trolle 2003 - mammal survey in western pantanal

8/14/2019 Trolle 2003 - Mammal Survey in Western Pantanal

1/14

Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 823836 , 2003.

2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Mammal survey in the southeastern Pantanal, Brazil

MOGENS TROLLEMammal Department, Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100

Copenhagen, Denmark (e-mail: [email protected]; fax:145-3532-1010)

Received 2 January 2002; accepted in revised form 8 May 2002

Key words: Brazil, Camera trapping, Conservation, Habitat use, Mammal inventory, Pantanal

Abstract. The Pantanal floodplain of southwestern Brazil, with its mosaic of marshes, seasonally flooded

savannas, woodlands and forests, is known as one of the wildlife hotspots of South America. The region

harbors a rich mammal fauna and is a stronghold for a number of mammal species; however, still very

few thorough mammal surveys have been conducted in the Pantanal. This is the first mammal survey

from the southeastern part of the region. An intensive, three-month study of the medium to large,

non-volant species was conducted at a location in the upper Rio Negro Basin, Aquidauana region, Mato

Grosso do Sul. Thirty species of mammals were recorded, including 5 xenarthrans, 1 primate, 10

carnivores, 7 ungulates and 5 caviomorph rodents. It was possible to analyze the field biology of many of

the species to a level not previously published for the Pantanal. Recommendations are given for cameratrapping in the Pantanal and the Amazon. Finally, the effects of intensive cattle ranching on conservation

in the Pantanal are discussed.

Introduction

The Pantanal floodplain of southwestern Brazil, covering approximately 1400002

km , is known for its unique abundance of conspicuous wildlife. The region has a

rich mammal fauna and is a stronghold for a number of attractive larger species

(Alho et al. 1988b; Mittermeier et al. 1990; Alho and Lacher 1991). Still, only a

couple of thorough general mammal surveys have been published from this major

region (Schaller 1983; Alho et al. 1988a). In order to assess the conservation role of

the Pantanal for mammals, and to plan an adequate conservation strategy for theregion, additional knowledge of the demographics, abundance and field biology of

the mammal fauna is of great importance.

An intensive, three-month mammal survey was conducted (MayJuly 2001). The

main purpose of this paper is to present information on the fauna of medium to

large, non-volant species found in the study area. This is the first mammal survey

from the southeastern Pantanal.

Camera trapping is a highly efficient technique for mammal surveys; however,

only recently have modern camera traps been applied on a larger scale in the

Neotropics. Recommendations are given for camera trapping in the Pantanal and the

Amazon.

Most of the Pantanal consists of cattle ranches. In the study area the intensive

cattle ranching was found to have a serious negative impact on the environment.Cattle ranching and its effects on conservation in Pantanal are discussed.


2/14

824

Study area

The survey encompassed Fazenda Sta Emlia and adjacent areas. Fazenda Sta

Emlia (headquarters at GPS position 19830.4039 S; 55836.7919 W) is a research/

conservation reserve of Universidade para o Desenvolvimento do Estado e daRegiao do Pantanal UNIDERP of Campo Grande. The area is situated in the

upper Rio Negro Basin of the southeastern part of the floodplain, Aquidauanaregion, Mato Grosso do Sul. The core area of the study covered approximately 4 3 5

km.

The climate of the Pantanal is highly seasonal, with warm, wet summers, cold,

dry winters, and an annual flooding of the open areas following the rainy season

(described in more detail by Schaller 1983). During the first two months of the study

period much of the study area was flooded. Only in the last month of the study the

water level started to fall substantially and the area began to dry out.

Habitat types

As is typical for the Pantanal, the study area consists of a mosaic of open and closed,

and mesic and xeric habitat types, correlated with the light undulations of the

landscape, the seasonal inundation of the open areas, and the soil types. The

definitions of major habitat types used in this study were as follows (plant names

according to Pott and Pott 1994; Lorenzi 2000; for descriptions of the Pantanal

habitats see also Prance and Schaller 1982; Ratter et al. 1988).

Acur forest: Semideciduous forest islands with Acur Palms (Schealea

phalerata) dominating the understorey (up to a height of around 810 m and

creating most of the shade), and interspersed with deciduous emergents of 2030 m

(such as Sterculia apetala, Ficus spp., Tabebuia impetiginosa, Plathyhenia re-

ticulata, Hymenaea stigonocarpa, Albizia niopioides, and Enterolobium contor-

tisiliquum). An often impenetrable belt of the thorny bromeliad Gravateiro

(Bromelia balansae) generally surrounds these forest islands. Part of the acur forest

had an extremely dense undergrowth of the Taboca Bamboo (Guadua cf. angus-

tifolia). Acur forest is found on higher elevations meandering through the openlandscape (cordilheiras) and is not subject to flooding. It is the major forest type of

the study area.

Gallery vegetation: Gallery/riparian/swamp vegetation (forest, woodland, and

scrub) along watercourses and at some sites bordering marshes. Typically the palm

Bactris glaucescens, Vochysia divergens trees and the bush-like tree Licania

parvifolia are structurally dominant components. Subject in varying degrees to

seasonal flooding. Gallery forest, with its year-round water supply, has a strong

floristic connection to the Amazon (Pott and Pott 1994).

Cerrado vegetation: Woodland in a broad sense (i.e. open to closed; when denseknown as cerradao), characterized by typical trees of the Cerrado region (low,

gnarled trees with thick, furrowed bark and xeromorphic leaves), and interspersed

with scrub. More open cerrado has a high proportion of grass coverage. Cactus(Cereus peruvianus) occurs in this habitat. Not subject to seasonal flooding.


3/14

825

Grassland: Commonly found between marshes and more closed habitats. Occurs

in vast areas or as narrow grass beaches between marshes and acur forest. Much of

the grassland is seasonally flooded.

Marsh: Areas dominated by aquatic vegetation that are isolated or connected with

water courses/ drainage courses, and may dry out seasonally. Various types of

marshes are found, from open and low with water hyacinths (Eichornia spp.) to

closed with tall reeds, bunchgrass or scrub.Fazenda Sta Emlia was purchased by UNIDERP three years before this study,

and in connection with this most of the cattle was removed from the part of the

reserve covered by the study. Due to the lack of cattle, in most open areas the grass

was tall. The neighboring fazendas (cattle ranches) had a high cattle ranching

intensity, which had an evident impact on the habitats: (1) the open areas were often

grazed and trampled down to the level of exposing a high proportion of bare sand,

and (2) the acur forest was open and with hardly any undergrowth. The southeast-

ern corner of the Pantanal as a whole is characterized by a relatively high cattle

ranching intensity and, judging by a satellite photo of the region (Willink 2000), a

relatively high degree of habitat alteration. In addition, outside the UNIDERP

reserve, burning of the land by the end of the dry season (as evidenced by scorching

marks on the trees) and some local hunting of certain native mammal species

(although the introduced wild pig Sus scrofa is usually the preferred game of the

locals) has apparently been normal practice, at least until recently.

Materials and methods

A range of methods were used: camera trapping, census by foot as well as by horse,

boat, motor vehicles and airplane, nightspotting, observations of tracks (Becker and

Dalponte 1991), feces, burrows and skulls, and interviews. Thirty sites were camera

trapped successfully. The total camera trapping effort was about 450 camera

trapping nights. The walked census added up to approximately 325 h and 500 km.

Six Trailmaster infrared trailmonitors (five passive TM550s and one active

TM1550) with TM35-1 camera kits (standard, automatic, weather proof, 35 mmYashica cameras with auto flash) were used (Goodson and Associates, USA). The

active system works with an infrared beam between a transmitter and a receiver, and

is triggered when the beam is broken. The passive system consists only of a

transmitter that emits a wedge-shaped infrared field, and is triggered by warm-

blooded animals moving through the wedge. On the passive TM550s I covered the

sides of the infrared sensor with tape, leaving only a 1 cm gap in the center (assuring

that an animal is in the center of the photo when it triggers the trap). This works well

with the following sensitivity settings: P 5 23, P 5 12 (the infrared wedge ist

divided into a number of windows. P relates to the number of windows that must

be broken by a warm-blooded animal for the trap to be triggered, and P is thet

number of seconds the animal has to break these windows). The advantages of the

passive system are that it is cheaper than the active one and easier to set up. Thedisadvantages are that in an open, tropical area like the Pantanal the trap may be


4/14

826

Table 1. List of mammal species recorded at the Faz Sta Emlia and adjacent areas, and assessment of

relative abundance.

Scientific name Common name Total Survey Relative

no. of methods abundance

records

Xenarthrab

Dasypodidae Dasypus novemcinctus Nine -banded Long-nose d Arm adil lo 16 VC BT CbEuphractus sexcinctus Six-banded Armadillo 20 VB C

aPriodontes maximus Giant Armadillo 1 B R

Myrmecophagidae Myrmecophaga tridactyla Giant Anteater 21 VCT C

Tamandua tetradactyla Southern Tamandua 11 VC C

Primates

Cebidae Alouatta caraya Black Howler Monkey 12 VAF C

Carnivora

Canidae Cerdocyon thous Crab-eating Fox 35 VCT C

Procyonidae Nasua nasua South American Coati 30 V C

Procyon cancrivorus Crab-eating Raccoon 29 VCT C

Mustelidae Eira barbara Tayra 1 V U?

Pteronura brasiliensis Giant Otter 11 VA C

Lontra longicaudis Neotropical Otter 1 V ?

Felidae Leopardus pardalis Ocelot 59 VCT C

Leopardus tigrinus Oncilla 1 C ?

Panthera onca Jaguar 1 CI R?

Puma concolor Puma 19 CT C

PerissodactylaTapiridae Tapirus terrestris Brazilian Tapir 30 VCTF C

Artiodactyla

Tayassuidae Pecari tajacu Collared Peccary 13 VC C

Tayassu pecari White-lipped Peccary 6 VC U

Cervidae Blastocerus dichotomus Marsh Deer 52 VCT C

Mazama americana Red Brocket Deer 2 C U?

Mazama gouazoubira Brown Brocket Deer 10 VCT Ca

Ozotoceros bezoarticus Pampas Deer 3 VI R(s?)

Caviomorpha

Erethizontidae Coendou prehensilis Brazilian Porcupine 1 V ?

Hydrochaeridae Hydrochoeris hydrochaeris Capybara 94 VTF C

Cuniculidae Cuniculus paca Paca 2 TI ?

Dasyproctidae Dasyprocta azarae Azaras Agouti 72 VCAT C

Echimyidae Thrichomys apereoides Punare Many C C

Small mammals

Marmosidae cf. Monodelphis sp. Short-tailed opossum Several C C

Sigmodontinae Holochilus sp. or Nectomys sp. Marsh/ Water Rat 1 T ?

When available, scientific names followVoss et al. (2001) and common names Emmons and Feer (1997).

Additional scientific names follow Anderson (1997). Abbreviations: Survey methods: A 5 acousticrecord; B 5 burrows; C 5 camera trapping; F 5 feces; I 5 interview; T 5 tracks; V 5 visual record.

Assessment of relative abundance: C 5 common; U 5 uncommon; R 5 rare; s 5 seasonal variation ina b

local abundance. Observed outside Faz Sta Emlia; observations of burrows excluded.

triggered by shades moving in front of the sensor (e.g. caused by a tree moving in

the wind in front of the sun), and that it is difficult for the infrared sensor to see

warm-blooded animals when the temperature of the environment is high. I got

around this by programming the units to work only between the afternoon and

morning, which should not be a problem when working with mainly crepuscular and

nocturnal species. The advantages of the active system are that even in an open arealike the Pantanal it can work both day and night, and that one can easily choose the


5/14

827

Table 2. Summary of camera trapping results.

Fo (n 5 10) Ga (n 5 6) Ce (n 5 10) Gr (n 5 7 ) Total (n 5 33)

Cap. Sites Cap. Sites Cap. Sites Cap. Sites Cap. Sites

Dasypus novemcinctus 2 2 1 1 3 2 6 3 12 8

Myrmecophaga tridactyla 1 1 2 2 3 3

Tamandua tetradactyla 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 8 6

Cerdocyon thous 3 3 14 4 14 3 31 10Procyon cancrivorus 3 1 2 2 10 4 20 6 35 13

Leopardus pardalis 13 5 7 2 5 3 5 3 30 13

Leopardus tigrinus 1 1 1 1

Panthera onca 1 1 1 1

Puma concolor 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 6 6

Tapirus terrestris 2 2 5 2 3 3 2 2 12 9

Pecari tajacu 3 1 1 1 4 2

Tayassu pecari 1 1 1 1 2 2

Blastocerus dichotomus 2 2 1 1 3 3

Mazama americana 2 2 2 2

Mazama gouazoubira 1 1 1 1a

Mazama sp.? 7 3 1 1 8 4

Dasyprocta azarae 13 6 11 2 6 1 30 9

No. of captures 54 30 47 58 189

No. of species 13 9 10 10 16Camera trapping nights (ctn) 141 59 119 93 412

No. of captures / ctn 0.38 0.51 0.39 0.62 0.46

a

Photos of Mazama deer where I was unable to identify the species; this category includes a reddish

species recorded in forest, but it is not possible to distinguish whether it is M. americana or M. nana.

Number of captures (cap.) and sites: Fo 5 acur forest; Ga 5 gallery forest; Ce 5 cerrado; Gr 5 open

grassy areas ( including grass beaches).

minimum size of the animals that one wants to monitor by setting the altitude of the

infrared beam (the reason it is called active). Trailmonitors were set so that even

smaller mammals were recorded. All non-flooded habitats were covered. Most

trapping sites were along trails (animal, cattle and human). Bait was often used;

mostly sardines in oil that proved to be quite attractive to carnivores (as evidenced

by many photographs of animals sniffing or eating the bait).

Results

A total of approximately 550 records of medium to large mammals and their habitat

use was obtained. The final list presents 30 species, including three small mammals

(Table 1). Camera trapping gave around 250 photos and recorded 16 species of

medium to large mammals (Table 2), along with a number of small rodents

(Sigmodontinae, Echimyidae), mouse opossum (Marmosidae), and eight species of

birds. The overall camera trapping success for medium to large mammals was about

50% (i.e., on average each camera trap gave one capture per two nights). Table 3

gives a summary of the habitat observations, and Table 4 the crepuscular andnocturnal activity patterns recorded by camera trapping.


6/14

828

Table 3. Summary of habitat observations.

Fo Fo (e) Ga Ce Sc Gr Ma Ri La

Dasypus novemcinctus 1 1 1 6 6

Euphractus sexcinctus 4 3 3 2 8

Priodontes maximus 1

Myrmecophaga tridactyla 5 1 6 4 4

Tamandua tetradactyla 5 6

Alouatta caraya 11 1

Cerdocyon thous 3 12 8

Nasua nasua 21 5 4

Procyon cancrivorus 3 1 6 18 1

Eira barbara 1

Pteronura brasiliensis 1 1 9

Lontra longicaudis 1

Leopardus pardalis 13 7 4 7

Leopardus tigrinus 1

Panthera onca 1

Puma concolor 3 1 8 1 5

Tapirus terrestris 3 5 10 7 3 2

Pecari tajacu 7 1 4

Tayassu pecari 1 2 1 1

Blastocerus dichotomus 1 2 2 47 Mazama americana 2

Mazama gouazoubira 1 8 1

Ozotoceros bezoarticus 3

Coendou prehensilis 1

Hydrochoeris hydrochaeris 52 39 3

Cuniculus paca 2

Dasyprocta azarae 28 12 15

Totals 115 6 35 83 3 83 112 49 5

No. of species 20 12 14 14 7 3 2

Number of records in various habitats: Fo 5 acur forest; Fo(e) 5 forest edge; Ga 5 gallery vegetation;

Ce 5 cerrado; Sc 5 scrubland; Gr 5 grassland/grass beach; Ma 5 by or in marsh; Ri 5 by or in

river/channel; La 5 by or in lake.

The camera trapping gave 55 photos of Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis). An analysisof the photos revealed that individual recognition is possible, which allowed an

estimate of density of Ocelot using capturerecapture analysis (Trolle and Kery,

unpublished data).

Discussion

Interviews with locals indicated that three species not recorded in this survey

occurred in the study area: Three-banded Armadillo (Tolypeutes matacus), Bush

Dog (Speothos venaticus), and a dwarf brocket (Mazama nana?); however, these are

all species that are often confused by locals, and whose presence should be verified.

Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) was known from other parts of the southeast-ern region by the locals, but it is presumably rare. A couple of additional secretive


7/14

829

Table 4. Crepuscular and nocturnal activity patterns between 16 P.M. and 8 A.M. recorded by camera

trapping.

1618 1820 2022 2200 0002 0204 0406 0608

Dasypus novemcinctus II IIII II I

Myrmecophaga tridactyla I

Tamandua tetradactyla I II III

Cerdocyon thous I IIII IIII IIII IIIII II I

Procyon cancrivorus IIII III IIIII IIIIII IIIIII II

Panthera onca I

Puma concolor I I

Leopardus pardalis II IIII III IIIIIII III IIIIII

Tapirus terrestris II I I

Pecari tajacu I I I

Tayassu pecari I

Blastocerus dichotomus I I

Mazama americana I

Mazama gouazuobira I

Dasyprocta azarae II I IIIIIIIII

mammals could occur in the region. The following species have been listed for the

southern half of the Pantanal: White-eared Opossum (Didelphis albiventris), Naked-

tailed Armadillo (Cabassous tatouay), Hoary Fox (Pseudalopex vetulus), Grison

(Galictis sp.) (probably an edge species that does not reach the study area),

Jaguarundi ( Herpailurus yaguarondi) (relatively common in other parts of the

Pantanal), Geoffroys Cat (Oncifelis geoffroyi), and Margay (Leopardus wiedii)

(Allen 1916; Alho et al. 1988a; Alho and Lacher 1991; Lourival 1993; PCBAP

1997; personal observation). Pampas Cat (Lynchailurus pajeros) was reported from

the northern Pantanal (Allen 1916).

Field biology information

Detailed information about something as basic as habitat use and activity patterns of

many of the Brazilian mammals is still available from only relatively few sites

(Eisenberg and Redford 1999). Such descriptive information is important for the

basic understanding of the biology and ecology of the mammal fauna and for the

planning of future studies in the area. The use of camera trapping in this study makes

it possible to analyze the field biology of many of the species to a level not before

published for the Pantanal. In this section a summary of the field observations of

each species is given. In the assessment of relative abundance of a number of the

species, I have compared the results of this survey with camera trapping and

sighting frequencies from 4.5 months of similar field work in the Rio Negro region

(Brazil) and the Rio Madre de Dios region (Peru) of the Amazon (Trolle, un-

published data) and sightings during two years in other parts of the Pantanal (Trolle,unpublished data). A summary of the assessments of abundance is given in Table 1.


8/14

830

Xenarthra

Dasypus novemcinctus: Frequently camera trapped and burrows were common.

Recorded in all habitats, but most often in grassland and cerrado. Observed around

dusk (4.45 P.M.), and frequently camera trapped between 8 P.M. and 4 A.M., but

never recorded around dawn and during the day. The nocturnal habits may be due to

poaching. Unlike the diurnal E. sexcinctus, the meat of the Nine-banded Armadillois valued for human consumption.

Euphractus sexcinctus: Frequently observed (once three individuals were en-

countered within 15 min of walking), and burrows were common. Recorded both in

open areas, forest edges (often seen in thorny bromeliad scrub), and inside acur

forest. Seems to be more common inside acur forest than D. novemcinctus. Seems

strictly diurnal (most records between 10 A.M. and midday), reflected also by the fact

that it was never camera trapped at night. An individual was observed to carry acur

palm fruits into its burrow.

Priodontes maximus: One old burrow was found in acur forest and the species

was never recorded by camera trapping. It had not been encountered recently in the

area by the locals and seems to be rare.

Myrmecophaga tridactyla: Encountered relatively frequently, traveling through

all habitats, even flooded areas and rivers. Only observed in the afternoon (16 P.M.)

and was rarely recorded by the night-active camera traps (this, however, probably

also reflects that it mostly does not follow trails).

Tamandua tetradactyla: Observed and camera trapped relatively frequently.

Recorded both in all forest types, and traveling on the ground in open areas. Often

feeds and rests in Acur palms. Forages both diurnally and nocturnally, but the open

area traveling was recorded only at night (6 P.M.2 A.M.) and at dawn.

Primates

Alouatta caraya: Relatively common in acur forest; however, less so than in other

regions of the Pantanal (personal observation). Troops of up to eight individualswere observed.

Carnivora

Cerdocyon thous: Camera trapping revealed that this fox was common. Favors open

areas, though it was also recorded occasionally in forest. Camera trapped throughout

the night (peak between 6 P.M.2 A.M.), and is probably mainly nocturnal and

crepuscular, though it also has some diurnal activity. Frequently travels in pairs;

however, often the second individual of a pair was photographed 15 min after the

first one passed by, which indicates that they look for food separately.

Nasua nasua: Common. Forest dwellers mostly encountered in acur forest, but

frequently forage in open areas close to cover such as the edge of wetlands. In forestthey forage both terrestrially and arboreally, and rest in tall trees and Acur palms.


9/14

831

Diurnal. Groups of between 4 and 14 Coatis as well as large solitary individuals

were seen.

Procyon cancrivorus: The species most often camera trapped and tracks were

very common. Nocturnal. Frequently travels in pairs, walking close together.

Eira barbara: Was only recorded once; active in early morning in a tall tree. The

lack of camera trap photos of the Tayra may reflect that it is diurnal and rarely uses

trails; however, it seems uncommon compared to the Amazon. Lontra longicaudis: A single individual was observed in a minor river.

Pteronura brasiliensis:At least two groups frequented the part of a minor river

covered by the study: a family of 34 and a group of seven individuals. In addition,

a single individual was observed far up a small, at parts densely vegetated channel.

The smaller family was observed travelling through acur forest at some distance

from the river.

Leopardus pardalis: Nine individuals were recorded by camera trapping: four

males, four females and one subadult. Capturerecapture analysis of the camera2

trapping data gave a density estimate of 2.82 independent individuals/ 5 km (SE

1.00) (Trolle and Kery, unpublished data). Ocelots were recorded in all non-flooded

habitats. They were recorded throughout the night by camera trapping, and twice

observed active during the day. Evidence of home range overlap with individuals of

the opposite sex was seen for seven of the eight adult individuals. In no cases were

two males caught at the same site, and only in one case were two adult females

caught at the same trap. This site was visited various times by the one female, but

only once by the second. The scant information indicates overlap of home ranges

between sexes, but intrasexual territoriality. A lactating female that traveled widely

was recorded on both sides of the minor river.

Leopardus tigrinus: Camera trapped once in cerrado.

Panthera onca: Only one camera trap photo was obtained of the Jaguar and

tracks were never found. A neighboring rancher had not seen the species in the area

during more than 50 years, and it seems to be relatively uncommon in the study area.

Puma concolor: Camera trapped at six different sites and tracks were common.

Unlike the Jaguar seems quite common. Recorded in all non-flooded habitats.

Perissodactyla

Tapirus terrestris: Frequently camera trapped and tracks were common. Recorded

in all habitats, and tracks revealed that it travels widely.

Artiodactyla

Pecari tayacu: I observed this species more frequently in the study area than in any

other parts of the Pantanal I have worked in, and several skulls were found;

however, the peccary was camera trapped relatively infrequently. It was recorded in

all non-flooded habitats, and forages both in open and closed vegetation. Nocturnal,crepuscular and occasionally diurnal. Seems to typically hide in dense cover during


10/14

832

the day and come out to feed in more open areas around dusk. Groups of 47

members were encountered, including a female with three young.

Tayassu pecari: Uncommonly camera trapped and observed. Herds were re-

corded both in forest and open habitats close to cover. Nocturnal and diurnal.

Blastocerus dichotomus: Common in marshes during the study period. Feeds in

marshes and rests in dense waterside habitats. Often observed feeding in the

morning, but it is active throughout the day, and was also recorded active at night.Camera trapped travelling through forest and cerrado relatively far from water. Up

to four individuals were observed feeding in the same marsh, but never more than

one adult male.

Mazama americana: Never observed and only camera trapped with certainty

twice. Seems relatively uncommon, but this may be partly due to secretiveness and

the fact that Mazama deer rarely walk along trails (as evidenced by tracks).

Recorded at night inside forest.

Mazama gouazoubira: Commonly observed. A species of open areas such as

grassland and cerrado, though it may seek shelter in dense vegetation such as forest

edges. Diurnal and nocturnal.

Ozotoceros bezoarticus: The Pampas Deer, easy to record due to its open

habitats, was never observed inside Fazenda Sta Emlia during the study period. The

tall grass and/or the flooding of the area may cause this absence. According to

locals it can be encountered later in the dry season. Observed frequently in

bordering fazendas to the east, both in open grassland and in cerrado landscapes. A

male with antlers in velvet was observed in July.

Caviomorpha

Coendou prehensilis: Observed once during nightspotting, active in a tall tree inside

acur forest.

Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris: Common around marshes, but particularly abundant

along certain parts of a minor river where it meandered through relatively open

landscapes (not gallery forest). Around marshes groups of up to around 20

individuals were seen, but the most frequent group size was 45.Agouti paca: Tracks of the Paca were recorded twice in gallery vegetation along

a marsh, and the rodent had been observed once at night by the river by a ranchhand.

Seems relatively uncommon.

Dasyprocta azarae: Camera trapping revealed that it was a common species.

Recorded most often in forest, but also frequently in cerrado. Was almost only

camera trapped after sunrise, and seems strictly diurnal.

Although the inventory methods did not allow for absolute estimates of density of

the mammals studied (except in the case of Ocelot), the survey showed that the

study area is relatively rich in at least the following species: Giant Anteater,

Southern Tamandua, Nine-banded Long-nosed Armadillo, Six-banded Armadillo,

Crab-eating Fox, South American Coati, Crab-eating Raccoon, Giant Otter, Ocelot,

Puma, Brazilian Tapir, Collared Peccary, Marsh Deer, Brown Brocket Deer,Capybara, Azaras Agouti and Punare.


11/14

833

Recommendations for camera trapping in the Pantanal and the Amazon

Within recent years the development of light-weight, weather-proof, simple-to-use

camera traps with infrared sensors such as the Trailmaster system has made it both

much easier and economically more feasible to use camera traps for mammal

surveys. Since the 1990s the method has been used extensively in tropical forests of

Asia as well as in Africa (Griffiths and Van Schaik 1993; Karanth and Nichols 1998;Franklin et al. 1999). Lately, also field workers in the Neotropics have been

exploring the method (Rittl 1998; Yabe and Higuchi 1998; Yabe et al. 1998; Trolle,

unpublished data). Undoubtedly, camera trapping will become one of the main

methods for monitoring mammals in the Neotropics (A. Langguth, personal com-

munication; Louise Emmons, personal communication). The method has ap-

plicability in general species inventories, presenceabsence studies, and population

surveys of individually recognizable species such as spotted cats.

In this section, I give recommendations based on a total of 7.5 months of camera

trapping in the Pantanal and the Amazon of Brazil and Peru (Trolle, unpublished

data).

Where to place traps: For a general species inventory all major habitat types

should be covered. Generally productive sites are trails (especially where two trails

cross), natural corridors, along fences, along rivers, natural licks, mud-wallows,

drinking sites and underneath fruiting trees. In the Pantanal the narrow grass

beaches between forest and swamp usually give a high trapping success. Felids,

canids, raccoons, and tapirs are generally trapped well along trails. Animal signs are

useful: tracks, scratching trees of Jaguar and Giant Anteater, Puma scrapes, Ocelot

faeces piles, rubbing trees of Collared Peccary, sleeping sites of ungulates, armadil-

lo burrows in use, grounds with many armadillo feeding holes, subterranean termite

brooding chambers frequented by Giant Armadillo and Giant Anteater, etc. Many

species shelter in hollow trunks, and this may also be an interesting place for traps.

In the Pantanal, gallery vegetation, with its high floristic influence from the

Amazon, should be trapped intensively.

Bait: Using bait can highly improve the camera trapping success. Sardines in oil,

cod liver oil and fur trapper lure are recommended for carnivores; salt or fruit forherbivores.

Setting up the trap: Set up the trap at a pole cut at the site. Place the trap about 34

m from where you expect the animals to pass (the distance the flash works). The

traps can be mounted at a fixed distance from trails throughout the survey, and/or a

stick of known length can be placed in the photo, which will facilitate size

comparisons of animals photographed. Smaller species can be excluded by placing

the sensor higher.

Ant, termite and rodent protection: To protect against ants and termites wrap

adhesive tape around the base of the pole with the sticky side facing outwards.

Above this, the bark can be peeled upwards with a machete so that an umbrella is

constructed; this umbrella protects the tape against rain and probably works against

rodents (like the system used on ropes on ships, to prevent rats from entering). Toprotect wires from rodents wrap them up in duct tape.


12/14

834

Flash mode: The auto flash mode is recommended. The fill in flash mode can

cause an animal to be blurred if moving.

Film: 400 ASA standard film for prints (e.g. Fujicolor) is recommended. In humid

conditions such as the Amazon, 36exp film may swell and make rewinding of the

film difficult.

Cattle ranching and conservation in the Pantanal

Most of the Pantanal consists of cattle ranches, and there seems to be a widespread

opinion in the region that cattle ranching is an ecologically sustainable activity and

can go hand in hand with conservation. However, intensive cattle ranching com-

bined with annual fires to promote grass growth has a number of serious impacts on

the environment. Here I will briefly offer some considerations on cattle ranching and

conservation in the Pantanal and recommendations for future conservation biology

studies and conservation measures in the region.

A preliminary study of acur forest on land adjacent to the UNIDERP reserve,

with a high degree of cattle ranching, showed that the dominant woody components

were all species typical of disturbed areas, species that can survive burning (e.g. the

Acur palm), and/or species that are not eaten by the cattle (Pott and Pott 1994). The

forest, dominated by Acur palms and often with hardly any undergrowth (typical of

the Pantanal), was relatively species poor when it came to the woody plant species.

The cattle browse inside the acur forest, and scorching marks on the trees show that

fire also enters the forest. It is likely that the species poor, Acur-dominated forest

type is a direct result of the disturbances related to the intensive cattle ranching. The

natural climax forest in the Pantanal is likely to be structurally different and much

more diverse.

In order to plan an adequate conservation strategy for the Pantanal, it is essential

to answer three basic questions related to the cattle ranching activities: (1) what

impacts does the cattle ranching have on the biodiversity?; (2) what happens to the

habitats and the fauna when cattle ranching ceases in a conservation area?; and (3)

would it be desirable to leave a certain number of cattle in the conservation area?

Conservation biology studies comparing sites with and without cattle ranching, andstudies monitoring the succession of areas where cattle have been taken out, should

have the highest priority in the Pantanal.

In the Pantanal the general opinion is that when cattle are taken out of an area the

area will become dirty and there will be fewer animals. This argument, although

not based on scientific studies and highly biased, since it is easier to spot wildlife in

open areas, is of great importance in the Pantanal because of ecotourism. Ecotour-

ism has become a major industry in the region, and is increasing rapidly. In 2001

more than one million tourists were expected (Villela and Fuentes 2001). Ecotour-

ism ought to promote conservation, but in the Pantanal this is not necessarily so. The

tour operators are interested in showing the visitors as much wildlife as possible,

and may decide to clean their land for this reason.

When an area is set aside for conservation and cattle ranching ceases or isdiminished significantly, the natural succession will begin. The immediate result


13/14

835

might rightly be that the area becomes dirty. However, inside the forest the

succession will continue and the pioneer species will eventually be replaced, as the

forest approaches the climax state. This type of forest will most likely be much

richer than the typical species poor acur forest, and in the long run, leaving the

forest undisturbed would undoubtedly pay off both when it comes to biodiversity

and ecotourism.

Acknowledgements

This project was a collaboration between the Zoological Museum University ofCopenhagen, Universidade para o Desenvolvimento do Estado e da Regiao do

Pantanal UNIDERP, and Museu Nacional Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.

The project was made economically possible by the support of, among others,

WWF-Denmark/Novo Nordisk, Zoological Museum of Copenhagen, University of

Copenhagen, Copenhagen Zoo, NetTravel, Duracell, Photographica, and Fuji. Many

thanks are due to UNIDERP for allowing the study to take place at Fazenda Sta

Emlia and for important logistical support. For essential help in preparing the

project and logistical support in Brazil I am grateful to Dr Joao Alves de Oliveiraand Neiva Maria Robaldo Guedes. Thanks are also due to Erika Guimaraes, Dr Hans

J. Baage, Prof Jon Fjeldsa, and Mogens Andersen.

References

Alho C.J.R. and Lacher T.E. Jr 1991. Mammalian conservation in the Pantanal of Brazil. In: Mares M.A.

and Schmidly D.J. (eds), Latin American Mammalogy History, Biodiversity, and Conservation.

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, pp. 280294.

Alho C.J.R., Lacher T.E. Jr, Campos Z.M.S. and Goncalvez H.C. 1988a. Mamferos da Fazenda

Nhumirim, sub-regiao de Nhecolandia, Pantanal do Mato Grosso do Sul: levantamento preliminar de

especies. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 48: 213225.

Alho C.J.R., Lacher T.E. and Goncalvez H.C. 1988b. Environmental degradation in the Pantanal

ecosystem. BioScience 38: 164171.Allen J.A. 1916. Mammals collected on the Roosevelt Brazilian Expedition, with field notes by Leo E.

Miller. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 35: 559610.

Anderson S. 1997. Mammals of Bolivia, taxonomy and distribution. Bulletin of the American Museum of

Natural History 231: 1652.

Becker M. and Dalponte J.C. 1991. Rastros de Mamferos Silvestres Brasileiros. Editora Universidade de

Braslia, Braslia, Brazil.

Eisenberg J.F. and Redford K.H. 1999. Mammals of the Neotropics Vol. 3: The Central Neotropics:

Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Emmons L.H. and Feer F. 1997. Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide. 2nd edn. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Franklin N., Bastoni, Sriyanto, Siswomartono D., Manansang J. and Tilson R. 1999. Last of the

Indonesian Tigers: a cause for optimism. In: Seidensticker J., Christie S. and Jackson P. (eds), Riding

the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK, pp. 130147.

Griffiths M. and Van Schaik P. 1993. Camera trapping: a new tool for the study of elusive rain forestanimals. Tropical Biodiversity 1: 131135.


14/14

836

Karanth K.U. and Nichols J.D. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures

and recaptures. Ecology 79: 28522862.

Lorenzi H. 2000. Plantas Daninhas do Brasil: Terrestres, Aquaticas, Parasitas e Toxicas. 3rd edn.

Instituto Plantarum de Estudos da Flora Ltda, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Lourival R.F.F 1993. A caca da Nhecolandia (Corumba, MS, Brasil), Masters Thesis, Universidade

Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Mittermeier R.A., Camara I.G., Padua M.T.J. and Blanck J. 1990. Conservation in the Pantanal of Brazil.

Oryx 24: 101112.

PCBAP 1997. Mamferos. In: Diagnostico dos Meios Fsico e Biotico: Meio Biotico, Plano de

Conservacao da Bacia do Alto Paraguai Vol. 2(3). Ministerio do Meio Ambienteos Recursos Hdricos

e da Amazonia Legal, Brazil.

Pott A. and Pott V.J. 1994. Plantas do Pantanal. EMBRAPA, Corumba, Brazil.

Prance G.T. and Schaller G.B. 1982. Preliminary study of some vegetation types in the Pantanal, Mato

Grosso, Brazil. Brittonia 34: 228251.

Ratter J.A., Pott A., Pott V.J., da Cunha C.N. and Haridasan M. 1988. Observations on woody vegetation

types in the Pantanal and Corumba, Brazil. Notes from the Royal Botanic Garden of Edinburgh 45:

503525.

Rittl C.E. 1998. Efeitos da extracao seletiva da madeira sobre a communidade de pequenos mamferos de

uma floresta de terra firme na Amazonia central, Masters Thesis, INPA/ Universidade de Amazonas,

Manaus, Brazil.

Schaller G.B. 1983. Mammals and their biomass on a Brazilian ranch. Arquivos de Zoologia 36: 136.

Villela R. and Fuentes L. 2001. A vez do Pantanal e agora. Veja, 31/1/2001, Brazil.

Voss R.S., Lunde D.P. and Simmons N.B. 2001. The mammals of Paracou, French Guiana: a Neotropicallowland rainforest fauna. Part 2. Nonvolant species. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural

History 263: 1236.

Willink P.W. (ed.) (2000) A biological assessment of the aquatic ecosystems of the Pantanal, Mato Grosso

do Sul, Brazil. In: RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment. Conservation International, Washington,

DC.

Yabe T. and Higuchi N. 1998. Dispersao e consumo de frutos cados da uxi-amarelo ( Endopleura uchi)

por mamferos da floresta natural da Estacao ZF-2 do INPA, Amazonia Central. In: Higuchi N.,

Campos M.A.A., Sampaio P.T.B. and dos Santos J. (eds), Pesquisas Florestais para a Conservacao da

Floresta e Reabilitacao de Areas Degradadas da Amazonia. MCT / INPA, Manaus, Brazil, pp. 8491.

Yabe T., Rittl C.E. and Higuchi N. 1998. Especies de mamferos registradas por cameras fotograficas

automaticas na Estacao Experimental de Silvicultura Tropical do Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da

Amazonia EEST-INPA, Amazonia Central. In: Higuchi N, Campos M.A.A., Sampaio P.T.B. and

dos Santos J. (eds), Pesquisas Florestais para a Conservacao da Floresta e Reabilitacao de Areas

Degradadas da Amazonia. MCT/INPA, Manaus, Brazil, pp. 94107.

trolle 2003 - mammal survey in western pantanal

Documents