{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02534435261707989, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015426997245179064, 'mean_word_length': 5.305555555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Short‐Term Responses of Birds to Forest Gaps and Understory: An Assessment of Reduced‐Impact Logging in a Lowland Amazon Forest 1

We studied physiognomy‐specific (i.e., gaps vs. understory) responses of birds to low harvest (18.7 m3/ha), reduced‐impact logging by comparing 3500 mist net captures in control and cut blocks of an Amazonian terra firme forest in Brazil at 20–42 mo postharvest. Species richness did not differ significantly between control (92 species) and cut (85) forest based on rarefaction to 1200 captures. Fifty‐six percent of all species were shared between control and cut forest, compared to the 64 percent shared between control blocks. Higher captures of nectarivores and frugivores in cut forest likely occurred as a consequence of postharvest resource blooms. Higher captures of some insectivores in cut as compared to control forest were unexpected, attributable to increased wandering or shifts from association with midstory to understory as a consequence of habitat alteration. Logging influenced capture rates for 21 species, either consistently, or via positive interaction with physiognomy or time (13 species higher in cut forest and 8 species higher in control forest). Cut understory sites had lower diversity (H′) and scaled dominance than understory and gap sites in control forest. Temporal changes in captures may have resulted from successional dynamics in cut forest: two guilds and three species increased in abundance. Increases in abundances of guilds and particular species were more prevalent in control than in cut forest, suggesting that logging displaced birds to control forest. In general, the effects of logging were relatively minor; low harvest rates and reduced‐impact methods may help to retain aspects of avian biodiversity in Amazon forest understories.