ArticlePDF Available

Coexistence of African lions, livestock, and people in a landscape with variable human land use and seasonal movements


Abstract and Figures

Apex carnivores around the world have experienced rapid population declines and local extirpation due to anthropogenic pressures, and they are increasingly restricted to government-protected areas (GPAs). Though GPAs are critical for carnivore conservation, mixed-use landscapes may be crucial for sustaining viable populations. Few studies, particularly in Africa, have examined joint use of a landscape by people and conflict-prone carnivores, such as the African lion (Panthera leo), in a situation where conflict is low. In southern Kenya, we studied a lion population in an unfenced rangeland occupied by the Maasai people and their livestock. The Maasai shift their settlements and grazing areas seasonally across a permanent river, a practice we hypothesized might promote coexistence. We radio-collared lions (n = 6) to determine density and document spatial patterns in response to seasonal movements of people in a Conservation Area and buffer zone (250 km2). Despite high livestock density, lion density was comparable to many GPAs (0.136 individuals/km2). Lion spatial distribution and habitat selection shifted in relation to seasonal movements of people and livestock. Conflict was low, likely because lions increased their use of the Conservation Area and dense habitats when people were nearby. Lion responses to human movements reduced access to permanent water, but not prey. A land use system based on temporary settlements and grazing areas allowed lions to co-occur with people and livestock at high density. These results suggest a general strategy for the conservation of apex carnivores outside of GPAs, focusing on areas that exhibit spatiotemporal variation in human land use.
Content may be subject to copyright.
(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.)
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
Author's personal copy
Coexistence of African lions, livestock, and people in a landscape with variable
human land use and seasonal movements
Paul Schuette
, Scott Creel
, David Christianson
Department of Ecology, 310 Lewis Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA
School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Biological Sciences East, Tuscon, AZ 85721, USA
article info
Article history:
Received 26 May 2012
Received in revised form 7 September 2012
Accepted 14 September 2012
Human–carnivore interaction
Apex carnivore
Community Conservation Areas
African lion
Panthera leo
Apex carnivores around the world have experienced rapid population declines and local extirpation due
to anthropogenic pressures, and they are increasingly restricted to government-protected areas (GPAs).
Though GPAs are critical for carnivore conservation, mixed-use landscapes may be crucial for sustaining
viable populations. Few studies, particularly in Africa, have examined joint use of a landscape by people
and conflict-prone carnivores, such as the African lion (Panthera leo), in a situation where conflict is low.
In southern Kenya, we studied a lion population in an unfenced rangeland occupied by the Maasai people
and their livestock. The Maasai shift their settlements and grazing areas seasonally across a permanent
river, a practice we hypothesized might promote coexistence. We radio-collared lions (n=6) to
determine density and document spatial patterns in response to seasonal movements of people in a
Conservation Area and buffer zone (250 km
). Despite high livestock density, lion density was compara-
ble to many GPAs (0.136 individuals/km
). Lion spatial distribution and habitat selection shifted in rela-
tion to seasonal movements of people and livestock. Conflict was low, likely because lions increased their
use of the Conservation Area and dense habitats when people were nearby. Lion responses to human
movements reduced access to permanent water, but not prey. A land use system based on temporary set-
tlements and grazing areas allowed lions to co-occur with people and livestock at high density. These
results suggest a general strategy for the conservation of apex carnivores outside of GPAs, focusing on
areas that exhibit spatiotemporal variation in human land use.
Ó2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the past century, carnivore populations have experienced
drastic, global reductions due to increasing human population den-
sities, habitat loss and fragmentation, reduced prey availability,
and elevated rates of conflict (Gittleman et al., 2001). These de-
clines are most severe in large species, which require large areas
with intact prey communities, and are prone to killing livestock
(Woodroffe, 2000). As a result, large carnivores are usually among
the first species to disappear from landscapes, often with strong
cascading effects on ecosystem structure and function (Estes
et al., 2011).
Most large African carnivore species, including the African wild
dog (Lycaon pictus), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and African lion
(Panthera leo) have declined markedly in their geographic range
and population sizes. The geographic range of lions is now 22% of
their historic range (Bauer et al., 2008). Many regional lion popula-
tions have been locally extirpated and others are increasingly iso-
lated within national parks and other government-protected areas
(GPAs), which are not immune to anthropogenic pressures
(Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1998). As a result, the continent-wide
lion estimate is now less than 25,000 individuals, compared to
more than 100,000 individuals only 40 years ago (Bauer et al.,
2008). Continent-wide geographic and numeric declines of 75%
in roughly 10 generations are cause for serious, immediate conser-
vation concern.
In East Africa, extant lion populations have been exposed to a
rapidly changing human landscape. For thousands of years, many
East African rangelands were inhabited by low-density, nomadic
pastoralist communities who moved with their herds seasonally,
following the rains to secure forage for their livestock (Marshall,
1990). Recent government land policies and rapid population
growth have discouraged pastoralism and encouraged permanent
human settlements, land privatization, and crop production
(Homewood et al., 2009). These land use changes have converted,
fragmented, and restricted access to important habitats for lions
(Ogutu et al., 2005), including dense cover and riparian areas,
which are important for stalking predators such as lions (Mosser
et al., 2009; Spong, 2002). In addition, many agro-pastoralist land-
scapes have livestock densities and grazing intensities that can
competitively displace native ungulate species (Groom and Harris,
0006-3207/$ - see front matter Ó2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 406 994 5646.
E-mail address: (P. Schuette).
Biological Conservation 157 (2013) 148–154
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation
journal homepage:
Author's personal copy
2010). This process has contributed to large, ongoing decreases in
ungulate densities across Africa (Craigie et al., 2010), and thus, de-
clines in large carnivores that specialize on ungulates. The detri-
mental impacts of land use change and decreased prey
availability are well-documented in many areas where human–
carnivore conflict rates are high (Hazzah et al., 2009; Patterson
et al., 2004).
In Kenya, lions are thought to have decreased from approxi-
mately 2750 individuals to 2000 in 10 years, a decline of nearly
30% (Kenya’s National Large Carnivore Task Force, 2010). Many
of the remaining lion populations lie within southern Kenya’s
GPAs (Kenya’s National Large Carnivore Task Force, 2010),
including the Maasai Mara National Reserve, where lion densities
are perhaps the highest in Africa (Ogutu and Dublin, 2002). Even
in this lion hotspot, anthropogenic mortality is common along
the reserve boundary, where human–wildlife conflict is high as
crop production has become more common and livestock popu-
lations have increased (Ogutu et al., 2005). In these circum-
stances, GPAs may serve as ecological sources and neighboring
community lands as ecological sinks (Woodroffe and Ginsberg,
1998). Similar source-sink dynamics exist for lions in Zambia’s
South Luangwa National Park and adjacent Game Management
Areas, where lion mortality is unsustainably high (Becker, in
Despite these patterns, unprotected arid rangelands in Kenya
are estimated to support 65% of the country’s lion population
(Chardonnet, 2002). Rangelands that occur in the southern Rift Val-
ley of Kenya retain conditions that have the potential to support a
viable lion population outside of any central-government protec-
tion. This region is inhabited by the Maasai people, who retain
many of their traditions, including seasonal movements with their
herds to secure grazing forage. This land use system, coupled with
low human population density, has likely contributed to locally
high livestock and native ungulate densities occurring on the same
landscape (Schuette, 2012). Apex predators, including lion, occur in
the region with little reported conflict over the past decade (Kenya
Wildlife Service, personal communication). We are unaware of any
census data on the southern Rift Valley lion population or the
severity of human–lion conflict beyond this time frame. However,
historical evidence suggests that the Maasai hunted lions only in
response to specific livestock depredation events and during tradi-
tional lion hunts by young Maasai warriors as a cultural rite of pas-
sage (Tarayia, 2004). Though traditional lion hunts are now illegal
in Kenya, we suspect that many of the conditions that have al-
lowed the Maasai to co-occur with abundant wildlife, including
lions, for centuries (Marshall, 1990), may still hold true in the
southern Rift Valley.
From 2008 to 2011, we studied the lion population on Olkira-
matian and Shompole Maasai Group Ranches in the southern Rift
Valley of Kenya with two objectives. First, we radio-collared P1
individual from every resident pride and male coalition to deter-
mine absolute density by counting recognized individuals. Second,
we quantified changes in lion space use in response to seasonal
movements of the Olkiramatian and Shompole community from
the east side of a permanent river to the west side of the river,
which includes a community-managed Conservation Area (CA).
The CA, designated in 2001, allows the community to implement
wildlife and land management policies at the local (rather than
central government) level and collect fees from tourists with reve-
nues shared by the community (Tarayia, 2004). Lastly, we collected
conflict reports in collaboration with local Maasai natural resource
assessors to determine the extent of human–carnivore conflicts in
the area.
We tested three hypotheses regarding potential lion responses
to seasonal movements of people to areas west of the river during
the dry season. Specifically, we hypothesized that (1) lions would
maintain a threshold distance from occupied human settlements
to avoid direct contact and consequent persecution, (2) lions would
increase their use of the CA and dense habitats (which provide pro-
tective cover) compared to times when people only inhabited areas
east of the river, a pattern that would result in low rates of conflict,
and (3) a spatial shift by lions would limit their access to areas near
the permanent river and decrease access to prey (thus carrying
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
This study was conducted in the southern Rift Valley of Kenya
on the Olkiramatian and Shompole Maasai Group Ranches from
January 2008 to February 2011. This semi-arid rangeland consists
primarily of open and closed bushlands and Acacia woodlands,
and patches of open grassland. The area receives low annual rain-
fall (400–600 mm/year), primarily from March–May and Novem-
ber–December. Rainfall was well below average (327 mm) in
2009. The permanent Ewaso Nyiro River bisects the study area,
flowing from north to south into the Shompole swamp and then
into Lake Natron in northern Tanzania (Fig. 1).
A relatively low density Maasai community (10 people/km
inhabits Olkiramatian and Shompole. This community subsists pri-
marily on their livestock, which occur at moderate to high densities
(sheep/goats: 59.1 ± 17.0 individuals/km
, cattle: 15.8 ± 5.7 indi-
)(Schuette, 2012). Despite increasing land subdivision
and farmland production on surrounding rangelands (Homewood
et al., 2009), this region is unfenced in all directions. With the
exception of the Rift Valley escarpment directly to the east, Olkira-
matian and Shompole are part of a contiguous trans-boundary arid
rangeland ecosystem encompassing >8000 km
that extends across
southern Kenya and northern Tanzania. Locally, the Olkiramatian
and Shompole landscape is partitioned into four land uses (Fig. 1),
including (from west to east) (1) a community Conservation Area
(CA) that is normally unoccupied but can be used as a daytime live-
stock grazing refuge under drought conditions, (2) a buffer area that
is occupied seasonally by Maasai and grazed by livestock during the
dry season (September–March), (3) a grazing area that is season-
ally grazed in the wet season (March–September) with no settle-
ments, and a (4) permanent settlement area that people and
livestock occupy more consistently throughout the year. Here, we
focus on the CA and Buffer land use types on the west side of the riv-
er, which span an area of 250 km
. Though lions do occur on the east
side of the river in the grazing and permanent settlement areas,
their estimated occupancy levels were low compared to the west
side of the river (Schuette et al., in press). Decisions on when and
where to settle and graze their livestock are made by a committee
of Maasai community members. Livestock herds are always accom-
panied by one or more herdsman and a guard dog during daytime
hours (0600–1800). At night, livestock are kept within a thornbrush
corral positioned at the center of each Maasai settlement to protect
their herds from predation.
The site holds diverse large herbivore and carnivore communi-
ties. Densities of the five most common native ungulates [zebra
(Equus quagga), Grant’s gazelle (Nanger granti), wildebeest (Conno-
chaetes taurinus), impala (Aepyceros melampus), and Maasai giraffe
(Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi)] are comparable to many GPA
populations, despite being outnumbered 3–1 by livestock
(74.9 ± 22.7 livestock/km
, 28.2 ± 9.2 native ungulates/km
ette, 2012). The site holds P21 carnivore species, including all
apex predators: lion (P. leo), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), leop-
ard (Panthera pardus), cheetah (A. jubatus), and African wild dog (L.
pictus)(Schuette et al., in press).
P. Schuette et al. / Biological Conservation 157 (2013) 148–154 149
Author's personal copy
2.2. Sampling design
We used radiotelemetry to monitor lions within the Olkirama-
tian and Shompole Group Ranches to determine local lion popula-
tion density and space use patterns. We fixed Telonics (Mesa, AZ,
USA) MOD-400 VHF transmitters with butyl belting collars to 1–
2 adult female lions per resident pride and 1 collar per resident
male coalition. In total, we deployed six radio collars among three
resident prides and two male coalitions. One additional resident
pride and two male coalitions occurred in the area but were not
collared because they were too shy to approach. All lions were
immobilized using a medetomidine/ketamine combination and re-
versed with atipamezole (West et al., 2007).
We followed radio-collared groups in a 4WD vehicle using a
VHF-antenna (Telonics) and handheld receiver (Communications
Specialists, Orange, CA, USA). Lion follows were conducted primar-
ily during the night and early morning hours (1800–0859 h) to
document group size and composition and space use patterns in
periods when lions were most active. All lions in each pride and
coalition were uniquely identified by photographing unique whis-
ker patterns, ear notches, and facial scars (Pennycuick and Rudnai,
1970). We used red-filtered spotlights and dimmed headlights and
followed at a distance that minimized disturbance to lions and po-
tential prey animals, usually P100 m. Lions rarely reacted to the
vehicle, and we stopped immediately if we detected any reaction.
(Note that any effect of our presence would be expected to affect
all of the data, and thus would not explain the effects of land use
that we observed.) We attempted to locate and follow each
radio-collared group at least once per week. During each group
follow, we recorded a GPS location of the radio-collared group at
5–10 min intervals when lions were actively moving, every
15 min when stationary, at every transition from stationary to ac-
tive, and when specific hunting behaviors (not discussed here) oc-
curred. On each occasion, we recorded only one GPS location per
group, so that the group (not the individual) is the unit for spatial
analysis. We periodically located radio-collared groups during the
daytime hours (0900–1759 h) to document daytime resting loca-
tions. All daytime locations were spaced a minimum of 24 h apart
to ensure we collected only one daytime location per group per
At each GPS fix, we recorded the habitat type, classified as open
(open grassland or low-density bushland/woodland) or closed
(high density bushland/woodland and riparian areas) and weather
conditions (e.g. temperature, wind speed, cloud cover). We used
geographic information system software (ArcGIS 9.2) to categorize
each lion location as either in the CA or buffer area. We also deter-
mined the distance (meters) between each lion location and the
permanent river, and the distance to the nearest active human set-
tlement, which were mapped monthly (an appropriate scale). As
indicated in Fig. 1, only a portion of settlements were occupied
by people and livestock throughout the year, and thus, it was
important in our analysis to indicate which settlements were ac-
tively used each month. We determined the potential influence
of local prey (combined zebra, Grant’s gazelle, wildebeest, impala,
giraffe) on lion spatial patterns by relating ungulate densities to
each lion location. We estimated ungulate densities with system-
atic ground counts along line transects. Every 6 weeks, a team of
three observers surveyed by vehicle sixteen transects (8 east and
8 west of the river) spaced at 4-km intervals. We recorded the dis-
tance (meters) and bearing of all native and domestic ungulates
Fig. 1. Lion locations (black circles) relative to human settlements (white triangles). The figure at left shows lion locations when people were primarily settled east of the
permanent river. The figure at right shows lions locations when people were settled west of the permanent Ewaso Nyiro River. Dark shading represents a gradient of dense
vegetation from open (light color) to closed (dark). The Ewaso Nyiro is the only permanent river: all other watercourses were seasonally dry.
150 P. Schuette et al. / Biological Conservation 157 (2013) 148–154
Author's personal copy
encountered, and estimated densities using distance sampling
(Buckland, 2001; Chandler, 2012; Schuette, 2012). We used only
the subset of lion locations (55%) for which we had a local prey
density estimate from recent (63 weeks) distance sampling on a
nearby (62 km) line-transect.
A team of eight local Maasai Resource Assessors, which were
employed by the South Rift Association of Landowners (SORALO),
a Maasai non-profit organization, collected carnivore conflict
reports. These reports were collected during monthly livelihood
surveys of Olkiramatian and Shompole residents to monitor
socio-economic and ecological conditions that influence Maasai
livelihoods. As part of these surveys, Resource Assessors recorded
all incidents of human–carnivore conflict, which were defined as
an attack by a carnivore on their cattle, sheep, or goats that lead
to an injury or death. In addition, each Resource Assessor was
stationed within their home region, which allowed them to also
record conflict reports opportunistically. We examined conflict re-
ports that accumulated over 3 years (2008–2010) as an index of
human–carnivore conflict in the area.
2.3. Statistical analysis
We quantified lion density from a count of all uniquely identi-
fied individuals (>1 year old, excluding cubs) in all resident lion
groups in our focal study area (250 km
). We provide a total count
of lions from the final year of our study in 2010 when we were con-
fident that all resident groups and individuals had been identified.
We restricted our analysis to lion groups for which we had data on
movements when people lived on the east and west side of the riv-
er (four groups).
We tested for responses of five dependent variables (attributes
of lion locations) that we hypothesized might change in relation to
human movements (i.e. people living east or west of the river was
the independent variable for all analyses). We pooled data from
lion groups across the 3 years of our study due to a relatively small
sample size that prevented us from testing for differences in re-
sponses by year or by lion group. For each test, we used either a
generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) or a linear mixed effects
model with a random intercept (Zuur et al., 2009), with each ‘fol-
low’ of a lion group as the random effect in both cases. We used
these mixed models because the attributes of locations for a partic-
ular group on a given evening (i.e. group follow) exhibited obvious
positive spatial autocorrelation within a given follow. In other
words, the habitat used by a lion group at one time is usually
similar to the habitat used a short time later. Instead of using an
approach that considered every location an independent observa-
tion (potentially pseudoreplicating) or discarding all locations
except one per group follow (potentially discarding valid informa-
tion), we simply incorporated autocorrelation in the model struc-
ture (Zuur et al., 2009). We used GLMMs with a binomially
distributed response variable to examine (1) the proportion of lion
locations in closed vs. open habitats and (2) the proportion of lion
locations in the CA. Using linear mixed effects models, with a ran-
dom effect on the intercept to account for autocorrelation among
fixes within an observation period, we examined (3) the average
distance between a lion group and the permanent river, (4) the
average distance of lion groups to the nearest active human settle-
ment, and (5) the average nighttime prey density for lion locations.
Prior to analysis, we examined potential correlations among our
five dependent variables. The three continuous dependent vari-
ables were weakly correlated (r-values ranged from 0.18 to
0.05) and the two categorical dependent variables were indepen-
dent (
= 33.8, p< 0.001). We also compared the mean value for
each continuous dependent variable within levels of the two cate-
gorical dependent variables. Five of six comparisons indicated that
the two variables were associated (p< 0.03 in five comparisons),
except that prey density was similar in the CA and buffer area
= 0.5, p= 0.633). Thus, lion movements that alter the land
use that they occupy are also likely to cause changes in distance
to water or distance to occupied human settlements. For all analy-
ses, we used Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons to
reduce the potential for Type I error (Ott and Longnecker, 2001).
3. Results
3.1. Density
We unambiguously identified 34 lions (22 F, 12 M, excluding
cubs and individuals <1 year) in an area of 250 km
, providing a
density of 0.136 individuals/km
. Though this density pertains to
a relatively small area, it is comparable to or higher than many lion
populations in well-known GPAs (Table 1). The 34 observed lions
comprised 4 resident prides composed of 3–9 females (mean = 5.5,
sd = 3.0), and 4 male coalitions of 1–2 individuals. One pride con-
tained 3 sub-adult males. With the exception of a coalition of 3
males that moved into the area in 2010 from an unknown source
population, all male coalitions were clearly associated with 1–2
prides by the conclusion of our study. Though we did not include
individuals <1 year in our total count, all resident lion prides had
P1 cub (<1 year) in 2010.
3.2. Space use patterns
We recorded a total of 2084 GPS locations across the 4 focal
groups that met criteria for inclusion in our analyses (see Meth-
ods). Of these, we recorded 1987 locations at night across 233
group follows and 97 daytime resting locations. However, we re-
moved duplicate entries of GPS locations that did not provide
new spatial information, such as when a group was resting or tran-
sitioning from resting to moving. This reduced dataset consisted of
1107 unique nighttime GPS locations across 233 lion group follows
and 59 unique daytime resting locations.
Results from GLMMs (land use, habitat) and linear mixed models
(distance to water, distance to settlements, prey density) indicated
that the attributes of lion locations nested within a group follow
were almost completely autocorrelated, and thus, each follow was
considered the sampling unit. Recording multiple locations within
a group follow did not provide any additional explanatory power
in this analysis (though it might in other circumstances).
The probability of lions being in the CA was five times higher
when people were settled on the west side of the river (0.89, 95%
CI = 0.70–0.96) compared to periods with people on the east side
of the river (0.17, 95% CI = 0.08–0.32, t
= 5.92, p< 0.001) (Figs.
1and 2a). This result supports the hypothesis that lions utilized
the CA to avoid close interaction with occupied human settle-
ments. The probability of lions occurring in closed habitats (i.e.
dense cover) increased by 44% when people were on the west side
of the river (0.85, 95% CI = 0.72–0.93) compared to periods with
people on the east side of the river (0.59, 95% CI = 0.46–0.72,
= 3.28, p= 0.001) (Fig. 2b).
The mean distance of lions from the permanent river increased
by 72%, from 1735.7 ± 132.9 m, when people were living on the
east side of the river to 2998.7 ± 190.9 m when people lived on
the west (t
= 6.62, p< 0.001) (Fig. 3c). This shift is related to in-
creased lion use of the CA when people inhabited the west side of
the river because the CA is farther from the permanent river
(Fig. 1). Although lions moved away from people, they did not fully
compensate for shifts in human settlement. Lions were found at an
average distance of 4779.0 ± 151.8 m from occupied settlements
when people lived on the east side of the river. This distance de-
creased to 3046.7 m ± 218.1 m when people moved to the west
P. Schuette et al. / Biological Conservation 157 (2013) 148–154 151
Author's personal copy
side of the river (t
=7.94, p< 0.001) (Fig. 2d). Lastly, lions used
areas with similar prey density when people were on the east and
west side of the river (t
= 1.21, p= 0.230). The average prey den-
sity when people were on the east was 29.5 ± 1.6 prey animals/km
and 32.9 ± 2.7 prey animals/km
when people were on the west
(Fig. 2e).
Lion preference for the CA when people were settled on the
west side of the river was similar for night locations and daytime
resting locations (
= 0.65, p= 0.420) (Fig. 3). This result indicates
that lions took refuge in the CA both day and night when people
inhabited the west side of the river, even though people were ac-
tive only during the day.
3.3. Carnivore conflict
Spotted hyenas were the most common livestock predator
(n= 38 [54%] of 71 total incidents collected from 2008 to 2010), fol-
lowed by leopard (28%, n= 20), lion (10%, n= 7), cheetah (4%, n= 3),
and wild dog (4%, n= 3). Despite these issues, to our knowledge, no
large carnivores were killed locally during the course of this study
by local residents or by the Kenya Wildlife Service.
Table 1
Lion population density estimates in Olkiramatian and Shompole Group Ranches relative to Government Protected Areas in Kenya and important lion populations elsewhere in
Location Study area (km
) Lion density (individuals/km
) Reference(s)
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania) 250 0.21–0.40 Hanby and Bygott (1995) and Packer et al. (2011)
Maasai Mara National Reserve (Kenya) 1530 0.176–0.352 Ogutu and Dublin (2002)
Selous Game Reserve (Tanzania) 1000 0.13–0.16 Creel and Creel (1997) and Spong (2002)
Serengeti National Park (Tanzania) 2700 0.110–0.180 Mosser et al. (2009) and Packer et al. (2011)
Olkiramatian/Shompole Group Ranches (Kenya) 250 0.136 Schuette et al. (this study)
Kruger National Park (South Africa) 4280 0.100 Mills and Gorman (1997)
Koyiaki Group Ranch (Kenya) 1120 0.046 Ogutu et al. (2005)
Tsavo National Park (Kenya) 690 0.040 Patterson et al. (2004)
Hwange National Park (Zimbabwe) 5884 0.027 Loveridge et al. (2007)
Fig. 2. Changes in the attributes of lion locations in a comparison of periods with people settled east or west of the permanent river. The probability of lion occurrence (use)
and 95% CI in (a) the Conservation Area and (b) dense cover when people were settled east or west of the permanent river. The average distance and 95% CI in meters to (c) the
permanent river and (d) the nearest occupied human settlement when people were settled east or west of the permanent river. (e) The average prey density for lion locations
and 95% CI when people were settled east or west of the permanent river.
Fig. 3. The proportion of lion daytime resting locations and nighttime locations that
occurred in the Conservation Area when the Maasai community was settled east or
west of the permanent river.
152 P. Schuette et al. / Biological Conservation 157 (2013) 148–154
Author's personal copy
4. Discussion
The Olkiramatian and Shompole Group Ranches support a lion
density of 0.136 individuals/km
(34 lions/250 km
) a density fig-
ure that is comparable to GPAs such as Serengeti National Park (Ta-
ble 1). This is an unexpected result given that this lion population
occurs in a landscape situated relatively far from any GPA that also
supports a dense population of livestock (Schuette, 2012). At the
landscape level, high prey availability, seasonal human land use,
and livestock husbandry practices that include herdsmen that
oversee herds during the day and corral livestock at night, likely
contribute to low rates of conflict and limit the need for lethal con-
trol of lions and other apex carnivores. These conditions distin-
guish Olkiramatian and Shompole from other East African
rangelands that have been subdivided and converted to farms
(Homewood et al., 2009). This shift in land use policy has increased
the scope for conflict between lions and other apex carnivores with
pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities. These conflicts have
led to subsequent reductions or elimination of local lion popula-
tions across several of these altered landscapes (Hazzah et al.,
2009; Ogutu et al., 2005; Patterson et al., 2004).
Fundamentally, high apex carnivore density and low rates of
conflict across an area that contains abundant livestock is increas-
ingly rare, particularly in East African rangelands. Our data, though
limited in scale, indicated that lions exhibited spatial variation in
their use of the CA and dense cover in relation to movements of
people and livestock. These patterns were observed during the
day and night, which suggests that lions were shifting their move-
ment patterns at a seasonal rather than diurnal level. Overall, a
pattern that indicated lions shifted their spatial patterns in relation
to movements of people and livestock is a unique result in East
African rangelands. We anticipate these results will provide insight
into patterns that might promote human–carnivore coexistence
across similar landscapes where land subdivision and conversion
to farmland is being considered.
Lions’ increased use of dense cover in response to humans fol-
lows a pattern that has been observed in other apex carnivores.
For example, a spotted hyena clan increased their use of dense
shrublands when livestock densities increased along the border
of the Maasai Mara National Reserve (Boydston et al., 2003). In-
creased use of dense cover by lions supports anecdotal inferences
from other carnivore studies in human-modified landscapes (Fun-
ston, personal communication), suggesting that lions exposed to
anthropogenic pressures are cryptic and nocturnal compared to
GPA populations. In comparison to populations in GPAs, lions on
this study site are extremely difficult to locate or observe without
radiotelemetry, even though the population density is high and
observation conditions are good. In sum, the availability of dense
cover is likely an important feature of this landscape that provides
a refuge from potential encounters with people and livestock. On a
broader scale, the existence of a local Conservation Area likely re-
duced conflict in the same manner.
The average distance between lions and active human settle-
ments declined 36% when people moved to the west side of the riv-
er. Despite a clear shift in their distribution (Fig. 1), lions lived in
substantially closer proximity to people when people settled west
of the river. It is possible that lions could not move far enough to
maintain constant separation from people without experiencing
offsetting costs (e.g. increased distance to water, reduced prey den-
sity). It is also possible lions simply did not range near people
when people were settled on the east because prey availability
was lower there compared to the west side of the river. Thus, lions
had little incentive to move to the east of the river. It is also possi-
ble that resident lions on the east side of the river prevented focal
lion groups from moving across the river. Though this is possible
because we did not monitor individual lion groups on the east side
of the river, we consider this explanation unlikely due to overall
low lion occupancy in this area (Schuette et al., in press). Regard-
less of the reason, people and lions came into closer contact when
humans settled on the west of the river, which had the potential to
increase encounters and conflicts. However, no increase in human–
carnivore conflict was reported and no lions were killed due to
conflict. Mobility across an open landscape allowed lions to shift
their activity into the CA and densely vegetated areas to avoid peo-
ple and livestock when they were in close proximity.
The average distance of lions to the permanent river nearly dou-
bled (1.7) when people moved to the west side of the river during
the dry season months. This result can be explained at least in part
due to increased use of the CA, which is relatively far from the riv-
er. However, the observed pattern is atypical for lions because they
(like many stalking predators) are typically attracted to riparian
areas near permanent rivers and water sources, particularly during
the dry season (Mosser et al., 2009; Spong, 2002). Lion attraction to
riparian habitat may also be affected directly by access to water it-
self, although lions are capable of surviving on the water provided
by their prey (Schaller, 1972). Though lions and their ungulate prey
have access to small springs flowing down from the Rift Valley
escarpment into the CA and the dense woodlands supported by
these springs, it is possible that displacement from areas near
the permanent river was a cost of avoiding humans and livestock.
Despite this spatial shift, woodlands in the CA provided a dry sea-
son foraging refuge for non-migratory populations of zebra and
wildebeest, impala, Cape buffalo, and lesser kudu, which lions
preyed upon during the dry season (Schuette, unpublished data).
Thus it is possible that lions were actually attracted to the CA be-
cause of dry season prey availability, rather than a retreat from hu-
man settlements. Regardless of the causal mechanisms, we
observed similar prey densities at lion locations when people
inhabited the east and west sides of the river, demonstrating that
lions were still able to maintain both adequate separation from
people and adequate access to prey (Hopcraft et al., 2005).
Though our focal study area was relatively small (250 km
), the
Olkiramatian and Shompole area is linked with a larger landscape
(>8000 km
) that includes several GPAs, including the Maasai Mara
National Reserve and Amboseli National Park in Kenya, and may
extend to Lake Manyara and Tarangire National Parks in Tanzania.
To date, very little quantitative data exists for much of this
trans-boundary region, particularly for extensive mixed-use range-
lands that are undergoing or are threatened by land use changes
(Homewood et al., 2009). We do not know whether the Olkirama-
tian and Shompole lion population is representative of the entire
region, or whether we happened to observe a locally high density
population across a landscape with low overall lion densities.
Future research should investigate to what extent this population
is representative of the area, to what extent it is linked to other lion
populations in regional GPAs and other mixed-use rangelands
(Pusey and Packer, 1987), and test the generality of our inferences
about the factors that promoted high lion density and low conflict
with humans on this site.
5. Conclusions
In recent decades, quantitative evidence and public opinion
suggest that conflict-prone carnivores may be incompatible with
most current livestock production practices. However, we found
that an apex carnivore cannot only persist alongside people and
livestock, but that this apex carnivore, its common native prey,
and livestock all co-occurred at relatively high densities. Identify-
ing generalizable attributes of this landscape and local human land
P. Schuette et al. / Biological Conservation 157 (2013) 148–154 153
Author's personal copy
uses that have allowed this to occur, can at a minimum provide a
starting point to address carnivore conservation and management
outside of GPAs, for which little or no data currently exists, partic-
ularly for species that occur in regions where livestock production
is a predominant land use strategy.
We propose five landscape features and human land uses prac-
tices observed in Olkiramatian and Shompole that should be eval-
uated in other systems. First, an unfenced landscape may promote
co-occurrence of apex carnivores with people and livestock. An
open landscape may allow people, livestock, native ungulates,
and carnivores the ability to make spatial adjustments in response
to seasonal weather patterns, environmental change, ecological
processes, and anthropogenic pressures, and thus avoid conflict.
Second, heterogeneity in habitats and land use provides critical ref-
uges from competitive pressures for ungulate prey and potentially
dangerous interactions for large carnivores. Third, seasonal varia-
tion in livestock grazing practices across a set of land uses may
promote co-occurrence of livestock and native ungulate popula-
tions. These conditions may provide sufficient native prey for apex
carnivores to avoid preying upon livestock. Fourth, corralling live-
stock in secure structures at night may reduce carnivore conflict.
People and livestock are absent from the Olkiramatian and Shom-
pole landscape for 12 out of every 24 h cycle, which reduces the
potential for nighttime attacks on livestock and may reduce inter-
ference competition between livestock and native ungulate prey
populations. Fifth, a relatively small Conservation Area set aside
for conservation purposes and livestock grazing during extreme
drought may facilitate co-occurrence of people and apex
carnivores. Designating these Conservation Areas may provide
important habitat for wildlife that may also benefit ranching com-
munities by providing a buffer between conflict-prone carnivores
and their livestock, and providing a ‘grass bank’ that can be ac-
cessed during drought conditions. None of these conclusions
should be unique to lions, and we suggest that they might guide
general policies to conserve large carnivores outside of GPAs.
We thank the Kenya Ministry of Science and Technology, the
Kenya Wildlife Service, and the South Rift community for permis-
sion to conduct our research. All animal handling procedures were
approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at
Montana State University and the Kenya Wildlife Service. We
thank J. Kamanga, S. Russell, and D. Western for their coordination
efforts, and E. Christianson, M. Kapoli, A. Kuseyo, A. Matole, P.
Moikinyo, L. Mpukere, J. Njonjo, P. Oltubulai, C. Schuette, and the
Maasai Resource Assessors for their assistance in the field. This re-
search was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Cincin-
nati Zoo, and Panthera.
Bauer, H., Nowell, K., Packer, C., 2008. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Lion
(Panthera leo). IUCN. <
Becker, M., Watson, F., Droge, E., Leigh, K., Carlson, R., Carlson, A., in press.
Estimating male loss from edge effects in three Zambian lion populations. J.
Wildlife Manage.
Boydston, E.E., Kapheim, K.M., Watts, H.E., Szykman, M., Holekamp, K.E., 2003.
Altered behaviour in spotted hyenas associated with increased human activity.
Anim. Conserv. 6, 207–219.
Buckland, S.T., 2001. Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of
Biological Populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chandler, R.B., 2012. Distance Sampling Analysis in Unmarked. USGS, USGS
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.
Chardonnet, P., 2002. Conservation of the African Lion: Contribution to a Status
Survey. International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife, France &
Conservation Force, USA.
Craigie, I.D., Baillie, J.E.M., Balmford, A., Carbone, C., Collen, B., Green, R.E., Hutton,
J.M., 2010. Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biol.
Conserv. 143, 2221–2228.
Creel, S., Creel, N.M., 1997. Lion density and population structure in the Selous
Game Reserve: evaluation of hunting quotas and offtake. Afr. J. Ecol. 35, 83–93.
Estes, J.A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J.S., Power, M.E., Berger, J., Bond, W.J., Carpenter,
S.R., Essington, T.E., Holt, R.D., Jackson, J.B.C., Marquis, R.J., Oksanen, L., Oksanen,
T., Paine, R.T., Pikitch, E.K., Ripple, W.J., Sandin, S.A., Scheffer, M., Schoener, T.W.,
Shurin, J.B., Sinclair, Anthony R.E., Soulé, M.E., Virtanen, R., Wardle, D.A., 2011.
Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333, 301–306.
Gittleman, J.L., Funk, S.M., Macdonald, D.W., Wayne, R.K. (Eds.), 2001. Carnivore
Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Groom, R., Harris, S., 2010. Factors affecting the distribution patterns of zebra and
wildebeest in a resource-stressed environment. Afr. J. Ecol. 48, 159–168.
Hanby, J.P., Bygott, J.D., 1995. Population changes in lions and other predators. In:
Sinclair, A.R.E., Norton-Griffiths, M. (Eds.), Serengeti: Dynamics of an Ecosystem.
University of Chicago Press, p. 249.
Hazzah, L., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Frank, L.G., 2009. Lions and Warriors: social
factors underlying declining African lion populations and the effect of
incentive-based management in Kenya. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2428–2437.
Homewood, K., Kristjanson, P., Trench, P.C., 2009. Changing land use, livelihoods,
and wildlife conservation in Maasailand. In: Staying Maasai? Livelihoods,
Conservation and Development in East African Rangelands. Springer
Science + Business Media, New York, pp. 1–42.
Hopcraft, G., Sinclair, A.R.E., Packer, C., 2005. Planning for success: Serengeti lions
seek prey accessibility rather than abundance. J. Anim. Ecol. 74, 559–566.
Kenya’s National Large Carnivore Task Force, 2010. Conservation and Management
Strategy for Lions and Spotted Hyenas in Kenya, 2009–2014. Kenya Wildlife
Service, Nairobi, Kenya, p. 52.
Loveridge, A.J., Searle, A.W., Murindagomo, F., Macdonald, D.W., 2007. The impact of
sport-hunting on the population dynamics of an African lion population in a
protected area. Biol. Conserv. 134, 548–558.
Marshall, F., 1990. Origins of specialized pastoral production in East Africa. Am.
Anthropol. 92, 873–894.
Mills, M.G.L., Gorman, M.L., 1997. Factors affecting the density and distribution of
wild dogs in the Kruger National Park. Conserv. Biol. 11, 1397–1406.
Mosser, A., Fryxell, J.M., Eberly, L., Packer, C., 2009. Serengeti real estate: density vs.
fitness-based indicators of lion habitat quality. Ecol. Lett. 12, 1050–1060.
Ogutu, J.O., Dublin, H.T., 2002. Demography of lions in relation to prey and habitat
in the Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. Afr. J. Ecol. 40, 120–129.
Ogutu, J.O., Bhola, N., Reid, R., 2005. The effects of pastoralism and protection on the
density and distribution of carnivores and their prey in the Mara ecosystem of
Kenya. J. Zool. 265, 281–293.
Ott, R.L., Longnecker, M., 2001. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data
Analysis, fifth ed. Duxbury, Pacific Grove, California.
Packer, C., Brink, H., Kissui, B.M., Maliti, H., Kushnir, H., Caro, T.M., 2011. Effects of
trophy hunting on lion and leopard populations in Tanzania. Conserv. Biol. 25,
Patterson, B.D., Kasiki, S.M., Selempo, D., Kays, R.W., 2004. Livestock predation by
lions (Panthera leo) and other carnivores on ranches neighboring Tsavo National
Parks, Kenya. Biol. Conserv. 119, 507–516.
Pennycuick, C.J., Rudnai, J., 1970. A method of identifying individual lions Panthera
leo with an analysis of the reliability of identification. J. Zool. 160, 497–508.
Pusey, A.E., Packer, C., 1987. The evolution of sex-biased dispersal in lions. Behavior
101, 275–310.
Schaller, G.B., 1972. The Serengeti Lion: a Study of Predator–Prey relations.
University of Chicago Press.
Schuette, P., 2012. Factors Affecting the Distribution and Abundance of Carnivores
and their Ungulate Prey Across a Communally Owned Rangeland in Kenya.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
Schuette, P., Wagner, A.P., Wagner, M.E., Creel, S., in press. Occupancy patterns and
niche partitioning within a diverse carnivore community exposed to
anthropogenic pressures. Biol. Conserv.
Spong, G., 2002. Space use in lions, Panthera leo, in the Selous Game Reserve: social
and ecological factors. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52, 303–307.
Tarayia, G.N., 2004. Legal perspectives of the Maasai culture, customs, and
traditions. Ariz. J. Int. Comp. Law 21, 183.
West, G., Heard, D.J., Caulkett, N., 2007. Zoo Animal and Wildlife Immobilization and
Anesthesia. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, Iowa.
Woodroffe, R., 2000. Predators and people: using human densities to interpret
declines of large carnivores. Anim. Conserv. 3, 165–173.
Woodroffe, R., Ginsberg, J.R., 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations
inside protected areas. Science 280, 2126–2128.
Zuur, A.F., Ieno, E.N., Walker, N.J., Saveliev, A.A., Smith, G.M., 2009. Mixed Effects
Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. SpringerLink, New York.
154 P. Schuette et al. / Biological Conservation 157 (2013) 148–154
... A wide range of large carnivore species are responsible for conflicts, including lions (Panthera leo), leopards (Panthera pardus), spotted hyaenas (Crocuta crocuta), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) (Holmern et al. 2007;Kissui 2008a;Mponzi et al. 2014;Mkonyi et al. 2017a). To achieve a sustainable conservation goal for large carnivores, targeted prevention and/or mitigation interventions aimed at promoting coexistence between these species and people should be thoroughly implemented (Schuette et al. 2013). Despite extensive efforts by researchers to address HCC in Tanzania (Dickman et al. 2010;Holmern et al. 2007;Kissui 2008a;Mkonyi et al. 2017a;Mponzi et al. 2014), there have been no attempts to systematically review the potential mitigation and preventative interventions in the region. ...
... The type of boma (nighttime enclosure) is one of the factors that can influence livestock depredation at the homestead (Mkonyi et al. 2017a;Ogada et al. 2003;Ukio 2010). For instance, fortified bomas in East African pastoral communities are linked with the reduction in livestock depredation (Lichtenfeld et al. 2015;Manoa and Mwaura 2016;Ogada et al. 2003;Schuette et al. 2013;Sutton et al. 2017). Also, the characteristics of livestock enclosures, e.g., in terms of physical structure are important in reducing the likelihood of a carnivore attack. ...
... A wide variety of non-lethal preventative management measures are employed across much of sub-Saharan Africa to prevent livestock depredation ranging from high-tech livestock husbandry strategies such as the use of electric fencing (Lawson 1989;Schepers 2016) and predator-proof fencing (Badenhorst 2014;Schepers 2016) to low-tech traditional livestock husbandry strategies such as night enclosures (= kraals/bomas) (Constant et al. 2015;Ogada et al. 2003), fortified or predator-proof enclosures (Lichtenfeld et al. 2015;Manoa and Mwaura 2016;Sutton et al. 2017;Schuette et al. 2013), disruptive stimuli (Badenhorst 2014;Lesilau et al. 2018) and disruptive deterrents (herders, guard dogs) (Ogada et al. 2003;Woodroffe et al. 2007). ...
Full-text available
As human populations grow and natural habitat shrinks, conflicts between humans and large carnivores are inevitable. Thus, effective interventions for mitigating or preventing human-carnivore conflicts are necessary for promoting coexistence. Despite extensive efforts by researchers to address the human-carnivore conflict in Tanzania, there have been no attempts to review the potential mitigation and preventative interventions in the region. A systematic review of 43 scientific literature published between 2000 and 2020 was conducted using Science Direct, Wiley Online Library and Google Scholar search engines to evaluate the current status and research trends of human-carnivore conflict management in Tanzania. This literature review also identified the most commonly recommended conflict mitigation and preventative interventions, and generated management recommendations. Results showed that research on human-carnivore conflict management is deeply biased, where most studies were conducted in the northern region of Tanzania. Most studies recommended preventative interventions (54%), followed by community interventions (30%) and a few mitigation interventions studies (16%). Only two articles included in this review evaluated the effectiveness of interventions. Overall results showed that the most recommended preventative intervention was fortified bomas (20 publications), while the most recommended mitigation intervention was ecotourism benefit-sharing schemes (9 publications) and the most recommended community intervention was community education and awareness (21 publications). Therefore, an integrated approach that combines livestock management strategies (e.g., promoting the use of fortified bomas); community interventions (e.g., increasing community conservation awareness and education) and equitable ecotourism benefit-sharing with park-adjacent communities should be adopted to address human-carnivore conflict in the region.
... For example, the strategy of reducing hunting pressure is a major benefit of PAs for many mammals in sub-Saharan Africa [73,74]. By contrast, direct exploitation of insects is rare (with some exceptions, e.g., harvesting of larvae of the moth Gonimbrasia belina). ...
Full-text available
Anthropogenic pressures are driving insect declines across the world. Although protected areas (PAs) play a prominent role in safeguarding many vertebrate species from human-induced threats, insects are not widely considered when designing PA systems or building strategies for PA management. We review the effectiveness of PAs for insect conservation and find substantial taxonomic and geographic gaps in knowledge. Most research focuses on the representation of species, and few studies assess threats to insects or the role that effective PA management can play in insect conservation. We propose a four-step research agenda to help ensure that insects are central in efforts to expand the global PA network under the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.
... Although such landscape features are also important to large carnivores for other reasons, such as hosting prey species as well as providing cover for resting, denning, and hunting (May et al., 2008;Podgórski et al., 2008), large carnivores could additionally depend on these features to reduce human-induced mortality (Oriol-Cotterill et al., 2015). Several studies have documented fine-scale behavioral adjustments resulting in an increased use of cover by large carnivores near humans (Gehr et al., 2017;Schuette et al., 2013). Yet, although it has been suggested that broad-scale distribution patterns of large carnivores, showing a strong association with forests and rugged terrain, are, at least partly, a result of human influence (Martínez-Abraín et al., 2020;May et al., 2008), broad-scale studies investigating the connection between large carnivores' dependence on refuge habitats and gradients of human pressures are missing. ...
Die zunehmende Verfügbarkeit von Satellitenfernerkundungs- und Wildtier-Telemetriedaten eröffnet neue Möglichkeiten für eine verbesserte Überwachung von Wildtierhabitaten durch Habitatmodelle, doch fehlt es häufig an geeigneten Ansätzen, um dieses Potenzial voll auszuschöpfen. Das übergeordnete Ziel dieser Arbeit bestand in der Konzipierung und Weiterentwicklung von Ansätzen zur Nutzung des Potenzials großer Satellitenbild- und Telemetriedatensätze in Habitatmodellen. Am Beispiel von drei großen Säugetierarten in Europa (Eurasischer Luchs, Rothirsch und Reh) wurden Ansätze entwickelt, um (1) Habitatmodelle mit dem umfangreichsten global und frei verfügbaren Satellitenbildarchiv der Landsat-Satelliten zu verknüpfen und (2) Wildtier-Telemetriedaten über Wildtierpopulationen hinweg in großflächigen Analysen der Habitateignung und -nutzung zu integrieren. Die Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit belegen das enorme Potenzial von Landsat-basierten Variablen als Prädiktoren in Habitatmodellen, die es ermöglichen von statischen Habitatbeschreibungen zu einem kontinuierlichen Monitoring von Habitatdynamiken über Raum und Zeit überzugehen. Die Ergebnisse meiner Forschung zeigen darüber hinaus, wie wichtig es ist, die Kontextabhängigkeit der Lebensraumnutzung von Wildtieren in Habitatmodellen zu berücksichtigen, insbesondere auch bei der Integration von Telemetriedatensätzen über Wildtierpopulationen hinweg. Die Ergebnisse dieser Dissertation liefern neue ökologische Erkenntnisse, welche zum Management und Schutz großer Säugetiere beitragen können. Darüber hinaus zeigt meine Forschung, dass eine bessere Integration von Satellitenbild- und Telemetriedaten eine neue Generation von Habitatmodellen möglich macht, welche genauere Analysen und ein besseres Verständnis von Lebensraumdynamiken erlaubt und so Bemühungen zum Schutz von Wildtieren unterstützen kann.
... In contrast to predictions of this hypothesis, empirical work has shown that some large carnivores living in humandominated landscapes can alter their behaviors in subtle ways to coexist with people. Some species shift their activity patterns to become more nocturnal (Gaynor et al. 2018), increase their vigilance (Pangle and Holekamp 2010), modify how they navigate landscapes occupied by humans (Oriol-Cotterill et al. 2015), and change their space use to avoid areas of human activity altogether (Van Dyke et al. 1986;Schuette et al. 2013). ...
Populations of large carnivores are declining in many parts of the world due to anthropogenic activity. Some species of large carnivores, however, are able to coexist with people by altering their behavior. Altered behaviors may be challenging to identify in large carnivores because these animals are typically cryptic, nocturnal, live at low densities, and because changes in their behavior may be subtle or emerge slowly over many years. We studied the effects of livestock presence on the movements of one large carnivore, the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta). We fit 22 adult female spotted hyenas with GPS collars to quantify their movements in areas with and without livestock or herders present, in and around a protected area in southwestern Kenya. We investigated anthropogenic, social, and ecological effects on the speed of movement, distances traveled, long-distance movements, and extraterritorial excursions by spotted hyenas. Hyenas living primarily within the protected area, but in the presence of livestock and herders, moved faster, traveled over longer distances, and were more likely to be within their territories than did conspecifics living in areas without livestock and herders. Hyenas of low social rank were more likely than hyenas of high social rank to engage in long-distance travel events, and these were more likely to occur when prey were scarce. The movement patterns of this large African carnivore indicate a flexibility that may allow them to persist in landscapes that are becoming increasingly defined by people.
... The Board determines benefit-sharing mechanisms, drives strategic development of the conservancy, and oversees operational management (KWCA, 2020). (Western et al., 2009), is home to one of Kenya's last remaining viable lion populations (Schuette et al., 2013), and is designated an Important Bird Area (IBA) by BirdLife International, as it supports over 550 species of birds (BirdLife International, 2019). Meanwhile, Northern Tanzania's savanna rangelands, where the communal CCROs are situated, support approximately 4200 elephants and 35,000 migratory zebra and wildebeest (Northern Tanzania Rangelands Initiative, 2019). ...
Full-text available
This open access book presents a nuanced and accessible synthesis of the relationship between land tenure security and sustainable development. Contributing authors have collectively worked for decades on land tenure as connected with conservation and development across all major regions of the globe. The first section of this volume is intended as a standalone primer on land tenure security and its connections with sustainable development. The book then explores key thematic challenges that interact directly with land tenure security, followed by a section on strategies for addressing tenure insecurity. The book concludes with a section on new frontiers in research, policy, and action. An invaluable reference for researchers in the field and for practitioners looking for a comprehensive overview of this important topic.
... Large carnivores have extensive home ranges and many disperse, often moving outside of WMAs and predating livestock . Conversely, livestock may roam or be herded inside WMAs where resources are plentiful (Schuette, Creel and Christianson, 2013). ...
Full-text available
Human-carnivore conflicts occur globally and are a leading cause of carnivore population declines. Such conflicts usually occur when carnivores predate livestock and can include preemptive and retaliatory killing of carnivores by livestock farmers. In northern Botswana, livestock farming is a widespread and culturally important practice. Subsistence farming enterprises commonly abut protected areas, and human-carnivore conflicts are common. Understanding interactions between livestock and carnivores, and how livestock use resources and habitats generally, are important components to managing these conflicts. Throughout this thesis, I explore human-carnivore conflict in northern Botswana. I found that livestock resource selection and predation vary seasonally and spatially in relation to ecological and anthropogenic features in the landscape. Predation sites are subsequently avoided by cattle in the short-term, but not by goats. Contemporary mitigation to minimise livestock predation events commonly includes lethal control and broadscale exclusion by artificial barriers and aversive interventions, yet naturally occurring deterrent signals fine-tuned through evolution are rarely considered. Lions roar to deter conspecifics from territorial boundaries, which prey and subordinate carnivores eavesdrop on and modify their movement and behaviour in response. I used lion vocalisations to understand livestock (prey) responses to this apex carnivore and to test how effective roars are in deterring lions and other carnivores. Using a high-tech experimental approach, I found that (1) cattle avoid lion vocalizations, while goats do not, and (2) lions are not deterred by lion roars played-back from Remotely Operated Acoustic Repellent stations (ROARs), nor are other human-carnivore conflict species occurring in the area. Finally, I used a commonly occurring anti-predator signal in nature, demonstrating that artificial eyespots painted on cattle rumps deter lions from attacking cattle. Collectively, the results from my thesis can be used to better manage livestock in a landscape of risk, and to promote human-carnivore coexistence by deterring predation. Applications derived from my thesis to promote human-carnivore coexistence can be used across Africa and the globe.
... Although such landscape features are also important to large carnivores for other reasons, such as hosting prey species as well as providing cover for resting, denning, and hunting (Podgórski et al. 2008;May et al. 2008), large carnivores could additionally depend on these features to reduce human-induced mortality (Oriol-Cotterill et al. 2015). Several studies have documented ne-scale behavioral adjustments resulting in an increased use of cover by large carnivores near humans (Schuette et al. 2013;Gehr et al. 2017). Yet, although it has been suggested that broad-scale distribution patterns of large carnivores, showing a strong association with forests and rugged terrain, are, at least partly, a result of human in uence (May et al. 2008; Martínez-Abraín et al. 2020), broad-scale studies investigating the connection between large carnivores' dependence on refuge habitats and gradients of human pressures are missing. ...
ContextBehavioral adjustments by large carnivores can be a key factor facilitating their coexistence with people in shared landscapes. Landscape composition might be a key factor determining how large carnivores can adapt to occurring alongside humans, yet broad-scale analyses investigating adjustments of habitat use across large gradients of human pressure and landscape composition are lacking.Objectives Here, we investigate adjustments in habitat use by Eurasian lynx ( Lynx lynx ) in response to varying availability of refuge habitats (i.e., forests and rugged terrain) and human landscape modification.Methods We used a large tracking dataset including 434 individuals from seven populations to analyze variation in lynx’ use of refuge habitats and landscape modification at a continental scale.ResultsWe found that lynx use refuge habitats more intensively with increasing landscape modification, selecting forests most strongly in otherwise open landscapes and rugged terrain in mountainous regions. Higher forest availability enabled lynx to place their home ranges in more human-modified landscapes. Human pressure and refuge habitat availability also shaped temporal patterns of lynx habitat use, affecting daytime-nighttime differences in refuge habitat use, as well as females’ association with human-modified habitats during the first months after kittens are born.Conclusions Our findings suggest a remarkable adaptive capacity of lynx towards human pressure and underline the importance of refuge habitats for enabling coexistence between large carnivores and people. More broadly, we highlight that the composition of landscapes determines how large carnivores can adapt to human pressure, and that both factors interact in shaping large carnivore habitat use and distributions at broad scales.
Community lands play a critical role in community well-being and conservation, but community lands can be at odds with statutory land systems. We present two case studies from the Kenya-Tanzania border that illuminates the risks of top-down approaches imposing misaligned privatized tenurial systems onto the community, and the potential of community-based organizations (CBO) to promote collaboration in a socially fractured landscape via communal titles. The case studies indicate that applying a private tenure system in a misaligned cultural setting can fracture cultural and ecological coexistence between communities and the land. CBOs can play a role in catalyzing collective action to resolve these issues. The full devolution of rights must be sensitive to communities’ culture, traditions, and history, while ensuring avenues for collective action.
Unidentified human remains are frequently recovered in urban environments in South Africa, which undergo forensic (medico-legal) investigations. These remains often exhibit animal scavenging modifications and are frequently scattered by animals. This impacts the collection and forensic analysis of the remains. This study aimed to identify scavenging animals present in two urban environments in Johannesburg, South Africa, and describe their scavenging and scattering behaviours. Six pig carcasses (Sus scrofa domesticus) (30-80 kg) were placed in a veldt in Johannesburg and in an abandoned building complex. Motion-activated cameras recorded the scavenging activities. Scavenger species were identified and their behaviours, scattering pattern, and scavenging bone modifications were described. Slender mongooses (Galerella sanguinea) were the most prolific veldt scavengers. They scattered remains to a maximum distance of 10.5 meters in two directions: north and southeast. These mongooses scavenged during the advanced and dry decomposition stages. Gnawing on the angle of the mandible - with multiple parallel scores on the flat surfaces and the angle margin having a stepped appearance - may be a distinguishing scavenging modification feature of the slender mongoose. Hadeda ibis (Bostrychia hagedash) were the only scavengers recorded scavenging on the intestines of a pig carcass in the abandoned building complex. They favoured colonizing insects and created multiple, large holes in the skin and removed the lips to access the insects. The described scavenging behaviours will assist in the reconstruction of postmortem events in forensic cases and the location and collection of scattered remains in Southern Africa.
People, livestock and wildlife have lived together on the savannas of East Africa for millennia. Their coexistence has declined as conservation policies increasingly exclude people and livestock from national wildlife parks, and fast-growing human populations and development push wildlife and pastoralists onto ever more marginal lands. The result has been less wildlife, and more pastoral people struggling to diversify their livelihoods as access to pasture and water becomes harder to find. This book examines those livelihood and land use strategies in detail. In an integrated research effort that involved researchers, local communities and policy analysts, surveys were carried out across a wide range of Maasai communities providing contrasting land tenure and national policies and varying degrees of intensification of agriculture, tourism and other activities. The aim was to create a better understanding of current livelihood patterns and the decisions facing Maasai at the start of the 21st Century in the context of ongoing environmental, political, and societal change. With a research design that linked quantitative and qualitative methods and research teams across multiple pastoral sites for the first time, a comparison of livelihood strategies and returns to livestock, crops, wildlife tourism, and other activities across Kenyan and Tanzanian Maasailand was possible. While livestock remains the critical anchor for most Maasai households, many are obtaining income from a variety of alternative sources. Unfortunately, income from wildlife/tourism, an option seen as most desirable by many because of its potential to provide economically and environmentally ‘win-win’ situations, still benefits relatively few Maasai. Similarly, although governments favor agricultural intensification, significant crop income or enhanced food security from subsistence cropping elude most. This book provides a rich source of new data from across Maasailand and its unparallelled multi-site comparative analyses give valuable lessons of broader applicability. It is a valuable resource for anyone, researchers, development workers and policy makers, who is concerned with improving environmental as well as economic security on the wildlife-rich Maasai pastoral lands in Kenya and Tanzania.
Introduction Physiology and Anatomy Restraint Techniques Drug Delivery Monitoring Analgesia Sedatives Local Anesthetics Immobilizing Drugs Opioids Dissociative Anesthetics Barbiturates α-2 Adrenergic Agonists Other Injectable Agents Inhalant Anesthesia Anesthetic Protocols References
The order insectivora has traditionally been used to unite several disparate mammalian groups (i.e., hedgehogs, moles, tenrecs, shrews, and solenodons) based on size and “primitive characters” (Nowak 1999). The most commonly encountered insectivores in clinical practice in Europe and North America are the West European (Erinaceus europaeus) and four-toed or white-bellied (Atelerix albiventris) hedgehogs, respectively. This chapter discusses physical restraints of the insectivores, and lists anesthetic (inhalant anesthetics and parenteral anesthetics), and analgesic drugs used in the insectivores. It discusses monitoring and supportive care techniques of the insectivores. The monitoring should include pulse oximeter, Doppler flow detection, or ECG.
Distance sampling is a wildlife sampling technique used to estimate population size or density. Describing how density varies spatially is often of equal interest; however, conventional methods of analysis do not allow for explicit modeling of both density and detection probability. The function distsamp implements the multinomial-Poisson mixture model of Royle et al. (2004), which was developed to overcome this limitation. This model requires that line-or point-transects are spatially replicated and that distance data are recorded in discrete intervals. The function gdistsamp extends this basic model, by introducing the parameter φ, the probability of being available for detection (Chandler et al., 2011). Furthermore, this function allows abundance to be modeled using the negative binomial distribution, which may be useful for dealing with over-dispersion. This document describes how to format data, fit models, and manipulate results in package unmarked. It does not cover the statistical theory and assumptions underlying distance sampling (Buckland et al., 2001), which the user is expected to be familiar with.
African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) are a seriously endangered species with only around 5000 individuals left. We examined the factors likely to be affecting the distribution and density of wild dogs living in the Kruger National Park. South Africa. We collected data, by traditional and satellite radio-tracking, on diet selection, sizes of packs, dispersion and sizes of territories, and patterns of habitat selection for eight packs of wild dogs. In Kruger wild dogs specialize on impala (Aepyceros melampus) and kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros). They live in packs averaging about nine dogs and inhabit territories of 350-950 km2. Neighboring territories overlap to some extent but packs meet very rarely. The dispersion pattern of food plays only a minor role in determining the density and distribution of dogs in the Kruger; dogs exist at their lowest density where their food is most abundant. This apparent paradox comes about because the dogs seem to avoid areas that, although prey-rich, are heavily used by lions. This is a sensible strategy because lions are a major cause of dog mortality, accounting for some 39% of natural pup deaths and at least 43% of natural adult deaths. Wild dogs may be conserved most successfully in areus with moderate to low densities of lions and spotted byenas, and management strategies should be careful not to promote these species to the detriment of wild dogs and other carnivores. The densities of lions and spotted hyenas should be important criteria when considering an area for the reintroduction of wild dogs and other similar sized carnivores.