Well, let's think about it for a second... first of all, getting live animals would be expensive. And Iger hates additions to the parks that could be expensive. I'd be shocked if there were any live animals as part of this land, which is being built to push IPs and not educate parkgoers on Tropical American wildlife. Second, even if there will be some live animals, they won't be the focus of the land. There isn't going to be another Kilimanjaro Safaris, I'd be shocked if there was even a trail like Maharaja Jungle Trek. The focus will be on the IP-based rides - which, again, are based on IPs that star HUMANS and have no major animal characters in them.
An actual Amazon Rainforest land, focused on actual South American animals, with IPs that would actually FIT THE PARK (Up and Rio for example), would work great for Animal Kingdom. A recreation of the town from Encanto with an Indiana Jones ride in the back and a Coco flat ride would not.
It's like if, when they were building the park, they just had the Asia section be some sort of Mulan Land because, hey, Mulan takes place in Asia even though it's not about animals.
Yes. This.
Even ignoring the fact that Antonio is a minor character, the idea that the hypothetical Encanto attraction will focus on him and Dolores teaching us about nature is very unlikely. People were claiming that Frozen Ever After might teach us about Norway, and it didn't. Then there were theories that the Guardians of the Galaxy ride would teach us about energy, and look how THAT turned out. Heck, The Seas With Nemo and Friends could've used the IP to teach riders about sea creatures, and instead we got a rehash of the movie.
I guarantee you it'll focus on the popular merchandise-selling characters - Mirabel, Bruno, maybe Luisa too. And they'll all sing songs from the movie as the vehicle goes by. Nothing to do with animals whatsoever.