402 E. K. Madsen and F. Broekhuis The combined map shows that site use is highest east and
FIG. 3 Combined probability of site use values for the six species (the cheetah, elephant, hyaena, leopard, lion and wild dog; Fig. 2), outside the protected areas of the Maasai Mara (Fig. 1).
may not be the case as they are able to persist in human- dominated areas outside protected areas. Rivers influenced the presence of lions, leopards, wild
dogs and elephants and this could be related to the dense vegetation found beside rivers. Leopards, wild dogs and lions have been shown to select for similar habitats, includ- ing rivers, as they provide a cool environment during the day, denning opportunities for females with offspring, and increased hunting opportunities (Spong, 2002). De Knegt et al. (2011) theorized that, on a fine scale, elephants do not always need to be close to a water source as long as there is one within a day’s walking distance. In the Mara, water sources are fairly common and accessible and there- fore water availability is unlikely to be a limiting factor. It is therefore likely that the selection for rivers is a reflection of the habitat type occurring beside them. The individual species distribution maps are supported
by both sightings and data collected by GPS collars, in par- ticular those that have been fitted on cheetahs (Klaassen & Broekhuis, 2018) and wild dogs (Masenga et al., 2016). Lions have a much wider distribution than leopards, despite these species selecting for similar habitat (Balme et al., 2017b) and this probably reflects the higher densities at which lions occur in the Mara (Elliot & Gopalaswamy, 2017). Cheetahs and lions occur in similar areas and, although lions are a di- rect threat to cheetahs, these species can co-exist through fine-scale avoidance behaviour (Broekhuis et al., 2013). The inverse distribution of wild dogs and lions is similar to findings from Botswana (Cozzi, 2012) and South Africa (Darnell et al., 2014). Such avoidance behaviour affects the patterns of co-occurrence (MacKenzie et al., 2004). This illustrates the importance of taking a multi-species, rather than a single species, approach to management as the ex- pansion of protected areas could increase lion presence and numbers, which could have a negative impact on the population of wild dogs in the Mara. Potential species in- teractions therefore need to be taken into account when considering management practices.
north of the protected areas. Compared to other areas with a similar distance to protected areas, the area north of Naboisho and east of Olare-Motorogi conservancies (also known as the Pardamat Plains) had a low level of site use by all six species. This is probably because the open habitat provides little cover for wildlife. The area south of Naboisho and Ol Kinyei conservancies appears to have the highest site use for all species. This could prove problematic as the Sekanani road, which passes through this area, was, at the time of writing, being tarmacked. This could have negative consequences for the dispersal and movement of these species, and others, unless adequately mitigated. The covariates used in this studywere on a relatively broad
scale and it is possible that there are others affecting wildlife distribution on a finer scale. For example, elephants have been shown to have seasonal habitat preferences and fine scale preferences with respect to plant composition (Galanti et al., 2006; Shannon et al., 2006). Gradient and elevation, which were not taken into account in this study, influence leopard site use (Balme et al., 2017b). There could also be other factors that affect the respondents’ probability of seeing a species: not all pastoralistswill spend equal amounts of time with their livestock. One potential limitation of our study is that it was difficult to ensure that the interviewees reported only on their site and did not include sightings from other areas. However, the false positive model should have ac- counted for the potential for a small number of interviewees reporting on a wider area than intended. Interviewmethodology provides an opportunity to rapid-
ly assess the distribution of wildlife in unprotected areas and has the potential to be developed into a long-term mon- itoring programme. The use of the false positive model increases the robustness of the results derived from un- trained individuals (Petracca et al., 2018). In general, our findings corroborate published literature and expert opinion. We recommend the areas to the east, between the main pro- tected areas and the outer conservancies, which have the highest level of use, as a conservation priority, which could include the expansion of current conservancies and the cre- ation of new conservancies and wildlife corridors. This is particularly important in light of the increasing development in this area, including the erection of fences (Løvschal et al., 2017) and the tarmacking of a main road that passes through this region. However, increasing the amount of protected land can have a negative conservation outcome if local peo- ple become resentful, especially if they are displaced or access to resources is restricted. For successful conservation, land protection schemes need to take into account the needs of both wildlife and people (Roe, 2008).
Acknowledgements A component of this study was carried out in fulfilment of the Wild Animal Biology MSc (EKM) at the Royal Veterinary College and the Zoological Society of London. We thank
Oryx, 2020, 54(3), 395–404 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318000297
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
