Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE UBERLÂNDIA
PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ECOLOGIA E
CONSERVAÇÃO DE RECURSOS NATURAIS
OCUPAÇÃO DE PREDADORES TOPO DE CADEIA E DE
SUAS PRESAS EM UMA PAISAGEM HETEROGÊNEA
NO CERRADO
LUCAS ISSA
2017
Uberlândia, MG
OCUPAÇÃO DE PREDADORES TOPO DE CADEIA E DE
SUAS PRESAS EM UMA PAISAGEM HETEROGÊNEA
NO CERRADO
Dissertação apresentada à Universidade
Federal de Uberlândia, como parte das
exigências para obtenção do título de Mestre
em Ecologia e Conservação de Recursos
Naturais.
Orientadora: Prof.ª Dra. Natália Mundim
Tôrres
Uberlândia
Fevereiro de 2017
Lucas Issa
Dedicado ao meu primo, Danilo (in memoriam). Espero que você ainda esteja vendo a
vida através dos meus olhos. Dedico também a todos os animais do IOP!
AGRADECIMENTOS
Dissertações e teses, apesar de levarem o nome de apenas uma pessoa na capa,
são na verdade o fruto de um imenso trabalho em equipe. Trabalho que envolve conhecer
não apenas um objeto de estudo, mas conhecer um ao outro e aprender a ser forte junto,
e não sozinho.
Não poderia começar essa seção sem agradecer aos meus amigos de campo, com
quem tanto aprendi e cresci como biólogo e como pessoa. Ananda, Gi, Thomas (Curau)
e Maysa, vocês são parte deste fundamental desse trabalho, e eu não teria chegado aqui
sem vocês. Vocês são as melhores companhias que eu poderia ter no meio do mato. Muito
obrigado!
Agradeço imensamente a todo o apoio oferecido pelo Instituto Onça-Pintada e
pelas pessoas do Leandro e da Anah. Obrigado por compartilharem tanto do
conhecimento e da experiência de vocês! Obrigado também ao Tiago, que me
proporcionou tantas risadas!
Agradeço à Natália, por ter aceitado me orientar nessa difícil jornada e por suas
considerações ao meu trabalho.
Agradeço aos membros da banca, Prof. Paulo De Marco, Prof.ª Kátia Facure e
Prof.ª Natália Leiner, por terem aceitado participar da minha banca e pelas contribuições
que farão ao meu trabalho.
Agradeço à Poliana, por tudo o que me ensinou e pela paciência enorme com as
minhas dúvidas e desesperos.
Ao Paulinho e ao André, do MetaLand, por suas boas ideias ao meu trabalho e por
estarem sempre dispostos a ajudar, obrigado!
Meu reconhecimento também ao Programa de Pós-Graduação da Universidade
Federal (em especial aos professores, por todo o aprendizado), e à CAPES pelo apoio
financeiro.
Agradeço ao Rafa (Ceará), por suas incríveis contribuições e revisões no meu
texto. Muito obrigado por sua ajuda enorme!
Ao pessoal da pós: Meu muito obrigado à Claire, por seu carinho e ajuda sinceros;
ao Pitilin, pela boa convivência e amizade nesses dois anos no ap 102 (ainda sem nome
oficial), valeu, cara!; à Karen Neves (que dispensa comentários); às migas Bia (apoio
logístico toda hora) e Liégy (suas loucas!!); aos melhores vizinhos, Lino e Adilson; à
Teté, sempre querida; ao Carioca, Vitão, Ingrid, Gudryan, Drielly, Vinícius, Kaká, Luana,
Regiane, Marcela, Helen, Jonas, Uiara, Dimas, Tito, e tooodos os outros por todos os
bons momentos.
Aos meus companheiros de laboratório: Mardiany, Marcela, Lucas xará, Letícia e
Aline, que tanto ajudaram nas tarefas esgotantes. Aproveito e agradeço também a todos
os estagiários e estudantes que passaram pelo IOP: Shannon, Saul, Danilo, Ennio, André,
Ana Rita... são tantos! Desejo um futuro brilhante a todos vocês.
Agradeço com muito amor aos meus pais, Mírian e Marco Antônio, por todo o
amor de vocês, por apostarem e acreditarem em mim e por me apoiarem tanto, sempre.
Cada sonho realizado é por vocês! E aos meus irmãos, Maria Clara e Matheus, meus
companheiros de vida de quem eu sinto tanto orgulho!
Aos amigos/irmãos de longa data: Cyrce, Max, Fernando, Paulista, Marco Túlio,
e também todo o pessoal da antiga Rep. Integração (e agregados). Vocês são parte de
mim.
Ao Leonel, por expandir meus horizontes. Tenho certeza de que você estará
sempre aí!
E por último – e sim, mais importante, talvez – ao Bené, que foi quem me mostrou
o mundo lá fora tantas vezes que já nem sei mais... Foi ruim? Foi ótimo!!!!!
ÍNDICE
Resumo..........................................................................................................................ii
Abstract.........................................................................................................................iii
Introdução Geral............................................................................................................1
Referências Bibliográficas..........................................................................................4
Manuscript Folder .........................................................................................................5
Introduction..................................................................................................................10
Methods........................................................................................................................13
Study Area and Land Use Classification...................................................................13
Camera Trapping......................................................................................................15
Species Selection.......................................................................................................16
Occupancy Modeling................................................................................................17
Results..........................................................................................................................18
Discussion....................................................................................................................19
Conclusions..................................................................................................................24
References....................................................................................................................25
Supplementary Material...............................................................................................41
Tables.........................................................................................................................41
Figures.......................................................................................................................46
ii
RESUMO
Issa, L. 2017. Ocupação de predadores topo de cadeia e de suas presas em uma paisagem
heterogênea no Cerrado. Dissertação de Mestrado em Ecologia e Conservação de
Recursos Naturais. UFU. Uberlândia-MG. 55p.
As espécies respondem de diferentes formas às variações no ambiente. Algumas são
generalistas e podem ocorrer em diferentes tipos de vegetação, enquanto especialistas
possuem distribuição limitada. O Cerrado brasileiro apresenta uma alta diversidade de
ambientes que permitem a ampla distribuição espacial da fauna de médio e grande porte.
A conversão da vegetação natural em agropecuária, no entanto, reduziu
consideravelmente a disponibilidade de ambientes naturais para as espécies nativas.
Algumas espécies generalistas são capazes de utilizar os recursos oferecidos por
paisagens agrícolas e persistir nesses locais. Conflitos entre fauna silvestre e
agroprodutores são comuns devido aos prejuízos econômicos ocasionados pela presença
de grandes herbívoros em lavouras. Predadores topo de cadeia são elementos
fundamentais na manutenção da biodiversidade nessas paisagens, pois controlam as
populações de herbívoros e mantém a estrutura dos ecossistemas. Contudo, grandes
carnívoros estão mais vulneráveis à extinção. Consequentemente, compreender como
esses animais se distribuem em paisagens agrícolas é fundamental para o estabelecimento
de estratégias para a conservação da biodiversidade. Os objetivos deste trabalho foram
entender como os diferentes tipos de vegetação nativa e a agricultura influenciam na
presença local de predadores topo de cadeia (onça-pintada e onça-parda) e de suas presas
(tamanduá-bandeira, cateto, queixada, veado-campeiro, anta e ema) em uma paisagem
heterogênea no Cerrado. O estudo foi feito no Parque Nacional das Emas, uma das
principais áreas protegidas do bioma, e na região do seu entorno. Foram utilizados dados
de presença e ausência das espécies obtidos a partir de armadilhamento fotográfico
realizado na região entre julho e dezembro de 2013. Os efeitos dos diferentes tipos de
vegetação sobre esses dados foram testados utilizando modelos de ocupação, levando em
consideração as diferenças de detectabilidade entre os locais amostrados. Não foram
observados efeitos dos diferentes tipos de vegetação sobre a presença dos predadores.
Veados-campeiros e emas estiveram restritos a áreas de campo nativo e de agricultura.
Antas e queixadas apresentaram distribuição generalista, enquanto catetos estão
associados a áreas de agricultura anual, possivelmente como resultado de exclusão
competitiva por queixadas. A diversidade de ambientes na região do Parque Nacional das
Emas aumenta a diversidade de microhabitats disponíveis, e permite que várias espécies
se estabeleçam na paisagem. Especialistas de áreas campestres estão limitados a área do
Parque, e a conectividade com as lavouras do entorno é importante para evitar o
isolamento de suas populações. Generalistas se beneficiam da heterogeneidade ambiental
e são mortos em retaliação aos danos causados às lavouras. A fraca relação de onças-
pintadas e pardas com os tipos de vegetação podem ser explicados pela ampla
disponibilidade de presas na paisagem heterogênea. Assim, a diversidade de ambientes
pode ser benéfica para a persistência de predadores topo de cadeia em áreas não-
protegidas. Por fim, tamanduás-bandeira também apresentaram fraca associação aos tipos
de vegetação, e sua ocorrência na região pode estar sendo restrita por outros fatores, como
a incidência de queimadas no Parque, os atropelamentos em rodovias do entorno, e a
presença de predadores.
Palavras-chave: espécies generalistas; predadores topo de cadeia; paisagens agrícolas;
heterogeneidade ambiental; modelo de ocupação
iii
ABSTRACT
Issa, L. 2017. Apex predators and prey occupancy in a heterogeneous landscape in
Cerrado. MSc Thesis. UFU. Uberlândia-MG. 55p.
Species can respond to environment variation in several ways. Generalist species can
occur in different vegetation types, while specialists present limited distribution patterns.
The Cerrado Biome presents a wide set of environments, allowing for broad distribution
of its medium and large-sized fauna. However, the conversion of natural vegetation into
cropland and pastures has considerably reduced natural environments availability for
native species. Some generalist species are capable of utilizing cropland resources and
persist in such places. Conflicts between wildlife and farmers rise in these landscapes due
to the economical injure caused by large herbivores. Apex predators are keystone species
in keeping biodiversity in non-protected areas, as they control herbivores’ populations
and maintain ecosystems structure. Despite of this, large carnivore species are more
vulnerable to extinction. Consequently, to comprehend how these animals are distributed
in agricultural landscapes is fundamental to the establishment of effective conservation
strategies. In this study we aimed to observe how different native vegetation types and
crops affect the local presence of apex predators (jaguar and cougar) and their prey (giant
anteater, collared peccary, white-lipped peccary, pampas deer, tapir and rhea) in a
heterogeneous landscape in Cerrado. The study took place in Emas National Park, one of
Cerrado’s largest and most important protected areas, and its surrounding region. We used
presence/absence data obtained from a camera trap sampling that occurred from July to
December 2013. The effect of the different vegetation types on this dataset through
occupancy modeling, a method that takes detectability differences between sampling sites
into account. We did not detect a relation between predator species’ presence and
vegetation types. Pampas deer and rhea were restricted to open fields and cropland areas.
Tapirs and white-lipped peccaries presented generalist distribution, while collared-
peccaries were associated to annual croplands, possibly as a result of competition
displacement by white-lipped peccaries. The different environments in Emas National
Park region enhances microhabitats availability and allows a rich community to be
established within the landscape. Grassland specialists are restricted to the Park area, and
the permeable croplands in the surrounding region are important to avoid their population
isolation. Generalists benefit from environmental heterogeneity and are killed in
retaliation for the cropland damage. The weak relation between jaguars and cougars to
the vegetation types may be therefore explained by the landscape-wide prey availability.
Thus, environmental diversity may be beneficial for apex predators’ persistence in non-
protected areas. Lastly, giant anteaters also presented weak relationship to the vegetation
types, and their occurrence in the region may be constrained by other factors, such as the
constant wildfires in Emas National Park, the intense road traffic in the surrounding
region, and the predators presence.
Keywords: generalist species; apex predators; agricultural landscapes; environmental
heterogeneity; occupancy modeling
1
INTRODUÇÃO GERAL
Dois diferentes conceitos básicos podem ser compreendidos a partir da teoria de
nicho ecológico. O primeiro, chamado nicho fundamental, se refere às condições
ambientais que permitem que uma espécie sobreviva em um determinado local, enquanto
o outro, o nicho realizado, prediz o espectro de condições nas quais essa espécie pode de
fato estar presente considerando todas as restrições à sua ocorrência, incluindo a
disponibilidade de recursos e suas interações ecológicas (Hutchinson, 1957). Baseado
nesses conceitos, as espécies podem ser compreendidas a partir do quanto toleram as
alterações na disponibilidade de recursos e nas condições ambientais ao longo do espaço
(Levins, 1968; Colwell e Futuyma, 1971). Assim, as espécies podem responder
diferentemente à heterogeneidade nas paisagens, onde generalistas se beneficiam de
ambientes altamente diversos, enquanto especialistas concentram sua distribuição em
ambientes homogêneos (Futuyma e Moreno, 1988; Kassen, 2002).
Alguns Biomas apresentam alta diversidade ambiental em sua extensão e são bons
sistemas para compreender a distribuição espacial de especialistas e generalistas. O
Cerrado, um Bioma savânico neotropical, é constituído por uma variedade de tipos de
vegetação (i.e., fitofisionomias), incluindo campos de gramíneas, savanas arbustivas e
matas densas (Oliveira-Filho e Ratter, 2002; Ribeiro e Walter, 2008). Esses diferentes
ambientes permitem que uma ampla gama de recursos esteja disponível na paisagem,
resultando em complexos mosaicos capazes de abrigar maior biodiversidade (Johnson et
al., 1999; Oliveira-Filho e Ratter, 2002). Como previsto em ecossistemas heterogêneos,
a fauna de médio e grande porte do Cerrado é composta em sua maioria por espécies
generalistas, capazes de ocupar as diferentes fitofisionomias do Bioma, embora
2
especialistas também ocorram em ambientes específicos (da Fonseca and Robinson,
1999; Marinho-Filho et al., 2002).
O Cerrado, contudo, é um dos Biomas mais ameaçados do Brasil devido à sua
importância agropecuária, e estima-se que 38,9% de sua área natural já tenha sido perdida
para atividades antrópicas (Cavalcanti e Joly, 2002; Klink e Moreira, 2002; Sano et al.,
2010). Como resultado dessa intensa fragmentação, manchas de vegetação nativa se
isolam e a disponibilidade de recursos nas paisagens é alterada, modificando assim os
padrões de distribuição das espécies (Franklink e Lindenmayer, 2009; Barreto et al.,
2012). Espera-se que espécies generalistas se beneficiem desses processos devido às suas
capacidades de utilizar os recursos oferecidos pela matriz (Reyna-Hurtado e Tanner,
2007; Lyra-Jorge et al., 2010). No entanto, alterações na distribuição dos recursos e das
espécies nas paisagens podem ser prejudiciais aos ecossistemas, e consequências
associadas a esses processos incluem a extinção local de espécies e a perda de serviços e
processos ecológicos (McKinney e Lockwood, 1999; Valiente-Banuet et al., 2014; Galetti
et al., 2015). Conflitos entre fauna selvagem e produtores rurais também podem surgir
neste contexto, onde herbívoros e carnívoros são mortos em retaliação aos danos causados
às lavouras e rebanhos (Jácomo, 2004; Silveira et al., 2008; Marchini e Crawshaw, 2015).
Compreender como as espécies animais respondem aos processos e dinâmicas dos
agrossistemas é fundamental para evitar esse cenário de perda de espécies e de conflito
entre conservação e produção agropecuária. Adicionalmente, é necessário entender o
papel de predadores topo de cadeia nesses sistemas devido à importância do grupo no
controle das populações de presas e, consequentemente, na estrutura das paisagens
(Ripple et al., 2001; Terborgh et al., 2001; Estes et al., 2011). Predadores topo de cadeia
são também mais vulneráveis à extinção por atividades humanas (Morato et al., 2013;
Ripple et al., 2014). Desta forma, é necessário considerar a importância de agrossistemas
3
em propriedades privadas para a persistência desses animais em áreas não-protegidas.
Matrizes agrícolas permeáveis à fauna permitem a conectividade entre áreas protegidas e
amortecem as mesmas de efeitos de borda, mantendo alta biodiversidade local e regional
(Ricketts, 2001; Hansen and DeFries, 2007; Perfecto and Vandemeer, 2010; Boron et al.,
2016). Logo, a implementação de matrizes capazes de oferecer recursos e refúgio à vida
silvestre e que permitam o fluxo de espécies entre manchas de vegetação nativa é uma
ação de manejo fundamental para a conservação da biodiversidade (Perfecto and
Vandemeer, 2010).
Modelos de ocupação são ferramentas úteis para compreender como a presença de
predadores e presas se relaciona a diferentes variáveis ambientais, incluindo aos
diferentes tipos de vegetação e matrizes (MacKenzie et al., 2002). Estes modelos
pressupõem que existem diferenças nas probabilidades de detecção das espécies entre os
locais amostrados, e fornecem, então, estimativas mais precisas dos valores de ocupação
das espécies (MacKenzie et al., 2002). Adicionalmente, tais modelos utilizam valores de
detecção/ não-detecção das espécies e não necessitam da individualização dos animais
registrados, garantindo menores custos e maior flexibilidade dos métodos usados na
obtenção dos dados (MacKenzie et al., 2002; MackKenzie e Nichols, 2004; O’Connell e
Bailey, 2011). Portanto, modelos de ocupação são frequentemente a única opção viável
para estudos de distribuição de espécies raras, como onças-pintadas.
No presente estudo, foram utilizados modelos de ocupação com o objetivo de
entender como os diferentes tipos de vegetação nativa e agricultura em uma área protegida
no Cerrado e na região do seu entorno afetam a presença local de predadores topo de
cadeia e de suas presas.
4
REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
Barreto, L., Van Eupen, M., Kok, K., Jongman, R.H., Ribeiro, M.C., Veldkamp, A., ... &
Oliveira, T.G. (2012). The impact of soybean expansion on mammal and bird, in the
Balsas region, north Brasilian Cerrado. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20(6), 374-
383.
Boron, V., Tzanopoulos, J., Gallo, J., Barragan, J., Jaimes-Rodriguez, L., Schaller, G., &
Payán, E. (2016). Jaguar densities across human-dominated landscapes in Colombia:
the contribution of unprotected areas to long term conservation. PloS one, 11(5),
e0153973.
Cavalcanti, R. B., & Joly, C. A. (2002). Biodiversity and conservation priorities in the
Cerrado region. The Cerrados of Brazil. Ecology and Natural History of a
Neotropical Savanna, 351-367.
Colwell, R. K., & Futuyma, D. J. (1971). On the measurement of niche breadth and
overlap. Ecology, 52(4), 567-576.
da Fonseca, G. A., & Robinson, J. G. (1990). Forest size and structure: competitive and
predatory effects on small mammal communities. Biological conservation, 53(4),
265-294.
Estes, J. A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J. S., Power, M. E., Berger, J., Bond, W. J., ... &
Marquis, R. J. (2011). Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. science, 333(6040),
301-306.
Franklin, J. F., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2009). Importance of matrix habitats in
maintaining biological diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 106(2), 349-350.
5
Futuyma, D. J., & Moreno, G. (1988). The evolution of ecological specialization. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19(1), 207-233.
Galetti, M., Guevara, R., Neves, C. L., Rodarte, R. R., Bovendorp, R. S., Moreira, M., ...
& Yeakel, J. D. (2015). Defaunation affects the populations and diets of rodents in
Neotropical rainforests. Biological Conservation, 190, 2-7.
Hansen, A. J., & DeFries, R. (2007). Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to
surrounding lands. Ecological Applications, 17(4), 974-988.
Hutchinson, G. E. 1957 b. Concluding remarks- Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on
Quantitative Biology. 22:415-427. Reprinted in: Classics in Theoretical Biology.
Bull. of Math. Biol. 53:193-213.
Jácomo, A.T.A. (2004). Ecologia, manejo e conservação do queixada Tayassu pecari no
Parque Nacional das Emas e em propriedades rurais de seu entorno. (Doctoral
dissertation, Universidade de Brasília). 120p.
Johnson, M. A., Saraiva, P. M., & Coelho, D. (1999). The role of gallery forests in the
distribution of Cerrado mammals. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 59(3), 421-427.
Kassen, R. (2002). The experimental evolution of specialists, generalists, and the
maintenance of diversity. Journal of evolutionary biology, 15(2), 173-190.
Klink, C. A., & Moreira, A. G. (2002). Past and current human occupation, and land
use. The cerrados of Brazil: ecology and natural history of a neotropical savanna,
69-88.
Levins, R. (1968). Evolution in changing environments: some theoretical
explorations (No. 2). Princeton University Press.
Lyra-Jorge, M. C., Ribeiro, M. C., Ciocheti, G., Tambosi, L. R., & Pivello, V. R. (2010).
Influence of multi-scale landscape structure on the occurrence of carnivorous
6
mammals in a human-modified savanna, Brazil. European Journal of Wildlife
Research, 56(3), 359-368.
MacKenzie, D. I., & Nichols, J. D. (2004). Occupancy as a surrogate for abundance
estimation. Animal biodiversity and conservation, 27(1), 461-467.
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Andrew Royle, J., &
Langtimm, C. A. (2002). Estimating site occupancy rates when detection
probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 83(8), 2248-2255.
Marchini, S., & Crawshaw Jr, P. G. (2015). Human–Wildlife Conflicts in Brazil: A Fast-
Growing Issue. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20(4), 323-328.
Marinho-Filho, J., Rodrigues, F. H., & Juarez, K. M. (2002). The Cerrado mammals:
diversity, ecology, and natural history. The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and natural
history of a neotropical savanna, 266-284.
McKinney, M. L., & Lockwood, J. L. (1999). Biotic homogenization: a few winners
replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends in ecology &
evolution, 14(11), 450-453.
Morato, R. G., de Mello Beisiegel, B., Ramalho, E. E., de Campos, C. B., & Boulhosa,
R. L. P. (2013). Avaliacao do risco de extincao da Onca-pintada Panthera onca
(Linnaeus, 1758) no Brasil. Biodiversidade Brasileira, (1), 122-132.
O’Connell, A. F., & Bailey, L. L. (2011). Inference for occupancy and occupancy
dynamics. In Camera traps in animal ecology (pp. 191-204). Springer Japan.
Oliveira-Filho, A. T., & Ratter, J. A. (2002). Vegetation physiognomies and woody flora
of the cerrado biome. The cerrados of Brazil: ecology and natural history of a
neotropical savanna, 91-120.
7
Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2010). The agroecological matrix as alternative to the
land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 107(13), 5786-5791.
Reyna-Hurtado, R., & Tanner, G. W. (2007). Ungulate relative abundance in hunted and
non-hunted sites in Calakmul Forest (Southern Mexico). Biodiversity and
Conservation, 16(3), 743-756.
Ribeiro, J. F., & Walter, B. M. T. (2008). As principais fitofisionomias do bioma
Cerrado. Cerrado Ecologia e Fauna. Brasília: Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, 1,
153-221.
Ricketts, T. H. (2001). The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented
landscapes. The American Naturalist, 158(1), 87-99.
Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., Hebblewhite,
M., ... & Schmitz, O. J. (2014). Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest
carnivores. Science, 343(6167), 1241484.
Ripple, W. J., Larsen, E. J., Renkin, R. A., & Smith, D. W. (2001). Trophic cascades
among wolves, elk and aspen on Yellowstone National Park’s northern
range. Biological conservation, 102(3), 227-234.
Sano, E. E., Rosa, R., Brito, J. L., & Ferreira, L. G. (2010). Land cover mapping of the
tropical savanna region in Brazil. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 166(1),
113-124.
Silveira, L., Boulhosa, R., Astete, S., & Jácomo, A. A. (2008). Management of domestic
livestock predation by jaguars in Brazil. Cat News, 4, 26-30.
Terborgh, J., Lopez, L., Nunez, P., Rao, M., Shahabuddin, G., Orihuela, G., ... & Balbas,
L. (2001). Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest
fragments. Science, 294(5548), 1923-1926.
8
Valiente‐Banuet, A., Aizen, M. A., Alcántara, J. M., Arroyo, J., Cocucci, A., Galetti, M.,
... & Medel, R. (2015). Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions
in a changing world. Functional Ecology, 29(3), 299-307.
9
APEX PREDATOR AND PREY OCCUPANCY IN A
HETEROGENEOUS LANDSCAPE IN CERRADO
Authors: Lucas Issa, Giselle Bastos Alves, Ananda Barban, Thomas Giozza,
Poliana Mendes, Rafael Rios Moura, Natália Mundim Tôrres, Anah Tereza
de Almeida Jácomo and Leandro Silveira
Texto formatado segundo as normas da revista Landscape Ecology.
10
INTRODUCTION
Ecological niche theory is a central topic in ecology. Hutchinson (1957) has
stablished the concept of fundamental niche as the range of environmental conditions that
allows a species to survive in a given area, while the realized niche is the range of
environmental conditions in which it actually survives considering all the constraints to
its occurrence. This theory is the basis for understanding how species respond to the
ecological variations along their range, including the differences in how much they
tolerate environmental and resource availability alterations over space (Levins, 1968;
Colwell and Futuyma, 1971). Based on their ‘niche breadth’ species are therefore
classified as specialists if they depend on specific conditions or resources, and as
generalists if they tolerate wide environmental variation (Colwell and Futuyma, 1971;
Futuyma and Moreno, 1988).
Niche breadth may provide predictions about the consequences of habitat
heterogeneity on species distribution (Gehring and Swihart, 2003; Slatyer et al., 2013).
Specialists are expected to benefit from homogenous environments, whereas generalists
should benefit from high environmental heterogeneity (Futuyma and Moreno, 1988;
Kassen, 2002). Thus, the distribution of generalists and specialists in a landscape may
depend on how diverse it is. A landscape, in fact, is defined as a heterogeneous mosaic
with a wide range of different habitats, and each of them has a unique structure with a
different set of accessible resources (Metzger, 2001). Some Biomes may actually present
a wide range of environmental variation and microhabitats along their landscapes, such
as the Brazilian Savanna (hereafter the Cerrado) (Oliveira-Filho and Ratter, 2002; Ribeiro
and Walter, 2008). The Cerrado is constituted by a great diversity of vegetation types,
which greatly contrast in their structure, conditions and resource availability. These
11
habitats can vary from forestry, to savanic and grassland structure (e.g. grassland fields,
scrublands, gallery forests and palm tree savanna wetlands) and also differ in several other
aspects, like elevation, terrain roughness and watercourse dependency and proximity
(Ribeiro and Walter, 2008). Therefore, Cerrado’s complex landscapes with great niche
availability house high species diversity (Johnson et al., 1999; Oliveira-Filho and Ratter,
2002). This mosaic provides a good framework to evaluate the effects of highly diverse
landscapes on the distribution of specialist and generalist species.
The medium and large-sized fauna of Cerrado (i.e. over one kilogram, according to
Chiarello, 2000) is composed of a rich species community with distinct resource use
strategies. Most of these species are habitat generalists, but specialists are also present to
a lesser degree, especially in forests (da Fonseca and Robinson, 1999; Marinho-Filho et
al., 2002; Comparatore and Yagueddú, 2016). As an example, Alves et al. (2014)
investigated the mammalian fauna within a Cerrado fragment and found that most species
presented generalist habitat use, occupying both forests and savannas, while a minority
of species were limited to either habitat type. Therefore, the medium and large-sized fauna
can be distributed in Cerrado landscapes according to the different habitats availability
and settings.
Nonetheless, Cerrado landscapes have been highly fragmented since Brazilian
government started investing in agricultural production in the late 1960s (Cavalcanti and
Joly, 2002; Klink and Moreira, 2002). The farming sector plays a pivotal role in the
country’s economy and, consequently, 38.9% of the Biome’s range has already been lost
to human activities (Sano et al., 2010). The land conversion is responsible for altering
spatial resource availability through the reduction of natural vegetation and increase of
patches isolation, change in the physical and chemical properties of the soil and the
presence of exotic species (Franklin and Lindenmayer, 2009; Bennett and Saunders,
12
2010; Lira et al., 2012). Such habitat alteration may differently affect species distribution
and have negative effects on specialist species (Thuiller et al., 2005; Devictor et al., 2008;
Barreto et al., 2012; Slatyer et al., 2013). Otherwise, some generalist species may thrive
in human-altered environments due to their capacity of using the matrix resources and
persisting in highly altered habitats, like collared peccaries (Dotta and Verdade, 2007;
Reyna-Hurtado and Tanner, 2007; Lyra-Jorge et al., 2010). In addition, some generalists
may also benefit from anthropic disturbance due to reduction of competition and
predation in those areas (da Fonseca and Robinson, 1999). This ecological release may
result in biotic homogenization and the loss of biodiversity and ecological interactions,
services and processes (McKinney and Lockwood, 1999; Marvier et al., 2004; Valiente-
Banuet et al., 2014; Bello et al., 2015; Galetti et al., 2015). Moreover, conflicts between
wildlife and farmers may arise in lands where croplands are intensively consumed by
herbivores (Jácomo, 2004; Nyhus and Tilson, 2004; Marchini and Crawshaw, 2015).
Apex predators, which may be the source of conflict to livestock farming, may play
the opposite role in agricultural lands, where they control herbivores’ populations
(Newsome, 1990; Jácomo, 2004; Lindsey et al., 2005; Skonhoft, 2006; Silveira et al.,
2008; Wallach et al., 2010). Predators are keystone species, and their local extinction may
have top-down effects on food web (Ripple et al., 2001; Terborgh et al., 2001; Estes et
al., 2011). Therefore, their conservation is a relevant approach for keeping Neotropical
ecosystems function and dynamics (Jorge et al., 2013; Ripple et al., 2014). Despite their
importance, apex predators are also more vulnerable to extinction by human activities,
especially habitat loss for anthropization (Azevedo et al., 2013; Morato et al., 2013;
Ripple et al., 2014). The jaguar (Panthera onca), for example, is classified as Vulnerable
in the Brazil Red Book of Threatened Species of Fauna (MMA, 2016), and as Near
Threatened according to IUCN Red List (Caso et al., 2008; IUCN, 2010). It is then
13
necessary to consider agroecosystems in private lands as critical habitats for both prey
and predators, because high-quality matrixes allow connectivity and dispersal among core
protected areas and buffer them from edge effects (Ricketts, 2001; DeFries et al., 2005;
Hansen and DeFries, 2007; Perfecto and Vandemeer, 2010; Ripple et al., 2014; Boron et
al., 2016). Habitable and permeable agroecosystems present an opportunity to allow
human resource use and economic development, while species conservation is still
promoted (Tscharntke et al., 2005; Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2010; Shackelford et al.,
2015).
The spatial distribution of prey and their predators may provide important
information for the development of effective conservation strategies and for choosing
priority conservation areas. They may also estimate the relevance of buffer zones on the
species habitat use. Here, we investigated how different vegetation types in a Cerrado
protected area and its surroundings affect the local presence of apex predator species and
their prey. We used a hierarchical occupancy modeling to test the hypothesis that
predators’ occurrence is related to dense vegetation, that generalist prey species occupy
cropland areas and that specialist prey species are limited to natural vegetation types.
METHODS
Study Area and Land Use Classification
The study area comprises Emas National Park (ENP) and its northern surrounding
region (18º19’S; 52º45’W), in southwestern Goiás state (Figure 1). The region is under
the influence of three different drainage basins and contains the headwaters of Araguaia
and Taquari rivers, which respectively connects ENP to the Amazon and Pantanal
Biomes. This hydrological network plays an important role for Cerrado species
14
conservation, as it works as an ecological corridor between these biomes (Silveira et al.,
2014). The region is characterized by Tropical Savanna Climate (Aw/As) under Köppen
climate classification (Köopen, 1884; Álvares et al., 2013). There are two dominant
seasons throughout the year: a hot wet season from October to March, and a dry cold one,
from April to September (Álvares et al., 2013).
ENP is one of the Brazilian Cerrado’s largest Conservation Units, covering an
area of approximately 132,000 hectares. It is mainly composed of open grassland plains,
maintaining one of the biggest continuous grasslands in the biome, while patches of
scrublands and riparian forests compose the remaining extent of the Park (IBAMA, 2004).
ENP northern surrounding region is a heterogeneous fragmented landscape, with a highly
productive agricultural land where historical corn, soybean, cotton and, more recently,
sugar cane crops are grown large-scale. The remnant vegetation is mostly riparian forest,
with few patches of scrubland and grassland (Silveira, 2004).
The vegetation types present in the landscape were classified in Quantum GIS
software v 2.16.2 (Quantum GIS Development Team, 2009). The habitat type map
(Figure 1) was generated using two Landsat 8 satellite images (from June 06, 2013 and
June 18, 2013) obtained from Brazilian Ministry of Environment. The mapping was made
under the Quantum GIS complement Semi-Automatic Classification Plugin from
Congedo (2016). We manually checked the habitat types by visual inspection on a scale
of 1:15,000, and then identified and classified four main habitat types relevant for the
studied species ecology: (1) open Cerrado vegetation, including grassland fields and
‘campo sujo’ vegetation; (2) closed vegetation, including all dense structure natural
formations, such as dense scrubland and forests; (3) perennial agriculture, for sugarcane
crops; and (4) annual agriculture, comprising corn, soybean and cotton crops. Species
with high mobility, such as the ones in this study, tend to respond to environmental
15
variations at coarser scales (Lyra-Jorge et al., 2010). For this reason, we created 2km radii
buffers around the camera trapping points to account for the proportion of each habitat
type in the sampling sites.
Camera Trapping
To model species’ occupancy, I used detection/ non-detection data from a camera
trap dataset provided by Jaguar Conservation Fund (JCF), a Brazilian NGO that has been
studying jaguars’ ecology and conservation in this region for over two decades (Silveira,
2004). JCF had deployed 34 camera trap stations in ENP and 7 stations in the Park’s
surroundings between July and December 2013, on a range-wide 3 x 3 km grid designed
for jaguar population density studies (Silver, 2004; Sollmann et al., 2011). The cameras
arrangement across the landscape is depicted in Figure 1.
All the cameras used were Bushnell, NatureView Essential HD model, in the sole
video or picture format or the hybrid video and picture format. All the cameras were
located along roads and game trails, with the cameras strapped on trees or stakes at
approximately 50 cm above ground. They were all programmed to work 24h/day during
the sampling period and were checked every month for Memory Card and battery
replacement. Some of the cameras installed were arranged in pairs in order to allow jaguar
individuals’ identification. This difference in the detectability between camera stations
should not affect the results as occupancy modelling already accounts for imperfect
detections (MacKenzie et al., 2002). Five periods of 20 sampling days were selected as
the survey periods for occupancy analysis. The camera sites and their respective
functioning periods and number of cameras per site are listed in Table 1.
16
Species Selection
The two largest felid species within the Americas are also Cerrado’s top predators:
the jaguar (Panthera onca) and the cougar (Puma concolor). Both species are able to
survive in a wide range of habitats, although jaguars are known to depend mostly on
dense-vegetation habitats close to watercourses and to avoid human-dominated
landscapes (Azevedo and Murray, 2007; Zeller, 2007; Colchero et al., 2011; Sollmann et
al., 2012; Arroyo-Arce et al., 2014). Cougars, however, are largely habitat generalists,
being able to occupy drier areas and agricultural patches and to tolerate human presence
(Culver, 2010; Sollmann et al., 2012; Zarco-González et al., 2012; Magioli et al., 2014).
Both species act as opportunistic predators, preying upon the locally available
medium and large-sized species in general (Logan & Sweanor, 2001; Astete et al., 2008;
Cavalcanti and Gese, 2010). Thus, we selected for analysis the entire prey community
registered in the study area, excluding only those species whose registration from camera
trapping method was limited (e.g. arboreal and semi-arboreal species) and those species
occurring in less than 20% or more than 80% of the sampling units, as required by
occupancy modelling premises (Mackenzie et al., 2006). The six prey species present in
the area selected for the analyses are the giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), the
collared peccary (Pecari tajacu), the white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari), the pampas
deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus), the lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris) and the greater rhea
(Rhea americana). The selection of species was made based on previous studies of
jaguars and cougars feeding ecology in ENP region (Silveira, 2004; Sollmann et al.;
2013). The national and global conservation status of these species are listed in Table 2.
The pampas deer and the greater rhea are open areas specialists (Codenotti and
Alvarez, 2000; Silveira et al., 2008; Duarte et al., 2012). Giant anteaters are insectivorous
mammals and similarly forage in open habitats, although they are also known for
17
occupying gallery forests to a lesser extent, usually for shelter, cooling or to search for
water (Emmons et al., 2004; Medri and Mourão, 2005). Both peccary species and the
lowland tapir are considered habitat generalists and can also use agricultural resources to
some degree (Peres, 1996; Reyna-Hurtado and Tanner, 2007; Zeller et al., 2011; Cordeiro
et al., 2016).
Occupancy Modeling
Occupancy models main function is to determine the probability of a certain
location being occupied by a certain species under imperfect detectability conditions in
order to avoid ‘false absences’ (i.e. when a species occurs in the site but goes undetected)
(MacKenzie et al., 2002; MacKenzie et al., 2003). It depends on detection/ non-detection
data only, which can be obtained from methods with greater flexibility, less costly and/or
with less sampling effort than abundance surveys (MacKenzie and Nichols, 2004;
O’Connell and Bailey, 2011). Hence, occupancy modeling is frequently the only viable
option for rare species, and has been globally used to provide species distribution
estimations (e.g. for apex predators Hines et al., 2010; Khorozyan et al., 2010; Thorn et
al., 2011; Zeller et al., 2011; Alexander et al., 2015). This method applies maximum
likelihood statistics on species detection histories obtained from repeated surveys across
several sites to estimate the species naïve occupancy, occupancy (Ψ) and detectability (p)
parameters. The naïve occupancy indicates the proportion of surveyed sites effectively
occupied by species, occupancy is the probability that a site is occupied, and the
detectability is the probability of detecting the species on a certain survey, given the
species is present at the site. This information can also be related to landscape variables
and provide valuable information about endangered animal species habitat use and
18
therefore effective management actions regarding their conservation (Burton et al., 2012;
Farris et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2016).
In order to perform the model in the study area, a set of 16 candidate models was
built using the variables that were thought to influence species occurrence (i.e., closed
and open vegetation, annual crops, and perennial crops). These models included one null
hypothesis model with constant occupancy and detection, and the remaining 15 models
included occupancy as a function of the covariates either individually or combined (Table
3). The models were fit in the PRESENCE software version 11.8 (Hines, 2006) to perform
occupancy modeling statistics. The software supplied Akaike’s Information Criterion
(AIC) values and the differences in AIC (ΔAIC) among the models was used to evaluate
which models provide the biggest empirical support for species occupancy. Models with
ΔAIC < 2 have substantial empirical support, while those between 4 and 7 have less
support and those with values > 10 have no support (Burnham and Anderson, 2004).
RESULTS
The camera trap sampling resulted in approximately 151.200 recording hours of 44
native species of medium and large-sized vertebrates (two reptiles, seven birds, and 35
mammals) in Emas National Park and in its northern surroundings (Figure 2). Twelve of
these species are listed to some degree of global threat (IUCN, 2010), and 11 of them are
listed in Brazil Red List of Fauna (MMA, 2016). Six domestic species were registered in
the region, including a horse, cats and dogs inside the Park. Table 2 contains a detailed
list of the registered species, their respective conservation status and whether they were
registered inside or outside ENP.
19
The naïve occupancy values varied between the focal species (Table 4). The
lowland tapir and the pampas deer had the highest naïve occupancy values (77% both).
The greater rhea and white lipped peccaries also occupied a great area (72 and 70%,
respectively), while cougars, jaguars and anteaters were rarely registered (57, 42 and
37%, respectively). Collared peccaries had the lowest naïve occupancy values of all focal
species (20%) and is therefore the rarest of the focal species.
Table 4 lists the three best fitted models for each species and their respective AIC,
ΔAIC and naïve occupancy values. There was no general model explaining the focal
species presence. Rather, distinct species responded uniquely to the different vegetation
types. Jaguars, cougars, giant anteaters and tapirs’ presences weren’t mainly affected by
any of the vegetation types. However, cougars positively responded to perennial crops in
the second concurrent model. Likewise, tapirs also presented positive responses to native
vegetation in general and to annual croplands. White-lipped peccaries presented
generalist behavior and were positively related to all vegetation types, while collared
peccaries were negatively affected by native vegetation and were more common in annual
croplands. Pampas deer were present in open vegetation and annual cropland areas, and
were constrained by closed vegetation and sugarcane crops. Rheas, like white-lipped
peccaries, were associated to all vegetation types, although closed vegetation had
negative effects in concurrent models.
DISCUSSION
The medium and large-sized fauna of Cerrado have distinct strategies to explore
resources in natural vegetation types (da Fonseca and Robinson, 1999; Marinho-Filho et
al., 2002). However, the high fragmentation of Cerrado vegetation since the 1960s
20
(Cavalcanti and Joly, 2002; Klink and Moreira, 2002), has negatively affected fauna
distribution (Thuiller et al., 2005; Devictor et al., 2008; Barreto et al., 2012; Slatyer et al.,
2013). Otherwise, some species have benefited from high resource availability in
agricultural areas (Dotta and Verdade, 2007; Reyna-Hurtado and Tanner, 2007; Lyra-
Jorge et al., 2010). In this study, we evaluated how different vegetation types of a Cerrado
protected area and its surroundings influence medium and large-sized fauna distribution.
We observed distinct species responses to the habitat types instead of a general pattern
for the community. Distinct responses of species were expected, because Cerrado’s
medium and large-sized fauna is composed of both ecological generalists and specialists
(Marinho-Filho et al., 2002; Comparatore and Yagueddú, 2016). Conserving different
vegetation types within the landscape may increase the diversity of microhabitats
available and, consequently, maintain high community richness, benefitting especially
the generalists, but also specialists (Kassen, 2002).
As expected, the grassland specialists (pampas deer and rhea) were positively
associated to the open vegetation type. The populations of both species inside the park
are, in fact, among the greatest populations within their distribution range (Redford, 1985;
Rodrigues & Monteiro-Filho, 2000) because the park holds one of Cerrado’s largest
continuous grassland areas (IBAMA, 2004). Nevertheless, this vegetation is highly
limited to the park area, while its surroundings are mainly composed of forests, thus
limiting grassland specialists’ occurrence. Connectivity to other protected areas is
consequently necessary to avoid the isolation and genetic bottleneck of these populations
(Carlson, 2000; Öckinger et al., 2010; Furlan et al., 2012). Hence, the positive responses
of pampas deer and rheas to croplands (especially annual croplands) may allow these
species to persist in the region as crops may play the connectivity role in farmlands
(Ricketts, 2001; Perfecto and Vandemeer, 2010; Ripple et al., 2014; Boron et al., 2016).
21
Oppositely, white-lipped peccaries presented generalist distribution, as described in
literature (Reyna-Hurtado and Tanner, 2007), occupying both native vegetation and
croplands, especially perennial crops. Herbivore species may use sugarcane crops as food
and shelter, due to sugarcane plantations’ dense structure (Dotta & Verdade, 2007;
Silveira, pers. comm.). On the other hand, collared peccaries, which are weaker
competitors to white-lipped peccaries, were mostly related to annual croplands. Collared-
peccaries were, in fact, the rarest of all focal species, as they occurred in only 20% of the
surveyed sites. Collared-peccaries tend to be abundant species wherever they occur, and
their distribution pattern in ENP region could be limited by competition for restricted
resources, especially in natural vegetation patches (DeBach, 1966; Reyna-Hurtado and
Tanner, 2007). Tapirs, in turn, were the commonest species along with the pampas deer,
and occupancy models suggested weak relations between tapirs’ presence and habitat
types, and other factors could be shaping its spatial distribution. However, alternative
models with substantial support to explain tapirs’ occurrence included both open and
closed natural vegetation types and annual croplands, which is an expected distribution
pattern for a generalist species like the lowland tapir (Cordeiro et al., 2016). Based on
this, we can infer that the high habitat diversity in ENP region may cause tapirs’
populations to thrive. Lowland tapirs are Vulnerable species in both national and global
scales (Naveda et al., 2008; MMA, 2016), and our results may indicate the importance of
ENP region for the species’ conservation in the regional scale.
In megadiverse countries with farming-based economies, like Brazil, it is essential
to comprehend how species respond to the matrix in order to provide information for
appropriate landscape management and selection of priority areas for conservation. Thus,
maintaining suitable and permeable matrixes can allow species to persist in human-
altered areas and to disperse through natural remnants (Daily et al., 2003; Prugh et al.,
22
2008; Franklin and Lindenmayer, 2009; Shackelford et al., 2015). Well-managed
matrixes may also contribute to community conservation. However, careful interpretation
to this issue is needed. Crops and agroecosystems may provide additional resources for
some species, but natural vegetation areas, like the ones required by Brazilian Forest
Code, have essential resources for their survival and development (Daily et al., 2003;
Casatti, 2010; Develey and Pongiluppi, 2010; Imperatriz-Fonseca and Nunes-Silva, 2010;
Boron et al., 2016). Moreover, large continuous croplands may house herbivores,
although this interaction causes conflicts between farmers and wildlife (Hill, 2000; Nyhus
and Tilson, 2004; Marchini and Crawshaw, 2015). In Emas National Park region, white-
lipped peccaries are known to farmers as great crop consumers and are often killed in
retaliation (Jácomo, 2004). This mammal species is listed as Vulnerable to extinction in
both national and global scales (Keuroghlian et al., 2013; MMA, 2016). Therefore,
protecting natural vegetation fragments should reduce the impact of the white-lipped
peccaries on cropland production and avoid its local extinction. Thus, protected areas
benefit farmers and species conservation.
Natural fragments and green areas in ENP surroundings are also important to
connect populations of the Cerrado to those of other biomes, because the Park is located
in a watershed connecting the Amazon and Pantanal Biomes (Silveira et al., 2014). These
corridors are especially important for jaguars, as both Biomes house the two largest jaguar
populations along the species distribution (Sanderson et al., 2002; Silveira et al., 2014).
In fact, the conservation of highly mobile species, such as jaguars and cougars, also
depends on unprotected areas, because Conservation Units often can’t protect large
populations of these species (Sollmann et al., 2008; Petracca et al., 2014; Boron et al.,
2016). Thus, properly managed agricultural lands may play a major role in predator
species conservation if predator-related habitat types are available.
23
This study, however, failed to show apex predators relation to the different habitat
types in the study area. As the null hypothesis model was the best model for both jaguars
and cougars, it is likely that their presence could be related to other variables rather than
vegetation type. Apex predator distribution depend on prey species presence, and prey
species were differently distributed across the mosaic (Fuller and Sievert, 2001; Bled et
al., 2015). This distribution pattern could drive both predators to widely occur in the
landscape, using habitats according to their prey availability instead of their structure.
Jaguars and cougars are opportunistic hunters, so prey presence in different habitats might
help predators’ populations to persist in the unprotected lands (Logan & Sweanor, 2001;
Novack et al., 2005; Weckel et al., 2006; Cavalcanti and Gese, 2010; Foster et al., 2010;
Gómez-Ortiz et al., 2015). In fact, although cougars had weak relationship to habitat
types, perennial crops were shown to influence its presence. Several studies in São Paulo
state found that cougar populations are able to persist in sugarcane croplands (Lyra-Jorge
et al., 2008; Miotto et al., 2011), possibly due to the prey availability in these areas (Dotta
& Verdade, 2007; Culver, 2010). As aforementioned, keeping well-managed permeable
matrixes should benefit the species and could also help reduce herbivores-farmers
conflicts through natural control of herbivores’ populations. Consequently, apex
predators have a pivotal role in ecosystems becoming priority species for biodiversity
conservation purposes, and their local extinction could have negative results for both
community structure and agriculture production (Zavaleta et al., 2001; Estes et al., 2011).
Further studies including prey as predictor of predators’ presence should help elucidate
this issue and allow for proper landscape management in the region.
Other prey types are also available in the area, including insectivores and smaller
carnivores. Silveira (2004) and Sollmann et al. (2013) identified giant anteaters as one of
jaguars’ main prey species in ENP region, accounting for more than 75% of biomass to
24
its diet. In this study, giant anteater’s distribution was also not directly affected by
vegetation structure. Although it is known to forage in open habitats, it usually depends
on scrublands and forests for shelter and is also related to water habitats (Emmons et al.,
2004; Medri and Mourão, 2005). Thus, it is expected that anteaters would benefit from
ENP’s suitable forage areas. However, they are highly affected by the park’s constant
wildfires (Silveira et al., 1999), and intense road traffic in the Park surroundings also
affects the species local persistence (Diniz and Brito, 2013). These threats, along with
high predation pressure could be constraining giant anteaters’ occurrence. The species is
Vulnerable to extinction in both national and global scales (Miranda et al., 2014; MMA,
2016), and further information about the species distribution and population status in ENP
region is important to promote its local conservation.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study focus on Cerrado’s medium and large-sized fauna’s responses to
the habitat types within a Protected Area and its surroundings. We found that different
vegetation types influence species distribution. Therefore, high habitat diversity in a
landscape may be a good approach for large animals’ conservation, especially because
Cerrado’ medium and large-sized fauna varies in habitat use strategies. Additionally,
green areas around protected areas may also be useful for conservation strategies if
matrixes are habitable and permeable to species. Moreover, the rich animal community
in Emas National Park’s region and the Park’s strategical location play an important
regional role for species and ecosystems conservation.
25
REFERENCES
Alexander, J. S., Shi, K., Tallents, L. A., & Riordan, P. (2016). On the high trail:
examining determinants of site use by the Endangered snow leopard Panthera uncia
in Qilianshan, China. Oryx, 50(02), 231-238.
Álvares, C. A., Stape, J. L., Sentelhas, P. C., de Moraes, G., Leonardo, J., & Sparovek,
G. (2013). Köppen's climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische
Zeitschrift, 22(6), 711-728.
Alves, G. B., Marçal Junior, O., Brites, V. L. C. (2014). Medium and large-sized
mammals of a fragment of Cerrado in the Triângulo Mineiro region, southeastern
Brazil. Bioscience Journal, 30(3), 863-873.
Arroyo-Arce, S., Guilder, J., & Salom-Pérez, R. (2014). Habitat features influencing
jaguar Panthera onca (Carnivora: Felidae) occupancy in Tortuguero National Park,
Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical, 62(4), 1449-1458.
Astete, S., Sollmann, R., & Silveira, L. (2008). Comparative ecology of jaguars in
Brazil. Cat News Special, (4), 9-14.
Azevedo, F. C., Lemos, F. G., de Almeida, L. B., de Campos, C. B., de Mello Beisiegel,
B., de Paula, R. C., ... & de Oliveira, T. G. (2013). Avaliação do risco de extinção da
onça-parda Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771) no Brasil. Biodiversidade Brasileira,
(1), 107-121.
Azevedo, F. C. C. D., & Murray, D. L. (2007). Evaluation of potential factors
predisposing livestock to predation by jaguars. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 71(7), 2379-2386.
Barreto, L., Van Eupen, M., Kok, K., Jongman, R.H., Ribeiro, M.C., Veldkamp, A., ... &
Oliveira, T.G. (2012). The impact of soybean expansion on mammal and bird, in the
26
Balsas region, north Brasilian Cerrado. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20(6), 374-
383.
Bello, C., Galetti, M., Pizo, M. A., Magnago, L. F. S., Rocha, M. F., Lima, R. A., ... &
Jordano, P. (2015). Defaunation affects carbon storage in tropical forests. Science
advances, 1(11), e1501105.
Bennett, A. F., & Saunders, D. A. (2010). Habitat fragmentation and landscape
change. Conservation biology for all, 93, 1544-1550.
Bled, F., Summers, S., Martell, D., Petroelje, T. R., Beyer Jr, D. E., & Belant, J. L. (2015).
Effects of Prey Presence and Scale on Bobcat Resource Selection during
Winter. PloS one, 10(11), e0143347.
Boron, V., Tzanopoulos, J., Gallo, J., Barragan, J., Jaimes-Rodriguez, L., Schaller, G., &
Payán, E. (2016). Jaguar densities across human-dominated landscapes in Colombia:
the contribution of unprotected areas to long term conservation. PloS one, 11(5),
e0153973.
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference understanding AIC and
BIC in model selection. Sociological methods & research, 33(2), 261-304.
Burton, A. C., Sam, M. K., Balangtaa, C., & Brashares, J. S. (2012). Hierarchical multi-
species modeling of carnivore responses to hunting, habitat and prey in a West
African protected area. PloS one, 7(5), e38007.
Carlson, A. (2000). The effect of habitat loss on a deciduous forest specialist species: the
White-backed Woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos). Forest Ecology and
Management, 131(1), 215-221.
Casatti, L. (2010). Alterações no Código Florestal Brasileiro: impactos potenciais sobre
a ictiofauna/Changes in the Brazilian Forest Code: potential impacts on the
ichthyofauna. Biota Neotropica, 10(4), 31.
27
Caso, A., Lopez-Gonzalez, C., Payan, E., Eizirik, E., de Oliveira, T., Leite-Pitman, R.,
Kelly, M. & Valderrama, C. 2008. Panthera onca. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2008:
eT15953A5327466. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T15953A532
7466.en. Downloaded on 08 January 2017.
Cavalcanti, R. B., & Joly, C. A. (2002). Biodiversity and conservation priorities in the
Cerrado region. The Cerrados of Brazil. Ecology and Natural History of a
Neotropical Savanna, 351-367.
Cavalcanti, S. M., & Gese, E. M. (2010). Kill rates and predation patterns of jaguars
(Panthera onca) in the southern Pantanal, Brazil. Journal of Mammalogy, 91(3), 722-
736.
Chiarello, A. G. (2000). Density and population size of mammals in remnants of Brazilian
Atlantic forest. Conservation Biology, 14(6), 1649-1657.
Codenotti, T. L., & Alvarez, F. (2000). Habitat use by Greater Rheas Rhea americana in
an agricultural area of southern Brazil. Revista de Etologia, 2, 77-84.
Colchero, F., Conde, D. A., Manterola, C., Chávez, C., Rivera, A., & Ceballos, G. (2011).
Jaguars on the move: modeling movement to mitigate fragmentation from road
expansion in the Mayan Forest. Animal Conservation, 14(2), 158-166.
Colwell, R. K., & Futuyma, D. J. (1971). On the measurement of niche breadth and
overlap. Ecology, 52(4), 567-576.
Comparatore, V. M., & Yagueddú, C. (2016). Diet preference and density of the Greater
Rhea (Rhea americana) in grasslands of the Flooding Pampa, Argentina. Revista
Brasileira de Ornitologia-Brazilian Journal of Ornithology, 24(1), 13-20.
Congedo, L. (2016). Semi-Automatic Classification Plugin
Documentation. Release, 4(0.1), 29.
28
Cordeiro, J. L. P., Fragoso, J. M., Crawshaw, D., & Oliveira, L. F. B. (2016). Lowland
tapir distribution and habitat loss in South America. PeerJ, 4, e2456.
Culver, M. (2009). Lessons and insights from evolution, taxonomy, and conservation
genetics. Cougar: ecology and conservation, 27-40.
Culver, M., Johnson, W. E., Pecon-Slattery, J., & O'Brien, S. J. (2000). Genomic ancestry
of the American puma (Puma concolor). Journal of Heredity, 91(3), 186-197.
da Fonseca, G. A., & Robinson, J. G. (1990). Forest size and structure: competitive and
predatory effects on small mammal communities. Biological conservation, 53(4),
265-294.
Daily, G. C., Ceballos, G., Pacheco, J., Suzán, G., & SÁNCHEZ‐AZOFEIFA, A. R. T.
U. R. O. (2003). Countryside biogeography of neotropical mammals: conservation
opportunities in agricultural landscapes of Costa Rica. Conservation biology, 17(6),
1814-1826.
DeBach, P. (1966). The competitive displacement and coexistence principles. Annual
review of entomology, 11(1), 183-212.
DeFries, R., Hansen, A., Newton, A. C., & Hansen, M. C. (2005). Increasing isolation of
protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecological
Applications, 15(1), 19-26.
Develey, P. F., & Pongiluppi, T. (2010). Impactos potenciais na avifauna decorrentes das
alterações propostas para o Código Florestal Brasileiro/Potential impacts of the
changes proposed in the Brazilian Forest Code on birds. Biota Neotropica, 10(4), 43.
Devictor, V., Julliard, R., & Jiguet, F. (2008). Distribution of specialist and generalist
species along spatial gradients of habitat disturbance and
fragmentation. Oikos, 117(4), 507-514.
29
Diniz, M. F., & Brito, D. (2013). Threats to and viability of the giant anteater,
Myrmecophaga tridactyla (Pilosa: Myrmecophagidae), in a protected Cerrado
remnant encroached by urban expansion in central Brazil. Zoologia
(Curitiba), 30(2), 151-156.
Dotta, G., & Verdade, L. M. (2007). Trophic categories in a mammal assemblage:
diversity in an agricultural landscape. Biota Neotropica, 7(2), 287-292.
Duarte, J. M. B., Vogliotti, A., dos Santos Zanetti, E., de Oliveira, M. L., Tiepolo, L. M.,
Rodrigues, L. F., ... & Braga, F. G. (2012). Avaliação do risco de extinção do veado-
campeiro Ozotoceros bezoarticus Linnaeus, 1758, no Brasil. Biodiversidade
Brasileira, (1), 20-32.
Emmons, L. H., Flores, R. P., Alpirre, S. A., & Swarner, M. J. (2004). Bathing behavior
of giant anteaters (Myrmecophaga tridactyla). Edentata, 41-43.
Estes, J. A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J. S., Power, M. E., Berger, J., Bond, W. J., ... &
Marquis, R. J. (2011). Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. science, 333(6040),
301-306.
Farris, Z. J., Karpanty, S. M., Ratelolahy, F., & Kelly, M. J. (2014). Predator–primate
distribution, activity, and co-occurrence in relation to habitat and human activity
across fragmented and contiguous forests in northeastern Madagascar. International
Journal of Primatology, 35(5), 859-880.
Franklin, J. F., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2009). Importance of matrix habitats in
maintaining biological diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 106(2), 349-350.
Foster, R. J., Harmsen, B. J., Valdes, B., Pomilla, C., & Doncaster, C. P. (2010). Food
habits of sympatric jaguars and pumas across a gradient of human
disturbance. Journal of Zoology, 280(3), 309-318.
30
Fuller, T. K., & Sievert, P. R. (2001). Carnivore demography and the consequences of
changes in prey availability. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY SERIES-CAMBRIDGE-,
163-178.
Furlan, E., Stoklosa, J., Griffiths, J., Gust, N., Ellis, R., Huggins, R. M., & Weeks, A. R.
(2012). Small population size and extremely low levels of genetic diversity in island
populations of the platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus. Ecology and evolution, 2(4),
844-857.
Futuyma, D. J., & Moreno, G. (1988). The evolution of ecological specialization. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19(1), 207-233.
Galetti, M., Guevara, R., Neves, C. L., Rodarte, R. R., Bovendorp, R. S., Moreira, M., ...
& Yeakel, J. D. (2015). Defaunation affects the populations and diets of rodents in
Neotropical rainforests. Biological Conservation, 190, 2-7.
Gehring, T. M., & Swihart, R. K. (2003). Body size, niche breadth, and ecologically
scaled responses to habitat fragmentation: mammalian predators in an agricultural
landscape. Biological conservation, 109(2), 283-295.
Gómez-Ortiz, Y., Monroy-Vilchis, O., & Mendoza-Martínez, G. D. (2015). Feeding
interactions in an assemblage of terrestrial carnivores in central Mexico. Zoological
Studies, 54(1), 16.
Hansen, A. J., & DeFries, R. (2007). Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to
surrounding lands. Ecological Applications, 17(4), 974-988.
Hill, C. M. (2000). Conflict of interest between people and baboons: crop raiding in
Uganda. International Journal of Primatology, 21(2), 299-315.
Hines, J. E. 2006. PRESENCE2 - Software to estimate patch occupancy and related 615
parameters. USGS-PWRC. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/software/presence.html.
31
Hines, J. E., Nichols, J. D., Royle, J. A., MacKenzie, D. I., Gopalaswamy, A. M., Kumar,
N., & Karanth, K. U. (2010). Tigers on trails: occupancy modeling for cluster
sampling. Ecological Applications, 20(5), 1456-1466.
Hutchinson, G. E. 1957 b. Concluding remarks- Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on
Quantitative Biology. 22:415-427. Reprinted in: Classics in Theoretical Biology.
Bull. of Math. Biol. 53:193-213.
IBAMA, 2004. Plano de manejo do Parque Nacional das Emas (PNE). Instituto brasileiro
do Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Brasília, Brasil.
Imperatriz-Fonseca, V. L., & Nunes-Silva, P. (2010). As abelhas, os serviços
ecossistêmicos e o Código Florestal Brasileiro/Bees, ecosystem services and the
Brazilian Forest Code. Biota Neotropica, 10(4), 59.
IUCN, 2010. IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2010.1. www.iucnredlist.org.
(accessed 8 Jan 2017).
Jácomo, A.T.A. (2004). Ecologia, manejo e conservação do queixada Tayassu pecari no
Parque Nacional das Emas e em propriedades rurais de seu entorno. (Doctoral
dissertation, Universidade de Brasília). 120p.
Johnson, M. A., Saraiva, P. M., & Coelho, D. (1999). The role of gallery forests in the
distribution of Cerrado mammals. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 59(3), 421-427.
Jorge, M. L. S., Galetti, M., Ribeiro, M. C., & Ferraz, K. M. P. (2013). Mammal
defaunation as surrogate of trophic cascades in a biodiversity hotspot. Biological
Conservation, 163, 49-57.
Kassen, R. (2002). The experimental evolution of specialists, generalists, and the
maintenance of diversity. Journal of evolutionary biology, 15(2), 173-190.
Keuroghlian, A., Desbiez, A., Reyna-Hurtado, R., Altrichter, M., Beck, H., Taber, A. &
Fragoso, J.M.V. 2013. Tayassu pecari. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
32
2013:e.T41778A44051115. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-
RLTS.T41778A44051115.en. Downloaded on 08 January 2017.
Khorozyan, I. G., Malkhasyan, A. G., Asmaryan, S. G., & Abramov, A. V. (2010). Using
geographical mapping and occupancy modeling to study the distribution of the
critically endangered leopard (Panthera pardus) population in Armenia. In Spatial
Complexity, Informatics, and Wildlife Conservation (pp. 331-347). Springer Japan.
Klink, C. A., & Moreira, A. G. (2002). Past and current human occupation, and land
use. The cerrados of Brazil: ecology and natural history of a neotropical savanna,
69-88.
Köppen, W. (1884). Die Wärmezonen der Erde, nach der Dauer der heissen, gema¨ssigten
und kalten Zeit und nach der Wirkung der Wärme auf die organische Welt
betrachtet. (The thermal zones of the earth according to the duration of hot,
moderate and cold periods and to the impact of heat on the organic world). –
Meteorol. Z. 1, 215–226. (translated and edited by Volken E. and S. Brönnimann.
– Meteorol. Z. 20 (2011), 351–360).
Levins, R. (1968). Evolution in changing environments: some theoretical
explorations (No. 2). Princeton University Press.
Lindsey, P. A., Du Toit, J. T., & Mills, M. G. L. (2005). Attitudes of ranchers towards
African wild dogs Lycaon pictus: conservation implications on private
land. Biological Conservation, 125(1), 113-121.
Lira, P. K., Tambosi, L. R., Ewers, R. M., & Metzger, J. P. (2012). Land-use and land-
cover change in Atlantic Forest landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management, 278,
80-89.
Logan, K. A., & Sweanor, L. L. (2001). Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and
conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press.
33
Lyra-Jorge, M. C., Ciocheti, G., & Pivello, V. R. (2008). Carnivore mammals in a
fragmented landscape in northeast of São Paulo State, Brazil. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 17(7), 1573.
Lyra-Jorge, M. C., Ribeiro, M. C., Ciocheti, G., Tambosi, L. R., & Pivello, V. R. (2010).
Influence of multi-scale landscape structure on the occurrence of carnivorous
mammals in a human-modified savanna, Brazil. European Journal of Wildlife
Research, 56(3), 359-368.
MacKenzie, D. I. (2006). Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and
dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press.
MacKenzie, D. I., & Nichols, J. D. (2004). Occupancy as a surrogate for abundance
estimation. Animal biodiversity and conservation, 27(1), 461-467.
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E., Knutson, M. G., & Franklin, A. B. (2003).
Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is
detected imperfectly. Ecology, 84(8), 2200-2207.
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Andrew Royle, J., &
Langtimm, C. A. (2002). Estimating site occupancy rates when detection
probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 83(8), 2248-2255.
Magioli, M., Moreira, M. Z., Ferraz, K. M. B., Miotto, R. A., Camargo, P. B., Rodrigues,
M. G., ... & Setz, E. F. (2014). Stable isotope evidence of Puma concolor (Felidae)
feeding patterns in agricultural landscapes in southeastern Brazil. Biotropica, 46(4),
451-460.
Marchini, S., & Crawshaw Jr, P. G. (2015). Human–Wildlife Conflicts in Brazil: A Fast-
Growing Issue. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20(4), 323-328.
34
Marinho-Filho, J., Rodrigues, F. H., & Juarez, K. M. (2002). The Cerrado mammals:
diversity, ecology, and natural history. The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and natural
history of a neotropical savanna, 266-284.
Marvier, M., Kareiva, P., & Neubert, M. G. (2004). Habitat destruction, fragmentation,
and disturbance promote invasion by habitat generalists in a multispecies
metapopulation. Risk analysis, 24(4), 869-878.
McKinney, M. L., & Lockwood, J. L. (1999). Biotic homogenization: a few winners
replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends in ecology &
evolution, 14(11), 450-453.
Medri, Í. M., & Mourão, G. (2005). A brief note on the sleeping habits of the giant
anteater-Myrmecophaga tridactyla Linnaeus (Xenarthra,
Myrmecophagidae). Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 22(4), 1213-1215.
Metzger, J. P. (2001). Effects of deforestation pattern and private nature reserves on the
forest conservation in settlement areas of the Brazilian Amazon. Biota
neotropica, 1(1-2), 1-14.
Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2016. Livro Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de
Extinção. MMA, Fundação Biodiversitas.
Miotto, R. A., Cervini, M., Begotti, R. A., & Galetti Jr, P. M. (2012). Monitoring a puma
(Puma concolor) population in a fragmented landscape in southeast
Brazil. Biotropica, 44(1), 98-104.
Miranda, F., Bertassoni, A. & Abba, A.M. 2014. Myrmecophaga tridactyla. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2014: eT14224A47441961.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-1.RLTS.T14224A47441961.en.
Downloaded on 08 January 2017.
35
Morato, R. G., de Mello Beisiegel, B., Ramalho, E. E., de Campos, C. B., & Boulhosa,
R. L. P. (2013). Avaliacao do risco de extincao da Onca-pintada Panthera onca
(Linnaeus, 1758) no Brasil. Biodiversidade Brasileira, (1), 122-132.
Naveda, A., de Thoisy, B., Richard-Hansen, C., Torres, D.A., Salas, L., Wallance, R.,
Chalukian, S. & de Bustos, S. 2008. Tapirus terrestris. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2008:
eT21474A9285933. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T21474A928
5933.en. Downloaded on 08 January 2017.
Newsome, A. (1990). The control of vertebrate pests by vertebrate predators. Trends in
ecology & evolution, 5(6), 187-191.
Novack, A. J., Main, M. B., Sunquist, M. E., & Labisky, R. F. (2005). Foraging ecology
of jaguar (Panthera onca) and puma (Puma concolor) in hunted and non‐hunted sites
within the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Journal of Zoology, 267(2), 167-
178.
Nyhus, P., & Tilson, R. (2004). Agroforestry, elephants, and tigers: balancing
conservation theory and practice in human-dominated landscapes of Southeast
Asia. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 104(1), 87-97.
O’Connell, A. F., & Bailey, L. L. (2011). Inference for occupancy and occupancy
dynamics. In Camera traps in animal ecology (pp. 191-204). Springer Japan.
Öckinger, E., Schweiger, O., Crist, T. O., Debinski, D. M., Krauss, J., Kuussaari, M., ...
& Bommarco, R. (2010). Life‐history traits predict species responses to habitat area
and isolation: a cross‐continental synthesis. Ecology letters, 13(8), 969-979.
Oliveira-Filho, A. T., & Ratter, J. A. (2002). Vegetation physiognomies and woody flora
of the cerrado biome. The cerrados of Brazil: ecology and natural history of a
neotropical savanna, 91-120.
36
Peres, C. A. (1996). Population status of white-lipped Tayassu pecari and collared
peccaries T. tajacu in hunted and unhunted Amazonian forests. Biological
Conservation, 77(2-3), 115-123.
Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2010). The agroecological matrix as alternative to the
land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 107(13), 5786-5791.
Petracca, L. S., Hernández-Potosme, S., Obando-Sampson, L., Salom-Pérez, R., Quigley,
H., & Robinson, H. S. (2014). Agricultural encroachment and lack of enforcement
threaten connectivity of range-wide jaguar (Panthera onca) corridor. Journal for
Nature Conservation, 22(5), 436-444.
Prugh, L. R., Hodges, K. E., Sinclair, A. R., & Brashares, J. S. (2008). Effect of habitat
area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 105(52), 20770-20775.
Quantum GIS Development Team, 2009. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open
Source Geospatial Foundation. URL http://qgis.osgeo.org
Redford, K. H. (1985). Emas National Park and the plight of the Brazilian
cerrados. Oryx, 19(04), 210-214.
Reyna-Hurtado, R., & Tanner, G. W. (2007). Ungulate relative abundance in hunted and
non-hunted sites in Calakmul Forest (Southern Mexico). Biodiversity and
Conservation, 16(3), 743-756.
Ribeiro, J. F., & Walter, B. M. T. (2008). As principais fitofisionomias do bioma
Cerrado. Cerrado Ecologia e Fauna. Brasília: Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, 1,
153-221.
Ricketts, T. H. (2001). The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented
landscapes. The American Naturalist, 158(1), 87-99.
37
Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., Hebblewhite,
M., ... & Schmitz, O. J. (2014). Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest
carnivores. Science, 343(6167), 1241484.
Ripple, W. J., Larsen, E. J., Renkin, R. A., & Smith, D. W. (2001). Trophic cascades
among wolves, elk and aspen on Yellowstone National Park’s northern
range. Biological conservation, 102(3), 227-234.
Rodrigues, F. H., & Monteiro-Filho, E. L. (2000). Home range and activity patterns of
pampas deer in Emas National Park, Brazil. Journal of Mammalogy, 81(4), 1136-
1142.
Sanderson, E. W., Redford, K. H., Chetkiewicz, C. L. B., Medellin, R. A., Rabinowitz,
A. R., Robinson, J. G., & Taber, A. B. (2002). Planning to save a species: the jaguar
as a model. Conservation Biology, 16(1), 58-72.
Sano, E. E., Rosa, R., Brito, J. L., & Ferreira, L. G. (2010). Land cover mapping of the
tropical savanna region in Brazil. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 166(1),
113-124.
Santos, P. M., Chiarello, A. G., Ribeiro, M. C., Ribeiro, J. W., & Paglia, A. P. (2016).
Local and landscape influences on the habitat occupancy of the endangered maned
sloth Bradypus torquatus within fragmented landscapes. Mammalian Biology-
Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 81(5), 447-454.
Shackelford, G. E., Steward, P. R., German, R. N., Sait, S. M., & Benton, T. G. (2015).
Conservation planning in agricultural landscapes: hotspots of conflict between
agriculture and nature. Diversity and Distributions, 21(3), 357-367.
Silveira, L. (2004). Ecologia comparada e conservação da onça-pintada (Panthera onca)
e onça-parda (Puma concolor), no Cerrado e Pantanal. (Doctoral dissertation,
Universidade de Brasília). 240p.
38
Silveira, L., Boulhosa, R., Astete, S., & Jácomo, A. A. (2008). Management of domestic
livestock predation by jaguars in Brazil. Cat News, 4, 26-30.
Silveira, L., Jácomo, A. T., Diniz Filho, J. A. F., & Rodrigues, F. H. G. (1999). Impact of
wildfires on the megafauna of Emas National Park, central Brazil. Oryx, 33(2), 108-
114.
Silveira, L., Sollmann, R., Jácomo, A. T., Diniz Filho, J. A., & Tôrres, N. M. (2014). The
potential for large-scale wildlife corridors between protected areas in Brazil using the
jaguar as a model species. Landscape ecology, 29(7), 1213-1223.
Silver, S. (2004). Assessing jaguar abundance using remotely triggered cameras. Wildlife
Conservation Society, 1-27.
Skonhoft, A. (2006). The costs and benefits of animal predation: an analysis of
Scandinavian wolf re-colonization. Ecological economics, 58(4), 830-841.
Slatyer, R. A., Hirst, M., & Sexton, J. P. (2013). Niche breadth predicts geographical
range size: a general ecological pattern. Ecology letters, 16(8), 1104-1114.
Sollmann, R., Betsch, J., Furtado, M. M., Hofer, H., Jácomo, A. T., Palomares, F., ... &
Silveira, L. (2013). Note on the diet of the jaguar in central Brazil. European journal
of wildlife research, 59(3), 445-448.
Sollmann, R., Furtado, M. M., Gardner, B., Hofer, H., Jácomo, A. T., Tôrres, N. M., &
Silveira, L. (2011). Improving density estimates for elusive carnivores: accounting
for sex-specific detection and movements using spatial capture–recapture models for
jaguars in central Brazil. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 1017-1024.
Sollmann, R., Furtado, M. M., Hofer, H., Jacomo, A. T., Tôrres, N. M., & Silveira, L.
(2012). Using occupancy models to investigate space partitioning between two
sympatric large predators, the jaguar and puma in central Brazil. Mammalian
Biology-Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 77(1), 41-46.
39
Sollmann, R., Torres, N. M., & Silveira, L. (2008). Jaguar conservation in Brazil: the role
of protected areas. Cat News, 4, 15-20.
Terborgh, J., Lopez, L., Nunez, P., Rao, M., Shahabuddin, G., Orihuela, G., ... & Balbas,
L. (2001). Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest
fragments. Science, 294(5548), 1923-1926.
Thorn, M., Green, M., Bateman, P. W., Waite, S., & Scott, D. M. (2011). Brown hyaenas
on roads: estimating carnivore occupancy and abundance using spatially auto-
correlated sign survey replicates. Biological Conservation, 144(6), 1799-1807.
Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., & Araújo, M. B. (2005). Niche properties and geographical
extent as predictors of species sensitivity to climate change. Global Ecology and
Biogeography, 14(4), 347-357.
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005).
Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity–ecosystem
service management. Ecology letters, 8(8), 857-874.
Valiente‐Banuet, A., Aizen, M. A., Alcántara, J. M., Arroyo, J., Cocucci, A., Galetti, M.,
... & Medel, R. (2015). Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions
in a changing world. Functional Ecology, 29(3), 299-307.
Wallach, A. D., Johnson, C. N., Ritchie, E. G., & O’Neill, A. J. (2010). Predator control
promotes invasive dominated ecological states. Ecology letters, 13(8), 1008-1018.
Weckel, M., Giuliano, W., & Silver, S. (2006). Jaguar (Panthera onca) feeding ecology:
distribution of predator and prey through time and space. Journal of zoology, 270(1),
25-30.
Zarco-González, M. M., Monroy-Vilchis, O., Rodríguez-Soto, C., & Urios, V. (2012).
Spatial factors and management associated with livestock predations by Puma
concolor in Central Mexico. Human ecology, 40(4), 631-638.
40
Zavaleta, E. S., Hobbs, R. J., & Mooney, H. A. (2001). Viewing invasive species removal
in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16(8), 454-459.
Zeller, K. (2007). Jaguars in the new millennium data set update: the state of the jaguar
in 2006. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, 77.
Zeller, K. A., Nijhawan, S., Salom-Pérez, R., Potosme, S. H., & Hines, J. E. (2011).
Integrating occupancy modeling and interview data for corridor identification: A case
study for jaguars in Nicaragua. Biological Conservation, 144(2), 892-901.
41
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
TABLES
Table 1. Camera-trap sites and their respective sampling time periods and number of
cameras per site (1 or 2). Missing values (-) account for periods that cameras did not work,
and therefore sampling did not occur.
CAM Jul. 12 - Jul. 31 Aug. 11 - Aug. 30 Sept. 7 - Sept. 26 Oct. 10 - Oct. 29 Nov. 10 - Nov. 29
CAMAR7 - 1 1 1 1
CAMBL1 2 2 2 2 2
CAMDM3 - 1 1 1 -
CAMDM6 - 2 2 - 2
CAMMF5 - 2 - 2 2
CAMRJ7 - 2 2 2 2
CAMV15 - - - 2 2
CAM BJ - 1 1 1 -
CAM CK - - - 2 1
CAM DC2 2 1 - 1 -
CAM FE2 - 1 - 1 -
CAM GF 1 1 1 1 -
CAM J - 1 - 1 -
CAM JG 1 - - 1 -
CAM KA1 - 1 - - 1
CAM MN1 2 2 1 1 -
CAM MN2 2 1 1 - -
CAM MN3 2 2 - 2 -
CAM OM2 1 1 - - -
CAM OM3 2 2 - - -
CAM OM5 1 1 1 - -
CAM OM6 1 2 1 2 -
CAM P2V - 1 - - 1
CAM PO1 2 - - 1 1
CAM PO2 2 - - 1 2
CAM PO3 2 - - 1 1
CAM RQ - - 1 1 -
CAM TU3 1 1 1 1 -
CAM TU6 2 2 - - -
CAM TU8 - 1 1 - -
CAM UO4 1 2 - 1 1
CAM VU1 2 2 - 2 1
CAM VY2 - 1 1 - -
42
CAM VY3 1 1 1 - -
CAM VY5 2 2 - - -
CAM WP1 1 - 1 - 1
CAM XW2 - - - 1 1
CAM YW1 1 2 1 1 1
CAM YZ1 2 - - 1 1
CAM YZ3 2 - - 1 -
CAM ZX1 1 - - 1 -
Table 2. Candidate set of 16 occupancy models for predator and prey species for
survey data from Emas National Park and its northern surrounding region, Brazil. Models
were estimated with occupancy (Ψ) as a function of open vegetation; closed vegetation;
annual croplands; and perennial croplands. Detectability (p) varied as a function of each
survey period and number of cameras per trapping site.
Candidate Models
Ψ(.),p(.)
Ψ(openhabitats),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(closedhabitats),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(annualcrops),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(perennialcrops),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(openhabitats+closedhabitats),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(openhabitats+annualcrops),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(openhabitats+perennialcrops),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(closedhabitats+annualcrops),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(closedhabitats+perennialcrops),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(annualcrops+perennialcrops),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(openhabitats+closedhabitats+annualcrops),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(openhabitats+closedhabitats+perennialcrops),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(openhabitats+annualcrops+perennialcrops),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(closedhabitats+annualcrops+perennialcrops),p(survey+cam)
Ψ(openhabitats+closedhabitats+annualcrops+perennialcrops),p(survey+cam)
43
Table 3. List of medium and large-sized vertebrate species registered in Emas National
Park (ENP) and its northern surrounding region between July and December 2013.
Asterisk sign (*) indicates species analyzed in this study. Brazil Red List Status and IUCN
Status indicate species national and global conservation status, respectively. (LC = Least
Concern; NT = Near Threatened; VU = Vulnerable; DD = Data Deficient).
Species Name Common Name Inside
ENP
Outside
ENP
Brazil Red
List Status
IUCN
Status
REPTILES
Salvator duseni yellow tegu lizard x x - -
Salvator merianae black-and-white tegu lizard x x - LC
BIRDS
Cariama cristata red-legged seriema x x - LC
*Rhea americana greater rhea x x - NT
Crypturellus parvirostris small-billed tinamou x x - LC
Rhynchotus rufescens red-winged tinamou x x - LC
Crax fasciolata bare-faced curassow x x - VU
Penelope superciliaris rusty-margined guan x x - LC
Aramides cajanea grey-necked wood rail x - LC
MAMMALS
Chironectes minimus water opossum x - LC
Didelphis albiventris white-eared opossum x x - LC
Cabassous unicinctus naked-tailed armadillo x x - LC
Dasypus novemcinctus nine-banded armadillo x x - LC
Euphractus sexcinctus hairy armadillo x x - LC
Priodontes maximus giant armadillo x x VU VU
*Myrmecophaga tridactyla giant anteater x x VU VU
Tamandua tetradactyla lesser anteater x x - LC
Alouatta caraya black howler monkey x - LC
Sapajus libidinosus bearded capuchin monkey x - LC
Coendou prehensilis brazilian porcupine x - LC
Cuniculus paca spotted paca x - LC
Dasyprocta azarae Azara's agouti x x - DD
44
Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris capybara x x - LC
*Pecari tajacu collared peccary x x - LC
*Tayassu pecari white-lipped peccary x x VU VU
Blastocerus dichotomus marsh deer x x VU VU
*Ozotoceros bezoarticus pampas deer x x VU NT
Mazama americana red brocket deer x x - LC
Mazama gouazoubira gray brocket deer x x - LC
*Tapirus terrestris lowland tapir x x VU VU
Eira barbara tayra x x - LC
Galictis cuja lesser grison x x - LC
Lontra longicaudis neotropical otter x - NT
Conepatus semistriatus striped hog-nosed skunk x x - LC
Nasua nasua ring-tailed coati x x - LC
Procyon cancrivorus crab-eating raccoon x x - LC
Cerdocyon thous crab-eating fox x x - LC
Lycalopex vetulus hoary fox x VU LC
Chrysocyon brachyurus maned wolf x x VU NT
Leopardus colocolo pampas cat x x VU NT
Leopardus pardalis ocelot x x - LC
*Puma concolor cougar x x VU LC
Puma yagouaroundi jaguarundi x - LC
*Panthera onca jaguar x x VU NT
DOMESTIC
Gallus gallus domesticus domestic chicken x
Sus scrofa domesticus feral pig x
Bos indicus domestic cattle x
Equus ferus caballus domestic horse x
Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog x x
Felis catus domestic cat x
45
Table 4. The three best fitted models for each studied species and their respective AIC,
ΔAIC and naïve occupancy values. Values in red indicate models with less strength of
inference. Models were estimated with occupancy (Ψ) as a function of open vegetation;
closed vegetation; annual croplands; and perennial croplands. Detectability (p) varied as
a function of each survey period and number of cameras per trapping site.
Species Name
Common Name
Model AIC ΔAIC naïve Ψ
P. onca jaguar
psi(.),p(.) 108,28 0,00
0,4250 psi(open),p(survey+cam) 115,56 7,28
psi(perennial),p(survey+cam) 115,88 7,60
Pu. Concolor cougar
psi(.),p(.) 133,54 0,00
0,5750 psi(perennial),p(survey+cam) 134,66 1,12
psi(annual),p(survey+cam) 136,57 3,03
M. tridactyla
giant anteater
psi(.),p(.) 112,41 0,00
0,3750 psi(annual),p(survey+cam) 115,99 3,58
psi(closed+annual),p(survey+cam) 117,27 4,86
Pe. Tajacu collared peccary
psi(open+annual),p(survey+cam) 69,19 0,00
0,2000 psi(open+closed),p(survey+cam) 69,55 0,36
psi(open+closed+annual+perennial),p(survey+cam) 70,50 1,31
T. pecari white-lipped
peccary
psi(open+closed+annual+perennial),p(survey+cam) 140,83 0,00
0,7000 psi(annual),p(survey+cam) 151,50 10,67
psi(open),p(survey+cam) 151,68 10,85
Ta. Terrestris
lowland tapir
psi(.),p(.) 154,50 0,00
0,7750 psi(open+closed),p(survey+cam) 155,70 1,20
psi(annual),p(survey+cam) 156,26 1,76
O. bezoarticus
pampas deer
psi(open+annual+perennial),p(survey+cam) 128,13 0,00
0,7750 psi(closed+annual+perennial),p(survey+cam) 128,13 0,00
psi(open+closed+anual),p(survey+cam) 128,30 0,17
R. americana
greater rhea
psi(open+closed+annual+perennial),p(survey+cam) 139,31 0,00
0,7250 psi(closed),p(survey+cam) 140,97 1,66
psi(open+closed),p(survey+cam) 141,23 1,92
46
FIGURES
Figure 1. Emas National Park location in Goiás state and Brazil, and the vegetation types
and camera-trapping sites in Emas National Park and its surrounding region.
47
Figure 2. Focal species considered in this study. A: jaguar (Panthera onca); B: cougar (Puma concolor); C: giant anteater (Myrmecophaga
tridactyla); D: lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris); E: white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari); F: collared-peccary (Pecari tajacu); G: pampas
deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus); H: greater rhea (Rhea americana). All pictures were taken by Jaguar Conservation Fund’s automatic camera
traps in Emas National Park region, southwestern Goiás state, Brazil, between July and December, 2013.
