Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42634445›Full record

ArticleBerichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte2026

Nonhuman Mobilities and Multispecies Border Regimes in (Post-)Colonial Southern Africa*.

Luregn Lenggenhager

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Luregn LenggenhagerGlobal South Studies Centre (GSSC), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7480-0495

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article explores how borders in Southern Africa-such as Namibia's internal veterinary and settler border (Red Line) and national borders between Namibia, South Africa, and Botswana-functioned not only as territorial dividers but as tools to shape colonial and postcolonial multispecies hierarchies. These borders regulated human and animal movement, reinforcing racial and economic inequalities by privileging certain species and people while restricting or dehumanizing others. This study examines political, veterinary, and conservation borders to show how they naturalized racist multispecies hierarchies and legitimized colonial oppression. In doing so, it reveals the dangers of blurring the boundaries between human and nonhuman life, as well as the importance of recognizing nonhumans as co-constituting borders and boundaries. I argue that more-than-human historiography must critically engage with the local histories of border regimes and animal movements to understand their ongoing role in reproducing multispecies power imbalances in (post-)colonial contexts.

Indexed as

ColonialismRacismAfrica, SouthernAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesHumansNamibiaBordersColonialismLivestockMultispecies HistoriesNature ConservationSouthern Africa

Identifiers

PMID42634445
PMCPMC13613071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.