Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32316176›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

Lions

Florian J Weise, Mathata Tomeletso, Andrew B Stein, Michael J Somers, Matt W Hayward

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Florian J WeiseEugène Marais Chair of Wildlife Management, Mammal Research Institute, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa.
Mathata TomeletsoCLAWS Conservancy, 32 Pine Tree Drive, Worcester, MA 01609, USA.
Andrew B SteinCLAWS Conservancy, 32 Pine Tree Drive, Worcester, MA 01609, USA.
Michael J SomersEugène Marais Chair of Wildlife Management, Mammal Research Institute, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-5836-8823
Matt W HaywardEugène Marais Chair of Wildlife Management, Mammal Research Institute, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-5574-1653
University of Pretoria · ZALandmark College · US

Funding

CLAWS Conservancy X124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lion predation on cattle causes severe human-wildlife conflict that results in retaliatory persecution throughout the lion's geographic range. Cattle closely resemble the body size, shape, and herding patterns of preferred lion prey species. We studied cattle depredation patterns in Botswana's Okavango Delta and tested whether lions exhibited specific preferences based on cattle demographic characteristics (sex and age), as well as morphological traits (body mass, horn length, and pelage patterns). We also tested whether human disturbance of kills influenced lion energy intake and whether depredation circumstances influenced loss levels. Lions predominantly killed cattle at night (87.1%) and exhibited no preference for either sex. Overall, bulls and calves were most preferred, whereas heifers were significantly avoided, as were cattle with uniform colour patterns. Cattle with mottled pelage patterns were most preferred, especially among free-roaming herds. Preferences were context-specific, with lions preferring inexperienced calves during enclosure attacks (including multiple cases of surplus killing) and free-roaming bulls and oxen. About 13% of adult cattle had no horns, and these were preferentially targeted by lions, while cattle with short horns were killed in accordance with their availability and long horned cattle were highly avoided. The contemporary morphology of Tswana cattle that resulted from unnatural selective pressures during domestication does not offer effective antipredatory protection. Human disturbance of feeding soon after kills occurred reduced cattle carcass consumption by >40% (or about 30 kg per carcass per lion). Lions killed significantly more cattle in nonfortified enclosures than in the veldt, although this was influenced by surplus killing. Our results suggest that cattle predation by lions is driven by availability and cavalier husbandry practices, coupled with morphological features associated with facilitating easy husbandry. Cattle no longer exhibit the key features that enabled their ancestors to coexist with large predators and are now reliant upon humans to perform critical antipredator activities. Hence, the responsibility for mitigating human-wildlife conflict involving lions and cattle lies with people in either breeding traits that minimise predation or adequately protecting their cattle.

Indexed as

antipredator strategiesconflictdomesticationevolutionfeeding ecologylivestockpredator–prey interactionsprey preferencesunnatural selection

Identifiers

PMID32316176
PMCPMC7222782
OpenAlexW3016715281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.