Taking the elephant out of the room and into the corridor: can urban corridors work?

Page created by Christine Parks
 
CONTINUE READING
Taking the elephant out of the room and into the
            corridor: can urban corridors work?
                                                                                                       TEMPE S. F. ADAMS, MICHAEL J. CHASE
                                                                                                T R A C E Y L . R O G E R S and K E I T H E . A . L E G G E T T

            Abstract Transfrontier wildlife corridors can be successful                                   Introduction
            conservation tools, connecting protected areas and reducing
            the impact of habitat fragmentation on mobile species.
            Urban wildlife corridors have been proposed as a potential                                    H       uman population increase has resulted in increased
                                                                                                                  fragmentation of wildlife habitat (Johnsingh &
                                                                                                          Williams, ; Osborn & Parker, ) and consequently
            mitigation tool to facilitate the passage of elephants through
            towns without causing conflict with urban communities.                                        the formation of isolated protected areas (the so-called is-
            However, because such corridors are typically narrow and                                      land effect). The lack of connectivity between protected
            close to human development, wildlife (particularly large                                      areas can have a negative impact on wildlife, particularly
            mammals) may be less likely to use them. We used re-                                          on large, wide-ranging species (Hilty & Merenlender,
            mote-sensor camera traps and global positioning system                                        ; Kuykendall & Keller, ). Wildlife corridors that
            collars to identify the movement patterns of African ele-                                     connect favoured habitats (Caro et al., ; Mangewa
            phants Loxondonta africana through narrow, urban corri-                                       et al., ) are potentially a solution to the problem, al-
            dors in Botswana. The corridors were in three types of                                        though their value has been debated (Hilty &
            human-dominated land-use designations with varying le-                                        Merenlender, ). To date, research has concentrated
            vels of human activity: agricultural, industrial and open-                                    on the value of transfrontier connections through human-
            space recreational land. We found that elephants used the                                     modified landscapes, linking protected wildlife areas
            corridors within all three land-use designations and we                                       (Osborn & Parker, ; Douglas-Hamilton et al., ;
            identified, using a model selection approach, that season,                                    Mangewa et al., ), and creating vital links between pro-
            time of day and rainfall were important factors in determin-                                  tected areas and resources (Gilbert et al., ; Hilty &
            ing the presence of elephants in the corridors. Elephants                                     Merenlender, ; Caro et al., ; Mangewa et al.,
            moved more slowly through the narrow corridors compared                                       ). However, there is a need for a better understanding
            with their movement patterns through broader, wide-ran-                                       of wildlife movements at a smaller spatial scale, through
            ging corridors. Our results indicate that urban wildlife cor-                                 urban settlements in or adjacent to wildlife protected areas
            ridors are useful for facilitating elephants to pass through                                  (Carter et al., ), where the passage of wildlife is facilitated
            urban areas.                                                                                  by narrow (– m) pathways. Human encroachment on
                                                                                                          and around wildlife pathways is an important driver of
            Keywords Camera traps, conservation, human–elephant                                           human–wildlife conflict (Carter et al., ; Songhurst &
            coexistence, land management, urban wildlife corridors                                        Coulson, ), which inevitably occurs when people and
            To view supplementary material for this article, please visit                                 wildlife come into direct contact (Sitati et al., ; Graham
            http://dx.doi.org/./S                                                   et al., ; Carter et al., ; Runge et al., ; Songhurst
                                                                                                          et al., ). However, securing space for wildlife to pass
                                                                                                          unimpeded through community areas could facilitate coex-
                                                                                                          istence and potentially offer a long-term solution to conflict.
                                                                                                          The small-scale movement of wildlife through human settle-
                                                                                                          ments is relatively unexplored (Carter et al., ) but is
                                                                                                          increasingly important as human populations increase and
                                                                                                          people come into closer contact with wildlife.
            TEMPE S. F. ADAMS* (Corresponding author) and KEITH E. A. LEGGETT Fowlers
            Gap Arid Zone Research Station, Centre of Ecosystem Science, School of                            The design and implementation of a wildlife corridor in
            Biological Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales,                   an urban setting involves particular constraints. The use of
            Australia. E-mail tempe@student.unsw.edu.au
                                                                                                          corridors by wildlife depends on the availability of appropri-
            MICHAEL J. CHASE Elephants Without Borders, Kasane, Botswana                                  ate habitat cover that provides browsing material and a
            TRACEY L. ROGERS Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological                    means of avoiding predators (Newmark, ); for example,
            Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Australia
                                                                                                          the eland Taurotragus oryx, the greater kudu Tragelaphus
            *Also at: Elephants Without Borders, Kasane, Botswana, and Evolution &                        strepsiceros and the lesser kudu Tragelaphus imberbis are
            Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological Earth and Environmental
            Sciences, University of New South Wales, Australia                                            sensitive to human-altered landscapes that lack resources
            Received  August . Revision requested  September .                                 for predator avoidance, and therefore thick habitat coverage
            Accepted  October . First published online  May .                                  is critical to their use of a corridor (Newmark, ). The

            This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence
Downloaded(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
              from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP which
                                                         address: 176.9.8.24,
                                                              permits         on 18re-use,
                                                                      unrestricted  Apr 2020    at 05:50:36,
                                                                                           distribution, and subject to theinCambridge
                                                                                                             reproduction              Core
                                                                                                                              any medium,    termsthe
                                                                                                                                          provided of use, available
                                                                                                                                                      original work isatproperly
                                                                                                                                                                         https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
                                                                                                                                                                                 cited.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001246
            Oryx, 2017, 51(2), 347–353 © 2016 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315001246
348         T. S. F. Adams et al.

             success of a corridor may also depend on the terrain, the                              settlement in the , km Chobe District, in north-
             human population density (Roever et al., ) and the loca-                           eastern Botswana (Fig. ); % of the Chobe District is for-
             tion of roads (Kuykendall & Keller, ), as well as the prox-                        mally protected (% in Chobe National Park and % as
             imity, size and land use of human settlements (Songhurst                               forest reserve).
             et al., ) People may be perceived as a threat and may                                 Chobe District is bordered to the north by Namibia and
             also compete directly with wildlife for resources (Head                                Zambia, and to the east by Zimbabwe. Kasane and
             et al., ; Songhurst et al., ).                                                 Kazungula lie between the Chobe/Zambezi River and the
                 We do not know how species will use human-shared ha-                               protected areas of Chobe National Park and Chobe Forest
             bitats and whether or not coexistence in compact areas is a                            Reserve. The human population of Chobe District increased
             viable conservation option, especially for large mammals                               by .% during – (Census Office, ) and is set
             (Carter et al., ; LaPoint et al., ). There are concerns                        to continue increasing. Kasane and Kazungula are the two
             about the impact of habitat fragmentation on large mammals                             largest human settlements in the northern region of the ele-
             and how they operate at broad spatial scales (LaPoint et al.,                          phant’s range, with a combined population of c. , peo-
             ; Roever et al., ). We do not know if they can function                        ple (Census Office, ), and a density of  people per
             alongside people at small spatial scales (Patterson, ;                             km. There is no standardized definition of what constitutes
             Wright & Coleman, ; Carter et al., ), as they require                          an urban area (Brenner & Schmid, ) but Kasane and
             a large home range for food resources (Kelt & Van Vuren,                               Kazungula are categorized as urban based on their increas-
             ; Jetz et al., ; Tucker et al., ). For migratory spe-                      ing populations and the availability of amenities and ser-
             cies, understanding their movement patterns is vital for their                         vices (Joos-Vandewalle, ).
             conservation; to understand the challenges that will be faced                             The elephant population in Chobe District is estimated
             in securing their future, one must first understand where they                         to be c. , (Chase et al., ), with c. , in Chobe
             go (Runge et al., ). The African elephant Loxodonta afri-                          National Park. Elephants pass through Kasane and
             cana is an ideal model species as it is large, wide ranging and                        Kasungula en route from the Park and forestry reserves to
             terrestrial, and often co-occurs with other species of conser-                         the river. Both communities are located on the banks of
             vation concern (Roever et al., ). Elephants are known to                           the Chobe River, which is a perennial river system that
             use wildlife corridors and pathways through human-modified                             joins the Kwando–Linyanti and Zambezi river systems.
             landscapes when moving between protected areas or to access                               Northern Botswana is semi-arid with a sub-tropical climate
             resources (Douglas-Hamilton et al., ; Graham et al.,                               and four seasons: the cold dry season (May–July), the hot dry
             ; Songhurst et al., ). However, we have limited                                season (August–October), the wet season (November–March)
             knowledge of their use of smaller corridors that pass directly                         and the post wet season (April), when the rains have stopped
             through human settlements (Head et al., ).                                         but the majority of natural pans away from permanent water
                 Botswana is home to the largest population of African ele-                         sources are still full (Clark, ). The rainfall data used in this
             phants (c. ,; Chase et al., ) as well as a rapidly                           study were obtained from the Government of Botswana
             increasing human population (.% increase during –                               Bureau of Meteorology, Kasane Station (Government of
             ; Census Office, ). Human settlements within the ele-                          Botswana, ).
             phant’s range are located close to resources such as rivers and
             nutrient-rich soils, which are used by both wildlife and people.
             This overlap poses a challenge in managing the increasing                              Methods
             human population (Chase, ), and requires the establish-
             ment of better management and land-use practices to facilitate                         Monitoring
             coexistence between people and wildlife (Songhurst et al., ).
                 Our objective was to assess whether the African elephant                           We monitored seven corridors within three designated land
             would use narrow urban wildlife corridors. We used a series                            uses over a distance of c.  km (Ministry of Lands, Housing
             of remote-sensor camera traps, and data from global position-                          and Environment, ): two are in open space and conser-
             ing system (GPS) collars, to investigate corridor use in three                         vation areas (A), three in industrial areas (B) and two in
             human-dominated land-use types over  years. We predicted                              agricultural areas (C; Fig. ). The agricultural corridors (C)
             that elephants would use the corridors in temporal and spatial                         are designated (i.e. they are acknowledged by the local coun-
             patterns that minimized their interaction with people.                                 cil on planning maps as areas of wildlife use; Ministry of
                                                                                                    Lands, Housing and Environment, ), whereas the cor-
                                                                                                    ridors in land uses A and B are non-designated (i.e. they are
             Study area                                                                             not officially planned or acknowledged).
                                                                                                        All of the corridors have similar geographical attri-
             The study was conducted in the townships of Kasane and                                 butes, with elephants entering from the forestry reserve
             Kazungula, which together comprise the largest human                                   and passing through the corridors to access the Chobe

                                                                                        Oryx, 2017, 51(2), 347–353 © 2016 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315001246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 18 Apr 2020 at 05:50:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001246
Use of urban corridors by elephants                   349

                                                                                                                                            FIG.1 Wildlife corridors
                                                                                                                                            through the Kasane and
                                                                                                                                            Kazungula communities in
                                                                                                                                            Chobe District, north-eastern
                                                                                                                                            Botswana. Corridors A and
                                                                                                                                            A pass through open space
                                                                                                                                            and conservation areas; B, B
                                                                                                                                            and B pass through industrial
                                                                                                                                            areas; C and C pass through
                                                                                                                                            agricultural areas.

           River (Fig. ). The corridors through the open space and                               continues alongside a private lodge and camp ground; and B
           conservation area are  m apart and located north of the                              passes between a lodge and residences (Fig. ).
           main road. Each runs from outside Kasane to the Seboba                                     To monitor the presence of elephants in the corridors we
           Recreational Park on the Chobe River, in close proximity                               installed one Bushnell Trophy Cam Brown HD (c)
           to a number of local businesses and a commercial develop-                              camera trap (Bushnell Corporation, Overland Park, USA)
           ment site. There is a relatively high level of human activity in                       in each corridor (Carter et al., ; LaPoint et al., ).
           the Seboba Recreational Park, which is used for fishing, re-                           Cameras were attached to trees or posts, c. .–. m above
           ligious ceremonies and other cultural activities. There is a                           the ground and facing paths used by wildlife, and remained
           fence along the main road, in which two gaps have been                                 in the same position throughout the study. Photographs were
           opened for corridors A ( length c.  m, minimum width                               downloaded from the memory cards each week. Four of the
           c.  m; Supplementary Plate S) and A (length c.  m,                               cameras (A, A, C and C) were deployed in November
           minimum width c.  m), and this is the narrowest part of                                for  months, two (B and B) in February  for 
           the corridors. We set one camera on each of these corridors                            months, and one (B) in April  for  months. Cameras
           to record any movement of elephants through the gaps in                                operated continuously for  hours per day and recorded
           the fence.                                                                             photographs at  s intervals when triggered by movement,
               The agricultural corridors are located between Kasane                              until the detected target was out of range (c.  m from the
           and Kazungula, in an area known as the Seep (Fig. ). The                              camera). For each photograph we recorded the time, date and
           Kazungula highway runs directly through the area, with the                             number of species captured.
           Chobe River flowing adjacent to the road. The corridors C                                 The NGO Elephants Without Borders fitted a mature
           (length c. , m, minimum width c.  m) and C (length                             adult cow (CH ) in the Kasane–Kazungula region and a
           c. , m, minimum width c.  m) run alongside the two                              mature bull elephant (CH ) on the Chobe riverfront within
           largest commercial farms in the Kasane area. The end point                             Chobe National Park with GPS satellite collars (African
           of both corridors is a natural hot spring (the Seep) that                              Wildlife Tracking, Pretoria, South Africa). The collars were
           opens onto the river, which is a popular recreational site                             set to record the location of the elephants every hour. We
           at weekends.                                                                           used data recorded during  October – October ,
               Unlike in the other two land-use areas, the three corridors                        which coincides with the period of camera trapping.
           monitored in industrial areas (B: length c.  m, minimum
           width  m; B: length c.  m, minimum width  m; B:
           length c. , m, minimum width  m) are not located                                 Statistical analysis
           alongside one another (Fig. ). B is a narrow, fenced corridor
           between Seboba Recreational Park and a jail farm; B is a nar-                         We recorded a single count of presence () or absence () for
           row, fenced passage between two government offices, which                              each day in each corridor, depending on whether or not

           Oryx, 2017, 51(2), 347–353 © 2016 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315001246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 18 Apr 2020 at 05:50:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001246
350         T. S. F. Adams et al.

             TABLE 1 The summary statistics for each of the generalized linear mixed models in which daily presence/absence of elephants Loxodonta
             africana was the response variable, with model parameters, corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc), ΔAIC, AIC weight, and evi-
             dence ratio. Parentheses indicate random factors.

             Model no.             Model parameters                                                    AICc                ΔAIC             AIC weight             Evidence ratio
             1                     Season + (Rainfall) + (Corridor)                                    2,854.40              0.00           1.00                   1.00e + 00
             2                     Season + Width + (Year) + (Corridor)                                2,900.60             46.20           0.00                   1.07e + 10
             3                     Season + Day of the week + (Year) + (Corridor)                      2,918.34             63.94           0.00                   7.67e + 13
             4                     Season + Width + (Corridor)                                         2,920.08             65.68           0.00                   1.83e + 14
             5                     Season + Width + Day of the week + (Corridor)                       2,928.76             74.37           0.00                   1.40e + 16
             6                     Land designation + Season + (Corridor)                              2,934.05             79.65           0.00                   1.97e + 17
             7                     Land designation + (Rainfall) + (Corridor)                          2,956.89            102.49           0.00                   1.79e + 22

             TABLE 2 The summary statistics for each of the generalized linear mixed models in which hourly presence/absence of elephants was the
             response variable, with model parameters, corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc), ΔAIC, AIC weight, and evidence ratio.
             Parentheses indicate random factors.

             Model no.            Model parameters                                                       AICc               ΔAIC            AIC weight             Evidence ratio
             1                    Hour + Land designation + Season + (Corridor)                          1,352.52             0.00          1.00                   1.00e + 00
             2                    Season + Width + (Traffic) + (Corridor)                                1,368.99            16.47          0.00                   3.77e + 03
             3                    Season + (Traffic) + (Corridor)                                        1,379.43            26.91          0.00                   6.97e + 05
             4                    Land designation + Season +(Traffic) + (Corridor)                      1,381.33            28.81          0.00                   1.80e + 06
             5                    Land designation + (Traffic) + (Corridor)                              1,450.86            98.34          0.00                   2.26e + 21
             6                    Season + (Corridor)                                                    1,660.21           307.69          0.00                   6.53e + 66
             7                    Land designation + Season + (Traffic) + (Corridor)                     1,661.91           309.39          0.00                   1.52e + 67

             elephants were photographed. We calculated zero inflation                              Results
             and overdispersion in the data, and selected the appropriate
             family function. To determine if and how elephants used the                            We recorded a total of , images of elephants across the
             urban corridors we created seven binomial generalized lin-                             seven corridors over a -day period during  November
             ear mixed models in R v. .. (R Development Core Team,                               – April . Both bulls and breeding herds with
             ), using the lme, MASS and NLME packages, to inves-                               young calves were recorded. Elephants’ daily and hourly
             tigate which factors influenced elephants’ daily usage of the                          use of the corridors followed a temporal pattern on hourly,
             corridors (Underwood, ). Elephant presence in a corri-                             daily, seasonal and annual scales (Tables  & ). Other spe-
             dor was tested as a function of land-use designation, corri-                           cies were also detected in the corridors. Camera B (Fig. )
             dor, day, corridor width, season, rainfall and year. Corridor,                         recorded the highest species diversity, with  species, ran-
             rainfall and year were random factors (Underwood, ).                               ging from small carnivores, such as civets Civettictis civetta,
             Model selection was based on Akaike’s information criter-                              to buffalo Syncerus caffer.
             ion (AIC; Burnham et al., ); the lower the AIC score,
             the better the model. Summary function was used for the re-                            Daily corridor usage The presence of elephants in the
             sult output. Significance was determined for all analyses at                           corridors was influenced significantly by season and
             P , ..                                                                              rainfall (Table , Fig. , Supplementary Table S). The
                To identify the factors that influenced elephants’                                  highest usage was in August, with a mean of  ± SE 
             finer-scale movements in the corridors we examined data                                detections per day, followed by April, with  ± SE .
             on an hourly time scale. Presence or absence was recorded                              Activity increased significantly in the post wet (z = .,
             in -hourly time intervals for each month. We used bino-                               SE = ., P , .), hot dry (z = ., SE = .,
             mial generalized linear mixed models in which the fixed fac-                           P , .) and wet (z = ., SE = ., P , .) seasons
             tors were hour (-hourly interval), season, land-use                                   in each of the land-use designations (Fig. ). There was a
             designation, and width of corridor; corridor and traffic                               negative relationship between rainfall and elephant
             were random factors (Underwood, ). Traffic was mea-                                presence.
             sured by counting all vehicles along the highway during a
             randomly selected -minute period every hour. The
             -minute counts were averaged for -hourly blocks and                                 Hourly usage Elephants were active in each of the
             used as an indicator of road usage in the area.                                        corridors in each land-use designation throughout the day

                                                                                        Oryx, 2017, 51(2), 347–353 © 2016 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315001246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 18 Apr 2020 at 05:50:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001246
Use of urban corridors by elephants                   351

                                                                                                  suggesting they were actively managing the amount of time
                                                                                                  they spent in unprotected areas (Graham et al., ).
                                                                                                      Our camera trap photographs showed that both bulls and
                                                                                                  family units with small calves used the urban corridors,
                                                                                                  whereas previous research has shown females and calves
                                                                                                  avoiding community areas (Von Gerhardt et al., ).
                                                                                                  The collared cow, a member of a family unit, used the cor-
                                                                                                  ridors more frequently than the collared bull, and moved
                                                                                                  through them more slowly, on average. Corridor width
                                                                                                  was not shown to have a significant effect on elephant pres-
                                                                                                  ence; however, the shape of a corridor could potentially im-
                                                                                                  pede or impact its use by elephants and thus could play an
                                                                                                  important role in determining the corridor’s success. On
                                                                                                  average, the lowest number of elephants was detected in cor-
                                                                                                  ridor B, a long and narrow fenced pathway that passes
           FIG. 2 Mean (± SE) number of elephants Loxodonta africana                              through the corridor to the river.
           detected per day in wildlife corridors through agricultural,                               Seasons were shown to affect the temporal patterns of
           industrial, and open land in the townships of Kasane and                               urban corridor use by elephants. The mean daily usage
           Kazungula (Fig. ), in the cold dry, hot dry, post wet and wet                         reached a peak in the post wet season, coinciding with the
           seasons.                                                                               peak of the Chobe River flood. The elephants may have
                                                                                                  been browsing on the available vegetation before the start
           and night, with a diel pattern of use (Fig. ). Hour, season                           of the dry season. Corridor use was also high during the
           and land-use designation influenced elephant presence in                               hot dry season, possibly because the elephants needed to ac-
           all corridors (Table ). More elephants were observed in                               cess the river more often to stay hydrated.
           the evening (Fig. ; Table , Supplementary Table S), and                                 Rainfall was a significant factor in the daily usage model,
           activity in the corridors was significantly higher at night                            with reduced elephant presence in the corridors during the
           (.–.) than during the day (.–.; Table ).                              wet season. Rainfall is linked to increased availability of food
           More elephants were observed in the post wet (z = .,                                and water resources in the national park and forestry re-
           SE = ., P , .) and hot dry (z = ., SE = .,                                serves, and feeds water into natural pans, thus reducing
           P , .) seasons than in other seasons.                                              the need for elephants to use the corridors to access the
                                                                                                  river (Birkett et al., ).
           Movement of collared elephants Each of the two GPS                                         Elephants’ hourly usage of the corridors followed a diel
           satellite-collared elephants used the camera-monitored                                 pattern, with increased elephant presence at night, when ele-
           corridors during the year of the study. The cow (CH )                                phants are less likely to come into contact with people. This
           moved into the town in the wet and post wet seasons. The                               behaviour is consistent with previous studies of elephant oc-
           bull (CH ) came into the town at the end of the hot dry                              cupation of community areas (Sitati et al., ; Graham
           season and stayed until the start of the wet season, and then                          et al., ; Songhurst & Coulson, ).
           returned in February, March, May and July. They each                                       Vehicular traffic in the corridors was used as a variable to
           passed through different corridors in Kasane and                                       measure the impact of human activity on elephant presence.
           Kazungula, moving at similar speeds, and the cow used                                  We found opposing trends in road use and elephant presence
           the corridors more frequently (Table ).                                               in each of the land-use designations: traffic density was higher
                                                                                                  between sunrise and sunset, and elephant presence was higher
                                                                                                  between sunset and sunrise. However, the rate of traffic did
                                                                                                  not have a significant impact on elephant presence in any of
           Discussion                                                                             the corridors. Previous studies found that the construction of
                                                                                                  roads acted as a barrier to the movement of forest elephants in
           Elephants used the monitored corridors throughout the year,                            both protected and unprotected areas (Blake et al., ), and
           showing temporal patterns of use on both hourly and season-                            that elephants avoided segments of a road passing through a
           al scales. Land-use designation did not strongly influence ele-                        protected area, where there was a higher density of vehicular
           phants’ daily use of the corridors but it influenced their                             traffic. We observed the opposite, in that elephants readily
           hourly usage. This finding complements the results of                                  crossed the highway to reach the river, although they tended
           Douglas-Hamilton et al. () and Graham et al. (),                               to use the corridors in the evening, when there was less traffic.
           who reported that elephants moved through unprotected                                      It has been suggested that the only way to know if a corridor
           areas more quickly and spent less time in those areas,                                 is functional is to block it and see what happens (Mann &

           Oryx, 2017, 51(2), 347–353 © 2016 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315001246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 18 Apr 2020 at 05:50:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001246
352         T. S. F. Adams et al.

                                                                                                                                      FIG. 3 Mean (± SE) number of elephant
                                                                                                                                      detections in wildlife corridors through
                                                                                                                                      (a) agricultural, (b) industrial, and
                                                                                                                                      (c) open land in the townships of Kasane
                                                                                                                                      and Kazungula (Fig. ) during -hourly
                                                                                                                                      intervals, with mean vehicle density (a),
                                                                                                                                      based on recording the number of
                                                                                                                                      vehicles using the corridors during a
                                                                                                                                      randomly selected -minute slot each
                                                                                                                                      hour.

             TABLE 3 The mean, maximum and minimum speeds at which two                              Park, to facilitate the passage of elephants through the
             elephants fitted with GPS satellite collars passed through urban                       Park. Formal protection and designation of urban corridors
             wildlife corridors in the townships of Kasane and Kazungula, in                        by the relevant governing bodies would facilitate coexistence
             north-eastern Botswana (Fig. ), and the number of visits by each                      between people and wildlife at small spatial scales.
             elephant.

                                                  CH 67                      CH 60
                                                  (mature cow)               (mature bull)
                                                                                                    Acknowledgements
             Mean speed (km h−1)                  0.54 ± SE 0.06             0.50 ± SE 0.18         We thank Elephants Without Borders for allowing the re-
             Max. speed (km h−1)                  1.66                       1.43                   search to be conducted under their research permit in
             Min. speed (km h−1)                  0.07                       0.01
                                                                                                    Botswana, and the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation and
             No. of visits                        27                         7
                                                                                                    C. Bargmann for financial assistance. The research has
                                                                                                    been approved by the Botswana Government under the re-
             Plummer, ). Prior to this study a fence was erected by the                         search permit EWT // XX (), granted by the
             Seboba Recreational Park across the open space where corri-                            Department of Wildlife and National Parks to Elephants
             dors A and A were created (Fig. ). Elephants were unable                            Without Borders. We thank M. Scott, R. Sutcliffe,
             to gain access to the river and caused damage to the fence,                            J. Halstead and M. Portek for their assistance in the field
             knocking down parts of it (Supplementary Plate S). The cor-                           and with data input; S. McLeod, J. Smith, R. Hartley and
             ridors were then established so the elephants could pass                               S. Brodie for their assistance with statistics; and R. Palmer
             through the fence unimpeded, and they caused no further                                and D. Clarkson for their assistance with editing.
             damage. This example highlights the importance of urban cor-
             ridors in minimizing conflict between people and elephants.
                 Developing countries balance their development goals                               References
             with their wildlife conservation objectives (Johnsingh &
                                                                                                    B I R K E T T , P.J., V A N A K , A.T., M U G G E O , V.M.R., F E R R E I R A , S.M. &
             Williams, ). It is vital for Botswana to implement appro-
                                                                                                        S LO T OW , R. () Animal perception of seasonal thresholds:
             priate management strategies, such as urban corridors, to                                  changes in elephant movement in relation to rainfall patterns. PLoS
             maintain and preserve Africa’s largest remaining elephant                                  ONE, (), e.
             population as urban development proceeds. Our results                                  B L A K E , S., D E E M , S.L., S T R I N D B E R G , S., M A I S E L S , F., M O M O N T , L.,
             show the functionality of urban corridors in facilitating                                  I S I A , I.-B. et al. () Roadless wilderness area determines forest
                                                                                                        elephant movements in the Congo Basin. PLoS ONE, (), e.
             the passage of elephants through community areas, and it
                                                                                                    B R E N N E R , N. & S C H M I D , C. () The ‘Urban Age’ in question.
             is possible that such corridors could also be used by other                                International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, , –.
             wildlife species. The results have been incorporated in the                            B U R N H A M , K.P., A N D E R S O N , D.R. & H AY VA E R T , K.P. () AIC
             wildlife management plan for the Seboba Recreational                                       model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology:

                                                                                        Oryx, 2017, 51(2), 347–353 © 2016 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315001246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 18 Apr 2020 at 05:50:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001246
Use of urban corridors by elephants                      353

               some background, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral                                    Manyara ecosystem: implications to African elephants and buffalo
               Ecology and. Sociobiology. , –.                                                         movements. ICFAI Journal of Environmental Economics, , –.
           C A R O , T., J O N E S , T. & D AV E N P O R T , T.R.B. () Realities of                  M A N N , C.C. & P L U M M E R , M.L. () Are wildlife corridors the right
               documenting wildlife corridors in tropical countries. Biological                              path? Science, , –.
               Conservation, , –.                                                             M I N I S T R Y O F L A N D S , H O U S I N G A N D E N V I R O N M E N T () Scott
           C A R T E R , N.H., S H R E S T H A , B.K., K A R K I , J.B., P R A D H A N , N.M.B. &            Wilson Field Investigation, . Department of Town and
               L I U , J. () Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine                             Regional Planning, Gaborone, Botswana.
               spatial scales. PNAS, , –.                                                   N E W M A R K , W.D. () The role and design of wildlife corridors with
           C E N S U S O F F I C E ()  Population & Housing Census Preliminary                       examples from Tanzania. Ambio, , –.
               Results Brief. Central Statistics Office, Gaborone, Botswana.                             O S B O R N , F.V. & P A R K E R , G.E. () Linking two elephant refuges
           C H A S E , M. () Home ranges, transboundary movements and                                    with a corridor in the communal lands of Zimbabwe. African
               harvest of elephants in northern Botswana and factors affecting                               Journal of Ecology, , –.
               elephant distributions and abundance in the Lower Kwando River                            P AT T E R S O N , B.D. (). Mammalian extinctions and biogeography in
               Basin. PhD thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA.                                 the Southern Rocky Mountains. In Extinctions (ed. M. Nitecki), pp.
           C H A S E , M., S C H LO S S B E R G , S., L A N D E N , K., S U T C L I F F E , R.,              –. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
               S E O N Y AT S E N G , E., K E I T S I L E , A. & F LY M A N , M. () Dry Season       R D E V E LO P M E N T C O R E T E A M () R: A Language and Environment
               Aerial Survey of Elephants and Wildlife in Northern Botswana:                                 for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
               July–October . The Great Elephant Census, Kasane, Botswana.                               Vienna, Austria.
           C L A R K , H. () Seasonal movement patterns and home ranges of                           R O E V E R , C.L., VA N A A R D E , R.J. & L E G G E T T , K. () Functional
               elephants in northern Botswana. MSc thesis. University of Leeds,                              connectivity within conservation networks: delineating corridors
               Leeds, UK.                                                                                    for African elephants. Biological Conservation, , –.
           D O U G L A S -H A M I LT O N , I., K R I N K , T. & V O L L R AT H , F. ()               R U N G E , C.A., M A R T I N , T.G., P O S S I N G H A M , H.P., W I L L I S , S.G. &
               Movements and corridors of African elephants in relation to                                   F U L L E R , R.A. () Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology
               protected areas. Naturwissenschaften, , –.                                            and the Environment, , –.
           G I L B E R T , F., G O N Z E L E Z , A. & E VA N S -F R E K E , I. () Corridors          S I T AT I , N.W., W A L P O L E , M.J., S M I T H , R.J. & L E A D E R -W I L L I A M S , N.
               maintain species richness in the fragmented landscapes of a                                   () Predicting spatial aspects of human–elephant conflict.
               microecosystem. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London                                    Journal of Applied Ecology, , –.
               Biological Sciences, , –.                                                        S O N G H U R S T , A. & C O U L S O N , T. () Exploring the effects of spatial
           G OV E R N M E N T O F B O T S WA N A () Aerial Census of Animals in                          autocorrelation when identifying key drivers of wildlife crop-raiding.
               Northern Botswana: Dry Season . Department of Wildlife and                                Ecology and Evolution, , –.
               National Parks, Gaborone, Botswana.                                                       S O N G H U R S T , A., M C C U L LO C H , G. & C O U L S O N , T. () Finding
           G OV E R N M E N T O F B O T S WA N A () Kasane daily temperature and                         pathways to human–elephant coexistence: a risky business. Oryx,
               rainfall report for –. Kasane Station. Gaborone, Botswana.                            http://dx.doi.org/./S.
           G R A H A M , M.D., D O U G L A S -H A M I LT O N , I., A D A M S , W.M. & L E E , P.C.       T U C K E R , M.A., O R D , T.J. & R O G E R S , T.L. () Evolutionary
               () The movement of African elephants in a human-dominated                                 predictors of mammalian home range size: body mass, diet and the
               land-use mosaic. Animal Conservation, , –.                                            environment. Global Ecology and Biogeography, , –.
           H E A D , J.S., R O B B I N S , M.M., M U N D R Y , R., M A K A G A , L. & B O E S C H , C.   U N D E R W O O D , A.J. () Experiments in Ecology: Their Logical Design
               () Remote video-camera traps measure habitat use and                                      and Interpretation using Analysis of Variance. Cambridge
               competitive exclusion among sympatric chimpanzee, gorilla and                                 University Press, Cambridge, UK.
               elephant in Loango National Park, Gabon. Journal of Tropical                              V O N G E R H A R D T , K., V A N N I E K E R K , A., K I D D , M., S A M WAY S , M. &
               Ecology, , –.                                                                         H A N K S , J. () The role of elephant Loxondonta africana
           H I LT Y , J.A. & M E R E N L E N D E R , A.M. () Use of riparian corridors                   pathways as a spatial variable in crop-raiding location. Oryx, ,
               and vineyards by mammalian predators in northern California.                                  –.
               Conservation Biology, , –.                                                        W R I G H T , D.H. & C O L E M A N , D.C. () Patterns of survival and
           J E T Z , W., C A R B O N E , C., F U L FO R D , J. & B R O W N , J.H. () The                 extinction of nematodes in isolated soil. Oikos, , –.
               scaling of animal space use. Science, , –.
           J O H N S I N G H , A.J.T. & W I L L I A M S , A.C. () Elephant corridors in
               India: lessons for other elephant range countries. Oryx, , –.
           J O O S -V A N D E WA L L E , S. () The effects of urbanisation on                        Biographical sketches
               non-timber forest product dependencies: a case study of three
               settlements in Chobe district of northern Botswana. MSc thesis.                           TE M P E AD A M S is devoted to applied conservation research and is fo-
               University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa.                                        cused on the application of scientific theory to facilitate coexistence be-
           K E LT , D.A. & V A N V U R E N , D.H. () The ecology and                                 tween people and elephants in Botswana. MI C H A E L CH A S E is primarily
               macroecology of mammalian home range area. The American                                   focused on the status of elephant populations in Botswana and neigh-
               Naturalist, , –.                                                                 bouring countries, and their migratory and cross-border movement
           K U Y K E N D A L L , M.T. & K E L L E R , G.S. () Impacts of roads and                   behaviour. TR A C E Y RO G E R S ’ research aims to understand ecological
               corridors on abundance and movement of small mammals on the                               patterns in mammals, specifically in relation to the ecological and evo-
               Llano Estacado of Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist, , –.                           lutionary consequences of being a certain size, and adopting a foraging
           L A P O I N T , S., G A L L E R Y , P., W I K E L S K I , M. & K AY S , R. () Animal      or locomotory strategy. KE I T H LE G G E T T is a spatial ecologist and is
               behavior, cost-based corridor models, and real corridors. Landscape                       primarily interested in movement biology. He worked on the desert
               Ecology, , –.                                                                   elephants in north-west Namibia for many years, where he focused
           M A N G E WA , L.J., K I K U L A , I.S. & L Y I M O , J.G. () Ecological viability        on elephant movement ecology and human−elephant conflict mitiga-
               of the upper Kitete–Selela wildlife corridor in the Tarangire–                            tion in arid environments.

           Oryx, 2017, 51(2), 347–353 © 2016 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315001246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 18 Apr 2020 at 05:50:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001246
You can also read