Supporting Online Material for
HOW DEFORESTATION PATTERN IN THE AMAZON INFLUENCES VERTEBRATE RICHNESS AND COMMUNITY
COMPOSITION
Paula Ribeiro Prist*•Fernanda Michalski•Jean Paul Metzger
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: pprist@hotmail.com
Table S1. List of species present in the study area and their classification as specialist and generalist
Species
Diet
Classification
References
Mazama americana
Frugivore-herbivore
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Parry et al.
(2007, 2009)
Mazama gouazoubira
Frugivore-herbivore
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Parry et al.
(2007)
Tayassu tajacu
Omnivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Tayassu pecari
Omnivorous
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Tapirus terrestris
Frugivore-herbivore
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Reis et al. (2006); Parry et al. (2007)
Ateles spp.
Frugivore
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Parry et al.
(2007)
Alouatta seniculus
Folivore
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Chiarello (1999); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al.
(2006)
Aotus spp.
Frugivoreinsectivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
1
Mico argentata
Omnivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Chiarello (1999); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al.
(2006)
Callicebus molloch
Frugivore-folivore
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Cebus apella
Omnivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Michalski &
Peres (2007); Parry et al. (2007)
Cuniculus paca
Frugivore-herbivorous Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Coendou spp.
Frugivore-herbivorous Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Dasyprocta agouti
Frugivore-herbivorous Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Michalski &
Peres (2007); Parry et al. (2009)
Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris
Herbivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Scirurus aestuans
Herbivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999)
Didelphis spp.
Omnivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Chiarello (2000); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al.
(2006)
Sylvilagus brasiliensis
Herbivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Priodontes maximus
Insectivorous
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Euphractus sexcinctus
Omnivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Michalski &
Peres (2007)
Dasypus kappleri
Carnivore
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Dasypus novemcinctus
Omnivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Michalski &
Peres (2007)
2
Cabassous unicinctus
Insectivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Bradypus spp.
Folivore
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Chiarello (1999); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al.
(2006)
Choloepus spp.
Folivore
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Chiarello (1999); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al.
(2006)
Myrmecophaga tridactyla
Insectivorous
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Tamandua tetradactyla
Insectivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Michalski &
Peres (2007)
Cyclopes didactylus
Insectivorous
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Atelocynus microtis
Omnivorous
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Cerdocyon thous
Omnivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Chiarello (2000); Michalski &
Peres (2005); Reis et al. (2006)
Eira barbara
Omnivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Michalski &
Peres (2007)
Galictis vittata
Omnivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Michalski &
Peres (2005)
H. yagouaroundi
Carnivore
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Leopardus pardalis
Carnivore
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Leopardus wiedii
Carnivore
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
L. longicaudis
Carnivore
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
3
Nasua nasua
Omnivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Michalski &
Peres (2005); Timm et al. (2009)
Panthera onca
Carnivore
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Potos flavus
Frugivore
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Kays and Gittleman (2001);
Reis et al. (2006)
Procyon cancrivorous
Omnivorous
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Timm et al.
(2009)
Puma concolor
Carnivore
Generalist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006); Crooks
(2002)
Pteronura brasiliensis
Carnivore
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Speothos venaticus
Carnivore
Specialist
Emmons (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Reis et al. (2006)
Psophia viridis
Frugivore
Specialist
Sherman in: Del Hoyo, J. et al. (1996); Parry et al. (2007)
Pipile cujubi
Frugivore
Specialist
Del Hoyo, J. in: Del Hoyo, J. et al. (1994); Galetti et al. (1997)
Mitu tuberosa
Frugivore
Specialist
Del Hoyo, J. in: Del Hoyo, J. et al. (1994)
Penelope jacquacu
Frugivore
Generalist
Del Hoyo, J. in: Del Hoyo, J. et al. (1994); Parry et al. (2007);
Crypturellus spp.
Omnivorous
Generalist
Cabot in Del Hoyo, J. et al. (1992); Parry et al. (2009)
Tinamus spp.
Omnivorous
Generalist
Cabot in Del Hoyo, J. et al. (1992);
Odontophorus gujanensis
Omnivorous
Generalist
Carroll, in: Del Hoyo, J. et al. (1994); Franco et al. (2006)
4
Table S2. Pearson correlation matrix for all predictor variables used in the analysis (*p< 0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p< 0.001, NS = not significant).
Forest proportion
Number of fragments
Regional largest patch
Isolation age
Deforestation age
Latitude
Longitude
Forest
proportion
1
Number of
fragments
-0.84***
1
Regional
largest patch
0.21NS
-0.38NS
1
Isolation age Deforestation age
-0.43*
-0.87***
**
0.58
0.67***
-0.37NS
-0.26NS
1
0.41NS
1
Latitude
0.04NS
0.09NS
-0.58**
0.02NS
0.04NS
1
Longitude
-0.13NS
0.05NS
-0.41NS
0.58**
0.31NS
-0.13NS
1
5
Table S3. List of all models analyzed in the multiple regression analysis with the response variables (species richness, specialist richness,
generalist richness).
Model
Name
N1
N2
N3
N4
RV1
RV2
RV3
RV4
RV5
RV6
RV7
RV8
RV9
RV10
RV11
RV12
RV13
RV14
RV15
RV16
RV17
RV18
RV19
RV20
RV21
Predictor Variables
Model Type
None – Richness is constant and suffers no influence from any variable
Latitude and Longitude
Latitude
Longitude
Proportion of forest (A)
Number of fragments (B)
Size of the largest patch structurally connected with the fragments inside our landscapes (C)
Deforestation age and isolation age
Deforestation age (D)
Isolation age (E)
(A) and (C)
(B) and (C)
(C), (D) and (E)
(D) and (C)
(C) and (E)
(A) and (E)
(B), (D), and (E)
(B) and (E)
(B) and (D)
(A), (C), and (E)
(B), (C), (D), (E)
(B), (C) and (E)
(B), (C) and (D)
(A) and longitude
(B) and longitude
Null
Null
Null
Null
Landscape variable (1)
Landscape variable (1)
Regional context (2)
Temporal variable (3)
Temporal variable (3)
Temporal variable (3)
(1) and (2)
(1) and (2)
(2) and (3)
(2) and (3)
(2) and (3)
(1) and (3)
(1) and (3)
(1) and (3)
(1) and (3)
(1), (2) and (3)
(1), (2) and (3)
(1), (2) and (3)
(1), (2) and (3)
(1) and longitude
(1) and longitude
6
RV22
RV23
RV24
RV25
RV26
RV27
RV28
RV29
RV30
RV31
RV32
RV33
RV34
RV35
RV36
RV37
RV38
(C) and longitude
(D), (E) and longitude
(D) and longitude
(E) and longitude
(A), (C) and longitude
(B), (C) and longitude
(C), (D), (E) and longitude
(C), (D) and longitude
(C), (E) and longitude
(A), (E) and longitude
(B), (D), (E) and longitude
(B), (E) age and longitude
(B), (D) and longitude
(A), (C), (E) and longitude
(B), (C), (D), (E) and longitude
(B), (C), (E) and longitude
(B), (C), (D) and longitude
(2) and longitude
(3) and Longitude
(3) and longitude
(3) and longitude
(1), (2) and longitude
(1), (2) and longitude
(2), (3) and longitude
(2), (3) and longitude
(2), (3) and longitude
(1), (3) and longitude
(1), (3) and longitude
(1), (3) and longitude
(1), (3) and longitude
(1), (2), (3) and longitude
(1), (2), (3) and longitude
(1), (2), (3) and longitude
(1), (2), (3) and longitude
Table S4. ANOSIM pairwise test of presence/absence data of vertebrate species from fish-bone, large-property and control landscapes (*p< 0.05;
** p<0.01; *** p< 0.001, NS = not significant).
Landscapes
FB x CT
FB x LP
Group of species
Total community
Generalist community
Specialist community
Total community
Generalist community
Specialist community
R Statistic
0.725
0.578
0.596
0.741
0.515
0.544
P (%)
0.0006***
0.0009***
0.0007***
0.0006***
0.0006***
0.0006***
7
LP x CT
Total community
Generalist community
Specialist community
0.124
0.098
0.173
0.09NS
0.143NS
0.03*
8
Material and Methods
Within-patch disturbance
5
10
Fragmentation is commonly associated with many synergistic disturbances that
follow deforestation, all acting together to transform fragments into entirely new
ecosystems (Terborgh et al. 2001; Laurance et al. 2002; Laurance et al. 2011). To
characterize the intensity and extent of disturbance within each landscape unit we used
the information obtained from interviews with local landowners. Replies were ranked
using a five-point scale (0–4), according to the (i) spatial scale of selective logging
activities, (ii) severity and proportional coverage of ground fires, and (iii) degree of
hunting pressure (Michalski and Peres 2005).
The logging intensity took into account:
1) Method of timber extraction - if it was manual or with machines
2) Selection of tree species (if only some timber species were selected)
15
3) Relative amount of harvested timber (how many hardwood trees were cut, and if the
remaining fragments in the landscape still have hard wood species)
4) Number of years since the extraction stopped (Michalski and Peres 2005).
The scale of burn severity considered:
1) Proportion of forest that was burned (edge or interior)
20
2) Number of fire occurrences (how many times in one year there was fire) (Michalski
and Peres 2005).
The hunting intensity was based on information about the:
1) Hunting history: based on the frequency (how many times per week there was
hunting in the landscape) and time since the last hunting event was observed (If there
was currently no hunting activity, how long since the last hunting event was observed)
25
2) Hunting pressure: based on the number of animals killed per month and the
number of hunters who were or are active in the landscape fragments and
3) if hunting activities still take place at the present time.
30
All the questions for each class (method of extraction of timber, proportion of
forest that was burned, etc) were made following a pre-established protocol (following
Michalski and Peres 2005). The answers to questions were ranked on a 5 point
qualitative scale (0-4), where (0 = none, 1= light, 2= moderate, 3=heavy, 4= very
heavy).
9
As we had from 5 to 15 interviews for each landscape, we considered an answer
as correct when > 50% of the interviews provided the same answer.
35
The disturbance of each landscape type was derived from the mean index values
from the seven landscape units sampled.
References
40
Chiarello AG (1999) Effects of fragmentation of the Atlantic Forest on mammal
communities in south-eastern Brazil. Biol Conserv 89:71-82
Chiarello AG (2000) Density and population size of mammals in remnants of Brazilian
Atlantic Forest. Conserv Biol 14:1649-1657
Crooks KR (2002) Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat
fragmentation. Conserv Biol 16:488-502
45
Del Hoyo J, Elliot A, Sargatal J (1992) Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 1,
p 112-140
Del Hoyo J, Elliot A, Sargatal J (1994) Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 2,
p 310-363
50
55
60
65
Del Hoyo J, Elliot A, Sargatal J (1996) Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 3,
p 380-402
Eisenberg JF, Redford KH (1999) Mammals of the Neotropics - The Central Neotropics
- Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Volume 3. The University of Chicago Press 609p
Emmons LH, Feer F (1997) Neotropical Rainforest Mammals. A field Guide - second
edition. The University of Chicago Press 281p
Franco P, Fierro-Calderón K, Kattan G (2006) Population densities and home range
sizes of the Chestnut Wood-quail. J Field Ornithol 77:85–90
Kays RW, Gittleman JL (2001) The Social organization of the Kinkajou Potos flavus
(Procyonidae). Zool Soc London 253:491-504
Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Vasconcelos HL, et al. (2002) Ecosystem decay of
Amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conserv Biol 13: 605-618
Laurance WF, Camargo JLC, Luizão RCC, et al. (2011) The fate of Amazonian forest
fragments: a 32-year investigation. Biol Conserv 144:56-67
Michalski F, Peres CA (2005) Anthropogenic determinants of primate and carnivore
local extinctions in a fragmented forest landscape of southern Amazonia. Biol
Conserv 124:383-396
10
Michalski F, Peres CA (2007) Disturbance - mediated mammal persistence and
abundance - area relationships in Amazonian forest fragments. Conserv Biol
21:1626-1640
70
75
80
Parry L, Barlow J, Peres CA (2007) Large-vertebrate assemblages of primary and
secondary forests in the Brazilian Amazon. J Trop Ecol 23:653-662
Parry L, Barlow J, Peres CA (2009) Hunting for sustainability in tropical secondary
forests. Conserv Biol 23:1270-1280
Reis NR, Peracchi AL, Pedro WA, Lima IP (2006) Mamiferos do Brasil. Universidade
Estadual de Londrina 437p
Terborgh J, Lopez L, Nunez P, et al. (2001) Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest
fragments. Science 294:1923-1926
Timm RM, Lieberman D, Lieberman M, McClearn D (2009) Mammals of Cabo
Blanco: history, diversity, and conservation after 45 years of regrowth of a Costa
Rican dry forest. Forest Ecol Manag 258:997-1013
11