Resumo Vinte e sete espécies de carnívoros terrestres (Ordem Carnivora) habitam a Argentina, representando 10.0% e 38.6% da diversidade global e neotropical, respectivamente. Foram avaliados os principais tópicos de pesquisa sobre carnívoros na Argentina nos últimos 25 anos (1994-2018), considerando os maiores desafios de conservação que o grupo enfrenta. Ecologia alimentar e espacial, conflitos com a produção animal, impacto da caça e de espécies invasoras e genética da conservação foram abordados para algumas das maiores e mais carismáticas espécies de carnívoros. Além disso, foram identificadas lacunas temáticas e taxonômicas e discutidas quais pesquisas são consideradas importantes para lidar com as principais necessidades de conservação e manejo. São necessários mais estudos sobre tópicos como o papel ecológico dos carnívoros nos ecossistemas (incluindo o papel dos carnívoros em projetos de renaturalização de ecossistemas), métodos de mitigação para reduzir conflitos, estado de conservação de espécies raras ou menos conspícuas e impactos de ameaças emergentes, como mudanças climáticas, doenças e expansão de populações de cães selvagens.

Abstract Twenty-seven species of terrestrial carnivores (Order Carnivora) inhabit Argentina, representing 10.0% and 38.6% of the global and Neotropical diversity of terrestrial carnivores, respectively. We evaluate the main topics of research on carnivores in Argentina over the past 25 years (1994-2018) considering the great conservation challenges the group faces. Feeding and spatial ecology, conflicts with livestock production, impacts of hunting and invasive species, and conservation genetics have been addressed for some of the more charismatic and larger-bodied carnivore species. Also, we identify thematic and taxonomic gaps and discuss what research we believe is important to deal with key conservation and management needs. Further studies are needed on topics like the ecological role of carnivores in ecosystems (including carnivores’ role in rewilding projects), mitigation methods to reduce conflict, conservation status of rare or less conspicuous species, and impacts of emerging threats like climate change, disease, and expansion of feral dog populations.

The giant armadillo (Priodontes maximus) is a difficult species to study because of low population densities, combined with nocturnal and fossorial habits. No systematic population studies have been undertaken to date in Argentina. Our objectives were to evaluate the species’ presence, relative abundance, and temporal activity patterns across five locations with different levels of human disturbance and legal protection in the Argentine Chaco. Between June 2006 and January 2014, we completed 10 surveys, using camera trap and / or track plots, searches for burrows and tracks, and observations by local people and park rangers. We used camera trap records to determine presence, relative abundance (records / 100 camera days) and activity patterns. We only recorded the species at three locations: Copo National Park, Aborigen Reserve and La Fidelidad Resource Reserve. At the Aborigen Reserve we documented burrows and tracks but obtained no photographs. At Copo and La Fidelidad we estimated relative abundance at 0.08 and 0.40 records per 100 camera days, respectively. We did not record giant armadillos near the edges of La Fidelidad, nor in the two locations with greater human disturbance. Camera trap records indicate that giant armadillos in the Argentine Chaco are strongly nocturnal. The population status of giant armadillos in Argentina is a matter of concern. With few or no records at other study locations, La Fidelidad may harbor one of the few relict populations of giant armadillos in the Argentine Chaco.

El tatú carreta (Priodontes maximus) es una especie difícil de estudiar debido a sus hábitos nocturnos y fosoriales y a sus bajas densidades poblacionales. En Argentina no hay estudios poblacionales sistemáticos realizados previamente. Nuestro objetivo fue determinar la presencia, abundancia relativa y patrones de actividad temporal en cinco sitios con distinto grado de intervención humana y categoría de protección legal en el Chaco argentino. Entre junio de 2006 y enero de 2014 realizamos 10 muestreos utilizando cámaras-trampa, colocación de huelleros, recorridos de búsqueda de cuevas y rastros e información de pobladores locales y guardaparques. Utilizamos datos de cámaras-trampa para determinar la presencia, abundancia relativa (registros / 100 días cámara) y patrones de actividad. La especie fue registrada solamente en tres sitios: el Parque Nacional Copo, la Reserva Aborigen y la Reserva de Recursos La Fidelidad. En la Reserva Aborigen registramos cuevas y huellas, pero no obtuvimos fotografías. En Copo y en La Fidelidad estimamos la abundancia relativa en 0.08 y 0.40 registros cada 100 días-cámara respectivamente. No registramos tatúes ni en los bordes de La Fidelidad, ni en los dos sitios con mayor grado de disturbio humano. Los registros fotográficos indican que el tatú carreta es marcadamente nocturno en el Chaco Argentino. La situación poblacional del tatú carreta en Argentina es preocupante. Los escasos o nulos registros obtenidos en las otras áreas sugieren que La Fidelidad podría conservar uno de los pocos relictos poblacionales de tatú carreta en el Chaco Argentino.

In South America, yellow fever (YF) is an established infectious disease that has been identified outside of its traditional endemic areas, affecting human and nonhuman primate (NHP) populations. In the epidemics that occurred in Argentina between 2007-2009, several outbreaks affecting humans and howler monkeys (Alouatta spp) were reported, highlighting the importance of this disease in the context of conservation medicine and public health policies. Considering the lack of information about YF dynamics in New World NHP, our main goal was to apply modelling tools to better understand YF transmission dynamics among endangered brown howler monkey (Alouatta guariba clamitans) populations in northeastern Argentina. Two complementary modelling tools were used to evaluate brown howler population dynamics in the presence of the disease: Vortex, a stochastic demographic simulation model, and Outbreak, a stochastic disease epidemiology simulation. The baseline model of YF disease epidemiology predicted a very high probability of population decline over the next 100 years. We believe the modelling approach discussed here is a reasonable description of the disease and its effects on the howler monkey population and can be useful to support evidence-based decision-making to guide actions at a regional level.

We present the results of a camera trap survey conducted in 2008 in the Atlantic Forest of Iguazú National Park, Misiones, Argentina, testing whether placing camera traps on dirt roads/trails or in off-road locations produce important biases in the recorded species. Seven pairs of camera trap stations were active for 26.6 ± 8.9 days; for each pair, one station was located on a narrow unpaved road and the other about 50 m from the road. We used the first order Jackknife estimator to compare species richness between on-road vs. off-road locations. We used records from another camera trap survey conducted at Iguazú National Park in 2006-2007 to assess whether species with a high Road-use Index (ratio of photographs of animals walking along roads to photographs of animals crossing the roads) had a higher ratio of records on roads/off road stations in the 2008 survey. Multivariate ANOVA based on dissimilarities (ADONIS) was used to compare mammal assemblages recorded at stations located on roads vs. off roads. We obtained 228 independent records of 15 species of medium-large sized terrestrial mammals. Stations located on roads had a higher recording rate (1.06, SD = 0.57 vs. 0.24, SD = 0.13 records per day) and recorded more species than off-road stations (15 vs. 10 recorded species; 19.3, SE = 2.8 vs. 14.3, SE = 2.8 species estimated with the 1st order Jackknife model). Species differ in their relative probabilities of being recorded on roads vs. off roads, something that can be predicted with the Road-use Index. The ADONIS indicated that the mammal assemblage surveyed on roads was statistically dissimilar to that surveyed off roads, a result that can be explained by the differential tendency of the species to use roads and trails.

Presentamos los resultados de muestreos con cámaras trampa que realizamos en el Parque Nacional Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina, en 2008 para evaluar si ubicar las cámaras trampa en caminos o senderos o fuera de ellos afecta el ensamble de mamíferos muestreado. Siete pares de estaciones estuvieron activas durante 26.6 ± 8.9 días. Una estación de cada par estuvo ubicada en un camino de tierra angosto y no transitado; la otra a 50 m de distancia perpendicular del camino dentro del bosque. Usamos los registros de otro muestreo con cámaras trampa realizado en el parque nacional Iguazú en 2006-2007 para evaluar si las especies con una mayor proporción de fotos caminando sobre los senderos en lugar de cruzándolos transversal o tangencialmente (índice de uso de senderos) fueron relativamente más registradas en las estaciones ubicadas en senderos en 2008. Usamos el estimador Jackknife de primer orden para comparar la riqueza de especies en estaciones de senderos y fuera de ellos. Un ANOVA multivariado basado en disimilitudes (ADONIS) fue usado para comparar los ensambles de mamíferos registrados en caminos y fuera de ellos. Obtuvimos 228 registros independientes de 15 especies de mamíferos terrestres medianos-grandes. Las estaciones ubicadas en caminos tuvieron una mayor tasa de registros (1.06 ± 0.57 vs. 0.24 ± 0.13 registros/día) y una mayor riqueza que las estaciones fuera de ellos (15 vs. 10 especies observadas; 19.3, SE = 2.8 vs. 14.3, SE = 2.8 especies estimadas con el modelo Jackknife de 1er orden). Las especies difirieron en sus probabilidades relativas de ser registradas en caminos vs fuera de ellos, algo que puede predecirse a partir del índice de uso de senderos. El ADONIS indicó que el ensamble de mamíferos muestreado en caminos fue estadísticamente distinto al muestreado fuera de ellos, un resultado que puede ser explicado por la tendencia diferencial de las especies a usar los caminos.

Scientific and technical language may lead to confusion if the meaning of the terms used is not clear to the audience. The term habitat is part of the ecologists' jargon, and several authors have highlighted its ambiguous or confusing use in scientific publications. I conducted a poll among ecologists and other environmental scientists to know what is the meaning that they assign to the term habitat. I compared the results from this poll with the meaning that ecologists and other environmental scientists assigned to this word in research articles published in Ecología Austral. Most ecologists and environmental scientists considered that there is only one proper definition of habitat: "The habitat of an organism is the place where it lives, or the place where one should look for it". However, the most frequent use of this term in the analyzed research articles was as a synonym for "environment", a definition rarely selected by the professionals surveyed. Because there is more than one definition for the term habitat, and some of them are imposed by customary use, its meaning has to be interpreted by contextual clues. The best way to avoid confusion in the use of technical jargon is to define its meaning at the onset of a publication and to use it consistently throughout the text.

El vocabulario científico y técnico puede prestar a confusiones si el significado de los términos no es claro para la audiencia. El término hábitat es parte de la jerga de los ecólogos y varios autores han llamado la atención sobre su uso confuso o ambiguo en publicaciones científicas. Realicé una encuesta entre ecólogos y otros profesionales de las ciencias ambientales para conocer cuál es el significado que asignan al término hábitat. Comparé estos resultados con los de un análisis del uso que hacen los ecólogos y otros profesionales de las ciencias ambientales del término hábitat en artículos científicos publicados en Ecología Austral. La mayoría de estos profesionales consideran que hay una sola definición adecuada del término hábitat: "El hábitat de un organismo es el lugar donde vive o el lugar donde uno lo buscaría." Sin embargo, el uso más frecuente que hacen de este término en las publicaciones científicas analizadas es como sinónimo de ambiente, una definición pocas veces elegida como correcta en las encuestas. Dado que hay más de una acepción del término hábitat, algunas de ellas impuestas por la costumbre, su significado debe interpretarse por el contexto. Definir claramente la jerga científica utilizada al inicio de una publicación y usarla consistentemente en la misma es la mejor manera de evitar confusiones.