Literature DB >> 21536336

A questionnaire-based evaluation of the veterinary cordon fence separating wildlife and livestock along the boundary of the Kruger National Park, South Africa.

F Jori1, D Brahmbhatt, G T Fosgate, P N Thompson, C Budke, M P Ward, K Ferguson, B Gummow.   

Abstract

Veterinary cordon fences are used in Southern Africa to separate wildlife from domestic animals in order to prevent transmission of infectious diseases. Such fences are a control method recognized by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) for establishing disease-free zones in beef exporting countries. However, few studies have evaluated the ecological impact of these physical barriers or their effectiveness at a multispecies level. We examined the permeability of one such barrier, along 357 km of the western and southern boundary of the Kruger National Park (KNP) during 2007. Information was gathered using a semi-structured questionnaire implemented among 32 teams of fence maintenance workers. Data were analyzed to identify (a) the main causes of fence damage, (b) the seasonality, location and duration of fence repairs, (c) high permeability areas for elephant (Loxodonta africana), kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), impala (Aepyceros melampus), buffalo (Syncerus caffer) and warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), and (d) the influence of fence electrification, rivers and elephant damage on the frequency of observation of wildlife species outside the KNP estimated during the year. Human and elephant damage were the most common reasons for fence repairs. Elephant and buffalo were the most and least common large mammal species reported observed outside the KNP (1076 and 162 reports/year), respectively. Cattle incursions into the KNP were also reported in 44% of the fence sections. Electrification of the fence was an important factor explaining differences in estimated wildlife species observations outside the KNP during the year. Correlations between estimations of observed species suggested that fence gaps created by elephants might be used by the other wildlife species. Estimated annual counts of kudu, impala and buffalo, but not warthog, were found to correlate with elephant observations. Negative binomial regression models were developed to explore the relationships between observed estimations of different wildlife species outside the KNP the fence, electrification of fence sections and the presence of watercourses, suggesting that kudu, impala and buffalo could use elephant induced fence damage to leave the KNP. The questionnaire was able to evaluate fence integrity and identify sections where integrity was sub-optimal for separating wildlife from domestic livestock species. If combined with more quantitative methods and applied on a routine basis, it could provide an efficient and cost-effective method for monitoring the effectiveness of physical barriers to contain wildlife within protected areas such as is the case with veterinary cordon fences in Southern Africa.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21536336     DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.03.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Vet Med        ISSN: 0167-5877            Impact factor:   2.670


  10 in total

Review 1.  A review of wildlife tourism and meta-analysis of parasitism in Africa's national parks and game reserves.

Authors:  Paul Olalekan Odeniran; Isaiah Oluwafemi Ademola; Henry Olanrewaju Jegede
Journal:  Parasitol Res       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 2.383

2.  Questionnaire-Based Assessment of Wild Boar/Domestic Pig Interactions and Implications for Disease Risk Management in Corsica.

Authors:  Ferran Jori; Anne Relun; Bastien Trabucco; François Charrier; Oscar Maestrini; David Chavernac; Daniel Cornelis; François Casabianca; Eric Marcel Charles Etter
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2017-12-01

3.  A ghost fence-gap: surprising wildlife usage of an obsolete fence crossing.

Authors:  Marc Dupuis-Desormeaux; Timothy N Kaaria; Mary Mwololo; Zeke Davidson; Suzanne E MacDonald
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  Landscape correlates of space use in the critically endangered African wild dog Lycaon pictus.

Authors:  Mariëtte E Pretorius; Nimmi Seoraj-Pillai; Neville Pillay
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Seroprevalence of Selected Tick Borne Pathogens and Diversity and Abundance of Ixodid Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) at the Wildlife-Livestock Interface in Northern Botswana.

Authors:  Obuile O Raboloko; Solomon S Ramabu; Laure Guerrini; Ferran Jori
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2020-05-05

6.  Stochastic process and tutorial of the African buffalo optimization.

Authors:  Julius Beneoluchi Odili; A Noraziah; Basem Alkazemi; M Zarina
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-15       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  Transmission of Foot-and-Mouth Disease SAT2 Viruses at the Wildlife-Livestock Interface of Two Major Transfrontier Conservation Areas in Southern Africa.

Authors:  Barbara P Brito; Ferran Jori; Rahana Dwarka; Francois F Maree; Livio Heath; Andres M Perez
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 8.  The Wild Side of Disease Control at the Wildlife-Livestock-Human Interface: A Review.

Authors:  Christian Gortazar; Iratxe Diez-Delgado; Jose Angel Barasona; Joaquin Vicente; Jose De La Fuente; Mariana Boadella
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2015-01-14

9.  Wild and Domestic Pig Interactions at the Wildlife-Livestock Interface of Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda, and the Potential Association with African Swine Fever Outbreaks.

Authors:  Esther A Kukielka; Ferran Jori; Beatriz Martínez-López; Erika Chenais; Charles Masembe; David Chavernac; Karl Ståhl
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2016-04-14

10.  Modeling the spatial distribution of African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) in the Kruger National Park, South Africa.

Authors:  Kristen Hughes; Geoffrey T Fosgate; Christine M Budke; Michael P Ward; Ruth Kerry; Ben Ingram
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.