Search

Both termites and large mammalian herbivores (LMH) are savanna ecosystem engineers that have profound impacts on ecosystem structure and function. Both of these savanna engineers modulate many common and shared dietary resources such as woody and herbaceous plant biomass, yet few studies have addressed how they impact one another. In particular, it is unclear how herbivores may influence the abundance of long‐lived termite mounds via changes in termite dietary resources such as woody and herbaceous biomass. While it has long been assumed that abundance and areal cover of termite mounds in the landscape remain relatively stable, most data are observational, and few experiments have tested how termite mound patterns may respond to biotic factors such as changes in large herbivore communities. Here, we use a broad tree density gradient and two landscape‐scale experimental manipulations—the first a multi‐guild large herbivore exclosure experiment (20 years after establishment) and the second a tree removal experiment (8 years after establishment)—to demonstrate that patterns in Odontotermes termite mound abundance and cover are unexpectedly dynamic. Termite mound abundance, but areal cover not significantly, is positively associated with experimentally controlled presence of cattle, but not wild mesoherbivores (15–1,000 kg) or megaherbivores (elephants and giraffes). Herbaceous productivity and tree density, termite dietary resources that are significantly affected by different LMH treatments, are both positive predictors of termite mound abundance. Experimental reductions of tree densities are associated with lower abundances of termite mounds. These results reveal a richly interacting web of relationships among multiple savanna ecosystem engineers and suggest that termite mound abundance and areal cover are intimately tied to herbivore‐driven resource availability., Our study provides unique descriptive and experimental evidence linking termite mound abundance to the availability of dietary resources. Further, we showed how two ecosystem engineers in this system, large mammalian herbivores and termites, are linked in previously unexplored ways.

The high mortality and low recruitment of the myrmecophytic Acacia drepanolobium are not consistent with the demographic rates of monodominant species. The positive conspecific density dependence observed from the spatial analysis is consistent with the defensive benefits conferred by symbiotic ants to trees when they grow close to each other. Patches of savanna dominated by Acacia drepanolobium occur throughout East Africa on nutrient-rich vertisols, also known as black cotton soils. We assessed the survival and recruitment for all freestanding trees with diameter at knee height (dkh) ≥ 10 mm in one of such mono-dominated patches (47 ha) at the Mpala Research Centre, Kenya, with the aim of identifying demographic traits that might explain the dominance of this species. Over a mean 6-year interval, mortality and recruitment rates in the habitat were 4.55%/year and 1.42%/year respectively, resulting in a net loss of 17.8% of the initial individuals. Of the 30 species recorded from the first census, 11 decreased in abundance, nine increased, and the remainder 10 did not change in abundance. The monodominant A. drepanolobium had a high mortality (4.69%/year), a low recruitment (1.31%/year), and a 19% population decline. There was no evidence of conspecific negative density dependence for this species. Rather, we found a statistically significant positive correlation between the number of conspecific neighbors and individual-level probability of survival, consistent with the “shared defense” benefits that symbiotic ant colonies occupying multiple trees can confer to these latter in a small neighborhood. Thus, mortality of A. drepanolobium was higher in areas where it occurred in lower densities, which resulted in an increase in the spatial aggregation of conspecifics. Mortality increased with dkh size classes and was mostly caused by elephants and stem-boring beetles. The demographic rates during the study period in theory are inconsistent with those of monodominant species. The protection against herbivory conferred by mutualistic ants associated with this species remains the most probable explanation of its dominance in this habitat.

Analysing temporal patterns in plant communities is extremely important to quantify the extent and the consequences of ecological changes, especially considering the current biodiversity crisis. Long-term data collected through the regular sampling of permanent plots represent the most accurate resource to study ecological succession, analyse the stability of a community over time and understand the mechanisms driving vegetation change. We hereby present the LOng-Term Vegetation Sampling (LOTVS) initiative, a global collection of vegetation time-series derived from the regular monitoring of vascular plants in permanent plots. With 79 datasets from five continents and 7789 vegetation time-series monitored for at least six years and mostly on an annual basis, LOTVS possibly represents the largest collection of temporally fine-grained vegetation time-series derived from permanent plots and made accessible to the research community. As such, it has an outstanding potential to support innovative research in the fields of vegetation science, plant ecology and temporal ecology.

Grassland and savanna ecosystems, important for both livelihoods and biodiversity conservation, are strongly affected by ecosystem drivers such as herbivory, fire, and drought. Interactions among fire, herbivores and vegetation produce complex feedbacks in these ecosystems, but these have rarely been studied in the context of fuel continuity and resultant fire heterogeneity. We carried out 36 controlled burns within replicated experimental plots that had allowed differential access by wild and domestic large herbivores since 1995 in a savanna ecosystem in Kenya. Half of these were reburns of plots burned 5 yr previously. We show here that the fine-scale spatial heterogeneity of fire was greater in plots (1) previously burned, (2) accessible to large herbivores, and especially (3) these two in combination. An additional embedded experiment demonstrated that even small experimental burn-free patches can have strong positive effects on tree saplings, which experienced less damage during controlled burns and quicker postfire recovery. This work highlights the importance of simultaneously examining the interactions between fire and herbivory on fuel heterogeneity, which can have important impacts on the growth of woody saplings in savanna grasslands.

Understanding animals’ use of space can shed valuable light on multiple other aspects of behavioral ecology, including social organization, dispersal, and foraging efficiency. Home ranges, territories, core areas, and home range overlaps have been widely studied, but unless animals are directly observed or are tracked remotely on a fine temporal scale, how they actually use the space available to them and how they share (or partition) this space with a community of conspecifics over time cannot be fully understood. Using GPS technology, we tracked three adjacent groups of vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) in Laikipia, Kenya, for 1 year to better understand the processes involved in territoriality and home range overlaps. Home ranges overlapped with any one neighboring group by 12.7–34.7%, but intergroup encounters only occurred in restricted areas within these zones, which defined territorial boundaries. The resources closest to the territorial boundaries were nocturnal core areas with preferred sleeping sites adjacent to short-grass areas offering fewer hiding places for ambush predators and greater visibility for predator detection. Home range overlaps were not neutral zones, the result of shifting home range boundaries over time, or based on intergroup encounters at boundaries, but resulted when groups made incursions beyond their territorial boundaries while the neighbor was far away and likely unaware of the intruders. Thus, territories can be non-exclusive but may still be perceived by the animals themselves as sole-owned, as neighbors only intrude when territory owners are absent from that area. How animals use their space is a perennial focus in behavioral ecology because space use influences nearly everything else in animals’ lives. While tracking has long been used to investigate space use, particularly for nocturnal animals, only direct observation or tracking on a fine scale can reveal the processes involved in the creation or maintenance of home ranges and territories and that cause home range overlaps to persist. We remotely tracked three adjacent groups of vervet monkeys on a fine temporal scale for 1 year. Despite behaving territorially, vervet home ranges overlapped well beyond territorial boundaries because neighbors were “absentee owners,” unable to prevent incursions when they were not nearby. Our findings suggest that exclusivity of use in the definition of territoriality may be too strict; animals may behave as if they are exclusive owners even if neighbors’ use of space does not reflect it.

On rangelands worldwide, cattle interact with many forms of biodiversity, most obviously with vegetation and other large herbivores. Since 1995, we have been manipulating the presence of cattle, mesoherbivores, and megaherbivores (elephants and giraffes) in a series of eighteen 4-ha (10-acre) plots at the Kenya Long-term Exclosure Experiment. We recently (2013) crossed these treatments with small-scale controlled burns. These replicated experimental treatments simulate different land management practices. We seek to disentangle the complex relationships between livestock and biodiversity in a biome where worldwide, uneasy coexistence is the norm. Here, we synthesize more than 20 yr of data to address three central questions about the potentially unique role of cattle in savanna ecology: 1) To what extent do cattle and wild herbivores compete with or facilitate each other? 2) Are the effects of cattle on vegetation similar to those of wildlife, or do cattle have unique effects? 3) What effects do cattle and commercial cattle management have on other savanna organisms? We found that 1) Cattle compete at least as strongly with browsers as grazers, and wildlife compete with cattle, although these negative effects are mitigated by cryptic herbivores (rodents), rainfall, fire, and elephants. 2) Cattle effects on herbaceous vegetation (composition, productivity) are similar to those of the rich mixture of ungulates they replace, differing mainly due to the greater densities of cattle. In contrast, cattle, wild mesoherbivores, and megaherbivores have strongly guild-specific effects on woody vegetation. 3) Both cattle and wild ungulates regulate cascades to other consumers, notably termites, rodents, and disease vectors (ticks and fleas) and pathogens. Overall, cattle management, at moderate stocking densities, can be compatible with the maintenance of considerable native biodiversity, although reducing livestock to these densities in African rangelands is a major challenge.

In many savanna ecosystems worldwide, livestock share the landscape and its resources with wildlife. The nature of interactions between livestock and wildlife is a subject of considerable interest and speculation, yet little controlled experimental research has been carried out. Since 1995, we have been manipulating the presence and absence of cattle and large mammalian herbivore wildlife in a Kenyan savanna in order to better understand how different herbivore guilds influence habitat use by specific wildlife species. Using dung counts as a relative assay of herbivore use of the different experimental plots, we found that cattle had a range of effects, mostly negative, on common mesoherbivore species, including both grazers and mixed feeders, but did not have significant effects on megaherbivores. The effect of cattle on most of the mesoherbivore species was contingent on both the presence of megaherbivores and rainfall. In the absence of megaherbivores, wild mesoherbivore dung density was 36% lower in plots that they shared with cattle than in plots they used exclusively, whereas in the presence of megaherbivores, wild mesoherbivore dung density was only 9% lower in plots shared with cattle than plots used exclusively. Cattle appeared to have a positive effect on habitat use by zebra (a grazer) and steinbuck (a browser) during wetter periods of the year but a negative effect during drier periods. Plots to which cattle had access had lower grass and forb cover than plots from which they were excluded, while plots to which megaherbivores had access had more grass cover but less forb cover. Grass cover was positively correlated with zebra and oryx dung density while forb cover was positively correlated with eland dung density. Overall these results suggest that interactions between livestock and wildlife are contingent on rainfall and herbivore assemblage and represent a more richly nuanced set of interactions than the longstanding assertion that cattle simply compete with (grazing) wildlife. Specifically, rainfall and megaherbivores seemed to moderate the negative effects of cattle on some mesoherbivore species. Even if cattle tend to reduce wildlife use of the landscape, managing simultaneously for livestock production (at moderate levels) and biodiversity conservation is possible.

Summary Prescribed burning is used in tropical savannas to improve habitat conditions for domestic and wild herbivores, but its effects on the ecological interactions between these herbivore guilds have never been assessed experimentally. Understanding such effects will contribute towards more informed management of both guilds in landscapes where they share habitats. We investigated the effects of burning on the nutritional outcomes for cattle sharing habitat with wildlife in a Kenyan savanna ecosystem. We compared forage availability and cattle forage and nutrient intake rates across burned and unburned areas cattle accessed exclusively, and those they shared with medium-sized wild ungulates, both with and without megaherbivores (elephants and giraffes). We performed these measurements in May 2013 (wet period, 2 months post-burning) and February 2014 (dry period, 11 months post-burning). Additionally, we monitored wildlife use of these areas. Prescribed burning enhanced cattle nutrition, but only in areas cattle did not share with wildlife. Shared foraging with wildlife reduced cattle forage and nutrient intake rates by 37–97% in burned areas (burns), but not in unburned areas; these reductions corresponded with reduced herbage availability in the shared burns. In May (the wet period), cattle met their nutrient intake requirements in burns, regardless of whether they were sharing these areas with wildlife. However, in February (the dry period), nutrient requirements were unmet or tended to be unmet in burns shared with wildlife; requirements were met or significantly exceeded in the unshared burns. Experimental exclusion of megaherbivores did not moderate these effects, suggesting that they were primarily caused by medium-sized wild ungulates which were highly attracted to burns. Synthesis and applications. Prescribed burning produces negative nutritional outcomes for cattle when sharing habitat with wild ungulates. Because these effects could negatively influence livestock–wildlife coexistence, burning should be applied prudently in such human-occupied savanna landscapes. Specifically, because unburned areas serve as refuge foraging areas during the dry season, interspersing burns with unburned areas could minimize fire-driven negative interactions between cattle and wild ungulates. Conversely, burning could be used to draw wildlife away from valuable cattle foraging areas, such as those near available water.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-11-26T17:44:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-01-26 Robert Bosch Foundation Animal movement is fundamental for ecosystem functioning and species survival, yet the effects of the anthropogenic footprint on animal movements have not been estimated across species. Using a unique GPS-tracking database of 803 individuals across 57 species, we found that movements of mammals in areas with a comparatively high human footprint were on average one-half to one-third the extent of their movements in areas with a low human footprint. We attribute this reduction to behavioral changes of individual animals and to the exclusion of species with long-range movements from areas with higher human impact. Global loss of vagility alters a key ecological trait of animals that affects not only population persistence but also ecosystem processes such as predator-prey interactions, nutrient cycling, and disease transmission. Senckenberg Gesell Naturforsch, Senckenberg Biodivers & Climate Res Ctr, D-60325 Frankfurt, Main, Germany Goethe Univ, Dept Biol Sci, D-60438 Frankfurt, Main, Germany Univ Maryland, Dept Biol, College Pk, MD 20742 USA Univ Maryland, SESYNC, Annapolis, MD 21401 USA Univ Guelph, Dept Integrat Biol, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada Norwegian Inst Nat Res, POB 5685 Torgard, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway Duke Univ, Dept Biol, Durham, NC 27708 USA Duke Univ, Dept Evolut Anthropol, Durham, NC 27708 USA Hirola Conservat Programme, Garissa, Kenya Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Dept Wildlife Fish & Environm Studies, S-90183 Umea, Sweden Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Dept Anim Ecol & Physiol, Inst Water & Wetland Res, NL-6500 GL Nijmegen, Netherlands Univ Fed Mato Grosso do Sul, Ecol & Conservat Grad Program, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil Univ Alberta, Dept Biol Sci, Edmonton, AB, Canada Univ London, Royal Vet Coll, Struct & Motion Lab, London NW1 0TU, England Wildlife Conservat Soc, Mongolia Program, Ulaanbaatar, Mongol Peo Rep Mississippi State Univ, Forest & Wildlife Res Ctr, Carnivore Ecol Lab, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS USA Sao Paulo State Univ, Anim Biol Postgra Program, BR-15054000 Sao Jose Do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil Michigan Dept Nat Resources, 1990 US 41 South, Marquette, MI 49855 USA Univ Calif Davis, Dept Anthropol, Davis, CA 95616 USA Aarhus Univ, Dept Biosci, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Max Planck Inst Ornithol, Vogelwarte Radolfzell, D-78315 Radolfzell am Bodensee, Germany Wildlife Conservat Soc, Bronx, NY 10460 USA Univ Potsdam, Plant Ecol & Nat Conservat, D-14476 Potsdam, Germany Middle Tennessee State Univ, Dept Biol, Murfreesboro, TN 37132 USA Univ Pretoria, Dept Zool & Entomol, Mammal Res Inst, ZA-0028 Gauteng, South Africa Fdn Edmund Mach, Res & Innovat Ctr, Dept Biodivers & Mol Ecol, I-38010 San Michele All Adige, TN, Italy Harvard Univ, Dept Organism & Evolutionary Biol, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Natl Zool Pk, Smithsonian Conservat Biol Inst, Front Royal, VA USA Univ Evora, Depat Fitotecn, P-7002554 Evora, Portugal Univ Evora, ICAAM, Inst Mediterranean Agr & Environm Sci, Evora, Portugal Univ Montpellier, Univ Paul Valery Montpellier, CNRS,EPHE, Ctr Ecol Fonctionnelle & Evolut,UMR 5175, F-34293 Montpellier 5, France Phillip Isl Nat Parks, Cowes, Vic, Australia Monash Univ, Sch Biol Sci, Melbourne, Vic, Australia Ohio State Univ, Dept Civil Environm & Geodet Engn, Columbus, OH 43210 USA Fiji Natl Univ, Dept Biol, POB 5529, Natabua, Lautoka, Fiji Univ Massachusetts, US Geol Survey, Massachusetts Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, Amherst, MA 01003 USA Penn State Univ, US Geol Survey, Penn Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, University Pk, PA 16802 USA Univ Oxford, Dept Zool, Oxford OX1 3PS, England Giraffe Conservat Fdn, POB 86099, Eros, Namibia German Primate Ctr, Behav Ecol & Sociobiol Unit, D-37077 Gottingen, Germany Tech Univ Munich, Dept Ecol & Ecosyst Management, Restorat Ecol, D-85354 Freising Weihenstephan, Germany Cary Inst Ecosyst Studies, Millbrook, NY 12545 USA Univ British Columbia, Irving K Barber Sch Arts & Sci, Unit 2, Biol, Okanagan Campus, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada Univ Zurich, Dept Evolutionary Biol & Environm Studies, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland Univ Wyoming, Dept Zool & Physiol, Laramie, WY 82071 USA Univ Washington, Sch Environm & Forest Sci, Seattle, WA 98195 USA Univ Montana, Coll Forestry & Conservat, Dept Ecosyst & Conservat Sci, Wildlife Biol Program, Missoula, MT 59812 USA Bavarian Forest Natl Pk, Dept Conservat & Res, D-94481 Grafenau, Germany Albert Ludwigs Univ Freiburg, Wildlife Ecol & Management, D-79106 Freiburg, Germany Univ Toulouse, INRA, CEFS, Castanet Tolosan, France Univ Calif Davis, Anim Behav Grad Grp, Davis, CA 95616 USA Bionet Natr Onderzoek, NL-6171 EL Stein, Netherlands Univ Vet Med Vienna, Res Inst Wildlife Ecol, A-1160 Vienna, Austria Univ Coll Cork, Sch Biol Earth & Environm Sci, Cork, Ireland Univ Wyoming, US Geol Survey, Dept Zool & Physiol, Wyoming Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, Laramie, WY USA North Carolina Museum Nat Sci, Raleigh, NC 27601 USA North Carolina State Univ, Dept Forestry & Environm Resources, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA Karatina Univ, Dept Nat Resource Management, POB 195710101, Karatina, Kenya Univ Lethbridge, Dept Psychol, Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4, Canada Columbia Univ, Lamont Doherty Earth Observ, Palisades, NY 10964 USA Univ Valencia, Terr Vertebrates Grp, Cavanilles Inst Biodivers & Evolutionary Biol, E-46980 Valencia, Spain SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Anthropol, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA TSG, SSC, IUCN, Rua Licuala 622,Damha 1,Campo Grande, BR-79046150 Mato Grosso Sul, Brazil IPE Inst Pesquisas Ecol Inst Ecol Res, Caixa Postal 47, BR-12960000 Sao Paulo, Brazil Univ Alicante, Dept Ciencias Ambient & Recursos Natur, Vertebrates Zool Res Grp, Alicante, Spain Embrapa Pantanal, BR-79320900 Corumba, MS, Brazil Chico Mendes Inst Conservat Biodivers, Natl Res Ctr Carnivores Conservat, BR-12952011 Atiba, SP, Brazil Univ Glasgow, Inst Biodivers Anim Hlth & Comparat Med, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland NYU, Dept Biol, Ctr Genom & Syst Biol, New York, NY 10003 USA Univ Calif Davis, Dept Microbiol & Mol Genet, Davis, CA 95616 USA Univ Oslo, Dept Biosci, Ctr Ecol & Evolutionary Synth, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway Hebrew Univ Jerusalem, Alexander Silberman Inst Life Sci, Dept Ecol Evolut & Behav, Movement Ecol Lab, IL-91904 Jerusalem, Israel Norwegian Inst Nat Res, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol NTNU, Dept Math Sci & Ctr Biodivers Dynam, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway Univ Fed Mato Grosso do Sul, Dept Ecol, BR-79070900 Campo Grande, MS, Brazil Field Museum Nat Hist, Integrat Res Ctr, Chicago, IL 60605 USA Consorzio Parco Nazl Stelvio, Bormio, Sondrio, Italy Univ Grenoble Alpes, Irstea, UR LESSEM, BP 76, F-38402 St Martin Dheres, France Univ Bayreuth, BayCEER, D-95447 Bayreuth, Germany Natl Park Schwarzwald, D-77889 Seebach, Germany Univ New South Wales, Evolut & Ecol Res Ctr, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Univ New South Wales, Sch Biol Earth & Environm Sci, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Penn Game Commiss, Harrisburg, PA 17110 USA Princeton Univ, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA Univ Konstanz, Dept Biol, D-78467 Constance, Germany Off Natl Chasse & Faune Sauvage, Studies & Expertise DRE, F-01330 Birieux, France Univ Haifa, Dept Evolutionary & Environm Biol, IL-3498838 Haifa, Israel Western Ecosyst Technol Inc, Laramie, WY 82070 USA Aarhus Univ, Arctic Res Ctr, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark Polish Acad Sci, Inst Nat Conservat, PL-31120 Krakow, Poland Univ Porto, CIBIO InBIO Associate Lab, P-4485661 Vairao, Portugal Univ Lisbon, Inst Super Agron, InBIO Associate Lab, Ctr Appl Ecol Prof Baeta Neves, P-1349017 Lisbon, Portugal Univ Lisbon, Fac Ciencias, Ctr Ecol Evolut & Environm Changes, P-1749016 Lisbon, Portugal Univ Calif Davis, Dept Environm Sci & Policy, Davis, CA 95616 USA Jackson Hole Conservat, Jackson, WY 83001 USA Univ Vet Med Hannover, Inst Terr & Aquat Wildlife Res, D-30173 Hannover, Germany Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Environm Studies Dept, Ctr Integrated Spatial Res, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA Univ Pretoria, Dept Zool & Entomol, ZA-0028 Hatfield, South Africa Colorado State Univ, Dept Fish Wildlife & Conservat Biol, Ft Collins, CO 80523 USA Tatra Natl Pk, PL-34500 Zakopane, Poland Sao Paulo State Univ, Anim Biol Postgra Program, BR-15054000 Sao Jose Do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil

Both wild and prescribed fire in savanna ecosystems influence habitat use by herbivores by creating or maintaining spatial and temporal heterogeneity in forage quality and vegetation cover. Yet little is known about how spatial scales influence long-term persistence of fire effects. We examined changes over a 6-year period in herbivore preference for experimentally burned patches that varied in spatial extent and grain. Avoidance for the burns by elephants and preference for the burns by impala and Grant’s gazelle decreased significantly. For the rest of the species (zebra, eland, oryx, hartebeest, warthog and hare), there were no significant changes in preference for the burns. Changes in preference for the burned areas depended on the spatial extent and grain of the burn, with intermediate-size (9-ha) burns and large (8-ha) patchy burns being more preferred 6–7 years after fire. Grain, but not the spatial extent of the burned area, influenced changes in grass height. Fire resulted in a delayed reduced tree density irrespective of the spatial scale of the burn. Results of this study indicate that, depending on the scale of fire prescription, the impacts of fire on herbivores may last longer than previous studies suggest.