, Volume 186, Issue 4, pp 939–951 | Cite as

Spatial variation in anthropogenic mortality induces a source–sink system in a hunted mesopredator

  • Liaan MinnieEmail author
  • Andrzej Zalewski
  • Hanna Zalewska
  • Graham I. H. Kerley
Population ecology – original research


Lethal carnivore management is a prevailing strategy to reduce livestock predation. Intensity of lethal management varies according to land-use, where carnivores are more intensively hunted on farms relative to reserves. Variations in hunting intensity may result in the formation of a source–sink system where carnivores disperse from high-density to low-density areas. Few studies quantify dispersal between supposed sources and sinks—a fundamental requirement for source–sink systems. We used the black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas) as a model to determine if heterogeneous anthropogenic mortality induces a source–sink system. We analysed 12 microsatellite loci from 554 individuals from lightly hunted and previously unhunted reserves, as well as heavily hunted livestock- and game farms. Bayesian genotype assignment showed that jackal populations displayed a hierarchical population structure. We identified two genetically distinct populations at the regional level and nine distinct subpopulations at the local level, with each cluster corresponding to distinct land-use types separated by various dispersal barriers. Migration, estimated using Bayesian multilocus genotyping, between reserves and farms was asymmetric and heterogeneous anthropogenic mortality induced source–sink dynamics via compensatory immigration. Additionally some heavily hunted populations also acted as source populations, exporting individuals to other heavily hunted populations. This indicates that heterogeneous anthropogenic mortality results in the formation of a complex series of interconnected sources and sinks. Thus, lethal management of mesopredators may not be an effective long-term strategy in reducing livestock predation, as dispersal and, more importantly, compensatory immigration may continue to affect population reduction efforts as long as dispersal from other areas persists.


Microsatellite Canis mesomelas Genetic population structure Metapopulation Dispersal 



This project was funded by the International Foundation for Science, the National Wool Growers Association, Red Meat Research and Development South Africa, the Koos and Rona Rupert Education Trust, the Nelson Mandela University (NMU), and the National Research Foundation (NRF) Knowledge, Interchange and Collaboration (KIC). Field transport was provided by the Mazda Wildlife Fund and Bidvest rent-a-car. LM was supported by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the NRF joint scholarship programme, NMU postgraduate scholarship, and the Dormehl-Cunningham Scholarship. We would like to thank the following organisations and people that were instrumental in sample collection: South African National Parks, Mohair South Africa, all the farm and reserve managers involved in the project, and all the problem animal control specialists.

Author contribution statement

LM and GIHK conceptualised and designed the research. LM collected the data. HZ conducted the laboratory analyses. LM and AZ analysed the data. All authors contributed substantially to the preparation of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4072_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)


  1. Allen LR (2015) Demographic and functional responses of wild dogs to poison baiting. Ecol Manag Restor 16:58–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreasen AM, Stewart KM, Longland WS, Beckmann JP, Forister ML (2012) Identification of source–sink dynamics in mountain lions of the Great Basin. Mol Ecol 21:5689–5701. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Coulon A et al (2008) Congruent population structure inferred from dispersal behaviour and intensive genetic surveys of the threatened Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). Mol Ecol 17:1685–1701. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Delibes M, Ferreras P, Gaona P (2001a) Attractive sinks, or how individual behavioural decisions determine source–sink dynamics. Ecol Lett 4:401–403. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delibes M, Gaona P, Ferreras P (2001b) Effects of an attractive sink leading into maladaptive habitat selection. Am Nat 158:277–285. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. du Plessis JJ (2013) Towards the development of a sustainable management strategy for Canis mesomelas and Caracal caracal on rangeland. PhD, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  7. Earl DA, von Holdt BM (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:359–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elmhagen B, Angerbjörn A (2001) The applicability of metapopulation theory to large mammals. Oikos 94:89–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Faubet P, Gaggiotti OE (2008) A new bayesian method to identify the environmental factors that influence recent migration. Genetics 178:1491–1504. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferguson JWH, Nel JAJ, de Wet MJ (1983) Social organization and movement patterns of Black-backed jackals Canis mesomelas in South Africa. J Zool 199:487–502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fordyce JA, Gompert Z, Forister ML, Nice CC (2011) A hierarchical bayesian approach to ecological count data: a flexible tool for ecologists. PLoS One 6:e26785. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Francisco LV, Langsten AA, Mellersh CS, Neal CL, Ostrander EA (1996) A class of highly polymorphic tetranucleotide repeats for canine genetic mapping. Mamm Genome 7:359–362. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fretwell SD (1972) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  15. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gervasi V, Brøseth H, Nilsen EB, Ellegren H, Flagstad Ø, Linnell JDC (2015) Compensatory immigration counteracts contrasting conservation strategies of wolverines (Gulo gulo) within Scandinavia. Biol Conserv 191:632–639. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (Version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Hered 86:485–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanski I, Gilpin M (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biol J Linn Soc 42:3–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrison S (1991) Local extinction in a metapopulation context: an empirical evaluation. Biol J Linn Soc 42:73–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Humphries BD, Ramesh T, Hill TR, Downs CT (2016) Habitat use and home range of black-backed jackals (Canis mesomelas) on farmlands in the Midlands of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Afr Zool 51:37–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. James RS, Scott DM, Yarnell RW, Overall ADJ (2017) Food availability and population structure: how do clumped and abundant sources of carrion affect the genetic diversity of the black-backed jackal? J Zool 301:184–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerley GIH et al (2017) Livestock predation in South Africa: the need for and value of a scientific assessment. S Afr J Sci. (Art. #a0198) Google Scholar
  23. Knowlton FF, Gese EM, Jaeger MM (1999) Coyote depredation control: an interface between biology and management. J Range Manag 52:398–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lieury N et al (2015) Compensatory immigration challenges predator control: an experimental evidence-based approach improves management. J Wildl Manag 79:425–434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loveridge AJ, Macdonald DW (2001) Seasonality in spatial organization and dispersal of sympatric jackals (Canis mesomelas and C. adustus): implications for rabies management. J Zool 253:101–111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loveridge AJ, Nel JAJ (2004) Black-backed jackal Canis mesomelas Schreber, 1775 Least Concern (2004). In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffman M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, Gland, pp 161–166Google Scholar
  27. Mateo-Sánchez MC, Cushman SA, Saura S (2014) Connecting endangered brown bear subpopulations in the Cantabrian Range (north-western Spain). Anim Conserv 17:430–440. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Minnie L et al (2016a) A conservation assessment of Canis mesomelas. In: Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT (eds) The red list of mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Endangered Wildlife Trust, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  29. Minnie L, Gaylard A, Kerley GIH (2016b) Compensatory life history responses of a mesopredator may undermine carnivore management efforts. J Appl Ecol 53:379–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moehlman PD (1983) Socioecology of silverbacked and golden jackals (Canis mesomelas and Canis aureus). Spec Publ Am Soc Mammal 7:423–453Google Scholar
  31. Mucina L, Rutherford MC (eds) (2006) The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  32. Nei M, Li W-H (1973) Linkage disequilibrium in subdivided populations. Genetics 75:213–219PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Novaro AJ, Funes MC, Walker RS (2005) An empirical test of source–sink dynamics induced by hunting. J Appl Ecol 42:910–920. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oliver MK, Piertney SB, Zalewski A, Melero Y, Lambin X (2016) The compensatory potential of increased immigration following intensive American mink population control is diluted by male-biased dispersal. Biol Invasions 18:3047–3061. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ostrander EA, Sprague GF, Rine J (1993) Identification and characterization of dinucleotide repeat (CA)n markers for genetic mapping in dog. Genomics 16:207–213. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ostrander EA, Mapa FA, Yee M, Rine J (1995) One hundred and one new simple sequence repeat-based markers for the canine genome. Mamm Genome 6:192–195. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Puechmaille SJ (2015) Manual for Kestimator version: 1.12Google Scholar
  40. Puechmaille SJ (2016) The program structure does not reliably recover the correct population structure when sampling is uneven: subsampling and new estimators alleviate the problem. Mol Ecol Resour 16:608–627. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosenzweig ML (1981) A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62:327–335. Google Scholar
  44. Rousset F (2008) genepop’007: a complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sacks BN, Mitchell BR, Williams CL, Ernest HB (2005) Coyote movements and social structure along a cryptic population genetic subdivision. Mol Ecol 14:1241–1249. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Sacks BN, Brazeal JL, Lewis JC (2016) Landscape genetics of the nonnative red fox of California. Ecol Evol 6:4775–4791. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Shibuya H, Collins BK, Huang TH, Johnson GS (1994) A polymorphic (AGGAAT)n tandem repeat in an intron of the canine von Willebrand factor gene. Anim Genet 25:122. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Slough BG, Mowat G (1996) Lynx population dynamics in an untrapped refugium. J Wildl Manag 60:946–961. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Snyman A, Jackson CR, Funston PJ (2015) The effect of alternative forms of hunting on the social organization of two small populations of lions Panthera leo in southern Africa. Oryx 49:604–610. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stoner DC, Wolfe ML, Choate DM (2006) Cougar exploitation levels in Utah: implications for demographic structure, population recovery, and metapopulation dynamics. J Wildl Manag 70:1588–1600.[1588:CELIUI]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stoner DC, Wolfe ML, Mecham C, Mecham MB, Durham SL, Choate DM (2013) Dispersal behaviour of a polygynous carnivore: do cougars Puma concolor follow source–sink predictions? Wildl Biol 19:289–301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Spear SF, Holderegger R, Waits LP (2010) Landscape genetics: where are we now? Mol Ecol 19:3496–3514. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tremblay JP, Crête M, Huot J (1998) Summer foraging behaviour of eastern coyotes in rural versus forest landscape: a possible mechanism of source–sink dynamics. Ecoscience 5:172–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Niekerk HN (2010) The cost of predation on small livestock in South Africa by medium sized predators. MSc, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  55. van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) micro-checker: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Watkinson AR, Sutherland WJ (1995) Sources, sinks and pseudo-sinks. J Anim Ecol 64:126–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zalewski A, Piertney SB, Zalewska H, Lambin X (2009) Landscape barriers reduce gene flow in an invasive carnivore: geographical and local genetic structure of American mink in Scotland. Mol Ecol 18:1601–1615. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Centre for African Conservation EcologyNelson Mandela UniversityPort ElizabethSouth Africa
  2. 2.Mammal Research InstitutePolish Academy of SciencesBiałowieżaPoland

Personalised recommendations