Being stressed outside the park—conservation of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in Namibia

Abstract

Human–wildlife interactions are of pressing concern for conservation biologists. We show that African elephants are chronically stressed, have smaller group sizes and may have lower calf recruitment outside of a protected area compared to inside. Additionally, this paper discusses some strengths and weaknesses of using faecal hormone analyses in the field.

Trophy Hunting Versus Ecotourism as a Conservation Model? Assessing the Impacts on Ungulate Behaviour and Demographics in the Ruaha-Rungwa Ecosystem, Central Tanzania

“…The French study found that roe deer trade off risk avoidance for food availability and spend more time vigilant during hunting season (Benhaiem et al, 2008). Trophy hunting causes more disturbance to wild mammals than does game viewing and photographic tourism activities, which have comparatively less disturbance on wild mammal behaviour and stress level (Allendorf & Hard, 2009;Hunninck et al, 2017;Lunde et al, 2016;Marealle & Røskaft, submitted;Setsaas et al, 2007). We also found support for our hypothesis that there should be no differences in behaviour between habitats.…”

“…The antipredator behaviour of the RGR impala and greater kudu might have been shaped by game hunting, as we observed larger mean FID there compared to RNP. Hunninck et al (2017) found that elephants are more stressed outside the national park than those within the Etosha National Park in Namibia and Holmern et al (2016) in the Serengeti National Park. Findings by Brown et al (2012) in the Grand Teton National Park in northwestern Wyoming, USA, indicated that elk (Cervus elaphus) and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) were responsive towards passing vehicles.…”

“…Anthropogenic disturbances affect wildlife populations in many ways (Christiane Averbeck, Apio, Plath, & Wronski, 2009;Lindsey et al, 2013;Lunde, Bech, Fyumagwa, Jackson, & Røskaft, 2016;Matthias Waltert, Meyer, & Kiffner, 2011;Mathias Waltert et al, 2008). In response, animals may exhibit behavioural changes to minimise potentially negative impacts (Hunninck et al, 2017;Nyahongo, 2008;Tingvold et al, 2013). Vigilance, for example, may increase in response to threatening processes (Nyahongo, 2008;Tingvold et al, 2013;Matthias Waltert et al, 2011) and although this may reduce mortality risk, an increase in vigilance incurs costs as time spent on fitness-increasing behaviours is lost to vigilance (Holmern, Setsaas, Melis, Tufto, & Røskaft, 2016).…”

“…Two strongly opposing, yet frequently implemented models involve either a "national park" approach, where only non-consumptive ecotourism-type activities are permitted, or a "game reserve" management type that permits trophy hunting of, usually, large mammals. While both have the capacity to generate considerable revenue, their potential effects on wildlife populations differ considerably (Hunninck et al, 2017).…”

Differing physiological and behavioral responses to anthropogenic factors between resident and non-resident African elephants at Mpala Ranch, Laikipia County, Kenya

“…The physiological demands of ranging over long distances can expose animals to stressful environments, making them more susceptible to disturbance (Wilcove & Wikelski, 2008). Negative influences of poaching, human-wildlife conflict, habitat loss, and population fragmentation can affect the physiology of elephants, including reduced reproductive output and increased FGM concentrations (Foley, Papageorge & Wasser, 2001;Gobush, Mutayoba & Wasser, 2008;Graham et al, 2009;Hunninck et al, 2017;Vijayakrishnan et al, 2018). FGM concentrations also have been linked to space use patterns in elephants; that is, the spatial refuge hypothesis, which predicts higher stress in animals with more restricted space compared to those with wider land use patterns (Viljoen et al, 2008;Jachowski, Slotow & Millspaugh, 2012;Jachowski et al, 2013).…”