| Literature DB >> 27191719 |
Antonio Rossano Mendes Pontes1, Antonio Carlos Mariz Beltrão1, Iran Campello Normande2, Alexandre de Jesus Rodrigues Malta1, Antonio Paulo da Silva Júnior3, André Maurício Melo Santos4.
Abstract
We aimed to determine the conservation status of medium- and large-sized mammals and evaluate the impact of 500 years of forest fragmentation on this group of animals in the Pernambuco Endemism Center, in the biogeographical zone of the Atlantic forest north of the São Francisco River in northeastern Brazil. Line transect surveys were performed in 21 forest fragments, resulting in a checklist of the mammals of the entire Pernambuco Endemism Center area. We ran a generalized linear model (Factorial ANCOVA) to analyze to what extent the vegetation type, fragment area, isolation, sampling effort (as total kilometers walked), or higher-order interactions predicted (a) richness and (b) sighting rates. To determine if the distribution of the species within the forest fragments exhibited a nested pattern, we used the NODF metric. Subsequently, we performed a Binomial Logistic Regression to predict the probability of encountering each species according to fragment size. Out of 38 medium- and large-sized mammal species formerly occurring in the study area, only 53.8% (n = 21) were sighted. No fragment hosted the entire remaining mammal community, and only four species (19%) occurred in very small fragments (73.3% of the remaining forest fragments, with a mean size of 2.8 ha). The mammalian community was highly simplified, with all large mammals being regionally extinct. Neither the species richness nor sighting rate was controlled by the vegetation type, the area of the forest fragments, isolation or any higher-order interaction. Although a highly significant nested subset pattern was detected, it was not related to the ranking of the area of forest fragments or isolation. The probability of the occurrence of a mammal species in a given forest patch varied unpredictably, and the probability of detecting larger species was even observed to decrease with increasing patch size. In an ongoing process of mass extinction, half of the studied mammals have gone extinct. The remaining medium-sized mammal community is highly simplified and homogenized. The persistence of these species in a forest patch is determined by their ability to adapt to a novel simplified diet, the efficient use of the surrounding matrix without being engulfed by the sink effect, and escaping hunting. Our results suggest that the 21st century medium-sized mammalian fauna of this region will comprise only four species unless strict conservation measures are implemented immediately and every forest fragment is effectively protected.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27191719 PMCID: PMC4871537 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150887
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The study area in the Atlantic forest of northeastern Brazil, specifically, the Pernambuco Endemism Center–CEPE, showing its current and former forested area and the studied forest fragments (due to some fragments being too small, they do not appear individually) (Spatial database provided by Fundanção SOS Mata Atlântica / INPE, under a CC BY license).
A—Brejo dos Cavalos (08°22'48"S; 36°02'24"W); B—Quengo (08°43'04"S; 35°50'27"W); C—Espelho (08°43'12"S; 35°50'40"W); D—Ageró (08°44'16"S; 35°50'33"W); E—Fervedouro (08°45'08"S; 35°51'36"W); F—Capoeirão (08°55'1"S; 36°04'17"W); G—Cachoeira (08°56'44"S; 36°03'36"W); H—Bom Jesus (09°01'16"S; 36°10'32"W); I—Aquidabã (08°58'53"S; 35°54'25"W); J—Coimbra (08°59'42"W; 35°50'27‴S); K—Charles Darwin (07°48'56"S; 34°57'11"W); L—Vale das Águas (7°54'49"S; 35°3'25,4"W); M—Tapacurá (08°03'00"S; 34°55'00"W); N—Café (08°14'12"S; 35°02'60"W); O—São Braz (08°13'28"S; 35°04'03"W); P—Cuxiu (08°13'38"S; 35°03'45"W); Q—Xangô (08°14'23"S; 35°03'56"W); R—Mingú (08°31'02"S; 35°03'15"W); S—Gengibre (08°31'33"S; 35°03'16"W); T—Bulandi (08°32'10"S; 35°02'50"W); U—Saltinho (08°45'00"S; 35°10'00"W).
Former and current mammalian fauna of northeastern Brazil in the Pernambuco Endemism Center (CEPE) and their conservation status.
| Species | ICMBIO (2014) | IUCN (2015) | Mentioned by first colonizers from 16th / 17th century only: extinct even before depicted or seen | Mentioned / depicted by first colonizers from 16th / 17th century: Extinct before species confirmed | Mentioned / depicted by first colonizers from 16th / 17th century | Referred as occurring by scientists from 20th century based on indirect evidence | Referred as occurring by scientists from 20th century based on indirect evidence—Extinct before species confirmed | Referred as occurring by scientists from 21th century based on indirect evidence | Referred as occurring by scientists from 21th century based on indirect evidence- Extinct before species confirmed | Referred as occurring by scientists from 20th and 21th century based on direct evidence | Depicted by first colonizers from 16th / 17th century; Remained unkown to science for ~400 yrs; Re-discovered during this study | Newly described by first author (21th century) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EX BK | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| EX BK | ✓ | |||||||||||
| VU A2abcde+3abcde | VU A2bcde+3bcde | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| VU C1 | NT | ✓ | ||||||||||
| VU A4c | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| EN C1 | VU A3c | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
| VU C1 | NT | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
| A2bcd+3cd; C1 | NT | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| VU C1 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| VU C1 | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| ✓ | ||||||||||||
| ✓ | ||||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| NT | ✓ | |||||||||||
| ✓ | ||||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| ✓ | ||||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| EN A2cd | VU A2cd | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| VU A2cd+3cd+4cd | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| VU A2d | VU A2c | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| EX BK | ✓ | |||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| EX BK | ✓ | |||||||||||
| Accidentally introduced | ||||||||||||
| A2cd; B2ab(ii,iii); C2a(i) | CE C2a(i) | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| ✓ | ||||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| EN B1ab(iii) | ✓ | |||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
*1: Extinct Before Known; We propose this category to distinguish it from the other IUCN categories and criteria, which do not include species that went extinct before known or scientifically described
*2: Last time seen in 2006. A new effort to find them and collect hair samples for genetic studies failed
*3: Two morphotypes occur: the 'cat-faced' and the 'dog-faced' crab-eating fox. Urgent molecular studies needed
*4: Currently common widespread despite not listed to the region in the key publications. As a result of this study we extended its distributional range to the CEPE
*5: During this study we saw, and also found a dead specimen in a burnt sugar-cane plantation, and concluded that the species is not G. vittata. Until urgent molecular studies are carried out, we assume it is G. c.f. cuja
*6: Until recently this species was considered endemic to the dry-scrub caatinga forests of northeastern Brazil; During this long-term study we found out that the species once extended its distributional range into the CEPE and that it had been extinct before present-day scientists knew they occurred there.
*7: Vocalizations assumedly from this species has been heard by local primatology student, but subsequent efforts to locate the group did not succeed
*8: Since this species occurs in the contiguous dry-scrub caatinga forests, it may have been sympatric with Sapajus flavius in the CEPE
*9: Single group discovered isolated for over 30 years in the smallest and last fragment studied (4 ha) [83]
*10: From the Amazonia to the Atlantic forest the genus Cuniculus has the same two morphotypes, the 'deep chin', 'pitbull' or 'ladle paca', which is larger and has much deeper and wider zygomatic arch, and the 'commom', which has it much less conspicuous; Preliminary molecular analysis has shown that in the CEPE it is a different, therefore new species; Description in progress.
*11: This is the correct species referred and depicted by the first colonizers from the type locality Pernambuco State in the 17th century, upon which Linnaeus (1758) based his description; This species is endemic to the CEPE and other species described outside this distributional range needs revision [84]
Fig 2Extinct large mammal species depicted by the first colonizers of the Atlantic coast of northeastern Brazil.
A and B) c.f. Mazama americana; C) Tayassu pecari; D) Panthera onca; E) Puma concolor; F) Lutra longicaudis; G) Possibly Cabassous unicinctus (Emmons and Feer, 1997: 10–13 movable bands; tail narrow and long; ears large, funnel-like), but about which Marcgrave says: “This is armoured animals and are able to pull the head and paws, doubling themselves into a ball". Since the only armadillos capable of rolling into a ball are those of the genus Tolypeutes (Eisenberg and Redford, 1999), we assume that Marcgrave was not sure about the distinction between T. tricinctus and other armadillo species; H) Tolypeutes tricinctus; I) Tapirus terrestris; J) Myrmechophaga tridactyla; K) Alouatta belzebul.
Occurrence of the medium- and large-sized mammals in the different size classes of the studied forest fragments in northeastern Brazil.
| Species | ≤ 10 (ha) | 10.1–100 (ha) | 100.1–1,000 (ha) | 3,478.3 (ha) | Surrounding non-forested matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Remaining forest fragments of the Pernambuco Endemism Center (CEPE) and their medium- and large-sized mammalian richness.
| Size classes | Total no. of | Total no. of | Total area | Mean size (± SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mammal species | fragments | in the CEPE (ha) | ||
| 4 | 13,619 | 38,503.96 | 2.83 (2.24) | |
| 9 | 4,460 | 121,081.24 | 27.15 (19.21) | |
| 14 | 474 | 114,440.33 | 241.43 (169.85) | |
| 20 | 23 | 48,347.33 | 2,102.05 (1,505.75) | |
Abundance of the medium- and large-sized mammals in the Pernambuco Endemism Centre, Brazil.
| Forest type / | Area (ha) of | Transect | Degree of | ha(%) | ∑ | ∑ | Species | Sightings/ | Mean | Sighting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fragment | fragment | (meters) | isolation | surveyed | Sightings | Species | species | group size | rate | |
| Coimbra | 3 478.3 | 4,000 | 6.92 | 20 (0.6%) | 28 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 0.03 | |
| (08°59'42"W; 35°50'27‴S) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 10 | 1 | 0.3 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.03 | ||||||||
| 3 | 1 | 0.04 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.03 | ||||||||
| 4 | 1.2 | 0.12 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.01 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.01 | ||||||||
| 5 | 4.7 | 0.15 | ||||||||
| 1 | 6 | 0.03 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Aquidabã | 24 | 830 | 0.89 | 4.1 (17.1%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.9 | |
| (08°58'53"S; 35°54'25"W) | ||||||||||
| Saltinho | 548 | 3,175 | 1.87 | 31.7 (5.7%) | 74 | 7 | 53 | 4.2 | 6.8 | |
| (08°45'00"S; 35°10'00"W) | 11 | 1 | 1.41 | |||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.08 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.13 | ||||||||
| 5 | 2.6 | 0.64 | ||||||||
| 1 | 20 | 0.13 | ||||||||
| 2 | 1.5 | 0.16 | ||||||||
| Tapacurá | 382 | 2,000 | 1.67 | 20 (5.2%) | 115 | 2 | 115 | 2.4 | 11.5 | |
| (08°03'00"S; 34°55'00"W) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Cuxiu | 118 | 900 | 8 | 2.2 (1.8%) | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1.75 | 4 | |
| (08°13'38"S; 35°03'45"W) | ||||||||||
| Charles Darwin | 60 | 1,500 | 15.76 | 4.5 (7.5%) | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3.25 | 1.95 | |
| (07°48'56"S; 34°57'11"W) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.5 | ||||||||
| São Braz | 37 | 700 | 10.52 | 4.3 (11.6%) | 11 | 2 | 10 | 2.1 | 10 | |
| (08°13'28"S; 35°04'03"W) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Gengibre | 19.8 | 250 | 2.12 | 2.5 (12.6%) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 1 | |
| (08°31'33"S; 35°03'16"W) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Mingú | 13 | 250 | 6.39 | 2.5 (18.6%) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 18 | 1 | |
| (08°31'02"S; 35°03'15"W) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Xangô | 9 | 500 | 13.8 | 2.5 (28%) | 13 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| (08°14'23"S; 35°03'56"W) | 11 | 2.2 | 11 | |||||||
| Vale das Aguas | 8 | 350 | 56.75 | 0.8 (10%) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3.5 | 4 | |
| (7°54'49"S; 35°3'25,4"W) | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||
| Café | 7 | 450 | 13.94 | 2.2 (32.3%) | 9 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| (08°14'12"S; 35°02'60"W) | 7 | 2.1 | 7 | |||||||
| Bulandí | 4 | 150 | 4.44 | 1.5 (37.5%) | 4 | 4 | 3 | 22.3 | 4.2 | |
| (08°32'10"S; 35°02'50"W) | 1 | 1 | 1.4 | |||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Quengo | 500 | 1,900 | 5.94 | 3.2 (0.6%) | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1.25 | |
| (08°43'04"S; 35°50'27"W) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| 2 | 1 | 2.5 | ||||||||
| Fervedouro | 300 | 1,000 | 2.58 | 0.6 (0.2%) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.86 | |
| (08°45'08"S; 35°51'36"W) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Cachoeira | 271 | 3,000 | 12.89 | 15 (5.5%) | 14 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| (08°56'44"S; 36°03'36"W) | 1 | 1 | 0.06 | |||||||
| 2 | 1 | 0.07 | ||||||||
| 1 | 3 | 0.04 | ||||||||
| 7 | 4 | 0.41 | ||||||||
| 1 | 3 | 0.06 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 2 | 1 | 0.12 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Capoeirão | 122 | 1,500 | 15.12 | 7.5 (6.1%) | 9 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0.04 | |
| (08°55'1"S; 36°04'17"W) | 1 | 1 | 0.1 | |||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.04 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4.5 | 0.25 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.06 | ||||||||
| 1 | 5 | 0.06 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Ageró | 50 | 500 | 6.4 | 2.8 (5.6%) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 1.6 | 5.33 | |
| (08°44'16"S; 35°50'33"W) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Espelho | 50 | 1,000 | 19.58 | 5.6 (11.2%) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2.9 | |
| (08°43'12"S; 35°50'40"W) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Bom Jesus | 41 | 500 | 24.3 | 2.5 (6%) | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2.5 | 2.9 | |
| (09°01'16"S; 36°10'32"W) | 4 | 1 | 5.7 | |||||||
| Brejo dos Cavalos | 354 | 2,400 | 3.23 | 24 (6.7%) | 23 | 2 | 22 | 3.3 | 5.1 | |
| (08°22'48"S; 36°02'24"W) | 1 | 1 | 0.23 | |||||||
aIncluding species that were sighted outside of systematic surveys in the surrounding matrix
Whole models (comparing the fitted model against the intercept-only model) and model effect decompositions for each of the two response factors (species richness and sighting rates) according to the Generalized Linear Model analysis (Factorial Analysis of Covariance—ANCOVA).
Significant values are presented in bold.
*Overdispersion parameter estimated by Pearson’s chi-square
** Over-dispersion = 0.787
Measure of nestedness for the medium- and large-sized mammal assemblages in the 21 forest fragments studied according to the arrangement of three matrices.
| Whole matrix | N_Total | NODF(Er) | P(Er) | NODF(Ce) | P(Ce) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 58.35 | 20.49 | <0.001 | 29.96 | <0.001 | |
| 29.11 | 10.08 | <0.001 | 14.18 | <0.001 | |
| 34.68 | 10.65 | <0.001 | 16.8 | <0.001 |
N_total: total matrix nestedness; NODF(Er): nestedness of the null model in which presences are randomly assigned to any cell within the matrix; P(Er): significance of NODF based on this null model; NODF(Ce): nestedness of the null model in which the probability of a cell, aij, showing a presence is (Pi/C þPj/R)/2, where Pi represent the number of presences in row i, Pj the number of presences in column j, C the number of columns, and R the number of rows; P(Ce): the significance of NODF based on this null model.
Measure of column-only nestedness for the medium- and large-sized mammal assemblages in the 21 forest fragments studied according to the arrangement of three matrices.
| Column-only analysis | N_Columns | P(col) | P(Li) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 52.53 | <0,001 | 0.004 | |
| 15.63 | <0,001 | 0.82 | |
| 25.96 | <0,001 | 0.086 |
N_columns: total column nestedness; P(Col): significance of NODF assuming that the presences are randomly assigned within the columns; P(Li): significance of NODF assuming that the presences are randomly assigned within the rows.
Whole models (comparing the fitted model against the intercept-only model) and the effect of the fragment area on the probability of medium-sized mammal species encounters according to the Binomial Logistic Regression.
| Species | Estimate | SE | χ2 | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole Model | 78.9665 | |||
| Intercept | 72.1088 | 18441.038 | 0.00 | 0.9969 |
| Area | -13.0884 | 3027.1779 | 0.00 | 0.9969 |
| Whole Model | 131.94 | |||
| Intercept | 0.2086 | 0.2800 | 0.56 | 0.4563 |
| Area | -0.0307 | 0.0046 | 44.52 | |
| Whole Model | 87.7275 | |||
| Intercept | 0.1910 | 0.3652 | 0.27 | 0.6009 |
| Area | 0.0537 | 0.0133 | 16.31 | |
| Whole Model | 134.5865 | |||
| Intercept | 0.6857 | 0.3845 | 3.18 | 0.0745 |
| Area | -0.0763 | 0.0175 | 18.91 | |
| Whole Model | 205.7778 | |||
| Intercept | 1.1475 | 0.1824 | 39.57 | |
| Area | -0.0107753 | 0.0009786 | 121.23 | |
| Whole Model | 172.0976 | |||
| Intercept | 0.8495 | 0.1766 | 23.14 | |
| Area | -0.0097 | 0.0009 | 107.21 | |
| Whole Model | 362.0748 | |||
| Intercept | -4.7913973 | 0.3704 | 167.33 | |
| Area | 0.0145 | 0.0012 | 152.38 | |
| Whole Model | 474.3666 | |||
| Intercept | -452.7074 | 101082.37 | 0.00 | 0.9964 |
| Area | 0.8660 | 192.3983 | 0.00 | 0.9964 |
| Whole Model | 170.9121 | |||
| Intercept | -2.2855 | 0.19624 | 135.64 | |
| Area | 0.0074 | 0.0007 | 126.07 | |
| Whole Model | 60.0989 | |||
| Intercept | 1.0538 | 0.1547 | 46.39 | |
| Area | -0.0039 | 0.0005 | 54.28 | |
| Whole Model | 147.4559 | |||
| Intercept | 2.1270 | 0.1888 | 126.85 | |
| Area | -0.0067 | 0.0006 | 114.17 | |
| Whole Model | 5.4490 | |||
| Intercept | -1.3226 | 0.1672 | 62.55 | |
| Area | 0.0013 | 0.0006 | 5.46 | |
| Whole Model | 5.0445 | |||
| Intercept | 0.5271 | 0.1520 | 12.03 | |
| Area | 0.0012 | 0.0005 | 4.94 | |
| Whole Model | 60.0989 | |||
| Intercept | 1.0538 | 0.1547 | 46.39 | |
| Area | -0.0039 | 0.0005 | 54.28 | |
| Whole Model | 60.0989 | |||
| Intercept | 1.0538 | 0.1547 | 46.39 | |
| Area | -0.0039 | 0.0005 | 54.28 | |
| Whole Model | 5.4489 | |||
| Intercept | -1.3226 | 0.1672 | 62.55 | |
| Area | 0.0013 | 0.0005 | 5.46 | |
| Whole Model | 474.3666 | |||
| Intercept | -452.7074 | 101082.37 | 0.00 | 0.9964 |
| Area | 0.8660 | 192.3982 | 0.00 | 0.9964 |
Significant values are presented in bold.
Fig 3Positive (a) and negative (b) effects of the area of the fragments on the probability of encountering medium-sized mammal species in the CEPE, according to a Binomial Logistic Regression.