Protecting the resource: an assessment of mitigation methods used to protect large trees from African elephant impact in a savanna system

Abstract

African elephants Loxodonta africana can alter the structural components of savanna ecosystems, often through the reduction of the large tree (≥ 5 m height) cover component. Elephant impact can be amplified in small, protected areas, or areas where water is readily available to elephants. One management option is to protect large trees directly using applied mitigation methods to limit elephant impact. In this paper, we assessed and compared the effectiveness and logistical requirements of four mitigation methods that have been applied to protect large trees from elephant impact in South Africa's Greater Kruger National Park – namely African honeybees Apis mellifera scutellata in beehives; creosote oil in glass jars, concrete pyramids arranged in circles around trees, as well as wire‐netting the trees' main stems. For each method, elephant impact levels and tree mortality rates were measured over a 2–5‐year period depending on the method in use. Sample sizes ranged from 43 to 59 trees per mitigation method, with a comparable control, which was a tree of the same species and morphological dimensions but lacking any mitigation application. Beehives were the most effective method at reducing tree loss, significantly reducing tree mortality from 34% (6.8%/year) in control trees to only 10% (2% year‐1) over the five‐year experimental period. However, beehives were the most expensive method to apply to a tree, although this cost can be compensated through honey sales. Concrete pyramids reduced tree loss when the combined pyramid radius was > 1.5 m in length, whilst wire‐netting was effective against bark‐stripping by elephants but was still vulnerable to heavier forms of impact such as uprooting and stem snapping. Creosote jars did not prevent elephants from impacting treated trees. Our results provide managers with a toolkit for protecting large trees against elephant impact, commenting on both the efficacy and the logistical constraints for each method.