The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An empirical evaluation of the African elephant as a focal species for connectivity planning in East Africa
Abstract
Aim Large, charismatic and wide‐ranging animals are often employed as focal species for prioritizing landscape linkages in threatened ecosystems (i.e. ‘connectivity conservation’), but there have been few efforts to assess empirically whether focal species co‐occur with other species of conservation interest within potential linkages. We evaluated whether the African elephant (Loxodonta africana), a world‐recognized flagship species, would serve as an appropriate focal species for other large mammals in a potential linkage between two major protected area complexes. Location A 15,400 km 2 area between the Ruaha and Selous ecosystems in central Tanzania, East Africa. Methods We used walking transects to assess habitat, human activity and co‐occurrence of elephants and 48 other large mammal species (> 1 kg) at 63 sites using animal sign and direct sightings. We repeated a subset of transects to estimate species detectability using occupancy modelling. We used logistic regression and AIC model selection to characterize patterns of elephant occurrence and assessed correlation of elephant presence with richness of large mammals and subgroups. We considered other possible focal species, compared habitat‐based linear regression models of large mammal richness and used circuit theory to examine potential connectivity spatially. Results Elephants were detected in many locations across the potential linkage. Elephant presence was highly positively correlated with the richness of large mammals, as well as ungulates, carnivores, large carnivores and species > 45 kg in body mass (‘megafauna’). Outside of protected areas, both mammal richness and elephant presence were negatively correlated with human population density and distance from water. Only one other potential focal species was more strongly correlated with species richness than elephants, but detectability was highest for elephants. Main conclusions Although African elephants have dispersal abilities that exceed most other terrestrial mammals, conserving elephant movement corridors may effectively preserve habitat and potential landscape linkages for other large mammal species among Tanzanian reserves.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Several studies have shown that corridors designed for wide-ranging umbrella species enhance connectivity for less vagile organisms with similar habitat requirements.
“Several studies (e.g., Epps et al. 2011; Breckheimer et al. 2014) have shown that corridors designed for wide-ranging umbrella species enhance connectivity for less vagile organisms with similar habitat requirements, and Brodie et al. (2015) showed that multi-species corridors tailored to ecologically similar species (e.g., carnivores and herbivores) can be highly effective for all species.”
From Circuit‐theory applications to connectivity science and conservation (2019) · cites this paper as Epps et al. 2011
Citations
Cites
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1998) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2917-7 · Cited by 3,387
USING CIRCUIT THEORY TO MODEL CONNECTIVITY IN ECOLOGY, EVOLUTION, AND CONSERVATION
McRae, B. H., Dickson, B. G., Keitt, T. H., & Shah, V. B. (2008) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-1861.1 · Cited by 2,244
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 42
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00942.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.04.027 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01109.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98338.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.011 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-4-431-87771-4_19 · DOI
- 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[842:ESRAAB]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.2307/2532625 · DOI
- Estes R.D., 1991, The behavior guide to African mammals
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.04.016 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.04043.x · DOI
- 10.1080/00045600802708325 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0030605308990475 · DOI
- Hilty J.A., 2006, Corridor ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation
- Hines J.E., 2006, PRESENCE2‐ Software to estimate patch occupancy and related parameters
- 10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00092.x · DOI
- IUCN, 2009, IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2009.1
- Jones T., 2009, Wildlife corridors in Tanzania
- Kingdon J., 1997, The Kingdon field guide to African mammals
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96319.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00420.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00147-0 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2007.00836.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10061549.x · DOI
- 10.1890/070003 · DOI
- Noss R.F., 1999, A conservation plan for the Klamat‐Siskiyou ecoregion, Natural Areas Journal, 19, 392
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.012 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00237.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00297.x · DOI
- 10.1515/MAMM.2007.015 · DOI
- 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00231-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00081-5 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1998.tb00350.x · DOI
- 10.1016/0006-3207(79)90047-8 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00705.x · DOI
- 10.3375/0885-8608(2006)26[137:ACDFTC]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00717.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98148.x · DOI
- 10.2193/2006-456 · DOI
- 10.1641/B580310 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2000.tb00110.x · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Circuit‐theory applications to connectivity science and conservation
Dickson, B. G., Albano, C. M., Anantharaman, R., Beier, P., Fargione, J., Graves, T. A., Gray, M. E., Hall, K. R., Lawler, J. J., Leonard, P. B., et al. (2019) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13230 · Cited by 461
Pelletier, D., Clark, M., Anderson, M. G., Rayfield, B., Wulder, M. A., & Cardille, J. A. (2014) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084135 · Cited by 158
Metadata
- Authors
- Epps, C. W., Mutayoba, B. M., Gwin, L., & Brashares, J. S.
- Venue
- Diversity and Distributions
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-05-12
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 603-612
- ISSN
- 1366-9516
- 1472-4642
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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