Study area
The study was carried out in the Médio Juruá region of western Brazilian Amazonia (Fig. 1), including two large contiguous sustainable-use protected areas and adjacent landscapes containing two urban clusters. This represents the middle-third section of the Juruá River, the second-longest white-water tributary of the Amazon River. The two protected areas include the 253,227 ha Médio Juruá Extractive Reserve (RESEX Médio Juruá, 5° 33′ 54″ S, 67° 42′ 47″ W), created in 1997 and legally occupied by ~ 2000 people distributed across 13 villages; and the 632,949 ha Uacari Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS Uacari, 5º43′58"S, 67º46′53"W) created in 2005, where ~ 1,200 people occupy 32 villages. The nearest towns are Carauari (population ≈ 28,000 residents), located 88 fluvial km downstream of the RESEX Médio Juruá, and Itamarati (population ≈ 8000), located 120 fluvial km upstream of the RDS Uacari (IBGE 2018). The Médio Juruá region has a wet tropical climate with a mean annual temperature of 27.1 °C and a mean annual rainfall of 3679 mm, with the wettest period between November and April.
Two different forest types comprise the study landscape: seasonally-flooded (várzea) forests, which account for ~ 20% of the study region, characterized by enriched Andean alluvial soils and lower floristic diversity, and the dominant (~ 80%) unflooded forest (terra firme), which exhibits higher floristic diversity and comparatively lower soil fertility (Hawes and Peres 2016). The current study was performed in unflooded forest on paleo-várzea sediments, thereafter as terra firme for simplicity, but we recognize that these forests, may diverge in their floristic macromosaics from so-called terra firme forests (Assis et al. 2015). Our sapling sites were established along areas that had experienced subsistence and commercial hunting to varying degrees but had no recent history of clear-cuts, wildfires, and timber extraction. We selected 30 sites spanning a wide gradient of hunting pressure along ~ 600 km non-linear (fluvial) distance, from the towns of Carauari to Itamarati (Fig. 1, Table S1). The sites selection was based on both distance to human settlements, physical accessibility and previous studies carried out in the area by the Médio Juruá Project (PMJ). At each of these 30 sites we established a standardized sampling protocol to obtain data on vertebrate abundance using terrestrial and arboreal camera traps; forest structure and composition; and other environmental variables that potentially influence vertebrate abundance, described as follows.
Terrestrial and arboreal camera trapping
Terrestrial and arboreal camera trapping were conducted from July 2017 to May 2019. We employed a modified camera-trapping design using a 4.5-ha terrestrial grid containing 16 camera-trap stations (4 × 4, spaced by 100 m), which were combined with four arboreal camera trap-stations (hereafter, CTS) spaced by 300 m. Thus, each of our 30 grids contained 20 cameras (16 terrestrial and 4 arboreal), amounting to total of 480 CTS placed near the ground and 120 CTS placed in the canopy. This CTS deployment prioritized efficient sampling at the grid-scale ensuring a high probability of detection events within the area covered by the grid. We established this camera-trapping grid at each pre-selected site considering a minimum spacing of 1 km when grids were in the same landscape (Fig. 1).
Arboreal camera traps were placed at ~ 15 m height in the main bifurcation of large low-angle branches of canopy trees to intercept natural canopy pathways, thereby maximizing detection probability. Terrestrial camera traps were deployed on basal tree boles at 15 cm from the ground to ensure detection of not only large-bodied mammal and bird species, but also small-bodied rodents and marsupials (see Palmeirim et al. 2019). All CTS were unbaited, and we did not necessarily select apparently favourable terrestrial camera-trap sites (e.g. game trails) as they were deployed systematically, but we avoided major obstacles in the field of view and the understorey was slightly cleared to maximize detectability. All CTS were exposed over a minimum period of 30 camera-trap-nights (CTNs; mean ± SD, 41.4 ± 23.7 nights per CTS). At each CTS, we recorded the (1) camera code, (2) geographic coordinates, and (3) date and time of deployment and removal.
All photographs and videos were analysed based on species identifications. Consecutive records of the same species were defined as independent whenever they were spaced apart by intervals longer than 60 min. For validation of species identification in case of any margin of ambiguity, 3–5 records were sent to specialists of individual taxa. Rodents and marsupials that could not be identified to species level were grouped into a single morphospecies: small (~ 100 g) or very small (~ 15 g) mammals. Records of domestic animals, small passerines, bats, lizards, and insects were excluded from the analyses. We extracted all photo metadata including date and time of records using the camtrapR 1.1 R package (Niedballa et al. 2016). For data correction from cameras with programming problems, we used data obtained in the field during both camera deployment and removal. We therefore produced a database containing the total number of records per species (or morphospecies) by CTS and their respective sampling effort (hours).
Vertebrate abundance and biomass
All CTS records within any given grid were summed and divided by the total sampling effort per grid and standardized by 100 CTNs to derive a species-specific abundance index for each of the 30 grids. This index was then multiplied by the species body mass (mean adult male and female) and mean observed group size (number of individuals in group-living species) in the study area to obtain an approximate metric of vertebrate biomass per sampling grid.
Data on body mass were obtained from Wilman et al. (2014) and Peres (1993). Data on mean group size were derived from 3 years of monthly line-transect survey effort (Peres and Cunha 2012) along 95 terra firme and seasonally-flooded forest transects placed throughout the same Juruá meta-landscape (each of which 3–4 km in length) carried out by C.A. Peres and collaborators (unpubl. data).
Species were initially classified into either game or non-game species according to Abrahams et al. (2017) and C.A. Peres (unpubl. data), considering both commercial and subsistence hunting. All species were classed within five trophic levels based on a rank of dietary energy content (see Almeida-Rocha et al. 2017) and dietary data available in Wilman et al (2014) (Table S3). The lowest trophic level (1) thus includes species with high proportions of low-energy dietary items (i.e. foliage), whereas the highest trophic level (5) is represented by hyper-carnivores that exclusively consume vertebrates.
We also distinguished all species into either terrestrial or arboreal depending on their locomotion mode and vertical stratification according to Paglia et al. (2012). For scansorial species, which use both strata, we assigned them into the group in which they were recorded most frequently by our camera traps (Table S2). For nocturnal rodents and marsupials, we summed the species-specific biomass estimates for spiny rats (Proechimys spp.) and morphospecies identified as either small (~ 100 g) or very small (~ 15 g) mammals. Grid scale biomass estimates were pooled into ten functional groups that were not necessarily mutually exclusive, including (1) game species, (2) nocturnal rodents and marsupials, (3) arboreal species, (4) terrestrial species, (6) browsers, (7) grazers, (8) frugivores, (9) omnivore-insectivores, and (10) carnivores.
We opted to use a simple metric of relative abundance that does not incorporate imperfect detectability modelling (IDM) because (1) most species we sampled are naturally rare to very rare and yielded very few records; (2) this study could not count on robust temporally independent data such as in appropriate repeated-sample designs for occupancy estimation; (3) our comparisons across sites (CT grids) are largely within species and all sites shared an identical species pool, thereby reducing any potential problems of using naïve detection rates; and (4) all species were subsequently aggregated into functional groups and pooled biomass estimates were then derived for different trophic levels, so it would be inappropriate to combine different abundance estimates for those species that may or may not have enough records to perform IDM.
Proxy of hunting pressure
We built a proxy of hunting pressure based on the intensity of human activity: geographic distance to and size of human settlements, including villages and towns. Previous studies in the same area have shown that distance from urban centres represents a good proxy for the anthropogenic impact on large vertebrate abundance (Nichols et al. 2013; Abrahams et al. 2017). We measured the Euclidean distance from each camera grid centroid to all villages and the dry-season navigation (fluvial) distance to the towns using ArcGIS10.3. Human population size of each town was derived from IBGE (2018) census data, while village size was obtained from the Projeto Médio Juruá (PMJ) and the Sustainable Amazon Foundation (FAS) databases. Hunting pressure was therefore defined by the equation:
$$HP={\sum }_{i}^{n}\frac{S(vil)}{\sqrt{d(vil)}}+ \frac{S(caf)}{\sqrt{d(caf)}}+\frac{S(ita)}{\sqrt{d(ita)}}$$
where S represents the human population size at any village (vil) or towns (caf = Carauari; ita = Itamarati); d represents the Euclidean distance from each grid centroid to the nearest community or the dry-season navigation (fluvial) distance to the towns.
Environmental variables
For each of the 30 sites, we compiled data on all major environmental variables that could affect vertebrate abundance and biomass besides the hunting pressure, namely (1) the proportion of várzea forest area within a 40-km2 buffer area (9.75 km wide) around our 30 camera-trapping grids. This was based on a 2018 Landsat 7 satellite image, which was classified using the spatial analyst tool in ArcGIS10.3; (2) water level, defined as the median Juruá River water level obtained over a 38-year time-series, corresponding to the Julian day mid-point of the camera trapping survey period within each grid. Water level data were obtained using daily readings, recorded from 1st January 1973 to 31st December 2010 at the nearby meteorological station of Porto Gavião, Carauari, Amazonas (ANA 2019). This variable provides a strong proxy of hydrological seasonality. Both proportion of várzea forest and water level are strongly associated with animal abundance due to the seasonal movements of terrestrial vertebrates between várzea and terra firme forests (Costa et al. 2018); and (3) soil cation exchange capacity (CEC), which we measured based on soil samples collected at each tree plot, which were analysed at the Soil Chemistry Laboratory of the National Institute for Amazon Research (INPA), Manaus. Soil chemistry analysis conducted here included major macronutrients such as Ca, Mg, K and P measured as cmol kg–1 which were later pooled into a single index of soil fertility. Soil fertility is a strong predictor of vertebrate biomass in Amazonian forests, particularly primary consumers (Peres 2008).
Data analysis
We examined the effects of all covariates on the aggregate vertebrate biomass for each functional group: (1) game, (2) arboreal, (3) terrestrial, and (4) nocturnal rodent and marsupials species, and (5) all five trophic guilds. In doing so, we assess the degree to which hunting pressure, water level, proportion of várzea forest and soil fertility affects the (i) aggregate biomass and (ii) community composition of birds and mammals. We removed two outlier grids (two lightly hunted sites at Tabuleiro) because these grids were unknowingly near young secondary forest areas that had been subjected to anthropogenic disturbance, so we conducted all further analysis using 28 sites.
First, we visually examined variables through histograms. Variables with non-normal distributions were transformed using the bestNormalize 1.4.2 R package (Peterson 2017), which selects the best normalization data transformation. Hunting pressure was Box-Cox transformed as well as soil fertility, and biomass estimates for small mammals, non-game species and frugivores. Likewise, biomass estimates for terrestrial, arboreal and browser species were log-transformed. Biomass of grazers and omnivore-insectivores were sqrt-transformed, whereas biomass of carnivores was Yeo-Johnson transformed. Finally, water level and proportion of várzea forest around camera-trapping grids was arcsine‐transformed. We calculated the variance inflation factors (VIFs) to test for multicollinearity in explanatory variables, where VIFs < 4 indicate low multicollinearity (Zuur et al. 2010). None of our explanatory variables were strongly correlated so they were all entered into generalised linear models (GLMs) with a Gaussian distribution. The spatial structure of residual models was tested using the Moran’s I autocorrelation index (Gittleman and Kot 1990). All analyses were conducted in R 3.5.3 (R Development Core Team 2019).
To examine the relative importance of our environmental variables on aggregate vertebrate biomass we applied a model averaging approach using the MuMIN 1.43.15 package in R (Bartón 2016). Model averaging calculates multiple regression models from all possible combinations of variables using the dredge function and ranks models according to the Akaike`s information criteria (AIC). We considered as ‘best’ models those for which ΔAIC < 2. When more than one model was selected, we built an average model using the model.avg function and determined the importance of the explanatory variables for each response variable from their frequency of occurrence in these models.
Multivariate patterns of vertebrate community composition along the gradient of hunting pressure was further investigated through Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA). PCoA is a method that summarises similarities or dissimilarities between multidimensional distance matrices in a low-dimensional space. We used the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix to account for species identity on community composition (Legendre and Legendre 2012) based on the pcoa function in the ape 5.3 R package (Paradis et al 2004). We first considered the (i) relative abundance, and (ii) aggregate biomass of the entire assemblage which were then subdivided into game and non-game species. Additionally, we performed a GLM with Gaussian distribution, using the environmental covariates and the hunting pressure as predictors of the scores obtained from Axes 1 and 2 of the PCoA based on the relative abundance and aggregate biomass estimates for each functional group.
To investigate changes in the size structure of both terrestrial and arboreal vertebrates along the hunting pressure gradient, we built individual-based cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of the pooled body mass data for all independent records of each species in each camera-trapping grid (mean ± SD per grid = 342.6 ± 130.9 individuals, range = 154 – 588). As such, these CDFs calculate the cumulative probability of a given body mass value across the animal assemblage in the sampling unit (i.e., camera-trapping grid, N = 28). Species body mass ranged over four orders of magnitude from ~ 15 g to ~ 150,000 g. For each CDF curve, we then calculated the total ‘area under the curve’ (AUC) as shown in Fig. 5. Grid scale AUC values were further used in a non-linear regression model, including a quadratic term, to investigate how this assemblage-wide metric of size structure was affected by hunting pressure. The AUC values ranged from 4.27 to 6.57. Here, higher AUC values indicate greater dominance of small- to mid-sized species, whereas lower values indicate assemblages more heavily dominated by large-bodied species. Finally, we examined shifts in size structure across the entire hunting pressure gradient based on the body mass of all terrestrial and arboreal vertebrates recorded at each trapping grid. As such, we used a mixed model approach (GLMM) in which grid identity was the random effect within which the body mass distribution of all animal records is explained by degree of hunting pressure.