Using population surveys and models to reassess the conservation status of an endemic Amazonian titi monkey in a deforestation hotspot F ELIPE ENNES S IL VA,LUCIANA GOS I PAC C A,LIS LE Y P EREI RA LEMOS
ALMÉ R IO CÂMAR A GUSMÃO,ODAIR DIOGO DA S IL VA ,J ÚL IO CÉS AR DAL P O NTE CAETANO L.B. FRANCO,MAR CE L O I SM AR SANTA NA GERS O N BUSS and HANI R. E L BIZRI
Abstract Assessing the conservation status of species is es- sential for implementing appropriate conservationmeasures. A lack of evidence of threats, rather than showing an absence of impacts, could reflect a lack of studies on how human activities could result in species population declines. The range of Prince Bernhard’s titi monkey Plecturocebus bern- hardi is restricted to the Arc of Deforestation, a deforesta- tion hotspot in south-eastern Amazonia. Despite this, it is categorized as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List. To reassess the conservation status of P. bernhardi, we carried out surveys during 2015–2017 to delimit the geographical distribution of the species and estimate its population density and abundance.We then used spatial predictivemodelling to
FELIPE ENNES SILVA*(
orcid.org/0000-0002-1315-0847) and LISLEY PEREIRA LEMOS Mamirauá Institute for Sustainable Development, Research Group on Primate Biology and Conservation, Tefé, Amazonas, Brazil
LUCIANA GOSI PACCA (
orcid.org/0000-0001-6022-0337) and GERSON BUSS
(
orcid.org/0000-0003-0892-3005) Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservação de Primatas Brasileiros, Cabedelo, Paraíba, Brazil
ALMÉRIO CÂMARA GUSMÃO (
orcid.org/0000-0002-5450-5392) Instituto
Estadual de Desenvolvimento da Educação Profissional de Rondônia, Pimenta Bueno, Brazil
ODAIR DIOGO DA SILVA (
orcid.org/0000-0002-5271-2849) Programa de Pós- Graduação em Ciências Ambientais, Universidade Estadual do Mato Grosso, Cáceres, Brazil
JÚLIO CÉSAR DALPONTE (
orcid.org/0000-0002-7086-5144) Instituto para a Conservação dos Carnívoros Neotropicais (Pró-Carnívoros), Atibaia, Brazil
CAETANO L. B. FRANCO† (
orcid.org/0000-0002-4347-5546) Mamirauá Institute for Sustainable Development, Research Group on Geospatial Analysis, Environment and Amazonian Territories, Tefé, Brazil
MARCELO ISMAR SANTANA (
orcid.org/0000-0003-3890-047X) Faculdade de
Agronomia e Medicina Veterinária da Universidade de Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil HANI R. EL BIZRI‡ (Corresponding author,
orcid.org/0000-0003-1524-6292,
hanibiz@gmail.com) School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford M5 4NT, UK
*Also at: Unit of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Département de Biologie des Organismes, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium †Also at: Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, USA ‡Also at: Mamirauá Institute for Sustainable Development Research, Research Group on Terrestrial Vertebrate Ecology, Tefé, Brazil, and Rede de Pesquisa em Diversidade, Conservação e Uso da Fauna na Amazônia, Manaus, Brazil *The article has been updated since original publication. A notice detailing the change has also been published.
Received 24 August 2021. Revision requested 3 November 2021. Accepted 18 May 2022. First published online 29 September 2022.
Introduction
and are fundamental for the implementation of strategies for species
conservation.Ataxon that does not meet any cri- teria for the IUCN threat categories is categorized as Least Concern (IUCN, 2012). This classification, however, does not necessarily imply that the taxon has been assessed fully for all criteria because, in most cases, there are insuffi- cient data available regarding threats, distribution and/or population trends. When an assessment states there is no evidence of threats this does not necessarily mean studies were carried out that provide evidence the species is not in decline or not being affected by anthropogenic activities. Often the final decision rests on the judgement of specialists based on the available data (Mace et al., 2008). However, Least Concern species should be reassessed if they become exposed to threats that have not been previously recognized or investigated (McLeod, 2010; Sengupta & Radhakrishna, 2013; Erinjery et al., 2017; de la Torre et al., 2018; Silva et al., 2018).
A
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 846–853 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605322000655
ssessments of species conservation status at the global level follow the IUCN Red List categories and criteria
examine future habitat and population loss within its range. Plecturocebus bernhardi occurs over an area of 131,295 km2. Its mean group size was 2.8 individuals/group and its density 10.8 individuals/km2 and 3.8 groups/km2.Habitat loss wases- timated to be 58,365 km2 (44.5% of its current range) over the next 24 years (three P. bernhardi generations) under a conser- vative governance model of deforestation and 105,289 km2 (80.2%) under a business-as-usual model. These numbers in- dicate that P. bernhardi is threatened andshouldbecategor- ized as Vulnerable, at least, using the IUCN Red List criteria. We recommend the reassessment of other Least Concern pri- mate species from the Arc of Deforestation using a similar approach.
Keywords Amazon rainforest, Arc of Deforestation, con- servation status, habitat loss, IUCN Red List, Least Concern, Plecturocebus bernhardi, primate conservation
Supplementary material for this article is available at
doi.org/10.1017/S0030605322000655
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
