Water for African elephants ( Loxodonta africana ): faecal microbial loads affect use of artificial waterholes

Abstract

In semi-arid protected areas, artificial waterholes ensure that water is locally available to animals for extended periods. However, artificial waterholes may limit animal movement, which contributes towards habitat deterioration. Challenges of artificial water provisioning worsen in the presence of ecosystem engineers like African elephants , capable of transforming environments. Camera traps were used to monitor elephant visitation at 21 artificial waterholes in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. We also assessed if water quality parameters influenced elephant preference for certain waterholes. There were no significant correlations between elephant abundance and water physicochemical properties. However, there was a strong negative correlation between elephant abundance and levels of in water. Our findings suggest that elephants avoid drinking water with high levels of faecal microbial loads. Whereas most studies addressing animal management in protected areas consider waterholes as homogeneous units, we posit that water quality could also determine local landscape use and movement patterns of key species like elephants, a finding with relevant implications in reserve management practices.

Water sources aggregate parasites with increasing effects in more arid conditions

“…Parasite avoidance behavior may complicate our findings if animals can detect parasites in water or the environment. For example, other studies have shown fecal avoidance in feeding dik-dik (a small antelope) 47 and elephants and lemurs seeking water 62 , 63 . These studies suggest that in certain cases, the costs of parasite exposure may alter animal behavior and foraging.…”

Divergent strategies in faeces avoidance between two cercopithecoid primates

“…Among substrates known to harbour infectious agents, faeces are known to elicit avoidance behaviour in a wide range of animal species, including insects [8], rodents [9], ungulates [10], marsupials [11] and proboscids [12]. This is for good reason, as a multitude of infectious organisms (e.g.…”

Fine‐scale habitat heterogeneity influences browsing damage by elephant and giraffe

“…Understanding factors that influence spatial heterogeneity in megaherbivore distribution and effects on vegetation has been an important goal for ecologists. However, many studies have either focused on large‐scale patterns across large altitudinal gradients, different vegetation zones, and different rainfall regimes (Bell, 1982; Bohrer, Beck, Ngene, Skidmore, & Douglas‐Hamilton, 2014; Fritz & Duncan, 1994; Holdo, 2003; Howes, Doughty, & Thompson, 2019; Mysterud, Langvatn, Yoccoz, & Nils Chr, 2001; Ngene, Skidmore, Van Gils, Douglas‐Hamilton, & Omondi, 2009), or patterns associated with proximity to focal points such as surface water sources (Chamaillé‐Jammes, Mtare, Makuwe, & Fritz, 2013a; Ndlovu et al., 2018; Wato et al., 2018), human settlements (Neupane, Kwon, Risch, Williams, & Johnson, 2019), and roads (Gaynor et al., 2018), but see (Bond & Loffell, 2001; Coetsee & Wigley, 2016). Consequently, we know little about how fine‐scale habitat patch characteristics such as local variation in topography and edaphic‐driven contrasts in vegetation structure and resource densities may influence megaherbivore effects on vegetation.…”