Suchergebnisse

Context African lion (Panthera leo) populations are declining throughout Africa, but the problem is particularly acute in southern Kenya, where human–lion conflict is common. Aims Using the Kuku Group Ranch (KGR) in southern Kenya as a case study, we investigated lion diet and the potential drivers of temporal variation in cattle depredation. Methods Using GPS clusters, we investigated the main prey species consumed by lions to determine lion diet. Prey preference of lions in relation to prey availability was then assessed using a Jacobs index to determine whether cattle or wild prey were preferred. We used reported depredation events recorded by verification officers over 36 months (2016–2018) to investigate whether temporal variation in cattle depredation by lions was linked to variation in lag rainfall, normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) or availability of the most important large non-domestic prey items. Key results Six prey species (cattle, Bos taurus; Burchell's zebra, Equus quagga; Coke's hartebeest, Alcelaphus cokeii; Maasai giraffe, Giraffa tippelskirchi; blue wildebeest, Connochaetes taurinus; and eland, Tragelaphus oryx) made up 92% of the biomass consumed by lions on KGR. Cattle are the most consumed prey item and contribute the second most to consumed biomass after giraffe. However, once prey availability is considered, lions preferred wild prey. Verification officers identified 330 cattle depredation events over 3 years, and we show that the most important predictor of monthly cattle depredation by lions was cumulative rainfall in the preceding 3 months. Conclusions Our results on cattle depredation by lions showed that rainfall and its influence on the environment are important drivers of cattle depredation. Understanding the mechanistic link between lion depredation and rainfall enables us to predict when depredation events may increase and allows hypotheses on the reason why this spike in depredation takes place to be explored. Implications Given that climate-change models indicate that East Africa will experience prolonged and increased seasonal rainfall, we predict that periods when cattle are vulnerable to lion depredation may increase. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure that cattle husbandry is improved during these wetter periods to minimise the risk of conflict and retaliatory killing of lions.

The number and area of wildlife ranches in Zambia increased from 30 and 1,420 km2 in 1997 to 177 and ∼6,000 km2 by 2012. Wild ungulate populations on wildlife ranches increased from 21,000 individuals in 1997 to ∼91,000 in 2012, while those in state protected areas declined steeply. Wildlife ranching and crocodile farming have a turnover of ∼USD15.7 million per annum, compared to USD16 million from the public game management areas which encompass an area 29 times larger. The wildlife ranching industry employs 1,200 people (excluding jobs created in support industries), with a further ∼1,000 individuals employed through crocodile farming. Wildlife ranches generate significant quantities of meat (295,000 kg/annum), of which 30,000 kg of meat accrues to local communities and 36,000 kg to staff. Projected economic returns from wildlife ranching ventures are high, with an estimated 20-year economic rate of return of 28%, indicating a strong case for government support for the sector. There is enormous scope for wildlife ranching in Zambia due to the availability of land, high diversity of wildlife and low potential for commercial livestock production. However, the Zambian wildlife ranching industry is small and following completion of field work for this study, there was evidence of a significant proportion of ranchers dropping out. The industry is performing poorly, due to inter alia: rampant commercial bushmeat poaching; failure of government to allocate outright ownership of wildlife to landowners; bureaucratic hurdles; perceived historical lack of support from the Zambia Wildlife Authority and government; a lack of a clear policy on wildlife ranching; and a ban on hunting on unfenced lands including game ranches. For the wildlife ranching industry to develop, these limitations need to be addressed decisively. These findings are likely to apply to other savanna countries with large areas of marginal land potentially suited to wildlife ranching.

The number and area of wildlife ranches in Zambia increased from 30 and 1,420 km2 in 1997 to 177 and ,6,000 km2 by 2012. Wild ungulate populations on wildlife ranches increased from 21,000 individuals in 1997 to ,91,000 in 2012, while those in state protected areas declined steeply. Wildlife ranching and crocodile farming have a turnover of ,USD15.7 million per annum, compared to USD16 million from the public game management areas which encompass an area 29 times larger. The wildlife ranching industry employs 1,200 people (excluding jobs created in support industries), with a further ,1,000 individuals employed through crocodile farming. Wildlife ranches generate significant quantities of meat (295,000 kg/annum), of which 30,000 kg of meat accrues to local communities and 36,000 kg to staff. Projected economic returns from wildlife ranching ventures are high, with an estimated 20-year economic rate of return of 28%, indicating a strong case for government support for the sector. There is enormous scope for wildlife ranching in Zambia due to the availability of land, high diversity of wildlife and low potential for commercial livestock production. However, the Zambian wildlife ranching industry is small and following completion of field work for this study, there was evidence of a significant proportion of ranchers dropping out. The industry is performing poorly, due to inter alia: rampant commercial bushmeat poaching; failure of government to allocate outright ownership of wildlife to landowners; bureaucratic hurdles; perceived historical lack of support from the Zambia Wildlife Authority and government; a lack of a clear policy on wildlife ranching; and a ban on hunting on unfenced lands including game ranches. For the wildlife ranching industry to develop, these limitations need to be addressed decisively. These findings are likely to apply to other savanna countries with large areas of marginal land potentially suited to wildlife ranching. ; The Wildlife Producers Association of Zambia. ...

Many African protected areas (PAs) are not functioning effectively. We reviewed the performance of Zambia's PA network and provide insights into how their effectiveness might be improved. Zambia's PAs are under-performing in ecological, economic and social terms. Reasons include: a) rapidly expanding human populations, poverty and open-access systems in Game Management Areas (GMAs) resulting in widespread bushmeat poaching and habitat encroachment; b) underfunding of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) resulting in inadequate law enforcement; c) reliance of ZAWA on extracting revenues from GMAs to cover operational costs which has prevented proper devolution of user-rights over wildlife to communities; d) on-going marginalization of communities from legal benefits from wildlife; e) under-development of the photo-tourism industry with the effect that earnings are limited to a fraction of the PA network; f) unfavourable terms and corruption which discourage good practice and adequate investment by hunting operators in GMAs; g) blurred responsibilities regarding anti-poaching in GMAs resulting in under-investment by all stakeholders. The combined effect of these challenges has been a major reduction in wildlife densities in most PAs and the loss of habitat in GMAs. Wildlife fares better in areas with investment from the private and/or NGO sector and where human settlement is absent. There is a need for: elevated government funding for ZAWA; greater international donor investment in protected area management; a shift in the role of ZAWA such that they focus primarily on national parks while facilitating the development of wildlife-based land uses by other stakeholders elsewhere; and new models for the functioning of GMAs based on joint-ventures between communities and the private and/or NGO sector. Such joint-ventures should provide defined communities with ownership of land, user-rights over wildlife and aim to attract long-term private/donor investment. These recommendations are relevant for many of the ...

Predation of livestock in South Africa has been estimated to cost in excess of ZAR1 billion in losses per year1 and has complex social, economic and ecological drivers and consequences. In this context, livestock can be broadly defined as domesticated animals and wildlife (the former excluding poultry and the latter including ostrich, Struthio camelus) managed for commercial purposes or human benefit in free-ranging (or semi-free ranging) circumstances that render them vulnerable to predation. This conflict between livestock producers and predators, and the attempts to manage it, has persisted for over 350 years, with the most notable outcome being the eradication of the majority of the apex predators across much of South Africa.2 In contrast, the mesopredators, black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas) and caracal (Caracal caracal) are by all accounts thriving, at least as measured by their impact on livestock production. Increasingly, attempts to manage livestock predation give rise to deep polarisations, particularly between animal rightists and livestock producers, which further confounds an already complex situation. This complexity hampers the development of policy and regulations with regard to managing livestock predation. A recent global review of the scientific merit of studies on the efficacy of various predator control interventions highlighted the paucity of adherence to acceptable scientific methods in these studies, and recommends 'suspending lethal control methods' while appropriately designed studies are undertaken.3 Treves et al.3 did not identify any valid (by their criteria) studies undertaken in South Africa. This example highlights the need for a scientifically robust basis for policy and management of livestock predation issues. ; http://www.sajs.co.za/ ; am2017 ; Centre for Wildlife Management

Abstract Background Understanding what animals do in time and space is important for a range of ecological questions, however accurate estimates of how animals use space is challenging. Within the use of animal-attached tags, radio telemetry (including the Global Positioning System, 'GPS') is typically used to verify an animal's location periodically. Straight lines are typically drawn between these 'Verified Positions' ('VPs') so the interpolation of space-use is limited by the temporal and spatial resolution of the system's measurement. As such, parameters such as route-taken and distance travelled can be poorly represented when using VP systems alone. Dead-reckoning has been suggested as a technique to improve the accuracy and resolution of reconstructed movement paths, whilst maximising battery life of VP systems. This typically involves deriving travel vectors from motion sensor systems and periodically correcting path dimensions for drift with simultaneously deployed VP systems. How often paths should be corrected for drift, however, has remained unclear. Methods and results Here, we review the utility of dead-reckoning across four contrasting model species using different forms of locomotion (the African lion Panthera leo, the red-tailed tropicbird Phaethon rubricauda, the Magellanic penguin Spheniscus magellanicus, and the imperial cormorant Leucocarbo atriceps). Simulations were performed to examine the extent of dead-reckoning error, relative to VPs, as a function of Verified Position correction (VP correction) rate and the effect of this on estimates of distance moved. Dead-reckoning error was greatest for animals travelling within air and water. We demonstrate how sources of measurement error can arise within VP-corrected dead-reckoned tracks and propose advancements to this procedure to maximise dead-reckoning accuracy. Conclusions We review the utility of VP-corrected dead-reckoning according to movement type and consider a range of ecological questions that would benefit from dead-reckoning, primarily concerning animal–barrier interactions and foraging strategies. ; This research contributes to the CAASE project funded by King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) under the KAUST Sensor Initiative. Fieldwork in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park was supported in part by a Department for Economy Global Challenges Research Fund grant to MS. Fieldwork within the Chubut Province was supported in part by the National Agency for Scientific and Technological Promotion of Argentina (PICT 2017-1996 and PICT 2018-1480), and the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (16K18617, 16H06541). Fieldwork at Round Island, Mauritius, was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme grant (715874), awarded to ELCS.