Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Minimum prey and area requirements of the Vulnerable cheetah Acinonyx jubatus: implications for reintroduction and management of the species in South Africa

  • P. Lindsey (a1), C.J. Tambling (a2), R. Brummer (a3), H. Davies-Mostert (a3), M. Hayward (a4), K. Marnewick (a3) and D. Parker (a5)...
Abstract
Abstract

In South Africa there are efforts to manage reintroduced subpopulations of the Vulnerable cheetah Acinonyx jubatus in small reserves (10–1,000 km2) as a managed metapopulation. We estimated areas required to support cheetahs given varying prey densities, prey profiles and presence/absence of competing predators. A recent population and habitat viability assessment indicated that 20 subpopulations of 10 cheetahs or 10 subpopulations of 15 cheetahs are required to retain 90% of the heterozygosity of free-ranging cheetahs and to overcome stochastic events in the absence or presence of lions Panthera leo, respectively. We estimate that 203 ± SE 42 km2 (range 48–466 km2) is required to support 10 cheetahs in the absence of lions, whereas 703 ± SE 311 km2 (166–2,806 km2) is required to support 15 cheetahs given equal numbers of lions, and 2,424 ± SE 890 km2 (727–3,739 km2) given equal numbers of leopards Panthera pardus, spotted hyaenas Crocuta crocuta, wild dogs Lycaon pictus and lions. Existing subpopulations of cheetahs generally occur at densities higher than our mean predicted densities but usually within the range of predicted densities. The large area requirements of cheetahs have implications for the development of the managed metapopulation. Sourcing reintroduction sites of the sizes required to support recommended subpopulation sizes will be difficult. Consequently, innovative measures to increase the carrying capacity of reserves for cheetahs and/or to enlarge reserves will be required. Managers may be forced to stock cheetahs close to or beyond the carrying capacity of their reserves. Consequently, careful management of reintroduced subpopulations will be required to prevent declines in prey populations.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Mammal Research Institute, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg, South Africa, and Nature Conservation Trust, Alma, South Africa. E-mail palindsey@gmail.com
References
Hide All
G. Caughley & C. Krebs (1983) Are big mammals simply little mammals writ large? Oecologia, 59, 717.

M. Coe , D. Cumming & J. Phillipson (1976) Biomass and production of large African herbivores in relation to rainfall and primary production. Oecologia, 22, 341354.

H. Davies-Mostert , M.G.L. Mills & D. Macdonald (2009) A critical assessment of South Africa’s managed metapopulation recovery strategy for African wild dogs and its value as a template for large carnivore conservation elsewhere. In Reintroduction of Top Order Predators (eds M. Hayward & M. Somers ), Wiley–Blackwell, London, UK.

P. Funston , M.G.L. Mills , H. Biggs & P. Richardson (1998) Hunting by male lions: ecological influences and socio-ecological implications. Animal Behaviour, 56, 13331345.

M. Hayward , G. Hayward , D. Druce & G. Kerley (2008) Do fences constrain predator movements on an evolutionary scale? Home range, food intake and movement patterns of large predators reintroduced to Addo Elephant National Park, South Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 887904.

M.W. Hayward & G.I.H. Kerley (2008) Prey preferences and the conservation status of Africa’s large predators. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 38, 93108.

M.W. Hayward , J. O’Brien & G.I.H. Kerley (2007b) Carrying capacity of large African predators: predictions and tests. Biological Conservation, 139, 219229.

P. Lindsey , S. Romañach & H. Davies-Mostert (2009c) The importance of conservancies for enhancing the value of game ranch land for large mammal conservation in southern Africa. Journal of Zoology, 277, 99105.

K. Marnewick , M. Hayward , D. Cilliers & M. Somers (2009) Survival of cheetahs relocated from ranchland to fenced protected areas in South Africa. In Reintroduction of Top Order Predators (eds M. Hayward & M. Somers ), pp. 282306. Wiley–Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

M.G.L. Mills (1992) A comparison of methods used to study food habits of large African carnivores. In Wildlife 2001: Populations (eds D. McCullough & R.H. Barrett ), pp. 11121124. Elsevier Applied Sciences, London, UK.

N. Owen-Smith & M.G.L. Mills (2008) Predator–prey size relationships in an African large-mammal food web. Journal of Animal Ecology, 77, 173183.

F.G.T. Radloff & J.T. du Toit (2004) Large predators and their prey in a southern African savannah: a predator’s size determines its prey size range. Journal of Animal Ecology, 73, 410423.

R. Woodroffe & J.R. Ginsberg (1998) Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science, 280, 21262128.

M.W. Hayward , M. Hofmeyr , J. O'Brien & G.I.H. Kerley (2007a) Testing predictions of the prey of the lion (Panthera leo) derived from modelled prey preferences. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 15671575.

M.W. Hayward , J. O'Brien , M. Hofmeyr & G. Kerley (2006) Prey preferences of the African wild dog Lycaon pictus (Canidae: Carnivora): ecological requirements for conservation. Journal of Mammalogy, 87, 11221131.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Oryx
  • ISSN: 0030-6053
  • EISSN: 1365-3008
  • URL: /core/journals/oryx
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 161 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 361 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.