Linear Structures in the Karoo, South Africa, and Their Impacts on Biota
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
African Journal of Range & Forage Science ISSN: 1022-0119 (Print) 1727-9380 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tarf20 Linear structures in the Karoo, South Africa, and their impacts on biota W Richard J Dean, Colleen L Seymour & Grant S Joseph To cite this article: W Richard J Dean, Colleen L Seymour & Grant S Joseph (2018) Linear structures in the Karoo, South Africa, and their impacts on biota, African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 35:3-4, 223-232 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2018.1514530 Published online: 22 Nov 2018. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Citing articles: 6 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tarf20 African Journal of Range & Forage Science 2018, 35(3&4): 223–232 Copyright © NISC (Pty) Ltd Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved AFRICAN JOURNAL OF RANGE & FORAGE SCIENCE ISSN 1022-0119 EISSN 1727-9380 http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2018.1514530 Review Paper Linear structures in the Karoo, South Africa, and their impacts on biota§ W Richard J Dean1,2*, Colleen L Seymour1,3 and Grant S Joseph1,4 1 FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, DST/NRF Centre of Excellence, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa 2 South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON): Arid Lands Node, Kimberley, South Africa 3 South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch Research Centre, Claremont, Cape Town, South Africa 4 SARChI-Chair on Biodiversity Value and Change, Department of Zoology, School of Mathematical and Natural Science, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, South Africa * Corresponding author, email: [email protected] Linear structures include fences, roads, railways, canalised water ways and power lines, all man-made. Fencing as a way of managing livestock began in the late 1800s, and by the early twentieth century was almost fully implemented throughout the Karoo sensu lato. The advent of these fences, and now in many instances, ‘game proof’ (~2 m high) and electric fences have impacted native flora and fauna in various ways. Roads influence the quality and quantity of vegetation along corridors throughout the Karoo, with impacts on wildlife through increased mortality, but also provide foraging opportunities. Road-side structures, such as transmission poles, offer nest sites and perches in otherwise treeless landscapes, benefiting certain avifauna. Railway lines create similar corridors, carrying ungrazed vegetation along them. Their associated structures – culverts and (historically) steel frame bridges – provide nest sites for birds and some mammals. Transmission cables and pylons along power lines have mixed benefits to conservation, providing bird nest and perch sites, but can also cause bird mortalities. Unquestionably, these linear structures have had marked effects on the biota of the Karoo, through their effects on wildlife and livestock movement and mortality, plant demography and the spread of native and alien species. Keywords: fencing, high tension pylons, railways, roads, road verges Preamble Linear structures are not ‘natural’ in most ecosystems, and been reviewed for temperate regions (Morelli et al. 2014). are among the main threats to natural habitat worldwide Furthermore, mitigation measures and research gaps (Geneletti 2006). Linear structures include fences, roads, need to be identified. railways, power lines and pylons, and canalised rivers, This review has three aims. Firstly, we examine the and share common impacts, including direct habitat loss available literature to assess the positive and negative and habitat fragmentation (Andrews 1990; Trombulak impacts of linear structures on biodiversity in the Karoo; and Frissell 2000; Spellerberg 2002; Forman et al. 2003; secondly, we assess which taxa are most impacted, and Coffin 2007), hazards for many species of animal (Ledger which life history or behavioural traits might be associ- and Annegarn 1981; Bevanger 1994; Ledger and Hobbs ated with these impacts; and finally, we review possible 1999; Janss 2000; Lehman et al. 2007; Shaw et al. 2010; mitigation measures and research gaps for future work. We Jenkins et al. 2011; Shaw 2013; Collinson et al. 2015) and outline impacts associated with linear structures in general, corridors for invasive biota (Rahlao et al. 2010). Yet certain in the Karoo, and then review each of the main categories linear structures can also be beneficial to biodiversity, for of linear structures in turn. example, fences can minimise human–wildlife conflict The Karoo consists of two biomes, the Succulent Karoo (Hayward and Kerley 2009) and reduce the likelihood of and the Nama-Karoo, which together make up about 30% wildlife–vehicle collisions (Collinson and Patterson-Abrolat of South Africa and a small part of Namibia (Dean and 2016). Despite their ubiquity, which is ever-increasing Milton 1999; and see map in Walker et al. 2018). Both with infrastructure development, the effects of linear biomes are semi-arid, but differ in rainfall seasonality structures on biota are poorly known, particularly for arid and amount (Desmet and Cowling 1999), and in vegeta- and semi-arid regions of the world, although these have tion (Mucina and Rutherford 2006). Our review covers the § This article is from the ‘Karoo Special Issue: Trajectories of Change in the Anthropocene’. African Journal of Range & Forage Science is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Informa UK Limited (trading as Taylor & Francis Group) 224 Dean, Seymour and Joseph Karoo sensu lato – the effects and impacts of linear been introduced to control black-backed jackals Canis structures are, in general, not confined to one or the other mesomelas (Heard and Stephenson 1987) and many farms of the two biomes. are now using single-wire electric fences to manage small groups of livestock (Macdonald 2005). Linear structures in the Karoo Fencing has recently become even more of a barrier in the landscape, given an increase in the number of Linear structures bring about direct habitat loss by removing ‘life-style’ farms, ‘game’ farms and private nature reserves long strips of habitat, and indirect habitat degradation, in the Karoo (Brandt and Spierenberg 2014). Between through resultant fragmentation, disruption of migration 1993 and 2000, the percentage of agricultural land in routes and drainage lines, or by partitioning ephemeral South Africa used for game farming increased from 8.5% wetlands. These structures (particularly railways, roads and to 12.5% (van der Merwe and Saayman 2003), and is power lines) introduce an additional mortality factor into likely to increase, based on observed trends. The fencing ecosystems where animals have no evolutionary history of required for these farms is higher and more complex than avoiding fast-moving vehicles or anticipating difficult-to-see that required for managing commercial livestock, and may structures such as electrical cables. The impacts of power be electrified and up to 2.4 m high (CapeNature 2015). line structures, including cables and pylons, have been When farms are fenced following policy and recommen- relatively well studied in the Karoo (Ledger and Annegarn dations, the owner may be exempted from legislation 1981; Jenkins et al. 2010, 2011; Shaw 2013; Shaw et al. applicable to the hunting, catching and selling of game, 2016, 2017), where the rising tide of investment in solar and and thus there are benefits to the land owner in terms of wind farms has needed a closer examination of the effects purchasing and selling game (Province of the Northern of power cables across flight paths of birds, the resulting Cape 2011; CapeNature 2015). The high capital invest- mortality of certain species, and the potential impact of ment in accommodation, other infrastructure and vehicles losses of individuals to populations. Although hydraulic (Anon 2003) associated with game farming necessitates fracturing (fracking) in the Karoo for the extraction of natural protecting the investment against predators and poachers, gas (Scholes et al. 2016) does not strictly involve linear which in turn means predator-proof fences, either electric structures, the associated infrastructures and increased fencing, mesh fencing or both. traffic will nevertheless fragment habitats and are as much a conservation cause for concern as linear structures. Impacts of fencing Most negative impacts of fencing increase in severity with Fencing the ‘impenetrability’ of the fencing, governed by fence An understanding of fencing in the Karoo would be height, fencing type and the use of electrification. The incomplete without knowledge of its origins and develop- fences associated with game farming tend to rank highly ment. Historically, livestock were managed by nomadic in all of these, involving multiple electrified strands at pastoralism or herding to a central place for shelter during different heights, which prevent or restrict the movements, the nights. Neither system confined livestock except in or kill, a number of ‘non-game’ species, including reptiles the night shelters where a small area may have been and mammals (Burger and Branch 1994; Beck 2010; closed off with stone walls. In the late 1800s, however, the Macray 2017). advantages of subdividing farms into smaller units, each The negative impacts of fencing that are particularly with a watering place, became apparent, and fencing- relevant to the