From the Cover: Communication hubs of an asocial cat are the source of a human–carnivore conflict and key to its solution

Human–wildlife conflicts occur worldwide. Although many nonlethal mitigation solutions are available, they rarely use the behavioral ecology of the conflict species to derive effective and long-lasting solutions. Here, we use a long-term study with 106 GPS-collared free-ranging cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) to demonstrate how new insights into the socio-spatial organization of this species provide the key for such a solution. GPS-collared territory holders marked and defended communication hubs (CHs) in the core area of their territories. The CHs/territories were distributed in a regular pattern across the landscape such that they were not contiguous with each other but separated by a surrounding matrix. They were kept in this way by successive territory holders, thus maintaining this overdispersed distribution. The CHs were also visited by nonterritorial cheetah males and females for information exchange, thus forming hotspots of cheetah activity and presence. We hypothesized that the CHs pose an increased predation risk to young calves for cattle farmers in Namibia. In an experimental approach, farmers shifted cattle herds away from the CHs during the calving season. This drastically reduced their calf losses by cheetahs because cheetahs did not follow the herds but instead preyed on naturally occurring local wildlife prey in the CHs. This implies that in the cheetah system, there are “problem areas,” the CHs, rather than “problem individuals.” The incorporation of the behavioral ecology of conflict species opens promising areas to search for solutions in other conflict species with nonhomogenous space use.

Human–wildlife conflicts (HWC) are a global challenge and likely to increase in the future (1). Carnivore species are often involved in such conflicts because they prey on, or are feared to prey on, livestock. With the increasing human population and concurrent growth in livestock numbers, contact between carnivores, people, and their livestock will increase, and so will predation on livestock (2). Today, retaliatory killing of carnivores is still a common response to the perceived or actual threat of carnivore predation on livestock and can be a major threat to endangered carnivores (3). Nonlethal mitigation tools are therefore essential and also used widely, such as predator-proof bomas, kraals or electric fences (e.g., against lions (Panthera leo) (4)), livestock guarding dogs (e.g., against cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) (5)), light or sound deterrents (e.g., against cougars (Puma concolor) (6)), compensation payments (e.g., African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) (7)), beef from certified carnivore-friendly farmers (e.g., gray wolves (Canis lupus) (8)), translocations (e.g., cheetahs (9)), and bylaw changes (e.g., lions (10)). These methods were successful in some cases; in others, they failed (2, 7–11).The rapidly developing field of movement ecology with its substantial improvements of tracking devices and analysis tools has unlocked new approaches in conservation science (12). In the context of HWC, collaring and tracking of conflict species already provided successful applications in geofencing and early warning systems (13). Their warning signals facilitate quick responses of livestock herders or owners to an approaching carnivore provided they are on continuous standby (13). Here, we present a method that takes advantage of this rapidly developing field of movement ecology and provides an effective and long-lasting solution to mitigate a long-term conflict between livestock farmers and a threatened carnivore, the cheetah.Conflicts between farmers and cheetahs are well documented and are a major threat to the global cheetah population, as most cheetahs occur on farmland outside protected areas (14). In this study, we focused on cheetahs on Namibian farmland, where cheetahs are the key wild carnivore to kill cattle calves because lions and spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) were extirpated decades ago (15). Building on previous work, we analyzed the space use and socio-spatial ecology of Namibian farmland cheetahs in detail, developed a modification of livestock management, and experimentally tested its efficacy in substantially reducing livestock losses. This led to the development of recommendations for new management practices for cattle farmers that minimize calf losses.Cheetah males begin their adult life-history career as floaters (16, 17), living in large home ranges (in Namibia of 1,595 km²) which overlap with both female home ranges (mean, 650 km²) and several small territories (mean, 379 km²) of male territory holders (17). Floaters either wait for a territory to become vacant (queuing system) or compete and fight with territory holders to take over a territory (17). This regularly results in the death of either the territory holders or the challengers and suggests that territories contain valuable resources, most likely preferred access to females (16–18). Both floaters and territory holders may be solitary or form coalitions of two to three males, often brothers (16, 17). For this study, we used telemetry data of 106 cheetah individuals to show that in an area where all territorial male units (solitary males or coalitions) were collared, the small territories of cheetah males were distributed in a regular pattern across the landscape and, more importantly, that the territories were not contiguous with each other but were separated by a surrounding matrix. This results in farms containing a cheetah territory, or parts of it, and farms not containing any cheetah territory. Because cheetah males fight over territories, we predict that the location and shape of the territory remains approximately constant across successive territory holders. If so, then the same farms contain (or do not contain) a cheetah territory over successive territory holders, and hence different farm owners experience different levels of conflicts with cheetahs.If territories remain stable over time, we also predict that scent-marking locations operated by territory holders (16, 17) are traditional, “culturally maintained” sites used by several successive territory holders. These scent-marking locations play an important role in the communication of cheetahs (16, 17). They are marked at high frequencies by territory holders; are regularly visited by floaters, which do not mark but only collect information; and are occasionally visited and marked by females, typically when they are in estrus (16, 17). Thus, the scent-marking locations function as information centers for animals where territory defense and information exchange at a local population level are performed (19). They are often large trees (formerly termed “play trees” (20)) but can be any conspicuous structure (e.g., rocks). Scent-marking locations were typically concentrated in the core area of territories, so we termed them “communication hubs” (CHs) of cheetahs. We defined the core areas with CHs as the 50% kernel density estimator (KDE50) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) locations (“fixes”) of the territory holders (see Results). Since each CH was visited by several floaters and females, their home ranges substantially overlapped with the CHs and with each other. On average, each floater and female home range encompassed three CHs and four CHs, respectively (see Results). Each floater unit (solitary floaters or floater coalitions) spent a considerable amount of its time in the CHs (see Results). As a result of the frequent presence of territory holders and regular visits of several floater units in each CH (17), the CHs were local hotspots of cheetah activity and density.We hypothesize that predation risk should be substantially higher in CHs than in the surrounding matrix if the frequency of cheetah hunts is positively related to the number of cheetahs present in an area and the time spent there. If these areas are also used for cattle herds with calves under 6 mo of age (the animals most susceptible to predation by cheetahs), then CHs would be hotspots for cheetah–farmer conflicts. Thus, farmers containing a full CH or part of a CH on their farm are predicted to face higher cattle calf losses by cheetahs than farmers not containing a CH on their farm—a pattern consistent with some farmers reporting heavy losses and others reporting little or no losses. Furthermore, we predict that cattle calf losses can be substantially reduced when suckler herds with calves are shifted away from CHs. If cheetahs in CHs do not follow cattle herds to their new location in another “camp” (i.e., a fenced subsection on the farm permeable for wildlife but not for cattle), then we predict that this simple management adjustment would be the key to substantially reduce farmer–cheetah conflict.