| Literature DB >> 28052073 |
Mariana B Nagy-Reis1, James D Nichols2, Adriano G Chiarello3, Milton Cezar Ribeiro4, Eleonore Z F Setz1.
Abstract
Small felids influence ecosystem dynamics through prey and plant population changes. Although most of these species are threatened, they are accorded one of the lowest research efforts of all felids, and we lack basic information about them. Many felids occur in sympatry, where intraguild competition is frequent. Therefore, assessing the role of interspecific interactions along with the relative importance of landscape characteristics is necessary to understand how these species co-occur in space. Here, we selected three morphologically similar and closely related species of small Neotropical cats to evaluate the roles of interspecific interactions, geomorphometry, environmental, and anthropogenic landscape characteristics on their habitat use. We collected data with camera trapping and scat sampling in a large protected Atlantic forest remnant (35,000 ha). Throughout occupancy modeling we investigated whether these species occur together more or less frequently than would be expected by chance, while dealing with imperfect detection and incorporating possible habitat preferences into the models. We used occupancy as a measure of their habitat use. Although intraguild competition can be an important determinant of carnivore assemblages, in our system, we did not find evidence that one species affects the habitat use of the other. Evidence suggested that proximity to the nature reserve (a more protected area) was a more important driver of Neotropical spotted cats' occurrence than interspecific interactions or geomorphometry and environmental landscape characteristics-even though our entire study area is under some type of protection. This suggests that small felids can be sensitive to the area protection status, emphasizing the importance of maintaining and creating reserves and other areas with elevated protection for the proper management and conservation of the group.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28052073 PMCID: PMC5215768 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168441
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study area.
Study area and the sampling sites’ locations at Serra do Japi (Brazil) where Neotropical spotted cats were sampled using camera trap and scat sampling.
Number of records (detections) by each method (scat sampling and camera trap), number of sampling sites with detections, naïve occupancy, estimated occupancy probability () from single-season single-species models, and relative increase above naïve occupancy when using estimates of the three Neotropical spotted cats in a large Atlantic Forest remnant.
| N detections | N sites w. detections | Naïve occup. | Detection probability ( | Rel. increase above naïve occup. (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scats | Camera traps | Scats | Camera traps | Occup. prob. | ||||
| Ocelot | 8 | 16 | 12 | 0.27 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.48 (±0.15) | 80 |
| Margay | 27 | 12 | 17 | 0.38 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.64 (±0.17) | 69 |
| Oncilla | 33 | 29 | 21 | 0.47 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.64 (±0.13) | 37 |
1Occupancy probability and standard deviation estimated by model averaging.
2Percentage increase in estimated proportion of occupied sites when incorporating detection probability (p) [(estimated occupancy probability/naïve occupancy)-1*100].
Fig 2Neotropical spotted cats’ site occupancy.
Interpolated site occupancy of the three spotted cats at an Atlantic Forest site in Brazil: ocelot—Leopardus pardalis (top left), margay—L. wiedii (top right), oncilla—L. guttulus (bottom left).
Fig 3Covariates effect on the occupancy of Neotropical spotted cats.
Influence of geomorphometry, environmental, and anthropogenic covariates on the occupancy of spotted cats in a large Atlantic Forest remnant, showing the sum of w (which indicates the relative importance of covariates) and the associated beta estimates with standard error estimated from the single-season single-species models.
Co-occurrence occupancy models used to evaluate the role of interspecific interactions on the habitat use of three sympatric Neotropical spotted cats in a large Atlantic Forest remnant.
| Model | AIC | ΔAIC | K | -2LL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ψA(reserve dist) = ψBA(reserve dist) = ψBa(reserve dist) | 349.56 | 0 | 0.76 | 9 | 326.42 |
| ψA(reserve dist)≠ψBA(reserve dist) = ψBa(reserve dist) | 352.25 | 2.69 | 0.20 | 10 | 325.78 |
| ψA = ψBA = ψBa | 355.87 | 6.31 | 0.03 | 8 | 335.87 |
| ψA≠ψBA = ψBa | 358.03 | 8.47 | 0.01 | 9 | 334.89 |
| ψA≠ψBA≠ψBa | 361.32 | 11.76 | 0.00 | 10 | 334.85 |
| ψA(reserve dist) = ψBA = ψBa | 386.13 | 0 | 0.34 | 8 | 366.13 |
| ψA(reserve dist)≠ψBA = ψBa | 389.20 | 3.07 | 0.07 | 9 | 366.06 |
| ψA(reserve dist)≠ψBA≠ψBa | 392.53 | 6.40 | 0.01 | 10 | 366.06 |
| ψA(reserve dist) = ψBA = ψBa | 443.56 | 0 | 0.60 | 5 | 432.02 |
| ψA(reserve dist)≠ψBA = ψBa | 445.84 | 2.28 | 0.19 | 6 | 431.63 |
| ψA(reserve dist)≠ψBA≠ψBa | 447.44 | 3.88 | 0.09 | 7 | 430.41 |
| ψA,ψBA = ψBa | 447.61 | 4.05 | 0.08 | 5 | 436.07 |
| ψA≠ψBA≠ψBa | 448.84 | 5.28 | 0.04 | 6 | 434.63 |
| ψA = ψBA = ψBa | 452.62 | 9.06 | 0.01 | 4 | 443.62 |
p(general1) = pA≠rA≠pB≠rBA≠rBa; method;
p(general2) = pA = rA≠pB≠rBA≠rBa; method;
p(general3) = pA = rA = pB = rBA = rBa; method.
ψA = occupancy of dominant species; ψBA = occupancy of subordinate species when the dominant species is present; ψBa = occupancy of subordinate species when the dominant species is absent. Reserve dist = Covariate ‘weighted distance to reserve border’. We used “=” to designate that two or more parameters were set as equal (e.g., ψBA = ψBa means that the occupancy of the subordinate species is independent of that of the dominant species). We used “≠” to designate that two or more parameters were set as different (e.g., ψBA≠ψBa models assumed that the occupancy of the subordinate species was influenced by the dominant species).
Occupancy (ψ), detection probability (p and r), and species interaction factor (SIF—phi and delta) estimated from co-occurrence occupancy models of three sympatric Neotropical spotted cats in a large Atlantic Forest remnant.
| ψA | ψBA | ψBa | Phi | Delta | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ocelot—Margay | 0.60 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Ocelot—Oncilla | 0.67 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.41 | 0.10 | 1.00 | 3.53 |
| Margay—Oncilla | 0.61 | 0.68 | 0.63 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 1.03 | 1.11 |
ψA = occupancy of dominant species; ψBA = occupancy of subordinate species when the dominant species is present; ψBa = occupancy of subordinate species when the dominant species is absent; rA = probability of dominant species being detected when the subordinate species is present; pA = probability of dominant species being detected when the subordinate species is absent; pB = probability of subordinate species being detected when the dominant species is not present; rBA = probability of subordinate species being detected when the dominant species is present and detected; rBa = probability of subordinate species being detected when the dominant species is present but not detected; Phi = ratio of how much more (>1) or less (<1) likely the species are to co-occur at a site compared to what would be expected if the species occurred independently of each other; Delta = ratio of how much more (>1) or less (<1) likely the species are to be detected together in a survey compared to what would be expected if they were detected independently.
Co-occurrence occupancy models used to evaluate the role of interspecific interactions on the detection probability of three sympatric Neotropical spotted cats in a large Atlantic Forest remnant.
| Model | AIC | ΔAIC | K | -2LL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ψ(top) | 339.14 | 0 | 0.77 | 5 | 327.60 |
| ψ(top) | 341.81 | 2.67 | 0.20 | 6 | 327.60 |
| ψ(top) | 346.45 | 7.31 | 0.02 | 8 | 326.45 |
| ψ(top) | 349.56 | 10.42 | 0.00 | 9 | 326.42 |
| ψ(top) | 386.13 | 0 | 0.21 | 8 | 366.13 |
| ψ(top) | 391.69 | 5.56 | 0.01 | 5 | 380.15 |
| ψ(top) | 393.20 | 7.07 | 0.01 | 7 | 376.17 |
| ψ(top) | 394.36 | 8.23 | 0.00 | 6 | 380.15 |
| ψ(top) | 443.56 | 0 | 0.28 | 5 | 432.02 |
| ψ(top) | 444.05 | 0.49 | 0.22 | 7 | 427.02 |
| ψ(top) | 444.96 | 1.40 | 0.14 | 6 | 430.75 |
| ψ(top) | 445.41 | 1.85 | 0.11 | 8 | 425.41 |
| ψ(top) | 445.46 | 1.90 | 0.11 | 7 | 428.43 |
| ψ(top) | 445.69 | 2.13 | 0.10 | 8 | 425.69 |
| ψ(top) | 447.42 | 3.86 | 0.04 | 9 | 424.28 |
While modeling detection probability (p) for each pair of species, we incorporated the covariate “method” in p and kept occupancy (ψ) as it was in the top-ranked model from the co-occurrence occupancy models used to evaluate ψ (Table 2): Ocelot vs. Margay ψ(top) = [ψA(reserve dist) = ψBA(reserve dist) = ψBa(reserve dist)]; Ocelot vs. Oncilla ψ(top) = [ψA(reserve dist)≠ψBA = ψBa]; Margay vs. Oncilla ψ(top) = ψA = ψBA = ψBa.