Conservation of Endangered Animal Species

#### **Chapter 1**

## Galapagos Pinnipeds, Challenges to Their Survival

*Marjorie Riofrío-Lazo and Diego Páez-Rosas*

#### **Abstract**

Pinnipeds endemic to the Galapagos archipelago are in endangered conservation status. The Galapagos sea lion, *Zalophus wollebaeki*, and Galapagos fur seal, *Arctocephalus galapagoensis*, have adapted to an ecosystem with high environmental variability and unpredictable marine productivity to survive. In addition to the environmental factors that pressure their populations, these species are exposed to anthropogenic influence, mainly in rookeries on islands with human settlements. It has been determined that the populations of Galapagos pinnipeds have different growth trends between regions of the archipelago, islands of the same region, and between rookeries of the same island. 58% of the Galapagos sea lion population is in the southeastern, with the largest rookery in direct contact with the inhabitants. Various strategies have been proposed to reduce the negative impacts of human–animal interaction, ensure the population's viability over time, and reduce the species' extinction risk.

**Keywords:** Galapagos sea lion, Galapagos fur seal, population trends, anthropogenic disturbances, conservation strategies

#### **1. Introduction**

The world's smallest sea lion and fur seal inhabit the Galapagos archipelago, a Natural Heritage of Humanity, located in the Eastern Tropical Pacific at 1000 km off Ecuador's mainland. This ecosystem is exposed to strong environmental variability as a product of local and regional processes that establish unique ecological characteristics that provide the home of a wide diversity of taxa and a high level of endemism [1, 2].

The Galapagos sea lion, *Zalophus wollebaeki*, and Galapagos fur seal, *Arctocephalus galapagoensis*, are endemic otariids of the archipelago that face different challenges to survive [3–5]. Environmental and anthropogenic factors impact the population dynamics of pinnipeds [6], so both species developed adaptation mechanisms allowing them to persist in the archipelago despite the ecosystem's uncertainty in terms of variability in feeding resources and climatic conditions [5, 7] and human-induced pressures that contribute to the deterioration of their habitat [8, 9].

The natural environmental variability of the ecosystem influences the life history strategies, abundance, and distribution of pinnipeds [10–12]. The Galapagos Islands present different levels of productivity and wide seasonal climate variability [13, 14] influenced by oceanographic current systems and upwelling patterns [15, 16] that

determine biogeographic patterns within the archipelago [17, 18]. Environmental disturbances such as ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation), occurring periodically in the Galapagos, intensify interannual environmental variability [19], causing fluctuations in marine productivity that alter the trophic network and impact the demography of top predators [20, 21]. A situation that is worrying given that the frequency and intensity of these effects increase with global warming [22].

Natural disturbances generate negative effects that are exacerbated when combined with anthropogenic disturbances [23]. In Galapagos, the anthropogenic influence recorded in the last decades is related to local population growth and unsustainable tourism [24]. Among the human-induced pressures are fishing, pollution, marine litter, species introduction, and disease agents, which reduce habitat quality and threaten the health of the species [25–27].

Like other marine predators, the Galapagos pinnipeds serve as indicators of ecosystem health [28, 29]. They depend on terrestrial and marine habitats and are exposed to different stressors [5, 30]. Depending on the rookery location and the level of human interaction, Galapagos pinniped populations will present different growth trends and threat levels, which have important implications for management schemes [8, 21]. We provide an overview of how these species have adapted to the Galapagos environment, facing natural and anthropogenic stressors. We also analyze their population growth trends in the last 21 years and management actions to improve their conservation.

#### **2. Galapagos Sea lions and Fur Seals**

*Z. wollebaeki* and *A. galapagoensis* share some similarities due to their common environment. They inhabit the Galapagos Islands throughout the year [31], and their rookeries are small (<1300 individuals) compared to otariids from high latitudes [21]. They direct their foraging trips to specific areas within the archipelago [11, 32] and have long-lasting lactation periods [7, 33]. They are non-migratory species, although vagrants have been sighted along the coast of South and Central America to Mexico [34, 35].

The Galapagos sea lion is distributed throughout the archipelago, mainly on southeastern islands where 62% of its population is concentrated [9]. It is more numerous than the Galapagos fur seal and has a larger size, approximately 40% larger [7, 36]. It presents a marked sexual size dimorphism. Adult males reach a length of 210 cm and a weight of 200 kg, and females reach a length of 176 cm and a weight of 95 kg [7]. Like other sea lions, they are highly gregarious, polygynous, and territorial [5]. They breed, nurse, rest, and thermoregulate in semiaquatic spaces along beaches on islands and islets [30]. They are philopatric to their reproductive rookeries [31] and feeding areas (**Figure 1**) [28, 37].

Female Galapagos sea lions give birth to one pup after 11 months of gestation between August and January [7], although this varies slightly, being earlier in the western and later in the southeastern region of the archipelago [38]. The maternal care consists of feeding cycles of the female in the sea, which ranges from a few hours to 4 days, and suckling of the pup on land, which lasts on average five hours [38, 39]. Weaning occurs after 18 months of birth and extends to three years [33], so females nurse all their reproductive lives [7].

The Galapagos fur seal breeds on eight main rookeries on western and northern islands, with 95% of its population on Fernandina Island [9], which corresponds to *Galapagos Pinnipeds, Challenges to Their Survival DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113366*

**Figure 1.**

*Juvenile Galapagos sea lion (Zalophus wollebaeki) swimming in shallow waters in Champion Islet. Photo by Andrés Moreira-Mendieta.*

regions with greater productivity and strong upwellings [19]. In seven rookeries, it lives in sympatry with the Galapagos sea lion, where each one has specialized in a specific foraging niche [11, 40, 41]. It presents typical characteristics of fur seals, except for the long investment of mothers in the care of pups [33]. It has a marked sexual dimorphism. Adult males reach a length of 150 cm and a weight of 70 kg, while adult females reach a length of 120 and a weight of 40 kg [36]. They are polygynous and highly philopatric to their reproductive rookeries [31, 42] and their feeding sites [11, 43]. They rest, thermoregulate, and breed on rocky shores near deep productive waters and use crevices, caves, large boulders, and rock ledges for shade and shelter (**Figure 2**) [44].

Between August and November is the Galapagos fur seal reproductive season. Females give birth to one pup yearly after 11 months of gestation [44]. Mothers alternate pup suckling periods (7 days ±1.2 days) and foraging trips (17.9 ± 10.6 h) [32, 38]. Lactation lasts 18–36 months after birth, depending on environmental conditions [44], and mothers often nurse newborns and older young simultaneously [33].

#### **3. Environmental variability**

Climate variability strongly influences marine productivity with effects that spread via the food chain to top predators [45, 46]. The oceanic conditions of lower productivity and the high seasonal climate variability recorded in the Galapagos represent an ecological disadvantage for the survival of these pinnipeds compared to others that live at higher latitudes [47].

Some of the adaptations developed by the Galapagos pinnipeds include the reduction of their body size, energy requirements [48], and the extension of the lactation

**Figure 2.** *Adult male Galapagos fur seal (Arctocephalus galapagoensis) in Cabo Hammond rookery. Photo by Andrés Moreira-Mendieta.*

period (2–3 years) [33, 44]. These mechanisms allow them to cope with lower availability of prey in their habitats and increase the chances of survival of the offspring when animals are exposed to food stress [33, 38].

The reduction in prey availability causes animals to increase foraging effort, prolonging the duration of their foraging trips, reaching greater distances, or spending less time in the rookery nursing their young [38, 49]. From January to May (warm season), when food availability is lower, fur seals make more foraging trips and spend less time ashore [38]. Feeding behavior modifications are mainly observed in strong El Niño-years, where female Galapagos fur seals prolong their foraging trips up to three times longer than in a normal year [50].

The El Niño event causes variations in marine productivity, reducing the availability of the main prey of Galapagos pinnipeds, resulting in nutritional stress that is reflected in the mortality rates of their populations, mainly of the offspring [20, 50]. The Galapagos sea lion and fur seal use different foraging niches, and there is no overlap in their diet; however, during anomalous years, both feed on prey of similar trophic levels in the regions where they cohabit [11, 40]. The high flexibility in the feeding behavior of the sea lion allows it to reduce competition with the fur seal, counteract the decrease in food in its habitat, and thus increase its survival [51].

The distinctive environmental characteristics between archipelago regions influence these otariids [52, 53]. Both direct their foraging trips to specific patches within the archipelago depending on the location of their rookeries and the feeding strategy used [32, 37, 41, 51]. The diversification of feeding strategies of the sea lion varies with the rookery and region of the archipelago [54]. It is considered an adaptation to the availability of prey, oceanographic characteristics, and the topography of its feeding sites that allows for reducing competition between individuals from the same rookery [51, 53].

The geographical distribution of the Galapagos sea lion and Galapagos fur seal rookeries, together with adaptation mechanisms, have contributed to the *Galapagos Pinnipeds, Challenges to Their Survival DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113366*

differentiation of genetically structured populations within the archipelago [52, 55–57]. The intra- and inter-specific niche segregation has produced differences between western, central, and southeastern sea lion populations [52, 55]. In contrast, the long-term site fidelity and long-distance foraging trips in fur seals have contributed to differences between populations in the archipelago's west, center, and northeast [56, 57].

The abundance and distribution of Galapagos pinnipeds are influenced by climate variability and intensified by the El Niño event [5]. The intensity, length, and frequency of the El Niño event have increased in the last two decades because of global warming [58–60]. Global warming and the associated climate changes are predictable. In Galapagos marine ecosystems, there is expected a reduction in biodiversity, an increase in sea surface temperature and the thermocline depth, and intensifying upwelling winds [60–62].

These changes will increase species that withstand warming stress, the displacement of endemic species adapted to cold waters by circumtropical species with Panamic and Indo-Pacific affinities, and the tropicalization of the ecosystem by 2050 [60]. Galapagos sea lion and fur seal populations are predicted to decline during strong El Niño events [9, 21], increase the likelihood of disease outbreaks, and increase their vulnerability to the impacts of pollutants [63].

#### **4. Anthropogenic disturbances**

As natural disturbances, anthropogenic ones may alter the structure and function of the ecosystems [64]. Oceanic insular ecosystems are susceptible to these effects [23]. Therefore, climate change and other human-induced pressures have degraded marine ecosystems worldwide, creating challenges for species and human societies [65].

The booming tourism industry in the last decades in the Galapagos Islands has led to the rising resident and tourist populations [24]. The human population increase has led to overfishing and the introduction of alien species, greater use of resources and services, and generation of waste and pollution [24, 62]. These problems cause negative impacts on the natural resources of the Galapagos, especially on species exposed to high human interaction [25, 66].

Like other top predators, marine mammals are threatened by varying humaninduced pressure levels [29]. In the Galapagos Islands, pinnipeds experience adverse effects related to the alteration of their behavior, deterioration in the quality of their habitat, and dangers to their health and physical integrity [25, 26, 67]. These effects occur due to the interaction of otariids with humans, fisheries, and introduced species, specifically dogs, cats, and rodents [25, 27].

Human presence in sea lion rookeries alters the animals' behavior, both the haulout behavior and nursing patterns [68–70]. The level of aggression of Galapagos sea lions decreases as the level of exposure to human disturbance increases [26]. This behavior is observed on beaches near San Cristóbal Island town due to the large influx of bathers to which the animals have become accustomed (**Figure 3**). The level of human exposure is unrelated to rookery size [26]; however, may influence the quality of maternal care to pups [68]. The largest rookery of sea lions is, in turn, the most exposed to human presence [9], which, in the long term, could negatively impact the breeding successes of this species because of continuous stress, as has been revealed in other pinnipeds [71, 72].

#### **Figure 3.**

*Galapagos sea lions from the El Malecón rookery resting on Playa Mann, a highly crowded beach near the town on San Cristóbal Island. Photo by Camila Páez-Riofrío.*

The interaction of marine mammals with fisheries poses a threat to these species due to by-catch and vessel strike [73]. Adult Galapagos sea lions are more prone to wounds from propeller strikes when they try to steal fishermen's catch during fishing activities at sea, causing damage to hooks and gillnets [25]. They also cause damage to fishing vessels when they climb onto them to rest during the day, causing them to sink [30]. These adverse effects of fishing by sea lion behavior led fishers to take actions that threaten the species' integrity and protect boats with barbed wire and wood with nails [8].

Marine litter constitutes a significant global threat to biodiversity [74]. Impacts on Galapagos sea lions include cuts, entanglement, strangulation, suffocation, and intestinal obstruction [75]. Plastics are the primary debris type found in oceans affecting otariids [76–79] and are one of the main threats to Galapagos sea lions (**Figure 4**) [79, 80]. This is due to the susceptibility of this species to biomagnification of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which can be absorbed and transported by microplastics [67, 81].

The Galapagos pinnipeds are exposed to POPs and mercury, which are toxic and bioaccumulative [75, 81]. These compounds impact the immune and endocrine systems of animals, affecting their ability to fight diseases and reproduce successfully [75, 81], especially during periods of nutritional and environmental stress such as those recorded during strong El Niño events [67]. Climate change can exacerbate the effects of pollutants on species, increasing their vulnerability and the risk of reaching their population tipping point [63].

Introduced animals in continuous interaction with endemic species may increase the risk of pathogen spillover in island ecosystems [82, 83]. Diseases with low pathogenicity may become life-threatening for marine mammals during food stress periods [84],

*Galapagos Pinnipeds, Challenges to Their Survival DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113366*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Galapagos sea lions exposed to plastic residues in Champion Islet, an uninhabited site of Floreana Island. Picture taken during the Galapagos pinniped 2022 annual census. Photo by Marjorie Riofrío-Lazo.*

producing significant mortalities in pinnipeds [85]. Galapagos pinnipeds face an increasing threat due to infectious diseases related to domestic animals (dogs, cats, and rats) [27, 83, 86, 87]. Pathogens of canine and feline origin have been reported in the four populated islands of the archipelago [82]. As a consequence, Galapagos sea lions have shown symptoms of infection by Leptospira, Canine distemper virus [88], *Dirofilaria immitis* [27], Mycoplasma [87], and group A rotaviruses [86]. The latter, in turn, is present in Galapagos fur seals [86].

#### **5. Population abundance and conservation status**

The Galapagos sea lions and Galapagos fur seals are among the endemic species with conservation priority in the archipelago [9]. They are cataloged in endangered status by the International Union for Conservation of Nature IUCN as their populations have declined over the last decades with no apparent recovery [3, 4, 9].

The causes of population reduction include (1) the environmental variability of the ecosystem [5]; (2) natural disturbances such as the intense El Niño events recorded in 1982/83 and 1997/98 [21, 89] whose residual effects persist; and ((3) anthropogenic disturbances with notable effects in rookeries located on islands with human settlements [8, 21, 89, 90].

Ten censuses were carried out in the entire archipelago from 1978 to 2022 [9, 31, 91]. The correction factors used in the first two censuses (1978 and 2001) for population estimates were not reported. However, from 2014 to the present, this methodology and animal counting have been standardized [5], reducing the uncertainty in population estimates in the last eight years.

The Galapagos sea lion suffered a substantial 50% population decline from 1978 to 2001 (**Table 1**) [3]. Monitoring in the El Malecón rookery in the southeast indicated an annual growth rate of 2% from 2005 to 2015 [21]. El Malecón is the largest rookery in the archipelago, currently making up 16% of the total population (Riofrío-Lazo


#### **Table 1.**

*Galapagos sea lion population abundance in the archipelago per census year.*

et al., unpublished data). From 2014 to 2018, the population in the archipelago increased at an average annual rate of 1% [9]. From 2018 to 2022, the number of animals counted decreased by 14% in the archipelago, registering 4385 individuals in 2022 (Riofrío-Lazo et al., unpublished data).

The Galapagos sea lion population in 2022 is estimated at 13,411–18,487 individuals. It has maintained fluctuations in its number over the last eight years, with a slight tendency to decrease from 2014 to 2022 (Riofrío-Lazo et al., unpublished data). The average annual variation rates of the population are different between regions and tend to increase (<6.5%) in the west and north and decrease slightly (<2%) in the center and southeast (Riofrío-Lazo et al., unpublished data, **Figure 5**). The little variability in abundance from 2001 to 2022 and concerning the

#### **Figure 5.**

*Population trend (from 2014 to 2022) of the Galapagos sea lion by archipelago region. 2014–2018 census data taken from Páez-Rosas, Torres [9] and 2022 census data (Riofrío-Lazo et al., unpublished data).*

*Galapagos Pinnipeds, Challenges to Their Survival DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113366*


#### **Table 2.**

*Galapagos fur seal population abundance in the archipelago per census year.*

first census in 1978 suggests that the reduction of more than 50% of the population persists in the last four generations and that its IUCN conservation status should be kept as endangered.

The Galapagos fur seal suffered a drastic population reduction of 74–80% from 1978 to 2001 (**Table 2**) [4]. Based on extrapolation from 2002 to 2005 primary rookery surveys, it was estimated that the population had decreased by more than 60% from 1978 to 2005 [90]. However, from 2014 to 2018, an average annual increase rate of 3% was estimated [9]. The census 2022 shows values close to those recorded in 2001 [91], with 2834 animals counted.

The increasing trend of the Galapagos fur seal is maintained in the three regions where it lives, with fluctuations over the last 8 years (**Figure 6**). In the west and

#### **Figure 6.**

*Population trend (from 2014 to 2022) of the Galapagos fur seal by archipelago region. 2014–2018 census data taken from Páez-Rosas, Torres [9] and 2022 census data (Riofrío-Lazo et al., unpublished data).*

north, the population decreased by 12.47% and 3.73% from 2018 to 2022, respectively, while, in the center, the population increased by 58.93% in those years (Riofrío-Lazo et al., unpublished data). Little abundance changes from 2001 to 2022 suggest that the population remains stable, and about the first population monitoring, more than 60% reduction persists in the last four generations (1978–2022). Therefore, its IUCN conservation status should be maintained as endangered.

#### **5.1 Analyzing population trends**

Habitat characteristics and population dynamics of Galapagos pinnipeds influence their habitat use in each region [43, 55]. Abundance patterns between regions and between rookeries in the same region of the archipelago are different [9, 21]. Therefore, the population trend of a single rookery should not be considered representative of the trend in the entire region or archipelago [21, 89].

Population trends from 2014 to 2022 of the Galapagos fur seal in the west, center, and north follow the same pattern of increase; however, the average annual growth rates (~3 to 8%) are distinct (Riofrío-Lazo et al., unpublished data). Differences in growth rates show that Galapagos fur seals' most important breeding rookeries are in the west, where greater production of offspring is recorded annually [9], which is related to high-quality habitat and greater availability of prey [11, 41].

The differences in the Galapagos sea lion population trends between regions are explained by various factors: (1) Shelf habitat characteristics that could lead to a restriction of food resources in the north [32]; (2) High levels of marine productivity that promote greater abundance and availability of food but are not used by the sea lion by limiting their feeding effort and the size of their rookery to reduce competition with the fur seal in the west [11, 32]; (3) Different rates of offspring production between rookeries around the archipelago linked to feeding resources available for mothers [28, 51]; and (4) Specific foraging areas with distinct prey species in the diet of individuals for each region [43, 54]. This last explains that sea lions inhabiting less productive areas, such as the center and southeastern, consume prey of high caloric value [43, 51, 93], which allows them to sustain large populations in these regions.

Three of the four populated islands are in the southeast and center; in one of them, San Cristóbal Island, is the El Malecón rookery, which is the most numerous with the highest annual pup production, near the town, and in direct contact with Galapagos residents and tourists [9, 21]. Anthropogenic disturbances to which this population is exposed are domestic animal contact and the potential transmission of infectious diseases [27, 87, 88], wounds resulting from propeller strikes, marine litter, human-fecal contamination by domestic sewage effluents and other sources of pollution [25, 67, 79]. Although the El Malecón rookery has shown a trend of sustained growth in recent years [21], human-induced pressures can have long-term effects on the population, impacting its survival [25, 26]. Due to not all rookeries showing the same growth trend and being exposed to similar problems, for the management actions design, it is relevant to evaluate each rookery independently according to its specific conditions [9].

#### **6. Importance of conservation strategies**

Marine protected areas, along with other management tools, are helpful for resource management and biodiversity conservation [2]. However, they should be established based on a comprehensive analysis of the ecosystem functioning [94].

After 22 years of the implementation of the zoning of the Galapagos Marine Reserve, it does not provide sufficient protection for threatened species and key areas for the functioning of the ecosystem, and primary fishing resources are overexploited [62, 94, 95].

Various species are protected for their high economic or esthetic value rather than their importance in nature [96, 97]. From an ecosystem-based management perspective, it is essential to protect species that maintain the ecosystem's functioning, order, and resilience [64]. The Galapagos pinnipeds are charismatic species with high economic and ecological value in the archipelago [64, 98]. This recognition has a great social impact reflected in the attention of its populations regarding management and conservation [8].

The global concern for the protection of Galapagos pinnipeds has led various institutions to carry out outstanding research efforts to understand the population dynamics of these species [9] and establish specific conservation plans for the management of its natural environment [8]. The product of this is the Galapagos pinniped monitoring program developed since 2008 on San Cristóbal Island in the southeastern region, and the global monitoring of these populations through annual research cruises throughout the archipelago (from 2014 to 2022). This knowledge is relevant for decision-makers in establishing effective protected areas that facilitate wildlife management [9].

Each reproductive rookery should be evaluated independently to improve management strategies since population dynamics are variable. The relevance of certain rookeries has been identified by analyzing the population growth trends of both species in different regions [9]. Factors to consider are (1) the high degree of philopatry to its breeding rookeries [99], (2) the high mobility of individuals between rookeries [52, 99] that provide the potential for transmission of infectious diseases, and (3) the level of interaction with humans. Considering these factors, different levels of importance or vulnerability of populations may be determined, and those rookeries with conservation priority to be identified.

Under normal conditions of environmental variability, only two-thirds of all pups survive to the age of one year, and half of the juveniles to the age of two years [100]. An increase in mortality due to human-induced pressures or disease may impede population recovery in the long term [25]. Thus, actions aimed at improving the quality of their habitat, avoiding the deterioration of their health, and raising awareness among the human population about protecting these species must be intensified.

Various strategies have been implemented and suggested to reduce the exposure of sea lions to human presence, avoid the deterioration of the quality of their marineterrestrial habitats in urban sites as a result of the daily activities of their inhabitants, reduce the negative impact of sea lions on fishing vessels, and reduce their interaction with introduced species; see [9]. However, to achieve these objectives, it is necessary: (1) the joint effort and long-term commitment of the authorities responsible for management, (2) compliance with the regulations by all inhabitants and tourists who visit the Galapagos, (3) the continuation of the annual global censuses of these otariids, and (4) the reinforcement of health studies of their populations, to adopt prevention and early control measures of their infectious agents.

A greater understanding of the threats that the Galapagos pinnipeds face for their survival and monitoring their population allows the establishment of more effective protection measures. The conservation of these species benefits the entire socio-ecosystem of the Galapagos Islands as it promotes a healthier and more resilient ecosystem [64].

#### **Acknowledgements**

We acknowledge the financial support from the Universidad San Francisco de Quito and the Galapagos Science Center. We also thank the Galapagos National Park Directorate for the research permit and technical support.

### **Author details**

Marjorie Riofrío-Lazo\* and Diego Páez-Rosas Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ and Galapagos Science Center GSC, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador

\*Address all correspondence to: mriofriol@usfq.edu.ec

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

#### **References**

[1] Palacios DM, Cantor M. Priorities for ecological research on cetaceans in the Galápagos Islands. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2023;**10**:159

[2] Edgar GJ, Banks S, Bensted-Smith R, Calvopiña M, Chiriboga A, Garske LE, et al. Conservation of threatened species in the Galapagos marine reserve through identification and protection of marine key biodiversity areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 2008;**18**(6):955-968

[3] Trillmich F. *Zalophus wollebaeki*. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015. 2015.e.T41668A45230540. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. UK.2015-2.RLTS.T41668A45230540.en [Accessed: October 3, 2023]

[4] Trillmich F. *Arctocephalus galapagoensis*. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: . 2015;e. T2057A45223722. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS. T2057A45223722.en. [Accessed: October 3, 2023]

[5] Riofrío-Lazo M, Páez-Rosas D. Galapagos sea Lions and fur seals, adapted to a variable world. In: Campagna C, Harcourt RG, editors. Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Otariids and the Odobenid: . Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Marine Mammals. Cham: Springer; 2021. pp. 643-661

[6] Forcada J, Trathan PN, Reid K, Murphy EJ. The effects of global climate variability in pup production of Antarctic fur seals. Ecology. 2005;**86**:2408-2417

[7] Trillmich F, Jeglinski JW, Meise K, Piedrahita P. The Galapagos sea lion: Adaptation to spatial and temporal diversity of marine resources within the archipelago. In: Denkinger J, Vinueza L, editors. The Galapagos Marine Reserve. Social and Ecological Interactions in the Galapagos Islands. Cham: Springer; 2014. pp. 61-70

[8] Páez-Rosas D, Guevara N. Management strategies and conservation status of Galapagos sea lion populations at San Cristóbal Island, Galapagos, Ecuador. In: Alava JJ, editor. Tropical Pinnipeds: Bio-Ecology, Threats and Conservation. 1st ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2017. pp. 159-175

[9] Páez-Rosas D, Torres J, Espinoza E, Marchetti A, Seim H, Riofrío-Lazo M. Declines and recovery in endangered Galapagos pinnipeds during the El Niño event. Scientific Reports. 2021;**11**(1):8785

[10] Soto KH, Trites AW, Arias-Schreiber M. The effects of prey availability on pup mortality and the timing of birth of south American sea lions (*Otaria flavescens*) in Peru. Journal of Zoology. 2004;**264**(4):419-428

[11] Páez-Rosas D, Aurioles-Gamboa D, Alava JJ, Palacios DM. Stable isotopes indicate differing foraging strategies in two sympatric otariids of the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 2012;**424**:44-52

[12] Elorriaga-Verplancken FR, Sierra-Rodríguez G, Rosales-Nanduca H, Acevedo-Whitehouse K, Sandoval-Sierra J. Impact of the 2015 El Niño-Southern Oscillation on the abundance and foraging habits of Guadalupe fur seals and California sea lions from the San Benito Archipelago, Mexico. Plos One. 2016;**11**(5):e0155034

[13] Wellington GM, Strong AE, Merlen G. Sea surface temperature variation in the Galapagos Archipelago: A comparison between AVHRR nighttime satellite data and in situ instrumentation (1982-1998). Bulletin of Marine Science. 2001;**69**(1):27-42

[14] Schaeffer BA, Morrison JM, Kamykowski D, Feldman GC, Xie L, Liu Y, et al. Phytoplankton biomass distribution and identification of productive habitats within the Galapagos Marine Reserve by MODIS, a surface acquisition system, and in-situ measurements. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2008;**112**(6):3044-3054

[15] Sweet W, Morrison JM, Kamykowski D, Schaeffer B, Banks S, McCulloch A. Water mass seasonal variability in the Galápagos Archipelago. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers. 2007;**54**(12):2023-2035

[16] Forryan A, Naveira Garabato AC, Vic C, Nurser AG, Hearn AR. Galápagos upwelling driven by localized wind– front interactions. Scientific Reports. 2021;**11**(1):1277

[17] Edgar G, Banks S, Fariña J, Calvopiña M, Martínez C. Regional biogeography of shallow reef fish and macro-invertebrate communities in the Galapagos archipelago. Journal of Biogeography. 2004;**31**(7):1107-1124

[18] McKinley SJ, Saunders BJ, Rastoin-Laplane E, Salinas-de-León P, Harvey ES. Functional diversity of reef fish assemblages in the Galapagos Archipelago. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 2022;**549**:151695

[19] Palacios DM, Bograd SJ, Foley DG, Schwing FB. Oceanographic characteristics of biological hot spots in the North Pacific: A remote sensing perspective. Deep Sea Research Part

II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 2006;**53**(3-4):250-269

[20] Trillmich F, Dellinger T. The effects of El Nino on Galapagos pinnipeds. In: Trillmich F, Ono K, editors. Pinnipeds and El Niño: Responses to Environmental Stress. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1991. pp. 66-74

[21] Riofrío-Lazo M, Arreguín-Sánchez F, Páez-Rosas D. Population abundance of the endangered Galapagos sea lion *Zalophus wollebaeki* in the southeastern Galapagos archipelago. PLoS One. 2017;**12**(1):e0168829

[22] Dueñas A, Jiménez-Uzcátegui G, Bosker T. The effects of climate change on wildlife biodiversity of the Galapagos Islands. Climate Change Ecology. 2021;**2**:100026

[23] Russell JC, Kueffer C. Island biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2019;**44**:31-60

[24] Mena CF, Quiroga D, Walsh SJ. Threats to sustainability in the Galapagos Islands: A social–ecological perspective. In: Sarmiento FO, Florich LM, editors. The Elgar Companion to Geography, Transdisciplinarity and Sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2020. pp. 342-358

[25] Denkinger J, Gordillo L, Montero-Serra I, Murillo JC, Guevara N, Hirschfeld M, et al. Urban life of Galapagos sea lions (*Zalophus wollebaeki*) on San Cristobal Island, Ecuador: Colony trends and threats. Journal of Sea Research. 2015;**105**:10-14

[26] Walsh JT, Kovaka K, Vaca E, Weisberg DS, Weisberg M. The effects of human exposure on Galápagos sea lion behavior. Wildlife Biology. 2020;**2020**(4):1-8

*Galapagos Pinnipeds, Challenges to Their Survival DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113366*

[27] Gregory TM, Livingston I, Hawkins EC, Loyola A, Cave A, Vaden SL, et al. Dirofilaria immitis identified in Galapagos sea lions (*Zalophus wollebaeki*): A wildlife health and conservation concern. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2023;**59**(3):487-494

[28] Drago M, Franco-Trecu V, Cardona L, Inchausti P, Tapia W, Páez-Rosas D. Stable isotopes reveal long-term fidelity to foraging grounds in the Galapagos sea lion (*Zalophus wollebaeki*). PLoS One. 2016;**11**(1):e0147857

[29] Alves F, Rosso M, Li S, Nowacek DP. A sea of possibilities for marine megafauna. Science. 2022;**375**(6579):391-392

[30] Montero-Serra I, Páez-Rosas D, Murillo JC, Vegas-Vilarrúbia T, Fietz K, Denkinger J. Environment-driven changes in terrestrial habitat use and distribution of the Galapagos sea lion. Endangered Species Research. 2014;**24**(1):9-19

[31] Trillmich F. Galapagos sea lions and fur seals. Noticias de Galápagos. 1979;**29**:8-14

[32] Villegas-Amtmann S, Jeglinski JW, Costa DP, Robinson PW, Trillmich F. Individual foraging strategies reveal niche overlap between endangered Galapagos pinnipeds. PLoS One. 2013;**8**(8):e70748

[33] Trillmich F, Wolf JB. Parent–offspring and sibling conflict in Galápagos fur seals and sea lions. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2008;**62**:363-375

[34] Páez-Rosas D, Valdovinos LA, Elorriaga-Verplancken FR. Northernmost record of the Galapagos fur seal (*Arctocephalus galapagoensis*): A consequence of anomalous warm conditions around the Galapagos Archipelago. Aquatic Mammals. 2017;**43**(6):629-634

[35] Elorriaga-Verplancken FR, Morales-Vázquez JE, Ortega-Ortiz CD, Llamas-González M, Meza-Yáñez R, Páez-Rosas D. Northernmost Record of the Galapagos sea lion (*Zalophus wollebaeki*): Sightings along the Mexican Central Pacific and the Gulf of California during La Niña conditions. Aquatic Mammals. 2022;**48**(6):478-484

[36] Trillmich F. Maternal investment and sex-allocation in the Galapagos fur seal, *Arctocephalus galapagoensis*. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 1986;**19**:157-164

[37] Villegas-Amtmann S, Costa DP, Tremblay Y, Salazar S, Aurioles-Gamboa D. Multiple foraging strategies in a marine apex predator, the Galapagos sea lion *Zalophus wollebaeki*. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2008;**363**:299-309

[38] Trillmich F. Attendance behavior of Galapagos fur seals. In: Gentry RL, Kooyman GL, editors. Fur Seals: Maternal Strategies on Land and at Sea. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1986. pp. 168-185

[39] Villegas-Amtmann S, McDonald BI, Páez-Rosas D, Aurioles-Gamboa D, Costa DP. Adapted to change: Low energy requirements in a low and unpredictable productivity environment, the case of the Galapagos sea lion. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 2017;**140**:94-104

[40] Dellinger T, Trillmich F. Fish prey of the sympatric Galapagos fur seals and sea lions: Seasonal variation and niche separation. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1999;**77**:1204-1216

[41] Jeglinski JW, Goetz KT, Werner C, Costa DP, Trillmich F. Same size–same niche? Foraging niche separation between sympatric juvenile Galapagos

sea lions and adult Galapagos fur seals. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2013;**82**:694-706

[42] Bonner WN. Seals of the Galapagos Islands. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2008;**21**(1-2):177-184

[43] Páez-Rosas D, Rodríguez-Pérez M, Riofrío-Lazo M. Competition influence in the segregation of the trophic niche of otariids: A case study using isotopic Bayesian mixing models in Galapagos pinnipeds. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry. 2014b;**28**:2550-2558

[44] Trillmich F. Galapagos fur seal, *Arctocephalus galapagoensis*. In: Croxall JP, Gentry RL, editors. Status, Biology, and Ecology of fur Seals. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 51. Seattle, Washington: US Department of Commerce; 1987. pp. 23-28

[45] Doney SC, Ruckelshaus M, Emmett Duffy J, Barry JP, Chan F, English CA, et al. Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science. 2012;**4**:11-37

[46] Wernberg T, Smale DA, Tuya F, Thomsen MS, Langlois TJ, De Bettignies T, et al. An extreme climatic event alters marine ecosystem structure in a global biodiversity hotspot. Nature Climate Change. 2013;**3**(1):78-82

[47] Chilvers BL, Robertson BC, Wilkinson IS, Duignan PJ. Growth and survival of New Zealand sea lions, *Phocarctos hookeri*: Birth to 3 months. Polar Biology. 2007;**30**:459-469

[48] Trillmich F, Kooyman GL. Field metabolic rate of lactating female Galápagos fur seals (*Arctocephalus galapagoensis*): The influence of offspring age and environment. Comparative

Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology. 2001;**129**(4):741-749

[49] Costa DP. Energetics. In: Perrin WF, Wursig B, Thewissen JGM, editors. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. San Diego: Academic; 2009. pp. 383-391

[50] Trillmich F, Limberger D. Drastic effects of El Niño on Galapagos pinnipeds. Oecologia. 1985;**67**:19-22

[51] Páez-Rosas D, Villegas-Amtmann S, Costa D. Intraspecific variation in feeding strategies of Galapagos sea lions: A case of trophic specialization. PLoS One. 2017;**12**(10):e0185165

[52] Wolf JB, Harrod C, Brunner S, Salazar S, Trillmich F, Tautz D. Tracing early stages of species differentiation: Ecological, morphological and genetic divergence of Galápagos sea lion populations. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2008;**8**:1-14

[53] Páez-Rosas D, Riofrío-Lazo M, Aurioles-Gamboa D. Flexibility in the foraging strategies of the Galapagos sea lion inferred from a multiple approach analysis. In: Denkinger J, Vinueza L, editors. The Galapagos Marine Reserve, Social and Ecological Interactions in the Galapagos Islands. Cham: Springer; 2014. pp. 71-80

[54] Páez-Rosas D, Aurioles-Gamboa D. Spatial variation in the foraging behaviour of the Galapagos sea lions (*Zalophus wollebaeki*) assessed using scat collections and stable isotope analysis. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 2014;**94**(06):1099-1107

[55] Jeglinski JW, Wolf JB, Werner C, Costa DP, Trillmich F. Differences in foraging ecology align with genetically divergent ecotypes of a highly mobile

*Galapagos Pinnipeds, Challenges to Their Survival DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113366*

marine top predator. Oecologia. 2015;**179**:1041-1052

[56] Chaves JA, Lopes F, Martínez D, Cueva DF, Gavilanes GI, Bonatto SL, et al. Population genetics and phylogeography of Galapagos fur seals. Frontiers in Genetics. 2022;**13**:725772

[57] Lopes F, Hoffman JI, Valiati VH, Bonatto SL, Wolf JBW, Trillmich F, et al. Fine-scale matrilineal population structure in the Galapagos fur seal and its implications for conservation management. Conservation Genetics. 2015;**16**(5):1099-1113

[58] Thompson DM, Conroy JL, Collins A, Hlohowskyj SR, Overpeck JT, Riedinger-Whitmore M, et al. Tropical Pacific climate variability over the last 6000 years as recorded in Bainbridge Crater Lake, Galápagos. Paleoceanography. 2017;**32**(8):903-922

[59] Rustic GT, Koutavas A, Marchitto TM, Linsley BK. Dynamical excitation of the tropical Pacific Ocean and ENSO variability by little ice age cooling. Science. 2015;**350**(6267):1537-1541

[60] Banks S, Edgar G, Glynn P, Kuhn A, Moreno J, Ruiz D, et al. A review of Galápagos marine habitats and ecological processes under climate change scenarios. In: Larrea Oña I, Di Carlo G, editors. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment of the Galápagos Islands. USA: WWF and Conservation International; 2011. pp. 47-68

[61] Larrea Oña I, Di Carlo G, editors. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment of the Galapagos Islands. USA: WWF and Conservation International; 2011. 116p

[62] Escobar-Camacho D, Rosero P, Castrejón M, Mena CF, Cuesta F. Oceanic islands and climate: Using a multicriteria model of drivers of change to select key conservation areas in Galapagos. Regional Environmental Change. 2021;**21**(2):47

[63] Alava JJ, McMullen K, Jones J, Barragán-Paladines MJ, Hobbs C, Tirape A, et al. Multiple anthropogenic stressors in the Galápagos Islands' complex social–ecological system: Interactions of marine pollution, fishing pressure, and climate change with management recommendations. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 2023;**19**(4):870-895

[64] Riofrío-Lazo M, Reck G, Páez-Rosas D, Zetina-Rejón MJ, Del Monte-Luna P, Reyes H, et al. Food web modeling of the southeastern Galapagos shelf ecosystem. Ecological Indicators. 2021;**132**:108270

[65] Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF. The impact of climate change on the world's marine ecosystems. Science. 2010;**328**(5985):1523-1528

[66] Nieto-Claudin A, Deem SL, Rodríguez C, Cano S, Moity N, Cabrera F, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in Galapagos tortoises as an indicator of the growing human footprint. Environmental Pollution. 2021;**284**:117453

[67] Alava JJ, Ross PS. Chapter 8 – pollutants in tropical marine mammals of the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador: An Ecotoxicological quest to the Last Eden. In: Fossi MC, Panti C, editors. Marine Mammal Ecotoxicology. London: Academic Press; 2018. pp. 213-234

[68] Kovacs K, Innes S. The impact of tourism on harp seals (*Phoca groenlandica*) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 1990;**26**(1-2):15-26

[69] Suryan R, Harvey J. Variability in reactions of Pacific harbor seals, *Phoca vitulina* richardsi, to disturbance. Fishery Bulletin. 1999;**97**(2):332-339

[70] Kucey L, Trites AW. A review of the potential effects of disturbance on sea lions: Assessing response and recovery. In: Trites AW, Atkinson SK, DeMaster DP, Fritz LW, Gelatt TS, Rea LD, Wynne KM, editors. Sea Lions of the World. Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant College Program; 2006. pp. 581-589

[71] Johnson WM, Lavigne DM. Mass tourism and the Mediterranean monk seal. The Monachus Guardian. 1999;**2**(2):1-30

[72] French SS, Gonzalez-Suarez M, Young JK, Durham S, Gerber LR. Human disturbance influences reproductive success and growth rate in California sea lions (*Zalophus californianus*). PLoS One. 2011;**6**(3):e17686

[73] Schipper J, Chanson JS, Chiozza F, Cox NA, Hoffmann M, Katariya V, et al. The status of the world's land and marine mammals: Diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science. 2008;**322**(5899):225-230

[74] Alfaro-Núñez A, Astorga D, Cáceres-Farías L, Bastidas L, Soto Villegas C, Macay K, et al. Microplastic pollution in seawater and marine organisms across the tropical Eastern Pacific and Galápagos. Scientific Reports. 2021;**11**(1):6424

[75] Alava JJ, Palomera C, Bendell L, Ross PS. Pollution as an emerging threat for the conservation of the Galapagos Marine Reserve: Environmental impacts and management perspectives. In: Denkinger J, Vinueza L, editors. The Galapagos Marine Reserve. Social and Ecological Interactions in the

Galapagos Islands. Cham: Springer; 2014. pp. 247-283

[76] Perez-Venegas DJ, Toro-Valdivieso C, Ayala F, Brito B, Iturra L, Arriagada M, et al. Monitoring the occurrence of microplastic ingestion in Otariids along the Peruvian and Chilean coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2020;**153**:110966

#### [77] Ortega-Borchardt JÁ,

Ramírez-Álvarez N, Mendoza LMR, Gallo-Reynoso JP, Barba-Acuña ID, García-Hernández J, et al. Detection of microplastic particles in scats from different colonies of California sea lions (*Zalophus californianus*) in the Gulf of California. Mexico: A preliminary study. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2023;**186**:114433

[78] Donohue MJ, Masura J, Gelatt T, Ream R, Baker JD, Faulhaber K, et al. Evaluating exposure of northern fur seals, *Callorhinus ursinus*, to microplastic pollution through fecal analysis. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2019;**138**:213-221

[79] Moreira-Mendieta A, Garcia-Garin O, Muñoz-Pérez JP, Urquía DO, Drago M, Borrell A, et al. Detection and quantification of microplastic pollution in the endangered Galapagos sea lion. Science of the Total Environment. 2023;**896**:166223

[80] Muñoz-Pérez JP, Lewbart GA, Alarcón-Ruales D, Skehel A, Cobos E, Rivera R, et al. Galápagos and the plastic problem. Frontiers in Sustainability. 2023;**4**:18

[81] Alava JJ, Salazar S, Cruz M, Jiménez-Uzcátegui G, Villegas-Amtmann S, Paéz-Rosas D, et al. DDT strikes back: Galapagos sea lions face increasing health risks. Ambio. 2011;**40**:425-430

[82] Culda CA, Dionnet R, Barbu AC, Cârstolovean AS, Dan T, Grijalva J, et al. *Galapagos Pinnipeds, Challenges to Their Survival DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113366*

The presence of *Dirofilaria immitis* in Domestic Dogs on San Cristobal Island, Galapagos. Pathogens. 2022;**11**(11):1287

[83] Brock P, Hall A, Goodman S, Cruz M, Acevedo-Whitehouse K. Applying the tools of ecological immunology to conservation: A test case in the Galapagos sea lion. Animal Conservation. 2013;**16**(1):19-31

[84] Simeone CA, Gulland FM, Norris T, Rowles TK. A systematic review of changes in marine mammal health in North America, 1972-2012: The need for a novel integrated approach. PLoS One. 2015;**10**(11):e0142105

[85] Osterhaus A, Groen J, Spijkers H, Broeders H, UytdeHaag F, de Vries P, et al. Mass mortality in seals caused by a newly discovered virus-like morbillivirus. Veterinary Microbiology. 1990;**23**(1-4):343-350

[86] Coria-Galindo E, Rangel-Huerta E, Verdugo-Rodríguez A, Brousset D, Salazar S, Padilla-Noriega L. Rotavirus infections in Galapagos sea lions. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2009;**45**(3):722-728

[87] Sarzosa MS, Duignan P, DeRango EJ, Field C, Ríos C, Sanchez S, et al. Occurrence of mycoplasmas in Galapagos sea Lions (*Zalophus wollebaeki*) and their association with other respiratory pathogens. The Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2021;**57**(3):623-627

[88] Denkinger J, Guevara N, Ayala S, Murillo JC, Hirschfeld M, Montero-Serra I, et al. Pup mortality and evidence for pathogen exposure in Galapagos sea lions (*Zalophus wollebaeki*) on San Cristobal Island, Galapagos, Ecuador. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2017;**53**(3):491-498

[89] Trillmich F, Meise K, Kalberer S, Mueller B, Piedrahita P, Pörschmann U, et al. On the challenge of interpreting

census data: Insights from a study of an endangered pinniped. PLoS One. 2016;**11**(5):e0154588

[90] Alava JJ, Cheung WWL, Ross PS, Sumaila UR. Climate change– contaminant interactions in marine food webs: Toward a conceptual framework. Global Change Biology. 2017;**23**(10):3984-4001

[91] Alava JJ, Salazar S. Status and conservation of Otariids in Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands. In: Trites AW, Atkinson SK, DeMaster DP, Fritz LW, Gelatt TS, Rea LD, Wynne KM, editors. Sea Lions of the World. Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant College Program; 2006. pp. 495-519

[92] Salazar S, Denkinger J. Possible effects of climate change on the populations of Galapagos pinnipeds. Galapagos Research. 2010;**67**:45-49

[93] Blakeway J-A, Arnould JP, Hoskins AJ, Martin-Cabrera P, Sutton GJ, Huckstadt LA, et al. Influence of hunting strategy on foraging efficiency in Galapagos sea lions. PeerJ. 2021;**9**:e11206

[94] Riofrío-Lazo M, Zetina-Rejón MJ, Reck G, Páez-Rosas D, Arreguín-Sánchez F. Challenges in the application of the ecosystem approach to fisheries Management in the Galapagos Islands. In: Walsh SJ, Mena CF, Stewart JR, Muñoz Pérez JP, editors. Island Ecosystems: Challenges to Sustainability. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023. pp. 319-334

[95] Moity N. Evaluation of No-take zones in the Galapagos Marine Reserve, Zoning Plan 2000. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2018;**5**:244

[96] Jordán F. Keystone species and food webs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2009;**364**(1524):1733-1741

[97] Simberloff D. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single-species management passé in the landscape era? Biological Conservation. 1998;**83**(3):247-257

[98] Kovacs KM, Aguilar A, Aurioles D, Burkanov V, Campagna C, Gales N, et al. Global threats to pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science. 2012;**28**(2):414-436

[99] Meise K, Krüger O, Piedrahita P, Trillmich F. Site fidelity of male Galápagos sea lions: A lifetime perspective. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2013;**2013**:1-11

[100] Kraus C, Mueller B, Meise K, Piedrahita P, Pörschmann U, Trillmich F. Mama's boy: Sex differences in juvenile survival in a highly dimorphic large mammal, the Galapagos sea lion. Oecologia. 2012;**171**:893-903

### **Chapter 2**

## The Critically Endangered Pampa Cat (*Leopardus munoai*) on the Brink of Extinction in Brazil: The Little We Know and an Action Plan to Try to Save It

*Fábio Dias Mazim, Paulo Guilherme Carniel Wagner, Lester Alexander Fox-Rosales, Alisson da Rosa Boÿink and Tadeu Gomes de Oliveira*

#### **Abstract**

*Leopardus munoai*, the Pampa cat, is a small felid (ca. 3–4 kg) recently separated from the *Leopardus colocola* complex. This Pampa cat is endemic to the Pampas grasslands of Uruguay, western Argentina and southernmost Brazil. Originally, the Pampas had a long history of extensive cattle ranching; however, its fields have been exponentially converted mostly to soy fields in the last five decades. Species distribution models have shown a reduction in their area (1997–2022) of 42%, with only 31,808 km2 of suitable habitat remaining. Despite the Brazilian Pampas being surveyed in their entirety, no records of this felid have ever been repeated at the same site in different years since 1997 (50,000 trap-nights; >400,000 km of highway day/ night crossing). This effort generated only 32 records (17 road-kills). Despite the huge detection efforts, there has never been a confirmed resident population detected anywhere. The scenario that unfolds is of an extremely rare felid that seems to use the vanishing native herbaceous fields, which are dependent upon cattle grazing, in replacement of the original (now extinct) grazing megafauna. With an expected population of 45–50 individuals, which has become virtually extinct in its original eastern portion, all signs point towards imminent extinction.

**Keywords:** *Leopardus munoai*, extinction, natural history, population assessment, action plan, Pampa

#### **1. Introduction**

The Neotropical region presents a rich diversity of felines with many species living in sympatry. In the temperate fields of the Brazilian Pampas, the usual feline assemblage is composed of the Geoffroy's cat (*Leopardus geoffroyi* d'Orbigny & Gervais, 1844), the Pampas cat (*Leopardus colocola* Molina, 1782), the margay (*Leopardus wiedii* Schinz, 1821) and the jaguarundi (*Herpailurus yagouaroundi* Saint-Hilaire, 1803) [1]. This set of species is unique in the world due to the Pampas being the limits of the northeastern distribution of Geoffroy's cat, the southern distribution of margay and jaguarundi and a place of occurrence of a disjunct population of Pampas cat that is recognized as a species/subspecies *L.* (*colocola*) *munoai* [2, 3]. Here, we use the term Pampas cat in Ref. to the original broader group, i.e., *L. colocola* group/complex, and Pampa cat to refer specifically to the species that is endemic to the Pampas biome, i.e., *Leopardus munoai*.

The Pampa cat (*Leopardus munoai*) – **Figure 1**, also known as the Uruguayan pampas cat, is a small wild felid that almost exclusively inhabits the fields of the Uruguayan savanna, a subtropical native grassland ecoregion [4] that is located in Uruguay, the extreme south of Brazil (state of Rio Grande do Sul – restricted area to the Pampas biome), as well as a small area in northeastern Argentina. This field seems to have been historically isolated in this region, possibly due to geographical barriers such as the Plata River to the south, the Paraná/Paraguay rivers to the

*The Critically Endangered Pampa Cat (*Leopardus munoai*) on the Brink of Extinction… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112162*

west and the Atlantic Forest to the north [3, 5–7]. For Martínez-Lanfranco and González [8], the term pampas cat has traditionally been used to refer to small, non-spotted, Neotropical felines of the genus *Leopardus* Gray, 1842, which, unlike their spotted congeners that mainly use forest habitats, occur in open environments throughout South America [3, 9].

The region where the Pampa cat lives are formed by a complex of fields that are native to the southern region of the state of Rio Grande does Sul (extreme south of Brazil on the border with Argentina and Uruguay), which is both officially and popularly named as the Pampas biome and is characterized by elements of the Austral-Antarctic flora [10–12]. In addition, due to the fertile and deep soil favorable for agriculture, this ecoregion is considered one of the most critical conservation priorities for terrestrial vertebrates in the Neotropics [13]. Given this scenario, the Pampa cat has been classified as 'endangered' (EN) of extinction in the regional listing of the state of Rio Grande do Sul [14] and as a threatened species with conservation priority in Uruguay [15]. These categorizations, as well as a general overall assessment for the complex *L. colocola* [16], were performed before this endemic felid was formally recognized as a distinct taxon [3] and were based on ecological data that was more scarcer than what is currently available. In Brazil, it was recently classified as *L. munoai* and placed in the critically endangered (CR) category. As an aggravating factor, when reviewing the conservation status of this small felid as well as the conservation status of the species' native fields, Tirelli et al. [17] showed that the 24 demographic scenarios evaluated generated an estimated population size that places the Pampa cat in one of the IUCN in danger of extinction categories. Furthermore, eight scenarios placed it in the endangered category (EN) and five scenarios in the critically endangered category (CR), which indicates that the species may be seriously endangered.

#### **2. Brief taxonomic overview**

Despite previous taxonomic assessments [9] there are currently two taxonomic proposals within the *Leopardus colocola* complex. Kitchener's who evaluated previous studies and took into account biogeographic, morphological and genetic aspects, recognized only one species with seven subspecies [2]: *Leopardus colocola colocola, Le. c. wolffsohni, Le. c. pajeros* (including *crucina*), *Le. c. budini* (including *steinbachi*), *Le. c. garleppi* (including *Thomasi*), *Le. c. bracatus*, and *Le. c. munoai*. Nascimento et al. [3] using the widest morphological coverage of the *Le. colocola* complex at that moment, combined with multilocus phylogeny, species delimitation techniques, and ecological niche analyses, stated that treating pampas cats as a single species would underestimate their actual diversity. When analyzing the distribution and frequency of characters along the entire distribution of the pampas cat to detect sharp clines and discontinuities and take into account intra- and interpopulational variation, which are key factors for defining taxa and searching for diagnostic characters [18–20], the authors claim to recognize five allopatric groups, in which each would have clear diagnostic characteristics and well-defined geographical distribution. The oldest epithets available for the groups would be: Group I = *colocola* Molina, 1782; Group II = *garleppi* Matschie, 1912; Group III = *pajeros* Desmarest, 1816; Group IV = *braccata* Cope, 1889; and Group V = *muñoai* Ximénez, 1961. Overall, these analyses demonstrated that specimens with this genotype/phenotype have unique morphological, genetic, and ecological characteristics, and they should be considered a distinct unit for conservation assessment and management actions. *Leopardus munoai*

is a species that occurs in rural areas with heavy rainfall in the dry season in southern Brazil, Uruguay and northeastern Argentina. There is an urgent need to carry out such conservation planning on behalf of this endemic felid, since the native fields of the Uruguayan savanna have been largely transformed by agriculture (especially rice and soybean crops) and forest plantations (*Eucalyptus* spp. and *Pinus* spp.) [21, 22]. These human activities have led to the extinction of several species of local mammals [23], although not endemic species such as the Pampa cat.

Note it has been argued recently that the species name should change from *Leopardus munoai* [24], to *Leopardus fasciatus* [25], which is likely to happen [8]. We are not discussing the merit; we are simply using the most currently recognizable and used name in this chapter, *Leopardus munoai*.

#### **3. Aims and scope**

Given the current understanding of its high degree of endemism, taxonomic distinction, scarcity of refined ecological data, and successive exponential reduction of its habitat, which demonstrate an increasingly real scenario of the threat of extinction, we consider it appropriate to present an in-depth assessment of its little-known natural history and conservation situation. To this end, we seek to refine the occurrence records, relate them to the analysis of suitability and habitat loss, and make a profound analysis of the causal factors that have led the species to the threshold of extinction in Brazil, in order to present a proposal for an emergency action plan to try to save it.

#### **4. The setting**

The Pampas biome, which has approximately 178,000 km2 , corresponds to 2.07% of the Brazilian territory, and is restricted to the state of Rio Grande do Sul, though it is the dominant landscape in 63% of the territory of the state [26]. This domain is covered by four geomorphological regions, specifically the Gaúcha Central Depression, the Rio Grande do Sul Shield (Serra do Sudeste), the Coastal Plain and the Plateau of the Campanha [26] – **Figure 2**.

The climate, according to the classification of Köppen [27], is of the humid subtropical type, with precipitation equally distributed throughout the year (Cfa and Cfb). The average temperature for the entire study area varies between 17 and 18°C, where maximum temperatures can exceed 40°C and minimum temperatures fall below −5°C.

The pastures of the region are vegetable formations that are conditioned, mainly, by edaphic characteristics and not so much climatic ones [28, 29]. In addition to edaphic factors, grazing pressure and conversion to agricultural or forestry areas strongly influence these rural formations, thus creating different physiognomies (fields with low vegetation; fields with tall vegetation, subshrubbed or scrubby fields; and mixed fields, fields of *Baccharis dracunculifolia* or paleaceous fields), as described by several authors [28–30]. Recently, based on climatic conditions, floristic composition and edaphic characteristics, Menezes [12] concluded that the fields of the Pampas biome could be subdivided into three distinct groups: Pampas Mesic fields, Coastal Pampas and Coastal Pampas pasture.

According to Marchiori [31], the native vegetation of the southwest, which consists of extensive rural areas with forests on the slopes of sandstone plateaus and *The Critically Endangered Pampa Cat (*Leopardus munoai*) on the Brink of Extinction… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112162*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Map showing the limits of the pampas biome and the geomorphologic regions of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.*

river banks and park-like formation, still presents areas in its original state, although the complications promoted by anthropic actions have spread exponentially. Verdum [32] reports the natural process of the sandification of the fields, which is currently accelerated, and that the fields are subject to degradation by inappropriate land use such as agrarian expansion and implementation of monocultures.

#### **4.1 Data collection**

All possible types of records were compiled from those used in surveys of Neotropical carnivorous mammals. These included the use of camera traps, capture traps for radio collar placement and collection of biological material, recording footprints and faeces, random visual observations, and/or in night-time transections. A search was also carried out for individuals run over on highways in the Pampa biome or killed specimens (firearms or domestic dogs) as a form of retaliation for attacking poultry farms [33].

The information collected, provided by third parties (colleagues and farmers) and systematic searches for the Pampa cat began in 1997. This generated an effort of 50,000 trap-nights, 7000 hours of active searches in night transections, 1100 live-catch traps/night, in addition to 300,000 kilometers of highways traveled in the search for individuals that had been run over. Camera trapping followed standard and well-established protocols that targeted small cats (for a detailed description see [34–36]). In 2021, at the Saicã site, which covers 51,000 hectares and is located between the municipalities of Rosario do Sul and Cacequi (RS), we deployed 6–9 camera traps spaced at ca. 500 m (400–600 m) from each other that focused on the native fields that have been free from agriculture for at least 40 years. Thus, cameras were placed specifically targeting the Pampa cat's presumed preferred habitat.

Live-captures followed strict protocols, such as those of the American Society of Mammalogists [37], all with proper licenses from environmental agencies (IBAMA/ SEMA), none of them were conducted for the purpose of this work, and all of them to attend the legal requirements of the aforementioned environmental agencies. All records refer exclusively to the Brazilian Pampas biome (part of the Uruguayan savanna ecoregion in Brazil). All the municipalities that belong to the domains of the Brazilian Pampas were included in the searches, with the area covered and time effort varying between areas. Additionally, in 2023, all of the points where the records of the species occurred between 1997 and 2022 were visited again, as a form of in-person assessment of the state of conservation of the habitats. In order to determine the relative abundance index (RAI), we considered only one record/hour [38].

#### **4.2 Data analysis**

We modeled the habitat suitability of the Pampa cat in Rio Grande do Sul state using the maximum entropy algorithm in Maxent 3.4.4 [39]. This algorithm uses presence-only data as well as background points obtained from a geographical area defined *a priori*. In our case, we defined our sampling area as the areas of Rio Grande do Sul state in the Uruguayan savanna ecoregion [4]. Using the species locations and the covariate values, the algorithm estimates the target probability distribution by using the principle of maximum entropy (i.e., finding the distribution that is closest to uniform). Maxent has been widely applied for modeling species distribution and habitat suitability, and thereby identifies priority areas for conservation as well as delineating species ranges.

We contemplated 19 bioclimatic variables [40] and land cover [41]. All bioclimatic predictors were checked for multicollinearity, and a PCA was performed to select the three variables that maximized variability among the locations where the Pampa cat was registered. The variables selected were mean annual precipitation (bio12), annual temperature range (bio7), and isothermality (bio3). Since our records date back to 1997, and given the fast rate of habitat loss in the Brazilian Pampas, suitability for the species was modeled using land cover data for the year 1997. We then estimated the current suitable habitat that is left by removing areas that were transformed between 1997 and 2021.

#### **5. Natural history traits of an almost extinct species**

#### **5.1 Diet**

Analysis of the stomach contents of 14 specimens that had been run over [42] indicated that rodents represent 63.2% of the diet, followed by birds (31.6%) and amphibians (5.2%). Of the species of prey, Brazilian guinea pigs (*Cavia aperea* 549 g) comprised 33.3% of all prey consumed, followed by the small rice rats (22 g; 19.1%), Passeriformes (10–20 g; 14.3%) and tinamous (350–550 g; 9.5%). The average mean weight of mammalian prey (MWMP) was 287 g. Prey of 500 g appears to be important both numerically and in terms of biomass consumed by this small felid. Compared to other felines found in the Pampas, their diet had greater similarity to that of the jaguarundi (which also makes use of open environments), with lesser similarities to those of Geoffroy's cat and the margay [42]. These findings give support to the old reports that described the species preying mostly on cavies and ground birds [43].

#### **5.2 Notes on habitat, activity and reproduction**

The rare reports made by authors from the late 19th to the early 20th centuries already mentioned the species rarity and its "favored" habitat, the native tall *The Critically Endangered Pampa Cat (*Leopardus munoai*) on the Brink of Extinction… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112162*

**Figure 3.** *Views of the Pampa cat's (Leopardus munoai) suitable habitat, its latrine (bottom middle) and tracks.*

grasslands [44, 45]. Based on prey habits [42], it is possible to infer that Pampa cats prefer open fields with shrubby cover and edges of bogs to forage for terrestrial prey in the savannas of the Brazilian Pampas (**Figure 3**). Further support comes from the alternative ways to unlock the species habitat before telemetry information can properly elucidate this issue. A road-killed young male Pampa cat had a tick (*Amblyomma tigrinum*) whose life cycle is associated with weeds present only in virgin native fields. Casual observations lead us to assume that, although the species presents a greater diurnal activity, it would also present nocturnal activity (FD Mazim, pers. obs.), unlike the northern species of the country, *Leopardus braccatus*, whose activity is mostly diurnal [46, 47].

During four encounters with observations of females with cubs, the number of cubs varied between 1 and 2, with an average of 1.25. Birth estimates would be for early summer, late summer and early spring, and late spring/early summer (**Figure 4**). When they detect danger, the cubs enter armadillo burrows (*Euphractus sexcinctus*), or they crouch down to the ground, as do adults when hiding from an imminent threat.

#### **6. The rarity of the species: Carnivores and the pampas**

The summarization of the records obtained in the last 25 years was sufficient to obtain only 32 concrete records of the Pampa cat within the Brazilian Pampas. These comprised 2 (6.25%) camera-trap records, 9 (28%) visual observations, 17 (53%)

#### **Figure 4.**

*Rare views, Pampa cat (Leopaurdus munoai) mother and cub playing (photo: Caio Sarmento Belleza) and a cub that was playing with a piece of tyre by the side of the highway (photo: Michel Correia).*

road-kill specimens and 4 (12.5%) hunted individuals (**Table 1**). This would lead to an average of only 1.28 records per year. The overall relative abundance index (RAI) for all areas was a paltry 0.004 ind/100 trap-nights. Comparatively, rarity in terms of abundance of photographic records for Neotropical mammals was considered at 0.300 ind/100 trap-nights [63]. The inexorable rarity of *Leopardus munoai* is confirmed by comparing it with the observations of other sympatric cats, as well as other grassland carnivores for all indices – **Table 1**. Ironically, the Pampa cat is the rarest


#### **Table 1.**

*Records of the Pampa cat (Leopardus munoai), other sympatric felids and carnivores in the Brazilian pampas between 1997 and 2022.*

#### *The Critically Endangered Pampa Cat (*Leopardus munoai*) on the Brink of Extinction… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112162*

felid in the Pampas, 100 times rarer than Geoffroy's cat and even the margay, a species that is notorious for living in the forests though present in a mostly grassland biome.

At the Saicã site, two records were obtained after 1080 trap-nights or 25,920 hours of camera trapping that focused on the native fields free that have been from agriculture for at least 40 years. This would yield a relative abundance of 0.185 ind/100 trapnights in the supposedly prime *L. munoai* habitat, which is far below the threshold of 0.300 ind/100 trap-nights proposed as the rarity index for medium-large Neotropical mammals on camera [48]. Considering the additional camera trapping carried out at other habitats not favored by the species (e.g., forest formations and crop edges), the relative abundance after 1975 trap-nights would drop to 0.101 ind./100 trap-nights, far below those presented by Geoffroy's cat (1.266 ind/100 trap-nights) and the margay (0.608 ind/100 trap-nights) in the same area. Nevertheless, *L. munoai*'s index was on par with that reported for its sister species, *Leopardus braccatus,* in the northern savannas (0.119 ind/100 trap-nights; [34]). Perhaps the Saicã estimate would be more appropriate in areas where the species might still be found.

In the 19th century, the Pampa cat was already considered rare by Ihering [44] and Araújo [45], both citing the species as being in population decline in the Coastal Plain and in the Serra do Sudeste (currently the municipalities of Pelotas, Canguçu, Morro Redondo, and Arroio do Padre), eastern-central portion of the Pampas, with a tendency to isolation in the native fields of the western border of the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Salvini [49] emphasized that in the fields of the extreme southeast of the Coastal Plain, between the municipalities of Santa Vitória do Palmar and Chuí, the species was practically extinct due to retaliatory and sport hunting by chicken farmers and the increasing reduction and degradation of native fields. In addition, it is a species that, since its type registration carried out in 1923, has less than 200 independent records throughout its entire geographical distribution zone [8, 17], which equates to less than two records per year, notably of individuals killed, run over, or hunted. The species became so scarce everywhere that any signs of it are becoming subject of publication [50].

#### **7. Assessing the current species range and the expected population size**

The model results were robust, with high predictive power (AUC = 0.89), low omission rate of test samples (o.r. = 0.13), and were highly significant (*P* < 0.001). The top three variables that influenced Pampa cat distribution were annual temperature range (% contribution = 44.6), mean annual rainfall (% contribution = 26.5), and isothermality (% contribution = 25.4). Suitability increased with mid values of annual temperature range (22–23°C, **Figure 5A**), rainfall (1350–1400 mm, **Figure 5B**), and increased isothermality (**Figure 5C**). Model results indicated a suitable area of 54,860 km2 in 1997, which by 2021 had declined by 42%, resulting in 31,808 km<sup>2</sup> of suitable habitat left for the species in the Pampas region of the state (**Figure 6**). The bulk of this region is located in the central-southern portion of the state, along the Uruguayan border. Given the very few recent records of the species, it is likely that the Pampa cat is in fact absent from most of the suitable remaining habitat. On the other hand, if properly protected, the remaining suitable habitat is still large enough for reintroduction programs aided by ex situ conservation. Given the current rates of habitat loss in the Brazilian Pampas, it is expected that this suitable area will be even smaller as of 2023. Modeling conducted for Uruguay showed higher suitability for two main areas, both wetlands, while Tirelli's prediction indicated Rio Grande do Sul with most part of the suitable area remaining [17].

#### **Figure 5.**

*Predicted habitat suitability of the Pampa cat (Leopardus munoai) in response to: A) annual temperature range; B) mean annual rainfall; C) isothermality.*

#### **Figure 6.**

*Suitable habitat for Pampa cat in 1997 and 2021. Potential suitable habitat in 1997 was derived from Maxent models. Suitable habitat in 2021 was obtained by removing areas in which natural habitat was lost between 1997 and 2021.*

Considering all the suitable areas remaining and the lower levels of population densities known for small Neotropical cats, 0.01 ind./km2 and 0.0014 ind./km2 [51], we would expect a total population of 45 to 318 individuals in Brazil. With a higher likelihood towards the lower values. The field-based best estimate of total population of no more than 50 individuals matched the lower predicted value. As such, we would consider the total remaining adult population of Pampa cat in Brazil to be 45–50 individuals. No field-based estimates and population information is available for Uruguay and Argentina. Bou et al. [52] estimated 144,483.3 km<sup>2</sup> of suitable habitat for the species in Uruguay, however with only 42 records in the country, it is likely that large swaths of otherwise suitable habitat are in fact devoid of Pampa cats.

From this conversion of the native matrix into agricultural areas, assuming that the same has happened in the registration points of Tirelli et al. [17], based on the 24 demographic scenarios evaluated, which, in various estimates, indicated that this feline might be critically endangered, the best-estimated scenario resulted in a population of 8866 mature individuals, which would decline to 1064, and which differs

#### *The Critically Endangered Pampa Cat (*Leopardus munoai*) on the Brink of Extinction… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112162*

from the reality observed in the field, while the worst estimated scenario resulted in 62 mature individuals, currently reduced to eight mature specimens throughout its geographical distribution. Our current lower estimates of 45–50 individuals fall within similar levels of the worst scenario cited by Tirelli et al. [17]. Possibly relictual individuals survive as nomads, thus decreasing the chances of reproductive encounters and increasing the chances of being run over and exposure to predation by domestic dogs. To date, records of the species, especially visual observations and camera trapping, have never been repeated at the same point or location, at least in Brazil. Even in the five rare events in which individuals were observed with pups, they were never seen again in those same spots since these places had already been converted into soybean fields. Based on the difficulty involved in finding records, the rarity of herbaceous fields, the exponential conversion of native virgin fields into fields for crops, highway losses, hunting as a form of retaliation, predation by domestic dogs, possible contamination by diseases transmitted by domestic animals (dogs and cats) and possible problems of genetic stochasticity, it is believed that the most negative scenario is the most accurate. Not to mention that the conversion of native fields into soybean crops is widespread throughout the Brazilian Pampa, where arable fields are present, with deep and non-rocky soil. Considering the rarity of records and predictions for Uruguay [52], the projections of Tirelli et al. [17] and our field-based estimates, the total worldwide population of the Pampa cat would unlikely be much above 100–120 individuals, which is still very critical.

As an aggravating factor, there are no concrete records of the Pampa cat in conservation units in the Brazilian Pampas [53], and it is only mentioned that throughout its geographical distribution some protected areas have habitat suitability to support its presence [17]. At the same time, there is no allocation of government funds to create new protected areas nor intention to do so, which leaves populations at the mercy of the impacts or at the mercy of the management of private properties. However, within the current scenario, even if new conservation units are implemented, the disappearance and degradation of the fields leave the protected areas isolated. At the same time, since we do not know the minimum size of the species' territory and other basic aspects of spatial ecology and natural history, there is a risk that the size and place of implementation of a protected area are in regions that are not favorable for the maintenance of the species.

Moreover, another immediate negative factor, and a currently growing one in the rural matrix of the Pampas, is the passing of fields to the heirs of families that have traditionally been cattle breeders, and end up belonging to generations that settle in the urban area, and tend not to follow in the cultural footsteps of their ancestors in the gaucho cattle ranching tradition. These abandon traditional livestock farming and, after inheriting the fields, often opt to lease the land for the cultivation of rice and soybeans, since it is more profitable.

#### **8. The dooming of an endemic species**

There have been massive mammal extinctions in the Brazilian Pampas, such as those of the jaguar (*Panthera onca*), tapir (*Tapirus terrestris*), giant river otter (*Pteronura brasiliensis*), marsh deer *(Blastocerus dichotomus*), collared peccary (*Dicotyles tajacu*), white-lipped peccary (*Pecari tajacu*) and giant anteater (*Myrmecophaga tridactyla*). Additionally, there are only relictual populations of puma (*Puma concolor*), maned wolf (*Chrysocyon brachyurus*), and Pampas deer (*Ozotoceros bezoarticus*). All this coincides with the replacement by the agriculture of the traditional gaucho culture of cattle-raising in native fields [23, 44, 45, 49]. Thus, the Pampas is considered the Brazilian biome that loses more native vegetation than any other. At the same time, one in four hectares of native vegetation in the Pampas is secondary formation, i.e., one that has already been suppressed at least once and ended up regenerating [41].

The current agricultural exploitation, mainly the cultivation of soybeans and rice, has mischaracterized the native rural matrix of the Pampas in Brazil and also in the Uruguayan Pampa (natural formations forming the Uruguayan savanna), thus restricting continuously and annually the availability of favorable fields for the occurrence of the Pampa cat. This fact seems to be the main motivator of the records of the species along the highways, even the visual ones, since in the vast majority of cases, the domain bands (linear land space, present between the highway and private properties) are not suppressed and are impacted by grain plantations. This condition allows the development of vegetation that is typical of native fields and the presence of their natural prey, which becomes the only fields that are preserved with aspects close to the original configuration in most regions of the Pampas. At the same time that the domain lanes of the highways offer conditions for the maintenance of the population of the Pampa cat, they result in direct mortality due to road accidents, since it brings individuals closer to traffic and restricts them from living near vehicle traffic. Another historical and cultural impact on the Pampa cat and other felines of the Pampas refers to hunting motivated by prevention or retaliation, as a way of controlling alleged predators of domestic birds [53, 54].

It is crucial to emphasize that most of the Uruguayan savanna ecoregion is categorized as having the greatest future threat of conversion, with virtually all acreage severely altered by agriculture [55]. As an example, between 2002 and 2016, a 190-kilometre stretch of highway (BR-293), located between the cities of Pinheiro Machado and Dom Pedrito, in the extreme south of the Pampa biome, recorded 11 individuals run over and, as of 2017, this repetition or concentration was no longer evidenced, since two individuals were counted. Notably, this occurred in a period when native fields with livestock had accelerated replacement by soybean crops [41].

In Brazil, the Pampa cat lives in the smallest and most-degraded ecosystem and biome, that also has the greatest disregard in terms of the release of government resources for surveillance and research. This is perhaps motivated by the fact that the Pampas biome does not have the environmental lobby and charisma that the Amazon, the Atlantic Forest and the Pantanal have, both nationally and, above all, globally. This scenario also reduces the chances of financing via private initiatives. The natural absence of large forest cover (showcase of conservation) makes the Pampas biome (as well as the Uruguayan savanna) not very emblematic, added to the absence of charismatic species such as the jaguar as well as other large mammals that became extinct in the 19th century [44, 56, 57].

Since 2008, the Pampa cat is no longer recorded in the southern and central portions of the Coastal Plain of the Pampas biome (state of Rio Grande do Sul). However, before this period, only two confirmed records were obtained in this region, both on the edges of the BR-116, one in 2002 from a visual observation (municipality of Cristal) and another in 2008 from an individual found run over (municipality of Jaguarão). It is in this region of the extreme east of the Pampas biome that the Patos/ Mirim lagoon complex is located, which has the phytophysionomy of a floodplain and water-logged fields, with natural environments converted almost entirely into rice

#### *The Critically Endangered Pampa Cat (*Leopardus munoai*) on the Brink of Extinction… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112162*

crops since the 1940s, though with greater intensity from the 1970s onwards. There the shallower water-logged fields were drained for rice planting, which, as of 2010, has been replaced by soybean crops.

It is important to highlight that, since 2010, the two main highways (BR-101 and BR-116) that cover 100% of the surface of the Pampas Coastal Plain (northsouth direction) are monitored daily by expert consultants and traffic operators of the highway concessionaires in the search for run over specimens, as condition of the environmental license that was granted. However, even with this daily effort, the Pampa cat has not been recorded.

Another scenario that is capable of revealing the rarity of the species is in the official records of the supervisory agencies. In all the records, only two individuals of Pampa cat have been admitted to fauna rehabilitation centres in Brazil, and both were orphaned cubs, one male specimen in the early 2000s (municipal zoo of Cachoeira do Sul) and the other a female in 2014 (CETAS/IBAMA/RS and then sent to the zoo at Gramado). In Uruguay, three individuals are currently part of an ex situ conservation program, as part of the M'bopicuá BioPark, with the aggravating factor that two specimens are siblings, thus reducing opportunities for non-parental crosses, in other words, the species may become rapidly and concomitantly extinct in nature and on the planet.

The doomsday scenario presented, although referring to Brazil, in great part would also reflect the remaining areas of its range, and the little information known does not differ from what is presented here. As such, the road to extinction that is portrayed for the Pampa cat in Brazil likely reflects its overall scenario [17, 52]. The last extinction of a felid species are known only from the time of the Pleistocene, when sabre-tooth tigers, cave-lions, the American cheetah and others disappeared [58]. There have been unfortunate extinctions of several large felids, such as the South China, Java and Bali tigers, and the Atlas lion, but these refer to subspecies/ populations and not of an entire species. There are certainly other small and large felid species and subspecies on the road to extinction, such as the Iberian lynx (*Lynx pardinus*), the tiger (*Panthera tigris*), the Borneo bay cat (*Catopuma badia*), the flatheaded cat (*Prionailurus planiceps*), and the Andean cat (*Leopardus jacobita*), to name a few [59–62], but none of them are remotely close to the situation portrayed here for the Pampa cat. The Iberian lynx was the species that got the closest to becoming extinct, but after a massive effort to protect and expand its population, the species recovered from a few 100 or so to nearly 400 individuals and is currently on the rise to the point of having been downlisted from critically endangered to endangered [59]. Unfortunately, the Pampa cat is in a worse situation than that of the Iberian lynx in the late 1970s. There is no known population established anywhere (not to mention in protected areas), and no strong financial support, particularly because the species has not been even properly recognized as such by the IUCN, nor does it have strong financial support from the European Union that the Iberian lynx had. Without taking immediate and forceful action, as the old saying goes, "all roads lead to Rome", the road will soon lead to extinction, the first one of a full species in the modern age!

This sad journey should serve as a warning lesson for two other small felids from Brazil that are also found in agricultural lands and that have already suffered considerable habitat losses, so far being pushed along the same path towards extinction as the Pampa cat. These are the Brazilian Pampa cat (*Leopardus braccatus*), its sister species, and the savanna tiger cat (*Leopardus tigrinus*), both found in the dwindling savannas of Brazil. There is still time for these two; however, in order to avoid the demise of the remaining Pampa cats, a conservation action plan needs to be put into place immediately.

### **9. Conservation action plan for immediate implementation**

The main conservation action for the Pampa cat should be the protection of its habitat, the native herbaceous fields. However, for the protection of these fields, management is necessary, which fundamentally includes the presence of extensive grazing (cattle or sheep) without confinement. From the moment the cattle are removed from the fields, the configuration of the field vegetation becomes shrubby. On the other hand, with large stockings or confinement, the configuration of the fields is reduced to a thin carpet of grasses. Therefore, a field without livestock or with a high stocking of cattle tends to result in the absence of the Pampa cat.

As a crucial measure to maintain the extensive form of breeding, there is an urgent need to create and implement environmental quality seals that value animal protein (green beef) produced extensively in virgin native fields or those in an advanced stage of recovery. This would be an alternative to add value to livestock, encouraging the rural producer not to migrate and convert the fields into soybean crops. The scope of these programs to monetize the protein produced in the native fields should cover the cross-border scope between Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, especially in the international corridors of more connected natural areas, as suggested by Tirelli et al. [17].

The creation of the seal of quality must include the name of the Pampa cat. Given that the species occurs in an environment intended for food production, its presence should leverage monetization; otherwise, it may be viewed negatively, and accelerate the process of converting fields into crops, since landowners, upon becoming aware of the rarity of this species, may associate and fear that the presence of the Pampa cat on their properties will result in the embargo of their fields. In summary, the presence of this feline must be seen as a possibility of increasing income, in other words, making livestock economically competitive with purely agricultural activities (soybean and rice crops).

A certification program for soybean and rice crops also appears as an alternative arrangement, especially in the subsidy of agricultural areas with the planning of field corridors between crops, thus subsidizing the areas with the presence of the Pampa cat.

	- Subprogram 3.1. Capture and take free-living individuals to centres included in the ex situ conservation program.

*The Critically Endangered Pampa Cat (*Leopardus munoai*) on the Brink of Extinction… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112162*

	- Subprogram 6.1: Set up a multidisciplinary consultancy team (professional feline specialist, wildlife veterinarian, agronomist and professionals in the field of communication, marketing, economics, and culture).
	- Subprogram 6.2: Multidisciplinary consultancy service working in an integrated way with the relevant agencies (IBAMA, State Secretariat, Public Prosecutor's Office, Environmental Military Police).
	- Subprogram 6.3: Multidisciplinary consultancy service working in an integrated way with parliamentarians linked to agricultural cooperatives to improve relations between rural producers, researchers, and public managers.

#### **10. Concluding remarks**

Based on the exponential conversion of native fields, initially into rice plantations, and currently mostly in soybean crops, and the relation to the annual reduction in records, we can infer that the Pampa cat will not survive extinction per se and require immediate human intervention. Unfortunately, measures such as environmental education do not offer guarantees of changes in the current situation – which are necessary after the start of the conservation action plan – because the Pampa cat lives in an environment that is destined to become a voluminous and profitable economic area of production (the fields) and, if its presence in native fields with extensive livestock is not a clearly advantageous income alternative, as or more profitable than soybeans, its preferred habitat will inevitably be annihilated.

Associated with exponential habitat loss, another main factor in the struggle of the Pampa cat against imminent extinction, is its specialist ecology in terms of quality and physiognomies of the fields, where, although its concrete bioecological needs and its basic spatial ecology are still unknown, the records of two decades demonstrate that the species depends on specific typologies of native fields, especially virgin fields, without shrubby vegetation or simply summarized as sparse grassy fields. In a preliminary way, its records have an association with virgin herbaceous native fields, composed of weeds in the dry areas and straw in the humid areas, both with moderate grazing (livestock fields), since the withdrawal of cattle grazing makes the fields shrubby, and thus results in the disappearance of this feline. It is important to report that, in fields without cattle breeding, where shrubby vegetation is formed by grazing, the species was not recorded. The same is observed in fields with large numbers of cattle, which are restricted to a sparse configuration composed of grasses.

Therefore, it is recommended that the actions proposed as an attempt to reduce the imminent risk of extinction of the species should be used concomitantly (research and conservation), with the main focus on the monetization of livestock in the native fields, through the creation of environmental seals. This guarantees the presence of physical spaces (fields) that are favorable to the species, in order to be seen as a

feasible guarantee of income by landowners; otherwise, there will be no justification for maintaining the fields, given the great profitability generated by soybean crops. Another consequence of the loss of native fields is the annihilation not only of the Pampa cat and the biodiversity associated with it, but also of an intangible anthropological heritage, notably the culture of the gaucho people, which was forged by cattle breeding.

The conservation of native fields for livestock is the most sustainable campesino economic system for the conservation of rural biodiversity and, fundamentally, for the regional culture (gaucho), since livestock farming in the Pampas does not result from deforestation, and, since its beginning around 1620 [63], it has been conducted on natural pastures. In summary, this is the most appropriate economic vocation of the Pampas and is the most sustainable and responsible for maintaining regional biodiversity and culture. Unfortunately, the current scenario reveals that new farmers or field heirs tend not to continue the socioeconomic practices conducted by their livestock farming ancestors, and they are inclined to convert native fields into crops in order to achieve greater financial returns.

The negative factors regarding the Pampa cat have been reported for at least a century and indicate an increase in this pressure every year, which restricts *Leopardus munoai* to a species composed of relictual and perhaps nomadic individuals, possibly with inbreeding occurring. In this way, the current scenario allows us to postulate that the Pampa cat is in fact the most threatened feline on Earth and may become extinct without even being formally recognized and known. Unfortunately, if the current scenario is maintained, this endemic feline of the Pampas will be extinct in the wild in less than a decade.

### **Author details**

Fábio Dias Mazim1,2, Paulo Guilherme Carniel Wagner3,4, Lester Alexander Fox-Rosales<sup>5</sup> , Alisson da Rosa Boÿink6 and Tadeu Gomes de Oliveira1,7\*

1 Instituto Pró-Carnívoros, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

2 Ka'aguy Consultoria Ambiental Ltda, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

3 Centro de Triagem de Animais Silvestres, Superintendência do Ibama no Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

4 Laboratório de Protozoologia e Rickettsioses Vetoriais, Faculdade de Veterinária-Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

5 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Animal da Universidade Estadual do Maranhão, São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil

6 Zoológico Municipal de Cachoeira do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

7 Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual do Maranhão, Campus Universitário Paulo VI, São Luís, MA, Brazil

\*Address all correspondence to: tadeu4@yahoo.com

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Oliveira TG, Cassaro K. Guia de Campo dos Felinos do Brasil. São Paulo: Instituto Pró-Carnívoros/Fundação Parque Zoológico de São Paulo/SZB/Pró-Vida Brasil; 2005

[2] Kitchener AC, Breitenmoser-Würsten C, Eizirik E, Gentry A, Werdelin L, Wilting A, et al. A revised taxonomy of the Felidae. The final report of the cat classification task force of the IUCN/SSC cat specialist group. Cat News Special Issue. 2017;(11):80

[3] Nascimento FO, Cheng J, Feijó A. Taxonomic revision of the pampas cat Leopardus colocola complex (Carnivora: Felidae): an integrative approach. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society [Internet]. 28 May 2020;**191**(2):1-37. Available from: https://academic.oup. com/zoolinnean/advance-article/ doi/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlaa043/5848237

[4] Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth. Bioscience. 2001;**51**(11):933-938

[5] Johnson WE, Slattery JP, Eizirik E, Kim JH, Menotti Raymond M, Bonacic C, et al. Disparate phylogeographic patterns of molecular genetic variation in four closely related south American small cat species. Molecular Ecology. 1999;**8**(s1):S79-S94. [Internet] Available from: http://doi.wiley. com/10.1046/j.1365-294X.1999.00796.x

[6] Sartor CC. Estrutura populacional de Leopardus colocolo (Carnivora, Felidae): definindo unidades demográficas para a conservação da espécie no Brasil [Internet]. Porto Alegre: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; 2016

Available from: https://lume.ufrgs.br/ handle/10183/143875

[7] da Silva SA, Trigo TC, de Oliveira TG, Silveira L, Eizirik E. Phylogeographic analyses of the pampas cat (Leopardus colocola; Carnivora, Felidae) reveal a complex demographic history. Genetics Molecular. 2018;**41**(1 suppl 1):273-287. [Internet] Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo. php?script=sci\_arttext&pid=S1415- 47572018000200273&lng=en&tlng =en

[8] Martínez-Lanfranco JA, González EM. The oldest available name for the pampas cat of the Uruguayan Savannah ecoregion is Leopardus fasciatus (Larrañaga 1923). Therya. 2022;**13**(3):259-264. [Internet] Available from: http://132.248.10.25/therya/index. php/THERYA/article/view/1187

[9] García-Perea R. The pampas cat Group (genus Lynchailurus Severtzov, 1858) (Carnivora: Felidae), a systematic and biogeographic review. American Museum Novitates. 1994;**3096**:35

[10] Overbeck G, Muller S, Fidelis A, Pfadenhauer J, Pillar V, Blanco C, et al. Brazil's neglected biome: The south Brazilian Campos. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 2007;**9**(2):101-116. [Internet] Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S1433831907000303

[11] Andrade BO, Bonilha CL, Overbeck GE, Vélez-Martin E, Rolim RG, Bordignon SAL, et al. Classification of south Brazilian grasslands: Implications for conservation. Jansen F, editor. Applied Vegetation Science. 2019;**22**(1):168-184. [Internet] Available from: https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1111/avsc.12413

*The Critically Endangered Pampa Cat (*Leopardus munoai*) on the Brink of Extinction… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112162*

[12] Menezes LS, Ely CV, Lucas DB, Minvervini-Silva GH, Vélez-Martin E, Hasenack H, et al. Reference values and drivers of diversity for south Brazilian grassland plant communities. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 2022;**94**(1):1-20. [Internet] Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo. php?script=sci\_arttext&pid=S0001- 37652022000101021&tlng=en

[13] Loyola RD, Kubota U, da Fonseca GAB, Lewinsohn TM. Key Neotropical ecoregions for conservation of terrestrial vertebrates. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2009;**18**(8):2017-2031 [Internet] Available from: http://link. springer.com/10.1007/s10531-008-9570-6

[14] FZB. Decreto N 51.797 de 8 de Setembro de 2014. Porto Alegre: Estado do Rio Grande do Sul Assambleia Legislativa; 2014

[15] González EM, Martínez-Lanfranco JA, Juri E, Rodales AL, Botto G, Soutullo Á. Mamíferos. In: Soutullo A, Clavijo C, Martínez-Lanfranco JA, editors. Especies prioritárias para la conservación en Uruguay. Montevideo: SNAP/DINAMA/ MVOTMA/DICYT/MEC; 2013. pp. 175-207

[16] Lucherini M, Eizirik E, de Oliveira TG, Pereira JA, Williams RSR. *Leopardus colocolo* [Internet]. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T15309A9720444. 2015. Available from: https://www.iucnredlist.org/ species/15309/97204446

[17] Tirelli FP, Trigo TC, Queirolo D, Kasper CB, Bou N, Peters F, et al. High extinction risk and limited habitat connectivity of Muñoa's pampas cat, an endemic felid of the Uruguayan Savanna ecoregion. Journal for Nature Conservation. 2021;**62**(May):126009. [Internet] Available from: https://

linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S161713812100056X

[18] de Almeida CE, D'Elía G, Percequillo AR. Taxonomic review of genus Sooretamys Weksler, Percequillo & Voss (Rodentia: Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae): An integrative approach. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2014;**171**(4):842-877. [Internet] Available from: https:// academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/ article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12146

[19] Feijó A, Cordeiro-Estrela P. Taxonomic revision of the Dasypus kappleri complex, with revalidations of Dasypus pastasae (Thomas, 1901) and Dasypus beniensis Lönnberg, 1942 (Cingulata, Dasypodidae). Zootaxa. 2016;**4170**(2):271. [Internet] Available from: http://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/ view/zootaxa.4170.2.3

[20] Feijó A, Patterson BD, Cordeiro-Estrela P. Taxonomic revision of the long-nosed armadillos, genus Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Cingulata). Hubbe A, editor. PLoS One; 2018;**13**(4):e0195084. [Internet] Available from: https://dx.plos. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195084

[21] Martino D. Conservación de praderas en el conosur: valoración de las áreas protegidas existentes. Revista Ecosistemas. 2004;**13**(2):1-12

[22] Overbeck GE, Vélez-Martin E, Scarano FR, Lewinsohn TM, Fonseca CR, Meyer ST, et al. Conservation in Brazil needs to include non-forest ecosystems. Loyola R, editor. Diversity and Distributions. 2015;**21**(12):1455-1460. [Internet] Available from: https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ ddi.12380

[23] Queirolo D. Diversidade e padrões de distribuição de mamíferos dos campos

do uruguai e sul do brasil. Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay. 2016;**25**(2):92-247. [Internet] Available from: http://szu.org.uy/journal/index. php/Bol\_SZU/article/view/11

[24] Ximénez A. Nueva subespecie del gato pajero en el Uruguay Felis colocola muñoai n. ssp. Comunicaciones zoológicas del Museo de Historia Natural de Montevideo. 1961;**5**:1-8

[25] Larrañaga DA. Escritos de Don Dámaso Antonio Larrañaga, tomo II. Montevideo: Instituto Histórico y Geográfico del Uruguay; 1923

[26] IBGE. Mapa da vegetação do Brasil e Mapa de Biomas do Brasil [Internet]. 2004. Available from: https://ww2. ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/ noticias/21052004biomashtml. shtm#sub\_download.2004.

[27] Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol earth. Systems Science. 2007;**11**(5):1633-1644. [Internet] Available from: https://hess.copernicus. org/articles/11/1633/2007/

[28] Porto ML. Os campos sulinos: sustentabilidade e manejo. Cienc Ambient. 2002;**24**(4):119-138

[29] Buriol GA, Estefanel V, de Chagas ÁC , Eberhardt D. Clima e vegetação natural do estado do Rio Grande do Sul segundo o diagrama climático de Walter e Lieth. Ciência Florest. 2007;**17**(2):91-100. [Internet] Available from: https:// periodicos.ufsm.br/cienciaflorestal/ article/view/1940

[30] Quadros FL, de Pillar VP. Transições florestas-campo no Rio Grande do Sul. Cienc Ambient. 2002;**2**:109-118

[31] Marchiori JNC. Fitogeografia do Rio Grande do Sul: campos sulinos. Porto Alegre: Edições ES; 2004. p. 110

[32] Verdum R. O pampa: ainda desconhecido. Revista do Instituto Humanitas Unisinos. 2006;**183**:4-9

[33] Marques RV, Mazim FD. A utilização de armadilhas fotográficas para o estudo de mamíferos de médio e grande porte. Cad La Salle XI. 2005;**2**(1):219-228

[34] de Oliveira TG, Lima BC, Fox-Rosales L, Pereira RS, Pontes-Araújo E, de Sousa AL. A refined population and conservation assessment of the elusive and endangered northern tiger cat (Leopardus tigrinus) in its key worldwide conservation area in Brazil. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2020;**22**:1-14

[35] Fox-Rosales LA, de Oliveira TG. Habitat use patterns and conservation of small carnivores in a humandominated landscape of the semiarid Caatinga in Brazil. Mammalian Biology. 2022;**102**(2):465-475. [Internet] Available from:. DOI: 10.1007/s42991-022-00245-3

[36] Fox-Rosales LA, de Oliveira TG. Interspecific patterns of small cats in an intraguild-killer free area of the threatened Caatinga drylands, Brazil. Cristescu B, editor. PLoS One. 2023;**18**(4):e0284850. [Internet] Available from:. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0284850

[37] Sikes RS, Gannon WL. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. Journal of Mammalogy. 2011;**92**(1):235-253. [Internet] Available from: https://academic. oup.com/jmammal/article-lookup/ doi/10.1644/10-MAMM-F-355.1

[38] O'Brien TG, Kinnaird MF, Wibisono HT. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation. 2003;**6**(2):131-139

*The Critically Endangered Pampa Cat (*Leopardus munoai*) on the Brink of Extinction… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112162*

[39] Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling. 2006;**190**(3-4):231-259. [Internet] Available from: https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S030438000500267X

[40] Fick SE, Hijmans RJ. WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology. 2017;**37**(12):4302-4315. [Internet] Available from: https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.5086

[41] Souza CM, Shimbo ZJ, Rosa MR, Parente LL, Alencar A, BFT R, et al. Reconstructing three decades of land use and land cover changes in Brazilian biomes with Landsat archive and earth engine. Remote Sensing. 2020;**12**(17):2735. [Internet] Available from: https://www.mdpi. com/2072-4292/12/17/2735

[42] Migliorini RP, Peters FB, Favarini MO, Kasper CB. Trophic ecology of sympatric small cats in the Brazilian Pampa. PLoS One. 2018;**13**(7):1-13

[43] Cabrera A, Yepes J. Mamíferos Sudamericanos. Buenos Aires: EDIAR; 1961

[44] Ihering HV. Os mamíferos do Rio Grande do Sul. In: Gundlach K, editor. Annuário do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul para o Anno 1892. Porto Alegre. 1892. pp. 96-123

[45] Araujo F. Principais representantes da fauna do Município - Mamífero s e Aves. Pelotas: Ed. Livraria Comercial; 1897. pp. 24-27

[46] de Oliveira TG, Tortato MA, Silveira L, Kasper CB, Mazim FD, Lucherini M, et al. Ocelot ecology and its effect on the small- felid guild in the lowland neotropics ocelot ecology and its effect on the. In: Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ, editors. Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. pp. 559-580

[47] Lima BC. Of Small Cats and Dogs: Interspecific Relationships of Wild Cats and Domestic Carnivores in the Northern Savannas of Brazil. São Luís: Maranhão State University; 2020

[48] de Oliveira TG, Michalski F, Botelho ALM, Michalski LJ, Calouro AM, Desbiez ALJ. How rare is rare? Quantifying and assessing the rarity of the bush dog Speothos venaticus across the Amazon and other biomes. Oryx. DOI: 10.1017/S0030605316000624

[49] Salvini RO. Pindurama Sulina: O que produz e o que deveria produzir o município de Santa Vitória. Rio Grande, Brasil, Professor Lyceu Salsiano Leão XIII. 1936. p. 104

[50] Álvarez Pinna CM, López MJ, Pereira JA. Nuevo registro del gato de pajonal uruguayo Leopardus munoai (Ximénez, 1961) (Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae) en el centro de la República Oriental del Uruguay. Notas sobre Mamíferos Sudamericanos. 2023;**05**(1):001-004. [Internet] Available from: https://ojs.sarem.org.ar/index.php/ nms/article/view/907

[51] de Oliveira TG, Mazim FD, Marques RV, Fox-Rosales LA, Kasper CB, Marinho PH, et al. Demographic and spatial patterns of small felids in Brazil and the ocelot effect. In: 100th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mammalogists. Online. Even3Publicações; 2021

[52] Bou N, Cuyckens GAE, González EM, Meneghel M. Conservation planning

in Uruguay based on small felids (Leopardus spp.) as umbrella species. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment. 2019;**54**(3):169-180. [Internet] Available from:. DOI: 10.1080/01650521.2019.1669421

[53] Mazim FD, Dias RA, Fermun M, Salazar EA, Silva JCF. Novos registros de carnívoros para o sul do Rio Grande do Sul. In: Congresso Brasileiro de Mastozoologia. Belo Horizonte: Suprema; 2003. p. 47

[54] Peters F, Mazim FD, Favarini MO, Soares JBG, de Oliveira TG. Caça preventiva ou retaliativa de felinos por humanos no extremo sul do Brasil. In: Lasso CA, Hoogesteijn R, Díaz-Pulido A, Payán E, Castaño-Uribe C, editors. Conflictos entre felinos y humanos en América Latina. Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt; 2016. p. 311-321

[55] Oakleaf JR,

Kennedy CM, Baruch-Mordo S, West PC, Gerber JS, Jarvis L, et al. A world at risk: Aggregating development trends to forecast global habitat conversion. Kumar L, editor. PLoS One. 2015;**10**(10):e0138334. [Internet] Available from: https://dx.plos. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138334

[56] Indrusiak C, Eizirik E. Carnívoros. In: Bencke GA, Reis RE, editors. Livro vermelho da fauna ameaçada de extinção no Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre: Edipucrs; 2003. p. 632

[57] Mahler J, Schneider JKF. Ungulados. In: Livro Vermelho da Fauna Ameaçada de Extinção no Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre: Edipucrs; 2003. pp. 247-565

[58] Antón M, Clark HF. The Big Cats & Their Fossil Relatives: An Illustrated Guide to their Evolution and Natural

History. 1st ed. New York: Columbia University Press; 1997

[59] Rodríguez A, Calzada J. *Lynx pardinus*. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2020:e. T12520A174111773. DOI: 10.2305/IUCN. UK.2015-2.RLTS.T12520A174111773.en

[60] Hearn A, Brodie J, Cheyne S, Loken B, Ross J, Wilting A. *Catopuma badia*. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016:e.T4037A112910221. DOI: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS. T4037A50650716.en

[61] Villalba L, Lucherini M, Walker S, Lagos N, Cossios D, Bennett M, et al. *Leopardus jacobita*. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016:e. T15452A50657407. DOI: 10.2305/IUCN. UK.2016-1.RLTS.T15452A50657407.en

[62] Goodrich J, Wibisono H, Miquelle D, Lynam AJ, Sanderson E, Chapman S, et al. Panthera tigris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2022:e. T15955A214862019. DOI: 10.2305/IUCN. UK.2022-1.RLTS.T15955A214862019.en

[63] Flores M. Historia do Rio Grande do Sul. 5th ed. Porto Alegre: Nova Dimensão; 1996

#### **Chapter 3**
