Cited by 61Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation

Home range sizes and space use of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in the Southern Kenya and Northern Tanzania borderland landscape

Open access
Shadrack, Ngene, Moses, Makonjio Okello, Joseph, Mukeka, Shadrack, Muya, Steve, Njumbi, James, Isiche·2017·International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation

Abstract

The African elephant (Loxodonta africana) require vast areas to meet their survival needs such as food, mates, water, resting sites, and look up positions; the area referred to as home range. We collared 9 bull and 3 female elephants using satellite-linked Geographic Positioning System (GPS) collars in February 2013. Their movements were monitored up to April 2016 in the wider Amboseli landscape. We estimated their home ranges using 100% minimum convex polygon (MCP) and 95% Fixed Kernel Density Estimator (KDE) methods. A total of 48,852 GPS points were used representing 77% of the expected GPS points. This study revealed that bulls had a larger total home range size (MCP = 32,110 km²; KDE = 3,170 km² compared to females (MCP = 10,515 km²; KDE = 3,070 km²). The 95% confidence interval of the monthly range (95% KDE) for all elephants was 6,130 to 7,025 km² with the minimum and maximum range being 5,200 and 7,790 km² respectively. Females had smaller home ranges during the dry and wet season (MCP: dry = 2,974 km²; wet = 1,828 km²; KDE: dry = 2,810 km²; wet = 3,070 km²) than bulls (MCP: dry = 3,312 km²; wet = 13,288 km²; KDE: dry = 2,960 km²; wet = 3,720 km²). The variations of the elephant home range could have been influenced by an interaction of factors including rainfall, human disturbances and land use (e.g., farms, settlements, road network, and fences), water availability, bush cover, food availability, and tracking period. The most important areas that had key habitats for elephants were scattered throughout the Kenya/Tanzania borderland. The Amboseli-Tsavo-Magadi-Natron-West Kilimanjaro elephant population roams within specific areas of the landscape. Trans-boundary efforts should be enhanced to ensure sound management of the elephant-habitat-people interface for continued well-being of the elephant population. Key words: Amboseli ecosystem, elephant, home range, minimum convex polygon, Kenya/Tanzania borderland, kernel density estimator.

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 · 10.5897/ijbc2016.1033

Cites

47 of 47 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Galvin K, Reid R, Hobbs RBNT (Eds.), Fragmentation in Semi-Arid and Arid Landscapes: Springer Netherlands. pp. 225-253.
  2. Gara TW (2014). Effect of Water Availability, Landscape Fragmentation and Forage Abundance on the Movement and Habitat Utilization of Elephants. MSc Thesis, University of Twente, Faculty of Geo- Information Science and earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, The Netherlands.
  3. Galvin K, R Reid RB Hobbs N T (Eds.) Fragmentation in Semi-Arid and Arid Landscapes: Springer Netherlands. pp. 25-44.
  4. Kie JG, Matthiopoulos J, Fieberg J, Powel RA, Cagnaccia F, Mitchell MS, Gaillard J, Moorcroft PR (2016).The home range concept: A traditional estimator still relevant with modern telemetry? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 365:2221-2231.
  5. Kioko J, Okello MM (2010).Land use cover and environmental changes in a semi-arid rangeland, Southern Kenya. J. Geogr. Regional Plann. 3(11):322-326.
  6. Powell RA (2000). Animal home ranges and territories and home rangeestimators. Research Techniques in Animal Ecology: Controversies and Consequences (Eds L. Boitani& T.K. Fuller). Columbia University, NewYork. pp. 65-110.
  7. In O. Krejcar (ed.), Modern telemetry. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shadrack, N., Moses, M. O., Joseph, M., Shadrack, M., Steve, N., & James, I.
Affiliations
Kenya Wildlife Service (KE)
Venue
International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation
Published
2017-01-31
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
9-26
ISSN
2141-243X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2583025554
Cited by
61
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Greater South Information System
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Keywords
Loxodonta africana, home range, space use, GPS tracking, sex differences in home range, seasonal variation, Amboseli ecosystem, habitat use, human disturbance, water availability, land use, ecological corridors, rainfall effects, minimum convex polygon

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