Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area 799


FIG. 5 Responses of site use intensity (ψ), detection probability (p) and covariate associations (β) for the influence of Euclidean distances to Gam and Nyae Nyae Conservancy and number of prey species with body mass . 1 kg to species variation in body mass (left) and feeding strategy (right) (Table 2).


TABLE 2 Summary statistics for the generalized additive models used for probability of site use (ψ), probability of detection (p) and covariate associations (β). t-values are given for the intercept and categorical factor. The effective degrees of freedom (edf) and F-value are given for the smoothing term. Significant values (P, 0.05) are highlighted in bold.


Response ψ


p


βGam βNyae βPrey


Intercept Estimate 0.656


0.154 0.533


−0.018 0.302


t


14.709 2.235 7.430


−1.443 4.255


P


, 0.001 0.531


, 0.001 0.179


, 0.001


Feeding strategy Estimate 0.151


0.431 0.046


−0.068 −0.032


and transfrontier conservation areas can play a pivotal role in facilitating and implementing evidence-based conserva- tion measures (Andersson et al., 2013). Delineating wildlife zones could secure source populations, and developing and diversifying alternative livelihoods can build resilience amongst local communities (Cochrane & Cafer, 2018; Holland et al., 2022). A fundamental aspect of this approach is com- munity engagement and the equitable distribution of


t


2.031 3.090 0.388


−0.285 −0.268


P


0.0619 0.013 0.703 0.781 0.792


Body mass edf


2.147 7.251 1.794 5.904 1.672


F


2.196 1.537 1.044 2.500 0.800


P


0.127 0.250 0.428 0.112 0.481


benefits (Schoon, 2013). Therefore, it is essential to integrate local context into conservation planning across large land- scapes. Our research has contributed to this by providing baseline information on carnivore diversity and occurrence at the local human–wildlife interface. Our study showed that a diverse carnivore guild persists


in a human-impacted landscape at the periphery of the KAZA TCA, where species of global conservation concern,


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