Search

Aim: The persistence of large carnivore populations depends on their survival outside protected areas, where they often impact local livelihoods through livestock depredation. Understanding the impacts of human behaviour on large carnivores in shared landscapes is thus important but is often overlooked in habitat assessments or conservation planning. We employed an integrated approach that considers human behaviour and landscape structure metrics to assess the potential for human‐puma (Puma concolor) coexistence in the Chaco region, a global deforestation and defaunation hotspot. Location: Argentine Dry Chaco (~490,000 km2). Methods: We identified suitable puma habitat patches and movement areas using occupancy modelling and combined it with a spatial human‐puma conflict risk model based on interview data to identify 'safe' and 'unsafe' habitat patches. We then used resistance surfaces to identify 'safe' and 'unsafe' movement areas, as well as 'severed' movement areas where anthropogenic land conversion inhibits movement. Results: Safe puma habitat patches (i.e., suitable and safe) covered 29% of the region, whereas attractive sinks (i.e., suitable but risky) represented 12%. Movement areas corresponded to 60% of the region, while conflict risk and high landscape resistance undermined connectivity: unsafe and severed movement areas covered 10% and 11% of the region, respectively. Nearly 98% of safe habitat and movement areas occurred outside protected areas. Main Conclusions: We provide an integrated conceptual framework and spatial explicit template for a three‐pronged conservation strategy to (1) protect safe habitat and movement areas, (2) mitigate livestock depredation in attractive sinks and unsafe movement areas and (3) restore landscape in severed and matrix areas to improve ecological connectivity. This would allow pumas to maintain viable populations while reducing negative impacts on local people. More generally, we show how integrating habitat and conflict risk models can reveal opportunities and challenges for human‐carnivore coexistence beyond protected areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Location Methods Results Main Conclusions Land‐use change and overexploitation are major threats to biodiversity, and climate change will exert additional pressure in the 21st century. Although there are strong interactions between these threats, our understanding of the synergistic and compensatory effects on threatened species' range geography remains limited. Our aim was to disentangle the impact of habitat loss, hunting and climate change on species, using the example of the endangered Chacoan peccary (Catagonus wagneri).Gran Chaco ecoregion in South America.Using a large occurrence database, we integrated a time‐calibrated species distribution model with a hunting pressure model to reconstruct changes in the distribution of suitable peccary habitat between 1985 and 2015. We then used partitioning analysis to attribute the relative contribution of habitat change to land‐use conversion, climate change and varying hunting pressure.Our results reveal widespread habitat deterioration, with only 11% of the habitat found in 2015 considered suitable and safe. Hunting pressure was the strongest single threat, yet most habitat deterioration (58%) was due to the combined, rather than individual, effects of the three drivers we assessed. Climate change would have led to a compensatory effect, increasing suitable habitat area, yet this effect was negated by the strongly negative and interacting threats of land‐use change and hunting.Our study reveals the central role of overexploitation, which is often neglected in biogeographic assessments, and suggests that addressing overexploitation has huge potential for increasing species' adaptive capacity in the face of climate and land‐use change. More generally, we highlight the importance of jointly assessing extinction drivers to understand how species might fare in the 21st century. Here, we provide a simple and transferable framework to determine the separate and joint effects of three main drivers of biodiversity loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]