Cited by 55

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

Epps, Clinton W., Mutayoba, Benezeth M., Gwin, Lauren, Brashares, Justin S.·2011·Diversity and Distributions

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00773.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00942.x · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.04.027 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01109.x · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98338.x · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.011 · DOI
  6. 10.1007/978-4-431-87771-4_19 · DOI
  7. 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[842:ESRAAB]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  8. 10.2307/2532625 · DOI
  9. Estes R.D., 1991, The behavior guide to African mammals
  10. 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.04.016 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.04043.x · DOI
  12. 10.1080/00045600802708325 · DOI
  13. 10.1017/S0030605308990475 · DOI
  14. Hilty J.A., 2006, Corridor ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation
  15. Hines J.E., 2006, PRESENCE2‐ Software to estimate patch occupancy and related parameters
  16. 10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00092.x · DOI
  17. IUCN, 2009, IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2009.1
  18. Jones T., 2009, Wildlife corridors in Tanzania
  19. Kingdon J., 1997, The Kingdon field guide to African mammals
  20. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96319.x · DOI
  21. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00420.x · DOI
  22. 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00147-0 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2007.00836.x · DOI
  24. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10061549.x · DOI
  25. 10.1890/070003 · DOI
  26. Noss R.F., 1999, A conservation plan for the Klamat‐Siskiyou ecoregion, Natural Areas Journal, 19, 392
  27. 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.012 · DOI
  28. 10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00237.x · DOI
  29. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00297.x · DOI
  30. 10.1515/MAMM.2007.015 · DOI
  31. 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00231-6 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00081-5 · DOI
  34. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1998.tb00350.x · DOI
  35. 10.1016/0006-3207(79)90047-8 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00705.x · DOI
  37. 10.3375/0885-8608(2006)26[137:ACDFTC]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00717.x · DOI
  39. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98148.x · DOI
  40. 10.2193/2006-456 · DOI
  41. 10.1641/B580310 · DOI
  42. 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2000.tb00110.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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