DOI: 10.5061/dryad.00000007k
title: Using dung densities to assess the ecological effectiveness of a protected area network

description: Given recent global endeavors to increase protected area coverage, it is
 crucial to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of various area-based
 conservation strategies in effectively reducing biodiversity loss. Here,
 we investigated responses of wildlife populations to different protection
 levels and environmental variables at the landscape scale in the
 Katavi-Rukwa Ecosystem, western Tanzania. To this end, we conducted line
 distance sampling surveys and counted dung of six target mammal species
 (elephant, giraffe, buffalo, zebra, topi, hartebeest) along foot transects
 within areas differing in protection levels (from strict to less-strictly
 protected: national park, game reserve, forest reserve, game-controlled
 area, and unprotected areas). Based on these dung counts, we modelled the
 spatial distribution of these six mammal species using a species-specific
 density surface modelling framework. We, found consistent effects of
 protection level and land-use variables on the spatial distribution of the
 target mammal species: dung densities were highest in the national park
 and game reserves, intermediate in less-strictly protected areas and
 lowest in un-protected areas. Beyond species-specific environmental
 predictors for dung densities, our results highlight consistent negative
 associations between dung densities of the target species and distance to
 cropland and avoidance of areas in proximity to houses. Our findings
 underpin differences in ecological effectiveness of protected areas within
 one ecosystem. Protection level and land use play crucial roles in
 moderating the spatial distribution of all considered mammal species. Our
 findings suggest that a landscape approach needs to guide effective
 conservation across the entire protection gradient of the Katavi-Rukwa
 Ecosystem.
description: We established a 35 km buffer
 around the boundary of the KNP to include areas with different protection
 levels, ranging from unprotected to strictly protected. To capture an even
 coverage of transects across different protection levels, we divided the
 study area into 5 km by 5 km grids, so that transects were separated by 5
 km to minimize spatial autocorrelation of the data. We randomly selected
 105 grids (21 grids within each protection level) and placed
 triangular-shaped transects of 3 km total length in the centre of each
 selected grid. To ease logistics in the field, we opted for 1 km segment length. We surveyed
 each transect once during the dry season between July and September 2021.
 Three people (one each primarily responsible for navigating, observing,
 and recording) walked along the transect. We used a handheld GPS and
 compass to navigate between segments (i.e. we moved towards 90° E in the
 first segment, 330° NW in the second segment, and 210° SW in the third
 segment). In each transect, we counted and recorded the number of
 individual dung piles. Upon detection, we identified each dung pile to
 species level. To measure perpendicular distances from the centre of a
 dung pile to the centre line of a transect, we used a tape measure. To
 define the centre line of the transect (and avoid rounding of distances
 near the line to zero), we placed a walking stick in the centre of our
 path (Marques et al.
 2001). Before the formal
 survey, we conducted a literature review and a pilot survey to establish
 species-specific dung pile definitions based on the shape of pellets and
 quantity of pellets per dung pile. We
 analysed the data in a density surface modelling framework, a two-stage
 method which first accounts for uncertain detectability (primarily as a
 function of distance between transect and
 observations)
 and a spatial model of the density of
 the target population.
description: Microsoft office excel and R
description: # Title of Dataset: Dung densities to assess the ecological effectiveness
 of a protected area network ## Description of the Data and file structure
 We conducted line distance sampling surveys and counted dung of six target
 mammal species (elephant, giraffe, buffalo, zebra, topi, hartebeest) along
 foot transects within areas differing in protection levels (from strict to
 less strictly protected: national park, game reserve, forest reserve,
 game-controlled area, and unprotected areas).There is single data files
 contains the following varibles column wise: 1. Column 1 presents Transect
 Label indicating transect identification number 2. Column 2 presents
 Sample Label indicating identification number for individual dung 3.
 Column 3 presents Transect Length indicating the length of transect in
 kilometers (km) 4. Column 4 presents perpendicular distance indicating the
 perpendicular distance in meters (m) from the transect line to dung piles.
 5. Column 5 presents size indicating number of dung piles sighted 6.
 Column 6 presents species indicating types of species surveyed 7. Column 7
 to 13 presents variables used in the estimates of dung densities.All
 variables were scaled to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.
 8. Column 14 categorical variable presenting protection level ##
 Sharing/access Information No, data is not derived from other sources