Effect of free-ranging cattle on mammalian diversity 883 TABLE 2 Generalized linear models for native species richness


(number of species) and diversity (Shannon−Weaver index), small mammal presence/absence, deer Mazama sp. presence/ab- sence, lowland tapir Tapirus terrestris relative abundance index and felid species richness in the Austral Yungas. Only significant models are presented, with t and P values for potentially influential variables.


t


Species richness Latitude Altitude


Protection status


Species diversity Latitude Altitude


0.036


Cattle relative abundance index −0.005 0.060


−0.002 −0.850


Land protection status Primary productivity Cattle relative abundance index −0.002


Small mammals Cattle relative abundance index −2.100


Deer Cattle relative abundance index 0.023 Human influence index


−0.078 1.859


Tapir relative abundance index Cattle relative abundance index −0.039


Primary productivity Distance to rivers


Human influence index *P , 0.05; **P , 0.001.


Felid species richness Cattle relative abundance index −0.814


−2.870


0.937 2.070


P 0.846 0.0002**


2.75 × 10−08** 0.415


0.197


−4.96 × 10−04 1.54 × 10−06** −0.123


0.001* 0.239


0.041* 0.938


0.021* 0.067


0.781 0.352


0.042* 0.418


0.005*


absent where the cattle relative abundance index was above 17 and 13, respectively. Felids were negatively affected by the human influence index but not by cattle relative abundance, suggesting that felids are influenced not by cat- tle directly but by activities related to their presence. As cat- tle have the potential to inhabit most of the Austral Yungas and their presence is associated with hunting, exotic species (domestic dogs and cats), and selective logging (Perovic, 2002), we recommend cattle should be reduced to abun- dances that allow coexistence with wildlife in all areas with forest cover, and excluded from strictly protected areas. Strictly protected areas (private or state-managed) are the only management regime ensuring long-term fauna conservation in the Yungas. We recorded 81% of the native species that could poten-


We obtained a habitat suitability model for cattle with


AUC= 0.961.Values.0.75 are considered to indicate mod- els with a good general performance (Phillips & Dudík, 2008). Cattle encounter suitable habitat in most (65%) of the Yungas, with higher habitat suitability towards lower la- titudes and lower suitability towards higher altitudes (Fig. 4). Habitat suitability for cattle increases with the human influence index, peaking at 20 and then decreasing abruptly (Fig. 5). Lower suitability corresponds to areas al- ready transformed into croplands, human settlements or roads (Fig. 4).


Discussion


As far as we are aware, this is the first study to use a large camera-trap data set for the Yungas ecoregion over an ex- tended period (11 years) and the first to examine the factors affecting the native mammalian community. In contrast to our expectation, general mammalian species richness and diversity were not directly related to the cattle relative abun- dance index, but the latter affected two of the four groups of species studied. Small mammals and brocket deer were


tially occur in the Austral Yungas and therefore we consider our methodology successful. We did not record water- associated species such as the capybara Hydrochoerus hy- drochaeris, nutria Myocastor coypus and neotropical otter Lontra longicaudis, the latter being rare in the Yungas (Albanesi et al., 2017). As we did not place cameras in trees, our methodology was not suitable for detecting arboreal species such as the bicolored-spined porcupine Coendou bicolor and prehensile-tailed porcupine Coendou prehensi- lis, which are also rare. We did, however, record arboreal species such as the capuchin monkey Sapajus cay and Bolivian squirrel Sciurus ignitus, but on the ground. Only two of the six cingulate species (armadillos) were recorded, suggesting they have a naturally low relative abundance or are difficult to record with camera traps.Anational-scale as- sessment indicated the need to protect these six species (Abba et al., 2012). The niche-based distribution model for cattle shows their


potential to occupy almost the entire Yungas ecoregion ex- cept for the mountain peaks, probably because of the low winter temperatures, low carrying capacity and the difficulty of access for people. The positive association between habi- tat suitability for cattle and the human influence index is a result of the association of cattle with people, but areas with a human influence index ˃ 20 are no longer suitable for cat- tle. The raster layer of suitable habitat for cattle could be used in areas not surveyed to estimate cattle presence locally, and could serve as a tool to analyse the effects of cattle in the Austral Yungas. Environmental variables, which are influenced by lati-


tude and altitude, affect the diversity and composition of native biodiversity. As predicted, we found a decrease in species richness and diversity with an increase in elevation, in accordance with global patterns (Lomolino, 2001) and with a previous study in the northern Yungas (Di Bitetti et al., 2013). We found high mountain areas in the Yungas to be naturally poorer in native and exotic species than for- ests at lower elevations. The northern Austral Yungas has higher species richness than the central and southern


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