Immunocontraception of the female African savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana) in South Africa : from pipe dream to policy

Globally, African savanna elephants have been assessed as ‘endangered’. Consequently, additional threats and losses due to human–elephant conflict (HEC) could further exacerbate the species’ decline. In stark contrast, South Africa’s elephant populations are mostly confined within fenced-in reserves that impede natural processes such as migration. As ecosystem engineers, elephant population growth herein should be limited. Within South Africa, elephant management has evolved as differing wildlife philosophies from utilitarian conservation (‘nature for man’) to biocentric preservation (‘nature for nature’) and a combination thereof, have been practiced. Traditionally, both HEC and population control have been largely synonymous with lethal control, i.e. culling. However, with the increase of public or expert input to Policy, lethal control is not favoured by the public. As an alternative, immunocontraception of female African savanna elephants through non-invasive, native porcine zona pellucida (pZP) vaccinations has been employed successfully and is currently adopted in 43 elephant reserves across South Africa. Current legislation now recommends culling as the last population management resort. Newly promulgated legislation calls for wellbeing and welfare to be carefully measured in all biodiversity management decisions taken to minimise threats to biodiversity. As a keystone species, elephant is a direct driver of biodiversity change. Accordingly, and in light of these developments, all population management options, including immunocontraception, must be fully considered in South Africa’s largest national park, the Kruger.https://www.publish.csiro.au/wrhj2024Production Animal StudiesSDG-03:Good heatlh and well-beingSDG-15:Life on lan

Lack of spatial and behavioral responses to immunocontraception application in African elephants (Loxodonta Africana)

Opinions are divided as to whether human intervention to control elephant (Loxodonta africana) population growth is desirable, partly because of elephant welfare concerns. Female contraception through immunization with porcine zona pellucida (PZP) proteins is viable. The effects of sustained use and application of the PZP vaccine on elephant behavioral and spatial responses were examined by evaluating herd ranging, fission–fusion dynamics, association patterns, and reproductive and sexual behaviors. Minimal change was anticipated as a result of long calf dependence on and association with cows, a reduced but not indefinite 0% growth rate and the known mechanism of action of PZP vaccines, and minimal expected change in resource requirements necessitating behavioral or spatial use adaptations. Although behavioral effects identified in previous hormonal contraceptive trials were evident, it was demonstrated that immunocontraception caused no prolonged behavioral, social, or spatial changes over the 11-yr study period. Individually identified elephants were monitored from 1999 to 2011. Minimal, short-term social disruption, with temporary changes to the herds’ core ranges, was observed during the annual treatment events, particularly in the first three treatment years, when vaccinations were conducted exclusively from the ground. Thereafter, when vaccinations were conducted aerially, minor disruptions were confined to the morning of administration only. Despite sustained treatments resulting in demographic changes of fewer calves being born, treatments did not alter spatial range use, and no adverse interherd–intraherd relations were observed. Similarly, resource requirements did not change as calving still occurred, although in fewer numbers. It was concluded that PZP immunocontraception has no detectable behavioral or social consequences in elephants over the course of 11 yr, providing a convincing argument for the use of sustained immunocontraception in the medium to long term as an important tool for elephant management. Behavioral consequences of alternative management approaches should all receive similar scrutiny to enable managers to make informed decisions when weighing management interventions.The Humane Society International. Ms. Delsink received a National Research Foundation Bursary through National Research Foundation Grants (reference numbers: 205623 and FA2006032300024) to Robert Slotow.http://zoowildlifejournal.com/am201

LACK OF SPATIAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO IMMUNOCONTRACEPTION APPLICATION IN AFRICAN ELEPHANTS ( LOXODONTA AFRICANA

Opinions are divided as to whether human intervention to control elephant (Loxodonta africana) population growth is desirable, partly because of elephant welfare concerns. Female contraception through immunization with porcine zona pellucida (PZP) proteins is viable. The effects of sustained use and application of the PZP vaccine on elephant behavioral and spatial responses were examined by evaluating herd ranging, fission–fusion dynamics, association patterns, and reproductive and sexual behaviors. Minimal change was anticipated as a result of long calf dependence on and association with cows, a reduced but not indefinite 0% growth rate and the known mechanism of action of PZP vaccines, and minimal expected change in resource requirements necessitating behavioral or spatial use adaptations. Although behavioral effects identified in previous hormonal contraceptive trials were evident, it was demonstrated that immunocontraception caused no prolonged behavioral, social, or spatial changes over the 11-yr study period. Individually identified elephants were monitored from 1999 to 2011. Minimal, short-term social disruption, with temporary changes to the herds’ core ranges, was observed during the annual treatment events, particularly in the first three treatment years, when vaccinations were conducted exclusively from the ground. Thereafter, when vaccinations were conducted aerially, minor disruptions were confined to the morning of administration only. Despite sustained treatments resulting in demographic changes of fewer calves being born, treatments did not alter spatial range use, and no adverse interherd–intraherd relations were observed. Similarly, resource requirements did not change as calving still occurred, although in fewer numbers. It was concluded that PZP immunocontraception has no detectable behavioral or social consequences in elephants over the course of 11 yr, providing a convincing argument for the use of sustained immunocontraception in the medium to long term as an important tool for elephant management. Behavioral consequences of alternative management approaches should all receive similar scrutiny to enable managers to make informed decisions when weighing management interventions.The Humane Society International. Ms. Delsink received a National Research Foundation Bursary through National Research Foundation Grants (reference numbers: 205623 and FA2006032300024) to Robert Slotow.http://zoowildlifejournal.com/am201

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