| Literature DB >> 34799617 |
Rafaela Cobucci Cerqueira1, Oscar Rodríguez de Rivera2, Jochen A G Jaeger3, Clara Grilo4,5.
Abstract
Roads pose an imminent threat to wildlife directly through mortality and changes in individual behavior, and also indirectly through modification of the amount and configuration of wildlife habitat. However, few studies have addressed how these mechanisms interact to determine species response to roads. We used structural equation modeling to assess direct and indirect effects (via landscape modification) of roads on space use by jaguars in Brazil, using radio-tracking data available from the literature. We fit path models that directly link jaguars' space use to roads and to land cover, and indirectly link jaguars' space use to roads through the same land cover categories. Our findings show that space use by jaguars was not directly affected by roads, but indirect effects occurred through reductions in natural areas on which jaguars depend, and through urban sprawl. Males´ space use, however, was not negatively influenced by urban areas. Since jaguars seem to ignore roads, mitigation should be directed to road fencing and promoting safe crossings. We argue that planners and managers need to much more seriously take into account the deforestation and the unbridled urban expansion from roads to ensure jaguar conservation in Brazil.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34799617 PMCID: PMC8604938 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01936-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Conceptual framework to assess the direct and indirect effects of roads on jaguars’ space use according to four hypotheses: (a) Space use by jaguars is predominantly affected directly by roads; (b) space use by jaguars is strongly affected indirectly by roads via the effects of roads on natural areas (i.e., roads promote a reduction in forest and open areas and consequently have a negative effect on jaguars’ use of habitat); (c) space use by jaguars is primarily affected indirectly by roads via the effects of roads on human-dominated areas (i.e., roads promote an increase of farming and urban areas and consequently have a negative effect on jaguars’ use of habitat); (d) space use by jaguars is mostly affected directly by land cover independently of roads (i.e., forest and open areas influence the jaguars’ space use while farming and urban areas affect them negatively). Colored arrows denote expected positive (blue) or negative (red) effects of variables on jaguars’ space use. Direct effects of variables on jaguars’ space use are depicted by solid arrows, while indirect effects are depicted by dashed arrows. To avoid duplicate figures, the conceptual model is presented with paved and unpaved roads together, but separate models were generated for each.
Figure 3Path diagrams representing the effects of roads and land cover on jaguars’ space use for the global model (a, b), for males (c, d), and females (e, f) for paved and unpaved roads, respectively. Arrows represent unidirectional relationships among variables. Colored arrows indicate positive (blue) and negative (red) significant effects and gray arrows denote non-significant positive (solid) or negative (dashed) paths. The numbers associated with the arrows provide the standardized coefficients and the width of the arrows refers to the size of the coefficients of significant effects. Numbers below the response variables are pseudo-R-squared values. Note that for those variables measured as distances (roads and urban areas), a negative effect occurred when the coefficient is positive, and vice-versa, except for the effect of roads on urban areas which are both measured as distances (Supplementary Table S2 online). # marginally significant effect with p-value < 0.1, * p-value < 0.05, and **p-value < 0.01.
Figure 2Smoothed curves showing the relationships between jaguars’ space use (measured as frequency of jaguar locations/number of locations per day) and distance (m) to paved and unpaved roads. The smoother is centred around zero. Dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals.