How natural is the reconstituted fauna of Ithala Game Reserve, in Zululand of South Africa?

Ithala Game Reserve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithala_Game_Reserve and https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Ithala+game+reserve+marius&source=lmns&bih=541&biw=1011&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV54KmrJ37AhV5_jgGHdPyBkoQ_AUoAHoECAEQAA#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:413f1b05,vid:Pn8YYI6nCdU) is one of several conservation areas in South Africa that are extensive enough to give the visitor an impression of wildness, despite having been farmed and then artificially restocked with most of their spp. of large mammals.

That is to say, it is a 'reconstituted' reserve, which was once farmland but now has regained most of the faunal elements of its pre-European state in the 1700's.

The most successful of the 'reconstituted' conservation areas is probably Pilanesberg National Park (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilanesberg_National_Park), which is ecologically similar to Ithala Game Reserve. However, a significant difference is that the former occupies twice as large an area as the latter.

Possibly because of the limited size of Ithala Game Reserve, it has been deemed impracticable to re-establish the full range of herbivores and carnivores here. Instead, there has been a partial dedication to the breeding of threatened species, particularly rhinoceroses and two spp. of antelopes (https://www.ewt.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/7.-Tsessebe-Damaliscus-lunatus-lunatus_VU.pdf and https://www.ewt.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/18.-Oribi-Ourebia-ourebi_EN.pdf).

The following is the management plan for Ithala Game Reserve: http://www.kznwildlife.com/Documents/ApprovedProtectedAreaManagementPlans/ithala_gr_mp_a_26112010.pdf.

The purpose of this Post is to answer the following question:

In which ways does the fauna of Ithala Game Reserve remain skewed/imbalanced, owing to its history and management?

Please bear in mind that I last visited Ithala Game Reserve in 2000, and I may be unaware of some of the changes since then.

Three main factors have complicated attempts by conservationists to reconstitute Ithala Game Reserve as representative of the original, wild situation.

These are as follows:

Firstly, the location is at the boundary between higher-lying, treeless grassland to the west and lower-lying savanna to the east (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highveld). The associated ambivalence and complexity - in particular, the original migratory patterns, which were never documented - mean that it is hard to know what was normal here.

Secondly, a decision has been made not to re-establish a normal regime of predation. Therefore, all carnivores, other than Leptailurus serval and Parahyaena brunnea, have been deliberately downplayed. The lion (Panthera leo) has not been reintroduced (https://www.safaribookings.com/ithala/wildlife), and a reintroduction of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) was later reversed because it was, in a sense, too successful.

I have speculatively categorised the various spp. as overrepresented, 'normal', or underrepresented, based on their incidence in Ithala Game Reserve for the last quarter-century.

(Please note that the illustrations chosen below are from Ithala Game Reserve itself. Wherever possible, I have chosen views to include the scenery as well as the species concerned.)

In my view, the overrepresented spp., in 2000, were:

The 'normal' spp. were:

The underrepresented spp. were:

The following stocking rates are according to Le Roux N P (1985) Itala Game Reserve: estimated carrying capacity and recommended upper limits for large herbivores. Natal Parks, Game and Fish Preservation Board, Pietermaritzburg. Le Roux based these numbers on the approach followed by Mentis and Duke (1976). The numbers in parentheses are the actual populations in 1985 and 1988.

Ceratotherium simum 58 (50 and 60)
Diceros bicornis 50 (35 and 35)
Equus quagga 600 (450 and 500)
Phacochoerus africanus 1000 (500 and 700)
Giraffa giraffa 100 (47 and 80)
Syncerus caffer 300 (0 and 0)
Taurotragus oryx 421 (70 and 80)
Strepsiceros strepsiceros 205 (200 and 300)
Nyala angasii 500 (100 and 100)
Tragelaphus sylvaticus 205 (50 and 50)
Aepyceros melampus 500 (300 and 300)
Hippotragus equinus 150 (0 and 0)
Kobus ellipsiprymnus 185 (40 and 100)
Redunca arundinum 300 (150 and 150)
Redunca fulvorufula 150 (20 and 40)
Connochaetes taurinus 740 (400 and 600)
Alcelaphus caama 150 (0 and 50)
Damaliscus lunatus 200 (27 and 40)
Ourebia ourebi 50 (2 and 5)
Struthio camelus 200 (0 and 0)

Around 2000, the population of the common warthog was large enough that 200-250 individuals were being removed, alive, each year, without reducing the population (Ian Rushworth, pers. comm.).

DISCUSSION

Alcelaphus caama is a western species, associated mainly with dry climates and plains, whereas Kobus ellipsiprymnus is an eastern species, associated mainly with drainage lines and stony slopes.

This biogeographical relationship means that Ithala Game Reserve is unusual - if not unique - in that A. caama and K. ellipsiprymnus, both in ample numbers, could (in 2000) be seen grazing side by side, in what seemed like a credible reconstitution of the original, natural regime.

However, it is simultaneously true that the numbers of K. ellipsiprymnus, in 2000, were inflated by a policy of management in which the anthropogenic scarcity of large bovine grazers was partly compensated for by the ringed waterbuck (which was already being culled at that time).

At least until 2000, it had proven possible to keep full populations of both D. lunatus and A. caama in the reserve, despite their ecological similarity.

It is tempting to explain this as follows:

  • the two spp. differ in habitat-preference, the tsessebe preferring treeless grassland on plains and the red hartebeest preferring bushveld on gentle slopes, and
  • fire is used to manage the grass for the particular benefit of the tsessebe, which - unlike the red hartebeest - depends on green grass throughout the year.

However, in reality the coexistence of the two spp., as at 2000, was so harmonious (i.e. their ecological overlap was so extensive) in the reserve that I found myself questioning the theoretical separation of niches. Is there still this puzzlingly successful coexistence of two ecologically similar spp. in Ithala Game Reserve today?

In the management of this reserve, alcelaphins have been favoured, at the expense of hippotragins. It is easy to imagine that, under different circumstances, it might have been Hippotragus equinus and even Hippotragus niger to which priority was allocated, instead of D. lunatus and A. caama.

Turning from alcelaphins to tragelaphins:

Competition between Nyala angasii and Tragelaphus sylvaticus in Zululand is well-known (https://ukzn-dspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/10138). What happened in Hluhluwe-iMfolozi, for example, was that N. angasii usurped the niche of T. sylvaticus.

By 2000, official policy in Ithala Game Reserve had already shifted to the culling of N. angasii, in response to a decrease in the population of T. sylvaticus in the late '90's. Therefore, an attempt was already being made to control the process of usurpation, in order to maintain a balance between these two tragelaphins.

Another species which has long been culled in the reserve is Connochaetes taurinus. For example, four individuals per month were shot already in 1993-1995 (Leonard Gumede, pers. comm.).

The underrepresentation of Taurotragus oryx may possibly be owing to losses to ticks. This may have been true in 2000, notwithstanding the successful reintroduction of Buphagus erythrorhynchus in Ithala Game Reserve.

One of the most obvious underrepresentations is of large bovines (both the wild species, Syncerus caffer, and the domestic but 'indigenous' hybrid, Bos taurus/indicus). These are grazers.

I suggest that there has been major compensation within the grazing guild.

Phacochoerus africanus (which is unusual among suids in being a specialised grazer) and, to a lesser extent, Connochaetes taurinus and Kobus ellipsiprymnus, have compensated for

  • the lack of large bovines, and
  • the scarcity of Hippopotamus amphibius.

However, there has been no compensation by Papio ursinus griseipes (which can potentially function partly as a grazer).

Raphicerus campestris capricornis is a more puzzling case.

This is because this species is puzzlingly scarce in Zululand generally. It certainly does occur in Zululand (https://www.ewt.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/25.-Steenbok-Raphicerus_campestris_LC.pdf), but for unknown reasons its populations are so limited that it is seldom seen.

Also please see https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/70647-a-new-hypothesis-for-the-steenbok-raphicerus-campestris-in-the-highveld-of-south-africa-it-was-naturally-absent#.

My impression, on my visit to Ithala Game Reserve in 2000, was that the niche of R. campestris has been usurped by Sylvicapra grimmia caffra (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/2731936), which I found to be surprisingly abundant.

In some sense, S. g. caffra may, therefore, also qualify as overrepresented.

This, too, may be related to the underrepresentation of large-bodied grazers. The steenbok prefers the grass stratum to be sparser than that preferred by the bush duiker.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Many thanks to Ian Rushworth (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian-Rushworth) and Shannon Hogan for their hospitality and for information and discussion on many relevant topics, during my visit in 2000.

Also see https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/milewski/72159-shaping-of-shrubs-and-trees-by-herbivory-in-ithala-game-reserve-zululand-south-africa#

Posted on October 28, 2022 10:37 PM by milewski milewski

Comments

Even the Kruger National Park cannot be said to have a "natural" reconstituted faunal assemblage.
We can only speculate what "natural" even means.
Had the whole subcontinent been left undisturbed for the last 500 years, there is no way of telling what a faunal census in the KNP would have looked like today.
Once a habitat is fenced (never mind other influences like climate change and fire regime) the floral assemblage also changes due to disrupted habits of herbivores, most noticeably of the mega-herbivores. It only takes a few years for dramatic changes to occur in the landscape (eg. savannah to dense woodland or vice versa) if cattle, elephant and buffalo are included/excluded. As these changes take shape, one feels compelled intervene in some way to recover what is perceived as being natural. That road is fraught with uncertainty and unintended consequences.

Posted by wynand_uys over 1 year ago

@wynand_uys

Many thanks for your comment, with which I agree.

What I have been curious about, mainly, is what happens when certain spp., normally important in the ecosystem, are fortuitously excluded/marginalised. The best example is Gorongosa National Park, where all the large ungulates except Kobus ellipsiprymnus were greatly reduced after the war in Mozambique. The result, in that case, was a remarkable compensation by Papio cynocephalus and Phacochoerus africanus in particular, which became so abundant that they helped to fill the grazing niches away from water. Other spp., normally uncommon/interstitial, that became abundant in compensation were Ourebia montana and Redunca arundinum.

In the case of Ithala Game Reserve, one of the main distortions has been of Syncerus caffer, which would have repopulated rapidly had it not been for the veterinary restrictions demanding captive-bred, disease-free stock. The logical alternative would have been to allow 'nguni cattle' to remain, based on their having shared the niche of large bovine grazer for a considerable period prior to European arrival. However, we understandably have a bias against domestic spp. in game reserves, so that managers opted to leave this niche largely unfilled.

I do not know why Papio ursinus is as scarce as it is in Ithala Game Reserve, but what is sure is that there has been no compensation by the chacma baboon here, along the lines seen in Gorongosa National Park. Thus, I would argue, we have some explanation for the abundance of Phacochoerus africanus in Ithala Game Reserve, which in my experience considerably exceeds that seen in e.g. Kruger National Park.

I also suspect that the dense population of Aepyceros melampus in Ithala Game Reserve may represent a form of compensation for the scarcity of bovines. This is because the impala was near the southern edge of its natural distribution here. It is known, by comparison, that the impala was marginal to the Hluhluwe-iMfolozi reserves at their inception, having since become common throughout. I.e. the abundance of the impala in iMfolozi today contrasts with its probable original absence, and I suspect that the impala may have been absent also from Ithala in the 1700's.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Here is some demographic information for Phacochoerus africanus in Ithala Game Reserve, which was established in 1973.

Rowe-Rowe (1994, The ungulates of Natal, Natal Parks Board) cited the population of the common warthog in this reserve as about 300 individuals.

During my own visit in 2000, I estimated the number to be possibly as great as 5,000.

Just on one drive from Thalu to Bergvliet and back (within the reserve) on 26 August 2000, I obtained sightings of 50 individuals, without particularly searching.

(Also see another comment below.)

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Competition between Nyala angasii and Tragelaphus sylvaticus in Zululand:https://ukzn-dspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/10138As at 2000, I saw no evidence of usurpation of T. sylvaticus by N. angasii in Ithala Game Reserve.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Here is demographic information for Phacochoerus africanus and Aepyceros melampus in Ithala Game Reserve.

Rautenbach et al. (1981, The Lammergeyer, 31, pages 21-37) state that the founder population of the common warthog was 238 individuals (both sexes), of which 68 died soon after reintroduction.

The founder population of the impala contained 700 female individuals by 1975, two years after the establishment of the reserve. This increased to 4,000 individuals, of both sexes, by 1981.

The population of the impala crashed to only 286 in April 1987. I infer that this led to the removal of the cheetah from the reserve.

Brett (1980) states that the founder population, in females, of the impala was 780, increasing to 3,500, of both sexes, by 1978 - which agrees with Rautenbach et al. (1981).

In the case of the common warthog, Brett (1980) states that the founder population contained 200 female individuals, increasing to more than 2000, of both sexes, by 1978.

This indicates that the founder population, in females, was about 4-fold less in the common warthog (200) than in the impala (700).

Mentis and Duke (1976, https://journals.co.za/doi/10.10520/AJA03794369_3210 and https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Carrying-capacities-of-natural-veld-in-Natal-for-Mentis-Duke/59406faa032cc34f1180fbdbdd83dd44e79b4c0d) give the following values:
1985: common warthog 500, impala 300
1988: common warthog 700, impala 300.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Source: Rautenbach I L, Nel J A J, and Root G A (1981) Mammals of Itala (sic) Nature Reserve, Natal. The Lammergeyer 31: 21-37.

Founders:

Papio ursinus: 85 (from iMfolozi and uMkhuze)
Equus quagga: 130 (both sexes), of which 125 from eSwatini
Phacochoerus africanus: 238 (both sexes), 'of which 68 died in cold spells'
Potamochoerus larvatus: 6 (both sexes)
Giraffa giraffa: by 1981, founders only 20 (both sexes), of which 7 died
Redunca arundinum: 114 (both sexes)
Kobus ellipsiprymnus: 14 females in 1975, increased to 86 (both sexes) by December 1979
Aepyceros melampus: by 1975, 700 females, increasing to 4000 (both sexes) by 1981; proved to be such poor dispersers that needed to be moved artificially to other parts of the reserve
Connochaetes taurinus: in 1979, 150 (both sexes), increased to about 175 by January 1980
Damaliscus lunatus: in 1978, 9 female and 3 male individuals
Ourebia ourebi: only 2 male individuals
Taurotragus oryx: 21 (both sexes), of which 6 died
Nyala angasii: in August 1978, 33 (both sexes)
Tragelaphus sylvaticus: still present at time of proclamation of the reserve, but remarkably still absent in 1981 from everywhere except the Phongolo drainage line itself
Strepsiceros strepsiceros: 7 individuals still present at time of proclamation of the reserve; 57 female individuals added as founders in June 1976

Another source states that, on 23 April 1987, the following were present:
Equus quagga about 375, the founders having increased rapidly
Giraffa giraffa 69
Kobus ellipsiprymnus 101, from a founder population of 16 in 1975
Aepyceros melampus 286
Connochaetes taurinus 335
Damaliscus lunatus about 35
Alcelaphus caama about 19 (having dispersed widely in the reserve)
Taurotragus oryx 56

Yet another source gives the following numbers (totals/those in breeding groups) for Damaliscus lunatus:

1990 66/56

1992 72/61

1993 90/64

1994 83/69

1995 108/99

1996 122/104

1997 96/83

1998 130/110

1999 105/84

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Yet another source gives the following numbers for founders brought to Ithala Game Reserve in 1973-1985:

Papio ursinus 85
Caracal caracal 6
Panthera pardus 3
Acinonyx jubatus 13
Parahyaena brunnea 9
Diceros bicornis 31
Ceratotherium simum 24
Equus quagga 299
Phacochoerus africanus 188
Potamochoerus larvatus 5
Giraffa giraffa 43
Redunca arundinum 245
Kobus ellipsiprymnus 16
Aepyceros melampus 880
Damaliscus lunatus 24
Connochaetes taurinus 151
Tragelaphus sylvaticus 7
Nyala angasii 33
Strepsiceros strepsiceros 110
Taurotragus oryx 32

By 1985, the populations of the common warthog, blue wildebeest, and plains zebra were already at least 400 each; that of the common reedbuck was 250.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

I find it noteworthy that so many individuals of Redunca arundinum were reintroduced to Ithala Game Reserve, as a founder population, that this amounted to a complete population.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Dont forget the Oxpeckers. We were told by the rangers that when introduced one could detect where they were active by the giraffe running away.
Where any other birds introduced?

Posted by tonyrebelo over 1 year ago

And the elephant were a problem in that they were damaging the only stand of Protea comptoniii found south of the Pongola ...
But the plants could not have been very tasty, because although it looked like a bomb had hit them, many of the plants were only lightly damaged.

Posted by tonyrebelo over 1 year ago

@tonyrebelo

During my visit to Ithala Game Reserve in 2000, I was told by an authoritative source that a) Vachellia davyi was at risk owing to damage by Giraffa giraffa; b) Aloe had been rapidly reduced after the reintroductions of the wild herbivores, the plants remaining only on inaccessible sites such as cliffs; not only Loxodonta africana but also Taurotragus oryx and Strepsiceros strepsiceros were responsible for this onslaught on Aloe; and c) Protea comptonii was being severely damaged by T. oryx and S. strepsiceros in particular. My source believed that the epicormic shoots were particularly eaten, so that the protea plants could not recover after fire. However, he pointed out that P. comptonii was being eaten continually, not just after fire.

This information made an impression on me, because ecologists in the Fynbos Biome tend to assume that proteas are too nutrient-poor to be attractive to large herbivores.

Details of the consumption of Aloe (Ian Rushworth, pers. comm. 2000):

Taurotragus oryx in particular (and also Loxodonta africana, and to some degree Strepsiceros strepsiceros) rapidly damage Aloe as soon as access is provided. The common eland eats out the heart of the plant, and the African bush elephant eats off the top, ragged end.

In Weenen Game Reserve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weenen_Game_Reserve), a fenced part of the area had been inaccessible to the common eland. Aloe survived under this protection, despite the greater kudu being present within the enclosure. When the fence was breached, and the common eland entered, 80% of the individuals of Aloe were killed within 2-3 years.

In Spioenkop Dam Nature Reserve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spioenkop_Dam_Nature_Reserve) and other reserves, the results were similar: the common eland has tended to exterminate Aloe. These observations are well-known among conservationists, but have not been formally documented.

(end of Ian Rushworth, pers. comm.)

On the topic of Buphagus erythrorhynchus, I made many pages of field notes on the incidence, host-preferences, and alarm behaviours of this species during my week in Ithala Game Reserve. I am currently going through those two decade-old notes, in search of some takeaway finding to Post here in iNaturalist.

The only other species of bird reintroduced, as far as I know, is Struthio camelus, which succeeded in small numbers.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

An excuse to go and visit and see how the Proteas are faring.

Posted by tonyrebelo over 1 year ago

O'Kane (2005, https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/2514) found that the densities of the populations of G. g. giraffa and C. t. taurinus in Ithala Game Reseve at that time were 1.8 and 6 individuals per square kilometer, respectively.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Barlow-Kearsley L (1995?) Population analysis of tsessebe Damaliscus lunatus at Itala (sic) Game Reserve. Unpublished report.

According to the above study, the first reintroduction of the tsessebe was in 1978, consisting of 3 male and 9 female individuals. This was followed, in 1981, by a further 3 male and 8 female individuals.

These increased to at least 81 by 1995, when the total area of the reserve was 29,653 hectares.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Cromhout J P (1991) Elephants for Itala. The Rhino and Elephant Journal 5, pages 31-33.

Reintroduction occurred in 1990. The animals were subsequently recorded eating Dalbergia armata and Dichrostachys cinerea in particular, plus the bark of Vachellia tortilis, Cussonia spicata, and D. armata.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Brett M R (1980) BSc thesis reviewing the history of what is now Ithala Game Reserve.

Europeans settled here in 1884, rapidly exterminating the large wild mammals.

Kobus ellipsiprymnus survived in the Phongolo valley until the 1920's.

A few individuals of Hippopotamus amphibius survived in the Phongolo River until the 1930's.

Lycaon pictus survived in this area until 1960, with occasional wanderers being recorded until 1978.

The first area of the reserve was proclaimed in 1972.

Two male individuals of Hippotragus equinus were reintroduced in 1979, but this species was subsequently excluded from the program.

After reintroduction: by 1978, the populations of Aepyceros melampus and Phacochoerus africanus already reached 2,000 each.

Other spp. reached:

Ceratotherium simum 33 in 1979
Diceros bicornis >14 in 1980
Equus quagga >200 in 1979
Giraffa giraffa 11 in 1979
Taurotragus oryx 32 in 1979
Kobus ellipsiprymnus 86 in 1978
Redunca arundinum 60 in 1979
Connochaetes taurinus >161 in 1980
Damaliscus lunatus 21 in 1979
Strepsiceros strepsiceros 78 in 1979
Papio ursinus >100 in 1978

I infer that the impala and the common warthog were the first to reach full populations in the reserve, followed by Burchell's zebra and the common reedbuck, and then followed (in the 1980's) by the two spp. of rhinos, the southern giraffe, the common eland, the greater kudu, the ringed waterbuck, the blue wildebeest, the tsessebe, and the red hartebeest.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Delegorgue M A (1990) Adulphe Delegorgue's travels in southern Africa, vol. 1. Translated by F Webb. Killie Campbell Africana Library, Durban, and University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg.

This is an excellent reference for the former abundance of Taurotragus oryx oryx and Syncerus caffer caffer, but the scarcity of Connochaetes taurinus taurinus, in Zululand, near 'cattle kraals'.

It is, at a more general level, an excellent reference for the fact that the Zulus possessed large numbers of Bos, in close proximity to Loxodonta africana, Hippopotamus amphibius, Kobus ellipsiprymnus, and other competitors for grazing (including T. o. oryx and S. c. caffer) - and all their predators, which threaten livestock.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Hiscocks K (1985) Prey selection by larger carnivores in the Ithala Game Reserve with an emphasis on the cheetah. BSc Zool. Hons project, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg

According to the above reference, 13 individuals of Acinonyx jubatus were reintroduced in 1979-80, at which time the population of Aepyceros melampus was about 3000. By 1985, the population of the cheetah had increased to possibly 50, but that of the impala had unfortunately decreased to only about 300. Faecal analysis showed that the diet of the cheetah was ungulates (mainly the impala) and Otomys (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/45437-Otomys-irroratus). The preferred prey spp. of the cheetah were the impala, the nyala, the common reedbuck, the blue wildebeest, and the common warthog. In captivity, the cheetah did not accept frozen meat or frozen carcases of the rodents Rattus (2 spp.) and Praomys natalensis, but it did accept Oryctolagus cuniculus and Cavia porcellus. It ate the domestic rabbit head-first, including the gastrointestinal tract, rejecting 80% of the skin and fur, and sometimes discarding hindlimbs and pelvis.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Ian Rushworth, pers. comm., 2000:

About 30 individuals of Ourebia ourebi ourebi were reintroduced to Ithala Game Reserve, but this attempt failed, and by 2000 the species was functionally extinct in the reserve. The lower-lying parts of the reserve have probably never supported this species, and the higher-lying parts (middle-level plateau) are too unsuitable as habitat for any population to be viable.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Ithala Game Reserve is thought to lie just beyond the natural distribution of Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Historical-ranges-of-bontebok-light-blue-and-blesbok-grey-in-South-Africa-Red-lines_fig2_322539832.

A decision was made not to introduce it to this reserve, partly because of fears that it might hybridise with Damaliscus lunatus.

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

In woodland at Lake Kariba (Chete), Diceros bicornis was recorded eating Euphorbia (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=48772&subview=table&taxon_id=51822&view=species) mainly in the wet season, not the dry season. The staple there was Boscia (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=7146&subview=table&taxon_id=82545&view=species), not Euphorbia or Colophospermum (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/428749-Colophospermum-mopane).

Posted by milewski over 1 year ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments
Member of the iNaturalist Network   |   Powered by iNaturalist open source software |   Documentation for developers