Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Reintroducing apex predators: the perils of muddling guilds and taxocenoses
2018; Royal Society; Volume: 5; Issue: 7 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1098/rsos.180567
ISSN2054-5703
Autores Tópico(s)Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
ResumoOpen AccessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Miranda Everton B. P. 2018Reintroducing apex predators: the perils of muddling guilds and taxocenosesR. Soc. Open Sci.5180567180567http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180567SectionSupplemental MaterialOpen AccessCommentReintroducing apex predators: the perils of muddling guilds and taxocenoses Everton B. P. Miranda Everton B. P. Miranda http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2198-4742 ONF Brasil Gestão Florestal, Cotriguaçu, MT, Brazil Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Alta Floresta, MT, Brazil [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Everton B. P. Miranda Everton B. P. Miranda http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2198-4742 ONF Brasil Gestão Florestal, Cotriguaçu, MT, Brazil Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Alta Floresta, MT, Brazil [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Published:11 July 2018https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180567 Review history Reintroducing apex predators: the perils of muddling guilds and taxocenoses Wolf & Ripple [1] make the case for 'large carnivore' conservation through reintroductions. The selected species, however, were neither necessarily apex predators nor carnivores, but a subset of the mammalian order Carnivora, including those ranging from insectivores–omnivores (sloth bear, Melursus ursinus [2,3]; sun bear, Helarctos malayanus [4]) to herbivores–omnivores (Andean bear, Tremarctos ornatus [3,5]; American black bear, Ursus americanus [6]), full omnivores (Asiatic black bear, Ursus thibetanus [7,8]; brown bear, Ursus arctos [9,10]) and several hypercarnivores (jaguar, Panthera onca [11]; dhole, Cuon alpinus [12]; cheetah, Acinonyx jubatus [13]). At first, Wolf & Ripple lump together mammalian carnivores (those in the order Carnivora, which may or may not be regular predators), apex predators (which occupy the top of food chains [14]) and any carnivore (which primarily consumes other vertebrates). Further, they mixed guilds (a group of species that exploit similar resources) with taxocenosis (a group of sympatric species sharing a common phylogenetic clade). Consequently, the authors provide a biased assessment of reintroduction priorities based on conservation imperatives that are not restricted to any of these groups, but primarily associated with apex predators. This commentary explores the development of this muddle, which I interpret to be mainly due to a combination of inaccurate use of nomenclature and concepts. Furthermore, the authors make some mistakes for a number of proposed reintroduction sites that proper investigation would have revealed to be inappropriate. Mammalian carnivores are not alone as apex predators, as the latter comprise a diverse set of terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates on Earth [14], which include (but are not limited to) large raptors and large, predatory reptiles. By equating apex predators with Carnivora mammals, the authors ignore the diverse predator species that have the same potential to: (i) perform predator-related ecosystem functions [15,16]; (ii) create wildlife-viewing tourism opportunities [15,17]; and (iii) reduce species extinction risk by re-establishing extirpated populations and reversing range shrinkage. Furthermore, this diverse array of apex predators is threatened by exactly the same extinction drivers as 'large carnivores', namely livestock predation [16,18], perceived risk to humans [19,20], overhunting [21,22] and habitat loss. In temperate and boreal regions, extant, large raptors may now perform reduced functions as top predators [23], while the role of large reptiles may be non-existent [24]. These latitudes contain most of the developed countries, and therefore most of the ongoing scientific research, which helps explain the authors' biased world view of which species qualify as apex predators in ecosystems outside the Northern Hemisphere. Apex predators outside the Northern Hemisphere are, however, characterized by high diversity. Reptiles such as crocodilians and giant snakes are important predators of the land–water interface on tropical and subtropical realms. Crocodilians—the largest living continental predators on Earth—can control access of terrestrial vertebrates to vital resources such as water [25] and can inflict havoc and significant mortality on terrestrial mammals, with concomitant effects that cascade down into entire aquatic food webs [26]. Pythons and anacondas, on the other hand, prey on terrestrial vertebrates, thus exerting top-down control over their populations [27,28], as do other apex predators [29], and some mammalian Carnivora [30]. Given their lower metabolic rates, reptiles feed much less frequently than do hypercarnivorous mammals [31], but this is compensated for by the extremely high biomass of heterothermic carnivores [22,32]. Physical power is clearly not a problem, because pythons and anacondas are capable of killing and eating 'large carnivores' such as bears and large cats [33,34]. Like many mammalian carnivores, large, predatory reptiles also kill domestic livestock and are vulnerable to the same sort of retaliatory persecution that affects 'large carnivores' [35,36]. Giant snakes regularly kill domestic dogs in urban, peri-urban and rural landscapes in the tropics [19,37,38]—as do the dog-eating leopards Panthera pardus of India [39]. The well-known preference that pythons show for eating canids must be taken into account when planning a possible reintroduction of red wolves (Canis rufus) into the Everglades National Park; else we risk losing them to Python molurus predation. Predatory reptiles are indeed conspicuous elements of apex predator guilds throughout many regions, but frequently are overlooked as the top predator that they are. Raptors are the Earth's largest aerial predators in tropical, subtropical and temperate landscapes. As do large, predatory reptiles, giant raptors occasionally even snatch offspring of 'large carnivores' [40,41]. Extant, large-bodied raptors such as harpy eagles (Harpia harpyja), crowned eagles (Stephanoaetus coronatus) and Philippine eagles (Pithecophaga jefferyi) perform the role of apex predators in the tropical forest canopy [42–44], a habitat that is largely or completely inaccessible to large, terrestrial carnivores. Giant raptors are therefore apex predators in the world's most biodiverse terrestrial ecosystems [45,46]. In tropical forests and other biomes, giant raptors exert the same top-down roles [47–49] of the more widely celebrated 'large carnivores'. As for wolves, research has documented the cascading effects on diverse trophic levels when apex aerial predators are missing. Clearly, the largest raptors play important roles in maintaining balance in the vertebrate communities of forest canopies [49–51]. Trophic cascade ecology is a research topic that has conspicuously focused on the Carnivora mammal taxocenosis. By contrast, giant raptors have been largely ignored by Wolf & Ripple and by other research reviews on apex predators. While proposing species reintroductions, Wolf & Ripple provided a superficial examination of the occurrence, habitat suitability and original distributions of 'large carnivores'. For the sake of brevity, I restrict my comments to their proposed reintroductions in the Neotropics. For example, the first of the six sites suggested for jaguar reintroduction, La Payunia, is a barren scrubland that provides inadequate habitat for jaguars, while the other five sites already harbour jaguar populations, thus obviating the need for reintroduction there. Four of the last five sites, namely Campos Amazônicos [52], Guaporé [53], Pacaás Novos [54] and Mapinguari [55], have published reports already confirming the presence of jaguars, while the final site, Rio Novo, obviously must have jaguars as that protected area is embedded within a vast region of continuous Amazon forest with a low human footprint. Cordillera Azul National Park, where Wolf & Ripple propose the reintroduction of pumas (Puma concolor), already has a population of pumas [56]. Similarly, I found weaknesses in the recommended reintroduction sites for Andean bears. Running down that list of six sites, one finds (i) La Tatacoa and Cerro Saroche are arid, rocky landscapes that, while they might support some bears as landscapes (as do Chaparri), are far from good habitat for the species, and hence should not be prioritized; (ii) Serrania de Minas has an Andean bear population discovered recently by local, government-supported researchers [57], and researchers found bears in Pampa Hermosa in Peru [58]; (iii) Tinigua is at approximately 300 m.a.s.l. and offers only marginal habitat for Andean bears, which tend to do best in cloud forests at 2500–3000 m.a.s.l. [59]; and (iv) the occurrence of Andean bears in Panama is at best speculative [60], with the proposed site (Dárien) lacking sufficient elevation [61] and perhaps receiving wandering bears into Panama from Los Katios in Colombia (Bernard Peyton, personal communication). Therefore, all the reintroductions recommended for the Neotropics are either inappropriate or mistaken. Global-scale studies commonly show weakness when one examines specific cases one by one, but then one wonders how valid conclusions can be drawn from what appear to be such universally incorrect locations in the Neotropics. When they state that 'reintroduction efforts would lead to complete large carnivore guilds', Wolf & Ripple ignore many of the Earth's most quintessential predators. Taxonomic chauvinism has long led to a biased body of research that does not lead to a realistic model of the frequency and magnitude of the ecological roles of different species. Their paper is another example of the lack of balance in global analyses of predator ecology. Attention to predators that in fact have more varied feeding habits such as omnivory as well as the need to include non-mammalian predators and the need for reliable global databases on species presence are all essential to the study of ecology. Ignoring these factors results in biased conclusions that are of questionable value in constructing and carrying out conservation policy in this age of extremely scarce funding for conservation. Data accessibility This article has no additional data. Competing interests I have no competing interests. Funding I greatly appreciate the generous financial support of the following donors: Rufford Small Grants Foundation (18743-1 and 23022-2), Rainforest Biodiversity Group, Idea Wild, The Mamont Scholars Program of the Explorer's Club Exploration Fund, Cleveland Metroparks Zoo and the SouthWild.com Conservation Travel System. Acknowledgements Luísa Genes started the discussion which resulted in this Comment, for which I am grateful. This work received major logistical support from the Peugeot-ONF Brasil Carbon Sink Reforestation Project, based at Fazenda São Nicolau in the Municipality of Cotriguaçu, Mato Grosso, Brazil. This ambitious project is an initiative of Peugeot to fulfil directives of the Kyoto Protocol. Footnotes The accompanying comment can be viewed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172235. © 2018 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. References1Wolf C, Ripple WJ. 2018 Rewilding the world's large carnivores. R. Soc. open sci. 5, 172235. (doi:10.1098/rsos.172235. Link, ISI, Google Scholar2Bargali HS, Akhtar N, Chauhan NPS. 2004 Feeding ecology of sloth bears in a disturbed area in central India. Ursus 15, 212–217. (doi:10.2192/1537-6176(2004)015 2.0.CO;2) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar3Sacco T, Van Valkenburgh B. 2004 Ecomorphological indicators of feeding behaviour in the bears (Carnivora: Ursidae). J. Zool. 263, 41–54. (doi:10.1017/S0952836904004856) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar4Fredriksson GM, Wich SA. 2006 Frugivory in sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) is linked to El Nino-related fluctuations in fruiting phenology, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 89, 489–508. (doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2006.00688.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar5Troya V, Cuesta F, Peralvo M. 2004 Food habits of andean bears in the Oyacachi River Basin, Ecuador. Ursus 15, 57–60. (doi:10.2192/1537-6176(2004)015 2.0.CO;2) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar6Bull EL, Torgersen TR, Wertz TL. 2001 The importance of vegetation, insects, and neonate ungulates in black bear diet in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Sci. 75, 244–253. ISI, Google Scholar7Huygens OC, Miyashita T, Dahle B, Carr M, Izumiyama S, Sugawara T, Hayashi H. 2003 Diet and feeding habits of Asiatic black bears in the Northern Japanese Alps. Ursus 14, 236–245. Google Scholar8Reid D, Jiang M, Teng Q, Qin Z, Hu J. 1991 Ecology of the Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) in Sichuan, China. Mammalia 55, 221–237. (doi:10.1515/mamm.1991.55.2.221) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar9Rode KD, Robbins CT. 2000 Why bears consume mixed diets during fruit abundance. Can. J. Zool. 78, 1640–1645. (doi:10.1139/z00-082) Crossref, Google Scholar10Fortin JK, Farley SD, Rode KD, Robbins CT. 2007 Dietary and spatial overlap between sympatric ursids relative to salmon use. Ursus 18, 19–29. (doi:10.2192/1537-6176(2007)18[19:DASOBS]2.0.CO;2) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar11Cavalcanti S, Gese E. 2010 Kill rates and predation patterns of jaguars (Panthera onca) in the southern Pantanal, Brazil. J. Mammal. 91, 722–736. (doi:10.1644/09-MAMM-A-171.1) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar12Kamler JF, Johnson A, Vongkhamheng C, Bousa A. 2012 The diet, prey selection, and activity of dholes (Cuon alpinus) in northern Laos. J. Mammal. 93, 627–633. (doi:10.1644/11-MAMM-A-241.1) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar13Farhadinia MS, Hosseini-Zavarei F, Nezami B, Harati H, Absalan H, Fabiano E, Marker L. 2012 Feeding ecology of the Asiatic cheetah Acinonyx jubatus venaticus in low prey habitats in northeastern Iran: implications for effective conservation. J. Arid Environ. 87, 206–211. (doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.05.002) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar14Sergio F et al. 2014 Towards a cohesive, holistic view of top predation: a definition, synthesis and perspective. Oikos 123, 1234–1243. (doi:10.1111/oik.01468) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar15Sekercioglu CH. 2006 Increasing awareness of avian ecological function. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 464–471. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.007) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar16Miranda EBP. 2017 The plight of reptiles as ecological actors in the tropics. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, 159. (doi:10.3389/fevo.2017.00159) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar17Ryan C. 1998 Saltwater crocodiles as tourist attractions. J. Sustain. Tour. 6, 314–327. (doi:10.1080/09669589808667319) Crossref, Google Scholar18Curti M, Valdez U. 2009 Incorporating community education in the strategy for Harpy Eagle conservation in Panama. J. Environ. Educ. 40, 3–16. (doi:10.3200/JOEE.40.4.3-16) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar19Miranda EBP, Ribeiro RP, Strüssmann C. 2016 The ecology of human-anaconda conflict: a study using internet videos. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 9, 26–60. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar20McPherson SC, Brown M, Downs CT. 2015 Diet of the crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus) in an urban landscape: potential for human-wildlife conflict? Urban Ecosyst. 19, 383–396. (doi:10.1007/s11252-015-0500-6) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar21Trinca C, Ferrari S, Lees A. 2008 Curiosity killed the bird: arbitrary hunting of Harpy Eagles Harpia harpyja on an agricultural frontier in southern Brazilian Amazonia. Cotinga 30, 12–15. Google Scholar22Natusch DJ, Lyons JA, Riyanto A, Shine R. 2016 Jungle giants: assessing sustainable harvesting in a difficult-to-survey species (Python reticulatus). PLoS ONE 11, e0158397. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158397) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar23Lyly MS, Villers A, Koivisto E, Helle P, Ollila T, Korpimäki E. 2015 Avian top predator and the landscape of fear: responses of mammalian mesopredators to risk imposed by the golden eagle. Ecol. Evol. 5, 503–514. (doi:10.1002/ece3.1370) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar24Makarieva AM, Gorshkov VG, Li B-L. 2005 Gigantism, temperature and metabolic rate in terrestrial poikilotherms. Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 2325–2328. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3223) Link, ISI, Google Scholar25Doody SJ, Sims RA, Letnic M. 2007 Environmental manipulation to avoid a unique predator: drinking hole excavation in the agile wallaby, Macropus agilis. Ethology 113, 128–136. (doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01298.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar26Subalusky AL, Dutton CL, Rosi EJ, Post DM. 2017 Annual mass drownings of the Serengeti wildebeest migration influence nutrient cycling and storage in the Mara River. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7647–7652. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1614778114) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar27McCleery RA, Sovie A, Reed RN, Cunningham MW, Hunter ME, Hart KM. 2015 Marsh rabbit mortalities tie pythons to the precipitous decline of mammals in the Everglades. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20150120. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.0120) Link, ISI, Google Scholar28Dorcas ME et al.. 2012 Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2418–2422. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1115226109) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar29Nifong J, Silliman B. 2013 Impacts of a large-bodied, apex predator (Alligator mississippiensis Daudin 1801) on salt marsh food webs. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 440, 185–191. (doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2013.01.002) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar30Ripple WJ, Larsen EJ. 2000 Historic aspen recruitment, elk, and wolves in northern Yellowstone National Park, USA. Biol. Conserv. 95, 361–370. (doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00014-8) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar31Stephens D, Brown J, Ydenberg R. 2007 Foraging: behavior and ecology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Crossref, Google Scholar32Campos Z, Magnusson WE. 2016 Density and biomass estimates by removal for an amazonian crocodilian, Paleosuchus palpebrosus. PLoS ONE 11, e0156406. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156406) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar33Cavalcanti SMC, Crawshaw PGJ, Pires L, Santiago MEB, Rech TC. 2016 Predation of an adult puma by an anaconda in south-eastern Brazil. Cat. News 63, 5–6. Google Scholar34Fredriksson GM. 2005 Predation on sun bears by reticulated python in East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Raffles Bull. Zool. 53, 197–200. ISI, Google Scholar35Das CS, Jana R. 2017 Human–crocodile conflict in the Indian Sundarban: an analysis of spatio-temporal incidences in relation to people's livelihood. Oryx, 1–8. (doi:10.1017/S0030605316001502) ISI, Google Scholar36Rivas JA. 2015 Natural history of the green anaconda: with emphasis on its reproductive biology. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Google Scholar37Goursi U, Awan M, Minhas R, Ali U, Kabir M, Dar N. 2012 Status and conservation of Indian rock python (Python molurus molurus) in Deva Vatala National Park, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 44, 1507–1514. ISI, Google Scholar38Shine R, Harlow PSP, Keogh JS. 1998 The influence of sex and body size on food habits of a giant tropical snake, Python reticulatus. Funct. Ecol. 12, 248–258. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2435.1998.00179.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar39Athreya V, Odden M, Linnell J. 2014 A cat among the dogs: leopard Panthera pardus diet in a human-dominated landscape in western Maharashtra, India. Oryx 50, 1–7. (doi:10.1017/s0030605314000106) ISI, Google Scholar40Balme GA, Hunter LT. 2013 Why leopards commit infanticide. Anim. Behav. 86, 791–799. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.07.019) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar41Sorensen O, Totsas M, Solstad T, Rigg R. 2008 Predation by a golden eagle on a brown bear cub. Ursus 19, 190–193. (doi:10.2192/08SC008.1) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar42Aguiar-Silva F, Sanaiotti T, Luz B. 2014 Food habits of the harpy eagle, a top predator from the amazonian rainforest canopy. J. Raptor Res. 48, 24–45. (doi:10.3356/JRR-13-00017.1) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar43McGraw WS, Cooke C, Shultz S. 2006 Primate remains from African crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus) nests in Ivory Coast's Tai Forest: implications for primate predation and early hominid taphonomy in South Africa. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 131, 151–165. (doi:10.1002/ajpa.20420) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar44Abaño TRC, Salvador DJ, Ibañez JC. 2016 First nesting record of Philippine eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi from Luzon, Philippines, with notes on diet and breeding biology. Forktail 32, 86–88. Google Scholar45Kier G, Kreft H, Lee TM, Jetz W, Ibisch PL, Nowicki C, Mutke J, Barthlot W. 2009 A global assessment of endemism and species richness across island and mainland regions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9322–9327. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0810306106) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar46Ellis EC, Antill EC, Kreft H. 2012 All is not loss: plant biodiversity in the Anthropocene. PLoS ONE 7, e30535. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030535) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar47Orihuela G, Terborgh J, Ceballos N, Glander K. 2014 When top-down becomes bottom up: behaviour of hyperdense howler monkeys (Alouatta seniculus) Trapped on a 0.6 Ha Island. PLoS ONE 9, e82197. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082197) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar48Touchton J, Hsu Y, Palleroni A. 2002 Foraging ecology of reintroduced captive-bred subadult harpy eagles (Harpia harpyja) on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Ornitol. Neotrop. 13, 365–379. Google Scholar49Chakarov N, Krüger O. 2010 Mesopredator release by an emergent superpredator: a natural experiment of predation in a three level guild. PLoS ONE 5, e15229. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015229) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar50Terborgh J, Feeley K, Silman M, Nuñez P, Balukjian B. 2006 Vegetation dynamics of predator-free land-bridge islands. J. Ecol. 94, 253–263. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01106.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar51Terborgh J et al. 2001 Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science 294, 1923–1926. (doi:10.1126/science.1064397) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar52PNCA/ICMBio. 2016 Plano de Manejo do Parque Nacional dos Campos Amazônicos. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, Brasília, Brazil. Google Scholar53IBDF. 1984 Plano de Manejo da Reserva Biológica do Guaporé. IBDF, Brazil. Google Scholar54PNPN/ICMBio. 2009 Plano de Manejo do Parque Nacional dos Pacaás Novos. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, Brasília, Brazil. Google Scholar55Sollero VT. 2005 RIMA - Usinas Hidrelétricas de Santo Antônio e Jirau. Google Scholar56SERNANP. 2012 Diagnóstico del Proceso de Actualización Plan Maestro 2011–2016. Google Scholar57CAM. 2012 Informe de Gestión 2012 - Corporación Autónoma Regional del Alto Magdalena. Google Scholar58Pizarro JF. 2016 Ecología y conservación del oso andino (Tremarctos ornatus) en las Áreas Naturales Protegidas del Perú. Google Scholar59Peyton B, Yerena E, Rumiz D, Ignacio Jorgenson R, Orejuela J. 1995 Status of wild Andean bears and policies for their management. Ursus 10, 87–100. Google Scholar60Goldstein I, Guerrero V, Moreno R. 2008 Are there Andean bears in Panama? Ursus 19, 185–189. (doi:10.2192/08SC007.1) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar61García-Rangel S. 2012 Andean bear Tremarctos ornatus natural history and conservation. Mamm. Rev. 42, 85–119. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2011.00207.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar Comments Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. Previous ArticleNext Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCited by Stepkovitch B, Kingsford R and Moseby K (2022) A comprehensive review of mammalian carnivore translocations, Mammal Review, 10.1111/mam.12304, 52:4, (554-572), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2022. Wolf C, Betts M, Levi T, Newsome T and Ripple W (2018) Large species within carnivora are large carnivores, Royal Society Open Science, 5:9, Online publication date: 1-Sep-2018. This IssueJuly 2018Volume 5Issue 7 Article InformationPubMed:30109104Published by:Royal SocietyOnline ISSN:2054-5703History: Manuscript received14/04/2018Manuscript accepted07/06/2018Published online11/07/2018 License:© 2018 The Authors.Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. Citations and impact Subjectsecology
Referência(s)