Cited by 309Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementRemote Sensing in Agriculture

Large-scale impacts of herbivores on the structural diversity of African savannas

Open access
Asner, Gregory P., Levick, Shaun R., Kennedy-Bowdoin, Ty, Knapp, David E., Emerson, Ruth, Jacobson, James, Colgan, Matthew S., Martin, Roberta E.·2009·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

African savannas are undergoing management intensification, and decision makers are increasingly challenged to balance the needs of large herbivore populations with the maintenance of vegetation and ecosystem diversity. Ensuring the sustainability of Africa's natural protected areas requires information on the efficacy of management decisions at large spatial scales, but often neither experimental treatments nor large-scale responses are available for analysis. Using a new airborne remote sensing system, we mapped the three-dimensional (3-D) structure of vegetation at a spatial resolution of 56 cm throughout 1640 ha of savanna after 6-, 22-, 35-, and 41-year exclusions of herbivores, as well as in unprotected areas, across Kruger National Park in South Africa. Areas in which herbivores were excluded over the short term (6 years) contained 38%-80% less bare ground compared with those that were exposed to mammalian herbivory. In the longer-term (> 22 years), the 3-D structure of woody vegetation differed significantly between protected and accessible landscapes, with up to 11-fold greater woody canopy cover in the areas without herbivores. Our maps revealed 2 scales of ecosystem response to herbivore consumption, one broadly mediated by geologic substrate and the other mediated by hillslope-scale variation in soil nutrient availability and moisture conditions. Our results are the first to quantitatively illustrate the extent to which herbivores can affect the 3-D structural diversity of vegetation across large savanna landscapes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0810637106

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [10]Biggs HC, Rogers KH. An adaptive system to link science, monitoring, and management in practice. In: du Toit JT, Biggs HC, Rogers KH, editors. The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity. Washington DC: Island Press; 2003. pp. 61–82. [Google Scholar]
  2. [11]Rogers KH. Adopting a heterogeneity paradigm: Implications for management of protected savannas. In: du Toit JT, Biggs HC, Rogers KH, editors. The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity. Washington DC: Island Press; 2003. pp. 41–58. [Google Scholar]
  3. [29]Venter FJ, Scholes RJ, Eckhardt HC. The abiotic template and its associated vegetation pattern. In: du Toit JT, Biggs HC, Rogers KH, editors. The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity. Washington DC: Island Press; 2003. pp. 83–129. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Asner, G. P., Levick, S. R., Kennedy-Bowdoin, T., Knapp, D. E., Emerson, R., Jacobson, J., Colgan, M. S., & Martin, R. E.
Affiliations
Carnegie Institution for Science (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2009-03-24
Volume
106
Issue
12
Pages
4947-4952
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2159639712
Cited by
309
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 16
FWCI
15.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
  • W. M. Keck Foundation
  • South African National Parks
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Remote Sensing in Agriculture
Keywords
large herbivores, mammalian herbivory, savanna vegetation structure, herbivore exclusion, bare ground, protected areas, Kruger National Park, airborne remote sensing, geologic substrate, soil nutrients, soil moisture, savanna management, ecosystem diversity
MeSH terms
Animals, Feeding Behavior, South Africa, Trees, Ecosystem, Plant Leaves, Biodiversity

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