A Management Landscape for Jaguars in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest

Transcription

1 A Management Landscape for Jaguars in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Carlos De Angelo a, Agustín Paviolo a, Thorsten Wiegand b, Rajapandian Kanagaraj b, Mario S. Di Bitetti a a National Research Council (CONICET) Instituto de Biología Subtropical, Universidad Nacional de Misiones Asociación Civil Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico Puerto Iguazú, Argentina. biocda@gmail.com. b Department of Ecological Modelling, UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany

2 The Atlantic Forest of South The Atlantic Forest is a Biodiversity Hotspot America (Olson et al. 2001)

3 The Atlantic Forest of South The Atlantic Forest is a Biodiversity Hotspot One of the most endangered environments of the world America Myers et al. (2000); Mittermeier et al. (2004)

4 The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest (UPAF): Largest eco-region of the Atlantic Forest Three countries: Argentina. Brazil & Paraguay Olson et al. (2001); Di Bitetti et al. (2003)

5 The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest (UPAF): Largest eco-region of the Atlantic Forest Three countries: Argentina. Brazil & Paraguay Different political and social histories have modified this landscape Olson et al. (2001); Di Bitetti et al. (2003)

6 UPAF Conservation & Jaguars The Biodiversity Vision Di Bitetti et al. (2003)

7 UPAF Conservation & Jaguars The Biodiversity Vision A Conservation Landscape The jaguar was used as an umbrella species for its design Poor information about jaguars in the UPAF in 2003 Di Bitetti et al. (2003)

8 UPAF Conservation & Jaguars The Biodiversity Vision The UPAF contains two Jaguar Conservation Units (JCUs nº: 87 & 89) They were defined in 1999 also with scarce information Sanderson et al. (2002)

9 Main Objectives To explore the factors that are affecting jaguar persistence in this region. To provide a landscape-management tool to validate and support conservation initiatives for the UPAF and for jaguars.

10 Study Area Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest: > km 2 = core area of the UPAF De Angelo (2009)

11 Species Data Participatory monitoring network De Angelo et al. (2011a)

12 Species Data Participatory monitoring network Direct and indirect evidences of jaguar presence Tracks Fecal samples Sightings, etc. De Angelo et al. (2011a)

13 Species Data De Angelo et al. (2011a)

14 Species Data >2500 records De Angelo et al. (2011a)

15 Species Data >2500 records Surveyed area represented > km 2 of the study area De Angelo et al. (2011a)

16 Species Data >2500 records Surveyed area represented > km 2 of the study area 950 accurately identified as jaguar presence records De Angelo et al. (2011a)

17 Species Data Data filtered: Grid with cells of the size of a female territory (12x12 km)

18 Species Data Data filtered: Grid with cells of the size of a female territory (12x12 km) Random selection of one register per each cell of the grid Only 106 jaguar records were used in our analysis out of 950

19 Preliminary Habitat Suitability Analysis Presence-only habitat suitability analysis: Ecological Niche Factor Analysis (Hirzel et al. 2002) De Angelo et al. (2011b)

20 Pseudo-absences Rule-based random generation Engler et al. (2004)

21 Generalized Linear Models Binary response variable: presence/pseudoabsence Information-theoretic approach for variables and model selection Two main hypotheses about landscape influence on jaguars: Landscape Structure and History Direct Human Impact (at a landscape scale)

22 Hypotheses Distance to rivers Landscape structure and history Forest Amount and connectivity of forest (present condition) Amount of forest 30 years ago Combination (past and present) Abiotic conditions Rivers Altitude Slope Combination Human land uses Intensive agriculture, small farms, pastures, pine plantations Combination Combined landscape models Intensive agriculture Amount of native forest Availability of native forest Elevation map

23 Hypotheses Human access cost Direct human impact Protection and accessibility Protection Accessibility Interaction between protection & accessibility Rural population Most recent data (2001) Average density ( ) Combined human impact models Rural population density Protection levels Final global model: Landscape + Human impact

24 Results Best supported hypotheses (GLM models) Landscape model including: (AIC c = 182.9) Present condition of the forest Amount of forest 30 years ago Human land uses around each cell (intensive agriculture, pastures and small farms) AIC c = Akaike Information Criterion

25 Results Best supported hypotheses (GLM models) Landscape model including: (AIC c = 182.9) Present condition of the forest Amount of forest 30 years ago Human land uses around each cell (intensive agriculture, pastures and small farms) Human impact model including: (AIC c = 215.1) Combination of protection level and human accessibility Rural population density (historical average ) GLOBAL (Landscape + Human Impact) (AIC c =176.5) AIC c = Akaike Information Criterion

26 Results Traditional habitat modeling approach Landscape (AUC=0.905) Human impacts (AUC=0.841) Global (AUC=0.915) AUC= Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve

27 Results Traditional habitat modeling approach Landscape Human impacts Global Only 7% of the study area with suitable conditions

28 Two-dimensional Model High proportion of forest cover Habitat connectivity Landscape conditions Fragmented areas High proportion of anthropic land uses GOOD BAD Barriers HIGH High poaching pressure. Low prey density High jaguar mortality Attractive sinks Sinks Barriers Core areas (potential sources) Refuges Direct human impact LOW Protection Inaccessible areas Low human population density Naves et al. (2003); Nielsen et al. (2006)

29 Two-dimensional Model MANAGEMENT: protection / mitigation measures Landscape conditions Fragmented areas High proportion of anthropic land uses GOOD BAD Barriers HIGH High poaching pressure. Low prey density High jaguar mortality Attractive sinks Sinks Barriers Core areas (potential sources) Refuges Direct human impact LOW MANAGEMENT: landscape recovery and restoration Protection Inaccessible areas Low human population density

30 Two-dimensional Model Presence Pseudo-absence

31 Sinks Validation Proportion of killed or removed jaguars found in the different habitat categories Killed Jaguares jaguars muertos = ; df = 2; p < Observado Observed Esperado Expected 0 Barriers Barreras Sumideros Sinks Core Núcleos areas Delibes et al. (2001); Naves et al. (2003); Battin (2004); Nielsen et al. (2006)

32 Two-dimensional Model Spatial population structure of jaguars in the UPAF: e.g. potential source & sink populations Management priorities: Landscape restoration Protection/mitigation `Sinks Attractive-sinks Refuges islands Core areas

33 Using the Model for Landscape Management Presence Pseudo-absence

34 Using the Model for Management Zoom in the Green Corridor of Misiones Increase protection Mitigation actions Landscape restoration Increase connectivity

35 Validation of the Biodiversity UPAF conservation Biodiversity vision validation Vision Di Bitetti et al. (2003)

36 Conservation and Management UPAF conservation Biodiversity vision validation Jaguar conservation New definition of the Jaguar Conservation Units Sanderson et al. (2002); Zeller et al. (2007)

37 Conclusions Jaguars demonstrated a complex response to the landscape transformation: forest, human land uses, protection, human accessibility & human population density

38 Conclusions Jaguars demonstrated a complex response to the landscape transformation Historical conditions of the landscape are important for predicting jaguar presence forest cover 30 years ago & historical human population density

39 Conclusions Jaguars demonstrated a complex response to the landscape transformation: Historical conditions of the landscape are important for predicting jaguar presence Two-dimensional approach with habitat modeling can increase their application as management tools

40 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to: SCGIS Scholarship Program and all the people of the SCGIS for making this possible. Proyecto Yaguareté collaborators and Brazilian researchers for their help in data collection. Financial support: WWF-Internacional; WWF-Suiza; Species Action Found, WWF USA; Education for Nature, WWF USA; Field Conservation Funds, Lincoln Park Zoo; Kaplan Graduate Awards, Panthera Corporation; Conservation Leadership Program (CLP); CONICET. Institutional support: Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina; Administración de Parque Nacionales; Ministerio de Ecología, Recursos Naturales Renovables de Misiones. Contact: