508 O. Sievert et al.
TABLE 1 Biological and translocation details of the seven cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus reintroduced into Liwonde National Park, Malawi, over four reintroduction events during 2017–2018.
ID code Sex1
Estimated age at release (months)
CF1 F 23 CF2 F 26 CF3 F 22 CM1 M 24 CM2 M 78 CM3 M 22 CM4 M 22
Pre-release holding period (days) Release date
31 32 58 31 23 58 58
12 June 2017
13 June 2017
12 June 2017
Collar type
GPS fix success rate2 (%)
GPS 97.2
7 Feb. 2018 GPS 95.0 GPS 54.9
5 June 2017 GPS 66.3 7 Feb. 2018 VHF N/A 7 Feb. 2018 None N/A
Distance (km)3
2,140 GPS Unknown5 2,252 Origin4
Mountain Zebra NP
Social grouping upon release
Artificially bonded with CM1
Amakhala GR Single female
1,105 SanWild WS Sibling group with CM3, CM4
1,450 1,277
Phinda Private GR
Welgevonden GR
Artificially bonded with CF1 Single male
1,105 SanWild WS Sibling group with CM4, CF3
1,105 SanWild WS Sibling group with CM3, CF3
1F, female; M, male. 2Per cent of successful fixes of the number of attempted fixes. 3Euclidian distance from origin to release location. 4GR, Game Reserve; NP, National Park; WS, Wildlife Sanctuary. All origin locations are in South Africa. 5Damage to collar prevented the download of data.
highest during the first 6 months, with an overall cub sur- vival of 60%. Of the four recorded litters, six offspring from two litters reached independence, all three offspring of CF3 died following the death of their mother, and one lit- ter with six offspring was still dependent at the time of writ- ing (cubs,12 months old; Table 3). At the end of the 2-year monitoring period the population consisted of one adult male, two adult females, four subadult males, two subadult females and six dependent cubs.
Discussion
Although post-release monitoring is common, analyses of individual settlement and population establishment are rare. This limits our understanding of early post-release movements, the strategies animals use to settle into novel environments, and ultimately reintroduction success (Armstrong & Seddon, 2007). We determined individual settlement post-reintroduction using two methods based on movement and home ranging patterns. We also assessed individual survival and reproduction to assess population establishment and reintroduction success. In Liwonde, rein- troduced male cheetahs displayed more extensive explora- tory movements than females. Settlement occurred sooner for females than males, with all females developing home ranges before denning and giving birth. All females repro- duced within the first few months of release. An overall suc- cess rate of 57%was recorded (80%for GPS-collared animals) based on individuals that settled in the reserve, survived at
least 1 year, and reproduced (females). Population demo- graphic parameters were similar to those of the source popu- lations, also indicating successful establishment.We therefore deemthis reintroduction successful in establishing a breeding population of cheetahs, with anecdotal evidence of second- generation reproduction in 2020 (OS, pers. obs., 2020).
Holding periods
Longer holding periods are thought to decrease post-release movements, thereby increasing survival (Fritts et al., 2001; Hayward et al., 2007b). They are also important in prevent- ing diseases from spreading, facilitating the formation of social groups and, where applicable, exposing individuals to electrified fences (Hunter, 1998). Holding period duration, however, had no significant effect on post-release movements in Liwonde, congruent with the findings of Weise et al. (2015a). Studies of translocated leopards (Weise et al., 2015b) and tigers Panthera tigris (Sarkar et al., 2016)alsofound that the success of releases without a holding period was compar- able to that of releases with a holding period.
Time to settlement
Time to settlement in our study was similar to that of trans- located cheetahs in Namibia, which settled after 13–190 days post-release (Weise et al., 2015a). Males took significantly longer to develop home ranges than females, and their exact time of settlement was more difficult to determine.
Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 505–513 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000788
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164