Den site selection, pack composition, and reproductive success in endangered African wild dogs

Davies, Andrew B.; Marneweck, David G.; Druce, Dave J.; Asner, Gregory P.

doi:10.1093/beheco/arw124

Cited by 35 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, we have found just eight studies that applied viewshed analysis in conjunction with ecological data (i.e. Alonso et al, 2012;Aspbury & Gibson, 2004;Camp, Sinton, & Knight, 1997;Davies, Marneweck, Druce, & Asner, 2016;Davies, Tambling, Kerley, & Asner, 2016;Hopcraft, Sinclair, & Packer, 2005;Loarie, Tambling, & Asner, 2013;Ransom, Kaczensky, Lubow, Ganbaatar, & Altansukh, 2012) and a single methodological study (Olsoy et al, 2015).…”

Section: A Call For "Viewshed Ecology"mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the wide uptake of LiDAR in ecology (Davies & Asner, 2014), four recent studies perfectly demonstrated the potential LiDAR offers for viewshed ecology: ALS was used by Loarie et al (2013) to model lines-of-sight at a height of 1 m above the ground (essentially a 2D viewshed) from lion Panthera leo relocation data, by Davies, Marneweck, et al (2016) to model viewsheds from African wild dog Lycaon pictus den locations, and by Davies, Tambling, et al (2016) to model viewsheds both from lion kill and resting sites (Figure 2a The nature of the LiDAR data will influence the type of ecological questions that can be addressed using viewshed analysis.…”

Section: A Call For "Viewshed Ecology"mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…() to model lines‐of‐sight at a height of 1 m above the ground (essentially a 2D viewshed) from lion Panthera leo relocation data, by Davies, Marneweck, et al. () to model viewsheds from African wild dog Lycaon pictus den locations, and by Davies, Tambling, et al. () to model viewsheds both from lion kill and resting sites (Figure ), while TLS was used by Olsoy et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A call for viewshed ecology: Advancing our understanding of the ecology of information through viewshed analysis

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been rapid increase of interest in the role that information acquisition plays in ecological process and in shaping life histories and their evolution. Compared to auditory and olfactory cues, the range at which visual cues are likely to be informative to animals is particularly sensitive to the spatial structure of the environment. However, quantification of and accounting for availability of visual information in fundamental and applied ecological research remains extremely limited. We argue that a comprehensive understanding of animal behaviour in a spatial context would greatly benefit from objective quantification of the area an animal can potentially obtain visual information from and therefore draw broad attention to viewshed analysis. This analysis identifies all cells of a gridded surface that are connected by lines‐of‐sight to a viewpoint, hence, providing information on how much of the environment surrounding a location can be seen. Although heavily used in non‐ecological disciplines including civil planning and archaeology, viewshed analysis has seldom been applied in an ecological context. Here, we highlight the opportunity to make use of viewshed approaches in conjunction with three‐dimensional remote sensing data and data from animal tracking to make major progress in understanding how visual information influences animal spatial behaviour, ecology and evolution.

show abstract

Section: A Call For "Viewshed Ecology"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Call For "Viewshed Ecology"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A call for viewshed ecology: Advancing our understanding of the ecology of information through viewshed analysis

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lions and hyaenas respond to this resource variability and, as the dominant apex carnivores, select the most resource‐rich habitats, avoiding rugged areas, for instance, in favor of prey‐rich flatter terrain (Mills & Gorman, ). The resulting spatial variability in lion and hyaena densities facilitates avoidance by subordinate wild dogs (Mills & Gorman, ) and the development of a landscape of fear where high‐risk habitats are avoided and competition refuges are actively selected, particularly during the vulnerable denning season when rugged and densely vegetated areas, with fewer lions, are selected by wild dogs (Davies, Marneweck, Druce, & Asner, ; Jackson et al, ). Indeed, fluctuations in lion densities have been shown to elicit changes in wild dog behavior and habitat selection (Groom et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No evidence of handling‐induced mortality in Serengeti's African wild dog population

Jackson

Masenga

Mjingo

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The disappearance of an endangered African wild dog population from Serengeti National Park (SNP) led to international debate centered around one question: were researchers to blame? The “Burrows' hypothesis” postulated that stress induced by research‐related immobilization and handling reactivated a latent rabies virus, eliminating the population. Insufficient data inhibited hypothesis testing, but since wild dogs persisted alongside SNP and have been studied since 2005, the hypothesis can be tested 25 years after its proposition. To be supported, wild dog immobilization interventions should have resulted in high mortality rates. However, 87.6% of 121 handled wild dogs (2006–2016) survived >12 months post‐handling. Some argued that viral reactivation would necessitate long‐term stress. Following immobilization, 67 animals were captured, transported, and held in a translocation enclosure. Despite the longer‐term stress, 95.5% survived >12 months. Furthermore, the stable number of wild dog packs in the ecosystem over the past decade, and lack of recolonization of SNP, strongly oppose Burrows' hypothesis. Instead, factors such as heightened levels of interspecific competition are likely to have contributed to the wild dog disappearance and subsequent avoidance of the Serengeti plains. Handling and radio telemetry are invaluable when studying elusive endangered species, yielding information pertinent to their conservation and management, and had no effect on Serengeti wild dog survival.

show abstract

“…Wild dogs display a complex social structure, forming packs with a nearly obligate cooperative breeding system (Creel & Creel, ). Thus, they rely on being part of a socially integrated pack for survival (Gusset et al ., ) and, in general, larger packs tend to be better at hunting, raising pups and avoiding threats (Courchamp & Macdonald, ; Creel & Creel, ; Buettner et al ., ; Rasmussen et al ., ; Davies et al ., ). Within South Africa, small and isolated populations are managed collectively as a metapopulation (Davies‐Mostert, Mills & Macdonald, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Factors affecting the success of artificial pack formation in an endangered, social carnivore: the African wild dog

Marneweck

Becker

Beverley

et al. 2019

Animal Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social integration is an important factor when reintroducing group-living species, but examples of the formation of social groups before reintroduction are largely lacking. African wild dogs Lycaon pictus are endangered, and reintroductions have become a routine part of range expansion in South Africa. Wild dogs form packs that are essential to their reproduction and survival, and artificial pack formation is often required before reintroduction. We examined the proximate (i.e. social integration) and ultimate (i.e. reproduction) success of 43 artificial pack formation attempts in the South African managed metapopulation, between 1995 and 2018. The top (and dominant) model for proximate success included an interaction between total group size and an initial separation fence. Larger groups took longer to integrate, irrespective of initial separation, whereas smaller groups brought together immediately integrated faster than those that were initially separated. The top models for ultimate success included an interaction between the proportion of males and number of days spent in the pre-release enclosure, the total number of days in the enclosure and an interaction between the proportion of captive-sourced individuals and the total number of days in the enclosure. Ultimate success increased when packs spent less time in the enclosure, especially if those packs had a low proportion of males (i.e. female biased) or included >25% captive-sourced individuals. Neither the size of the artificially created pack nor the season in which the pack was released affected ultimate success. The success of social integration and reproductive success of artificially formed packs in this study was higher than for natural pack formations. We provide guidelines for optimizing future artificial pack formation in wild dogs for reintroduction success. Our results serve as an example of the practical importance of social behavior in successfully implementing conservation measures for group-living species.

show abstract

Den site selection, pack composition, and reproductive success in endangered African wild dogs

Cited by 35 publications

References 46 publications

A call for viewshed ecology: Advancing our understanding of the ecology of information through viewshed analysis

A call for viewshed ecology: Advancing our understanding of the ecology of information through viewshed analysis

No evidence of handling‐induced mortality in Serengeti's African wild dog population

Factors affecting the success of artificial pack formation in an endangered, social carnivore: the African wild dog

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About