Snapshot of the Atlantic Forest canopy 827


FIG. 1 Locations where arboreal camera-trap surveys were conducted in ombrophilous and semideciduous forests in Caparaó National Park, south-eastern Brazil.


0.9.3.1 (TEAM Network, 2015). As we set the camera traps to hybrid mode we defined a detection event as a set of two photographs and one 30-s video.To ensure independence be- tween events, we used a minimum interval of 1 hbetween species-specific detection events (Oliveira-Santos et al., 2008; Debruille et al., 2020). We defined detection rates for arboreal mammals as


the ratio of independent detection events to the number of camera-trap days; the latter is the number of 24-h periods from camera-trap placement until its battery ran out or we retrieved the camera, multiplied by 100 (Rovero & Marshall, 2009). We used the mean camera-trap detection rate as an index of the relative abundances of arboreal mam- mal species (Rovero & Marshall, 2009; Pal et al., 2020). We conducted all analyses in R 3.6.3 (R Core Team,


2020). To assess arboreal camera-trapping efficiency we es- timated rarefied species richness per camera, accounting for differences in the number of camera-trap days, and used a first-order jackknife estimator available in the vegan pack- age of R (Oksanen et al., 2019). We performed aWilcoxon rank-sum test to examine whether species richness and camera-trap detection rate (i.e. relative abundance) differed between semideciduous and ombrophilous forests. We used the Jaccard index, calculated by dividing the total number of species trophic guilds shared in both semideciduous and ombrophilous forests by the total number of trophic guilds occurring in either forest, to examine the similarities in species trophic guilds between the two forest types.


We categorized all mammal species into trophic guilds


(Table 1), which are not mutually exclusive (folivore, frugivore, granivore, gumivore, insectivore, myrmecophage, omnivore, carnivore), and according to their foraging habits (arboreal, scansorial, terrestrial). The morpho-ecological traits of the mammal species are based on Paglia et al. (2012) and Wilman et al. (2014), and taxonomy follows Abreu et al. (2021).


Results


Across the 24 arboreal camera-trap sites our survey effort totalled 4,736 camera-trap days, of which 2,151 and 2,585 camera-trap days were in semideciduous and ombro- philous forest, respectively. The camera traps were active for a mean of 57.0 ± SD 43.6 days (range 1–285 days), dependent in part on whether cameras malfunctioned or batteries failed. There was a total of 27,310 trigger events, of which 2,256 were of mammals, birds or lizards (8.3%). Weobtained 2,200 events of arboreal mammals, of which


1,396 were independent events. From these we identified 1,216 records (87.2%of the total number of mammal events), with 15 mammals identified to species, two to genus and one to family (Table 1). Unidentifiable events (n = 178) were small mammals, including opossums and rodents. The identified mammals represent 12 families and eight or- ders (Table 1). Rodentia was the richest order (five species),


Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 825–836 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321001563


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