International Journal of Biodiversity Science &

Management

ISSN: 1745-1604 (Print) 1745-1590 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm20

Biodiversity and biogeographic significance of the

Sierra Chinajá in Alta Verapaz, Guatemala: a first
look

Curan Bonham , Eduardo Sacayón , Mercedes Barrios , Sergio Perez , Carlos

Vásquez-Almazán , José Cajas , Nicté Ordoñez , Enio Cano & Fredy Archila

To cite this article: Curan Bonham , Eduardo Sacayón , Mercedes Barrios , Sergio Perez ,
Carlos Vásquez-Almazán , José Cajas , Nicté Ordoñez , Enio Cano & Fredy Archila (2009)
Biodiversity and biogeographic significance of the Sierra Chinajá in Alta Verapaz, Guatemala:
a first look, International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management, 5:3, 115-131, DOI:
10.1080/17451590903223236

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17451590903223236

Published online: 21 Sep 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 249

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbsm21
International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management
Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2009, 115–131

Biodiversity and biogeographic significance of the Sierra Chinajá in Alta Verapaz, Guatemala:
a first look
Curan Bonhama*, Eduardo Sacayónb, Mercedes Barriosc, Sergio Perezd, Carlos Vásquez-Almazánd, Jose Cajasd,
Nicte Ordoñezb, Enio Canoe and Fredy Archilaf
a
College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59802, USA; bEscuela de Biologı́a, Universidad de San
Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala; cCentro de Datos para la Conservación, Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas, USAC,
Guatemala City, Guatemala; dMuseo de Historia Natural, Escuela de Biologı́a Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala City,
Guatemala; eLaboratorio de Entomologı́a, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala; fEstación Experimental
Familia Archila, Coban, Alta Verapaz, Guatemala

A rapid biodiversity assessment was carried out in the Sierra Chinajá, Guatemala in order to support the conservation policies
of the national agency for protected areas management. This study represents the first systematic account of the flora and fauna
of the area. The floristic composition was surveyed using 21 Whitaker plots and non-systematic sampling of other vegetative
strata. Bird communities were assessed using a system of point counts and mist nets. Bats were sampled with mist nets at 400 m
and 600 m. For small terrestrial mammals, two transects with 90 traps each were established at low and high elevations.
Reptiles and amphibians were collected through non-systematic walks through forest patches. Dung beetles were sampled with
pitfall traps. A total of 309 plant species were found, including trees, orchids and bromeliads. The list of animal species includes
20 bats, four rodents, one marsupial, 110 birds, 24 reptiles, 14 amphibians, and 20 dung beetles. The results indicate that the
Sierra Chinajá is an ecotone or transition zone from predominantly tropical lowland to a mix of montane environments.
Keywords: biodiversity; rapid ecological assessment; ecotone; low elevation cloud forest

Introduction to limited time and financial constraints, are nonetheless

In 1989, the Sierra Chinajá was declared by Guatemala’s
protected areas management agency, the Consejo Nacional
de Areas Protegidas (CONAP), as a special protection area.
This is a temporary classification, which, by law, requires
further technical studies in order to give the area operational
management status. Although the Sierra Chinajá has been
recognized as having natural resources of national impor-
tance that warrant protection, this area still has not been
permanently classified under Guatemala’s system of pro-
tected area categories. Thus, it still lacks formal on-the-
ground administration and management (Bonham et. al.
2008). For this reason, and the chaos resulting from a
30-year armed conflict, several indigenous communities
have illegally settled in the Sierra Chinajá, which drastically
affect its natural resources.
The first step required by Guatemalan law to move the
Sierra Chinajá from being an area of special protection (a
‘paper park’) to a functional protected area is the prepara-
tion of an ‘Estudio Tecnico’ or technical study, as mandated
by CONAP (1989). This study forms the baseline from
which management plans and other multiple-use/conces-
sion plans can be formed. Part of the study involves an
assessment of biodiversity. Prior to the research reported
in this paper, no efforts had been made to document the
biodiversity of the Sierra Chinajá. In order to assess the
biological diversity of the area, a variety of rapid assessment
methodologies were adapted to gather basic information.
Rapid assessments of biodiversity, although incomplete due
useful in identifying relevant biodiversity values and poten-
tial management options (Sayre et al. 2000). The limitations
of any study that is time-bound are obvious; however, by
targeting certain taxa, through the use of indicator species,
these studies can be used to tailor management plans to
conserve areas with unique biogeographical value (Gaston
and Blackburn 1995; Kerr et al. 2000; Oliver and Beattie
1993).
In particular, dung beetles (family Scarabinae) are
considered good ecological indicators because they are
commonly found in distinct assemblages with specific
biogeographical distributions (Favila and Halffter 1997).
Additionally, amphibians are sensitive to habitat altera-
tion and degradation due to climate change (Young et al.
2001). The need for high humidity and microhabitat
niches (e.g. tank bromeliads, coarse woody debris and
deep leaf litter) characteristic of mature forest limits the
distributional range of many amphibian species, particu-
larly tree and leaf frogs, to forest habitat. Therefore,
these species may serve as ecological indicators
(Pearman 1997). Furthermore, some amphibians are con-
fined to a home range near their place of birth and
therefore can be good indicators of local site conditions
(Campbell and Vannini 1989).
The information gathered through this study is currently
being used by a local non-profit organisation (APROBA-
SANK) to support CONAP in their efforts to change the
status of the Sierra Chinajá to a more formal and exclusive

*Corresponding author. Email: curanbonham@hotmail.com

ISSN 1745-1590 print/ISSN 1745-1604 online

# 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17451590903223236
http://www.informaworld.com
116 C. Bonham et al.
category, and also to integrate the communities living in the
area into its conservation and management.
Study site
The Sierra Chinajá is located in the northern region of the
Municipality of Chisec in the department of Alta Verapaz,
Guatemala (Figure 1). It comprises 12,833 ha of karst
mountains, ranging from 200–765 m. Replete with dissolu-
tion caves enshrouded by lowland and montane semi-decid-
uous tropical forest, this isolated mountain range marks the
last massif between the Sierra Chamá and the expansive
northern lowland limestone plateau of the Peten. Its steep
slopes give way to an interior upland plain that provides
suitable lands for both agriculture and a variety of unique
Figure 1. Location of Sierra Chinajá.
highland species. Seventeen communities from the Qeqchı́
ethnic group (approximately 3220 inhabitants) live in the
Sierra Chinajá.
According to Holdridge (cited by Barrios 1995), the
Sierra Chinajá belongs to the very wet sub-tropical warm
forest life zone and is totally isolated from other mountain
systems due to its geographic location and the historic
pattern of land conversion. The climate of the area has
been established from 9 years of observations at the nearest
weather station in San Agustin Peten, (16 04’00’’N, 90
26’20’’W) at 140 m, collected by the national weather
forecast institution (INSIVUMEH). The mean annual tem-
perature is 26 C, mean annual precipitation is 2252 mm and
mean annual relative humidity is 83%. There are two sea-
sons: the driest months (mean rainfall ,100 mm) occur
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management
from February to April; the wet season (mean rainfall
.200 mm) occurs from June to December.
Materials and methods
Systematic sampling was conducted between June and
October 2005. Several taxonomic groups were selected
based on their perceived potential as indicator species and
biogeographic importance. Taxa were also chosen based on
ease of data collection methods and availability of
Guatemalan expert consultants and collaborators. This
study focused on five groups: plants, avifauna, mastofauna,
herpetofauna and entomofauna.
Four study sites were selected for sampling based on
their degree of accessibility, forest integrity and habitat
type. These sites were located in undisturbed primary forest
interspersed with a matrix of perennial and annual agricul-
tural fields. The terrain possessed slopes between 25–35%,
with well-drained, clayey soils. The study sites were: Site 1,
Nueva Esperanza (400 m; Site 2, Mucbilha II (300 m); Site
3, Nueva Chinajá (615 m); and Site 4, Tzulul Qeqchi
(750 m). However, not all taxa were sampled at all sites.
The forest cover composition was inventoried in the
areas surrounding each of the four study sites using five
randomly located transects, with Whittaker plots of
20 x 50 m established every 500 m (Comiskey 1999). In
total, 21 plots were established to assess the diversity and
abundance of mature forest at upper elevations (.400 m).
Species height, form class and diameter at breast height
(DBH) of all trees .10 cm DBH were recorded. These
parameters were analysed to estimate species importance
on a per hectare basis. An importance value for each tree
species was calculated based on the frequency, density and
basal area (Matteucci and Colma 1982). The other plant
strata were sampled non-systematically through a series of
non-random transects and reconnaissance walks in various
habitats at the study sites. All flowering and fruiting species
were collected, catalogued, preserved, identified and depos-
ited in national herbaria at the Center for Conservation
Studies (CECON) and the Faculty of Biology at the
University of San Carlos (BIGU).
Point count methodology and mist nets were used to
record bird species (USFS 2002). Thirty point counts were
located along trails and roads in three sampling sites, Nueva
Esperanza, Tzulul Qeqchi and Mucbilha. Each point was
separated by 250 m, and 10 min was spent at each point to
identify birds present using audio or visual means. All
transects were begun at 05:30 h, the approximate time of
sunrise, and ended no later than 10:00 h. In addition, an
array of six mist nets, 7 · 2 m, was used to sample the
cryptic understorey avian community. Species were identi-
fied according to Howell and Webb (1995).
For bats, the trapping configuration consisted of five
mist nets, each 12 m long, and one harp trap. The total effort
at each of the three sites sampled (i.e. Tzulul Qeqchi,
Mucbilha, Nueva Chinaja) was 100 h/net. These nets were
opened shortly after sunset (18:30 h) and closed 4.5 h later
(23:00 h), so as to be operable during peak feeding activity.
117
On capture, the time was noted, the individual was identi-
fied and reproductive condition determined using Medellı́n
et al. (1997) and Reid (1997) before release.
Small terrestrial mammals were surveyed at two sites,
Nueva Chinajá and Mucbilha II. In each site, a transect was
made, placing alternately a Sherman, Museum special and
Victor Rat Trap every 10 m following trails through forest
patches and cardamom plantations. Two additional
Tomahawk traps were located in each transect. Ninety trap-
ping stations were placed in Mucbilha II and 90 in Nueva
Chinajá. Bait consisted of oats, peanut butter and raisins in a
proportion of 2:1:1. Each trap was baited each morning at
06:00 h and was checked every evening. Animals collected
were measured and identified with field guides and depos-
ited at the mammal collection at the Natural History
Museum of the University of San Carlos de Guatemala
(MUSHNAT), where the identification was confirmed.
The reptile communities were sampled through diurnal
and nocturnal walks in forest patches and along foot trails in
Mucbilha II and Nueva Chinajá. All specimens collected
were identified and placed in the MUSHNAT collections.
These walks lasted from 06:00 h to 10:00 h in the morning
and from 18:00 h to 23:00 h in the evening, on five con-
secutive days in the wet season in September.
The community of copronecrophagous beetle species
was assessed in Nueva Esperanza, Mucbilha and Tzulul
Qeqchi through a system of pitfall transects. In each study
site, two transects were located along foot trails crossing
forest patches. Each transect was 200-m long and had pitfall
traps consisting of a 450-ml plastic container (11 cm
tall · 11 cm diameter at the opening) placed every 20 m.
The traps were dug into the ground, half filled with soil and
horse dung in a 3:1 ratio, and partially covered with a lid that
had a wedge removed, about 25% of the surface area, to
allow entry, but also to complicate the exit of any individual
lured into the trap. In order to avoid confusion, florescent
flagging was used to mark the location of the traps. Traps
were left for 24 h and recollected at 09:00 h on the following
morning.
Although this study was a rapid analysis and registered
only a small portion of the total distribution of diversity and
abundance of species in the Sierra Chinajá, it was designed
so as to permit multivariate statistical analysis. A cluster
analysis using the Simpson index was used to examine the
evenness among biological communities and allow for an
interpretation of the affinities of the three study sites. This
analysis is presented in several dendrograms and rarefaction
curves, which were generated using the program PAST ver.
1.81 (Hammer et al. 2001). Dendrograms were not gener-
ated for all groups of taxa as some of the sampling methods
did not lend themselves well to statistical analysis or the
data were too sparse.
Results
A total of 309 species of plants were found in the Sierra
Chinajá: 77 trees, 141 shrubs, herbs and vines, 73 orchids
and 18 bromeliads (Tables 1 and 2). The 10 species with
118 C. Bonham et al.

Table 1. Plant species found in the Sierra Chinajá, according to Table 1. (Continued).
Ve
liz, M. and Archila, F.
Family Species
Family Species
63 Tillandsia juncea
1 Acanthaceae Aphelandra aurantiaca 64 Tillandsia matudae
2 Aphelandra deppeana 65 Tillandsia schiedeana
3 Aphelandra scabra 66 Tillandsia valenzuelana
4 Justicia sp. 67 Tillandsia bulbosa
5 Anacardiaceae Mosquitoxylum jamaicense 68 Vriesia heliconoides
6 Astronium graveolens 69 Burseraceae Bursera simaruba
7 Metopium brownei 70 Protium copal
8 Rhus striata 71 Caesalpinaceae Swartzia sp.
9 Annonaceae Annona scleroderma 72 Cactaceae Epyphillum oxypetalum
10 Cymbopetalum penduliflorum 73 Zygocactus sp.
11 Desmopsis stenopetala 74 Clusiaceae Calophyllum brasiliensis
12 Guatteria anomala 75 Clusia guatemalensis
13 Apocynaceae Aspidosperma cruentum 76 Clusia sp.
14 Aspidosperma sp. 77 Garcinia sp.
15 Plumeria rubra 78 Vismia camparaguay
16 Thevethia ahouai 79 Combretaceae Terminalia amazonia
17 Tabernaemontana sp. 80 Comelinaceae Campelia zanonia
18 Araceae Anthurium montanum 81 Costaceae Costus ruber
19 Anthurium pentaphyllum var. 82 Costus pulverulentus
bombacifollium 83 Cyclantaceae Asplundia microphylla
20 Anthurium sp.1 84 Cyperaceae Scleria sp.
21 Anthurium sp.2 85 Dennstaedtiaceae Dennstaedtia sp.
22 Anthurium sp.3 86 Dioscoreaceae Dioscorea sp.
23 Anthurium sp.4 87 Dioscorea barttletii
24 Monstera sp. 88 Ebenaceae Diospyros sp.
25 Spathyphyllum blandum 89 Euphorbiaceae Acalypha costarricenses
26 Syngonium podophyllum 90 Acalypha glummifera
27 Araliaceae Dendropanax arboreus 91 Acalypha sp.
28 Oreopanax obtusifollium 92 Croton glabellus
29 Oreopanax sp. 93 Dalechampia heteromorpha
30 Arecaceae Chamaedorea elegans 94 Disciphania calocarpa
31 Chamaedorea sp. 95 Euphorbia leucocephala
32 Chamaedorea tepejilote 96 Hieronyma alchorneoides
33 Chryosophila argentea 97 Sebastiania longicuspis
34 Asclepiadaceae Asclepias curasavica 98 Fabaceae Acacia sp.
35 Asteraceae Ageratina sp. 99 Bauhinia divaricata
36 Melanthera nivea 100 Desmodium sp.
37 Neurolaena lobata 101 Dialium guianense
38 Vernonia sp. 102 Lonchocarpus castilloi
39 Zexmenia salvinii 103 Lonchocarpus sp.
40 Begoniaceae Begonia manicata 104 Myroxylon balsamum
41 Begonia nelumbiifolia 105 Schizolobium sp.
42 Begonia sp. 1 106 Swartzia sp.
43 Begonia sp. 2 107 Swartzia standleyii
44 Begonia sp. 3 108 Senna skinneri
45 Begonia sp. 4 109 Senna sp.
46 Begonia sp. 5 110 Vatairea lundellii
47 Begonia sp.6 111 Flacourtiaceae Casearia sp.
48 Bombacaceae Pseudobombax ellipticum 112 Gesneraceae Allopectus vinaceus
49 Boraginaceae Cordia gerascanthus 113 Gutiferae Vismia camparaguay
50 Cordia alliodora 114 Haemodoraceae Xiphidium caeruleum
51 Bromeliaceae Aechmea bracteata 115 Pteridophyta Adiantum radiata
52 Androlepis skinneri 116 Adiantum sp.1
53 Billbergia sp. 117 Adiantum sp.2
54 Billbergia viridiflora 118 Anthryphylum onsiforme
55 Catopsis sp. 119 Asplenium sp.
56 Catopsis hahnii 120 Blechnum schedianum
57 Catopsis (pending identification) 121 Campyloneuron sp.
58 Greigia sp. 122 Displazium plantaginifolium
59 Pitcairnia sp. 123 Elaphoglossum sp.
60 Pitcarnia wendlandlii 124 Pleopeltis lanceolata
61 Tillandsia sp. 125 Pleopeltis sp.
62 Tillandsia butzii 126 Pleopeltis sp.
(Continued ) (Continued )
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management 119

Table 1. (Continued). Table 1. (Continued).

Family Species Family Species

127 Polypodium sp. 191 Epidendrum polyanthum

128 Tectaria heraclifolia 192 Epidendrum rigidum
129 Thelypteris sp. 193 Eurystyles sp.
130 Heliconiaceae Calathia unsigues 194 Gongora cassidea
131 Heliconia latispatha 195 Goodyera sp.
132 Heliconia sp. 196 Hexadesmia imbricata
133 Labiaceae Salvia sp. 197 Isochilus linearis
134 Lauraceae Licaria capitata 198 Jacquiniella cobanensis
135 Licaria sp. 199 Jacquiniella equitantifolia
136 Nectandra globosa 200 Lepidanthus pasanticus
137 Ocotea licaria 201 Maxillaria aciantha
138 Liliaceae Dracaena americana 202 Maxillaria brunnea
139 Malphigiaceae Mascagnia sp. 203 Maxillaria crassifolia
140 Maranthaceae Calathea allouia 204 Maxillaria densa
141 Melastomataceae Clidemia petiolaris 205 Maxillaria meleagris
142 Clidemia sp. 206 Maxillaria muricata
143 Conostegia xalapensis 207 Maxillaria pulchra
144 Miconia sp.1 208 Maxillaria scorpioidea
145 Miconia sp.2 209 Maxillaria sp.
146 Topobea calicularis 210 Maxillaria uncata
147 Topobea lavrigata 211 Maxillaria variabilis
148 Urera sp. 212 Mormolyca ringens
149 Meliaceae Guarea glabra 213 Nidema boothii
150 Swietenia macrophylla 214 Notylia barkeria
151 Trichilia glabra 215 Oncidium oerstedii
152 Trichilia sp.1 216 Ornithocephalus bicornis
153 Trichilia sp.2 217 Pleurothalis grobyii
154 Menispermaceae Hyperbaena Mexicana 218 Pleurothalis lewisii
155 Mimosaceae Cassia sp. 219 Pleurothalis pansamalae
156 Pithecelobium sp. 220 Pleurothalis sanchoi
157 Inga sp. 221 Pleurothalis segoviensis
158 Moraceae Dorstenia lindleyana 222 Pleurothallis yucatanensis
159 Ficus radula 223 Pleurothallis sp.
160 Brosimum alicastrum 224 Polystachia cerea
161 Coussopoa sp. 225 Polystachya masayensis
162 Trophys racemosa 226 Ponera juncifolia
163 Ficus sp. 227 Ponera striata
164 Myristicaceae Virola guatemalensis 228 Prostechea cochleata
165 Myrsinaceae Ardisia sp. 229 Prostechea fragans
166 Parathesis sp. 230 Prostechea pygmaea
167 Myrtaceae Eugenia sp. 231 Sarcoglottis sp.
168 Eugenia sp. 232 Scaphyglothis lendyana
169 Nyctaginaceae Guapira sp. 233 Scaphyglothis sp.
170 Ochnaceae Ouratea lucens 234 Scaphyglottis crurigera
171 Olecaceae Olecaceae sp. 235 Sobralia fragrans
172 Orchidaceae Brassia caudate 236 Sobralia sp.
173 Campylocentrum scheidei 237 Stanhopea aff. Oculata
174 Catasetum integerrimum 238 Stelis sp. 1
175 Chysis bractescens 239 Stelis sp. 2
176 Coelia bella 240 Stenorrhynchus coloratus
177 Coelia sp. 241 Trichosalpinx violacea
178 Corymborkis forcipigera 242 Trigonidium egertonianum
179 Cranichis sp. 243 Vittaria graminifolia
180 Elleanthus capitatus 244 Zootrophyon tribuloide
181 Elleanthus caricoides 245 Passifloraceae Passiflora biflora
182 Elleanthus graminifolius 246 Passiflora sp.1
183 Elleanthus poiformis Schltr. 247 Piperaceae Peperomia pellucida
184 Encyclia (Prosthechea) cochleata 248 Peperomia sp.1
185 Encyclia (Prosthechea) pygmaea 249 Peperomia sp.2
186 Encyclia asperula 250 Peperomia sp.3
187 Encyclia sp. 251 Piper aduncum
188 Epidendrum cf. veroscriptum 252 Piper auritum
189 Epidendrum isomerum 253 Piper peltatum
190 Epidendrum nocturnum 254 Piper sp.

(Continued ) (Continued )
120 C. Bonham et al.

Table 1. (Continued). corresponding sampling error was 2.5%. A cluster analysis

Family Species using the Simpson index was used to compare the similarity
among the three sub-sites sampled: Nueva Esperanza,
255 Poaceae Lasiacis divaricada Tzulul Qeqchi and Mucbilha. These three sub-sites are
256 Muhlenbergia sp.
compared in the Figures 2 and 3 using the diversity of
257 Olyra lalifolia
258 Polygonaceae Coccoloba sp.1 trees, birds, beetles and the three groups combined as
259 Polypodiaceae Polypodium sp. metrics for describing the degree of similarity among the
260 Rubiaceae Alseis yucatanenses sub-sites. The figures consistently group Nueva Esperanza
261 Cephaelis tomentosa and Mucbilha (sites A and C). Tzulul Qeqchi is the outlier,
262 Chiococca alba
263 Guettarda combsii
having an assemblage of species more specifically distrib-
264 Hamelia patens uted to that particular area.
265 Hamelia rovirosae The survey also revealed 110 bird species, 24 reptile
266 Hoffmania sp. species, 14 amphibian species, 20 bat species, five small
267 Morinda sp. terrestrial mammal species and 20 dung beetle species
268 Psychotria chiapensis
269 Psychotria sp.1
(Tables 3–8). Species accumulation curves were created to
270 Psychotria sp.2 analyse and estimate the total diversity of all taxa sampled
271 Psychotria sp.3 (Figure 3). None of the curves presented are approaching
272 Psychotria sp.4 their asymptotes, which suggests that more sampling would
273 Psychotria sp.5 provide a clearer understanding of total species diversity.
274 Rondeletia buddleioides
275 Rondeletia sp.1 The beetle and rodent curve is particularly steep, indicating
276 Rondeletia sp.2 significant diversity left to be recorded.
277 Simira salvadorensis
278 Rutaceae Zanthoxylum belizense
279 Sapindaceae Paullinia sp.
280 Cupania belizensis Discussion
281 Cupania sp. Biogeographic status of Chinajá
282 Sapotaceae Pouteria sp.
283 Chrysophyllum mexicanum The Sierra Chinajá is structurally and floristically similar to
284 Manilkara zapota both the limestone mountains to the east in Belize and to the
285 Sideroxylon capiri west in Mexico (Breedlove 1981; Meerman and Matola,
286 Sauraureaceae Saurauia sp. 2003). Because of the interface between lowland and mon-
287 Simaroubaceae Picramnia sp.
288 Simarouba glauca
tane habitats, many species that are commonly separated
289 Solanaceae Cestrum nocturnum exist together in the Sierra Chinajá. The rapid nature of this
290 Lycianthes sp. investigation provides just a glimpse into the floristics and
291 Solanum sp. diversity of the Sierra Chinajá. The region may contain as
292 Witheringia sp. many as 4,000 plant species (Martinez et al. 1994). The
293 Theaceae Ternstroema tepezapote
294 Tiliaceae Mortoniodendron sp.
suitability of the habitat provided by the Sierra Chinajá to
295 Luehea candida both lowland and highland species explains its species
296 Heliocarpus donnellsmithii richness. Its biogeographic isolation is another factor that
297 Trichospermum galliothi makes this mountainous forest likely habitat for endemic
298 Ulmaceae Trema micrantha populations, which further contributes to its potential spe-
299 Ampelocera hottlei
300 Urticaceae Pilea sp. 1 cies richness.
301 Phenax hirtus The majority of bird species (Table 3) are characteristic
302 Verbenaceae Cornutia sp. of the tropical lowlands of the Peten, as evidenced by the
303 Vitex gaumerii presence of individuals of typical lowland families such as
304 Violaceae Rinorea guatemalensis Furnariidae, Formicariidae, Cotingidae, Thraupinae (Stotz
305 Vitaceae Cissus sp.
306 Vochisiaceae Vochysia guatemalensis et al 1996; Howell and Webb 1995). Nevertheless, 16 spe-
307 Zamiaceae Zamia monticola cies are characteristic of upland tropical forest avian com-
308 Ceratozamia robusta munities. This is likely to reflect changes in habitat type due
309 Zamia tuerckheimii to the orographic uplift in this isolated mountain chain. In
such ranges, ecological zones are often compressed, result-
ing in the distribution of high montane species at lower
highest importance values were: Terminalia amazonia, elevations (Grubb 1971; Whitmore 1998). This uplift has
Bursera simaruba, Manilkara zapota, Pouteria amygda- effectively isolated these 16 montane species as if they were
lina, Blomia pisca, Pouteria sp., Psidium sartorianum, on an island.
Desmopsis stenopetala, Pseudobombax ellipticum and Twenty bat species were recorded, of which Carollia
Lonchocarpus guatemalensis. sowelli was the most abundant (Table 4). The composition
A total of 77 tree species (578 individuals) were of the bat community of the Sierra Chinajá is similar to that
recorded in 21 plots. The standard error was 0.42 and the of the bat communities of the Atlantic lowlands (Perez, S.
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management 121

Table 2. Tree strata data from Whitaker plots at Sierra Chinajá. Bonham, C.
Common name Scientific name Family V/ha BA total F total D/ha Bar Fr Dr IV N
Canxan Terminalia amazonia Combretaceae 34.01 8.38 0.62 8.57 10.24 2.94 1.89 15.07 18
Palo jiote Bursera simaruba Burseraceae 14.78 3.89 0.48 36.19 4.75 2.27 7.98 15.01 76
Chico zapote Manilkara zapota Sapotaceae 20.79 4.81 0.76 18.10 5.88 3.60 3.99 13.47 38
Silion Colorado Pouteria amygdalina Sapotaceae 18.67 4.76 0.57 21.90 5.82 2.70 4.83 13.35 46
Qeqitzol Blomia pisca Sapindaceae 12.25 3.71 0.71 20.48 4.54 3.36 4.52 12.42 43
Zapotillo Pouteria sp. Sapotaceae 6.88 1.97 0.90 20.00 2.41 4.27 4.41 11.09 42
Paata che Psidium sartorianum Myrtaceae 7.68 1.81 0.57 22.38 2.21 2.70 4.94 9.85 47
Cacaute Desmopsis stenopetala Annonaceae 8.18 2.54 0.43 17.14 3.11 2.04 3.78 8.92 36
Mapola Pseudobombax ellipticum Bombacaceae 14.13 3.68 0.33 10.95 4.49 1.56 2.42 8.47 23
Palo gusano Lonchocarpus guatemalensis Fabaceae 5.61 1.49 0.43 17.14 1.82 2.04 3.78 7.64 36
Palo algodon Ochroma lagopus Bombacaceae 7.38 2.26 0.48 11.43 2.76 2.27 2.52 7.56 24
Aqal Eugenia spp. Myrtaceae 3.37 0.88 0.57 15.24 1.08 2.70 3.36 7.14 32
Tamarindo Dialium guianense Fabaceae 7.90 2.29 0.43 9.52 2.80 2.04 2.10 6.93 20
Colay Sickingia salvadorensis Rubiaceae 7.07 1.70 0.43 10.95 2.08 2.04 2.42 6.53 23
Tem Sideroxylon capiri Sapotaceae 11.88 3.03 0.29 4.76 3.70 1.37 1.05 6.13 10
Amate Ficus radula Moraceae 8.08 2.58 0.38 5.24 3.16 1.80 1.16 6.11 11
Ramon blanco Brosimum alicastrum Moraceae 6.03 1.43 0.43 8.57 1.75 2.04 1.89 5.68 18
Palo lagarto Zanthoxylum belizense Rutaceae 5.50 1.34 0.38 8.10 1.64 1.80 1.79 5.23 17
Chechen blanco Sebastiania longicuspis Euphorbiaceae 5.28 1.36 0.38 7.14 1.67 1.80 1.58 5.04 15
Laurel de montana Cordia alliodora Boraginaceae 4.12 0.80 0.33 8.57 0.97 1.56 1.89 4.43 18
Jocote Spondias mombin Anacardiaceae 2.17 0.55 0.43 7.14 0.68 2.04 1.58 4.29 15
Chilecayote Sapium spp. Euphorbiaceae 8.83 2.12 0.19 2.86 2.59 0.90 0.63 4.12 6
Manax Hieronyma alchorneoides Euphorbiaceae 3.06 0.65 0.33 7.62 0.80 1.56 1.68 4.04 16
Santa Maria Calophyllum brasiliensis Clusiaceae 3.86 0.89 0.38 5.24 1.08 1.80 1.16 4.04 11
Aguacatillo Nectandra globosa Lauraceae 3.99 1.13 0.24 5.24 1.38 1.14 1.16 3.67 11
Balsamo Myroxylon balsamum Fabaceae 5.97 1.46 0.24 3.33 1.79 1.14 0.74 3.66 7
Pok xik Coccoloba spp. Rubiaceae 2.07 0.57 0.38 3.81 0.69 1.80 0.84 3.34 8
Izote Dracaena americana Liliaceae 3.12 0.59 0.33 4.76 0.72 1.56 1.05 3.33 10
Valerio blanco Aspidosperma megalocarpon Apocynaceae 1.66 0.37 0.38 4.76 0.45 1.80 1.05 3.30 10
Copal pom Protium copal Burseraceae 1.45 0.36 0.29 6.67 0.44 1.37 1.47 3.29 14
Pomte 1.39 0.37 0.33 5.24 0.46 1.56 1.16 3.18 11
Escobo negro 1.32 0.35 0.33 5.24 0.42 1.56 1.16 3.14 11
Luin hembra Cordia gerascanthus Boraginaceae 1.35 0.32 0.29 5.71 0.40 1.37 1.26 3.03 12
Cansin Lonchocarpus castilloi Fabaceae 2.89 0.69 0.29 2.86 0.85 1.37 0.63 2.85 6
Faisan 1.16 0.33 0.33 3.33 0.41 1.56 0.74 2.71 7
Anonillo Guatteria anomala Annonaceae 0.61 0.21 0.18 2.86 0.25 0.85 0.63 1.74 6
Anona de monte Annona scleroderma Annonaceae 1.08 0.26 0.15 2.38 0.31 0.71 0.53 1.55 5
Valerio Colorado Aspidosperma cruenta Apocynaceae 0.64 0.14 0.10 1.90 0.17 0.47 0.42 1.07 4
Medallo Vatairea lundellii Fabaceae 1.03 0.22 0.05 0.95 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.71 2
Note: D/ha = Density per hectare; Bar = Relative basal area; F = Frequency; Fr = Relative frequency; BA = Basal area; IV = Importance value; V/ha = Volume
per hectare.

personal communication 2005). While most of these species
have a lowland affinity, several species were characteristic
of highland bat communities. Dermanura tolteca is a spe-
cies that commonly inhabits mountains of medium eleva-
tion. D. tolteca shares the Sierra with two other species from
the same genus, both characteristic of the lowlands:
D. phaeotis and D. watsoni. This elevated diversity may
suggest a relatively complex system of niche partitioning
worthy of further study.
Another indicator that Chinajá posesses elements of low
montane cloud forest is the presence of Sturnira ludovici.
This species, representative of medium-sized mountains,
was found sympatrically with S. lilium, the sister species
more typical of the lowlands (Perez et al. 2005).
Of the five species of small terrestrial mammals found,
the most important was Peromyscus mexicanus (Table 5).
This is found in mountains of medium elevation and is
absent in the adjacent lowland jungles of the Peten. This is
a new distribution record according to the mammal collec-
tion of the MUSHNAT, reaching its most northern distribu-
tion in the Sierra Chinajá.
The total of 14 species of amphibians and 24 of reptiles
collected (Tables 6 and 7) is likely to be only a fraction of
the total herpetofaunal diversity in the area. The majority of
the Sierra Chinajá is generally below 600 m, thus the pre-
dominant herpetofaunal species are widely distributed in the
Caribbean lowlands of Mesoamerica (Campbell and
Vannini 1989).
The presence of Agalychnis moreletii and A. callidryas
is another example of lowland and montane habitat overlap.
According to Campbell and Vannini (1989), A. moreletii has
a relatively restricted distribution, occurring in mesic forests
along streams flowing through mountainous regions and,
therefore, it is less likely to be found than A. callidryas. It
occurs from central Veracruz and northern Oaxaca, Mexico,
southward on Atlantic slopes to Guatemala and Belize. In
122 C. Bonham et al.

Trees Coleoptera
C A B C A B
1
0.99
0.96 0.9

0.93 0.8
0.9 0.7

Similarity
Similarity

0.87
0.6
0.84
0.5
0.81
0.4
0.78
0.75 0.3

0.72 0.2
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
Index value Index value

Birds All 3 groups

C A B
C B A

0.95 0.95

0.9 0.9

0.85 0.85
Similarity
Similarity

0.8 0.8
0.75 0.75
0.7 0.7
0.65 0.65
0.6 0.6
0.55
0.55
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
Index value Index value

Figure 2. Dendrograms of the Simpson Index for taxa analyzed in the 3 sites sampled in the Sierra Chinajá, Guatemala from June to
October 2005. (Sites: A-Nueva Esperanza (380 m), B-Tzulul Qeqchi (750 m), C-Mucbilha (400 m)).

Guatemala, the species ranges from 500 m to 2130 m
(Campbell and Vannini 1989). A. callidryas is commonly
found in the Atlantic lowlands and foothills from southern
Veracruz and northern Oaxaca, Mexico, southward through
Mexico, Guatemala, Belize and eastern Panama. In
Guatemala, this species ranges from near sea level to
about 950 m (Campbell and Vannini 1989).
The presence of Eleutherodactylus xucanebi is further
evidence of the montane character of the Sierra Chinaja, as
its distribution ranges between 500 and 1500 m. Thus,
biogeographic isolation and biodiversity concentration
could be occurring in the Sierra since it is an island of
montane habitat surrounded by lowland forest habitat that
is unlikely to support these highland species.
Among the 20 species of dung beetle (Table 8), the
presence of Copris laeviceps and Copris nubilosus sug-
gests once again that Sierra Chinajá is an ecotone or
area of transition, because these species are character-
istic of two distinct biogeographic areas: the highlands
of Alta Verapaz and the the lowlands of the Peten.
Copris nubilosus was first described in 2003
(Kohlmann et al. 2003) and until now was only reported
from colder high-elevation cloud forests between 1350
and 1800 m, in the Sierra Cuchumatanes and Sierra de
las Minas. Copris laeviceps is a characteristic lowland
dung beetle recorded from sites in the Atlantic lowland
forests of Izabal as well as the Peten Plateau to the
north (Kohlmann et al. 2003).
Status of rare and endemic species
One notable endemic population is that of Ceratozamia
robusta (a member of the Cycad family). This Neotropical
genus is distributed in mountainous parts of Mexico, Belize
and Guatemala (Jones 1993). The species reaches its south-
ernmost distribution in Guatemala and is a rare ornamental
(Jones 1993). The conservation of rare endemics of market
value is of principal importance to conservation and land
management efforts.
While six migratory bird species were recorded, includ-
ing streaked flycatcher (Myodinastes maculates), northern
waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis), black-and-white
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management 123

Beetles Birds

27 72
Taxa (95% confidence)

Taxa (95% confidence)

24 64
21 56
18 48
15 40
12 32
9 24
6 16
3 8
0 0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Samples Samples
Rodents Amphibians
8
7.2 18
Taxa (95% confidence)

Taxa (95% confidence)

6.4 16
5.6 14
4.8 12
4 10
3.2 8
2.4 6
1.6 4
0.8 2
0 0
1.2 1.8 2.4 3 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 6 6.6 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Samples Samples
Reptiles Bats

36 27
Taxa (95% confidence)

Taxa (95% confidence)

32 24
28 21
24 18
20 15
16 12
12 9
8 6
4 3
0 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Samples Samples

Figure 3. Species accumulation curves of taxa sampled in Sierra Chinajá, Guatemala from June to October 2005.

warbler (Mniotilta varia), Kentucky warbler (Oporornis
formosus), Canadian warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) and
Baltimore oriole (Icteus galbula), more are expected to
use the area as a wintering ground. It is worth mentioning
that local residents recognized the horn-billed guan
(Oreophasis derbianus), a rare endemic typical of highland
forests, from illustrations presented to them and claimed it is
found in the highest parts of the mountains. Similar results
were recorded by Jolon (2003) in the nearby Candelaria
Caves National Park.
The presence of several unique Chiroptera species
such as Mimon cozumelae, Trachops cirrhosus and
Tonatia saurophila, restricted to well-developed mature
lowland forests, is also an indicator of the healthy state
of forests in the Sierra Chinajá (Fenton et al. 1992). Due
to their habitat specificity, these species have been pro-
posed as ecological indicators (Fenton et al. 1992). It is
important to mention the presence of Diphylla ecaudata
in Nueva Chinajá, an uncommon species in human-asso-
ciated areas because it feeds on the blood of non-domes-
ticated animals (Uieda 1992).
The fact that two new Coleoptera species of the
genera Canthydium and Onthophagus were found, as
well as at least one new species of Passalid beetle
(Passalidae) (Schuster, personal communication), sug-
gests that the Sierra Chinajá may already have given
124 C. Bonham et al.

Table 3. Bird species found in the Sierra Chinaja. According to Bonham, C. with collaboration from Stewart, S. and Tenes, D.
Method
of Relative Conservation
Scientific name Common name detection Site Sensitivity* abundance* Cntab* priority* Endemic* Habitat*
Amazilia candida Whitebellied PC, MN 1,2,3 M C LT 4 F1,F7
emerald
Amazilia tzacatl Rufoustailed PC, MN 1,2,3 L C LT 4 F1E,F15,F7
hummingbird
Amazona Redlored parrot PC 1,2 M C LT 3 F1E,F15,F,F8
autumnalis
Aratinga astec Aztec parakeet PC 1,2,3 L C LT 4 F1E,F15
Arremon Orangebilled PC, MN 2 M F LT 4 F1
aurantrirostris sparrow
Arremonops Greenbacked PC 2,3 L C LT 4 Y F1E,F7,F15
chloronotus sparrow
Attila spadiceus Brightrumped O – M F LT 4 F1,F7,F4
attila
Aulacorhynchus Emerald O – M F UT 4 F4,F1
prasinus toucanet
Automolus Buffthroated PC 1 M C LT 4 F1,F2
ochrolaemus foliagegleaner
Basileuterus Goldencrowned O – M C HT 4 F1,F4,F15
culicivorus warbler
Bubulcus (Ardeola) Cattle egret O – L C LT 4 N13,N6
ibis
Buteo (Asturina) Grey hawk O – M F LT 4 F8,F7,F1E,F3
nitidus
Buteo magnirostris Roadside hawk O – L C LT 4 F1E,F7,F8,F3,
Campephilus Palebilled PC 1,2,3 M F LT 4 F1E,F8,F15,F7
guatemalensis woodpecker
Campylopterus Wedgetailed MN – M F LT 4 Y F1,F15
curvipenis saberwing
Campylorhynchus Bandbacked PC 2 L C UT 4 F11,F4E,F1E
zonatus wren
Caryothraustes Blackfaced PC 1,3 M F LT 4 Y F1,F15
poliogaster grosbeak
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture PC 1 L C LT 4 N14,F7,F8,F15
Ceryle torquata Ringed O – L C LT 4 A8,A6,A11,F14
kingfisher
Chloroceryle Green kingfisher O – L C LT 4 A9,A6,A8,F14
Americana
Chlorophanes spiza Green PC 2 M F LT 4 F1,F2,F15,F8
honeycreeper
Columba Shortbilled O – M F LT 4 F1,F4
nigrirostris pigeon
Columbina Ruddy PC 3 L C LT 4 N14,N11,N1
talpacoti grounddove
Contopus cinereus Tropical peewee PC 2 L F/P HT 4 F1E,F4E,F7,F8
Coragyps atratus Black vulture O – L C LT 4 N16,N6,N1,N13
Crotophaga Groovebilled ani PC 1,2,3 L C LT 4 N14,N11
sulcirostris
Crypturellus Slatybreasted PC 1,2,3 M F LT 4 F1,F15
boucardi tinmous
Cyanerpes cyaneus Redlegged PC 2,3 L C/P LT 4 F1,F15,F8
honeycreeper
Dendrocincla Ruddy MN 2 H F LT 4 F1,F4,F7
homochroa woodcreeper
Dendrocolaptes Barred PC 2 H F LT 4 F1
certhia woodcreeper
Dives dives Melodious PC 2 L C LT 4 F1E,F15,F8
blackbird
Dryocopus lineatus Lineated O – L C LT 4 F3,F8,F15
woodpecker
Dysithamnus Plain antvireo O – M C UT 4 F4,F1
mentalis
Egretta thula Snowy egret O – L C LT 4 A1,A2
(Continued )
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management 125

Table 3. (Continued).
Method
of Relative Conservation
Scientific name Common name detection Site Sensitivity* abundance* Cntab* priority* Endemic* Habitat*
Elaenia flavogaster Yellowbellied PC 3 L C LT 4 N14,N11,F15E
elaenia
Elanus leucurus Whitetailed kite O – L U/P LT 4 N13,N14,N6
Eupherusa e.eximia Stripetailed MN 2 M U UT 4 F1,F15
hummingbird
Euphonia goldi Olivebacked PC 1,2 M F LT 4 Y F1
euphonia
Euphonia Yellowthroated PC 1,3 L C LT 4 F1E,F8,F15
hirudinacea euphonia
Falco rufigularis Bat falcon PC 2,3 L F LT 4 F1E,F7E,F8E
Formicarius analis Blackfaced PC,MN 3 M C LT 4 Y F1,F2
antthrush
Galbula ruficauda Rufoustailed PC 2 L C LT 4 F1E,F
jacamar
Geotrygon Ruddy quaildove O – M F LT 4 F1,F4,F7
Montana
Glaucidium Pygmy owl O – L C LT 4 N1,N2,N14
brasilianum
Glyphorprhyncos Wedgebilled PC 3 M F LT 4 F1,F4
spirurus woodcreeper
Habia fuscicauda Redthroated PC 1,2 M F LT 4 F1E,F2,F15
anttanager
Habia rubica Redcrowned O – H F LT 4 F1
anttanager
Heliothrix barroti Purplecrownd PC 2 M U LT 4 F1,F15
fairy
Henicorhina Greybreasted O – M C UT 4 F4
leucoprhrys woodwren
Henicorhina Whitebreasted PC 1,2,3 M F HT 4 F1,F4
leucosticte woodwren
Hylomanes Tody motmot O – H U HT 4 F1,F4
momotula
Icterus Blackcowled PC 2 L F LT 4 Y F1E, F15
dominicensis oriole
prosthemelas
Icteus galbula Baltimore oriole O – L C UT 4 F8,F7,F15
bullockii
Lanio aurantius Blackthroated O – H F LT 3 Y F1
shriketanager
Laniocera Speckled PC 1 M U/P LT 3 F1
rufescens mourner
Laterallus rubber Ruddy crake PC 2 L F LT 4 A1
Lepidocolaptes Streakheaded PC 3 L L LT 4 F7,F8,F1,
souleyetti woodcreeper
Leptopogon Sepiacapped PC,MN 3 M F LT 4 F1,F15
amaurocephalus flyacatcher
Leptotila casinii Greychested PC 2 M F LT 4 F7,F8,F1
dove
Leptotila verreauxi Whitetipped PC 2 L C UT 4 F7,F8,F15
dove
Leucopternis White hawk PC 3 H F LT 4 F1,F4,F7
albicollis
Lipaugus unirufus Rufous piha MN 2 M F LT 4 F1
Malacoptila Whitewhiskered O – M F LT 4 F1,F15
panamensis puffbird
Manacus candei Whitecollared PC,MN 1,2 M F LT 3 Y FIE,F15
manakin
Melanerpes Goldenfronted PC 1,2,3 L C LT 4 N1,N2,F8
aurifrons woodpecker
Melanerpes Blackcheeked PC 2,3 M C LT 4 F1,F15
pucherani woodpecker
Microcerculus Nightingale wren O – H F HT 3 Y F1
philomela
(Continued )
126 C. Bonham et al.

Table 3. (Continued).
Method
of Relative Conservation
Scientific name Common name detection Site Sensitivity* abundance* Cntab* priority* Endemic* Habitat*
Microrhopias Dotwinged PC 1,2,3 M C/P LT 4 F1
quixensis antwren
Mionectes Ochrebellied MN 2 M F LT 4 F1,F2,F15
oleaginous flycatcher
Mniotilta Black and O – L – MIGRANT 4 F1,F4,F15
varia White warbler
Momotus Bluecrowned PC 1,2 M C LT 4 F1,F4,F15
momota motmot
Myadestes unicolor Slatecolored PC 2 M F UT 3 Y F4,F11
solitaire
Myiobius Sulphurrumped PC 2 M F LT 4 F1,F8,F15
sulphureipygius flycatcher
Myiozetetes similes Social flycatcher O – L C LT 4 F1E,F7E
Myodinastes Streaked PC 2 L C LT 4 F1E,F15
maculates flycatcher
Nyctidromus Pauraque PC 1,2 L C LT 4 F1E,F15
albicollis
Oncostoma Northern PC,MN 2,3 L F LT 4 F1E,F7
cinereigulare bentbill
Onychorhynchus Royal flycatcher PC 1 H U LT 4 F1
mexicanus
Oporornis formosus Kentucky O – – – MIGRANT – –
warbler
Ortalis vetula Plain chachalaca PC 1,2,3 L C LT 4 Y F1E,F8
Pachyramphus Cinnamon PC 3 L F LT 4 F1E,F15
cinnamomeus becard
Passerina Blueblack PC 2 M F LT 4 F1,F15
cyanoides grosbeak
Phaeochroa Scalybreasted O – L C LT 4 F15,F1E
cuvierrii hummingbird
Phaethornis Little hermit PC,MN 1,2,3 M F LT 4 F1,F15
longemareus
Phaethornis Longtailed PC,MN 2,3 H C LT 4 F1,F4,F7
superciliosus hermit
Piaya cayana Squirrel cuckoo O – L C LT 4 F1,F7,F15
Pionopsitta brownhooded O – M F LT 4 F1,F4
haematotis Parrot
Pipra mentalis Redcapped PC 1,2 M F LT 4 F1
manakin
Piranga leucoptera Whitewinged PC 3 M F UT 4 F4,F1,F11
tanager
Pitangus Great kiskadee PC 1,2 L C LT 4 F15,F8
sulphuratus
Psarocolius Montezuma O – M C LT 4 Y F1,F15
montezuma oropendola
Psarocolius wagleri Chestnutheaded PC 3 M F LT 4 F1,F15
oropendola
Psilorhinus morio Brown jay PC 1 L F LT 4 F8,F15
Pteroglossus Collared aracari PC 1,2,3 M C LT 4 F1,F15
torquatus
Quiscalus Greattailed O – L C LT 4 N14,N13
mexicanus grackle
Ramphastos Keelbilled tucan PC 1,2,3 M C LT 4 F1,F15
sulfuratus
Ramphocaenus Longbilled PC 3 L FP LT 4 F1E,F15
melanurus gnatwren
Ramphocelus Scarletrumped PC 1,2 L C LT 4 Y F1E,F15,N14
paserinii tanager
Ramphocelus Crimsoncollared PC 1 L F LT 4 Y F1E,F15
sanguinolentus tanager
Rhytipterna Rufous mourner O – M F LT 4 F1,F15
holerythra
(Continued )
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management 127

Table 3. (Continued).
Method
of Relative Conservation
Scientific name Common name detection Site Sensitivity* abundance* Cntab* priority* Endemic* Habitat*
Saltator atriceps Black-headed PC 1,3 M F LT 3 F1E,F15
saltator
Saltator Greyish saltator PC 1 L C LT 4 N14,N12
coerulescens
Saltator maximus Buffthroated PC 2 L C LT 4 F1E,F15
saltator
Sclerurus Scalythroated O – H U LT 3 Y F1,F4
guatemalensis leaftosser
Seiurus Northern PC 2 M – MIGRANT 4 F1,F15,F14
noveboracensis waterthrush
Sittasomus Olivaceous PC 1 M C LT 4 F1,F2,F4
griseicapillus woodcreeper
Sporophila Whitecollared PC,MN 2,3 L C LT 4 N14,N1,N11
torqueola seedeater
Streptoprocne Whitecollared PC 1,2 L F LT 4 F4,F1,F15
zonaris swift
Tangara larvata Goldenhooded PC 3 L C LT 4 F1E, F15
tanager
Tapera naevia Striped cuckoo PC 2 L C LT 4 N14,N6,N11
Thamnophilus Barred antshrike PC 1,3 L C LT 4 N4,N11
doliatus
Thraupis abas Yellowwinged PC 1,2,3 L C LT 4 F1E,F15,F8
tanager
Thraupis episcopus Bluegray tanager O – L C LT 4 F1E,F15
Thryothorus Spotbreasted PC 1 L F LT 4 F1E,F15,F7
maculipectus wren
Tiaris olivacea Yellowfaced PC 1 L C LT 4 N14,N1
grassquit
Tityra semifasciata Masked tatyra PC 1,2 M C LT 4 F1,F4,F15
Tolmomyias Yellowolive PC 1 M F LT 4 F1,F4,F7
sulphurescens flycatcher
Trogon collaris Collared trogon PC 1,2 M C LT 4 F1,F4,F2,F7
Trogon Massena Slatytailed O – M F LT 4 F1,F15
trogon
Trogon violaceus Viloaceous PC 1,2,3 M F LT 4 F1,F15
trogon
Turdus assimils Whitethroated PC 1,2 M F UT 4 F4,F1,F7
thrush
Turdus grayi Claycolored PC 2 L C LT 4 F1E,F7,F15
robin
Tyrannus Tropical PC 2 L C LT 4 F15,F8,F3
melancholicus kingbird
Tyrannus savanna Forktailed O – L C LT 4 N6,N7,N13
flycatcher
Veniliornis Smokybrown PC 1,2 L C UT 4 F4,F1,F15
fumigatus woodpecker
Volatinia jacarina Blueblack PC 1,2,3 L C LT 4 N4,N6,N1
grassquit
Wilsonia Canada warbler O – M – MIGRANT 4 F4,F15,F1
canadensis
Xiphorhynchus Ivorybilled PC 1,2 M C LT 4 F1,F4,F7
flavigaster woodcreeper
Note: *According to Stotz et al. (1996) Center of Abundance: LT – Lower tropical (,500 m), LS – Lower subtropical (,500 m), HT -Hill tropical (500–900 m),
UT – Upper tropical (900–1600 m), US – Upper subtropical (500–1600 m), MM – Middle montane (1600–2600 m), UM – Upper montane (.2600 m)
Conservation Priority: 1 – Urgent, 2 – High, 3 – Medium, 4 – Low Endemic: Y = yes.

rise to speciation, and raises the question to what extent
it has served as a refuge through epochs of geologic and
climatic change.
Cross-site comparison
The Simpson indices consistently group the study sites
Mucbilha II and Nueva Esperanza, while separating out
128 C. Bonham et al.

Table 4. Bat species found and their relative abundances accord- Table 6. Reptiles registered in the Sierra Chinajá. According to
ing to Ordoñez, N. Pe
rez, S. and Cajas, J. Vásquez, C. with colaboration from Acevedo, M.
Site Site
Mucbilhá Nueva Tzulul Mucbilha Nueva
Species II Chinajá Qeqchi Total Species II Chinajá Total
1 Carollia 3 3 1 Ameiva festiva 5 5
perspicilliata Wiegmann, 1834
2 Carollia sowelli 7 10 17 2 Ameiva undulata 4 4
3 Carollia 10 10 Lichtenstein, 1856
brevicauda 3 Atropoides nummifer 3 3
4 Dermanura azteca 3 2 Rüppel, 1845
5 Dermanura 2 2 4 Basiliscus vitattus 1 1
phaeotis Wiegmann, 1828
6 Dermanura tolteca 2 3 5 5 Boa constrictor Linnaeus, 1 1
7 Dermanura 1 5 6 1758
watsoni 6 Bothriechis schlegelii 1 1
8 Desmodus 1 1 Berthold, 1846
rotundus 7 Coniophanes fissidens 1 1
9 Diphylla ecaudata 2 2 Günther, 1858
10 Glossophaga 1 1 8 Dryadophis melanolomus 1 1
soricina Cope, 1868
11 Mimon cozumelae 1 1 9 Drymobius margaritiferus 1 1
12 Myotis arbescens 3 3 Schlegel, 1837
13 Platyrrhinus 1 1 10 Eumeces sumicrasti Cope, 1 1
helleri 1866
14 Pteronotus helleri 1 1 11 Eumeces schwartzei 1
15 Pteronotus 2 2 12 Imantodes cenchoa 2 2 4
parnelli Linnaeus, 1758
16 Sturnira ludovici 2 2 13 Leptodeira 1 1
17 Tonatia saurophila 2 2 septentrionalis
18 Trachops cirrhosus 1 1 Günther, 1895
19 Uroderma 1 1 14 Leptophis aheatulla 1 1
bilobatum Linnaeus, 1758
20 Sturnira lilium 4 4 15 Ninia sebae Dume ril, 2 2
Total individuals 8 38 22 67 Bribon, and
captured Dume ril,1854
Richness 4 13 6 20 16 Norops biporcatus 3 3
Dume ril, Bribon, and
Dume ril, 1854
17 Norops capito Peters, 1 1
1863
18 Norops uniformis Cope, 7 4 11
Table 5. Small terrestrial mammals found in the Sierra Chinajá
1885
according to Ordoñez, N. and Perez, S.
19 Pliocercus elapoides 1 1
Site Cope, 1860
20 Rhadinaea decorata 1 1
Species Mucbilhá II Nueva Chinajá Günther, 1858
21 Sceloporus teapensis 4 4
1 Peromyscus mexicanus 2
Günther, 1890
2 Oryzomys sp. 1
22 Sibon sanniola Cope, 2 2
3 Sigmodon hispidus 1
1867
4 Heteromys desmarestianus 1
23 Sphenomorphus cherriei 3 3
5 Didelphis marsupiales 2
Cope, 1867
Total individuals captured 1 6 24 Xenodon rabdocephalus 2 2
Wied, 1824
Total individuals captured 21 35 56
Richness n = 9 sp. n = 17 sp. n = 24 sp.
Tzulul Qeqchi. This may reflect the unique species assem-
blages present at Tzulul Qeqchi, which is located at a sig- perturbation. These species are commonly associated with
nificantly higher elvevation. Tzulul Qeqchi and Nueva zones of forest regeneration or areas that have been mana-
Chinajá represent the highest and best-conserved forests of ged for agriculture (Fenton et al. 1992). Thus it is not
the Sierra; correspondingly, the bat species richness is con- surprising to find these species as well as D. rotundus,
siderably higher. In Mucbilha II, the presence of vampire often associated with ranching, occurring sympatrically.
bat species, including the common widespread species P. mexicanus found in the upper elevations, was absent
Sturnira lilium, underscores the degree of environmental in the lower elevation sampling site of Mucbilha II and is
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management 129

Table 7. Amphibians found in the Sierra Chinajá, according to Table 8. Dung beetles found in the Sierra Chinajá. According to
Vásquez, C. with help from Acevedo, M. E. Cano systematic entomology lab at Universidad del Valle.
Site Site
Mucbilha Nueva Mucbilha Nueva Tzulul
Especie II Chinajá Total Species II Esperanza Qeqchi Total
1 Agalychnis callidryas 1 1 1 Ateuchus sp. 8 8
2 Agalychnis morelleti 1 1 2 Bdeliropsis 50 4 54
3 Bufo valliceps 17 3 20 bowditchi
4 Eleutherodactylus alfredi 1 3 Canthon 1 1
5 Eleutherodactylus chac 3 3 montanus
6 Eleutherodactylus 2 2 4 Canthydium sp.* 3 3
laticeps 5 Copris laeviceps 9 31 30 70
7 Eleutherodactylus 4 4 6 Copris nubilosus 3 3
psephosypharus 7 Deltochilum 6 6
8 Eleutherodactylus 6 6 bowditchi
xucanebi 8 Deltochilum 1 1
9 Hyla microcephala 2 2 pseudoparile
10 Leptodactylus labiales 1 1 9 Dichotomius 3 3 6
11 Leptodactylus 2 2 agenor
melanonotus 10 Dichotomius 1 8 6 15
12 Rana berlandieri 1 1 satanas
13 Rana vaillanti 1 1 11 Eurysternus 8 8
14 Smilisca baudini 3 3 6 angustulus
Total abundante 25 26 51 12 Eurysternus 1 1
Richness n = 6 sp. n = 10 sp. n = 14 sp. caribaeus
13 Ontherus 2 2
mexicanus
also absent in the vicinities of Laguna Lachua National 14 Onthophagus 1 1
sp.*
Park, a low-elevation tropical wet forest in the same region 15 Onthophagus 2 2
(Perez, S. personal communication 2005). Thus, P. mexica- sp.1
nus may now be isolated in the upper elevations of the 16 Onthophagus 1 1
Sierra Chinajá. sp.2
At Tzulul Qeqchi (750 m), a community of seven 17 Onthophagus 1 1
sp.3
species of hummingbirds (Trochilidae) included: 18 Phanaeus 1 1
Amazilia candida, Amazilia tzacatl, Phaethornis super- endymium
ciliosus, Phaethornis longuemareus, Campylopteris cur- 19 Uroxys boneti 3 3
vipennis, Eupherusa eximia and Phaeocroa cuvierrii. 20 Uroxys micro 2 2
Based on the total number of species and the number Total abundance 78 53 58 189
of endemic species, Tzulul Qeqchi was identified as the Note: *Undescribed species (E. Cano, systematic entomology lab at
most important site, with the greatest number of montane Universidad del Valle).
species. This is most likely because this site occupies the
highest parts of the Sierra and has maintained a large
degree of forest integrity.
Many characteristic highland species are distributed at
the upper elevational sites (.600 m) of Tzulul Qeqchi and
Nueva Chinajá. These areas of lowland and highland eco-
Conclusions
system overlap are of primary conservation importance
An ecotone of elevated biodiversity because of their elevated species richness. The presence of
This rapid assessment of biodiversity underscores the 16 typically highland avian species suggests a highland
importance of the Sierra Chinajá as an ecotone between affinity of the avian community at higher sites. Not only is
the Verapaz highlands and the Peten lowlands, serving as this pattern evident in birds, but also in dung beetles, where
habitat for both lowland and highland species. Due to its Copris nubilosus was found, a species previously reported
isolated position on the northern edge of the southern only in Purulha, Alta Verapaz, a cloud forest habitat at
orographic uplift of Guatemala, the Sierra Chinajá may approximately 1,200 m. The presence of this species in
be one of the lowest elevation cloud forests in Sierra Chinajá is not only a new record, but also suggests
Mesoamerica where biogeographic speciation may be the ecological importance of this mountain chain. The same
occurring. This assertion is warranted not only by the pattern is true for Mastofauna, such as Dermanura tolteca,
data, but also by the so-called Massenerhebung effect Sturnira ludovici and Peromyscus mexicanus, which are
described by Grubb (1971), which causes the formation typical inhabitants of upland forests (Perez et al. 2005).
of montane forest conditions at lower elevations on nar- The records of the leaf frogs Agalychnis moreletii, A. calli-
row and isolated mountain ranges (Flenley 1995). dryas and Eleutherodactylus xucanebi are additional
130 C. Bonham et al.
evidence of the highland nature and greater species richness
of Sierra Chinajá as compared to adjacent lowland or high-
land ecosystems.
While the majority of the Sierra Chinajá is habitat for
predominantly lowland species, all the previously men-
tioned species are found only above 500 m and thus
restricted to habitat that corresponds to less than 25%
of the Sierra Chinajá; hence, populations of these species
exist in an isolated highland community surrounded by
lowland ecosystems. This suggests that they have per-
sisted since the genetic flow between the mountainous
areas of the Sierra Chama to the south was cut off. It
therefore further suggests that speciation has been occur-
ring within these populations for some time and that the
probability of the existence of new endemic species is
high. Nevertheless, some highland species may be able to
migrate through, or seasonally occupy, lowland habitat,
while some lowland species may be able to utilize high-
land habitat. The degree of habitat permeability or the
ability of a species to freely pass from one side of this
ecotone to the other warrants further study, and could
contribute discoveries to biogeographic theory.
The Sierra Chinajá illustrates an important ecological
principle about the permeability of ecological boundaries
and its effect on species distribution. The ecotone from
predominantly tropical lowlands to a mix of montane
environments is an enigma, and remains poorly under-
stood by ecologists (Whitmore 1998). In the Sierra
Chinajá, species assemblages change as one penetrates
the interior highlands of the mountain massif. The
change in elevation, and its corresponding effect upon
species composition from predominantly lowland to pre-
dominantly highland communities, creates sympatric
regions with habitat suitable for both lowland and high-
land species. As recognized by others (Wake 1987;
McCain 2004, 2005), instead of increased competition
leading to the exclusion of certain species, these data
suggest that increased biodiversity results.
Conservation importance
The Sierra Chinajá is the ecotone between the Lacandon
Jungles and Verapaz Highlands, two areas of high biodi-
versity and conservation priorities for multi-million dollar
biodiversity conservation finance programmes developed
by international conservation organisations. Nevertheless,
the Sierra Chinajá has not been the target of international
conservation investments, despite possibly possessing as
much or more ecological value as these two areas.
Although the Sierra Chinajá is located in a remote
zone with low population and has an average slope of
,30%, with shallow, rocky infertile soils, largely
unsuited for agriculture, it has recently come under sig-
nificant threat by land invasion, expansion of plantations
and small-scale agriculture, illegal hunting and logging,
unlicensed collection of ornamental plants, oil explora-
tion and limestone mining. The inequitable distribution
of agricultural lands in the more suitable adjacent
lowlands has caused widespread dispersed settlement
and resource extraction of this marginal area. For this
reason, forest coverage is a mosaic of stand types in
different successional stages, with only a few blocks of
the most remote and inaccessible forest remaining in
mature, well-developed cover.
The upper elevational range (.500 m) of the Sierra
Chinajá, where much of the unique biodiversity occurs,
occupies very little surface area (,25% of the total
range). Consequently, conservation of the highest
forested slopes of the Sierra Chinajá should be a top
priority for government agencies and conservation orga-
nisations. These forests provide habitat for many species
dependent upon mature forests, as illustrated above. They
also contain many valuable timber and nontimber forest
resources (Salafsky et al. 1993). The exploitation of
forest species has a long history in the lowlands of the
Peten (Schwartz 1990). Timber species such as Swietenia
macrophylla and Cedrela odorata have been selectively
logged from these areas since colonial times (Snook
1999). For this reason, and given the current global
market for high-value tropical timber, these species are
threatened throughout much of their range (Snook 1999).
The Sierra Chinajá also provides habitat to many well-
known non-timber forest product species such as chicle
(Manilkara sapota), allspice (Pimienta dioica), xate
(Chamaedorea spp.), ramon (Brosimium alicastrum), sar-
saparilla (Smilax sp.) and a variety of medicinal plants.
The abundance and value of non-timber forest products
in this region is a reason to assess development and
conservation plans that take advantage of the sustainable
management of these high-value species.
The basic understanding of the biodiversity profile of
this unique area provides a basis for government autho-
rities to give it the attention it currently lacks and to
grant it the management status that will assure its long-
term continuity.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following institutions and personnel
that helped to make this study possible: Manuel Vinicio Lopez,
Teodoro Maas from APROBA-SANK, Reginaldo Reyes and the
National Fund for Nature Conservation FONACON, Rosa
Maria Chang from PROPETEN, Mario Veliz at the BIGU
Herbarium, Students and faculty members from the vertebrate
zoology department and the School of Biology from the
Universidad de San Carlos who assisted in the fieldwork,
Manuel Acevedo for his collaboration in the collection of
herpetofauna, Daniel Tenes, who helped in bird surveys, Julio
Morales and Miguel Flores from CECON Herbarium and the
anonymous reviewers for providing invaluable and insightful
input, which vastly improved this manuscript.
References
Barrios R. 1995. 50 Áreas de Interes Especial para la Conservación
en Guatemala. CDC-CECON. The Nature Conservancy
(TNC). Guatemala. 32.
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management
Bonham C, Sacayon E, Tzi E. 2008. Protecting imperiled ‘‘paper
parks’’: potential lessons from the Sierra Chinajá, Guatemala.
Biodivers Conserv. 17(7):1581–1593.
Breedlove DE. 1981. Introduction to the Flora of Chiapas. In
Breedlove DE, editors. Flora of Chiapas. Part 1. San
Francisco: California Academy of Sciences. p. 35.
Campbell JA, Vannini JP. 1989. Distribution of amphibians and
reptiles in Guatemala and Belize. West Found Vertebr Zool. 4(1).
Comiskey J, Dallmeier E, and Mistry S. 1999. Protocolo de mues-
treo de vegetacion para la Selva Maya. Pp. 18–27 in: Carr III,
A. and A.C. de Stoll (eds.) Monitoreo Biologico en la Selva
Maya. U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program & Wildlife
Conservation Society. PDF document, U.S.-MAB Program,
Washington, 51 pp.
CONAP. 1989. Decreto 4–89. Ley de Áreas Protegidas, reformas a
la ley Decretos 18–89, 110–96 y 117–97, y reglamento.
Congreso de la República de Guatemala. Guatemala.
Favila ME, Halffter G. 1997. The use of indicator groups for
mesuring biodiversity as related to community structure and
function. Acta Zool Mex. 72:1–25.
Flenley JR. 1995. Cloud forest, the Massenerhebung effect, and
ultraviolet insolation. In: Hamilton LS, Juvik JO, Scatena FN,
editors. Tropical montane cloud forests. Ecolgical studies
(Vol. 110), New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 150–155.
Fenton M, Acharya L, Audet D, Hickey MBC, Merriman M,
Obrist M, Syme D, Adkins B. 1992. Phyllostomid Bats
(Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) as Indicators of Habitat
Disruption in the Neotropics. Biotropica. 24:440–446.
Gaston K, Blackburn B. 1995. Mapping biodiversity using surro-
gates for species richness: macros-scales and New World
birds. Proc R Soc Lond. 262:335–341.
Grubb PJ. 1971. Interpretation of the ‘Massenerhebung’ Effect on
Tropical Mountains. Nature. 229:44–45.
Hammer Ø, Harper D, Ryan D. 2001. PAST: Paleontological
statistics software package for education and data analysis.
Palaeontol Electronica. 4:9.
Howell S, Webb S. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and
Northern Central America. New York: Oxford University
Press. p. 851.
Jolon M. 2003. Biodiversidad en el Area del Las Cuevas de
Candelaria: Fauna. Informe Final de Consultoria. FIPA.
Guatemala. 25.
Jones D. 1993. Cycads of the World. Washington (DC):
Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 255.
Kerr J, Sugar A, Packer L. 2000. Indicator taxa, rapid biodiversity
assessment, and nestedness in an endangered ecosystem.
Conserv Biol. 14:1726–1734.
Kohlmann B. Cano E. Delgado L. 2003. New species and records
of Copris (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae; Scarabaeinae) from
Central America. Zootaxa. 167:1–16.
Matteucci S, Colma A. 1982. Metodologı́a para el estudio de la
vegetación. OEA. Serie biologı́a. Monografı́a. 22:168.
Martinez E, Ramos C, Chiang C. 1994. Lista Floristica del la
Lacandona, Chiapas, Mexico. Boletin de la sociedad
Botanica de Mexico. 54:99–175.
131
McCain C. 2004. The mid-domain effect applied to elevational
gradients: species richness of small mammals in Costa Rica.
J Biogeogr. 31:19–31.
McCain C. 2005. Elevational gradients in diversity of small mam-
mals. Ecology. 8:366–372.
Medellı́n RA, Arita HT, Sánchez O. 1997. Identificación de los
murcielagos de Me xico,clave de campo. Mexico, DF: Talleres
Offset Rebosán, S.A. p. 83.
Meerman, JC, Matola S. (eds.), 2003. The Columbia River Forest
Reserve: Little Quartz Ridge Expedition, A Biological
Assessment. Columbia University Printing Services. 93 pp.
Oliver I, Beattie A. 1993. A possible method for the rapid assess-
ment of biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 7:562–568.
Pearman P. 1997. Correlates of amphibian diversity in an altered
landscape of amazonian ecuador. Conserv Biol. 11:1211–1225.
Perez S, Castillo J, Echeverrria J, Masaya L, Jolon M. 2005. Las
colleciones de mamiferos y las areas silvestres protegidas de
Guatemala. Museo de Historia Natural. Universidad de San
Carlos de Guatemala.
Reid FA. 1997. A field guide to the mammals of Central America and
Southeast Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 334.
Salafsky N, Dugelby B, Terborgh J. 1993. Can extractive reserves
save the rain forest? an ecological and socioeconomic compar-
ison of nontimber forest product extraction systems in Peten,
Guatemala, and West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conserv Biol.
7:39–52.
Sayre R, Roca E, Sedaghatkish G, Young B, Keel S, Roca R,
Shepard S. 2000. Nature in focus: rapid ecological assessment.
the nature conservancy. Washington DC: Island Press.
Schwartz NB. 1990. Forest society: a social history of Peten,
Guatemala. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Snook, L. 1999. Aprovechamiento sostenido de caoba (Swietenia
macrophylla King) de las selvas de la penı́nsula de Yucatán,
Mexico: pasado, presente y futuro. In Primack, RB; Bray, D;
Galletti, HA; Ponciano, I. eds. La Selva Maya: conservación y
desarrollo. Mexico, DF., Siglo XXI. p. 89–119.
Stotz D, Fitzpatrick J, Parker T, Molkovits M. 1996. Neotropical
birds: ecology and conservation. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press. p. 480.
Uieda W. 1992. Periodo de Atividade Alimentar e Tipos de Presa
dos Morcegos Hematófagos No Sudeste do Brasil. Rev Brasil
Biol. 52(4):563–573.
United States Forest Service. 2002. Bird Monitoring Techniques.
Pacific Southwest Reesearch Station. General Technical
Report: PSW-GTR-144
Wake DB. 1987. Adaptive radiation of salamanders in Middle
American cloud forests. Annals of the Missouri Botanical
Garden. 74(2):242–264.
Whitmore T. 1998. An introduction to tropical rain forests. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. p. 282.
Young B, Lips K, Reaser J, Ibanez R, Salas A, Cedeno J, Coloma
L, Ron S, La Marca E, Meyer J, Munoz A, Bolanos F, Chaves
G, Romo D. 2001. Population declines and priorities for
amphibian conservation in Latin America. Conserv Biol.
15:1213–1223.