858 D. Barcelos et al.
FIG. 3 Effects of tourism-related variables on the probability of trail use by six mammal species in Cavernas do Peruaçu National Park (model estimates displayed on a logit scale). (a,b) Effect of trail category (probability of using tourist trail at any period either before or after tourism was allowed), (c,d) effect of visitation period (probability of using any trail after tourism was allowed), and (e,f) effect of the interaction between trail category and visitation period (probability of using tourist trails after tourism was allowed). Right column (b,d,f) indicates the results when restricting the analysis to the core visitation hours (9.00–17.00). The generalized linear mixed model estimates (circles) and their 95% CIs (horizontal lines) are from the best-supported model for each species according to AICc values (Supplementary Tables 5 & 6). Species: (i) paca Cuniculus paca, (ii) rock cavy Kerodon rupestris, (iii) ocelot Leopardus pardalis,(iv) deer Mazama gouazoubira,(v) collared peccary Pecari tajacu and (vi) coati Nasua nasua. Filled circle and solid line: significant effect; Hollow circle and dashed line: non-significant effect.
Results
Species richness We obtained 3,220 independent records of 23 mammal species (Supplementary Table 3). Estimated species richness varied between sites but within-site variation before and after the Park was opened for tourism was only moderate (Fig. 2). These variations in species richness were observed in both trail categories, although downwards trends were more frequent on tourist trails. However, none of this vari- ation in species richness was statistically significant, with substantial overlap in the 95% CIs of the estimates for all within-site comparisons (Supplementary Table 7).
Probability of trail use
Trail category alone did not influence the probability of using trails by any of the target species across the whole
study period (Fig. 3a). However, except for peccaries, all species showed reduced probabilities of using any trail after tourists were allowed in the Park (Fig. 3c), suggesting an overall decline in trail use during our study period. A more complex pattern emerged when we accounted for the interaction between trail category and tourist visitation. Contrary to our expectation, ocelots, deer, peccaries and coatis demonstrated higher probabilities of using tourist trails after tourism was allowed and this probability re- mained stable for pacas (Fig. 3e), indicating that the use of space by these species was not affected negatively by tour- ism. The rock cavy was the only species that responded as we expected, demonstrating a lower probability of using tourist trails after the intensification of tourism (Fig. 3e). When considering only the core visitation hours (9.00–
17.00), we observed similar patterns for the effects of trail category (tourist vs non-tourist trails; Fig. 3b) and visitation (before vs after tourism was allowed; Fig. 3d). However, for peccaries, ocelots and coatis the observed increases in tourist
Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 854–863 © Crown Copyright, 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321001472
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
