Cited by 10Wildlife Ecology and ConservationSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangePrimate Behavior and Ecology

Differential response of seven duiker species to human activities in Taï National Park, Côte d’Ivoire

Diarrassouba, Abdoulaye, Gnagbo, Anthelme, Célestin Kouakou, Yao, Campbell, Geneviève, Tiedoué, Manouhin Roland, Tondossama, Adama, Kühl, Hjalmar S., Koné, Inza·2020·African Journal of Ecology

Abstract

African rainforest is severely impacted by human activities, ranging from resource collection, selective logging to fragmentation and scale deforestation. Consequently, large mammal communities occurring therein are strongly modified. Here, we present a study conducted in Taï National Park (TNP), which characterises the spatial distribution and differential response of seven duiker species to human activities. Based on extensive survey data recorded between 2005 and 2015, we used a maximum entropy modelling approach for predicting duiker species distribution and a hierarchical clustering approach to identify potential subgroups in the duiker community. The seven duiker species clearly differed in their spatial distribution, with Cephalophus dorsalis and Philantomba maxwellii being the most common and widely distributed with no clear response towards gradients of impact from human activities. In contrast, Cephalophus ogilbyi, Cephalophus jentinki, Cephalophus sylvicultor and Cephalophus zebra showed increasing responses towards anthropogenic impact gradients, with the latter two being particularly sensitive. These duikers are not found in areas of illegal human activities. The restricted distribution of Cephalophus niger seems artificial and may indicate species misidentification. The strong spatial signature of human activities in the duiker community of TNP is of concern. Effective park management, including extensive ranger patrols, is vital for ensuring the persistence of…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/aje.12680

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Diarrassouba, A., Gnagbo, A., Célestin Kouakou, Y., Campbell, G., Tiedoué, M. R., Tondossama, A., Kühl, H. S., & Koné, I.
Affiliations
  • Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny (CI)
  • Swiss Centre for Scientific Research (CI)
  • Centre Suisse de Recherches Scientifiques Abidjan Côte d’Ivoire
  • The Biodiversity Consultancy Cambridge UK
  • Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves Abidjan Côte d’Ivoire
  • German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (DE)
Corresponding author
Diarrassouba, Abdoulaye
Venue
African Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-09
Volume
58
Issue
1
Pages
58-68
ISSN
  • 0141-6707 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2028
OpenAlex
W2960662349
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • African Journal of Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
duikers, Cephalophus, human disturbance, species distribution modeling, spatial distribution, Taï National Park, protected area management, African rainforest

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