Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T19:31:12.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Identifying medium- and large-sized mammal species sensitive to anthropogenic impacts for monitoring in subtropical montane forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2024

Sofía Bardavid
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas CONICET/UNJu, San Salvador de Jujuy, Jujuy, Argentina
Luis Rivera
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas CONICET/UNJu, San Salvador de Jujuy, Jujuy, Argentina
Sebastián Martinuzzi
Affiliation:
SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA
Anna M Pidgeon
Affiliation:
SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA
Volker C Radeloff
Affiliation:
SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA
Natalia Politi*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas CONICET/UNJu, San Salvador de Jujuy, Jujuy, Argentina
*
Corresponding author: Natalia Politi; Email: natipoliti@fca.unju.edu.ar

Summary

Medium- and large-sized mammals play important roles in maintaining forest ecosystem functions, and these functions often diminish when mammal species are depleted by human activities. Understanding the sensitivity or tolerance of mammal species to human pressure and detecting species changes through monitoring programmes can inform appropriate management decisions. The objective of our study was to identify medium- and large-sized mammal species that can be included in a monitoring programme in the Southern Yungas of Argentina. We used occupancy modelling to estimate the probability of habitat use (ψ) of 13 of 25 mammal species detected by 165 camera traps placed in forests across a range of human footprint index (HFI) values. As defined by the HFI, 54% of the study area is wilderness. The probabilities of habitat use of two mammal species were significantly associated with the HFI: the lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris; ψ = 0.33, range = 0.22–0.50) was inversely associated with HFI values, whereas the grey brocket deer (Mazama gouazoubira; ψ = 0.79, range = 0.67–0.87) was positively associated with the HFI. Monitoring the probability of habitat use of the sensitive species (lowland tapir) could help us to detect changes in areas experiencing anthropogenic impacts before they cause extirpation, whereas the high probability of the habitat use values of the tolerant species (grey brocket deer) might indicate that anthropogenic impacts are strongly influencing habitat, signalling that mitigation strategies might be warranted. The Southern Yungas retains an intact mammal fauna, and we showed that the HFI is useful for monitoring anthropogenic impacts on these mammals. There are still opportunities to develop conservation strategies to minimize threats to mammal species in the region by implementing a monitoring programme with the proposed species.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bakker, ES, Gill, JL, Johnson, CN, Vera, FW, Sandom, CJ, Asner, GP, Svenning, JC (2016) Combining paleo-data and modern exclosure experiments to assess the impact of megafauna extinctions on woody vegetation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113: 847855.10.1073/pnas.1502545112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barboza, RRD, Lopes, SF, Souto, WM, Fernandes-Ferreira, H, Alves, RR (2016) The role of game mammals as bushmeat in the Caatinga, northeast Brazil. Ecology and Society 21: 2.10.5751/ES-08358-210202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnosky, AD, Matzke, N, Tomiya, S, Wogan, GO, Swartz, B, Quental, TB et al. (2011) Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471: 5157.10.1038/nature09678CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bianchi, R, Jenkins, JM, Lesmeister, DB, Gouvea, JA, Cesário, CS, Fornitano, L, Gompper, ME (2021) Tayra (Eira barbara) landscape use as a function of cover types, forest protection, and the presence of puma and free-ranging dogs. Biotropica 53: 15691581.10.1111/btp.13005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjornstad, ON (2016) Package ‘ncf’. Spatial nonparametric covariance functions. R v. 1.1-7 [www document]. URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ncf Google Scholar
Bogoni, JA, Peres, CA, Ferraz, KM (2020) Extent, intensity, and drivers of mammal defaunation: a continental-scale analysis across the Neotropics. Scientific Reports 10: 116.10.1038/s41598-020-72010-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bogoni, JA, Pires, JSR, Graipel, ME, Peroni, N, Peres, CA. (2018) Wish you were here: how defaunated is the Atlantic Forest biome of its medium- to large-bodied mammal fauna? PLoS ONE 13: e0204515.10.1371/journal.pone.0204515CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boron, V, Deere, NJ, Xofis, P, Link, A, Quiñones-Guerrero, A, Payan, E, Tzanopoulos, J (2019) Richness, diversity, and factors influencing occupancy of mammal communities across human-modified landscapes in Colombia. Biological Conservation 232: 108116.10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutin, S, Haughland, DL, Schieck, J, Herbers, J, Bayne, E (2009) A new approach to forest biodiversity monitoring in Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 168175.10.1016/j.foreco.2009.08.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, AC, Neilson, E, Moreira, D, Ladle, A, Steenweg, R, Fisher, JT et al. (2015) Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. Journal of Applied Ecology 52: 675685.10.1111/1365-2664.12432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceballos, G, Ehrlich, PR, Dirzo, R (2017) Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114: E6089E6096.Google ScholarPubMed
Clements, HS, Kerley, GIH, Cumming, GS, De Vos, A, Cook, CN (2019) Privately protected areas provide key opportunities for the regional persistence of large- and medium-sized mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 56: 537546.10.1111/1365-2664.13300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullen, L Jr, Bodmer, RE, Pádua, CV (2000) Effects of hunting in habitat fragments of the Atlantic forests, Brazil. Biological Conservation 95: 4956.10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00011-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, GAE, Gonzalez Baffa Trasci, NV, Perovic, PG, Malizia, LR (2022) Effect of free-ranging cattle on mammalian diversity: an Austral Yungas case study. Oryx 56: 877887.10.1017/S0030605321001538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Bitetti, MS, Albanesi, SA, Foguet, MJ, De Angelo, C, Brown, AD (2013) The effect of anthropic pressures and elevation on the large and medium-sized terrestrial mammals of the subtropical mountain forests (Yungas) of NW Argentina. Mammalian Biology 78: 2127.10.1016/j.mambio.2012.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Bitetti, MS, Paviolo, A, Ferrari, C A, De Angelo, C, Di Blanco, Y (2008) Differential responses to hunting in two sympatric species of brocket deer (Mazama americana and M. nana). Biotropica 40: 636645.10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00413.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einoder, L, Southwell, D, Lahoz-Monfort, J, Gillespie, G, Wintle, B (2018) Occupancy and detectability modelling of vertebrates in northern Australia using multiple sampling methods. PLoS ONE 13: e0203304.10.1371/journal.pone.0203304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erb, PL, McShea, WJ, Guralnick, RP (2012) Anthropogenic influences on macro level mammal occupancy in the Appalachian Trail corridor. PLoS ONE 7: e42574.10.1371/journal.pone.0042574CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estes, JA, Terborgh, J, Brashares, JS, Power, ME, Berger, J, Bond, WJ, Wardle, DA (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333: 301306.10.1126/science.1205106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fa, JE, Peres, CA, Meeuwig, J (2002) Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an intercontinental comparison. Conservation Biology 16: 232237.10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00275.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAO (2006) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress Towards Sustainable Forest Management. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations).Google Scholar
Ferreguetti, ÁC, Tomás, WM, Bergallo, HG (2015) Density, occupancy, and activity pattern of two sympatric deer (Mazama) in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Journal of Mammalogy 96: 12451254.10.1093/jmammal/gyv132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ficetola, GF, Romano, A, Salvidio, S, Sindaco, R (2018) Optimizing monitoring schemes to detect trends in abundance over broad scales. Animal Conservation 21: 221231.10.1111/acv.12356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, JT, Burton, AC (2018) Wildlife winners and losers in an oil sands landscape. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16: 323328.10.1002/fee.1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, I, Chandler, R (2011) unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. Journal of Statistical Software 43: 1–23.10.18637/jss.v043.i10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flesher, KM, Medici, EP (2022) The distribution and conservation status of Tapirus terrestris in the South American Atlantic Forest. Neotropical Biology and Conservation 17: 119.10.3897/neotropical.17.e71867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galetti, M, Giacomini, HC, Bueno, RS, Bernardo, CS, Marques, RM, Bovendorp, RS et al. (2009) Priority areas for the conservation of Atlantic Forest large mammals. Biological Conservation 142: 12291241.10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, TA, Barlow, J, Chazdon, R, Ewers, RM, Harvey, CA, Peres, CA, Sodhi, NS (2009) Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecology Letters 12: 561582 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01294.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Maya, JF, Martínez-Meyer, E, Medellín, R, Ceballos, G (2017) Distribution of mammal functional diversity in the Neotropical realm: influence of land-use and extinction risk. PLoS ONE 12: e0175931.10.1371/journal.pone.0175931CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grantham, HS, Duncan, A, Evans, TD, Jones, KR, Beyer, HL, Schuster, R et al. (2020). Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity. Nature Communications 11: 110.10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laurance, WF, Clements, GR, Sloan, S, O’Connell, CS, Mueller, ND, Goosem, M et al. (2014) A global strategy for road building. Nature 513: 229232.10.1038/nature13717CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laurance, WF, Croes, BM, Tchignoumba, L, Lahm, SA, Alonso, A, Lee, ME, Ondzeano, C (2006) Impacts of roads and hunting on central African rainforest mammals. Conservation Biology 20: 12511261.10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00420.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leu, M, Hanser, SE, Knick, ST (2008) The human footprint in the west: a large-scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts. Ecological Applications 18: 11191139.10.1890/07-0480.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, DI, Nichols, JD (2004) Occupancy as a surrogate for abundance estimation. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 461467.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, DI, Nichols, JD, Royle, A, Pollock, KH, Bailey, LL, Hines, J (2017). Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence. London, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Maffei, L, Cuellar, E, Noss, A (2002). Uso de trampas-cámara para la evaluación de mamíferos en el ecotono Chaco-Chiquitanía. Revista boliviana de ecología y conservación ambiental 11: 5565.Google Scholar
Martinuzzi, S, Olah, AM, Rivera, L, Politi, N, Silveira, EMO, Pastur, GM et al. (2023) Closing the research-implementation gap: integrating species and human footprint data into Argentina’s forest planning. Biological Conservation 286: 110257.10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinuzzi, S, Radeloff, VC, Pastur, GM, Rosas, YM, Lizarraga, L, Politi, N et al. (2021) Informing forest conservation planning with detailed human footprint data for Argentina. Global Ecology and Conservation 31: e01787.10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinuzzi, S, Rivera, L, Politi, N, Bateman, BL, Ruiz de los Llanos, E, Lizarraga, L et al. (2018) Enhancing biodiversity conservation in existing land-use plans with widely available datasets and spatial analysis techniques. Environmental Conservation 45: 252260.10.1017/S0376892917000455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalski, F, Peres, CA (2007) Disturbance-mediated mammal persistence and abundance-area relationships in Amazonian Forest fragments. Conservation Biology 21: 16261640.10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00797.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morin, DJ, Yackulic, CB, Diffendorfer, JE, Lesmeister, DB, Nielsen, CK, Reid, J, Schauber, EM (2020) Is your ad hoc model selection strategy affecting your multimodel inference? Ecosphere 11: e02997.10.1002/ecs2.2997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, T, Letnic, M (2017) Removal of an apex predator initiates a trophic cascade that extends from herbivores to vegetation and the soil nutrient pool. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284: 20170111.10.1098/rspb.2017.0111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, N, Mittermeier, RA, Mittermeier, CG, da Fonseca, GAB, Kent, J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853858.10.1038/35002501CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niedballa, J, Courtiol, A, Sollmann, R, Mathai, J, Wong, ST (2020) Package ‘camtrapR’ [www document]. URL https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/camtrapR/index.html Google Scholar
Peres, CA (2001) Synergistic effects of subsistence hunting and habitat fragmentation on Amazonian forest vertebrates. Conservation Biology 15: 14901505.10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.01089.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peres, CA, Lake, IR (2003) Extent of nontimber resource extraction in tropical forests: accessibility to game vertebrates by hunters in the Amazon basin. Conservation Biology 17: 521535.10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01413.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peres, CA, Palacios, E (2007) Basin-wide effects of game harvest on vertebrate population densities in Amazonian forests: implications for animal-mediated seed dispersal. Biotropica 39: 304315.10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00272.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez, E, Pacheco, LF (2006) Damage by large mammals to subsistence crops within a protected area in a montane forest of Bolivia. Crop Protection 25: 933939.10.1016/j.cropro.2005.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perino, A, Pereira, HM, Felipe-Lucia, M, Kim, H, Kühl, H, Marselle, MR et al. (2022) Biodiversity post-2020: closing the gap between global targets and national-level implementation. Conservation Letters 15: e12848.10.1111/conl.12848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perovic, PG, de Bustos, S, Rivera, L, Arguedas Mora, S, Lizárraga, L (2015) Plan estratégico para la conservación del yaguareté (Panthera onca) en las yungas argentinas. Salta, Argentina: Administración de Parques Nacionales, Secretaría de Ambiente de Salta, Secretaría de Gestión Ambiental de Jujuy y Escuela Latinoamericana de Áreas Protegidas.Google Scholar
Politi, N, Rivera, L (2019) Limitantes y avances para alcanzar el manejo forestal sustentable en las Yungas Australes. Ecología Austral 29: 138145.10.25260/EA.19.29.1.0.753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Computing Team (2023) R Language Definition, version 4.3 [www document]. URL www.rstudio.com Google Scholar
Rivera, LO, Martinuzzi, S, Politi, N, Bardavid, S, De Bustos, S, Chalukian, S, Pidgeon, A (2021) National parks influence habitat use of lowland tapirs in adjacent private lands in the Southern Yungas of Argentina. Oryx 55: 625634.10.1017/S0030605319000796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, TF, Kays, R, Parsons, A, Versiani, NF, Paolino, RM, Pasqualotto, N et al. (2017) Managed forest as habitat for gray brocket deer (Mazama gouazoubira) in agricultural landscapes of southeastern Brazil. Journal of Mammalogy 98: 13011309.Google Scholar
Rovero, F, Zimmermann, F, Berzi, D, Meek, P (2013) ‘Which camera trap type and how many do I need?’ A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research applications. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24: 148156.Google Scholar
Sanderson, EW, Fisher, K, Robinson, N, Sampson, D, Duncan, A, Royte, L (2022) The march of the human footprint [www document]. URL https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/3641/ 10.32942/OSF.IO/D7RH6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, EW, Jaiteh, M, Levy, MA, Redford, KH, Wannebo, AV, Woolmer, G (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52: 891904.10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAREM (2019) Categorización 2019 de los mamíferos de Argentina según su riesgo de extinción. Lista Roja de los mamíferos de Argentina. Eds Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable de la Nación y Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos (2019) [www document]. URL http://cma.sarem.org.ar Google Scholar
Shackelford, N, Standish, RJ, Ripple, W, Starzomski, BM (2018) Threats to biodiversity from cumulative human impacts in one of North America’s last wildlife frontiers. Conservation Biology 32: 672684.10.1111/cobi.13036CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sollmann, R (2018) A gentle introduction to camera-trap data analysis. African Journal of Ecology 56: 740749.10.1111/aje.12557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenweg, R, Whittington, J, Hebblewhite, M, Forshner, A, Johnston, B, Petersen, D et al. (2016) Camera-based occupancy monitoring at large scales: power to detect trends in grizzly bears across the Canadian Rockies. Biological Conservation 201: 192200.10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TEAM Network (2011) Terrestrial Vertebrate Protocol Implementation Manual, v. 3.1. Arlington, VA, USA: Tropical Ecology, Assessment and Monitoring Network, Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International.Google Scholar
Toews, M, Juanes, F, Burton, AC (2018) Mammal responses to the human footprint vary across species and stressors. Journal of Environmental Management 217: 690699.10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venier, LA, Thompson, ID, Fleming, R, Malcolm, J, Aubin, I, Trofymow, JA et al. (2014) Effects of natural resource development on the terrestrial biodiversity of Canadian boreal forests. Environmental Review 22: 457490.10.1139/er-2013-0075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venter, O, Sanderson, EW, Magrach, A, Allan, JR, Beher, J, Jones, KR et al. (2016) Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature Communications 7: 12558.10.1038/ncomms12558CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vynne, C, Gosling, J, Maney, C, Dinerstein, E, Lee, AT, Burgess, ND, Svenning, JC (2022) An ecoregion-based approach to restoring the world’s intact large mammal assemblages. Ecography 2022: e06098.10.1111/ecog.06098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, JE, Evans, T, Venter, O, Williams, B, Tulloch, A, Stewart, C, Lindenmayer, D (2018) The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2: 599610.10.1038/s41559-018-0490-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WCS, CIESIN (2005) Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP-2): Global Human Footprint Dataset (Geographic). Palisades, NY, USA: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC).Google Scholar
Woinarski, JCZ, Garnett, ST, Legge, SM, Lindenmayer, DB (2017) The contribution of policy, law, management, research, and advocacy failings to the recent extinctions of three Australian vertebrate species. Conservation Biology 31: 1323.10.1111/cobi.12852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolmer, G, Trombulak, SC, Ray, JC, Doran, PJ, Anderson, MG, Baldwin, RF et al. (2008) Rescaling the human footprint: a tool for conservation planning at an ecoregional scale. Landscape and Urban Planning 87: 4253.10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipkin, EF, Andrew Royle, J, Dawson, DK, Bates, S (2010) Multi-species occurrence models to evaluate the effects of conservation and management actions. Biological Conservation 143: 479484.10.1016/j.biocon.2009.11.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bardavid et al. supplementary material

Bardavid et al. supplementary material
Download Bardavid et al. supplementary material(File)
File 277.6 KB