252 F. C. C. Azevedo et al.
Doce State Park border. Juiz moved in and out of the Park, moving as far as 13 km from its border and then returning on 17 July 2019. His last location (when the collar stopped functioning) was on 24 July 2019, 6.3 km from the Park border. After several unsuccessful attempts to locate Juiz, the collar was accidentally recovered on 11 May 2020 on top of the body of a recently eaten southern tamandua Tamandua tetradactyla,c. 1 km from the south-east border of the Park and 6.7 km from the original release site (Fig. 2). We obtained a total of 837 GPS locations during 13
May–24 July 2019, but 2.5 months after release the semi- variogram did not confirm that the residence range of Juiz was within limits of the Park. However, 11 camera-trap records indicated that Juiz established residence in the region of the Park until July 2021 (Fig. 2). He ranged over 845.6 km2 (95%CI 648.2‒1,068.9 km2). There was a signifi-
cant relationship (β =−0.02968,P,0.001) between distance from nearby urban areas and days after release, with a decrease of 30 m in distance from nearby urban areas (villages with ,3,000 people) with every additional day after release. However, this model explained only a low proportion of the variability in distance maintained from nearby urban areas (r2 = 0.025). There was also a significant relationship of distance maintained from Park limits and days after release (β = 0.19918,P,0.001), with an increase of 200 m from the Park boundary every additional day after release. Similarly, this model explained a low proportion of the variability (r2 = 0.063). The genetic assignment analyses yielded consistent re-
sults amongst the several datasets (complete database vs sev- eral population subsets). Formost of the datasets, when the number of assumed genetic clusters was low (K = 3–4), indi- viduals of the Amazon, Cerrado and Green Corridor (Inner
Atlantic Forest) formed one genetic cluster, in which Juiz was included. However, when K$5, we could divide these individuals into two or more clusters, Juiz usually clustered with samples from the Amazon and Cerrado. However, Juiz had the highest membership coefficient (q = 0.9664) when we only considered individuals from the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado, clustering with individ- uals from the Green Corridor and Cerrado (Supplemen- tary Table 1, Supplementary Fig. 1). In the state of Minas Gerais records of jaguars are mostly
within protected areas such as Rio Doce State Park (Azevedo et al., 2022) and Grande Sertão Veredas, Caparaó, Itatiaia, Cavernas do Peruaçu and Sempre Vivas National Parks (Morato et al., 2018). Juiz could have originated from the closest area with recent records of jaguars, which is the Serra doMar region, c. 90 km fromJuiz de Fora (the area be- tween contains small tomediumforest fragments and urban areas). Other potential sources are Itatiaia National Park, c. 150 km from Juiz de Fora, and the area of Parque Estadual da Serra do Brigadeiro, close to Caparaó National Park, also c. 150 km from Juiz de Fora. Less likely, Juiz could have come from fragments of the Cerrado ecoregion, c. 200 km from Juiz de Fora.We suggest that upon reaching sexual maturity Juiz could have begun his displacement through forest fragments and pasture areas, maintaining as temporary territory the Área de Proteção Ambiental Mata do Krambeck and its vicinities. His temporary residence in the Juiz de Fora region can be explained by the abundant oc- currence of prey such as the capybara Hydrochoerus hydro- chaeris and paca Cuniculus paca on the banks of the Paraibuna River in this region. Over time, with the decrease or dispersion of prey because of his presence, Juiz may have been forced to forage in urban areas. The occurrence of Juiz
FIG. 2 Geographical locations of the male jaguar Juiz in and around Rio Doce State Park, Minas Gerais state (the release site), during 13 May 2019–December 2021, recorded on a GPS collar and by camera traps. The inset indicates the locations of both the capture site in Juiz de Fora municipality and the release site.
Oryx, 2024, 58(2), 250–254 © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323000662
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
