Wildlife Population Dynamics in Human-Dominated Landscapes under Community-Based Conservation: The Example of Nakuru Wildlife Conservancy, Kenya

Abstract

Wildlife conservation is facing numerous and mounting challenges on private and communal lands in Africa, including in Kenya. We analyze the population dynamics of 44 common wildlife species in relation to rainfall variation in the Nakuru Wildlife Conservancy (NWC), located in the Nakuru-Naivasha region of Kenya, based on ground total counts carried out twice each year from March 1996 to May 2015. Rainfall in the region was quasi-periodic with cycle periods dependent on the rainfall component and varying from 2.8 years for the dry season to 10.9 years for the wet season. These oscillations are associated with frequent severe droughts and food scarcity for herbivores. The trends for the 44 wildlife species showed five general patterns during 1996–2015. 1) Steinbuck, bushbuck, hartebeest and greater kudu numbers declined persistently and significantly throughout 1996–2015 and thus merit the greatest conservation attention. 2) Klipspringer, mongoose, oribi, porcupine, cheetah, leopard, ostrich and Sykes monkey numbers also decreased noticeably but not significantly between 1996 and 2015. 3) Dik dik, eland, African hare, Jackal, duiker, hippo and Thomson’s gazelle numbers first increased and then declined between 1996 and 2015 but only significantly for duiker and hippo. 4) Aardvark, serval cat, colobus monkey, bat-eared fox, reedbuck, hyena and baboon numbers first declined and then increased but only the increases in reedbuck and baboon numbers were significant. 5) Grant’s gazelle, Grevy’s zebra, lion, spring hare, Burchell’s zebra, bushpig, white rhino, rock hyrax, topi, oryx, vervet monkey, guinea fowl, giraffe, and wildebeest numbers increased consistently between 1996 and 2015. The increase was significant only for rock hyrax, topi, vervet monkey, guinea fowl, giraffe and wildebeest. 6) Impala, buffalo, warthog, and waterbuck, numbers increased significantly and then seemed to level off between 1996 and 2015. The aggregate biomass of primates and carnivores increased overall whereas that of herbivores first increased from 1996 to 2006 and then levelled off thereafter. Aggregate herbivore biomass increased linearly with increasing cumulative wet season rainfall. The densities of the 30 most abundant species were either strongly positively or negatively correlated with cumulative past rainfall, most commonly with the early wet season component. The collaborative wildlife conservation and management initiatives undertaken on the mosaic of private, communal and public lands were thus associated with increase or no decrease in numbers of 32 and decrease in numbers of 12 of the 44 species. Despite the decline by some species, effective community-based conservation is central to the future of wildlife in the NWC and other rangelands of Kenya and beyond and is crucially dependent on the good will, effective engagement and collective action of local communities, working in partnerships with various organizations, which, in NWC, operated under the umbrella of the Nakuru Wildlife Forum.

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

“…Wildebeest were later re-introduced on the Cresent Island in Lake Naivasha and slowly spread, or were physically moved, to other surrounding areas. Their population increased steeply in Nakuru Conservancy in the Nakuru-Naivasha region of Kenya during 1996-2015 [77]. Wildebeest were also found in several other parts of Kenya in earlier years where they have since been exterminated.…”

“…Nevertheless, wildebeest can and do benefit from community-based wildlife conservation endeavours where wildlife conservancies have been established on private and communal rangelands, including in areas of high rainfall [14,25,124,125]. By 2015, 178 wildlife or mixed livestock-wildlife conservancies had been established across Kenya [51] and new ones continue to be established on private and communal lands in Masai Mara, Amboseli, Athi-Kaputiei and Machakos (Tables S3 and S4), Naivasha-Nakuru and other parts of Kenya [26,34,77,125,126]. The total area of wildlife conservancies and ranches in Kenya’s rangeland counties by 2017 was 54,265 km 2 of which Narok, Kajiado and Machakos counties that support wildebeest populations had set aside 2,219, 2,837 and 463 km 2 , respectively (KWCA, Unpublished data, https://kwcakenya.com/).…”

Conservation beyond protected areas: Using vertebrate species ranges and biodiversity importance scores to inform policy for an east African country in transition

“…Many human‐dominated landscapes support both wildlife and people. Rangelands in particular cover the largest area of the country (Figure b), have the highest range overlap (Figure ) and biodiversity scores (Figure ), and generally still support considerable biodiversity ranging from large mammals (Ogutu, Kuloba, Piepho, & Kanga, ; Tyrrell, Russell, & Western, ; Figure a) to avian scavengers (Sebastián‐González et al, ) and invertebrates (Wilkerson, Roche, & Young, ). In addition, LU categories under medium‐high human pressures, such as urban and agricultural areas classified at 1 km 2 resolution, might contain small patches of critical habitat for some species of plants (Figure b), foraging and dispersing primates (Anderson, Rowcliffe, & Cowlishaw, ), small‐bodied vertebrates (Toth, Lyons, & Behrensmeyer, ), and invertebrates (Rogo & Odulaja, ).…”

Community‐based wildlife management area supports similar mammal species richness and densities compared to a national park

“…When wildlife is readily observable, assessing, and estimating species richness of large mammal assemblages and population densities of specific species over time can be performed simultaneously (Kiffner et al, ; Kiffner, Nagar, Kollmar, & Kioko, ; Schuette et al, ). This combined approach offers advantages over focusing solely on species richness (Cromsigt, van Rensburg, Etienne, & Olff, ; Msuha, Carbone, Pettorelli, & Durant, ; Treydte, Edwards, & Suter, ), on one or few snapshot assessments of species' densities (Caro, ; Waltert, Meyer, & Kiffner, ), or on population trends of selected species (Kiffner et al, ; Ogutu et al, ). This is because (a) mammal communities are sensitive to different levels of human impact (Kiffner, Wenner, LaViolet, Yeh, & Kioko, ; Msuha et al, ; Riggio et al, ); (b) focusing on one snapshot assessment in time may yield biased conclusions if animals move across the landscape in response to seasonal variation of natural resources (Rannestad, Danielsen, & Stokke, ); and (c) focusing on a single species may not represent population trajectories of other species (Caro, ; Caro, Gardner, Stoner, Fitzherbert, & Davenport, ; Kiffner, Hopper, & Kioko, ; Riggio et al, ).…”

“…In East Africa and elsewhere, such community-based conservation models have been subject to considerable criticism, specifically in regard to their socio-economic contributions and poor governance (Benjaminsen, Goldman, Minwary, & Maganga, 2013;Bluwstein, Moyo, & Kicheleri, 2016;Brehony, Bluwstein, Lund, & Tyrrell, 2018;Goldman, 2003;Moyo, Ijumba, & Lund, 2016;Wright, 1995). While constructive criticism may improve issues related to benefit sharing and local involvement in governance over natural resources, research on the ecological effectiveness of community-based conservation models is an equally important component to guide adaptive management and policy (Lee & Bond, 2018;Lindenmayer & Likens, 2010;Ogutu, Kuloba, Piepho, & Kanga, 2017;Stem, Margoluis, Salafsky, & Brown, 2005;Watson, Dudley, Segan, & Hockings, 2014;Yoccoz, Nichols, & Boulinier, 2001). Exemplary work in multipurpose and community-based conservation areas in East Africa suggests that these areas can support species-rich and abundant wildlife communities (Georgiadis, Olwero, Ojwang', & Romañach, 2007;Kinnaird & O'Brien, 2012;Schuette, Creel, & Christianson, 2016), yet long-term wildlife monitoring in these areas is often lacking (Newmark & Hough, 2000).…”