Mosaics of Exotic Forest Plantations and Native Forests as Habitat of Pumas

Abstract

There is a general lack of information on the impact of forest plantations and the presence of urban settlements on populations of resource-demanding species such as large felids. To partially address this problem, a project study was conducted to find out whether mosaics of forest plantations and native vegetation can function as an adequate habitat for pumas (Puma concolor) in southern Brazil. The study was conducted within a 1255-km(2) area, managed for planted stands of Pinus spp. and Eucalyptus spp. Individual identification of pumas was carried out using a combination of track-matching analysis (discriminant analysis) and camera-trapping. Both techniques recorded closely similar numbers of individual pumas, either total (9-10 individuals) or resident (5-6 individuals). A new approach, developed during this study, was used to individualize pumas by their markings around the muzzle. The estimated density varied from 6.2 to 6.9 individuals/100 km(2), ranking among the highest across the entire puma range and indicating a potential total population of up to 87 individuals in the study site. In spite of the availability of extensive areas without human disturbance, a radio-tracked female used a core home range that included forest plantations, an urbanized village, and a two-lane paved road with regular vehicular traffic. The high density of pumas and the species' intensive use of modified landscapes are interpreted here as deriving from conditions rarely found near human settlements: mutual tolerance by pumas and humans and an adequate habitat (regardless of plantations) largely due to the inhibition of invasions and hunting and maintenance of sizable extents of native forest patches. More widely, it suggests the potential of careful management in forestry operations to provide habitat conditions for resource-demanding species such as the puma. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of curbing invasions and hunting, in this case provided by the presence of company employees, for the maintenance of wildlife populations.

Livestock Predation by Puma (Puma concolor) in the Highlands of a Southeastern Brazilian Atlantic Forest

“…Consequently, pumas exhibit differences in activity patterns among areas with different hunting pressures (Paviolo et al 2009). When there is little hunting and high tolerance by humans, puma populations achieve high densities even in a modified landscape (Mazzolli 2010). Pumas consume a diet based on a broad range of prey and exhibit high behavioral plasticity in using anthropogenic resources from the agricultural matrix (Magioli et al 2014), which should predispose the species to predating on livestock.…”

Evaluating Landscape Connectivity for Puma concolor and Panthera onca Among Atlantic Forest Protected Areas

“…Forestry is a land use/land cover class subject to regular management, and the landscape changes greatly when trees are removed or planted. However, despite the temporary exclusion of the protective vegetation and the occurrence of a reasonable level of disturbance due to the continuous presence of employees, the presence of forestry employees discourages harvesting and poaching, and thus indirectly provides wildlife protection (Mazzolli 2010). A decrease in native species is usually observed when the planted trees are small.…”

“…A decrease in native species is usually observed when the planted trees are small. Nevertheless, forestry lands usually have a very positive effect on wildlife movement (Lyra-Jorge et al 2008;Mazzolli 2010). In combination with secondary forest at intermediate or advanced stages of succession, forestry usually creates good cover for large felines.…”

“…Following this logic, we were careful to examine and verify that the class hierarchy obtained from the expert consultation was supported by the existing literature. Although most of the studies did not analyze all classes in the same study, we could identify the used hierarchy when cross-referencing works using telemetry (Beier et al 1995;Dickson and Beier 2002;Dickson et al 2005;Dickson and Beier 2007;Mazzolli 2010;Kertson et al 2011;Cullen et al 2013), camera traps and tracks (Lyra-Jorge et al 2008;Mazzolli and Hammer 2008;Mazzolli 2010;Cherem et al 2011), tracks, road kill, predation events and interview (Mazzolli 1993;Zúñiga et al 2009;De Angelo et al 2011a, 2011bRodríguez-Soto et al 2011;Miotto et al 2012), and expert consultation Nielsen 2008, 2011;Rabinowitz and Zeller 2010;Zarco-González et al 2013). Finally, the standard deviations calculated for the four land use/land cover classes that dominated the critical habitat connections in the landscape were low, indicating a low dispersion from the average or consistency in the expert opinion on the importance of these cover land types for both species.…”

“…In the study area, even in the case of small patches, mature forests are able to maintain landscape connectivity, most likely due to their spatial arrangement as areas located within the forestry (monoculture plantations) (Garmendia et al 2013) land use/land cover class, producing a landscape pattern that is suitable for large felines (Mazzolli 2010). Forestry is a land use/land cover class subject to regular management, and the landscape changes greatly when trees are removed or planted.…”