Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area 797


FIG. 2 Rarefaction curves to estimate species richness from camera-trap survey intensity for carnivore and wild prey species in Ondjou Conservancy in the Namibian part of the Kavango– Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (Fig. 1). Dashed horizontal lines denote the observed species richness values.


were more likely to utilize areas far from the main village and close to Nyae Nyae Conservancy, as well as areas where local prey richness was high (Table 1, Fig. 3). There were differences amongst species (Fig. 4) that varied with body mass and feeding strategy (Fig. 5). Omnivorous species tended to be more common across the study area and had a higher probability of detection compared to exclusively carnivorous species. We did not detect any differences for the covariate responses (Table 2). We found no significant effects of body mass on site use intensity, detection prob- ability or any of the three covariate associations, although large-sized species appeared to be less common across the study area than small-sized species. Large-sized species, in particular the brown hyaena, leopard Panthera pardus and, to a lesser extent, African wild dog Lycaon pictus, were more common with increasing distance from Nyae Nyae Conservancy.


Discussion


The carnivore community in Ondjou Conservancy has a high species richness, demonstrating various feeding strat- egies, body sizes and ecological requirements. Carnivore richness was comparatively higher than several other assem- blages of free-ranging carnivores across semi-arid rangelands in southern Africa (Edwards et al., 2015; Curveira-Santos et al., 2021; Verschueren et al., 2021; Reasoner, 2023). This indicates there is sufficient natural habitat, yetwild prey availability and distance to Gam had strong and uniform effects on carnivore occurrence in the study area. Consequently, the carnivore guild may be threatened by prey depletion and human dis- turbance, and action is required to achieve the conservation potential of Ondjou Conservancy, an overlooked region that could function as an important conservation area.


FIG. 3 Carnivore community (thick line) and species (thin lines, with lighter shading indicating lower body mass) responses to covariates (distances to Gam and Nyae Nyae Conservancy and number of prey species with body mass .1 kg) explaining probability of site use in Ondjou Conservancy.


Local prey richness was an important driver of carnivore


site use, yet the overall number of prey species and detec- tions, particularly of medium- to large-sized antelopes, was low. This discrepancy could be attributed to the perva- sive issue of poaching, which reduces competition for live- stock grazing resources and supplements the protein sources of local communities. This imbalance between predator and prey diversity raises the question of whether carnivore diversity accurately reflects ecosystem health, and warrants consideration at a broader scale. Carnivores in Ondjou Conservancy could be supported through sour- ce–sink dynamics with the neighbouring Nyae Nyae Conservancy, which harbours abundant wild prey popula- tions and human communities with high tolerance of wildlife (Mouquet & Loreau, 2003; Lendelvo et al., 2019). Nyae Nyae Conservancy may be critical for carnivores to re- produce, access prey and establish permanent populations,


Oryx, 2024, 58(6), 793–801 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000024


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