane forest. It can be commonly found in

secondary forest but also frequenting forest fringe

or wooded areas of primary forest [31]. Other birds

that were also commonly found in the study area

are open areas species such as Yellow-bellied

Bulbul, Black-headed Bulbul, Short-tailed Babbler,

and Yellow-breasted Flowerpecker. All these

species are comensal species and they are normally

associated with human settlement. This indicates

that the study area is heavily disturbed and in the

process of regenerating. Previous study discovered

that if logged areas were left untouched for longer

period, it can play important role in conserving

widely distributed primary forest species [44]. In

addition to logged forest reserve, any secondary

forests also can play important role in biodiversity

conservation particularly when old growth forests

are nearby [44]. Conservation value of secondary

forests increases with time since abandonment and

is highest in regions where the ratio of secondary

forest to old growth forests is relatively low, old

growth forests are close to regenerating secondary

forest, post-abandonment disturbance is low and

seed dispersing fauna persist [45]. An important

caveat remains, however. Abundance, geographic

range and levels of habitat specialization are often


476

related. Widespread, abundant, habitat generalists

might dominate similarity analyses even when

relatively rare old growth specialists are present

[44]. As a small and disturbed forest, the Kenaboi

forest reserve is contributing significantly towards

conserving Peninsular Malaysia bird diversity and

can play important role in biodiversity

conservation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank many people involving in

this project. Our appreciation goes to staffs and

students of Institute of Biological Sciences such as

Nor Azhar, Fariz, Mohd Anuar, Zaidee,

Mohaiyidin, Shahrani, Ismaili, Muhamad Lokman,

Ahmad Zulfi, and many others who have been very

helpful in the field. Many thanks also go to local

communities who are very supportive not only in

sharing their knowledge related to study area but

also in providing field guide services. We also

would like to extend our gratitude to the Ministry

of Science and Technology (MOSTI) and Negeri

Sembilan State government for funding this study.

MOSTI grant was awarded to the senior author via

ScienceFund Research No. 05-02-03-SF0197

while Negeri Sembilan State government financial

support was made available through Professor Dr.

Haji Mohd Sofian Azirun, the principal

investigator for Kenaboi Forest Biodiversity

Project.

REFERENCES

1. Gotelli, N.J. & Colwell, R.K. (2001).

Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and

pitfalls in the measurement and comparison

of species richness. Ecology Letters, 4: 379-

391.

2. Cook, S. (1998). A diversity of approaches to

the study of species richness. Trends in

Ecology and Evolution, 13: 340-341.

3. Sodhi, N.S. (2008). Tropical biodiversity loss

and people – a brief review. Basic and

Applied Ecology, 9: 93–99

4. Sodhi, N.S., Koh, L.P., Brook, B.W. & Ng,

P.K.L. (2004). Southeast Asian biodiversity:

an impending disaster. Trends in Ecology and

Evolution, 19: 654-660.

5. Purvis, A. & Hector, A. (2000). Getting the

measure of biodiversity. Nature, 405: 212-

219.

6. Department of Wildlife and National Parks

(1987). Taman Negara Master Plan.

7. Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E., &

da Fonseca, G.A.B. (2001). Effectiveness of

Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity.

Science, 291: 125-128.

8. Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M.B. &

Brandon, K. (2005). The Role of Protected

Areas in Conserving Biodiversity and

Sustaining Local Livelihoods. Annual Review

of Environmental Resources, 30: 219-252.

9. Struebig, M., Christy, L., Pio, D. & Meijaard,

E. (2009). Bats of Borneo: Diversity,

Distributions and Representation in Protected

Areas. Biodiversity and Conservation, online

first; doi: 10.1007/s10531-008-9482-5.

10. Rahman, M.A., Abidin, Z.Z. Mohd. Nor, B.

& Abdullah, M.T. (1998). A brief study of

bird fauna at Sayap-Kinabalu Park, Sabah.

Asean Review of Biodiverty and

Environmental Conservation (ARBEC).

11. Bernard, H. & Diun, P. (1999). A Checklist

of the Avifauna of Gunung Rara Forests

Reserve, Tawau, Sabah, Malaysia. Sabah

Parks Nature Journal, 2: 45-57

12. Lim, K.C. & Tan, M. (2000). Bird

observations in Belum Forest Reserve, Perak,

Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Nature

Journal, 54: 259-265.

13. Mohd Sah, S.A., Baharudin, M.H. &

Muthaiya, G. (2002). A brief survey of bird

species at Mahua basecamp and Ulu

Senagang, Crocker Range National Park,

Sabah. ASEAN Review of Biodiversity and

Environmental Conservation (ARBEC).

http://www.arbec.com.my/pdf/art17julysep02

.pdf.

14. Zakaria, M., Amri, K. & Nasir, J. (2002).

Comparison of understorey bird species

composition in a primary and logged hill

dipterocarp forest in Peninsular Malaysia.

Malayan Nature Journal, 56: 153-167.

15. Ramli, R., Hashim R. & Daicus, B. (2004).

Use of Mist-Netting Technique to Study

Community Structure of Understory Birds at

Lubok Tapah Base Camp, Endau-Rompin

National Park, Johore, Malaysia. Malaysian

Journal of Science, 23: 79-83.

16. Yorke, C.D. (1984). Avian community

structure in two modified Malaysian habitats.

Biological Conservation, 29: 345-362.

17. Mohd Noor, M.N.A. & Baatu, Z. (1994).

Bancian awal kepelbagaian spesies burung di

http://www.springerlink.com/content/d146267703118654/?p=cb7e4fc436854b64b05d35dddc86f4ac&pi=24

http://myais.fsktm.um.edu.my/1979/





477

tapak cadangan lapangan antarabangsa Kuala

Lumpur (KLIA) dan kawasan sekitar Sepang,

Selangor Darul Ehsan. Journal of Wildlife

and Parks, 13: 40-46.

18. Ford, H.A. & Davison, G.W.H. (1995).

Forest avifauna of University Kebangsaan

Malaysia and some other forest remnants in

Selangor, Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan

Nature Journal, 49: 117-138.

19. Johns, A.G. (1996). Bird population

persistence in Sabahan logging concessions.

Biological Conservation, 75: 3-10.

20. Peh, K.S-H., Sodhi, N.S., de Jong, J.,

Sekercioglu, C.H., Yap, C.A-M. & Lim, S.L-

H. (2006). Conservation value of degraded

habitats for forest birds in southern

Peninsular Malaysia. Diversity and

Distributions, 12: 572-581.

21. Ramli, R., Yaacob, Z., Aimi, F. & Ezyan, N.

H. (2009). A Survey of Bird Species Richness

in Bachok District, Kelantan, Peninsular

Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Science, in

press.

22. Wong, M. (1986). Trophic organization of

understorey birds in a Malaysian dipterocarp

forest. Auk, 103: 100-116.

23. Rahman, M.A. (2002). Using mist nets on

canopy walkways in Malaysia to study

canopy avifauna. The Raffles Bulletin of

Zoology, 50: 499-506.

24. Peh, K.S-H., de Jong, J., Sodhi, N.S., Lim,

S.L-H. & Yap, C. A-M. (2005). Lowland

rainforest avifauna and human disturbance:

persistence of primary forest birds in

selectively logged forests and mixed-rural

habitats of southern Peninsular Malaysia.

Biological Conservation, 123: 489–505.

25. Wells, D.R. (1985). The forest avifauna of

western Malaysia and its conservation. In:

Diamond, A.W. & Lovejoy, T.E. (Eds).

Conservation of Tropical Forest Birds. Pp.

213-232. ICBP, Cambridge.

26. Gardner, T.A., Barlow, J., Chazdon, R.,

Ewers, R.M., Harvey, C.A., Peres, C.A. &

Sodhi, N.S. (2009). Prospects for tropical

forest biodiversity in a human-modified

world. Ecology Letters, 12: 561-582.

27. Schmitt, C.B., Burgess, N.D., Coad, L.,

Belokurov, A., Besançone, C. Boisrobert, L.,

Campbell, A., Fish, L., Gliddon, D.,

Humphries, K., Kapos, V., Loucks, C.,

Lysenko, I., Miles, L., Mills, C.,

Minnemeyer, S., Pistorius, T., Ravilious, C.,

Steininger, M. & Winkel, G. (2009). Global

analysis of the protection status of the world’s

forests. Biological Conservation, online first,

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.012

28. FAO (2006). Global Forest Resources

Assessment 2005: Progress Toward

Sustainable Forest Management. FAO

Forestry Paper, 147: 1–348.

29. Kinnaird, M.F., O’Brien, T.G. & Suryadi, S.

(1996). Population fluctuation in Sulawesi

red-knobbed hornbills: tracking figs in space

and time. Auk, 113: 431-440.

30. Borghesio, L. & Laiolo, P. (2004). Seasonal

foraging ecology in a forest avifauna of

northern Kenya. Journal of Tropical Ecology,

20: 145-155.

31. Strange, M. & Jeyarajasingam, A. (1993). A

Photographic Guide to the Birds of

Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. SunTree

Publishing.

32. Lekagul, B. and Round, P.D. (1991). A Guide

to the Birds of Thailand. Saha Karn Bhaet,

Bangkok.

33. Robson, C. (2005). A Field Guide to the Birds

of Southeast Asia. Collins, London.

34. McCracken, J., Enright, L., Shepherd, D.,

Cappleman, J. & Dunn, E. (1999). The

Canadian Bird Bander’s Training Manual.

Technical Report Series No. 275. Canadian

Wildlife Service.

35. Sodhi, N.S. & Liow, L.H. (2000). Improving

conservation biology research in Southeast

Asia. Conservation Biology, 14:1211-1212.

36. Remsen, J. V., JR., & Parker, T. A. III

(1983). Contribution of river-created habitats

to bird species richness in Amazonia.

Biotropica, 15: 223-231.

37. Terborgh, J., Robinson, S.K., Parker, T.A. III,

Munn, C.A. & Pierpont, N. (1990). Structure

and organization of an Amazonian bird

community. Ecological Monographs, 60:

213-238.

38. Poulsen, B. O. (1994). Mist-netting as a

census method for determining richness and

abundances in an Andean cloud forest bird

community. Gerfaut, 84: 39-49.

39. Remsen, J. V., JR. (1994). Use and misuse of

bird lists in community ecology and

conservation. Auk, 111: 225-227.

40. Gram, W. R., & Faaborg, J. (1997). The

distribution of Neotropical migrant birds

wintering in El Cielo Biosphere Reserve,

Tamaulipas, Mexico. Condor, 99: 658-670.


478

41. Herzog, S.K., Kessler, M., & Cahill, T.M.

(2002). Estimating species richness of

tropical bird communities from rapid

assessment data. Auk, 119: 749–769.

42. Lambert, F.R. (1992). The Consequences of

Selective Logging for Bornean Lowland

Forest Birds. Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society of London. Series B:

Biological Sciences, 335: 443-457.

43. Karr, J.R. (1980). Geographical variation in

the avifaunas of tropical forest undergrowth.

Auk, 97: 283-298.

44. Dent, D.H. & Wright, J.S. (2009). The future

of tropical species in secondary forests: A

quantitative review. Biological Conservation,

142: 2833-2843.

45. Chazdon, R., Peres, C.A., Dent, D.H., Shiel,

D., Lugo, A.E., Lamb, D., Stork, N., (in

press). Where are the wild things? Assessing

the potential for species conservation in

tropical secondary forests. Conservation

Biology,


479

Plate 1. Some species in Kenaboi Forest Reserve that have been captured by mist nets

Cinnamon-rumped Trogon

Harpactes orrhophaeus

Buff-necked Woodpecker

Meiglyptes tukki

Banded Broadbill

Eurylaimus javanicus

Tickle-blue Flycatcher

Cyornis tickelliae

Asian-paradise Flycatcher

Tersiphone paradise

Green Broadbill

Calyptomena viridis


480

Plate 2. Some species in Kenaboi Forest Reserve that have been detected via direct observation

Lesser Green Leafbird

Chloropsis cyanopogon

Dollarbird

Eurystomus orientalis

Black-headed Bulbul

Pycnonotus atriceps

Grey-bellied Bulbul

Pycnonotus cyaniventris

Raffles’s Malkoha

Phaenicophaeus chlorophaeus

Oriental White-eye

Zosterops palpebrosa

birds of kenaboi forest reserve, jelebu, negri sembilan

Documents