Spatial ecology of lions in a small, semi-fenced park surrounded by dense human populations: the case study of Nairobi National Park, Kenya

Abstract

Human population growth near protected areas often results in detrimental edge effects for apex carnivores, such as the African lion. Urbanization leads to new scenarios of the human–lion conflict, thus understanding ranging patterns close to urban environments is crucial to inform future management strategies. We collected GPS data from 12 collared lions between 2014 and 2018 in Nairobi National Park, which borders the capital city of Kenya, Nairobi city. We estimated home ranges, calculated daily distance traveled and tested for differences between sex, season and pride. Additionally, we investigated how disturbance from Nairobi and surrounding human settlements affected space-use of lions, and tested for differences between sex, season and time of day. Lions showed restricted movements (4.5 km/day) and had small home ranges (49 km2). Male lions had larger ranges than females, but avoidance behavior of disturbed areas was similar. Lions took advantage during times of low human activity, i.e., during the night, to extend ranging behavior in search for resources. Risk for livestock depredation also increased during the wet season when lions roamed longer, more frequently, and deeper into the community lands. We recommend the establishment of buffer zones to maintain a viable lion population and reduced risk for conflict.

Home Range and Movement Patterns of Reintroduced White Lions (Panthera leo melanochaita) in the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve, South Africa

“…The significant variability in the size of lion home ranges, ranging between 50 and 7400 km 2 [ 41 , 42 , 55 , 86 ], means that lions are known to move up to 20 km in 24 h and to cover hundreds of kilometres over several months [ 55 ]. Although the average distance traveled by the Royal and Tsau prides was calculated over 12 h and not 24 h as in other studies, such as those of Hunter (1998) [ 80 ] and Lesilau et al (2021) [ 80 ], the level of activity of these prides during the 12 h observed was comparable to wild prides studied in similar woodland and plains habitats. Hanby et al (1995) [ 50 ] observed inactivity to occur at 79% for a pride in the Ngoronoro Crater (woodland) and 78.5% for a pride on the Serengeti Plains (plains), compared to 81.7% for the Royal pride and 84.1% for the Tsau pride, during the 12 h observation period.…”

“…Seasonal variation in the home range size of wild prides has been observed in regions where there is a distinct wet and dry season, such as at the Phinda Resource Reserve in KwaZulu Natal (South Africa), Greater Makalali Private Game Reserve in Limpopo (South Africa), Dinokeng Private Game Reserve in Gauteng and Limpopo Provinces (South Africa), and the Cenral Kalahari Game Reserve in Botswana [ 46 , 52 , 60 , 61 ]. However, a lack of seasonal variation in home range size has also been found for wild lion prides [ 36 , 39 ], such as in Nairobi National Park (Kenya) [ 80 ], and Majete Wildlife Reserve (Malawi) [ 97 ], which are smaller fenced reserves (<1000 km 2 ) with a high prey density and availability of water. Although the Greater Makalali Private Game Reserve experienced a similar climate to the Tula Tsau Conservation Area, seasonal variation in home range size was observed for the wild prides in that reserve due to the much larger reserve size and greater incidence of pride dispersal.…”

“…For each home range (i.e., 50% KDE, 95% KDE, and 100% MCP) a mixed effect model was built, with sex (male/female), season (wet/dry), and pride (Royal/Tsau pride) as explanatory categorical variables. Contrary to home range studies of wild tawny lion prides, such as the work of Lesilau et al (2021) [ 80 ], male lions were not excluded from pride home range estimators since males were not involved in pride takeovers due to the absence of other lion prides in the small fenced (closed) system. Statistical analyses were performed using the program R [ 64 ].…”

“…The vegetation types for Tula Tsau Conservation Area were described by Mcdonald (2005) [ 83 ]. Manly’s selection index was used to assess lion habitat preference [ 84 ], as described by Lesilau et al (2021) [ 80 ]. The selection index was measured using the formula: wi = oi/pi, where wi = selection index for vegetation type i; oi = proportion (number) of fixes in vegetation type i; and pi = proportion of vegetation i available in the park.…”

Estimation of the maximum utilization area including home range and peripheral sites

“…Some location data were not obtained due to poor radio reception. As is often the case with location data with intervals of ≤4 h (e.g., Lesilau et al, 2021; Moland et al, 2011; Pascoe et al, 2018), the observation periods of these troops were shorter than 1 year due to the limited battery life.…”