An Evaluation of the Conservation of Amazon River Dolphins (Inia Geoffrensis) in a Brazilian Protected Area

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An Evaluation of the Conservation of Amazon River Dolphins (Inia Geoffrensis) in a Brazilian Protected Area
Physical Description:
1 online resource (176 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Mintzer, Vanessa J
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Interdisciplinary Ecology
Committee Chair:
FRAZER,TOM K
Committee Co-Chair:
LORENZEN,KAI
Committee Members:
SCHMINK,MARIANNE C

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
amazon -- area -- boto -- conservation -- dolphin -- geoffrensis -- inia -- protected -- reserve -- river
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
The Amazon River dolphin (Inia geoffrensis), or boto, has shared the same aquatic resources and space with fishers for thousands of years.  In the last decades, due to human population expansion, growing markets, and technological advancements, interactions between botos and fishers have increased substantially.  Since the mid-1990’s, botos are being harvested to be used as bait to fish the catfish Calophysus macropterus.  To meet growing demands for this food fish in Colombia and Brazil, the harvest has spread throughout the Amazon and poses a considerable threat to the species.  The overall objective of my dissertation was to use an interdisciplinary approach to identify conservation strategies for the boto with a specific focus on determining if protected areas (PAs) could be an effective tool. The Mamirauá Sustainable Development Reserve (MSDR), in the Brazilian Amazon, served as a focal area for my research.  I first determined the effect of illegal harvest on boto survival. Then, I explored fisher attitudes and behaviors toward botos to determine the effect, if any, of the MSDR on fisher-boto interactions.  Next, I investigated boto habitat use and movement patterns. Finally, I developed a model to determine the effect of the MSDR on boto abundance and to evaluate potential PA design improvements.  Major findings included: 1) the current harvest level in the study area is likely unsustainable, 2) the MSDR has promoted positive attitudes toward the boto and, in some areas, may have limited the harvest by means of local enforcement, 3) based on boto movement patterns, and the presence of the MSDR initiatives, expanding the PA boundaries and programs could lead to boto population increase. These findings support the conclusion that, under stringent circumstances, PAs could be an effective strategy to conserve botos. In the case of the MSDR, expanding the boundaries to include river habitat adjacent to the floodplain would provide a sanctuary for botos during the low water season.  Moreover, community-based research, ecotourism, and enforcement programs would need to be expanded along with the boundaries.  By meeting these criteria, the MSDR could prevent the decline of the local boto population.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Vanessa J Mintzer.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: FRAZER,TOM K.
Local:
Co-adviser: LORENZEN,KAI.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-06-30

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0046251:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 AN EVALUATION OF THE CONSERVATION OF AMAZON RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA GEOFFRENSIS) IN A BRAZILIAN PROTECTED AREA By VANESSA JORDAN MINTZER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Vanessa Jordan Mintzer

PAGE 3

3 To my h ubby mami, papi y her manita

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to first acknowledge the communities and fishers of the Mamirau Sustainable Development R eserve for welcoming me into their homes and supporting my research. The participation and collaboration of these communities was essential to the fulfillment of my study The Colnia de Pescadores de Tef and Alvares also provided indispensable assistance and support. I thank the various e ntities that provided me with financial and logistical support for my graduate studies and field research: The School of Natural Resources and Environment, the Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Program, and the Tropical Conservation and Development Program a t the University of Florida; the National Amazon Research Institute INPA/MCTI; the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve MSDI OS/MCT; the Society for Marine Mammalogy; Projeto Boto; and the Associao Amigos do Peixe Boi. I am extremely grateful to my academic advisors, Dr. Thomas K. Frazer and Dr. Kai Lorenzen, for their perpetual guidance insight, and support thr oughout my doctoral program. I also thank Dr. Marianne Schmink for her insightfulness and direction in pursuing an interdisciplinary dissertation. I am also immensely grateful to Dr. Vera M.F da Silva and Professor Anthony Martin for opening the door that allowed me to conduct research in the Amazon and for providing continuous logistical and intellectual assistance I extend a big thank you to Dr. Stephen Humphrey for encouraging the advancement of my studies from a young age. I feel honored to have had the privilege of working with such an outstanding group of a cademics throughout my doctoral program.

PAGE 5

5 I also ext end a special thanks to Rosana Nobre Soares, Filizmino Ribeiro, Nvia A.S. do Carmo, Bianca Bernandon, and Valdinei Lemos Lopes for their assistance in the field. I am also grateful to Dr. Andrew Barbour, Dr. Claudia Pealoza, Dr. William Pine, Dr Taylor Stein, and James Coley for their insight and advice. Cathy Ritchie, Meisha Wade, Karen Bray, and Patricia Sampaio also deserve big thanks for always extending a helping hand. Last but certainly not least, I want to express my love and gratitude to my friends and family who have supported me during every step of this journey. I thank Colleen Donovan, Donna LaBarge, Mary Gryzbek, and Rachel Schwartz Sohn for their endless encouragement and advice The Mintzer family also deserve s a big thank you for be ing a sturdy pillar of support throughout the last five years. I extend a heartfelt thanks to my sister Vernica for always reminding me to laugh. I am forever in debt to my parents, Maria Clara and Victor, for instilling in me the values and principles that guide me every day for enrolling me at the Miami Seaquarium summer camp when I was seven (the event that ultimately led to this degree), and for never failing to provide an encouraging word when most needed Finally, no words can expr ess the gratitude I feel toward the lov e of my life, Ryan. T his degree is his as much as it is mine, as there is absolutely no way I could have completed this work without his unconditional love and support T hank you. Gracias. Obrigada.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9 LIST OF FIGURE S ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 14 2 EFFECT OF ILLEGAL HARVEST ON APPARENT SURVIVAL OF AMAZON RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA GE OFFRENSIS) ................................ ............................ 18 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 18 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 20 Study Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 20 Capture and Recapture/Resight ................................ ................................ ...... 21 Survival Model Selection and Data Analysis ................................ .................... 22 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 24 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 25 Model Performance ................................ ................................ ......................... 25 Survival E stimates ................................ ................................ ........................... 25 Significance of the Harvest and Conservation Implications ............................. 26 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 32 3 AN EVALUATION OF THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN FISHERS AND AMAZON RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA GEOFFRENSIS) IN A BRAZILIAN PROTECTED AREA: A HUMAN DIMENSIONS PERSPECTIVE .......................... 39 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 39 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 42 Study Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 42 The Mamirau S ustainable Development Reserve ................................ ... 42 Projeto Boto ................................ ................................ .............................. 44 Interview Protocol and Questionnaire ................................ .............................. 44 Attitude Assessment ................................ ................................ ....................... 46 Socioeco nomic and Demographic Variables ................................ ............. 47 Interaction Variables ................................ ................................ ................. 48 Effect of Protected Area ................................ ................................ ............ 48 Mythology Belief in the Legend of the Encantado ................................ ..... 50 Behavior Assessment ................................ ................................ ...................... 51 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 52 Fisher Demographics ................................ ................................ ...................... 52

PAGE 7

7 Percepti on of Boto Population Trend ................................ ............................... 53 Fishery Boto Interactions ................................ ................................ ................ 53 Fisher Attitudes Toward Botos ................................ ................................ ........ 56 Self reported Fisher Behaviors Toward Botos ................................ ................. 58 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 60 Interactions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 60 Perception of the Boto Population and Harvest ................................ ............... 62 Positive Attitudes and Effect of the MSDR ................................ ...................... 63 Fisher Behaviors Toward Botos ................................ ................................ ...... 64 Effect of the Legends ................................ ................................ ...................... 66 Conclu sion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 6 6 4 HOME RANGE AND SEASONAL MOVEMENTS OF RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA GEOFFRENSIS) IN A PROTECTED AMAZONIAN FLOODPLAIN ........................ 73 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 73 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 76 Study Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 76 Capture and Recapture/Resight Protocol ................................ ........................ 77 Linear Home Range ................................ ................................ ........................ 77 Core Use A rea Estimation ................................ ................................ ............... 79 Seasonal Movement ................................ ................................ ....................... 81 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 85 Observed Linear Home Range ................................ ................................ ........ 85 Co re Use Areas ................................ ................................ ............................... 85 Seasonal Movement ................................ ................................ ....................... 86 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 88 Home Range ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 88 Movement Patterns ................................ ................................ ......................... 89 Bay Core Use Area ................................ ................................ ......................... 90 A Note on Capture Probabilities ................................ ................................ ...... 91 Implications for Conservation ................................ ................................ .......... 91 5 PROTECTED AREA EVALUATION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HARVESTED AMAZON RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA GEOFFRENSIS) ................... 103 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 103 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 106 Case Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 106 Model Structure ................................ ................................ ............................. 108 Parameter Estimation ................................ ................................ .................... 110 Scenario Building ................................ ................................ .......................... 113 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 115 Model Performance ................................ ................................ ....................... 115 Transition Probabilities ................................ ................................ .................. 115 Scenario Predictions ................................ ................................ ..................... 116 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 116

PAGE 8

8 Abundance Trend ................................ ................................ .......................... 116 Model Limitations ................................ ................................ .......................... 117 Protected Areas for Amazon River Dolphins ................................ ................. 118 Protected Area Evaluation ................................ ................................ ............. 119 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSERVATION ................................ ................................ ................................ 128 APPENDIX A FISHER SURVEY ENGLISH ................................ ................................ ............. 132 B FISHER SURVEY PORTUGUESE ................................ ................................ .... 146 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................ 160 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ......................... 176

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Barker joint d ata model parameter definitions ................................ .................... 33 2 2 QAICc table from Barker survival model results ................................ ................ 33 3 1 Questions and responses included in questionnaire to determin e fisher attitudes toward botos ................................ ................................ ....................... 68 3 2 Expl anatory variables incl uded in the attitude assessment ................................ 68 3 3 Reasons reported by fishers for why they believe botos are an important animal in the Amazon ................................ ................................ ........................ 69 3 4 Reasons reported by more than one fisher for why they believe it is important to protect botos from being killed ................................ ................................ ....... 69 4 1 Resighting records and observed complex l inear range of Inia geoffrensis captured and resighted in the Mamirau La ke System and surrounding areas .. 94 4 2 Core use area (CUA) of six Inia geoffrensis indi viduals as determin ed by kernel density estimation ................................ ................................ ................... 96 4 3 AICc table from multi state model results ................................ .......................... 96 5 1 Five year output for the evaluative model ................................ ........................ 121 5 2 QAICc table from multi state model results ................................ ..................... 122

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Map of study site, the Mamirau La ke System and surrounding areas .............. 34 2 2 Hours of observation work conducted in and around the Mamirau Lake System to provide resight data of Inia geoffrensis ................................ ............. 35 2 3 Capture, recapture, and resight counts from 1994 to 2011 of Inia geoffrensis occurring in and around the Mamirau Lake System ................................ ......... 36 2 4 Apparent survival estimates for 1994 2011 for Inia geoffrensis occurring in and around the Mamirau Lake System ................................ ............................ 37 2 5 Apparent survival estimates for the pre harvest (January 1994 November 2000) and harvest period (November 2000 November 2011) for Inia geoffrensis ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 38 3 1 Map of the study area, the southern segment of the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve and surrounding areas in Amazonas State, Brazil ......... 70 3 2 Flow chart of independent/explanatory variables (blue) and dependent variables (red) included in attitude/behavior a ssessment ................................ .. 71 3 3 Most common types of fishing gea r used by participating fishers ...................... 71 3 4 Fisher opinion of botos grouped by the level of participation of the fisher in M SDR and Projeto Boto activities ................................ ................................ ...... 72 3 5 Fisher opinion of botos grouped by community t ype in which the fisher resides ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 72 4 1 Map of study site, the Mamirau Lake System (MLS) and surrounding areas ... 97 4 2 Map of the Observed Complex Linear Range of Inia geoffrensis ID 6 ............... 98 4 3 Observed Complex Linear Ranges of Inia geoffrensis individuals sighted at least 150 times in the Mamirau La ke System and surrounding areas .............. 99 4 4 Water level (m.a.s.l ) in the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve from January 2009 to December 2010 ................................ .............................. 99 4 5 Map of the overlapping core use areas of five Inia geoffrensis as determined from kernel density estimation ................................ ................................ ......... 100 4 6 Seasonal transition probability estimates for 2009 and 2010, for adults, and mother/cal f pairs and immature botos ................................ .............................. 101

PAGE 11

11 4 7 Condensed seasonal transition probability estimates for 2009 and 2010, for adults, and mother/cal f pairs and immature botos ................................ ........... 102 5 1 A schematic representation of the evaluative model showing demographic parameters of botos within the MSDR and outside the MSDR ......................... 123 5 2 Protected area boundary scenarios ap plied in the evaluative model ............... 124 5 3 Estimated abundance (N) for the captured boto population in the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve ................................ ................................ 125 5 4 Five year abundance estimates of Inia geoffrensis inside the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve (MSDR) and outside the MSDR ............... 125 5 5 Seasonal transition probability estimates for adults, and mother/calf pairs and immature botos ................................ ................................ ............................... 126 5 6 Fifty year abundance (N) trends of Inia geoffrensis estimated from five scenarios simulated in the evaluative population model ................................ .. 127

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN EVALUATION OF THE CONSERVATION OF AMAZON RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA GEOFFRENSIS) IN A BRAZILIAN PROTECTED AREA By Vanessa Jordan Mintzer December 2013 Chair: Thomas K. Frazer Cochair: Kai Lorenzen Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology The Amazon River dolphin ( Inia geoffrensis ), or boto has shared the same aquatic resources and space with fishers for thousands of years In the last decades, d ue to human population e xpansion, growing markets, and technological advancements interactions between botos and fishers have increased substantially Since the mid catfish Calophysus macropterus To meet growing demands for this food fish in Colombia and Brazil, the harvest h as spread throughout the Amazon and poses a considerable threat to the species The overall objective of my dissertation was to use an interdisciplinary approach to identify conse rvation strategies for the boto with a specific focus o n determining if protected areas (PAs) could b e an effective too l T he Mamirau Sustainable Developmen t Reserve (MSDR), in the Brazilian Amazon, served as a focal area for my research. I first determined the effect of illegal harvest on boto survival Then, I explored fisher attitudes and behaviors toward boto s to determine the effect, if any, of the MSDR on fisher boto interactions. Next, I

PAGE 13

13 investigated boto habitat use and movemen t patterns. Finally, I developed a model to determine the effect of the MSDR on boto abundance and to evaluate potentia l PA design improvements. Major findings included: 1) the current harvest level in the study area is likely unsustainable, 2) the MSDR has promoted positive attitudes toward the boto and in some areas, may have limited the harvest by means of local enforcement 3) based on boto movement patterns and the presence of the MSDR initiatives, expanding the PA boundaries and programs could lead to boto population increase T hese findings support the conclusion that, under stringent circumstances, PAs could be an effective strategy to conserve botos. In the case of the MSDR, expanding the boundaries to include river habitat adjacent to the flo odplain would provide a sanctuary for botos during the low water season. Moreover, commu nity based research, ecotourism, and enforcement programs would need to be expanded along with the boundaries. By meeting these criteria, the MSDR could prevent the decline of the local boto population.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Amazon River dolphin or boto ( Inia geoffrensis ) has coexisted with fishers in the Amazon basin for thousands of years L ow human population densities primitive fishing gear and the prevalence of subsistence economies throughout the river basin are factors that have likely contributed to the persistence of the boto. However, the Amazonian environment has been shifting quickly and growing economic forces are exerting pressure on terrestrial and aquatic resources in unprecedented ways. As Amazonian residents have become more integrated into market based economies, wildlife has become a quick source of cash ( Sierra et al. 1999 ). Many Amazonian wildlife species have become thre atened by local hunting (Bodmer et al. 1997; Peres, 2000 ) and the boto is no exception (da Silva et al., 2011; Mintzer et al., 2013). Illegal killing for use as bait has become the primary threat affecting botos. Since the mid 1990s, boto carcasses have been used to attract the catfish Calophysus macropterus commonly known as piracatinga in Brazil and mota in Colombia ( da Silva et al., 2011; Gmez et al., 2008; Gmez Salazr et al., 2012 ; Loch et al., 2009; Porto carrero Aya et al., 2010 a ; Shostell and Ruiz Garcia, 2010 ; Trujillo et al., 2010b, 2010c ) Demand for mota has grown in Colombia in the last decade because it is acting as a replacement for another catfish known as capaz ( Pimelodus grosskopfii ) that was Consequently, an international market has emerged involving the catch of mota in Brazil (and recentl y Venezuela, Ecuador, and Peru) and the export of this food fish to Colombia and a few large Brazilian cities. Although little is known about the extent and intensity of the boto harvest, we know that

PAGE 15

15 it occurs in at least twelve locations in four out of the five Amazonian countries with mota fisheries (Diniz, 2011 ). Protected areas (PAs) are a key conservation tool in the Amazon (Peres, 2005 ) At present, however, there are no PAs aimed specifically at protecting botos, although populations do occur in PAs throughout their range ( e.g., Santos Luzardo National Park in Venezuela, Pacaya Samiria National Reserve in Peru, Noel Kempff Mercado National Park in Bolivia, C u yabeno Wildlife Production Reserve and Yasun National Park in Ecuador, and the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve in Brazil; Aliaga Rossel, 2002; da Silva and Martin, 2000; McGuire and Winemille r, 1998; Utreras et al., 2010) To address this apparent deficiency, t he Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society is coordinating with aquatic mammal and conservation scientists in South America to establish the South American River Dolphin Protected Area Network (SARDPAN). The network includes over 30 protected areas, in six South American countries that could in theory, help protect botos from the illegal harvest ( Portocarre ro et al. 2010 b ; < http://sardpan.wordpress.com/protected areas/ > ). Currently, however, there is very limited information on if and how PAs can be a successful strategy for the conservation of b otos. Moreover, the extent, impact, and drivers of the illegal harvest are poorly understood. Key questions that need to be addressed to carry out successful conservation initiatives include: What is the impact of the harvest on the boto? Is the harves t sustainable? Are PAs effective in reducing harvest rates within their boundaries? If so, how is this achieved? What are the drivers of the harvest? What aspects of river dolphin biology and ecology need to be taken into account when establishing PAs ? An swers to these questions are most appropriately

PAGE 16

16 pursued through an interdisciplinary perspective that considers social and ecological components (Gunderson and Holling 2002 ; Oakerson, 1992; Ostrom, 2007; Ostrom et al., 2007 ). By considering various elements of the social ecological system that surround the harvest and emphasizing the importance of both botos and fishers I aim to answer these questions in a holistic manner. My st udy takes place in the Mamirau Lake System (MLS) located in the sou thern segment of the Mamirau Sustain able Development Reserve (MSDR) and surrounding areas ( Figure 2 1 ) The MSDR is an International Union for the Conservation of Nature ( IUCN ) Category VI protected area in the Brazilian Amazo n It is recognized by the Ramsar Convention and is considered a World Heritage site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization The MSDR consists of a focal area of about 260,000 hectares where management efforts are in place, and a subsidiary area of approximately 864,000 hectares (Koziell and Inoue 2006) It was established in 1996 with the aim of combining biodiversity conservati on and sustainable resource use, with the active participation of local human populations (SCM, 1996). The MSDR consists mostly of floodplain habitat or vrzea and is recognized as important habitat for a boto population that has been studied continuously since 1994 (da Silva and Martin, 2000; Martin and da Silva, 2004a, 2004 b). Regardless of the PA status afforded b y the MSDR, this boto population has been subject to illegal harvest for bait since approximately 2000 ( da Silveira and Viana, 2003; Estupin et al., 2003). In Chapter 2, I examine the effect of the harvest on survival of the bot o population occurring in and near the MSDR. Using mark recapture modeling I compare survival probabilities of the pre harvest and harvest periods to quantify the impact of the

PAGE 17

17 harvest on the boto population In Chapter 3, I explore the human dimensions of the harvest by assessing attitudes and behavior s of fishers toward the boto population. I investigate various aspects of fisher boto interactions, including types and frequencies, and assess whether the MSDR is limiting the boto harvest. In Chapter 4 I evaluate boto movement patterns and home range sizes by using a combination of mark recapture and spatial analyses tools. By determining linear home ranges core use areas, and seasonal movement patterns, I am able to identify essential habitat for th e population and define how botos use the MSDR Finally, in Chapter 5, I develop a population model to determine the effectiveness of the MSDR in protecting botos and evaluate various PA scenarios to identify potential improvements Together, the results of these studies will help inform conservation initiatives aimed at protecting Amazon River dolphins.

PAGE 18

18 CH APTER 2 EFFECT OF ILLEGAL HARVEST ON APPARENT SURVIVAL OF AMAZON RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA GEOFFRENSIS) Background Interactions with fisheries, mostly through incidental capture in fishing gear but also through targeted harvesting are recognized as a key threat to aquatic mammal populations (Clapham and Van Waerebeek, 2007; Costello and Baker, 2011; Jefferson and Curry, 1994; Mange l et al. 2010; Northridge and Hofman, 1999; Perrin et al., 1994; Read, 2008; Read et al., 2006; Robards and Reeves, 2011; Vidal, 1993). Perhaps the least well quantified aspect of aquatic mammal fisheries interactions is the harvesting of mammals for use a s bait, a practice affecting at least 38 species of aquatic mammals worldwide (Diniz, 2011). Direct harvest of aquatic mammals for this purpose is considered an illegal activity in many nations where it takes place; hence, the prevalence of this illicit pr actice and subsequent impact has proved challenging to quantify. Most studies on the issue only provide information on where the illicit harvest occurred without related data on intensity, duration, or effects of the harvest (Diniz, 2011). However, in a l imited number of cases where such ancillary data has been provided, findings suggest illegal harvests for bait may have considerable impacts on targeted populations (e.g. da Silva et al., 2011; Manzur and Canto, 1997; Sinha, 2002). The Amazon River dolphi n ( Inia geoffrensis de Blainville, 1817), or boto, has been harvested for use as bait in the fisheries for the catfish known as piracatinga, Reprinted with permission from Mintzer, V.J., Martin, A.R., Da Silva, V.M.F., Barbour, A.B., Lorenzen, K., Frazer, T.K., 2013. Effect of illegal harvest on apparent survival of Amazon River dolphins ( Inia geoffrensis ). Biol. Conserv. 158, 280 286

PAGE 19

19 mota, simi, zamurito or mapurite ( Calophysus macropterus Lichtenstein, 1819) (da Silva et al., 2011; Gmez et al., 2008; Gmez Salazr et al., 2012; Loch et al., 2009; Portocarrero Aya et al., 2010a; Shostell and Ruiz Garcia, 2010; Trujillo et al., 2010b, 2010c). During the last decade, demand for C. macropterus has grown in Colombia as other species of catfish once po pularly consumed in the country have been overfished (Gmez et al., 2008; Petrere et al., 2004; Trujillo et al., 2010b). In fact, demand is such that an international market has emerged with Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, and Bolivia, all contributing to the exp ort of this food fish to Colombia, where it is often sold under the name capaz one of the depleted catfish species from the Magdalena River (Diniz, 2011; Gmez et al., 2008; Trujillo et al., 2007 2010b ). More recently, consumption of C. macropterus has a lso gained popularity in a few Brazilian cities where it is marketed as Thus, although the boto is considered the least endangered of the river dolphins (Inioidea and Platanistidae; Leatherwood and Reeves, 1994; Smith and Smith, 1998), the demand for C. macropterus and related harvest of boto for bait raises substantial concern. At present, harvest of botos for bait is known to occur in at least twelve locations in four of the five Amazonian countries with C. macropterus fisheries (Diniz, 2011), including in and around the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve (MSDR) upriver of the Brazilian town of Tef. Although the harvest in this region may have started as early as the mid 1990s, the first cases in MSDR were docume nted in 2000 (da Silveira and Viana, 2003; Estupin et al., 2003). Using C. macropterus landings data from Tef, da Silva et al. (2011) estimated that roughly 1650 botos are killed in the

PAGE 20

20 area per fishery season. Moreover, the same authors reported a 10% average annual trend coincident with the first documented occurrence of the illegal harvest. These findings highlight the need to further explore the impact of harvesting for bait on the boto population. Herein, we provide estimates of apparent survival for the boto population occurring in and around the Mamirau Lake System (MLS) at the southern edge of the MSDR. Using mark recapture/resighting models, we explore changes in s urvival between periods of varying harvest pressure. We expected that survival estimates prior to the documented start of the harvest, i.e. 1994 2000, would be greater than estimates for the more recent period for which data were available, i.e. 2000 2011. Additionally, we compared survival between the sexes, with the expectation that survival of males would be significantly lower than that of females, based on differences in morphology and behavior. Males are larger (55% heavier and 16% longer than females ), exhibit high levels of intermale aggression (Martin and da Silva, 2006), and show preference for river habitat outside the protected area boundary (Martin and da Silva, 2004b). Methods Study Area All data were collected in and around the MLS located at the confluence of the Solimes and Japur rivers, 20 km upriver of Tef in Amazonas State, Brazil ( Figure 2 1 ). The study area straddles the southern edge of the MSDR. Typical of whitewater floodplain or vrzea habitat, the MLS has numerous channels and lakes and a diverse fish fauna that varies seasonally in response to water fluctuations. During May and June, water levels rise 11 15 m and the MLS is completely flooded. Lowest water levels typically occur

PAGE 21

21 between September and N ovember. These water fluctuations determine what habitats are available for the boto population. While botos may be restricted to the deepest channels and lakes during the low water months, they may swim freely and enter submerged forest at high water. Pr evious estimates suggest approximately 260 botos occur in or near the 225 km 2 MLS year round (Martin and da Silva, 2004a, 2004b). Half of these individuals exhibit strong site fidelity to the study area, while others are considered transient and visit for shorter periods (Martin and da Silva, 2004a). Capture and Recapture/Resight Our capture recapture and resight data spans 17 years (January 1994 November 2011). These data were collected through Projeto Boto, a river dolphin research program in the MSDR. Capture recapture and marking of botos occurred approximately 3 weeks each year. With few exceptions, we captured botos with seine nets during low water at the entrance of the MLS. When captured, we freeze branded botos with a unique code in areas allowing for maximum contrast and visibility (usually the dorsal fin and flank). When previously marked botos were captured, we recorded their code and rebranded the individual if necessary. Further description of capture procedures is available in da Silva and Ma rtin (2000) and Martin et al. (2006). These data were collected with the approval of the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservao da Biodiversidade (Sistema de Autorizao e Informao em Biodiversidade #13462 1). In addition to the capture recapture events, we conducted year round observational work to provide resightings between capture events. We conducted sighting surveys throughout the MLS and surrounding areas, including segments of the main rivers. Due to varying water levels, we did not evenly distribu te effort across the entire study area. Most areas, however, were surveyed at least once per week by 2 3

PAGE 22

22 observers from a 4 m skiff. We included additional sightings from other platforms, such as the Projeto Boto floating laboratory. When a marked boto was sighted, we recorded its unique code and our percent confidence in the identification (ranging from 50% to 100%, but normally 100%). Since 1999, an average of almost 1500 h of observational work has been conducted each year with an increasing trend over t ime ( Figure 2 2 ). Survival Model Selection and Data Analysis We estimated apparent survival of the marked population with the Barker model (Barker, 1997, 1999) in Program MARK (White and Burnham, 1999). This model allows for physical capture recapture during discrete primary periods, and continuous resighting data during secondary periods (the intervals between primary periods). We created capture histories for marked individuals captured between 1994 and 2011, using resightin gs made with 100% confidence. We coded for uneven time intervals by scaling 365 days to equal an interval of length 1. Program MARK estimates seven parameters for the Barker model ( Table 2 1 ) (White and Burnham, 1999). As resigh tings did not occur over the entire geographic range of the study populati on, we estimated apparent survival ( ), which includes the effects of emigration ( = true survival x (1 probability of emigration)). We transformed real parameter values [0,1] to values [ ] with the sin link or logit link function for numerical optimization. We used simulated annealing for optimization due to a prior simulation that identified problematic likelihood surfaces leading to convergence failures when using the Newto n Raphson method with the Barker model. The Barker model is heavily parameterized; hence, we made a priori assumptions on how to treat p, r and R ( Table 2 1 ). We fixed r as a time independent

PAGE 23

23 (.) parameter because we had few d ead recoveries (only 12 marked carcasses were found during the study period) and therefore lacked sufficient data to inform time dependent estimates. We defined R and R as time dependent parameters to allow for changes in obser vation effort through time ( Figure 2 2 ). Both of these parameters were allowed to vary between 3 year intervals (3y) to reduce the parameter count. Capture probability ( p ) was treated as a time dependent parameter (t) because we expected p to vary according to the environmental conditions of each capture expedition. We created a series of models that allowed F and F ( Table 2 1 ) to vary with time dependence (t) or independence (.). We also built models that allowed and F to vary according to sex (G). Additionally, because the illegal harvest of botos in the MSDR started approximately in 2000, we created models where was allowed to vary be tween two periods: 1994 2000 (i.e. pre harvest) and 2000 2011 (i.e. harvest). The data were partitioned on November 20, 2000, the last day of the 2000 capture expedition. We conducted a median goodness of fit test on the global model (G*t)p(G*t)r(G*t) to assess overdispersion (White and Burnham, 1999). We then applied the estimated c (variance inflation factor) to the model set. Values that do not fall within 4 indicate a structural lack of fit (Burnham and Anderson, 2 rank models (Akaike, 1973). Lower AIC values indicate models that better explain the variation in the data with maximum parsimony (Taper et al., 2008). Because we applied the estimated c to our m odel set, we used the small sample corrected version of AIC, QAICc, for model ranking. Models with QAICc values that differed by less than 2 were considered equal (Burnham and Anderson, 2002, 2004). We tested for a

PAGE 24

24 significant difference between appare nt survival estimates corresponding to different time periods and sex by examining the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the values representing the time or sex effect (if the 95% CIs of the value did not include 0.0, a significant effect was determined at the = 0.05 level). Results We uniquely branded 528 botos (256 females and 272 males). Excluding botos first marked in 2011, we resighted 87.71% of females and 88.93% of males at least once. We recaptured an average of 25.56 (17.90 SD) bra nded individuals each year ( Figure 2 3 ). The median goodness of fit test resulted in = 1 162, well within the acceptable range, and we adjusted all model results with this value. QAICc strongly supported a model with full y time dependent survival estimates ( Table 2 2 ; Model 1). This model estimated a significant difference in F by sex, with estimates of = 0.808 (SE = 0.051) for females and = 0.706 (SE = 0.064) for males ( Table 2 2 ; Model 1). Capture probability ( p ) varied considerably between years, with an average of p = 0.253. This model suggested declining apparent survival through time, with an average annual apparent survival of 0.912 over th Figure 2 4 ). When estimating apparent survival separately for the pre harvest and harvest periods, we found a significant difference (pre harvest: = 0.968, SE = 0.009; harvest period: = 0.899, SE = 0.007) ( Table 2 2 ; Model 5; Figure 2 5 ). The model including sex as a group attribute of survival ( Table 2 2 ; Model 8) estimated a non significant difference in annual apparent survival between females ( = 0.919, SE = .008) and males ( = 0.904, SE = 0.009). Moreover, no significant difference was found between apparent survival of females and males for the pre

PAGE 25

25 harvest (females: = 0.973, SE = 0.011; males: = 0.963, SE = 0.01 4) or harvest period (females: = 0.906, SE = 0.009; males: = 0.891, SE = 0.010) ( Table 2 2 ; Model 6). Discussion Model Performance The Barker model fit the data well ( = 1.162) and accounted for variable sighting effort with time dependent estimates of the resighting parameter, R Although botos are known to occasionally emigrate from the study area for several years, it is unlikely this temporary emigration induced a m ajor negative bias in apparent survival estimates as the Barker model is robust to emigration due to its parameterizations (Barker, 1997; Horton and Letcher, 2008). Additionally, the value near 1 suggested a lack of major model assumption violations. Sur vival Estimates Our results indicate that annual apparent survival significantly decreased by 0.069 after the documented start of the harvest. The apparent survival estimate of 0.968 for the pre harvest period is consistent with boto life history, which is characterized by traits associated with high annual survival such as slow maturation and birth intervals of approximately 3 years ( da Silva, 2008). This apparent survival estimate is comparable to survival estimates of non harvested populations of Tursiop s truncatus (Speakman et al., 2010), Tursiops aduncus (Mansur et al., 2012), and Orcinus orca (Matkin et al., 2012) which range from 0.951 to 0.990. However, annual apparent survival estimates for the full study duration ( = 0.912) and for the harvest peri od ( = 0.899; SE = 0.007)

PAGE 26

26 are lower than most published survival estimates of other odontocetes, suggesting a negative effect of harvest on the population. We did not expect equal apparent survival between the sexes. The species is sexually dimorphic, and males exhibit corresponding high levels of intermale aggression that may lead to life threatening injuries (Martin and da Silva, 2006). Furthermore, when a wide range of habitats is available during high water, females show preference for vrzea habitats within the MLS, while males are found more frequently in the main rivers outside of the protected area boundary (Martin and da Silva, 2004b). Thus, in theory, males are at a higher risk of being harvested because they spend more time outside protected wate rs. For these two reasons, we expected lower apparent survival in males. It is possible the harvest is exerting selective pressure on females (if, for example, females are easier to catch), and increasing mortality of females to the extent that survival of females and males have equalized. However, our results did not show a significant difference between male and female apparent survival during the pre harvest period, suggesting that similar survival probability between the sexes is a natural characteristi c. Significance of the Harvest and Conservation Implications Assuming declines in apparent survival were due to lethal as opposed to sub lethal effects (e.g. changes in behavior), the results indicate that mortality of the study population more than doubled between the two time periods. Dividing the harvest period apparent survival estimate by the pre harvest period estimate, we calculate a reduction in survival corresponding to an annual harvest rate ( h ) of 0.071. The Potential Biological Removal (PBR) method, commonly applied to cetaceans, calculates the level of mortality that will inhibit a stock from reaching or maintaining its optimum sustainable

PAGE 27

27 population (Wade, 1998). Accor ding to the PBR approach, the maximum allowable harvest rate ( h max ) is equal to 1/2 R max (Dillingham and Fletcher, 2008), where R max is defined as the maximum annual recruitment rate (Wade, 1998). If we apply an R max of 0.04, the default value used for ceta ceans (Wade, 1998), the h max would equal 0.02, a value about three times smaller than our estimated h. If we apply a higher R max value of 0.06 (theoretically possible in odontocetes with high survival, Reilly and Barlow, 1986; Wade, 1998), the estimated h is still more than double the h max of 0.03 calculated by the PBR rule. This comparison suggests the current harvest rates exceed conservation limits commonly applied to cetaceans and could lead to depletion of the population (Dillingham and Fletcher, 2008) It is possible that factors other than illegal harvest could explain, in part, declines in boto survival. Throughout its geographic range, dam construction, pollution, entanglement in fishing gear, habitat degradation, boat traffic, and depleted prey res ources have been identified as important anthropogenic threats to the species (Best and da Silva, 1989 a; 1993 ; da Silva and Best, 1996; Gmez Salazr et al., 2012; Leatherwood and Reeves, 1994; Martin et al., 2004; McGuire and Aliaga Rossel, 2010 a ; Portoca rrero Aya et al., 2010a; Reeves and Leatherwood, 1994; Rosas and Lehti, 1996; Smith and Smith, 1998; Trujillo et al., 2010b, 2010c; Utreras et al., 2010; Vidal, 1993). However, due to the location of the study, we suggest that aside from illegal harvest, o nly entanglement in fishing gear is likely to substantially affect mortality of the study population. Although incidental mortality in fishing gear has not been studied in most areas in the Amazon, it is known that seine nets and gillnets pose a significa nt threat to botos

PAGE 28

28 (e.g. da Silva and Best, 1996; Leatherwood and Reeves, 1994). In the central Amazon, the lampara seine is the most lethal type of net for botos and accounts for over 80% of deaths caused by entanglement (da Silva and Best, 1996). Many o f the boto carcasses recovered by Projeto Boto during the study period showed evidence of entanglement (da Silva and Martin, 2010; Martin et al., 2004). Furthermore, observations suggest fishers kill botos intentionally because they regard them as competit ors, and because botos cause damage to fishing nets (da Silva and Best, 1996; da Silva and Martin, 2010; Loch et al., 2009). The number of artisanal and commercial fleets in the study region has remained relatively stable in the last two decades after expe riencing a period of fast growth in the 1970s and 1980s (Almeida et al., 2003; Barthem, 1995; Best and da Silva, 1989 a ). Thus, although fishery interactions other than boto harvest for bait are likely causes of additive mortality for our study population ( Martin et al., 2004), there is no indication that such interactions have increased considerably since the onset of this study, and are therefore not likely to explain the decrease in apparent survival. However, this threat should be carefully considered in conservation and management plans, as it was the primary cause of the functional extinction of the Yangtze River dolphin (Turvey et al., 2007) and changes in the size, gear, or techniques of Amazonian fishing fleets could lead to considerable increases in boto mortality. The significant decline in apparent survival estimated in this study suggests a need for conservation measures aimed at decreasing the boto harvest. Currently, two main tools are in place that should aid in the protection of the study popu lation. First, the boto is protected by Brazilian federal laws, predominantly Law 7.643 (1987) that makes it illegal to kill or harass cetaceans in jurisdictional waters. However, enforcement of

PAGE 29

29 natural resource protection laws in the Amazon is challenging and efforts are often compromised as a consequence of budget constraints, understaffing, and other institutional deficiencies (McGuire and Aliaga Rossel, 2010 a ; Peres and Terborgh, 1995; Trujillo et al., 2010c; Utreras et al., 2010). This appears to be t he case in our study region, where only four federal officials have been available to enforce conservation related regulations in an area that exceeds 251,000 km 2 (Peres and Lake, 2003). Furthermore, lack of awareness by fishers of existing legislation has been noted as an impediment to the conservation of botos (e.g. da Silva and Martin, 2010 ; McGuire and Aliaga Rossel, 2010 a ). The second major conservation mechanism is the partial spatial protection provided by the MSDR. Although the MSDR was not created with the specific purpose of protecting river dolphins, the reserve includes important river dolphin habitat. To our knowledge, the harvest does not occur in the section of our study area that falls within the MSDR ( Figure 2 1 ) Our results indicate that both females ( F = 0.808; SE = 0.051) and males ( F = 0.706; SE = 0.064) exhibit high fidelity to our study area; therefore, the protected area should function by protecting the population at least part of the time (primarily duri ng rising water when botos enter the vrzea Martin and da Silva, 2004b). If the MSDR did not exist, it is likely the mortality of our study population would have been higher in the harvest period. Nevertheless, our results imply that the spatial protectio n in our study area, with its current design and state, may not be sufficient in and of itself to protect this population. Marine protected areas have been shown recently to be effective in increasing survival rates of small cetaceans by reducing fishery dolphin interactions (Gormley et

PAGE 30

30 al., 2012). These findings suggest that properly designed protected areas in the Amazon basin might translate into similar benefits for river dolphins. As proposed by the South American River Dolphin Protected Area Network (SARDPAN), protected areas created or improved explicitly for river dolphin conservation could have the potential to reduce the impact of fishery river dolphin interactions, as well as help conserve vulnerable freshwater habitats largely underrepresented i n South American protected areas (Portocarrero Aya et al., 2010b). Although much remains to be understood about river dolphin ecology, several studies have provided valuable information on boto habitat preference and movement that could prove useful in des igning new protected areas or improving existing ones (e.g. Gmez Salazr et al., 2012; Leatherwood et al., 2000; Martin and da Silva, 2004a, 2004b; Martin et al., 2004; McGuire and Henningsen, 2007; McGuire and Winemiller, 1998). In our study site, for e xample, extending spatial protection to adjacent areas where botos aggregate (e.g. mouths of channels that connect to the main rivers), could benefit the study population. The effectiveness of new or enhanced conservation measures can be monitored and eva luated using the baseline survival estimates provided in this study. Although improvements made to enforcement and spatial protecti on could prove to be beneficial, numerous challenges will have to be overcome to decrease boto harvest. With administrative b oundaries being crossed, the remoteness of the harvest sites, and high economic incentives, both local and international action and cooperation will be required. Broad scale initiatives like the SARDPAN could facilitate the necessary international collaboration and the implementation of new and improved conservation mechanisms. Moreover, it is imperative that all drivers of the harvest be considered

PAGE 31

31 when formulating solutions, including the troubling status of the preferred food catfish species in C olombia, as well as the socio economic conditions of fishers at the harvest sites. With this in mind, solutions of varying scope and scale should be simultaneously explored. For example, while a widespread public education campaign to halt the trade and co nsumption of C. macropterus may be the focus of conservation efforts in Colombia (Trujillo et al., 2010c), more localized initiatives that educate fishers on existing legislation and alternative activities may prove successful at harvest sites (da Silva an d Martin, 2010; Trujillo et al. 2010a). Interviews with local fishers have revealed the potential economic importance of the C. macropterus fishery for families in the central Brazilian Amazon (da Silva et al., 2011). A skilled fisher can expect to catch a nywhere from USD 500 to 1000 worth of C. macropterus with just one boto carcass in one night (da Silva et al., 2011), a substantial profit considering the low average annual income of people in the region. The use of alternative baits (Gmez et al., 2008; Trujillo et al., 2010a, 2010b, 2010c) may be an economically viable solution and encourage a shift away from the practice of harvesting botos. In the Ganges River system, for example, fish oil is an efficient and inexpensive fish attractant substitute for river dolphin ( Platanista gange tica) oil (Sinha 2002). Furthermore, the role of river dolphins in ecotourism is being increasingly recognized throughout the Amazon (Portocarrero Aya et al., 2010b; Trujillo et al., 2010c), and in some locales, carefully reg ulated tourism activities could form an important link between boto conservation and economic development (Trujillo et al., 2010a, 2010c). Regardless of the corrective actions pursued to decrease the har vest, providing viable economic

PAGE 32

32 alternatives for fish ers is essential to ensure a smooth and more permanent transition away from the practice of harvesting botos. Conclusion The significant decrease in apparent survival of the study population is a serious concern and warrants the attention of natural resource managers. The issue likely extends beyond the study area as harvest of botos is known to occur throughout the Amazon b asin, and the decline in boto survival could be mirrored in other locales. In areas without designated protection status, harvest levels are likely to be higher and survival lower than estimated in this study. A timely and transdisciplinary approach is nee ded to address all components of the intricate socio ecological system that surround this illegal harvest.

PAGE 33

33 Table 2 1. Barker joint data model parameter definitions. Parameter Definitions s i The probability that an animal alive at i is alive at i + 1 p i The probability an animal at risk of capture at i is captured at i r i The probability an animal that dies in i i + 1 is found dead R i The probability an animal that survives from i to i + 1 is resighted alive some time between i and i + 1 i The probability an animal that dies in i i + 1 without being found dead is resighted alive in i i + 1 before it died F i The probability an animal at risk of capture at i is at risk of capture at i + 1 i The probability an animal not at risk of capture at i is at risk of capture at i + 1 (this definition, as applied in Program MARK (White and Burnham, 1999), differs from the one provided in Barker (1997) in order to enforce internal constraints) Table 2 2. QAICc table from Barker survival model results Model QAIC c QAIC c QAIC c Weight K 1. 6097.76 0.00 0.71 69 2. 6099.87 2.11 0.25 68 3. 6105.55 7.79 0.01 84 4. 6105.57 7.80 0.01 69 5. (94 00)(00 6106.82 9.06 0.01 52 6. (G*(94 00)(00 6109.41 11.65 0.00 54 7. 6128.11 30.36 0.00 51 8. 6128.53 30.78 0.00 52 The parameter of primary interest was apparent survival ( ). Time dependence (t) and sex effect (G) were represented with the associated symbols. Parameters p, r, R, and were fixed through a priori assumptions Number of estimated parameters (k) is listed for each model

PAGE 34

34 Figure 2 1 Map of study site, the Mamirau Lake System and surrounding areas, located at the junction of the Japur and Solimes rivers in the southern segment of the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve in Amazonas State, Brazil (GIS layers: IUCN and UNEP 2010; DCW and GADM downl oaded from < http://www.diva gis.org > )

PAGE 35

35 Figure 2 2. Hours of observation work conducted in and around the Mamirau Lake System to provide resight data of Inia geoffrensis between primary capture events. Effort from 1999 to 2009 is displayed showing an increasing trend over time. These sighting surveys were typically conducted by 2 3 observers from a 4m aluminum skiff, powered by a 15HP outboard motor.

PAGE 36

36 Figure 2 3. Capt ure, recapture, and resight counts from 1994 to 2011 of Inia geoffrensis occurring in and around the Mamirau Lake System. Capture counts (solid lines) displayed by sex represent the cumulative number of individuals marked. Approximately three weeks eac h year were dedicated to the capture recapture and marking of botos. Observational work was conducted between primary capture events to obtain resighting data

PAGE 37

37 Figure 2 4. Apparent survival estimates for 1994 2011 for Inia geoffrensis occurring in and around the Mamirau Lake System. Apparent survival estimates displayed were the results of the Barker model where was treated as a fully time dependent parameter:

PAGE 38

38 Figure 2 5. Apparent survival est imates for the pre harvest (January 1994 November 2000) and harvest period (November 2000 November 2011) for Inia geoffrensis occurring in and around the Mamirau Lake System. These estimates were the results of the model: (94 00)(00 11)p(t)r(.)R(3y) probability between periods was found to be significant at the = 0.05 level.

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 3 AN EVALUATION OF THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN FISHERS AND AMAZON RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA GEOFFRENSIS) IN A BRAZILIAN PROTECTED AREA : A HUMAN DIMENSIONS PERSPECTIVE Background Interactions with fisheries are considered a primary threat to cetacean populations worldwide ( Clapham and Van Waerebeek 2007; Costello and Baker 2011; Hall and Donovan 2001; Mangel et al. 2010; Northridge and Hofman 1999; Read et al. 2006; Read 2008; Robards and Reeves 2011 ; Smith and Smith 1998; Vidal 1993 ). Through depletion of fish stocks (DeMaster et al. 2001), incidental capture in fishing gear ( Read et al. 2006), and targeted harvesting (Costello and Baker 2011; Robards and Reeves 2011), fishing activities m ay increase cetacean mortality. I nteractions are also potentially detrimental to fishers, who may experience financial losses in t he form of gear or catch damage and depletion of fish stocks (Hall and Donovan 2001). Every species of cetacean is likely to experience conflicts with fishers to some extent but a lack of data prohibits an assessment of the type, degree and effects of these int eractions on many populations and fisheries (Northridge 1984). Although interactions between fishers and Amazon River dolphins or botos ( Inia geoffrensis de Blainville, 1817) likely date back thousands of years, they have n ot been studied in most area s of the Amazon. However, sufficient information does exist to describe the most common types of interactions and their negative effects. From the perspective of maintaining a viable boto population, the primary interaction of concern is the direct harve st of botos that has developed in the last two decades. Since around the mid 1990s botos have been harvested to be used as bait in the fisheries for the catfish known as piracatinga, mota, simi, zamurito, or mapurite ( Calophysus

PAGE 40

40 macropterus Lichtenstein, 1819) ( Brum 2011; da Silva et al. 2011; Gmez et al. 2008; Gmez Salazr et al. 2012; Loch et al. 2009; Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 2012 ; Portocarrero Aya et al. 2010; Shostell and Ruiz Garcia 2010; Trujillo et al. 2010a, 2010 b ). Although killing bot os is illegal in most Amazonian countries, the practice appears to be increas ing to meet growing demands for this food fish in Colombia and Brazil. Recent evidence suggests the harvest may be unsustainable in and around the Mamirau S ustainable Developmen t Reserve in the Brazilian Amazon (da Silva et al. 2011; Mintzer et al. 2013), where the harvest began approximately in 2000 (da Silveira and Viana 2003; Estupin et al. 2003). Aside from the direct harvest, entanglement in fishing gear is another in teraction of concern. Previous studies have shown that botos may become entangled in seine nets and gillnets and consequently drown (Best and da Silva 1989 b ; Best and da Silva 1993; Brum 2011; da Silva and Best 1996; Iriarte and Marmontel 2013 ; Leath erwood and Reeves 1994; Martin et al. 2004 ). In the Central Amazon, da Silva and Best (1996) determined that lampara seine is the most lethal type of net for botos accounting for over 80% of fishery caused deaths Seines are commonly used along beaches, where botos take advantage of the net and use it as a wall to corral fish. If botos a re foraging close to the seine when it is closed, they may become trapped in the net or purse. Gillnet s appear to be less of a threat because botos can take fish from them without causing considerable damage to the net If they do become entangled most adult s can tear free from a gillnet (da Silva and Best 1996). From the perspective of the fisher, several forms of interactions with botos are unfavorable. Botos ma y disrupt fishing operations and cause financial losses by

PAGE 41

41 frightening fish, taking fish from nets, and becoming entangled ( Best and da Silva 1989 b ; Best and da Silva 1993; da Silva and Best 1996; Leatherwood and Reeves 1994 ; Loch et al. 2009; Martin et al. 2004; Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 2012). Recent reports from the Brazilian Amazon suggest local fishers have negative attitudes toward operations ( Iriarte and Marmonte l 2011; Iriarte and Marmontel 2013 ; Loch et al 2009 ; Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 2012 ). As a result, some fishers kill botos in tentionally even though they will not use the carcass for bait (da Silva and Best, 1996 ; Loch et al. 2009). Most fishery cetacean interaction studies, including those on the boto, have focused on describing and quantifying the physical characteristics (i.e. gear type, seasonality, location) and degree or impact of the interactions on the cetacean (i.e. catch number s, changes in demographic parameters) (e.g. Brotons et al. 2008; Daz Lpez 2006; Lauriano et al. 2009; Mangel et al. 2010; Mintzer et al., 2013), with limited or no focus extended to the fisher attitudes and behaviors that may fuel these interactions However, as with other natural resource conservation issues, this human wildlife conflict is a combination of social, economic, and environmental factors, and sol utions with realistic potential need to be informed by both biophysical and human dimension s research ( McShane et al. 2011 ; Ostrom 2007; Ostrom 2009 ). Identifying and evaluating the human dimensions components may be especially important in the case of Amazon fisheries where enforcement is challenging ( Peres and Lake 2003 ; Peres and Terborg h, 1995 ) and human livelihoods are at stake ( Batista et al. 1998; Bayley and Petrere 1989; Gram et al. 2001).

PAGE 42

42 In this study, we aimed to better understand the nature of fishery boto conflicts from a primarily human dimensions perspective. Specifically our main objectives were to determine the type and frequency of fishery boto interactions, investigate attitudes and behaviors of fishers toward botos, and identify the factors that affect these attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, through these objective s we evaluated if and how the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve (MSDR) a sustainable use protected area (PA) in the Brazilian Amazon, and related programs, has been effective in promoting positiv e fisher attitudes toward botos and the effect, if an y, of these changes in attitudes on behaviors. In light of the harvest for botos, a pressing need exists to develop conservation strategies that address conflicts between fishe rs and botos, and understanding fisher attitudes and behaviors toward botos wil l be essential in formulating successful conservation tactics and improving existing ones. Methods Study Setting The Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve We conducted this study in communities and towns located in or in close outhern segment of the MSDR The MSDR is located at the intersection of the Solimes and Japur rivers in the Brazilian state of Amazo nas approximately 30 km upstream of Tef ( Figure 3 1 ). The MSDR is located within a floodplain or vrzea with water levels typically ra nging 10 15 meters seasonally It is comprised of a focal area of about 260,000 hectares, where management efforts are in place, and a subsidiary area of approximately 864,000 hectares (Koziell and Inou e 2006).

PAGE 43

43 The MSDR was established in 1996 as the first Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentvel ( S ustainable Development Reserve, SDR) in Brazil, a category of PA with the objective of reconciling the conservation of nature and economic development ( < http://www.mma.gov.br > ) According to the SDR mandate inhabitants of SDRs should actively participate in management decisions and in t he monitoring of the SDR Currently, there are nine administrative zones in the focal area of the MSDR, each of which has a local coordinator who is responsible for organizing regular meetings to discuss management issues. General meetings are held annually an d are the vehicle through which decisions are voted on. This model of community participation was chosen by the MSDR residents (SCM 1996 ). The main institution responsible for the management of the MSDR is the Mamirau Sustainable Development Institute (MSDI), an entity of the Brazilian Ministry of Science, T echnology, and Innovation, that was established in 1999. The MSDI 's main goals are the protection of ecosystems, the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, and the sustainable dev elopment of local populations. Specific programs facilitate d by the MSDI include: Management of Agroecosytems, Community Management, Fishing Management, Community Forest Management, Quality of Life and Community based Tourism (visit < http://mamiraua.org.br > for program detai ls). Most current inhabitants of the MSDR are considered caboclos, a term used to describe the Brazilian Amazonian peasantry (Lima 2009). As of 2011, the focal area of the reserve was inhabited by 1852 people, residing in over 20 communities Additional ly, 3,114 people classified as reserve users resided in communities neighboring the focal area (IDSM 2012 a ). One of the principal economic benefits that

PAGE 44

44 the MSDR offers its residents and users is the conservation of vrzea fish, the most important source of income and protein in the region (Barthem 1999; Viana 2004). In general, fishing pressure in the MSDR is low largely due to access restrictions place d on nearby commercial fishers (Barthem 1999; Batista et al., 2004; Crampton et al. 2004; Queiroz 1999; Viana 2004). Projeto Boto Projeto Boto, a not for profit research project supported by the MSDI and the Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amaznia (INPA), has been active in the focal area of the MSDR since its inception. Projeto Boto focuses on collecting data related to the life history, behavior, ecology, and physiology of botos. The project is based in a floating field base located in the focal area of the MSDR. B ecause of the proximity of the base to the MSDR communities, Projeto Boto researchers interact with local s both formally and informally throughout the year. Observational work, when researchers are actively monitoring the area for bot os, takes place year round in and around the southern segment of the MSDR, primarily the Mamirau Lake System ( Figure 3 1 ). Furthermore, approximately three weeks each year, since 1994, have been dedicated to the capture and ma rking of botos. During this event, about twenty local fishers are employed by Projeto Boto to assist with the capturing and handling of botos. Details on Projeto Boto protocols are available in da Silva and Martin (20 00), Martin and da Silva (2004a 20 04 b), Martin et al. (2004), and Mintzer et al. (2013). Interview Protocol and Questionnaire We conducted structured oral interviews in six rural communities and two towns located in or near the MSDR ( Figure 3 1 ) The communities were selected because they were located w and because the majority of

PAGE 45

45 inhabitants rely on fishing as their main source of income (determined during preliminary interviews with community leaders). Interviews were carried out in October and November 2012. The interviewer (VJM) was accompanied by a local guide and a Brazilian assistant. Communities were visited between three and ten times throughout the data collection period. During the initial visit, we conducte d preliminary interviews with the president of the community and/or another elected representative and sought permission to return All community leaders granted permission to carry out the research. T he interview protocol was approved in Brazil by the Comit de tica em Pesquisa com Seres Humanos do Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amaznia and the Comisso Nacional de tica em Pesquisa do Ministrio da Sade (processo N o 292/2012, 16891) and in the United States by the University of Florida Institut ional Review Board (protocol #2011 U 0834). During subsequent visit s we invited all fishers that were present and accessible to participate in the study. Upon arrival at each community, we visited meeting areas and houses to recruit initial fishers. Usi ng a snowball sampling approach (Goodman 1961), after each interview, we asked for suggestions on other fishers to interview and we were usually guided and introduced to the next fisher, and so on, until no more fishers were present or available. Our int ent was to interview as m any diverse fishers as possible, not to target those actively engaged in killing boto s I nterviews were conducted in the or in a community structure (e.g., school). All interviews con ducted within the two towns took place at the offices of the Colnia de Pescadores.

PAGE 46

46 The questionnaire consisted of both closed and open ended questions. In some cases, visual aids (e.g., maps, picture of marked boto) were used in conjunction with question background and fishing techniques, 2) involvement in the MSDR and Projeto Boto activities, 3) perception of the boto population and illegal harvest, 4) frequency, type, location, a nd timing of interactions with botos, 5) mythological beliefs 6) attitudes toward botos, and 7) behaviors exhibited toward botos. We analyzed the closed ended responses using standard parametric and non parametric statistical tests. For the open ended questions, we used coding and categorizing, where we grouped and summarized responses according to their similarities and inclusion of key words or phrases. Attitude Assessment We define d attitude as beliefs about an object or situation that influence one response toward that object or situation (Rokeach 1968). The fishers expressed their attitudes toward botos by replying to four close ended questions ( Table 3 1 ). Descriptions of the explanatory variables that we tested and rationale for their selection are provided below and summarized in Table 3 2 and relationships are expressed in a flow chart in Figur e 3 2 factors were significantly correlated with positive attitudes. Additionally, open ended questions explore d the reasons behind the answers provided for the attitude questions. Results of t he quantitative analyses were used in conjunction with the responses to the open ended questions to assess the factors underlying the attitudes expressed.

PAGE 47

47 Socioeconomic and Demographic Variables Education Level. Previous studies have shown that educated people may better understand the short and long term benefits of conservation (Fiallo and Jacobson 1995; Heinen 1993; Infield 1988; Lee and Zhang 2008). For example, the level of acceptance of a PA among residents is positively correlated with their level of education (Fiallo and Jacobson 1995 ; Heinen 1993 ). Education is also an important factor in determining local attitudes toward wildlife (Akama et al. 1995; Selebatso et al. 2008). Consequently, we expected that more educated fishers would demonstrate more positive attitudes toward botos. Dependency on Fishing. Fishers that rely on fishing as their main source of income are likely to spend more time on the water and consequ ently interact with botos on a regular basis. Their income will be affected more proportionally by these interactions Conflict with wildlife has been determined as an important factor in determining negative attitudes toward wildlife ( Campbell 1992; De Boer and Baquete 1998; Gillingham and Lee 1999 ; Mehta and Kellert 1998; Oli et al. 1994; Parry and Campbell, 1992 ). Therefore, we expected that participants who rely on fishing financially would have more negative attitudes toward botos. Fisher Age. Several authors have re ported that botos were protected for many generations due to local legends ( described in mythology section; Cravalho 1999; da Silva 2008; da Silva and Best 1996 ; da Silva et al. 2011). However, the popularity and effect of these stories is declining among the current generations (da Silva and Best 1996; da Silva et al. 2011; Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 2012). Consequently, we expected a difference in attitudes between fishers of varying age.

PAGE 48

48 Interaction Variables Frequency of depredation and entanglement Depredation refers to a predatory attack, and in this case describes the act of botos removing or biting fish from nets. Depredation may result in a decrease in the valu e of the catch and damage to fishing gear (Lauriano et al. 2004; Read 2005; Rocklin et al. 2009). Similarly, boto entanglement in gear may interrupt fishing operations and cause net damage (Lauriano et al. 2004; Rocklin et al. 2009). Because conflict may determine attitudes toward wildlife, we expec ted that fishers who have experience d frequent depredation and entanglement would have more negative attitudes toward botos. Positive Interactions. Although many interactions between dolphins and fishers are detrimental, accounts from various parts of the world suggest that posit ive interactions do occur (e.g., Neil 2002 ; Pryor et al. 1990 ). I n eastern Australia, for example, Abor iginals coop erate with bottlenose dolphins and orcas during fishing activities, and this collaboration has emotional and spiritual implications for the fishers (Neil 2002). Based on these accounts, we expected that fishers that have experienced a positive interaction with botos would have a more positive attitude toward botos. Effect of Protected Area Participation in MSD R and Projeto Boto Activities. Involvement of local communities is recognized as an essential component of successful conservation initiatives (Bawa 2006; Kainer et al. 2009 ; Vermeulen and Sheil, 2006;). Positive attitudes toward PAs and conservation a re highly influenced by the level of involvement in management or research programs (Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995; Kideghesho et al. 2007 ; Mehta and Heinen 2001 of the environment, increase knowled ge about wildlife, and promote understanding of

PAGE 49

49 natural resour ce management issues (Campbell and Vainio Mattila 2003; Evans et al. 2008). P rograms that provide economic benefits can also encourage attitudes and behaviors that better align with conservat ion goals ( Archabald and Naughton Treves 2001; Gadd 2005; Gillingham and Lee 1999; Holmes 2003 ; Infield 1988; Lewis et al. 1990). As expected from the SDR model, some of the interviewees have been involved in activities coordinated by the MSDR and Projeto Boto, including management meetings, conservation lectures, ecotourism, research, and monitoring. We considered meaning the fisher ha d never participated in meaning the fisher had attended management or conservation meetings or had w orked in ecotourism, research, monitoring, or enforcement Employment related to wildlife has been associated with more positive attitudes toward wildlife and conservation (Parry show the most positive attitudes toward botos. Due to their lack of involvement, we expected Community Type. The fishers interviewed in this study reside in communities belo nging to one of the following categories: focal area, reserve user, and non reserve. The focal area is where the MSDR outreach, research and conservation e fforts have been focused (SCM, 1996) The reserve user communities are located outside the MSDR but ha ve access to the MSDR resources and may participate in meetings and management decisions. Non reserve communities are located outside the MSDR with

PAGE 50

50 no access to the MSDR resources. We expected that fishers from focal area communities would have the m ost positive attitudes toward botos because of the heavy exposure they have had to the MSDR activities (SCM 1996). Moreover, focal area and reserve user communities have receive d concrete benefits from the MSDR, like participation in ec otourism so we ex pected fishers from these communities to have more positive attitudes than fishers from non reserve communities. Mythology Belief in the L egend of the E ncantado The mythology surrounding botos speak to sources of misfortune, the afterlife, and the relationship between men and women (Slater 1994). According to one common legend, botos can shape shift into a handsome young man, the encantado who seduces women (Cravalho 1999). Prior to the piracatinga fishery there was no widespread hunt directed at botos, and several authors have suggested that due to the legends and the supernatural powers attributed to these animals, botos were respected and feared and consequently prote cted for many generations (e.g., Brum 2011; Cravalho 1999; da Silva 2008; da Silva and Best 1996; da Silva et al. 2011). In Peru, for example, handle a dead boto because of possible consequences to their families (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1994) In Indo nesia, where mythological beliefs surround dolphins, research suggests that positive attitudes toward dolphins are linked with the belief that dolphins have human origins (Kreb and Budiono 2005). Whether belief in the encantado legends should have a posi tive or negative effect on attitudes is not clear. F ishers may fear botos and consequently dislike it (Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 2012), while others may respect botos and favor their protection.

PAGE 51

51 Behavior Assessment According to the Theory of P lann ed B ehavior behavior is closely guided by behavioral intention, which is a result of three components; attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control ( Ajzen 1991) Although previous research has made connections between conservation attitudes and resource use (Abbot et al. 2001; Adams and Infield 2001; Holmes, 2003) the exact circumstances or motivators that lead to behavioral changes related to resource use are unclear (Holmes 2003). Nevert heless, these studies have suggest ed that improved attitudes as a result of outreach initiatives and economic benefits may, in turn, lead to more conservation friendly behaviors (Abbot et al. 2001; Adams and Infield 2001; Holmes, 2003). Herein, we asse ssed if positive attitudes toward botos were manifested as positive behaviors. We quantified one specific behavior (releasing/rescuing a l iving, entangled boto from a variables ( Table 3 1 ) correlated with this behavior. We expected that if positive attitudes toward botos affect behavior toward botos, fishers that expressed positive attitudes should release/help botos. Through open ended questions, we also investigat ed the impacts of behavioral controls (i.e. enforcement) on two behaviors : refraining from killing botos and releasing/rescuing an entangled boto. We directly asked fishers if they have ever killed a boto and the reasons behind their action. To examine the potential influence of the community would kill (more) botos if they were not fi shing e

PAGE 52

52 asked him/her to explain the reason (s) for the expected change. If a fisher stated that he/she had disentangled a boto, we asked them to explain their reason for helping the boto. Finally, we explored the role of subjective norms primarily by asking fishers if botos. We then tested for correlations between these opinions and fisher behavior. Furthermore, we teste d for a relationsh ip between a of others in their community (i.e. do others in the community refrain from killing botos and help/release botos). Results Fisher Demographics We conducted a total of 57 structured interviews. The average age of the partcipants was 42 (s = 12.15 ) ranging from 18 to 74. They have lived in their current commu nity or town an average of 23 years (s=16.60) and have fished in the area surrounding their commu nity or town an average of 20 years (s=14.17 ). Fifty six participants were male. We targeted fishermen because preliminary interviews suggested that boto interactions occur more frequently with the types and size of nets used by men (women typically use weaker nets), and because women do not kill botos intentionally because of the physical strength and danger associated with this activity. One woman was included because she replaces her husband as the primary fisher in the family when her husband works in a nearby town. The fishers had used ove r ten different types of fishing gear in the last year ( Figure 3 3 ). The most common type of fishing gear used was the malhadeira or gillnet. Fishers made the distinction between two general types of gillnet. The tramalha

PAGE 53

53 wa s described as a relatively new type of gillnet used primarily for the capture of small fish, commonly bait fish, in shallow areas. The term malhadeira alone was frequently used to describe a stronger gillnet used in the capture of larger fishes such as t he tambaqui. Brum (2011) recorded the same distinction made by fishers in the region. Perception of Boto Population Trend We asked fishers if they think the boto population in the area is declining, increasing, or stable. Forty five fishers (79%) repli ed that the number is increasing, three (5%) replied that it is decreasing, and seven (12%) believe the number is stable. When we asked why they thi nk the numbers are increasing, 4 9% (n=22) replied that they now see a lot or more botos when they are fishi ng. Others explained that less botos are being killed in recent years (24 %, n=11). Some fishers speci fically mentioned enforcement (4%, n=2 ), the presence of the MSDR (4%, n=2), and research (7 %, n=3) as the main factors responsible for the population i ncrease. The fishers who claimed that the boto population is decreasing attributed the decline to botos b eing killed in nearby areas and to bot os moving away. Fishery Boto Interactions Ninety three percent of fishers (n=53) had observed depredation beha vior by botos. Of these fishers, 30% (n=16 ) indicated that botos depredate every time they go fishing. Fifteen percent (n=8 ) stated that depredation occurred every time only when they fish in a particular location, primarily river or bay habitat. Forty percent (n=23 ) had found at least one boto accidentally entangled in their nets. Interactions with botos can occur with any type of fishing gear used ( Figure 3 3 ); however, 74% (n=17 ) of fishers were using a malhadeira when a boto became entangled.

PAGE 54

54 When we asked fishers if their interactions with botos have increased, decreased, or stayed the same since they began to fish in t he area near their community, 56 % (n= 3 2) of fishers stated they have increased, 18 %(n=10) indicated a decrease and 14 %(n=8) claimed they have been stable Of the fishers that indicated an increase half (n = 16 ) attributed this change to an increase in botos A couple of fishers (n=2) noted that they were forced to change fishing location when the MS DR was establishe d (from lakes to river habitat) and interact more with botos now because there are more botos in the river. Of the fishers who claimed that interactions with botos have decreased, 40% (n=4) explained that botos have become afraid of the nets and try to avoid them (a behavioral change attributed to the Projeto Boto capture expedition). When asked if they have ever experienced a positive interaction with a boto, 46% (n=26) of fishers replied affirmatively. The most common positive intera ction mentioned tos, there described included a boto pushing fish to nearby land or to a net (n=4), a boto biting off a fish and then leaving the fish for the fisher (n=4), and a boto bringing a fish to the fisher (n=4). When we asked interviewees if they have heard of botos being killed to be used as bait to catch piracatinga 98% (n=56) replied affirmatively. Although no one we interviewed stated that they have ki lled a boto for this purpose, 17 participants (30 %) acknowledged that they were aware of botos having being killed in their community and seven confirmed that the botos were used for bait M ost fishers (67%, n=38) identified at least one community (their own or elsewhere) where killings were occurring for bait.

PAGE 55

55 From this information, we gathered that fishers from at least three communities and the two towns, out of eight settlements visited, were killing botos to be used as bait at the time of the interviews Additionally, the fishers identified nine other communities and towns where they believe the harvest for botos was occurring and in some cases, increasing. These settlements are prima rily located in the Solimes River, north west of our study area, where management, research, and enforcement presence is limited. When w e asked fishers if they thought more, less or the same number of botos were killed in the mid 2000s compared to 2011, o ver 8 0% (n=28) of fishers that could identify a trend stated that more botos wer e killed during the mid 2000s. Some interviewees explained that enfor cement agents from the MSDR or the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovvei s (IBAMA, Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) visited communities with active harvest s and the killings decreased subsequently. In one community the harvest decreased after community members asked the poachers to stop bec ause they were severely affecting the water quality of the channel in front of the community (due to researchers. When we asked each fisher if it would be easy for them to kill a boto to use it for bait, over 77% (n=44) stated that it would not be easy. Fishers explained that botos are appropriate materials or expertise, and that it i s a dirty and dangerous job. Wh en we asked if killing a boto for use as bait would be a profitable activity for them, 86% (n=49)

PAGE 56

56 they do not fish piracatinga Most fish ers wh o stated that the boto harvest wa s occurring in their community identified only a few community residents as the poachers, typically those living in floating houses close to the entrance of channels, who fish primarily piracatinga It appears that t he activity requires time, courage, and most likely an initial monetary investment (for the purchase of a large harpoon). Fisher Attitudes Toward Botos When we asked fishers their opinion of the boto twenty one fishers replied that they like d botos ( 37% ) and fourteen (2 5 %) replied that they dislike d ( Table 3 1 ). The (Fis value=.001) value=.008 ) ( Figure 3 4, 3 5 ). As expected, fishers that have actively been involved in activities related to conservation, ecotourism, managemen t, and research have a more positive opinion of botos compared to those unexposed to such activities ( Figure 3 4 ). Almost 60% (n=33) of fishers stated th at their opinion about botos has not changed with time, while 26% (n=15) of fis hers claimed their opinions have changed. Eleven of the latter (73%) claim to have developed a more posit ive opinion and five of them attributed this difference to their exposure to research and ecotouri sm Over 70% (n=8) of fishers with altered o pinions reside in the community located within the MSDR boundaries, in close st proximity to the Projeto Boto field base Four of these eight fishers attri buted their changes in opinion to their exposure to the research, claiming the research has taught th em about the importance of the species and that they now that stated that their opinions have changed negatively explained that interactions with botos have increased since the

PAGE 57

57 research started because bo tos have become more accustomed to humans and are less afraid of nets. We asked fishers if they consider botos to be an important animal in the Amazon. Forty eight fishers (84%) replied affirmatively and provided fifteen different reasons for their answ er ( Table 3 3 ). Additionally, we asked fishers if botos should be protected from being killed; 89% (n=51) of fishers replied favorably and provided 20 reasons for their affirmation ( Table 3 4 ). Because such a high rate of fishers responded affirmatively to these questions, we refrained from conducting a statistical test with the explanatory variables. When we asked fishers if they believe the Amazon would change if botos were to become e xtinct, 32 f ishers replied affirmatively (56%), while ten (18 %) did not bel ieve it would change. Some fishers would consider it a good change because the re would be more fish available to them. O thers noted it would be more difficul t to fish because botos help f ish and are good for the environment Because the explanations varied greatly, and some can be interpretative as counterintuitive of positive attitudes, we did not conduct statistical tests with the explanatory variables. We asked fishers if they were familiar with the legend of the boto or encantado and asked them to describe the legend. Ninety eight percent of fishers (n=56) replied that they kn ew the legend and over 60% (n=36 ) described the legend in varying levels of details. Of these fishers, ov er 80 % (n=29) stated that according to the legend botos are shapeshifters. Some fishers elaborated by saying botos attend parties in their human form (n=3), seduce or impregnate women when in human form (n=5), and wear white when human (n=7 ).

PAGE 58

58 Almost 30% (n=16) of the fishers interviewed stated that they believe in the legend(s). As expected, we found that the average age of fishers that believe in the legend (46.56 15.61 yrs) was greater than those that do not believe in the l egend (40.71 11.06 yrs); however this difference was not statistically significant ( two sample t( 23 )= 1.714 p value = 0.097 ) Five fishers (9%) described personal encounters with the encantado or shapeshifter b oto. Additionally, another seven (12%) told a story where a close relative had an encounter. The setting of the stories varied (e.g., beach lake, floating house) and involved anywhere from one to three male botos. Self reported Fisher Behaviors Toward Botos We did not find any statistically significant correlation between the attitude variables and the behavior of releasing/rescuing an entangled boto. Whether a fisher expressed like or dislike toward botos was not correlated with this behavior (Fishe Exact Test, p value = 0.413 ). Unexpectedly, almost half of fishers that have disentangled a boto from their net (46%, n=6) claim to dislike botos. Reasons provided for releasing a boto included: it is a life (n=4), it is not valuable dead (n=3), it i s a crime (n=1). Six fishers (10%) stated that they would (n=4) or might (n=2) kill botos if they w ere not fishing in or near MSDR. F ishers mentioned research, lectures, ecotourism and enforcement as reasons for not killing botos One fisher admitted to having killed a boto before moving to the area Thirty percent (n=17) of fishers believed people (or more people) in their community would kill botos if they were not fishing in or near the MSDR The fishers explained that the

PAGE 59

59 MSDR provides enforcement and researcher presence that d iscourages people from killing. We refrained from conducting a statistical analysis between fisher behavior and community type (theoretically focal area communities have more enforcement presence so we would expect fishers in focal area communities to e xh ibit more positive behaviors) because enforcement agents have specifically targeted some of the study communities outside the focal area and therefore results would be biased. Primarily, botos are killed to be used a bait, but they are also killed because they d isturb fishing operations. T wo fishers admitted to having deliberately killed a boto. One of these fishers killed a boto because it had become badly entangled in his net and he did not want to make the effort to save it. Another older fisher stated that he killed We found no significant correlation between the behavior of releasing/helping a value = 0.2862) or positive value = 0.5301). However, our sample size for these tests was greatly reduced because many fishers explained that on between fishers that have released/helped a boto and whether their community refrains from killing botos value = 0.193 ). Of fishers that believe in the legend(s), e ight (5 0% ) affirmed that these beliefs affect their behaviors toward botos Over half of these fishers explained that they do not trust boto s or are afraid of them, and th erefore try to avoid them Two fishers, on the other hand, claimed that they feel a sense of respect toward botos becaus e of the

PAGE 60

60 stories. Four fishers mentioned that their wives are af raid of botos due to the legend and one explained that his wife does not canoe alone due to this fear Discussion Interactions Almost all fishers reported that they have experienced depredation by a boto and al most half have had a boto become entangled in their net. Most entanglement incidents occurred with malhadeiras an important finding considering that previous work has suggested that gillnets do not pose a considerable threat to botos (da Silva and Best 1996). Our results suggest that while gillnets made of weaker materials (i.e. tramalhas ) do not appear to pose a threat to botos, stronger gillnets do. However, interactions such as depredation are c ommon with tramalhas (Brum 2011), so their importanc e should not be ignored. The difference in findings regarding gillnets between da Silva and Best (1996) and the more recent studies is likely explained by the changes in gillnet popularity/availability, material, and size in the last two decades. Fish depredation by botos in our study is higher than that reported in other artisanal fishery boto studies within the Amazon. In Manacupuru, for example, only 63% of fishers reported depredation ( Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 2012) However, considering that ma ny of the habitats with high fish densities in our study area (i.e. beaches, bays) are frequented both by fishers and botos (Martin et al. 2004), the levels of depredation reported herein are not surprising. Particularly during the dry season, the decre ase in the overall amount of aquatic habitat physically forces fishers and botos to be i n close proximity to each other. It is possible that fishers are overestimating the frequency of their interactions. In other similar studies, fishers have overestima te d interactions because they perceive

PAGE 61

61 potential benefits from exaggerating thei r problems For example, Bearzi et al. (2011) reported that fishers perceived interviews as an opportunity to influence decision making related to monetary compensation. To a meliorate this concern, the objectives of our study were made clear to the fishers bef ore the start of each interview and we explicitly stated that we did not have connections to decision making or enforcement agencies. Nevertheless, it is likely some fis hers exaggerated the frequency of depredation to justify their negative actions. Almost half of the fishers stated that they have experienced a positive interaction with a boto. Numerous studies have described similar or more elaborate types of cooperati on between fishers and other species of dolphins ( e.g. Neil 2002; Pryor et al. 1990; Zappes et al. 2011); however, this is the first time positive interactions have been reported to occur with botos. This is noteworthy given the numerous negative anecdotes and stigma that surround botos as competitors and pests (e.g., Iriarte and Marmontel 2011; Iria rte and Marmontel 2013 ; Loch et al. 2009, Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 2012 ). negative interactions (Loch et al. 2009; Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 2012 ), our results suggest that ther e is not a clear relationship between frequency of depredation and entanglement, and negative attitudes toward botos Some fishers explained that although botos are annoying, they them for their behavior ing operations, this may not be as costly to the fishers as previously suspected, although quantitative data are lacking on the economic loss resulting from such interactions.

PAGE 62

62 Perception of the Boto Popu lation and H arvest Almost half of interviewees stated that the boto population has increased since they first began to fish in or near the MSDR. This perception is inconsistent with recently reported data that suggest boto abundance has been decreasing (d a Silva et al. 2011 ). This incongruity could be a result of several factors. First, many of the fishers attributed this increase to a decrease i n the harvest in recent years, since they believe more botos were killed in the mid 2000s. This result is co nsistent with boto survival probabilities that were estimated to be lowest for 2003 2006 (Mintzer et al. 2013). Thus, it is possible that fishers replied affirmatively to this question based only on a perceived relative increase in the boto population in recent years. Second, many fishers believe the boto population is increasing because they see more botos when they are fishing a result consistent with the majority pe rception that interactions have increased. However, i nteractions may have increased d ue to changes in fishing locations or because botos have learned to depredate effectively without getting entangled (explanations provided by fishers). Moreover, changes in boto habitat preference or movement could be responsible for the perception of population increase Finally, it is possible that fishers are exaggerating an increase in the boto population to appease what they perceive as a concern for the researchers. Regardless of the sensitivity of the subject, most interviewees were forthco ming for botos is widespread, occurring in five out of the eight communities we visited. However, it appears that only a few fishers in each community engage in th e killing of botos, an activity that, in most cases, is not supported by the communities as a whole. In addition to the study communities, fishers identified nine other communities where

PAGE 63

63 they believe the harvest has been occurring. One of the communities most commonly mentioned was an indigenous community. The indigenous status of the community may pose a challenge to conservation efforts, because it limits researcher and enforcement presence. Overall, it appears that the harvest has been migrating up stream on the Solimes, away from the focal areas targeted by the MSDR and Projeto Boto, and may be more intense in communities rarely visited by researchers and enforcement agents. These areas now require special attention by natural resource managers. Several interviewees who denied that botos were being harveste d for bait in their communities stated that only caimans ( Melanosuchus niger) are used for this purpose. Previous studies have noted that caiman are used as bait in piracatinga fisheries (Brum et al. 2011 ; da Silveira and Viana 2003 ). Among residents of these communities, there caiman because they are dangerous while the boto is harmless and should be protected. Positive A ttitu des and E ffect of the MSDR Based on the frequency of negative interactions between fishers and botos, we did not expect that most participants would be in favor of protecting botos. The reasons provided for the imp ortance and protection of botos suggest t h at the existence value of botos, and the fact that they are not perceived as a dangerous animal, trump the annoyances caused by the animal s Additionally, as discussed below, the MSDR has encouraged positive attitudes toward botos. Although we recognize that biases could exist if fishers did not tell the truth th e major patterns that speak to favorable attitudes and the effect of the MSDR appear to be consistent and robust.

PAGE 64

64 Our findings suggest that the MSDR and Projeto Boto have had a significant effect in promoting positive attitudes toward botos. Primarily through involvement in ecotourism and research fishers have learned to appreciate botos as an important animal in the Amazon ecosystem and recognize it as an animal that others value (i.e. researchers). In a study conducted in the Manacapuru region in the Amazon the majority of the respondents stated that it is not important to protect botos ( Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 2012 ). The difference in attitudes toward botos between these two stud ies is likely a reflection of the overall effect of the MSDR and Projeto Boto on fishers. Fisher Behaviors Toward Botos Most fishers included in this study stated that they ha ve refrained from killing botos and many that have had a boto become entangled in their net have helped/released the boto before the animal drowned. Although the reasons behind these positive behaviors toward botos remain unclear, fisher responses suggest that these behaviors are likely a result of a combination of factors, includin g attitudes and behavioral controls. More research is needed to determine if positive attitudes toward botos generally translate to more positive behaviors. Two fishers, one who resides within the MSDR and one who resides in a reserve user community, c laim to have stopped killing botos. One of these fishers, who has worked in the MSDR ecotourism lodge, distinctly attributes his change in behavior to the current importance he sees in botos as an ecotourism attraction. Moreover, some fishers stated that they would kill botos if they were not fishing in or near the MSDR because they would not have learned the importance of botos. These explanations imply that, in at least some cases, changes in attitudes encouraged by the MSDR may lead to more positive b ehaviors toward botos.

PAGE 65

65 Fisher explanations also suggest that behavioral controls play a role in determining their behaviors. Some fishers released botos because they recognize that it is illegal to kill a boto and because they are in a PA Moreover, a third of fishers believe that people in their community would ki ll more botos if they were not in or near the MSDR because the MSDR provides enforcement and researcher presenc e Enforcement was also a common explanation as to why they believe the harvest has decreased. Harming a boto, according to Brazilian Law, is punishable by up to five years in jail (Brazilian law 7.643, 1987; Lodi and Barreto 1998). However, enforcement of natural resource protection la ws in the Amazon is challenging and efforts a re often compromised as a consequence of budget constraints, understaffing, and other institutional deficiencies ( McGuire and Aliaga Rossel 2010 a ; Peres and Terborgh 1995; Trujillo et al. 2010b; Utreras et al. 2010). In our study region, only four fede ral officials have been available t o enforce natural resource protection laws in an area greater than 251,000 km 2 (Peres and Lake 2003). Although two fishers in our study mentioned federal enforcement as a reason for the perceived decrease in the harvest, other fishers referred to enforcement coordinated by the MSDR. The MSDR and IBAMA have facilitated an enforcement agent program in which community residents are trained to become enforcement agents (Koziell and Inoue 2006 ; Queiroz and Crampton, 1999 ). These agents are responsible for reporting infractions in their sectors. Although this program has been criticized based on the notion that residents are not going to report their own families and friends, anecdotes provided by the fishers in our stu dy suggest otherwise. Perhaps because the killing of

PAGE 66

66 botos appears to be a specialized activity that is not supported by mo st members of these communities, reprehensions by these enforcement agents may be effective. Effect of the Legends Most fishers w ere able to describe detai ls associated with boto legends and almost a third of fishers believe in the stories. Unlike previous studies that suggest that these legends no longer provide protection for botos (e.g., Brum 2011; Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 201 2 ), our results suggest otherwise since half of the fishers that believe in the legend claim ed to avoid harming botos because of the superstitions. Furthermore, although other studies claim that present generations no longer believe in these legends (e.g ., Brum 2011, Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 2012 ), our study shows that a considerable number of younger fishers do believe in the legends. Conclusion Although botos are embedded deeply in Amazonian culture through rich mythology, negative interactions between botos and local Amazonian fishers have increased substantially in the last decades. Interactions such as depredation and entanglement are common, and the harvest of botos for bait was reported in the majority of the communities visited. Although boto survival estimates (Mintzer et al. 2013) and fisher perception suggest the harvest may be decreasing in the study area the harvest appears to be in creasing in neighboring areas where there is less PA management presence. The current scale of influence of the PA initiatives is insufficient to prevent boto population decline (da Silva et al. 2011; Mintzer et al. 2013). Based on the results of our study that suggest that the MSDR programs are having a positive effect on fisher attitudes toward botos, we recommend that the management model and community based initiatives that have been developed in the

PAGE 67

67 study area (a relatively small geographical area) b e expanded to neighboring areas Furthermore, increasing community based enforcement coordinated by the MSDI may be a good strategy to limit or decrease the harvest. Programs focused on community based management, involvement of communities in wildlife research, continuous education and outreach initiatives, and training of community enforcement agents, could be replicated in other SDRs where the same basic management schemes are already in place. Expanding the MSD R model both at the local and regional level could have a positive impact in decreasing or limiting the harvest which is becoming increasingly prevalent throughout the Amazon basin.

PAGE 68

68 Table 3 1. Questions and responses included in questionnaire to determi ne fisher attitudes toward botos. Question Responses Like Neutral Dislike Do you like or dislike botos? 37 % 23 % 25 % Yes No Do you think botos are an important animal in the Amazon? 84% 7% 9% Do you think botos should be protected from being killed? 89% 2% 8% Will the Amazon change if botos become extinct? 63% 20% 16% Table 3 2. Explanatory variables included in the attitude assessment. Variable Name Type Categories Socio economic variables Fisher age group Ordinal categorical <=29, 30 39, 40 49, >=50 Education level Ordinal categorical N one, 1 5 yrs, 6 9 yrs, 9< Dependency on fishing Categorical M ain source of income, shared, n ot main source Interactions Frequency of boto entanglement Ordinal categorical N ever, 1, 2+ Frequency of boto depredation Ordinal categorical N ever, sometimes, always Positive Interaction Binary E xperienced positive interaction h as not experienced positive interaction Effect of Protected Area Participation in MSDR activities Categorical No participation, meetings/projects, employed Community Type/Location Categorical F ocal, reserve user, non reserve Mythology Belief in Legend Categorical B eliever, unsure, non believer

PAGE 69

69 Table 3 3. R easons reported by fishers for why they believe botos are an important animal in the Amazon. Reason % of Fishers (n=44 ) 1. It is not dangerous /harmful 2 7 % 2. It serves a purpose in nature 20 % 3. It is alive/It exists 1 4 % 4. It is important to researchers 11 % 7 % 6. It is a companion 7 % 7. It is a pretty animal 7% 8 It protects fish 5 % 9 It helps with fish ing 5 % 10. It is unique to the Amazon 2% 11. It is important for people that fish piracatinga 2% 12. It is important for tourism 2 % 13. It is intelligent 2 % 2% 15. Everything is important 2% Table 3 4. R easons reported by more than one fisher for why they believe it is important to protect botos from being killed. Reason % of Fishers (n=45 ) 1. It is not dangerous /harmful 27 % 3. It n eed s protection/More people would kill 1 6 % 1 3 % 4. It deserves to live 9 % 6. It is a pretty animal 7% 7. Everything should be protected 7% 8. For the research 4% 9. It is part of Nature 4%

PAGE 70

70 Figure 3 1. Map of the study area, the southern segment of the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve and surrounding areas in Amazonas State, Brazil (GIS layers: IUCN and UNEP 2010; DCW and GADM downloaded from < http://www.di va gis.org > ).

PAGE 71

71 Figure 3 2 Flow chart of independent/explanatory variables (blue) and dependent variables (red) included in attitude/behavior assessment The mechanisms by which the MSDR is expected to positively affect fisher attitudes and behaviors are also displayed (black). Figure 3 3 Most common t ypes of fishing gear used by participating fishers.

PAGE 72

72 Figure 3 4 Fisher opinion of botos grouped by the level of participation of the fisher in MSDR and Projeto Boto activities. Figure 3 5 Fisher opinion of botos grouped by community type in which the fisher resides.

PAGE 73

73 CHAPTER 4 HOME RANGE AND SEASONAL MOVEMENTS OF RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA GEOFFRENSIS) IN A PROTECTED AMAZONIAN FLOODPLAIN Background The Amazon River dolphin or boto ( Inia geoffrensis ) is the only obligate river dolphins species still considered relative ly abundant throughout its range ( Leatherwood and Reeves, 1994; Martin and da Silva, 2004a ; Smith and Smith, 1998 ) However, in the last few decade s anthropogenic pressures particularly the direct harvest of botos for use as bait in the fishery for the catfish Calophysus macropterus, are posing a considerable threat to the species With illegal harvest ing becoming more widespread throughout the Amazon region, t ime ly conservation action is needed to conserve threatened pop ulations ( da Silva et al., 2011; Mintzer et al., 2013). E stablishing and improving freshwater protected areas has been suggested as a possible course of action (Trujillo et al., 2010 a ). However, river dolphin ecology is poorly understood (Martin and da Silva, 2004a) and more information is needed regarding boto habitat use, hom e ranges, and movement patterns to assure that these spatial protection initiatives meet their intended purpose Botos oc cupy most of the Amazon and Orinoco basin s and occur in diverse habitats, though they show preference for whitewater floodplain systems or vrzeas (Martin and da Silva, 2004b) These systems are common throughout the upper and middle Amazon basin enc ompassing more than 300,000km 2 in Brazil alone (Junk, 1997). The ecology of the vrzea is largely defined by seasonal water level fluctuations (range of < 20m) dependent on local and regional snowmelt (Junk, 1997; McG uire and Aliaga Rossell 2010 b ).

PAGE 74

74 Although individual botos exhibit site fidelity to vrzeas the extreme water level fluctuations lead to exodus from shallow habitats (Martin and da Silva, 2004b) During the driest periods, botos are limited to the deepest rivers and channels within the river basin. High water levels, on the other ha nd, provide a much larger expanse of habitat for the species, including the vrzea and its flooded forests and lakes Prey availability, determined by reproduction cycle s and migration patterns of fishes, is also dependent on water fluctuations (Martin and da Silva, 2004b; McGuire and Aliaga Rossell, 2010b) S easonal fluctuations in habitat and prey availability appear to be reflected in many aspect s of river dolphin biology, including reproduction, mortality, distribution, morphology, and movement patterns ( Martin and da Silva, 2004b; McGuire and Aliaga Rossell 2010 b ). Previous studies of boto home ranges and individual movement have been spatia l ly or temporal ly constrained (McGuire and Henningsen, 2007), but ne vertheless have identified water fluctuations as an important driver of both The most detailed information on boto movement to date has been provided by Martin and da Silva ( 2004b ) who analyzed radio telem etry data f or 24 botos in a vrzea Based on this sample, they estimated that 80 90% of the local population occupy vrzea habitat during rising water (~3 months). While for approximately six months, from high water to low water, the vrzea was occupied only by 50% of less of the local population Moreover, at one or two weeks at both extremes of the seasonal hydroperiod only a very small proportion of the boto population was observed within the vrzea During low water, botos entered the rivers to avoid getting trapp ed in the channels and lakes of the vrzea These telemetry results were corroborated with seasonal estimates of boto

PAGE 75

75 density in the vrzea and river (Martin an d da Silva, 2004b). Similar patterns of movement were observed in the Bolivian and Ecuadorian Amazon (Aliaga Rossel 2002; Denkinger 2010 ). Boto habitat use patterns appear to be dependent on both sex and age. Martin and da Silva (2004b) for example, reported strong sexual segregation by botos T hroughou t the year ex cept for the low water months, river s were occupied mostly by males while the most remote areas of vrzea were occupied almost e xclusively by females. Moreover, males spent most of their time in bays, at the interface between the vrzea and main river channel Martin and da Silva (2004b) hypothesized that females spent more time within the vrzea primarily for the benefit of their calves. In a separate study in Venezuela McGuire and Winemiller (1998) suggested that habitat use by botos may also b e a function of age ; juveniles were most often found in lakes and rarely in channels regardless of season. J uveniles may have frequent ed lakes to avoid boat tr affic and to take advantage of high f ish availability (McGuire and Winemiller, 1998 ) L inear home range estimates for botos, based on previous studies range from 10km to over 200km ( Aliaga Rossel, 2002 ; De n kinger, 2010; Martin and da Silva, 2004a; McGuire and Henningsen, 2007 ; McGuire and Winemiller, 1998 ) In the Brazilian A mazon, track ed botos generally exhibited daily movements of 20km or less and some individuals remained in the same lakes (~1km 2 ) for weeks although maximum movements of 100km were recorded ( Martin and da Silva 2004b ; McGuire and Henningsen, 2007 ). McGuire and Henningsen (2007) estimated a maximum linear home range o f 220km and a mean of 61km for boto s in Peru Individuals frequent ly traveled 40 to 60 km in a 24h r period, though some individuals stayed in the same area

PAGE 76

76 for several days (McGuire and Henningsen, 2007). Maximum linear home ranges of 60km and 10km were re ported for botos in Bolivia and Venezuela, respectively (Aliaga Rossel, 2002 ; McGuire and Winemiller, 1998 ). A recent study conduc ted in Ecuador reported maximum boto linear home ranges of over 2 00km that extended to different ri vers, although most identified botos had linear home ranges of 0 50km or 100 150km (Denkinger, 2010). In light of the increasing anthropogenic threats to botos, it is essential to expand our knowledge of boto home ranges and movement patterns. Such information is necessary to guide management actions aimed at the conservation of river dolphins (e.g., design and implementation of protected areas) Thus, the main goal of this study was t o use long term mark recapture/resight data to estimate boto linear home ranges, core use areas, and quantify seasonal movements in and out of the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve (MSDR) a protected vrzea in the Brazilian Amazon. Specific objec tives were to determine how the timing of movemen t in and out of the MSDR differed between sex and age class, and between years with varying water level fluctuations. Methods Study Area This study was conducted in and around the Mamirau Lake System (MLS ) the southern portion of the MSDR, located at the confluence of the Solimes and Japur rivers, 3 0km upriver of the town of Tef in Amazonas State, Brazil ( Figure 4 1 ). The MLS consists of whitewater floodplain or vrzea habi tat, with diverse fauna that varies seasonally in response to extreme water fluctuations. Although the timing of pea k high and low water levels varies annually, typically the highest water mark is reached in

PAGE 77

77 June, and lowest water levels occur between September and November. From 1994 to 2011, the annual water level fluctuation averaged 10.23 meters, with a maximum range of 12.35 meters in 2011, and a minimum range of 8.95 in 1996 (Ramalho, 2009; IDSM, 2012 b ). Based on the local water levels, four mai n hydro climatic seasons are recognized in the study area: rising water (RW), high water (HW), falling water (FW), and low water (LW). Capture and Recapture/Resight Protocol The data for this study were collected through Projeto Boto, a river dolphin re search program in the MLS that has been active since 1994. Capture recapture and marking of botos occurred approximately three weeks each year. With few exceptions, botos were captured with seine nets during low water at the entrance of the MLS ( Figure 4 1 ) During the capture botos were freeze branded with a unique code in areas of the body allowing for maximum visibility. In addition to the physical capture recapture events, observational work was conducted year round S ighting surveys were carried out within the MLS and surrounding areas, including segments of the main rivers ( Figure 4 1 ) Effort was not evenly distribute d across the entire study area due to the varying water levels; h owever, most areas were surveyed at least once per week When a marked boto was sighted, its identification code and locati on were recorded Further description of capture and observation procedures is availabl e in da Silva and Martin (2000), Martin and da Silva (2004a, 2004b), Martin et al. (2006), and Mintzer et al. (2013). Linear Home Range Home range is gathering, mating, and caring for

PAGE 78

78 have home ranges that conform to relative linear features, home ranges are oft en described in terms of length or the linear distance between the two most extreme sighting locations. Although the home ran ges are not truly linear, the second dimension of variation in space use is small compared to the first (Rayment et al. 2009). The linear approach has been used to describe home ranges of cetaceans inhabiting rivers and coastal waters (e.g. Brger et al 2002; Defran et al 1999; Gubbins, 2002; Flores and Bazzalo, 2004; McGuire and Henningsen, 2007; Rayment et al., 2009). In this study, we estimated the observed complex linear range (OCLR) of botos with 50 sightings or more between January 1994 and Mar ch 2012. The complex linear range has been previously defined as the minimum length centerline based tree that spans all sighting locations o f the individual (O uel l ette and Cardille, 2011). Herein the OCLR is the minimum linear range that includes the network of all channels connected by confluences where an individual was observed. Following this definition, we estimated OCLR for an individual boto by plotting all its sightings in ArcMap 10 (ESRI, 2011) and drawing a center line based structure that c onnected a ll sighting points ( Figure 4 2 was conside red the OCLR for the individual. The maximum possible OCLR for an individual was delimited by the area surveyed, i.e., 160km. To determine the minimum number of sightings necessary to estimate OCLR independent of sample size, we plotted sighting number v s. OCLR. By including only those animals 150 or more times we eliminated any positive trend between number of sightings and OCLR ( Figure 4 3 ). After obtaining the OCLR estimates for all botos with 150 sightings or more, we co nducted a Mann Whitney U test to determine if there was a

PAGE 79

79 significant difference in OCLR between adult males and females. We expected that males would have larger home ranges than females based on previous research that showed that males were found frequ ently in the main rivers, away from the MLS, while females were found pr imarily within the MLS (Martin and da Silva, 2000a, 2004 b). Additionally, we calculated the length and percentage of each OCLR that overlapped with the MSDR boundary. Calves were exc luded from these analyses, as their OCLR was expected to be dependent on the OCLR of their mother s Core Use Area Estimation In contrast to the OCLR approach, Kernel methods assign a level of use to any given point in the habitat based on the entire set of observations during the study period (Vokoun, 2003 ; Worton 1987 ). To estimate boto core use areas we calculated the fifty percent kernel density estima tes ( ) of home ranges for botos observed at least 15 times during surveys conducted between November 30, 2010 to January 23, 2012 (e.g., Flores and Bazzalo, 2004, Rayment et al., 2009 ; Worton, 1989 ) A minimum of 15 sightings has been used to obta in accurate kernel estimates for other cetaceans ( Rayment et al., 2009). To minimize the effects of autocorrelation, we used only the first in the Geospatial Modell ing Environment (GME) platform, which utilizes both Program (RCT, 2013) and ArcMap 10 (ESRI, 2011 ), to c onduct the kernel analyses (Beyer, 2012) For 71 days between November 30, 2010 and January 23, 2012, botos were observed using the protocol described above Additionally, observers recorded locations visited w h ere botos were not observed. Based on these records, we were able to assign each sighting a weight according to the probabi lity of obtaining that

PAGE 80

80 sighting ( Fieberg 2007; Horne et al 2007) ach location ( ) was calculated as follows: (4 1) Where = the number of visits to each location during the sampling period, and T = the total number of locations surveyed. Using GME, the kernel based on each point was weighted by and the density estimates were then standardized by dividing by the sum of all weight values. The choice of bandwidth or smoothing parameter is of critical importance in density estimation. Because there can be large differences among the different ba ndwidth estimators the application and evaluation of various bandwidths is recommended ( Beyer, 2012 ). Therefore, we applied the following algorithms to the data: plug in estimator (PLUGIN), smoothed cross validation (SCV ), biased cross validation (BCV), and a second biased cross validation ( BCV2) We did not use least squares cross validation ( LSCV ) because this algorithm is sensitive to points with identical coordinates, which occurred in our data ( Beyer, 2012) After assessing the performance of each algorithm, we deemed SCV to be the best performing and most biologically relevant Once the estimates were obtained for all individuals with 15 sightings or (ESRI, 2011) to determine what segments of the core use areas for the individuals overlapped. Finally, using the same tool, we determined what segment of the overlapping core use area straddled the MSDR.

PAGE 81

81 Seasonal Movement To quantify seasonal movement patterns, we u sed multi state recapture only models in Program Mark (White and Burnham, 1999) to estimate transition probabilities of individuals moving between the MLS and adjacent areas during a 24 month period, January 2009 to December 2011. This time period allow ed for comparisons of transition probabilities between years with pronounced differences in water level extremes and hydroperiods ( Figure 4 4 ). With an average of 33.28 m.a.s.l., 2009 had the highest average water level of any ye ar in the last decade, along with the highest monthly recorded water level of 38.24 m.a.s.l. In contrast 2010 had the second lowest average water level of the last decade (30.68 m.a.s.l.), and was unique in having three continuous months with water level s at lower than 26 m.a.s.l. (Ra malho et al., 2009; IDSM, 2012b ) ( Figure 4 4 ). As applied in other cetacean mark recapture studies (e.g. Cantor et al. 2012 ; Wilson et al. 1999 ), we used visual sightings of uni quely identified individuals as encounter events. E ncounter histories were created for 305 botos sighted between 2009 and 2010, based on monthly time intervals, and using only sightings made with 100% confidence. We included a total of 6331 observations. For multi stat e models, encounter histories represent b oth the encounter (or sighting) and the state (or location) of the encounter. In our modeling, we defined three states ( Figure 4 1 ) The first two states form part of the MSDR: the MLS channels and lakes (M), and bays or ressacas a t the entrance of the MLS (R). A distinction between these two states was made for two reason s: first, the bay system is assumed to be an area of high use, especially by males ( Figure 4 2 ; Figure 4 5 ; Martin and da Silva, 2004b), and unlike many areas inside the MLS, the bays are deeper and may co ntain

PAGE 82

82 water at low water levels The third state was outside the MSDR (A ) and consisted m ostly of river h abitat ( Figure 4 1 ) If an animal was seen within the MLS channels or lakes du ring a month, it was assigned a M for that month. If it was sighted in the bay system, it was given a R for the month. If i t was sighted outside th e MSDR ( outside M or R ) during a month, it was ass igned an A For instan ce, an encounter history of M0RA describes an individual that was sighted in the MLS in period 1, not detected in period 2, seen in the bay system in period 3, and detected outside th e MSDR in period 4. A boto identified in more than one state during the same month was assigned to the location with the most sightings. Using this approach, ties occurred on less than 5% of occasions. In these cases, we assigned the boto to the state t hat minimized movement related information (Bechet et al. 2003). For example, a boto sighted in M at t 1 and t +1, and in both states M and A at period t was assigned to state A for period t because we know the boto moved from M to A to M. Program Mark estimates the following three parameters for multi state recaptures only models: = the probability that a boto in location r at time t survives until time t +1, = the probability that a boto is sighted at time t in location r given tha t the boto is alive and in the study area at time t = the probability that a boto in location r at time t is in location s at time t +1, given that the boto survived from time t to t +1. As resightings did not occur over the entire geographi c range of the study population, we refer to S as apparent survival ( ), which confounds the probability of dying and permanent emigration. We made a priori assumptions on how to treat p, differentiated between apparent survival inside and outside t he MSDR: and were fixed at .968, and was fixed at .899 (these values were based on estimates from

PAGE 83

83 Mintzer et al., 2013). We defined p as fully time dependent (t) and state dependent (L) four main seasons ( RW, HW, FW, LW) we allowed estimates to vary according to four time periods. Because water fluctuations vary annually, we used the water level measurements of the specific year ( Figure 4 4 ) to determine what months, and corresponding encounter occasions, would comprise what period. Then, we built models that allowed estimation of transition probabiliti es for each season of each year and some that restricted estimation of transition probabilities per season across all years. group (G). Each individual boto was categorized as b eing in one of four groups: adult males (AM), adult femal es (AF), mother/calf pairs (MCP ), and immature individuals (IMM). Immature botos were those that have not yet reached repr oductive age (6 7 years of age) but are no longer dependent on their mother (i.e. encounter history differs from the encounter history of their mother). We built models in which transition probabilities were allowed to vary with the four gr oups (AM, AF, MCP, and IMM), three groups (adults, MCP and IMM), o r two groups (adults an d MC I, wh ere MC P and IMM were combined into one group ). We transformed real parameter values [0,1] to values [ ] with the sin link or logit link function for numerical optimization. We used simulated annealing for optimization, as recommended for multi state models where parameter estimates are expected to be close to the 1 boundary. We tested for a significant difference between

PAGE 84

84 values representing the season or group effect ( a significant effect was determined at if the 95% CIs of t he values did not include 0.0 ). We used the Models with AICc values that diff ered by less than 2 were considered equal (Burnham and Anderson, 2002, 2004). We defined our movement predictions within the framework of multi state models, with a focus on the expected exodus of botos from the vrzea prior to water reaching its lowest le vels We expected that transition probabilities depicting movement aw ay from the MSDR (M to R, R to A, M to A ) would be highest during FW and LW and movement probabilities repres enting movement into the MSDR (A to M, R to M, A to R) would be highest durin g RW. Moreover, we expected that transition probabilities depicting movement away from the MSDR would be higher in 2010 than in 2009. While the extreme low water levels of 2010 ( Figure 4 4 ) should have forced all botos to leav e M, water levels in 2009 may have allowed botos to remain in some areas of M. Although a boto transitioning from R to M or M to R has technically not left or entered the MSDR, because R is located at the MSDR boundary, a transition from R to M was considered to be movement in the direction of the MSDR, and a transition from M to R w as considered movement away from the MSDR. In terms of group di fferences, we expected that MCP would exhibit higher transition probabilities into the MSDR during RW compared to all other groups. This expectation was based on previous work that has shown that females spend more time in the MLS, presumably to increase survival of their dependent calves (Martin and da Silva, 2004b). Furthermore, based on previous work that has shown that juveniles

PAGE 85

85 prefer lakes to river habitat ( McGuire and Winemiller, 199 8 ), we also expected that IMM would have higher transition probabilities than adults into the MSDR at RW. Results Observed Linear Home Range The average OCLR for the 70 botos with 150 or more sightings ( Table 4 1 ) was 62.63km ( SD=18.78 min= 32.08 max=106.95) The median OCLR for the adult females and males was 52.37 and 6 9.59 respectively; the two groups differed significantly ( Mann Whitney U = 14 9, n F = 27 n M = 18 P < 0.05). The average length of the OCLR located within the MSDR bound aries was est imated to be 42.28km (SD=8.68). An average of 81 % of adult female OCLRs and 66% of adult male OCLRs overlap ped with the MSDR. Core Use Areas We calculated the or core use area, for six botos that had 15 sightings or more between November 30, 2010 and January 23, 2012. Core use area size ranged from 1.49 km 2 to 7.73 km 2 ( Table 4 2 ) A total of only 0 .43 km 2 of core area overlapped for all six individuals. However, by excluding the individual with the smallest core use area ( Boto ID#184) the total ove rlapping area increased to 2.56 km 2 This overlapping core use area wa s comprised mostly of the bays and main channel located at the entrance of the MLS, and also includes a segment of the Japur River located adja cent to the bay system ( Figure 4 5 ). Over half of this core use area, or 1.60 km 2 f ell with in the MSDR boundary Due in part to the minimum sighting requirement, the s e findings are likely only a representation of the core use area o f individuals that show high site fidelity to the study area ( those more likely to be observed an adequate number of times).

PAGE 86

86 Seasonal Movement AICc strongly supported the model with fully season dependent transition p robabilities and with two grou ps, adults (AM and AF) and MCI ( MCP and IMM ) ( Table 4 3 ; Model 1). Encounter probabilities ( p ) varied considerably between seasons and years, with the following average estimates from this model ( Table 4 3 ; Model 1 ): MLS (M), p= 0 .677; Bays (R), p= 0 .870 ; Outside (A ), p= 0 .320 T his model showed no significant difference in transition probability estimates for the FW periods in 2009 and 2010 in which botos were expected to move away from the MSDR In fact, t his was true for both groups in all three transitions ( Table 4 3 ; Model 1 Figure 4 6 ). However, Model 1 ( Table 4 3 ) did estimate one significantly different transition probab ility between 2009 and 2010 in the direction away from the MSDR : and ( Figure 4 6 ). The largest significantly differe nt transition probab ilities in the direction toward the MSDR were R to M at LW ( and Collectively t hese estimates suggested that movement varied more at LW than at FW between years of v arying water level fluctuation s, and that this disparity was more pronounced in the MCI group. As predicted, transition probabilities representing mov ement away from the MSDR (M to A, M to R, and R to A ) were usuall y highest during FW for all models and groups ( Figure 4 6 Figu re 4 7 ) The highest three trans ition probabilities from Model 5 ( Table 4 3 ), where transition probabilities were estimated across both y ears for the two groups (adults and MCI ), corresponded to and ( Figure 4 7 ). The

PAGE 87

87 highest transition probabilities in the dir e ction of entering the MDSR (A to R, R to M, and A to M) did n ot always occur during RW as expected, although the highest R to M probability did occur at RW ( ( Figure 4 7 Table 4 3 ; Model 5 ). AICc favored a model where individuals were separated into two grou ps, adults (AM and AF), and MCI ( MCP and IMM ) ( Table 4 3 ; Model 1 ). This model outperformed the equivalent models where individuals were divide d into four groups, AF, AM, MCP and IMM and three groups: adults, MCP and IMM ( Table 4 3 ; Model 2 and Model 3 ). This suggested that adult females and adult mal es exhibit ed similar movement patterns, and that mother/calf pairs and immature individuals displayed analogous patterns A comparison of seasonal and IMM individuals from the model s with four groups yielded a similar infe rence. Estimates from the model with two groups and condensed seasonal transition probabilities ( Table 4 3 ; Model 5 ) show ed significantly higher trans ition probabilities for the MCI from M to R during the FW season ( compared to adults ( ( Figure 4 7 ) T he adult group showed significantly higher tran sition probabilities from R to A and M to A during the same time period. The larg est difference in transition probabilities between groups estimated by Model 5 ( Table 4 3 ) corresponded to the R to A transition probabilities during FW: and ( Figure 4 7 ) These results suggest that during FW many MCP and IMM move from M to R, and m any appear to remain in R or spend a long time in R, before transitioning back into M during LW and RW ( Figure 4 7 )

PAGE 88

8 8 Transition probabilities from R to A for this group remained consistently low ( between 0 .10 0 and 0 .15 0 ) throughout the year. Although estimates from M to A are even lower, there was a sma ll peak during FW, where estimates rose to suggesting that a number of MCP and IMM do transition directly or quickly from M to A ( Figure 4 7 ) Although e stimates for the adult group were also highest leaving th e MSDR during FW (M to R, R to A, M to A ) the relatively high estimates of R to A ( and M to A ( ( Figure 4 7 ) suggest that most adults unlike the MCP and IMM, may not st ay in R for very long during FW, but transition quickly all the way outside of the MSDR to A Discussion Home Range Boto OCLR estimates were consistent with results from earlier studies, falling within previously pu blished linear ranges (Aliaga Rossel, 2002; De n kinger, 2010 ; Martin and da Silva, 2004b; McGuire and Henningsen, 2007 ) The OCLR results suggest ed that females have smaller home ranges than males, and spend more time within the MSDR boundaries. This finding is consistent with an earlier study in the MSDR that suggested that females spend more time in vrzea habitat while males are found more frequently in river habitat (Martin and da Silva, 2004b). O ur home range results are limited by the si ze of the study ar ea, and one major constraint was the lack of sampling within flooded forest habitat Moreover, the home r anges of transient botos that may extend hundreds of miles (Martin and da Silva 2004a ) are likely to have been considerably underest imated However, most of the

PAGE 89

89 OCLRs were less than half of the total area surveyed ( averaged 39 % of the160km surveyed and ranged from 20 % to 67%) suggesting that the study area was large enough to encompass the OCLR of many of the individuals (likely those that exhibit strong site fidelity to the vrzea ). The finding that male and female OCLRs were significantly different also suggested that the study area i s large relative to most OCLRs, and in many instances, sufficient to capture individual differences in OCLR Movement Patterns We expected more variation in transition probabilities between the two years at FW and LW due to the varying water level, but our results suggest that boto movement is mostly predictable independent of the range of water fluctuat ions. B ecause water fluctuations are unpredictable and quick (falling as much as a 30cm in a single day, Ramalho et al., 2009; IDSM, 2012b ), botos may leave M as a precaution regardless of the water level However, our estimates suggest that if water levels remain high at LW (as in 2009) many MCP and IMM stay in R and move back into M at LW, without wait ing for the water to start rising. Overall, it s eems that MCP and IMM are more responsive to variations in the water level fluctuations than solitary adults The model results suggested that movement patterns did not differ between male and female adults, but did differ between female adults and femal es with calves. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that female botos spend more time in the MLS to increase the survival probability of their calves (Martin and da Silva, 2004b) The MLS likely provides three ben efits for MCP : high prey dens iti es (that benefit the calf and lactating mother), physical protection from aggressive male adults, and reprieve from riverine currents (Martin and da Silva, 2004b). Martin and da Silva ( 2004 b) also suggested that males may not need to frequent the vrzea if ovulating females also

PAGE 90

90 exhibited preference for main rivers. This appears to be the case, as sexually mature females and males exhibit ed similar movement patterns. O ur findings also suggest that immature individuals follow the same movement patterns they followed when de pendent on their mothers and prefer the waters of the MLS and bays a behavior likely based on the benefits the vrzea offers Similar habitat use patterns have been described for immature botos in Venezuela where juveniles are most o ften found in l agoons (McGuire and Winemiller, 1998 ) These results provide further support for the importance of floodplain habitat s for botos in vulnerable life stages. By structuring the models to estimate transition probabilities for the four main sea son s and using monthly time intervals to build our capture histories, we may have limited our ability to detect finer scale movement patterns. Because we were interested primarily in quantifying the exodus prior to the low est water level this structure was pertinent; however, some potential weaker patterns were not evident from the transition probability results. For example, Martin and Da Silva ( 2004b ) found that some botos leave the vrzea at high water and re enter when water first b egins to fall Developing a similar multi state model with weekly time intervals would be complex but could reveal such patterns. Bay Core Use Area The results of our core use area estimation and transition probability models highlight the importance of the bay system at the entrance of the MLS. This area appears to be important boto habitat especially for MCP and IMM. B ays are productive areas with hig h fish abundance have lower currents than river channels ( Martin and da Silva 2004b; Martin et al., 2004), and may retain water during the low water months

PAGE 91

91 While M arti n and da Silva ( 2004b ) found that more males use these bays than females o ur results suggest that these areas are important for both sexes, and while immature individuals use the bays for extended periods adult s tend to transition more quickly out of these bays and into the main rivers. When vrzea habitat is unavailable at low water, these bay systems appear to act as an important refuge for young botos A Note on Capture Probabili ties The substantial difference in capture probability estimates between states has important implications for future studies. The average capture probabilities resulting from the top performing model varied highly between locations, with the highest avera ge p corresponding to the bay system, and t he lowest to the outside area While the outside state consists mostly of river habitat, with large surface areas and the presence of waves, the bay system and MLS locations have much smaller surface areas and ca lmer waters allowing for easier observation of botos and their brands. These differences in capture probabilities between habitat types should be carefully accounted for in river dolphin studies aimed at estimating demographic parameters. Implications fo r Conservation D eliberate killing for use as bait has become the primary threat affecting botos B oto carcasses are being used to attract the catfish commonly known as piracatinga in Brazil and mota in Colombia (Calophysus macropterus) ( Brum 2011; da Silva et al. 2011; Gmez et al. 2008; Gmez Salazr et al. 2012; Loch et al. 2009; Pinto de Sa Alves et al. 2012 ; Portocarrero Aya et al. 2010 a ; Shostell and Ruiz Garcia 2010; Trujillo et al. 2010a, 2010 b ) Demand for mota has increased in Colombia in the last decade because it is acting as a replacement for another catfish known as capaz ( Pimelodus grosskopfii ) that was overfished in Colombia ( Gmez et al., 2008; Petrere et

PAGE 92

92 al., 2004; Trujillo et al., 2010b ) Consequently, an international market has emerged involving the catch of mota in Brazil (and recently other nations), and the expor t of this food fish to Colombia ( Diniz, 2011; Gmez et al., 2008; Trujillo et al., 2010b, 2007 ) As of 2013, the boto harves t is taking place in at least twelve locations throughout the Amazon (Diniz, 2012), and in and near the MSDR the harvest level is likely unsustainable (Mintzer et al., 2013). Spatial protection, through the establishment and management of protected areas (PAs), is recognized as a tool for the conservation of cetaceans ( Gormley et al., 2012 ; Hooker and Gerber, 2004; Hooker et al., 1999 ; Hoyt, 2005; Kreb and Budiono, 2005 ). At present, however, no PAs have been developed with the specific aim of protecting the boto, a lthough populations do occur in PAs throughout the Amazon ( e.g., Santos Luzardo National Park in Venezuela, Pacaya Samiria National Reserve in Peru, Noel Kempff Mercado National Park in Bolivia, Cuyabeno Wildlife Production Reserve and Yasun National Park in Ecuador, and the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve in Brazil; Aliaga Rossel, 2002; da Silva and Martin, 2000; McGuire and Winemiller, 1998; Utreras et al., 2010 ) These PAs, along with new complementary ones, may be a successful st rategy to mitigate the effects of the boto harvest. With this in mind, t he Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society is coordinating with conservation scientists in South America to establish the South American River Dolphin Protected Area Network (SARDPAN) ( Portocarrero et al. 2010 b; < http://sardpan.wordpress.com/protected areas/ > ), an initiative that includes over 30 protected areas in six South American countries. However, for this initiative to be successful, it is critical that the findings of this study and other studies of boto habitat

PAGE 93

93 use, home range, and distributio n be taken into account in the improvement and establishment of these PAs. Base d on the findings of this study we emphasize four main conclusions that should be considered when developing and implementing boto spatial protection initiatives for the study population and elsewhere First, vrzea habitat appears to play a key role as a refuge for MCP and IMM of both sexe s. Second, bay systems at the transition between vrzea habitat and the main river appear to be essential habitat for botos, acting as a r efuge during low water when vrzea habitat is unavailable. Third, m ost MCP and IMM transition out an d back into the MSDR vrzea quickly and in our study area, should be protected within the MSDR for all but approximately one or two month s of the year (when water level is at its lowest ). Perhaps an increase in enforcement directly outside the MSDR (i.e. expanding PA boundaries temporarily) at the lowest water month could play an important role in protecting the population. Finally, the core use area and linear home ranges for the study population did not fall entirely within the PA boundary. Although the protected vrzea channels and bay system are used heavily by botos during most of the year, individuals frequently travel to unprotected areas on the main river. Creating a protected area buffer zone that encompasses the main river waters adjacent to the vrzea and bay system could aid in the protection of the study population.

PAGE 94

94 Table 4 1. Resighting records and observe d complex linear range (OCLR) of Inia geoffrensis captured and resighted in the Mamirau Lake System and surrounding areas between January 1994 and March 2012. Boto ID Sex # of Sightings Span of Sightings (yrs) OCLR(k m) OCLR(km) in MSDR %OCLR in MSDR 1 F 158 14.69 65.55 51 59 79 % 4 F 727 18.08 52.37 40.53 77% 5 F 249 13.63 72 .5 3 53. 3 6 74 % 6 F 221 18.04 49.55 41.33 83% 9 M 706 17.42 51 50 39 52 77 % 12 F 365 17.23 50 03 39.5 9 79 % 15 M 326 17.29 69 53 4 7 99 68 % 18 F 351 9.80 41.72 33.50 80% 19 M 246 10.58 6 9 65 50 35 72 % 21 M 328 17.32 104.46 37.20 36% 23 M 545 13.58 39.80 38.52 97% 25 M 344 13.95 71. 3 5 4 6 95 66 % 30 F 202 16.40 72.94 49 78 68 % 31 M 272 15.93 96.37 51 66 5 4% 34 M 300 15.99 41.45 32.87 79% 36 M 772 16.37 85 .6 8 64 48 75 % 37 F 255 10.24 40.70 38.63 95% 38 F 239 16.33 75.57 45.72 61% 40 M 471 10.52 56 54 47 79 85 % 47 F 391 16.31 54 40 48.0 4 88 % 48 M 603 16.32 82 48 51. 9 7 63 % 49 M 226 15.73 84 35 4 7 92 57 % 50 F 243 16.16 97 46 49 72 51 % 52 F 158 15.22 6 5 .6 2 43 85 6 7 % 56 F 236 16.34 9 6. 85 54 .15 56 % 65 M 159 8.90 39.99 32.12 80% 73 F 176 15.17 65.77 55 44 8 4% 87 F 543 14.26 45.10 38.51 85% 106 M 343 14.29 75 19 46 99 62 % 117 M 631 11.29 71.30 40.67 57% 118 M 791 13.33 84.52 44.11 52% 119 M 186 12.07 56.53 27.38 48% 120 F 306 17.23 73 04 63 37 87 % 131 M 178 13.06 80.88 33.06 41% 133 F 208 11.41 36.49 36.49 100% 136 F 463 10.26 45.63 40.07 88% 140 F 373 10.85 60.21 41.41 69%

PAGE 95

95 Table 4 1. Continued Boto ID Sex # of Sightings Span of Sightings (yrs) OCLR(k m) OCLR(km) in MSDR %OCLR in MSDR 149 F 356 12.29 41.62 39.68 95% 150 F 152 5.74 51.16 44 80 88 % 168 F 346 12.24 37.74 37.74 100% 169 M 602 12.30 9 2.41 51.1 9 55 % 171 M 809 11.89 64 70 53 48 83 % 172 M 218 5.17 64 44 45 .9 7 71 % 173 M 355 11.33 45 26 36 53 81 % 174 M 171 9.36 95.69 50.11 52% 181 F 335 11.25 59.09 36.84 62% 183 F 232 11.27 81.03 30.86 38% 184 M 707 11.31 64 86 3 4 48 53 % 201 M 687 11.33 51.96 46.14 89% 203 M 151 10.71 82 05 46 77 57 % 205 F 209 5.27 34 43 33 41 97 % 206 F 395 11.33 54.70 37.54 69% 211 F 235 11.11 63.64 42.73 67% 216 F 375 10.32 40.77 40.77 100% 218 F 341 10.37 47.93 39.30 82% 229 M 286 10.29 61.46 23.97 39% 236 M 389 9.88 71.83 43.97 61% 264 M 217 10.59 76.66 54.39 71% 280 M 190 9.30 106.95 41.02 38% 307 M 311 8.36 74.87 31.25 42% 311 M 198 8.32 57.24 25.22 44% 326 M 235 8.35 7 2 16 57.9 7 80 % 330 F 156 8.24 32.08 32.08 100% 363 F 187 7.33 66 00 50 77 77 % 369 F 268 7.24 35.52 33.97 96% 378 F 298 7.30 43.11 36.53 85% 379 F 248 7.32 44.45 37.72 85% 405 M 210 5.34 52.18 30.78 59% 421 M 187 5.25 54.96 34.90 64% 451 M 184 3.81 37.99 30.33 80%

PAGE 96

96 Table 4 2. Core use area (CUA) of six Inia geoffrensis individuals as determined by kernel density estimation. Boto ID Sex # of polygons comprising CUA Total size of CUA(km 2 ) CUA(km 2 ) in MSDR %CUA in MSDR 4 F 4 5.26 3. 3 5 6 4% 184 M 2 1.49 0. 18 12 % 218 F 2 7.73 5.83 75 % 437 M 2 3.80 2.67 70 % 490 M 3 7.36 5.3 7 73 % 492 F 2 5.29 3.97 75 % Table 4 3. AICc table from multi state model results Model AIC c AIC c AIC c Weight K SeasonLG2) 8884.2 1 0.00 0.998 177 ) 8897 03 12.92 0.00 2 1 65 SeasonL G4 ) 8922 80 38 69 0.000 285 ) 8932 41 48 30 0.000 1 41 C SeasonLG2) 8949 24 6 5. 13 0.000 1 17 The parameter of primary dependence (Season), state/location dependence (L), and group effect (G) were represented with the associated symbols. Condensed season dependence (CSeason) corresponds to models where estimation of transit ion probabilities was restricted per season across all years. Different group combinations were considered: adult males, adult females, mother/calf pairs, and immature in separate groups (G4); adults, mother/calf pairs, and immature individuals in separa te groups (G3); adults, and then mother/calf pairs and and p were fixed through a priori assumptions The number of estimated parameters (K ) is listed for each model.

PAGE 97

97 Figure 4 1 Map of study site, the Mamirau Lake System (MLS) and surrounding areas, located at the junction of the Japur and Solimes rivers in the southern segment of the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve (MSDR) in Amazonas State, Brazil Map displays the three states/locations used in the multi state models. The first two states/locations form part of the MSDR: the MLS channels and lakes (M), and ressacas or bays at the entrance of the MLS (R). The third state/location is outside the MSDR (A ) and is comprised mostly of river habitat.

PAGE 98

98 Figure 4 2 Map showing the Observed Complex Linear Range (OCLR) of Inia geoffrensis ID 6. The individual was observed 221 times between 2/4/1994 and 2/15/2012 in the Mamirau Lake System and surrounding areas. OCLR = 49.55km (red line )

PAGE 99

99 Figure 4 3 Observed Complex Linear Ranges (OCLR) of Inia geoffrensi s individuals sighted at least 150 times in the Mamirau Lake System and surrounding areas between January 1994 and March 2012 Figure 4 4 Water level (m.a.s.l ) in the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve from January 2009 to December 2010. T he average monthly water level for ten years (2002 2011) is also displayed.

PAGE 100

100 Figure 4 5 Map of the overlapping core use areas of five Inia geoffrensis as determined from kernel density estimation. Individuals were observed at least 15 times between November 30, 2010, and January 23, 2012 in the study area.

PAGE 101

101 Figure 4 6 Seasonal transition probability estimates for 2009 and 2010, for adults, and mother/calf pairs and immature botos (MCI), from the top performing model: 0 .968, 0 .899)p(Lt) (SeasonLG2). Transition probabilities in the direction leaving the MSDR (M to A, M to R, R to A; top panel ) and in th e dire ction entering the MSDR (A to M, R to M, A to R; bottom panel ) are displayed.

PAGE 102

102 Figure 4 7 Condensed s easonal transition probability estimates for 2009 and 2010, for adults and mother/calf pairs and immature botos (MCI) resulting from the model: 0 .968, 0 .899)p(Lt) (CSeason LG2). Transition probabilities in the direction leaving the MSDR (M to A, M to R, R to A ; top panel ) and in th e direction entering the MSDR (A to M, R to M, A to R ; bottom panel ) are shown.

PAGE 103

103 CHAPTER 5 PROTECTED AREA EVALU ATION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HARVESTED AMAZON RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA GEOFFRENSIS) Background Protected Areas (PAs) are recognized as a valuable tool for the conservation of cetaceans ( Gormley et al., 2012 ; Hooker and Gerber, 2004; Hooker et al. 1999; Hoyt, 2005; Kreb and Budiono 2005 ; Reeves and Reijnders, 2002 ). Potential benefits of PAs for cetaceans include the protection of feeding, nursery, and rest areas (Hoyt, 2005; (Notarbartolo Di Sciara et al. 2008), a s well as p rotection of target population s from direct anthropogenic threats (Hooker and Gerber 2004). Currently, some of these threats include habitat deterioration (Har wood, 2001) reduced prey resources (DeMaster et al., 2001) incidental mortality in fisheries (Read, 2008) and deliberate kil ling ( Costello and Baker, 2011; Robards and Reeves, 2011) Although numerous PAs have been established throughout the world with the purpose of protecting marine mammals (Hoyt 2005), few assessments have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of these PAs in protecting the target species against the above mentioned threats T o our knowledge, only one set of studies has systematically quantified the effectiveness of a PA in decreasing mortality of a cetacean population. Using population viability analysis Slooten et al. (2006) concluded that the Banks Peninsula Marine Mammal Sanctuary was insufficiently large to effectively protect threated by incidental entanglement in gillnets Subsequently Slooten (2 007) compared four possible PA scenarios for reduce population decline. Later Gormley et al. (2012) estimated survival rates of for pre sanctuary and po st sanctuary periods, and concluded that

PAGE 104

104 survival rates had improved significantly since inception of the sanctuary although not enough to allow population recovery This last study provided the first empirical evidence that PAs can be effective in decre asing cetacean mortality. With the growing popularity of establishing PAs for cetaceans, it is important to continue to develop and improve PA evaluation methods like those developed for the Hector dolphin population The functional extinction of the Baiji or Yangtze River Dolphin ( Lipotes vexillifer ) in 2006 (Turvey et al. 2007) and the critical status of the vaquita ( Phocoena sinus ) ( Aragon Noriega et al. 2010) emphasize the importance of developing quantitative evaluation methods. PAs set up for the purpose of protecting these two species have failed (Turvey et al. 2007, Aragon Noriega et al. 2010), but it has not been determined whether the PAs were unsuccessful due to a lack of enforcement, incorrect design, or simply because they were impleme nted too late. A n urgent need exists to evaluate the effectiveness of PAs in conserving cetaceans to ensure PA initiatives meet their potential and are not creating false impressions of conservation. In South America, deliberate killing for use as bait has become the primary anthropogenic threat affecting the Amazon River dolphin or boto ( Inia geoffrensis ). Since the mid 1990s, boto carcasses have been used to attract the catfish Calophysus macropterus commonly known as piracatinga in Brazil and mota in Colombia (da Silva et al., 2011; Gmez et al., 2008; Gmez Salazr et al., 2012; Loch et al., 2009; Portocarrero Aya et al., 2010a; Shostell and Ruiz Garcia, 2010; Trujillo et al., 2010b, 2010c) Demand for this food fish has increased in the last dec ade because it is acting as a replacement for another catfish known as capaz ( Pimelodus grosskopfii ) that was

PAGE 105

105 (Gmez et al., 2008; Petrere et al., 2004; Trujillo et al., 2010b) Consequently, an international mark et has developed involving the catch of piracatinga in Brazil (and recently other nations), and the expor t of this food fish to Colombia and a few Brazilian cities (da Silva et al., 2011; Trujillo et al., 2010b) As of 2013, the harvest of botos was occur ring in at least twelve locations in four out of the five Amazonian countries with piracatinga fisheries (Diniz, 2011 ), and in at least one of these locales, the harvest level may lead to depletion of the population ( da Silva et al., 2011; Mintzer et al., 2013). Currently, there are no PAs aimed specifi cally at protecting boto s However, populations occur in PAs throughout their range ( e.g., Santos Luzardo National Park in Venezuela, Pacaya Samiria National Reserve in Peru, Noel Kempff Mercado National Park in Bolivia, Cuyabeno Wildlife Production Reserve and Yasun National Park in Ecuador, and the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve in Brazil; Aliaga Rossel, 2002; da Silva and Martin, 2000; McGuire and Winemiller, 1998; Utreras et al., 2010 ) Cur rently, t he Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society is partnering with researchers in South America to establish the South American River Dolphin Protected Area Network (SARDPAN). The initiative includes over 30 protected areas, in six South American count ries that should assist in the protect ion of botos ( Portocarrero et al. 2010 b; < http://sardpan.wordpress.com/protected areas/ > ) However, there is very limited information on the effectivenes s of PAs for the conservation of river dolphins Such information is critical to inform initiatives like SARDPAN. Herein we develop a model to assess the effectiveness of a PA in protecting botos. Using a case study approach we determine d the effectiveness of an existing PA

PAGE 106

106 and evaluate d various PA scenarios to identify potential improvement s W e describe the steps conducted to develop the evaluation model, present the model predictions and parameter estimates, and discuss potential impro vements in PA design for the conservation of Amazon River dolphins. Methods Case Study This study took place in and around the southern segment of the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve (MSDR) located at the confluence of the Solimes and Japur riv ers, approximately 30km upriver of the town of Tef in Amazonas State, Brazil ( Figure 2 1 ). The MSDR consists of a focal area of about 260,000 hectares and a subsidiary area of approximately 864,000 hectares. It was establishe d in 1996 with the aim of combining biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use, with the active participation of local human populations (SCM, 1996). The MSDR is a whitewater floodplain or vrzea with aquatic fauna that varies seasonally with extreme water fluctuations. As the water lev el rises, the lowland forest floods channels widen, and lakes form. Although the exact timing of peak high and low water levels vary annually, typically the highest water mark is reached in June, and lowest water levels occur between September and November ( Ramalho et al., 2009; IDSM, 2012b ; Figure 4 4 ). Based on the water fluctuations four main seasons are recognized in the study area: rising water (RW), high water (HW), fallin g water (FW), and low water (LW). The data utilized in this study were collected through Projeto Boto, a not for profit river dolphin research program that has been active since 1994 in the southern segment of the MSDR the Mamirau Lake System (MLS) and adjacent waterways ( Figure 2 1 )

PAGE 107

107 Three methodologies implemented by Projeto B oto were utilized in this study: physical capture and marking of botos, year round observational surveys, and standardized monthly count surveys. Ph ysical c apture recapture and marking of botos occurred approximately three weeks each year during low water During capture botos were freeze branded with a unique code to allow for subsequent individual identification In addition to the physical capture recapture events, year round observational work was conducted throughout the MLS and surrounding areas, includ ing segments of the main rivers. When a boto or group of botos was sighted, the unique codes of any marked individuals were recorded, alo ng with the location. In addition standardized count surveys were carried out once per month along a 30km route from the entrance of the MLS, to the Mamirau Lake ( Figure 4 1 ). The objective of these surve ys was to enumerat e botos, not to identify marked individuals. Further description s of Projeto Boto procedures are available in da Silva and Martin (2000) Mart in and da Silva (2004a, 2004b), Martin et al. (2006) and Mintzer et al. (2013). As expected from the temp oral dy namics of the floodplain Projeto Boto has shown that dolphin distribution in MSDR is highly dependent on seasonal var iation in water levels (Martin and da Silva 2000b). During the dry season, botos are concentrated in the main rivers and channels, where as during the flooded season they enter the MLS (da Silva 2008; Martin and da Silva 2000b). Furthermore, Projeto Boto ; individuals that are observed in the area for at least seven of 12 months of the year (Mart in and da Silva 2004a). Because of the water fluctuations, no boto spend s its entire life within the MLS; however, some individuals stay in close proximity to the floodplain system until the

PAGE 108

108 water rises enough to allow them back into the M LS ( Chapter 4; Martin and da Silva 2004b ). It is important to emphasize that the MSDR was not created with the specific goal of protecting botos but instead ion of fragile habitats with the (SCM, 1996 Pg.11 ). A PA should not be evaluated for goals it was not created to achieve; hence, we want to stress that our objective herein was not to evaluate the su ccess or failure of the MSDR in protecting river dolphins, but instead, to use the MSDR as a model to build our evaluative framework. We considered t he MSDR to be a good candidate for our evaluation because it consists of vrzea considered essential habitat for the species ( Chapter 4; Martin and da Silva, 2004 b ; Utreras et al., 2010 ), and it is home to a resident population of botos (Martin and da Siva, 2004a ). Model Structure We built the evaluative model in a spreadsheet to repres ent 50 years of th e study abundance The model predicted population changes from one year to the next for seven age classes. Age classes 1 3 included calves, or botos still dependent on their mother Botos in a ge classes 4 6 were considered to be immature, o r individuals no longer dependent on their mother but not yet sexually mature. The final age class 7 consisted of both femal es and males of reproductive age These age classes were based on previous work suggesting that botos reach sexual maturity at 6 7 years of age ( da Silva, 2008 ) and that most calves stay with their mothers 3 4 years (Projeto Boto, unpublished data). Because of the importance of water level fluctuations on boto movement and reproduction (Chapte r 4 ; Martin and da Silva, 2004a, 2004 b; McGuire and Aliaga

PAGE 109

109 Rossel, 2010 ) we incorporated the four water level based seasons in the model : FW LW RW and HW Although the exact timing and duration of these seasons varies from year to year, we assig ned a total length, in months, to each season, based on water level records from the MSDR during the last decade ( Ramalho et al., 2009; IDSM, 2012b ; Figure 4 4 ). Births were represented only once a year, at high water, since most births occur during this time period ( Best and da Silva 1989a; Best and da Silva 1993 ; da Silva, 2008 ). W e considered the beginning of the year to be the start of the FW, because we wanted to begin by modeling population changes shortly after the calving season. The following equations were utilized in the model to estimate changes in abundance from the HW to the FW season ( from one year to the next ) inside the MSDR : n 1, t+1 = ( Bp n 7, t ) ( M ^(1/12) ) ^ L H W ( 5 1) n 2 t+1 = ( n 1 t M *(1 )+( n 1 t A ) ) ( M ^(1/12) ) ^L H W ( 5 2) n 3 t+1 = ( n 2,t M *(1 )+( n 2 t A ))* ( M ^(1/12) ) ^L H W ( 5 3) n 4, t+1 = ( n 3, t M *(1 )+( n 3,t A ))* ( M ^(1/12) ) ^L H W ( 5 4) n 5 ,t +1 = ( n 4, t M *(1 )+( n 4, t A ))* ( M ^(1/12) ) ^L H W ( 5 5) n 6, t+1 = ( n 5,t M *(1 )+( n 5,t A ))* ( M ^(1/12) ) ^L H W ( 5 6) n 7, t+1 = ( ( n 7, t M + n 6, t M ) *(1 )+ ( n 7 t A + n 6, t A ) ))* ( M ^(1/12) ) ^L H W ( 5 7) where B = annual fecundity, p = proportion of adult females, M = annual apparent survival in the MSDR A = annual apparent survival outside the MSDR L H W = number of months in H W se ason = group (G ) dependent seasonal transition probability

PAGE 110

110 from inside (M) to outside (A) the MSDR, = group (G ) dependent seasonal transition probability f rom outside(A) to inside(M) the MSDR. We made s light modifications to these equations to represent changes from FW to LW, LW to RW, and RW to HW. Moreover, we used a nalogous equations to calculate changes in abundances outside of the MSDR. The transition probabilities synchronize d abundance inside the MSDR (M) with abundance outside the MSDR (A) Figure 5 1 depicts a flow ch art representa tion of the model and Table 5 1 shows the Parameter Estimation Apparent Survival ( ) Apparent survival ( = true survival x (1 probability of permanent emigration) ) estimates of the study population were determined using mark recapture/resight modeling descri bed in detail by Mintzer et al. (2013). In this previous analysis, apparent survival estimates for the pre harvest and harvest period were estimated to be 0.968 and 0.899 respectively Because no harvest occurs inside the MSDR section included in this study ( Chapter 3 ), we assigned 0.968, the pre harves t survival estimate, as the MSDR apparent survival probability ( M ). We assigned 0.830 as the outside the MSDR apparent survival prob ability ( A ) to make the average of the two probabilities 0.899, which equals the estimated harvest period (or current) apparent survival probability for the population (Mintzer et al., 2013). Annual Fecundity (B ) Fecundity rate is defined as the mean number of live births a female produces over an interval of age (Caughley, 1977). We estimated fecundity by first determining

PAGE 111

111 the first year a female boto was captured or sighted with a calf (to establish sexual maturity) and then dividing the number of times the female was seen with a new calf by the number of subsequent years the female was sighted ( Thayer, 2012) We only included adult females sighted for 10 or more consecutive years and with unambiguous calf histories The average annual fecundity of the 1 5 females included in this calculation was 0.298 (SD= 0 .083) Initial Abundance (N 0 ) per Age Class and Proportion of Females (p) The initial abundance was considered to be 528, which corresponds to the boto population included in the a pparent survival analysis in Mintzer et al. (2013). The initial proportion of botos in each class was determined base d on the proportion of botos in each age class sighted in the year 2009. Proportion of females in the study population was 0.485 (Mintzer et al., 2013). We used multi state mark recapture models in Program MARK ( White and Burnham, 1999) to estimate transition probabilities of botos moving from inside to outside the MSDR ( MA ), and from outside to inside the MSDR ( A M ) We created encounter histories for 305 botos sighted between January 2009 and December 2010, using visual sightings of uniquely identified individuals The encounter histories were based on monthly time intervals and included only sightings made with 100% confidence. For multi state models, encounter histories represent b oth the encounter (or sighting) and the state (or location) of the encounter. In our modeling, we defined two states/ locations: inside the MSDR (M) and outside the MSDR (A ). I f an animal was

PAGE 112

112 seen within the MSDR during a month, it was assigned an M for that month. If it was sighted outside the MSDR duri ng a month, it was assigned an A For instance, an encounter history of M0 A describes an individual that was sighted in the M SDR in period 1, not detected in period 2, and seen outside the MSDR in period 3. We calculated t ransition probability e stimates across these states/locations ( MA and AM ) for each of the four seasons (HW, FW, LW, RW) Program Mark estimates the following three parameters for multi state recaptures only models: = the probability that a boto in location r at time t survives until time t +1, = the probability that a boto is sighted at time t in location r given tha t the boto is alive and in the study area at time t = the probability that a boto in location r at time t is in location s at time t +1, given that the boto survived from time t to t +1. We considered S to be apparent survival ( ) (defined in the se ction on apparent survival). We treat ed p, and a prior assumptions. We fixed and at 0 .968, and 0 .830 respectively ( refer to section on apparent survival ). To allow for changes in observation effort through time and space, w e defined p as fully time dependent (t) and state/location dependent (L) W e built models that allowed estimation of transition probabilities for each season of each year, and some that restricted estimation of transition probabilitie s per season acro ss all years. according to sex and age group (G). F our groups were considered : adult males (AM), adult femal es (AF), mother/calf pairs (MCP ), and immature individuals (IMM). T ransition probabilities were allowed to vary with the four gr oups (AM, AF, MCP, and IMM) three groups (adults, MCP and IMM), o r two groups (adults and MCI, where MCP and IMM were combined ). Please refer to Chapter 4 for additional information

PAGE 113

113 regarding the building of the enco unter histories, and definition and treatment of the seasons and groups. We used the sin link function to transform real parameter values [0,1] to values [ ] for numerical optimization. We used simulated annealing, which is recommended for multi state models where parameter estimates may be close to the 1 boundary. We conducted a median goodness of fit test on the global model to assess overdispe rsion (White and Burnham, 1999) and subsequently applied the estimated c (var iance inflation factor) to the model set. or model ranking (Akaike, 1973); however, b ecause we applied the estimated c to our model set we used the small sample, c corrected version of AIC, QAICc to dete rmine model rank. Scenario Building We built the original model to present the current PA scenario, with the above parameter estimates, and checked model performance by comparing t he resulting abundance trend to an abundance trend representing an annual de crease in the population of 4.926 % We estimated this average annual decrease from the 1995 to 2011 minimum count monthly standardized surveys conducted in one channel in the MSDR To simulate the various PA scenarios, we adjusted the transition probabilit ies that were i nputted into the evaluative model For these adjustments we manipulated the input files used in the multi state models in Program MARK For example, an original encounter history of AM0A0AAA describes an individual that was mos t often seen outside the MSDR boundaries (in A) If we were considering a scenario where the

PAGE 114

114 MSDR boundaries were expanded, we would examine the sightings that occurred in A, and change them to M if they occurred in an area considered newly protected for the scenario. The adjusted encounter history c ould result in MM0A0MMM. With each scenario, all capture histories were altered in this manner to represent the areas c onsidered to be newly protected under the scenario being explored. We built a new transit ion probability model for each set of altered capture histories with the structure of the t op performing model as determined by QAICc ranking (i.e. the most parsimonious model built with the Scenario 1 input file). We considered five different PA scenarios: the current MSDR boundary (Scenario 1) three scenarios with expanded boundaries (Scenarios 2 4), and one scenario with no PA (Scenario 5) ( Figure 5 2 ) Scenarios 2 4 represented an expansion in the boundaries that i ncluded segments of the main river, the Japur at the entrance of the MSDR. In Scenario 2, an area of 4.968km 2 directly adjacent to the entrance of the MLS was i ncluded as protected ( Figure 5 2 ). Scenario 3 included the same a rea in Scenario 2 plus the area of the Japur that meets the Solimes River, totaling 7.024km 2 of additional protected water ( Figure 5 2 ). Scenario 4 included a total additional area of 16.633km 2 consisting of the area protect ed in Scenario 3 plus an additional large segment u priver on the Japur ( Figure 5 2 ). Finally, to simulate a scenario with no reserve (Scenario 5), we set survival both inside and o utside the MSDR equal to 0.830. We expected that protecting sections of the Japur would benefit t he population because during low water, when botos are forced out of the MSDR, many individuals stay in close proximity to the MSDR entrance (Chapter 4; Martin and da Silva, 2004b) If boto s do indeed utilize this area of the Japur River extensively, we would expect

PAGE 115

115 transition probabilities going from i nside to outside the MS DR to decrease considerably in s cenarios where the PA boundary is expanded to include this area. Subsequently, we w ould expect abundance estimates to be greater in scenarios including the Japur River sections as PA W ith a decrease in transition probabilities leaving the MSDR, botos would be su bject to a lower mortality probability for longer periods of time. Re sults Model Performance The trend in abundance predicted by the evaluative model closely followed the trend ex pected with an annual 4.926 % decline ( Figure 5 3 ); thus, we did not adjust any of the original parameter estimates in the model. As expected based on Chapter 4 and Martin and da Silva (2004a, 2004 b) t he abundance numbers fluctuated in acc ordance with the seaso n. T he lowest numbe r of botos within the MSDR boundaries occurred during low water ( Figure 5 4 ) Transition Probabilities The median goodness of fit test resulted in = 2 223 well within an acceptable range of 4 (Burnham and Anderson, 2002) and we adjusted all multi state model results with this value. QAICc supported a model with condensed season dependent transition probabilities and with two grou ps, adults (AM and AF), and MCI ( MCP and IMM ) (Model 1; Table 5 2 ) Thus, we used this model structure to build the additional mu lti state models to estimate transition probabilities for the various scenarios. The difference in transition probabilities between adults and MCI was expected based on previous work ( Chapter 4 ) The t ransition probabilities in the direction away from the MSDR ( MA ) varied considerably with the adjustments made to the input files. As expected, these estimates

PAGE 116

116 decrea sed as the MSDR boundary was expanded to the Japur River in the various scenarios particularly for the FW season ( Figure 5 5 ) The largest estimated difference was between the transition probabilities of the adult group in the direction leaving the MSDR between Scenario 1 ( ) and Scenario 4 ) ( Figure 5 5 ). Scenario Predictions The abundance estimates corresponding to the current scenario (Scenario 1 ; Figure 5 2 ) predict ed a decline in the study population in the decades to come, with only 50 botos remaining in 50 years ( Figure 5 6 ) The estimates for Scenario 5, a scenario representing no PA status, predicted that in 30 years the population would decline to 10 individuals ( Figure 5 6 ) In Scenarios 2 and 3 ( Figure 5 2 ) where the PA boundari es were expanded to include small segment s of the Japur River adjacent to the entrance of the MLS the model predicted gradual decline s in abundance in the population in t he next 50 years ( Figure 5 6 ). In Scenario 4 where the PA was expanded considerably to includ e a larger portion of the Japur River ( Figure 5 2 ), the model predicted an increase in abundance in the next 50 years ( Figure 5 6 ). The most note worthy difference between Scenarios 2 and 3 and Scenario 4 was the inclusion of a lengthy beach, Praia Clarindo, within the PA b oundary in Scenario 5 ( Figure 5 2 ) Discussion Abundance Trend Mintzer et al. (2013) and da Silva et al. (2011) suggested that the harves t of botos is having a detrimental effect on the study population, so it wa s unsurprising that the model predicted a declining trend in the st udy popu lation under the current scenario.

PAGE 117

117 If no management interventions take place and the harvest continues at the annual average rate of approximately 7% (Mintzer et al., 2013), the study population wil l be nearly depleted in 50 years. Importantly our results suggest ed that expanding the MSDR boundaries to protect a larger portion could have a positive effect on abund ance and effectively limit the population decline. Model Limitations T he increasing abundance trend predicted in Scenario 4 is likely an overestimation due to two mode l limitations. First, the model does no t incorporate density dependent effects P opulation parameters such as mortality and sexual maturity appear to be density dependent in marine mammal s although there is ongoing debate on the subject ( Crespo and Hall 2002 ). Nevertheless, r eduction in the density of harvested whale species has been linked to changes in pregnancy rates and age of sexual matur ation (Lockyer, 1984) W ith the considerable climb in abundance numbers represented in Scenario 4, it is likely that density dependence effects would come into play and limit the 50 year steep pop ulation growth through a decrease in fecundity r ate or an increase in age at sexual maturity To accurately predict 50 year abundance estimates for Scenario 4, a more complex model that incorporates density dependence would be required Second, t he evaluative model assume d that the inside and outside states were homogenous in survival proba bility. In other words, botos found outside the PA w ere subject to one mortality rate, regardless of their exact location. The same held true for botos found within the MSDR. Because previous work has found that no boto harvest o ccurs within the segment of the MSDR included in th is study (Chapter 3) this assumption holds true for the inside state. On the other hand, previous work has shown

PAGE 118

118 that harvest activity is not evenly distributed outside of the MSDR (Chapter 3). Because we did not directly account for this heterogeneity in the model, the increasing trend in abundance in Scenari os 4 could be an overestimation, as the survival probability could already be high in some areas outside the MSDR. However, the PA in Scenario 4 straddles the entrance of a channel where boto harvest has been known to occur ( per Chapter 3) so we did expec t an increase in survival probability in that area once protected. Protected Areas for Amazon River Dolphins The results of this study sugg est that spatial protection could be a successful tool for the conservation of boto populations that exhibit site fideli ty to floodplains in the Amazon. However, at current harvest level s in the study area, protection of solely the floodplain in and in itself is insufficient to maintain the study population, as individuals are subject to high levels of mortality when leaving the floodplain. G iven that the movement patterns of most individuals are predictable based on the water level, and that many individuals stay close to the vrzea during low water, protecting areas of main rivers adjacent to vrzea habitat especially during the low water season, is essential. As shown in this study, these river PA s need not be large relative to the floodp lain PA PA expansion is equivalent to only 6% of the MLS) but need to include hotspots of boto activity such as beaches and confluences, to assure that botos spend a considerable portion of their time within the PA This study focused on a boto population that exhibits high site fidelity, with at least half the in dividuals considered residents ( Martin and da Silva, 2004b). N ot all botos exhibit site fidelity and PAs may do little to protect transient individuals who may travel hundreds of kilometers between river systems ( Martin and Da Silva 2004b )

PAGE 119

119 Howev er, site fidelity to vrzeas or lakes has also been observed in botos in the River Negro, Tocantins rivers, Samiria River, and Orinoco basin (Best and da Silva 1989b; Mcguire and Henningsen 2007 ; Schnapp and Howroyd, 1992 ), so spatial protection may be a n important strategy to protect specific boto populations throughout the range. Simply denoting an additional area as protected will not be enough to decrease the harves t of botos. Harvest of botos occurs within the MSDR boun daries (Estupin et al., 2003; Chapter 3) n orth w est of our study area, where enforcement and management efforts are not carried out to the same degree as in our study area ( the southernmost portio n of the MSDR or the MLS and adjacent waterways ) (SCM,1996) The harvest has been limited in the MLS likely due to a combination of Pr ojeto Boto researcher presence, education resulting from Projeto Boto and the MSDR community based programs, and the MSDR enforcement agent surveillance (Chapter 3). Throughout the Amazon federal enforcem ent is challenging due to institutional deficiencies ( McGuire and Aliaga Rossel, 2010 a ; Peres and Terbough, 1995; Trujillo et al., 2010c; Utreras et al., 2010 ) ; thus, PAs will likely not be successful in limiting the boto harvest without strong local efforts. Protected Area Evaluation Because most PAs are monitored only after establishment, one of the main challenges in PA evalua tion is a lack of pre protected are a data that would allow for pre and post PA comparisons. Evaluations are further complicated in cases were insufficient ecological data on populations exist to make comparisons between populations occurring inside PAs a nd outside PAs. In this study, regardless of the presence of these two challenges, a fairly simple population model was used to

PAGE 120

120 evaluate the effectiveness of a PA in protecting a species in a complex aquatic system, and test for improvements. The mark recapture data set used here allowed for key parameter estimates to inform the model, particularly survival probability estimates that represented protected vs. unprotected areas and transition probabilities that measured anima l movements between thes e areas If a data set is available to estimate these demographic parameters, our framework could be utilized to evaluate PAs in various systems and for numerous species.

PAGE 121

121 Table 5 1. Five year output for the evaluative model. YR Season # Mo s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Inside Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Outside Total Model N Survey N 0 HW(May Jun) 2 19 19 19 23 23 23 275 400 0 0 0 3 3 3 119 128 528 528 1 FW(Jul Sep) 3 39 18 18 18 22 22 272 409 17 1 1 1 3 3 141 168 577 585 LW(Oct Nov) 2 34 16 15 15 18 18 136 254 21 4 4 4 6 6 263 308 562 RW(Dec Apr) 5 36 20 14 14 17 18 142 263 18 5 4 4 6 6 225 269 532 HW(May Jun) 2 40 25 15 15 18 19 196 327 13 4 3 3 5 5 157 190 517 2 FW(Jul Sep) 3 28 40 24 15 15 18 218 358 22 12 4 3 3 4 152 201 559 556 LW(Oct Nov) 2 25 35 21 13 13 15 113 234 24 17 7 5 5 7 245 309 544 RW(Dec Apr) 5 29 38 23 13 13 15 123 254 19 15 7 5 5 6 206 263 517 HW(May Jun) 2 33 42 27 15 13 15 173 318 14 11 6 4 4 5 142 184 502 3 FW(Jul Sep) 3 25 34 42 26 15 14 193 348 20 12 11 6 3 3 137 192 540 529 LW(Oct Nov) 2 22 30 36 23 13 12 100 235 21 16 16 9 5 5 218 291 525 RW(Dec Apr) 5 26 33 36 25 14 12 109 254 17 14 15 9 5 5 183 247 502 HW(May Jun) 2 29 36 38 28 16 13 154 314 12 10 11 6 4 3 126 174 487 4 FW(Jul Sep) 3 22 31 36 39 27 16 170 341 18 11 10 10 6 4 121 179 520 503 LW(Oct Nov) 2 20 27 31 33 24 13 88 236 19 14 14 15 10 6 193 270 506 RW(Dec Apr) 5 23 29 32 33 25 15 97 253 15 13 13 14 9 5 162 231 484 HW(May Jun) 2 26 32 34 35 28 17 136 308 11 9 10 10 7 4 112 163 470 5 FW(Jul Sep) 3 20 27 32 34 35 28 155 332 16 10 9 9 9 6 109 167 499 478 LW(Oct Nov) 2 18 24 28 29 30 24 80 232 17 13 13 13 14 10 175 253 486 RW(Dec Apr) 5 20 26 28 29 30 25 88 247 13 11 12 12 13 9 147 217 464 HW(May Jun) 2 23 29 30 31 32 27 123 296 10 8 9 9 9 7 101 153 449

PAGE 122

122 Table 5 2. QAICc table from multi state model results Model Q AIC c Q AIC c Q AIC c Weight K SeasonLG2) 3360.98 0.00 0.69 62 ) 3362.62 1.63 0.31 82 easonL G3 ) 3371.69 10.71 0.00 70 ) 3383.79 22.80 0.00 78 SeasonLG3 ) 3390.88 29.89 0.00 100 dependence (Season), state/location dependence (L), and group effect (G) were represented with the associated symbols. Condensed season dependence (CSeason) corresponds to models wh ere estimation of transition probabilities was restricted per season across all years. Different group combinations were considered: adult males, adult females, mother/calf pairs, and immature individuals (G4); adults, mother/calf pairs, and immature ind ividuals (G3); adults, and then mother/calf pairs and immature individuals and p were fixed through a priori assumptions Number of estimated parameters (k) is listed for each model.

PAGE 123

123 Figure 5 1. A schematic representation of the evaluative model showing demographic parameters of botos within the MSDR (top panel) and outside the MSDR (bottom panel) for seven age classes. A pparent survival inside (M) and outside (A) the MSDR is denoted by M and A respectively Movement in and out of the MSDR is represented by transition probabilities A M M A Fecundity is indicated by F. This conceptual model does not display m ovement throughout all seasons, only at falling and rising water.

PAGE 124

124 Figure 5 2 Protected area boundary scen arios applied in the evaluative model. Scenario 1 represents the true or existing protected area boundary of the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve. Scenarios 2 4 convey situations where the protected area boundary is expanded.

PAGE 125

125 Figure 5 3 Estimated abundance (N) for the captured boto population in the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve (MSDR). The model abundance trend represents predictions from the scenario representing the current MSDR boundaries (Scenario 1) urvey line re presents a 4.926 % average annual decline in the population estimated from monthly standardized observation surveys conducted in a channel in the MSDR from 1994 to 2012. Figure 5 4. Five year abundance estimates f or Inia geoffrensis inside the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve ( MSDR ) and outside the MSDR according to season (FW=falling water, LW=low water, RW=rising water, HW=high water)

PAGE 126

126 Figure 5 5 Seasonal transition probability estimates for adults, and mother/calf pairs and immature botos (MCI), in the direction leaving the MSDR (M to A; top panel ), and in th e direction entering the MSDR (A to M; bottom panel ) from 0 .968, 0 .830 )p(Lt) (CSeason LG2).

PAGE 127

127 Figure 5 6 Fifty year a bundance (N) trends of Inia geoffrensis estimated from five scenarios simulated in the evaluative population model. Scenario 1 represents the true or existing protected area boundary of the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve. Scenarios 2 4 convey situations whe re the protected area boundary wa s expanded. Scenario 5 represents the circumstances under no protected area.

PAGE 128

128 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSERVATION This research focused on determ ining the effect of harvest on the boto population occurring in and near the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve ( MSDR ) and the evaluation of protected areas (PAs) as a tool for boto conservation In Chapter 2, I determined the effect of the harvest by using mark recapture modeling to determine survival probabilities for the study population The results suggested that the harvest level of approximately 7% is likely unsustainable. In Chapter 3 I evaluated fisher perceptions, attitudes and behavior s toward botos to explore the types and frequency of fisher boto interactions, and to determine the effect, if any, of the MSDR on fisher attitudes and behaviors R esults suggest ed that the MSDR community based initiatives have had a positive effect on fisher attitudes toward botos and their conservation. Although more research is needed to determine if these positive attitudes translate into positive behaviors, the findings sugges t that the MSDR has likely limited boto mortality t hrough behavioral controls In Chapter 4, I investigated boto habitat use and seasonal movement patterns. A lthough botos are forced to leave the MSDR d uring the low water season, many stay close to the M SDR and transition back to the MSDR quickly Moreover, bays ap pear to be of critical importance to botos in vulnerable life stages. Finally, in Chapter 5 I developed a population model that estimated the current effec t of the MSDR on boto abundance and evaluated various PA scenarios. T he results suggested that with the current scenario the boto population could be nearly depleted in 50 years; however, expanding the MSDR boundaries to include areas of the major river could lead to increases in populatio n abundance and prevent extinction.

PAGE 129

129 Together t hese findings support the conclusion that, under s pecific circumstances, PAs could be an effe ctive strategy to conserve boto populations that exhibit site fidelity to vrzeas However the protection of fl oodplain habitats alone is insufficient due to the water level dyna mics that force botos out of shallow areas In the case of the MSDR, expanding the boundaries to include river habitat adjacent to the floodplain system particularly segments that includ e beaches and confluences, c ould provide the necessary sanctuary for botos during the low water season. Moreover, due to the difficulties of enforcing natural resource regulations in the Amazon, simply expanding the MSDR boundary would be insufficient to protect botos. L ocal community based conservation programs involving research, ecotourism, and enforcement would need to be expanded along with the boundaries. Together these initiatives could promote positive attitudes toward botos and may limit boto mo rtality through behavioral controls imposed by community members By meeting both design and management improvements the MSDR could prevent the decline of the local boto population. Based on the MSDR case study, I conclude that the success of PAs in conserving botos will likely be ve ry dependent on local programs and large scale i nitiatives like SARDPAN will need to encourage such efforts in order to ensure success. Accordingly I have two major recommendations for the SARDPAN project and similar initiatives. At a minimum, PAs for boto conservation would need to account for the effects of water level fluctuations and protect multiple habitat types Localized research may be necessary to determine key habitats for target boto population s In most cases, however, PAs w ill likely need to include segments of major rivers that are

PAGE 130

130 commonly key transportation routes and consequently almost always excluded from Amazonian PAs Secondly, enforcement efforts would need to be established at the local level PAs these efforts could be in the form of community based enforcement programs, w h ere locals are trained and compensated for enforcing boto and PA regulations. However, these programs would likely only be successful in areas where attitude s toward boto s are generally favor able as was the case in the Mamirau Lake System In order to promote such attitudes, outreach, tourism, and/or research initi atives with active community education and participation would need to be established. A timely and transdisciplinary approach with a focus on local boto population dynamics and human communities is needed to address the illegal harvest. In addition to providing recommendations for the conservation of the boto, another goal of this work was to develop a modeling framework that would contribute to the demand and need f or PA evaluation tools. Gerber et al. (2003) argued that while there are numerous exis ting examples of strategic models (aimed at answering broad type questions) relating to PAs more tactical models are needed to further develop reserve design theory. Tactic al models are typically more complex and are used to address specific situations, like the design of a specific reserve or the management of a specific species (Gerber et al., 2003). Of the tactical models that have been developed pertaining to PA evaluatio n, few include explicit information on movement and demography (Gerber et al. 2003) belittling the credibility of the assessment s In Chapter 5, I developed a tactical model that incorporated movement and demography to evaluate the effect of a PA on po pulation abundance. After using a

PAGE 131

131 combination of mark recapture modeling tools to estimate demographic and movement param eters, I developed a model that could link these parameter estimates in a framework conducive to evaluating various PA scenarios. This modeling framework is applicable to other systems and species for which mark recapture data exist Along with the information on demography and movement of the boto population gathered from Chapters 2 and 4 the modeling framework was built based on material in Chapter 3 where the focus was on human dimensions and not boto ecology From the fisher a ttitude and behavior assessment, we learned that it is unlikely that the harvest occurs within the Mamirau L ak e S ystem (MLS) probably due to a combination of researcher and enforcement presence, as well as education from involvement in community based activities (key points mentioned in the recommendations above) From these results I was able to establish the treatment of the su rvival parameters in the model (assume d no harvest in the MLS and harvest outside), and more importantly, make the assumption that expanding the boundaries could have a positive effect. The favorable abundance trend estimated in Chapter 5 would mean little without the human dimensions work that indicated that the M SDR is working to some extent. Chapter 3 provided a perspective on the issue that went past numbers and modeling, one that exposed mechanisms and drivers that could not only tell us if the PA was working, but the how B eyond boto conservation recommendations and modeling framework s the final contribution of this work is to stress the importanc e of the interdisciplinary approach and the value that it can provide to the evaluation of conservation strategies.

PAGE 132

132 APPENDIX A FISHER SURVEY ENGLISH Date: Day_____/Month_____/Year_____ Time: ____:_____ Community Name: __________________________________________________ Community Type (circle one): Focal Subsidiary Reserve User Non Reserve Community location (circle all that apply): River____ Channel____ Confluence____ Beach____ Bank____ Bay____ Lake____ GPS Coordinates: Latitude:________________ Longitude:_________________ (1) Would you like to participate in the survey? 1 No_____ 2 Yes_____ If No, thank the fisher and end survey. (2) What year were you born?______ If participant is not 18 years old, please thank the fisher and end survey. (3) Where you born in this community? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If No 3b, If yes 3d (3b) Where were you born? ______________ (3c) How long have you lived in this community?______________ (3d) Have you lived in this community your entire life?______________ 1 No_____ 2 Yes_____ If No (3e) Where else have you lived in the past? _____________ ___________ __ ______________________________________________________________ (4) Does your family live in this community? (4b) How many people live with you? _____________

PAGE 133

133 (5) Have you studied at a school in __________ ___ ( use response to Question 3 )? 1 No_____ 2 Yes_____ It Yes (5b) How long did you study (in each location)? _____________ ______________ (6) How long have you fished in the area near this community?_________ _________ If before 1996 (6b) Do you think fishing has changed since inception of Mamirau in 1996? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (6c) How has fishing changed since inception of Mamirau? __________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ (7) Have you attended and/or participated in any meetings and/or workshops coordinated by th e Mamirau Institute? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (7b) Which meetings and/or workshops did you attend and when? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ _____ _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ (8) How many times have researchers or other staff from the Mamirau Institute visited this community in the last month and in the last year? _________________/ month and ________________/year If they visited (8b) How many times did you speak with researchers or other staff of the Mamirau Institute in the last month and in the last year? _________________/ month and ________________/year (9) What type(s) of fishing gear did use in the last year? 1 lampara seine_______ 2 drift gill net________ 3 fixed gill net ________ 4 Trawl ________ 5 Outro________________ 6 Outro ________________ 7 Outro ________________ If net

PAGE 134

134 (9b) What size mesh do you use? _______________________________ (9c) How long is your net(s)?___________________________________ (10) How many other fishermen in this community use the same type of f ishing gear you use? 1 lampara seine _______ 2 drift gill net _______ 3 fixed gill net _______ 4 Trawl _______ 5 Other________________ 6 Other________________ 7 Other________________ (11) What typ e of vessel do you use to fish 1 C anoe _______ 2 Canoe with motor _______ 3 Boat with motor _______ 4 Other ________________ (12) What percentage or part of your catch did you sel l in the last year?____________ (12b) Where did you sell your fish in the last year?__________________ _______ (12c) Where did you sell with more frequency?___________________ _________ (13) In what location(s) did you fish at during the last month and the last year? (Ask participant to point out location on the attached map if possible. Write the location name s in the answers for question 15) (14) Can you order the locations according to where you fished with more frequency? (Rank the locations in Question 15 according to frequency, with 1 being the most frequent. (15) What habitat type(s) do you find at your fishing l ocation(s)? (If more than one habitat, rank them according to their prominence, 1 being the most prominent.) Location 1________________________ Rank__________ 1 River____ 2 Channel ____ 3 Confluence ____ 4 Beach ____ 5 Bank ____ 6 Bay ____ 7 Lake ____ 8 Other ____ 9 Other ____ 10 Other _______________ Location 2________________________ Rank__________ 1 River____ 2 Channel____ 3 Confluence____ 4 Beach____ 5 Bank____ 6 Bay____ 7 Lake____ 8 Other____ 9 Other____ 10 Other _______________

PAGE 135

135 Location 3________________________ Rank__________ 1 River____ 2 Channel____ 3 Confluence____ 4 Beach____ 5 Bank____ 6 Bay____ 7 Lake____ 8 Other____ 9 Other____ 10 Other _______________ Location 4________________________ Rank__________ 1 River____ 2 Channel____ 3 Confluence____ 4 Beach____ 5 Bank____ 6 Bay____ 7 Lake____ 8 Other____ 9 Other____ 10 Other _______________ Location 5________________________ Rank__________ 1 River____ 2 Channel____ 3 Confluenc e____ 4 Beach____ 5 Bank____ 6 Bay____ 7 Lake____ 8 Other____ 9 Other____ 10 Other _______________ (16) In which months did you fish at in the last year? January ____ February ____ March ____ April ____ May ____ June ____ July ____ August ____ September ____ October ____ November ____ December ____ (17) How many times do you fish in the last week and month? _______/week and ______/month (18) In the days that you fished in the last month, how many times per day did you fish?__________ (18b) At what time did you go fishing?___________________________________ (19) What species of fish did you target each month that you fished in the last year? January_____________ ___________ February___________ __________ March_________________________ April______ ___________________ May__________________ _________ June__________________ _______ July________ ___________________ August_______________________ September_____________________ October______________________ November_____________ ________ December______________ _____ (20) Do you have another job other than fishing? 1 No _____ 2 Yes ____ If yes (20b) What other job do you have?____________ __________________________

PAGE 136

136 (20c) With which job do you make more money?_ __________________________ (21) Have you ever seen a bo to take or try to take a fish from your fishing net? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (21b) How many times did you see botos take or try to take fish from your fishing net in the last week, month, or year? ________/week __________/month ________/year (21c) In what fishing locations did botos try to take fish from your fishing net? (Circle the answers in Question 15 with red) (21d) Did this occur more frequently in a particular location? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (21e) In which location? (Circle the answers in Question 14 with blue) (21f) During what season do botos take or try to take a fish from you fishing net in the last year? 1 Low water ____ 2 Rising wa ter ____ 3 High water ____ 4 Falling water ____ (21g) Did this occur more during a particular season? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (21h) During which season? 1 Low water ____ 2 Rising water ____ 3 High water ____ 2 4 Falling water ____ (21i) Why do you think it occurred more during this season? _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _______________________________________ ______________ (21j) Which botos took or tried to take fi sh from your fishing net? 1 Calf____ 2 Juvenile____ 3 Adult______

PAGE 137

137 (21k) What type of net were you using when botos took or tried to take fish from your fishing net? (Skip if only indicated one type of net in Question 9) 1 lampara seine_______ 2 drift gill net________ 3 fixed gill net________ 4 Trawl________ 5 Outro________________ 6 Outro________________ 7 Outro________________ (21l) What did you do the last time you saw a boto take or try to take a fish from your fishing net? 1 Nothing___ 2 Tried to scare it away___ 3 Killed it ___ 4 Other___ ________ If 3 21m, If 1,2,4 21o (21m) What did you do with the dead boto? 1 Leave it in the water____ 2 Use it to fish for piracatinga ____ 3 Other_________ _______ If 1 (21n) Why did you kill the boto? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ ____ _______________________________ ____________________________ (21o) In the last year, have you always _______( insert answer from 21l) when a boto tries to take a fish from your fishing net? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If No (21p) What else have you done ? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ (21q) How many botos did you kill in the last month or year because they took or tried to take a fish from your fishing net?_____________/month or __________/year. (22) Has a boto ever become entangled in your fishing net? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Ye s

PAGE 138

138 (22b) How many times did a boto become entangled in your fishing net in the week, month, and year? ________/week ________/month _______/year (22c) In what fishing locations have botos become entangled in your fishing net in the last year? (Circle in blue the locations in Question 15) (22d) Did this occur more frequently in one location? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (22e) In which location? (Circle the location again in Question 15) (22f) During what season(s) did botos became entangled in your fishing net in the last year? 1 Low water ____ 2 Rising water ____ 3 High water ____ 4 Falling water ____ (22g) Did it occur more frequently during one season? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes ( 22h) Which season? 1 Low water ____ 2 Rising water ____ 3 High water ____ 4 Falling water ____ (22i) Why do you think occurred more during this season? __________________________________________________________________ _____________________ _____________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ (22j) Which botos became entangled in your fishing net in the last year? 1 Calf____ 2 Juvenile____ 3 Adult______ (22k) What type of net were you using when a boto became entangled in your fishing net in the last year? (Skip if only indicated one type of net in Question 9) 1 lampara seine_______ 2 drift gill net__ ______ 3 fixed gill net________ 4 Trawl________ 5 Outro________________ 6 Outro________________ 7 Outro________________ (22l) What did you do the last time a boto became entangled in your fishing net? 1 Released it before it drow ned____ 2 Disentangled it after it drowned_____ 3 Killed it _____ 4 Other________________ __________ If 1, go to 22m

PAGE 139

139 If 2 or 3, go to 22n (22m) Why did you release the boto? _____________________________________________________ (22n) What did you do with the dead boto? 1 Leave it in the water____ 2 Use it to fish for piracatinga ____ 3 Other__________________ If 1 (22o) Why did you kill the boto? _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _______________________________________ ______________ (22p) Have you alw ays ______( insert answer from 21l ) when a boto has become entangled in your fishing net? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If No (22q) What else have you done when a boto became entangled in your fishing net?______________________________ ____________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ (22r) If fisher has never disentangled boto Do you think you could disentangle a boto successfully from your net if you tried? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ (22s) How many botos drowned accidentally in your fishing net in the last month and in the last year? _____/month and ______/year (22t) How many botos that were e ntangled in your fishing net did you kill in the last month and in the last year? _____/month and ______/year (22u) Do you use any techniques to try to prevent botos from stealing fish or getting caught in your nets? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes

PAGE 140

140 (22v) What techniques do you use?____________________________ __ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ (22w) Do you have any ideas to prevent botos from stealing fish or getting caught 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (22 x) What ideas do you have? _________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ (23) Have you ever killed a boto deliberately to use it to catch piracatinga ? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes 23b, If No 23e (23b) How many botos have you killed for this purpose in the last month or year? _____________________/month ___________________/year (23c ) Which botos did you kill to use to catch piracatinga ? 1 Calves____ 2 Juveniles____ 3 Adults______ (23d ) What would it take for you to stop killing botos for us e as bait?____________ __________________________________________________________________ _ _ ( 23e ) Would it be easy for you to kill a boto to use as bait? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ (23f ) Would it be profitable for you to kill a boto to use as bait? 1 No ______ 2 Yes ______ (24) Have you ever seen a dead boto with a mark on its body? (Show picture of branded dolphin) 1 No ______ 2 Yes ______ If Yes

PAGE 141

141 (24b) How did the boto(s) die? 1 Entangled in fishing net______ 2 Killed to use to fish piracatinga ______ 3 Other_____________________ 4 Do not know ______ (24c) Do you remember what the mark looked like?_____________ 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (24d) Please draw the mark (provide a blank sheet of paper) (25) Do you know about the legend of the Encantado ? 1 No_____ 2 Yes_____ If Yes (25b) What is the legend? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ______________________ __________________________________________________________________ (25c) Does the legend affect the way you behave towards the boto? 1 No_____ 2 Yes_____ If Yes (25d) How does it affect your behavior towards botos? __________________________________________________________________ _________________________ _________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________ (26) In your opinion, is the boto an important animal in the Amazon? 1 No_____ 2 Yes_____ If Yes (26b) Why do you think the boto is important? _____ _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ____ (27) Do you think the boto population in this area is declining, staying the same, or increasing? 1 Declining_____ 2 Stable_____ 3 Increasing_____ If 1, 3

PAGE 142

142 (27b) Why do you think the boto population is declining/increasing? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________ (28) Do you like or dislike the boto? 1 Like _____ 2 Dislike ____ 3 Neutral_______ (28b) Have your ideas about the boto changed since you first began to fish in this area? No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (28c) How have your ideas changed ? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ ___________ (28d) When did your ideas changed? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________ __________________________________________________________ (29) Do other people in your community like or dislike the boto? 1 Like _____ 2 Dislike ____ 3Neutral_______ (29b) sh in this area? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (29c) __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________ (29d) When did their ideas change?

PAGE 143

143 __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________ ________________________________________________________ (30) Have your interactions with botos increased, decreased, or stayed the same since you first began to fish in this area? 1 Decreased_____ 2 Stayed the Sa me______ 3 Increased_______ If 1 or 3 (30b) Why do you think your interactions with the boto have increased/decreased? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________ ____________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ (30c) When did your interactions with the boto start to increase/decrease? __________________________________________________________________ __________ ________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ (31 ) Have other people in this community killed botos? 1 No___ __ 2 Yes______ If Yes (31b) How many botos do you know have been killed in this community in the last month or year? _____________________/month ___________________/year (31c) Why were they killed? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ ____________________________ (31d) Do you think more, less, or the same number of botos were killed in the years 2003 2008? 1 More_____ 2 Same____ 3 Less_____ (32) Would you kill (more) botos if you were not living in Mamirau (near Mamirau)?

PAGE 144

144 1 N o_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (32b) Why? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________ ________________________________________________ (33) Do you think more people in this community would kill botos if the community was not located in (or near) Mamirau? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (33b) Why? _______________________________________ ___________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ (34) Do you think botos should be protected from being killed? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ (34b) Why? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ _______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ (35) Have you had any positive interactions with botos? 1 No_____ 2 Yes____ If Yes (35b) Can you describe the interaction(s)? _____________ _____________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ( 36) Do you think the Amazon would change if the boto becomes extinct? 1 No _____ 2 Yes _______

PAGE 145

145 (37) Is killing botos illegal in the Brazilian Amazon? 1 No _____ 2 Yes _______ (38) Does the Mamirau Institute encourage you to protect botos? 1 No _____ 2 Yes _______ (39) Do the majority of people that are important to you like or dislike botos? 1 No _____ 2 Yes _______ (40) Is there anything else you would like to tell me about your interactions with botos? ________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

PAGE 146

146 APPENDIX B FI SHER SURVEY PORTUGUESE Data: Dia_____/Ms_____/Ano_____ Hora: ____:_____ Nome da comunidade: _________ ___________ ______________________________ Tipo de comunidade ( escolha um ): Focal Subsidiria Usurio da reserva Fora da reserva Localidade da Comunidade ( circule todos os habitats que aplicam, e classific los de acordo a sua proeminncia 1 7, sendo 1 o mais proeminente ): Rio ___ Canal____ Confluncia____ Praia____ Banco____ Ressaca____ Lago____ Coordenadas geogrficas: Latitude:_____________ Longitude:______________ (1) Gostaria de participar neste estudo? 1 No_____ 2 Sim_____ Se no, agradece o pescador e encerra o questionrio (2) Em que ano voc nasceu?______ ___ Se no tem 18 anos de idade, agradece o pescador e encerra o questionrio. (3) Voc nasceu nesta comunidade? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se no 3b, Se sim 3d (3b) Onde voc nasceu?__________________ ______________________ (3c) Desde que ano voc mora nesta comunidade?______________ ___ (3d) Voc tem morado nesta comunidade toda a sua vida? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se no (3e) Voc onde mais morou no pasado?____________ _______________ ___________________________________________________________ (4) Sua familia mora nesta comunidade? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim

PAGE 147

147 (4b) Quantas pessoas moram com voc?________ (5) Voc estudou numa(s) escola(s) em ______________ __ ( utilizar respostas da Pergunta 3) ? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (5b) Quanto tempo voc estudou (em cada lugar)?________________ _______ _______________________________________________ _________________ (6) H quanto tempo que voc pesca na rea em torno d esta comunidade? ______________________________________ Se antes de 1996 (6b) Voc acha que a pesca tem mudado desde a criao da Reserva Mamirau, no ano 1996? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (6c ) Como a pesca tem mudado desde a criao da Reserva Mamirau? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _____ __________________________________________________________ (7) Voc tem participado em reunies e/ou oficinas coordenados pelo Instituto Mamirau? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (7b) Quais reunies e/ou oficinas voc assistiu e quando oc orreram?__________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ ____________________________ (8) Quantas vezes os pesquisadores ou outro pessoal do Instituto Mamirau visitou esta comunidade no ltimo ms e no ltimo ano? _________________/ ms e ________________/ano Se visitaram (8b) Quantas vezes voc conversou com os pesquisadores ou com outro pessoal do Instituto Mamirau no ltimo ms e no ltimo ano? _________________/ ms e ________________/ ano

PAGE 148

148 (9) Quais tipos de apetrechos voc usou para pescar no ltimo ano? 1 Rede de cerco ____ 2 Tramalha____ 3 Malhadeira____ 4 Rede Arrasto____ 5 Outro_______________ 6 Outro_____________ 7 Outro_____________ Se rede (9b) Que tamanho de malha voc usou?___________________ ____________ (9c) Qual o comprimento das redes?________________________________ (10) Quantos outros pescadores nesta comunidade usam o mesmo tipo d e apetrechos de pesca que voc? 1 Rede de cerco____ 2 Tramalha____ 3 Malhadeira____ 4 Rede Arrasto____ 5 Outro_______________ 6 Ou tro_____________ 7 Outro_____________ (11) Quais tipos de barco voc usou para pescar no ltimo ano? 1 Canoa a remo ___ 2 Canoa a motor ____ 3 Voadeira a motor ____ 4 Outro_______________ (12) Qual a porcentagem ou parte da sua captura que voc vendeu no ltimo ano? ________________________________________________________________ (12b) Onde voc vendeu o seu peixe no ltimo ano?____________________ (12c) Onde voc vendeu com mais freq ncia?________________________ (13) Em quais localidades voc pescou no ltimo ms e no ltimo ano? (Pede o participante indicar a(s) localidade(s) no mapa se possvel. Escreva o nome da(s) localidade(s) na Pergunta 15.) (14) Voc pode classificar as localidades de acordo com onde voc pescou com mais frequncia? (Classifica as localidades na Pergunta 15 de acordo a frequncia, sendo 1 a localidade mais frequentada).

PAGE 149

149 (15) Quais tipos de habitat existem nestas localidades de pesca? (Se mais de um habitat, classific los de acordo com sua importncia, sendo 1 a mais proeminente.) Localidade 1__________________________Classe______ 1 Rio______ 2 Canal _____ 3 Confluncia ______ 4 Praia ______ 5 Banco _______ 6 Baa _______ 7 Ressaca ______ 8 Lago _____ 9 Outro __________________ 10 Outro ________________ Localidade 2__________________________Classe______ 1 Rio______ 2 Canal _____ 3 Confluncia ______ 4 Praia ______ 5 Banco _______ 6 Baa ______ 7 Ressaca ______ 8 Lago _____ 9 Outro __________________ 10 Outro __________________ Localidade 3__________________________Classe______ 1 Rio______ 2 Canal _____ 3 Confluncia ______ 4 Praia ______ 5 Banco _______ 6 Baa _______ 7 Ressaca ______ 8 Lago _____ 9 Outro __________________ 10 Outro ________________ Localidade 4__________________________Classe______ 1 Rio______ 2 Canal _____ 3 Confluncia ______ 4 Praia ______ 5 Banco _______ 6 Baa _______ 7 Ressaca ______ 8 Lago _____ 9 Outro __________________ 10 Outro ________________ Localidade 5__________________________Classe______ 1 Rio______ 2 Canal _____ 3 Confluncia ______ 4 Praia ______ 5 Banco _______ 6 Baa _______ 7 Ressaca ______ 8 Lago _____ 9 Outro __________________ 10 Outro ________________ (16) Em que meses voc pescou no ltimo ano? Janeiro________________ Fevereiro_______________ Maro_________________ Abril___________________ Maio__________________ Junho__________________ Julho_________________ Agosto_________________ Setembro______________ Outubro________________ Novembro_____________ Dezembro_______________ (17) Quantos dias voc pescou na ltima semana e no ltimo ms? _____ __/semana e ______/ms

PAGE 150

150 (18) Nos dias em que voc pescou no ltimo ms, quantas vezes por dia voc saiu para pescar?_________________ (18b) A que horas voc saiu para pescar?___________________________ ____ (19) Quais tipos de peixes voc quis pegar cada ms que voc pescou no ltimo ano ? Janeiro________ ________ Fevereiro_______________ Maro_________________ Abril___________________ Maio__________________ Junho__________________ Julho________ _________ Agosto_________________ Setembro______________ Outubr o________________ Novembro_____________ Dezembro_______________ (20) Voc tem outro trabalho, alm da pesca? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (20b) Que outro trabalho voc tem?_______________________________ __ ___ (20c) Com que trabalho voc ganha mais di nheiro?_______________________ (21) Voc j viu um boto roubando ou tentando roubar um peixe da sua rede? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (22b) Quantas vezes os botos roubaram ou tentaram roubar peixes da sua rede na ltima semana, no ltimo ms, e no ltimo ano? _____ __/semana ______/ms ______/ano (21c) Em quais localidades os botos roubaram ou tentaram roubar peixes da sua rede? (Circule as respostas da Pergunta 15 com vermelho) (21d) Isso aconteceu mais numa localidade? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (21e) Qual localidade? (Circule na resposta da Pergunta 14 com azul) (21f) Durante que estao os botos roubaram ou tentaram roubar peixes da sua rede no ltimo ano?

PAGE 151

151 1 Seca (gua baixa)__ 2 Enchente (gua em elevao) __ 3 Cheia (gua alta) __ 4 Vazante (gua em recuo) _____ (21g) Isso aconteceu mais numa estao? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (21h) Qual es taao? 1 Seca _____ 2 Enchente _____ 3 Cheia ____ 4 Vazante _____ (21i) Por que voc acha que isso ocorreu mais nesta estaao? _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ ________ _____________________________________________ (21j) Quais botos roubaram ou tentaram roubar peixes da sua rede? 1 Adultos____ 2 Juvenis____ 3 Filhotes _____ (21k) Que tipo de atrepecho voc estava usando quando os botos roubaram ou tentaram rou bar peixes? (Ignorar pergunta se apenas indicou um tipo de atrepecho em Pergunta 9) 1 Rede de cerco____ 2 Tramalha____ 3 Malhadeira____ 4 Rede Arrasto____ 5 Outro_______________ 6 Outro_____________ 7 Outro_____________ (21l) O que voc fez da ltima vez que voc viu um boto roubar ou tentar roubar um peixe da sua rede? 1 Nada____ 2 Espantei ____ 3 Matei ____ 4 Outro____________ Se 3 21m Se 1,2,4, 21o (21m) O que voc fez com o boto morto? 1 Deixei na gua____ 2 Usei como isca para piracatinga____ 3 Outro____________ Se 1 (21n) Porqu voc matou o bo to?_________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ (21o) No ltimo ano, voc sempre________ ( utilizar resposta de Pergunta 21l) os botos quando roubaram ou tentaram roubar um peixe de sua rede?

PAGE 152

152 1 N o _____ 2 Sim ____ Se No (21p) O que mais voc fez?_________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ (21q) Quantos botos voc matou no ltimo ms e no ultimo ano por que estavam roubando ou tentando roubar peixes da sua rede? ______/ms ______/ano (22) Algum boto j se enredou na sua rede? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (22b) Quantas vezes um boto se enredou na sua rede na ltima semana, no ltimo ms, e no ltimo ano? _______/semana ______/ms ______/ano (22c) Em quais localidades um boto se enredou na sua rede no ltimo ano? (Circule com cor azul as localida des nas respostas da Pergunta 15) (22d) Isso aconteceu mais numa localidade? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (22e) Qual localidade? (Circule a localidade novamente na resposta da Pergunta 15) (22f) Durante que estao um boto se enredou na sua rede no ltimo ano? 1 Seca _____ 2 Enchente _____ 3 Cheia ____ 4 Vazante _____ (22g) Isso aconteceu mais numa estao? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (22h) Qual estaao? 1 Seca _____ 2 Enchente _____ 3 Cheia ____ 4 Vazante _____ ( 22i) Por que voc acha que isso ocorreu mais nesta estaao? _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________

PAGE 153

153 (22j) Quais botos se enredaram na sua rede no ltimo ano? 1 Adultos____ 2 Juvenis____ 3 Filhotes _____ (22k) Q ue tipo de apetrecho voc estava usando quando um boto se enredou na sua rede no ltimo ano? (Ignorar pergunta se apenas indicou um tipo de apretecho em Pergunta 9) 1 Re de de cerco____ 2 Tramalha____ 3 Malhadeira____ 4 Rede Arrasto____ 5 Outro_______________ 6 Outro_____________ 7 Outro_____________ ( 22 l) O que voc fez a ltima vez que um boto se enredou na sua rede? 1 Lib erei antes de morrer afogado______ 2 Libere i depois de morrer afogado_____ 3 Matei _____ 4 Outro_____________________________ ___________ Se 1 22m, Se 2 ou 3 22n ( 22 m) Porque voc liberou o boto? _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _______________________________________ ______________ ( 22 n) O que voc fez com o boto morto? 1 O deixei na gua____ 2 Usei como isca para pescar piracatinga____ 3 Outro ______ Se 1 (22o) Porque voc matou o boto? _________________________________________________ ____ _____________________________________________________ ________________________ _____________________________ ( 22 p) Voc sempre________ ( utilizar resposta de Pergunta 23l) os botos quando se enredaram na sua rede? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se No ( 22 q) O que mais voc fez?___ ______________________________ _______________________________________________________

PAGE 154

154 ( 22 r) Se o pescador nunca liberou um boto Voc acha que poderia liberar um boto da sua rede se voc tentasse? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ 22 s) Quantos botos morreram afogados no ltimo ms e no ultimo ano por que estavam enredados na sua rede? _____________________/ms ___________________/ano 22 t) Quantos botos voc matou no ltimo ms e no ultimo ano por que estavam enredados na sua rede? _____________________/ms ___________________/ano 22 u) Voc utiliza alguma tcnica para tentar impedir que os botos roubem peixes ou que fiquem enredados na sua rede? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim 22 v) Que tcnica(s) usa?_______________________ ________ __ _____________________________________________________ _________________________ ____________________________ _____________________________________________________ 22 w) Voc tem algumas ideias para impedi r que os botos roubem peixes ou que fiquem enredados na sua rede que voc ainda no tenha tentado? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim 22 x) Que ideias tem?_________________ ___________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________ ____________ ____________________________ ______________________________________________ _______ (23) Voc j matou um boto para us lo como isca para pescar piracatinga ? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim 23b, Se No 23e (23b) Quanto s botos voc matou no ltimo ms e no ltimo ano para us los como isca? _____________________/ms ___________________/ano (23 c ) Quais botos voc matou para us los como isca para pescar piracatinga no ltimo ano? 1 1 Adultos____ 2 Juvenis____ 3 Filhotes _____

PAGE 155

155 (23 d ) O que voc precisaria para parar de mata r botos para us los como isca? ________________________________________________________________ _____________________ _____________________________________ ______ ________________________________________________________________ _ _ (23e ) Seria fcil para voc matar um boto para us lo como isca? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ______ (23f ) Seria lucrativo para voc matar um boto para us lo como isca? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ______ (24) Voc j viu um boto morto com uma marca de ferro? (Mostrar a foto de um boto marcado.) 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (24b) Como o boto morreu? 1 Se enredou em uma rede de pesca_______ 2 Foi mor to para ser usado como isca para pescar piracatinga _____ 3 Outro__________________ 4 No sei____________________ (24c) Voc lembra a forma da marca de ferro? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (24d) Por favor, desenha a marca. (Fornecer uma folha de papel.) (25) Voc conhece a lenda do Encantado ? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (25b) O que essa lenda conta? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________ (25c) A lenda influencia seu comportamento com os botos? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (25d) Como influencia seu comportamento com os botos?

PAGE 156

156 ____________________________________________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ___________ _________________________________________________ (26) Em sua opinio, voc considera o boto um animal importante na Amaznia? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (26b) Porque voc acha o boto importante? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ (27) Voc acha que a populao de boto nesta rea est em declnio, est estvel, ou est aumentando? 1 Declnio _____ 2 Estvel _____ 3 Aumentando _____ Se 1, 3 (27b) Porque voc acha que a populao est em declnio/est aumentando? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________ ________________________________________________________ (28) Voc gosta ou no gosta do boto? 1 Gosta _____ 2 No gosta ____ 3 Neutro_______ (28b) Suas idias sobre os botos j mudaram desde que voc comeou a pescar nesta rea? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (28c) Como mudaram suas idias?___________________________ _________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ (28d) Quando mudaram suas idias? ____________________________ ____________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

PAGE 157

157 (29) Outras pessoas da comunid ade gostam ou no gostam do boto? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ 3Neutro_______ (29b) As idias das outras pessoas da comunidade sobre os botos j mudaram desde que voc comeou a pescar nesta rea? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (29c) Como as idias dos outros mudaram?_______________________ ___ ___ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ (29d) Quando mudaram as idias dos outros?_ __________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ _________ (30) Suas interaes com botos tm aumentado, diminudo, ou tm mantido estvel desde que voc comeou a pescar nesta rea? 1 diminudo _____ 2 estvel ____ __ 3 aumentado _______ Se 1 ou 3 (30b) Porque voc acha que suas interaes com os bo tos tm aumentado/diminudo? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ __________ (30c) Quando suas interaes com os botos come aram aumentar/diminuir? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ (31) H outras pessoas nesta comunidade que tem matado botos? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (31b) Do seu conhecimento, quantos botos foram mortos no ltimo ms e no ltimo ano nesta comunidade? _____________________/ms ___________________/ano

PAGE 158

158 (31c) Porque foram mortos?__________________________ _______________ _______________________________ _________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ ___________ (31d) Voc acha que mais, menos, ou o mesmo nmero de botos foram mortos nos anos 2002 2008? 1 Menos_____ 2 Mesmo____ 3 Mais_____ (32) Ser que voc mataria (mais) botos se voc no estivesse pescando na Reserva Mamirau (perto da Reserva Mamirau)? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (32b) Por qu?______________________________________________ _____ _________________ ___________________________ ___________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ (33) Ser que mais pessoas nesta comunidade matariam (mais) botos se eles no estivessem pescando na Reserva Mamirau (perto da Reserva Mamirau)? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (33b) Por qu?_______________________ _____________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ (34) Voc acha que os botos devem ser protegidos para no ser mortos? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (34b) Por qu?__________ __________________ _______________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

PAGE 159

159 ______________________ __________________________________________ (35) Voc j teve alguma interao positiva com um boto? 1 No _____ 2 Sim ____ Se sim (35b) Voc pode descrever a interao ou as interaes?___________ ______ ________________________________________________ ________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________ (36) Voc acha que a Amaznia vai mudar se o boto se extingue? 1 No _____ 2 Sim _______ (37) Matar botos ilegal na Amaznia brasileira? 1 No _____ 2 Sim _______ (38) O Instituto Mamirau te encoraja a proteger os botos? 1 No _____ 2 Sim _______ (39) A maioria das pessoas que so importantes para voc gostam or no gostam do boto? 1 No _____ 2 Sim _______ (40) Tem algo mais que voc gostaria de me contar sobre suas interaes com os botos? ____________________________ ____________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________________

PAGE 160

160 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbot, J.I.O., Thomas, D.H.L., Gardner, A.A., Neba, S.E., Khen, M.W., 2001. Understanding the links between conservation and development in the Bamenda Highlands. World Dev. 29, 1115 1136. Adam s, W.M., Infield, M., 2001. Park outreach & gorilla conservation: Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Uganda, i n : Hulme, D., Murphree M. (Eds.), African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Perform ance of Community Conservation. David Philip, Michigan, pp. 131 147. Ajzen, I., 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 50, 179 211. Akaike, H., 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle, in: Petrov, B.N., Caski, F. (Eds.), Second international symposium on information theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp. 267 281. Akama, J.S., Lant, C.L., Burnett, G.W., 1995. Conflicting attitudes toward state wildlife conservation programs in Kenya. Soc. Natur. Resour. 8, 133 144. Aliaga Rossel, E., 2002. Distribution and abundance of the river dolphin ( Inia geoffrensis ) in the Tijamuchi River, Beni, Bolivia. Aquat. Mamm. 28, 312 323. Almeida, O.T., Lorenzen, K., McGrath, D.G., 2003. Commercial fishing in the Brazilian Amazon: regional differentiation in fleet character istics and efficiency. Fisheries Manag. Ecol. 10, 109 115. Aragon Noriega, E.A., Rodriguez Quiroz, G., Cisneros Mata, M.A., Ortega Rubio, A., 2010. Managing a protected marine area for the conservation of critically endangered vaquita ( Phocoena sinus Norris, 1958) in the Upper Gulf of California Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 17, 410 416. Archabald, K., Naughton Treves, L., 2001. Tourism revenue sharing around national parks in Western Uganda: early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environ Conserv. 28, 135 149. Barker, R.J., 1997. Joint modeling of live recapture, tag resight, and tag recovery data. Biometrics 53, 666 677. Barker, R.J., 1999. Joint analysis of mark recapture, resighting and ring recovery data with age dependence and marki ng effect. Bird Study 46, 82 91. Barthem, R.B., 1995. Development of commercial fisheries in the Amazon basin and consequences for fish stocks and subsistence fishing, in: Clsener Godt, M., Sachs, I. (Eds.), Brazilian perspectives on sustainable developm ent of the Amazon region. UNESCO, Parthenon, Paris, pp. 175 204.

PAGE 161

161 Barthem, R. 1999. A pesca commercial no mdio Solimes e sua interao com a Reserve de Desenvolvimento Sustentvel Mamirau, i n: Queiroz, H L Crampton W G R (E ds ) Estratgias para manejo de recursos pesqueiros em Mamirau. MCT/CNPq and Sociedade Civil Mamirau, Brasilia, pp. 72 107. Batista V S Inhamuns A J Freitas C E C Freire Brasil D ., 1998. Characterization of the fishery in river communities in the l ow Solimoes/high Amazon region. Fisheries Manag. Ecol. 5, 419 435. Batista, V.S., Isaac, V.J., Viana, J,P., 2004. Explorao e manejo dos recursos pesqueiros da Amaznia in: Ruffino, M L (E d ) A pesca e os recursos pesqueiros na Amaznia brasileira. 63 152. Bawa, K.S., 2006. Globally dispersed local challenges in conservation biology. Conserv Biol. 20, 696 699. Bayley P B Petrere M ., 1989. Amazon fisheries: assessment methods, current status and management options. C anadian Special Publications on Fisheries and Aquatic S ciences 106, 385 398 Bearzi, G., Bonizzoni, S., Gonzalvo, J., 2011. Dolphins and coastal fisheries within a marine protected area: mismatch between dolphin occurrence and reported depredation. Aquat. Conserv. 21, 261 267. Bechet, A., Giroux, J.F., Gauthier, G., Nichols, J.D., Hines, J.E., 2003. Spring hunting changes the regional movements of migrating greater snow geese. J. Appl. Ecol. 40, 553 564. Best, R .C., da Silva, V.M.F., 1989 a Biology, status and conservation of Inia geoffrensis in the Amazon and Orinoco river basins, in: Perrin, W.F., Brownell Jr., R.L., Kaiya, Z., Jiankang, L (Eds.), Biology and conservation of the river dolphins Occasional paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 23 34. Best, R.C., da Silva, V.M.F., 1989 b Amazon River dolphin, boto Inia geoffrensis (de Blainville 1817), in: Ridgway, S.H., Harrison, S (Eds.), Handbook of marine mammals Volume 4: river dolphin s and the larger toothed whales. Academic Press London, UK, pp. 1 23. Best, R.C., da Silva, V.M.F., 1993. Inia geoffrensis Mammalian Species 426, 1 8. Beyer, H.L., 2012. Geospatial Modellin g Environment (Version 0.7.1.0). < http://www.spatialecology.com/gme > Bodmer, R.E., Eisenberg, J.F., Redford, K.H., 1997. Hunting and the likelihood of extinction of Amazonian mammals. Conserv. Biol. 13 11, 460 466.

PAGE 162

162 Br ger, S., Dawson, S.M., Slooten, E., Smith, S., Stone, G.S., Yoshinaga, A., 2002. Site fidelity and along shore range in Hector's dolphin, an endangered marine dolphin from New Zealand. Biol. Conserv. 108, 281 287. Brotons, J.M., Grau, A.M., Rendell, L., 2008 Estimating the impact of interactions between bottlenose dolphins and artisanal fisheries around the Balearic Islands. Mar. Mammal Sci. 24, 112 127 Brum, S.M., 2011. Interao dos golfinhos da Amaznia com a pesca no Mdio Solimes. Masters thesis, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amaznia Manaus, Brazil Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information theoretic approach, second ed. Springer, New York. Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., 2004. Multimodel inference understanding AIC and BIC in model select ion. Sociol. Method. Res. 33, 261 304. Burt, W.H., 1943. Territoriality and Home Range Concepts as Applied to Mammals. J. Mammal. 24, 346 352. Campbell, L.M., Vainio Mattila, A., 2003. Participatory development and community based conservation: Opportunit ies missed for lessons learned? Hum. Ecol. 31, 417 437. Cantor, M., Wedekin, L.L., Daura Jorge, F.G., Rossi Santos, M.R., Simoes Lopes, P.C., 2012. Assessing population parameters and trends of Guiana dolphins ( Sotalia guianensis ): An eight year mark recap ture study. Mar. Mammal Sci. 28, 63 83. Caughley, G., 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. Wiley, London ; New York. Clapham, P., Van Waerebeek, K., 2007. Bushmeat and bycatch: the sum of the parts. Mol. Ecol. 16, 2607 2609. Costello, M.J., Baker, C.S., 2011. Who eats sea meat? Expanding human consumption of marine mammals. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2745 2746. Crampton, W.G.R., Viana, J.P., Castello, L., Damasceno, J.M.B., 2004. Fisheries Management in the Mamirau Su stainable Deve lopment Reserve, i n : Silvius, K., Bodmer R., Fragoso J. (Eds.), People and nature: wildlife conservation in S outh and Central America Colu mbia University Press, New York, pp. 99 136. Cravalho, M.A., 1999. Shameless creatures: An ethnozoology of the Amazon river dolphin. Ethnology 38, 47 58.

PAGE 163

163 Crespo, E.A., Hall, M.A. 2002. Interactions between aquatic mammals and humans in the context of ecosystem management, in: Evans, P.G.H., Raga, J.A (Eds.), Marine mammals: biology and conservation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 463 490. da Silva, V.M.F., 2008. Amazon River dolphin ( Inia geoffrensis ), in: Perrin, W.F., Thewissen, J.G.M., Wursig, B. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2 nd Edition). Academic Press, Burlington, MA, USA, pp. 26 28. da Silva, V.M.F., Best, R.C., 1996. Freshwater dolphin/fisheries interaction in the Central Amazon (Brazil). Amazoniana 14, 165 175. da Silva, V.M.F., Martin, A.R., 2000. A study of th e boto, or Amazon river dolphin ( Inia geoffrensis ), in the Mamirau Reserve, Brazil: operation and techniques, in: Reeves, R.R., Smith, B.D., Kasuya, T. (Eds.), Biology and conservation of freshwater cetaceans in Asia Occasional paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 121 131. da Silva, V.M.F., Martin, A.R., 2010. Status, threats, conservation initiatives and possible solutions for Inia geoffrensis and Sotalia fluviatilis in Brazil, in: Trujil lo, F., Crespo, E., Van Damme, P.A., Usma, J.S. (Eds.), The action plan for South American river dolphins 2010 2020. WWF, Fundacin Omacha, WDS, WDCS, and SOLAMAC, Bogot, D.C., Colombia, pp. 123 143. da Silva, V.M.F., Martin, A.R., do Carmo, N.A.S., 2011 Boto bait Amazonian fisheries pose threat to elusive dolphin species. IUCN Magazine of the Species Survival Commission 53, 10 11. da Silveira, R., Viana, J.P., 2003. Amazonian crocodilians: a keystone species for Crocodile Specialist group Newsletter, 22, 16 17. De Boer, W.F., Baquete, D.S., 1998. Natural resource use, crop damage and attitude of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environ. Conserv. 25, 208 218. Defran, R.H., Weller, D.W., Kelly, D.L., Espinosa, M.A., 1999. Range characteristics of Pacific coast bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) in the Southern California Bight. Mar. Mammal Sci. 15, 381 393. DeMaster, D.P., Fowler, C.W., Perry, S.L., Richlen, M.E., 2001. Predation and competition: The impact of fisheries on marine mammal populations over the next one hundred years. J. Mammal. 82, 641 665.

PAGE 164

164 De n kinger, J., 2010. Population density, abundance estimates, ha bitat preference and social structure of Amazon River dolphins ( Inia geoffrensis ) in the Cuyabeno Reserve, Ecuador. Avances 2, B91 B97. Daz Lpez B ., 2006. Interactions between Mediterranean bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) and gillnets off Sardin ia, Italy. Ices J. Mar Sci 63, 946 951 Di Beneditto, A.P.M., 2003. Interactions between gillnet fisheries and small cetaceans in northern Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 2001 2002. L AJAM 2, 79 86. Dillingham, P.W., Fletcher, D., 2008. Estimating the ability of birds to sustain additional human caused mortalities using a simple decision rule and allometric relationships. Biol. Conserv. 141, 1783 1792. Diniz, K.S., 2011. La pesca del bagre zamurito ( Calophysus macropterus SILUFORMES: PIMELODIDADE) y su efecto po tencial sobre la extraccin de toninas ( Inia geoffrensis CETACEA: INIIDAE) y babas ( Caiman crocodilus CROCODILIA: ALIGATORIDAE) en Venezuela. Masters Thesis, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientficas, Caracas, Venezuela. Environmental Systems R esearch Institute ( ESRI ) 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA. Estupin, G.M.B., Marmontel, M., de Queiroz, H.L., e Souza, P.R., Valsecchi, J., da Silva Batista, G., Barbosa Pereira, S., 2003. A Pesca da Piracatinga ( Calophysus macropterus ) na Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustent vel Mamirau. Relatrio Tcnico. Ministrio da Cincia e Tecnologia, Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sust entvel Mamirau, Tef, Brasil. < http://www.socioambiental.org/website/noticias/agenda/fks/rel_piracatinga.htm > Evans, S.M., Gebbels, S., Stockill, J.M., 2008. Our shared responsibility: Participation in ecological projects as a means of empowering communities to contribute to coa stal management processes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 57, 3 7. Fiallo, E.A., Jacobson, S.K., 1995. Local communities and protected areas: Attitudes of rural residents toward conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environ. Conserv. 22, 241 249. Fieberg, J., 2007. Utilization distribution estimation using weighted kernel density estimators. J. Wildlife Manage. 71, 1669 1675. Flores, P.A.C., Bazzalo, M., 2004. Home ranges and movement patterns of the marine tucuxi dolphin, Sotalia fluviatilis in B aia norte, southern Brazil. LAJAM 3, 37 52. Gadd, M.E., 2005. Conservation outside of parks: Attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya. Environ. Conserv. 32, 50 63.

PAGE 165

165 Gerber, L. R., Botsford L.W., Hastings A., Possingham H.P. Gaines S.D Palumbi S.R. and Andelman S 2003. Population models for marine reserve design: A retrospective and p rospective synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 13 S47 S64. Gerber, L.R., Heppell, S.S., 2004. The use of demographic sensitivity analysis in marine species conservation planning. Biol. Conserv. 120, 121 128. Gillingham, S., Lee, P.C., 1999. The impact of wildlife related benefits on the conservation attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environ. Conserv. 26, 218 228. Gmez, C., Trujillo, F., Diazgranados, M.C., Alonso, J., 2008. Capturas dirigidas de delfines de ro en la Amazonia para la pesca de mota ( Calophysus macropterus ): una problemtica regional de gran impacto, in: Trujillo, F., Alonso, J.C., Diazgranados, M.C., Gmez, C. (Eds.), Faun a acutica amenazada en la Amazonia Colombiana Anlisis y propuestas para su conservacin. Fundacin Omacha, Fundacin Natura, Instituto Sinchi, Corpoamazonia, Bogot, Colombia, pp. 39 57. Gmez Salazr, C., Trujillo, F., Portocarrero Aya, M., Whitehead, H., 2012. Population, density estimates, and conservation of river dolphins ( Inia and Sotalia ) in the Amazon and Orinoco river basins. Mar. Mammal Sci. 28, 124 153. Goodman, L.A., 1961. "Snowbal l sampling". Ann. Math. Stat. 32, 148 170. Gormley, A.M., Slooten, E., Dawson, S., Barker, R.J., Rayment, W., du Fresne, S., Brager, S., 2012. First evidence that marine protected areas can work for marine mammals. J. Appl. Ecol 49, 474 480. Gram, S., Kvist, L.P., Cseres, A., 2001. The economic importance of products extracted from Amazonian flood plain forests. Ambio 30, 365 368 Gubbins, C., 2002. Use of home ranges by resident bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) in a South Carolina estuary. J. Mammal. 83, 178 187. Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Hall M A Donovan G P ., 2001. Environmentalists, fishermen, cetaceans and fish: Is there a balance an d can science help to find it? i n: Evans P G H Raga J A (E ds ) Marine Mammals: Biology and Conservation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York pp. 491 521. Harwood, J., 2001. Marine mammals and their environment in the twenty first century. J. Mammal. 82, 630 640.

PAGE 166

166 Heinen, J.T., 1993. Park people relations in Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: a socio economic analysis. Environ. Conserv. 20, 25 34. Holmes, C.M., 2003. The influence of protected area outreach on conservation attitudes and resource use patterns: a case study from western Tanzania. Oryx 37, 305 315. Hooker, S.K., Gerber, L.R., 2004. Marine reserves as a tool for ecosystem based management: The potential importance of megafauna. Bioscience 54, 27 39. Hooker, S.K., Whitehe ad, H., Gowans, S., 1999. Marine protected area design and the spatial and temporal distribution of cetaceans in a submarine canyon. Conserv. Biol. 13, 592 602. Horne, J.S., Garton, E.O., Sager Fradkin, K.A., 2007. Correcting Home Range Models for Observati on Bias. J. Wildlife Manage. 71, 996 1001. Horton, G.E., Letcher, B.H., 2008. Movement patterns and study area boundaries: influences on survival estimation in capture mark recapture studies. Oikos 117, 1131 1142. Hoyt, E., 2005 Marine protected areas fo r whales, dolphins, and porpoises : a world handbook for cetacean h abitat conservation. Earthscan, London, UK. Infield, M., 1988. Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation and a local conservation area in Natal, South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 45, 2 1 46. Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentvel Mamirau (IDSM), 2012 a Estudo sociodemogrfico apresentado durante Seminrio Anual de Pesquisa. O Macaqueiro, 54, Tef, Brazil. < http://www.mamiraua.org.br/cms/content/public/documents/0d86f9d2 2458 42f0 9e2a ece3110b1594_o_macaqueiro54_digital 4.pd f > Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentvel Mamirau (IDSM), 2012 b Banco de dados fluviomtrico da Reserva de Desen volvimento Sustentvel Mamirau. < http://www.mamiraua.org.br/fluviometrico/ > International Union for Conservation of Nature ( IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme ( UNEP), 2010. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). UNEP WCMC. Cambridge, UK. < http:// www.protectedplanet.net > Iriarte, V., Marmontel, M., 2011. Report of an encounter with a human intentionally entangled Amazon River dolphin ( Inia geoffrensis ) calf and its release in Tef River, Amazonas State, Brazil. Uakari 7, 29 33.

PAGE 167

167 Iriarte, V., Marmontel, M., 2013. River Do lphin ( Inia geoffrensis Sotalia fluviatilis ) Mortality Events Attributed to Artisanal Fisheries in the W estern Brazilian Amazon. Aquat, Mamm. 39, 116 124. Kainer, K., DiGiano, M.L., Duchelle, A.E., Wadt, L.H.O., Dain, J.L., 2009. Partnering for greater su ccess: Local stakeholders and research in tropical biology and conservation. Biotropica 41, 555 562. Kideghesho, J.R., Roskaft, E., Kaltenborn, B.P., 2007. Factors influencing conservation attitudes of local people in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Biodivers Conserv. 16, 2213 2230. Koziell, I., Inoue, C., 2006. Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve, Brazil: Lessons Learnt in Integrating Conse rvation with Poverty Reduction. International Institute for Environment and Development. < http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/9168IIED.pdf > Kreb, D., Budiono, 2005. Conservation management of small core areas: key to survival of a Critically Endangered population of Irrawaddy river dolphins Orcaella b revirostris in Indonesia. Oryx 39, 178 188. Lauriano, G., Caramanna, I., Andaloro, F., 2009. An overview of dolphin depredation in Italian artisanal fisheries. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 89, 921 929. Lauriano, G., Fortuna, C.M., Moltedo, G., di Sciara, G.N. 2004. Interactions between common bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) and the artisanal fishery in Asinara Island National Park, (Sardinia): assessment of catch damage and economic loss. J. Cetacean Research Manage. 6, 165 173. Leatherwood, S., Reeves, R.R., 1994. River dolphins: A review of activities and plans of the cetacean specialist group. Aquat. Mamm. 20, 137 154. Leatherwood, S., Reeves, R.R., Wuersig, B., Shearn, D., 2000. Habitat preferences of river dolphins in the Peruvian Amazon, in : Reeves, R.R., Smith, B.D., Kasuya, T. (Eds.). Biology and Freshwater Cetaceans in Asia Occasional papers of the IUCN species survival commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 131 144. Lee, H.F., Zhang, D.D., 2008. Perceiving the envi ronment from the lay perspective in desertified areas, northern China. Environ. Manage. 41, 168 182. Lewis, D., Kaweche, G.B., Mwenya, A., 1990. Wildlife conservation outside protected areas lessons from an experiment in Zambia. Conserv. Biol. 4, 171 180

PAGE 168

168 Lima, D. M., 2009. The Domestic Economy in Mamirau, Tef, Amazonas State :i n Adams, C., Murrieta, R., Neves, W., Harris, M (Eds.) Amazon Peasant Societies in a Changing Environment. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 131 156. Loch, C., Marmontel, M., Simes Lopes, P.C., 2009. Conflicts with fisheries and intentional killing of freshwater dolphins (Cetacea: Odontoceti) in the Western Brazilian Amazon. Biodivers. Conser. 18, 3979 3988. Lockyer, C. 1984. Review of baleen whale (Mysticeti) reproduction an d implications for management. Rep. Int. Whaling. Comm. (special issue ) 6 27 50. Lodi, L., Barreto, A., 1998. Legal actions taken in Brazil for the conservation of cetaceans. J. Int. Wildlife Law P ol. 1, 403 411. Jefferson, T.A., Curry, B.E., 1994. A glo bal review of porpoise (Cetacea: Phocoenidae) mortality in gillnets. Biol. Conserv. 67, 167 183. Junk, W.J., 1997. The central Amazon floodplain: Ecology of a pulsing system. Springer, Germany. Mangel, J.C., Alfaro Shigueto, J., Van Waerebeek, K., Cceres, C., Bearhop, S., Witt, M.J., Godley, B.J., 2010. Small cetacean captures in Peruvian artisanal fisheries: high despite protective legislation. Biol. Conserv. 143, 136 143. Mansur, R.M., Strindberg, S., Smith, B.D., 2012. Mark resight abundance and survi val estimation of Indo Pacific bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops aduncus in the Swatch of No Ground, Bangladesh. Mar. Mammal Sci. 28, 561 578. Manzur, M.I., Canto, J., 1997. Las pesqueras de centolla y centolln y su interferencia con mamferos marinos. Amb iente y Desarrollo 10, 64 69. Martin, A.R., da Silva, V.M.F., 2004a. Number, seasonal movements, and residency characteristics of river dolphins in an Amazonian floodplain lake system. Can. J. Zool. 82, 1307 1315. Martin, A.R., da Silva, V.M.F., 2004b. River dolphins and flooded forest: seasonal habitat use and sexual segregation of botos ( Inia geoffrensis ) in an extreme cetacean environment. J. Zool. 263, 295 305. Martin, A.R., da Silva, V.M.F., 2006. Sexual dimorphism and body scarring in the boto (Amazon River dolphin) Inia geoffrensis Mar. Mammal Sci. 22, 25 33. Martin, A.R., da Silva, V.M.F., Rothery, P.R., 2006. Does radio tagging affect the survival or reproduction of small cetaceans? A test. Ma r. Mammal Sci. 22, 17 24.

PAGE 169

169 Martin, A.R., da Silva, V.M.F., Salmon, D.L., 2004. Riverine habitat preferences of botos ( Inia geoffrensis ) and tucuxis ( Sotalia fluviatilis ) in the central Amazon. Mar. Mammal Sci. 20: 189 200. Matkin, C.O., Durban, J.W., Saulitis, E.L., Russel, D.A., Straley, J.M, Matkin, D.R., Graeme, M.E., 2012. Contrasting abundance and residency patterns of two sympatric populations of transient killer whales ( Orcinus orca ) in the northern Gulf of Alaska. Fish. Bull. 110: 143 155. McGuire, T.L., Aliaga Rossel, E., 2010 a Ecology and conservation status of river dolphins Inia and Sotalia in Peru, in: Trujillo, F., Crespo, E., Van Damme, P.A., Usma, J.S. (Eds.), The action plan for South America river dolphins 2010 2020. WWF, Fundaci n Omacha, WDS, WDCS, and SOLAMAC, Bogot, D.C., Colombia, pp. 59 73. McGuire, T.L., Aliaga Rossel, E., 2010 b Seasonal ecology of Inia in three river basins of South America (Orinoc o, Amazon, and Upper Madeira), i n : Ruiz Garcia, M., Shostell M.J. (Eds.) Biology, evolution and conservation of river dolphins wi thin South America and Asia. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, pp. 29 53. McGuire, T.L., Henningsen, T., 2007. Movement patterns and site fidelity of river dolphins ( Inia geoffrensis and Sotalia fluviatilis ) in the Peruvian Amazon as determined by photo identification. Aquat. Mamm. 33, 359 367. McGuire, T.L., Winemiller, K.O., 1998. Occurrence patterns, habitat associations, and potential prey of the river dolphin, Inia geoffrensis in th e Cinaruco River, Venezuela. Biotropica 30, 625 638. McShane T O Hirsch P D Chi Trung T Songorwa A N Kinzig A Monteferri B Mutekanga D Van Thang H Dammert J L Pulgar Vidal M Welch Devine M Brosius J P Coppolillo P S ., 2011. Hard choices: Making trade offs between biodiversity conservation and human well being. Biol Conserv 144, 966 972 Mehta, J.N., Heinen, J.T., 2001. Does community based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirica l study from Nepal. Environ Manage. 28, 165 177. Mehta J N Kellert S R ., 1998. Local attitudes toward community based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: A case study in the Makalu Barun Conservation Area. Environ Conserv 25, 320 333 Mintzer, V.J., Martin, A.R., Da Silva, V.M.F., Barbour, A.B., Lorenzen, K., Frazer, T.K., 2013. Effect of illegal harvest on apparent survival of Amazon River dolphins ( Inia geoffrensis ). Biol. Conserv. 158, 280 286

PAGE 170

170 Neil, D.T., 2002. Cooperative fishing interactions between Aboriginal Australians and dolphins in eastern Australia. Anthrozoos 15, 3 18. Northridge S P ., 1984. World review of interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 251. < http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6860e/X6860e00.htm > Northridge, P.S., Hofman, R.J. 1999. Marine mammal interactions with fisheries, in: Twiss, J.R., Reeves, R.R. (Eds.), Conservation and ma nagement of marine mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 99 119. Notarbartolo Di Sciara, G., Agardy, T., Hyrenbach, D., Scovazzi, T., Van Klaveren, P., 2008. The pelagos sanctuary for Mediterranean marine mammals. Aquat. Conserv. 18, 367 391. Oakerson, R., 1992. Analy zing the commons: a framework, i n : Bromley D.W. (Eds.), Making the commons work: theory, practice, an d policy. Institute for Contemporary Studies P ress, San Francisco, California, pp. 41 59. Oli, M.K., Taylor, I.R., Rogers, M.E., 1994. Snow leopard Panthera unica predation of livestock: an assessment of local perceptions in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biol. Conserv. 68, 63 68. Ostrom, E., 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 15181 15187. Ostrom E ., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social ecological systems. Science 325, 419 422. Ostrom, E., Marco, A.J., Anderies, J.M., 2007. Going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1 04, 15176 15178. O uellette M., Cardille J.A., 2011 The complex linear home range estimator: representing the home range of river turtles moving in multiple channels. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 10, 259 265. Parry, D., Campbell, B., 1992. Attitudes of rural communities to animal wildlife and its utilization in Chobe Enclave and Madabe Depression, Botswana Environ. Conserv. 19, 245 252. Peres, C.A., 2000. Effects of subsistence hunting on vertebrate community structure in Amazonian forests. Conserv. Biol. 14, 240 253. Peres, C.A.2005. Why we need megareserves in the Amazon. Conserv. Biol. 19, 728 73 3.

PAGE 171

171 Peres, C.A., Lake, I.R., 2003. Extent of nontimber resource extraction in tropical forests: accessibility to game vertebrates by hunters in the Amazon basin. Conserv. Biol. 17, 521 535. Peres, C.A., Terborgh, J.W., 1995. Amazonian nature reserves: an analysis of the defensibility status of existing conservation units and design criteria for the future. Conserv. Biol. 9, 34 46. Perrin, W.F, Donovan, G.P ., Barlow, J. (Eds.), 1994. Gillnets and Cetacea ns. Rep. Int. Whaling. Comm. (special i ssue) 15, 629pp. Petrere, M., Barthem, R.B., Crdoba, E.A., Gmez, B.C., 2004. Review of the large catfish fisheries in the upper Amazon and the stock depletion of pir aiba ( Brachyplatystoma filamentosum Lichtenstein). Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 14, 403 414. Pinto de Sa Alves, L.C., Zappes, C.A., Andriolo, A., 2012. Conflicts between river dolphins (Cetacea: Odontoceti) and fisheries in the Central Amazon: A path toward tragedy? Zoologia 29, 420 429. Portocarrero Aya, M., Ferrer, A., Lasso, C.A., Ruiz Garcia, M., Bolaos Jimnez, J., Caballero, S., 2010a. Status, distribution and conservation of the river dolphins Inia geoffrensis and Sotalia spp. in Venezuela, in: Truji llo, F., Crespo, E., Van Damme, P.A., Usma, J.S. (Eds.), The action plan for South American river dolphins 2010 2020. WWF, Fundacin Omacha, WDS, WDCS, and SOLAMAC, Bogot, D.C., Colombia, pp. 17 28. Portocarrero Aya, M., Hoyt, E., Wood, A., 2010b. Fresh water protected areas and their importance for river dolphin conservation, in: Trujillo, F., Crespo, E., Van Damme, P.A., Usma, J.S. (Eds.), The action plan for South American river dolphins 2010 2020. WWF, Fundacin Omacha, WDS, WDCS, and SOLAMAC, Bogot, D.C., Colombia, pp. 159 166. Pryor, K., Lindbergh, J., Lindbergh, S., Milano, R., 1990. A dolphin human fishing cooperative in Brazil. Mar. Mammal Sci. 6, 77 82. Queiroz, H L ., 1999. A pesca, as pescaria s e os pescadores de Mamirau, i n: Queiroz, H.L., Crampton, W.G.R. (E ds ) Estratgias para manejo de recursos pesqueiros em Mamirau. MCT/CNPq and Sociedade Civil Mamirau, Brasilia, pp 31 71 Queiroz, H L ., Crampton, W.G.R., 1999. O manejo integrado dos recursos pesqueiros em Mamirau, in: Queiroz, H.L ., Crampton, W.G.R. (E ds ) Estratgias para manejo de recursos pesqueiros em Mamirau. MCT/CNPq and Sociedade Civil Mamirau, Brasilia, pp 1 77 1 90.

PAGE 172

172 Ramalho, E.E., Macedo, J., Vieira, T.M., Valsecchi, J., Calvimontes, J., Marmontel, M., Quieroz, H.L., 200 9. Ciclo hidrolgico nos ambientes de vrzea da Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentvel Mamirau Mdio Rio Solimes, perodo de 1990 a 2008. Uakari 5, 61 87. Rayment, W., Dawson, S., Slooten, E., Brager, S., Fresne, S.D., Webster, T., 2009. Kernel density e stimates of alongshore home range of Hector's dolphins at Banks Peninsula, New Zealand. Mar. Mammal Sci. 25, 537 556 Read, A.J., 2005. Bycatch and depredation, i n : Reynolds, J.E., Perrin W.F., Reeves, R.R., Montgomery S. Ragen T.J. (Eds.), Marine mammal r esearc h: conservation beyond crisis. Johns Hopkins Univ ersity Press, U.S.A., pp. 5 17. Read, A.J., 2008. The looming crisis: interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. J. Mammal. 89, 541 548. Read, A.J., Drinker, P., Northridge, S., 2006. Bycatch of marine mammals in US and global fisheries. Conserv. Biol. 20, 163 169. Reeves, R.R., Leatherwood, S., 1994. Dams and river dolph ins can they coexist? Ambio 23, 172 175. Reeves, R.R., Reijnders, P.J.H., 2002 Conservation and Management, i n : Hoelzel, A.R. (Ed.), Marine mammal biology : an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 388 415. Reilly, S.B., Barlow, J., 1986. Rates of increase in dolphin population size. Fish. Bull. 84, 527 533. Robards, M.D., Reeves, R.R., 2011. The global extent and character of marine mammal consumption by humans 1970 2009. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2770 2785. Rocklin, D., Santoni, M.C., Culioli, J.M., Tomasini, J.A., Pelletier, D., Mouillot, D., 2009. Changes in the catch composition of artisanal fisheri es attributable to dolphin depredation in a Mediterranean marine reserve. Ices J. Mar. Sci. 66, 699 707. Rokeach, M., 1968. Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. Jossey Bass, Inc., San Francisco. Rosas, F.C.W., Lehti, K.K., 1996. Nutritional and mercury content of milk of the Amazon river dolphin, Inia geoffrensis Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 115, 117 119. Ross, P.S., Dungan, S.Z., Hung, S.K., Jefferson, T.A., Macfarquhar, C., Perrin, W.F., Riehl, K.N., Slooten, E., Tsai, J., Wang, J.Y., White, B.N., Wursig, B., Yang, S.C., Reeves, R.R., 2010. Averting the baiji syndrome: conserving habitat for critically en dangered dolphins in Eastern Taiwan Strait. Aquat. Conserv. 20, 685 694.

PAGE 173

173 R Core Team ( RCT ) 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. < http://www.R project.org/ > Schnapp, D., Howroyd, J., 1992. Distribution and local range of the Orinoco dolphin ( Inia geoffrensis ) in the Rio Apure, Venezuela Int. J. Mammal. Biol. 57, 313 315. Selebatso, M., Moe, S.R., Swenson, J.E., 2008. Do farmers support Cheetah Acynonyx jubatus conservation in Botswana despite livestock depredation? Oryx 42, 430 436. Shostell, J.M., Ruiz Garcia, M., 2010. An introduction to river dolphin species, in: Ruiz Garcia, M Shostell, J.M. (Eds.), Biology, evolution, and conservation of river dolphins within South America and Asia. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, pp. 1 28. Sierra, R., Rodriguez, F., Loses, E., 1999. Forest resource use change during early market integration in tropical rain forests: the Huaorani of upper Amazonia. Ecol. Econ. 30, 107 119. Sinha, R.K., 2002. An alternative to dolphin oil as a fish attractant in the Ganges River system: cons ervation of the Ganges River dolphin. Biol. Conserv. 107, 253 257. Slater, C., 1994. Dance of the Dolphin: Transformation and Disenchantment in the Amazonian Imagination. The University of Chicago, Chicago. Slooten, E., Rayment, W., Dawson, S., 2006. Offs hore Distribution of Hector's Dolphins at Banks Peninsula, New Zealand: Is the Banks Peninsula Marine Mammal Sanctuary Large Enough? N ew. Zeal. J. Mar. Fresh. 40, 333 333. Slooten, E., 2007. Conservation management in the face of uncertainty: effectiveness of four options for managing Hector's dolphin bycatch. E SR 3, 169 179. Smith, A.M., Smith, B.D., 1998. Review of status and threats to river cetaceans and recommendations for their conservation. Environ. Rev. 6, 189 206. Sociedade Civil Mamirau (SCM), 1 996. Mamirau : Management Plan. CNPq/MCT, Brasilia. Speakman, T.R., Lane, S.M., Schwacke, L.H., Fair, P.A., Zolman, E.S., 2010. Mark recapture estimates of seasonal abundance and survivorship for bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) near Charleston, So uth Carolina, USA. J. Cetac. Res. Manag. 11, 153 162.

PAGE 174

174 Taper, M.L., Staples, D.F., Shepard, B.B., 2008. Model structure adequacy analysis: selecting models on the basis of their ability to answer scientific questions. Synthese 163, 357 370. Thayer, V.G., 2012. Life history parameters and social associations of female bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) off North Carolina, USA. Proquest, UMI Dissertation Publishing. Trujillo, F., Crespo, E., Van Damme, P., da Silva, V., Usma, S., Aliaga, E., Gmez Salazr, C., Portocarrero, M., Surez, E., Ferrer, A., Bolaos, J., 2010a. The action plan for river dolphins in South America, in: Trujillo, F., Crespo, E., Van Damme, P.A., Usma, J.S. (Eds.), The action plan for South American river dolphins 2010 2020. WWF, Fundacin Omacha, WDS, WDCS, and SOLAMAC, Bogot, D.C., Colombia, pp. 179 198. Trujillo, F., Crespo, E., Van Damme, P., Usma, S., Morales Betancourt, D., Wood, A., Portocarrero, M., 2010b. Summary of threats for river dolphins in South America: Past, present and future, in: Trujillo, F., Crespo, E., Van Damme, P.A., Usma, J.S. (Eds.), The action plan for South American river dolphins 2010 2020. WWF, Fundacin Omacha, WDS, WDCS, and SOLAMAC, Bogot, D.C., Colombia, pp. 147 158. Trujillo, F., Gmez, C., Portocarrero, M., Diazgranados, M.C., 2007. Especies de Fauna: mamferos acuticos, in: Ruiz, S.L., Snchez, E., Tabares, E. Prieto, A., Arias, J.C., Gmez, R., Castellanos, D., Garca, P., Rodr guez, L. (Eds.), Diversidad biolgica y cultural del sur de la Amazonia colombiana. Corpoamazonia, Instituto Humboldt, Instituto Sinchi, UAESPNN, Bogot, Colombia, pp. 439 440. Trujillo, F., Portocarrero Aya, M., Gmez Salazr, C., Diazgranados, M.C., C astellanos Mora, L., Ruiz Garca, M., Caballero, S., 2010c. Conservation status of river dolphins Inia geoffrensis and Sotalia fluviatilis in the Amazon and Orinoco River Basins in Colombia, in :Trujillo, F., Crespo, E., Van Damme, P.A., Usma, J.S. (Eds.) The action plan for South America river dolphins 2010 2020. WWF, Fundacin Omacha, WDS, WDCS, and SOLAMAC, Bogot, D.C., Colombia, pp. 29 57. Turvey, S., Pitman, R.L., Taylor, B.L., Barlow, J., Akamatsu, T., Barrett, L.A., Zhao, X., Reeves, R.R., Stewart B.S., Wang, K., Wei, Z., Zhang, X., Pusser, L.T., Richlen, M., Brandon, J.R.,Wang, D., 2007. First human caused extinction of a cetacean species? Biol. Lett. 3, 537 540.

PAGE 175

175 Utreras, V., Surez, E., Salime, J., 2010. Inia geoffrensis and Sotalia fluviatilis : A brief review of the ecology and conservation status of river dolphins in the Ecuadorian Amazon, in: Trujillo, F., Crespo, E., Van Damme, P.A., Usma, J.S. (Eds.), The action plan for South American river dolphins 2010 2020. WWF, Fundacin Om acha, WDS, WDCS, and SOLAMAC, Bogot, D.C., Colombia, pp. 87 97. Vermeulen, S., Sheil, D., 2006. Partnerships for tropical conservation. Oryx 41, 434 440. Viana J P ., 2004. A pesca no Medio Solim es, i n: Ruffino, M L (E d ) A pesca e os recursos pesqueiros na Amaznia brasileira. rzea, Manaus, pp. 245 268. Vidal, O., 19 93. Aquatic mammal conservation in Latin America: problems and perspectives. Conserv. Biol. 7,788 795. Vokoun, J.C., 2003. Kernel density estimate s of linear home ranges for stream fishes: Advantages and data requirements. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 23, 1020 1029. Wade, P.R., 1998. Calculating limits to the allowable human caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnipeds. Mar. Mammal Sci. 14, 1 37. White, G.C., Burnham, K.P., 1999. Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46, 120 139. Wilson, B., Hammond, P.S., Thompson, P.M., 1999. Estimating size and assessing trends in a coastal bottlenose dolphin population. Ecol Appl. 9, 288 300. Worton, B.J., 1987. A review of models of home range for animal movement. Ecol. Model. 38, 277 298. Worton, B.J., 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home range studies. Ecology 70, 164 168. Zappes, C.A., Andriolo, A., Simoes Lopes, P.C., Di Beneditto, A.P.M., 2011. 'Human dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus Montagu, 1821) cooperative fishery' and its influence on cast net fishing activities in Barra de Imbe/Tramandai, Southern Brazil. Ocean Coast. Manage. 54, 427 432.

PAGE 176

176 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Vanessa J. Mintzer received a B achelor of Science in Environmental Science from the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Florida in August 2004. She received a Master in Environmental Management from the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University in 2006. After three years of employment at the Galveston Bay Foundation in Webster, TX, Vanessa returned to Gainesville to begin a Doctor in Philosophy in interdisciplinary e cology at the Sch ool of Natural Resources and Environment. She completed her doctorate in December 2013


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EZR60FSGU_VY0VVE INGEST_TIME 2014-05-13T19:07:10Z PACKAGE UFE0046251_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES