ArticleTropical animal health and production2025
Do foraging hotspots defined by key browse species facilitate interaction between livestock and wildlife?
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Livestock based rural livelihoods in close proximity to conservation areas are often associated with human-wildlife conflict. A deeper comprehension of factors contributing to this can help develop strategies to resolve the impact of human-wildlife conflict on livestock production. We tested whether dry season livestock foraging hotspots were linked to key browse species (KBS), and whether they facilitated livestock-wildlife interactions. We detected livestock browsing hotspots, determined their patch characteristics, and established factors influencing their occurrence. We used kernel density estimation (KDE) and nearest neighbor hierarchical clustering (Nnh). The KDE is a non-parametric method that uses a density estimation technique, while the Nnh is a method used to group similar data points based on their distances. Both methods detected three hotspots comprising Colophospermum mopane and Dichrostachys cinerea mixed woodland, and D. cinerea vegetation. Spatial overlap between detected hotspots was relatively high (Szymkiewicz-Simpson coefficient (Overlap Coefficient) = 0.7; Minta Index = 0.6). Fine-scale habitat patch quantifications indicated that connectivity between D. cinerea patches was higher than D. cinerea and C. mopane patches (Connectivity Index = 60.0%; Patch Cohesion Index = 98.0%). Distance from water was the most significant factor (P < 0.05; AUC = 0.9; AICc = 59.1), explaining probability of occurrence of hotspots. Multiple-distance scale spatial cluster analysis showed significant spatial associations between elephants and livestock. Results suggest that KBS are concentrated around browsing hotspots, which could facilitate livestock-wildlife interactions. Improving livestock feed availability outside conservation areas, and spatial planning for grazing management and wildlife corridors could mitigate human-wildlife conflict. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into foraging behaviours at the livestock-wildlife interface, and underscores the need for sustainable management strategies to balance conservation and rural livelihoods, thereby improving coexistence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40439992What 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.