Cargando…
A ghost fence-gap: surprising wildlife usage of an obsolete fence crossing
Wildlife fencing has become more prevalent throughout Africa, although it has come with a price of increased habitat fragmentation and loss of habitat connectivity. In an effort to increase connectivity, managers of fenced conservancies can place strategic gaps along the fences to allow wildlife acc...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PeerJ Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6266906/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30515359 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5950 |
_version_ | 1783375943951187968 |
---|---|
author | Dupuis-Desormeaux, Marc Kaaria, Timothy N. Mwololo, Mary Davidson, Zeke MacDonald, Suzanne E. |
author_facet | Dupuis-Desormeaux, Marc Kaaria, Timothy N. Mwololo, Mary Davidson, Zeke MacDonald, Suzanne E. |
author_sort | Dupuis-Desormeaux, Marc |
collection | PubMed |
description | Wildlife fencing has become more prevalent throughout Africa, although it has come with a price of increased habitat fragmentation and loss of habitat connectivity. In an effort to increase connectivity, managers of fenced conservancies can place strategic gaps along the fences to allow wildlife access to outside habitat, permitting exploration, dispersal and seasonal migration. Wildlife can become accustomed to certain movement pathways and can show fidelity to these routes over many years, even at the path level. Our study site has three dedicated wildlife crossings (fence-gaps) in its 142 km perimeter fence, and we continuously monitor these fence-gaps with camera-traps. We monitored one fence-gap before and after a 1.49 km fence section was completely removed and 6.8 km was reconfigured to leave only a two-strand electric fence meant to exclude elephant and giraffe, all other species being able to cross under the exclusionary fence. The removal and reconfiguration of the fence effectively rendered this fence-gap (which was left in place structurally) as a “ghost” fence-gap, as wildlife now had many options along the 8.29 km shared border to cross into the neighboring habitat. Although we documented some decline in the number of crossing events at the ghost-gap, surprisingly, 19 months after the total removal of the fence, we continued to document the usage of this crossing location by wildlife including by species that had not been previously detected at this location. We discuss potential drivers of this persistent and counterintuitive behavior as well as management implications. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6266906 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62669062018-12-04 A ghost fence-gap: surprising wildlife usage of an obsolete fence crossing Dupuis-Desormeaux, Marc Kaaria, Timothy N. Mwololo, Mary Davidson, Zeke MacDonald, Suzanne E. PeerJ Animal Behavior Wildlife fencing has become more prevalent throughout Africa, although it has come with a price of increased habitat fragmentation and loss of habitat connectivity. In an effort to increase connectivity, managers of fenced conservancies can place strategic gaps along the fences to allow wildlife access to outside habitat, permitting exploration, dispersal and seasonal migration. Wildlife can become accustomed to certain movement pathways and can show fidelity to these routes over many years, even at the path level. Our study site has three dedicated wildlife crossings (fence-gaps) in its 142 km perimeter fence, and we continuously monitor these fence-gaps with camera-traps. We monitored one fence-gap before and after a 1.49 km fence section was completely removed and 6.8 km was reconfigured to leave only a two-strand electric fence meant to exclude elephant and giraffe, all other species being able to cross under the exclusionary fence. The removal and reconfiguration of the fence effectively rendered this fence-gap (which was left in place structurally) as a “ghost” fence-gap, as wildlife now had many options along the 8.29 km shared border to cross into the neighboring habitat. Although we documented some decline in the number of crossing events at the ghost-gap, surprisingly, 19 months after the total removal of the fence, we continued to document the usage of this crossing location by wildlife including by species that had not been previously detected at this location. We discuss potential drivers of this persistent and counterintuitive behavior as well as management implications. PeerJ Inc. 2018-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6266906/ /pubmed/30515359 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5950 Text en © 2018 Dupuis-Desormeaux et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. |
spellingShingle | Animal Behavior Dupuis-Desormeaux, Marc Kaaria, Timothy N. Mwololo, Mary Davidson, Zeke MacDonald, Suzanne E. A ghost fence-gap: surprising wildlife usage of an obsolete fence crossing |
title | A ghost fence-gap: surprising wildlife usage of an obsolete fence crossing |
title_full | A ghost fence-gap: surprising wildlife usage of an obsolete fence crossing |
title_fullStr | A ghost fence-gap: surprising wildlife usage of an obsolete fence crossing |
title_full_unstemmed | A ghost fence-gap: surprising wildlife usage of an obsolete fence crossing |
title_short | A ghost fence-gap: surprising wildlife usage of an obsolete fence crossing |
title_sort | ghost fence-gap: surprising wildlife usage of an obsolete fence crossing |
topic | Animal Behavior |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6266906/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30515359 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5950 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dupuisdesormeauxmarc aghostfencegapsurprisingwildlifeusageofanobsoletefencecrossing AT kaariatimothyn aghostfencegapsurprisingwildlifeusageofanobsoletefencecrossing AT mwololomary aghostfencegapsurprisingwildlifeusageofanobsoletefencecrossing AT davidsonzeke aghostfencegapsurprisingwildlifeusageofanobsoletefencecrossing AT macdonaldsuzannee aghostfencegapsurprisingwildlifeusageofanobsoletefencecrossing AT dupuisdesormeauxmarc ghostfencegapsurprisingwildlifeusageofanobsoletefencecrossing AT kaariatimothyn ghostfencegapsurprisingwildlifeusageofanobsoletefencecrossing AT mwololomary ghostfencegapsurprisingwildlifeusageofanobsoletefencecrossing AT davidsonzeke ghostfencegapsurprisingwildlifeusageofanobsoletefencecrossing AT macdonaldsuzannee ghostfencegapsurprisingwildlifeusageofanobsoletefencecrossing |