Fig 1.
a) Location of the Upper Parana Atlantic Forest (UPAF), Atlantic Forest (AF) and Misiones province, Argentina (in red). b) Location of the camera-trap stations during a survey conducted in the north of Misiones province between May 2013 and December 2014. The cameras were placed at continuous forest (CF, N = 53), fragmented forest (FF, N = 69) and pine plantations (PP, N = 62). c) Camera-trap stations placed in Misiones province between 2003 and 2016 (N = 586).
Table 1.
Frequency of camera trap records and number of stations with presence (in parentheses) of medium and small felids at different landscape conditions in northern Misiones province, Argentina, where a camera trap survey was conducted between May 2013 and December 2014.
Fig 2.
Effect of the human cost of access and habitat type on the occupancy probability of ocelots (ψ) in northern Misiones province, Argentina.
Fig 3.
Occupancy probability of southern tiger cats (ψB).
Location of the camera-trap stations (N = 184) with low (0–0.33, yellow), intermediate (0.34–0.66, orange), and high (0.67–1.00, red) occupancy probability of southern tiger cats according to the model of co-occurrence with the ocelot. Triangles = stations located in continuous forest, circles = forest fragment stations, squares = pine plantations.
Fig 4.
Activity and overlap of the small and medium felids.
Temporal activity and degree of overlap (shaded area) among: a) ocelot and margay, overlap coefficient (Δ) = 0.89 with 95% CI = 0.82–0.95; b) jaguarundi and margay, Δ = 0.17 with 95% CI = 0.09–0.25; c) ocelot and jaguarundi, Δ = 0.21 with 95% CI = 0.17–0.25; d) margay and southern tiger cat, Δ = 0.57 with 95% CI = 0.47–0.66; e) jaguarundi and southern tiger cat, Δ = 0.63 with 95% CI = 0.56–0.69; f) ocelot and southern tiger cat, Δ = 0.60 with 95% CI = 0.53–0.66.
Fig 5.
Activity of small felids according to the occupancy probability of ocelots.
Activity patterns and overlap between: a) the daily activity pattern of jaguarondis at sites with low ψ of ocelots (N = 31 activity records) vs. the activity at sites with high ψ of ocelots (N = 90 activity records), b) the daily activity pattern of margays at sites with low ψ of ocelots (N = 14 activity records) vs. the activity at sites with high ψ of ocelots (N = 41 activity records), c) the daily activity pattern of southern tiger cat at sites with low ψ of ocelots (N = 72 activity records) vs. the activity at sites with high ψ of ocelots (N = 119 activity records).
Fig 6.
The daily activity pattern of small felids according to human cost of access.
Activity patterns and overlap between: a) the activity pattern of ocelots at sites with low human cost of access (N = 481 activity records) vs. the activity at sites with high human cost of access (N = 937 activity records), b) the activity pattern of jaguarundis at sites with low human cost of access (N = 55 activity records) vs. the activity at sites with high human cost of access (N = 32 activity records), c) the activity pattern of margays at sites with low human cost of access (N = 16 activity records) vs. the activity at sites with high human cost of access (N = 25 activity records), d) the activity pattern of southern tiger cats at sites with low human cost of access (N = 79 activity records) vs. the activity at sites with high human cost of access (N = 85 activity records).