Impacts of game and livestock loss by leopards
In South Africa and in other countries there is a lack of published data on reported predation rates of leopards on game. Leopards accounted for 89 % of attacks compared to other large carnivores in the Blouberg, which is higher than predation rates of 40 % by leopards in the Waterberg Plateau of South Africa (Thorn et al.
2013) and 32 % on game ranches in Botswana (Boast
2014). Leopards mainly preyed on nyala calves, warthog and impala which fall within the preferable prey size for leopards of 10–40 kg (Hayward et al.
2006). These species had the highest relative abundance index on commercial farms in the Blouberg compared to other prey species predated on by leopards (Constant
2014).
Livestock depredation by large carnivores constituted the greatest form of reported losses in the Blouberg region. Levels of loss were similar to those reported in the North-West Province of South Africa, (Thorn et al.
2012) and 2.2 % in Botswana (Schiess-Meier et al.
2007), but this finding contrasts with other studies on large carnivores where natural causes of mortality predominate (Dar et al.
2009; Hemson et al.
2009). Leopards accounted for 60 % of livestock attacks in the Blouberg, much higher than other regions in South Africa such as the Waterberg (Thorn et al.
2012) although in line with similar rates reported in Botswana (Schiess-Meier et al.
2007). Leopards in the Blouberg predate on young calves and donkey foals similarly, 64 % of reported depredation by leopards in the neighbouring Soutpansberg Mountains occurred on young calves (Chase-Grey
2011).
There is a lack of comparable data on the economic costs of depredation for specific game species by leopards in South Africa and in other countries. Average annual losses for game per household by leopards on commercial farms were ZAR 2150 which was considerably lower than average estimates in the Waterberg region of ZAR 8994 per annum (Swanepoel
2008). Scaling our results from a site area of 40, 000 ha to the 150, 000 ha in the Waterberg produces an estimated cost of ZAR 8062 per annum, which is broadly in line with the Waterberg estimate (Swanepoel
2008). The estimated annual loss for nyala per household was remarkably high compared to other game species, but represented a relatively small proportion of the estimated annual income (ZAR 460,357) for a commercial farmer (3.9 %).
The total economic livestock loss was higher on commercial farms compared to communal land, probably owing to the more expensive farming breeds such as Bonsmara owned by commercial farmers. Cattle depredation by leopards resulted in an average loss per household per annum of ZAR 12,183 on commercial farms and ZAR 10,500 on communal land, whilst cattle losses by leopards in the Waterberg was considerably lower at ZAR 2465 per annum (Swanepoel
2008). However, Swanepoel (
2008) reported that actual levels of livestock predation in leopard scats were comparatively low in the Waterberg and the proportion of game ranches in the study area (75 %) was higher than the presence of livestock farms. Therefore, our higher economic losses may relate to the high number of livestock farms surveyed in the Blouberg.
Hill (
2004) suggests that quantification of the extent and impacts of livestock loss at the community level provides insights into the severity of the conflict problem for the general population, but, the impacts may not be uniform for individuals or households. When considering average and extreme economic values at the household level, the average economic costs for communal households represented a significant proportion of average annual incomes for communal farmers of 58 and 16 % for depredation on cattle and donkeys, respectively. In many cases, most households own <ZAR 18,000 making the percentage costs much higher compared to those experienced by commercial farmers. In extremes cases, donkey losses represented between 25 and 60 % of the total donkey stock for communal farmers.
People dependent on a single livelihood strategy are more vulnerable to the impacts of depredation, because the social and economic impacts of wildlife damage are intensified (Dickman
2010). Wealth, income diversification and social reciprocity within families and communities may provide adequate coping mechanisms for buffering the impacts of damage-causing animals (Naughton-Treves et al.
2005). Predation by leopards represents greater economic costs for communal farmers who rely on cattle and donkeys for subsistence and functional uses, whilst those who earn an additional income from pension grants, entrepreneurial activities and other employment provide additional reserves to cope. Traditional forms of livestock acquirement and sharing have eroded due to the changing economic status of livestock in communal areas, reducing the ability of poorer households to cope with the impacts of livestock depredation (Constant
2014). In contrast, economic impacts for commercial farmers are less severe because farmers own larger livestock herds and the majority of households diversify their income by engaging in crop and game farming industries to buffer the impacts of depredation on cattle.
The hidden impacts of depredation relate to “costs uncompensated, temporally delayed, psychological or social in nature” (Barua et al.
2013, p. 311). This study contributes further to the literature by acknowledging a range of other hidden impacts caused by livestock depredation such as a loss of social capital for communal farmers because livestock are sometimes used to finance funerals, bride wealth and provide households with additional revenue. Livestock loss can also induce hidden costs because people attach emotional and cultural significance to livestock (Dickman
2010). Livestock loss for both farming communities causes a sense of diminished wellbeing amongst both farming groups. For communal farmers hidden costs translate into a loss of a spiritual resource and perceived cultural decay.
Spatial patterns of leopard predation
The spatial risk of predation on game was primarily influenced by ecological factors linked to leopard ecology with close proximity to water most influencing the risk of predation. In contrast the spatial risk of livestock predation was most influenced by human factors with increasing distance from villages and social factors linked to the adoption of livestock guarding strategies. Proximity to streams was an important predictor for game and livestock depredation in the Blouberg and other studies have shown that distance to water is an important criterion for leopard habitat selection (Simcharoen et al.
2008). Such landscape features may provide adequate hunting grounds or attract a high abundance of prey species for leopards (Karanth and Sunquist
2000; Stephens and Krebs
1986) and higher rates of predation on livestock have been reported by jaguars in the Amazon closer to riparian waterways (Michalski et al.
2006). The perennial Brak River and river channels flowing through the Blouberg Mountain may thus be attractive for leopards and their prey because they offer drinking water, are interspersed by forest providing cover for leopards to stalk their prey. Camera traps showed that leopards use these areas as corridors for movement (Constant
2014).
Proximity to nature reserves was moderately important for predicting game and livestock depredation with the greatest risk close to the borders of reserves where high leopard densities (5.4 leopards per 100 km
2) have been recorded inside protected areas compared to non-protected areas (0.7 leopards per 100 km
2) (Constant
2014). Similar results have been suggested for other studies in South Africa where distance to protected areas influences predation rates by large carnivores (Thorn et al.
2012). Risk of predation was greatest at low altitudes (Game: 775–790 m Livestock: 670–780 m) and at high altitudes (Game: 900–920 m Livestock: 1540–1760 m) reflecting differences in surface ruggedness between land use types and livestock husbandry practices. The lowest altitudes were associated with a higher leopard predation risk on commercial farms where managed game and livestock populations were grazed on lower-lying regions and the higher altitudes on the Blouberg Mountain where livestock and game grazed on communal land. Surface ruggedness is an important predictor of the suitability of leopard habitats in South Africa (Swanepoel et al.
2012). Mountainous areas are often preferred habitat for leopards because they offer refugia from human persecution, other predators and to avoid kleptoparasitism (Gavashelishvili and Lukarevskiy
2008; Norton et al.
1986). High elevations was also an influential factor driving leopard predation in the Waterberg, Limpopo Province (Thorn et al.
2013).
The spatial locations of leopard attacks on livestock were most influenced by distance to villages, with a higher predation risk further away from villages. In Laikipia District, Kenya, the risk of predation on cattle by leopards declined when more people were present (Ogada et al.
2003). The risk of predation on livestock increased with increasing distance from roadways, a pattern which has also been observed for puma attacks on domestic livestock in central Mexico (Zarco-González et al.
2012). The spatial risk of livestock depredation by leopards on communal land is largely associated with a lack of local investment in livestock guarding strategies and temporal changes in livestock management strategies.
Inadequate livestock guarding practices have also been cited by numerous researchers as a significant contributor to livestock attacks by predators (Sangay and Vernes
2008; Wang and Macdonald
2009). However, few studies have identified the underlying social factors influencing their adoption. Traditional management livestock strategies have eroded in the Blouberg due to the perceived economic costs of their implementation and the migrant labour system shifting the responsibility of shepherding tasks onto the elderly. Access to labour and income generation constrained the ability of communal farmers to employ full-time shepherds and to afford materials to improve livestock husbandry practices. Commercial farmers were unlikely to support mitigation strategies which compromised the productivity of farms, negatively impacted livelihoods and were time-consuming to implement. Communal farmers were disinclined to support initiatives that were unfamiliar, compared to those that built on traditional knowledge systems. Both farming communities identified a lack of knowledge as constraining their ability to implement certain strategies.
The Blouberg Municipality is one of the most marginalised municipalities in the Capricorn District which is further accentuated by high levels of poverty, a lack of infrastructural development and education and social stratification of families caused by the migrant labour system (Blouberg Local Municipality
2013–2016). Large numbers of men and children seek work and educational opportunities in the cities (Blouberg Local Municipality
2013–2016). The impacts of the migrant labour systems have altered the roles and responsibilities for livestock management and introduced opportunity costs for elderly communal farmers due to the health risks associated with shepherding and protecting livestock during the dry season.
Temporal patterns of leopard predation
Our study reveals that there is a clear seasonal variation in depredation peaks on game and livestock which are related to the annual peak calving season for game and livestock species, with both peaks co-occurring at the end of the dry season. Similar findings have been observed by jaguars in the Amazon (Michalski et al.
2006; Palmeira et al.
2008). The number of game attacks occurring during the dry season was significantly higher than during the wet season. This may be due to seasonal changes in water supply associated with game farms. Risk of game predation in the Blouberg was highest close to water sources however, the perennial Brak River which provides the main water supply for game is dry in summer and game must seek alternative drinking areas. Although, a temporal relationship between risk of predation and bio-physical factors was not explored it is possible that attacks on game may have increased during the dry season because artificial bodies of water on game farms may have attracted game and facilitated higher rates of predation by leopards. Similar findings have been observed for lions in Kenya where attacks increased close to water sources during the dry season (Kays and Patterson
2002).
The number of livestock attacks occurring during the dry season was significantly higher on communal land compared to commercial farms which may relate to a lack of water in lower-lying regions and land degradation in communal areas influencing seasonal grazing patterns and the availability of wild prey. Land degradation in communal areas in South Africa has historical roots. In the 1970s promotion of the Bantustan system in during apartheid rule resulted in the resettlement of Northern Sotho speakers into the Lebowa Bantustan (Ramphele
1991). From the 1930s to 1980s the government initiated the betterment programmes in the Bantustans to maximise agricultural production by demarcating land into arable, residential and common grazing areas (Ramphele
1991). Throughout South Africa, poverty, overpopulation and the small size of family holdings led to destructive land use practices, including deforestation and the removal of dung from the veld in the Bantustans (Ramphele
1991). The poor conditions in the Bantustans caused the men to migrate to the cities in search of wage labour and to seek alternative incomes on surrounding farms (Beinart
2008). During this time, the Bahananwa were perceived by the local government as rebellious on account of their refusal to cooperate with the new apartheid laws and were punished by the starving the Bahananwa of basic infrastructure and developmental needs making it one of the least developed regions in the present-day Limpopo Province (Blouberg Local Municipality
2007–2008). The former fences and water systems created by the Betterment Programme have been destroyed by villagers (Grwambi et al.
2006). The over-grazing of livestock on the mountain plateau and communal areas contribute to the erosion of peatland and wetland areas, which dries up important waterways supplying lower-lying regions (Egan
2007). During the dry season, the condition of grazing land close to villages is poor, because of a lack of rain, over-grazing and high stocking rates of livestock (Grwambi et al.
2006). These additive effects have contributed to the degradation of the grazing land and lack of water supplies in the communal areas during the dry season.
Leopard occupancy on communal land is also significantly lower compared to commercial farms due to a lower wild prey biomass potentially caused by overhunting of wild game for bushmeat and traditional medicine, and habitat conversion caused by overgrazing and the felling of trees for firewood (Constant
2014). High stocking densities of livestock on open rangelands in the Trans-Himalayas, India, compete with wild prey for common resources leading to a decline in the abundance of wild prey and large carnivores to predate on livestock (Bagchi and Mishra
2006; Mishra et al.
2003). Similar relationships may also be observed on communal land in the Blouberg where a lack of natural prey causes a shift in the dietary requirements of leopards on livestock.
The shift in land use from pastoralism to game farming has been identified as a growing trend in South Africa since the 1980s (Grossman et al.
1999). Commercial farms occupy large areas of land and may function as ‘attractants’ for leopards in the Blouberg as Constant (
2014) showed that leopard occupancy is significantly higher on commercial farms compared to communal land due to the higher availability of wild prey species. Similar results have been documented for clouded leopards in Thailand, where site occupancy is dependent on the presence of preferred prey species (Ngoprasert et al.
2007; Steinmetz et al.
2013). However, long-term data on the population dynamics and feeding ecology of leopards and their prey would need to be collected to confirm this hypothesis.
Management of human–leopard conflict: Implications for farming livelihoods and leopard conservation
Game farms provide 80 % of nature conservation activities in South Africa on privately owned land (Eloff
2001; Fox and Du Plessis
2000). Game farms are thus important conservation areas for leopards outside protected areas because they support a high abundance of naturally occurring game species (Chase-Grey et al.
2013). However, Constant (
2014) also found that commercial farms in the Blouberg function as “ecological traps” because they can represent areas with disproportionate mortality due to the application of lethal control measures in response to game attacks, for land that otherwise provides suitable resources for leopards. The management of game attacks by leopard are difficult to control because game species are largely free-ranging on farms in such cases, game farmers should avoid purchasing expensive game such as nyala. However, on several farms predation on rare game breeds was managed by securing game inside electrified fences which may serve to limit depredation by leopards on expensive species.
Some commercial farmers have employed strategies to improve habitats and game numbers for leopards on their farms as a strategy to divert leopard hunting pressure away from livestock. Similarly, a lack of wild prey on communal land may also enhance livestock depredation. However, when wild prey are abundant, depredation on livestock species may be high, because carnivores spend more time in prey rich environments where encounter rates with livestock are high (Moa et al.
2006). In areas, where livestock are perceived as alternative prey, they may also be killed when wild prey are less abundant (Woodroffe et al.
2007). Further research on the population ecology of leopards and their prey, and the composition of leopard diets before and after the introduction of this strategy are necessary for evaluating its success. In turn, prohibition of illegal lethal control measures and raising farmer’s tolerance for attacks on game will be important.
Traditional livestock management strategies need to be revitalised to protect livestock from leopards. The high labour costs of shepherding can be overcome by developing a communal fund to employ shepherds, and collaborating with other farmers to construct communal kraals on the mountain. The employment of shepherds and livestock-guardian dogs is necessary to protect livestock from predators when grazed far away from areas of human settlement; to guide livestock away from the borders of nature reserves and to protect them at water points. The construction of communal kraals to pen in livestock at night and sleeping huts for night-time guards on the mountain during the dry season may also prevent livestock attacks. Synchronising breeding seasons during the wet season, constructing artificial water points close to villages on communal land, and employing rotational grazing systems to improve the quality of grass in communal areas mitigates against the need to graze livestock far away from local households during the dry season.
Mitigation strategies, which raise people’s tolerance for wildlife require explicit incentives for improving tolerance and sanctions imposed for retaliatory behaviours such as incentive and education schemes (Mishra
1997). Biodiversity stewardship programmes in South Africa ensure that private and communally owned areas with high biodiversity value receive secure conservation status, expand biodiversity conservation areas and ensure landowners receive tangible benefits for their conservation actions and become empowered decision makers (Paterson
2009). Income tax incentives are granted to landowners who forego development opportunities on their land in the interests of biodiversity conservation. The Limpopo Department of Agriculture, through their Expanded Public Works Programme creates work opportunities for the unemployed to participate on projects to improve local environments (Republic of South Africa
2013). Such approaches may encourage landowners to improve game and livestock management practices for example, improving habitats for leopards and grazing land for farmers. The success of these approaches depends on the collaborative efforts of outside agencies to provide expertise and advice, and to assist in decentralising responsibility and action at the local level.
Interdisciplinary research approach: applications for human–wildlife conflict
The results of this study advocate the need for researchers to recognise the importance of local knowledge and expectations for informing the research and planning of locally relevant mitigation strategies, alongside scientific judgements. Researchers should incorporate the priorities of their interviewees to inform the design of human–wildlife conflict studies at the pilot stage. Such approaches will ensure that relevant issues are addressed to the people most affected by wildlife. The interdisciplinary research methodology adopted in this study could be applied to other studies intended to evaluate the impacts, characteristics and management of human–wildlife conflict by drawing on multiple-methods to gather social and ecological data in situ and extending analyses to include qualitative and quantitative approaches. Other researchers would benefit from the flexibility of the research approach by saving time and resources, as a tool to bring together different knowledge systems, incorporate local priorities and identify new topics for enquiry. This allows for the collection of nuanced contextual and rich data and continual verification of the data according to what is ‘seen’ and ‘heard’ and allows data to be set within important historical, cultural and social contexts. Such approaches have implications for researching contentious subjects such as illegal behaviour and the application of lethal control measures.