766 B. Buuveibaatar et al.
scavengers (Olson, 2010; Genung et al., 2017). The cultural and economic values of the gazelle are also important, as the species has been hunted for subsistence primarily by rural populations for millennia and their presence on the steppes is a source of pride to many (Lhagvasuren & Milner-Gulland, 1997; Olson & Fuller, 2017). Additionally, the gazelles could generate income through eco-tourism. The area forming the gazelle stronghold in Mongolia is
subject to rapid human development, with increasing linear infrastructure and livestock herding (leading to forage qual- ity degradation and disease spill-over risk), and there is a lack of effective control and management of hunting to en- sure sustainability (Zahler et al., 2004; Bolortsetseg et al., 2012; Batsaikhan et al., 2014). Given the gazelle’s large popu- lation size and extensive range, a broad range of options for the species’ management remain viable, and resources should be dedicated to maintain and potentially further improve its status (Redford et al., 2013; Baker et al., 2019). The development and implementation of a comprehensive species management plan across its entire range are re- commended (Mallon & Jiang, 2009). Managing a species as abundant and geographically ex-
pansive as the Mongolian gazelle poses distinct challenges as it necessitates a comprehensive approach that considers the diverse range of stakeholders and resources involved. The viability of the gazelle population relies on its ability to freely traverse a vast mixed-use landscape that is subject to a multitude of competing interests and land uses. Small pro- tected areas that are scattered throughout the landscape are not adequate because of the gazelle’s long-distance nomadic movements, which require habitats between protected areas to also be of high quality (Nandintsetseg et al., 2019). To address these challenges, a holistic, landscape-scale approach is necessary. This approach should involve all relevant stakeholders, including local communities, gov- ernment agencies, conservation organizations and research- ers, collaboratively developing integrated land-use plans. Such plans should prioritize the maintenance and restoration of critical habitats, including both protected areas and func- tional connectivity across the wider landscape. Mitigation of threats to the gazelle from linear infrastruc-
ture requires regional strategic planning to avoid further fragmentation of the landscape by barriers that would affect a large proportion of the population. In the case of struc- tures associated with international boundaries such as bor- der fences, high-level political engagement is required to facilitate transboundary gazelle movements (Linnell et al., 2016). For example, redesigning of the border fences be- tween Mongolia, China and Russia to allow safe passage of gazelles could be considered with reference to the Daurian International Protected Area framework estab- lished in 1994. Existing fenced rail corridors require the en- forcement of international conventions (e.g. the Convention on Migratory Species) and national laws, as well as
constructive engagement with rail operators, to ensure that necessary changes are implemented effectively. Hunting of gazelles occurs for both subsistence by herders
and local markets. Setting realistic quotas to ensure sustain- able hunting is hindered by the lack of adequate population monitoring, and much of the current gazelle hunting in the region is illegal because hunting permits are prohibitively ex- pensive for many local people. However, hunting appears to have decreased according to the results of our survey. It is un- certain whether this is because of changes in socio-economic pressures, improved law enforcement or changing values. Harvesting of gazelles still occurs, and hunting management to support both local interests and trophy hunting is largely absent in Mongolia. Given the continued culture of hunting in Mongolia, the development of a sustainable programme that is based on maintaining the presently large numbers of gazelles would represent an important step in securing the long-term viability of this species. Lastly, it is crucial to monitor the status of the gazelle population at regular intervals to facilitate proactive decision-making. Assessing the gazelle populations across Mongolia, Russia and China presents significant challenges because of the vast geographical area and the political boundaries of these countries. However, obtaining an accur- ate population estimate is vital for the conservation and management of this species. One approach that could be used in future would be to foster collaborations amongst range states to establish a coordinated approach to popula- tion
assessments.This could involve developing standardized survey methods and sharing data to ensure consistency and accuracy of the gazelle population size estimates across these regions. Such collaboration would inform trends and provide the data necessary to determine the effectiveness of interventions or the urgency of preventative measures to avert population declines. Currently, such monitoring is not occurring, which allows threats to go unnoticed and hin- ders the implementation of actions to ensure the sustainable management of the gazelle.
Acknowledgements The Mongolian gazelle abundance survey for 2020 in central and eastern Mongolia was funded by the MoreStep pro- ject (German Ministry of Education and Research, 01LC1820E) and carried out by the Wildlife Conservation Society and Khustai National Park. The population survey for the southern Gobi region took place within the framework of Oyu Tolgoi LLC’s Core Biodiversity Monitoring Program. We thank Khomiin Tal National Park for providing data on gazelle abundance for the isolated popula- tion in western Mongolia.
Author contributions Study design: BB, SS, KAO; fieldwork, data collection: BB, BA, SB, TB, GN, BO, JT, GU; distance sampling data analysis: BB, SS; writing: all authors.
Conflict of interest None.
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
Oryx, 2024, 58(6), 759–768 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323001515
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
