A Management Landscape for Jaguars in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest

Carlos De Angeloa, Agustín Pavioloa, Thorsten Wiegandb,Rajapandian Kanagarajb, Mario S. Di Bitettia

a National Research Council (CONICET)Instituto de Biología Subtropical, Universidad Nacional de Misiones

Asociación Civil Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque AtlánticoPuerto Iguazú, Argentina. biocda@gmail.com.

b Department of Ecological Modelling, UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany

The Atlantic Forest of South America

• The Atlantic Forest is a Biodiversity Hotspot

(Olson et al. 2001)

The Atlantic Forest of South America

• The Atlantic Forest is a Biodiversity Hotspot

• One of the most endangeredenvironments of the world

Myers et al. (2000); Mittermeier et al. (2004)

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)

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)

UPAF Conservation & Jaguars

• The Biodiversity Vision

Di Bitetti et al. (2003)

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)

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)

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.

Study Area

• Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest: >250.000 km2

= core area of the UPAF

De Angelo (2009)

Species Data

• Participatory monitoring network

De Angelo et al. (2011a)

Species Data

• Participatory monitoring network

• Direct and indirect evidences of jaguarpresence– Tracks– Fecal samples– Sightings, etc.

De Angelo et al. (2011a)

Species Data

De Angelo et al. (2011a)

Species Data

• >2500 records

De Angelo et al. (2011a)

Species Data

• >2500 records

• Surveyed area represented >90.000 km2 of the study area

De Angelo et al. (2011a)

Species Data

• >2500 records

• Surveyed area represented >90.000 km2 of the study area

• 950 accurately identified as jaguar presence records

De Angelo et al. (2011a)

Species Data

• Data filtered:– Grid with cells of the

size of a female territory (12x12 km)

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

Preliminary Habitat Suitability Analysis

• Presence-only habitat suitability analysis: Ecological Niche Factor Analysis (Hirzel et al. 2002)

De Angelo et al. (2011b)

Pseudo-absences• Rule-based random

generation

Engler et al. (2004)

Generalized Linear Models

• Binary response variable: presence/pseudo-absence

• 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)

• 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

Hypotheses

Elevation map

Distance to rivers

Availability of native forest

Intensive agriculture

Amount of native forest

Hypotheses

• Direct human impact– Protection and accessibility

• Protection• Accessibility• Interaction between protection & accessibility

– Rural population• Most recent data (2001)• Average density (1970-2000)

– Combined human impact models

• Final global model: Landscape + Human impact

Human access cost

Protection levels

Rural population density

Results• Best supported hypotheses (GLM models)

– Landscape model including:(AICc = 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)

AICc= Akaike Information Criterion

Results• Best supported hypotheses (GLM models)

– Landscape model including:(AICc = 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:(AICc = 215.1)

• Combination of protection level and human accessibility• Rural population density (historical average 1970-2000)

– GLOBAL (Landscape + Human Impact)(AICc =176.5)

AICc= Akaike Information Criterion

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

Results

• Traditional habitat modeling approach– Landscape– Human impacts– Global

• Only 7% of the study area with suitable conditions

Two-dimensional Model

“Sinks” “Refuges”

“Attractive sinks”

Core areas (potential sources)

“Barriers”

“Bar

riers

”

Direct human impactHIGH LOW

Land

scap

e co

nditi

ons G

OO

DBA

D

High poaching pressure.Low prey density

High jaguar mortality

ProtectionInaccessible areas

Low human population density

High proportion of forest cover

Habitat connectivity

Fragmented areasHigh proportion of

anthropic land uses

Naves et al. (2003); Nielsen et al. (2006)

ProtectionInaccessible areas

Low human population density

High poaching pressure.Low prey density

High jaguar mortality

Two-dimensional Model

“Sinks” “Refuges”

“Attractive sinks”

Core areas (potential sources)

“Barriers”

“Bar

riers

”

Direct human impactHIGH LOW

Land

scap

e co

nditi

ons G

OO

DBA

D

MANAGEMENT: protection / mitigation measures

MA

NA

GEM

ENT:

la

ndsc

ape

reco

very

an

d re

stor

atio

n

Fragmented areasHigh proportion of

anthropic land uses

Two-dimensional Model

Presence

Pseudo-absence

Sinks Validation

• Proportion of killed or removed jaguars found in the different habitat categories

0

5

10

15

20

25

Barreras Sumideros Núcleos

Jagu

ares

mue

rtos

Observado Esperado

2 = 0.00005; df = 2; p < 0.001

Delibes et al. (2001); Naves et al. (2003); Battin (2004); Nielsen et al. (2006)

Observed Expected

“Barriers” “Sinks” Core areas

Kill

ed ja

guar

s

Two-dimensional Model

• Spatial population structure of jaguars in the UPAF: – e.g. potential source & sink

populations

• Management priorities:–– Landscape restorationLandscape restoration–– Protection/mitigationProtection/mitigation

“`Sinks”

“Attractive-sinks’

Refuges – “islands”

Core areas

Using the Model for Landscape Management

Presence

Pseudo-absence

Using the Model for Management

Zoom in the “Green Corridor” of Misiones

Increase protectionMitigation actions

Landscape restorationIncrease connectivity

Validation of the Biodiversity Vision

• UPAF conservation– Biodiversity vision

validation

Di Bitetti et al. (2003)

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)

ConclusionsConclusions

• Jaguars demonstrated a complex response to the landscape transformation: – forest, human land uses, protection, human accessibility &

human population density

ConclusionsConclusions

• 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

ConclusionsConclusions

• 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

•• Thank you to: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 supportFinancial 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 supportInstitutional support:: Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina; Administración de Parque Nacionales;Ministerio de Ecología, Recursos NaturalesRenovables de Misiones.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Contact: biocda@gmail.com