Table 1.
Variables | Var. type | Justification | Refs | Scale | Prior equations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hunting inhibition | |||||
Elevation | c | High-elevation decreases species richness and abundance, and renders hunting sites less accessible to hunters | 1,2 | Site | |
Artificial lights | c | Nocturnal lights inhibit hunting, and represents a strong proxy of purchase power in acquiring alternative animal protein | 3 | 4.5-km | |
Protected areaa | b | Law enforcement and jurisdiction of wildlife protection | 4,5 | Site | |
NPP/Plantbiomass ratio | c | Presumably areas with high NPP and low native vegetation cover have higher availability of domestic livestock protein | – | 4.5-km | ) |
(Eq. 1) Inhibition value3 | |||||
Hunting intensification | |||||
NPP | c | NPP leads to increases in prey abundance | 7 | 4.5-km | |
Assemblage-wide body mass distribution | c | Hunters operate under the tenets of optimal foraging theory | 9 | – | |
HFI | c | Hunter access via roads and other infrastructure | 10 | 4.5-km | |
Absolute latitude | c | Species richness decreases away from the equator | 11 | Site | |
Purchase power (dis)parity (PPP) | c | Motivation to hunt is higher if alternative animal protein is unaffordable | – | 4.5-km | |
Water bodies | c | Hunter access by water | 12 | 4.5-km | |
(Eq. 2) Intensification value3 | |||||
(Eq. 3) Hunting pressure index (HPI) |
Codes and acronyms: 1: Lomolino111; 2: Bogoni et al.50; 3: Gaynor et al.112; 4: Joppa et al.72; 5: Gray et al.73; 7: Waide et al.113; 8: Oliveira and Begossi114; 10: Benítez-López et al.78; 11: Cardillo115; 12: Antunes et al.7; c, continuous; b, binary; NPP, net primary productivity; HFI, human footprint index.
aThe presence of protected area contributes 25% to of the mean hunting inhibition.