Large herbivore responses to surface water and land use in an East African savanna: implications for conservation and human-wildlife conflicts

Ogutu, Joseph O.; Reid, Robin S.; Piepho, Hans‐Peter; Hobbs, N. Thompson; Rainy, Michael E.; Kruska, R.L.; Worden, Jeffrey S.; Nyabenge, Meshack

doi:10.1007/s10531-013-0617-y

Cited by 56 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, our results show that highintensity pastoral land-use substantially alters large mammal communities, even without strong direct hunting (prohibited in this region) or fencing. As would be expected, the types of large mammals that were most negatively impacted were (1) large carnivores, which are frequently (largely illegally) removed from pastoral settings (Ripple et al 2014) and (2) large and mega-ungulates, presumably impacted by competition with domestic stock for forage, as well as perhaps by intentional removal (Ogutu et al 2014, Kartzinel et al 2015. Medium to small herbivores (e.g., duikers, hares) and smaller predators (e.g., servals and jackals), as well as all domestic species, instead showed affinities to disturbed habitats.…”

Section: Pd Responses To Land-use Changementioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of land‐use change on community diversity and composition are highly variable among functional groups

Graham

Kinnaird²,

O’Brien

et al. 2019

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to understand how the effects of land‐use change vary among taxa and environmental contexts, we investigate how three types of land‐use change have influenced phylogenetic diversity (PD) and species composition of three functionally distinct communities: plants, small mammals, and large mammals. We found large mammal communities were by far the most heavily impacted by land‐use change, with areas of attempted large wildlife exclusion and intense livestock grazing, respectively, containing 164 and 165 million fewer years of evolutionary history than conserved areas (~40% declines). The effects of land‐use change on PD varied substantially across taxa, type of land‐use change, and, for most groups, also across abiotic conditions. This highlights the need for taxa‐specific or multi‐taxa evaluations, for managers interested in conserving specific groups or whole communities, respectively. It also suggests that efforts to conserve and restore PD may be most successful if they focus on areas of particular land‐use types and abiotic conditions. Importantly, we also describe the substantial species turnover and compositional changes that cannot be detected by alpha diversity metrics, emphasizing that neither PD nor other taxonomic diversity metrics are sufficient proxies for ecological integrity. Finally, our results provide further support for the emerging consensus that conserved landscapes are critical to support intact assemblages of some lineages such as large mammals, but that mosaics of disturbed land‐uses, including both agricultural and pastoral land, do provide important habitats for a diverse array of plants and small mammals.

show abstract

Section: Pd Responses To Land-use Changementioning

confidence: 73%

“…) and (2) large and mega‐ungulates, presumably impacted by competition with domestic stock for forage, as well as perhaps by intentional removal (Ogutu et al. , Kartzinel et al. ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of land‐use change on community diversity and composition are highly variable among functional groups

Graham

Kinnaird²,

O’Brien

et al. 2019

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the Athi-Kaputiei ecosystem fences were mapped in 2004 and 2009 by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) in collaboration with the local communities and local NGO’s using hand-held (GPS, with scientific, technical and logistical support provided by ILRI [4,5,35]. Fences, settlements, roads and other infrastructures were similarly mapped with hand held GPS in Amboseli in 2004-2006 [49,50] and in Masai Mara in 1999, 2002 and 2015 [51–54]. A few fences also exist in the ecosystem in Tanzania.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildebeest migration in East Africa: Status, threats and conservation measures

Ogutu

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

53 Migration of ungulates is under pressure worldwide from range contraction, habitat 54 loss and degradation, anthropogenic barriers and poaching. Here, we synthesize and 55 compare the extent of historical migrations of the white-bearded wildebeest 56 (Connochaetes taurinus) to their contemporary status, in five premier East African 57 ecosystems, namely the Serengeti-Mara, Masai Mara, Athi-Kaputiei, Amboseli and 58 Tarangire-Manyara. The current status, threats to migration, migratory ranges and 59 routes for wildebeest were characterized using colonial-era maps, literature reviews, 60 GIS and aerial survey databases, GPS collared animals and interviews with long-term 61 researchers. Interference with wildebeest migratory routes and dispersal ranges has 62 stopped or severely threatens continuation of the historical migration patterns in all 63 but the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem where the threat level is relatively lower. 64 Wildebeest migration has collapsed in Athi-Kaputiei ecosystem and is facing 65 enormous pressures from land subdivision, settlements and fences in Amboseli and 66 Mara ecosystems and from cultivation in Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem. Land use 67 change, primarily expansion in agriculture, roads, settlements and fencing, 68 increasingly restrict migratory wildebeest from accessing traditional grazing resources 69 in unprotected lands. Privatization of land tenure in group ranches in Kenya and 70 settlement policy (villagization) in Tanzania have accelerated land subdivision, 71 fencing and growth in permanent settlements, leading to loss of key wildebeest 72 habitats including their migratory routes and wet season calving and feeding grounds. 4 73 These processes, coupled with increasing human population pressures and climatic 74 variability, are exerting tremendous pressures on wildebeest migrations. Urgent 75 conservation interventions are necessary to conserve and protect the critical 76 wildebeest habitats and migration routes in East Africa. 77 78 Introduction 85 Large mammal migrations are among the most-awe inspiring of all migrations [1]. 86 These migrations, the seasonal and round-trip movement of large herbivores between 87 discrete areas, are under increasing pressures worldwide. Globally, migrations of 6 88 out of 24 species of ungulates are either already extinct or their status is unknown [2]. 89 Of the remaining ungulate mass migrations, most occur in six locations in Africa, 90 including the white-bearded wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus Burchell, 1823) 91 migration in the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem of Kenya and Tanzania [2]. Range 92 restriction and alteration, degradation and loss of habitat due to agriculture, poaching 93 and barriers that block migration, such as fences, roads, railroads, pipelines and 94 settlements have progressively disrupted historical migratory routes and decimated or 95 driven rapid population declines of many of the once spectacular migratory herds over 96 the 20 th century [1,3-5] . 5 97 98 Because migration enables populations to grow to large abunda...

show abstract

“…Landscape modification and its fragmentation are threats to global biodiversity (Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2007), and have affected many taxonomic groups (Gardner et al, 2007). The demand for land for both settlement and agriculture has led to massive fragmentation of land on which wildlife used to roam freely (Kamugisha et al, 1997, Ogutu et al, 2009, Akin et al, 2012, Ogutu et al, 2014. Changes in land use have left many species' home ranges either completely cut off or restricted to inviable geographical extents (Turner, 1994, Kinnaird and O'Brien, 2012, Ogutu et al, 2014.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The demand for land for both settlement and agriculture has led to massive fragmentation of land on which wildlife used to roam freely (Kamugisha et al, 1997, Ogutu et al, 2009, Akin et al, 2012, Ogutu et al, 2014. Changes in land use have left many species' home ranges either completely cut off or restricted to inviable geographical extents (Turner, 1994, Kinnaird and O'Brien, 2012, Ogutu et al, 2014. The change of the use of land parcels in an uncoordinated manner leads to mosaics of land use types which restricts or cuts off some animals' home ranges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living in a risky landscape : elephant movement in response to poaching

Ihwagi¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large herbivore responses to surface water and land use in an East African savanna: implications for conservation and human-wildlife conflicts

Cited by 56 publications

References 53 publications

Effects of land‐use change on community diversity and composition are highly variable among functional groups

Effects of land‐use change on community diversity and composition are highly variable among functional groups

Wildebeest migration in East Africa: Status, threats and conservation measures

Living in a risky landscape : elephant movement in response to poaching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About