Abstract
Identification of highly biodiverse areas has become a crucial step in protecting species richness, especially considering the rapid collapse of biodiversity and the limited funds available to avert, far less to reverse, these trends. Therefore, we aimed to identify the most important areas for the conservation of specified mammalian groups in Southern Asia, a region rich in biodiversity hotspots threatened by increasing rates of habitat loss and other anthropogenic activities. To achieve this, we modelled the occupancy of ungulates and of small, medium and large carnivorans at 20 study sites across the region and identified hotspots of species richness. We analysed the variation of estimated space use between different species groups and ranked areas according to their predicted importance for mammalian species conservation. Our results reveal a significant positive correlation in the spatial utilization patterns of competitive carnivores, yet no correlation among carnivores and their prey species, suggesting that anthropogenic impacts in the region are constraining species to coexist in only the few remaining suitable areas, superseding interactions between species guilds. Although the rank of site importance varied amongst species groups, we were able to identify a consensus on sites that are crucial for the conservation of all groups considered. Most of these top-ranking sites were located in the peninsular region of Thailand. We argue that, of the areas assessed, these sites represent the most important refuges for species conservation in the region, and their protection is critical for the maintenance of the biodiversity in Southern Asia.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The conversion of natural landscapes into urban or agricultural lands represents the main threat to the conservation of biodiversity worldwide (Dirzo et al. 2014; IPBES 2019; Sala et al. 2000). With one-third of the world’s land area being used for various forms of agriculture, coupled with the rapid growth of urban areas, protection of highly biodiverse regions has become an increasingly urgent global challenge (IPBES 2019). This is especially the case in Southern Asia, which encompasses some of the planet’s most biologically diverse ecosystems and includes several biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000). Furthermore, this region faces the highest deforestation rates worldwide, with estimates suggesting that it could lose over half of its already greatly diminished forest cover and nearly 50% of its biodiversity within the next century (Clark et al. 2013; Hughes 2017a; Sodhi et al. 2010, 2004; Tan et al. 2022). Therefore, it is critical to identify and rank areas of high biodiversity value, to guide optimal conservation measures in this region (Margules et al. 2002).
Due to its high biodiversity and the acceleration of anthropogenic change, South and, especially, Southeast Asia have received increasing attention in ecological research and conservation applications in recent decades (Sodhi and Liow 2000; Steinmetz et al. 2006; Fisher et al. 2011; Brodie et al. 2023). However, much of that research has focused on single species and relatively small localities, limiting the capacity to extrapolate findings to identify areas important for the conservation of multiple species across the whole region (e.g., Johnson et al. 2006; Havmøller et al. 2016; Ratnayeke et al. 2018; Phumanee et al. 2021; Adhikari et al. 2022). To bridge this knowledge gap, Catullo et al. (2008) used species distribution ranges and developed habitat suitability maps of over one thousand mammal species found in the region. Using a gap analysis, they estimated species richness and identified highly biodiverse areas situated beyond protected areas. Based on these approaches, they identified areas of conservation hotspots. Subsequently, other studies have used similar approaches in the quest to identify significant areas for conservation within this region.
Hughes (2017b) modelled habitat suitability for several taxa, including 128 mammal species, using online repository data, to access species richness and demonstrated that most mammal species analysed had less than 30% of their range within protected areas, and the situation was even worse for the other analysed taxa. Finally, Macdonald et al. (2020) and Chiaverini et al. (2022) estimated species richness using camera trap data and conducted gap analysis by generating habitat suitability maps for terrestrial animals, including 74 and 57 mammals for mainland Southern Asia and the insular Sundaland, respectively. These studies found a mammal species richness pattern in the south and eastern portions of the mainland similar to the predictions of Catullo et al. (2008), but predicted a distinct pattern in the central and northwestern regions, as well as in the Sunda Islands.
These previously mentioned studies were based on comparing maps of predicted habitat suitability, rather than on actual spatial patterns of observed data. Therefore, although they provide valuable insights into biodiversity richness within the region, they do not confirm whether the modelled species can in fact be found in the areas predicted to be highly biodiverse. Given the similarity in the methods they used, the broad agreement of their results is not surprising. It is also noteworthy that none of these studies considered possible differences in habitat suitability between distinct mammalian taxa. Considering the ecological diversity among mammals, it is important to understand potential variations in their occurrence patterns. Still, as they account for imperfect detection of species, occupancy models can be a powerful tool to provide accurate estimates of occurrence and habitat use (Bailey et al. 2004), overcoming some limitations of previous studies that analysed spatial predictions from statistical models and providing new insights of occurrence rates of mammalian species.
Here, we aimed to quantify space use measures of carnivoran and ungulate species in Southern Asia and identify biodiversity rich areas for conservation. In order to do that, we utilized occupancy models that assess animals' space use within a landscape (e.g., the likelihood of areas being occupied). We tested three main hypotheses: (1) the space use of ungulates and large carnivorans would be positively correlated, as ungulates represent the main prey for large carnivorans (Wolf and Ripple 2016), making the occurrence of the prey a prerequisite for the survival of large carnivorans; (2) the space use of medium and large carnivorans would be negatively correlated, as large carnivorans tend to suppress smaller competitors as a consequence of intra-guild hostility (Prugh and Sivy 2020); (3) in a similar way, medium carnivorans would negatively affect the space use of small carnivorans (Prugh et al. 2009).
Methods
Camera trapping
We conducted systematic camera trap surveys between 2007 and 2022 across Southern Asia, including nine countries. The original focus of the sampling campaigns were mainly bigger felids (e.g., mainland clouded leopard, Neofelis nebulosa and Sunda clouded leopard, N. diardi, tiger, Panthera tigris and leopards, P. pardus), but several other species were captured by the cameras. All the species recorded by our camera traps were identified to the finest taxonomic level possible. Sampling occurred mainly in national parks and reserves, encompassing a broad altitudinal range and different ecotones. Cameras were placed in grids of different sizes with a distance of 1–2km between camera stations. Each station was composed of two cameras, placed ~40 cm above the ground, along trails and disused roads, where available, aiming to maximize detection success (Macdonald et al. 2018, 2019; Ash et al. 2021; Chiaverini et al. 2022).Trapping effort was determined based on the operational period of the camera traps, spanning from the initial image capture to the final image recorded before each camera trap was retrieved. In total, our dataset consisted of 5406 camera stations active over 280,075 trap nights.
Study area and landscape variables
Since our study sites were unevenly distributed, with some sites being clustered, while others were isolated, we aggregated the sites into regions to reduce heterogeneity and nonstationarity of species-environment relationships across broad environmental, geographic and sociological gradients (Legendre and Legendre 2012). To define an appropriate cluster distance characterizing data aggregation, we assembled geospatial data for a large set of biological, climatic, geomorphological, anthropogenic, economic and sociological variables (Supplementary Information, Table S1) that have been demonstrated to affect habitat space use in carnivoran and ungulate species (e.g., Rather et al. 2020; Liang et al. 2021; Niyogi et al. 2021; Penjor et al. 2021). For the variables that had temporally fluctuating data available, we collected yearly (from 2007 to 2021) and seasonal (May to October: rainy season in the mainland Southern Asia and dry season in the Sunda islands; November to April: dry season in the mainland and rainy season in the islands) geospatial data, totalling 220 spatial layers, all projected at 250m resolution and processed with Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al. 2017).
We extracted the value of all variables at the camera location and standardized their values. Variables were classified in two groups: ecological variables, including layers containing biological, climatic, anthropogenic and geomorphological data; and socio-economic, formed by a pixel-wise layer on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (for more information on the variables, see Supplementary Information, Table S1). We calculated the pairwise geographic Euclidean distance between all camera stations. Similarly, we calculated pairwise socio-economic and ecological distances based on the standardized Euclidean distance in variable space between all camera stations using the variables described above. Subsequently, we calculated Mantel correlograms between the geographic and the ecological and socio-economic distances with the package Ecodist in R (Goslee and Urban 2007), to assess the range of geographical distance over which the ecological and socio-economic values are correlated. The analysis demonstrated that both the ecological and socio-economic values are correlated within 100km distance (Supplementary Information, Figure S1). Thus, we aggregated all camera stations located 100km or less apart from each other, resulting in a total of 20 study sites (Fig. 1). Henceforth, we will refer to the clustered camera stations based on these Mantel distances as study sites.
Space use occupancy modelling and studied species
Most occupancy models assume population closure (Emmet et al. 2021; Kendall et al. 2013; Rota et al. 2009). However, our dataset aggregates records from distinct locations and sampling periods. Thus, for mobile species, the independence between sites is likely violated. Therefore, we interpret occupancy as the probability of space use, which allows the relaxation of assumptions of closure and independence as long as the occupancy state of one site is independent of the occupancy of other sites (Mackenzie and Royle 2005).
For each study site, we generated a camera operational history matrix and a detection history matrix for individual species with the package camtrapR (Niedballa et al. 2016) in R. Detections were considered as binary data, detection (1) or non-detection (0) and sampling occasions were defined as 15-day periods to increase the probability of detections’ independence. We modelled occupancy of all ungulate and carnivoran species that had at least 100 detections in the entire study region (Supplementary Information, Table S2). In order to access species’ space use in each study site, we adopted a single-species, single-season occupancy model (MacKenzie et al. 2002) with no covariates using the R package unmarked (Fiske and Chandler 2011). We clustered ungulates into one group and divided carnivorans into three different groups: small, encompassing Herpestidae, Mustelidae, Prionodontidae and Viverridae families; medium, composed of the smaller Felidae (weighting less than 15kg) and one member of the Canidae (Canis aureus); and large carnivorans, composed of the bigger Felidae (weighting more than 15kg), the Ursidae family, and one Canidae (Cuon alpinus) (Supplementary Information, Table S3). For each species group, on each of our 20 study sites, we calculated two measures of space use: (1) the sum of within-group space use of all species, representing total richness across the group; and (2) the within-group mean, indicating average space use rate of each group (Fig. 1).
We ranked the importance of study sites for each species group separately, from the highest to the smallest value of the sum and mean of estimated space use. To understand how space use of species groups are related, we compared sites’ rankings and performed a pairwise correlation among space use measures estimated for each site for all species groups. Finally, we also performed a two-way ANOVA test using species group and study site as covariates to understand what drives the difference in the estimated space use values.
Results
The total number of species modelled in each study site varied according to the number of species present in the site and model convergence. In total, we were able to model the space use of 53 species: 17 ungulates, 8 large, 6 medium and 22 small carnivorans (Supplementary Information, Table S2). We observed that sites with the highest ranking of space use sum and mean varied between species groups (Supplementary Information, Table S4), demonstrating that different areas hold varying levels of importance for the conservation of distinct species. This was expected, as for most species the space use values obtained varied greatly among sites (Supplementary Information, Table S5). However, we noted some tendencies. For example, the Thailand Northwest site was ranked as one of the five most important sites for all the species groups, while the sites Nepal South, Sumatra Central and Singapore were usually ranked as one of the five least important ones (Figs. 2, 3, Supplementary Information, Table S6 and Figure S2).
For medium carnivorans, we observed a high degree of consistency in the ranking of site importance between the sum and mean of space use values of species within this group (Pearson correlation r = 0.89, p < 0.001; Supplementary Information, Table S7), with four out of the five most and least important sites being identical for this species group. Specifically, Thailand Central, Thailand Northwest, Nepal North and Sumatra North occupied top positions for both space use measures, but Cambodia East and Thailand South/Malaysia North were only classified within the top five by either the sum or the mean, respectively (Supplementary Information, Table S4 and Figure S3). Although such consistency between sum and mean predictions was not found for small carnivorans and ungulates (r = 0.47, p < 0.05; Supplementary Information, Table S7), it was still possible to identify clear patterns in the most and least important sites for the two space use measures in both species groups (Supplementary Information, Figure S3), with Thailand Northwest, Thailand South/Malaysia North and Sumatra South being among the most important sites for both. Singapore ranked highly for ungulates and small carnivorans but only based on the space use mean. India East, Thailand Central and Thailand Northeast were also on the top five for ungulates, while Sabah, Cambodia West, Sumatra North and Sarawak were important for small carnivorans, either according to the sum and/or the mean. Finally, the ranking of areas based on the two measures showed significant disparity for large carnivorans (non-significant correlation; Supplementary Information, Table S7 and Figure S3). This divergence was particularly evident in the case of Sarawak, which was selected as the second most important site according to the mean value but the fourth least important site according to the sum. Thailand Northwest stood out as the sole site highly ranked for both space use measures. Other sites, such as Thailand Central, Thailand Northeast, Laos and Myanmar classified in the top five by the sum, while Kalimantan West, Kalimantan East and Thailand South/Malaysia based on the mean.
Interestingly, the strongest correlation of space use estimates found between species groups was a positive relation between large and medium carnivorans (considering the sum of space use values: r = 0.6, p < 0.05), followed by ungulates and small carnivorans (considering the mean of space use values: r = 0.56, p < 0.05) and medium carnivorans and ungulates (considering the sum of space use values: r = 0.48, p < 0.05; Supplementary Information, Table S7). In addition, significant but positive weak correlations were found between medium carnivorans mean and small carnivorans sum, and large carnivorans sum and medium carnivorans mean (Supplementary Information, Table S7).
The ANOVA test demonstrated that, for the sum of the space use values, most of the variance is attributable to differences in species groups (F = 16.9, p < 0.001; Supplementary Information, Table 1) followed by variations among study sites (F = 3.42, p < 0.001; Supplementary Information, Table 1). Looking at the space use sum, medium and large carnivorans, and small carnivorans and ungulates are more similar to each other, with ungulates presenting the highest sum, followed by small, large and medium carnivorans (Fig. 4a). Still, Thailand Northwest is the most distinct study site, with the highest space use values, while Singapore had the lowest, followed by Sarawak and Kalimantan West (Fig. 4c). However, when looking at the mean of the estimated space use values, the analysis showed that only variations among study sites had a significant effect on species space use (F = 2.11, p < 0.05; Supplementary Information, Table 1). Notably, Thailand Northwest exhibited the highest mean space use values, followed by Sumatra North, while Nepal North, Singapore, Kalimantan West and Sumatra Central displayed the lowest ones (Fig. 4d). Surprisingly, large carnivorans presented the highest values of space use means in several sites, followed by ungulates, medium and small carnivorans. In fact, small carnivorans usually showed the smallest space use values according to the mean in most sites (Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, Table S4). In contrast, looking at the sum of the space use values, ungulates displayed the highest values, followed by small, large and then medium carnivorans (Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, Table S4).
Discussion
Species group interactions
Species interactions among mammalian guilds are vital for ecosystem functioning (Beschta & Ripple 2016; Morris et al. 2020; Roemer et al. 2009). However, anthropogenic activities can disrupt these natural interactions, leading to detrimental cascading effects through the entire environment (Dorresteijn et al. 2015; Shamoon et al. 2018; Atkins et al. 2019). Investigating the space use of distinct guilds and their interactions can, therefore, shed light on the responses of species guilds to intensive threats. However, existing work in the region involving multi-landscape syntheses for wildlife using camera trap data predominately focuses on single species (Dunn et al. 2022; Carr et al. 2023; Honda et al. 2023) with relatively few multi-species papers or diversity (Amir et al. 2022; Brodie et al. 2023). Our analyses emphasize the possible consequences of habitat conversion and intensive poaching on species interactions in highly biodiverse areas throughout Southern Asia.
Contrary to our first hypothesis, the space use of ungulates and large carnivorans was not correlated. The occurrence and abundance of carnivorans is deeply influenced by the occurrence and abundance of their prey (Kamler et al. 2020; Karanth et al. 2004; Rasphone et al. 2022; Rostro-García et al. 2018). Therefore, this mismatch between predator and prey may be interpreted as a warning to the conservation of both species groups, consistent with prior warnings (Wolf & Ripple 2016). Although large carnivorans may adapt their diets accordingly to prey availability (Valeix et al. 2012; Ferretti et al. 2020), the high levels of poaching in several areas are depleting prey numbers drastically (Gray et al. 2021) and seem to be creating a disequilibrium (Storch et al. 2022) in these study sites to the extent that not even the space use sum of these two groups, which integrates all species in both trophic guilds, is correlated. This mismatch was also observed by Gil-Sánchez and Sánchez-Cerdá (2023), who demonstrated that the number of areas in Southern Asia that have lost their megaherbivores is even greater than the number of areas that have lost their large predators, with only five small areas in Southern Asia still containing both their integral top predator and megaherbivore fauna. Still, it is imperative to consider that there may be a time-lag effect and, if so, carnivoran populations have not yet reached equilibrium with current prey assemblages and could crash further even without additional poaching.
Our second hypothesis was that large carnivorans would have a negative impact on medium carnivorans, resulting in a negative correlation in their space use. Intra-guild hostility often leads to the suppression of smaller sympatric carnivorans by larger ones (Chutipong et al. 2017; Newsome et al. 2017; Hearn et al. 2018; Prugh & Sivy 2020; Boron et al. 2023; Prugh et al. 2023). On the other hand, the decrease in population size or even local extinction of large carnivorans is thought to lead to mesopredator release, increasing the abundance of medium carnivorans (Prugh et al. 2009; Ripple et al. 2013; Mayhew et al. in review). These generalizations were the basis of our expectation that sites with lower space use of large carnivorans would have higher space use of medium carnivorans. However, the positive correlation we observed between large and medium carnivorans suggests that medium-large carnivorans might both avoid humans and thus show similar spatial distributions within and among landscapes (Luskin et al. 2017; Decœur et al. 2023; Hendry et al. 2023). Even though our study did not consider local spatial and temporal avoidance, which could partially explain these results, it is surprising to observe that medium carnivorans do not increase their space use when large carnivorans space use is lower. It seems that the effects of rapid recent defaunation, habitat loss and habitat fragmentation in the area are so great that they superseded the interaction of species (Valiente-Banuet et al. 2015; Mendoza & Araújo 2019; Rasphone et al. 2019; Boron et al. 2023), such that many species groups coexist only in the few remaining areas of suitable habitats. This disequilibrium between species guilds over the long term may increase competition, especially within small, isolated areas where they still exist, leading to local extinctions (Vucetich & Creel 1999; Tannerfeldt et al. 2002).
Likewise, regarding our third hypothesis, we predicted a negative correlation between medium and small carnivorans. However, the fact that they presented a positive correlation of space use was less unexpected. The members of the Herpestidae, Mustelidae, Prionodontidae and Viverridae families have very diverse diets and lifestyles, more so than medium carnivorans (Do Linh San et al. 2022), which could reduce competition, facilitating coexistence. However, this explanation alone would lead to their space use being independent, rather than positively correlated. Therefore, we posit that the low suitability of the surrounding areas must be constraining these species to the same sites. Similar to the pattern observed between large and medium-sized carnivorans, these results suggest that the dominant driver of species composition may be the dwindling availability of refuges that provide habitat and protection, rather than processes involved in species interactions.
Interestingly, ungulate space use was positively correlated with the space use of both medium and small carnivorans. The cause of this relationship is unclear, but might be influenced by the need for smaller areas to survive or the greater ability to adapt to anthropized environments (Crooks 2002; Barbosa Júnior et al. 2022). However, it seems hard to explain such results without considering the inevitable influence that rapid biodiversity collapse has in producing nonequilibrium patterns of species richness in remnant habitats where broad ranges of mammal biodiversity have not yet been eliminated and which provide remnant patches of suitable remaining habitats.
Site importance ranking
Unlike previous studies pursuing similar goals, our data analysis directly reports space use rates for the species that have actually been recorded in each area, rather than relying on spatial statistical models to extrapolate observations. Nonetheless, the ranking of sites emerging from our analysis has some congruence with the patterns of species richness modelled by other authors (Catullo et al. 2008; Chiaverini et al. 2022; Hughes 2017b; Macdonald et al. 2020). Most importantly, the peninsular region of Thailand, which was also identified by Catullo et al. (2008), Hughes (2017b) and Macdonald et al. (2020) as highly suitable for species richness, emerged from our analysis as one of the most important sites across the guilds we assessed. Additionally, our analyses accord with the findings of Catullo et al. (2008) Chiaverini et al. (2022), Hughes (2017b) and Macdonald et al. (2020) in identifying Cambodia West, Sumatra South, and Sumatra North as priority areas for biodiversity. The fact that distinct methods identified these areas as substantially important highlights the significance of these areas for conservation.
However, there are also discrepancies between our results and those of previous studies. Nepal North was ranked as one of the most important sites in our analysis, which accords with Gil-Sánchez and Sánchez-Cerdá (2023) who concluded that it is one of the last areas of intact communities of megaherbivores and top predators. In contrast, Macdonald et al. (2020) had predicted very low species richness for this area and high species richness in Singapore, whereas our results usually identify Singapore as one of the lowest richnesses for all species groups across all studied sites. Finally, the Kalimantan region in Borneo was predicted by Chiaverini et al. (2022) to have low species richness, but in our work the Kalimantan sites were ranked as important for some species groups. These contrasting results demonstrate the value in estimating the site importance for species richness using different measures and methods, allowing the integration of distinct species abundance and richness measures.
Conclusions
Given the limited resources available for conservation and the rapidly diminishing areas of natural lands remaining, identifying critical areas for biodiversity conservation has become extremely important (McIntosh et al. 2017; Wilson et al. 2007). Our results highlight the differences in species occurrence patterns and the need to account for different mammalian guilds when prioritizing conservation areas. This also emphasizes the need for cautious consideration when establishing umbrella species (Branton & Richardson 2011) for the protection of certain areas, particularly in regions experiencing environmental disequilibrium on species trophic guilds. We identified Thailand Northwest, Thailand Central, and Thailand South/Malaysia North as areas that represent some of the most important strongholds for biodiversity conservation in Southern Asia and should be given precedence in conservation efforts to ensure their sustained biodiversity value and enhanced dispersal linkages among them. Although we did not survey the central part of Peninsular Malaysia, this area likely also is an important stronghold for biodiversity conservation, because it is well protected and has maintained its biodiversity of large carnivorans and other species over the long-term (Rostro-García et al. 2016; Clements et al. 2021). However, the unexpected correlations between species groups suggest a major disequilibrium among species trophic guilds, indicating that biodiversity collapse caused by high levels of poaching and habitat loss is superseding species interactions, forcing species to coexist in the short-term within small and dwindling suitable areas that are still available. Further research at a continental level that asses the impacts of anthropogenic factors on different species groups is necessary to develop a deeper understanding of their effects for biodiversity conservation in the region. Although we highlight the need of protecting different areas for the conservation of distinct species groups, we acknowledge the importance of taking into consideration the impact and/or importance that these areas have on local people’s livelihood. In undeveloped countries, forest products often represent an important monetary source for local families and, sometimes, even governments (Abukari et al. 2020; Chowdhury et al. 2022). Therefore, when determining conservation measures, one must consider the implications this may hold for local communities and which approach can be taken to allow both biodiversity and local people to live together in a sustainable way.
Finally, our analysis is limited by our sampling areas and there are notable geographic gaps between them. Thus, future research should focus on these areas to evaluate the current conservation state of distinct mammalian guilds in these areas. Still, it is important to highlight that the camera trap dataset used in this work was collected spanning more than a decade. Considering the high rates of habitat loss and poaching in the region, the species composition in many study sites might have drastically changed during those years. We know, for example, that such rapid change has been documented in the Laotian and Cambodian sites. These sites had one of the highest space use values for large carnivorans (Fig. 2, Supporting Information, Table S6). However, both tigers and leopards have recently become functionally extinct in these countries and other carnivoran and ungulate species are declining rapidly within the best protected areas of those countries (Rasphone et al. 2019, 2021; Rostro-García et al. 2023). Therefore, the high ranking of the areas now stands as a tragic memorial to a splendour that has been lost during the course of our research, and is a sinister warning signal for biodiversity conservation elsewhere in Southern Asia as a whole. This further emphasizes the rapid biodiversity collapse and nonequilibrium pattern of remnant biodiversity in Southern Asia.
Data availability
The data generated during and/or analysed during the current study is partially available at: Mendes et al. (2024) CamTrapAsia: A dataset of tropical forest vertebrate communities from 239 camera trapping studies. Ecology, p. e4299. The complete data can be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The script used to perform the analysis is available on Figshare repository at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25995973
References
Abukari H, Mwalyosi RB (2020) Local communities’ perceptions about the impact of protected areas on livelihoods and community development. GECCO 22:e00909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00909
Adhikari B, Baral K, Bhandari S, Szydlowski M, Kunwar RM, Panthi S et al (2022) Potential risk zone for anthropogenic mortality of carnivores in Gandaki Province. Nepal Ecol Evol 12(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8491
Amir Z, Moore JH, Negret PJ, Luskin MS (2022) Megafauna extinctions produce idiosyncratic Anthropocene assemblages. Sci Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abq2307
Ash E, Kaszta Z, Noochdumrong A, Redford T, Chanteap P, Hallam C et al (2021) Opportunity for Thailand’s forgotten tigers: Assessment of the Indochinese tiger Panthera tigris corbetti and its prey with camera-trap surveys. Oryx 55(2):204–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000589
Atkins JL, Long RA, Pansu J, Daskin JH, Potter AB, Stalmans ME et al (2019) Cascading impacts of large-carnivore extirpation in an African ecosystem. Science 364(6436):173–177. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3561
Bailey LL, MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD (2004) Advances and applications of occupancy models. Methods Ecol Evol 5(12):1269–1279. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12100
Barbosa Júnior EC, Rios VP, Dodonov P, Vilela B, Japyassú HF (2022) Effect of behavioural plasticity and environmental properties on the resilience of communities under habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol Model 472:110071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110071
Beschta RL, Ripple WJ (2016) Riparian vegetation recovery in Yellowstone: the first two decades after wolf reintroduction. Biol Conserv 198:93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.031
Boron V, Deere NJ, Hyde M, Bardales R, Stasiukynas D, Payán E (2023) Habitat modification destabilizes spatial associations and persistence of Neotropical carnivores. Curr Biol 33(17):3722-3731.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.07.064
Branton M, Richardson JS (2011) Evaluación del Valor del Concepto de Especie Sombrilla para la Planificación de la Conservación Mediante Meta-Análisis. Conserv Biol 25:9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01606.x
Brodie JF, Mohd-Azlan J, Chen C, Wearn OR, Deith MCM, Ball JGC et al (2023) Landscape-scale benefits of protected areas for tropical biodiversity. Nature 620(7975):807–812. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06410-z
Carr E, Amir Z, Mendes CP, Moore JH, Nursamsi I, Luskin MS (2023) The highs and lows of serow (Capricornis sumatraensis): multi-scale habitat associations inform large mammal conservation strategies in the face of synergistic threats of deforestation, hunting, and climate change. Raffles Bull Zoo 71:400–416. https://doi.org/10.26107/RBZ-2023-0030
Catullo G, Masi M, Falcucci A, Maiorano L, Rondinini C, Boitani L (2008) A gap analysis of Southeast Asian mammals based on habitat suitability models. Biol Conserv 141(11):2730–2744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.08.019
Chiaverini L, Macdonald DW, Bothwell HM, Hearn AJ, Cheyne SM, Haidir I et al (2022) Multi-scale, multivariate community models improve designation of biodiversity hotspots in the Sunda Islands. Anim Conserv 25(5):660–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12771
Chowdhury S, Alam S, Labi MM, Khan N, Rokonuzzaman M, Biswas D et al (2022) Protected areas in South Asia: status and prospects. Sci Total Environ 811:152316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152316
Chutipong W, Steinmetz R, Savini T, Gale GA (2017) Assessing resource and predator effects on habitat use of tropical small carnivores. Mammal Res 62(1):21–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-016-0283-z
Clark NE, Boakes EH, McGowan PJ, Mace GM, Fuller RA (2013) Protected areas in South Asia have not prevented habitat loss: a study using historical models of land-use change. PLoS ONE 8(5):e65298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065298
Clements GR, Rostro-García S, Kamler JF, Liang SH, Hashim AKBA (2021) Conservation status of large mammals in protected and logged forests of the greater Taman Negara landscape Peninsular Malaysia. Biodiversitas 22(1):272–277. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d220133
Crooks KR (2002) Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conserv Biol 16(2):488–502. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00386.x
Decœur H, Amir Z, Mendes CP, Moore JH, Luskin MS (2023) Mid-sized felids threatened by habitat degradation in Southeast Asia. Biol Conserv 283:110103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110103
Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJ, Collen B (2014) Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345(6195):401–406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817
Dorresteijn I, Schultner J, Nimmo DG, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Kuemmerle T et al (2015) Incorporating anthropogenic effects into trophic ecology: Predator - Prey interactions in a human-dominated landscape. Proc R Soc B. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1602
Dunn A, Amir Z, Decoeur H, Dehaudt B, Nursamsi I, Mendes C et al (2022) The ecology of the banded civet (Hemigalus derbyanus) in Southeast Asia with implications for mesopredator release, zoonotic diseases, and conservation. Ecol Evol 12(5):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8852
Emmet RL, Long RA, Gardner B (2021) Modeling multi-scale occupancy for monitoring rare and highly mobile species. Ecosphere 12(7):e03637. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3637
Ferretti F, Lovari S, Lucherini M, Hayward M, Stephens PA (2020) Only the largest terrestrial carnivores increase their dietary breadth with increasing prey richness. Mammal Rev 50(3):291–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12197
Fisher B, Edwards DP, Larsen TH, Ansell FA, Hsu WW, Roberts CS, Wilcove DS (2011) Cost-effective conservation: Calculating biodiversity and logging trade-offs in Southeast Asia. Conserv Lett 4(6):443–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00198.x
Fiske I, Chandler R (2011) Unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. J Stat Softw 43(10):1–23. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v043.i10
Gil-Sánchez JM, Sánchez-Cerdá M (2023) Current overlapping distribution of megaherbivores and top predators: an approach to the last terrestrial areas with ecological integrity. Biol Conserv 277:109848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109848
Gorelick N, Hancher M, Dixon M, Ilyushchenko S, Thau D, Moore R (2017) Google earth engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. RSE 202:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031
Goslee SC, Urban DL (2007) The ecodist package for dissimilarity-based analysis of ecological data. J Stat Softw 22(7):1–19. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v022.i07
Gray TNE, Belecky M, O’Kelly HJ, Rao M, Roberts O, Tilker A et al (2021) Understanding and solving the South-East Asian snaring crisis. Ecol Citizen 4(2):129–141
Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, Thau D, Stehman SV, Goetz SJ, Loveland TR, Kommareddy A, Egorov A, Chini L, Justice CO, Townshend JRG (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342:850–53
Havmøller RG, Payne J, Ramono W, Ellis S, Yoganand K, Long B et al (2016) Will current conservation responses save the critically endangered Sumatran rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis? Oryx 50(2):355–359. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000472
Hearn AJ, Cushman SA, Ross J, Goossens B, Hunter LTB, Macdonald DW (2018) Spatio-temporal ecology of sympatric felids on Borneo. Evidence for resource partitioning? PLoS ONE 13(7):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200828
Hendry A, Amir Z, Decoeur H, Mendes CP, Moore JH, Sovie A, Luskin MS (2023) Marbled cats in Southeast Asia: are diurnal and semi-arboreal felids at greater risk from human disturbances? Ecosphere 14(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4338
Hoffman M, Koenig K, Bunting G, Costanza J, Williams KJ (2016) Biodiversity Hotspots (Version 2016.1). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3261807
Honda A, Amir Z, Mendes CP, Moore JH, Luskin MS (2023) Binturong ecology and conservation in pristine, fragmented and degraded tropical forests. Oryx. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605322001491
Hughes AC (2017a) Mapping priorities for conservation in Southeast Asia. Biol Conserv 209:395–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.007
Hughes AC (2017) Understanding the drivers of Southeast Asian biodiversity loss. Ecosphere. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1624
IPBES (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn
Johnson A, Vongkhamheng C, Hedemark M, Saithongdam T (2006) Effects of human-carnivore conflict on tiger (Panthera tigris) and prey populations in Lao PDR. Anim Conserv 9(4):421–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00049.x
Kamler JF, Inthapanya X, Rasphone A, Bousa A, Vongkhamheng C, Johnson A, Macdonald DW (2020) Diet, prey selection, and activity of Asian golden cats and leopard cats in northern Laos. J Mammal 101(5):1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyaa113
Karanth KU, Nichols JD, Kumar NS, Link WA, Hines JE (2004) Tigers and their prey: predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. PNAS 101(14):4854–4858. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0306210101
Kendall WL, Hines JE, Nichols JD, Grant EHC (2013) Relaxing the closure assumption in occupancy models: staggered arrival and departure times. Ecol 94(3):610–617. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1720.1
Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Liang J, Ding Z, Jiang Z, Yang X, Xiao R, Singh PB et al (2021) Climate change, habitat connectivity, and conservation gaps: a case study of four ungulate species endemic to the Tibetan Plateau. Landsc Ecol 36(4):1071–1087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01202-0
Luskin MS, Albert WR, Tobler MW (2017) Sumatran tiger survival threatened by deforestation despite increasing densities in parks. Nat Commun 8(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01656-4
Macdonald DW, Bothwell HM, Hearn AJ, Cheyne SM, Haidir I, Hunter LTB et al (2018) Multi-scale habitat selection modeling identifies threats and conservation opportunities for the Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi). Biol Conserv 227:92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.08.027
Macdonald DW, Bothwell HM, Kaszta Z, Ash E, Bolongon G, Burnham D et al (2019) Multi-scale habitat modelling identifies spatial conservation priorities for mainland clouded leopards (Neofelis nebulosa). Divers Distrib 25:1639–1654. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12967
Macdonald DW, Chiaverini L, Bothwell HM, Kaszta Ż, Ash E, Bolongon G, Can ÖE, Campos-Arceiz A, Channa P, Clements GR, Hearn AJ (2020) Predicting biodiversity richness in rapidly changing landscapes: climate, low human pressure or protection as salvation? Biodivers Conserv 29:4035–4057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-02062-x
MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle AA, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecol 83(8):2248–2255. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2248:ESORWD]2.0.CO;2
Mackenzie DI, Royle JA (2005) Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort. J Appl Ecol 42(6):1105–1114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01098.x
Margules CR, Pressey RL, Willians PH (2002) Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J Biosci 27(4):309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02704962
Mayhew DS, Hearn AJ, Devineaua O, Linnella JDC, Macdonaldc DW. In review. Loss of Sunda clouded leopards and forest integrity drive potentially negative impacts of mesopredator release on vulnerable terrestrial avifauna species of Sabah, Malaysia.
McIntosh EJ, Pressey RL, Lloyd S, Smith RJ, Grenyer R (2017) The impact of systematic conservation planning. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:677–697. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060902
Mendoza M, Araújo MB (2019) Climate shapes mammal community trophic structures and humans simplify them. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12995-9
Mendes CP, Albert WR, Amir Z, Ancrenaz M, Ash E, Azhar B et al (2024) CamTrapAsia: A dataset of tropical forest vertebrate communities from 239 camera trapping studies. Ecol 105(6):e4299. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.4299
Morris T, Letnic M, Jessop TS, Fleming PA (2020) Removal of an apex predator initiates a trophic cascade that extends from herbivores to vegetation and the soil nutrient pool. Proc of the R Soc B: Biol Sci 287(1929):20202329. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2329
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
Newsome TM, Greenville AC, Cirovic D, Dickman CR, Johnson CN, Krofel M et al (2017) Top predators constrain mesopredator distributions. Nat Commun 8:1–7
Niedballa J, Sollmann R, Courtiol A, Wilting A (2016) camtrapR: an R package for efficient camera trap data management. Methods Ecol Evol 7(12):1457–1462. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12600
Niyogi R, Sarkar MS, Hazra P, Rahman M, Banerjee S, John R (2021) Habitat connectivity for the conservation of small ungulates in a human-dominated landscape. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10030180
Penjor U, Kaszta Z, Macdonald DW, Cushman SA (2021) Prioritizing areas for conservation outside the existing protected area network in Bhutan: the use of multi-species, multi-scale habitat suitability models. Landsc Ecol 36(5):1281–1309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01225-7
Phumanee W, Steinmetz R, Phoonjampa R, Bejraburnin T, Bhumpakphan N, Savini T (2021) Coexistence of large carnivore species in relation to their major prey in Thailand. GECCO 32:e01930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01930
Prugh LR, Sivy KJ (2020) Enemies with benefits: integrating positive and negative interactions among terrestrial carnivores. Ecol Lett 23(5):902–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13489
Prugh LR, Stoner CJ, Epps CW, Bean WT, Ripple WJ, Laliberte AS, Brashares JS (2009) The rise of the mesopredator. Bioscience 59(9):779–791. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.9
Prugh LR, Cunningham CX, Windell RM, Kertson BN, Ganz TR, Walker SL, Wirsing AJ (2023) Fear of large carnivores amplifies human-caused mortality for mesopredators. Science 380(6646):754–758. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf2472
Rasphone A, Kéry M, Kamler JF, Macdonald DW (2019) Documenting the demise of tiger and leopard, and the status of other carnivores and prey, in Lao PDR’s most prized protected area: Nam Et - Phou Louey. GECCO. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00766
Rasphone A, Kamler JF, Tobler M, Macdonald DW (2021) Density trends of wild felids in northern Laos. Biodivers Conserv 30(6):1881–1897
Rasphone A, Bousa A, Vongkhamheng C, Kamler JF, Johnson A, Macdonald DW (2022) Diet and prey selection of clouded leopards and tigers in Laos. Ecol Evol 12(7):1–11
Rather TA, Kumar S, Khan JA (2020) Multi-scale habitat selection and impacts of climate change on the distribution of four sympatric meso-carnivores using random forest algorithm. Ecol Process. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-020-00265-2
Ratnayeke S, Van Manen FT, Clements GR, Kulaimi NAM, Sharp SP (2018) Carnivore hotspots in Peninsular Malaysia and their landscape attributes. PLoS ONE 13(4):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194217
Ripple WJ, Wirsing AJ, Wilmers CC, Letnic M (2013) Widespread mesopredator effects after wolf extirpation. Biol Conserv 160:70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.033
Roemer GW, Gompper ME, Van Valkenburgh B (2009) The ecological role of the mammalian mesocarnivore. BioSci 59(2):165–173. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.2.9
Rostro-García S, Kamler JF, Ash E, Clements GR, Gibson L, Lynam AJ et al (2016) Endangered leopards: range collapse of the Indochinese leopard (Panthera pardus delacouri) in Southeast Asia. Biol Conserv 201:293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.001
Rostro-García S, Kamler JF, Crouthers R, Sopheak K, Prum S, In V et al (2018) An adaptable but threatened big cat: Density, diet and prey selection of the indochinese leopard (Panthera pardus delacouri) in eastern Cambodia. R Soc Open Sci 5(2):171187. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171187
Rostro-García S, Kamler JF, Sollmann R, Balme G, Augustine BC, Kéry M et al (2023) Population dynamics of the last leopard population of eastern Indochina in the context of improved law enforcement. Biol Conserv 283:110080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110080
Rota CT, Fletcher RJ, Dorazio RM, Betts MG (2009) Occupancy estimation and the closure assumption. J Appl Ecol 46(6):1173–1181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01734.x
Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R et al (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287(5459):1770–1774. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770
San ED, Sato JJ, Belant JL, Somers MJ (2022) Small carnivores: evolution, ecology, behaviour and conservation. John Wiley, Hoboken
Shamoon H, Maor R, Saltz D, Dayan T (2018) Increased mammal nocturnality in agricultural landscapes results in fragmentation due to cascading effects. Biol Conserv 226:32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.028
Sodhi NS, Liow LH (2000) Improving conservation biology research in Southeast Asia. Conserv Biol 14(4):1211–1212. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99416.x
Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Brook BW, Ng PKL (2004) Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends Ecol Evol 19(12):654–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.09.006
Sodhi NS, Posa MRC, Lee TM, Bickford D, Koh LP, Brook BW (2010) The state and conservation of Southeast Asian biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 19(2):317–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9607-5
Steinmetz R, Chutipong W, Seuaturien N (2006) Collaborating to conserve large mammals in Southeast Asia. Conserv Biol 20(5):1391–1401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00505.x
Storch D, Šímová I, Smycka J, Bohdalková E, Toszogyova A, Okie JG (2022) Biodiversity dynamics in the Anthropocene: how human activities change equilibria of species richness. Ecography 2022:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05778
Tan YL, Chen JE, Yiew TH, Habibullah MS (2022) Habitat change and biodiversity loss in South and Southeast Asian countries. ESPR 29(42):63260–63276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20054-y
Tannerfeldt M, Elmhagen B, Angerbjörn A (2002) Exclusion by interference competition? The relationship between red and arctic foxes. Oecologia 132(2):213–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-0967-8
Valeix M, Hemson G, Loveridge AJ, Mills G, Macdonald DW (2012) Behavioural adjustments of a large carnivore to access secondary prey in a human-dominated landscape. J Appl Ecol 49(1):73–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02099.x
Valiente-Banuet A, Aizen MA, Alcántara JM, Arroyo J, Cocucci A, Galetti M, García MB, García D, Gómez JM, Jordano P, Medel R (2015) Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world. Funct Ecol 29(3):299–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12356
Vucetich JA, Creel S (1999) Ecological interactions, social organization, and extinction risk in African wild dogs. Conserv Biol 13(5):1172–1182. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98366.x
Wilson KA, Cabeza M, Klein CJ (2007) Spatial conservation prioritizaation: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Wolf C, Ripple WJ (2016) Prey depletion as a threat to the world’s large carnivores. R Soc Open Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160252
Acknowledgements
Much of the fieldwork, and the final analyses, were supported by a series of three programmatic grants to D.W.M. by the Robertson Foundation. We are deeply grateful to them, and to those of our collaborators who contributed data for additional sites. We also thank the following colleagues for earlier collaborations that led up to this research: H. Bothwell, A. Campos-Arceiz, R. Clements, L. Hedges, S. Htun, E. Macdonald, K. Moe, J. Moore, H. Naing, M. Onuma, M. Rayan, S. Pan, J. Wadey and C. Mendes. Data from sites in Kalimantan were collected under research permits issued to S.M.C. by the Indonesian Ministry of Research and Technology.
Funding
This work was supported by a series of three programmatic Grants to D.W.M. by the Robertson Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: CCS, SAC and DWM; Field work: JK, AJH, EA, AR, AF, BPY, CKWT, GB, IAH, ML, OEC, PC, PS, PPK, SC; Formal analysis and investigation: CCS, ZK, SAC; Writing—original draft preparation: CCS, ZK, SAC, DWM; Funding acquisition: DWM; Supervision: DWM and SAC. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Editorial Responsibiility: Nigel Stork.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sartor, C.C., Kaszta, Z., Kamler, J. et al. Identifying remnant biodiversity hotspots in Southern Asia reveals disequilibrium in mammalian communities. Biodivers Conserv 33, 3057–3074 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02902-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02902-0