RESUMO
Entre los años 2013 y el 2017, siete (7) interacciones de pumas con comunidades rurales fueron registradas, cuatro (n= 4) de las cuales incluyeron ataques a animales domésticos, y donde la respuesta de la comunidad fue la persecución y muerte del puma. En los otros tres (n 3) registros, no se reportaron daños a rebaños, y los pumas fueron capturados, o por la comunidad, o por el servicio público, y translocados por el servicio público a una nueva área. A pesar del bajo número de muestras, los resultados revelan: (1) que existen casos en los que la población no elimina al felino inmediatamente sucedida la interacción, y solicitan asistencia de las autoridades; (2) aunque las autoridades reaccionan de la mejor manera posible para efectuar translocaciones, en una ocasión un puma silvestre fue enviado a un zoológico y en la otra el puma fue abatido, lo que demanda la implementación de un protocolo para ayudar a la toma de decisiones en estas situaciones. Los resultados también indicarían: (1) que los niveles de tolerancia de la población serían menores cuando hay pérdidas de rebaños domésticos; (2) que las interacciones en áreas residenciales rurales y el registro cerca del litoral desértico, zona distante de hábitats característicos de los pumas, serían indicios de una posible expansión de las poblaciones de pumas.
Records of interactions of pumas with rural communities (n= 7) are registered from 2013 to 2017, four of them with attacks on domestic herds, which resulted in the persecution and death of the puma. In the remaining three records, without damage to domestic herds, the puma was captured, either by the community, or by the public service, and translocated by the public service to a new area. Despite the low sample size, the results revealed: (1) That, there are cases in which the population does not eliminate the feline promptly, but calls for assistance from the authorities; (2) That the authorities react as best they can to carry out translocations in spite of that, in one occasion a wild puma was sent to a zoo and in other it was killed, which requires the implementation of a standardized protocol to aid decision making in these situations. The results indicate other possible consequences: (1) That the tolerance levels of the population appear to be lower when there are losses of domestic herds; (2) A possible expansion of the puma population, as in other regions of its distribution, due to interactions in residential areas and registry near the desert coast, away from appropriate habitats.
RESUMO
Research on the influence of food supplementation on primate behavior has focused on terrestrial and semiterrestrial species. Its effects on highly arboreal species are poorly known. We assessed the influence of food supplementation on the feeding behavior and activity budget of four adult female and two adult male brown howler monkeys (Alouatta guariba clamitans) belonging to two groups (JA and RO) that inhabited periurban forest fragments in southern Brazil. We used the "focal-animal" method during 6-8 full days per month from March to August 2017 (916 h of observation) to record the behavior of the study subjects. The feeding events of the focal individual were recorded using the "all occurrences" method. The supplementation was unevenly distributed during the day and accounted for 5-6% of all feeding events of male and female howlers, respectively. JA always received fruit in a platform, whereas RO had access to fruits and processed foods on roofs and directly from humans. The mean biomass of wild foods ingested by each adult per day was >300% higher than the ingested biomass of supplemented foods (females: 395 vs. 109 g/day; males: 377 vs. 120 g/day), but the ingestion rate of supplemented foods was ca. 400% higher than that of wild foods (females: 17 vs. 4 g/min; males: 19 vs. 5 g/min). The activity budgets of females and males were dominated by resting (66-72%) followed by feeding (18-14%), moving (12-11%), and socializing (2%). We found that food supplementation reduced the ingestion of wild fruits, but it did not affect the howlers' need to ingest a given amount of leaves per day and the time spent resting, feeding, moving, and socializing.