**Meet the editors**

Professor Jafari R. Kideghesho was born in Ugweno, Mwanga, in Northern Tanzania. He obtained a BSc (Agric.) from Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), Tanzania (1993), an MSc (Conservation Biology) from Canterbury, UK (1996), and a PhD from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (2006). He started his career in wildlife management at the College

of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, where he taught for six years before joining SUA in 1999. He served as a deputy director of the Wildlife Division in Tanzania's Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism for two years (2012–2014). Professor Kideghesho has been an active supporter of academic efforts within and outside Tanzania through teaching and serving as an external examiner at different universities. He has published over 40 scientific papers in reputable journals and is an author of numerous books. Currently, he is the Rector at the College of African Wildlife Management in Kilimanjaro.

Dr. Alfan A. Rija was born in Kigoma Region of western Tanzania. He is a lecturer in conservation and ecology at Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), Tanzania. He has a PhD degree in Biology specializing in spatial patterns of illegal activities in protected areas from the University of York in the UK (2017), an MSc in Conservation Biology from Victoria University of Wellington,

New Zealand (2009), and a BSc in Wildlife Management from SUA (2003). Dr. Rija's research interests span a wide range of themes focusing on understanding the intricate interactions between humans and wildlife and biodiversity, and designing appropriate strategies for sustainability. He has over 15 years of experience working at the forefront of conservation challenges in protected areas in Tanzania and has researched and published widely on related fields.

Contents

**Preface VII**

Chapter 1 **Introductory Chapter: Wildlife Management - Failures,**

Ismail S. Selemani and Anthony Z. Sangeda

Chapter 3 **Emerging Bacterial Zoonoses in Migratory Birds 23** Uğur Parin, Şükrü Kirkan and Göksel Erbaş

Jeffrey J. Brooks and Robert J. Warren

**of Wami Mbiki WMA, Tanzania 81**

Olesarioyo and Eric Van Ranst

Mombo and Martin R. Nielsen

Sayuni B. Mariki

Chapter 4 **Application of Attitude Theory in Wildlife Management: A Critical Review of Concepts and Processes 43**

Chapter 5 **Community-Based Conservation: An Emerging Land Use at the Livestock-Wildlife Interface in Northern Kenya 61** Stephen M. Mureithi, Ann Verdoodt, Jesse T. Njoka, Joseph S.

Chapter 6 **Successes, Threats, and Factors Influencing the Performance of**

Chapter 7 **Power Struggles in the Management of Wildlife Resources: The**

**a Community-Based Wildlife Management Approach: The Case**

**Case of Burunge Wildlife Management Area, Tanzania 103** Rose P. Kicheleri, Thorsten Treue, George C. Kajembe, Felister M.

Chapter 2 **Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife Migration in Eastern Africa**

**Successes, and Prospects 1**

**Savanna Ecosystem 9**

Jafari R. Kideghesho and Alfan A. Rija

## Contents

#### **Preface XI**

#### Chapter 8 **Marine Stock Enhancement, Restocking, and Sea Ranching in Korea 125** Sang-Go Lee

#### Chapter 9 **Evaluation of a White Seabass (Atractoscion nobilis) Enhancement Program in California 141** Theresa Sinicrope Talley, Nina Venuti, Richard Starr and Christopher Myrick

Preface

Ensuring the survival of wildlife resources is increasingly gaining momentum and becoming a matter of priority in the face of growing challenges facing the resources. With increasing poaching, habitat destruction, introduction of alien species, wildlife diseases, overexploita‐ tion, climate change, and human–wildlife conflicts, among other threats, increasing efforts are being devoted to developing and implementing management approaches and policies considered effective in addressing these challenges. However, the approaches and policies

Loss of wildlife populations still persists despite the efforts devoted to address the challeng‐ es. According to the *International Union for Conservation of Nature*, approximately 23% (1130 species) of mammals and 12% (1194 species) of birds are considered as threatened. Failure to achieve effective wildlife management is often caused by numerous factors, including limit‐ ed livelihood options among local communities around the protected areas, increased de‐ mand for wildlife products, insufficient financial and human resources, and poor

Historically, communities around the protected areas have resisted conservation policies and expressed negative attitudes towards conservation. To communities, wildlife conserva‐ tion has been perceived as a liability due to social and economic costs associated with this type of land use. The costs associated with wildlife conservation, among others, include op‐ portunity cost due to loss of land for alternative uses, livestock depredation, crop damage, wildlife-related accidents to humans, and destruction of infrastructures. Scientific studies have indicated that a widespread apathy towards wildlife among the local communities is

In most cases, local communities around the protected areas take part in illegal activities at the detriment of wildlife to retaliate against losses caused by problems or dangerous ani‐ mals. Occasionally, violation of laws such as illegal hunting is pursued for the sake of sur‐ vival. For example, in Western Serengeti, Tanzania, most of the arrested poachers were from

Increased demand for wildlife products and consequently the exponential increase in price have created an incentive for poaching and illegal wildlife trade globally. For example, the high demand for ivory in China tripled the price to US\$2100/kg in 2014 from US\$750/kg in 2010. [1] This had, consequently, exacerbated the poaching of elephants in the supply countries, where poverty, population growth, unemployment, insecurity, and corruption are widespread. [2] Inadequate human and financial resources allocated to conservation in wildlife sectors contrib‐ ute to inefficient law enforcement and this undermines the conservation efforts. Conservation efficiencies to meet the management requirements of most of the protected areas, especially in developing countries, are almost non-existent. The budgets allocated are too minimal com‐

adopted have often produced mixed outcomes, both failures and successes.

mainly caused by economic and social costs inflicted by wildlife.

communities that had neither livestock nor land for cultivation.

implementation of conservation policies.

## Preface

Chapter 8 **Marine Stock Enhancement, Restocking, and Sea Ranching**

Theresa Sinicrope Talley, Nina Venuti, Richard Starr and Christopher

Chapter 9 **Evaluation of a White Seabass (Atractoscion nobilis) Enhancement Program in California 141**

**in Korea 125** Sang-Go Lee

Myrick

**VI** Contents

Ensuring the survival of wildlife resources is increasingly gaining momentum and becoming a matter of priority in the face of growing challenges facing the resources. With increasing poaching, habitat destruction, introduction of alien species, wildlife diseases, overexploita‐ tion, climate change, and human–wildlife conflicts, among other threats, increasing efforts are being devoted to developing and implementing management approaches and policies considered effective in addressing these challenges. However, the approaches and policies adopted have often produced mixed outcomes, both failures and successes.

Loss of wildlife populations still persists despite the efforts devoted to address the challeng‐ es. According to the *International Union for Conservation of Nature*, approximately 23% (1130 species) of mammals and 12% (1194 species) of birds are considered as threatened. Failure to achieve effective wildlife management is often caused by numerous factors, including limit‐ ed livelihood options among local communities around the protected areas, increased de‐ mand for wildlife products, insufficient financial and human resources, and poor implementation of conservation policies.

Historically, communities around the protected areas have resisted conservation policies and expressed negative attitudes towards conservation. To communities, wildlife conserva‐ tion has been perceived as a liability due to social and economic costs associated with this type of land use. The costs associated with wildlife conservation, among others, include op‐ portunity cost due to loss of land for alternative uses, livestock depredation, crop damage, wildlife-related accidents to humans, and destruction of infrastructures. Scientific studies have indicated that a widespread apathy towards wildlife among the local communities is mainly caused by economic and social costs inflicted by wildlife.

In most cases, local communities around the protected areas take part in illegal activities at the detriment of wildlife to retaliate against losses caused by problems or dangerous ani‐ mals. Occasionally, violation of laws such as illegal hunting is pursued for the sake of sur‐ vival. For example, in Western Serengeti, Tanzania, most of the arrested poachers were from communities that had neither livestock nor land for cultivation.

Increased demand for wildlife products and consequently the exponential increase in price have created an incentive for poaching and illegal wildlife trade globally. For example, the high demand for ivory in China tripled the price to US\$2100/kg in 2014 from US\$750/kg in 2010. [1] This had, consequently, exacerbated the poaching of elephants in the supply countries, where poverty, population growth, unemployment, insecurity, and corruption are widespread. [2]

Inadequate human and financial resources allocated to conservation in wildlife sectors contrib‐ ute to inefficient law enforcement and this undermines the conservation efforts. Conservation efficiencies to meet the management requirements of most of the protected areas, especially in developing countries, are almost non-existent. The budgets allocated are too minimal com‐ pared to the global mean budget for a protected area (at US\$893 per km2 ) and global mean staff input (at 27 per 1000 km2 ) released by the World Commission on Protected Areas. [3]

Despite the challenges, conservation agencies in different countries are striving to ensure that wildlife resources are managed effectively to meet ecological, political, and socioeco‐ nomic goals. The management approaches have shifted from the conventional "fences and fines" to more current ones—e.g. community-based approaches. The latter has been promot‐ ed with a premise that if local communities are involved in managing wildlife and benefit from the resource, they will be motivated to align their behaviors with conservation goals and, therefore, they will refrain from activities that are destructive to wildlife.

These management approaches have, however, produced mixed results—both failures and successes. Failures are evident through increasing poaching, human–wildlife conflicts, and decreased wildlife populations, among other indicators. The success stories in some areas are manifested by increasing costs of participating in illegal wildlife activities, increasing in‐ centives for stewardship, decreasing pressure on wildlife species and habitats, and, there‐ fore, increasing wildlife populations.

In this book, the authors have attempted to present challenges and some achievements of managing wildlife, drawing examples from different parts of the world. Through case stud‐ ies, they have also provided some options for action, which can be replicated in other areas of the world to address the existing management challenges.

We thank the authors who have willingly decided to share their experience with our readers through contributing chapters to this book. We hope that this book will be useful to conser‐ vation practitioners, researchers, students, and academicians.

#### **Prof. Jafari R. Kideghesho, PhD**

(Conservation Biology) Rector College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka Moshi, Tanzania

#### **Dr. Alfan A. Rija, PhD**

**Chapter 1**

**Provisional chapter**

**Introductory Chapter: Wildlife Management - Failures,**

**Introductory Chapter: Wildlife Management - Failures,**

Wildlife is a resource of ecological, economic, and cultural importance. It forms a significant component of the natural ecosystem that maintains the ecological balance of nature through regulation of populations of different species; food chain or passage of food and energy through a series of functional groups comprising of producers, consumers, and decomposers; and natural cycles or circulation of inorganic nutrients between biotic and abiotic environment. Basically, each wildlife species functions with a specific role—predator, prey, decomposer, preserver, and in this way, ecological balance is maintained. For example, annual mass mortality of wildebeest drowning in the Mara River in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem and of whales that sink on the ocean floor and salmon that die on river and streams when they come out to spawn have recently been identified as ecological input of high nutrients into these aquatic ecosystems from their carcasses and bones [1, 2]. This influences nutrient cycling in

By virtue of their critical ecological importance, some wildlife species are classified as keystone species and umbrella species. A keystone species is a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its environment relative to its abundance [3]. Such species play a critical role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community, affecting many other organisms in an ecosystem and influencing the types and abundance of a variety of other species in the community. Removal of such species has a huge downstream effect in the ecosystem and can lead to disappearance of the entire community. On the other hand, the umbrella species are species whose conservation is expected to confer protection to a large number of naturally co-occurring species. In conservation-related decisions, umbrella species are accorded priority since their protection implies protection of many other species making up the ecological

> © 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.79528

**Successes, and Prospects**

**Successes, and Prospects**

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79528

the aquatic ecosystem and maintains food webs.

community of their habitats [4].

**1. Introduction**

Jafari R. Kideghesho and Alfan A. Rija

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Jafari R. Kideghesho and Alfan A. RijaAdditional information is available at the end of the chapter

Sokoine University of Agriculture Department of Wildlife Management Chuo Kikuu, Morgoro, Tanzania

#### **References**

#### **Introductory Chapter: Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes, and Prospects Introductory Chapter: Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes, and Prospects**

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.79528

Jafari R. Kideghesho and Alfan A. Rija

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter Jafari R. Kideghesho and Alfan A. RijaAdditional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79528

#### **1. Introduction**

pared to the global mean budget for a protected area (at US\$893 per km2

and, therefore, they will refrain from activities that are destructive to wildlife.

) released by the World Commission on Protected Areas. [3]

Despite the challenges, conservation agencies in different countries are striving to ensure that wildlife resources are managed effectively to meet ecological, political, and socioeco‐ nomic goals. The management approaches have shifted from the conventional "fences and fines" to more current ones—e.g. community-based approaches. The latter has been promot‐ ed with a premise that if local communities are involved in managing wildlife and benefit from the resource, they will be motivated to align their behaviors with conservation goals

These management approaches have, however, produced mixed results—both failures and successes. Failures are evident through increasing poaching, human–wildlife conflicts, and decreased wildlife populations, among other indicators. The success stories in some areas are manifested by increasing costs of participating in illegal wildlife activities, increasing in‐ centives for stewardship, decreasing pressure on wildlife species and habitats, and, there‐

In this book, the authors have attempted to present challenges and some achievements of managing wildlife, drawing examples from different parts of the world. Through case stud‐ ies, they have also provided some options for action, which can be replicated in other areas

We thank the authors who have willingly decided to share their experience with our readers through contributing chapters to this book. We hope that this book will be useful to conser‐

[1] Stiles, D. *Opinion: Can elephants survive a continued ivory trade ban?* 2014.

Available from: http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/15/opinion-can-ele‐

[2] Kideghesho, JR. The elephant poaching crisis in Tanzania: A need to reverse the trend and the way forward. *Tropical Conservation Science*. 2016;**9**(1):369–388 [3] James, AN, Green, MJB and Paine, JR. A Global Review of Protected Area Budg‐ ets and Staffing. WCMC—World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK; 1999. vi +

input (at 27 per 1000 km2

VIII Preface

fore, increasing wildlife populations.

**References**

46pp.

of the world to address the existing management challenges.

vation practitioners, researchers, students, and academicians.

phants. [Accessed: 2015-07-09]

) and global mean staff

**Prof. Jafari R. Kideghesho, PhD**

Sokoine University of Agriculture Department of Wildlife Management Chuo Kikuu, Morgoro, Tanzania

College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka

(Conservation Biology)

**Dr. Alfan A. Rija, PhD**

Moshi, Tanzania

Rector

Wildlife is a resource of ecological, economic, and cultural importance. It forms a significant component of the natural ecosystem that maintains the ecological balance of nature through regulation of populations of different species; food chain or passage of food and energy through a series of functional groups comprising of producers, consumers, and decomposers; and natural cycles or circulation of inorganic nutrients between biotic and abiotic environment. Basically, each wildlife species functions with a specific role—predator, prey, decomposer, preserver, and in this way, ecological balance is maintained. For example, annual mass mortality of wildebeest drowning in the Mara River in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem and of whales that sink on the ocean floor and salmon that die on river and streams when they come out to spawn have recently been identified as ecological input of high nutrients into these aquatic ecosystems from their carcasses and bones [1, 2]. This influences nutrient cycling in the aquatic ecosystem and maintains food webs.

By virtue of their critical ecological importance, some wildlife species are classified as keystone species and umbrella species. A keystone species is a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its environment relative to its abundance [3]. Such species play a critical role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community, affecting many other organisms in an ecosystem and influencing the types and abundance of a variety of other species in the community. Removal of such species has a huge downstream effect in the ecosystem and can lead to disappearance of the entire community. On the other hand, the umbrella species are species whose conservation is expected to confer protection to a large number of naturally co-occurring species. In conservation-related decisions, umbrella species are accorded priority since their protection implies protection of many other species making up the ecological community of their habitats [4].

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The economic importance of wildlife is realized through its utilization to meet human needs and aspirations. The main forms of wildlife utilization are consumptive and nonconsumptive use. The former involves removal of a species from its natural habitat, while the latter involves the use of a resource which does not involve removal from its natural habitat. The main form of consumptive use of wildlife is hunting conducted to cater for subsistence or commercial needs. Photographic tourism is the main type of nonconsumptive use.

pollution, and introduction of exotic species [10]. Budget allocated to carry out effective man-

Introductory Chapter: Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes, and Prospects

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79528

3

The above challenges have far-reaching consequences on wildlife species. For example, research-based literature indicates that over 50% of wild mammals have declined across several African protected areas due to illegal activities conducted inside and around the protected area borders [11]. In Asia, deforestation poses significant risks to wildlife populations in protected areas than poaching. Such risks become more severe in the partially than strictly protected areas globally [12]. Furthermore, recent surge of illegal wildlife trade and their derivatives is perhaps the most challenging threats of our time that require concerted efforts

Many governments, globally, have responded to the growing conservation challenges by adopting new or alternative conservation policies and approaches. For instance, in the past three decades, community conservation approaches have been promoted to replace or complement the "fences and fines" (also known as centralized) approach. The later was considered to have failed in conserving wildlife. Under this approach, state-led enforcement of conservation laws became inefficient due to shrinkage of conservation budgets. This was manifested by heavy poaching which threatened survival of many key species such as buffalo, elephant, rhino, and lion [15–17]. For instance, poaching of African elephants for ivory reduced its population from 1.3 million in 1979 to 625,000 individuals in 1989 while black rhino plummeted from 65,000 in 1970 to 2400 in 1995 [18]. These declines of wildlife populations were partly caused by weak economies of the countries where protected areas are located and the need to

The emerging of the community-based-wildlife management (CBWM) initiatives globally was important step in implementing more inclusive policies. The initiatives were construed as more plausible and promising in ensuring the survival of wildlife populations. However, implementation of this approach has had some unexpected outcomes with limited success stories [19, 20]. For instance, most of the community-based conservation projects were established to meet donor interests and their funding was fully dependent on donors. This has, consequently, led to failure of these projects instantaneously after pull out of the donors. Some community-based projects are also faced with challenges of inadequate capacity in

Despite the challenges and failures, some successes have been recorded following wildlife conservation efforts globally. One of the successes is the growth of wildlife reserves worldwide from one (Yellowstone National Park) in 1872 to several thousand today [21]. There is increased commitment among the governments to set aside more wildlife reserves which is expected to cover about 17% of the total global land area by 2020 [22]. Similarly, about 10% coverage is expected for marine protected [12]. Essentially, this increase in protected area coverage is expected to guarantee the survival of the remaining populations of wildlife and other natural resources. Furthermore, the expansion of protected area coverage on a global scale has been reflected locally within individual countries notably from tropical countries. For example, the national coverage of the protected area network has increased notably in

increase incomes from illegal commercial sale of ivory and horns [12, 14].

agement of wildlife is also limited.

from local and international institutions [12–14].

terms of managerial and entrepreneurial skills.

Wildlife resource contributes immensely to the economy of many countries and individuals through different avenues. In Tanzania, for example, the resource plays the biggest role in tourism sector, an industry contributing 17.2% of the GDP and 25% of foreign exchange. The revenues earned during the 2016/17 financial year through its wildlife management authorities was roughly US\$180 million [5]. Citing the 2011 Report by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the US-based Magazine—*Outside*—indicated that approximately 90 million U.S. citizens or 38% of the population aged 16 and above spent about US\$145 billion on wildlife-related activities. The hunters spent \$34 billion, anglers spent \$41.8 billion, and wildlife watchers spent \$55 billion [6].

Besides economic importance, wildlife species have spiritual, symbolic, and ceremonial importance to many global societies. Some ethnic groups have spiritual affiliation with totemic or sacred species which are worshipped as gods, revered as ancestors and classified as kins. These species are protected through taboos and traditional beliefs [7–9]. The totemic status ascribed to a particular species guarantees its protection since killing, injuring, or consuming it is prohibited.

The ecological, economic, and cultural importance of wildlife has prompted a need for conservation to ensure the long-term sustainability of this resource. In Africa, the precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial eras have observed some conservation regulations which sought to protect wildlife habitats and species. During the precolonial era, the beliefs and taboos were used to regulate, restrict, or prohibit killing or eating of a certain wildlife species. These controls were deliberately employed to avoid overexploitation and loss of such species [8]. The habitats for wildlife were also protected by taboos and beliefs [8, 9]. The colonial governments enacted laws and gazetted protected areas of different categories to safeguard the species and other natural resources. This system was inherited by postcolonial governments which gazetted more areas for wildlife conservation and maintained the centralized model of conservation—also known as fortress or fences-and-fines model. The model is based on the belief that biodiversity protection is best achieved by creating protected areas where ecosystems can function in isolation from human disturbance.

Despite the efforts to set aside large areas of land as protected areas, challenges are growing causing a dramatic decline of wildlife populations. With rapid human population growth and increased anthropogenic activities, loss of wildlife habitats and dispersal areas is increasing following their conversion to other uses such as agriculture, settlements, and infrastructures. Likewise, wildlife migratory corridors linking protected areas are being blocked and, thus limiting the gene flow between the populations and colonization of suitable sites. Other challenges include diseases, poaching, illegal logging, human-wildlife conflicts, climate change, pollution, and introduction of exotic species [10]. Budget allocated to carry out effective management of wildlife is also limited.

The economic importance of wildlife is realized through its utilization to meet human needs and aspirations. The main forms of wildlife utilization are consumptive and nonconsumptive use. The former involves removal of a species from its natural habitat, while the latter involves the use of a resource which does not involve removal from its natural habitat. The main form of consumptive use of wildlife is hunting conducted to cater for subsistence or commercial

Wildlife resource contributes immensely to the economy of many countries and individuals through different avenues. In Tanzania, for example, the resource plays the biggest role in tourism sector, an industry contributing 17.2% of the GDP and 25% of foreign exchange. The revenues earned during the 2016/17 financial year through its wildlife management authorities was roughly US\$180 million [5]. Citing the 2011 Report by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the US-based Magazine—*Outside*—indicated that approximately 90 million U.S. citizens or 38% of the population aged 16 and above spent about US\$145 billion on wildlife-related activities. The hunters spent \$34 billion, anglers spent \$41.8 billion, and wildlife

Besides economic importance, wildlife species have spiritual, symbolic, and ceremonial importance to many global societies. Some ethnic groups have spiritual affiliation with totemic or sacred species which are worshipped as gods, revered as ancestors and classified as kins. These species are protected through taboos and traditional beliefs [7–9]. The totemic status ascribed to a particular species guarantees its protection since killing, injuring, or con-

The ecological, economic, and cultural importance of wildlife has prompted a need for conservation to ensure the long-term sustainability of this resource. In Africa, the precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial eras have observed some conservation regulations which sought to protect wildlife habitats and species. During the precolonial era, the beliefs and taboos were used to regulate, restrict, or prohibit killing or eating of a certain wildlife species. These controls were deliberately employed to avoid overexploitation and loss of such species [8]. The habitats for wildlife were also protected by taboos and beliefs [8, 9]. The colonial governments enacted laws and gazetted protected areas of different categories to safeguard the species and other natural resources. This system was inherited by postcolonial governments which gazetted more areas for wildlife conservation and maintained the centralized model of conservation—also known as fortress or fences-and-fines model. The model is based on the belief that biodiversity protection is best achieved by creating protected areas where ecosystems can

Despite the efforts to set aside large areas of land as protected areas, challenges are growing causing a dramatic decline of wildlife populations. With rapid human population growth and increased anthropogenic activities, loss of wildlife habitats and dispersal areas is increasing following their conversion to other uses such as agriculture, settlements, and infrastructures. Likewise, wildlife migratory corridors linking protected areas are being blocked and, thus limiting the gene flow between the populations and colonization of suitable sites. Other challenges include diseases, poaching, illegal logging, human-wildlife conflicts, climate change,

needs. Photographic tourism is the main type of nonconsumptive use.

watchers spent \$55 billion [6].

2 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

suming it is prohibited.

function in isolation from human disturbance.

The above challenges have far-reaching consequences on wildlife species. For example, research-based literature indicates that over 50% of wild mammals have declined across several African protected areas due to illegal activities conducted inside and around the protected area borders [11]. In Asia, deforestation poses significant risks to wildlife populations in protected areas than poaching. Such risks become more severe in the partially than strictly protected areas globally [12]. Furthermore, recent surge of illegal wildlife trade and their derivatives is perhaps the most challenging threats of our time that require concerted efforts from local and international institutions [12–14].

Many governments, globally, have responded to the growing conservation challenges by adopting new or alternative conservation policies and approaches. For instance, in the past three decades, community conservation approaches have been promoted to replace or complement the "fences and fines" (also known as centralized) approach. The later was considered to have failed in conserving wildlife. Under this approach, state-led enforcement of conservation laws became inefficient due to shrinkage of conservation budgets. This was manifested by heavy poaching which threatened survival of many key species such as buffalo, elephant, rhino, and lion [15–17]. For instance, poaching of African elephants for ivory reduced its population from 1.3 million in 1979 to 625,000 individuals in 1989 while black rhino plummeted from 65,000 in 1970 to 2400 in 1995 [18]. These declines of wildlife populations were partly caused by weak economies of the countries where protected areas are located and the need to increase incomes from illegal commercial sale of ivory and horns [12, 14].

The emerging of the community-based-wildlife management (CBWM) initiatives globally was important step in implementing more inclusive policies. The initiatives were construed as more plausible and promising in ensuring the survival of wildlife populations. However, implementation of this approach has had some unexpected outcomes with limited success stories [19, 20]. For instance, most of the community-based conservation projects were established to meet donor interests and their funding was fully dependent on donors. This has, consequently, led to failure of these projects instantaneously after pull out of the donors. Some community-based projects are also faced with challenges of inadequate capacity in terms of managerial and entrepreneurial skills.

Despite the challenges and failures, some successes have been recorded following wildlife conservation efforts globally. One of the successes is the growth of wildlife reserves worldwide from one (Yellowstone National Park) in 1872 to several thousand today [21]. There is increased commitment among the governments to set aside more wildlife reserves which is expected to cover about 17% of the total global land area by 2020 [22]. Similarly, about 10% coverage is expected for marine protected [12]. Essentially, this increase in protected area coverage is expected to guarantee the survival of the remaining populations of wildlife and other natural resources. Furthermore, the expansion of protected area coverage on a global scale has been reflected locally within individual countries notably from tropical countries. For example, the national coverage of the protected area network has increased notably in Tanzania by 6.3%, the Republic of Korea (3.6%), and Mexico (2.0%). The 2017 World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) Report indicates existence of over 230,000 protected areas in the world covering 245 countries and territories [23].

The authors explain the mechanisms through which migratory birds contract diseases and transmit them to domestic animals and humans. The migratory birds confront numerous health risks brought on by bacterial species that affect other livestock populace and public health. The chapter provides brief reference on bird-to-bird transmission and general aspects of emerging bacterial zoonoses of migratory birds for wildlife professionals, veterinary prac-

Introductory Chapter: Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes, and Prospects

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79528

5

In Chapter 3 "*Application of attitude theory in wildlife management: A critical review of concepts and processes*", Dr. Brookes Jeffrey et al. highlight the factors influencing consistency between people's attitudes and their subsequent behaviors. The authors review a number of studies on attitudes and knowledge to understand these factors. Prior knowledge is one of such factors. Attitudes held by people with high levels of knowledge of an issue tend to be better predictors of subsequent behaviors than attitudes accompanied by low levels of knowledge. Essentially, prior knowledge moderates the relationship between attitudes and behaviors by two processes: (1) accessibility and (2) stability, or strength. Using information-processing model from social psychology, authors examine the implications of knowledge about a hypothetical predator restoration. Understanding the effects of knowledge for information processing is useful to wildlife managers and communication experts who attempt to influence, persuade,

Dr. Mureithi Stephen et al. in Chapter 4 titled *"Community-based conservation: An emerging land use at the livestock-wildlife interface in northern Kenya*" recognize the lands outside the protected areas as important dispersal areas for about 70% of wildlife populations. These lands are communal pastoral lands where pastoralists and wildlife have coexisted harmoniously for decades. The authors point out the land use changes taking place in the area and their impacts on pastoralism and wildlife populations. Establishment of community wildlife conservancies is construed as a strategy for decentralization of wildlife governance and halting biodiversity and habitat loss. Conservancies are promoted as an avenue for restoration of degraded grazing lands and improving pastoral livelihoods through better livestock grazing management, vegetation recovery program, and income generated from tourism-based enterprises. Authors recommend a clear land zoning, reliable market for livestock, and development of support infrastructures for success of conservancies. Climate variability and change, invasive species, unsustainable land use systems, cattle rustling, and human-wildlife conflicts are outlined as

Chapter 5 by Dr. Sayuni Mariki—"*Community-based wildlife management areas in Tanzania: Benefits, constraints and future prospects*"—provides some insights on the performance of community-based wildlife management approach. The approach has been promoted as a promising and more plausible option to conservation, contrary to previous approach—"fence and fines." Using the Wami-Mbiki Wildlife Management Area as a case study, the author points out that the project excelled at the beginning but with time, it became unattractive to communities. The author attributes this change to "donor dependency syndrome," which is common to many conservation projects. Ending of the donor support cripples the projects due to lack of capacity in terms of managerial skills and financial resources. Consequently, illegal activities such as wildlife poaching, overgrazing, tree cutting, and charcoal burning

titioners, and students.

and educate public stakeholders.

the perceived threats.

Another success recorded is increased public awareness on importance of wildlife conservation and, therefore, improved support to conservation efforts. This is a result of conservation education and realized direct benefits from conservation, especially to communities living around the protected areas. Research-based literature demonstrates that positive attitudes and support to conservation efforts are a function of direct benefits from wildlife and reduced costs related to conservation [24–29].

Along with increased public support, local and international community plays important role in ensuring the sustainability of wildlife resource. There is increased commitment locally and globally to adopt supportive policies and enforcing laws aiming at serving the species and their habitats. Many countries have formulated or reviewed their policies and amended or enacted laws to cope with increasing and emerging conservation challenges. Besides the national laws, these countries have signed/ratified various regional and international conventions and protocols for wildlife resource conservation and protection. This shows commitment of these countries to specific principles, objectives, and course of action. Some of the main conventions relevant to management of wildlife are: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) of 1989; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 1992; Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of 1997; Lusaka Agreement on Co-operative Enforcement Operations directed at Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora; Convention on Migratory species and; SADC Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement (1999).

This book is comprised of eight chapters presenting experiences drawn from different parts of the world on failures, successes, and prospects of wildlife conservation in the world. Chapter 1 titled "*Spatial and temporal vegetation dynamics: Opportunities and nutritional constraints behind wildlife mobility in savanna ecosystem*" by Drs Anthony Sangeda and Selemani Ismail reviews the opportunities and constraints of spatial and temporal variability of forage resources and wildlife mobility in Eastern Africa savanna ecosystem. Foraging animals normally respond to the decline in forage quality and availability by moving to other landscape with relatively higher quality and abundant forage resources. Although migration of wildlife outside protected areas is ecologically vital for breeding and survival, it foments human-wildlife conflicts. Limited ecological knowledge and nutritional requirements of wildlife coupled with rapid diminishing quality and availability of forage undermine biodiversity conservation efforts. The understanding of spatial-temporal variability of forage resources along with proper wildlife management practices as well as human-wildlife conflict management is highly required to realize high productivity in livestock industry and wildlife conservation.

Chapter 2 titled "*Emerging bacterial zoonoses in migratory birds*" by Dr. Parin Ugur presents a very critical challenge of zoonotic diseases—affecting wildlife, people, and domestic animals. The seasonal variance, global warming, and extraordinary climate conditions around the world are linked with change of the physiology and behaviors of different animal species. Free ranging birds and mammals harbor some species of potentially pathogenic bacteria. The authors explain the mechanisms through which migratory birds contract diseases and transmit them to domestic animals and humans. The migratory birds confront numerous health risks brought on by bacterial species that affect other livestock populace and public health. The chapter provides brief reference on bird-to-bird transmission and general aspects of emerging bacterial zoonoses of migratory birds for wildlife professionals, veterinary practitioners, and students.

Tanzania by 6.3%, the Republic of Korea (3.6%), and Mexico (2.0%). The 2017 World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) Report indicates existence of over 230,000 protected areas in the

Another success recorded is increased public awareness on importance of wildlife conservation and, therefore, improved support to conservation efforts. This is a result of conservation education and realized direct benefits from conservation, especially to communities living around the protected areas. Research-based literature demonstrates that positive attitudes and support to conservation efforts are a function of direct benefits from wildlife and reduced

Along with increased public support, local and international community plays important role in ensuring the sustainability of wildlife resource. There is increased commitment locally and globally to adopt supportive policies and enforcing laws aiming at serving the species and their habitats. Many countries have formulated or reviewed their policies and amended or enacted laws to cope with increasing and emerging conservation challenges. Besides the national laws, these countries have signed/ratified various regional and international conventions and protocols for wildlife resource conservation and protection. This shows commitment of these countries to specific principles, objectives, and course of action. Some of the main conventions relevant to management of wildlife are: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) of 1989; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 1992; Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of 1997; Lusaka Agreement on Co-operative Enforcement Operations directed at Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora; Convention on Migratory species and; SADC Protocol on Wildlife Conservation

This book is comprised of eight chapters presenting experiences drawn from different parts of the world on failures, successes, and prospects of wildlife conservation in the world. Chapter 1 titled "*Spatial and temporal vegetation dynamics: Opportunities and nutritional constraints behind wildlife mobility in savanna ecosystem*" by Drs Anthony Sangeda and Selemani Ismail reviews the opportunities and constraints of spatial and temporal variability of forage resources and wildlife mobility in Eastern Africa savanna ecosystem. Foraging animals normally respond to the decline in forage quality and availability by moving to other landscape with relatively higher quality and abundant forage resources. Although migration of wildlife outside protected areas is ecologically vital for breeding and survival, it foments human-wildlife conflicts. Limited ecological knowledge and nutritional requirements of wildlife coupled with rapid diminishing quality and availability of forage undermine biodiversity conservation efforts. The understanding of spatial-temporal variability of forage resources along with proper wildlife management practices as well as human-wildlife conflict management is highly required

Chapter 2 titled "*Emerging bacterial zoonoses in migratory birds*" by Dr. Parin Ugur presents a very critical challenge of zoonotic diseases—affecting wildlife, people, and domestic animals. The seasonal variance, global warming, and extraordinary climate conditions around the world are linked with change of the physiology and behaviors of different animal species. Free ranging birds and mammals harbor some species of potentially pathogenic bacteria.

to realize high productivity in livestock industry and wildlife conservation.

world covering 245 countries and territories [23].

4 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

costs related to conservation [24–29].

and Law Enforcement (1999).

In Chapter 3 "*Application of attitude theory in wildlife management: A critical review of concepts and processes*", Dr. Brookes Jeffrey et al. highlight the factors influencing consistency between people's attitudes and their subsequent behaviors. The authors review a number of studies on attitudes and knowledge to understand these factors. Prior knowledge is one of such factors. Attitudes held by people with high levels of knowledge of an issue tend to be better predictors of subsequent behaviors than attitudes accompanied by low levels of knowledge. Essentially, prior knowledge moderates the relationship between attitudes and behaviors by two processes: (1) accessibility and (2) stability, or strength. Using information-processing model from social psychology, authors examine the implications of knowledge about a hypothetical predator restoration. Understanding the effects of knowledge for information processing is useful to wildlife managers and communication experts who attempt to influence, persuade, and educate public stakeholders.

Dr. Mureithi Stephen et al. in Chapter 4 titled *"Community-based conservation: An emerging land use at the livestock-wildlife interface in northern Kenya*" recognize the lands outside the protected areas as important dispersal areas for about 70% of wildlife populations. These lands are communal pastoral lands where pastoralists and wildlife have coexisted harmoniously for decades. The authors point out the land use changes taking place in the area and their impacts on pastoralism and wildlife populations. Establishment of community wildlife conservancies is construed as a strategy for decentralization of wildlife governance and halting biodiversity and habitat loss. Conservancies are promoted as an avenue for restoration of degraded grazing lands and improving pastoral livelihoods through better livestock grazing management, vegetation recovery program, and income generated from tourism-based enterprises. Authors recommend a clear land zoning, reliable market for livestock, and development of support infrastructures for success of conservancies. Climate variability and change, invasive species, unsustainable land use systems, cattle rustling, and human-wildlife conflicts are outlined as the perceived threats.

Chapter 5 by Dr. Sayuni Mariki—"*Community-based wildlife management areas in Tanzania: Benefits, constraints and future prospects*"—provides some insights on the performance of community-based wildlife management approach. The approach has been promoted as a promising and more plausible option to conservation, contrary to previous approach—"fence and fines." Using the Wami-Mbiki Wildlife Management Area as a case study, the author points out that the project excelled at the beginning but with time, it became unattractive to communities. The author attributes this change to "donor dependency syndrome," which is common to many conservation projects. Ending of the donor support cripples the projects due to lack of capacity in terms of managerial skills and financial resources. Consequently, illegal activities such as wildlife poaching, overgrazing, tree cutting, and charcoal burning increase as the projects can barely conduct effective antipoaching patrols. Entrepreneur skills, transparency, and good relationships with stakeholders, among others, are recommended as important success factors for community-based wildlife management.

[4] Roberge J, Angelstam P. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation

Introductory Chapter: Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes, and Prospects

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79528

7

[5] URT. Budget Speech by Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism for 2017/2018

[6] Outside. Americans Spent a Lot of Money on Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Watching in 2011. https://www.outsideonline.com/1903171/americans-spent-lot-money-hunting-

[7] Colding J, Folke C. Social Taboos: 'Invisible' systems of local resource management and

[8] Kideghesho JR. Co-existence between the traditional societies and wildlife in western Serengeti, Tanzania: Its relevancy in contemporary wildlife conservation efforts.

[9] Kideghesho JR. The potentials of traditional African cultural practices in mitigating overexploitation of wildlife species and habitat loss: Experience of Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management. 2009;**5**:83-94. http://

[10] Kideghesho J, Rija AA, Mwamende KA, Selemani I. Emerging issues and challenges in conservation of biodiversity in the rangelands of Tanzania. Nature Conservation. 2013;**6**.

[11] Craigie ID, Baillie JEM, Balmford A, Carbone C, Collen B, Green RE, et al. Large mammal population declines in Africa's protected areas. Biological Conservation. 2010;

[12] Rija AA. Spatial pattern of illegal activities and the impact on wildlife populations in protected areas in the Serengeti Ecosystem [PhD thesis]. UK: Library of the University

[13] Cooney R, Roe D, Dublin H, Phelps J, Wilkie D, Keane A, Biggs, D. From Poachers to Protectors: Engaging Local Communities in Solutions to Illegal Wildlife Trade.

[14] Kideghesho JR. Reversing the trend of wildlife crime in Tanzania: Challenges and

[15] Dublin HT, Douglas-Hamilton I. Status and trends of elephants in the Serengeti-Mara

[17] Yeager R. Wildlife, Wild Death: Land Use and Survival in Eastern Africa. Albany: State

**143**(9):2221-2228. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.007

Conservation Letters. 2017;**10**(3):367-374. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12294

opportunities. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2016;**25**:427-449

[16] Packer C. Into Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994

ecosystem. African Journal of Ecology. 1987;**25**:19-33

University of New York Press; 1986. p. 173

Financial Year. Dodoma Tanzania: The United Republic of Tanzania; 2018

biological conservation. Ecological Applications. 2001;**11**:584-600

Biodiversity and Conservation. 2008;**17**(8):1861-1881

tool. Conservation Biology. 2004;**18**(1):76-85

fishing-and-wildlife-watching-2011

dx.doi.org/10.1080/17451590903065579

DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.6.5407

of York; 2017

Chapter 6 titled "*Power struggles in the management of wildlife resources: A case of Burunge Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Tanzania*" by Dr. Rose Kicheleri et al. provides an analysis of powers held by different stakeholders namely—structural, institutional, and strategic power. While the central government, investors, and nongovernmental organizations have both institutional and strategic powers, the power for village councils is limited to structural. Village councils are, therefore, disadvantaged in making the strategic decisions about the management of the WMA. The chapter cites divergence of interests as a source of power struggles among the stakeholders. Power struggles are more notable on issues related to distribution of revenues, management, and access to natural resources.

Chapter 7 by Prof. Lee Sang-Go—*Marine Fish Stock Enhancement Programmes (FSEP), and Fish Stock Rebuilding Plan (FSRP) in Korea*—seeks to introduce the methods and insights of Korean ecofriendly FSEP-based FSRP and its 10 years' fisheries management policy. It presents different strategies proposed to overcome any issues related to the implementation of the FSRP plan. Finally, Dr. Theresa Talley in Chapter 8 reviews the marine finfish enhancement program in California. The purpose of the review was to assess the program's functionality and efficiency, environmental impacts, scientific accomplishments, economic costs and benefits, and contribution to the marine finfish stocks.

#### **Author details**

Jafari R. Kideghesho\* and Alfan A. Rija

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, Moshi, Tanzania

#### **References**

[4] Roberge J, Angelstam P. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology. 2004;**18**(1):76-85

increase as the projects can barely conduct effective antipoaching patrols. Entrepreneur skills, transparency, and good relationships with stakeholders, among others, are recommended as

Chapter 6 titled "*Power struggles in the management of wildlife resources: A case of Burunge Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Tanzania*" by Dr. Rose Kicheleri et al. provides an analysis of powers held by different stakeholders namely—structural, institutional, and strategic power. While the central government, investors, and nongovernmental organizations have both institutional and strategic powers, the power for village councils is limited to structural. Village councils are, therefore, disadvantaged in making the strategic decisions about the management of the WMA. The chapter cites divergence of interests as a source of power struggles among the stakeholders. Power struggles are more notable on issues related to distribution of

Chapter 7 by Prof. Lee Sang-Go—*Marine Fish Stock Enhancement Programmes (FSEP), and Fish Stock Rebuilding Plan (FSRP) in Korea*—seeks to introduce the methods and insights of Korean ecofriendly FSEP-based FSRP and its 10 years' fisheries management policy. It presents different strategies proposed to overcome any issues related to the implementation of the FSRP plan. Finally, Dr. Theresa Talley in Chapter 8 reviews the marine finfish enhancement program in California. The purpose of the review was to assess the program's functionality and efficiency, environmental impacts, scientific accomplishments, economic costs and benefits,

[1] Pennisi E. Drowned wildebeest provide ecological feast. Science. 2017;**356**(6344):

[2] Subalusky AL, Dutton CL, Rosi EJ, Post DM. Annual mass drownings of the Serengeti wildebeest migration influence nutrient cycling and storage in the Mara River. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;**114**(29):7647-7652. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.

[3] Mouquet N, et al. Extending the concept of keystone species to communities and ecosys-

important success factors for community-based wildlife management.

revenues, management, and access to natural resources.

and contribution to the marine finfish stocks.

6 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

Jafari R. Kideghesho\* and Alfan A. Rija

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, Moshi, Tanzania

1217-1218. DOI: 10.1126/science.356.6344.1217

tems. Ecology Letters. 2013;**16**:1-8

**Author details**

**References**

1614778114

[18] Adams JS, McShane TO. The Myth of Wild Africa: Conservation without Illusion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1996

**Chapter 2**

Provisional chapter

**Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics:**

Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics:

Ismail S. Selemani and Anthony Z. Sangeda

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Ismail S. Selemani and Anthony Z. Sangeda

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72617

Eastern Africa savanna ecosystem.

savanna ecosystem, climate change

Abstract

1. Introduction

**Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife**

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.72617

Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife

**Migration in Eastern Africa Savanna Ecosystem**

Migration in Eastern Africa Savanna Ecosystem

The Africa's semi-arid savanna ecosystems are characterized by high spatial and temporal variation in forage resources that influence mobility of wildlife population. Rapid changes in vegetation composition in savanna have been documented. These have notably involved transformation of grasslands into denser bushes and infestation of undesirable weed plants accompanied by diminishing ecological carrying capacity of rangelands. The utilization of different landscape units is strongly correlated with the availability of forage species and their nutritional quality. Foraging animals normally respond to the decline in forage quality and availability by moving to other landscapes with relatively higher quality and abundant forage resources. Although, migration of wildlife outside protected areas is ecologically vital for breeding and survival, it foments human-wildlife conflicts. Limited ecological knowledge and nutritional requirements of wildlife coupled with rapid diminishing quality and availability of forage undermine biodiversity conservation efforts. The understanding of spatial–temporal variability of forage resources along with proper wildlife management practices as well as humanwildlife conflict management are highly needed to realize high productivity in livestock industry and wildlife conservation. This chapter reviews the opportunities and constraints of spatial and temporal variability of forage resources and wildlife mobility in

Keywords: rangeland degradation, wildlife mobility, vegetation variability, semi-arid

The Africa's semi-arid savanna ecosystems are characterized by high spatial and temporal variation in forage resources that influence mobility of both wildlife and livestock population [1].

> © The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and eproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

Provisional chapter

#### **Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife Migration in Eastern Africa Savanna Ecosystem** Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife Migration in Eastern Africa Savanna Ecosystem

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.72617

Ismail S. Selemani and Anthony Z. Sangeda

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter Ismail S. Selemani and Anthony Z. Sangeda

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72617 Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

#### Abstract

[18] Adams JS, McShane TO. The Myth of Wild Africa: Conservation without Illusion.

[19] Gibson CC, Marks SA. Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: An assessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa. World Development.

[20] Songorwa AN. Community-based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania are the

[21] Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M. The performance and potential of pro-

[22] CBD. Convention on Biological Diversity. Aichi Biodiversity Targets. 2015. Available at:

[23] UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN; 2017. [Online] Available at: www.

[24] Gadd ME. Conservation outside of parks: attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya.

[25] Gillingham S, Lee PC. The Impact of Wildlife-Related Benefits on the Conservation Attitudes of Local People around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environmental

[26] Hariohay KM, Fyumagwa RD, Kideghesho JR, Røskaft E. Awareness and attitudes of local people toward wildlife conservation in the Rungwa Game Reserve in Central Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife; 2018. DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2018.1494866 [27] Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T, Vittersø J. Attitudes toward large carnivores among sheep farmers, wildlife managers, and research biologists in Norway. Human Dimensions of

[28] Kideghesho JR, Røskaft E, Kaltenborn BP. Factors influencing conservation attitudes of local people in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Biodiversity Conservation. 2007;**16**:2213-2230

[29] Naughton-Treves L, Grossberg R, Treves A. Paying for tolerance: Rural citizens' attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation Biology. 2003;**17**(6):1500-1511

Conservation. 1999;**26**:218-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0376892999000302

communities interested. World Development. 1999;**27**(12):2061-2079

tected areas. Nature. 2014;**515**(7525):67-73. DOI: 10.1038/nature13947

https://www.cbd.int/sp/default.shtml [Accessed: June 12, 2018]

Environmental Conservation. 2005;**32**(1):50-63

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1996

1995;**23**(6):941-957

8 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

protectedplanet.net

Wildlife. 1999;**4**:57-73

The Africa's semi-arid savanna ecosystems are characterized by high spatial and temporal variation in forage resources that influence mobility of wildlife population. Rapid changes in vegetation composition in savanna have been documented. These have notably involved transformation of grasslands into denser bushes and infestation of undesirable weed plants accompanied by diminishing ecological carrying capacity of rangelands. The utilization of different landscape units is strongly correlated with the availability of forage species and their nutritional quality. Foraging animals normally respond to the decline in forage quality and availability by moving to other landscapes with relatively higher quality and abundant forage resources. Although, migration of wildlife outside protected areas is ecologically vital for breeding and survival, it foments human-wildlife conflicts. Limited ecological knowledge and nutritional requirements of wildlife coupled with rapid diminishing quality and availability of forage undermine biodiversity conservation efforts. The understanding of spatial–temporal variability of forage resources along with proper wildlife management practices as well as humanwildlife conflict management are highly needed to realize high productivity in livestock industry and wildlife conservation. This chapter reviews the opportunities and constraints of spatial and temporal variability of forage resources and wildlife mobility in Eastern Africa savanna ecosystem.

Keywords: rangeland degradation, wildlife mobility, vegetation variability, semi-arid savanna ecosystem, climate change

#### 1. Introduction

The Africa's semi-arid savanna ecosystems are characterized by high spatial and temporal variation in forage resources that influence mobility of both wildlife and livestock population [1].

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and eproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Spatially, vegetation variability occurs ranging from very fine scale (plant level) to regional scale (landscape level), resulting into pronounced patches of quality and availability of forage. On the other hand, vegetation varies in terms of time ranging from few seconds to several years resulting into seasonal fluctuations in forage quality and availability [2]. Although, several factors (such as topography, weather and climate) influence distribution pattern of animals, the vegetation characteristics (quality, quantity, species composition, plant morphology and physiology) are the key determinant of ungulate migration [3]. The vegetation variations caused by changes in land use and climatic variability are major driving forces of wildlife migration. The preference and aversion responses of foraging animals are closely linked with both nutritional composition and nutritional requirements of feeding animals [4].

unpredictable hazards contribute to modification of wildlife habitats, the key driving force for degradation of forage resources and subsequently migration of wildlife are anthropogenic activities. Wildlife habitats have become more and more fragmented as a result of increasing human activities such as crop production, livestock husbandry, infrastructure development and urbanization. For example, according to Brady [9], agriculture has more profound impact on wildlife conservation than other anthropogenic activities. Cultivated crops adjacent to conservation areas are potential source of forage for wild ungulates such as elephant (Loxodonta africana), buffalo (Syncerus caffer) and antelopes. Crops like the succulent finger millet and sweet sugarcane are not only highly palatable but contain more protein and minerals compared to the native wild grasses [9]. In addition, during the dry seasons native forage quality normally declines tremendously because natural pastures are characterized by rapidly maturing grasses which attained maturity quickly [10]. Based on Optimal Foraging Theory, which states that animals tend to select high quality diet in the manner that maximizes their nutrient intake [11], it is considered that wildlife migration to adjacent croplands is a coping strategy to survive hash condition escalated by

Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife Migration in Eastern…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72617

11

A growing human population entails the increasing human needs and, consequently, need for expansion of agricultural activities to meet the demand for food and cash. Global population is currently estimated to exceed 7 billion people and is projected to rise to over 9 billion by 2050 [13]. Nearly all of this population increase will occur in developing countries (Figure 1). This implies that, the demand for food will increase while competition for land, water resources and energy will intensify. Agricultural production and environmental challenges are inextricably linked; whereas natural environment offers resource base on which agricultural production is completely dependent, while farming itself plays a major role in shaping the environment [13].

seasonal fluctuations in quality and availability of forage resources [12].

2.2. Increased human population

Figure 1. Projected global human population (Source RSPB 2012).

At landscape level, rangelands consist of pattern of vegetation types clustered in concurrence with climatic condition and geographical features which create mosaic of patchiness [5]. The utilization of different landscape units is strongly correlated with the availability of forage species and their nutritional quality within these patches. Foraging animals normally respond to the decline in forage quality and availability by moving to another landscape with relative higher quality [6]. For example, in Serengeti National Park, ungulate such as wildebeest and zebra have been noted to move progressively in different grazing areas [1]. This grazing succession following feeding preference has great ecological implication through reduction in interspecific competition among grazing animals. On the contrary, wildlife migration has been blamed to cause inter-conflicts between different land uses. For example, Selemani [7] observes that, migration of wildlife to residential areas escalates conflicts between local people and conservationists and, consequently, results into negative attitude towards the protected areas and conservation, in general. Incidences of crop damage are the most common indicators for human-wildlife conflicts across the Sub-Saharan Africa. For example, crop-raiding by elephant in East Africa was reported to exacerbate conflicts by damaging the farmers' livelihood and, consequently, causing retaliatory killing [8].

Limited ecological knowledge and nutritional requirements of wildlife coupled with rapid diminishing of forage quality and availability will continue to be limiting factors for wildlife conservation. Wildlife migration outside the protected areas does not only impede conservation efforts but also fuel human-wildlife conflicts. A better understanding of the drivers for wildlife migration outside protected areas and the knowledge of interactions between native species and human impacts is an important step towards wildlife conservation. It is therefore important to understand both spatial and temporal changes in vegetation. Specifically, it is crucial to know existing potentials and challenges facing wildlife conservation as well as options for management of human-wildlife conflicts.

#### 2. Factors underpinning wildlife migration

#### 2.1. Anthropogenic activities

Increasing human population has tremendously transformed the previously natural ecosystems used as wildlife habitats. Although natural factors such as drought, wildfire, climate change and unpredictable hazards contribute to modification of wildlife habitats, the key driving force for degradation of forage resources and subsequently migration of wildlife are anthropogenic activities. Wildlife habitats have become more and more fragmented as a result of increasing human activities such as crop production, livestock husbandry, infrastructure development and urbanization. For example, according to Brady [9], agriculture has more profound impact on wildlife conservation than other anthropogenic activities. Cultivated crops adjacent to conservation areas are potential source of forage for wild ungulates such as elephant (Loxodonta africana), buffalo (Syncerus caffer) and antelopes. Crops like the succulent finger millet and sweet sugarcane are not only highly palatable but contain more protein and minerals compared to the native wild grasses [9]. In addition, during the dry seasons native forage quality normally declines tremendously because natural pastures are characterized by rapidly maturing grasses which attained maturity quickly [10]. Based on Optimal Foraging Theory, which states that animals tend to select high quality diet in the manner that maximizes their nutrient intake [11], it is considered that wildlife migration to adjacent croplands is a coping strategy to survive hash condition escalated by seasonal fluctuations in quality and availability of forage resources [12].

#### 2.2. Increased human population

Spatially, vegetation variability occurs ranging from very fine scale (plant level) to regional scale (landscape level), resulting into pronounced patches of quality and availability of forage. On the other hand, vegetation varies in terms of time ranging from few seconds to several years resulting into seasonal fluctuations in forage quality and availability [2]. Although, several factors (such as topography, weather and climate) influence distribution pattern of animals, the vegetation characteristics (quality, quantity, species composition, plant morphology and physiology) are the key determinant of ungulate migration [3]. The vegetation variations caused by changes in land use and climatic variability are major driving forces of wildlife migration. The preference and aversion responses of foraging animals are closely linked with

At landscape level, rangelands consist of pattern of vegetation types clustered in concurrence with climatic condition and geographical features which create mosaic of patchiness [5]. The utilization of different landscape units is strongly correlated with the availability of forage species and their nutritional quality within these patches. Foraging animals normally respond to the decline in forage quality and availability by moving to another landscape with relative higher quality [6]. For example, in Serengeti National Park, ungulate such as wildebeest and zebra have been noted to move progressively in different grazing areas [1]. This grazing succession following feeding preference has great ecological implication through reduction in interspecific competition among grazing animals. On the contrary, wildlife migration has been blamed to cause inter-conflicts between different land uses. For example, Selemani [7] observes that, migration of wildlife to residential areas escalates conflicts between local people and conservationists and, consequently, results into negative attitude towards the protected areas and conservation, in general. Incidences of crop damage are the most common indicators for human-wildlife conflicts across the Sub-Saharan Africa. For example, crop-raiding by elephant in East Africa was reported to exacerbate conflicts by damaging the farmers' livelihood and,

Limited ecological knowledge and nutritional requirements of wildlife coupled with rapid diminishing of forage quality and availability will continue to be limiting factors for wildlife conservation. Wildlife migration outside the protected areas does not only impede conservation efforts but also fuel human-wildlife conflicts. A better understanding of the drivers for wildlife migration outside protected areas and the knowledge of interactions between native species and human impacts is an important step towards wildlife conservation. It is therefore important to understand both spatial and temporal changes in vegetation. Specifically, it is crucial to know existing potentials and challenges facing wildlife conservation as well as

Increasing human population has tremendously transformed the previously natural ecosystems used as wildlife habitats. Although natural factors such as drought, wildfire, climate change and

both nutritional composition and nutritional requirements of feeding animals [4].

consequently, causing retaliatory killing [8].

10 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

options for management of human-wildlife conflicts.

2. Factors underpinning wildlife migration

2.1. Anthropogenic activities

A growing human population entails the increasing human needs and, consequently, need for expansion of agricultural activities to meet the demand for food and cash. Global population is currently estimated to exceed 7 billion people and is projected to rise to over 9 billion by 2050 [13]. Nearly all of this population increase will occur in developing countries (Figure 1). This implies that, the demand for food will increase while competition for land, water resources and energy will intensify. Agricultural production and environmental challenges are inextricably linked; whereas natural environment offers resource base on which agricultural production is completely dependent, while farming itself plays a major role in shaping the environment [13].

Figure 1. Projected global human population (Source RSPB 2012).

Although wildlife can tolerate agricultural land use intensification, there are thresholds beyond which tolerance is unattainable [14]. These thresholds vary with physiological and nutritional requirement of species and environmental setting. Large ungulates like elephant, zebra, giraffe, wildebeest and buffalo require vast land resources on which forage resources and water are spatially distributed. Shrinking of wildlife habitats due to agricultural expansion causes movement of wildlife to other areas where they can access quality forage resources and water.

#### 2.3. Increased animal population

Overexploitation of forage resources in protected areas due to growing wildlife population causes changes of botanical composition and nutritional quality of vegetation. The transformation of open grassland into dense woodland known as bush encroachment is attributed to overgrazing of herbaceous vegetation. According to Walter's two layer hypothesis, decrease in grass layer following overgrazing offers opportunity for woody plants to access soil water that would otherwise be utilized by grasses [15]. Bush encroachment creates sub-habitat which differs from open grassland and thus exert different influence on grazing behavior for wildlife. Increase in woody abundance is normally accompanied by reduction in herbaceous biomass production and shift in botanical composition [16]. Change in botanical composition following overgrazing results into invasion of more unpalatable and undesirable plant species which prevents voluntary intake by foraging animals. Woody plants respond to herbivore attack through a variety of defensive mechanisms ranging from physical barriers to more complex production of secondary metabolites [17].

#### 2.4. Infestation of invasive plant species

Invasion of noxious weeds in conservation areas largely contribute to significance loss of natural biodiversity of both fauna and flora species. Recently, invasion of alien shrubs such as Chromolaena odorata and Parthenium hysterophorus species have been observed in conserved areas such as Serengeti and Arusha National Parks in Tanzania. However, abundance and distribution of these species are inadequately documented in East Africa [18] (Table 1). Most of invasive weed species have been reported to pose serious threat to wildlife and biodiversity conservation with negative impact on productivity of grassland ecosystems [19]. Previous studies have shown that, the rapid spread of alien species depend on combination of reasons ranging from their high reproductive capacity, high growth rate and capacity to inhibit growth of native plants [18–20]. Allelopathy is considered as the main reason for alien species to eliminate and competitively exclude the neighboring plant species [19]. Allelopathic chemicals produced by most invasive weeds have also been reported to affect animal health by causing rhinitis, asthma, bronchitis, dermatitis, and hay fever [18, 19].

Invasive plant species in East Africa have been reported to cause environmental damaging and biodiversity loss in dry land ecosystems. Their disastrous effects include causing the death of animals (both wildlife and livestock), poisoning and destroying animal health, accelerating biodiversity loss via suppression of native plants, and increasing diseases by offering a breeding ground for mosquitoes, tsetse flies and other disease-causing insects [21] like tsetse-flies (Table 2). Wild animals normally respond to increasing unpalatable and noxious invasive plant species by moving to other landscapes with relative palatable and high nutritious plant species. The wildlife migration has socio-economic and ecological implications which are

) Frequency % Abundance

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72617

13

Although wildlife migration is often implicated with economic losses and degradation of environment, there are numerous potential opportunities associated with this phenomenon.

3. Ecological and economic benefits of wildlife migration

discussed in detail under the following section.

Table 2. Occurrence and impact of invasive species in Tanzania and Kenya.

Source: Adopted from Obiri [21].

Location Density (spp/m<sup>2</sup>

Table 1. Distribution of Parthenium hysterophorus in Arusha region.

Source: Kilewa and Rashidi [18].

Arusha-Kilimanjaro 4.28 96 6.79 Arusha Airport 6.52 72 5.94 Njiro 9.88 96 10.29

Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife Migration in Eastern…

Lantana camara x x Breeding ground for sleeping sickness &

Prosopis juliflora x x Reduces livestock foliage, deep roots enhance

Prosopis pallida x Reduces livestock foliage, deep roots enhance

Opuntia ficus indica x x Poisonous to wildlife in parks, affecting potential

Caesalpinia decapetala x x Shades out grass & shrubs eaten by animals,

Psidium guajava x x Outcompetes native plants and lower species

Senna spectabilis x x Suppresses growth of native park trees Acacia farnesiana x x Suppresses growth of native trees, forms (Sweet acacia) impenetrable thickets that limits access Acacia mearnsii x x Outcompetes native plants lowers biodiversity

Invasive plant Occurrence Disaster effects/impacts

(Lantana) Nagana, lowers biodiversity

(Mesquite) drought, thorns poisonous

(Mesquite) drought, thorns poisonous

(Mauritius thorn) limits animal movement

(Black wattle) & increased water loss

Acacia polyacantha x x Suppresses native plant species

(Prickly pear cactus) of tourism

(Guava) Biodiversity

Tanzania Kenya

Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife Migration in Eastern… http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72617 13

Source: Kilewa and Rashidi [18].

Although wildlife can tolerate agricultural land use intensification, there are thresholds beyond which tolerance is unattainable [14]. These thresholds vary with physiological and nutritional requirement of species and environmental setting. Large ungulates like elephant, zebra, giraffe, wildebeest and buffalo require vast land resources on which forage resources and water are spatially distributed. Shrinking of wildlife habitats due to agricultural expansion causes move-

Overexploitation of forage resources in protected areas due to growing wildlife population causes changes of botanical composition and nutritional quality of vegetation. The transformation of open grassland into dense woodland known as bush encroachment is attributed to overgrazing of herbaceous vegetation. According to Walter's two layer hypothesis, decrease in grass layer following overgrazing offers opportunity for woody plants to access soil water that would otherwise be utilized by grasses [15]. Bush encroachment creates sub-habitat which differs from open grassland and thus exert different influence on grazing behavior for wildlife. Increase in woody abundance is normally accompanied by reduction in herbaceous biomass production and shift in botanical composition [16]. Change in botanical composition following overgrazing results into invasion of more unpalatable and undesirable plant species which prevents voluntary intake by foraging animals. Woody plants respond to herbivore attack through a variety of defensive mechanisms ranging from physical barriers to more complex

Invasion of noxious weeds in conservation areas largely contribute to significance loss of natural biodiversity of both fauna and flora species. Recently, invasion of alien shrubs such as Chromolaena odorata and Parthenium hysterophorus species have been observed in conserved areas such as Serengeti and Arusha National Parks in Tanzania. However, abundance and distribution of these species are inadequately documented in East Africa [18] (Table 1). Most of invasive weed species have been reported to pose serious threat to wildlife and biodiversity conservation with negative impact on productivity of grassland ecosystems [19]. Previous studies have shown that, the rapid spread of alien species depend on combination of reasons ranging from their high reproductive capacity, high growth rate and capacity to inhibit growth of native plants [18–20]. Allelopathy is considered as the main reason for alien species to eliminate and competitively exclude the neighboring plant species [19]. Allelopathic chemicals produced by most invasive weeds have also been reported to affect animal health by causing

Invasive plant species in East Africa have been reported to cause environmental damaging and biodiversity loss in dry land ecosystems. Their disastrous effects include causing the death of animals (both wildlife and livestock), poisoning and destroying animal health, accelerating biodiversity loss via suppression of native plants, and increasing diseases by offering a breeding ground for mosquitoes, tsetse flies and other disease-causing insects [21] like tsetse-flies (Table 2). Wild animals normally respond to increasing unpalatable and noxious invasive plant species by moving to other landscapes with relative palatable and high nutritious plant

ment of wildlife to other areas where they can access quality forage resources and water.

2.3. Increased animal population

12 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

production of secondary metabolites [17].

2.4. Infestation of invasive plant species

rhinitis, asthma, bronchitis, dermatitis, and hay fever [18, 19].

Table 1. Distribution of Parthenium hysterophorus in Arusha region.

Table 2. Occurrence and impact of invasive species in Tanzania and Kenya.

species. The wildlife migration has socio-economic and ecological implications which are discussed in detail under the following section.

#### 3. Ecological and economic benefits of wildlife migration

Although wildlife migration is often implicated with economic losses and degradation of environment, there are numerous potential opportunities associated with this phenomenon. Mobility is one of the important coping strategies for animals grazing in a highly variable ecosystem with unpredictable rainfall. It is recognized that, the quality and availability of forage resources differ between parts of landscape and, therefore, foraging animals move across the landscape units searching for high quality forage [22]. In non-equilibrium condition (such as semi-arid savanna ecosystems), the appropriate management practices recommended is to focus on the process that generate spatial and temporal heterogeneity, including interaction between organisms [23]. Movement of wildlife outside protected areas, offer opportunity for interaction with livestock population (e.g. in WMA) which reduces intraspecific competition and facilitate maximum utilization of available resources distributed in time and space. In East Africa, wildlife and livestock exhibit high degree of spatial overlap or co-existence [1]. Both wildlife and livestock utilize foraging strategies based on mobility (seasonal migration and transhumance) in order to access pasture and water resources occurring in unpredictable environment.

Serengeti National Park in Tanzania being listed as a World Heritage Site [27]. It was reported that wildlife concentrations outside Serengeti National Park and wildebeest migration across Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem contribute to 30% of tourists' satisfaction [28]. Nevertheless, wildlife migration has indirect vital role in ecosystem function by providing important ecosystem services [29]. Wildlife mobility enhances vegetation diversity through pollination, seed dispersal, germination and growth induced by nutrient recycling. For example, there is direct or indirect influence of plant–animal-mutualism on flowering phenology in tropical region [30].

Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife Migration in Eastern…

Zebra 105 13.28 1.11 1.48 0.54 11,223 4216 Wildebeest 59 10.20 1.79 0.89 0.43 5199 2670 T. gazelle 25 7.24 1.31 0.34 0.10 1398 491 Impala 21 12.67 2.66 0.63 0.14 4534 1393

) Abundance (n)

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72617

15

Species No. of herd Head size Density (km<sup>2</sup>

Table 3. Distribution and abundance of wild animals in Simanjiro plains.

4. Challenges related to vegetation dynamics and wildlife migration

Rangeland resources worldwide are commonly viewed as overstocked, overgrazed, degraded and unproductive [22]. Increasing human population pressure, encroachment of rangelands for other land uses, bush encroachment and decline in primary productivity contribute to the degradation of rangelands. The heterogeneity nature of semi-arid rangelands coupled with climatic variability, mobility and adaptive management are coping strategies for both wildlife and domestic animals [23]. Ecological evidence demonstrates that rainfall is a key factor determining rangeland productivity in East Africa [1]. The effect of climate change such as rising in temperature and changes in amount and pattern of rainfall in East Africa has affected both ecosystem and biodiversity conservation [29]. Rapid decline in nutritive value of forage species, particularly protein content, during dry season constrain nutritional requirement for wildlife species. For example, green grass intake and protein content both play a key role in determining the movement and distribution patterns of migratory wildebeest in the Serengeti National Park [25]. Quality of forage is better predictor of wildlife migration than the above ground biomass. All these important plant parameters are negatively influenced by climate

Despite the significant importance of wildlife migration, seasonal movement of wild animals has been blamed for everlasting conflicts between different land users [9]. Increasing human population magnifies the competition for scarce grazing land and water resources which in turn increase potential for human-wildlife conflicts. Although humans and wildlife in African

4.1. Climate change

Source: Rija and Shombe [26].

variability and change.

4.2. Human-wildlife conflicts

#### 3.1. Ecological benefits

Ecologically, seasonal migration of wildlife offer potential breeding sites to wild ungulates. A well-known example of seasonal wildlife migration in East Africa savanna ecosystem is the annual migration of around 1.3 million wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), 0.6 million zebra (Equus burchelli) and Thomson gazelles (Gazella thomsoni) in Serengeti-Mara ecosystem (i.e. "as in Ref. [24]"). The wildlife migration (between dry and wet season) in Serengeti-Mara ecosystem is ultimately driven by the marked and strongly seasonal rainfall gradient that runs from the southeastern short-grass plains to the tall-grass woodland and savanna habitats in the north, center, and west of the ecosystem (i.e. "in [25]"). The migrant animals leave the plains during dry season and track the spatial and temporarily varying resources across the ecosystem in the wetter northern region. Different explanations have been proposed to explain this movement from the plains, to northern part of ecosystem including higher forage abundance and quality, water nutrient content and avoid risk of predation in the plains especially during breeding (i.e. "as in Ref. (i.e. "in [26]").

In addition to wildlife migration in Serengeti-Mara ecosystem [26], Simanjiro plains have also been reported as important dispersal and breeding areas for wild mammals from adjacent Tarangire National Park. The high density for zebra and wildebeest recorded in Simanjiro plains during rainy season (Table 3) was attributed to the seasonal migration behavior from Tarangire National Park for breeding purposes. The population of wildlife has been reported to decline during the dry season as most of wild mammals concentrate close to water points in the Tarangire National Park [27]. Therefore seasonal migration of wild animals has important ecological values; enhance population viability, sustain nutritional requirements of wildlife and preserve animals from risk of predation.

#### 3.2. Economic benefits

Economically, wildlife migration contributes significantly to GDP for East African countries particularly Tanzania and Kenya. For example, migration of wildebeest and zebra across Serengeti-Mara ecosystem is important phenomenon for tourism attraction, resulting in the Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife Migration in Eastern… http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72617 15

Table 3. Distribution and abundance of wild animals in Simanjiro plains.

Serengeti National Park in Tanzania being listed as a World Heritage Site [27]. It was reported that wildlife concentrations outside Serengeti National Park and wildebeest migration across Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem contribute to 30% of tourists' satisfaction [28]. Nevertheless, wildlife migration has indirect vital role in ecosystem function by providing important ecosystem services [29]. Wildlife mobility enhances vegetation diversity through pollination, seed dispersal, germination and growth induced by nutrient recycling. For example, there is direct or indirect influence of plant–animal-mutualism on flowering phenology in tropical region [30].

#### 4. Challenges related to vegetation dynamics and wildlife migration

#### 4.1. Climate change

Mobility is one of the important coping strategies for animals grazing in a highly variable ecosystem with unpredictable rainfall. It is recognized that, the quality and availability of forage resources differ between parts of landscape and, therefore, foraging animals move across the landscape units searching for high quality forage [22]. In non-equilibrium condition (such as semi-arid savanna ecosystems), the appropriate management practices recommended is to focus on the process that generate spatial and temporal heterogeneity, including interaction between organisms [23]. Movement of wildlife outside protected areas, offer opportunity for interaction with livestock population (e.g. in WMA) which reduces intraspecific competition and facilitate maximum utilization of available resources distributed in time and space. In East Africa, wildlife and livestock exhibit high degree of spatial overlap or co-existence [1]. Both wildlife and livestock utilize foraging strategies based on mobility (seasonal migration and transhumance) in order to access pasture and water resources occurring in unpredictable

Ecologically, seasonal migration of wildlife offer potential breeding sites to wild ungulates. A well-known example of seasonal wildlife migration in East Africa savanna ecosystem is the annual migration of around 1.3 million wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), 0.6 million zebra (Equus burchelli) and Thomson gazelles (Gazella thomsoni) in Serengeti-Mara ecosystem (i.e. "as in Ref. [24]"). The wildlife migration (between dry and wet season) in Serengeti-Mara ecosystem is ultimately driven by the marked and strongly seasonal rainfall gradient that runs from the southeastern short-grass plains to the tall-grass woodland and savanna habitats in the north, center, and west of the ecosystem (i.e. "in [25]"). The migrant animals leave the plains during dry season and track the spatial and temporarily varying resources across the ecosystem in the wetter northern region. Different explanations have been proposed to explain this movement from the plains, to northern part of ecosystem including higher forage abundance and quality, water nutrient content and avoid risk of predation in the plains especially during

In addition to wildlife migration in Serengeti-Mara ecosystem [26], Simanjiro plains have also been reported as important dispersal and breeding areas for wild mammals from adjacent Tarangire National Park. The high density for zebra and wildebeest recorded in Simanjiro plains during rainy season (Table 3) was attributed to the seasonal migration behavior from Tarangire National Park for breeding purposes. The population of wildlife has been reported to decline during the dry season as most of wild mammals concentrate close to water points in the Tarangire National Park [27]. Therefore seasonal migration of wild animals has important ecological values; enhance population viability, sustain nutritional requirements of wildlife

Economically, wildlife migration contributes significantly to GDP for East African countries particularly Tanzania and Kenya. For example, migration of wildebeest and zebra across Serengeti-Mara ecosystem is important phenomenon for tourism attraction, resulting in the

environment.

3.1. Ecological benefits

14 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

breeding (i.e. "as in Ref. (i.e. "in [26]").

and preserve animals from risk of predation.

3.2. Economic benefits

Rangeland resources worldwide are commonly viewed as overstocked, overgrazed, degraded and unproductive [22]. Increasing human population pressure, encroachment of rangelands for other land uses, bush encroachment and decline in primary productivity contribute to the degradation of rangelands. The heterogeneity nature of semi-arid rangelands coupled with climatic variability, mobility and adaptive management are coping strategies for both wildlife and domestic animals [23]. Ecological evidence demonstrates that rainfall is a key factor determining rangeland productivity in East Africa [1]. The effect of climate change such as rising in temperature and changes in amount and pattern of rainfall in East Africa has affected both ecosystem and biodiversity conservation [29]. Rapid decline in nutritive value of forage species, particularly protein content, during dry season constrain nutritional requirement for wildlife species. For example, green grass intake and protein content both play a key role in determining the movement and distribution patterns of migratory wildebeest in the Serengeti National Park [25]. Quality of forage is better predictor of wildlife migration than the above ground biomass. All these important plant parameters are negatively influenced by climate variability and change.

#### 4.2. Human-wildlife conflicts

Despite the significant importance of wildlife migration, seasonal movement of wild animals has been blamed for everlasting conflicts between different land users [9]. Increasing human population magnifies the competition for scarce grazing land and water resources which in turn increase potential for human-wildlife conflicts. Although humans and wildlife in African rangelands have positively co-existed for many years, currently different forms of humanwildlife interactions are fuelling numerous conflicts. Migration of wild animals from protected areas such as national parks and game reserves to adjacent communal lands inflicts serious damages ranging through crop raiding, livestock depredation, and wildlife-induced accidents to humans. For example, a survey in the villages bordering the Serengeti National Park showed that the wildlife predators caused a loss of livestock equivalent to an average annual financial loss of 19.2% of their cash income [31].

Research-based literature shows that over 70% of the large native ungulates in the world are

Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife Migration in Eastern…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72617

17

Seasonal mobility of wildlife exposes the wild animals to high risk of poaching. Poaching threatens many migratory mammals and this is intensified by human population growth, particularly around the protected areas. For example, around Serengeti National Park, number of wildebeest consumed per annum ranges from 70,000 to 129,000 [24]. Most of the animals are killed outside the protected areas during the seasonal migration. In Nairobi National Park, the wildlife migratory routes from the park to adjacent areas (Figure 2) were found to be more risk areas for migrant species due to poaching incidences and blockage of wildlife corridors [24].

Figure 2. The map showing migratory routes of wild animals from Nairobi National Park. Source: UNEP 2013.

found outside the formal protected areas [37].

4.4. Poaching and blockage of wildlife migratory routes

In many parts of Africa, conflicts between human and wildlife are reported as the most serious problem particularly between local people surrounding natural reserves and wildlife managers [32]. Negative conservation attitudes pervade among local people adjacent to protected areas as result of frequent losses caused by wildlife [7]. Lack or inadequate direct benefits that can offset the losses communities experience from wildlife translates into negative attitudes towards conservation and wildlife authorities. For example, people are more likely and willing to support the abolishment of adjacent reserves when the benefits from protected areas are too minimal to outweigh the costs of conservation [32].

#### 4.3. Bush encroachment

Bush encroachment is increasingly becoming a problem in many protected areas of Eastern Africa rangelands thus causing shortage of forage [33] Encroachment of woody plants is normally accompanied by reduced productivity of herbaceous layer (grasses) which are potential source of forage to many wild ungulates. The rapid transformation of grassland ecosystem to denser woodland in most African rangelands has been associated to several factors including heavy grazing pressures and effects of climate changes [15]. The encroached woody plants are normally unpalatable to grazing animals due to impenetrable thickets, suppressing palatable grasses and herbs. Although the causes of bush encroachment is still debatable [34], there is evidence that, effect of poor rangeland management such as overgrazing is the main driver of encroachment of woody species [16]. Overgrazing severely alter natural ecological processes by allowing woody plants to outcompete the grasses for water resources [35]. In addition to heavy grazing, reduction in fire regimes, above average rainfall, and elevation of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are some of the processes that facilitate the growth and subsequent spread of shrubs and other woody vegetation [36]. Due to differences in their photosynthetic pathways, many woody plant species (i.e., C3 plants) benefit more from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide due to climate change effects and subsequently grow faster and accumulate more biomass, compared to many grasses (i.e., C4 species) found in semiarid regions [36].

Bush encroachment alter ecosystem characteristic through alteration of vegetation resource and microclimate which subsequently affect wide range of animals including wildlife. Encroaching woody plants change the habitat structure, diversity abundance and composition with different micro-habitat compared to grassland ecosystem. Furthermore, plant and animal diversity is negatively affected through a decrease of vegetation structural diversity leading to an overall loss of ecosystem functioning. In some rangelands, woody plant encroachment is associated with a decline in wildlife grazing capacity up to 80% [35]. The decline in grazing capacity in most protected areas is linked with wildlife mobility to adjacent areas. For example, Research-based literature shows that over 70% of the large native ungulates in the world are found outside the formal protected areas [37].

#### 4.4. Poaching and blockage of wildlife migratory routes

rangelands have positively co-existed for many years, currently different forms of humanwildlife interactions are fuelling numerous conflicts. Migration of wild animals from protected areas such as national parks and game reserves to adjacent communal lands inflicts serious damages ranging through crop raiding, livestock depredation, and wildlife-induced accidents to humans. For example, a survey in the villages bordering the Serengeti National Park showed that the wildlife predators caused a loss of livestock equivalent to an average annual

In many parts of Africa, conflicts between human and wildlife are reported as the most serious problem particularly between local people surrounding natural reserves and wildlife managers [32]. Negative conservation attitudes pervade among local people adjacent to protected areas as result of frequent losses caused by wildlife [7]. Lack or inadequate direct benefits that can offset the losses communities experience from wildlife translates into negative attitudes towards conservation and wildlife authorities. For example, people are more likely and willing to support the abolishment of adjacent reserves when the benefits from protected areas are too

Bush encroachment is increasingly becoming a problem in many protected areas of Eastern Africa rangelands thus causing shortage of forage [33] Encroachment of woody plants is normally accompanied by reduced productivity of herbaceous layer (grasses) which are potential source of forage to many wild ungulates. The rapid transformation of grassland ecosystem to denser woodland in most African rangelands has been associated to several factors including heavy grazing pressures and effects of climate changes [15]. The encroached woody plants are normally unpalatable to grazing animals due to impenetrable thickets, suppressing palatable grasses and herbs. Although the causes of bush encroachment is still debatable [34], there is evidence that, effect of poor rangeland management such as overgrazing is the main driver of encroachment of woody species [16]. Overgrazing severely alter natural ecological processes by allowing woody plants to outcompete the grasses for water resources [35]. In addition to heavy grazing, reduction in fire regimes, above average rainfall, and elevation of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are some of the processes that facilitate the growth and subsequent spread of shrubs and other woody vegetation [36]. Due to differences in their photosynthetic pathways, many woody plant species (i.e., C3 plants) benefit more from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide due to climate change effects and subsequently grow faster and accumulate more biomass, compared to many grasses (i.e., C4 species) found in semiarid regions [36].

Bush encroachment alter ecosystem characteristic through alteration of vegetation resource and microclimate which subsequently affect wide range of animals including wildlife. Encroaching woody plants change the habitat structure, diversity abundance and composition with different micro-habitat compared to grassland ecosystem. Furthermore, plant and animal diversity is negatively affected through a decrease of vegetation structural diversity leading to an overall loss of ecosystem functioning. In some rangelands, woody plant encroachment is associated with a decline in wildlife grazing capacity up to 80% [35]. The decline in grazing capacity in most protected areas is linked with wildlife mobility to adjacent areas. For example,

financial loss of 19.2% of their cash income [31].

16 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

minimal to outweigh the costs of conservation [32].

4.3. Bush encroachment

Seasonal mobility of wildlife exposes the wild animals to high risk of poaching. Poaching threatens many migratory mammals and this is intensified by human population growth, particularly around the protected areas. For example, around Serengeti National Park, number of wildebeest consumed per annum ranges from 70,000 to 129,000 [24]. Most of the animals are killed outside the protected areas during the seasonal migration. In Nairobi National Park, the wildlife migratory routes from the park to adjacent areas (Figure 2) were found to be more risk areas for migrant species due to poaching incidences and blockage of wildlife corridors [24].

Figure 2. The map showing migratory routes of wild animals from Nairobi National Park. Source: UNEP 2013.

#### 4.5. Diseases

Wildlife migration outside the protected area does not only cause conflicts between park management and surrounding communities, but also expose animal to health risks. The emergence of zoonotic and vector borne diseases pose considerable risks to public health, livestock and migrant wild animals. Migrant wild animals interact with both human and livestock outside the protected areas and, therefore, increase the chances for infections. In general, wild animals are susceptible to infection by the same bacteria, viruses, and parasites that infect livestock and disease transmission can occur in either direction [38]. Approximately 60% of disease causing pathogens illness in human and livestock originates from wild animals [39]. Although there is variation in wild animals and livestock on ability to respond to infections, disease transmission can occur in both directions and, therefore as the phenomenon is a two-way traffic.

Author details

References

64:15-28

University; 2003

of Ecology. 2008;46(1):85-89

Ismail S. Selemani\* and Anthony Z. Sangeda

Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania

10.1186/2041-7136-2-15

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Department of Animal, Aquaculture and Range Sciences, Sokoine University of Agriculture,

Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife Migration in Eastern…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72617

19

[1] Nelson F. Natural conservationists? Evaluating the impact of pastoralist land use practices on Tanzania's wildlife economy. Research, Policy and Practice. 2012;2(15):1-19. DOI:

[2] Adler PB, Raff DA, Lauenroth WK. The effect of grazing on the spatial heterogeneity of

[3] Harris NR, Johnson DE, George MR, McDougald NK. The Effect of Topography, Vegetation, and Weather on Cattle Distribution at the San Joaquin Experimental Range, Califor-

[4] Baumont R, Prache S, Meuret M, Morand-Fehr P. How forage characteristics influence behaviour and intake in small ruminants: A review. Livestock Production Science. 2000;

[5] Hirata M, Kanemaru E, Tobisa M. Patch choice by cattle grazing tropical grass swards: A

[6] Briske DD, Derner JD, Brown JR, Fuhlendorf SD, Teague WR, Havstad KM, Gillen RL, Ash AJ, Willms WD. Rotational grazing on rangelands: Reconciliation of perception and

[7] Selemani IS. Communal rangelands management and challenges underpinning pastoral mobility in Tanzania: A review. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2014;26(5).

[8] Karami BR. An Assessment of Perceived Crop Damage in a Tanzanian Village Impacted by Human-Elephant Conflict and an Investigation of Deterrent Properties of African Elephant (Loxodontaafricana) Exudates Using Bioassays. Master Thesis, Georgia Sothern

[9] Brady SJ. Effects of cropland conservation practices on fish and wildlife habitat. The

[10] Mwilawa AJ, Komwihangilo DM, Kusekwa ML. Conservation of forage resources for increasing livestock production in traditional forage reserves in Tanzania. African Journal

vegetation. Oecologia. 2001;128:465-479. DOI: 10.1007/s004420100737

nia. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. 2002; PSW-GTR-184

preliminary study. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2006;97:134-144

experimental evidence. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 2008;61:3-17

Article no. 78. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/5/sele26078.html.

Wildlife Society Technical Review. 2007;7(1):9-23

#### 5. Conclusion and recommendations

Foraging resources in Eastern Africa savanna ecosystem vary greatly in space and time. While spatial variations range from very fine scale within plant level to regional scale at landscape levels, the temporal variations range from very few seconds to several years. However, wild animals are constrained by nutritional stress, particularly in protected areas, due to seasonal fluctuations in quality and availability of forage and water resources. These animals normally respond to spatio-temporal variation in foraging resources by selecting high quality forage distributed in space and time. Seasonal migration of wildlife across different landscape units is considered as one of important coping strategies for breeding and survivability of wild ungulates. Economically, seasonal migration of wildlife is of iconic importance for tourism attraction and thus contributes to income generation. Despite the ecological and economic importance of seasonal migration of wildlife, migratory animals are implicated with losses they inflict on communities around protected areas through crop raiding, livestock depredation, accidents to humans. This exacerbates conflicts between local communities and conservationists. As a result of these losses, local communities adjacent to protected areas develop negative attitudes towards conservation efforts. In addition to human-wildlife conflicts, seasonal mobility of wild animals in Eastern Africa savanna ecosystems is also associated with climate changes, poaching, diseases and land use pressures resulting into blockage of migratory routes. It is recommended that, establishment of wildlife habitats should consider ecological and nutritional requirements of stocking animals. Migratory routes (wildlife corridors), breeding sites and dispersal areas should be designed and well protected. Most importantly, appropriate range management practices for improving range health such as bush control, prescribed fire, pasture renovation and distribution of water points are recommended. For sustainable wildlife conservation both within protected and outside protected areas and reduction of humanwildlife conflicts, we propose development of a flexible and adaptive community based conservation system involving a diverse set of stakeholders ranging from community level to region levels.

## Author details

4.5. Diseases

two-way traffic.

to region levels.

5. Conclusion and recommendations

18 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

Wildlife migration outside the protected area does not only cause conflicts between park management and surrounding communities, but also expose animal to health risks. The emergence of zoonotic and vector borne diseases pose considerable risks to public health, livestock and migrant wild animals. Migrant wild animals interact with both human and livestock outside the protected areas and, therefore, increase the chances for infections. In general, wild animals are susceptible to infection by the same bacteria, viruses, and parasites that infect livestock and disease transmission can occur in either direction [38]. Approximately 60% of disease causing pathogens illness in human and livestock originates from wild animals [39]. Although there is variation in wild animals and livestock on ability to respond to infections, disease transmission can occur in both directions and, therefore as the phenomenon is a

Foraging resources in Eastern Africa savanna ecosystem vary greatly in space and time. While spatial variations range from very fine scale within plant level to regional scale at landscape levels, the temporal variations range from very few seconds to several years. However, wild animals are constrained by nutritional stress, particularly in protected areas, due to seasonal fluctuations in quality and availability of forage and water resources. These animals normally respond to spatio-temporal variation in foraging resources by selecting high quality forage distributed in space and time. Seasonal migration of wildlife across different landscape units is considered as one of important coping strategies for breeding and survivability of wild ungulates. Economically, seasonal migration of wildlife is of iconic importance for tourism attraction and thus contributes to income generation. Despite the ecological and economic importance of seasonal migration of wildlife, migratory animals are implicated with losses they inflict on communities around protected areas through crop raiding, livestock depredation, accidents to humans. This exacerbates conflicts between local communities and conservationists. As a result of these losses, local communities adjacent to protected areas develop negative attitudes towards conservation efforts. In addition to human-wildlife conflicts, seasonal mobility of wild animals in Eastern Africa savanna ecosystems is also associated with climate changes, poaching, diseases and land use pressures resulting into blockage of migratory routes. It is recommended that, establishment of wildlife habitats should consider ecological and nutritional requirements of stocking animals. Migratory routes (wildlife corridors), breeding sites and dispersal areas should be designed and well protected. Most importantly, appropriate range management practices for improving range health such as bush control, prescribed fire, pasture renovation and distribution of water points are recommended. For sustainable wildlife conservation both within protected and outside protected areas and reduction of humanwildlife conflicts, we propose development of a flexible and adaptive community based conservation system involving a diverse set of stakeholders ranging from community level Ismail S. Selemani\* and Anthony Z. Sangeda

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Department of Animal, Aquaculture and Range Sciences, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania

### References

[11] Pyke GH. Optimal foraging theory: A critical review. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1994;15:523-575

[27] UNESCO, Serengeti National Park. World Heritage List. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); 2013 2017. http://whc.unesco.org/en/

Spatial and Temporal Vegetation Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints behind Wildlife Migration in Eastern…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72617

21

[28] Okello MM, Yerian S. Tourist satisfaction in relation to attractions and implications for conservation in the protected areas of the Northern Circuit, Tanzania. Journal of Sustain-

[29] Lovett JC, Midgely GF, Barnard PB. Climate change and ecology in Africa. African

[30] Aizen MA. Influences of animal pollination and seed dispersal on winter flowering in

[31] Holmern T, Nyahongo J, Røskaft E. Livestock loss caused by predators outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biological Conservation. 2007;135(4):518-526

[32] Newmark WD, Manyanza DN, Gamassa DGM, Sariko HI. The conflict between wildlife and local people living adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania: Human density as a

[33] Prins HHT, Vander Jeugd HP. Herbivore population crashes and woodland structure in

[34] Oldeland J, Dorigo W, Wesuls D, Jürgens N. Mapping bush encroaching species by seasonal differences in hyperspectral imagery. Remote Sensing. 2010;2:1416-1438

[35] Meik JM, Jeo RM, Mendelson JR, Jenk KE. Effects of bush encroachment on an assemblage of diurnal lizard species in central Namibia. Biological Conservation. 2002;106:29-36 [36] Seamster VA. Consequences of woody plant encroachment for mammalian predators. PhD Thesis, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; 2010

[37] Wiegand K, Saltz D, Ward DA. Patch-dynamics approach to savanna dynamics and woody plant encroachment: Insights from an arid savanna. Perspectives in Plant Ecology,

[38] Fischer JR, Gerhold R. Wildlife as a risk factor in animal health and zoonosis. Conference

[39] Soulsbury CD, White PCL. Human-Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas: A Review of Conflicts, Benefits and Opportunities. Working Paper, Environment Department, Univer-

list/156. Accessed 22nd August

able Tourism. 2009;17(5):605-625

Journal of Ecology. 2005;43:279-281

temperate mistletoe. Ecology. 2003;84:2613-2627

predictor. Conservation Biology. 1994;8(1):249-255

East Africa. Journal of Ecology. 1993;81:305-314

Evolution and Systematics. 2006;7:229-242

sity of York, York, 2015; YO10 5DD, UK

OIE. 2002:273-280

[27] UNESCO, Serengeti National Park. World Heritage List. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); 2013 2017. http://whc.unesco.org/en/ list/156. Accessed 22nd August

[11] Pyke GH. Optimal foraging theory: A critical review. Annual Review of Ecology and

[12] Nandin R. Wildlife-human conflicts: Old trajectories & new strategies. Current Conser-

[13] RSPB. Balancing Agricultural Production and Conservation. Paper to the Oxford Farming Conference; 2012, https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/oxfordfarmingcon-

[14] Butt B. Coping with uncertainty and variability: The influence of protected areas on pastoral herding strategies in East Africa. Human Ecology. 2011;39(3):289-307

[15] Walter H. Die Verbuschung, eineErscheinung der subtropischenSavanne- ngebiete, und

[16] Tefera S, Snyman HA, Smit GN. Rangeland dynamics of southern Ethiopia: (2). Assessment of woody vegetation structure in relation to land use and distance from water in semi-arid Borana rangelands. Journal of Environmental Management. 2007;85:443-452

[17] Rasmann S, Agrawal AA. Plant defense against herbivory: Progress in identifying synergism, redundancy, and antagonism between resistance traits. Plant Biology. 2009;12:473-478

[18] Kilewa R, Rashid A. Distribution of invasive weed Parthenium hysterophorus in natural and agro-ecosystems in Arusha Tanzania. International Journal of Science and Research.

[19] Hu G, Zhang Z. Allelopathic effects of Chromolaena odorata on native and non-native invasive herbs. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment. 2013; 11(1):878-882

[20] Honu YAK, Dang QL. Responses of tree seedlings to the removal of Chromolaena odorata Linn. in a degraded forest in Ghana. Forest Ecology and Management. 2000;137:75-82 [21] Obiri JF. Invasive plant species and their disaster-effects in dry tropical forests and rangelands of Kenya and Tanzania. Journal of Disaster Risk Studies. 2001;3(2):417-428

[22] Vetter S. Rangelands at equilibrium and non-equilibrium: Recent developments in the

[23] Gillson L. Testing non-equilibrium theories in Savanna: 1400 years of vegetation change

[24] UNEP. Saving the Great Migrations: Declining Wildebeest in East Africa? UNEP Global

[25] Holdo RM, Holt RD, Fryxell JM. Opposing rainfall and plant nutritional gradients best explain the wildebeest migration in the Serengeti. The American Naturalist. 2009;173(4):431-445 [26] Rija AA, Shombe NH. Population density estimates of some species of wild ungulates in Simanjiro plains, northern Tanzania. Africa. Journal of Ecology. 2011;49(3):1-3

in Tsavo National Park, Kenya. Ecological Complexity. 2004;1(4):281-298

Systematics. 1994;15:523-575

20 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

ference2012\_tcm9-301042.pdf

ihreokolohischenUrsachen. Vegetatio. 1954;5(6):6-10

debate. Journal of Arid Environments. 2005;62:321-341

Environmental Alert Services; 2013. www.unep.org/geas

vation. 2010;4(4):1-11

2012;3(12):1724-1727

**Chapter 3**

**Provisional chapter**

**Emerging Bacterial Zoonoses in Migratory Birds**

**Emerging Bacterial Zoonoses in Migratory Birds**

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.72244

The seasonal variance, global warming, and extraordinary climate conditions around the world change the physiology and behaviors of different animal species. Free ranging birds and mammals harbor some species of potentially pathogenic bacteria; however, these diseases do not result in spontaneous deaths. Being significant individuals of the ecosystem, free living immigrant birds are prone to bacterial diseases. Migratory birds are accommodated in areas located on migration routes to provide rest, food, and water. During this stay, they spread the diseases they bring with them to the poultry in the region and to the poultry farms that do not take adequate biosecurity measures—especially to the free range poultry farms. The migratory birds confront numerous health risks brought on by bacterial species that affect other livestock populace and public health. This chapter provides brief reference on bird-to-bird transmission and general aspects of emerging bacterial zoonoses of migratory birds for wildlife professionals, vet-

> © 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Numerous wild bird species exist together with people and depend on anthropogenic wellsprings of environment and nutrition. Bird migration is one of the most curious topics in humans about birds' lifetime period. This behavior is one of the most important and critical turning points for birds throughout their lives. Every year more than 50 billion birds in the world migrate, depending on the seasonal change of food resources, and 5 billion birds of 187 species leave Europe and Asia each year and migrate to Africa. Migratory birds relocate a large number of kilometers all through various mainlands and convey certain pathogens. Sixty-one percent of human pathogens are zoonotic, 60.3% of all developing diseases in people are zoonoses, and 71.8% of these initiate in natural life. The recurrence of free living fowl death occasions and the assortment of

Uğur Parin, Şükrü Kirkan and Göksel Erbaş

Uğur Parin, Şükrü Kirkan and Göksel Erbaş

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72244