Use of agroecosystem matrix habitats by mammalian carnivores (Carnivora): a global‐scale analysis

Abstract

Less than a quarter of Earth's terrestrial ecosystems remain intact. Protected areas (PAs) are far exceeded in area by natural habitats that have been transformed for agriculture, and PAs are too small to safeguard viable wildlife populations. It is therefore imperative to understand the use of agricultural matrix habitats by native wildlife. In this study we seek to understand how the world's mammalian carnivore species (order Carnivora) use agricultural land. We assessed relationships between agroecosystem type, carnivore species traits and conservation status, and carnivore occurrence at agricultural sites, investigated the prevalent human–carnivore conflicts in anthropogenic landscapes, and identified knowledge gaps. We reviewed 129 studies reporting agroecosystem use by native carnivores to understand which agroecosystem types are used by different species, and which factors may affect their occurrence in these habitats. We uncovered records of 97 wild and two domesticated carnivore species within 41 types of crop in temperate and tropical regions that we classified into four agroecosystem types (agroforestry, tree plantations, perennial cropland, and annual cropland). Non‐threatened carnivore species were more likely to use agricultural ecosystems than threatened species. Adult body mass, energetic trophic level, and locomotion mode were significant predictors of carnivore occupancy in agricultural lands. Our results depict a globally consistent pattern, in which the use of agroecosystem landscapes by mammalian carnivores is related to both species traits and habitat quality. We emphasise the rarity of threatened carnivore and apex predator species in agroecosystems, which strengthens the paramount importance of retaining native habitat within agricultural landscapes. Understanding the role of agricultural habitat matrices, the influence of management intensification, and the threshold areas of native habitats within anthropogenic landscapes are essential for prescribing ways to prevent further erosion of the world's carnivores in human‐modified landscapes.

Agricultural lands offer seasonal habitats to tigers in a human‐dominated and fragmented landscape in India

“…Similar declines in the use of human-modified areas with increasing distance to PA boundaries have been noted for other threatened and endangered large carnivore species such as jaguars (Boron et al 2016, Petracca et al 2018. Our results thus further support the observation of Ferreira et al (2018) that agroecosystems are more likely to support large carnivores if they retain patches of native habitats within them. These results strongly Fig.…”

“…In a recent review, Ferreira et al (2018) note the conspicuous paucity of studies examining the use of annual croplands by threatened large carnivores and the causal factors underlying this use. We believe our study is the first to comprehensively document the seasonal spaceuse patterns of tigers within an agricultural matrix, comprised largely of annual croplands.…”

“…While many studies on large carnivore use of human-modified areas exist (Woodroffe 2011, Boron et al 2018, Majgaonkar et al 2019, there remain critical gaps in our understanding of carnivore ecology within agricultural areas. In a review of carnivore use of agroecosystems, Ferreira et al (2018) found that the extent to which agricultural areas offer foraging habitats, dispersal routes, or cover for large carnivores remains unclear. They also found that the literature is dominated by studies conducted in tree plantations, whereas the use of annual croplands by large carnivores has not been adequately explored.…”

A global assessment of primate responses to landscape structure

“…As suggested by the authors of that study, this pattern can be related to increasing human–primate conflicts in landscapes with more anthropogenic land covers in Peninsular Malaysia (Adila et al, ). However, different land covers in the landscape can provide complementary and supplementary resources for primates (Dunning et al, ; Watling et al, ; Tscharntke et al, ; Ferreira et al, ). This can explain why when considering the suitability of different land covers to primates, all studies report positive responses to increasing landscape and matrix quality (Fig.…”

“…Such a role is related to the fact that habitat patches are open systems; that is, patch edges do not always represent real barriers to animal movements, and hence, rather than being driven by the characteristics of single habitat patches, plant and animal assemblages usually depend on environmental conditions present in the local landscape surrounding habitat patches (Dunning et al, 1992;Benton et al, 2002;Fahrig, 2013). In fact, the home range of primates (Arroyo-Rodríguez & Mandujano, 2009;Boyle et al, 2013;Almeida-Rocha, Peres & Oliveira, 2017;Galán-Acedo et al, 2019) and other animals (Mendenhall et al, 2013;Ferreira et al, 2018) can be composed of several habitat patches and different land-cover types (e.g. agricultural lands) and landscape elements (e.g.…”