Therya-16-341-rev

THERYA, 2016, Vol. 7 (1):65-76 DOI: 10.12933/therya-16-341, ISSN 2007-3364

¿Son las áreas protegidas en Panamá lo suficiente

para sostener comunidades de ungulados intactas?

Do protected areas in Panama support intact assemblages of ungulates?

Ninon F.V. Meyer1, 2*, Ricardo Moreno2, 3, Edgar Sanches2, Josue Ortega2, Elliot Brown2 and Patrick A. Jansen3, 4

1 El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Departamento de la Conservación de la Biodiversidad, Avenida Rancho Polígono 2A, Ciudad Industrial Lerma 24500, Ciudad de Campeche, Campeche, México. E-mail: nfmeyer@ecosur.edu.mx (NM).

2 Yaguara Panamá-Sociedad Panameña de Biología, Calle 71, Chalet 50, San Francisco, Ciudad de Panamá, Panama. E-mail: rmoreno@yaguara.org (RM); esanchess@hotmail.com (ES); josueortega26@yahoo.es (JO); el_lio_t88@hotmail.com (EB).

3 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado 0843 03092, Balboa, Ancon, Panama. E-mail: jansenp@si.edu (PJ).

4Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands.

*Corresponding author

Ungulates play an essential role in terrestrial ecosystems, but suffer from hunting and habitat degradation which often results in their decline. Panama harbors five species of ungulate and is an important portion of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, but its forest habitat and its fauna are currently threatened. Protected areas have been designated to preserve the biodiversity, but studies evaluating their effectiveness in maintaining ungulates are lacking in Panama. In this study we used camera-trapping surveys to determine the occurrence and abundance of the ungulate species in 13 protected areas across Panama. There were large differences in the ungulate communities among the sites we surveyed. Some sites were impoverished with just one ungulate species recorded while just a single site harbored all five species. The white-lipped peccary was the rarest species and the collared peccaries the most common, captured in all the sites. Moreover, we found large variation in ungulate abundance across the sites. Our results indicate that few protected areas in Panama effectively maintain the entire assemblage of ungulate species.

Los ungulados tienen un papel esencial en los ecosistemas terrestres, pero sufren de la caza y la degradación del hábitat, lo que a menudo resulta en su extinción local. Panamá alberga cinco especies de ungulados, y a pesar de constituir una porción importante del corredor biológico mesoamericano, sus áreas boscosas y su fauna están actualmente amenazados. Las áreas protegidas han sido designadas para preservar la biodiversidad, pero los estudios que evalúan sus eficacias para mantener la diversidad de los ungulados son escasos en Panamá. En este estudio se utilizó muestreos mediante cámaras trampas para determinar la ocurrencia y abundancia de las especies de ungulados en 13 áreas protegidas repartidos a través del Istmo de Panamá. Encontramos que hubo diferencias en las comunidades de ungulados encontradas en los sitios muestreados. Algunos sitios fueron pobres, con la representación de sólo una especie de ungulados registrada, mientras que únicamente en un sitio se detectaron las cinco especies de ungulados. El pecarí de labios blancos era la especie más rara y el pecarí de collar el más común, ya que fue fotografiado en todos los sitios. También, encontramos una gran variación en la abundancia de especies de ungulados en los diferentes sitios. Nuestros resultados indican que pocas áreas protegidas en Panamá mantienen toda la comunidad de ungulados.

Key words: camera traps; index of abundance; Mesoamerican Biological Corridor; neotropical forest; terrestrial herbivores.

© 2016 Asociación Mexicana de Mastozoología, www.mastozoologiamexicana.org

Introduction

Terrestrial mammalian herbivores play key roles in terrestrial ecosystems (Ripple et al. 2015). Ungulates in particular shape the structure and function of landscapes they inhabit, via trampling, consumption of plants, seeds dispersal and nutrient cycling (Wright et al. 2007a; Ripple et al. 2015), and are therefore often referred to as ‘ecosystem engineers’. Moreover, they constitute an important source of food for predators and for humans (Naranjo et al. 2010; Altrichter et al. 2012; Ripple et al. 2015). Currently, a large number of ungulates species worldwide are threatened, mostly due to unsustainable hunting for bushmeat and habitat degradation (i. e. deforestation and human encroachment; Wright et al. 2007b; Van Vliet et al. 2014; Ripple et al. 2015). This results in a global decline of ungulates throughout their range which may have dramatic consequences on the integrity of the ecosystems they occur in (Wright et al. 2007a, b; Galetti et al. 2015a; Ripple et al. 2015).

Panama is no exception to this pattern: the country has experienced a high economic development in the last decades that may have consequences on the environment (Heckadon-Moreno 1993). For example, it has lost 14.3 % of its forest cover between 1990 and 2010 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010), a loss that is often associated with other threats such as poaching and human encroachment that affect its fauna (Wright et al. 2000; Urquiza-Haas et al. 2009), including five ungulates species – the Baird’s tapir (Tapirus bairdii), the white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari), the collared peccary (Pecari tajacu), the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and the red brocket deer (Mazama temama). Two of these species - the white-lipped peccary and the tapir - are particularly vulnerable and less adaptable than the other species in disturbed habitat, and therefore constitute indicators of the integrity of the ecosystem (Reyna-Hurtado and Tanner 2005; Naranjo and Bodmer 2007; Altrichter et al. 2012; Garcia-Marmolejo et al. 2015). The isthmus of Panama, physically narrow, is an important portion of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC; DeClerck et al. 2010), a project that seeks to connect natural protected areas from Southern Mexico to Panama. As the ungulates species that Panama harbors span from North- or Central America to South America, the isthmus is essential in allowing movement and gene flow across the MBC to eventually maintain viable metapopulations of these species.

Protected areas are widely assumed to be effective in preserving the integrity of species composition in a region (Bruner et al. 2001; Le Saout et al. 2013; Beaudrot et al. 2006), because they generally comprise large blocks of habitat which some species require to maintain healthy populations (e. g. the white-lipped peccaries), and are usually less exposed to hunting pressure. In Panama, 22 % of the land area is protected (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010). Whether this protection is effective, however, is unknown. Small-scale wildlife population assessments carried out by the Ministry of the Environment (previously ANAM) in several of these protected sites had low sampling effort and mostly based on line-transects or interviews (see reports on www.miambiente.gob.pa). Interview-based information from local people reports the presence of all five species of ungulates in the majority of the forests of Panama decades ago (see reports on www.miambiente.gob.pa). More recently, few studies suggested the current degradation of the terrestrial mammal communities in both protected and unprotected areas of Central Panama (Meyer et al. 2015), and the uneven distribution of two endangered ungulate species, the tapir and the white-lipped peccary, along the forests of Panama (Meyer et al. 2013; Moreno and Meyer 2014). Nevertheless, studies evaluating the effectiveness of these protected areas to maintain intact ungulate assemblage along Panama and part of the MBC in a systematic manner remain scarce, which may result in poor or ineffective wildlife management and conservation measures.

In this study, we compiled camera trapping data and determined the occurrence and abundance of the ungulate species in several protected forests scattered along Panama to assess if they still supported intact ungulates assemblage. The sites surveyed were all covered of moist tropical forests with similar structure and temperature, and did not vary much in their topography and rainfall. Although most sites were relatively large, and/or contiguous to forested areas, their size varied quite substantially. We expected a positive correlation between ungulate species abundance and the size of the park, as some ungulate species, especially the white-lipped peccary, require large areas to survive (Reyna-Hurtado et al. 2009; Altrichter et al. 2012). Moreover, we expected the ungulate assemblages to be more impoverished in Central Panama than in the other sites because the mammal community of the region is known to be disturbed partly due to the high human density (Meyer et al. 2015).

Material and methods

Study area. Panama lies in the moist tropics with an average annual temperature ranging from 22 – 31 °C. The dry season runs from late December to early May, and the annual rainfall amounts 1,700 – 4,000 mm on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts (Ibáñez et al. 2002). Most forests in Panama are well drained, with closed canopy and a dense understory of tree saplings, palms and lianas (Condit et al. 2001), and are defined by Holdridge (1967) as evergreen moist or wet forests which are structurally not much different from each other (Condit et al. 2001). Large-scale disturbances such as hurricanes or fire do not occur. There are 53 terrestrial protected areas (henceforth referred to as “parks”) in Panama covering 22 % of the land territory. Of the 43 % of the land that remains forested, 44 % is under protection (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010). Outside of the forests in the parks, the country is a mosaic of both old-growth and secondary forest patches surrounded by agriculture, cattle grasslands and human settlements (Condit et al. 2001).

We compiled information on ungulates obtained by camera trapping surveys in 13 parks scattered from the Western to the Eastern extremes of the Isthmus; all but one (Cerro Hoya, National Park [NP]) are part of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (Figure 1, Table 1). We also presented information of Cerro Hoya (Fort and Nielsen 2012) because it is the last large remnant of forest in the Peninsula de Azuero. Barro Colorado Island (BCI) is part of Barro Colorado Natural Monument (BCNM), and was declared protected in 1923. The majority of the other parks were created between 1976 and 1997. Three parks were created more recently, in 2001 (PN Santa Fé), 2009 (Donoso Multiple Use Protected Area) and 2010 (Damani Guariviara Ramsar Site). Data sources were publications, the database of the Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring (TEAM) Network (data set identifier ID: 20160114072908_2173), and our own field studies (Table 1).

Camera trap surveys. Camera traps have proven robust and reliable for surveying rare and cryptic species of tropical terrestrial mammals (Tobler et al. 2008). All surveys used unbaited camera traps deployed in a subset of the area because the sites were large (Table 1). With the exception of BCNM, all camera-trapping surveys were designed to maximize jaguars captures, i. e. camera traps (Cuddeback Inc., WI) were set up in pairs along trails and ridges, interspaced 0.8 to 1.5 km for assuring independent events. The survey in BCNM followed the protocol of the TEAM Network (Jansen et al. 2014) with the objective to randomly capture any terrestrial mammal species. Single camera traps (PC 900, Reconyx Inc, WI) were placed off-trail at 30 pre-defined locations in a grid with 1.4 km interspacing. We assumed that the probability of capturing ungulates was the same in spite of the different sampling design.

Photos of BCNM were processed in DeskTEAM (Fegraus et al. 2011) and all other photos were processed and annotated in Excel 2007 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond WA, USA). Photos were manually grouped into sequences that represented the same visit of an animal or group of animals (i. e. peccary species) in a two hour-interval, which triggered the same camera one or multiple times depending on movement speed and residence time. This filter assured that visit events were independent despite the fact that some species spent a long time in front of the camera (i. e. peccaries). The total number of individuals was estimated when a group of peccaries triggered the cameras. For subsequent analyses, we calculated the capture rates for species, a measure of relative abundance, as the number of visits photographed per 100 trap days. This standardization allowed comparing the capture rate between sites in spite of differences in sampling effort. We assumed that for all ungulate species, the number of visits that the cameras recorded is proportional to the local density of the species, i. e. cameras will record an ungulate species more often where it is more abundant (Rovero and Marshall 2009).

Sampling effort varied from 327 to 24,641 trapping days (Volcan Barú and Donoso respectively; Table 1). We produced rarefaction curves that were fitted to sample days in estimateS ver. 9.10 (Colwell 2013), to calculate total species richness. The curves leveled off for all sites except Volcan Barú (Figure 2), so we assumed that the majority of the species were recorded in our surveys (Gotelli and Colwell 2011) and that it would take a significantly larger effort to record additional rare species.

Data analysis. The capture rate of each ungulate species was compared between sites with a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on the species per sites matrix, centered by species, using the software CANOCO 5 (Braak and Smilauer 2002) with square-root transformed detection rates. We used the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) to test for a correlation between the abundance index of each ungulate species and the size of the park because residuals of species abundance were not normal.

Results

The collared peccary was the only species captured in all the sites surveyed (Table 2). The white-lipped peccary, in contrast, was recorded in just two of the sites, Pirre-Darién and Donoso (Table 2). The second most frequently captured species was the red brocket deer (nine sites), followed by the tapir and the white-tailed deer (seven and six sites respectively). The five species were recorded only in Donoso that had the highest sampling effort, whereas Damani was the site where the fewest ungulate species (one species) was captured. Camera traps recorded two species in four sites, three species in five sites and four species in the two sites of BCNM and Pirre-Darien (Table 2). Two to four species were captured in each site of Central Panama (Table 2).

The ungulates assemblages varied widely among the parks (Table 2; Figure 3). The first two axes of the ordination diagram explained 90.8 % of the total variation in the composition of the ungulate assemblage. The first axis (74.7 % of the total variation) explained the variation in ungulate assemblage between sites in central Panama and the other sites, and was related to the abundance of collared peccary and the two deer species. The abundance of these species was highest in the small and highly protected BCNM, and in Soberania and Arraijan. The second axis (16.1 % of the total variation) explained the differences between the large site of Darién and the smaller and much more disturbed sites of Cerro Hoya, San Lorenzo, Arraijan and Damani, and was related to the abundance of the white-lipped peccary and the tapir, two large frugivorous species that require large tracts of contiguous and undisturbed forest and that are locally endangered. While relatively abundant in Darién, they were rare or not detected in most other sites. Volcan Barú and Nusagandi were clustered together which indicates that they were similar in terms of ungulates species. Likewise, Chagres, Santa Fé, Portobelo and Donoso were also similar to each other.

Tapirs and white-lipped peccaries were more abundant in larger parks (rstapir = 0.67, P = 0.01 and rsWL peccary = 0.63, P = 0.02), while there was no significant correlation between the abundance of the other species and the size of the parks.

Discussion

Protected areas are widely assumed to effectively protect wildlife populations, especially when they are large. This study used camera-trapping surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of the protected areas to preserve ungulate assemblages in Panama. Our hypothesis that the ungulate assemblages were going to be impoverished in Central Panama was supported by the results. However, we unexpectedly found that the majority of the sites, including some large ones, harbored just two or three of the five ungulate species known for Panama, and our second hypothesis was not sustained.

The only species that was present in every site was the collared peccary, while the red brocket deer was captured in the majority of the sites as well. These two species have been documented to cope relatively well in disturbed landscapes with high level of hunting in other tropical regions while being adaptable to preserved areas as well (Peres 1996; Reyna-Hurtado and Tanner 2007; Tejada-Cruz et al. 2009). The white-tailed deer was detected in just half of our sites, most in Central Panama, a region that is disturbed, fragmented and with a high hunting pressure (Wright et al. 2000; Meyer et al. 2015). Reyna-Hurtado and Tanner (2007) had found similar pattern in Calakmul, Mexico, where this species was more abundant in hunted sites. This is possibly explained by the habitat type as the species usually occurs in perturbed areas (Reyna-Hurtado and Tanner 2005; Garcia-Marmolejo et al. 2015). Interestingly, the collared peccary, the red-brocket deer and the white-tailed deer were much more abundant in sites of Central Panama where apex predators are very rare (Meyer et al. 2015), which suggests release from top-down control (Terborgh et al. 2001).

Tapirs and white-lipped peccaries in contrast, are two elusive species particularly sensitive to disturbance, and were infrequently recorded, even in relatively large protected areas. Tapirs were photo-captured in half of the sites surveyed that were also the largest with the exception of BCNM and Volcan Barú, even though they have relatively small home ranges (Foerster and Vaughan 2002). Volcan Barú is directly connected to the International Park of La Amistad that we did not survey but that is very large, remote, and known to harbor tapirs (Meyer et al. 2013). BCNM is the only site in central Panama that still harbors a resident population of tapirs, as a small number was reintroduced in the 1950´s after the species was extirpated (Terwilliger 1978) and nowadays the site benefits from a very high level of protection (Meyer et al. 2013). Although occasionally poached, tapir´s meat is not as much appreciated as peccary or deer species in Panama (Meyer et al. 2013) and is therefore not actively hunted; instead, they seem to particularly suffer from human encroachment which is common and uncontrolled in most parks in Panama, particularly through illegal logging and forest conversion to cattle pastures (pers. obs.). This pattern was supported by the higher capture rate in camera stations that were placed very remotely inside the parks where human access is difficult rather than in the buffer area (R. Moreno and N. Meyer, unpub. data). As the proportion of core area usually increase with the size of the area, it may explain why the abundance of tapirs was positively correlated to park size. The white-lipped peccary on the other hand was almost not recorded except for Pirre-Darién that still present extensive tracts of relatively undisturbed forest, and Donoso, a site that harbors the entire large-sized terrestrial mammal community of Panama (R. Moreno, unpub. data). However, in that latter site the capture rate was very low in spite of the substantial trapping effort, highlighting its rarity in the region. A finding that is similar in other sites where we did not photograph the species in our survey even though there is evidence of their occurrence, namely in Portobelo (H. Esser, pers. com.; Meyer et al. 2015), Nusagandi and Chagres (Moreno and Meyer 2014). A considerable larger sampling effort over a longer period of time would increase the probability of photographing the species in sites where they occur at very low density. White-lipped peccaries are habitat specialists, live in large groups and move in non-seasonally patterns, therefore require large continuous forests to maintain viable population (Peres 1996; Reyna-Hurtado et al. 2009). Nevertheless, most of the parks surveyed are relatively large and used to harbor white-lipped peccaries decades ago until they became over hunted (Moreno and Meyer 2014). Poaching remains the principal threat for white-lipped peccary because it constitutes a favorite game species, and reports of culling of a large proportion of herd-members, up to > 20 individuals at a single time are not unusual (Moreno and Meyer 2014). Such harvest practices contribute to drive the species to local extinction in many sites (Moreno and Meyer 2014) but also reveal the lack of protection in many parks.

The difference in ungulate detections between protected areas may not be related to park size per se, but rather to the surrounding fragmentation and anthropogenic activities (Ahumada et al. 2011). The geographic isolation of some parks to other source areas, as is the case of Cerro Hoya, may impede the recolonization by the species after extirpation. The situation looks particularly worrisome for tapirs and white-lipped peccaries as bushmeat trade studies in the Neotropics uncovered the magnitude of the phenomenon and revealed that hunting is often unsustainable for large-bodied species (Smith 2008; Naranjo et al. 2010; Van Vliet et al. 2014).

The non-detection of a specific species in a given site does not necessarily imply it is absent since rare species require a high sampling effort to be detected, as illustrated by the white-lipped peccary. The sampling effort varied substantially in our survey and may have been too low in some sites to detect species occurring at very low density, but our results highlight the rarity of such species. There was also a strong variation in the abundance of the species among the sites, potentially making some species functionally extinct in various sites. Functional extinction occurs when a species becomes too rare to fulfill its ecological role (Altrichter et al. 2012; Galetti et al. 2015b). As such, the pattern observed in our study constitutes an issue as the loss of large vertebrates due to hunting and habitat degradation, known as defaunation, may have important effects on the ecosystem functioning (Dirzo et al. 2014). Besides affecting large carnivores as a result of a decrease in preys (Ripple et al. 2015), the depletion of large frugivorous species such as tapir and white-lipped peccary in particular, have consequences on the dispersal and germination of seeds that can lead to significant changes in the vegetation structure and composition, further impacting species at a lower trophic level (Stoner et al. 2007; Wright et al. 2007a,b Galetti et al. 2015b). The effects of large vertebrates loss on seeds dispersal have been largely documented on BCI and in Soberania NP (e. g. Wright et al. 2000; Wright et al. 2007b), but would merit further investigation in the remaining sites composed of large tracts of primary forests where large seed dispersers species were rarely photographed.

Conclusion

We studied the effectiveness of protected areas to preserve the ungulate assemblages. Our results indicated a global impoverishment of the ungulates assemblage in several protected sites across Panama, and suggest that not all protected areas are effectively maintaining ungulate species. Increasing the surveys sampling efforts and monitoring a higher number of parks will contribute to reduce false absence, since some rare species, the tapir and white-lipped peccary especially, may not always have been captured in some of the sites in spite of their presence. Moreover, it is important to determine the factors driving the pattern observed and to what extent to help reversing this trend. For example, it is relevant to quantify the impact of bushmeat harvest together with the species population size in order to determine sustainable level of hunting at the local scale (Naranjo and Bodmer 2007).

Acknowledgments

We thank O. Chen, I. Cisnero, A. Artavia and the game wardens of Barro Colorado Island for field assistance, and E. Flores, Z. Pinzon, E. Núñez, I. Tejada, C. Medina, N. Young, A. Puertas, S. Valdes, Y. Liefting and the rangers and directors of the National Parks for logistical support; H. Esser for help in the MVA analysis. We are grateful to the Ministery of Environment of Panama (MiAmbiente) for permits and part of the Volcan Barú and the congreso general Guna for the data, and to AMIPARQUE for collaboration and part of the Santa Fé data. We thank J. Fort and C. Nielsen for providing the data of Cerro Hoya, and MWH for the data of San Lorenzo. The data of Portobelo, Nusagandi, Santa Fé, Arraijan and Soberania were part of the project Fortalecimiento de capacidades del MiAmbiente en apoyo al plan de conservacion del jaguar en el Corredor Mesoamericano del Atlántico Panameño funded by MiAmbiente; the data of BCNM were collected as part of the Tropical Ecology and Assessment Monitoring Network, a collaboration between Conservation International, the Missouri Botanical Garden, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Wildlife Conservation Society, and partially funded by these institutions, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and other donors; the data of Donoso were part of the Mammal Monitoring project from Minera Panama SA; the data of Pirre were part of the Darién Monitoring Project run by GEMAS/Fundacion Natura/Fondo Darién and funded by the US Ambassy/TNC/Ministerio de Economia y finanzas/MINAM/Fundes/Panamcham, the small grant of Jaguar Conservation Fund of Panthera and the Southern Illinois University of Carbondale; data of Damani Guariviara were part of the CEASPA project “Fortalecimiento de las capacidades tecnicas y cientificas de las comunidades locales en apoyo al manejo del sitio Ramsar Humedal de Importancia Internacional Damani-Guariviara y del Paisaje Protegido Escudo de Veraguas-Dego”, funded by the “Programa de Pequeñas Donaciones” of the FMAM/GEF/PNUD.

References

Ahumada, J. A., C. E. F. Silva, K. Gajapersad, C. Hallam, J. Hurtado, E. Martin, A. Mcwilliam, B. Mugerwa, T. O’brien, and F. Rovero. 2011. Community structure and diversity of tropical forest mammals: data from a global camera trap network. Phiolosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366:2703-2711.

Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM). 2008. Gaceta Oficial Digital No. 26013 del 7 de abril de 2008. Panamá, República de Panamá.

Braak, C. J. F., and P. Smilauer. 2002. CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide: software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5).

Altrichter, M., A. Taber, H. Beck, R. Reyna-Hurtado, L. Lizarraga, A. Keuroghlian, and E. W. Sanderson. 2012. Range-wide declines of a key Neotropical ecosystem architect, the Near Threatened White-lipped peccary Tayassu Pecari. Oryx 46:87–98.

Beaudrot, L., J. A. Ahumada, T. O’Brien, P. Alvarez-Loayza, K. Boekee, A. Campos-Arceiz, et al. 2016. Standardized assessment of biodiversity trends in tropical forest protected areas: The end is not in sight. PLos Biology 14:e1002357. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002357

Brown, E. 2013. Ecologia de grandes felinos y abundancia relativa de las presas en area silvestre protegida de Nargana, Comarca de Guna Yala. BSc thesis, Universidad de Panama.

Bruner, A. G., R. E. Gullison, R. E. Rice, and G. A. Da Fonseca. 2001. Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity. Science 291: 125–28.

Colwell, R. K. 2013. EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9. User’s Guide and application published at: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates.

Condit, R., W. D. Robinson, R. Ibanez, S. Aguilar, A. Sanjur, R. Martinez, R. F. Stallard, T. Garcia, G. R. Angehr, and L. Petit. 2001. The status of the Panama Canal watershed and its biodiversity at the beginning of the 21st century. BioSciences 51:389-398.

DeClerck F. B. J., R. Chazdon, K. D. Holl, J. C. Milder, B. Finegan, A. Martinez-Salinas, P. Imbach, L. Canet, and Z. Ramos. 2010. Biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes of Mesoamerica: Past, present and future. Biological Conservation 143:2301-2313.

Dirzo, R., H. S.Young, M. Galetti, G. Ceballos, N. J. B. Isaac, and B. Collen. 2014. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345:401–6.

Fegraus, E. H., K. Lin, J.A. Ahumada, C. Baru, S. Chandra, and C. Youn. 2011. Data acquisition and management software for camera trap data: A case study from the TEAM Network. Ecological Informatics 6:345-353.

Foester, R., and C. Vaughan. 2002. Home range, habitat use, and activity of Baird’s Tapir in Costa Rica. Biotropica 34:423-437.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment. ISBN 978-92-5-106654-6.

Fort, J., and C. K. Nielsen. 2012. Descripción del estudio piloto de vida silvestre en Cerro Hoya, mediante el uso de cámaras trampa. Ministerio de Ambiente. Unpublished report.

Galetti, M., R. S. Bovendorp, and R. Guevara. 2015a. Defaunation of Large Mammals Leads to an Increase in Seed Predation in the Atlantic Forests. Global Ecology and Conservation 3:824-830.

Galetti, M., R. Guevara, C. L. Neves, R. R. Rodarte, R. S. Bovendorp, M. Moreira, J. B. Hopkins, and J. D. Yeakel. 2015b. Defaunation Affect Population and Diet of Rodents in Neotropical Rainforests. Biological Conservation 190:2-7.

García-Marmolejo, G., L. Chapa-Vargas, M. Weber, and E. Huber-Sannwald. 2015. Landscape composition influences abundance patterns and habitat use of three ungulate species in fragmented secondary deciduous tropical forests, Mexico. Global Ecology and Conservation 3:744-755

Gotelli, N.J., and R. K. Colwell. 2011. Estimating Species Richness. Pp. 39-54 Biological Diversity. Frontiers in Measuring Biodiversity (Magurran, A. E., and B. J. McGill, eds) . Oxford University Press. New York, EE. UU.

Holdridge, L. R. 1967. Life zone ecology. San Jose, Costa Rica: Tropical Science Center. San Jose, Costa Rica.

Heckadon Moreno, S. 1993. Impact of development on the Panama Canal environment. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 35:129-149.

Ibanez, R., R. Condit, G. Angehr, S. Aguilar, T. Garcia, R. Martinez, A. Sanjur, R. Stallard, S. J. Wright, and A. S. Rand. 2002. An ecosystem report on the Panama Canal: monitoring the status of the forest communities and the watershed. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 80:65-95.

Jansen, P. A., J. Ahumada, E. Fegraus, and T. O’brien. 2014. TEAM: a standardised camera-trap survey to monitor terrestrial vertebrate communities in tropical forests. Pp. 263-270 in Camera Trapping: Wildlife Research and Management (Meek, P. D., A. G. Ballard, P. B. Banks, A. W. Claridge, P. J. S. Fleming, J. G. Sanderson, and D. E. Swann, eds.). CSIRO Publishing. Melbourne, Australia.

Le Saout, S., M. Hoffmann, Y. Shi, A. Hughes, C. Bernard, T. M. Brooks, B. Bertzky, S. H. M. Butchart, N. Stuart, T. Badman and A. S. L. Rodrigues. 2013. Conservation. Protected Areas and Effective Biodiversity Conservation. Science 342:803–805.

Meyer, N., R. Moreno, and P. Jansen. 2013. Distribution and conservation status of the Baird’s tapir in Panama. Tapir Conservation 30:10-13.

Meyer, N. F. V., H. J. Esser, R. Moreno, F. Van Langevelde, Y. Liefting, D. Ros Oller, C. B. F. Vogels, A. D. Carver, C. K. Nielsen, and P. A. Jansen. 2015. An Assessment of the Terrestrial Mammal Communities in Forests of Central Panama, Using Camera-Trap Surveys. Journal for Nature Conservation 26:28-35.

Moreno, R. and A. Bustamente. 2007. Estatus del Jaguar (Panthera onca), Otros Felinos y sus Presas, Utilizando Camaras Trampa en la Region del Alto Chagres, Panamá. Informe Final del Proyecto del Alto Chagres, Densidad de Jaguares, Fondo Chagres. Panamá, Republica de Panamá.

Moreno, R., and N. Meyer. 2014. Distribution and conservation status of the white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari) in Panama. Suiform soundings 13:32-37.

Naranjo, E. J., M. M.Guerra, R. E. Bodmer, and J. Bolanos. 2010. Subsistence Hunting by Three Ethnic Groups of the Lacandon Forest, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology 24:233–53.

Naranjo, E. J., and R. E. Bodmer. 2007. Source-Sink Systems and Conservation of Hunted Ungulates in the Lacandon Forest, Mexico. Biological Conservation 138:412–20.

Peres, C. A. 1996. Population status of white-lipped Tayassu pecari and collared peccaries T. tajacu in hunted and unhunted Amazonian forests. Biological Conservation 77: 115-123.

Reyna-Hurtado, R., and G. W. Tanner. 2005. Habitat Preferences of Ungulates in Hunted and Nonhunted Areas in the Calakmul Forest, Campeche, Mexico. Biotropica 37:676–85.

Reyna-Hurtado, R., and G. W. Tanner. 2007. Ungulate Relative Abundance in Hunted and Non-Hunted Sites in Calakmul Forest (Southern Mexico). Biodiversity and Conservation 16:743–56.

Reyna-Hurtado, R., E. Rojas-Flores, and G.W. Tanner. 2009. Home Range and Habitat Preferences of White-Lipped Peccaries (Tayassu pecari) in Calakmul, Campeche, Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy 90:1199-1209.

Ripple, W. J., T. M. Newsome, C. Wolf, R. Dirzo, K. T. Everatt, M. Galetti, M. W. Hayward, G. I. H. Kerley, T. Levi, P. A. Lindsey, D. W. Macdonald, Y. Malhi, L. E. Painter, C. J. Sandom, J. Terborgh, and B. Van Valkenburgh. 2015. Collapse of the World’s Largest Herbivores. Science Advances, May:1-12.

Rovero, F. and A. R. Marshall. 2009. Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:1011 - 1017.

Smith, D. A. 2008. The Spatial Patterns of Indigenous Wildlife Use in Western Panama: Implications for Conservation Management. Biological Conservation 141:925–37.

Stoner, K. E., K. Vulinec, S. J. Wright, and C. A. Peres. 2007. Hunting and Plant Community Dynamics in Tropical Forests: A Synthesis and Future Directions. Biotropica 39:385–92.

Tejeda-Cruz, C., Naranjo, E. J. Cuaron, A. D. Perales, and J. L. Cruz-Burguete. 2009. Habitat use of wild ungulates in fragmented landscapes of the Lacandon Forest, Southern Mexico. Mammalia 73:211-219.

Terwilliger, V. J. 1978. Natural history of Baird´s tapir on Barro Colorado Island, Panama Canal Zone. Biotropica 10:211-220.

Terborgh, J., L. Lopez, P. Nunez, M. Rao, G. Shahabuddin, G. Orihuelas, M. Riveros, R. Ascanio, G. H. Adler, T. D. Lambert, and L. Balbas. 2001. Ecological Meltdown in Predator-Free Forest Fragments. Science 294:1923–26.

Tobler, M., S. CarrilloPercastegui, R. Leite Pitman, R. Mares, and G.Powell. 2008. An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying largeand mediumsized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Animal Conservation 11:169-178.

Urquiza-Haas, T., C. A. Peres, and P. M. Dolman. 2009. Regional scale effects of human density and forest disturbance on large-bodied vertebrates throughout the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Biological Conservation 142:134-148.

Van Vliet, N., M. P. Quiceno-Mesa,. D. Cruz-Antia, L. Johnson, N. De Aquino, J. Moreno, and R. Nasi. 2014. The Uncovered Volumes of Bushmeat Commercialized in the Amazonian Trifrontier between Colombia, Peru and Brazil. Ethnobiology and Conservation 7:1–11.

Wright, S. J., H. Zeballos, I. Dominguez, M. M. Gallardo, M. C. Moreno, and R., Ibanez. 2000. Poachers alter mammal abundance, seed dispersal, and seed predation in a Neotropical forest. Conservation Biology 14:227-239.

Wright, S. J., A. Hernandez, and R. Condit. 2007a. The Bushmeat Harvest Alters Seedling Banks by Favoring Lianas, Large Seeds, and Seeds Dispersed by Bats, Birds, and Wind. Biotropica 39:363–71.

Wright, S. J., K. E. Stoner, N. Beckman, R. T. Corlett, R. Dirzo, H. C. Muller-Landau, G. Nunez-Iturri, C. A. Peres, and B. C. Wang. 2007b. The Plight of Large Animals in Tropical Forests and the Consequences for Plant Regeneration. Biotropica 39:289–91.

Submitted: October 13, 2015

Reviewed: December 2, 2015

Accepted: January 16, 2016

Associated editor: Rafael Reyna

Table 1. Study sites characteristics and design of the camera-trapping surveys. Sites are listed following an East-West longitudinal gradient.

Sampling

Site

Code

1Status

Size (km2)

Period

No. stations

Total effort (d)

Source

Volcán Baru

BAR

NP

143

Oct–Dec 2014

5

327

This study

Damani Guariviara

DAM

WII

114

May-Sep 2014

12

534

This study

Santa Fé

SFE

NP

726

Nov 2014-Mar 2015

13

977

This study

Cerro Hoya

HOY

NP

325

Feb-Apr 2012

15

984

Fort and Nielsen 2012

Donoso

DON

MUPA

1,960

Mar 2012 – Nov 2013

53

24,641

MPSA; this study

San Lorenzo

SLO

NP

97

Jan-Feb; Sep-Nov 2012

24

624

Meyer et al. 2015

Arraijan

ARJ

PF

180

Mar-May 2015

13

941

This study

BCNM

BCNM

NM

15

Jan 2011/12/13

30

2,937

TEAM Network

Soberania

SOB

NP

225

Nov 2014-Mar 2015

11

786

This study

Portobelo

PBO

NP

359

Mar-May 2015

10

491

This study

Chagres

CHA

NP

1,295

Mar-Aug 2007

27

1,295

Moreno and Bustamante 2007

Nusagandi - Nargana

NUS

NR

596

Jan-Apr 2013/15

16

1,744

Brown 2013; this study

Pirre - Darién

PIR

NP

5,970

Feb-Jun 2014/15

44

6,891

Meyer et al. 2015; this study

1NP = National Park, WII = Ramsar Site Wetland of International Importance, MUPA = Multiple Use Protected Area, PF = Protected Forest, NM = Natural Monument, NR = Nature Reserve.

Figure 1. Isthmus of Panama (A) and inset of Central Panama (B) with protected areas (black boundaries) that were surveyed and the locations of the camera trapping polygons (grey circles with dots). Grey shading represents primary and mature secondary forests (ANAM 2000).

Figure 2. Rarefaction curves based on camera trapping data in protected sites of Panama with moderate (A) and large (B) sampling effort. See Table 1 for sites codes. Cerro Hoya curve is not shown because it was not available from the source (Fort and Nielsen 2014) and we did not have the rwa data to produce the curves ourselves.

Table 2. Capture rate of ungulate species recorded by camera traps across 13 protected forests in Panama and their local conservation status. - = not detected in our survey. See Table 1 for source of the data.

PERISSODACTYLA

ARTIODACTYLA

Tapirus bairdii

Tayassu pecari

Pecari tajacu

Odocoileus virginianus

Mazama americana

Total ungulate species recorded

Baird’s tapir

White-lipped peccary

Collared peccary

White-tailed deer

Red brocket deer

Local conservation status1

Endangered

Endangered

Vulnerable

Vulnerable

Vulnerable

Volcán Barú

0.3

-

7.9

-

0.6

3

Damani -Guariviara

-

-

0.1

-

-

1

Santa Fé

0.1

-

2.6

-

-

2

Cerro Hoya

-

-

2.5

2.9

-

2

Donoso

0.3

0.01

2.9

0.01

0.2

5

San Lorenzo*

-

-

1.6

2.4

0.2

3

Arraijan*

-

-

13.9

11.3

-

2

BCNM*

0.03

-

25.7

3.5

3.3

4

Soberanía*

-

-

53.7

5.6

4.7

3

Portobelo

-

-

2.2

-

0.6

2

Chagres

0.7

-

1.1

-

0.1

3

Nusagandi-Nargana

0.2

-

9.4

-

0.3

3

Pirre-Darién

1.4

5.8

3.9

-

1.6

4

Total sites with record

7

2

13

6

9

1 Conservation status in Panama based on ANAM (2008).

*Sites in Central Panama

Figure 3. Results of a Principal Component Analysis of ungulate assemblages, based on capture rates by camera traps at 13 protected sites in Panama. Arrows indicate the direction of maximum change in relative abundance across the ordination plot, where arrow length is proportional to the change and to the abundance. Sites that are close together are more similar in ungulate species composition and abundance. See table 1 for site codes.

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.


FACTOR DE IMPACTO 2020 (SCOPUS): 1.2


THERYA es publicada por la Asociación Mexicana de Mastozoología A. C.  Se distribuye bajo una Licencia de Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional.

DERECHOS DE AUTOR Y DERECHOS CONEXOS, THERYA es una publicación digital cuatrimestral editada por la Asociación Mexicana de Mastozoología A. C.  Hacienda Vista Hermosa 107, Colonia Villa Quietud, Coyoacan 04960.  Distrito Federal, México.  Telefono (612) 123-8486, www.mastozoologiamexicana.org.  Editor responsable: Dr. Sergio Ticul Álvarez Castañeda (therya@cibnor.mx).  Reservas de Derechos al Uso Exclusivo No. 04-2009-112812171700-102, ISSN: 2007-3364 ambos otorgados por el Instituto Nacional de Derechos de Autor.  Responsable de la última actualización de este número, Unidad de informática de la Asociación Mexicana de Mastozoología A. C.  Dr. Sergio Ticul Álvarez Castañeda.  Instituto Politécnico Nacional 195.  La Paz, Baja California Sur, C. P. 23096.  Tel 612 123 8486.