Emmanuel Mwakiwa

Soil nutrient status determines how elephant utilize trees and shape environments

1. Elucidation of the mechanism determining the spatial scale of patch selection by herbivores has been complicated by the way in which resource availability at a specific scale is measured and by vigilance behaviour of the herbivores themselves. To reduce these complications, we studied patch selection by an animal with negligible predation risk, the African elephant. 2. We introduce the concept of nutrient load as the product of patch size, number of patches and local patch nutrient concentration. Nutrient load provides a novel spatially explicit expression of the total available nutrients a herbivore can select from. 3. We hypothesized that elephant would select nutrient-rich patches, based on the nutrient load per 2500 m(2) down to the individual plant scale, and that this selection will depend on the nitrogen and phosphorous contents of plants. 4. We predicted that elephant would cause more adverse impact to trees of lower value to them in order to reach plant parts with higher nutrient concentrations such as bark and root. However, elephant should maintain nutrient-rich trees by inducing coppicing of trees through re-utilization of leaves. 5. Elephant patch selection was measured in a homogenous tree species stand by manipulating the spatial distribution of soil nutrients in a large field experiment using NPK fertilizer. 6. Elephant were able to select nutrient-rich patches and utilized Colophospermum mopane trees inside these patches more than outside, at scales ranging from 2500 down to 100 m(2) . 7. Although both nitrogen and phosphorus contents of leaves from C. mopane trees were higher in fertilized and selected patches, patch choice correlated most strongly with nitrogen content. As predicted, stripping of leaves occurred more in nutrient-rich patches, while adverse impact such as uprooting of trees occurred more in nutrient-poor areas. 8. Our results emphasize the necessity of including scale-dependent selectivity in foraging studies and how elephant foraging behaviour can be used as indicators of change in the availability of nutrients.

Optimization of wildlife management in a large game reserve through waterpoints manipulation: a bio-economic analysis

Surface water is one of the constraining resources for herbivore populations in semi-arid regions. Artificial waterpoints are constructed by wildlife managers to supplement natural water supplies, to support herbivore populations. The aim of this paper is to analyse how a landowner may realize his ecological and economic goals by manipulating waterpoints for the management of an elephant population, a water-dependent species in the presence of water-independent species. We develop a theoretical bio-economic framework to analyse the optimization of wildlife management objectives (in this case revenue generation from both consumptive and non-consumptive use and biodiversity conservation), using waterpoint construction as a control variable. The model provides a bio-economic framework for analysing optimization problems where a control has direct effects on one herbivore species but indirect effects on the other. A landowner may be interested only in maximization of profits either from elephant offtake and/or tourism revenue, ignoring the negative effects that could be brought about by elephants to biodiversity. If the landowner does not take the indirect effects of waterpoints into consideration, then the game reserve management, as the authority entrusted with the sustainable management of the game reserve, might use economic instruments such as subsidies or taxes to the landowners to enforce sound waterpoint management.

Optimization of net returns from wildlife consumptive and non-consumptive uses by game reserve management

Landowners and game reserve managers are often faced with the decision whether to undertake consumptive (such as hunting) and/or non-consumptive (such as tourism) use of wildlife resources on their properties. Here a theoretical model was used to examine cases where the game reserve management allocated the amount of land devoted to hunting (trophy hunting) and tourism, based on three scenarios: (1) hunting is separated from tourism but wildlife is shared; (2) hunting and tourism co-exist; and (3) hunting and tourism are separated by a fence. The consumptive and non-consumptive uses are not mutually exclusive; careful planning is needed to ensure that multiple management objectives can be met. Further, the analysis indicates that the two uses may be undertaken in the same area. Whether they are spatially, or temporally separated depends on the magnitude of the consumptive use. When consumptive use is not dominant, the two are compatible in the same shared area, provided the wildlife population is sufficiently large.