878 G. A. E. Cuyckens et al.


site plays a fundamental role in the local stocking rate, and therefore in fauna conservation (Schieltz & Rubenstein, 2016).


Since the 1950s, the range of domestic cattle in Argentina


has expanded into areas marginal for agriculture, mostly forested areas (Guevara et al., 2009) such as the Austral Yungas in the north-west. In the Argentine Yungas, cattle raising entails releasing cattle into the forests, without nu- tritional supplements and with little to no management (Quiroga et al., 2005). This extensive ranging of livestock, combined with selective logging and firewood extraction, has adverse effects on the structure of native forests (Campanello et al., 2007; Blundo et al., 2018). However, the effect of cattle has not been considered as an explanatory variable when examining patterns of mammalian diversity, nor is it known how cattle affect fauna in one of the most biodiverse ecosystems in Argentina. Weaimed to assess the effect of cattle on the nativemam-


malian community of the Austral Yungas and any potential interaction with altitude, latitude and land protection status. We considered four species groups: small mammals, large herbivores, species of conservation concern and the felid community. We also examined the potential of cattle to in- habit the Yungas ecoregion on a regional scale.Weexpected (1) lower mammalian richness and diversity at higher alti- tudes, increasing latitude and in areas of lower protection status, (2) lower abundance or absence of the four species groups in areas with greater cattle abundance and anthropo- genic influence, and (3) that cattle could potentially inhabit the entire Yungas ecoregion.


Study area


The study area is the Austral Yungas of Argentina (sensu Brown & Pacheco, 2006) on the eastern slope of the Andes. This ecoregion is characterized by subtropical cloudy montane forests and has an altitudinal gradient of vege- tation physiognomy and species composition (Brown et al., 2001). The Yungas is considered a vulnerable ecosystem (Olson & Dinerstein, 2002) of high conservation value (Malizia et al., 2012) because of the high faunal diversity (Narosky & Yzurieta, 1987;Ojeda, 1999). Cattle were intro- duced into the region c. 450 years ago (Brown & Grau, 1993), but their distribution is limited by the terrain and therefore cattle density is highly variable.


Methods


We surveyed using camera traps across latitudinal and altitudinal gradients in areas with forest cover (Fig. 1). To measure the success of our method, we developed a po- tential species list for the Yungas forests (Table 1).


Species groups


Of the recorded species, we selected four groups that can potentially be influenced by cattle. By reducing refuge and food availability for small mammals (Tabeni et al., 2013), we expected a negative influence of cattle on the presence and relative abundance of small mammal species. In this group we included unidentified small mammals (i.e. #1 kg), the agouti Dasyprocta sp. and the tapeti Sylvilagus brasiliensis. Cattle may also affect large native herbivores by reducing food diversity and competing for pastures (Madhusudan, 2004). In the large herbivore species group we included the red brocket deer Mazama americana and gray brocket deer Mazama gouazoubira.We expected a lower relative abundance of both species with higher cattle abundance, and absence of the species at a certain, un- known, threshold of cattle abundance. We predict similar effects on these two species, and therefore we pooled data for a more robust statistical analysis. For species of conser- vation concern we included threatened species based on national and/or international standards (Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible & Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos, 2019; IUCN, 2021): the lowland tapir Tapirus terrestris, white-lipped peccary Tayassu pecari and jaguar Panthera onca. Based on the potential influence of cattle on the relative abundance of smallmam- mals and cascading effects on higher trophic levels (Pia et al., 2003), we expect a negative influence of cattle on the presence and relative abundance of small and medium- sized felids. This group comprised the medium-sized ocelot Leopardus pardalis, and five small felids: jaguarundi Herpailurus yagouaroundi, Pampas cat Leopardus colocolo, Geoffroy’s cat Leopardus geoffroyi, oncilla Leopardus tigrinus and margay Leopardus wiedii (Table 1).


Camera-trap survey


We placed 166 camera stations: 22 in national parks, 40 in provincial reserves, 30 in private protected areas, 53 in private lands without protection, 12 in state properties without management, and nine in Indigenous territories. The trapping period was 10 January 2009–5 September 2019 (12,512 effective trap-nights).Werecorded geographical coordinates and altitude at each point using a GPS. Camera-trap stations consisted of one camera, generally located along a trail, road or river bank, to optimize the capture of larger mammals, which prefer to walk along lin- ear features (Harmsen et al., 2010). In some cases, to ensure cameras were not interfered with or stolen, we placed them in the forest interior. The mean distance between nearest neighbouring cameras was 1.44 ± SD 1.25 km. Cam- eras were programmed to obtain a set of three photographs, with a 5-minute delay between successive sets, and were active continuously.


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


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