The Caatinga howler monkey 795
FIG. 1 Locations of records and reports of the Caatinga howler monkey Alouatta ululata, and interviews with members of the local rural community, throughout the species’ known range, in north-eastern Brazil.
similar, although their strategies vary. For example, Zonation, used in this study, prioritizes landscapes by iteratively re- moving the least valuable remaining areas while accounting for connectivity and generalized complementarity (Moilanen et al., 2011). The overarching objective of this project was to conduct
spatially explicit analyses that contribute to the planning of measures to conserve A. ululata and the ecosystems with which it is associated. Our specific objectives were to (1) carry out field surveys to collect information on the dis- tribution of the species, (2)identify areas wherefurther surveys are needed, (3) develop a model to generate a potential species distribution map, and examine the environmental determinants of the species’ distribution, (4) identify the areas withmost potential for the conserva- tion of the species, and (5) determine the degree of cover- age of the priority areas by existing protected areas.We use our results to make spatially explicit recommendations for actions needed to improve the conservation of A. ululata and of the many species that depend on the same Caatinga habitats.
Study area
The study area includes the known range of A. ululata, across the states of Maranhão, Piauí and Ceará (Fig. 1). In the spatial analysis we included not only the area encom- passing all the known locations of the species, but also a 30-km wide buffer zone around this. The aimwas to identify areas that may be suitable for the species but that are outside its currently known range.
Methods
Data collection We compiled existing information on the distribution of A. ululata, most of which was collected during 2004–2010 by the National Center for Research and Conservation of Brazilian Primates (CPB/ICMBio). As the number of dir- ect observations by researchers is low (20 records), we also used reports obtained in CPB/ICMBio interviews with members of the local rural community during 2004–2010 (112 reports). Interview-based distribution analysis can com- plement direct monitoring data in the case of easily identi- fiable species (Anadón et al., 2010; Brittain et al., 2018). We also carried out surveys in two regions for which informa- tion was scarce, during August 2016–May 2017 (Fig. 1). We interviewed 112 farmers and hunters who lived or worked close to areas with natural vegetation. To minimize bias we did not reveal that A. ululata was the focus of our inter- views (Freire Filho et al., 2018). Weasked about other mam- mals present in the region before asking about A. ululata (Freire Filho et al., 2018). All interviews were conducted with the consent of the participants. Some records based on interviews were initially refer-
enced with the coordinates of the place of the interview, usu- ally farmhouses. We replaced these coordinates with those of the nearest area of natural environment within a 2-km ra- dius of the original coordinates (approximately the distance up to which the vocalization of the species can be heard). Points without natural environment within a 2-km radius were excluded. This procedure adds locational uncertainty, but Maxent modelling can make useful predictions even
Oryx, 2020, 54(6), 794–802 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318001084
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
