Abstract
The establishment of livestock ranchlands adjacent to protected areas in savanna ecosystems is believed to threaten wild animals. Intensive competition for vegetative resources, water and poaching are considered to be immediate factors that reduce the capacity of protected areas to sustain wild mammals. The coexistence of wild mammals and ranchlands is common in Southern Africa but has rarely been suggested as a viable conservation option in East Africa. To assess the importance of ranchlands in conserving wild mammals, 36 plots of 20 × 20 m dimension were positioned along a 7240 m stretch from the boundary in Lake Mburo National Park (LMNP) and 36 plots of similar dimension were set within the ranchlands adjacent to the Park. The dung counts of different species recorded in the plots were used as a relative index of mammal abundance in the ranchlands and in LMNP. The results reveal 18 wild mammal species recorded in both sampled areas, 12 within LMNP and 17 in the adjacent ranchlands. The topi Damaliscus lunatus was only found in the park. Total dung count estimated in both ranchlands and LMNP was 2,586 with LMNP accounting for 29% and ranchlands 71%. In terms of wild mammal dung, ranchlands had a higher wild mammal dung count than LMNP (30% higher). The study points to the compatibility of the two land uses in conserving wild mammals and biodiversity in general, negating the common belief of competition and exclusion. Future research is needed on the compatibility of ranchlands with protected areas on biodiversity status of other species.
Highlights
The assumption that biodiversity is higher in protected areas than in other land uses has dominated biodiversity conservation discourse (Stoner et al 2007; Geldmann et al 2013; UNEP-WCMC et al 2018)
Ranchlands still held a higher wild mammal dung count (1,183) as compared to Lake Mburo National Park (LMNP) (629) suggesting that the population density could be higher in the ranchlands, and that they are a preferred site for wild mammals
The distance from the boundary did not explain any additional variations implying that land use or a different factor influences the relative abundance of wild mammals
Summary
The assumption that biodiversity is higher in protected areas than in other land uses has dominated biodiversity conservation discourse (Stoner et al 2007; Geldmann et al 2013; UNEP-WCMC et al 2018). The demand for land and its resources in areas adjacent to protected areas managed for biodiversity conservation is increasingly putting pressure on biodiversity conservation areas, prompting the need for land use options that can simultaneously conserve biodiversity and serve other production uses (Prins 1992; Marchant 2010). Such land uses act as dispersal areas for wild animals especially where the land tenure system does not restrict access to environmental resources (Okello and Kioko 2010)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
