Effect of free-ranging cattle on mammalian diversity: an Austral Yungas case study


GRIET AN E RIC A CUY C K ENS,NOE LI A VIV I ANA GONZALE Z BAFF A TRASCI P AB L O GASTÓN P EROV IC and L UCIO RICARDO MALIZIA


Abstract Extensive cattle ranging is an important economic activity in mountains, with diverse effects on native mam- mal communities. The effects of cattle Bos taurus can be negative, positive or neutral, mostly depending on the stock- ing rate. We examined the effect of cattle on the diversity and abundance of native mammalian species in the Austral Yungas region of Argentina, considering environ- mental variables, land protection status, and human influ- ence. Using 12,512 trap-nights from 167 camera-trap stations over 11 years (2009–2019), we calculated a relative abundance index using camera events and used generalized linear models to estimate the effect of cattle on small mam- mals, large herbivores, species of conservation concern and felids. Cattle had different effects on each group of native mammals. We observed a lower abundance of large native herbivores and the absence of small mammals in areas with high cattle abundance. The tapir Tapirus terrestris, jag- uar Panthera onca and white-lipped peccary Tayassu pecari are rare in the Yungas and therefore potentially vulnerable to extinction there. Conservation of small felids and low cat- tle abundance could be compatible, but felids are threatened by other anthropogenic influences. Native mammalian di- versity and richness were related to land protection status. The entire ecoregion is potentially suitable for cattle, sug- gesting the potential for further threats, and that cattle should be excluded from strictly protected areas. To ensure extensive cattle ranging is compatible with wildlife conser- vation in areas where exclusion is not possible, we recom- mend improved management of cattle and moderate stocking rates.


Keywords Bos taurus, cattle, empty forest, human foot- print, livestock, national parks, niche-based distribution modelling, threatened species


Supplementary material for this article is available at doi.org/10.1017/S0030605321001538


GRIETAN ERICACUYCKENS (Corresponding author, orcid.org/0000-0002-9019- 8916, grietcuyckens@yahoo.com), NOELIA VIVIANA GONZALEZ BAFFA TRASCI ( orcid.org/0000-0001-5666-8614) and LUCIO RICARDO MALIZIA Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas–Universidad Nacional de Jujuy, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas and Centro de Estudios Territoriales Ambientales y Sociales, Alberdi 47, 4600 San Salvador de Jujuy, Argentina


PABLO GASTÓN PEROVIC Administración de Parques Nacionales, Salta, Argentina


Received 10 December 2020. Revision requested 27 July 2021. Accepted 26 October 2021.


Introduction


gions in a variety of ways (Elliott & Barrett, 1985;Moser & Witmer, 2000; Hettinger, 2001; Pia et al., 2003;Shepherd& Ditgen, 2005; Chaikina & Ruckstuhl, 2006). In forest ecosystems in Australia, the presence of free-ranging cattle negatively affects vegetation regeneration by compacting the soil through trampling and diminishing the abundance of seedlings by grazing (Eldridge et al., 2016). In South American forests, the effect of cattle Bos taurus is hetero- geneous and studies have been restricted to a few forest eco- systems and ecological variables (Mazzini et al., 2018). The intensive use of the forest understorey by cattle can


F


cause a reduction in plant biomass, potentially reducing the complexity of the understorey (Loeser et al., 2005) and in- creasing the density of shrubs resistant to browsing (Vandenberghe et al., 2009), thus changing forest structure and composition. These changes in vegetation could have both direct and indirect effects on nativemammal biodiver- sity. By affecting the understorey of forests and reducing ref- uge and food availability, cattle have the potential to affect small forestmammals negatively (Tabeni et al., 2013). Cattle may also affect large native herbivores by reducing food diversity and competing for pastures (Madhusudan, 2004). By altering small mammal abundance (i.e. prey for carnivores), cattle also cause cascading effects on higher trophic levels (Pia et al., 2003). The influence of cattle is not straightforward (Hettinger,


2001) and is mainly determined by the stocking rate (Schieltz & Rubenstein, 2016). Mammalian species exhibit different responses linked to their specific life traits (Suraci et al., 2021). Forest specialist mammal species decline rapidly when forest cover decreases and are unlikely to be found in secondary forests, whereas non-specialists survive in human-modified habitats (Newbold et al., 2014), and some species such as the white-eared opossum Didelphis al- biventris and Molina’s hog-nosed skunk Conepatus chinga could benefit from cattle-modified habitat (Di Bitetti et al., 2010). To ensure the protection of biodiversity, a total exclusion


of cattle and strict controls against hunting are imposed by national parks in Argentina (IUCN category II pro- tected areas). Other categories (VI) allow traditional cattle raising. In regions where cattle are managed extensively and with little veterinary control, the management of a


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons-Attribution-ShareAlike licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/), which permits re-use, distribution, reproduction, transformation, and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited and any transformation/adaptation is distributed under the same Creative Commons licence. Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 877–887 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321001538


ree-ranging cattle affect native fauna, species interac- tions and ecological communities across geographical re-


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