ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024
Rethinking livestock encroachment at a protected area boundary.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Centering geospatial data uncertainty and the potential for injustice in pastoralist rangeland conservation prioritization.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Balancing Savanna Ungulate Diversity and Biomass: Optimal Human Use, Landscape Features, and Vegetation Types Under Varying Rainfall and Land Use.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- What Drives Compliance with Rules in Community-Based Conservation? Lessons from Maasai Mara, Kenya.Environmental management · 2025Article
- Comparative Ungulate Diversity and Biomass Change With Human Use and Drought: Implications for Community Stability and Protected Area Prioritization in African Savannas.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Reply to Ogutu et al.: Cattle-wild herbivore interaction studies warrant new lenses from community ecology and environmental justice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Short-term study fails to capture negative impacts of livestock intensification on wildlife.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the social-economic impacts of hyena attacks on humans and livestock in the Nyang'whale district of Tanzania.BMC ecology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The presence of livestock inside protected areas, or "livestock encroachment," is a global conservation concern because livestock is broadly thought to negatively affect wildlife. The Maasai Mara National Reserve (MMNR), Kenya, exemplifies this tension as livestock is believed to have resulted in the declining wildlife populations, contributing to the strict and sometimes violent exclusion measures targeting Maasai pastoralists. However, research embedded in the real-world setting that draws insights from the social-ecological contexts is lacking. In this study, we conducted 19 mo of ecological monitoring covering 60 sites in MMNR and found that cattle presence inside the reserve did not significantly impact most co-occurring wild herbivores at the current intensity. Using the Hierarchical Modeling of Species Communities and Gaussian copula graphic models, we showed that cattle had no direct associations-neither negative nor positive-with nearly all wild herbivores despite frequently sharing the same space. Moreover, we did not detect resource degradation correlated with cattle presence near the MMNR boundary. Given the colonial legacy and land use history of Mara, entering MMNR becomes the only viable option for many herders. These results corroborate the emerging perspective that the ecological impacts of extensively herded livestock on wildlife might be more nuanced than previously thought. To effectively balance the needs of people, livestock, and wildlife, the current rigid livestock exclusion measures need to be reassessed to holistically consider herbivore ecology, local land use history, and modern politics of protected area management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.