Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.date.available
2024-07-25T10:48:16Z  
dc.identifier.citation
Entringer Júnior, Hilton; (2024): Effect of a Magellanic penguin colony on a small mammal assemblage reveals potential of seabirds to modulate terrestrial communities: Ecological and methodological approaches. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. (dataset). http://hdl.handle.net/11336/240806  
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/240806  
dc.description.abstract
Small mammals are considered bioindicators of environmental quality and show rapid population responses to seasonal environmental variations. These variations are accentuated at high latitudes, and, in coastal regions of the southern hemisphere, they can be further enhanced by the presence of penguin breeding colonies, which provide additional resources to breeding sites. Small mammals' studies generally use physical capture (PC) that may harm animal welfare. The search for less invasive methods should be encouraged. Based on the prediction that penguins’ colonies would intensify the effects of seasonality on small mammal, we examined the influence of seasonality and Magellanic penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus) presence on these animals, as a model of how seabird colonies modify terrestrial communities. Using data from PC, we compare the seasonal variation in the abundance and diversity of small mammals between the colony and its surroundings. We also use camera trap data (CT) to define spatial variations in the abundance and activity of the studied assemblage throughout the year, and to indicate applications of this method in the study of small mammal ecology. Compared to the surroundings, the colony supports a greater abundance of small mammals throughout the year (confirmed by PC and CT data), and greater species diversity when penguins are present (PC data). In general, the colony favoring species different from those most abundant in the surrounding area, which increases regional biodiversity (PC data). Activity intensity of small mammals increases earlier in the surrounding than in the colony (CT). As bioindicators, the observed responses of the small mammal community demonstrated that the colony could guarantee more resources and that last longer. This can be assumed because the abundance and diversity of species are positively related to resources, while the delay in the increase in foraging compared to the surroundings indicates that resources are depleted faster in this last environment. Therefore, seabirds’ colonies could function as key environments and these birds could represent ecosystem engineers, since they modulate terrestrial communities. Our data also demonstrated that CT represented an efficient complementary method, although it can be used separately in the study of small mammals at the assemblage level.  
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess  
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/  
dc.title
Effect of a Magellanic penguin colony on a small mammal assemblage reveals potential of seabirds to modulate terrestrial communities: Ecological and methodological approaches  
dc.type
dataset  
dc.date.updated
2024-07-23T11:01:13Z  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Entringer Júnior, Hilton. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Centro para el Estudio de Sistemas Marinos; Argentina  
dc.datacite.PublicationYear
2024  
dc.datacite.Creator
Entringer Júnior, Hilton  
dc.datacite.affiliation
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Centro para el Estudio de Sistemas Marinos  
dc.datacite.affiliation
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto Patagónico para el Estudio de los Ecosistemas Continentales  
dc.datacite.affiliation
Universidade Vila Velha  
dc.datacite.affiliation
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto de Diversidad y Evolución Austral  
dc.datacite.affiliation
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Centro para el Estudio de Sistemas Marinos  
dc.datacite.publisher
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas  
dc.datacite.subject
Ecología  
dc.datacite.subject
Ciencias Biológicas  
dc.datacite.subject
CIENCIAS NATURALES Y EXACTAS  
dc.datacite.ContributorType
RelatedPerson  
dc.datacite.ContributorType
RelatedPerson  
dc.datacite.ContributorType
RelatedPerson  
dc.datacite.ContributorType
RelatedPerson  
dc.datacite.ContributorName
Udrizar Sauthier, Daniel Edgardo  
dc.datacite.ContributorName
Srbek de Araujo, Ana Carolina  
dc.datacite.ContributorName
Lamuedra González, Laura Daniela  
dc.datacite.ContributorName
Blanco, Gabriela Silvina  
dc.datacite.date
22/07/2024  
dc.datacite.DateType
Creado  
dc.datacite.language
eng  
dc.datacite.version
1.0  
dc.datacite.description
Methodology Study area The study took place in Cabo dos Bahías Natural Protected Area (CDB, 44°54'55.1"S, 65°32'48.1"W), contained within the Interjurisdictional Coastal Marine Park Patagonia Austral (PIMCPA), located north of San Jorge Gulf, province of Chubut, Argentina. CDB belongs to the Patagonian Steppe Ecoregion and the vegetation is composed of a shrub steppe with scattered grasslands that develop on extensive rocky outcrops of volcanic origin. The climate is semi-arid cold. The average annual temperature is 13.1 ºC, with the hottest season between December and February (18.5 ºC on average) and the coldest between June and August (6.4 ºC on average). The average accumulated precipitation is 227.8 mm, with rain peaks in May and June (28 mm on average). The PIMCPA presents a fauna of small mammals composed by at least 11 native species of rodents distributed in three families: Cricetidae (Abrothrix olivacea, Akodon iniscatus, Calomys musculinus, Eligmodontia typus, Euneomys chinchilloides, Graomys griseoflavus, Phyllotis xanthopygus and Reithrodon auritus); Caviidae (Galea leucoblephara and Microcavia australis); Ctenomyidae (Ctenomys sp.); and at least one introduced species of Muridae (Rattus norvegicus). In addition, there are two species of marsupials (Lestodelphys halli and Thylamys pallidior). CDB hosts a declining Magellanic penguin colony of ~7,000 breeding pairs that stay aggregated on land, between September and May. A central area (mostly high nest density) and a low-density area (located generally in the periphery of the colony), characterize this penguin colony. Data collection All animal captures and complementary methodologies were approved in accordance with the direction of Wild Fauna and Flora (DFyFS) of the province of Chubut, Argentina (Permit number: DFyFS 94/23). Capture in live traps To capture small mammals, 350 Sherman traps (8 × 9 × 29 cm) were used. Traps were positioned in sets containing two transects distanced at least 70 meters to each other containing 35 traps each (10 m from each other). One set was positioned inside the colony (n = 70 traps) and four were distributed in the surrounding area (n = 280 traps). The surrounding trap sets were spaced between 433 and 1,894 m apart (mean = 1,121 ± 485 m), being located between 249 and 2,049 m from the colony boundary (mean = 1,267 ± 607 m). In the penguin colony, a gradient between central and peripheral, and high and low nest density areas was sampled. Areas with high and low vegetation cover were sampled in both environments, including shrub (predominated by Chuquiraga and Lycium: colony and surroundings; Colliguaja: present only in the surroundings), grassland (predominated by Nassella and Poa), and non-vegetated areas (rocky outcrops, mainly in the surroundings, and high nest density areas in the colony). Sampling was carried out during three consecutive nights in each area between May 16 and 19 (first period: resources available from the past penguin reproductive season and greater primary productivity) and October 24 and 27, 2023 (second period: greater influence of winter and lack of additional resources due to the absence of penguins in previous months). Sherman traps were kept in similar positions between periods to reduce the effect of trap position on captures. There were 1,050 traps/day in each period (colony = 210; surroundings = 840), totaling 2,100 traps/day. A mixture of oats and vanilla essence was used to attract small mammals to the traps. Pieces of cotton were inserted in traps to offer thermal shelter to the animals because low temperatures could lead captured individuals to death. The traps were inspected in the morning to verify the occurrence of captures and identify the species. Individuals were released at the point where they were captured. Camera traps Since vegetation hinders the visualization of small species, which may result in underestimation of the use of certain environments, only the points with a wide view (low vegetation cover) were considered. With this, of the 23 cameras installed on CDB, data of 19 sampling points distributed both in colony (n = 8) and surroundings (n = 11) were used. The data were collected between September 2022 and January 2024. The cameras were placed approximately 40 cm from the ground and were pointed so that at least lower half of the photo area captured the ground, and the upper half captured the sky, aiming to favor the recording of fauna in general. Inside the colony, the cameras were spaced between 44 and 603 m from each other (mean = 316 ± 136 m). In the surrounding area, the cameras were positioned between 613 and 5,739 m apart (mean = 2,713 ± 1,193 m), being distanced between 781 and 5,333 m from the colony boundary (mean = 2,725 ± 1,366 m). Central and peripheral, and high- and low-density areas in the colony were sampled. Both in the colony and in the surroundings, areas with high and low vegetation cover were sampled, including shrub, grassland, and non-vegetated areas. Sensor sensitivity of cameras was set to be intermediate (medium) and each of them was configured to take three sequential photographs every two seconds in the presence of motion. The maintenance of the cameras was carried out once a month in the surroundings and at least once a week within the colony (between October and January), since the movement of the penguins constantly activated the traps. No bait was used to attract wildlife. Data analysis Capture in live traps The data obtained by the live capture method (number of captures presented in Table S1) were analyzed to represent the community of small mammals in each environment, considering CDB (colony + surrounding), colony and surrounding areas separately, and in each period, considering the complete sampling period (General: first period + second period) and the first and second periods separately. To express the capture success, the number of captures in each environment and sampling period was divided by the total number of live traps used in each context (sampling effort) and multiplied by 100. This procedure was used to correct for the effect of unequal numbers of traps used between environments, and as an indicator of relative abundance. As an indication of differences in the proportion of species in the same environment or period separately, the Chi-square for Expected Equal Proportions was used (comparison between the number of captures of each species in each context separately). To evaluate temporal and spatial changes in the composition of the community, the Chi-square Contingence Table was used to compare the number of captures between periods in CDB. For the other comparisons between environments and periods the G test Contingence Table was used due to the low number of records (< 5 and/or = 0) for one or more species. To determine the level of Gamma diversity (CDB) and Alpha diversity (each environment separately) between periods, the Shannon-Wiener diversity index was used. Camera traps The data obtained by the camera trap method were analyzed to define the annual activity pattern of small mammals in each environment, as indicative of possible differences in activity related to seasonality and environments. Since species identification using photos is not the most reliable for small mammals, camera trap data were used only to represent the small mammals’ assemblage. The records of small mammals were classified as valid records: the trap was activated by smalls mammals (no photographs before or after the capture event); or invalid records: the trap was activated by other animals or plants (small mammals were incidentally captured in photographs). To establish the annual activity pattern (between September 2022 and January 2024) in each environment (CDB, colony and surroundings), as indicative of possible differences in activity related to seasonality between environments, only independent valid records were considered (photos taken after a minimum interval of 1 hour at the same sampling point). Only independent records were used to avoid the double counting of individuals while the removal of invalid records was performed to reduce the effect of secondary factors in the acquisition of records. Since the number of traps was different between environments and as well as the number of days of operation for each camera, capture success was calculated for each month to reduce the effect of unequal sampling effort on the results. For this, the monthly number of independent valid records in each environment was divided by the corresponding monthly sampling effort (number of camera traps × number of sampling days) and the result was multiplied by 100. The G test Contingence Table was used to verify if there was a difference in the proportion of monthly records between environments, and Spearman Rank Correlation test was used to verify the relationship between the monthly capture success obtained for each environment. Live traps vs. Camera traps The camera trap data were organized in two periods to be comparable with those data obtained with capture in live traps (similar periods). For this, data from May (the same of the first period of live trap) and October (second period) were grouped with its corresponding adjacent months (April and June, and September and November) to increase the number of records. Then, capture success was recalculated considering only the valid records obtained in these months against the corresponding sampling effort in each environment (CDB, colony and surroundings area), and in each period (general period, first period and second period). Then, the capture success values obtained for camera traps were qualitatively compared with the capture success values obtained for live capture traps. All the statistical analyzes presented were performed in R and Bioestat software.  
dc.datacite.DescriptionType
Métodos  
dc.datacite.FunderName
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas  
dc.subject.keyword
Bioindicators  
dc.subject.keyword
Coastal marine systems  
dc.subject.keyword
Camera trapping  
dc.subject.keyword
Community ecology  
dc.datacite.resourceTypeGeneral
dataset  
dc.conicet.datoinvestigacionid
19232  
dc.datacite.geolocation
Camarones  
dc.datacite.formatedDate
2024