It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
In East Africa, community-based conservation models (CBCMs) have been established to support the conservation of wildlife in fragmented landscapes like the Tarangire Ecosystem, Tanzania. To assess how different management approaches maintained large herbivore populations, we conducted line distance surveys and estimated seasonal densities of elephant, giraffe, zebra, and wildebeest in six management units, including three CBCMs, two national parks (positive controls), and one area with little conservation interventions (negative control). Using a Monte-Carlo approach to propagate uncertainties from the density estimates and trend analysis, we analyzed the resulting time series (2011–2019). Densities of the target species were consistently low in the site with little conservation interventions. In contrast, densities of zebra and wildebeest in CBCMs were similar to national parks, providing evidence that CBCMs contributed to the stabilization of these migratory populations in the central part of the ecosystem. CBCMs also supported giraffe and elephant densities similar to those found in national parks. In contrast, the functional connectivity of Lake Manyara National Park has not been augmented by CBCMs. Our analysis suggests that CBCMs can effectively conserve large herbivores, and that maintaining connectivity through CBCMs should be prioritized.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Junior Research Group Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence, Müncheberg, Germany (GRID:grid.433014.1); Centre For Wildlife Management Studies, The School for Field Studies, Karatu, Tanzania (GRID:grid.433014.1); Humboldt-University of Berlin, Department of Land Use & Governance, Berlin, Germany (GRID:grid.7468.d) (ISNI:0000 0001 2248 7639)
2 Lincoln Park Zoo, Tanzania Conservation Research Program, Chicago, USA (GRID:grid.435774.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 0422 6291)
3 Wild Nature Institute, Concord, USA (GRID:grid.511720.0)
4 Wild Nature Institute, Concord, USA (GRID:grid.511720.0); University of Zurich, Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, Zurich, Switzerland (GRID:grid.7400.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0650)
5 Centre For Wildlife Management Studies, The School for Field Studies, Karatu, Tanzania (GRID:grid.7400.3)
6 Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), Arusha, Tanzania (GRID:grid.452871.d) (ISNI:0000 0001 2226 9754)
7 Maliasili, Essex Junction, USA (GRID:grid.435774.6)