School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/20141
For queries regarding content of Faculty of Science please contact Salome Potgieter by email : salome.potgieter@wits.ac.za or Tel : 011 717 1961
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item Responses of African elephants towards a bee threat: Its application in mitigating human-elephant conflict.(Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), 2016-01) Ndlovu, M.; Devereux, E.; Chieffe, M.; Asklof, K.; Russo, A.Human settlement expansion into elephant ranges, as well as increasing elephant populations within confined areas has led to heightened levels of human-elephant conflict in southern African communities living near protected areas. Several methods to mitigate this conflict have been suggested including the use of bees as an elephant deterrent. We investigated whether bee auditory and olfactory cues (as surrogates for live bees) could be used to effectively deter elephants. We evaluated the responses of elephants in the southern section of the Kruger National Park to five different treatments: (1) control noise, (2) buzzing bee noise, (3) control noise with honey scent, (4) honey scent, and (5) bee noise with honey scent. Elephants did not respond or displayed less heightened responses to the first four treatments. All elephants exposed to the bee noise with honey scent responded with defensive behaviours and 15 out of 21 individuals also fled. We concluded that buzzing bees or honey scent as isolated treatments (as may be the case with dormant beehives) were not effective elephant deterrents, but rather an active beehive emitting a combination of auditory and olfactory cues was a viable deterrent. However, mismatches in the timing of elephant raids and activity of bees may limit the use of bees in mitigating the prevailing human-elephant conflict.Item Feeding preferences of Oxpeckers in Kruger National Park, South Africa.(AOSIS OpenJournals Publishing AOSIS (Pty) Ltd, 2015-11) Ndlovu, M.; Combrink, L.Oxpeckers reduce tick loads on ungulate hosts, but they are also known to feed on and exacerbate wounds. An understanding of the feeding behaviours and host preferences of these birds is important since they serve as agents of tick control on both domestic and wild ungulates. We conducted an observational study at two sites within the Kruger National Park in South Africa, exploring the feeding preferences of both Red-billed and Yellow-billed Oxpeckers. Oxpeckers’ host preferences, body-location preferences on different hosts, prevalence of feeding and non-feeding behaviours, and frequency of tolerance versus rejection in different hosts were determined. It was found that Yellow-billed Oxpeckers had a smaller range of hosts – typically larger-sized ungulates – and that Red-billed Oxpeckers diversify to smallersized ungulate hosts when in competition with Yellow-billed Oxpeckers. Body-location preferences were generally consistent across sites and across host species. Tick feeding and other host-feeding behaviours (around the eyes, nose, mouth and ears, and anogenital areas) were fairly common. Only six incidents of wound feeding, from a total of 855 observations, were recorded. Tolerance by an ungulate host species was not related to Oxpeckers’ host preferences, suggesting that other factors such as ungulate body size, tick species and tick stages on the host animal may play a significant role in the feeding preferences of Oxpeckers. Conservation implications: It is important to study Oxpeckers’ behavioural feeding preferences so as to better understand their ecology and present distribution, and to determine where they can be reintroduced in future. Reintroduction not only helps with the proliferation of Oxpeckers, but also benefits ungulate hosts through ectoparasite removal and the subsequent control of tick-borne diseases.