882 G. A. E. Cuyckens et al.


FIG. 2 Mean native species richness recorded by camera traps set in areas of varying protection status. Boxes represent the interquartile range, box widths are proportional to the square root of the sample sizes, the horizontal solid line indicates the median, and the whiskers indicate the 95% CI.


The study area for modelling was the Yungas ecoregion


with a 50-km buffer. We generated 100,000 random points to extract values for the environmental variables, and tested for correlations with the Pearson test, selecting only those with a correlation #0.7. These were: mean diurnal tem- perature range, temperature seasonality, mean temperature of wettest quarter, precipitation of driest quarter, precipita- tion of warmest quarter, roughness, human influence index, and distance to nearest water lines. We used 89 presence records of cattle obtained from the


camera traps. We ran the species distribution model 100 times and used the average outcome. To measure the general performance, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), which measures the probability that a randomly chosen presence point will rank above a randomly chosen background point (AUC 0.5 = random; values closer to 1 indicate better discrimination power; Bellamy et al., 2013). We converted the model into a binary model by applying the minimumpresence logistic threshold (0.015) and categorized habitat suitability for cattle into five classes (very low: ,0.015;low: 0.015–0.25; medium: 0.26– 0.50; high: 0.51–0.75; very high: ˃ 0.75) for visualization as a map.


Results


We recorded 29 native species, 81% of the species that could potentially occur in the region (Table 1), and seven exotic species, with 165 of 166 cameras (99%) recording at least one native species and 100 cameras (60%) at least one exotic species. The range of species richness per camera was 0–13 (mean 4.9) for native and 0–5 (mean 1.0) for exotic species. Bos taurus had the highest relative abundance index andwas also the most frequently recorded species. Other domestic species recorded were horses, pigs, goats and dogs. Domestic cats were not recorded. Small mammals were recorded by 99 cameras (60%). Brocket deer (i.e. M. gouazoubira or M. americana) were


FIG. 3 Habitat suitability for cattle Bos taurus (from the niche-based model) in relation to the human influence index.


recorded by 101 (61%) cameras. Gray brocket deer had a relative abundance index of 0–322, and red brocket deer 0–83. Among the species of conservation concern, the lowland tapir had the highest relative abundance index (re- corded by 51 cameras), the white-lipped peccary had the lowest relative abundance index (three cameras) and the jag- uar was recorded by 22 cameras. The ocelot was the most abundant felid species, followed by the margay, jaguarundi, oncilla, Pampas cat and Geoffroy’s cat. The maximum num- ber of small and medium-sized felid species detected by one camera was five. Native species richness was almost 50%higher in nation-


al parks and private protected areas than in provincial protected areas, with intermediate values for Indigenous territories and private lands (Fig. 2). Native species richness and diversity decreased with altitude, without interactions with cattle relative abundance index or latitude (Fig. 3, Table 2). Presence, but not relative abundance, of small mammals


and large native herbivores was influenced by cattle relative abundance index. For small mammals to be present, the relative abundance index of cattle had to be ,17,and large herbivores were absent at a cattle relative abundance index of 13 and present at 5. Thus, to assure the presence of large herbivores, the number of independent cattle records should not be greater than five times the number of effective trap-nights (for example, in a survey of 90 trap-nights the number of independent cattle events should be ,450). Lowland tapir relative abundance increased with distance from water lines and was not influenced by cattle relative abundance index. Jaguar relative abundance and presence were not significantly associated with any of the measured variables. Data for the white-lipped peccary could not be analysed because there were only three records. The human influence index negatively affected felid richness, but not relative abundance, with an abrupt decrease in rich- ness at a human influence index of $22. Primary produc- tion did not influence the presence or relative abundance of small mammals or the tapir (Table 2).


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