UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND VETERINARY SCIENCES

FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE

EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN ELEPHANT DENSITIES ON THE ECOSYSTEM AND OTHER SPECIES

A CASE STUDY OF NAMUNYAK WILDLIFE CONSERVATION TRUST

FIELD SUPERVISORS:

MR. JACOB LOILA –UNIT MANAGER NWCT

MR. HENRY KAHI, UON, DEPARTMENT OF LAMART.

BY

ORINA N LENNAH

BSC.WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION.

J42/3073/2010

PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEGREE IN BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION.

JANUARY-APRIL 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration……………………………………………………………………………………………page 4

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………..…………page 5

List of abbreviation and acronyms…………………………………………………………………...page 6

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..…………………page 7

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the problem…………………………………………………..……………………page8

1.2 Statement of the problem……………………………………………….…………………………page 9

1.3 Purpose of the study………………………………………………………..……………………page 10

1.4 Objectives of the study……………………………………………..……………………………page 10

1.5Justifications of the study…………………………………...……………………………………page 10

1.6 Limitation of the study………………………………………………………………..…………page 11

1.7 Assumptions of the study………………………………………………………...……………...page 11

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Analysis of vegetation in Namunyak…………...………………………………………….……page 13

2.2 Scientific classification of elephants……………………………………………………………..page13

2.3 Special features of elephants………………………...…………………………………………..page 13

2.4 Feeding behavior………………………………………………………..……………………….page 14

2.5 Forage use as a basis of inferring impact…………………………..……………………………page 15

2,6 Ecological consequences of sexual dimorphism……………...…………………………………page 16

2.7 Ecological process influenced by elephants……………………………………………………..page 17

2.8 Physical description af African elephant………………………………………..……………….page 17

2.9 Behavior…………………………………………………………………..……..………………page 18

3.0 Conservation status………………………………………………………..……………………..page 18

CHAPTER THREE:

The study area……………………………………………………………………………………..page 19 CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY

Research design………………………………………………………………………….…………..page 20

Population and sample……………………………………………………………………………….page 20

Data collection procedure………………………………………………………..…………………..page 20

CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data analysis……………………………………………………………………………...………….page 22

DISCUSION

Effects of elephants on Mathews range ecosystem…………….……………………………………page 25

Mechanisms of impact on individual plants………………………………………………,,………..page 26

Fauna……………………………………………………………………………………….………..page 27

CHAPTER SIX:

Summary of findings…………………..…………………………………………………………… page 29

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………..page 30

Recommendation………………………………………………………………………….………..page 31

REFERENCES………………………..……………………………………………………………..page 32

Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………..……………page 35

Appendix 1 community questionnaire………………………………………………..……………..page 38

DECLARATION:

I hereby declare that the work presented in this report is entirely my own, and has never before been submitted to any university or college for the award of a degree in Bachelor of Science in Wildlife Management and Conservation.

BY:

ORINA N LENNAH

Signature………………………………………………………..

Date…………………

FIELD SUPERVISORS:

MR LOILA LETININA

Unit manager NWCT

Signature………………………………………………………

Date…………….

MR HENRY KAHI

UON Department of LARMAT

Signature………………………………………………………

Date……………

DEDICATION

I want to dedicate this work to my project report to my supervisor Mr. Henry Kahi, and all the lecturers of the University of Nairobi for their tireless effort they made to ensure that I gained all the knowledge I have now.

My sincere gratitude goes to the senior warden NWCT, Mr. Loila Letinina and all the entire staff of Namunyak wildlife conservation trust for assisting me throughout the entire period of my attachment

My appreciation and dedication goes to my family and my friends for supporting all through and also to my parents and sisters for supporting me throughout my four years in campus.

May the Lord our God bless my work and those who supported me in one way or another to make my life a success.

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AND TABLES

NWCT- Namunyak wildlife conservation trust

NRT- Northern rangeland trust

KWS- Kenya wildlife service

HWC-Human wildlife conflicts

MIKE-Monitoring of illegal killing of elephants

CITES-Convention on international trade for endangered species

NRM-Natural resource management

KFS-Kenya Forest Service

Abstract:

Concerns over elephant impacts to woody plants in African savannas have highlighted shifts in vegetation community composition with implications for possible reductions in biodiversity. Habitat loss poses the greatest threat to species. Large herbivores such as elephants ( Loxodonta africana ) apparently have a negative impact on woody vegetation at moderate to high population densities. The confounding effects that fire, drought, and management history have may complicate assignment of such impacts to herbivory.

My analysis showed that high elephant densities had a negative effect on woody vegetation but that rainfall and presence of migratory corridors influenced these effects. In arid savannas, woody vegetation always responded negatively to elephants, in Namunyak, because of the Mathew ranges which provide a lot water most elephants migrate from samburu national reserve to Namunyak which makes their population very high and their effects are pronounced.

Hence, in my research I was concerned with the changes brought about through the presence of elephants on the species composition, vegetation structure and functioning of the ecosystems of which they are a component. These changes are judged within the context of the overriding context of biodiversity conservation, which is a primary aim set by humans for much of the land within which these elephants reside.

My objectives of my research were to identify the effects of elephants to the Namunyak ecosystem and the species affected. After analyzing my results I found that elephants usually reduce bush lands to grasslands hence favoring grazers but I discovered that elephants feed on grass most of the time and this results in direct competition with grazers.

My research methods included a detailed questionnaire which I prepared and gave the community to answer, I also interviewed the key persons in Namunyak who are concerned with conservation and I also used observation method where I was taken around the conservancy to appreciate the effects of elephants.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM

The issue of the effects of elephants within ecosystems has emerged strongly since the formulation of the concept of the ‘elephant problem and the concerns that elephants may irrevocably alter the remaining areas which are available to them . Two perspectives need to be kept in mind when these concerns are raised. Firstly, the order of Proboscideans (including the modern elephants) evolved in Africa as part of a unique group of mammals, the Afrotheria , with their roots going back 80 million years. Proboscideans of various forms subsequently colonized all continents except for Australia and Antarctica; mammoths in the family Elephantidae remained abundant and widespread through most of Europe and North America until as recently as 12 000–16 000 years ago.

The modern African elephant emerged about 3 million years ago. Hence, its relationships with other animal and plant species have been an integral part of the co-evolutionary history of the ecosystems and biodiversity of Africa. Herbivores, through their consumption of plant tissues, affect the relative growth, survival and reproductive output of these plants, with consequences for vegetation structure, community composition and ecosystem processes (Huntly, 1991). Even relatively small herbivores can have profound effects in shaping ecosystem structure, particularly when they occur at high densities.

They affect the growth and survival of many herb, shrub and tree species, modifying patterns of relative abundance and vegetation dynamics. Cascading effects on other species extend to insects, birds, and other mammals. Sustained over-browsing reduces plant cover and diversity, alters nutrient and carbon cycling, and redirects succession .simplified alternative states appear to be stable and difficult to reverse.

Similarly, smaller herbivores with specific manners of feeding can alter ecosystems, although their abundance and overall use of resources are not great.

Nevertheless, the feeding and breakage impacts of elephants on plants are greater in magnitude and scale than those of smaller herbivores, particularly through affecting the structural components of the vegetation like canopy trees (Owen-Smith, 1988). From this perspective elephants have been termed ‘megaherbivores’, along with other species exceeding 1 000 kg in adult body mass with similarly great impacts on ecosystems, including rhinos and hippos.

Herbivore species within this size range were a general feature of ecosystems worldwide until modern humans spread their predatory and land-transforming influences worldwide between 50 000 and 12 000 years ago. It has been surmised that the elimination of these megaherbivores through human hunting contributed to the demise of many other large mammal species, and consequent reduction in species diversity outside of Africa and tropical Asia, as a result of the habitat changes that occurred (Owen-Smith, 1987, 1989).

This emphasizes that the effects of elephants on biodiversity can be positive as well as negative. However, the biodiversity consequences need to be judged not only at the species level, but also in terms of changes in habitat composition and functional processes. This diversity is furthermore expressed across a range of organizational levels from genes to landscapes .

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The conservation of the African elephant, a "flagship" species of global significance, provides tremendous opportunities for simultaneously conserving biodiversity and increasing benefits to local communities. The full range of such benefits is extensive and includes improved access to natural capital; improved livelihood opportunities; improvements to social capital; greater food security and reduced vulnerability to ecosystem degradation. Owing to their role as "keystone" and "umbrella" species that help maintain biodiversity of the ecosystems they inhabit, the contribution of elephants to achieving overarching global biodiversity conservation objectives can be significant. The cultural and aesthetic values of elephants are also important, not only to African societies, but to the world at large.

However, as African elephant range becomes more and more fragmented and as elephants get confined into smaller pockets of suitable habitat, humans and elephants are increasingly coming into contact and in conflict with each other.

Elephants impact negatively on the ecosystem and on local communities in many ways e.g. by turning woodlands into grasslands, by raiding crops, killing livestock, destroying water supplies, demolishing grain stores and houses, injuring and even killing people. The costs of such conflict can be significant.

In most African nations today, the real and perceived costs of human-elephant conflict (HEC) greatly outweigh the potential benefits and, subsequently, elephants are increasingly being excluded from many parts of their former range. Once the elephants are gone, however, the local communities will have lost a valuable asset, while at the same time contributing to the loss of biodiversity and overall degradation of the ecosystems on which they depend for their livelihoods.

THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study is to investigate the effects of significance change in elephant populations to the ecosystem in Namunyak.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of land degradation in Namunyak caused by increased elephant populations

To identify the human –elephant conflicts in Namunyak conservancy

To determine the extent the effects of elephants to woody vegetation

To investigate the other animal species effected by elephants

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. How are elephants special in the nature of their feeding, and hence, the damage to plants they cause, by virtue of features such as body size, the trunk and tusks?

2. How are the impacts of elephants on individual plants translated into changes in vegetation composition and structure? 3. How do these changes in vegetation and hence, habitat features for other animal species, affect the coexistence of these species? 4. How do the presence and activities of elephants influence nutrient cycling, the effects of fire and the productive potential of the ecosystems they inhabit? 5. What are the cascading or knock-on effects of elephants on the components of biodiversity?

JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

The basic problems of elephant management are due to a fundamental change in land use and life styles that have taken place in Africa since the last century. Most conservation areas in Africa form "ecological islands” because they are surrounded by human settlements. Factors which caused elephants to increase within the conservation areas are removal of hunting pressure and compression of range.

The possible dimensions of the elephant problem are as follows;

(a) Radical modification of certain habitat types leading to perhaps the loss of species which depend upon them?

(b) Elimination of certain sensitive plant species

(c) Reduced vegetation covers leading to accelerated erosion and decline in the overall productivity of the ecosystem

(d) Depression of the resource base for megaherbivores themselves

(e) Loss of aesthetic features of landscape, such as mature trees.

All these issues made me to investigate the extent of damage caused by elephants in Namunyak so as to find out the conservation measures to be put in place.

LIMITATION

Financial constraints-since the project was not funded, I was forced to spend the little money I had to purchase the necessary equipments needed to carry out the project which sometimes become difficult

Insecurity in the area; there was an instance where the morans wanted to attack the camp and the rangers were forced to drive them off and this almost led to a big fight.

Transport constraints; as a result of heavy rains over the years the roads to NWCT headquarters and access roads to study areas have been severely damaged requiring regular repair, which has not been done sufficiently due to lack of funding. The Sarara – Loikeresire road for instance was severely damaged and is now completely inaccessible this made it difficult to assess conflict areas

Communication constraints due to the rugged terrain within the conservancy, several areas have very poor or no telephone or radio communication signals, hence had to cover long distances to access the networks

Large study area ;Namunyak covers a vast area of 324000 acres because of this I was not able to cover the entire area to collect all the information I needed so I concentrated my study on Sarara area.

Language barrier; the area is inhabited by the Samburu people and most of the local people around do not understand Kiswahili or English and this limited the information I collected because I had to request someone to translate for me.

Shortage of power; the area is not served by the main grid. Power is harnessed from solar panels and stored in batteries which are used for lighting and charging radio handset. This power sometimes was not enough to charge my computer and this delayed analysis of my work.

ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY

1. The number of elephants in Namunyak conservancy has increased significantly in the last five years despite the high level of poaching in the area

2. Most woody areas in Namunyak has been destroyed by elephants giving rise to bushlands

3. Many animal species have been displaced by the large number of elephants

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2:1 Analysis of vegetation in Namunyak

The identification of the various vegetation types within the ecosystem depends on selected classification approach (based on composition and physiognomic/structural characteristics, compositional features and land classification). However, the classification used to analyze vegetation has been the physiognomic and compositional approach in which the following types of vegetation in Namunyak have been identified:

[a] Dry shrub and bush land (Deciduous shrub land) type: This mainly covers the eastern side of Matthews Range and consists of tree, shrub, herb and grass layers. The shrubs are 3-3.5 m high with a canopy cover of 20-35 %. The herbaceous cover in undisturbed sites Ranges from 40-100 % (Range Resource Master Plan, 1991). However, the Range condition of this vegetation type is very poor for cattle and sheep, but fairly good for camels and goats.

[b] Dry woodland to Shrub land: The vegetation composition is quite variable because of the heterogeneity of the soils. The riverine vegetation is mainly Acacia tortilis woodland, the basement complex is dominated by unpalatable Acacia reficiens which is typical of very arid areas and the volcanic rocks is covered by a mixture of Commiphora and acacia shrubs.

[c] Dry shrubland to dwarf shrubland: The vegetation is generally dwarf trees, shrubs and annual grasses with low herbaceous ground cover. The tree layer is dominated by Commiphora, Acacia and Combretum spp . While other important shrubs include Grewia spp, Boscia coriacea and Acacia refeciens .

[d] Bushed woodland: This vegetation type extends along the eastern slopes of Matthews Range and is also referred to as deciduous bushland. It is estimated that the woodland cover is 5-10 %, while the bush layer constitutes about 20 % of the ground cover. The herbaceous layer is a mixture of perennial and ephemeral grasses. The dominant trees are Acacia lahai and Acacia tortilis . Others include Melia volkensii and Newtonia spinosa.

The bush layer is characterized by Cordia spp, Croton megalocarpus, Balanite spp, and Grewia bicolor among others.

[e] Dwarf shrub and dense thicket: This vegetation lies within Ewaso Ngiro River with woody species such as Acacia tortilis , A. Senegal, Delonix elata and scattered Commiphora species. Shrub species include A. reficiens, A. melifera, Cordia sinensis, Boscia coriacea, and Grewia tenax among others.

[f] Low tree woodland: This vegetation type is a mixture of trees and shrubs. Dominant species include A. melifera, A. senegal , Commiphora species and A. tortilis. The Range condition is typically poor with annual grasses and forbs constituting 5 % of the ground cover.

[g] Acacia tortilis/Commiphora woodland: This is typical of the low woodland type and the most important component of this type is the dwarf shrubs like Indigofera spinosa, Sericocomopsis and Justicia species (Good browse species). The herbaceous cover on the foot-slopes is fairly higher and with protection from grazing, the vegetation would recover quickly.

[h] Open woodland: This is similar to low tree woodland and Acacia tortilis / Commiphora woodland vegetation types with similar soil types derived from basement complex system. The grass layers are overgrazed with relic species noted that include Cynodon dactylon, Cenchrus ciliaris, Eragrosties superba, and Aristida adscensionsis .

[i] Evergreen Forest: This forest is located on the top of the Matthews Range. Major tree species include Juniperus procera, Podocarpus gracilor, Olea africana, and Croton megalocarpus.

2:2 Scientific Classifications of African elephant Kingdom animalia

Phylum chordata

Subphylum vertebrata

Class mammalia

Superorder afrotheria

Order proboscidea

Family elephantidae

Genera loxodonta

2:3 Special features of elephants

The African elephant is the largest herbivore alive today, with females attaining a maximum body mass of over three tons and males over six tons. Coupled with this large size (and hence megaherbivore status) is a fairly simple digestive system with most digestion taking place in the capacious hindgut, comprising the small intestine and colon. Throughput is relatively rapid, with mean retention time of around 24 hours, independent of the daily food intake (Clauss et al ., 2007; Davis, 2007).

This fast passage (compared with other large herbivores) means that digestive efficiency is quite low, with less than half of the ingested food being assimilated and the remainder passed out as faeces. On the other hand, large amounts of fibre can be ingested without slowing throughput, in contrast to the situation for ruminants (Janis, 1976). Because of their large size (hence, relatively low external surface area to volume ratio) elephants have a low metabolic rate per unit of body mass, which enables them to obtain adequate nutrition from plant material low in nutrient content. Hence, their relative daily food intake (in dry mass terms) is also low, around 1–1.5 per cent of body mass per day (compared with 2–3 per cent for cattle).

Nevertheless, as a consequence of their large size, the absolute amount of vegetation that each elephant consumes per day is huge, estimated to be over 60 kg for a fully grown male, weighed as dry mass, or around 180 kg weighed wet (Owen-Smith, 1988).

2.4 Feeding behavior Elephants display a variety of feeding behaviours, and have long been known as robust and wasteful feeders (Selous, 1881). As with other vertebrate herbivores, they can ingest forage directly by biting with the mouth, although this occurs infrequently – about 10 per cent of browsing events in subtropical thicket (Lessing, 2007).

Alternatively, forage is plucked (broken off the plant or the entire plant uprooted) with the trunk and passed to the mouth where it is ingested through a single bite or multiple bites, or material is stripped off a branch with the trunk and passed to the mouth. They also run branch tips between their teeth to strip off the bark, discarding the interior wood. At certain times of the year they strip off and discard leaves before consuming the bark, while at other times they eat the leaves of these same species (Barnes, 1982; Chafota, 2007).

The trunk, a specialised foraging adaptation with surprising dexterity, plays a crucial role in enabling elephants to achieve a high rate of food intake, in part by allowing them to chew and handle material simultaneously. Food intake has been estimated to approach an instantaneous rate of 2 kg.min-1 when feeding on succulent shrubs (Lessing, 2007). The trunk, together with their high shoulder height, also allows them to forage up to 8 m above ground level (Croze, 1974). Elephants can adopt a bipedal stance in order to reach higher food material (Croze, 1974). Most browsing, however, takes place between 0.5 and 2.5 m (Guy, 1976; Jachmann & Bell, 1985; Chafota, 2007; Lessing, 2007).

The tusks are used for specialised feeding, particularly to strip bark off trees, most commonly during the latter part of the dry season and the early growing season (Barnes, 1982). Thereby elephants probably gain from the carbohydrates flowing through this bark prior to leaf flush (Barnes, 1982). When hard pressed for food, elephants will gouge quite deeply into the trunks of soft-stemmed trees like baobabs Adansonia digitata (figure 1). They also use the tusks to dig up the roots of some woody and succulent species (Barnes, 1982; Chafota 2007; Lessing, 2007).

Elephants use their feet to dig out (kicking or scraping) geophytes or grass tussocks, and knock grass tussocks held in the trunk against their legs to dislodge soil (Owen-Smith, 1988). Elephants have been recorded felling or uprooting trees up to 60 cm in basal diameter (Chafota, 2007). Sometimes they feed on the branch tips or roots of these trees, but on other occasions they abandon the fallen tree without feeding on it. It has been suggested that some tree felling may be a social display unrelated to feeding (Hendrichs, 1971; Midgley et al ., 2005), but this has not been confirmed.

Unlike most other herbivores, elephants’ feeding actions may lead directly to the death of mature trees (through felling or uprooting), or otherwise expose these trees to other processes leading to tree mortality (through bark removal). Most other herbivores simply remove plant tissues, suppressing plant growth and reproductive potential, except in the case of small seedlings. In this sense, the consequences of elephant feeding for tree dynamics are more akin to those of a predator than is the case for other herbivores

Forage use as a basis for inferring impact It is generally presumed that elephant herbivory is an important mechanism that structures plant communities .Thus, it is important to have an understanding of elephant diet, and particularly their dietary preferences, in order to predict these impacts. However, some plant species that are not browsed by elephants respond to elephants through indirect mechanisms – for example, trampling and associated path formation.

In addition, the amount of forage ingested by elephants only represents a fraction of their total forage off- take (Guy, 1976; Paley, 1997); hence, impacts on plant communities are not a simple function of food requirements. Although numerous studies describe the diet of elephant in a range of habitats – wooded savannas, desert shrublands, and subtropical thicket ,availability of dietary items, and are thus able to quantify preferences for specific species. Moreover, elephant diet is often indirectly inferred from plant-based studies assuming that differences between elephant areas and areas where elephants have been excluded are the result of elephant browsing. In this regard, Landman et al . (2008) showed that a significant proportion of such species are not eaten by elephants.

Elephants are mixed feeders, consuming a range of plants and plant parts from grasses to browse, bark, fruit, and bulbs. Their large body size and robust feeding allow them to have a broad diet – for example, 146 plant species in subtropical thicket (Kerley & Landman, 2006). Elephant herbivory can, therefore, influence the fate of a considerable number of plant species. However, the bulk of the daily dry matter intake comes from a few species. Elephants consume varying proportions of browse and grass depending on region, vegetation cover, water availability, soil nutrient composition, and season (Williamson, 1975; Field & Ross, 1976; ).

Grasses are primarily consumed in the rainy season (40–70 per cent of the diet), and trees or shrubs in the dry season, when grass contributes only 2–40%. When feeding on grasses, elephants favour leaves and inflorescences during the wet season, turning more to leaf bases and roots during the dry season (Owen- Smith, 1988). Forbs (herbaceous plants besides grasses) are also commonly consumed, and elephants may spend much time feeding in reed beds during the dry season. Under dry conditions, wood, bark and roots constitute 70–80 per cent of the material eaten (Barnes, 1982).

There is conflicting evidence regarding the nutritional characteristics of plants preferred by elephants. Some studies show preferences for plants with higher levels of protein, sodium, calcium and magnesium , lower levels of crude fibre , secondary compounds and lignin (Jachmann, 1989).

In contrast, Thompson (1975) could not show any differences in mineral or crude protein content between the bark of five species of trees with differing apparent preference. Calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, total salts and crude protein apparently do not determine elephant use among 16 species assessed by Anderson & Walker (1974) in Zimbabwe. These relationships are confounded by factors such as soil nutrients, rainfall, plant availability and so on, and need to be further researched. It has been hypothesised that because of their simple digestive system, involving rapid throughput, elephants are less readily able than ruminants to handle plant secondary chemicals (e.g. resins, tannins and other phenolics), which tend to be concentrated in leaves (Olivier, 1978; Langer, 1984).

Discarded forage Besides trees felled, elephants also break off and discard plant parts (Ishwaran, 1983). The discarded material could represent as much as a quarter to a half of the mass consumed. This discarded material could alter the size, distribution, nutrient levels and hence dynamics of litter in subtropical thicket ecosystems (Kerley & Landman, 2006). Elephants are not unique in this behaviour, as for example, kangaroo rats ( Dipodomus sp.) also discard a large proportion of the forage they harvest (Kerley et al., 1997). This aspect of elephant foraging is poorly described and understood, but may have profound cascading effects on ecosystem function and biodiversity patterns.

2.6 Ecological consequences of sexual dimorphism Male elephants attain a body mass twice that of adult females (Lee & Moss, 1995), leading to differences in feeding behaviour and energetic and nutritional demands besides those associated with reproduction (Stokke & Du Toit, 2000; Greyling, 2004; ). In addition, differences in social structure (group-living cows vs. largely solitary bulls) influence foraging (Dublin, 1996). In savanna, bulls feed more robustly on fewer plant species, but a wider range of plant parts , and consume more low-quality items.

Family units more frequently debark and defoliate woody plants, while bulls fell trees and dig up roots more frequently (Greyling, 2004). Males also consume a higher proportion of grass than females. The rate of tree felling by males is much greater than that of females (Guy, 1976), and males also fell substantially larger trees than females.

Accordingly, the consequences of the feeding and breakage impacts of the adult male segment of the population are relatively much greater than those of family units. In contrast, in subtropical thicket, males and females show large overlaps in feeding height, pluck size and foraging rates, which do not differ between sexes (Lessing, 2007). Males, however, do access the largest biomass (branch size) per pluck, and tend to harvest more multiple stem portions per pluck (compared to the females who tend to use single stem plucks).

Furthermore, differences in habitat use between sexes have been ascribed to the differential need to access water, with breeding females being found closer to water (Stokke & Du Toit, 2002). There have, therefore, been suggestions that elephant sexes occupy different ecological niches (Stokke & Du Toit, 2000; Shannon et al. , 2006a) in savanna. However, Shannon et al. (2006b) found no sex-based habitat selection in areas where water was spatially limited.

2.7 Ecological processes influenced by elephants Elephants affect a broad variety of ecological processes through their feeding, digging and movement. For example in subtropical thicket, Kerley & Landman (2006) showed that the role of elephants (15 broad processes) was comparable to that of the balance of the vertebrate herbivore community (21 species) in terms of the number of ecological processes.

In addition, by virtue of their killing, through aggressive competition, of other herbivore species such as white rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum and black rhinoceros Diceros bicornis (Slotow et al ., 2001; Kerley & Landman, 2006), elephants also play a role analogous to predation. The significance of elephants in all these roles, and how this differs between landscapes, has yet to be quantified.

The focus on a few effects such as tree mortality may, therefore, mask both the extent and the mechanisms of elephant impacts (Landman et al ., 2008). Elephant formation of ‘browsing lawns’, where they reduce the height of mopane veld and increase the quality of forage, is considered to be ‘gardening’, Effects of elephants on ecosystems and biodiversity analogous to the formation of ‘grazing lawns’ by other herbivores including snails, tortoises, geese and wildebeest (McNaughton, 1984).

This shrub coppice state is advantageous for elephants through providing more food and better quality re- growth within the 2–5 m height range favoured by elephants (Jachmann & Bell, 1985). There are also increases (provided the overall cover is not lost) in the availability of forage for other herbivores . In addition, they will excavate waterholes in dry riverbeds .

2.8 Physical Description of African elephant

African elephants are the heaviest land animal, and the second tallest in the Animal Kingdom. They are a sexually dimorphic species – males larger than females – with males reaching a height of 12-14 feet and a weight of 6 to 7 tons. Females are smaller in size and weight. The African elephant has large ears that almost cover its shoulders. Some people say that they look like the shape of Africa.

They have a unique nose that is simply a long, boneless trunk extending from the upper lip. The trunk usually measures about five feet long (about 150 cm) and weighs around 300 pounds (about 135 kg). The two finger-like projections on the tip are so dexterous they can pick a blade of grass. The trunk itself is so strong it is capable of lifting 600 pounds (250- 275 kg).

Their incisor teeth develop into tusks that grow throughout the animal’s life. A tusk can grow 8 feet long (245-250 cm) and can weigh over 130 pounds (60 kg) each. Both sexes typically grow tusks, but the males’ tusks are longer and heavier. Tuskless male and female elephants have been observed. The only other teeth they have are four molars – two on the upper jaw and two on the lower jaw – which are replaced seven times throughout their lives after the previous set wears down.

African elephants have dark gray skin which is scattered with black hairs. Their skin is about 2 1/2 inches (2-4 cm) thick, but flies, mosquitoes and parasites still can cause the animal discomfort. Behaviour

African elephants wander in non-territorial herds that can reach 200 elephants, even one thousand during the rains. Their society is based on a social matriarchal community. The matriarch is the oldest female who leads a clan of 9 to 11 elephants. Only closely related females and their offspring are part of this herd because males wander alone once they reach maturity. The herd’s well being depends on the guidance of the matriarch. She determines when they eat, rest, bathe or drink. Females in the herd practice motherhood by being allomothers to the calves. These assistants play with and babysit babies and retrieve them if they stray too far. African elephants are typically active during the day but herds in areas with high levels of human activity often become primarily nocturnal.

Elephants display dominance with a raised head, trunk, and ears. They also snap their ears, shake their heads, and make trumpeting noises and rumbles. They display submission by turning their behind to the dominant animal, leveling their ears, lowering their heads and vocalizing.

Food Habits

Elephants eat vegetation like leaves, roots, bark, grasses and fruit. Each day they can consume anywhere from 220 to 660 pounds (100 to 300 kg) of food, and drink up to 50 gallons (190 L) of water. During the rainy seasons elephants eat grasses and herbs. During dry seasons in the savannah they eat grasses, leaves, bark and bushes. Swamps are a last resort for food because swamp vegetation contains little nutrition. However, dying elephants are often found in these areas because this vegetation is softer and older elephants are often missing teeth

Lifespan/Longevity

The African elephant lives about 50 years, they continue to grow in height during their lives (Estes, 1999; Eltringam, 1992). Deaths from poaching still outnumber any natural or accidental occurrences of death in elephants.

Predation

Known predators * lions ( Panthera leo) * hyenas ( Hyaeninae) * humans ( Homo sapiens )

The size and strength of healthy adult elephants leaves them less susceptible to predation by lions. Humans are the primary predator of adult elephants. Calves are vulnerable to lions and hyenas. If they sense a predator nearby, the largest cows instinctively herd the calves into the center of the herd.

Conservation

Poaching significantly reduced the population of Loxodonta in certain regions during the 20th century. The African elephant nominally has governmental protection, but poaching is still a serious issue.

Conservation Status

IUCN Red List: Vulnerable. US Federal List: Threatened. CITES: Appendix I, Appendix II (Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe)

The African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 is in full effect today, which bans any trade in ivory from elephants residing in Appendix I nations and only limited sell of ivory with CITES approval from Appendix II nations.

Migratory corridors of elephants in Samburu

1. Samburu national reserve-Laikipia-Ngarenltare 2. Samburu national reserve-Mathews ranges-kirisia 3. Loroki-laikipia-kirisia 4. Samburu national reserve-Mathews ranges-Marsabit-Ndoto mountains

CHAPTER THREE:

AREA OF STUDY

The Namunyak Wildlife Conservation Trust is located in the Mathews Range of northern Kenya, one of the last great stretches of pristine African wilderness. Namunyak serves as a critical wildlife refuge for endangered species such as Gravy’s zebra and African wild dog. It is also part of a crucial corridor for the Samburu/Laikipia elephant, linking National Reserves in the south with the Mathews Range and the remote conservancies to the north and east.

During the 1980’s the northern districts of Kenya were at the centre of mass elephant poaching; hundreds of elephant were killed for their ivory, virtually wiping out the population. People soon realized that the wildlife had no future unless local communities participated in its protection, including the land which erosion and over grazing were destroying. To succeed a presence had to be established in the bush to deter poachers and protect the elephant population, and the local communities had to be convinced that the wildlife was not competition for food; instead they were a source of income.

The NWCT conservation area covers 324,000 hectares divided into three conservation areas namely Nalowuon conservation units, Ngilai conservation units and Kalepo conservation unit. The conservancy also is encompassing the greater Mathews Ranges Forest, a high mountain range (up to 2,689 meters) with unique mountain forest vegetation that provides refuge to wildlife particularly in the dry season.

The Namunyak conservancy is inhabited by the Samburu pastoralists whose economic occupation is livestock rearing and live side by side with the wildlife. As an alternative measure to improve livelihood, members established a community conservancy to protect wildlife and the eco-system as well as to generate income from their eco-tourism facilities.

NWCT features the greatest diversity of wildlife including rare and endemic species such as the African elephant, the gravy zebra, greater and lesser kudu, the beisa Oryx, the Somali ostrich, the African wild dog, reticulated giraffe, the de brazza monkey, the black white colobus monkey.

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Topography Matthew’s Range highest peak is Uarges which is (2,688m, 8,817ft). The western section includes Wamba and the settlements of Lenkusaka consist of relatively high altitude plains. The southeast section includes the Ololokwe, commonly known by the Samburu people as Oldonyo Sapache (1,854 m, 6,080 ft). To the South East is the wide valley of Sarara, which lies between Uarges and the eastern spur of the Matthews Range. To the north is Kimaning peak which is the second tallest peak along the Range.

There are five main passes across the Range from the southern end namely, Nasunyai, Nendia, Lkanto, Murit and Lgwe

.

Climate and Seasonality The rainfall distribution is bimodal with peaks of long rains in March/April and short rains in October/November, and therefore the area generally has two dry and two rainy seasons. Rainfall is relatively low and highly variable with mean minimum of 357mm and mean maximum of about 700mm.

The minimum and maximum daily temperatures within the Matthews Range Forest and surrounding lowlands recorded for the last decade are estimated at 12.3 0C – 15.5 0C minimum and 31.8 0C to 32.8 0C maximum. The extreme variation of recorded monthly Range of temperatures shows a large disparity Range of at least 16.0 0C while the mean monthly Range varies between 5.5 0C and 7.5 0C (Range Resource Master Plan, 1991).

Geology and Soils The geology of the ecosystem arose from erosion of the pre-Cambrian basement rock system that consists of metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. The rock system has gneiss, granites and fluvial accumulation of sediments and soils deriving from volcanic activities. The soils within the Matthews Range Forest Ecosystem have evolved from five geological formations. 1) Soils of the mountains and hills: These are well drained, shallow to deep with varying colour and texture, and are generally rocky. 2) Soils of the low level plateaus: These are moderately well drained, shallow to deep, dark brown, slightly calcareous, clay to clay loam, and boulderly in most places. 3) Soils of the foot slopes of hills and mountains: These are well drained, very deep, dark reddish brown to light, sandy to sandy clay loam.

4) Soils of the uplands: These are well drained, shallow, reddish brown to yellowish brown, in some places calcareous, gravelly sandy clay and rocky.

5) Soils of the erosional plains: These are well drained, shallow to deep, reddish brown, clayey to sandy clay loam, and in some places with rock outcrops.

6) Soils of the Alluvial plains: These are well drained, very deep, pale brown, saline, calcareous, stratified sands and sandy loams 7) Soils of the lowlands: These soils are generally waterlogged, very deep, dark greyish brown, saline calcareous clay

Map of Kenya Showing the area in which Namunyak and Matthews Forest is located within the larger Samburu County. Hydrology : The ecosystem has two notable drainage basins:

i) The Ngeny/Nkare Narok/Milgis basins. This flows East wards into Marsabit county. ii) The Wamba/Margwe/Ewaso Nyiro basin: This covers the south west part of the County, mainly Waso division. The flow is eastwards and perennial. However, due to high infiltrations and evaporation rates, the river disappears into the Lorian Swamp in Isiolo and Garissa County.

Matthews Range Forest is the main water catchment for most parts of the Samburu East District, thus the availability of water within the ecosystem depends on its maintenance and conservation. The main rivers emanating from the Matthews include: Wamba and Lkisin rivers that drains to Ewaso Nyiro River, Losikiriashi, Ngeny, Oromodei, Ngare-narok, Murit and Mewua that drains to Milgis

CHAPTER 4: MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY.

Research design

The method used for the research was mainly questionnaire .both open ended and closed questionnaire were administered to obtain data from the respondents who filled them.

Data collection

Primary Data Collection Data collection was done from four main sources: questionnaire surveys, group discussion, interviewing key informants and researcher’s observations.

The study was undertaken using a structured questionnaire (appendix 1) to collect data on effects of elephants to the ecosystem, the effects to the woody vegetation, and the incidences of elephant –human conflicts. The questionnaire was used in the interview of personnel involved in the day to day activities of the conservancy especially rangers who carried out routine patrols and collected information about elephants and also the community around the conservancy. Other information was collected using a digital camera to collect digital images of the elephants in their natural environment, direct observations to collect information on the animals and also secondary data from the conservancy database about all the incidences of elephants conflicts their estimated numbers and, discussions with personnel involved with the NWCT on various issues relevant to this study.

Interviewing Key Informants Interviews were conducted of the, key reserve staff including the community coordinator, warden, assistant warden, and senior security officers. The aim was to cross-check the information provided by the local community on the human wildlife conflict in the reserve and also the status of the resources in the reserve.

Data Analysis

The qualitative and quantitative data collected through questionnaire survey were coded entered and into the computer via the Ms. Excel package. Cross tabulations, frequencies and percentages were obtained. Descriptive statistics will be used to report the responses. Quotations of some key informants and group discussants were used to give the final report a deep and well-backed analysis. The results are presented in a descriptive form by use of tables, and pie charts

Population and sample

The target population in the study was the local communities living adjacent to the NWCT and from whom a sample of 50 respondents was drawn from the entire population. The sample was selected using random sampling

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

RESULTS.

Figure 1.Status of respondents according to their sex The majority of the respondents were male making up 76% of total respondents included in this study, while females represented 24% of the total respondents interviewed in this study The difference in the ratio sex could also be mainly because women in the community where the study was conducted are still not empowered enough. This was evident during questionnaire survey were in the presents of the two household heads, the woman declined to be interviewed and left the tsk to the man. The dominance of the male population might also be explained to mean that there is likelihood of conflicts increasing if their livelihoods are not taken care of after the completion of the fence because, it is usually men who are involved in illegal activities in protected areas such as poaching and deforestation juts to mention.

0% 0%

24% male female

76%

.

AGE STRUCTURE OF RESPONDENTS

Figure 2: reveals the age structure of respondents. The data show that most of the people I interviewed were young people aged between 21-30 years of age.

22

18

8

2

21-30 31-40 41-50 over 50

Age

Figure 3.Incident of human elephant conflict

percentage

0% 0%

16% yes 84% No

My research revealed that there is increased human elephant conflicts because of all the people I interviewed 84% respondent positively that they have had conflicts with elephants and the conflicts include; deaths, injuries, destruction of water wells, elephants blocking roads by felling large trees on the roads, chasing people, destroying crops and manyattas, and breaking down fences Impact of elephants on vegetation

Figure 4: The research I carried out in Namunyak large number of people agreed that elephants have negatively impacted on vegetation and they gave me many effects of elephants on vegetation which I have analyzed below.

42

8

yes no

From the study carried out on effects of elephant on the ecosystem in Namunyak conservancy, the following results were obtained:

DISCUSSION

Effects of elephants on Mathews range ecosystem If we are to understand the impacts of elephants, it is critical that the connections between elephants and the assumed impacts (defined here as changes brought about by elephants) are clearly understood and demonstrated. Elephant impacts are observed at a range of levels, from soils to coexisting mammals (reviewed below), and in all instances of such impacts, the mechanisms need to be clearly identified.

Individual plants and species Elephants impact on plants by breaking branches/stems, stripping bark, uprooting plants and toppling trees. The persistence of plant species eaten by elephants is dependent on whether they can cope with herbivory of this nature (i.e. the relative capacity of these species to restrict, resist or compensate for the damage inflicted by resprouting and/or regrowth), or whether mortality is balanced or exceeded by recruitment and regeneration. The ability to resprout is taxon-specific: a range of species coppice readily, whereas Acacia goetzii, Acacia nigrescens, Acacia nilotica, Acacia polyacantha, Dalbergia melanoxylon and various Commiphora have all been reported to be poor resprouters following either cutting or elephant damage.

Responses to bark stripping also vary across taxa, e.g. Acacia xanthophloea , are relatively tolerant of bark stripping and branch removal by elephants . Brachystegia spp. seem to be highly susceptible to elephant damage, despite their high coppicing ability, resulting in stands of tall trees being converted to shrubby coppice regrowth. Through their feeding, elephants can ‘negatively’ impact plant species and cause extirpation (localized plant species extinction) or conversely, trigger plant growth and regeneration.

Mechanisms of impact on individual plants

Toppling effects The ecological effects of pollarding (total breaking of the stem) differ from toppling, where the roots may be removed from the soil, which usually kills the plant. However, if the roots remain in the soil, many species can resprout quite effectively. Factors that influence vulnerability to being toppled include strength of the wood, the depth and extensiveness of the root system and substrate stability. Shallow- rooted shrubs (e.g. Commiphora spp.) that are uprooted completely by elephants are greatly reduced in their prevalence by elephants, as has happened in sections of Namunyak conservancy.

Bark stripping The impact of stripping on a plant species is dependent on the degree to which the bark is stripped. Ring barking will kill the plant, but if some phloem remains intact, the bark may re-grow. This may vary between specie. Features of the tree influence its vulnerability to being stripped, for example, elephants can cause more damage to trees with stringy bark (e.g. Acacia spp.) than those with bark that breaks off in chunk. Furthermore, toxins in the bark or stem spinescence reduce preference for bark

Picture 1.

The effect of stripping as shown in the picture above facilitates borer infestation, rot and fire. Elephant bark stripping facilitates insects and fungal attacks. And this leads to death of trees.

Picture 2.

This is acacia tortilis which was back stripped and felled down by elephant in Namunyak and this the trend across the conservancy because most of the tree have died because if the same.

Effects on seedling Elephants cause mortality by ripping seedlings from the soil, or prevent recruitment into adult size classes through top kill, maintaining the plants in a size class where they are caught in the ‘fire trap’ . Because Acacia spp. are commonly selected by elephants , and show little or no resprouting once mature, their densities decline under high elephant browsing pressure, e.g. Acacia tortilis, A. xanthophloea , A. nigrescens , A. senegal or A. erioloba . However, Acacia spp. has the capacity to regenerate rapidly from seedlings, and elephants tend to ignore early stage and regenerating trees. Thus, elephant damage may not affect Acacia populations overall

Plant traits A species would be considered vulnerable to extirpation by elephants if it displayed the following characteristics:

• lacks the ability to sprout as adult and/or cannot regrow its bark so that Pollarding or ringbarking causes death • Restricted to selected foraging habitats • Highly selected by elephants • Frequently subjected to pollarding and ringbarking • regenerates infrequently and/or usually in small numbers • slow growing • Displays episodic recruitment.

Landscape and management unit characteristics Vulnerability to extirpation is exacerbated if: • Terrain lacks topographical refuges • There are no spatial refuges from elephant because distance from water is not a foraging constraint • Reserves are small • Reserve is located in a semi-arid region with variable grass production, hence heightened utilization of woody material • Reserve is a degraded semi-arid savanna in which suitable grass is no longer available and woody plants form the bulk of the diet.

Fauna The direct effects of elephants on other animals include direct mortalities and interference competition (as opposed to resource competition). Thus, elephants temporally exclude other species from resources such as waterholes or other resources by actively chasing them away. Alternatively, elephants may also facilitate access to resources through, for example, excavating waterholes and increasing the availability and quantity of forage. The understanding of these interactions is again limited due to confounding factors, and the fact that these are normally cascading effects.

Invertebrates There are few effects of elephants on invertebrates. I found significantly lower richness of ant species in woodlands that had been impacted by elephants than in intact woodlands

Dung beetles are sensitive to habitat change. Disturbance in the form of fire or elephants can have a significant effect on dung beetle species’ diversity and dung beetle assemblages differ between elephant impacted sand forest (a key endemic habitat type) and undisturbed sand forest sites (including the loss of some forest specialist species). Elephants may provide refugee for other species, particularly ground- living invertebrates, under dung and trunks of toppled trees.

Birds I found a drop in species richness of birds and changes in bird communities (from woodland species to non-woodland species) in response to changes caused by elephants in Namunyak. Reduced vertical and horizontal heterogeneity in the elephant-impacted woodlands probably accounts for their observed loss of species richness.

Assessing bird community species shifts in riverine forest and acacia woodland, found that dramatic woodland change associated with the high abundance of elephants did not result in a reduction in bird diversity. This was possibly due to the fact that woodland conversion was spatially restricted. However, gallinaceous birds were more abundant in areas heavily impacted by elephants than elsewhere . Bats The expected loss of large trees and snags due to elephants may decrease both roosting sites of bats and available habitat for species that specialise on feeding within dense vegetation.

Browsers I found that there is a general negative correlation between elephant biomass and the biomass of browsers and medium-sized mixed feeders across the conservancy. I investigated the following mechanisms for changes;

(1) The reduction in resources through direct competition, (2) The alteration of habitats for browsers and other ungulates, (3) Increase in visibility resulting in higher predation levels, and (4) Competition for water

While the patterns are significant, and sometimes obvious, the mechanisms are not yet clear: a possible explanation is that elephants reach highest abundances in areas of mopane and other vegetation types which they exploit more effectively than other browsers. The structural transformation from more wooded to more open habitat conditions benefits some browser species, but leads to a decline in others.

Grazers Given that grass forms a substantial part of the diet of elephants for much of the year, elephants compete with grazing ungulates if forage is limited. On the other hand, elephants are able to open up the woodland and increase the grass cover. However, in the broad-scale analysis, I could not detect any effect of elephants on grazers. However there is an increase in abundance of several grazing species, including Oryx gazella , warthog Phacochoerus africanus , and zebra, following the opening of shrubland by the increasing elephant population. I found that by decreasing cattle grazing in a grassland area, elephants reduced the effects of competition between livestock and zebra.

SUMMARY

That elephants at 1. High densities are having an impact on plant communities, with consequent changes in vegetation structure and species composition is undeniable. However, such changes vary in extent, rate and severity between ecosystems. There is currently no recommended density for elephants to manage such changes, and the desirability of such changes will depend on the management objectives.

2. Some plant species can cope with elephant browsing, stripping or toppling, although this varies substantially with circumstance. Therefore, aside from a number of instances where local extirpation has occurred, the most significant impact that elephants will have is the changing of vegetation structure.

3. There are very few data on rates of change in response to elephants. This will be a function of the density of elephants, the availability of alternative resources and the nature (e.g. life history) of the component of biodiversity of interest, as well as other ecosystem drivers that are involved.

4. It is difficult to untangle the effects of elephants and confounding factors such as fire, natural plant senescence and episodic recruitment events (e.g. Skarpe et al ., 2004). These levels of interactions will be exacerbated by climate change.

5. Many plant populations will recover once the pressure of high elephant densities has been released; however, these rates will vary between species and landscapes and the extent of change; animal populations will respond faster, unless they are dependent on the habitat provided by the plants.

CONCLUSION

I conclude that elephants are special in the nature of their feeding, and hence their impacts, by virtue of features such as body size, the trunk and tusks. Overall, my Assessment is that while the impacts of high elephant concentrations may bring about local changes in vegetation and associated animal species, and hence local biodiversity, this need not be the case at the wider ecosystem level.

Moreover, unless extreme, the consumption and breakage of woody plants and uprooting of grass tufts by elephants promotes compensatory regeneration and hence probably enhanced ecosystem productivity, as has been demonstrated for grazing systems. The concern is not the local severity of elephant impacts, which could be adverse for both productivity and diversity if extreme, but rather the persistence and extent of such pressure on plants, and the cascading or Knock-on effects of elephants on other elements of biodiversity.

Transformation brought about by elephants is restricted in extent by the spatial dispersion of natural perennial surface water, where such dispersion is greater than the average daily foraging distance of elephants. This is altered by the extent to which water is augmented by dams and boreholes. Elephant feeding on woody plants and grasses can facilitate feeding by other large herbivore species. Adverse consequences for these species arise through habitat transformations rather than direct competition.

Prior to the large scale changes in elephant abundance and distribution, it is recognized that elephants impacted landscapes, but unfortunately there are no benchmarks of elephant-landscape interactions in the absence of humans. This is further complicated by the recognition that elephant impacts varied in space and time. Defining the severity of impacts, and hence managing impacts, therefore will depend on management objectives for a particular system.

RECOMMENDATION

• There is a need to explore the effects of elephant disturbance on biodiversity and particularly their effects on spatial and temporal heterogeneity of habitats.

• There is a need to establish the limit of woodland change below which there is an adverse effect on biodiversity on sensitive species. But the dilemma is that management Intervention to stop further biodiversity erosion through elephant culling has been Shelved due to prohibitive operational costs, and cost recovery through the sale of elephant products are not feasible due to CITES ban. However, this could be an opportunity time, to undertake long term studies of elephant habitat-interactions in samburu

• As the elephant population is allowed to increase without management intervention, there will be increase dispersal of elephant into the surrounding communal areas. The human elephant conflict will therefore be acute and this may result in restricting elephant movement thus confining them in protected areas resulting in adverse impact on biodiversity.

• Biodiversity conservation inside and outside protected areas should be integrated through ways which will make wildlife conservation an economically viable land use option on local communities residing and living with wildlife in marginal areas. This could be done by taking a step much further than the current community based conservation approaches by focusing more on multispecies animal production systems which integrates wildlife and livestock production systems.

References Addy, J.E. 1993. Impact of elephant induced vegetation change on the Chobe bushbuck ( Tragelaphus scriptus ornatus ) along the Chobe River, northern Botswana. MSc thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.

Agnew, A.D.Q. 1968. Observations on the changing vegetation of Tsavo National Park (East). East African Wildlife Journal 6, 75–80.

Anderson, G.D. & B.H. Walker 1974. Vegetation composition and elephant damage in the Sengwa Wildlife Research Area, Zimbabwe. Journal of South African Wildlife Management Association 4, 1–14.

Andrew, M.H. 1988. Grazing impact in relation to livestock watering points. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 3, 336–339.

Babweteera, F., P. Savill & N. Brown 2007. Balanites wilsoniana : Regeneration with and without elephants. Biological Conservation 134, 40–47.

Balfour, D.A. 2005. Acacia demography, fire and elephants in a South African savanna. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Barnes, M.E. 2001. Effects of large herbivores and fire on the regeneration of Acacia erioloba woodlands in Chobe National Park, Botswana. African Journal of Ecology 39, 340–350.

Barnes, R.F.W. 1982. Elephant feeding behaviour in Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 20, 123–136.

Barnes, R.F.W. 1985. Woodland changes in Ruaha National Park (Tanzania) between 1976 and 1982. African Journal of Ecology 23, 215–222.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who supported me in one way or the other during the entire period of my attachment.

I am deeply grateful to the entire Namunyak wildlife conservation trust, Sarara camp and specifically Mr. Richard Lokorukoru, Senior warden NWCT. The University of Nairobi wildlife department for the support they gave me in organizing the attachment.

I would also thank the following people for the assistance they offered to me during my attachment

Mr. Fred Njagi –the management Director NWCT

Mr. Richard Lokorukoru-senior warden NWCT

Mr. Tom Letiwa – community coordinator NWCT

Mr. Loila Letinina –unit manager NWCT

Mr. Kalomon Leugusa – senior radio operator NWCT

Mr. Jamal and Alex- drivers NWCT

Mr. Henry Kahi- my project supervisor

Mary Macharia –my fellow attaché

I would also want to thank my fellow classmates for the warm company they gave me during the time that we were together.

APPENDIX 1: COMMUNITY QUESTIONNARE

Kindly fill the questionnaire below in order to enable me facilitate my research on the effects of increased number of elephants in the conservancy

Please tick the most appropriate answer and fill in the blank spaces

The questionnaire will be used for research purposes only.

1. (a) Sex male ( )

Female ( )

(b) Age 21-30 ( )

31-40 ( )

41-50 ( )

Over 50 ( )

2. (a) Do you know Namunyak wildlife conservation trust? Yes ( ) No ( )

(b) Do you understand the role the conservancy? Yes ( ) No ( )

If yes explain your answer in 2 (b).

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………….

(c) Do the activities of the above influence your pastoral life ? Yes ( ) No ( )

If yes explain your answer

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………….

(3) Does wildlife cause you any problem? Yes ( ) No ( )

If YES what type of problem? (a) Destroy my property (crops, fences, and livestock) ( ) (b) Cause injuries and death ( ) (d) Compete for resources (grass, land and water) ( ) (e) Others specify ………………………………………………………

Which wildlife animal(s) causes you most problems in your farm? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………..

(4 )do you have elephants in the conservancy? Yes ( ) No ( )

If yes, has the population of elephants in the conservancy increased over the years? Yes ( ) No ( )

If yes, does the increased number of elephants in the conservancy affect you? Yes ( ) No ( )

If yes explain the effects of elephants to the environment and to the people

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………

(5) (a)Do you think elephants have impact on vegetation? Yes ( ) No ( )

Explain your answer?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

(b) Do elephant-human conflict exist in your area? Yes ( ) No ( )

(c) Has the increased number of elephants increased the conflicts? Yes ( ) No ( )

If yes what do you think should be done to reduce the conflicts?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………….

Thanks for your co-operation

Orina n lennah

Researcher