Early post-release movement of reintroduced lions (Panthera leo) in Dinokeng Game Reserve, Gauteng, South Africa

Abstract

Reintroductions have been increasingly used in carnivore conservation. Animal movement influences fitness and survival and is the first behavioural response of reintroduced animals to "forced dispersal" in a new habitat. However, information available on early post-release movement of reintroduced carnivores remains limited. We studied movements of 11 reintroduced lions (Panthera leo) in Dinokeng Game Reserve, South Africa, in their first season of release and investigated changes in movements over time. Movement patterns of lions were more diverse than expected and varied between sexes and individual groups. Some lion groups returned to the area surrounding the release site after initial exploration and avoided human settlements, suggesting that vegetation and human disturbances influenced dispersal upon release. Cumulative home range size continued to increase for all lions despite individual differences in movement patterns. We highlight the importance of considering the variation in individual-specific behaviour and movement patterns to assess early establishment and reintroduction success.

Home range establishment and utilization by reintroduced lions (Panthera leo) in a small South African wildlife reserve

“…This suggests that the lions released later were at a disadvantage because they were forced to explore a new environment with existing competitors that were released earlier in the same area, which had likely imposed restrictions on their movements. Similar behavior was shown in the early post-release movement patterns of the animals (Yiu et al 2015) and also has been demonstrated in movements of lions in natural populations when less-fit individuals become nomadic to avoid dominant individuals (Grinnell & McComb 2001;Funston et al 2003). It is further supported by the fact that lions in the first release developed larger home ranges than those of the same sex in the second release.…”

“…However, despite their continuous expansion during the study period, home range sizes of all lions remained below half the size of the reserve (<70 km 2 ). This suggests that the hard boundary (fencing) of the reserve did not define the home range establishment of the lions (see also Yiu et al 2015), and the animals were able to acquire essential resources within small areas. The rates of increase in cumulative home range sizes were highest upon release and declined over time.…”

“…The pattern of home range establishment and expansion might result from the animals trying to optimize their energy expenses (Rosenbaum et al 1991;Lenore 2007), by exploring and utilizing the areas they were more familiar with and where they were less likely to move into unfamiliar landscapes or encounter competitors unexpectedly, which could result in injuries and decrease in fitness. The importance of release sites in affecting movements was also revealed by the behavior of lions returning to the area of their release after initial dispersal during their early post-release movement (Yiu et al 2015). Although studies of various reintroduced mammal species had shown successful home range establishments (Preatoni et al 2005;Wauters et al 2015), the location of home ranges in relation to the sites of release over time have rarely been addressed.…”

Better together? How intergroup associations affect energy balance and feeding behavior in wild bonobos

“…In some species, groups tend to increase their travel distance after an encounter has occurred (white-faced capuchin monkeys, C. capucinus: Crofoot 2013; African wild dogs, L. pictus: Jordan et al 2017;mountain gorillas, G. beringei beringei: Seiler et al 2018) or even before it occurred when a group finds clues that other groups are in proximity (chacma baboons, P. ursinus: Noser and Byrne 2007; African wild dogs, L. pictus: Parker 2010; lions, P. leo: Yiu et al 2015). In the aforementioned cases, longer travel distances are generally due to avoidance behaviors resulting from agonistic intergroup relations.…”

“…Agonistic intergroup interactions generally incur costs to the participating individuals in the form of physical injuries (chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes: Amsler 2009; African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus: Jordan et al 2017), longer travel distances in order to avoid or search for out-group members (white-faced capuchin monkeys, Cebus capucinus: Crofoot 2013; lions, P. leo: Yiu et al 2015; mountain gorillas, Gorilla beringei beringei: Seiler et al 2018), and/or limitation of individuals' ranging patterns and consequent access restriction to resources where home ranges overlap (wolves, Canis lupus: Mech and Harper 2002;chimpanzees, P. troglodytes: Herbinger et al 2001;Wrangham et al 2007; yellow baboons, Papio cynocephalus: Markham et al 2012; coyotes, Canis latrans: Gese 2001;humans: Kelly 2005). The consequences of tolerant intergroup interactions are also variable.…”