Chinese Science Bulletin

, Volume 58, Issue 18, pp 2262–2268 | Cite as

Impacts of grassland fence on the behavior and habitat area of the critically endangered Przewalski’s gazelle around the Qinghai Lake

  • ZhangQiang You
  • ZhiGang Jiang
  • ChunWang Li
  • David Mallon
Open Access
Article Special Issue Adaptive Evolution and Conservation Ecology of Wild Animals


The trend of fencing grassland as livestock paddocks is spreading on the Eurasian steppe, however, its impacts on grassland wildlife are little known. In order to explore such impacts, we carried out a field study on how grassland fencing impacts Przewalski’s gazelle (Procapra przewalskii), a species listed as EN (Endangered) by SSC/IUCN, on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. The results revealed that (1) in the fenced areas, daily movement distance of Przewalski’s gazelle was 5081±1187 m (Hudong-Ketu) and 4110±912 m (Yuanzhe), which was much shorter than the 7223±546 m recorded in an unfenced area (Kuaierma); (2) the feeding bout duration of Przewalski’s gazelle was much shorter in the fenced habitat; (3) the frequency of walking along both high or low fence lines reached about 81%; while the frequency of jumping across the low fence line was only about 1.2% and frequency of crawling through the bottom of the high fence lines was about 17.8%; (4) the size of post-fencing habitat decreased to about 20% and 6% of the sizes of pre-fencing habitat in Hudong-Ketu and Yuanzhe areas respectively, but no clear change in the size of habitat area was found in the unfenced Kuaierma area; and (5) the fence lines impaired the possibility of gazelles to escape from predators and occasionally trapped the Przewalski’s gazelle which failed to jump over the fence lines. Death occurrence of Przewalski’s gazelle in the intensively fenced area, including gazelles strangled by fence lines and predated by wolves, reached 5% of the population size in Yuanzhe and up to 15%–20% in Hudong-Ketu. This study highlights the negative impacts of grassland fencing on Przewalski’s gazelle and proposes measures for integrating conservation of this gazelle with livestock management practice.


Procapra przewalskii fence line habitat livestock range management 


  1. 1.
    Fahring L, Merriam G. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conser Biol, 1994, 8: 50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saunder D A, Hobbs R J, Margules R. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation, a review. Conserv Biol, 1991, 5: 18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li C, Jiang Z, Feng Z, et al. Effects of highway traffic on diurnal activity of the critically endangered Przewalski’s gazelle. Wildlife Res, 2009, 36: 379–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forman R T T, Alexander L E. Roads and their major ecological effects. Ann Rev Ecol Sys, 1998, 29: 207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Milner-Gulland E J, Lhagvasuren B. Population dynamics of the Mongolian gazelle Procapra gutturosa, an historical analysis. J Appl Ecol, 1998, 35: 240–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    State Development Planning Commission (SDPC). Report on the Population, Resources and Environment of China. Beijing: China Environmental Sciences Press, 1996. 74–77Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). China Ecological and Environmental Situation Report 2002. Beijing: China Environmental Sciences Press, 2002. 12–14Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newman J L. Effects of woven wire fence with cattleguards on a free-living antelope population. Proc Antelope States Workshop, 1966, 2: 6–8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    May M. Fencing for livestock management. Proc Biennial Antelope States Workshop, 1968. 3: 62–64Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gross B D, Holeches J L, Hallford D, et al. Effectiveness of antelope pass structures in restriction of livestock. J Range Manage, 1983, 36: 22–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dyer S J, O’Neill J P, Wasel S M, et al. Quantifying barrier effects of roads and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Can J Zool, 2002, 80: 839–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Poole D W, Western G, McKkillop I G. The effects of fence voltage and the type of conducting wire on the efficacy of an electric fence to exclude badgers (Meles meles). Crop Protection, 2004, 23: 27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang R, Wang Z. Report on Mammals in Qinghai and Gansu Provinces. Beijing: Science Press, 1964Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jiang Z, Fen Z, Wang Z, et al. Historical and current distributions of Przewalski’s gazelle. Acta Theriol Sin, 1995, 15: 241–245Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang Z, Li D, Wang W. Population declines of Przewalski’s gazelle around Qinghai Lake, China. Oryx, 2000, 34: 129–135Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hu J, Jiang Z. Predicting the potential distribution of the endangered Przewalski’s gazelle. J Zool, 2010, 28: 54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li Z, Jiang Z. Grouping behavioral differences in the sympatric Tibetan gazelle and Przewalski’s gazelle in the upper Buha River region. Zool Res, 2006, 27: 396–402Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jiang Z, Li D, Peng J, et al. Structure, elasticity and diversity of animal behaviour. Biodiversity Sci, 2001, 9: 265–274Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu B, Jiang Z. Diet composition of wolf in the Qinghai Lake region in northeast Tibetan Plateau. Acta Theriol, 2002, 48: 255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li D, Jiang Z, Wang W. Impacts of human activities on the distribution of the critically endangered Przewalski’s gazelle. Acta Ecol Sin, 1999, 19: 890–895Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    You Z, Jiang Z. Courtship and mating behaviors in Przewalski’s gazelle (Procapra przewalskii). Acta Zool Sin, 2005, 51: 187–194Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li C, Jiang Z, Ping X, et al. Current status and conservation of Przewalski’s gazelle Procapra przewalskii. Oryx, 2012, 46: 145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    You Z, Jiang Z, Li C. Location of rut stands vs. mating opportunities in Przewalski’s gazelle: A field test of the “Resource-based hypothesis” and “Female traffic version of the hotspot hypothesis”. Curr Zool, 2011, 57: 701–708Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prejevalsky [Przewalski] N. Mongolia, the Tangut Country, and the Solitudes of Northern Tibet. London, Sampson, Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington, 1876Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li D, Jiang Z. Population viability analysis for the Przewalski’s gazelle (Procapra przewalskii). Russian J Ecol, 2001, 33: 115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schroeder M A, Robb L A. Fidelity of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus to breeding areas in a fragmented landscape. Wildlife Biol, 2003, 9: 291–299Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Takehiko Y I, Naoko M, Badamjav L, et al. Preliminary evidence of a barrier effect of a railroad on the migration of Mongolian gazelles. Conserv Biol, 2005, 19: 945–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lei R, Jiang Z. Phylogeography and genetic diversity of the critically endangered Przewalski’s gazelle. Anim Conserv, 2003, 6: 361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fox J L, Kelsang D, Dorji T. Tibetan antelope Pantholops hodgsonii conservation and new rangeland management policies in the western Chang Tang Nature Reserve, Tibet: Is fencing creating an impasse? Oryx, 2009, 43: 183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang J, Jiang Z. Genetic diversity, population genetic structure and demographic history of Przewalski’s gazelle (Procapra przewalskii): Implications for conservation. Conserv Genetics, 2011, doi: 10.1007/s10592-011-0244-7Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yang J, Jiang Z, Zeng Y, et al. Effect of anthropogenic landscape features on population genetic differentiation of Przewalski’s gazelle: Main role of human settlement. PLoS One, 2011, 6: e20144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goddard P J, Summers R W, Macdonald A J. Behavioral responses of red deer to fences of five different designs. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2001, 73: 289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang S, Li Y, Wang Y. Relationship between foraging areas of sheep (wether) and spatial heterogeneity of grassland landscape. Acta Ecol Sin, 1999, 19: 25–30Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hodgetts B V, Waas J R, Matthews L R. The effects of visual and auditory disturbance no the behavior of red deer (Cervus elaphus) at pasture with and without shelter. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 1998, 55: 337–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baines D, Andrew M. Marking of deer fences to reduce frequency of collisions by woodland grouse. Conserv Biol, 2003, 110: 169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hu J, Jiang Z. Climate change hastens the conservation urgency of an endangered ungulate. PLoS One, 2011, 6: e22873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mallon D P, Jiang Z. Grazers on the plains: Challenges and prospects for large herbivores in Central Asia. J Appl Ecol, 2009, 46: 516–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • ZhangQiang You
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • ZhiGang Jiang
    • 1
  • ChunWang Li
    • 1
  • David Mallon
    • 4
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of ZoologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Mianyang Normal UniversityMianyangChina
  4. 4.Antelope Specialist Group, SSC, IUCN/Dept of Biology, Chemistry and Health ScienceManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations