ArticleEcology and evolution2023
The distribution of bushmeat mammals in unflooded forests of the Central Amazon is influenced by poaching proxies.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The distribution of bushmeat mammals in unflooded forests of the Central Amazon is influenced by poaching proxies.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medium to large rainforest mammals are key conservation flagship groups that offer non-redundant ecosystem functions, but anthropic pressures, such as illegal hunting, may strongly affect their occupancy in Amazonia. We combined camera traps and occupancy models to assess the influence of distance from human settlements, the number of families per settlement and the synergetic effect of the average weight of 27 species on the occupancy probability of mammals. Specifically, we classified mammal species according to the game preferences of hunters (i.e. a group of species depleted for bushmeat, a group of species hunted for retaliation and a group of non-hunted species). We also accounted for the influence on the detection probability of each group of both the number of days each camera operated and the body weight of mammals. The occupancy probability of the bushmeat group (i.e. deer, peccaries, agoutis, pacas and armadillos) was lower at locations closer to human settlements. Still, the number of families correlated positively with occupancy, with the occupancy probability of the group being slightly higher at sites with more families. This difference was probably due to larger and more abundant crops and fruiting trees attracting wildlife at such sites. Conversely, the occupancy probability of the retaliation group (i.e. carnivores) and the non-hunted group (i.e. opossums, spiny rats, squirrels and anteaters) were indifferent to anthropogenic stressors. The detection probability of the non-hunted and particularly the most depleted species correlated negatively with body weight. This may suggest that larger species, especially those from the bushmeat group, are rarer or less abundant in the system, possibly because they are the preferable target of hunters. In the long term, locals will likely need to travel long distances to find harvest meat. Poaching also threatens food security since game bushmeat is an essential source of protein for isolated rural Amazonians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.