| Literature DB >> 33062433 |
Sandy Oduor1, Janine Brown2, Geoffrey M Macharia3, Nicole Boisseau4, Suzan Murray5, Paul Obade3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heterogeneous landscapes like those of Laikipia County, Kenya consist of a mosaic of land-use types, which may exert differential physiological effects on elephants that occupy and traverse them. Understanding behavioral and physiological states of wild African elephants in response to the challenges of living in human-dominated landscapes is therefore important for conservation managers to evaluate risks imposed by elephants to humans and vice versa. Several conservation physiology tools have been developed to assess how animals respond to both natural and anthropogenic changes, and determine biological impacts. This study investigated how migratory and avoidance behavioral to vehicle presence, and vegetation quality affected fecal glucocorticoid (GC) metabolite (FGM) concentrations in African elephants at Mpala Ranch, Laikipia County, Kenya.Entities:
Keywords: African elephant; Behavior; Fecal glucocorticoids; Human disturbance; NDVI; Stress
Year: 2020 PMID: 33062433 PMCID: PMC7528812 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Annual mean 2019 NDVI base layer map of Mpala Ranch, Laikipia, Kenya showing where fecal samples were collected.
The map shows the distribution of fecal samples collection during the study period and where military trainings are conducted.
Summary of study elephants at Mpala Ranch.
| Age group | Ranging behavior | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident | Non-resident | ||||
| Male | Female | Male | Female | ||
| Juvenile | 14 | 7 | 19 | 3 | 43 |
| Sub-Adult | 9 | 6 | 10 | 6 | 31 |
| Adult | 0 | 21 | 23 | 38 | 82 |
| Total | 23 | 34 | 52 | 47 | 156 |
Note:
Demographic summary of elephants in the study monitored through behavior and fecal glucocorticoid metabolite (FGM) analyses from April to August 2019 at Mpala Ranch, Laikipia County, Kenya.
Model selection based on the basic model and other factors influencing FGM concentrations in African elephants sampled at Mpala Ranch between April and August 2019.
Candidate models consisting of the basic model (in bold) and the models consisting of additional factors influencing FGM concentrations i.e. age group, group type, sex, herd size, BCS and time delay were ranked based on AICc. The models consisting of age group and group type were better fit than the basic model (in bold).
| Model | K | Model Likelihood | AICc | ∆AICc | Weight | Adj. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FGM ~ Ranging behavior + Reaction Index + NDVI + Age group | 8 | −32.50 | 81.98 | 0.00 | 0.41 | 0.2347 | 0.2038 |
| FGM ~ Ranging behavior + Reaction Index + NDVI + Group type | 8 | −32.97 | 82.92 | 0.94 | 0.25 | 0.2300 | 0.2000 |
| FGM ~ Ranging behavior + Reaction Index + NDVI + Sex | 7 | −35.02 | 84.79 | 2.81 | 0.10 | 0.2096 | 0.1832 |
| FGM ~ Ranging behavior + Reaction Index + NDVI + herd size | 7 | −35.80 | 86.36 | 4.38 | 0.05 | 0.2016 | 0.1750 |
| FGM ~ Ranging behavior + Reaction Index + NDVI + Time delay | 7 | −35.81 | 86.38 | 4.40 | 0.05 | 0.2015 | 0.1749 |
| FGM ~ Ranging behavior + Reaction Index + NDVI + BCS | 8 | −35.07 | 87.11 | 5.13 | 0.03 | 0.2091 | 0.1772 |
Figure 2Linear regression between FGM concentrations and NDVI with fitted data points.
Linear regression model plot with the 95% confidence interval (grey areas) showing the relationship between back transformed predicted fecal glucocorticoid metabolite (FGM) concentrations and the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) with fitted data points. Predicted FGM (ng/g) represents back transformed values of log FGM from the model.
Results from model-averaged coefficients showing parameter estimates from the basic model and the two competing models.
The table consists of the basic model (Model 1), the model consisting of social group type (Model 2) and the model consisting of age group (Model 3) as additional factors influencing FGM concentrations in African elephants at Mpala Ranch.
| Coefficients | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimates | CI (95%) | Estimates | CI (95%) | Estimates | CI (95%) | ||||
| (Intercept) | 2.31 | [2.00–2.62] | <0.001 | 2.33 | [1.99–2.66] | <0.001 | 2.32 | [2.01–2.62] | <0.001 |
| Ranging behavior (Resident) | 0.12 | [0.00–0.23] | 0.04 | 0.09 | [−0.02 to 0.21] | 0.12 | 0.15 | [0.04–0.26] | 0.01 |
| Reaction Index (Retreating on vehicle approach) | −0.04 | [−0.17 to 0.09] | 0.52 | −0.04 | [−0.17 to 0.09] | 0.56 | −0.03 | [−0.16 to 0.10] | 0.60 |
| Reaction Index (Running away on vehicle approach) | 0.15 | [0.01–0.30] | 0.04 | 0.14 | [−0.00 to 0.29] | 0.05 | 0.15 | [0.01–0.29] | 0.04 |
| NDVI | −1.44 | [−2.07 to −0.82] | <0.001 | −1.5 | [−2.12 to −0.88] | <0.001 | −1.36 | [−1.98 to −0.74] | <0.001 |
| Social group type (Cow/calf) | 0.06 | [−0.12 to 0.23] | 0.53 | ||||||
| Social group type (Mixed) | −0.09 | [−0.27 to 0.10] | 0.36 | ||||||
| Age group (Juvenile) | −0.11 | [−0.23 to 0.01] | 0.06 | ||||||
| Age group (Sub-Adult) | −0.15 | [−0.28 to −0.02] | 0.02 | ||||||
| Observations | 156 | 156 | 156 | ||||||
| 0.200/0.179 | 0.230/0.199 | 0.235/0.204 | |||||||