Spatial dynamics and activity patterns of the fosa Cryptoprocta ferox in Ankarafantsika National Park, Madagascar: carnivores navigating a human-influenced landscape


E ILEEN WYZA,LUKE DOL LAR,LEON P IE RR O T RAHAJANIR INA VIO RE L P OPE S CU and NANCY J. S TE VEN S


Abstract The Vulnerable fosa Cryptoprocta ferox is the largest native carnivore in Madagascar, fulfilling a unique ecological niche in the island’s remaining forests. Negative interactions with humans threaten the long-term viability of most remaining fosa populations across Madagascar. Threats to the fosa include habitat loss and persecution by humans resulting from perceived predation on domestic animals.We used GPS collars to record space use and activ- ity patterns of five fosas in Ankarafantsika National Park, Madagascar, during the dry seasons of 2016 and 2017. The re- sults, with up to 2,110 recorded locations per individual, in- dicated fosas’ home ranges and movements were not limited to the forest, and all collared individuals used networks of habitat patches and corridors to navigate deforested areas. The fosas studied in Ankarafantsika National Park had signifi- cantly larger home ranges than those reported in previous studies in other protected areas.Theywere rarely found with- in village boundaries and appeared to avoid areas of human habitation, suggesting that during the study period livestock was not a significant component of the fosas’ diet in this Park. Our results suggest that fosas have some flexibility that en- ables them to adapt to living near deforested and human- dominated areas by altering their space-use patterns, but they are compensating by increasing their home range size.


Keywords Carnivore, corridor use, Cryptoprocta ferox, fosa, GPS, habitat selection, human–wildlife interactions, Madagascar


EILEEN WYZA and VIOREL POPESCU Department of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, USA


LUKEDOLLAR‡ Department of Environment and Sustainability, Catawba College, Salisbury, USA


LEON PIERROT RAHAJANIRINA† Department of Animal Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Antananarivo, Antananarivo, Madagascar


NANCY J. STEVENS* (Corresponding author, orcid.org/0000-0002-2402-6526)


Department of Biomedical Sciences, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Environmental Studies Program, Ohio University, 204 Grosvenor Hall, Athens, Ohio 45701, USA. E-mail stevensn@ohio.edu


*Also at: Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Studies, Ohio University, Athens, USA ‡Also at: Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, USA †Deceased


Received 4 November 2018. Revision requested 3 December 2018. Accepted 30 April 2019. First published online 23 January 2020.


Introduction


estation, human population growth leading to habitat loss, and introduction of exotic species (Harper et al., 2007; Zinner et al., 2014; Schüßlera et al., 2018). In many of the island’s forested ecosystems, including the spiny forests, eastern rainforests, and dry deciduous forests, the fosa Cryptoprocta ferox is an apex predator. The fosa’s diet in- cludes small to medium-sized animals such as lemurs, but varies by region and season (Köhncke & Leonhardt, 1986; Hawkins, 2003; Dollar et al., 2007; Mann et al., 2015). The fosa is generally considered solitary outside the mating season, but several recent studies present evidence of asso- ciations between some individuals (Lührs & Kappeler, 2013; Wyza et al., 2018). Home ranges documented in previous studies were 12–89 km2 during the dry season (Hawkins, 1998; Lührs & Kappeler, 2013), with males exhibiting spatial overlap with females and other males, and females occupy- ing ranges that overlap with those of males but not those of other females (Hawkins, 2003). A flexible cathemeral activ- ity pattern has been reported for fosas, with a slight prefer- ence for crepuscular hours (Albignac, 1973; Hawkins, 1998; Gerber et al., 2012). Fosas are categorized as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red


T


List of Threatened Species, for a combination of reasons (Hawkins, 2016). These include low population densities compared to other tropical carnivores (Rahajanirina, 2003; Hawkins & Racey, 2005), country-wide loss of forested habitats (Gerber et al., 2012; Kotschwar Logan et al., 2015), and the introduction of other carnivore species that compete for prey and transmit diseases to fosas (Farris et al., 2015b; Pomerantz et al., 2016). Fosas are also subject to intense persecution because they are widely believed to prey on do- mestic animals, particularly poultry (Woodroffe & Ginsberg, 1998; García & Goodman, 2003; Golden, 2009; Kotschwar Logan et al., 2015; Farris et al., 2015b). Only two of Mada- gascar’s 46 national parks are thought to be large enough to maintain viable populations (Hawkins & Racey, 2005; Gerber et al., 2010) and fosa numbers have decreased by 30% since 1995, with projections suggesting an addition- al third could be lost by 2040 (Hawkins, 2016). Research is needed urgently to inform conservation and management


Oryx, 2020, 54(6), 837–846 © 2020 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000498


he unique forests of Madagascar are threatened by a number of anthropogenic factors including defor-


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