Abstract
AbstractUnder the current African vulture crisis, supplementary feeding sites (SFS), which provide carrion resources, have become a popular conservation tool to address vulture declines. In South Africa, this practice is unregulated and the context in which SFS operate and their adherence to best management practices is currently unknown. In this study, we conducted a survey with SFS managers regarding the management of their SFS to evaluate potential conservation implications of different practices. Half of the SFS surveyed were associated with livestock farming. Overall, most managers (84%) perceived some benefit from running an SFS, largely attributed to cleaning services provided by vultures. Over half of the managers perceived no disadvantages from running SFS. We found a positive correlation between numbers of vultures seen at SFS and the amount of food provided there. Despite unintentional and intentional poisoning being identified by experts as the most critical threats to vultures in Southern Africa, only 47 and 24% of managers, respectively, listed these as potential threats to vultures, highlighting limited understanding of current vulture conservation issues. Most managers (85%) vetted carcasses for provisioning suitability based on whether they had been treated with veterinary drugs, but relatively few managers (10%) did the same for lead (Pb) contamination. Only 30% of managers considered threats to vultures when they decided on a location for their SFS. Overall, this study unveils that at many SFS, safety conditions are not met and vultures may be exposed to risks, such as the ingestion of toxic substances (e.g., Pb) or electrocution by energy infrastructure. To minimize unintended negative consequences from SFS, it will be essential to increase the interaction between SFS managers and conservation practitioners, to increase the flow of information on best management practices and enforce stringent and clear guidelines that minimize any risks to vultures.
Highlights
Community and stakeholder engagement is often a prerequisite for the success of conservation initiatives (Hulme & Murphree, 1999; Kumasi, Obiri-Danso, & Ephraim, 2010)
There appeared to be only a limited difference in the perceived benefits between supplementary feeding sites (SFS) mangers that were principally involved in livestock farming as compared with those involved in hunting
Locating mortalities was only mentioned by managers on hunting farms (5.3%, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) = 0.7–29.4%) and disease prevention was only mentioned by managers
Summary
Community and stakeholder engagement is often a prerequisite for the success of conservation initiatives (Hulme & Murphree, 1999; Kumasi, Obiri-Danso, & Ephraim, 2010). Local communities rather than the government or organizations are responsible for the implementation of conservation initiatives, a situation which is easier to establish if there is some benefit to participating individuals (Naidoo et al, 2016). When best practices are poorly applied, such initiatives may have detrimental ecological effects (Blanco, Lemus, & García-Montijano, 2011). In such cases, detrimental effects on the target species or system may occur, while still providing short term benefits to participating community members, conceivably resulting in these practices being perpetuated
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
