Search for: All records

Tropical forests hold most of Earth’s biodiversity and a higher concentration of threatened mammals than other biomes. As a result, some mammal species persist almost exclusively in protected areas, often within extensively transformed and heavily populated landscapes. Other species depend on remaining remote forested areas with sparse human populations. However, it remains unclear how mammalian communities in tropical forests respond to anthropogenic pressures in the broader landscape in which they are embedded. As governments commit to increasing the extent of global protected areas to prevent further biodiversity loss, identifying the landscape-level conditions supporting wildlife has become essential. Here, we assessed the relationship between mammal communities and anthropogenic threats in the broader landscape. We simultaneously modeled species richness and community occupancy as complementary metrics of community structure, using a state-of-the-art community model parameterized with a standardized pan-tropical data set of 239 mammal species from 37 forests across 3 continents. Forest loss and fragmentation within a 50-km buffer were associated with reduced occupancy in monitored communities, while species richness was unaffected by them. In contrast, landscape-scale human density was associated with reduced mammal richness but not occupancy, suggesting that sensitive species have been extirpated, while remaining taxa are relatively unaffected. Taken together, these results provide evidence of extinction filtering within tropical forests triggered by anthropogenic pressure occurring in the broader landscape. Therefore, existing and new reserves may not achieve the desired biodiversity outcomes without concurrent investment in addressing landscape-scale threats. 

Abstract Reliable maps of species distributions are fundamental for biodiversity research and conservation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) range maps are widely recognized as authoritative representations of species’ geographic limits, yet they might not always align with actual occurrence data. In recent area of habitat (AOH) maps, areas that are not habitat have been removed from IUCN ranges to reduce commission errors, but their concordance with actual species occurrence also remains untested. We tested concordance between occurrences recorded in camera trap surveys and predicted occurrences from the IUCN and AOH maps for 510 medium‐ to large‐bodied mammalian species in 80 camera trap sampling areas. Across all areas, cameras detected only 39% of species expected to occur based on IUCN ranges and AOH maps; 85% of the IUCN only mismatches occurred within 200 km of range edges. Only 4% of species occurrences were detected by cameras outside IUCN ranges. The probability of mismatches between cameras and the IUCN range was significantly higher for smaller‐bodied mammals and habitat specialists in the Neotropics and Indomalaya and in areas with shorter canopy forests. Our findings suggest that range and AOH maps rarely underrepresent areas where species occur, but they may more often overrepresent ranges by including areas where a species may be absent, particularly at range edges. We suggest that combining range maps with data from ground‐based biodiversity sensors, such as camera traps, provides a richer knowledge base for conservation mapping and planning.