Sexual segregation in habitat use by elephants in Chobe National Park, Botswana

Stokke, Sigbjørn; Toit, Du

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2028.2002.00395.x

Cited by 106 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results match with similar previous studies on elephant home range (Stokke and du Toit, 2002;Jackson and Erasmus, 2005;Chase, 2007;Kikoti, 2009), which reported the home range sizes (95% fixed kernel) of bulls were larger than that of females. The female herds mostly consist of young elephants that cannot cope with extensive movements, therefore making female elephants to range in smaller areas than bulls (Ngene et al, 2009;Leggett, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Home range sizes and space use of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in the Southern Kenya and Northern Tanzania borderland landscape

Ngene¹,

Okello²,

Mukeka³

et al. 2017

Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The African elephant (Loxodonta africana) require vast areas to meet their survival needs such as food, mates, water, resting sites, and look up positions; the area referred to as home range. We collared 9 bull and 3 female elephants using satellite-linked Geographic Positioning System (GPS) collars in February 2013. Their movements were monitored up to April 2016 in the wider Amboseli landscape. We estimated their home ranges using 100% minimum convex polygon (MCP) and 95% Fixed Kernel Density Estimator (KDE) methods. A total of 48,852 GPS points were used representing 77% of the expected GPS points. This study revealed that bulls had a larger total home range size (MCP = 32,110 km²; KDE = 3,170 km² compared to females (MCP = 10,515 km²; KDE = 3,070 km²). The 95% confidence interval of the monthly range (95% KDE) for all elephants was 6,130 to 7,025 km² with the minimum and maximum range being 5,200 and 7,790 km² respectively. Females had smaller home ranges during the dry and wet season (MCP: dry = 2,974 km²; wet = 1,828 km²; KDE: dry = 2,810 km²; wet = 3,070 km²) than bulls (MCP: dry = 3,312 km²; wet = 13,288 km²; KDE: dry = 2,960 km²; wet = 3,720 km²). The variations of the elephant home range could have been influenced by an interaction of factors including rainfall, human disturbances and land use (e.g., farms, settlements, road network, and fences), water availability, bush cover, food availability, and tracking period. The most important areas that had key habitats for elephants were scattered throughout the Kenya/Tanzania borderland. The Amboseli-TsavoMagadi-Natron-West Kilimanjaro elephant population roams within specific areas of the landscape. Trans-boundary efforts should be enhanced to ensure sound management of the elephant-habitatpeople interface for continued well-being of the elephant population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Home range sizes and space use of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in the Southern Kenya and Northern Tanzania borderland landscape

Ngene¹,

Okello²,

Mukeka³

et al. 2017

Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elephants are water-dependent animals and usually do not roam beyond a distance of 3-6 km from permanent water during the dry season (Stokke anddu Toit 2002, Leggett 2006). However, elephants exhibit sexual dimorphism in their spatial distribution, especially during the dry season (Smit et al 2007b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tree cover and biomass increase in a southern African savanna despite growing elephant population

Kalwij

Boer

Mucina

et al. 2010

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The growing elephant populations in many parts of southern Africa raise concerns of a detrimental loss of trees, resulting in overall reduction of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Elephant distribution and density can be steered through artificial water points (AWPs). However, this leaves resident vegetation no relief during dry seasons. We studied how the introduction of eight AWPs in 1996 affected the spatiotemporal tree-structure dynamics in central Chobe National Park, an unfenced savanna area in northern Botswana with a dry-season elephant density of ;3.34 individuals per square kilometer. We hypothesized that the impact of these AWPs amplified over time and expanded in space, resulting in a decrease in average tree density, tree height, and canopy volume. We measured height and canopy dimensions of all woody plants around eight artificial and two seasonal water points for 172 plots in 1997, 2000, and 2008. Plots, consisting of 50 3 2 m transects for small trees (0.20-3.00 m tall) nested within 50 3 20 m transects for large trees (≥3.0 m tall), were located at 100, 500, 1000, 2000, and 5000 m distance classes. A repeated-measures mixed effect model showed that tree density, cover, and volume had increased over time throughout the area, caused by a combination of an increase of trees in lower size classes and a decrease in larger size classes. Our results indicate that the decrease of large trees can be attributed to a growing elephant population. Decrease or loss of particular tree size classes may have been caused by a loss of browser-preferred species while facilitating the competitiveness of less preferred species. In spite of 12 years of artificial water supply and an annual elephant population growth of 6%, we found no evidence that the eight AWPs had a negative effect on tree biomass or tree structure. The decreasing large-tree component could be a remainder of a depleted but currently restoring elephant population.

show abstract

“…A number of studies of African and Asian elephants have noted the limiting effect of water availability on elephant ranges (Rodgers and Elder 1977;Dunham 1986;Sukumar 1989a;Stokke and du Toit 2002). Smaller dry season ranges have been attributed to elephants being confined to the proximity of perennial water sources in the dry season and release from such resource dependence with the onset of rains.…”

Section: Seasonal Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ranging behavior of the Asian elephant in Sri Lanka

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied the ranging patterns of 10 elephants in and around the Yala protected area complex, southern Sri Lanka, using VHF radio telemetry. All tracked elephants displayed similar ranging patterns. The observed home ranges were small (mean=115.2±64.0 km2) relative to reported home ranges in India, possibly in response to high habitat productivity and abundant perennial water sources. Elephants showed high fidelity to their ranges. Home ranges had relatively large core areas, suggesting intensive use of habitat. No geographically distinct seasonal ranges or migratory behavior was observed. Home range overlap was high, and territoriality was absent. Male musth ranges were considerably larger than non-musth ranges and may signify mate searching. Most elephants ranged both in and outside protected areas, suggesting that resources outside protected areas were important for their survival. Thus, translocating and restricting elephants to protected areas will be detrimental to their survival, as it limits resource access. The ranging patterns of Asian elephants suggest that conservation of the species requires their management both in and outside protected areas. Original investigation Ranging behavior of the Asian elephant in Sri Lanka AbstractWe studied the ranging patterns of ten elephants in and around the Yala protected area complex, southern Sri Lanka, using VHF radio telemetry. All tracked elephants displayed similar ranging patterns. The observed home ranges were small (mean = 115.2±64.0 km 2 ) relative to reported home ranges in India, possibly in response to high habitat productivity and abundant perennial water sources. Elephants showed high fidelity to their ranges. Home ranges had relatively large core areas, suggesting intensive use of habitat. No geographically distinct seasonal ranges or migratory behavior was observed. Home range overlap was high, and territoriality was absent.Male musth ranges were considerably larger than non-musth ranges and may signify mate searching. Most elephants ranged both in and outside protected areas, suggesting that resources outside protected areas were important for their survival.Thus, translocating and restricting elephants to protected areas will be detrimental to their survival, as it limits resource access. The ranging patterns of Asian elephants suggest that conservation of the species requires their management both in and outside protected areas.

show abstract

Sexual segregation in habitat use by elephants in Chobe National Park, Botswana

Cited by 106 publications

References 48 publications

Home range sizes and space use of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in the Southern Kenya and Northern Tanzania borderland landscape

Home range sizes and space use of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in the Southern Kenya and Northern Tanzania borderland landscape

Tree cover and biomass increase in a southern African savanna despite growing elephant population

Ranging behavior of the Asian elephant in Sri Lanka

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About