RESUMO

The illegal use of natural resources, manifested in activities like illegal logging, poaching, and illegal wildlife trade, poses a global threat to biodiversity. Addressing them will require an understanding of the magnitude of and factors influencing these activities. However, assessing such behaviors is challenging because of their illegal nature, making participants less willing to admit engaging in them. We compared how indirect (randomized response technique) and direct questioning techniques performed when assessing non-sensitive (fish consumption, used as negative control) and sensitive (illegal consumption of wild animals) behaviors across an urban gradient (small towns, large towns, and the large city of Manaus) in the Brazilian Amazon. We conducted 1,366 surveys of randomly selected households to assess the magnitude of consumption of meat from wild animals (i.e., wild meat) and its socioeconomic drivers, which included years the head of household lived in urban areas, age of the head of household, household size, presence of children, and poverty. The indirect method revealed higher rates of wildlife consumption in larger towns than did the direct method. Results for small towns were similar between the two methods. The indirect method also revealed socioeconomic factors influencing wild meat consumption that were not detected with direct methods. For instance, the indirect method showed that wild meat consumption increased with age of the head of household, and decreased with poverty and years the head of household lived in urban areas. Simultaneously, when responding to direct questioning, households with characteristics associated with higher wild meat consumption, as estimated from indirect questioning, tended to underreport consumption to a larger degree than households with lower wild meat consumption. Results for fish consumption, used as negative control, were similar for both methods. Our findings suggest that people edit their answers to varying degrees when responding to direct questioning, potentially biasing conclusions, and indirect methods can improve researchers' ability to identify patterns of illegal activities when the sensitivity of such activities varies across spatial (e.g., urban gradient) or social (e.g., as a function of age) contexts. This work is broadly applicable to other geographical regions and disciplines that deal with sensitive human behaviors.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Species' traits influence how populations respond to land-use change. However, even in well-characterized groups such as birds, widely studied traits explain only a modest proportion of the variance in response across species. Here, we show that associations with particular forest types strongly predict the sensitivity of forest-dwelling Amazonian birds to agriculture. Incorporating these fine-scale habitat associations into models of population response dramatically improves predictive performance and markedly outperforms the functional traits that commonly appear in similar analyses. Moreover, by identifying habitat features that support assemblages of unusually sensitive habitat-specialist species, our model furnishes straightforward conservation recommendations. In Amazonia, species that specialize on forests along a soil-nutrient gradient (i.e. both rich-soil specialists and poor-soil specialists) are exceptionally sensitive to agriculture, whereas species that specialize on floodplain forests are unusually insensitive. Thus, habitat specialization per se does not predict disturbance sensitivity, but particular habitat associations do. A focus on conserving specific habitats that harbour highly sensitive avifaunas (e.g. poor-soil forest) would protect a critically threatened component of regional biodiversity. We present a conceptual model to explain the divergent responses of habitat specialists in the different habitats, and we suggest that similar patterns and conservation opportunities probably exist for other taxa and regions.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Smallholder agriculture is the main driver of deforestation in the western Amazon, where terrestrial biodiversity reaches its global maximum. Understanding the biodiversity value of the resulting mosaics of cultivated and secondary forest is therefore crucial for conservation planning. However, Amazonian communities are organized across multiple forest types that support distinct species assemblages, and little is known about smallholder impacts across the range of forest types that are essential for sustaining biodiversity. We addressed this issue with a large-scale field inventory of birds (point counts) and trees (transects) in primary forest and smallholder agriculture in northern Peru across 3 forest types that are key for Amazonian biodiversity. For birds smallholder agriculture supported species richness comparable to primary forest within each forest type, but biotic homogenization across forest types resulted in substantial losses of biodiversity overall. These overall losses are invisible to studies that focus solely on upland (terra firma) forest. For trees biodiversity losses in upland forests dominated the signal across all habitats combined and homogenization across habitats did not exacerbate biodiversity loss. Proximity to forest strongly predicted the persistence of forest-associated bird and tree species in the smallholder mosaic, and because intact forest is ubiquitous in our study area, our results probably represent a best-case scenario for biodiversity in Amazonian agriculture. Land-use planning inside and outside protected areas should recognize that tropical smallholder agriculture has pervasive biodiversity impacts that are not apparent in typical studies that cover a single forest type. The full range of forest types must be surveyed to accurately assess biodiversity losses, and primary forests must be protected to prevent landscape-scale biodiversity loss.

Pérdida de Biodiversidad Pasada por Alto en la Agricultura de Pequeños Propietarios Resumen La agricultura de pequeños propietarios es la principal causa de la deforestación en la Amazonía occidental, donde la biodiversidad terrestre alcanza su máximo global. Por lo tanto, comprender el valor de la biodiversidad de los mosaicos resultantes de bosques cultivados y secundarios es crucial para para la planificación de la conservación. Sin embargo, las comunidades amazónicas están organizadas a través de múltiples tipos de bosques que soportan ensambles de especies distintas, y poco se sabe sobre los impactos de los pequeños agricultores en toda la gama de tipos de bosques que son esenciales para mantener la biodiversidad. Abordamos este problema con un inventario de campo a gran escala de aves (puntos de conteo) y árboles (transectos) en bosques primarios y agricultura de pequeños productores en el norte de Perú en 3 tipos de bosques que son clave para la biodiversidad amazónica. Para aves, la agricultura de pequeños productores soportó una riqueza de especies comparable a la de los bosques primarios dentro de cada tipo de bosque, pero la homogeneización biótica entre los tipos de bosques dio lugar a pérdidas sustanciales de biodiversidad en general. Estas pérdidas globales son invisibles para los estudios que se centran únicamente en los bosques de tierra firme. En el caso de árboles, las pérdidas de biodiversidad en bosques de tierra firme fueron dominantes en todos los hábitats combinados y la homogeneización en todos los hábitats no agravó la pérdida de biodiversidad. La proximidad a los bosques predijo robustamente la persistencia de especies de aves y árboles asociadas a bosques en el mosaico de pequeños productores, y debido a la omnipresencia de bosque intacto en el área de estudio, nuestros resultados probablemente representan el mejor escenario para la biodiversidad en la agricultura amazónica. La planificación del uso de suelo dentro y fuera de las áreas protegidas debe reconocer que la agricultura tiene impactos generalizados sobre la biodiversidad que no son evidentes en estudios que solo abarcan un solo tipo de bosque. Se debe examinar toda la gama de tipos de bosque para evaluar con precisión las pérdidas de biodiversidad, y los bosques primarios deben ser protegidos para prevenir la pérdida de biodiversidad a escala de paisaje.

Assuntos