Large Protected Areas Safeguard Mammalian Functional Diversity in Human-Modified Landscapes
by
, , , and
Larissa Fornitano
1,2,*
,
Jéssica Abonizio Gouvea
3,
Rômulo Theodoro Costa
1,2,
Marcelo Magioli
4,5,6 and
Rita Bianchi
1,2 1
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biodiversidade, Instituto de Biociências, Letras e Ciências Exatas, Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Campus São José do Rio Preto, São José do Rio Preto 15054-000, São Paulo, Brazil
2
Laboratório de Ecologia de Mamíferos, Departamento de Biologia Aplicada à Agropecuária, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Campus Jaboticabal, Jaboticabal 14884-900, São Paulo, Brazil
3
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia Aplicada, Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura, Universidade de São Paulo, Campus de Piracicaba, Piracicaba 13416-000, São Paulo, Brazil
4
Instituto Pró-Carnívoros, Atibaia 12945-010, São Paulo, Brazil
5
Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservação de Mamíferos Carnívoros, Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, Atibaia 12952-011, São Paulo, Brazil
6
Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação, Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14040-901, São Paulo, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(13), 5419; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135419
Submission received: 16 April 2024
/
Revised: 28 May 2024
/
Accepted: 29 May 2024
/
Published: 26 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mammals as Key Species in the Maintenance of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Conservation)
Abstract
:Habitat loss and fragmentation are pervasive processes driving the disappearance of populations and species in the Neotropical region. Since species loss may translate into functional loss, assessing changes in the composition of assemblages’ functional traits might improve our understanding of the ecological roles played by species and ecosystem functioning. Here, we investigate how landscape structure and composition impact the functional diversity of terrestrial mammals in 18 forest patches composing eight protected areas in Southern Brazil. We used functional diversity (FD) based on dietary, physical, and behavioral traits and species vulnerability to extinction. We determined which landscape variables (patch size, proportions of forest and sugarcane, and patch isolation) most influenced mammal FD values by using a both-direction stepwise model selection from a linear global model. Finally, we evaluated the role of trophic guilds in explaining the variation in the FD values using a Principal Component Analysis. Between 2012 and 2017, using camera traps, we recorded 26 native medium- and large-sized mammals throughout the protected areas, of which 6 are regionally threatened, and 5 domestic/exotic species. Richness among the forest patches varied from 4 to 24 species (9.05 ± 5.83), while the FD values varied from 1.29 to 6.59 (2.62 ± 1.51). FD variation was best explained by patch size, which exhibited a strong positive correlation (adjusted R2 = 0.55, slope = 0.67, p < 0.001). Insectivores and frugivores presented the highest correlation with patch size, explaining most of the variation in the FD values. Our findings strengthen the paramount role of large protected areas in maintaining mammal diversity and their ecological functions in human-modified landscapes.
1. Introduction
Driven by human activities, the ongoing sixth mass extinction [1] threatens about one million species worldwide [2]. However, South America was impacted by the early loss of large mammals in the Pleistocene, possibly caused by overhunting [3,4]. This contemporary pulse of extinctions will have a profound ecological impact on ecosystem functioning since species sensitive to habitat loss and large-sized ones are more prone to disappear with environmental changes [5,6]. In this sense, the consequences of losing functionally unique species may be more substantial than the extinction of those with redundant traits [7,8]. These losses can be associated with and explained by the widespread phenomenon of defaunation, which comprises the loss of species and their functions mediated by habitat loss, fragmentation, and overhunting, affecting, directly and indirectly, the provision of ecosystem services [9].
The Neotropical realm is extensively impacted by anthropogenic activities, especially agricultural land uses [10], which in recent decades replaced a great portion of the natural ecosystems, such as in the Atlantic Forest and the Cerrado, two biodiversity hotspots in Brazil [11]. Currently, most of the landscapes of these biomes are characterized by patches of native vegetation of varying sizes, but overall small and isolated, immersed in anthropogenic matrices composed of agriculture, urban areas, and roads [12,13]. These altered landscapes pose a substantial risk to biodiversity, potentially leading to the decline and extinction of species and populations due to the depletion of critical resources [14,15,16] and a reduction in genetic variation caused by a combination of increased genetic drift, inbreeding, and reduced gene flow [17,18,19]. Moreover, these modified environments favor generalist taxa that are more competitive in human-modified habitats than specialists (e.g., [20]). The biotic and abiotic changes in these landscapes lead to functionally impoverished assemblages [21,22,23,24], which in turn can disrupt the regime of ecological functions performed by organisms [25,26,27].
Despite the substantial loss of biodiversity in fragmented landscapes, smaller patches provide refuge for several species, including both habitat generalists and specialists [24,28,29,30], some of which can exploit agricultural matrices to obtain food and use it as habitat [20,31,32]. Therefore, these remnants of native vegetation still retain several ecological functions [27] and deserve attention for species conservation and to be integrated into landscape management strategies.
Protected areas are known to safeguard biodiversity worldwide and are at the core of local and global conservation efforts, with particular importance in human-modified landscapes [27]. Nonetheless, our understanding of how anthropogenic stressors influence the functional roles performed by species within protected areas is limited [33,34], including mammals, a group widely affected by anthropogenic stressors [17,35,36].
Mammals play a crucial role in ecosystem functioning by performing several ecological functions that exert control over both animal and plant species, contributing substantially to biodiversity maintenance [37,38]. Therefore, reductions in mammalian diversity and abundance in fragmented landscapes, mainly of keystone species and ecosystem engineers, can directly and indirectly impact population persistence [39,40,41], ecological functions performed [42,43], and ecosystem services provided [35,38,44,45,46].
Traditional measures such as observed richness and species diversity are widely employed to assess the diversity of animal assemblages [47,48,49]. However, these measures consider all species as ecologically equivalent, not accounting for the functional uniqueness of each species. Functional diversity measures can combine into a single framework of morphological, ecological, and behavioral traits that differentiate species, facilitating the quantification of attributes within an assemblage [50,51,52,53]. This analytical approach, as the measure proposed by Petchey and Gaston [54,55], has proven reliable and had successful applications in previous studies with mammals [23,24,56,57,58], allowing for a broader exploration of the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation on biodiversity.
In this study, we assessed how landscape structure and composition affect the functional diversity of medium- and large-sized mammals in forest patches distributed in eight protected areas in Southern Brazil. We expect that small and more isolated patches will exhibit functionally impoverished mammal assemblages.
2. Materials and Methods
The study was conducted across 18 forest patches distributed within eight protected areas in an ecotonal zone between Cerrado and Atlantic Forest biomes in the north, northeast, and south-central regions of the São Paulo state, Brazil (Figure 1), biomes that have experienced substantial levels of fragmentation over time [14]. The patches encompass a wide range of sizes, from 96 to 10,285 hectares, within the protected areas of sustainable use and strict protection (Table 1). The surrounding landscape is dominated by sugarcane (Saccharum spp.), pine (Pinus spp.), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), orange (Citrus spp.), and coffee (Coffea spp.) plantations, in addition to pastures, roads, and urban areas [59,60,61]. The climate varies between tropical, subtropical humid, and highland subtropical, with average temperatures between 20.1 °C and 23.9 °C and average precipitation ranging from 1333 to 1588 mm [62]. In São Paulo state, 25% of the remaining native vegetation is maintained as protected areas that harbor 255 species of mammals, representing ~33% of the species found in Brazilian territory [63].
Our study focused on medium- and large-sized mammals (≥1 kg [64]). We followed the list of the Brazilian Society of Mammalogy for species nomenclature [65], classified mammal species according to their trophic guild following Magioli et al. [27], and defined threat categories at the regional [66], national [67], and international levels [68]. The mammals were identified using the specialized literature [69,70].
We collected data from October 2012 to August 2017 using non-baited camera traps placed at each intersection of a 1 km2 grid to guarantee spatial independence (Figure 1). The selection of these points followed a systematic distribution method, guided by Google Earth satellite imagery. The number of points varied according to the patch size to ensure the comprehensive coverage of the entire area (Table 1), but the difficulty to access and lack of security limited camera deployment in some parts, totaling 145 camera-trapping stations installed. The camera traps were affixed to tree trunks 30–40 cm above the ground and programmed for continuous operation (24 h/day), capturing three photographs at each triggering event with a 10 s interval between events. Each camera trap remained active for an average of 60 days, subjected to routine inspections every 15 to 20 days. The total sampling effort was 9642 trap-days. We considered records taken at 60 min intervals between the photos of the same species at the same sampling station as independent records. We calculated a relative abundance index (RAI) defined by the number of independent photographs recorded per sampling effort [71].
To evaluate how landscape composition and structure impact the functional diversity of mammals, we calculated variables in 1.5 km radius circular buffer zones from the centroid of the sampled patches using the landscapemetrics package [72]. Variables were obtained from the land use and land cover maps of MapBiomas, collection 8 [73], with a spatial resolution of 30 m for the corresponding sampling years. Using histograms, we evaluated land use classes with enough variation among the sampling sites, which include the percentages of forest, sugarcane, and the mosaic of uses. We also calculated the isolation among the patches based on the Euclidean distance from the patch edge to the nearest native vegetation patch edge. Then, we used Person’s correlation test to exclude variables with correlation values above r = |0.7|, of which, we excluded the mosaic of uses class that was negatively correlated with forest cover (−0.81). Therefore, we included in the analysis as variables the size of the forest patches (patch size, in ha), percentages of forest and sugarcane in 1.5 km buffers, and patch isolation (in meters).
For each mammal assemblage, we calculated the functional diversity index (FD) proposed by Petchey and Gaston [54,55], implemented through the picante package [74]. The calculation consists of constructing a trait matrix encompassing all medium- and large-sized mammals recorded in each forest patch and transforming it into a distance matrix. Then, the matrix is grouped using the UPGMA method and the Gower distance [75], which accommodates both categorical and continuous variables, producing a functional dendrogram. The sum of the total length of the dendrogram branches determines FD values. The functional traits selected for analysis include locomotion form, body mass, litter size, feeding habits (diet and foraging substrates), social behavior, activity periods, and vulnerability to extinction (Table 2). Data on traits were compiled from the literature [22,24,67,76,77].
To evaluate the impact of landscape variables on FD, first, we tested data distribution using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Then, we performed a both-direction stepwise regression implemented by the step function from package stats in R 3.4.1 using a linear global model with all explanatory variables [FD ~ log1p(patch size) + forest + sugarcane + log1p(isolation)], and including the log-transformed sampling effort at each sampling area as weight in the model to account for the difference in sampling effort per area (Table 1). We selected the model with the lowest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) value as the best model.
Lastly, we performed a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) aiming to identify which variables associated with the FD values accounted for the most substantial variance in trophic guilds when considering the first two axes of the PCA. To do this, for each sampled patch, we used the FD values, the patch size, and the number of species in the five trophic guilds considered (carnivores, insectivores, frugivores, omnivores, and herbivores) (Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3). All the analyses were performed in R 4.3.1 [78], and graphical implementation was done using the ggplot2 package [79].
3. Results
We recorded 26 native species of medium- and large-sized mammals from nine orders and 20 families, and 5 domestic/exotic species (Table A1). Six species are threatened in São Paulo state [66], four in Brazil [67], and two worldwide [68]; three species are considered Data Deficient in the different lists (Cabassous tatouay, Conepatus semistriatus, and Dasyprocta azarae) (Table A1). The most recorded species were the white-eared opossum (Didelphis albiventris) (RAI = 0.044), Azara’s agouti (D. azarae) (RAI = 0.043), and nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) (RAI = 0.038), respectively (Table A2). Omnivores were the most recorded (N = 10, 38.46%), followed by insectivores (N = 5, 19.23%), herbivores (N = 5, 19.23%), carnivores (N = 4, 15.38%), and frugivores (N = 2, 7.70%) (Table A3). The average wildlife species richness was 9.05 ± 5.83 SD among the forest patches, varying from 4 species in the patches of BFS, ARBR, and SRES, to 24 species in FBJSP. FD ranged from 1.29 in a patch of ARBR to 6.59 in FBJSP, with an average of 2.62 ± 1.47 SD. On average, the FD values were higher in strictly protected areas (2.80 ± 1.58 SD) compared to those of sustainable use (1.73 ± 0.68 SD), but the difference was not significant (Wilcoxon test, W = 35, p = 0.15).
The stepwise selection indicated that the model with patch size best explained the variation in the FD values (AIC = 36.2; Table 3), showing a strong positive and significant relationship (adjusted R2 = 0.55, slope = 0.67, p < 0.001) (Figure 2a). Concerning trophic guilds, the first two axes explained 71% and 10% of the total variance in the FD values (Figure 2b), respectively. Our findings revealed a higher correlation of insectivore and frugivore mammals with large patches, while omnivores, herbivores, and carnivores emerged as the most prominent contributors to the higher FD values observed.
4. Discussion
We showed that patch size explained most of the variation in the functional diversity of the medium- and large-sized mammal assemblages, particularly related to insectivore and frugivore species, which might require large habitat patches to ensure their persistence within human-modified landscapes. Although this is an expected relationship, we highlight that no other landscape variable explained the variation in the functional diversity, strengthening the ubiquitous role of large forest patches and the invariable importance of protected areas.
As expected, the functional diversity increased with patch size. This relationship might be related to an increasing diversity of the structural attributes of the vegetation, which in turn is expected to provide more resources (e.g., food and shelter) and support a higher number of species [80,81,82], a consistent pattern in the Neotropics [21,27,83,84,85]. Even small forest patches are important for the persistence of mammals in human-modified landscapes [24,28,86], which can serve as stepping stones to move between more favorable areas through fragmented landscapes [87,88]. In addition, some species can use the matrix (especially agriculture) to search for food resources and as habitat [20,31,32,89], favoring their presence in small and/or isolated patches.
While these factors may promote the occurrence of species in small forest patches, including generalists and specialists, it is important to recognize that the long-term viability of mammal populations depends on patch size and quality [90], and disturbance regime exerted by anthropogenic stressors, such as hunting [91]. Although most of our sampling sites are located within strictly protected areas, and patch size was the main predictor of functional diversity, several forest patches with different sizes presented low FD values. Isolation had no significant effect on mammal functional diversity in our study, but this predictor is known to negatively affect mammalian diversity [24,83,87,92]. Furthermore, the loss of native vegetation surrounding large patches, which might result in connectivity loss, is a major driver of population declines worldwide [93,94]. Therefore, despite the ecological value of small forest patches [41], their connectivity with large ones through surrounding native habitats is paramount to sustaining biodiversity and, consequently, the vital ecological functions they perform [95,96].
Species more sensitive to habitat loss, including forest-dependent and large-sized ones, tend to be the first to disappear [97,98], such as the jaguar (Panthera onca), which is virtually extinct from our study landscapes. Although the large forest patches have the higher species richness, of the 13 patches smaller than 1000 ha, only 2 did not present any sensitive species, while at least one threatened species was recorded in 14 out of the 18 sampled patches. The giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla) and the ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) are among the regionally threatened species that have been recorded in most patches, and although considered sensitive to habitat loss [99,100], they demonstrate the importance of small patches on connecting habitats for more demanding species. On the other hand, the abundant records of habitat and diet generalists such as the white-eared opossum (D. albiventris) and the nine-banded armadillo (D. novemcinctus), even in the largest patches, suggest a high degree of habitat disturbance, particularly where carnivore diversity and abundance is reduced [101,102,103].
The importance of patch size may be related to the species’ energy needs, habitat productivity, and resource irregularity [104]. Fruit trees are not evenly distributed in forests [105], and tend to have lower diversity and availability in fragmented landscapes [106,107], with a limited availability for frugivores [108]. For the insectivores recorded (armadillos and anteaters), invertebrates (especially ants and termites) are their main food resource [109,110,111,112], which can be unpredictably distributed in the landscape or become scarce in certain seasons of the year [113,114]. In addition, the anteaters and armadillos are known for their low thermoregulation capacity and use forest areas as thermal shelters [112,115,116], so bearing in mind that the studied patches are mainly composed of forests, it is likely that larger patches with better opportunities for thermal regulation might favor insectivores presence.
Among the perceived threats to the mammalian fauna, the presence of five domestic/exotic species in the protected areas, particularly the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) and domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus), is a worrying indicative of habitat disturbance. Some exotic species can perform ecological functions similar to native species that were extirpated [117,118,119], and even make assemblages with non-native species similar to pre-extinction ones [120]. Nevertheless, domestic/exotic species generally pose a significant risk to native species since they may act as predators and competitors for food resources and habitat, in addition to being vectors and susceptible to diseases [121,122,123,124,125]. Patch proximity to roads negatively impacts species through roadkills, especially large animals that often move between patches in fragmented landscapes [26]. Therefore, although small forest patches may harbor some threatened species and habitat specialists, caution is needed when interpreting the extent to which these areas are capable of sustaining their populations in the long term without conservation efforts to improve their quality and connectivity.
5. Conclusions
Our results highlight the importance of maintaining large forest patches and emphasize the paramount role of protected areas in human-modified landscapes in maintaining mammalian functional diversity. Although forest fragmentation tends to reduce the functional diversity of mammals, we observed that small forest patches still support considerable mammalian diversity, including threatened species. Frugivores and insectivores were the most affected by habitat reduction, stressing the need to evaluate species-specific and group responses. Therefore, conservation strategies should not only target threatened species or large forest patches, but also species groups with similar functional characteristics. Protected areas alone cannot sustain high biodiversity levels in the long term, particularly the populations of sensitive species and large-sized ones. Thus, integrating small adjacent patches in strategies aiming to enhance connectivity might be an important strategy to improve species conservation, population viability, and the maintenance of ecological processes and ecosystem services in these landscapes.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16135419/s1, Dataset S1: Number of records per species in each fragment sampled, functional traits per species, variable values used to calculate the functional diversity (FD) of the medium- and large-sized mammals, and variable values used to calculate the PCA.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, L.F. and R.B.; methodology, L.F., M.M. and R.B.; software, L.F., J.A.G., R.T.C. and M.M.; validation, L.F. and M.M.; formal analysis, L.F., R.T.C. and M.M.; investigation, L.F., J.A.G. and R.T.C.; resources, L.F., J.A.G., R.T.C. and R.B.; data curation, L.F., J.A.G. and R.T.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.F. and R.B.; writing—review and editing, L.F., R.T.C. and M.M.; visualization, L.F., R.T.C. and M.M.; supervision, L.F. and R.B.; project administration, L.F. and R.B.; funding acquisition, L.F. and R.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. MM thanks the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for the post-doctoral scholarship (#2022/06791-9).
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to São Paulo State University (Campus Jaboticabal) for logistic support.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Medium- and large-sized mammals recorded in the 18 forest patches within the eight protected areas in São Paulo, Brazil, including the functional traits and trophic guilds [27] for native species, the number of patches in which each species was recorded, the number of records per species, and the threat categories at regional (SP [66]), national (BR [67]), and international levels [68]. DD: Data Deficient; EN: Endangered; LC: Least Concern; NT: Near Threatened; VU: Vulnerable. * Domestic/exotic species.
Table A1.
Medium- and large-sized mammals recorded in the 18 forest patches within the eight protected areas in São Paulo, Brazil, including the functional traits and trophic guilds [27] for native species, the number of patches in which each species was recorded, the number of records per species, and the threat categories at regional (SP [66]), national (BR [67]), and international levels [68]. DD: Data Deficient; EN: Endangered; LC: Least Concern; NT: Near Threatened; VU: Vulnerable. * Domestic/exotic species.
| Species | Functional Traits | Trophic Guild | Number of Patches | Number of Records | Threat Categories | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dietary | Physical | Behavioral | IUCN | BR | SP | ||||||||
| Diet | Foraging Substrate | Locomotion Form | Body Mass (Kg) | Litter Size | Period of Activity | Social Behavior | |||||||
| Artiodactyla | |||||||||||||
| Bovidae | |||||||||||||
| Bos taurus * | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 19 | - | - | - |
| Cervidae | |||||||||||||
| Subulo gouazoubira | Leaves and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 21 | 1 | Diurnal | No | Herbivore | 11 | 228 | LC | LC | LC |
| Suidae | |||||||||||||
| Sus scrofa * | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 22 | - | - | - |
| Tayassuidae | |||||||||||||
| Dicotyles tajacu | Leaves, invertebrates, and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 26 | 3 | Diurnal and nocturnal | Yes | Frugivore/Herbivore | 8 | 107 | LC | LC | NT |
| Cingulata | |||||||||||||
| Chlamyphoridae | |||||||||||||
| Euphractus sexcinctus | Leaves, vertebrates, invertebrates, and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Semifossorial | 5 | 2 | Diurnal | No | Omnivore | 3 | 8 | LC | LC | LC |
| Dasypodidae | |||||||||||||
| Cabassous tatouay | Invertebrates | Soil | Semifossorial | 5 | 1 | Nocturnal | No | Insectivore | 3 | 50 | LC | DD | DD |
| Dasypus novemcinctus | Leaves, vertebrates, invertebrates, and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Semifossorial | 4 | 4 | Nocturnal and crepuscular | No | Insectivore | 14 | 367 | LC | LC | LC |
| Didelphimorphia | |||||||||||||
| Didelphidae | |||||||||||||
| Didelphis albiventris | Vertebrates, invertebrates, and fruits | Trees and soil | Terrestrial | 2 | 9 | Nocturnal and crepuscular | No | Omnivore | 17 | 426 | LC | LC | LC |
| Rodentia | |||||||||||||
| Dasyproctidae | |||||||||||||
| Dasyprocta azarae | Leaves, invertebrates, and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 3 | 2 | Diurnal and crepuscular | No | Frugivore/Herbivore | 15 | 424 | DD | LC | NT |
| Caviidae | |||||||||||||
| Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris | Leaves | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 50 | 5 | Nocturnal and crepuscular | Yes | Herbivore | 2 | 3 | LC | LC | LC |
| Cuniculidae | |||||||||||||
| Cuniculus paca | Leaves and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 9 | 1 | Nocturnal | No | Frugivore/Herbivore | 4 | 196 | LC | NT | LC |
| Erethizontidae | |||||||||||||
| Coendou spinosus | Leaves and fruits | Trees | Arboreal | 4 | 1 | Nocturnal and crepuscular | No | Herbivore | 1 | 3 | LC | LC | DD |
| Carnivora | |||||||||||||
| Canidae | |||||||||||||
| Canis lupus familiaris * | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8 | 98 | - | - | - |
| Cerdocyon thous | Vertebrates, invertebrates, and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 7 | 5 | Nocturnal and crepuscular | No | Omnivore | 3 | 77 | LC | LC | LC |
| Chrysocyon brachyurus | Leaves, vertebrates, invertebrates, and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 22 | 2 | Nocturnal and crepuscular | No | Omnivore | 4 | 23 | NT | VU | VU |
| Felidae | |||||||||||||
| Felis silvestris catus * | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 4 | 6 | - | - | - |
| Leopardus pardalis | Vertebrates and invertebrates | Soil | Terrestrial | 10 | 3 | Nocturnal | No | Carnivore | 7 | 75 | LC | LC | VU |
| Puma concolor | Vertebrates and invertebrates | Soil | Terrestrial | 46 | 4 | Nocturnal | No | Carnivore | 9 | 38 | LC | VU | VU |
| Herpailurus yagouaroundi | Vertebrates and invertebrates | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 5 | 2 | Diurnal and nocturnal | No | Carnivore | 6 | 30 | LC | VU | LC |
| Mephitidae | |||||||||||||
| Conepatus semistriatus | Vertebrates, invertebrates, and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 2 | 5 | Nocturnal and crepuscular | No | Omnivore | 4 | 29 | LC | LC | DD |
| Mustelidae | |||||||||||||
| Eira barbara | Vertebrates, invertebrates, and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 7 | 3 | Diurnal | No | Omnivore | 8 | 114 | LC | LC | LC |
| Lontra longicaudis | Vertebrates | Water | Semiaquatic | 6 | 3 | Diurnal and nocturnal | No | Carnivore | 1 | 6 | NT | NT | NT |
| Procyonidae | |||||||||||||
| Nasua nasua | Vertebrates, invertebrates, and fruits | Trees and soil | Terrestrial | 5 | 5 | Diurnal | Yes | Omnivore | 8 | 47 | LC | LC | LC |
| Procyon cancrivorus | Vertebrates, invertebrates, and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 5 | 3 | Nocturnal | No | Omnivore | 2 | 28 | LC | LC | LC |
| Lagomorpha | |||||||||||||
| Leporidae | |||||||||||||
| Lepus europaeus * | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 5 | - | - | - |
| Sylvilagus brasiliensis | Leaves | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 1 | 5 | Nocturnal and crepuscular | No | Herbivore | 7 | 84 | EN | NT | NT |
| Perissodactyla | |||||||||||||
| Tapiridae | |||||||||||||
| Tapirus terrestris | Leaves and fruits | Vegetation and soil | Terrestrial | 260 | 1 | Nocturnal | No | Frugivore/Herbivore | 1 | 1 | VU | VU | VU |
| Pilosa | |||||||||||||
| Myrmecophagidae | |||||||||||||
| Myrmecophaga tridactyla | Invertebrates | Soil | Terrestrial | 31 | 1 | Diurnal and nocturnal | No | Insectivore | 8 | 264 | VU | VU | VU |
| Tamandua tetradactyla | Invertebrates | Trees and soil | Terrestrial | 5 | 1 | Nocturnal | No | Insectivore | 12 | 51 | LC | LC | LC |
| Primates | |||||||||||||
| Callitrichidae | |||||||||||||
| Callithrix penicillata | Invertebrates and fruits | Trees | Arboreal | 0.5 | 2 | Diurnal | Yes | Omnivore | 1 | 6 | LC | LC | LC |
| Cebidae | |||||||||||||
| Sapajus nigritus | Leaves, invertebrates, and fruits | Trees | Arboreal | 4 | 1 | Diurnal | Yes | Omnivore | 4 | 27 | NT | NT | NT |
| Total | 2862 | 3 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||
Table A2.
Number of records, species richness, and relative abundance (RAI) per area for the medium- and large-sized mammals recorded in the 18 forest patches within the eight protected areas in São Paulo, Brazil. * Domestic/exotic species.
Table A2.
Number of records, species richness, and relative abundance (RAI) per area for the medium- and large-sized mammals recorded in the 18 forest patches within the eight protected areas in São Paulo, Brazil. * Domestic/exotic species.
| Number of Records | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | BFS | FBJSP | JES | PFSP | ARBR | SBES | SRES | VSP | ||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||
| Artiodactyla | ||||||||||||||||||
| Bovidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Bos taurus * | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cervidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Subulo gouazoubira | 0 | 66 | 53 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 24 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 11 | 1 |
| Suidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Sus scrofa * | 0 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tayassuidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Dicotyles tajacu | 0 | 0 | 40 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 15 | 18 |
| Cingulata | ||||||||||||||||||
| Chlamyphoridae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Euphractus sexcinctus | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dasypodidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Cabassous tatouay | 0 | 35 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dasypus novemcinctus | 27 | 202 | 45 | 16 | 3 | 5 | 39 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Didelphimorphia | ||||||||||||||||||
| Didelphidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Didelphis albiventris | 0 | 200 | 53 | 19 | 11 | 4 | 17 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 20 | 24 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 17 | 6 |
| Rodentia | ||||||||||||||||||
| Dasyproctidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Dasyprocta azarae | 13 | 2 | 201 | 18 | 3 | 9 | 16 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 20 | 36 | 31 | 37 | 23 |
| Caviidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cuniculidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Cuniculus paca | 0 | 160 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Erethizontidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Coendou spinosus | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carnivora | ||||||||||||||||||
| Canidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Canis lupus familiaris * | 4 | 51 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 4 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cerdocyon thous | 0 | 72 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Chrysocyon brachyurus | 0 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Felidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Felis silvestris catus * | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Leopardus pardalis | 0 | 43 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| Puma concolor | 0 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Herpailurus yagouaroundi | 0 | 19 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mephitidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Conepatus semistriatus | 0 | 2 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Mustelidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Eira barbara | 0 | 87 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 |
| Lontra longicaudis | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Procyonidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Nasua nasua | 1 | 15 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Procyon cancrivorus | 0 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lagomorpha | ||||||||||||||||||
| Leporidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Lepus europaeus * | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sylvilagus brasiliensis | 0 | 1 | 44 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 9 | 1 |
| Perissodactyla | ||||||||||||||||||
| Tapiridae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Tapirus terrestris | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pilosa | ||||||||||||||||||
| Myrmecophagidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Myrmecophaga tridactyla | 0 | 155 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 30 | 3 |
| Tamandua tetradactyla | 1 | 14 | 19 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Primates | ||||||||||||||||||
| Callitrichidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Callithrix penicillata | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cebidae | ||||||||||||||||||
| Sapajus nigritus | 0 | 22 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total records | 42 | 1157 | 593 | 129 | 18 | 21 | 76 | 15 | 126 | 42 | 23 | 75 | 34 | 35 | 90 | 46 | 129 | 61 |
| Richness (native species) | 4 | 24 | 19 | 13 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 17 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 11 | 10 |
| FD | 1.40 | 6.59 | 5.29 | 3.52 | 1.29 | 1.53 | 1.91 | 1.67 | 4.50 | 2.02 | 1.34 | 2.51 | 1.34 | 2.12 | 2.81 | 1.44 | 2.96 | 2.99 |
| RAI | 0.004 | 0.120 | 0.061 | 0.013 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.008 | 0.001 | 0.013 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.008 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0.005 | 0.013 | 0.006 |
Table A3.
Number of species related to each functional trait of the medium- and large-sized mammals recorded in the 18 forest patches within the eight protected areas in São Paulo, Brazil. DD: Data Deficient; EN: Endangered; LC: Least Concern; NT: Near Threatened; VU: Vulnerable.
Table A3.
Number of species related to each functional trait of the medium- and large-sized mammals recorded in the 18 forest patches within the eight protected areas in São Paulo, Brazil. DD: Data Deficient; EN: Endangered; LC: Least Concern; NT: Near Threatened; VU: Vulnerable.
| Trait Type | Trait | Category | Number of Species | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dietary | Diet | Leaves | 12 | |
| Fruits | 17 | |||
| Vertebrates | 13 | |||
| Invertebrates | 19 | |||
| Foraging substrate | Water | 1 | ||
| Trees | 6 | |||
| Vegetation | 15 | |||
| Soil | 22 | |||
| Physical | Locomotion form | Terrestrial | 19 | |
| Semifossorial | 3 | |||
| Semiaquatic | 1 | |||
| Arboreal | 3 | |||
| Behavioral | Period of activity | Diurnal | 11 | |
| Nocturnal | 19 | |||
| Crepuscular | 9 | |||
| Social behavior | Social | 5 | ||
| Non-social | 22 | |||
| IUCN | Brazil | São Paulo | ||
| Threat categories | Data Deficient | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Least Concern | 19 | 16 | 13 | |
| Near Threatened | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Vulnerable | 2 | 5 | 5 | |
| Endangered | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Trophic guild | Carnivores | 4 | ||
| Frugivores | 4 | |||
| Herbivores | 8 | |||
| Insectivores | 4 | |||
| Omnivores | 10 | |||
References
- Barnosky, A.D.; Matzke, N.; Tomiya, S.; Wogan, G.O.U.; Swartz, B.; Quental, T.B.; Marshall, C.; McGuire, J.L.; Lindsey, E.L.; Maguire, K.C.; et al. Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived? Nature 2011, 471, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz, S.; Settele, J.; Brondízio, E.S.; Ngo, H.T.; Agard, J.; Arneth, A.; Balvanera, P.; Brauman, K.A.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Chan, K.M.A.; et al. Pervasive Human-Driven Decline of Life on Earth Points to the Need for Transformative Change. Science 2019, 366, eaax3100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koch, P.L.; Barnosky, A.D. Late Quaternary Extinctions: State of the Debate. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2006, 37, 215–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, H.S.; McCauley, D.J.; Galetti, M.; Dirzo, R. Patterns, Causes, and Consequences of Anthropocene Defaunation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2016, 47, 333–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmona, C.P.; Tamme, R.; Pärtel, M.; De Bello, F.; Brosse, S.; Capdevila, P.; González, R.M.; González-Suárez, M.; Salguero-Gómez, R.; Vásquez-Valderrama, M.; et al. Erosion of Global Functional Diversity across the Tree of Life. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabf2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cernansky, R. The Biodiversity Revolution. Nature 2017, 546, 22–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chichorro, F.; Juslén, A.; Cardoso, P. A Review of the Relation between Species Traits and Extinction Risk. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 237, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Violle, C.; Thuiller, W.; Mouquet, N.; Munoz, F.; Kraft, N.J.B.; Cadotte, M.W.; Livingstone, S.W.; Mouillot, D. Functional Rarity: The Ecology of Outliers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2017, 32, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dirzo, R.; Young, H.S.; Galetti, M.; Ceballos, G.; Isaac, N.J.B.; Collen, B. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 2014, 345, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibbs, H.K.; Ruesch, A.S.; Achard, F.; Clayton, M.K.; Holmgren, P.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Tropical Forests Were the Primary Sources of New Agricultural Land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 16732–16737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittermeier, R.A.; Rylands, A.B. Biodiversity Hotspots. In Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene; Dellasala, D.A., Goldstein, M.I., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 67–75. [Google Scholar]
- Rezende, C.L.; Scarano, F.R.; Assad, E.D.; Joly, C.A.; Metzger, J.P.; Strassburg, B.B.N.; Tabarelli, M.; Fonseca, G.A.; Mittermeier, R.A. From Hotspot to Hopespot: An Opportunity for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 16, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Souza, C.M.; Shimbo, J.Z.; Rosa, M.R.; Parente, L.L.; Alencar, A.A.; Rudorff, B.F.T.; Hasenack, H.; Matsumoto, M.; Ferreira, L.G.; Souza-Filho, P.W.M.; et al. Reconstructing Three Decades of Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Brazilian Biomes with Landsat Archive and Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kronka, F.J.N.; Nalon, M.A.; Matsukuma, C.K.; Kanashiro, M.M.; Ywane, M.S.S.I.; Pavão, M.; Durigan, G.; Lima, L.M.P.R.; Guillaumon, J.R.; Baitello, J.B.; et al. Inventário Florestal da Vegetação Natural do Estado de São Paulo; Instituto Florestal: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2005; pp. 68–137. [Google Scholar]
- Paviolo, A.; De Angelo, C.; Ferraz, K.M.P.M.B.; Morato, R.G.; Pardo, J.M.; Srbek-araujo, A.C.; Beisiegel, B.D.M.; Lima, F.; Sana, D.; Xavier, M.; et al. A Biodiversity Hotspot Losing Its Top Predator: The Challenge of Jaguar Conservation in the Atlantic Forest of South America. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 37147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pires, A.S.; Fernandez, F.A.S.; Barros, C.S.; Rocha, C.F.D.; Bergallo, H.G. Vivendo Em Um Mundo Em Pedaços: Efeitos Da Fragmentação Florestal Sobre Comunidades e Populações Animais. In Biologia da Conservação: Essências; Rocha, C.F.D., Bergallo, H.G., Van-Sluys, M., Alves, M.A.S., Eds.; RiMa Editora: São Carlos, Brazil, 2006; pp. 231–260. [Google Scholar]
- Lino, A.; Fonseca, C.; Rojas, D.; Fischer, E.; Ramos Pereira, M.J. A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on Genetic Diversity in Mammals. Mamm. Biol. 2019, 94, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlaepfer, D.R.; Braschler, B.; Rusterholz, H.P.; Baur, B. Genetic Effects of Anthropogenic Habitat Fragmentation on Remnant Animal and Plant Populations: A Meta-Analysis. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozakiewicz, M. Habitat Isolation and Ecological Barriers—The Effect on Small Mammal Populations and Communities. NCASI Tech. Bull. 1999, 38, 289–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magioli, M.; Moreira, M.Z.; Fonseca, R.C.B.; Ribeiro, M.C.; Rodrigues, M.G.; De Barros Ferraz, K.M.P.M. Human-Modified Landscapes Alter Mammal Resource and Habitat Use and Trophic Structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 18466–18472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahumada, J.A.; Silva, C.E.F.; Gajapersad, K.; Hallam, C.; Hurtado, J.; Martin, E.; McWilliam, A.; Mugerwa, B.; O’Brien, T.; Rovero, F.; et al. Community Structure and Diversity of Tropical Forest Mammals: Data from a Global Camera Trap Network. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2011, 366, 2703–2711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, D.F.B.; Gogol-Prokurat, M.; Nogeire, T.; Molinari, N.; Richers, B.T.; Lin, B.B.; Simpson, N.; Mayfield, M.M.; DeClerck, F. Loss of Functional Diversity under Land Use Intensification across Multiple Taxa. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magioli, M.; Ribeiro, M.C.; Ferraz, K.M.P.M.B.; Rodrigues, M.G. Thresholds in the Relationship between Functional Diversity and Patch Size for Mammals in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Anim. Conserv. 2015, 18, 499–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magioli, M.; Ferraz, K.M.P.M.d.B.; Setz, E.Z.F.; Percequillo, A.R.; Rondon, M.V.d.S.S.; Kuhnen, V.V.; Canhoto, M.C.d.S.; dos Santos, K.E.A.; Kanda, C.Z.; Fregonezi, G.d.L.; et al. Connectivity Maintain Mammal Assemblages Functional Diversity within Agricultural and Fragmented Landscapes. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2016, 62, 431–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Coster, G.; Banks-Leite, C.; Metzger, J.P. Atlantic Forest Bird Communities Provide Different but Not Fewer Functions after Habitat Loss. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 282, 20142844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abra, F.D.; Huijser, M.P.; Magioli, M.; Bovo, A.A.A.; Ferraz, K.M.P.M.d.B. An Estimate of Wild Mammal Roadkill in São Paulo State, Brazil. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magioli, M.; Ferraz, K.M.P.M.d.B.; Chiarello, A.G.; Galetti, M.; Setz, E.Z.F.; Paglia, A.P.; Abrego, N.; Ribeiro, M.C.; Ovaskainen, O. Land-Use Changes Lead to Functional Loss of Terrestrial Mammals in a Neotropical Rainforest. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 19, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornitano, L.; Angeli, T.; Costa, R.T.; Olifiers, N.; Bianchi, R.d.C. Medium to Large-Sized Mammals of the Augusto Ruschi Biological Reserve, São Paulo State, Brazil. Oecologia Aust. 2015, 19, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Arévalo, H.F.; Liévano-Latorre, L.F.; Díaz, O.L.M. El Papel de Las Pequeñas Reservas En La Conservación de Mamíferos En Colombia the Role of Small Reserves on Mammal Conservation in Colombia. Caldasia 2021, 43, 354–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magioli, M.; Rios, E.; Benchimol, M.; Casanova, D.C.; Ferreira, A.S.; Rocha, J.; de Melo, F.R.; Dias, M.P.; Narezi, G.; Crepaldi, M.O. The Role of Protected and Unprotected Forest Remnants for Mammal Conservation in a Megadiverse Neotropical Hotspot. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 259, 109173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gheler-Costa, C.; Vettorazzi, C.A.; Pardini, R.; Verdade, L.M. The Distribution and Abundance of Small Mammals in Agroecosystems of Southeastern Brazil. Mammalia 2012, 76, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umetsu, F.; Pardini, R. Small Mammals in a Mosaic of Forest Remnants and Anthropogenic Habitats—Evaluating Matrix Quality in an Atlantic Forest Landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cremonesi, G.; Bisi, F.; Gaffi, L.; Zaw, T.; Naing, H.; Moe, K.; Aung, Z.; Mazzamuto, M.V.; Gagliardi, A.; Wauters, L.A.; et al. Camera Trapping to Assess Status and Composition of Mammal Communities in a Biodiversity Hotspot in Myanmar. Animals 2021, 11, 880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newbold, T.; Hudson, L.N.; Phillips, H.R.P.; Hill, S.L.L.; Contu, S.; Lysenko, I.; Blandon, A.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Booth, H.L.; Day, J.; et al. A Global Model of the Response of Tropical and Sub-Tropical Forest Biodiversity to Anthropogenic Pressures. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2014, 281, 20141371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brodie, J.F. Carbon Costs and Bushmeat Benefits of Hunting in Tropical Forests. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 152, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmeirim, A.F.; Santos-Filho, M.; Peres, C.A. Marked Decline in Forest-Dependent Small Mammals Following Habitat Loss and Fragmentation in an Amazonian Deforestation Frontier. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ripple, W.J.; Estes, J.A.; Beschta, R.L.; Wilmers, C.C.; Ritchie, E.G.; Hebblewhite, M.; Berger, J.; Elmhagen, B.; Letnic, M.; Nelson, M.P.; et al. Status and Ecological Effects of the World’s Largest Carnivores. Science 2014, 343, 1241484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ripple, W.J.; Newsome, T.M.; Wolf, C.; Dirzo, R.; Everatt, K.T.; Galetti, M.; Hayward, M.W.; Kerley, G.I.H.; Levi, T.; Lindsey, P.A.; et al. Collapse of the World’s Largest Herbivores. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1400103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Benitez-Malvido, J. Impact of Forest Fragmentation on Seedling Abundance in a Tropical Rain Forest. Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12, 380–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabarelli, M.; Mantovani, W.; Peres, C.A. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Plant Guild Structure in the Montane Atlantic Forest of Southeastern Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 1999, 91, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, I.M.; Corlett, R.T. The Conservation Value of Small, Isolated Fragments of Lowland Tropical Rain Forest. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1996, 11, 330–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balvanera, P.; Pfisterer, A.B.; Buchmann, N.; He, J.S.; Nakashizuka, T.; Raffaelli, D.; Schmid, B. Quantifying the Evidence for Biodiversity Effects on Ecosystem Functioning and Services. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 1146–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isbell, F.; Calcagno, V.; Hector, A.; Connolly, J.; Harpole, W.S.; Reich, P.B.; Scherer-Lorenzen, M.; Schmid, B.; Tilman, D.; Van Ruijven, J.; et al. High Plant Diversity Is Needed to Maintain Ecosystem Services. Nature 2011, 477, 199–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodie, J.E.; Kroon, F.J.; Schaffelke, B.; Wolanski, E.C.; Lewis, S.E.; Devlin, M.J.; Bohnet, I.C.; Bainbridge, Z.T.; Waterhouse, J.; Davis, A.M. Terrestrial Pollutant Runoff to the Great Barrier Reef: An Update of Issues, Priorities and Management Responses. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012, 65, 81–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Poulsen, J.R.; Clark, C.J.; Palmer, T.M. Ecological Erosion of an Afrotropical Forest and Potential Consequences for Tree Recruitment and Forest Biomass. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 163, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Estes, J.A.; Terborgh, J.; Brashares, J.S.; Power, M.E.; Berger, J.; Bond, W.J.; Carpenter, S.R.; Essington, T.E.; Holt, R.D.; Jackson, J.B.C.; et al. Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth. Science 2011, 333, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lande, R. Statistics and Partitioning of Species Diversity, and Similarity among Multiple Communities. Oikos 1996, 76, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purvis, A.; Gittleman, J.L.; Cowlishaw, G.; Mace, G.M. Predicting Extinction Risk in Declining Species. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2000, 267, 1947–1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Whittaker, R.H. Evolution and Measurement of Species Diversity. Taxon 1972, 21, 213–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calaça, A.M.; Eduardo, C.; Grelle, V. Diversidade Funcional de Comunidades: Discussões Conceituais e Importantes Avanços Metodológicos. Oecologia 2016, 20, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cianciaruso, M.V.; Silva, I.A.; Batalha, M.A. Diversidades Filogenética e Funcional: Novas Abordagens Para a Ecologia de Comunidades. Biota Neotrop. 2009, 9, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz, S.; Cabido, M. Vive La Diff é Rence: Plant Functional Diversity Matters to Ecosystem Processes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2001, 16, 646–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villéger, S.; Mason, N.W.H.; Mouillot, D. New Multidimensional Functional Diversity Indices for a Multifaceted Framework in Functional Ecology. Ecology 2008, 89, 2290–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petchey, O.L.; Gaston, K.J. Functional Diversity (FD), Species Richness and Community Composition. Ecol. Lett. 2002, 5, 402–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petchey, O.L.; Gaston, K.J. Functional Diversity: Back to Basics and Looking Forward. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 741–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Edwards, F.A.; Edwards, D.P.; Hamer, K.C.; Davies, R.G. Impacts of Logging and Conversion of Rainforest to Oil Palm on the Functional Diversity of Birds in Sundaland. Ibis 2013, 155, 313–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hidasi-Neto, J.; Loyola, R.D.; Cianciaruso, M.V. Conservation Actions Based on Red Lists Do Not Capture the Functional and Phylogenetic Diversity of Birds in Brazil. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e73431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lohbeck, M.; Poorter, L.; Paz, H.; Pla, L.; van Breugel, M.; Martínez-Ramos, M.; Bongers, F. Functional Diversity Changes during Tropical Forest Succession. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2012, 14, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melo, A.C.G.; Durigan, G. Plano de Manejo da Estação Ecológica de Santa Bárbara; Instituto Florestal: São Paulo, Brazil, 2011; p. 221. [Google Scholar]
- Nagako Shida, C.; Pivello, V.R. Caracterização Fisiográfica e de Uso Das Terras Da Região de Luiz Antônio e Santa Rita Do Passa Quatro, SP, Com o Uso de Sensoriamento Remoto e SIG. Investig. Geográficas 2002, 49, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha-Mendes, F.; Bianconi, G.V. Opportunistic Predatory Behavior of Margay, Leopardus Wiedii (Schinz, 1821), in Brazil. Mammalia 2009, 73, 151–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centro De Pesquisas Meteorológicas E Climáticas Aplicadas A Agricultura. Cepagri Clima Dos Municípios Paulistas; Centro De Pesquisas Meteorológicas E Climáticas Aplicadas A Agricultura: Campinas, Brazil, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Galetti, M.; Carmignotto, A.P.; Percequillo, A.R.; Santos, M.C.d.O.; de Barros Ferraz, K.M.P.M.; Lima, F.; Vancine, M.H.; Muylaert, R.L.; Bonfim, F.C.G.; Magioli, M.; et al. Mammals in São Paulo State: Diversity, Distribution, Ecology, and Conservation. Biota Neotrop. 2022, 22, e20221363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiarello, A.G. Density and Population Size of Mammals in Remnants of Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14, 1649–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abreu, E.F.; Casali, D.; Costa-Araújo, R.; Garbino, G.S.T.; Libardi, G.S.; Loretto, D.; Loss, A.C.; Marmontel, M.; Moras, L.M.; Nascimento, M.C.; et al. Lista de Mamíferos Do Brasil 2023. Available online: https://zenodo.org/records/5802047 (accessed on 21 November 2023).
- Secretário do Meio Ambiente. Decreto No 68.853, de 27 de Novembro de 2018. Declara as Espécies Da Fauna Silvestre Ameaçadas de Extinção, as Quase Ameaçadas e as Deficientes de Dados Para Avaliação No Estado de São Paulo e Dá Providências Correlatas 2018. Available online: https://www.al.sp.gov.br/repositorio/legislacao/decreto/2018/decreto-63853-27.11.2018.html (accessed on 21 November 2023).
- Ministério do Meio Ambiente/Gabinete do Ministro. Portaria MMA No 148, de 7 de Junho de 2022. Altera Os Anexos Da Portaria No 443, de 17 de Dezembro de 2014, Da Portaria No 444, de 17 de Dezembro de 2014, e Da Portaria No 445, de 17 de Dezembro de 2014, Referentes à Atualização Da Lista Nacional de Espécies 2022. Available online: https://unbciencia.unb.br/images/Noticias/2022/06-Jun/PORTARIA_MMA_No148_7_DE_JUNHO_DE_2022.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2023).
- IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-2; IUCN: Fontainebleau, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- de Oliveira, T.G.; Cassaro, K. Guia de Campo dos Felinos do Brasil; Instituto Pró-Carnívoros: Atibaia, Brazil, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Emmons, L.; Feer, F. Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide; Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Carbone, C.; Christie, S.; Conforti, K.; Coulson, T.; Franklin, N.; Ginsberg, J.R.; Griffiths, M.; Holden, J.; Kawanishi, K.; Kinnaird, M. The Use of Photographic Rates to Estimate Densities of Tigers and Other Cryptic Mammals. Anim. Conserv. 2001, 4, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hesselbarth, M.H.K.; Sciaini, M.; With, K.A.; Wiegand, K.; Nowosad, J. Landscapemetrics: An Open-source R Tool to Calculate Landscape Metrics. Ecography 2019, 42, 1648–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Projeto MapBiomas Coleção 8 da Série Anual de Mapas de Cobertura e Uso da Terra do Brasil, Acessado em Setembro de 2023. Available online: http://Mapbiomas.Org/2023 (accessed on 21 November 2023).
- Kembel, S.; Ackerly, D.D.; Blomberg, S.P.; Cowan, P.D.; Helmus, M.R.; Morlon, H.; Webb, C.O.; Picante: R Tools for Integrating Phylogenies and Ecology. R Package Version 1.6.2. 2014. Available online: http://cran.nexr.com/web/packages/picante/index.html (accessed on 21 November 2023).
- Gower, A.J.C. A General Coefficient of Similarity and Some of Its Properties. Society 1971, 27, 857–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chillo, V.; Ojeda, R.A. Mammal Functional Diversity Loss under Human-Induced Disturbances in Arid Lands. J. Arid Environ. 2012, 87, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Carvalho, R.A.; Cianciaruso, M.V.; Trindade-Filho, J.; Sagnori, M.D.; Loyola, R.D. Drafting a Blueprint for Functional and Phylogenetic Diversity Conservation in the Brazilian Cerrado. Nat. Conserv. 2010, 8, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; Version 4.3.1; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Wickham, H.; Chang, W.; Wickham, M.H. Package ‘Ggplot2’. In Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2016; Volume 2, pp. 1–189. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Landscape Modification and Habitat Fragmentation: A Synthesis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2007, 16, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacArthur, R.H.; MacArthur, J.W. On Bird Species Diversity. Ecology 1961, 42, 594–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tews, J.; Brose, U.; Grimm, V.; Tielbörger, K.; Wichmann, M.C.; Schwager, M.; Jeltsch, F. Animal Species Diversity Driven by Habitat Heterogeneity/Diversity: The Importance of Keystone Structures. J. Biogeogr. 2004, 31, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedoya-Durán, M.J.; Murillo-García, O.E.; Branch, L.C. Factors Outside Privately Protected Areas Determine Mammal Assemblages in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot in the Andes. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 32, e01921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michalski, F.; Peres, C. A Disturbance-Mediated Mammal Persistence and Abundance-Area Relationships in Amazonian Forest Fragments. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 1626–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salom-Perez, R.; Corrales-Gutierrez, D.; Araya-Gamboa, D.; Espinoza-Muñoz, D.; Finegan, B.; Petracca, L.S. Forest Cover Mediates Large and Medium-Sized Mammal Occurrence in a Critical Link of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0249072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magioli, M.; Ferraz, K.M.P.M. de B. Deforestation Leads to Prey Shrinkage for an Apex Predator in a Biodiversity Hotspot. Mammal Res. 2021, 66, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro, M.C.; Metzger, J.P.; Martensen, A.C.; Ponzoni, F.J.; Hirota, M.M.; Ribeiro, M.C.; Metzger, J.P.; Martensen, A.C.; Ponzoni, F.J.; Hirota, M.M. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How Much Is Left, and How Is the Remaining Forest Distributed? Implications for Conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1141–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uezu, A.; Metzger, J.P.; Vielliard, J.M.E. Effects of Structural and Functional Connectivity and Patch Size on the Abundance of Seven Atlantic Forest Bird Species. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 123, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magioli, M.; de Barros Ferraz, K.M.P.M.; Rodrigues, M.G. Medium and Large-Sized Mammals of an Isolated Atlantic Forest Remnant, Southeast São Paulo State, Brazil. Check List 2014, 10, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galetti, M.; Giacomini, H.C.; Bueno, R.S.; Bernardo, C.S.S.; Marques, R.M.; Bovendorp, R.S.; Steffler, C.E.; Rubim, P.; Gobbo, S.K.; Donatti, C.I.; et al. Priority Areas for the Conservation of Atlantic Forest Large Mammals. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1229–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canale, G.R.; Peres, C.A.; Guidorizzi, C.E.; Gatto, C.A.F.; Kierulff, M.C.M. Pervasive Defaunation of Forest Remnants in a Tropical Biodiversity Hotspot. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e41671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martensen, A.C.; Ribeiro, M.C.; Banks-Leite, C.; Prado, P.I.; Metzger, J.P. Associations of Forest Cover, Fragment Area, and Connectivity with Neotropical Understory Bird Species Richness and Abundance. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26, 1100–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Estavillo, C.; Pardini, R.; Da Rocha, P.L.B. Forest Loss and the Biodiversity Threshold: An Evaluation Considering Species Habitat Requirements and the Use of Matrix Habitats. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e82369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pardini, R.; Nichols, E.; Püttker, T. Biodiversity Response to Habitat Loss and Fragmentation. Encycl. Anthr. 2017, 3, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, L.; Lee, T.M.; Koh, L.P.; Brook, B.W.; Gardner, T.A.; Barlow, J.; Peres, C.A.; Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Laurance, W.F.; Lovejoy, T.E.; et al. Primary Forests Are Irreplaceable for Sustaining Tropical Biodiversity. Nature 2011, 478, 378–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, J.E.M.; Evans, T.; Venter, O.; Williams, B.; Tulloch, A.; Stewart, C.; Thompson, I.; Ray, J.C.; Murray, K.; Salazar, A.; et al. The Exceptional Value of Intact Forest Ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 2, 599–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meza-Joya, F.L.; Ramos, E.; Cardona, D. Forest Fragmentation Erodes Mammalian Species Richness and Functional Diversity in a Human-Dominated Landscape in Colombia. Mastozool. Neotrop. 2020, 27, 338–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rios, E.; Benchimol, M.; De Vleeschouwer, K.; Cazetta, E. Spatial Predictors and Species’ Traits: Evaluating What Really Matters for Medium-Sized and Large Mammals in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Mamm. Rev. 2021, 52, 236–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaudin, T.J.; Hicks, P.; Di Blanco, Y. Myrmecophaga Tridactyla (Pilosa: Myrmecophagidae). Mamm. Species 2018, 50, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harveson, P.M.; Tewes, M.E.; Anderson, G.L.; Laack, L.L. Habitat Use by Ocelots in South Texas: Implications for Restoration. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2004, 32, 948–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Andrea, P.S.; Gentile, R.; Cerqueira, R.; Grelle, C.E.V.; Horta, C.; Rey, L. Ecology of Small Mammals in a Brazilian Rural Area. Rev. Bras. Zool. 1999, 16, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Fonseca, G.A.B.; Robinson, J.G.; da Fonseca, G.A.B.; Robinson, J.G. Forest Size and Structure: Competitive and Predatory Effects on Small Mammal Communities. Biol. Conserv. 1990, 53, 265–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santori, R.T.; Astúa de Moraes, D.; Cerqueira, R. Diet Composition of Metachirus Nudicaudatus and Didelphis Aurita (Marsupialia, Didelphoidea) in Southeastern Brazil. Mammalia 1995, 59, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harestad, A.S.; Bunnel, F.L. Home Range and Body Weight--A Reevaluation. Ecology 1979, 60, 389–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milton, K.; May, M.L. Body Weight, Diet and Home Range Area in Primates. Nature 1976, 259, 459–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pessoa, M.S.; Rocha-Santos, L.; Talora, D.C.; Faria, D.; Mariano-Neto, E.; Hambuckers, A.; Cazetta, E. Fruit Biomass Availability along a Forest Cover Gradient. Biotropica 2016, 49, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terborgh, J. Maintenance of Diversity in Tropical Forests. Biotropica 1992, 24, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentry, A.H.; Emmons, L.H. Geographical Variation in Fertility, Phenology, and Composition of the Understory of Neotropical Forests. Biotropica 1987, 19, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anacleto, T.C.D.S. Food Habits of Four Armadillo Species in the Cerrado Area, Mato Grosso, Brazil. Zool. Stud. 2007, 46, 529–537. [Google Scholar]
- Anacleto, T.C.S.; Marinho-Filho, J. Hábito Alimentar Do Tatu-Canastra (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae) Em Uma Área de Cerrado Do Brasil Central. Rev. Bras. Zool. 2001, 18, 681–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medri, Í.M.; Mourão, G.d.M.; Harada, A.Y. Dieta de Tamanduá-Bandeira (Myrmecophaga Tridactyla) No Pantanal Da Nhecolândia, Brasil. Edentata 2003, 5, 30–34. [Google Scholar]
- Medri, I.M.; Mourão, G.d.M.; Rodrigues, F.H.G. Ordem Xenarthra. In Mamíferos do Brasil; dos Reis Nélio, R., Ed.; Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro: Seropédica, Brazil, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Dietz, J.M. Ecology and Social Organization of the Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus); Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1984; pp. 1–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redford, K.H. Feeding and Food Preference in Captive and Wild Giant Anteaters Myrmecophaga Tridactyla. J. Zool. 1985, 205, 559–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giroux, A.; Ortega, Z.; Oliveira-Santos, L.G.R.; Attias, N.; Bertassoni, A.; Desbiez, A.L.J. Sexual, Allometric and Forest Cover Effects on Giant Anteaters’ Movement Ecology. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0253345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giroux, A.; Ortega, Z.; Attias, N.; Desbiez, A.L.J.; Valle, D.; Börger, L.; Oliveira-Santos, L.G.R. Activity Modulation and Selection for Forests Help Giant Anteaters to Cope with Temperature Changes. Anim. Behav. 2023, 201, 191–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundgren, E.J.; Ramp, D.; Ripple, W.J.; Wallach, A.D. Introduced Megafauna Are Rewilding the Anthropocene. Ecography 2018, 41, 857–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundgren, E.J.; Schowanek, S.D.; Rowan, J.; Middleton, O.; Pedersen, R.; Wallach, A.D.; Ramp, D.; Davis, M.; Sandom, C.J.; Svenning, J.C. Functional Traits of the World’s Late Quaternary Large-Bodied Avian and Mammalian Herbivores. Sci. Data 2021, 8, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Root-Bernstein, M.; Galetti, M.; Ladle, R.J. Rewilding South America: Ten Key Questions. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2017, 15, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundgren, E.J.; Ramp, D.; Rowan, J.; Middleton, O.; Schowanek, S.D.; Sanisidro, O.; Carroll, S.P.; Davis, M.; Sandom, C.J.; Svenning, J.C.; et al. Introduced Herbivores Restore Late Pleistocene Ecological Functions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 7871–7878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anderson, T.C.; Foster, G.W.; Forrester, D.J. Hookworms of Feral Cats in Florida. Vet. Parasitol. 2003, 115, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Doherty, T.S.; Glen, A.S.; Nimmo, D.G.; Ritchie, E.G.; Dickman, C.R. Invasive Predators and Global Biodiversity Loss. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 11261–11265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hammer, A.S.; Dietz, H.H.; Andersen, T.H.; Nielsen, L.; Blixenkrone-Moeller, M.; Hammer, A.S.; Dietz, H.H.; Andersen, T.H.; Nielsen, L.; Blixenkrone-Moeller, M. Distemper Virus as a Cause of Central Nervous Disease and Death in Badgers (Meles Meles) in Denmark. Vet. Rec. 2004, 154, 527–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McDonough, M.T.; Ditchkoff, S.S.; Smith, M.D.; Vercauteren, K.C. A Review of the Impacts of Invasive Wild Pigs on Native Vertebrates. Mamm. Biol. 2022, 102, 279–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedrosa, F.; Salerno, R.; Padilha, F.V.B.; Galetti, M. Current Distribution of Invasive Feral Pigs in Brazil: Economic Impacts and Ecological Uncertainty. Nat. Conserv. 2015, 13, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Forest patches within the protected areas in the north, northeast, and south-central regions of São Paulo state, Brazil, where the medium- and large-sized mammals were sampled, depicting the main land uses and the location of the camera traps.
Figure 1.
Forest patches within the protected areas in the north, northeast, and south-central regions of São Paulo state, Brazil, where the medium- and large-sized mammals were sampled, depicting the main land uses and the location of the camera traps.
Figure 2.
(a) Relationship between the functional diversity (FD) of the medium- and large-sized mammals and the patch size of the 18 forest patches within the protected areas in the north, northeast, and south-central regions of São Paulo state, Brazil. The dot size indicates the FD value of each assemblage. (b) The dispersion of the sampled forest patches and mammal trophic guilds with patch size and FD values. JES: Jataí Ecological Station; FBJSP: Furnas do Bom Jesus State Park; SBES: Santa Barbara Ecological Station; VSP: Vassununga State Park; ARBR: Augusto Ruschi Biological Reserve; PFES: Porto Ferreira State Park; BSF: Bebedouro State Forest; SRES: Santa Rita do Passa Quatro Ecological Station.
Figure 2.
(a) Relationship between the functional diversity (FD) of the medium- and large-sized mammals and the patch size of the 18 forest patches within the protected areas in the north, northeast, and south-central regions of São Paulo state, Brazil. The dot size indicates the FD value of each assemblage. (b) The dispersion of the sampled forest patches and mammal trophic guilds with patch size and FD values. JES: Jataí Ecological Station; FBJSP: Furnas do Bom Jesus State Park; SBES: Santa Barbara Ecological Station; VSP: Vassununga State Park; ARBR: Augusto Ruschi Biological Reserve; PFES: Porto Ferreira State Park; BSF: Bebedouro State Forest; SRES: Santa Rita do Passa Quatro Ecological Station.
Table 1.
Area identification and classification, climate, patch size, number of fragments and sampling points, and effort per area of the 18 forest patches distributed in the eight protected areas in the north, northeast, and south-central regions of São Paulo state, Brazil. Aw: tropical; Cwa: humid subtropical; Cwb: subtropical highland.
Table 1.
Area identification and classification, climate, patch size, number of fragments and sampling points, and effort per area of the 18 forest patches distributed in the eight protected areas in the north, northeast, and south-central regions of São Paulo state, Brazil. Aw: tropical; Cwa: humid subtropical; Cwb: subtropical highland.
| Protected Area | Classification | Climate | Patch Size (ha) | Fragments | Sampling Points | Sampling Effort (Traps-Day) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jataí Ecological Station (JES) | Strict protection | Aw | 10,285 | 1 | 44 | 2902 |
| Santa Bárbara Ecological Station (SBES) | Strict protection | Cwa | 2585 | 1 | 19 | 1309 |
| 1612 | 2 | 8 | 530 | |||
| Santa Rita do Passa Quatro Experimental Station (SRES) | 9 | 1 | 1 | 78 | ||
| Sustainable use | Cwa | 19 | 2 | 2 | 156 | |
| 51 | 3 | 2 | 156 | |||
| Bebedouro State Forest (BSF) | Strict protection | Aw | 99 | 1 | 2 | 82 |
| Furnas do Bom Jesus State Park (FBJSP) | Strict protection | Cwb | 2069 | 1 | 25 | 2021 |
| Porto Ferreira State Park (PFSP) | Strict protection | Cwa | 611 | 1 | 9 | 608 |
| Vassununga State Park (VSP) | Strict protection | 231 | 1 | 2 | 118 | |
| 329 | 2 | 5 | 357 | |||
| Cwa | 130 | 3 | 2 | 124 | ||
| 1217 | 4 | 13 | 764 | |||
| 169 | 5 | 3 | 175 | |||
| Augusto Ruschi Biological Reserve (ARBR) | Strict protection | 115 | 1 | 1 | 38 | |
| Aw | 56 | 2 | 1 | 34 | ||
| 189 | 3 | 2 | 115 | |||
| 124 | 4 | 3 | 75 |
Table 2.
Functional traits used to calculate the functional diversity (FD) of the medium- and large-sized mammals in the 18 forest patches of the protected areas in the north, northeast, and south-central regions of the São Paulo state, Brazil.
Table 2.
Functional traits used to calculate the functional diversity (FD) of the medium- and large-sized mammals in the 18 forest patches of the protected areas in the north, northeast, and south-central regions of the São Paulo state, Brazil.
| Trait Type | Trait | Category | Data Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dietary | Diet | Leaves | Percentage |
| Fruits | Percentage | ||
| Vertebrates | Percentage | ||
| Invertebrates | Percentage | ||
| Foraging substrate | Water | Binary | |
| Trees | Binary | ||
| Vegetation | Binary | ||
| Soil | Binary | ||
| Physical | Locomotion form | Terrestrial | Binary |
| Semifossorial | Binary | ||
| Semiaquatic | Binary | ||
| Arboreal | Binary | ||
| Body mass | Kg | Continuous | |
| Litter size | Average number of puppies | Continuous | |
| Behavioral | Period of activity | Diurnal | Binary |
| Nocturnal | Binary | ||
| Crepuscular | Binary | ||
| Social behavior | Social | Binary | |
| Threat categories | IUCN Brazil São Paulo | Data Deficient | Categorical |
| Least Concern | Categorical | ||
| Near Threatened | Categorical | ||
| Vulnerable | Categorical | ||
| Endangered | Categorical |
Table 3.
Both-direction stepwise model selection concerning the relationship between the functional diversity (FD) of the medium- and large-sized mammals and landscape variables in the 18 forest patches within the protected areas in the north, northeast, and south-central regions of São Paulo state, Brazil. SSQ = sum of squares; RSS = residual sum of squares; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion.
Table 3.
Both-direction stepwise model selection concerning the relationship between the functional diversity (FD) of the medium- and large-sized mammals and landscape variables in the 18 forest patches within the protected areas in the north, northeast, and south-central regions of São Paulo state, Brazil. SSQ = sum of squares; RSS = residual sum of squares; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion.
| Model | SSQ | RSS | AIC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Start: FD ~ log1p (patch size) + log1p (isolation) + forest + sugarcane | |||
| − log1p (isolation) | 0.00 | 106.60 | 40.02 |
| − Forest | 0.74 | 107.33 | 40.14 |
| − Sugarcane | 0.91 | 107.50 | 40.17 |
| No change | 106.59 | 42.02 | |
| − log1p (patch size) | 36.52 | 143.11 | 45.32 |
| Step 1: FD ~ log1p (patch size) + forest + sugarcane | |||
| − Forest | 0.74 | 107.33 | 38.14 |
| − Sugarcane | 0.93 | 107.52 | 38.17 |
| No change | 106.60 | 40.02 | |
| − log1p (patch size) | 39.45 | 146.04 | 43.68 |
| Step 2: FD ~ log1p (patch size) + sugarcane | |||
| − Sugarcane | 0.47 | 107.80 | 36.22 |
| No change | 107.33 | 38.14 | |
| − log1p (patch size) | 77.40 | 184.74 | 45.91 |
| Step 3 FD ~ log1p (patch size) | |||
| No change | 107.80 | 36.22 | |
| − log1p (patch size) | 146.32 | 254.12 | 49.65 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Fornitano, L.; Gouvea, J.A.; Costa, R.T.; Magioli, M.; Bianchi, R. Large Protected Areas Safeguard Mammalian Functional Diversity in Human-Modified Landscapes. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5419. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135419
AMA Style
Fornitano L, Gouvea JA, Costa RT, Magioli M, Bianchi R. Large Protected Areas Safeguard Mammalian Functional Diversity in Human-Modified Landscapes. Sustainability. 2024; 16(13):5419. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135419
Chicago/Turabian StyleFornitano, Larissa, Jéssica Abonizio Gouvea, Rômulo Theodoro Costa, Marcelo Magioli, and Rita Bianchi. 2024. "Large Protected Areas Safeguard Mammalian Functional Diversity in Human-Modified Landscapes" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5419. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135419
APA StyleFornitano, L., Gouvea, J. A., Costa, R. T., Magioli, M., & Bianchi, R. (2024). Large Protected Areas Safeguard Mammalian Functional Diversity in Human-Modified Landscapes. Sustainability, 16(13), 5419. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135419
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
