CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 419Wildlife Ecology and ConservationWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife Management

Global decline in aggregated migrations of large terrestrial mammals

Open access
Harris, G, Thirgood, S, Hopcraft, JGC, Cromsight, JPGM, Berger, J·2009·Endangered Species Research
DOI 10.3354/esr00173
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Knowledge of mammal migrations is low, and human impacts on migrations high.This jeopardizes efforts to conserve terrestrial migrations.To aid the conservation of these migrations, we synthesized information worldwide, describing 24 large-bodied ungulates that migrate in aggregations.This synthesis includes maps of extinct and extant migrations, numbers of migrants, summaries of ecological drivers and threats migrants confront.As data are often lacking, we outlined steps for science to address and inform conservation actions.We evaluated migrants against this framework, and reported their status.Mass migrations for 6 species are extinct or unknown.Most remaining migrants (n = 9) occur from 6 locations in Africa, with Eurasia and North America containing 6 and 4 remaining mass migrants, respectively (with caribou/reindeer Rangifer tarandus occurring in both regions).All migrants declined in abundance, except wildebeest and other migrants in the Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem (SME), white-eared kob and tiang in Sudan, and some caribou populations.Protected areas only contain migrations for 5 species in the SME, chiru on the Tibetan Plateau, and some caribou populations in North America.Most mass migrants track the seasonal and shifting patterns of greening vegetation over expanses of savannahs, steppes, and grasslands.Principal threats include overhunting and habitat loss from livestock, agriculture, and fencing that excludes animals from forage or water.Conservation science overlooks numerous migrations, so many have already disappeared and continue to do so.Key principles for conserving migrants, exemplified by the SME and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), include securing seasonal ranges, resource protection, government support and minimizing fences.This review forms a baseline for initiating conservation action for many ungulate migrations needing attention.

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 · 10.3354/esr00173

Cites

108 of 108 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?

  • Most attention on migration declines has focused on habitat degradation and physical barriers, which have reduced prominent migratory populations.

    “Most of this attention has focused on habitat degradation and conspicuous physical barriers to migration (e.g., fences and roads), which have reduced prominent migratory populations (Harris et al. 2009).”

    From Animal migration amid shifting patterns of phenology and predation: lessons from a Yellowstone elk herd (2013) · cites this paper as Harris et al. 2009

    The Threats and Discussion sections identify habitat loss, fences, and transportation corridors as threats to migrations and migratory populations. The paper does not establish that most attention to migration declines has focused on those threats; it also identifies unsustainable hunting as a principal cause. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Landscape fragmentation has caused the strong decline or extinction of most large-scale migrations worldwide.

    “This landscape fragmentation has caused the strong decline or extinction of most large-scale migrations worldwide ( 45 ).”

    From Cross-boundary human impacts compromise the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem (2019) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Discussion (page not provided) says mass migrations are under major threat worldwide, six have been eradicated, and nearly all have lost some aggregated migrations. It identifies loss of seasonal ranges or migration routes through fencing, agriculture, livestock, and settlement as a main cause, but also identifies unsustainable hunting. The paper therefore supports fragmentation as an important contributor, not the claim that fragmentation caused the decline or extinction of most migrations. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

4 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Berry HH (1980) Behavioral and eco-physiological studies on blue wildebeest (Conochaetes taruinus) at the Etosha National Park. PhD thesis, University of Cape Town
  2. Campbell K, Borner M (1995) Population trends and distribu- tion of Serengeti herbivores: implications for manage- ment. In: Sinclair ARE, Arcese P (eds) Serengeti II: Dynamics, management and conservation of an ecosys- tem. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p 117-145
  3. Pullianen E, Sulkava S, Erkinaro E, Heikura K, Lindgren E (1983) Part VII Third International Reindeer/Caribou Symposium, Saariselk AA 23-26 August 1982. Acta Zool Fenn 175:15-16
  4. Toweill DE, Thomas JE (2002) North American elk: ecology and management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash- ington, DC

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Harris, G., Thirgood, S., Hopcraft, J., Cromsight, J., & Berger, J.
Affiliations
  • American Museum of Natural History (US)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • University of Montana (US)
Corresponding author
Harris, G
ORCID
Venue
Endangered Species Research
Publisher
Inter-Research Science Center
Published
2009-04-21
Volume
7
Pages
55-76
ISSN
  • 1613-4796 (ISSN-L)
  • 1863-5407
DOI
10.3354/esr00173
OpenAlex
W2100345819
Cited by
419
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
FWCI
11.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Endangered Species Research (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
  • Wildlife Conservation Society
  • European Commission
  • Zoologische Gesellschaft Frankfurt
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
ungulate migration, large mammals, mass migration, migration decline, seasonal range use, vegetation greening, overhunting, livestock grazing, habitat loss, fencing, protected areas, Serengeti-Mara ecosystem, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, reindeer, wildebeest, Tibetan Plateau

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