EXPEDITION REPORT 2007 - Biosphere Expeditions

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EXPEDITION REPORT Studying jaguars, pumas and their prey in Brazil’s Atlantic rainforest. The jaguar corridor. Expedition dates: 5 November – 1 December 2006 Report published: May 2007 Authors: Marcelo Mazzolli Projeto Puma Matthias Hammer (editor) Biosphere Expeditions 1 © Biosphere Expeditions www.biosphere-expeditions.org
Abstract Expeditions to the southern Atlantic forest of Brazil were conducted with local students in August 2006 and Biosphere Expeditions in November 2006. They aimed to elucidate the current habitat conditions for jaguars and pumas, based on parameters collected from field sampling. Parameters collected were species richness for mammalian communities over 1 kg and proportion of area occupied (PAO) by jaguar and pumas (ocelot PAO was also calculated) in 8 quadrats 2 x 2 km over an area of 130 square kilometers. Species richness was estimated using CAPTURE software, and PAO was estimated using PRESENCE software. Fourteen species of mammals were recorded (R) in total, and the same number of species was estimated (N ˆ ) by CAPTURE: Agouti Dasyprocta azarae, two species of brocket deer Mazama spp., capybara Hidrochaerus hidrochaeris, capuchin monkey Cebus nigritus, crabeating fox Cerdocyon thous, howler monkey Alouatta guariba, jaguar Panthera onca, nine banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus, ocelot Leopardus pardalis, peccary (inc. sp.), puma Puma concolor, racoon Procyon cancrivorous, and tapir Tapirus terrestris. Capture probabilities calculated from PAO were very high for puma (p=1) and very low for ocelot (p=0.15, SE=0.08) and for jaguar (p=0.1, SE=0.07), resulting in estimated PAOs of 25% for puma and 100% for both jaguar and ocelot. In other words, puma was easy to detect when present, so its PAO was the same as the ‘naïve’ PAO, i.e. the product of the number of quadrats where the species was found by the total number of quadrats sampled. Jaguar and ocelots were considered by PRESENCE, based on accumulated data, extremely difficult to detect even when present so that occupancy estimates presumed that they must be everywhere. Puma was recorded only by tracks, jaguar by vocalisation and tracks, and ocelot by tracks and camera traps. It is argued here that jaguar were expected to have similar capture probabilities than puma, as they share the same habits of walking on open trails and being fairly easy to detect, provided the area is suitable for track imprinting. For this reason the high PAO was likely to be an artefact derived from the low area fidelity, and low density of jaguars in the area, rather than a product of its low detection probability. This conjecture is substantiated by the low frequency and non-detection of important prey species in many of the sampled quadrats. Only three species (deer, armadillo, and ocelot) were recorded during 351 camera trap nights, and frequency of tracks was equally low, including those of vulnerable prey that are generally easily detected when present such as peccaries and tapir. Species richness, presence of puma, and presence of vulnerable prey were higher further from human settlement. Low presence of vulnerable prey are certainly a product of human poaching and may be indirectly responsible for the reduced presence of jaguars in the area. The area is crossed by trails used for illegal extraction of palm heart resulting in extensive areas where adult palm stands are simply absent, and where poaching is likely to occur causing a reduction of wildlife populations. The problems connected with illegal palm heart extraction are also the ones connected to illegal (and mostly unrecorded) poaching. It is important in this context to mention that this does not diminish the importance of the study site for jaguar conservation, as it is part of one of the few remaining blocks of connected jaguar habitat in the Atlantic evergreen forest. Instead, these observations identify management needs for these areas could be upgraded from corridors to full habitats if prey species were given opportunity to prosper. 2 © Biosphere Expeditions www.biosphere-expeditions.org
Page 1: EXPEDITION REPORT 2007 Studying jag
Page 5 and 6: Contents Abstract 2 Resumo 3 Conten
Page 7 and 8: 6 © Biosphere Expeditions www.bios
Page 9 and 10: 1.4. Local Conditions & Support Exp
Page 11 and 12: A small canoe, property of Mr. Anan
Page 13 and 14: 1.5. Expedition Scientist The exped
Page 15 and 16: 1.9. Acknowledgements This study wa
Page 17 and 18: 4. Build a rescue network for atten
Page 19 and 20: 2.1.2. The puma The puma may still
Page 21 and 22: The fauna in the PNSH/L faces many
Page 23 and 24: Figure 2.2c. Tapir tracks near prop
Page 25 and 26: Figure 2.2e. Palm heart was harvest
Page 27 and 28: 2.3.2. Ecological sampling Data on
Page 29 and 30: Table 2.3a. Sampling history of ind
Page 31 and 32: Both teams performed well on the an
Page 33 and 34: Figure 2.4b. Species camera-trapped
Page 35 and 36: Jaguar, like puma, was found during
Page 37 and 38: Biosphere Expeditions 2006 Figure 2
Page 39 and 40: The frequency jaguar sign found by
Page 41 and 42: 2.5.2. Habitat quality inferred fro
Page 43 and 44: Figure 2.5a. Effective protection o
Page 45 and 46: 2.5.5. Further expedition work Resu
Page 47 and 48: Mazzolli, M. 2005. Avaliando integr
Page 49 and 50: Appendix 1. Expedition diary by Dav
Page 51 and 52: 10 November With six cameras traps
Page 53 and 54:
There was much excitement as we loo
show all

EXPEDITION REPORT 2007 - Biosphere Expeditions

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?