Abstract
Trophy hunting may influence wildlife populations in many ways, but these effects have received little consideration in many of Africa’s protected areas. We assessed the effects of trophy hunting on group size, behaviour, flight initiation distance, sex ratio and calf recruitment rate in two model species, impala (Aepyceros melampus) and greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), in Rungwa Game Reserve (RGR), Tanzania. The adjoining Ruaha National Park (RNP) served as a control site, since only ecotourism is permitted. Road transects were driven and data recorded immediately upon sighting animals. Both impala and greater kudu had higher flight initiation distances, smaller group size, lower calf recruitment rates and higher levels of vigilance behaviour in RGR compared to those in RNP. Sex ratios did not differ between the two areas. The observed differences are ascribed to the direct and indirect effects of trophy hunting in RGR. Low calf recruitment rates in RGR are of concern, as this may directly compromise population growth rates. Long-term studies may therefore be required to assess how hunted populations are affected by different hunting intensities and at what point this may threaten population persistence.
Highlights
Anthropogenic disturbances affect wildlife populations in many ways (Christiane Averbeck, Apio, Plath, & Wronski, 2009; Lindsey et al, 2013; Lunde, Bech, Fyumagwa, Jackson, & Røskaft, 2016; Matthias Waltert, Meyer, & Kiffner, 2011; Mathias Waltert et al, 2008)
The two protected areas (PAs) are located in a single continuous ecological ecosystem (Ruaha-Rungwa), covering more than 43,000 km2 in Central Tanzania (Figure 1). These PAs fall under different management authorities; Ruaha National Park (RNP) falls under Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), and Rungwa Game Reserve (RGR) falls under Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA)
Impala group size varied significantly between different habitats; larger group sizes were observed in grassland, followed by wooded grassland, bushland and shrubland, and the smallest group sizes were found in woodland (Table 3)
Summary
Anthropogenic disturbances affect wildlife populations in many ways (Christiane Averbeck, Apio, Plath, & Wronski, 2009; Lindsey et al, 2013; Lunde, Bech, Fyumagwa, Jackson, & Røskaft, 2016; Matthias Waltert, Meyer, & Kiffner, 2011; Mathias Waltert et al, 2008). For example, may increase in response to threatening processes (Nyahongo, 2008; Tingvold et al, 2013; Matthias Waltert et al, 2011) and this may reduce mortality risk, an increase in vigilance incurs costs as time spent on fitness-increasing behaviours is lost to vigilance (Holmern, Setsaas, Melis, Tufto, & Røskaft, 2016). In this way, behavioural modifications carried out by human activities can have indirect negative population-level effects. In combination, such processes have the ability to affect a population’s reproductive potential and thereby its probability of persistence
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
