“…Even though we found the same result, we observed that the species we documented in this category encompass forest species very common in disturbed sites (e.g., Patagioenas picazuro, Tangara cayana, Brotogeris chiriri, Tolmomyias sulphurescens, Icterus pyrrhopterus), even urban zones (e.g., Franz et al, 2010;Cruz and Piratelli, 2011;Alexandrino et al, 2013), but also include some species naturally considered more vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation, such as endemic (e.g., Automolus leucophthalmus, Conopophaga lineata, Drymophila ferruginea, Mackenziaena severa) and near-threatened and threatened species (e.g., the near threatened species Amazona aestiva, Antilophia galeata, Campephilus robustus, Leptodon cayanensis and Penelope superciliaris, the vulnerable species Cyanoloxia brissonii, and the endangered species Lanio penicillatus). These last are mainly reported in large and preserved patches (e.g., Anjos, 2006;Develey and Martensen, 2006;Cavarzere et al, 2009;Antunes et al, 2013). Thus, we noticed that the existing relationship between the richness of Parker's medium-sensitivity level and our measurement of forest environmental conditions (i.e., the rank of ecosystem service provisioning from Ferraz et al, 2014) has occurred in our study area only by the presence of these listed species.…”