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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dupuis-Desormeaux, Marc, Kaaria, Timothy N., Mwololo, Mary, Davidson, Zeke, MacDonald, Suzanne E.
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