Search for: All records

The ability to move is essential for animals to find mates, escape predation, and meet energy and water demands. This is especially important across grazing systems where vegetation productivity can vary drastically between seasons or years. With grasslands undergoing significant changes due to climate change and anthropogenic development, there is an urgent need to determine the relative impacts of these pressures on the movement capacity of native herbivores. To measure these impacts, we fitted 36 white-bearded wildebeest ( Connochaetes taurinus ) with GPS collars across three study areas in southern Kenya (Amboseli Basin, Athi-Kaputiei Plains, and Mara) to test the relationship between movement (e.g., directional persistence, speed, home range crossing time) and gradients of vegetation productivity (i.e., NDVI) and anthropogenic disturbance. As expected, wildebeest moved the most (21.0 km day –1 ; CI: 18.7–23.3) across areas where movement was facilitated by low human footprint and necessitated by low vegetation productivity (Amboseli Basin). However, in areas with moderate vegetation productivity (Athi-Kaputiei Plains), wildebeest moved the least (13.3 km day –1 ; CI: 11.0–15.5). This deviation from expectations was largely explained by impediments to movement associated with a large human footprint. Notably, the movements of wildebeest in this area were also less directed than the other study populations, suggesting that anthropogenic disturbance (i.e., roads, fences, and the expansion of settlements) impacts the ability of wildebeest to move and access available resources. In areas with high vegetation productivity and moderate human footprint (Mara), we observed intermediate levels of daily movement (14.2 km day –1 ; CI: 12.3–16.1). Wildebeest across each of the study systems used grassland habitats outside of protected areas extensively, highlighting the importance of unprotected landscapes for conserving mobile species. These results provide unique insights into the interactive effects of climate and anthropogenic development on the movements of a dominant herbivore in East Africa and present a cautionary tale for the development of grazing ecosystems elsewhere. 

Rangelands are Earth's dominant land cover and are important providers of ecosystem services. Reliance on rangelands is projected to grow, thus understanding the sensitivity of rangelands to future climates is essential. We used a new ecosystem model of moderate complexity that allows, for the first time, to quantify global changes expected in rangelands under future climates. The mean global annual net primary production (NPP) may decline by 10 g C m⁻² year⁻¹in 2050 under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5, but herbaceousNPPis projected to increase slightly (i.e., average of 3 g C m⁻² year⁻¹). Responses vary substantially from place‐to‐place, with large increases in annual productivity projected in northern regions (e.g., a 21% increase in productivity in theUSand Canada) and large declines in western Africa (−46% in sub‐Saharan western Africa) and Australia (−17%). Soil organic carbon is projected to increase in Australia (9%), the Middle East (14%), and central Asia (16%) and decline in many African savannas (e.g., −18% in sub‐Saharan western Africa). Livestock are projected to decline 7.5 to 9.6%, an economic loss of from $9.7 to $12.6 billion. Our results suggest that forage production in Africa is sensitive to changes in climate, which will have substantial impacts on the livelihoods of the more than 180 million people who raise livestock on those rangelands. Our approach and the simulation tool presented here offer considerable potential for forecasting future conditions, highlight regions of concern, and support analyses where costs and benefits of adaptations and policies may be quantified. Otherwise, the technical options and policy and enabling environment that are needed to facilitate widespread adaptation may be very difficult to elucidate.

 

While the tendency to return to previously visited locations—termed ‘site fidelity’—is common in animals, the cause of this behaviour is not well understood. One hypothesis is that site fidelity is shaped by an animal's environment, such that animals living in landscapes with predictable resources have stronger site fidelity. Site fidelity may also be conditional on the success of animals’ recent visits to that location, and it may become stronger with age as the animal accumulates experience in their landscape. Finally, differences between species, such as the way memory shapes site attractiveness, may interact with environmental drivers to modulate the strength of site fidelity.

We compared inter‐year site fidelity in 669 individuals across eight ungulate species fitted with GPS collars and occupying a range of environmental conditions in North America and Africa. We used a distance‐based index of site fidelity and tested hypothesized drivers of site fidelity using linear mixed effects models, while accounting for variation in annual range size.

Mule deerOdocoileus hemionusand mooseAlces alcesexhibited relatively strong site fidelity, while wildebeestConnochaetes taurinusand barren‐ground caribouRangifer tarandus grantihad relatively weak fidelity. Site fidelity was strongest in predictable landscapes where vegetative greening occurred at regular intervals over time (i.e. high temporal contingency). Species differed in their response to spatial heterogeneity in greenness (i.e. spatial constancy). Site fidelity varied seasonally in some species, but remained constant over time in others. Elk employed a ‘win‐stay, lose‐switch’ strategy, in which successful resource tracking in the springtime resulted in strong site fidelity the following spring. Site fidelity did not vary with age in any species tested.

Our results provide support for the environmental hypothesis, particularly that regularity in vegetative phenology shapes the strength of site fidelity at the inter‐annual scale. Large unexplained differences in site fidelity suggest that other factors, possibly species‐specific differences in attraction to known sites, contribute to variation in the expression of this behaviour.

Understanding drivers of variation in site fidelity across groups of organisms living in different environments provides important behavioural context for predicting how animals will respond to environmental change.