Abstract
The effects of poaching on wildlife have been widely studied in conservation biology and can be heterogeneous, particularly on ungulates. These effects can be estimated through different methodologies whose use depends on several conditions such as Flight-initiation distance (FID). Our objectives were: 1- to evaluate whether poaching affects the FID and group structure of a guanaco (Lama guanicoe) population in a high cold desert in San Juan (Argentina); 2- to assess whether habitat structure (slope and vegetation cover) influences FID and group structure in this population. The study area included a site with poaching (unprotected area), and a site without poaching (protected area).We recorded 100 groups of guanacos: 70 in the protected and 30 in the unprotected area. FID and group size were greater in the unprotected than in the protected area, whereas proportions of group categories (with offspring, without offspring and solitary) were similar between areas. Besides, in relation to habitat structure, FID increased when vegetation cover decreased. On the other hand, FID and group size were not affected by slope. Our study shows that guanacos respond to poaching pressure as do other ungulate species, and that other factors such as vegetation cover also affect this behavior. Managers should be aware when interpreting FID due to its relation to habitat structure; the guanaco appears to assume greater risk (lower FID) in areas with high vegetation cover.
Highlights
In an increasingly human-dominated world, it is necessary to understand the effects of human disturbances in order to achieve effective management and conservation of wildlife
Flight-initiation distance (FID) was significantly higher in the Unprotected area (UA) (x" 1⁄4 515:93 m, SD = ±257.72 m) than in DCR (x" 1⁄4 354:18 m, SD = ±260.38 m; GLMMGamma, t = 2.71, P = 0.007, Fig 2)
Notwithstanding, the number of groups for each category in the UA was less than half that in DCR, the proportion of group categories was similar in both areas, and we found no significant differences in either case (P>0.3 in all cases, Table 1)
Summary
In an increasingly human-dominated world, it is necessary to understand the effects of human disturbances in order to achieve effective management and conservation of wildlife. FID is frequently used by managers because it is relatively simple to evaluate, non-invasive, and inexpensive This measure is used to quantify shyness or sensitivity to human disturbances because flight is a common animal behavioral response to human presence [7, 6]. While managers acknowledge the variability in FID, they use estimates of a species’ FID to attempt to minimize human impact. This measure is best used by comparing disturbed and undisturbed populations, where differences should be attributable to differential habituation [8, 9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
