CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 75Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementPlant and animal studies

The impact of elephants on the marula tree Sclerocarya birrea

Gadd, Michelle E.·2002·African Journal of Ecology
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2028.2002.00385.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract This study determined the abundance, density and population structure of the marula tree, Sclerocarya birrea, in three game reserves in South Africa, and assessed patterns and amounts of new and cumulative impact of elephants. Elephant feeding was very patchy so several attributes of individual trees, sampled transects and communities that might influence elephant herbivory were investigated. The incidence and type of elephant impact (bark, branch or stem breakage) were significantly related to tree diameter, but not to fruiting nor proximity to roads. At the transect level, elephant impact was influenced by density of marula trees, but was not influenced by proximity to roads, nor proportion of marula trees bearing fruits in the vicinity. At the community level, elephant impact was higher on reserves with higher total marula densities. Fourfold differences in elephant densities (0.08–0.30 elephants km−2) did not explain marula consumption: the percentage of trees with branch damage was similar across reserves and bark damage was inversely proportional to elephant density. Variation across reserves may reflect local and landscape‐level marula tree abundance, differences in alternative food plants and individual feeding habits. The recorded levels of impact appeared to be sustainable because mortality rates were low, affected trees often recovered, and small trees were not preferentially preyed upon.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2028.2002.00385.x

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gadd, M. E.
Affiliations
University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
Corresponding author
Gadd, Michelle E.
Venue
African Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-11-05
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
328-336
ISSN
  • 0141-6707 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2028
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2028.2002.00385.x
OpenAlex
W2071241965
Cited by
75
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
African Journal of Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Rotary Foundation
  • Louisiana Clinical and Translational Science Center
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
Keywords
elephants, marula, tree damage, bark damage, branch breakage, tree density, population structure (demography), game reserves, tree diameter, feeding habits, tree mortality, wildlife-plant interactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review