804 B. Moraes et al.


for conservation planning, to ensure there is sufficient suitable habitat for the survival of these species through creating new protected areas, connecting existing ones and restoring key habitats. Spatial analyses such as species distribution models and


gap analyses are useful for assessing the impact of habitat loss and fragmentation on species (Beuchle et al., 2015; Titeux et al., 2017; Zwiener et al., 2018). Distribution models project potentially suitable areas for a particular species based on presence location records and abiotic environ- mental data (Elith&Leathwick, 2009).Gap analysis assesses whether species or ecosystems are represented within exist- ing protected areas; i.e. it identifies potential conservation gaps (Rodrigues et al., 2004). Both techniques provide infor- mation to guide efficient management actions for the con- servation of a greater number of species (Rodrigues et al., 2004), and, if integrated, improve the interpretation of impacts of global change scenarios on biodiversity (Titeux et al., 2017). The combination of such approaches is thus important for conservation planning, particularly because research and conservation efforts have traditionally focused on charismatic species and protected areas, leaving some species and their habitats at high risk of extinction (Bezanson & McNamara, 2019). Here we combine species distribution models and gap


analysis to assess the long-term suitability of habitats for the conservation of two of the six target species included in the conservation action plan: A. belzebul and S. flavius. We also include a third species, the bearded capuchin Sapajus libidinosus. This species is not included in the na- tional action plan but is strongly affected by habitat loss (Beuchle et al., 2015; Rylands & Kierulff, 2015), the illegal pet trade (Nascimento et al., 2013) and hunting for use in traditional medicine and in retaliation for crop use (Torres Junior et al., 2016; Freire-Filho et al., 2018; Souto et al., 2018). We chose these three species because their ha- bitats represent the main biomes of north-east Brazil and they could thus serve as flagship species, with their pro- tection providing wider benefits for the conservation of these habitatsand otherwildlife withinthem.We (1)estimate the current potential range of each species and project the effects of future climate change on their ranges, (2) evaluate the extent of suitable areas that overlap with existing pro- tected areas and proposed priority areas for biodiversity conservation, and (3) assess how much forest cover still re- mains in the areas predicted as suitable for the occurrence of these species.


Study area and species


The study area comprises the known distribution area of the three target species, the Caatinga, Cerrado, Amazon and Atlantic Forest biomes, encompassing mainly the


north-east of Brazil, but also areas in the north and in the centre-west (Fig. 1). The Atlantic Forest in north-east Brazil is at low altitudes (400–800 m; Tabarelli et al., 2010) with annual rainfall of 1,800–2,000 mm (Rêgo & Hoeflich, 2001). The Caatinga and the Cerrado biomes are semiarid environments, with annual precipitation of 250– 1,200mm (Ratter et al., 1997;Prado, 2003)and 750–2,000mm (Hunke et al., 2014), respectively. Annual precipitation in the Amazon rainforest biome is 2,000–3,664 mm (Villar et al., 2009). Alouatta belzebul has a disjunct distribution, occur-


ring in the north-eastern Atlantic Forest and lower east- ern Amazon in the Brazilian states of Amapá, Pará and Maranhão (Veiga et al., 2008). It is folivorous–frugivorous (Pinto et al., 2013) and categorized as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List because its population has declined by 30% over 30 years (Veiga et al., 2008). It is estimated that the population restricted to the Atlantic Forest has only 200 individuals (Veiga et al., 2008). Sapajus flavius occurs in the Atlantic Forest and Caatin-


ga of north-east Brazil (Martins et al., 2016; Valença Montenegro et al., 2020). This species has a generalist diet (de Souza & Ferreira, 2019; Medeiros et al., 2019) and is categorized as Endangered on the IUCN Red List because of habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from coastal development and sugar cane plantations (Valença Monte- negro et al., 2020). It is recognized as one of the most threa- tened primates globally (Mittermeier et al., 2012), although it is no longer included in the list of the top 25 most endangered primate species (Schwitzer et al., 2019). Sapajus libidinosus inhabits dry forests in semiarid


areas, including the Caatinga and Cerrado biomes (Rylands & Kierulff, 2015). Although categorized as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List (Rylands & Kierulff, 2015), the Brazilian government considers it to be Near Threatened (ICMBio, 2016) and it is likely to become more threatened because of habitat loss (Beuchle et al., 2015; Rylands & Kierulff, 2015) and illegal pet trade (Nascimento et al., 2013).


Methods


Species distribution modelling We obtained occurrence data for the three target species from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (2017)and speciesLink (2017). We also retrieved location records from the literature using the search terms Sapajus, Sapajus libidi- nosus, capuchin monkeys, Cebus, Cebus libidinosus, flavius, Cebus flavius, Alouatta, Alouatta belzebul, guariba, bugio, bugio-de-mãos-ruivas, macaco-prego, macaco-prego-galego, macaco-prego-da-caatinga, red-handed howler monkey, howler monkey, blonde capuchin monkey, and bearded capuchin monkey in ScienceDirect (Elsevier, Amsterdam,


Oryx, 2020, 54(6), 803–813 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001388


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