Effect of Wildlife on Forage Selection by Cattle (Bos Indicus Lichtenstein) in a Semi-Arid Environment, Kenya
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Effect of wildlife on forage selection by cattle (Bos indicus Lichtenstein) in a semi-arid environment, Kenya By Moses Otiali Esilaba A thesis in resource ecology and conservation submitted to the Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. March 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My sincere thanks go to my supervisors Prof. Kevin Balkwill and Dr Jason Marshal for sharing with me all their expertise, support and guidance during my statistical analyses and data interpretation. Thanks very much for your friendship and invaluable patience, help, guidance, constant encouragement and financial support during my graduate programme. Thanks to my graduate committee: Prof. David Mycock, Prof. Kevin Balkwill, Prof. Edward Witkowski and Dr Jason Marshal for their advice and contribution to improve this dissertation. My gratitude goes to the Mpala Research Centre Management and field staff for their generous contributions and assistance, particularly the Research Assistants; John Mpaiyan, John Lokuchuya, Fredrick Erii and Jackson Ekadeli for their assistance during data collection. May I thank the staff members of the C.E. Moss Herbarium: Glynis, Caroline, Renee, Donald, Di and Mando for their suport and encouragement. I express my sincere gratitude to my wife Terry for her endless love, financial support, encouragement and prayer, not forgetting our children; Edwin, Felly and Richard for the encouraging words; I say thank you. I dedicate this degree to my late mother, Felesia Atolwa Khanali, who devoted all her resources to my education and her dedication in prayer. ii DECLARATION I, Moses Otiali Esilaba, declare that this dissertation is my own work. The unpublished articles are the results of my own, original work and writing. Guidance and assistance were received from my supervisors to the extent usually and reasonably expected. The dissertation is submitted for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg and has not been submitted for any other degree or examination at another university. 4/04/2014 iii Abstract Rangeland resources play a significant role in household production and sustainability of livelihoods among pastoral communities in Kenya. Although wildlife is one of the rangeland resources, it is viewed by pastoralists as a competitor with livestock for grazing resources rather than an economic resource. It is assumed that competition between wild herbivores and cattle may have an impact on the forage biomass in rangelands as well as on livestock production. It is from this view point of competition between wildlife and livestock for forage resources, that this study assessed effects of forage utilization by wildlife on cattle diet, plant community composition, forage biomass and level of forage utilization in semi-arid lands in Kenya. The following hypotheses were tested: there is a decline in proportion of dominant grasses due to wildlife grazing; there is a decline in forage biomass due to grazing by wildlife and there are changes in the diet of cattle (Bos indicus Lichtenstein) due to grazing by wild herbivores. Grazing experiments were conducted at the Kenya Long-term Exclosure Experiment (KLEE) on Mpala Ranch, Laikipia District, Kenya. A number of techniques were used during data collection: line transects and 1m2 quadrats to assess plant species composition, richness and diversity. Forage biomass and increment in forage weight in grazed and ungrazed exclosures were determined by use of a disc pasture meter, whereas plant species consumed by cattle and wild herbivores were assessed by observation during feeding. The dietary forage composition of herbivores was done by micro-histological analysis of faecal samples of cattle, zebra, oryx, hartebeest and Grant‟s gazelle. The results indicate that there was a high (>21 %) proportion of the tall coarse grasses (Pennisetum stramineum and P. mezianum) in the exclosures grazed by cattle with wildlife in wet and iv dry seasons, whereas 21 % in the exclosures grazed by wild herbivores. The proportions of Themeda triandra in the exclosures grazed by cattle with wildlife in the dry season was 18 %, whereas it was more than 25 % in the exclosures grazed by cattle with wildlife in the wet season. The results also indicate that there were very highly significant (p<0.0032 and p<0.0015) differences in percentage composition of dominant and less dominant grasses between the grazed and ungrazed exclosures during the dry seasons, whereas a significant (p<0.05) difference and a highly significant (p<0.01) difference in percentage composition between the grazed and ungrazed exclosures during the wet seasons. 5 – 6 % of the total herbaceous forage biomass (0.7 % dry matter intake) was consumed in the exclosures grazed by wildlife, whereas 13 – 17 % (2.8 % dry matter intake) was consumed in the exclosures grazed by cattle. There was a large decrease of forage biomass in the pasture grazed by cattle. However, there was no significant (p<0.133) difference in forage biomass in exclosures grazed by large wildlife or grazed by elephants (mega-wildlife). There was less than 12 % utilization of dominant grass species in the exclosures grazed by wildlife, whereas over 40 % utilization of dominant grass species in the exclosures grazed by cattle. The results indicate that there is no evidence that grazing by wild herbivores decreases forage biomass in the pasture. Wildlife, therefore, should not be hunted out on communal grazing lands because it has no significant impact on the available forage biomass for livestocks. Nonetheless, stocking rates of livestock should be consistent with forage production so that wildlife conservation is integrated in pastoral production systems. v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Estimates of proportions of dominant grasses in the pasture due to 33 grazing by large, mega-wildlife and cattle during the wet and dry seasons Table 2 Percent frequencies of less dominant grass species in the exclosure 41 in the wet and dry season Table 3 Percent frequencies of forbs in the exclosures in the wet and dry 41 seasons Frequ Table Relat4 Relative frequencies of plant species consumed by cattle and wild 68 herbivores Table 5 Pearson‟s bivariate correlation coefficient matrix 69 Table 6 Estimates of proportions of dominant grasses utilized by cattle and 71 wildlife in the wet and dry seasons Table 7 Total forage biomass in the exclosures in the wet and dry seasons 100 Table 8 Estimation of dominant grass species in the diet of cattle and wild 138 herbivores in the wet and dry seasons Table 9 Estimation of forb species in the diet of cattle and wild herbivores in 141 the diet in the wet and dry seasons Table 10 Dry matter intake of grass species based on proportions in the diet of 144 herbivores herbivores in the wet season Table 11 Dry matter intake of grass species based on proportions in the diet of 144 herbivores in the dry season Table 12 Dry matter intake of forb species based on the proportion in the diet 145 of herbivores in the wet season Table 13 Dry matter intake of forb species based on the proportions in the diet 145 of herbivores in the dry season Table 14 Pearson‟s correlation coefficient matrix of grass species in the diet 146 of cattle and wild herbivores in the wet season Table 15 Pearson‟s correlation coefficient matrix of grass species in the diet 146 of cattle and wild herbivores in the dry season vi Table 16 Pearson‟s correlation coefficient matrix of forb species in the diet of 146 herbivores in the wet season Table 17 Pearson‟s correlation coefficient matrix of forb species in the diet of 146 herbivores in the dry season Table 18 Seasonal variation in percent crude protein and mineral content in 147 faecal samples of cattle and wild herbivores in the wet and dry seasons Table 19 Seasonal variation in percent crude protein and mineral content in 148 forage samples vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Location of Laikipia District and Mpala Research Centre (MRC) 7 Figure 2 Schematic map of exclosures at Mpala Research Centre 9 Figure 3 Factors that influence botanical composition in exclosures 20 Figure 4 Variation in monthly mean rainfall in the exclosures 31 Figure 5 Ordination plot of the alpha-diversity due to grazing intensity and 38 rainfall Figure 6 Ordination plot of the beta-diversity due to grazing intensity and 40 rainfall Figure 7 Factors that influence forage utilizatio by herbivores 59 Figure 8 Seasonal variation in the grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees in the diet 66 of herbivores Figure 9 Seasonal variation in the percent utilization and residual biomass of 77 dominant grasses in the wet and dry seasons Figure 10 Factors that influence forage production 94 Figure 11 Variation in forage biomass in ungrazed and grazed exclosures in 101 the wet and dry seasons Figure 12 Variation in forage biomass consumed in ungrazed and grazed 101 exclosures in the wet and dry seasons Figure 13 Seasonal variation in increment in forage biomass in unclipped 102 caged plots in the exclosures in the wet and dry seasons Figure 14 Seasonal variation in increment in forage biomass in clipped and 103 caged plots in the exclosures in the wet and dry seasons Figure 15 Seasonal variation in increment in forage biomass in open grazed 103 areas in the exclosures in the wet and dry seasons viii Figure 16 Difference in increment in forage biomass between unclipped, 104 clipped caged plots and open grazed areas in the exclosures in the 2007 wet