The Demography and Dynamics of an Expanding, Managed African Wild Dog Metapopulation

Abstract

Long-term demographic data are central for the evaluation of endangered species recovery plans. We present the demography and dynamics of a managed African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) metapopulation in South Africa, based on life histories of 553 individually known animals collected between 1998 and 2006. This metapopulation, distributed across nine sites (and not including Kruger National Park), was established through reintroductions (n = 9 events) and maintained by periodic augmentation (n = 10 events) and translocation (n = 20 events). In total, 66 founders were used to establish subpopulations and mean founder group size was 9.6 animals. The metapopulation grew from 17 individuals in 1998 to a peak of 202 in 2005. Mean annual population density was 3.3 (S.E. 0.44) wild dogs/100 km 2 , approaching the upper limit of densities reported from unmanaged populations. Mean size of breeding packs was 11.0 (S.E. 0.76), comparable to pack sizes in Kruger National Park (Kruger), the only viable unmanaged population in South Africa. Fecundity was lower than in Kruger -particularly in the older age classes. Pup survival to adulthood was 45% -nearly three times the survival rate for pups in Kruger. Mean annual population growth rate (ë = 1.08, S.E. 0.13) was higher than in unmanaged populations (range 1.000-1.038), with implications for population viability and management.

Community Opinions about African Wild Dog Conservation and Relocations near the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania

“…This may be attributed to the formal system of conveying information within the traditional living societies. Translocation involves capturing; exposing animals to human care, stress, transport, and potential injuries; and releasing animals into a new area (Athreya, Odden, Linnell, & Karanth, 2011;Davies-Mostert et al, 2015;Gusset et al, 2008), this is similar to our findings. However, translocation might have both positive and negative consequences (Athreya et al, 2011;Gusset et al, 2008).…”

“…However, priority conservation is often considered to be highly important in areas where wild dogs are found. To solve many of these challenges, translocation of packs or individual dogs has been suggested and has been successful in small reserves in South Africa (Davies-Mostert, Mills, & Macdonald, 2015;Gusset et al, 2008).…”

Niche overlap and dietary resource partitioning in an African large carnivore guild

“…Wild dogs generally den and breed on an annual basis (Jackson et al, 2014), and therefore, it is expected that this population would exceed sustainable density within the first reproductive year. As small discrete populations are prone to genetic, demographic and environmental stochasticity (Shaffer, 1981), a managed metapopulation approach, as already functional in South Africa (Hanski & Gilpin, 1991;Davies-Mostert et al, 2015), can assist in managing the population by mimicking dispersal and gene flow through human intervention.…”

Metapopulation management of an Endangered species with limited genetic diversity in the presence of disease: the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii

“…The term managed metapopulation is now used to describe the movement of specific individuals between known populations to ensure the long‐term survival and conservation of the species. It has been used more recently with wild populations of African wild dogs Lycaon pictus (Davies‐Mostert et al ., , ), Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus (Lindsey et al ., ), butterflies (Ojanen et al ., ; Radchuk et al ., ), Atlantic salmon Salmo salar (Kuparinen et al ., ) and African lions Panthera leo (Dolrenry et al ., ; Miller, S. M., et al ., ).…”