https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Index ${session.getAttribute("locale")} 5 https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:11789 Wed 12 May 2021 23:15:31 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:30555 Wed 12 May 2021 20:35:05 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:5938 120kg), adult (41%) and male (39%) and the five most commonly killed species (kudu, black wildebeest, warthog, bushbuck and Blesbuck) comprised 67.9% of all kills and 67.8% of total biomass consumed. In an attempt to overcome the problem of gaps in the kill lists, a subset of data, which excluded kills more than five days apart, was analyzed and this gave similar results to analysis of the full kill lists. Mean daily intake rates varied annually between 2.26 and 5.23kg.FEQ⁻¹ for the full data set and 4.53 and 1 0.46kg.FEQ⁻¹ for the subset. The difference between estimated (calculated using daily intake rates of 5 and 7.12kg.FEQ⁻¹) and observed offtake for each ungulate species reflected the preference ratings for that species. Analysis of bone marrow indicated that: lions killed ungulates in moderate to good condition; condition of culled animals was lower than that of kills; distal bones could be used in analyses; and that that bones exposed to the environment for at least a week could be used to analyze condition of prey. Home ranges and activity centers ranged from 21.42km² to 73.27km² and 2.7lkm² to 17.47km² respectively, which was smaller than expected from previous studies. Although, lions at K wandwe and Shan1wari preferred different vegetation types, at both reserves they generally occupied areas that were structurally similar to what has previously been reported. Continuous monitoring and analyses of diet, including condition of the prey, and habitat use will provide reserve managers with some of the necessary information to enable them to effectively manage their lion populations and to predict and minimize potential problems.]]> Wed 12 May 2021 18:47:34 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:5790 0.05 in all cases). There was no evidence of enhanced biomass and abundance values at stations occupied in the immediate vicinity of the front. Total average carnivorous zooplankton abundance was dominated by chaetognaths (Eukrohnia hamata Möbius 1875, Sagitta gazellae Ritler-Záhony 1909 and S. zetesios Fowler 1905) and euphausiids (Nematoscelis megalops Sars 1883, Euphausia longirostris Hansen 1908 and E. spinifera Sars 1883), which contributed up to 86.58 ± 32.91% of the total counts. The total average biomass was dominated by euphausiids and amphipods (Themisto gaudichaudii Guérin-Méneville 1825, Phronima sedentaria Forsskål 1775 and Vibilia armata Bovallius 1887) which contributed up to 71.45 ± 34.85% of the total counts. In general the populations of both the euphausiids and amphipods were dominated by females while the chaetognaths were dominated by juveniles. Numerical analysis identified two major zooplankton groupings within the survey area which did not coincide with the water masses within the survey area. The SIMPER procedure of the PRIMER package indicated differences between the groups were mainly attributed to changes in the abundance of the numerically dominant species rather than the presence or absence of individual species. The absence of any significant spatial patterns in the distribution of the carnivorous zooplankton suggests that the STC did not act as a biogeographical barrier during the present study. The mean feeding rates of the chaetognaths E. hamata, S. gazellae and S. zetesios were 1.82 ± 0.85prey d-1, 3.63 ± 2.08prey d-1 and 2.18 ± 0.59prey d-1, respectively. These rates correspond to a combined predation impact equivalent to <5% of the mesozooplankton standing stock or <10% of the mesozooplankton secondary production. Mesozooplankton, comprising mainly copepods was the dominant prey in the guts of the three chaetognath species. Total predation impact of the euphausiids, chaetognaths and amphipods, estimated using published daily ration data, on the mesozooplankton standing stock and secondary production ranged from 0.01% to 1.53% and from 0.03% to 30.54%, respectively. Among the carnivorous zooplankton, chaetognaths were generally identified as the dominant predators of mesozooplankton. Low predation impact of selected carnivorous zooplankton suggested that these organisms contributed little to the vertical carbon flux within the region of investigation during the study.]]> Wed 12 May 2021 17:48:20 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:5693 Thu 13 May 2021 07:16:52 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:5870 Thu 13 May 2021 02:28:03 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:10699 1 kg). By excluding small rodents from the analysis, prey preference could be estimated for other species and prey size categories. Small- and medium-sized mammals were significantly preferred, whereas large mammals were significantly avoided by the Cape leopard.]]> Thu 13 May 2021 00:37:40 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:65380 Sun 21 Jan 2024 14:30:44 SAST ]]>