4.7 Article

Habitat degradation and indiscriminate hunting differentially impact faunal communities in the Southeast Asian tropical biodiversity hotspot

期刊

COMMUNICATIONS BIOLOGY
卷 2, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s42003-019-0640-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [BMBF FKZ: 01LN1301A]
  2. Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research
  3. Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium through the Dr. Holly Reed Conservation Fund
  4. San Francisco Zoo
  5. Safari Club International
  6. International Climate Initiative (Internationale Klimaschutzinitiative, IKI) of the German Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB)
  7. KfW
  8. German Federal Ministry of Economy and Energy
  9. BlackBridge
  10. Fulbright scholarship through the U.S. Department of State

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Habitat degradation and hunting have caused the widespread loss of larger vertebrate species (defaunation) from tropical biodiversity hotspots. However, these defaunation drivers impact vertebrate biodiversity in different ways and, therefore, require different conservation interventions. We conducted landscape-scale camera-trap surveys across six study sites in Southeast Asia to assess how moderate degradation and intensive, indiscriminate hunting differentially impact tropical terrestrial mammals and birds. We found that functional extinction rates were higher in hunted compared to degraded sites. Species found in both sites had lower occupancies in the hunted sites. Canopy closure was the main predictor of occurrence in the degraded sites, while village density primarily influenced occurrence in the hunted sites. Our findings suggest that intensive, indiscriminate hunting may be a more immediate threat than moderate habitat degradation for tropical faunal communities, and that conservation stakeholders should focus as much on overhunting as on habitat conservation to address the defaunation crisis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据