↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Monitoring Great Ape and Elephant Abundance at Large Spatial Scales: Measuring Effectiveness of a Conservation Landscape

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
169 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
359 Mendeley
Title
Monitoring Great Ape and Elephant Abundance at Large Spatial Scales: Measuring Effectiveness of a Conservation Landscape
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0010294
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma J. Stokes, Samantha Strindberg, Parfait C. Bakabana, Paul W. Elkan, Fortuné C. Iyenguet, Bola Madzoké, Guy Aimé F. Malanda, Brice S. Mowawa, Calixte Moukoumbou, Franck K. Ouakabadio, Hugo J. Rainey

Abstract

Protected areas are fundamental to biodiversity conservation, but there is growing recognition of the need to extend beyond protected areas to meet the ecological requirements of species at larger scales. Landscape-scale conservation requires an evaluation of management impact on biodiversity under different land-use strategies; this is challenging and there exist few empirical studies. In a conservation landscape in northern Republic of Congo we demonstrate the application of a large-scale monitoring program designed to evaluate the impact of conservation interventions on three globally threatened species: western gorillas, chimpanzees and forest elephants, under three land-use types: integral protection, commercial logging, and community-based natural resource management. We applied distance-sampling methods to examine species abundance across different land-use types under varying degrees of management and human disturbance. We found no clear trends in abundance between land-use types. However, units with interventions designed to reduce poaching and protect habitats--irrespective of land-use type--harboured all three species at consistently higher abundance than a neighbouring logging concession undergoing no wildlife management. We applied Generalized-Additive Models to evaluate a priori predictions of species response to different landscape processes. Our results indicate that, given adequate protection from poaching, elephants and gorillas can profit from herbaceous vegetation in recently logged forests and maintain access to ecologically important resources located outside of protected areas. However, proximity to the single integrally protected area in the landscape maintained an overriding positive influence on elephant abundance, and logging roads--even subject to anti-poaching controls--were exploited by elephant poachers and had a major negative influence on elephant distribution. Chimpanzees show a clear preference for unlogged or more mature forests and human disturbance had a negative influence on chimpanzee abundance, in spite of anti-poaching interventions. We caution against the pitfalls of missing and confounded co-variables in model-based estimation approaches and highlight the importance of spatial scale in the response of different species to landscape processes. We stress the importance of a stratified design-based approach to monitoring species status in response to conservation interventions and advocate a holistic framework for landscape-scale monitoring that includes smaller-scale targeted research and punctual assessment of threats.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Kenya 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 341 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 24%
Researcher 70 19%
Student > Master 53 15%
Student > Bachelor 32 9%
Other 20 6%
Other 46 13%
Unknown 53 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 151 42%
Environmental Science 109 30%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 1%
Engineering 3 <1%
Other 23 6%
Unknown 63 18%