Savanna elephant numbers are only a quarter of their expected values

dc.contributor.authorRobson, Ashley S.
dc.contributor.authorTrimble, Morgan Jayne
dc.contributor.authorPurdon, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorYoung-Overton, Kim D.
dc.contributor.authorPimm, Stuart L.
dc.contributor.authorVan Aarde, Rudi J.
dc.contributor.emailrjvaarde@zoology.up.ac.zaen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-25T06:19:57Z
dc.date.available2017-07-25T06:19:57Z
dc.date.issued2017-04-17
dc.descriptionS1 File. Additional methods and supporting results and references. This file contains Supporting Information Materials and Methods; Figure A (study schematic), Figure B (23 time series and best-fit population models); Figure C (partial residual plots of components of model averaged GLM to explain PIKE values from MIKE sites); Figure D (comparison of GAMs to explain extracted stable densities with and without influential points); Figure E (histogram of ecological benchmark estimates for each of 73 protected areas illustrating results of Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty); Figure F (histogram of cumulative ecological benchmark across 73 protected areas recalculated for each of 1x10^6 runs from the Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty); Table A (alternative candidate models to describe the population dynamics of 23 time-series populations); Table B (summary information on time series and extracted stable density and SE); Table C (summary information for 43 MIKE sites and the explanatory variables used to explain PIKE); Table D (Summary statistics and variables included in most likely quasi-binomial generalized linear models to explain PIKE for 43 MIKE sites across Africa and final predictive average model used to generate PIKE estimates for non-MIKE sites); Table E (selection parameters of candidate generalized additive models explaining variation in extracted stable population size for 18 populations); Table F (summary information, predicted stable density (give current PIKE), and ecological benchmark density (given zero PIKE), and comparisons between most recent density and population size estimates and ecological benchmark density and population size for 73 protected areas across 21 countries); and Supporting Information References.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractSavannas once constituted the range of many species that human encroachment has now reduced to a fraction of their former distribution. Many survive only in protected areas. Poaching reduces the savanna elephant, even where protected, likely to the detriment of savanna ecosystems. While resources go into estimating elephant populations, an ecological benchmark by which to assess counts is lacking. Knowing how many elephants there are and how many poachers kill is important, but on their own, such data lack context. We collated savanna elephant count data from 73 protected areas across the continent estimated to hold ~50% of Africa’s elephants and extracted densities from 18 broadly stable population time series. We modeled these densities using primary productivity, water availability, and an index of poaching as predictors. We then used the model to predict stable densities given current conditions and poaching for all 73 populations. Next, to generate ecological benchmarks, we predicted such densities for a scenario of zero poaching. Where historical data are available, they corroborate or exceed benchmarks. According to recent counts, collectively, the 73 savanna elephant populations are at 75% of the size predicted based on current conditions and poaching levels. However, populations are at <25% of ecological benchmarks given a scenario of zero poaching (~967,000)—a total deficit of ~730,000 elephants. Populations in 30% of the 73 protected areas were <5% of their benchmarks, and the median current density as a percentage of ecological benchmark across protected areas was just 13%. The ecological context provided by these benchmark values, in conjunction with ongoing census projects, allow efficient targeting of conservation efforts.en_ZA
dc.description.departmentZoology and Entomologyen_ZA
dc.description.librarianam2017en_ZA
dc.description.sponsorshipR.J.v.A. received funding from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (ifaw.org), the National Research Foundation (nrf.ac.za), and the University of Pretoria (up.ac.za).en_ZA
dc.description.urihttp://www.plosone.orgen_ZA
dc.identifier.citationRobson AS, Trimble MJ, Purdon A, Young-Overton KD, Pimm SL, van Aarde RJ (2017) Savanna elephant numbers are only a quarter of their expected values. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0175942. https://DOI.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0175942.en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203 (online)
dc.identifier.other10.1371/journal.pone.0175942
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2263/61427
dc.language.isoenen_ZA
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen_ZA
dc.rights© 2017 Robson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.en_ZA
dc.subjectElephantsen_ZA
dc.subjectPoachingen_ZA
dc.subjectProtected areasen_ZA
dc.subjectBenchmark valuesen_ZA
dc.titleSavanna elephant numbers are only a quarter of their expected valuesen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Robson_Savanna_2017.pdf
Size:
4.78 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Robson_SavannaFileS1_2017.pdf
Size:
1.02 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
File S1

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.75 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: