Livestock and the functional habitat of vicuñas in Ecuador: a new puzzle

Brian E Mclaren,Carlos A Siavichay,Douglas Macnearney

doi:10.1002/ecs2.2066

Brian E Mclaren, Carlos A Siavichay + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2066

Copy DOI

Abstract

AbstractWhether interactions between wildlife and livestock are competitive or facilitative is context dependent. Intermediary factors that explain how context (seasonal or regional characteristics of the ecological community) affects these interactions are rarely reported. We compared activity time and density in vicuñas (Vicugna vicugna) introduced into the Chimborazo Faunal Production Reserve (CFPR), Ecuador, to describe how they interact with livestock. We compared vicuña density in wetlands and uplands (two landscape structures) with and without livestock (two conditions) using an isodar approach. We measured, over two seasons, vicuña forage abundance, composition, preference and accessibility, time vicuñas spent vigilant, and their flight distances on approach. We tested optimal foraging theory relating to the hypothesis that time mediates behavior, and found that vicuñas were no less frequently vigilant, nor were flight distances greater, during a wet season or in habitats of greater forage abundance and accessibility. We also found no evidence that vicuña behavior was density dependent; instead, we found that more time was spent vigilant by vicuñas when they foraged near livestock in rainy regions during the dry season. Although forage abundance was similar throughout CFPR during a dry season, better forage quality in areas occupied by livestock may constitute an effect of their facilitating vicuñas. A puzzling finding, because it was not explained by any of the other variables we measured, was that at low densities vicuñas selected habitat irrespective of livestock, and where their density was higher, it was doubly so adjacent to livestock. We conclude that in the CFPR, spatial heterogeneity in habitat quality determines the interactions between livestock and vicuñas. To support recommendations that minimize competition between wildlife and livestock, and to expand on descriptions of the contexts that determine the direction of species interactions, future study may require a wider sampling of the densities of sympatric large herbivores in general, and, in the CFPR, a closer resolution of spatial heterogeneity in forage plant quality.

Highlights

How animal behavior varies both with resource availability and with other, often human-induced changes to habitat is information critical to conservation. Van Dyck (2012) describes these two axes as consumables and condition, and the response of animals to a condition is accounted for by his concept of functional habitat, where animal behavior is a defining feature
We aimed to determine in which contexts and conditions we can associate higher costs: wetland or upland habitats shared with livestock, upland habitats with and without livestock, wet or dry season, and which of three regions in the Chimborazo Faunal Production Reserve (CFPR)
Forage abundance and accessibility Plots with non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) showed that forage plant communities in areas with and without livestock were generally indistinguishable in terms of composition, with the exception of three transects sampled in the dry season, where forage plant communities in areas with livestock more resembled those of wetlands during this season (Fig. 4)

Summary

Introduction

How animal behavior varies both with resource availability and with other, often human-induced changes to habitat is information critical to conservation. Van Dyck (2012) describes these two axes as consumables and condition, and the response of animals to a condition is accounted for by his concept of functional habitat, where animal behavior is a defining feature. Van Dyck (2012) describes these two axes as consumables and condition, and the response of animals to a condition is accounted for by his concept of functional habitat, where animal behavior is a defining feature. The definition arises from Dennis et al.’s (2003) presentation of the concept of functional habitat with the butterfly as an example: Habitat can be mapped separately emphasizing different resources required for each of several behaviors, including egg laying, mate location, resting, roosting, feeding, and predator escape. Functional habitat defined this way is distinct from structural habitat, as the latter. How the plant and herbivore community varies by region, season, or scale, determines whether interactions are net negative or net positive

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion