dc.contributor.author |
McManus, Jeannine S.
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Faraut, Lauriane
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Couldridge, Vanessa
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Van Deventer, Jaco
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Samuels, Igshaan
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Cilliers, Deon
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Devens, C.H. (Carolyn)
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Vorster, Paul
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Smuts, Bool
|
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2023-07-05T06:47:05Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2023-07-05T06:47:05Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2022-07-29 |
|
dc.description |
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT : The original contributions presented in the study are
included in the article/supplementary material. Further
inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. |
en_US |
dc.description.abstract |
Translocations are commonly employed to mitigate human–carnivore conflict
but rarely evaluated, resulting in conflicting reports of success, particularly for
leopards (Panthera pardus). We evaluate the status of available leopard
translocation data, the factors driving the intentional removal of leopards, and
the potential causal factors associated with successful and failed translocation
events. We obtained data on 60 leopard translocation events across five
provinces in South Africa between 1994 and 2021. We considered a successful
translocation outcome when (1) the animal was moved outside of its original
home range, (2) the animal established a newhome range away fromthe capture
site, (3) no substantive livestock losses were linked to the translocated animal in
the post-releasemonitoring period, and (4) the animal survived at least 6months
post-translocation. Ifmortality occurred due to factors that were equally likely to
impact resident individuals and were unrelated to the translocation event (e.g.,
poaching), the event was not considered a failed effort. Most translocations were
the result of human–carnivore conflict (HCC; 82%, n = 49), stressing the high
prevalence of HCC and the importance of advocating preventative conflict
mitigation efforts to conserve leopards. The leopards were moved distances
from 2.5 to 196.3 km (63.3 ± 51.7km). Forty (67%) translocation events had
unknown outcomes, indicating the limited data available on translocation
outcomes. This also indicates the disparity in the objectives of translocations
by various entities involved with translocations and suggests that monitoring be a
prerequisite for future translocations. Twenty events offered reliable outcomes by means of post-event monitoring, with seven (12%) considered successful,
with three (5%) as failures, and with four (7%) not moved beyond their original
home ranges, while six (8%) ended in unrelated deaths. The failed events were
attributed to inter/intra-specific competition, and one animal returned to its
original home range after a translocation distance of 68 km. Translocation
success was strongly explained by translocation distance. We found that damage-causing leopards were successfully translocated under specific conditions, and
longer translocation distances increase success. Translocations are commonly employed
but are still poorlymonitored.We discuss basic standardized protocols to improve future
leopard translocations (including pre- and post-monitoring) while advocating alternative
non-lethal practices to reduce the prevalence of human–carnivore conflict. |
en_US |
dc.description.department |
Centre for Wildlife Management |
en_US |
dc.description.librarian |
am2023 |
en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship |
Hans Hoheisen Conservation Trust, Mary Oppenheimer and Daughters Foundation, National Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment, Development Bank of Southern Africa, Global Environmental Facility project managed by the United Nations Environmental Program: GEF Project identity number: 9382; Umoja No. 01333, Green Fund, United Nations Environmental Program, United Nations Development Program, GEF Small Grants Programme, National Lotteries Distribution Trust Fund, now called National Lotteries Commission, Project Number 73027, Landmark Foundation Trust, Henry and Iris Englund Foundation, Abax Foundation, Mones Michaels Trust, Felix Schneier Foundation, JDI, Brad Banducci and Arne Hanson. |
en_US |
dc.description.uri |
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/conservation-science |
en_US |
dc.identifier.citation |
McManus, J., Faraut, L., Couldridge, V., Van Deventer, J., Samuels, I., Cilliers, D., Devens, C., Vorster, P. & Smuts, B. (2022) Assessment of leopard
translocations in South Africa. Frontiers in Conservation Science 3:943078.
DOI: 10.3389/fcosc.2022.943078 |
en_US |
dc.identifier.issn |
2673-611X (online) |
|
dc.identifier.other |
10.3389/fcosc.2022.943078 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2263/91270 |
|
dc.language.iso |
en |
en_US |
dc.publisher |
Frontiers Media |
en_US |
dc.rights |
© 2022 McManus, Faraut, Couldridge,
van Deventer, Samuels, Cilliers, Devens,
Vorster and Smuts. This is an openaccess
article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Carnivore conservation |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Damage-causing animal |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Human–carnivore conflict |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Panthera pardus |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Translocation |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Conservation management |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Leopard (Panthera pardus) |
en_US |
dc.subject |
SDG-15: Life on land |
en_US |
dc.title |
Assessment of leopard translocations in South Africa |
en_US |
dc.type |
Article |
en_US |