Mammal responses to tourism 861
2018;Monteiro&Lira, 2020). Given that tourismactivity has only recently begun and has been growing substantially in the Park (Supplementary Table 1), it is important to realize that the effects of a larger number of tourists could be different from what has been observed in the initial years of visitation, and constant monitoring is necessary to assess any medium- to long-term effects. The rock cavy was the only species that showed a nega-
tive spatial response to the beginning of visitation. This is of particular concern for a nationally threatened species as displacement from some areas of the Park would reduce the habitat effectively available for the population. Because the Park is one of the few protected areas where rock cavies occur in Minas Gerais state, it is paramount to mitigate any negative impacts on this population. To this end, understanding the mechanisms driving rock cavy responses to the intensification in tourism should be a priority so that effective management strategies can be adopted. Furthermore, any decline in the local rock cavy population would be detrimental for the tourism sector as this is the only nativemammal species regularly observed in the Park, therefore improving visitor experience. Our assessment had the limitation of monitoring only
trails leading to caves and not caves in particular, which are the main tourist attractions in the region. Nonetheless, these fragile environments provide crucial habitats for bats and invertebrates (Ferreira & Horta, 2001; Paksuz & Özkan, 2012; de Sousa Barros et al., 2021); in our study area they support a high diversity of troglobites (Trajano et al., 2016) and are used frequently by Neotropical otters Lontra longicaudis (Pinho et al., 2018). Our study does not allow us to draw any inferences regarding the impacts of visitors on species restricted to or highly associated with caves and a specificmonitoring scheme is needed to exam- ine this. Taken together, our results suggest that themammal com-
munity and most of our target species were able to tolerate visitation during the initial years of tourism activity in the Peruaçu River valley without being displaced from tourist areas. However, because time lags between impacts and re- sponses of species are common in natural systems (Watts et al., 2020), our findings should be viewed with caution as they correspond only to the initial phase of tourism in the Park. Furthermore, the tourism management interventions adopted probably worked in tandem with the low numbers of tourists visiting the Park compared to better-known Brazilian national parks (ICMBio, 2019). Therefore, we suggest that a multi-taxa and robust monitoring system measuring biodiversity responses to tourismshould be imple- mented to inform an adaptive management programme as tourismactivity develops further. Thiswould allowmanagers tomake and adapt decisions based on ecological knowledge, thereby increasing the probability of conservation goals being achieved (Leung et al., 2018).
Considering, however, that some degree of change
caused by tourism may be inevitable, it is also important to agree on what level of impact would be acceptable in a protected area. This complex issue should not be addressed by ecologists alone and the engagement of other stakeholders in establishing this limit is essential for setting sensible tar- gets. Moreover, any negative impacts on biodiversity caused by visitors should be weighed against the conservation and management gains provided by tourism. In our study area, organized tourism has, directly or indirectly, brought in- creased funding, improved infrastructure, greater recog- nition and unintentional patrolling to the Park, which together have probably improved conservation effective- ness. Additionally, tourism is generating employment and income for local communities, thereby improving their per- ceptions of the Park and potentially reducing any conflicts that could adversely affect biodiversity. These benefits and the results presented here support the possibility of accom- modating nature-based tourism and effective biodiversity conservation at Cavernas do Peruaçu National Park.
Acknowledgements We thank I.M. Barata, F.F. Pinho, M.J.R. Oliveira, L. Bonjorne and many others for field assistance; B.E. Lopes and C.R. Córdova for assistance with datamanagement; parkmanagers and employees of Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio), particularly Norivaldo Pereira dos Santos, for their support; and the Conservation Leadership Programme, Panthera, Idea Wild, International Foundation for Science (IFS) (5353-1), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)/Programa de Pesquisa em Biodiversidade (PPBio)/Rede ComCerrado (457434/2012-0), Centro Nacional de Pesquisas e Conservação de Mamíferos Carnívoros (CENAP)/ICMBio andWWF-Brasil (190-2012) for research funding.DCBreceiveda schol- arship fromCNPq (131032/2016-0) and a research grant fromDecanato de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação (DPP)/Universidade de Brasília (UnB). EMV received a personal research grant fromCNPq (311988/2017-2).
Author contributions Study design: GBF; data collection: GBF, DCB, MSP; data analysis: DCB, GBF; writing: DCB, GBF, EMV.
Conflicts of interest DCB, MSP and GBF represented Instituto Biotrópicos on the Cavernas do Peruaçu National Park advisory council during 2014–2016.
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
References
AGOSTINELLI,C.&LUND,U.(2017) R package ‘circular’: circular statistics (version 0.4-93).
cran.r-project.org/web/packages/circular/ circular.pdf [accessed 17 November 2021].
BALMFORD, A., BERESFORD, J., GREEN, J., NAIDOO, R.,WALPOLE,M. &MANICA,A. (2009) A global perspective on trends in nature-based tourism. PLOS Biology, 7,e1000144.
BANKS-LEITE, C., PARDINI, R., BOSCOLO, D., CASSANO, C.R., PÜTTKER, T., BARROS, C.S. & BARLOW,J.(2014) Assessing the utility of statistical adjustments for imperfect detection in tropical conservation science. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 849–859.
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
