Natural and anthropogenic drivers of cub recruitment in a large carnivore

Abstract

Recruitment is a critical parameter governing population dynamics and influences population persistence. Understanding the drivers of recruitment is therefore important for conservation, especially for long‐lived mammals such as large carnivores, which have low reproductive rates, rendering them prone to extinction. Using cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) as a model species, I investigated the variation in cub recruitment in relation to habitat and the abundance of tourists and predators. Per litter, female cheetahs on average raised 1.71 ± 1.35 cubs to independence, but this varied depending on the presence of open habitat and the abundance of tourists, both of which had a negative effect on cub recruitment. More specifically, female cheetahs that were mostly found in open habitats on average raised 1.69 ± 0.14 cubs per litter to independence compared to 3.04 ± 0.26 cubs in denser habitat. Similarly, female cheetahs that were exposed to high tourist abundance on average raised 0.21 ± 0.72 cubs to independence compared to 2.32 ± 0.11 cubs in low tourism areas. Neither lion nor spotted hyaena abundance had an impact on the number of cubs that were recruited. Based on these findings, I recommend that the importance of a heterogeneous environment should be taken into consideration in habitat management, restoration efforts, and reintroduction programs. In addition, tourist quotas should be put in place in high visitation areas and strict wildlife viewing guidelines, such as number of vehicles, tourist behavior, time spent, and distance to a sighting, should be enforced. Cub recruitment is an important component of species persistence and incorporating these findings could aid conservation efforts for species that are increasingly under threat.

Living on the edge: Multiscale habitat selection by cheetahs in a human‐wildlife landscape

“…This suggests that anthropogenic pressures affect habitat selection at a home‐range level, whilst environmental variables influence site‐level habitat selection (Boyce, 2018; DeCesare et al., 2012). A similar result was found for brown bears ( Ursus arctos ) in the Cantabrian Range, northwest Spain (Sánchez, Cushman, & Saura, 2014).…”

“…home‐range, which is followed by selection for different resources, such as food, within this home‐range. In other words, factors important for home‐range selection may be selected on a broad scale, whereas resources may be selected on a fine scale (Boyce, 2018). Thus, taking multiple scales into consideration is necessary in order to accurately describe species–habitat relationships (Cushman & McGarigal, 2004), yet multiscale habitat selection studies of terrestrial carnivores are still uncommon (but see Cushman, Elliot, Macdonald, & Loveridge, 2016; Elliot, Cushman, Macdonald, & Loveridge, 2014).…”

“…This is mainly because previous habitat selection studies have been conducted in fenced wildlife areas or in areas where the human population density is low, and therefore encounters with people, other than tourists, are minimal (e.g., Bissett & Bernard, 2007;Broomhall, Mills, & Toit, 2003;Broekhuis, Cozzi, Valeix, McNutt, & Macdonald, 2013;Pettorelli, Hilborn, Broekhuis, & Durant, 2009;Welch, Bissett, Perry, & Parker, 2015). These studies have however found that certain environmental factors, such as vegetation and habitat structure, influence cheetahs' fitness, as it can affect hunting success (Mills, Broomhall, & Du Toit, 2004), cub survival (Broekhuis, 2018) and coexistence with other predators (Broekhuis et al, 2013).…”

Understanding the population consequences of disturbance

“…We first discuss the assessment of the exposure levels of individuals in a population, and then review the approaches that have been used to model each of the functional links in the framework ( Figure 2). Our synthesis will help reconcile the marine mammal literature with studies on other taxa that have quantified the effects of anthropogenic disturbance on vital rates and population dynamics (e.g., Broekhuis, 2018;Coetzee & Chown, 2016;Green, Johnson-Ulrich, Couraud, & Holekamp, 2018;Kight & Swaddle, 2007;McClung, Seddon, Massaro, & Setiawan, 2004;Wood, Stillman, & Goss-Custard, 2015). We also provide a decision tree that can guide the selection of the most applicable PCoD modeling approach, given the information available.…”

“…The literature on the effects of human disturbance on wildlife behavior is extensive (e.g., Blumstein, Fernández-Juricic, Zollner, & Garity, 2005;Stankowich, 2008). Moreover, many studies have linked changes in behavior deriving from interactions with humans to the survival and reproductive success of individuals (e.g., Broekhuis, 2018;Dussault, Pinard, Ouellet, Courtois, & Fortin, 2012;Ellenberg, Mattern, Seddon, & Jorquera, 2006;Giese, 1996;Gosselin, Zedrosser, Swenson, & Pelletier, 2014;Kerley et al, 2002;Kight & Swaddle, 2007;McClung et al, 2004;Rodriguez-Prieto & Fernandez-Juricic, 2005), and some have quantified the long-term effects on population dynamics (e.g., Coetzee & Chown, 2016;Green et al, 2018;Iverson, Converse, Smith, & Valiulis, 2006;Wood et al, 2015). These studies could be incorporated into the unifying framework we describe here to model the effects of many forms of nonlethal anthropogenic disturbance.…”