Cheetah Reunion – The Challenge of Finding Your Friends Again

Hubel, Tatjana Y.; Shotton, J.; Wilshin, Simon; Horgan, Jane; Klein, Rebecca; McKenna, R.; Wilson, Alan M.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166864

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This would maintain ecological integrity and allow cheetah to inhabit a much larger range (Boast et al, 2018;Buk et al, 2018;Hetem et al, 2019;Hunter, 2007;Lindsey et al, 2011;Rostro-García et al, 2015). As animals rely on a suite of senses to recognise and respond to predators (Cornhill & Kerley, 2020;Edwards et al, 2020;Hubel et al, 2016), it should be mentioned that an auditory stimulus is just one aspect of predatory response and that in isolation, such a pre-recorded roar may not of itself sufficiently warrant a predatory threat (Moseby et al, 2015). Testing captive cheetah with visual and olfactory stimuli in addition to auditory cues will likely provide further insight into these aversive behaviours.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Successful predatory‐avoidance behaviour to lion auditory cues during soft‐release from captivity in cheetah

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to global biodiversity declines, conservation programmes have increasingly had to consider reintroducing captive animals into the wild. However, reintroductions often fail as captive individuals may be naïve to predators and do not recognise or respond appropriately to predatory cues, contributing to high mortality rates soon after release. This study evaluates differences in predator-response behaviours between individuals from three experimental groups, a captive population (n = 13), a semi-wild population (i.e. raised in captivity and successfully released; n = 6) and a wild population (n = 2) of cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) to an artificially simulated auditory threat of lions (Panthera leo), a larger, natural predator in South Africa. Such comparisons improve our understanding of differences between captive and wild behaviours and provide an aspect to evaluating the relative success of reintroduction programmes.Changes in the proximal distance, the latency of approach and hesitation towards both control (African bush cricket, Acanthoplus discoidalis) and treatment (lion) auditory cues were observed for 29 cheetah from captive, semi-wild and wild populations in at least three trial replicates each. Overall, captive individuals consistently displayed poor predatory-response behaviours, approaching the treatment as often as the control, as well as spending more time near the stimulus (<10 m) and hesitating more often than semi-wild cheetah, which could distinguish between the control and treatment, consistently fleeing from the latter with little hesitation. Repeatability analyses indicated that these behavioural responses to predatory cues could not be explained by individual personality and between-trial learning comparisons showed no evidence of habituation. Our findings demonstrate how a priori testing for predator naïvety could inform future introductory decisions and thereby increase post-release survival rates, significantly improving the efficacy of reintroduction strategies. We, therefore, emphasise the importance of such research and screening in highly threatened species, such as cheetah, where reintroduction from captivity has become a necessary consideration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Successful predatory‐avoidance behaviour to lion auditory cues during soft‐release from captivity in cheetah

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From the seven collared cheetahs only four were used for analysis; one single male (M3), two from separate coalitions of two (M1 and M4) and one from the coalition of four (M2). As the three collared males from the coalition of four stayed within 100 m of each other for 80% of the GPS fixes ( Hubel et al, 2016a ) these were considered non-independent; one collar from a single male failed to collect data after two weeks.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The objective of this study was to examine how cheetahs may have adapted their movement in these farmlands by using high-time resolution GPS collars that can record fine scale movements ( Hubel et al, 2016a ; Wilson et al, 2013 ). In particular, we set out to determine home range sizes of cheetahs in these non-protected areas and evaluate factors that may influence size.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Movement patterns of cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) in farmlands in Botswana

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Botswana has the second highest population of cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) with most living outside protected areas. As a result, many cheetahs are found in farming areas which occasionally results in human-wildlife conflict. This study aimed to look at movement patterns of cheetahs in farming environments to determine whether cheetahs have adapted their movements in these human-dominated landscapes. We fitted high-time resolution GPS collars to cheetahs in the Ghanzi farmlands of Botswana. GPS locations were used to calculate home range sizes as well as number and duration of visits to landscape features using a time-based local convex hull method. Cheetahs had medium-sized home ranges compared to previously studied cheetah in similar farming environments. Results showed that cheetahs actively visited scent marking trees and avoided visiting homesteads. A slight preference for visiting game farms over cattle farms was found, but there was no difference in duration of visits between farm types. We conclude that cheetahs selected for areas that are important for their dietary and social needs and prefer to avoid human-occupied areas. Improved knowledge of how cheetahs use farmlands can allow farmers to make informed decisions when developing management practices and can be an important tool for reducing human-wildlife conflict.

show abstract