How decisions lead to conflicts â The roles of elephant behaviour and agricultural practices in elephant crop consumption

Elephant crop consumption can have negative direct and indirect consequences for subsistence farmers (e.g. crop losses, livelihood vulnerability, fear) and can result in a reduction in support for the conservation of elephants, which are IUCN classified as vulnerable, and can even result into physical conflicts that can lead to injuries and death of people and elephants. In this thesis, I examine how decisions that elephants make in their movements and foraging behaviour, and farmers make in their mitigation methods, influence elephant crop consumption in the eastern panhandle of the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Chapter 2 shows that elephant corridors are important for exploratory movements of elephants towards the river, and that sexual segregation occurs in elephantsâ responses to agricultural fields. Female elephants showed encamped movements in agricultural fields at night and during the dry season, supporting the predation-risk hypothesis, as crop consumption was safest for elephants at these times. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 suggest that the local natural diet of elephants may be deficient in micronutrients â in particular phosphorus - which indicates that elephants need to consume large amounts of vegetation in order to satisfy their micronutrient levels. This makes crops an optimal alternative, due to their higher levels of absolute phosphorus and dry matter intake. Chapter 5 reveals that one-off inputs of materials to support farmers to deter elephants from their fields do not result in the sustainable mitigation method use desired by providers of materials. In order to empower farmers to live with elephants, external bodies such as government and non-governmental organisations could increase logistical support, and facilitate the improvement of the supply-chain of materials for mitigation methods. Crop consumption mitigation could be improved if sexual segregation in crop consumption patterns are taken into account and crops are harvested earlier (Chapter 2), if alternative micronutrient sources are provided in elephant corridors (Chapter 3 and Chapter 4) and farmers are included in the development and implementation of mitigation method interventions (Chapter 5).

Joining forces toward proactive elephant and rhinoceros conservation

Proactive approaches that anticipate the long‐term effects of current and future conservation threats could increase the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation. However, such approaches can be obstructed by a lack of knowledge of habitat requirements for wildlife. To aggregate and assess the suitability of current information available on habitat requirements needed for proactive conservation, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on elephant and rhinoceros habitat requirements and synthesized data by combining a vote counting assessment with bibliometric and term maps. We contextualized these numeric and terminological results with a narrative review. We mapped current methods, results, terminology, and collaborations of 693 studies. Quantitative evidence for factors that influence the suitability of an area for elephants and rhinoceros was biased toward African savanna elephants and ecological variables. Less than one third of holistic approaches considered equal amounts of ecological and anthropogenic variables in their assessments. There was a general lack of quantitative evidence for direct proxies of anthropogenic variables that were expected to play an important role based on qualitative evidence and policy documents. However, there was evidence for a segregation in conceptual frameworks among countries and species and between science versus policy literature. There was also evidence of unused potential for collaborations among southern hemisphere researchers. Our results indicated that the success of proactive conservation interventions can be increased if ecological and anthropogenic dimensions are integrated into holistic habitat assessments and holistic carrying capacities and quantitative evidence for anthropogenic variables is improved. To avoid wasting limited resources, it is necessary to form inclusive collaborations within and across networks of researchers studying different species across regional and continental borders and in the science–policy realm

Understanding farmers' reasons behind mitigation decisions is key in supporting their coexistence with wildlife

Coexistence between wildlife and farmers can be challenging and can endanger the lives of both, prompting the provisioning of mitigation methods by governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). However, provision of materials, demonstration of the effectiveness of methods or willingness to uptake a method do not predict uptake of methods. We used ethnographic decision models to understand how farmers' work through the decisions of uptake or non-uptake of methods to mitigate crop consumption by elephants, and how the government and NGOs can either enable or impede the ability of farmers to protect themselves and their crops. While farmers were motivated to use methods if they received or could afford to buy materials and they believed in the effectiveness of the methods, they still did not use them if they considered a method to be dangerous, or issues with elephants not to be severe enough, or when the supply of materials or income was not sufficient. Methods were not even considered by farmers if they lacked awareness or knowledge of the method. Government departments and NGOs enabled farmers to mitigate elephant crop consumption by providing opportunities for cash income, and providing materials and knowledge. Yet, there was disparity between the materials farmers received and methods they wished to adopt. One-off inputs of materials did not result in sustainable use of mitigation methods. We see an opportunity for governmental departments or NGOs to stimulate logistics (e.g. roads and retail) to increase availability of mitigation materials since this promoted farmer autonomy. We also highlight the importance of empowering farmers by facilitating within community sharing of mitigation ideas and increasing knowledge about the effectiveness of promising wildlife conscious farming, as despite promising farmer testimonies, only a few farmers used these techniques.</p

Bayesian tracer mixing models and isotope data elephant diet

In the supplementary information we explain why we did not use Bayesian tracer mixing models in the final paper. Isotope data: We air-dried the faecal and vegetation samples in an air-drying cabinet. After transportation, we dried samples for a further 24 h at 70 °C and ground to pass through a 1 mm mesh at the Okavango Research Institute laboratory. Samples were then shipped to the stable isotope laboratory housed in the archaeology department at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. There they were weighed in to tin cups to an accuracy of 1 mg on a Sartorius M2P microbalance.Sample weights were 2.5 mg for samples with potentially low nitrogen content, 2.1–2.2 mg for legumes and agricultural samples and 2.3 mg for other sample types. Samples were combusted in a Flash 2000 elemental analyser interfaced to a Delta V Plus isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS) via a Conflo IV gas control unit (Thermo Scientific,Bremen, Germany). The in-house standards used were: Sucrose(“Australian National University (ANU)”sucrose), MG (Merck Gel), Acacia (Acacia saligna, Glencairn). All the in-house standards were calibrated against IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) standards,either at UCT or by other labs. Nitrogen was expressed in terms of its value relative to atmospheric nitrogen, while carbon was expressed in terms of its value relative to Pee-Dee Belemnite (VPDB).In our analyses we use stable isotopic values from faeces and their association to isotopic values of most likely consumed browse and grass species as proxies for elephant diet. In reality, diet content can vary from isotopic content due to issues as fractionation of isotopes during digestion, this is why we correct the results with fractionation values (Codron and Codron, 2009)

Understanding farmers' reasons behind mitigation decisions is key in supporting their coexistence with wildlife

1. Coexistence between wildlife and farmers can be challenging and can endanger the lives of both, prompting the provisioning of mitigation methods by governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). However, provision of materials, demonstration of the effectiveness of methods or willingness to uptake a method do not predict uptake of methods. 2. We used Ethnographic Decision Models to understand how farmers' work through the decisions of uptake or non-uptake of methods to mitigate crop consumption by elephants, and how the government and NGOs can either enable or impede the ability of farmers to protect themselves and their crops. 3. While farmers were motivated to use methods if they received or could afford to buy materials and they believed in the effectiveness of the methods, they still did not use them if they considered a method to be dangerous, or issues with elephants not to be severe enough, or when the supply of materials or income was not sufficient. Methods were not even considered by farmers if they lacked awareness or knowledge of the method. Government departments and NGOs enabled farmers to mitigate elephant crop consumption by providing opportunities for cash income, and providing materials and knowledge. Yet, there was disparity between the materials farmers received and methods they wished to adopt. 4. One-off inputs of materials did not result in sustainable use of mitigation methods. We see an opportunity for governmental departments or NGOs to stimulate logistics (e.g. roads and retail) to increase availability of mitigation materials since this promoted farmer autonomy. We also highlight the importance of empowering farmers by facilitating within community sharing of mitigation ideas and increasing knowledge about the effectiveness of promising wildlife conscious farming, as despite promising farmer testimonies, only a few farmers used these techniques

Timing of dietary switching by savannah elephants in relation to crop consumption

Tree and grass quality on the African savannah shows seasonal variation, driving mixed-feeding herbivores to switch between browsing and grazing. During this switch, crop consumption could be an attractive alternative to browsing. We analysed elephant diet variability in the Okavango Delta, Botswana, using faecal stable isotope ratios of carbon (δ^13C) and frequencies of elephant crop consumption, to determine the extent to which crop consumption relates to this potential switch. Although elephants did increase their relative grass consumption in the wet season, browse dominated the annual diet. After February, the proportion of grass in the diet dropped considerably, and continued decreasing through April when farmers reported most crop consumption. Generalized Linear Models revealed that the occurrence of elephant crop consumption increased with the proportion of grass consumed and with decreasing grass quality. The proportion of grass in elephant faeces increased with increasing crop consumption intensity. As crop consumption could also be related to nutrient deficiencies in elephant diet, we calculated the total dietary input of nutrients to reveal potential deficiencies. Elephant diet contained insufficient levels of sodium year-round, and insufficient phosphorus from February to July. As the latter coincides with the timing of crop consumption, we consider our results an indication that phosphorus –and potentially sodium - deficiencies, could play a role in elephant dietary choices, including crop consuming behaviour. Further experimental research is required to show whether supplying elephants with supplementary phosphorus and sodium sources could reduce this micro-nutrient deficiency, and could play a role in reducing elephant crop consumption.</p

Identifying sustainable coexistence potential by integrating willingness-to-coexist with habitat suitability assessments

Persistence of species in the Anthropocene depends on human willingness-to-coexist with them, but this is rarely incorporated into habitat suitability or conservation priority assessments. We propose a framework of sustainable coexistence potential that integrates human willingness-to-coexist with habitat suitability assessments. We demonstrate its applicability for elephants and rhinos in the socio-ecological system of Maasai Mara, Kenya, by integrating spatial distributions of peoples' willingness-to-coexist based on Bayesian hierarchical models using 556 household interviews, with socio-ecological habitat suitability mapping validated with long-term elephant observations from aerial surveys. Willingness-to-coexist was higher if people had little personal experience with a species, and strongly reduced by experiencing a species as a threat to humans. The sustainable coexistence potential framework highlights areas of low socio-ecological suitability, and areas that require more effort to increase positive stakeholder engagement to achieve long-term persistence of large herbivores in human-dominated landscapes.</p

Priorities for translating goodwill between movement ecologists and conservation practitioners into effective collaboration

Abstract Addressing ongoing biodiversity loss requires collaboration between conservation scientists and practitioners. However, such collaboration has proved challenging. Despite the potential importance of tracking animal movements for conservation, reviews of the tracking literature have identified a gap between the academic discipline of movement ecology and its application to biodiversity conservation. Through structured conversations with movement ecologists and conservation practitioners, we aimed to understand whether the identified gap is also perceived in practice, and if so, what factors hamper collaboration and how these factors can be remediated. We found that both groups are motivated and willing to collaborate. However, because their motivations differ, there is potential for misunderstandings and miscommunications. In addition, external factors such as funder requirements, academic metrics, and journal scopes may limit the applicability of scientific results in a conservation setting. Potential solutions we identified included improved communication and better presentation of results, acknowledging each other's motivations and desired outputs, and adjustment of funder priorities. Addressing gaps between science and implementation can enhance collaboration and support conservation action to address the global biodiversity crisis more effectively