Game fence presence and permeability influences the local movement and distribution of South African mammals

Fences are utilized throughout the world to restrict the movements of wildlife, protecting them from threats and reducing human-wildlife conflict. In South Africa the number of privately-owned fenced game reserves has greatly increased in recent years, but little is known about how fencing affects the distribution and movements of target and non-target mammals. We surveyed 2m either side of the complete fence line of a recently established commercial game reserve in South Africa, identifying signs of animal presence (spoor, scat, foraging or other field signs) while also recording damage (holes) to the fence. Every 250m we carried out 100m perpendicular transects either side of the fence, recording vegetation cover and height at 10m intervals along the transect. We found that livestock (largely cattle) were excluded from the reserve. However, 12% of records of large animal species were recorded outside of the fence line. These species had been introduced to the reserve, strongly suggesting that they had crossed the boundary into the surrounding farmland. Sixteen naturally present wild species were found on both sides of the fence, but we found more evidence of their presence inside the reserve. Observational evidence suggests that they were regularly crossing the boundary, particularly where the fence was damaged, with hole size affecting species recorded. We also found evidence that the construction of the fence had led to a difference in vegetation structure with plant diversity and percentage of non-woody plant cover significantly higher inside the fence. While fencing was highly effective at preventing movement of livestock, introduced and wild animals were able to cross the boundary, via holes in the fence. This work shows that the efficacy of the most common approach to preventing animal movement around protected areas depends on the species being considered and fence condition

Buffalo, Bush Meat, and the Zoonotic Threat of Brucellosis in Botswana

Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease of global importance infecting humans, domestic animals, and wildlife. Little is known about the epidemiology and persistence of brucellosis in wildlife in Southern Africa, particularly in Botswana.Archived wildlife samples from Botswana (1995-2000) were screened with the Rose Bengal Test (RBT) and fluorescence polarization assay (FPA) and included the African buffalo (247), bushbuck (1), eland (5), elephant (25), gemsbok (1), giraffe (9), hartebeest (12), impala (171), kudu (27), red lechwe (10), reedbuck (1), rhino (2), springbok (5), steenbok (2), warthog (24), waterbuck (1), wildebeest (33), honey badger (1), lion (43), and zebra (21). Human case data were extracted from government annual health reports (1974-2006).Only buffalo (6%, 95% CI 3.04%-8.96%) and giraffe (11%, 95% CI 0-38.43%) were confirmed seropositive on both tests. Seropositive buffalo were widely distributed across the buffalo range where cattle density was low. Human infections were reported in low numbers with most infections (46%) occurring in children (<14 years old) and no cases were reported among people working in the agricultural sector.Low seroprevalence of brucellosis in Botswana buffalo in a previous study in 1974 and again in this survey suggests an endemic status of the disease in this species. Buffalo, a preferred source of bush meat, is utilized both legally and illegally in Botswana. Household meat processing practices can provide widespread pathogen exposure risk to family members and the community, identifying an important source of zoonotic pathogen transmission potential. Although brucellosis may be controlled in livestock populations, public health officials need to be alert to the possibility of human infections arising from the use of bush meat. This study illustrates the need for a unified approach in infectious disease research that includes consideration of both domestic and wildlife sources of infection in determining public health risks from zoonotic disease invasions

Unintended Consequences of Conservation Actions: Managing Disease in Complex Ecosystems

Infectious diseases are increasingly recognised to be a major threat to biodiversity. Disease management tools such as control of animal movements and vaccination can be used to mitigate the impact and spread of diseases in targeted species. They can reduce the risk of epidemics and in turn the risks of population decline and extinction. However, all species are embedded in communities and interactions between species can be complex, hence increasing the chance of survival of one species can have repercussions on the whole community structure. In this study, we use an example from the Serengeti ecosystem in Tanzania to explore how a vaccination campaign against Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) targeted at conserving the African lion (Panthera leo), could affect the viability of a coexisting threatened species, the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). Assuming that CDV plays a role in lion regulation, our results suggest that a vaccination programme, if successful, risks destabilising the simple two-species system considered, as simulations show that vaccination interventions could almost double the probability of extinction of an isolated cheetah population over the next 60 years. This work uses a simple example to illustrate how predictive modelling can be a useful tool in examining the consequence of vaccination interventions on non-target species. It also highlights the importance of carefully considering linkages between human-intervention, species viability and community structure when planning species-based conservation actions

From Poverty to Disaster and Back: a Review of the Literature

Poor people are disproportionally affected by natural hazards and disasters. This paper provides a review of the multiple factors that explain why this is the case. It explores the role of exposure (often, but not always, poor people are more likely to be affected by hazards), vulnerability (when they are affected, poor people tend to lose a larger fraction of their wealth), and socio-economic resilience (poor people have a lower ability to cope with and recover from disaster impacts). Finally, the paper highlights the vicious circle between poverty and disaster losses: poverty is a major driver of people’s vulnerability to natural disasters, which in turn increase poverty in a measurable and significant way. The main policy implication is that poverty reduction can be considered as disaster risk management, and disaster risk management can be considered as poverty reduction

Addressing inequality and intolerance in human–wildlife coexistence

Millennia of human conflict with wildlife have built a culture of intolerance toward wildlife among some stakeholders. We explored 2 key obstacles to improved human–wildlife coexistence: coexistence inequality (how the costs and benefits of coexisting with wildlife are unequally shared) and intolerance. The costs of coexisting with wildlife are often disproportionately borne by the so-called global south and rural communities, and the benefits often flow to the global north and urban dwellers. Attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife (tolerance versus intolerance) vary with social and cultural norms. We suggest more empathetic advocacy is needed that, for example, promotes conservation while appropriately considering those who bear the costs of conflict with wildlife. To achieve more equitable cost-sharing, we suggest limiting the costs incurred by those most affected or by sharing those costs more widely. For example, we advocate for the development of improved wildlife compensation schemes, increasing the scale of rewilding efforts, and preventing wildlife-derived revenue leaching out of the local communities bearing the costs of coexistence. © 2020 Society for Conservation Biolog