Corridors of tolerance through human-dominated landscapes facilitate dispersal and connectivity between populations of African lions Panthera leo S TE PH AN IE DOL REN R Y,LEE LA HAZZAH and LAURENCE FRANK
Abstract Globally, little is known about the dispersal abil- ities of carnivores, their survival in non-protected areas, and the connectivity between protected and non-protected populations. More than a decade of sighting data for 496 known African lions Panthera leo, with 189 individuals engaging in dispersing activities plus an exchange of cross-site information, has provided unique insight into connectivity and survival in unprotected and protected areas in Kenya. In particular, three individuals, across two generations residing solely in unprotected landscapes, demonstrated connectivity between three protected areas that, to our knowledge, have not previously been recognized as harbouring connected
populations.These observations sug- gest that unprotected areas and the human communities that reside in them may successfully create corridors of tolerance that facilitate connectivity and the long-term persistence of lion populations, both within and outside protected areas.
Keywords Carnivore, community conservation, corridor, dispersal, Kenya, lion, Panthera leo, tolerance
increasingly fragmented (Crooks et al., 2011), and dispersal between populations has become ever more important to maintain population viability (Clobert et al., 2012). Dis- persal is broadly defined as the permanent movement of an individual out of its natal range, either alone or with cohorts (Bekoff, 1989; VanderWaal et al., 2009). Migrating individuals can recolonize and protect dwindling local populations from extinction (Brown & Kodric-Brown, 1977; Hanski, 1999).
T STEPHANIE DOLRENRY*† (Corresponding author,
orcid.org/0000-0003-1284-
8271) Lion Guardians, P.O. Box 15550, Langata, 00509 Kenya E-mail
stephanie@lionguardians.org
LEELA HAZZAH*‡ University of Cape Town, Institute for Communities and Wildlife in Africa, Rondebosch, South Africa
LAURENCE FRANK* Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, USA
*Also at: Living with Lions, Nanyuki, Kenya †Also at: University of Cape Town, Institute for Communities and Wildlife in Africa, Rondebosch, South Africa ‡Also at: Lion Guardians, Langata, Kenya
Received 16 October 2018. Revision requested 4 December 2018. Accepted 31 May 2019. First published online 13 February 2020.
he growth of human populations and associated devel- opment are causing carnivore populations to become
Although wildlife dispersal is one of the most important
ecological processes, it remains one of the least understood, particularly for large carnivores, given their longevity, large ranges, and the lack of empirical data across broad areas (Vandermeer & Carvajal, 2001; Bowler & Benton, 2005; Hellgren et al., 2005). Reliable empirical data on dispersal patterns, particularly long-distance and multi-generational movements, are required. The scarcity of such data could in- hibit effective conservation (Verner, 1992; Fagan&Calabrese, 2006; Hilty et al., 2012). Connectivity has primarily been framed through a focus
on habitats that can promote and enhance linkages of popu- lations, also known as corridors (Bennett, 1999). In addition to sufficient habitat, the tolerance of human communities is a primary factor for large carnivore population connectivity and long-term viability (Decker & Purdy, 1988; Carpenter et al., 2000). Conserving large carnivore populations depends on local communities to maintain or, at least, not reduce carnivore numbers occurring within human-populated areas. This means people, in particular those rearing live- stock, need to take effective measures to protect livestock from predators and tolerate carnivore-related losses (Riley et al., 2002; Gehrt et al., 2010). Numerous studies have demonstrated that large carni-
vores exhibit population declines in landscapes where live- stock production is the primary source of income. These declines are largely a result of retaliatory killing in response to livestock depredation (Weber&Rabinowitz, 1996; Linnell et al., 1999; Woodroffe, 2000; Frank & Woodroffe, 2001; Polisar et al., 2003). Other studies have, however, indicated that predators can survive in heavily human-impacted areas if there is human tolerance for such species (Hilty et al., 2012). Wepresent observational dispersal data on multiple gen-
erations of African lions Panthera leo that resided in and dispersed through unprotected human- and livestock-dense areas. Our observations of lion dispersal arose from data on 496 known lions of the Amboseli–Tsavo ecosystem in Kenya over a 14-year period (2004–2018). This 6,000 km2 ecosystem comprises unprotected and protected areas, in- cluding Amboseli and Chyulu Hills National Parks and neighbouring Tsavo West and Kilimanjaro National Parks. Data were primarily collected within three of the communally-owned Maasai group ranches (Mbirikani, Eselenkei, Olgulului). We expanded the study area from 1,320 km2 in 2004–2008,to 3,109 km2 in 2009 and 3,684 km2 during 2010–2018 (Fig. 1). Observations on individual lions
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2020, 54(6), 847–850 © 2020 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000656
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
