Protecting and connecting landscapes stabilizes populations of the Endangered savannah elephant.

The influence of protected areas on the growth of African savannah elephant populations is inadequately known. Across southern Africa, elephant numbers grew at 0.16% annually for the past quarter century. Locally, much depends on metapopulation dynamics-the size and connections of individual populations. Population numbers in large, connected, and strictly protected areas typically increased, were less variable from year to year, and suffered less from poaching. Conversely, populations in buffer areas that are less protected but still connected have more variation in growth from year to year. Buffer areas also differed more in their growth rates, likely due to more threats and dispersal opportunities in the face of such dangers. Isolated populations showed consistently high growth due to a lack of emigration. This suggests that "fortress" conservation generally maintains high growth, while anthropogenic-driven source-sink dynamics within connected conservation clusters drive stability in core areas and variability in buffers.

A systematic review of elephant impact across Africa.

Contradictory findings among scientific studies that address a particular issue may impede the conversion of science to management implementation. A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies to generate a single outcome may overcome this problem. The contentious topic of the impact that a megaherbivore such as the savanna elephant have for other species and their environment can benefit from such an approach. After some 68 years, 367 peer-reviewed papers covered the topic and 51 of these papers provided sufficient data to be included in a meta-analysis. We separated the direct impact that elephants had on trees and herbs from the indirect effects on other vertebrates, invertebrates, and soil properties. Elephants have an impact on tree structure and abundance but no overall negative cascading effects for species that share space with them. Primary productivity explained a small amount of variation of elephant impact on vegetation. Elephant numbers (density), study duration, rainfall, tree cover, and the presence of artificial water and fences failed to describe patterns of impact. We conclude that published information do not support the calls made for artificially manipulating elephant numbers to ameliorate elephant impact, and call for the management of space use by elephants to maintain savanna heterogeneity.