Mammal responses to tourism 859


TABLE 2 Influence of tourism on estimates of overall activity levels for the ocelot Leopardus pardalis and rock cavy Kerodon rupestris in Cavernas do Peruaçu National Park (Fig. 4).


Proportion of time active ± SE Before tourism


Ocelot


Non-tourist trails Tourist trails


Rock cavy Non-tourist trails Tourist trails


0.56 ± 0.07 0.71 ± 0.08


0.22 ± 0.02 0.52 ± 0.06


0.54 ± 0.08 0.59 ± 0.05


0.36 ± 0.03 0.31 ± 0.06


trail use after the beginning of visitation disappeared when considering only the core visitation hours (Fig. 3f). By con- trast, deer and rock cavies maintained the same responses as in the 24-h dataset, with the former showing an increased probability and the latter a decreased probability of tourist trail use after the intensification of tourism (Fig. 3f).


Activity parameters


Tourism did not have a significant effect on overall activity levels (proportion of time specieswere active) for ocelots but it did influence the activity levels of rock cavies (Table 2). After tourismintensification, rock cavies had reduced over- all activity on tourist trails and increased overall activity on non-tourist trails (Table 2). Both species altered their activ- ity patterns (when species are active) following the begin- ning of tourist visitation in the Park (Fig. 4). For ocelots there were clear and significant changes in activity patterns in both trail categories (Fig. 4a,b), with a particularly strong decline for diurnal activity on tourist trails (Fig. 4b). On non-tourist trails, ocelots were largely diurnal both before and after tourism but their activity peak shifted from c. 14.00 to 10.00 after visitors were allowed in the Park (Fig. 4a). For rock cavies, virtually all of their activity on non-tourist trails was restricted to the daytime both before and after tourism but with a reduction in the morning peak (c. 7.30) after tourism was allowed (Fig. 4c). On tourist trails, contrary to our predictions, rock cavies showed increased diurnal activity after tourism was allowed, with a strong peak at 12.00 (Fig. 4d).


Discussion


Spatial and temporal responses to tourism Our results suggest that the initial years of tourism activity in Cavernas do Peruaçu National Park had only a modest impact on the localmammal community.We observed tem- poral responses by ocelots and rock cavies but limited nega- tive spatial responses in most species. There is no evidence


P = 0.84 P = 0.23


P,0.001 P = 0.017


90/166 101/256


389/278 285/67


that visitors had an impact on species richness, and the probability of using a tourist trail after tourism was allowed either increased or remained stable for five of the six spe- cies assessed. If visitors were causing species avoidance, we would expect this impact to be stronger on tourist trails (Rogala et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2013), which was not the case. Although we observed a general decline in the probability of trail use by most of the target species after visitors were allowed in the Park, our results do not indicate that tourism was the main factor driving this decline or that it caused indirect habitat loss, except for rock cavies. We believe that other factors not related to tourism could be influencing the study system, such as a reduction in water availability in the Peruaçu River, but this hypothesis would need to be investigated before any inferences could be drawn.


Displacement of wildlife from tourist to non-tourist areas


has been reported as a strategy employed by wild species to avoid human presence (Rogala et al., 2011; Morrison et al., 2014; Fortin et al., 2016). We observed this only for rock cavies in our study. This nationally threatened rodent (ICMBio, 2018) showed spatial and temporal avoidance of tourist areas after the intensification of tourism, as it re- duced the use of tourist trails and increased activity levels on non-tourist trails, which indicates the species was af- fected by visitation. However, rock cavies showed increased diurnal activity on tourist trails after tourism, which contra- dicts our predictions of greater nocturnality to minimize interactions with humans. This complex response pattern needs further investigation and could be affected by interac- tions with predators as the increased diurnal activity of rock cavies was concurrent with the shift towards more nocturnal activity on tourist trails of ocelots. Rock cavies are diurnal (Portella & Vieira, 2016) and poached heavily for their meat (ICMBio, 2018), which could explain their responses to the increased human presence. However, this rock- dwelling rodent can climb steep rock outcrops, thus our results do not necessarily indicate a complete displacement from tourist areas. To avoid human contact, rock cavies could be responding by exploring the vertical dimension of their habitat, therefore reducing detection.


Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 854–863 © Crown Copyright, 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321001472 After tourism Wald test


No. of records (before/after)


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