The effect of land-use on small mammal diversity inside and outside the Great Fish River Nature Reserve, Eastern Cape, South Africa
- Thondhlana, Gladman, Lagesse, Juliette V
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Lagesse, Juliette V
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/67823 , vital:29150 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2016.03.006
- Description: Publisher version , This study investigated small mammal species diversity at 10 paired contrast sites along a fence line inside and outside the Great Fish River Nature Reserve (GFRNR), Eastern Cape, South Africa. The sites outside the GFRNR are used for subsistence land-based activities including livestock production and fuelwood harvesting. From 145 live captures, a total of 114 unique individuals of five small mammal species (four rodents and one elephant shrew) were recorded over 1170 trap nights. Average small mammal species diversity and abundance were significantly higher inside the reserve than outside. Human activities such as livestock grazing seemed to explain low levels of small mammal diversity and abundance at the communal sites. Vegetation variables showed a complex interplay with small mammal diversity. In general, high vegetation diversity had a positive influence on small mammal diversity though the influence of some environmental variables was species-dependent. We conclude that the GFRNR is effective in protecting small mammals but the findings raise questions around the influence of land use practices such as livestock grazing on biodiversity, especially given that local communities in South Africa are continuously seeking greater access to reserves for livestock grazing and other provisioning services.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Lagesse, Juliette V
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/67823 , vital:29150 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2016.03.006
- Description: Publisher version , This study investigated small mammal species diversity at 10 paired contrast sites along a fence line inside and outside the Great Fish River Nature Reserve (GFRNR), Eastern Cape, South Africa. The sites outside the GFRNR are used for subsistence land-based activities including livestock production and fuelwood harvesting. From 145 live captures, a total of 114 unique individuals of five small mammal species (four rodents and one elephant shrew) were recorded over 1170 trap nights. Average small mammal species diversity and abundance were significantly higher inside the reserve than outside. Human activities such as livestock grazing seemed to explain low levels of small mammal diversity and abundance at the communal sites. Vegetation variables showed a complex interplay with small mammal diversity. In general, high vegetation diversity had a positive influence on small mammal diversity though the influence of some environmental variables was species-dependent. We conclude that the GFRNR is effective in protecting small mammals but the findings raise questions around the influence of land use practices such as livestock grazing on biodiversity, especially given that local communities in South Africa are continuously seeking greater access to reserves for livestock grazing and other provisioning services.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
Dependence on environmental resources and implications for household welfare: evidence from the Kalahari drylands, South Africa
- Thondhlana, Gladman, Muchapondwa, Edwin
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Muchapondwa, Edwin
- Date: 2014
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/67810 , vital:29149 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.003
- Description: Publisher version , This paper examines dependence on environmental resources and impacts on household welfare among the indigenous San and Mier rural communities neighbouring Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in South Africa. Data on the various household income types, including environmental income, were collected through a structured survey of 200 households. Environmental income constituted 20% of the total income. The poorest income quintile showed the highest relative dependence on environmental income (31%), though absolute environmental income increased with total income. Poverty analyses showed that poverty incidence and poverty gap would increase by 13 and 7 percentage points respectively without environmental income. Gini-coefficient analyses revealed that income inequality would increase by 6 percentage points for all households if environmental income was excluded. The results generally suggest that environmental income is important for both the poor and the well-off, and wealth accumulation might be tied to resource use. There is a case for promoting sound environmental management, and sustainable and fair resource use in the Kalahari drylands in order to help pull more households out of poverty. Our findings also point to issues of heterogeneity in resource access even among indigenous communities previously thought to be homogenous. These should be key considerations for conservation interventions.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2014
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Muchapondwa, Edwin
- Date: 2014
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/67810 , vital:29149 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.003
- Description: Publisher version , This paper examines dependence on environmental resources and impacts on household welfare among the indigenous San and Mier rural communities neighbouring Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in South Africa. Data on the various household income types, including environmental income, were collected through a structured survey of 200 households. Environmental income constituted 20% of the total income. The poorest income quintile showed the highest relative dependence on environmental income (31%), though absolute environmental income increased with total income. Poverty analyses showed that poverty incidence and poverty gap would increase by 13 and 7 percentage points respectively without environmental income. Gini-coefficient analyses revealed that income inequality would increase by 6 percentage points for all households if environmental income was excluded. The results generally suggest that environmental income is important for both the poor and the well-off, and wealth accumulation might be tied to resource use. There is a case for promoting sound environmental management, and sustainable and fair resource use in the Kalahari drylands in order to help pull more households out of poverty. Our findings also point to issues of heterogeneity in resource access even among indigenous communities previously thought to be homogenous. These should be key considerations for conservation interventions.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2014
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »