Elephant Fences Result in Limited Impacts on Movement of Non-Target Species

IF 1.1 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q4 ECOLOGY
Timo Jäger, Trevor McIntyre, Jesse M. Kalwij
{"title":"Elephant Fences Result in Limited Impacts on Movement of Non-Target Species","authors":"Timo Jäger,&nbsp;Trevor McIntyre,&nbsp;Jesse M. Kalwij","doi":"10.1111/aje.70071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Mega-herbivore or elephant fences aim to prevent target animals (here: African savanna elephant <i>Loxodonta africana</i>, giraffe <i>Giraffa giraffa</i>) from crossing while allowing others, often with the intention to protect an area against elephants—for conservation, economic or research purposes. However, little is known about mega-herbivore fence effectiveness and impact on non-target species, for example impact on meso-herbivore movement, or fence avoidance. We hypothesised that mega-herbivore fences are effective in excluding mega-herbivores, whereas other species remain unaffected. We tested this hypothesis by comparing mammalian species abundance in (i) full exclosures, (ii) mega-herbivore exclosures and (iii) open plots. These plots were part of the Lapalala Elephant Landscape Experiment (LELE) project in Lapalala Wilderness, South Africa. Systematic dung pile recording and animal track counts—supported with video footage from camera traps—were used to quantify species-specific animal abundance using generalised linear mixed-effect models. The dung piles showed no difference in the abundance of non-target species between mega-herbivore exclosures and open plots, while target species were successfully excluded. Interestingly, we found fewer tracks of large non-target herbivores, such as plains zebra (<i>Equus quagga</i>) and greater kudu (<i>Tragelaphus strepsiceros</i>) crossing mega-herbivore fences compared to open plots, indicating that some individuals avoided crossing the mega-herbivore fence lines. We suggest that this avoidance is due to a combination of species-specific vigilance and deterrence of large specimens. Further research is needed to determine whether this avoidance persists over time, and if the absence of large non-target animals affects ecosystem functioning. Mega-herbivore fences are an effective means to prevent the movement of target species. However, some individuals of non-target species also avoid crossing these fences, likely large animals due to the minimum height of the fence. We recommend monitoring the movement of species once elephant fences are erected, and to increase minimum fence height if non-target species are affected.</p>","PeriodicalId":7844,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Ecology","volume":"63 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aje.70071","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aje.70071","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mega-herbivore or elephant fences aim to prevent target animals (here: African savanna elephant Loxodonta africana, giraffe Giraffa giraffa) from crossing while allowing others, often with the intention to protect an area against elephants—for conservation, economic or research purposes. However, little is known about mega-herbivore fence effectiveness and impact on non-target species, for example impact on meso-herbivore movement, or fence avoidance. We hypothesised that mega-herbivore fences are effective in excluding mega-herbivores, whereas other species remain unaffected. We tested this hypothesis by comparing mammalian species abundance in (i) full exclosures, (ii) mega-herbivore exclosures and (iii) open plots. These plots were part of the Lapalala Elephant Landscape Experiment (LELE) project in Lapalala Wilderness, South Africa. Systematic dung pile recording and animal track counts—supported with video footage from camera traps—were used to quantify species-specific animal abundance using generalised linear mixed-effect models. The dung piles showed no difference in the abundance of non-target species between mega-herbivore exclosures and open plots, while target species were successfully excluded. Interestingly, we found fewer tracks of large non-target herbivores, such as plains zebra (Equus quagga) and greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) crossing mega-herbivore fences compared to open plots, indicating that some individuals avoided crossing the mega-herbivore fence lines. We suggest that this avoidance is due to a combination of species-specific vigilance and deterrence of large specimens. Further research is needed to determine whether this avoidance persists over time, and if the absence of large non-target animals affects ecosystem functioning. Mega-herbivore fences are an effective means to prevent the movement of target species. However, some individuals of non-target species also avoid crossing these fences, likely large animals due to the minimum height of the fence. We recommend monitoring the movement of species once elephant fences are erected, and to increase minimum fence height if non-target species are affected.

Abstract Image

大象围栏对非目标物种的影响有限
大型食草动物或大象围栏旨在防止目标动物(这里是非洲热带草原象,长颈鹿)通过,同时允许其他动物通过,通常是为了保护一个地区免受大象的侵害——出于保护、经济或研究目的。然而,人们对大型食草动物围栏的有效性和对非目标物种的影响知之甚少,例如对中食草动物运动或围栏回避的影响。我们假设大型食草动物围栏在排除大型食草动物方面是有效的,而其他物种则不受影响。我们通过比较(i)完全封闭区、(ii)大型食草动物封闭区和(iii)开放地的哺乳动物物种丰度来验证这一假设。这些地块是南非拉帕拉拉荒野拉帕拉拉大象景观实验(LELE)项目的一部分。系统的粪堆记录和动物足迹计数——由摄像机陷阱的视频片段支持——使用广义线性混合效应模型来量化特定物种的动物丰度。大型草食动物圈闭区和开放区粪堆中非目标物种的丰度没有差异,而目标物种被成功地排除在外。有趣的是,与开放地相比,我们发现草原斑马(Equus quagga)和大羚羊(Tragelaphus strepsiceros)等大型非目标食草动物穿越大型食草动物围栏的痕迹较少,这表明一些个体避免穿越大型食草动物围栏。我们认为这种避免是由于物种特定的警惕和大型标本威慑的结合。需要进一步的研究来确定这种回避是否会持续一段时间,以及大型非目标动物的缺失是否会影响生态系统的功能。大型食草动物围栏是防止目标物种移动的有效手段。然而,一些非目标物种的个体也避免越过这些栅栏,可能是大型动物,因为栅栏的高度最小。我们建议,一旦大象围栏竖立起来,就监测物种的移动,如果非目标物种受到影响,就增加围栏的最低高度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
African Journal of Ecology
African Journal of Ecology 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
134
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: African Journal of Ecology (formerly East African Wildlife Journal) publishes original scientific research into the ecology and conservation of the animals and plants of Africa. It has a wide circulation both within and outside Africa and is the foremost research journal on the ecology of the continent. In addition to original articles, the Journal publishes comprehensive reviews on topical subjects and brief communications of preliminary results.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信