Foraging ecologies of giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata) and camels (Camelus dromedarius) in northern Kenya: effects of habitat structure and possibilities for competition?

Abstract

The foraging ecologies of reticulated giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata) and domestic camels (Camelus dromedarius) were examined in the Laikipia District of Kenya, where these species have recently become sympatric. Camels increased popularity in the region has lead to concerns about their environmental impacts and possible competition with wild giraffe for resources. We gathered foraging data on both species using 2-min group scans that recorded feeding heights and plant food preferences. Transects sampled the vegetation in areas where foraging observations were recorded. Giraffe females feed at lower elevations than males, while female camels feed below both sexes of giraffe. There was very little observed overlap in food preferences between the species. However, habitat type has an effect on foraging ecologies of both giraffe sexes, but habitat did not influence camel foraging. Camel herder husbandry techniques also influence camel foraging dynamics. These findings have important implications in achieving the twin objectives of wildlife conservation and pastoralist livestock production in northern Kenya. R esum eL' ecologie alimentaire de la girafe r eticul ee (Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata) et celle du dromadaire (Camelus dromedarius) ont et e etudi ees dans le District de Laikipia, aires. Les techniques d' elevage des dromadaires influencent aussi la dynamique alimentaire des dromadaires. Ces r esultats ont d'importantes implications pour atteindre le double objectif de la conservation de la faune sauvage et de la production d'un b etail pastoral dans le nord du Kenya.

Serosurvey ofCoxiella burnetii(Q fever) in Dromedary Camels(Camelus dromedarius)in Laikipia County, Kenya

“…Previous research on one camel herd that was sampled for this study, ‘Commercial 5’, found that camels travelled an average of 2.2 km a day (O'Connor et al., ). Camel bomas or enclosures are typically relocated every few months to allow for new foraging areas to be accessed, which further increases tick exposure for camels while browsing in new environments.…”

Daily rhythms of behavioral and hormonal patterns in male dromedary camels housed in boxes

“…During the day camels at pasture have been shown to spend 24% of the time walking and 61% feeding with a total of 30 km covered per day (Chaibou, 2005), whereas in our study, during the photophase, walking made up only around 4% and feeding 30% of the time budget. Camels allowed to forage in the savanna spent 21.2% of the time walking and 71.1% feeding (O’Connor, 2013). Similarly, camels allowed to graze 8 h per day spent 37.41% grazing, 31.7% rumination, 26.52% idling and 4.32% resting over a 24-hour period (Khan et al, 1998).…”

Elephants in the understory: opposing direct and indirect effects of consumption and ecosystem engineering by megaherbivores

“…In the first JSDM, we compared plant responses between megaherbivore exclosures ( n = 9) and unfenced plots ( n = 9); although this analysis potentially reflects impacts of both elephants and giraffes, the former should dominate the effect because giraffes rarely forage (<10% of feeding time) on understory plants (du Toit and Olff , O'Connor et al. ). In a second, complementary JSDM analysis, we included data from all plots ( n = 36 total) and used elephant‐dung counts rather than exclosure treatment as a proxy for relative elephant abundance, which accounts more finely for both natural and experimentally induced variation in elephant activity levels among UHURU treatments, blocks, and years.…”