Advertisement

Mammalian Biology

, Volume 78, Issue 1, pp 21–27 | Cite as

The effect of anthropic pressures and elevation on the large and medium-sized terrestrial mammals of the subtropical mountain forests (Yungas) of NW Argentina

  • Mario S. Di BitettiEmail author
  • Sebastian A. Albanesi
  • María José Foguet
  • Carlos De Angelo
  • Alejandro D. Brown
Original Investigation

Abstract

We conducted a 55-day long camera-trap survey in the Yungas subtropical forest in NW Argentina, to assess the effect of human accessibility, conservation status of the area, domestic animals and elevation on the diversity and composition of the large and medium-sized native terrestrial mammal assemblage. We deployed 24 camera-trap stations at distances of ∼2 km from each other. The study area is covered by continuous forest and has its center in the small community of Acambuco, in the Acambuco Provincial Reserve. The main economic activity in the area is oil/gas exploitation. Local residents raise cattle, hunt and use timber and non-timber forest products. The human impact was indirectly measured with an accessibility cost model. We used a multiple regression ANCOVA to assess the effect of elevation (range: 628–1170 masl), accessibility, protection status (reserve vs not) and frequency of records of domestic animals on the native mammal species richness and on a nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination based on the frequency of records of the native mammals recorded at >3 camera-trap stations. We recorded 15 species of native mammals. Native mammal species richness decreased with elevation. Elevation was correlated with NMDS axes. Other predictive variables had no effect on species richness or the NMDS ordination, probably as a result of the relatively narrow range of conditions assessed in this study. The effect of elevation on mammal assemblages should be considered in landscape planning processes aimed at promoting biodiversity conservation.

Keywords

Accessibility cost model Biodiversity conservation Elevation Hunting Protected areas 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. August, P.V., 1983. The role of habitat complexity and heterogeneity in structuring tropical mammal communities. Ecology 64, 1495–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barquez, R.M., Díaz, M.M., 2001. Bats of the Argentine Yungas: a systematic and distributional analysis. Acta Zool. Mex. 82, 29–81.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, K.M., Gese, E.M., Berger, J., 2008. Indirect effects and traditional trophic cascades: a test involving wolves, coyotes and proghorn. Ecology 89, 818–828.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Blundo, C., Malizia, L.R., Blake, J.G., Brown, A.D., 2012. Tree species distribution in Andean forests: influence of regional and local factors. J. Trop. Ecol. 28, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodmer, R.E., Eisenberg, J.F., Redford, K.H., 1997. Hunting and the likelihood of extinction of Amazonian mammals. Conserv. Biol. 11, 460–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonham, C.A., Sacayon, E., Tzi, E., 2008. Protecting imperiled “paper parks”: potential lessons from the Sierra Chinajá, Guatemala. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 1581–1593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, A.D., Grau, H.R., Malizia, L.R., Grau, A., 2001. Los bosques nublados de la Argentina. In: Kapelle, M., Brown, A.D. (Eds.), Bosques Nublados del Neotrópico.Google Scholar
  8. Editorial INBio, Costa Rica, pp. 623–659.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, A.D., Grau, H.R., Lomáscolo, T., Gasparri, N.I., 2002. Una estrategia de con-servación para las selvas subtropicales de montaña (Yungas) in Argentina. Ecotropicos 15, 147–159.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, J.H., 2001. Mammals on mountainsides: elevational patterns of diversity. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 10, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E., da Fonseca, G.A.B., 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291, 125–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caro, T.M., 1999. Densities of mammals in partially protected areas: the Katavi ecosystem of western Tanzania. J. Appl. Ecol. 36, 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cingolani, A.M., Noy-Meir, I., Renison, D.D., Cabido, M., 2008. La ganadería extensiva ¿es compatible con laconservación de la biodiversidady de los suelos? Ecología Austral. 18, 253–271.Google Scholar
  14. Crooks, K.R., Soulé, M.E., 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400, 563–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Angelo, C., Paviolo, A., Di Bitetti, M.S., 2011. Differential impact of landscape transformation on pumas (Puma concolor) and jaguars (Panthera onca) in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest. Divers. Distrib. 17, 422–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Di Bitetti, M.S., Albanesi, S., Foguet, M.J., Cuyckens, G.A.E., Brown, A., 2011. The Yungas Biosphere Reserve of Argentina: a hot spot of South American wild cats. Cat News 54, 25–29.Google Scholar
  17. Di Bitetti, M.S., Paviolo, A., Ferrari, C.A., De Angelo, C., Di Blanco, Y., 2008. Differential responses to hunting in two sympatric species of brocket deer (Mazama americana and M. nana). Biotropica 40, 636–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Bitetti, M.S., De Angelo, C.D., Di Blanco, Y.E., Paviolo, A., 2010. Niche partitioning and species coexistence in a Neotropical felid assemblage. Acta Oecol. 36, 403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farrow, A., Nelson, A., 2001. Accessibility Modelling in ArcView 3.1: An Extension for Computing Travel Time and Market Catchment Information. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia, Available from: http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/access/acceso/index.htm (accessed 10.02.09).
  20. Fundación ProYungas, 2004. Reserva Acambuco: Informe Preliminar. Unpublished report. Fundación ProYungas, Tucumán, Argentina, 85 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Grau, A., Brown, A.D., 2000. Development threats to biodiversity and opportunities for conservation in the mountain ranges of the Upper Bermejo River Basin, NW Argentina and SW Bolivia. Ambio 29, 445–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hayes, T., Parks, M., 2006. people, and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. World Dev. 34, 2064–2075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hibert, F., Calenge, C., Fritz, H., Maillard, D., Bouché, P., Ipavec, A., Convers, A., Ombredane, D., de Visscher, M., 2010. Spatial avoidance of invading pastoral cattle by wild ungulates: insights from using point process statistics. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 2003–2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jayat, J.P., Ortiz, P.E., Miotti, M.D., 2009. Mamíferos de la Selva Pedemontana del noroeste argentino. In: Brown, A.D., Blendinger, P.G., Lomáscolo, T., García Bes, P. (Eds.), Ecología, historia natural y conservación de la selva pedemontana de las yungas australes. Ediciones del Subtrópico, Tucumán, pp. 273–316.Google Scholar
  25. Jayat, J.P., Ortiz, P.E., 2010. Mamíferos del pedemonte de Yungas de la alta cuenca del río Bermejo en Argentina: una línea de base de diversidad. Mastozool. Neotrop. 17, 69–86.Google Scholar
  26. Lomolino, M.V., 2001. Elevation gradients ofspecies-density: historical and prospective views. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 10, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loveridge, A.J., Wang, S.W., Frank, L.G., Seidensticker, J., 2010. People and wild felids: conservation of cats and management of conflicts. In: Macdonald, D.W., Loveridge, A.J. (Eds.), Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 161–195.Google Scholar
  28. Madhusudan, M.D., 2004. Recovery of wild large herbivores following livestock decline in a tropical Indian wildlife reserve. J. Appl. Ecol. 41, 858–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCain, C.M., 2005. Elevational gradients in diversity of small mammals. Ecology 86, 366–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCain, C.M., 2007. Area and mammalian elevational diversity. Ecology 88, 76–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morin, P.J., 1999. Community Ecology. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Naves, J., Wiegand, T., Revilla, E., Delibes, M., 2003. Endangered species constrained by natural and human factors: the case of brown bears in Northern Spain. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1276–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson, A., 2000. Accessibility, transport and travel time information. Hillsides Project Report Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). Cali, Colombia, pp 16.Google Scholar
  34. Nelson, A., 2008. Estimated Travel Time to the Nearest City of 50,000 or More People in Year 2000. Global Environment Monitoring Unit - Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy, Available from: http://gem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gam/index.htm (accessed 14.03.09).
  35. Nielsen, M.R., 2006. Importance, cause and effect of bushmeat hunting in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania: implications for community based wildlife management. Biol. Conserv. 128, 509–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ojeda, R.A., Mares, M.A., 1989. A biogeographic analysis of the mammals of Salta Province, Argentina: Patterns of species assemblage in the neotropics. Special Pub., vol. 27. The Museum Texas Tech University, pp. 1–66.Google Scholar
  37. Ojeda, R.A., Stadler, J., Brandl, R., 2003. Diversity of mammals in the tropical-temperate Neotropics: hotspots on a regional scale. Biodivers. Conserv. 12, 1431–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oksanen, J.,2011. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Communities in R:Vegan Tutorial, Available from: http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/opetus/metodi/vegantutor.pdf (accessed May 2012).
  39. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F.G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P.R., O’Hara, R.B., Simpson, G.L., Solymos, P., Henry, M., Stevens, H., Wagner, H., 2012. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.0-3., Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (accessed 29.05.12).
  40. Patterson, B.D., Stotz, D.F., Solari, S., Fitzpatrick, J.W., Pacheco, V., 1998. Contrasting patterns of elevational zonation for birds and mammals in the Andes of southeastern Peru. J. Biogeogr. 25, 593–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peres, C.A., 2000. Effects of subsistence hunting on vertebrate community structure in Amazonian forests. Conserv. Biol. 14, 240–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peres, C.A., 2010. Overexploitation. In: Sodhi, N.S., Ehrlich, P.R. (Eds.), Conservation Biology for All. Oxford University Press, pp. 107–130, Availablé from: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199554249.do
  43. Peres, C.A., Dolman, P.M., 2000. Density compensation in neotropical primate communities: evidence from 56 hunted and nonhunted Amazonian forests of varying productivity. Oecologia 122, 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peres, C.A., Lake, I.R., 2003. Extent of nontimber resource extraction in tropical forests: accessibility to game vertebrates by hunters in the Amazon basin. Conserv. Biol. 17, 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quinn, G.P., Keough, M.J., 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. R Development Core Team, 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, ISBN: 3–900051–07–0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
  47. Redford, K.H., 1992. The empty-forest syndrome. BioScience 42, 412–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schipper, J., Chanson, J.S., Chiozza, F., et al., 2008. The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322, 225–230.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Silveira, L., Jácomo, A.T.A., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., 2003. Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Biol. Conserv. 114, 351– 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sodhi, N.S., Ehrlich, P.R., 2010. Conservation Biology for All. Oxford University Press, Available from: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199554249.do
  51. Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.J., 1995. Biometry, third ed. Freeman and Company, New York.Google Scholar
  52. Somma, D.J., 2006. Interrelated Modeling of Land Useand Habitat for the Design of an Ecological Corridor: a case study in the Yungas, Argentina. Thesis, Wageningen University (The Netherlands), Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  53. Tews, J., Brose, U., Grimm, V., Tielbörger, K., Wichmann, M.C., Schwager, M., Jeltsch, F., 2004. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J. Biogeogr. 31, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tobler, M.W., Carrillo-Percastegui, S.E., Leite Pitman, R., Mares, R., Powell, G., 2008. An evaluation ofcamera traps for inventorying large- and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Anim. Conserv. 11, 169–178.Google Scholar
  55. Williams, S.E., Marsh, H., Winter, J., 2002. Spatial scale, species diversity, and habitat structure: small mammals in Australian tropical rain forest. Ecology 83, 1317–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wright, S.J., Duber, H.C., 2001. Poachers and forest fragmentation alter seed dispersal, seed survival, and seedling recruitment in the palm Attalea butyraceae, with implications for tropical tree diversity. Biotropica 33, 583–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario S. Di Bitetti
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sebastian A. Albanesi
    • 3
  • María José Foguet
    • 4
  • Carlos De Angelo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alejandro D. Brown
    • 4
  1. 1.Instituto de Biología Subtropical – sede Iguazú, CONICET – Facultad de Ciencias ForestalesUniversidad Nacional de MisionesArgentina
  2. 2.Asociación Civil Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico (CeIBA)Argentina
  3. 3.Facultad de Ciencias AgrariasUniversidad Nacional de JujuyArgentina
  4. 4.Fundación ProYungasArgentina

Personalised recommendations