Mammals recorded in isolated remnants of Atlantic Forest in southern Goiás, Brazil

Calaça, Analice Maria; Fachi, Marluci; Silva, Diego Afonso; Oliveira, Seixas Rezende; Melo, Fabiano Rodrigues de

doi:10.1590/1676-0611-bn-2018-0575

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, species of Cingulata listed for the state are common and widely distributed, being found in different types of environments and domains. The nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) and the yellow armadillo (Euphractus sexcinctus) are the most frequent species (Rodrigues et al 2002;Bernardo & Melo 2013;Calaça et al 2018;Feijó et al 2018), being tolerant to disturbed environments, although they are rare in places where they suffer intense hunting pressure (Cabral et al 2017). We consider Cabassous squamicaudis as a full species as treated by Feijó & Langguth (2013).…”

Section: Cingulatamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Blackpencilled marmosets can reach high densities and be more common in degraded areas (Grande et al 2020), and were not registered in protected areas such as Parque Nacional das Emas (Rodrigues et al 2002), and Chapada dos Veadeiros (Ferreguetti et al 2019). The geographical distribution of Sapajus cay reaches Goiás state (IUCN 2020), where it was recorded in Atlantic Forest enclaves in the municipalities of Aporé and Itajá, southwestern of the state (Calaça et al 2018;Gusmão et al 2018). Habitat loss has been the main threat for capuchin monkeys.…”

Section: Primatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Checklist of mammals from Goiás, central Brazil

Hannibal¹,

Zortéa²,

Calaça³

et al. 2021

Biota Neotrop.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The state of Goiás, in central Brazil, is covered mainly by the Cerrado domain, with the Alto Paraná Atlantic Forest occupying its central-southern portion. Goiás is one of the 20 Brazilian federative units without a mammal checklist. In this study, we provide the first checklist of mammals from Goiás state. We recorded mammal species based primarily on the analysis of specimens housed in scientific collections as well as on literature with associated voucher material. We listed 191 mammalian species belonging to 125 genera, 31 families and 10 orders, which represents 25.2% of the mammal species occurring in Brazil. The most speciose orders were Chiroptera (90 spp.), followed by Rodentia (43 spp.), Carnivora (19 spp.) and Didelphimorphia (17 spp.). The following orders accounted for a smaller portion of the state diversity: Cetartiodactyla (7 spp.), Cingulata (7 spp.), Primates (4 spp.), Pilosa (2 spp.), Lagomorpha (1 sp.), and Perissodactyla (1 sp.). A total of 28 species (14.7%), mainly represented by medium and large-sized mammals, are nationally threatened while 12 (6.3%) are globally threatened. Our results indicate great portions of the state lacking a proper survey of mammals, especially the northwestern portion. We discuss species richness, distribution and conservation status of the mammals of Goiás state in national and regional scenarios. We highlight the need for mammal inventories based on complementary survey techniques with the collection of vouchers in order to provide karyologic, molecular, morphologic, parasitologic, and ecological data. These informations are the basis for integrative studies that lead to the understanding of current mammalian richness and diversity. Indeed, knowledge on species richness distribution in the state will guide conservation strategies, especially in areas undergoing habitat loss and fragmentation, such as the central-southern portion of Goiás.

show abstract

Section: Cingulatamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Primatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Checklist of mammals from Goiás, central Brazil

Hannibal¹,

Zortéa²,

Calaça³

et al. 2021

Biota Neotrop.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All field methods show some degree of specificity in species detection; that is, each method tends to detect some species better or quicker than others [ 16 , 17 ]. Further, as different survey methods may also show different efficiency (their ability to detect as many species as possible during a given operation period) and consistency (their ability to keep a high efficiency over sampling replicates), multiple, complementary survey methods are often used to increase the chances that every mammal species in the assemblage is detected [ 18 , 19 ]. Species-specificity of detection methods introduces a new trade-off, because the use of several methods involves not only a higher cost but also longer times of deployment, handling, and checking, thus reducing the agility needed in rapid surveys.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimates of Species Richness and Composition Depend on Detection Method in Assemblages of Terrestrial Mammals

Suárez-Tangil

Rodrı́guez

2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detecting rapid changes in mammal composition at large spatial scales requires efficient detection methods. Many studies estimate species composition with a single survey method without asking whether that particular method optimises detection for all occurring species and yields reliable community-level indices. We explore the implications of between-method differences in efficiency, consistency, and sampling effort for the basic characterisation of assemblages of medium to large mammals in a region with three contrasted Mediterranean landscapes. We assessed differences between camera traps, scent stations, scat surveys, and track surveys. Using track surveys, we detected all species present in the regional pool (13) and obtained the most accurate description of local species richness and composition with the lowest sampling effort (16 sampling units and 2 survey sessions at most). Had we chosen camera traps, scent stations, or scat surveys as the only survey method, we would have underestimated species richness (9, 11, and 12 species, respectively) and misrepresented species composition in varying degrees. Preliminary studies of method performance inform whether single or multiple survey methods are needed and eventually which single method might be most appropriate. Without such a formal assessment current practices may produce unreliable and incomplete species inventories, ultimately leading to incorrect conclusions about the impact of human activity on mammal communities.

show abstract

“…The Cerrado biome is the second largest in Brazil, occupying an area of approximately 24%, and it is considered the richest savanna in the world (Aguiar et al, 2016), with a high endemism index (Calaça et al, 2018). Due to its extension, the Cerrado presents transition zones with almost all other national biomes, being responsible for the formation of the main Brazilian rivers (Aguiar et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental diagnosis of water source in a Brazilian Cerrado watershed

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A lack of planning characterize the most demographic occupation process in Brazil, occurring in a disorderly manner and with inappropriate occupations, resulting in damage to natural resources. This process is recurrent in the Cerrado Biome, currently the agricultural frontier of the country. Thus, the objective of this work was to identify anthropic activities and classify the conservation status in the headsprings (water sources) and surroundings areas of a watershed inserted in the Cerrado biome, besides proposing measures to prevent and control the different degradation processes. From February to July 2016, visits were made to 37 headsprings and their surroundings, located in the watershed of Santa Fé de Minas River. Impacts of anthropic actions are identified directly or indirectly, classifying the areas according to the state of conservation: preserved, anthropized and degraded. All visited places presented some type of negative interference from human activities. The most frequent activities were unpaved roads, monoculture of eucalyptus and cattle farming. According to the classification, only 6% of the areas are on preserved condition, while 70% are anthropized and 24% degraded. The main types of found degradation were erosions in different stages, compaction and silting. In addition, no conservationist practices are present in the areas. Therefore, to reduce or prevent future degradation in the watershed, it proposed some mitigating actions, such as the isolation of headsprings and their surroundings, adaptation of roads and eucalyptus plantation areas, and maintenance of preservation areas.

show abstract

Mammals recorded in isolated remnants of Atlantic Forest in southern Goiás, Brazil

Cited by 6 publications

References 30 publications

Checklist of mammals from Goiás, central Brazil

Checklist of mammals from Goiás, central Brazil

Estimates of Species Richness and Composition Depend on Detection Method in Assemblages of Terrestrial Mammals

Environmental diagnosis of water source in a Brazilian Cerrado watershed

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About