4.3 Article

Poaching lowers elephant path tortuosity: implications for conservation

期刊

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
卷 83, 期 5, 页码 1022-1031

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21688

关键词

elephants; GPS tracking; Laikipia - Samburu; movement behavior; path tortuosity; poaching

资金

  1. Netherlands Fellowship Program [NFP-PhD.14/ 44]
  2. Disney Conservation Fund through Wildlife Conservation Network
  3. Safaricom Foundation
  4. JRS Biodiversity Foundation
  5. Nature Conservancy
  6. Save the Elephants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poaching is the most immediate threat to African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Several continental-wide surges in poaching have occurred since the latter half of the twentieth century, and the latest surge occurred from 2007 to 2012. The behavioral responses of elephants to poaching risk has not been studied widely because of a lack of high-resolution movement data collected simultaneously with verified causes of mortality. We managed to collate 2 such datasets from 2004 to 2013. We studied the spatial-temporal changes in movement behavior of 11 elephants in their core areas. Past studies have focused on elephant movement along corridors. We tested for the effect of poaching risk on their path straightness (i.e., tortuosity) while controlling for other environmental and human activities in the landscape using a set of generalized linear mixed models. To test for temporal variation of tortuosity, we used a time-series linear model. Elephants turned less frequently while they were in poaching locations and at times with a high level of poaching activity, even though their speed did not change. The variation of tortuosity is a good indicator of differences in poaching risk as perceived by the elephants, which could complement patrol-based anti-poaching efforts by wildlife managers, especially in remote, inaccessible landscapes. (c) 2019 The Authors. The Journal of Wildlife Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Wildlife Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据