Cited by 166Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Dynamics of Mara–Serengeti ungulates in relation to land use changes

Ogutu, J. O., Piepho, H.‐P., Dublin, H. T., Bhola, N., Reid, R. S.·2009·Journal of Zoology

Abstract

Animal population dynamics can be driven by changing climatic forcing, shifting habitat conditions, trophic interactions and anthropogenic influences. To understand these influences, we analyzed trends in populations of seven ungulate species counted during 15 years (1989–2003) of monthly monitoring using vehicle ground counts in the Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. Abundance of six species declined markedly and persistently throughout the reserve during this period. The declines were contemporaneous with progressive habitat deterioration due to changing land use in pastoral ranches bordering the reserve, habitat desiccation due to rising temperatures, recurrent severe droughts and an exceptional ENSO flood in 1997–1998. The effect of progressive habitat deterioration was accentuated by illicit harvest, competition with livestock and elevated predation. After factoring out the influence of rainfall, ungulate populations declined more markedly in sections of the reserve experiencing greater livestock incursions and poaching. The declines were significantly correlated with increasing number of settlements and people in the pastoral ranches for five species. Heightened predation following a crash in the buffalo Syncerus caffer population during a severe drought in 1993 had little support as the primary cause of the declines.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00536.x

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • The trend to push more livestock further into the CPA is probably in response to declines in palatable forage in the remaining communal village grazing lands.

    “The trend to push more livestock further into the CPA is probably in response to declines in palatable forage in the remaining communal village grazing lands ( 30 , 33 ).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ogutu, J. O., Piepho, H. ‐., Dublin, H. T., Bhola, N., & Reid, R. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Hohenheim (DE)
  • South African National Biodiversity Institute (ZA)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • International Livestock Research Institute (KE)
Corresponding author
Ogutu, J. O.
Venue
Journal of Zoology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04-20
Volume
278
Issue
1
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 0952-8369 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7998
OpenAlex
W2067918061
Cited by
166
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 13
FWCI
10.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Zoology (publishedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
ungulate population dynamics, Maasai Mara National Reserve, land use change, habitat degradation, drought, ENSO, poaching, livestock competition, predation, Syncerus caffer, population decline (ecology)

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