Jump to content

Draft:The Metapopulation Initiative (The Cheetah Metapopulation Project)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kelseylbrown (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 27 February 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Metapopulation Initiative (The Cheetah Metapopulation Project)

The Cheetah Metapopulation Project (CMP) was established by The Metapopulation Initiative to ensure the genetic and demographic integrity of the cheetah metapopulation by coordinating translocations between protected areas and increasing resident range through reintroductions into the species’ historical distribution.

Privatisation of Wildlife Ownership and Conservation Fences

The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) faces threats from anthropogenic compounding of demographic, genetic, and environmental stochastic events, placing the species at risk of an ‘extinction vortex’ [1]. Establishing protected areas (PA), predominantly state-owned, remains a dominant strategy for conserving biodiversity [2]. Following policy and legislative changes allowing protected areas to be declared on private lands [3], private game reserves (PGR) now form a significant part of South Africa’s 11 280 684 ha (or 112 807 km²) [4] protected area estate. Complementary to state-owned PAs, PGRs increase the area available for biodiversity conservation, representation, and landscape connectivity [3][5][6]. They also contribute to national and local economies through hunting and ecotourism and the provision of ecosystem services [7][8].

In addition to privatisation and regulation, enclosure of PAs is an effective strategy for alleviating threats to biodiversity arising from human activities (e.g., habitat loss, harvesting, persecution, and disturbance) [9]. Delineating the boundaries of PAs can mitigate human-wildlife conflicts precipitated by wild animals raiding crops, depredating livestock, and attacking people [10][11][12]. It can also reduce encroachment and poaching for bushmeat and other wildlife products [9][13][14]. Fences are prevalent in Southern and East Africa, where protected areas with large carnivores exist near human communities. As conflict is likely to increase along with the space requirements of a burgeoning human population [15], fences maintain small habitat patches in a more fragmented landscape [16].

Although fences can yield conservation benefits to biodiversity, they can also threaten it. Fences restrict wildlife movement; enclosing individuals excludes natural processes that regulate populations in response to resource availability (i.e., carrying capacity). Overusing resources within a fenced area can contribute to catastrophic declines or local extinctions [9][17]. Further, isolated populations are more susceptible to demographic, genetic, and environmental stochasticity [18][19]. Fencing interrupts gene flow between populations, introducing a risk of inbreeding and enhancing the prevalence and impacts of founder effects and genetic drift [9][18].

Fencing will likely have worse outcomes for species with large area requirements as the enclosed populations may often be smaller than required for long-term viability. Risks associated with isolating small populations and exceeding a PA’s carrying capacity can be offset by metapopulation management [20].

Metapopulation Management

A metapopulation is a set of geographically isolated populations of the same species that may exchange individuals through dispersal or migration [21]. In a managed metapopulation, human-mediated movement mimics what would naturally occur. Examples of such managed metapopulations include black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) [22][23] and white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) [24] in Southern and East Africa and African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in South Africa [25][26].

By coordinating cheetah translocations between participating PAs, the CMP helps private and state wildlife custodians enhance dispersal success, demographic rescue effects, and genetic diversity on their lands. Metapopulation management of cheetahs has enabled the re-establishment of a viable population comprising several interconnected subpopulations. The current metapopulation comprises approximately 537 cheetahs in 75 privately- and state-owned PAs distributed across South Africa, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, and India.

Isolated populations in fenced PAs managed as a metapopulation cannot solve the global extinction crisis; however, they could act as source populations within a surrounding sink landscape.

References

  1. ^ Frankham, R.; Ballou, J.D.; & Briscoe, D.A. (2002). Introduction to Conservation Genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. ^ Venter, O.; Ainhoa Magrach, A.; Outram, N.; Klein, C.K.; Hugh, H.P.; Possingham, P.; Di Marco, M.; & Watson, J.E.M. (2018). Bias in protected-area location and its effects on long-term aspirations of biodiversity conventions. Conservation Biology. 32 (1): 127-134. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12970. Epub 2017 Nov 16. PMID: 28639356.
  3. ^ a b De Vos, A.; Clements, H.S.; Biggs, D.; Cummings, G.S. (2019). The dynamics of proclaimed privately protected areas in South Africa over 83 years. Conservation Letters. 12 (6): e12644.
  4. ^ Statistics South Africa. (2021). The nature of South Africa’s protected area estate. Available at: https://www.statssa.gov.za.
  5. ^ Gallo, J.A.; Pasquini, L.; Reyers, B.; & Cowling, R.M. (2009). The role of private conservation areas in biodiversity representation and target achievement within the Little Karoo region, South Africa. Biological Conservation. 142 (2): 446-454.
  6. ^ Langholz, J.A. & Lassoie, J.P. (2001). Perils and promise of privately owned protected areas. BioScience. 51 (12): 1079-1085.
  7. ^ Mitchell, B.A.; Stolton, S.; Bezaury-Creel, J.; Bingham, H.C.; Cumming, T.L.; Dudley, N.; Fitzsimons, J.A.; Malleret-King, D.; Redford, K.H.; & Solano, P. (2018). Guidelines for Privately Protected Areas. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 29. Gland: IUCN.
  8. ^ Stolton, S.; Redford, K.H.; & Dudley, N. (2014). The Futures of Privately Protected Areas. Gland: IUCN.
  9. ^ a b c d Hayward, M.W. & Kerley, G.I.H. (2009). Fencing for conservation: restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biological Conservation. 142 (1): 1–13.
  10. ^ Kioko, J.; Muruthi, P.; Omondi, P.; & Chiyo, P.I. (2008). The performance of electric fences as elephant barriers in Amboseli, Kenya. South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 38 (1): 52–58.
  11. ^ Miller, J.R.B.; Stoner, K.J.; Cejtin, M.R.; Meyer, T.K.; Middleton, A.D.; & Schmitz, O.J. (2016). Effectiveness of contemporary techniques for reducing livestock depredations by large carnivores. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 40 (4): 806–815.
  12. ^ Sapkota, S.; Aryal, A.; Baral, S. R.; Hayward, M. W.; & Raubenheimer, D. (2014). Economic analysis of electric fencing for mitigating human-wildlife conflict in Nepal. Journal of Resources and Ecology. 5 (3): 237–243.
  13. ^ Hayward, M. (2012). "Perspectives on fencing for conservation based on four case studies: marsupial conservation in Australian forests; bushmeat hunting in South Africa; large predator reintroduction in South Africa; and large mammal conservation in Poland". In Somers, M.J. & Hayward, M. (eds.). Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes? New York: Springer. pp. 7–20.
  14. ^ Somers, M.J.; Gusset, M.; & Dalerum, F. (2012). "Modelling the effect of fences on the viability of spatially structured populations of African wild dogs". In Somers, M.J. & Hayward, M. (eds.). Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes? New York: Springer. pp. 187–196.
  15. ^ United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2017). World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248.
  16. ^ Norton-Griffiths, M. (2007). How many wildebeest do you need? World Economics. 8 (2): 41–64.
  17. ^ Boone, R. & Hobbs, N. (2004). Lines around fragments: effects of fencing on large herbivores. African Journal of Range and Forage Science. 21 (3): 147–158.
  18. ^ a b Caughley, G. (1994). Directions in conservation biology. Journal of Animal Ecology. 63 (2): 215–244.
  19. ^ MacArthur, R.H. & Wilson, E.O. (1967). The theory of island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  20. ^ Hayward, M.W.; Hayward, G.J.; Druce, D.; & Kerley, G.I.H. (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 (4): 887–904.
  21. ^ Akçakaya, H.R.; Mills, M.G.L.; & Doncaster, C.P. (2007). "The role of metapopulations in conservation". In Macdonald, D.W. & Service, K. (eds.). Key Topics in Conservation Biology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 64–84.
  22. ^ Brooks, M. (1989). Conservation plan for the black rhinoceros Diceros bicornis in South Africa, the TBVC states and SWA/Namibia. Pietermaritzburg: Natal Parks Board.
  23. ^ Foose, T.J.; Lacey, R.C.; Brett, R.; & Seal, U.S. Kenya black rhino metapopulation workshop report. Apple Valley: CBSG.
  24. ^ Emslie, R.H.; Amin, R.; & Kock, R. (eds.). (2009). Guidelines for the In Situ Re-Introduction and Translocation of African and Asian Rhinoceros. Gland: IUCN.
  25. ^ Davies-Mostert, H. (2010). The Managed Metapopulation Approach for African Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus) Conservation in South Africa. PhD thesis. Oxford: University of Oxford.
  26. ^ Mills, M.G.L.; Ellis, S.; Woodroffe, R.; Maddock, A.; Stander, P.; Rasmussen, G.; Pole, A.; Fletcher, P.; Bruford, M.; Wildt, D.; Macdonald, D.; & Seal, U. (eds.). (1998). Population and Habitat Viability Assessment for the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) in southern Africa. Final workshop report. Apple Valley: IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Metapopulation_Initiative_(The_Cheetah_Metapopulation_Project)&oldid=1210678454"