The performance of African protected areas for lions and their prey, determinants of success and key conservation threats

Using surveys of experts associated with 186 sites across 24 countries, we assessed the effectiveness of African protected areas (PAs) at conserving lions and their prey, identified factors that influence conservation effectiveness, and identified patterns in the severity of various threats. Less than one third of sampled PAs conserve lions at ≥ 50% of their estimated carrying capacity (K), and less than half conserve lion prey species at ≥ 50% of K. Given adequate management, PAs could theoretically support up to 4x × the total extant population of wild African lions (~ 83,000), providing a measurable benchmark for future conservation efforts. The performance of PAs shows marked geographic variation, and in several countries there is a need for a significant elevation in conservation effort. Bushmeat poaching was identified as the most serious threat to both lions and to wildlife in general. The severity of threats to wildlife in PAs and the performance of prey populations were best predicted by geographic-socioeconomic variables related to the size of PAs, whether people were settled within PAs, human/livestock densities in neighbouring areas and national economic indicators. However, conservation outcomes for lions were best explained by management variables. PAs tended to be more effective for conserving lions and/or their prey where management budgets were higher, where photographic tourism was the primary land use, and, for prey, where fencing was present. Lions and prey fared less well relative to their estimated potential carrying capacities in poorer countries, where people were settled within PAs and where PAs were used for neither photographic tourism nor trophy hunting

More than $1 billion needed annually to secure Africa’s protected areas with lions

Protected areas (PAs) play an important role in conserving biodiversity and providing ecosystem services, yet their effectiveness is undermined by funding shortfalls. Using lions (Panthera leo) as a proxy for PA health, we assessed available funding relative to budget requirements for PAs in Africa’s savannahs. We compiled a dataset of 2015 funding for 282 state-owned PAs with lions. We applied three methods to estimate the minimum funding required for effective conservation of lions, and calculated deficits. We estimated minimum required funding as $978/km2 per year based on the cost of effectively managing lions in nine reserves by the African Parks Network;$1,271/km2 based on modeled costs of managing lions at ≥50% carrying capacity across diverse conditions in 115 PAs; and $2,030/km2 based on Packer et al.’s [Packer et al. (2013) Ecol Lett 16:635–641] cost of managing lions in 22 unfenced PAs. PAs with lions require a total of$1.2 to $2.4 billion annually, or ∼$1,000 to 2,000/km2, yet received only $381 million annually, or a median of$200/km2. Ninety-six percent of range countries had funding deficits in at least one PA, with 88 to 94% of PAs with lions funded insufficiently. In funding-deficit PAs, available funding satisfied just 10 to 20% of PA requirements on average, and deficits total $0.9 to$2.1 billion. African governments and the international community need to increase the funding available for management by three to six times if PAs are to effectively conserve lions and other species and provide vital ecological and economic benefits to neighboring communities.Panthera provided funding to support the study. J.R.B.M. was supported in part by National Science Foundation Coupled Human and Natural Systems Grant 115057. L.C. was funded by the US Agency for International Development.http://www.pnas.org2019-05-06hj2019Mammal Research InstituteZoology and Entomolog

Conserving large carnivores: dollars and fence

Conservationists often advocate for landscape approaches to wildlife management while others argue for physical separation between protected species and human communities, but direct empirical comparisons of these alternatives are scarce. We relate African lion population densities and population trends to contrasting management practices across 42 sites in 11 countries. Lion populations in fenced reserves are significantly closer to their estimated carrying capacities than unfenced populations. Whereas fenced reserves can maintain lions at 80% of their potential densities on annual management budgets of $500 km−2, unfenced populations require budgets in excess of$2000 km−2 to attain half their potential densities. Lions in fenced reserves are primarily limited by density dependence, but lions in unfenced reserves are highly sensitive to human population densities in surrounding communities, and unfenced populations are frequently subjected to density-independent factors. Nearly half the unfenced lion populations may decline to near extinction over the next 20–40 years

Conserving large carnivores : dollars and fence

Conservationists often advocate for landscape approaches to wildlife management while others argue for physical separation between protected species and human communities, but direct empirical comparisons of these alternatives are scarce. We relate African lion population densities and population trends to contrasting management practices across 42 sites in 11 countries. Lion populations in fenced reserves are significantly closer to their estimated carrying capacities than unfenced populations. Whereas fenced reserves can maintain lions at 80% of their potential densities on annual management budgets of $500 km−2, unfenced populations require budgets in excess of$2000 km−2 to attain half their potential densities. Lions in fenced reserves are primarily limited by density dependence, but lions in unfenced reserves are highly sensitive to human population densities in surrounding communities, and unfenced populations are frequently subjected to density-independent factors. Nearly half the unfenced lion populations may decline to near extinction over the next 20–40 years.Research funded by Adrian Gardiner/Mantis Collection (AL), African Wildlife Foundation (SB,LF), Wendy Arnold (LF), Arthur Blank Family Foundation (LF), Australian Research Council - DP0987528 (KZ), Australian Research Council – LP0990395 (SG), Banovich Wildscapes Foundation (LF), Bateleurs (RS), Boesak Kruger Fund (LF,AL), Born Free (SB,SC), Michael Calvin (LF), Charles Darwin University (STG,KKZ), Cheryl Grunbock & Martin King Foundation (LF), Chicago Board of Trade for Endangered Species (RG), Columbus Zoo (SB,TC,RG,LF), Conservation Force (LF,PF), Dallas Ecological Foundation (LF), Dallas Safari Club (LF), Darwin Initiative for Biodiversity (AL), Paul Davies (SMD), Denver Zoo (LF), Directors of Ongava Game Reserve (KJS), Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund (CMB,KSB,CP,RS), Dominion Oil (EOO, AP), Earthwatch Institute #5123 (SMK,BP), Fairplay Foundation (CMB,KSB), Fauna & Flora International (CMB,KSB), Flora Family Foundation (LF), Frankenberg Foundation (AL), Stephen Gold (LF), Green Trust WWF-SA (RS), GTZ/Pendjari Project (EAS), Hluhluwe Tourism Assoc. (RS), Houston Zoo (CMB,KSB,JWMcN), Idea Wild (HBr), Kenya Wildlife Service (SK), Lakeside Foundation (SMD), Lee & Juliet Folger Foundation (JWMcN), Lillian Jean Kaplan Foundation (AL), Lion Ore (KN), Bruce Ludwig (LF), Malilangwe Trust (BC), Mara Conservancy (BH), MGM Grand Hotel (CP,RS), Mohamed Bin Zayed Species Fund (HHdeI), N. & R. Myhrvold (JWMcN), National Geographic Big Cat Initiative (HHdeI,JWMcN), National Geographic Society (SB,HBr,TC,LF,RG,CP), National Research Foundation (RS), Netherlands Committee for IUCN (HHdeI), Netherlands Support Program for the Garoua Wildlife School (HBa), NSF (LF,JS), NSF DEB-0 613 730(DMacN), NSF DEB-1 020 479(CP), Okavango Wildlife Society (KN), Ol Pejeta Ranch Ltd. (NG,CN), Panthera (GB,CMB,KSB,HBr,LF, LH,BK, PL,AL,CP,EOO,AP,EAS), Panthera Kaplan Awards Program (ACB,LF), PG Allen Family Foundation (JWMcN), Philadelphia Zoological Society (LF,KN,KS), Porini Camp Amboseli (LF), Potrero Nuevo Fund (LF), Predator Conservation Trust (CMB,KSB), Rann Safaris (CW,HW), Rufford Foundation (CMB,KSB,LF,KN), Rufford-Maurice-Laing Foundation (AL), Kathy Ruttenberg (AP), Safari South (C&HW), San Francisco Zoo (LF), SCI Foundation (LF), Seaworld/Busch Gardens Conservation Foundation (SB,LF), Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme, SA (RS), Thandiza Foundation and the Rotterdam Zoo (KN), Tshwane University of Technology – Faculty Research Committee (PF), Tshwane University of Technology – Postgraduate Scholarship Programme (SMM), Tusk Trust (JWMcN), University of KwaZulu-Natal (RS), US Forest Service (AP), US National Cancer Institute (LF), Van Tienhoven Foundation (HBa), Jonathan Vannini (LF), Vectronic Aerospace (LF), West Midlands Safari Park (KS), Debby Wettlaufer (LF), Wild about Cats (RS), Wild Entrust International (JWMcN), Wildlife Conservation Network (CMB,KSB,LF), Wildlife Conservation Society (CMB,KSB,LF,BK,EOO,AP), Wildlife Conservation Trust KZN (RS), Wildlife Direct (LF), Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission of Ghana (ACB), Woodland Park Zoo (JWMcN) and World Wide Fund for Nature (HHdeI).http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1461-0248hb201

Spatial patterns of large African cats: a large-scale study on density, home range size, and home range overlap of lions Panthera leo and leopards Panthera pardus

Environmental Biolog