The Return of the Giants: Ecological Effects of an Increasing Elephant Population

Skarpe, Christina; Aarrestad, Per Arild; Andreassen, Harry P.; Dhillion, Shivcharn S.; Dimakatso, Thatayaone; Toit, Johan T. du; Duncan, J. Halley; Hytteborn, Håkan; Makhabu, Shimane W.; Mari, Moses; Marokane, Wilson; Masunga, Gaseitsiwe; Modise, Ditshoswane; Moe, Stein R.; Mojaphoko, Rapelang; Mosugelo, David; Mptsumi, Sekgowa; Neo-Mahupeleng, Gosiame; Ramotadima, Mpho; Rutina, Lucas P.; Sechele, Lettie; Sejoe, Thato B.; Stokke, Sigbjørn; Swenson, Jon E.; Taolo, Cyril; Vandewalle, Mark; Wegge, Per

doi:10.1639/0044-7447(2004)033[0276:trotge]2.0.co;2

Cited by 51 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At the appropriate temporal and spatial scales their approach becomes even more attractive (see Gillson, 2004b andBulte et al, 2004). It is also consistent with our understanding of the African savanna in a non-equilibrium state (Dublin et al, 1990, Gillson, 2004a, Gillson, 2004b, Skarpe et al, 2004and Birkett and Stevens-Wood, 2005. A non-equilibrium approach focuses on demographic and ecological processes, recognizing the interactive role of elephants in savanna systems.…”

Section: Addressing the Causes Of The Problemsupporting

confidence: 55%

“…Human settlements around reserves also provide effective barriers to movements (see Hoare and du Toit, 1999) that could compromise dispersal. When confined, protected, or provided with water elephant densities reach levels that may adversely affect vegetation (see Gaylard et al, 2003, Whyte et al, 2003, Skarpe et al, 2004and de Beer et al, 2006 and transform landscapes (see Western and Gichohi, 1989, Dublin et al, 1990, Herremans, 1995, Cumming et al, 1997, Gillson and Lindsay, 2003, Pickett et al, 2003and Western and Maitumo, 2004. Given this scenario, controlling local elephant numbers may reduce the degradation of vegetation (see Chafota and Owen-Smith, 1996and Whyte, 2004.…”

Section: The Present Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given this scenario, controlling local elephant numbers may reduce the degradation of vegetation (see Chafota and Owen-Smith, 1996and Whyte, 2004. Alternatively, there may be no ecological basis for artificially controlling elephant numbers (see Skarpe et al, 2004).…”

Section: The Present Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From here stems the misconception that woodlands must be maintained (e.g. Skarpe et al, 2004). This mind set would certainly make elephants a problem as many people enjoy woodlands for their aesthetic values.…”

Section: Past and Present Management Practices Deal With Symptomsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Megaparks for metapopulations: Addressing the causes of locally high elephant numbers in southern Africa

Aarde

Jackson

2007

Biological Conservation

157

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation management options for southern African elephants range from local to regional scales. Here we review these options and argue in favour of actions that will deal with the causes rather than symptoms of elephant numbers that are locally high. Metapopulation theory ensures population persistence, while our approach extends this in order to stabilise elephant numbers regionally. By allowing for the development and maintenance of regional sinks, we may also limit numbers in sources. This application of the metapopulation metaphor is a powerful ecological platform from which to manage elephant numbers and impact through southern Africa. Our approach engages the causes of the apparently high abundance of elephants in parts of southern Africa. It moves away from the practice of dealing only with numbers (symptoms) when managing the impact of elephants on other species. While providing an ecological basis for the development of elephant management options, this needs to be melded with social, political and economic realities through southern Africa. In this regard we are encouraged by the ongoing development of several Transfrontier Conservation programmes and Peace Parks across the region. Article Outline

show abstract

Section: Addressing the Causes Of The Problemsupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: The Present Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Present Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Past and Present Management Practices Deal With Symptomsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Megaparks for metapopulations: Addressing the causes of locally high elephant numbers in southern Africa

Aarde

Jackson

2007

Biological Conservation

157

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More generally, studies on large herbivores indicate that they can negatively impact bird diversity and abundance, with higher densities in areas of herbivore exclusion (Ogada et al 2008). Furthermore, elephants may indirectly affect some bird populations by altering vegetation composition as well as habitat critical to the survival of arthropods important to their diets (Skarpe et al 2004, Banks et al 2010. Elephants in ASF have been contained within the reserve by an electrified fence, which was begun to be put in place approximately 10 years ago.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest-type preference of an Afrotropical thrush (East Coast AkalatSheppardia gunningi sokokensis) in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya

Banks

Jackson

Baya

et al. 2012

Ostrich

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainability of elephant hunting across international borders in southern Africa: A case study of the greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trophy hunting of African elephant is often implemented as an income generator for communities surrounding protected areas. However, the sustainability of hunting on elephant populations, especially with regards to international cross‐border populations has not previously been evaluated. We assessed the effects of trophy hunting on the population dynamics and movements of elephant in the Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area, which is spread across the junction of Botswana, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. Currently, no common policy exits in quota setting for cross‐border species, and each country determines their own quota based on limited data. Using VORTEX, we determined the sustainability of current quotas of elephant off‐take under different ecological and hunting scenarios. We used distribution data from 6 aerial surveys and hunting data per region to determine the disturbance effect of hunting on bulls and breeding herds separately. Hunting of bulls had a direct effect in reducing bull numbers but also an indirect effect due to disturbance that resulted in movement of elephants out of the areas in which hunting occurred. The return interval was short for bulls but longer for females. Only a small number of bulls (<10/year) could be hunted sustainably. At current rates of hunting, under average ecological conditions, trophy bulls will disappear from the population in less than 10 years. We recommend a revision of the current quotas within each country for the Greater Mapungubwe elephant population, and the establishment of a single multi‐jurisdictional (cross‐border) management authority regulating the hunting of elephant and other cross‐border species. © 2013 The Wildlife Society

show abstract

The Return of the Giants: Ecological Effects of an Increasing Elephant Population

Cited by 51 publications

References 22 publications

Megaparks for metapopulations: Addressing the causes of locally high elephant numbers in southern Africa

Megaparks for metapopulations: Addressing the causes of locally high elephant numbers in southern Africa

Forest-type preference of an Afrotropical thrush (East Coast AkalatSheppardia gunningi sokokensis) in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya

Sustainability of elephant hunting across international borders in southern Africa: A case study of the greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About