SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL DRIVERS OF MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY AND HUMANCARNIVORE COEXISTENCE IN FARAGOSA-FURA LANDSCAPE OF SOUTHERN RIFT VALLEY, ETHIOPIA PhD DISSERTATION BERHANU GEBO GETO ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA JUNE 2022 SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL DRIVERS OF MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY AND HUMANCARNIVORE COEXISTENCE IN FARAGOSA-FURA LANDSCAPE OF SOUTHERN RIFT VALLEY, ETHIOPIA BERHANU GEBO GETO A PhD DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, COLLEGE OF NATURAL AND COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES, ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PhD) IN BIOLOGY WITH SPECIALIZATION IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PRINCIPAL SUPERVISOR SEREKEBIRHAN TAKELE (PhD, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR) CO-SUPERVISOR SIMON SHIBRU (PhD, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR) ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA JUNE 2022 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I have no words to express my profound sense of gratitude and innumerable thanks to Almighty God, who gave me the courage to complete this study. I greatly acknowledge my highly esteemed supervisors, Serekebirhan Takele (PhD) and Simon Shibru (PhD), for their amazing reviews, guidance, supervising in the field, open-door policy, and constant encouragement from the proposal development stage up to the end of this study. Thank you for putting up with me as a student. This dissertation would not have been possible without their invaluable assistance. I also take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude to Arba Minch University, which allowed me to study for my PhD and who cordially supported me in completing this task through various stages and funded my PhD study. Thank you to the Department of Biology at Arba Minch University for supplying field equipment including camera traps and casings. I am thankful to Abebe Bashe, Zoology Laboratory facilitator at Arba Minch University, who provided me with survey facilities and gave training. Thank you, Arba Minch College of Teachers' Education, for providing me with a great opportunity to embark on my career, research funds, and financial help. Thank you, IDEA WILD, for assistance with equipment such as wildlife camera traps, a laptop, and a hard disk. My sincere thanks go to the Faragosa and Fura administrators, who were always ready to help me whenever I was in need. I would not have completed my fieldwork without the support of trained field assistants. They helped me during social and ecological surveying in the land-use types, provided forest-crossing logistics along transects, and prepared and deployed cameras on the sites. I am grateful to the people living in the Faragosa-Fura landscape amidst wildlife, who opened their time and homes to researchers. Thank you, Professor Zerihun Woldu, for helping in R-software training. I would like to thank Beyene Senedu, Lecturer in the Meteorology and Hydrology Faculty at Arba Minch University for ArcGIS mapping. I would like to thank my family and friends for continuous encouragement, love, and support. Finally, yet importantly, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my wife, Radia Suliman. Let me just say thank you so much for standing strong and keeping the family intact when I was unable to support you at home during the last four years. You gave me love, encouragement, and the liberty to focus on my PhD work. Thank you, my daughters: Aynayehu, Biruktawit, and Keamilak; you are all my heroes. i LIST OF ACRONYMS ArcGIS Aeronautical Reconnaissance Coverage Geographic Information System version 10.4.1 CSA Central Statistics Agency ENMSA Ethiopian National Meteorology Service Agency EWCA Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority FFL Faragosa-Fura Landscape GLM Generalized Linear Model GLMM Generalized Linear Mixed Model IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources KAP Knowledge, Attitude and Practice KW Kruskal-Wallis LR Likelihood Ratio MAW-RDO Mirab Abaya Woreda Rural Development Office MLR Multiple Linear Regression OR Ordinary Regression PLS Partial Least Squared Regression UPGMA Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………………………………...i LIST OF ACRONYMS ……………………………………………………………………………ii TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………………iii LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………………viii LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………………….ix LIST OF APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………….xi SYNOPSIS ……………………………………………………………………………………….xii Chapter 1: General introduction …………………………………………………………………...1 1.1 Mammal diversity and conservation status ............................................................................. 2 1.2 Prey-carnivore relationships.................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Human-carnivore coexistence in human-dominated landscape .............................................. 4 1.4 Human-carnivore conflict in human-dominated landscape .................................................... 5 1.4.1 Anthropogenic land use changes ...................................................................................... 5 1.4.2 Livestock depredation....................................................................................................... 6 1.4.3 Depredation control methods............................................................................................ 6 1.5 Local people's knowledge, attitude, and practice towards carnivores .................................... 7 1.6 Mammalian carnivores diversity and conservation in Ethiopia .............................................. 7 1.7 Problem statement ................................................................................................................... 8 1.8 Scope and significance of the study ........................................................................................ 9 1.9 Overview of the study landscape .......................................................................................... 10 1.10 Conceptual framework of the study .................................................................................... 13 1.11 Objective of the research ..................................................................................................... 15 1.12 Dissertation outline ............................................................................................................. 15 1.13 Ethical considerations and COVID-19 precaution .............................................................. 17 Chapter 2: Impacts of habitats and seasons on mammal diversity and distribution ……………...18 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 20 iii 2.2 Materials and Methods .......................................................................................................... 21 2.2.1 Study area ....................................................................................................................... 21 2.2.2 Study design ................................................................................................................... 22 2.2.3 Data collection ................................................................................................................ 23 2.2.4 Data analyses .................................................................................................................. 23 2.3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 24 2.3.1 Species composition and richness .................................................................................. 24 2.3.2 Species distribution......................................................................................................... 25 2.3.3 Species relative abundance ............................................................................................. 26 2.3.4 Species diversity and similarity indices.......................................................................... 29 2.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 29 2.4.1 Species taxonomic composition ..................................................................................... 29 2.4.2 Species richness .............................................................................................................. 30 2.4.3 Species relative abundance ............................................................................................. 31 2.4.4 Species distribution......................................................................................................... 31 2.4.5 Diversity index of the landscape .................................................................................... 32 2.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 33 Chapter 3: Anthropogenic land use and environmental factors affecting the species richness and occurrence of carnivores ………………………………………………………………………….34 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 36 3.2 Materials and Methods .......................................................................................................... 38 3.2.1 Study area ....................................................................................................................... 38 3.2.2 Study design ................................................................................................................... 39 3.2.3 Data collection ................................................................................................................ 39 3.2.4 Data analyses .................................................................................................................. 40 3.3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 41 3.3.1 Species taxonomic and body size composition .............................................................. 41 iv 3.3.2 Species richness and occurrence between land uses ...................................................... 42 3.3.3 Effects of land use and environmental factors on species richness ................................ 43 3.3.4 Effects of land use and environmental factors on specific-species ................................ 44 3.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 46 3.4.1 Taxonomic composition and species richness ................................................................ 46 3.4.2 Effect of land use on carnivores ..................................................................................... 47 3.4.3 Effects of environmental factors on carnivores .............................................................. 48 3.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 49 Chapter 4: Effects of prey abundance on carnivore populations …………………………………50 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 52 4.2 Materials and Methods .......................................................................................................... 53 4.2.1 Study area ....................................................................................................................... 53 4.2.2 Study design ................................................................................................................... 54 4.2.3 Carnivore data collection ................................................................................................ 54 4.2.4 Prey data collection ........................................................................................................ 54 4.2.5 Data analyses .................................................................................................................. 56 4.3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 57 4.3.1 Carnivore population abundance and diversity .............................................................. 57 4.3.2 Prey species abundance and diversity ............................................................................ 58 4.3.3 Contribution of prey groups to carnivore community abundance .................................. 60 4.3.4 Community structure ...................................................................................................... 60 4.3.5 Species-specific model of carnivores ............................................................................. 61 4.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 62 4.4.1 Carnivore abundance and diversity ................................................................................ 62 4.4.2 Prey abundance and diversity ......................................................................................... 63 4.4.3 Effect of prey abundance on carnivore community........................................................ 63 4.4.4 Community structure ...................................................................................................... 64 v 4.4.5 Single-species model ...................................................................................................... 64 4.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 65 Chapter 5: Knowledge, attitude and practice of the local people towards human-carnivore coexistence ……………………………………………………………………………………….66 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 68 5.2 Materials and Methods .......................................................................................................... 70 5.2.1 Study area ....................................................................................................................... 70 5.2.2 Target sample size and sampling frame ......................................................................... 70 5.2.3 Questionnaire design ...................................................................................................... 71 5.2.4 KAP survey..................................................................................................................... 72 5.2.5 Data analyses .................................................................................................................. 73 5.3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 73 5.3.1 Characteristics respondents ............................................................................................ 73 5.3.2 Knowledge about carnivores .......................................................................................... 74 5.3.3 Attitude and perception towards problem status of carnivores ...................................... 75 5.3.4 Practice of depredation control methods ........................................................................ 77 5.3.5 Factors that influence KAP of local people .................................................................... 77 5.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 78 5.4.1 Knowledge about carnivores .......................................................................................... 78 5.4.2 Attitude and perception towards the problem status of carnivores ................................ 79 5.4.3 Practice of depredation control methods ........................................................................ 79 5.4.4 Factors influencing KAP of local people ....................................................................... 80 5.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 81 Chapter 6: Perception and attitude of the local people towards carnivore population and conservation ………………………………………………………………………………………82 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 84 6.2 Materials and Methods .......................................................................................................... 86 vi 6.2.1 Study area ....................................................................................................................... 86 6.2.2 Target participants and sampling frame ......................................................................... 86 6.2.3 Questionnaire design ...................................................................................................... 87 6.2.4 Data collection ................................................................................................................ 87 6.2.5 Data analyses .................................................................................................................. 88 6.3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 90 6.3.1 Perception of respondents towards population abundance ............................................. 90 6.3.2 Respondents perception towards population trends ....................................................... 91 6.3.3 Attitude towards support for carnivore conservation ..................................................... 91 6.3.4 Factors influencing the perception and attitude of local people ..................................... 92 6.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 94 6.4.1 Perception of the local people towards population abundance....................................... 94 6.4.2 Perception of the local people towards population trend ............................................... 95 6.4.3 Attitude of the local people towards support for conservation ....................................... 95 6.4.4 Factors influencing perception and attitude of the local people ..................................... 96 6.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 99 Chapter 7: General conclusion and recommendation …………………………………………..100 7.1 Summary of major findings ................................................................................................ 101 7.2 General conclusion .............................................................................................................. 104 7.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 105 7.4 Future research needs .......................................................................................................... 106 8. REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………….107 9. APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………………..119 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Formulas used in the mammal diversity analyses ………………….…………………...24 Table 2. List of mammal species recorded, and IUCN Red List categories………………………25 Table 3. Carnivore composition, their source of evidence and IUCN status……………………..41 Table 4. Effect of land use and environmental factor outputs from generalized linear models with Poisson distribution on the species richness…………………………………………………43 Table 5. Frequency of records, trap success, and diversity index of carnivore species…………..58 Table 6. Frequency of records of prey species and groups……………………………………….59 Table 7. Contribution, direction, and significance of the effects of prey groups on specific carnivore species ……………………………………………………………………………62 Table 8. Characteristics of demographic and socioeconomic variables and statistical tests……...74 Table 9. Percentage of mentions and the composition of carnivore species …….……………….75 Table 10. Variables in the regression model that influence knowledge and attitude of the local people towards carnivores…………………………………………………………………...78 Table 11. Categories, coding and descriptions of variables used in the regression models ……...89 Table 12. Factors influencing the perception and attitude of respondents towards carnivore abundance, population trend and conservation in the regression models……………………93 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Faragosa-Fura Landscape ……………………………………………………...10 Figure 2. Mean monthly rainfall and temperature ………………………………………………..11 Figure 3. Land use/land cover types in the FFL …………………………..……………………...12 Figure 4. Percentage of land use/land cover types in the FFL ..………………………………….13 Figure 5. Overall conceptual framework of the research ………………………………………...14 Figure 6. Dissertation outline …………………………………………………………………….15 Figure 7. Location of the study area showing the distribution of line transects among different habitats ………………………………………………………………………………………22 Figure 8. Venn diagram showing assemblage of mammal species in habitat types………………26 Figure 9. Species richness and frequency of records among habitats and seasons ………………27 Figure 10. Mammal species frequency of records among four habitat types……………………..28 Figure 11. Mammal species frequency of records during wet and dry seasons ……….…………28 Figure 12. Mammal species diversity indices across habitat types ………………………………29 Figure 13. Map of FFL showing land use types, line transects and camera stations for carnivore species survey. ……………………..………………………………………………………..38 Figure 14. Mean species richness of carnivores and 95% confidence interval between land use types …………………………………………………………………………………………42 Figure 15. Proportion of occurrence of carnivore species in transects …………………………...43 Figure 16. Response of species to different factors output from generalized linear model ……...45 Figure 17. Map of the study area depicting camera stations for carnivore populations survey ….53 Figure 18. Design of a study demonstrating line transects radiated from a camera station installed in a grid cell ………………………...……………………………………………………….55 Figure 19. Direction of effect, contribution, and significance level of prey groups on overall carnivore abundance ………………………………………………………………………...60 Figure 20. Relationship between the abundance of carnivore species and prey groups …………61 Figure 21. Map of the study area showing the two surveyed Kebeles …….…..…………………70 Figure 22. Percentage of livestock loss reported by respondents …………………...……………76 ix Figure 23. Dendrogram of hierarchical cluster analyses shows the threat clusters of carnivore species …………………….………………………………………………………...……….76 Figure 24. Depredation control methods practicing by the local people …………….…………...77 Figure 25. Percentage of respondents‘ response to perceptions of carnivore population status …90 Figure 26. Percentage of respondents‘ response to perceptions towards carnivore population ….91 Figure 27. Percentage of respondents‘ response to attitude towards support for carnivore conservation …………………………………………………………………………………92 x LIST OF APPENDICES 1 Raw data of mammal species recorded in each habitat types and seasons …………………...119 2. Overall frequency of mammal species records in the study landscape ………………………120 3. Training of data collectors on data collection procedures and installation of camera traps ….120 4. Carnivore species recorded during survey period and sources of evidences ………………...121 5. ArcGIS maps showing the occurrence of 12 carnivore species in surveyed transects ………123 6. Road kill of carnivores in the study area ……………………………...……………………...125 7. Scientific names and mean body mass for all species included in the study, with relative abundance for prey species ………...………………………………………………………125 8. Semi-structured questionnaire used for interview in the KAP survey ……………………….126 9. Picture cards of carnivores that are used to examine social survey towards KAP of local people and carnivore population status ....................................................................................……127 10. Dependent variables, modelling and model fitting information for KAP models ....,,,,,,,,,.....129 11. Semi-structured questionnaire used for interview to population trend and conservation …..129 12. The number of respondent reports on species names, population abundance, population trend and support for conservation, and IUCN red list category ………………………………...130 13. Dependent variables, their modelling and model fitting information in carnivore population status and conservation …………………………………………………………………….131 xi SYNOPSIS Mammals are ecosystem engineers and serve as flagship or umbrella species in conservation efforts. However, mammal species, particularly carnivores, are under threat of extinction globally because of anthropogenic land use change, and human-wildlife conflict. Although literatures acknowledge the importance of human-dominated landscapes as conservation strategy for humanwildlife coexistence, landscape has received little attention to date. The human-dominated landscape in the Faragosa-Fura landscape of the southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia allows us to investigate the effects of socio-ecological drivers on mammal diversity and human-carnivore coexistence. The study aimed to investigate: (1) mammal diversity across habitats and seasons; (2) anthropogenic land use and environmental factors affecting carnivore species richness and occurrence; (3) the effects of prey abundance on carnivore populations; (4) local people's knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding carnivore species, problem status, and livestock depredation; and (5) local people's perception and attitude toward carnivore population status. Using data from a line-transect survey at the landscape level, we examined how habitats and seasons affect mammal diversity. The main findings were: (1) the study area is home to 21 mammal species belonging to six orders and 13 families, including the globally vulnerable Panthera leo, Panthera pardus, and Hippopotamus amphibius; (2) Papio anubis and Chlorocebus aethiops were the dominant species; (3) the frequency of records of mammals was 685, of which the forest had the highest and the agricultural area had the lowest; and (4) the dry season was characterized by the high frequency of records of mammals but by the low species richness. Our findings suggested that the area has the potential to conserve mammal species in Ethiopia and call for landscape level nature conservation. We then investigated anthropogenic land uses and environmental factors affecting carnivore species richness and occurrence on 30 line transects using a multiple data collection techniques. We asserted that (1) there were 12 carnivore species (two of which were large-sized); (2) the number of species was highest in the wetland (n = 12) and lowest along the settlement (n = 5); and (3) the majority of carnivores had a strong negative relationship with agriculture, roads, and settlement. The findings stress a landscape level strategy for balancing land management and wildlife conservation. We used camera trapping on 15 grids (2 x 2 km) to investigate the effects of prey abundance on carnivore populations. We found that (1) the area is home to eight carnivore species in 400 records and 28 prey species in 801 records; (2) smaller-sized carnivores (Galerella sanguinea, Ichneumia albicauda, Genetta genetta, and Halogale parvula) were abundant and contributed more to the carnivore species abundance in the area; (3) primates and medium-sized ungulates were the most abundant species among prey groups; and (4) medium-sized ungulates and large birds seemed to be the most important xii predictors of carnivore abundance in camera stations; and (5) Shannon diversity index showed that prey diversity is twice as high as carnivore diversity. Our findings support the importance of prey group abundance in both prey and carnivore conservation. Hereafter, we used a semistructured interview with four parts of questions to investigate local people's KAP. According to this survey, local people had better knowledge of carnivores coexisting with them, and 85.5% perceived carnivores as problematic species. At a species-specific level, Crocuta crocuta, Leptailurus serval, Panthera pardus, Genetta genetta, and Canis mesomelas were much more problematic for livestock than others. Carnivore depredation was higher for chickens and goats than for the remaining livestock. The main depredation control methods included guarding and fencing for larger livestock and keeping chickens indoors during the night. Finally, we interviewed respondents about carnivore population status and trends using a semi-structured question and showing photographic sampling of 13 carnivore species. Between 2015 and 2019, 57.4% of respondents believed that carnivore population abundance had decreased. The reported decline was higher for Panthera leo, Caracal caracal, and Panthera pardus, while the increase was high for Genetta genetta and mongooses. Two-thirds of respondents opposed the conservation of Crocuta crocuta, Canis mesomelas, Genetta genetta, and mongoose species while supporting the conservation of Panthera leo, Caracal caracal, Civettictis civetta, and Panthera pardus. The respondents' gender, age, education status, livestock number, and livestock damage were important factors in explaining their perceptions and attitudes toward carnivores. Our findings advocate socio-ecological aspects of conservation actions such as land management to preserve wildlife, conservation education to raise local people's awareness and positive attitude toward wildlife conservation, and non-lethal depredation mitigation measures to promote humanwildlife coexistence through local community participation. Keywords: Attitude, Carnivore population, Depredation, Human-carnivore coexistence, Humandominated landscape, Mammal diversity, Prey-carnivore relationship xiii Chapter 1: General introduction Papio anubis Crocuta crocuta Crested porcupine Sylvicapra grimmia 1 1. Introduction Protected areas have been successful as population refuges for several wildlife species. Nevertheless, these areas constitute a mere 16% of Ethiopia‘s land area. In Ethiopia, the focus of conservation efforts for mammals, particularly carnivores, has been limited to protected areas. Although several species of mammals inhabit human-dominated landscapes outside of protected areas, conservation interventions and policy have been inadequate in addressing the ecological values of these landscapes for conservation. In these landscapes, native habitats are severely at risk of land use change for agricultural activities, road development, and human settlement purposes. This necessitates studies on the diversity of mammals and human-carnivore coexistence in human-dominated landscapes before local extinction. Additionally, since the human-wildlife interface is high in such areas, the persistence of many species of mammals may depend on their survival where they come into conflict with humans and their livestock. The knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of the local people towards carnivore populations in the areas where they live are of critical importance in the quest for coexistence. In this section, we presented mammal diversity, human-carnivore coexistence, local people's KAP towards carnivore populations, and conservation. 1.1 Mammal diversity and conservation status Mammal species act as umbrella or flagship species of terrestrial ecosystems because they contribute to the conservation efforts of other species and maintain ecosystem balance (Bene et al., 2013; Udy et al., 2021). Many of the world's ecosystems rely on small-sized (less than 2 kg), medium-sized (2–15 kg) and large-sized (greater than 15 kg) mammal species for grazing, predation, and seed dispersal (Kingdon, 2015; IUCN, 2021). Furthermore, they provide valuable human benefits such as food, recreation, and income (Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Penjor et al., 2021). However, mammal species have been facing extinction both globally and locally because of anthropogenic activities. Because of rising human populations and their pressure on wildlife habitat, habitats of mammals have been disappearing at an alarming rate in both size and number. These challenges are especially acute in sub-Saharan African countries, which are currently experiencing rapid population growth (Ceballos et al., 2015). Anthropogenic habitat loss, degradation, and harvesting (hunting and gathering for food, medicine, fuel, and construction materials) are the main threats to mammal species (Qufa and Bekele, 2019; Mekonen, 2020; Bakala and Mekonen, 2021). Furthermore, road construction and settlement have been shown to play a significant impact on the abundance and distribution of 2 many species. This emphasizes the importance of conserving these animals in human-dominated landscapes by promoting human-wildlife coexistence. Mammalia is a class that includes 5850 species found all over the world (IUCN, 2021). Of these, 1244 mammal species are listed as threatened. One in four mammals is threatened with extinction, and the populations of one in two mammal species are declining (Ceballos et al., 2015). Out of the 5850 species, more than 1150 different mammal species have been identified in Africa (Newbold et al., 2015), 360 in eastern Africa (Girma et al., 2012; Diriba et al., 2020) and 320 in Ethiopia (Amare, 2015). Among the recognized 320 mammal species of Ethiopia, 55 are endemic and distributed across 14 orders and 39 families (Lavrenchenko and Bekele, 2017). Of the class Mammalia, order Carnivora contains 290 extant and 6 extinct species, grouped into 16 families (IUCN, 2021). Of these, 72 are found in Africa (Kingdon, 2015), and 32 species occur in Ethiopia (Yalden et al., 1996). Almost all carnivores are predators that live in all habitat types at low densities and are more vulnerable to extinction because they occupy a higher trophic level (Ceballos et al., 2015). Felidae and Mustelidae have a higher number of species and are the most vulnerable of the 16 families (IUCN, 2021). A large number of carnivores are listed as threatened. According to the IUCN Red List, of the 290 extant species, 108 are threatened (4 = critically endangered, 31 = endangered, 43 = vulnerable, 30 = near threatened), 176 are of least concern, and 6 are data deficient. For instance, the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis) and African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) are critically endangered, while the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and African lion (Panthera leo) are vulnerable (IUCN, 2021). According to the same source, the striped hyaena (Hyaena hyaena) is near threatened, while the spotted hyaena (Crocuta crocuta), genets, and mongooses are least concern. Hence, carnivore species necessitate the development of information-based, well-planned, and successful conservation practices. 1.2 Prey-carnivore relationships Prey availability and abundance are important aspects of carnivore ecology and conservation (Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Rich et al., 2017). Carnivores are classified into two groups based on their dietary needs: (i) species that depend on meat for a high proportion of their diet; and (ii) species that feed on insects or foliage/fruits (Creel et al., 2018; Khosravi et al., 2018). For example, some carnivores, such as cats and weasels, are strictly carnivorous, while others, e.g., canids, mustelids, and many viverrids, subsist largely on insects (Šálek et al., 2010; Gutema et al., 2019). This variation in diet may be because of differences in prey size and energy requirements between species. For instance, small carnivores usually have lower energy requirements than large carnivores, and hence the latter require larger prey (e.g., ungulates) to meet their high energy 3 demands, while for small carnivores (less than 2 kg; Kingdon, 2015), insects and birds can provide sufficient energy (Wolf and Ripple, 2016). The abundance of carnivores in habitats is strongly linked to the abundance of potential prey (Červinka et al., 2013; Rich et al., 2017). Ungulates, primates, rodents, and birds are the most important prey species for the majority of carnivores in different landscapes (Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Creel et al., 2018). Most carnivore species feed on a variety of prey species. Mellivora capensis, mongooses, and foxes, for example, are omnivores (eat a wide variety of foods), whereas many others (e.g., genets) eat insects and rodents (Šálek et al., 2010). Some carnivores feed primarily on mammals and birds (e.g., Crocuta crocuta, Panthera pardus, jackals) (Rich et al., 2017; Creel et al., 2018). Many mammals are the most important prey for carnivores, making up the majority of their diet (Wolf and Ripple, 2016). Understanding how carnivore populations respond to prey abundance in habitats is critical for both prey species and carnivore population conservation. 1.3 Human-carnivore coexistence in human-dominated landscape The two most common wildlife conservation strategies are creating protected areas and encouraging human-wildlife coexistence in a shared landscape (Teixeira et al., 2021). In developed countries, both strategies account for wildlife conservation (Lozano et al., 2019). However, conservation practices in developing countries rely on protected areas (a cornerstone for biodiversity conservation), particularly in national parks. Protected areas are rapidly dwindling as a result of anthropogenic habitat loss, forcing wildlife to local extinction or to share habitats with humans (IUCN, 2021; Mekonen, 2020; Bakala and Mekonen, 2021). Therefore, successful conservation of wildlife must not only focus on protected areas but also on human-dominated areas as well (Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Wall et al., 2021). Human-carnivore coexistence refers to the long-term state in which humans and wildlife co-adapt to living in human-dominated landscapes (Lozano et al., 2019; Teixeira et al., 2021; Wall et al., 2021). Coexistence is promising when interdisciplinary strategies are used that combine ecological and social approaches (Srivathsa et al., 2019; Cork, 2020). For example, when local people's behaviour is based on fostering positive attitudes toward carnivores, their willingness to coexist with carnivore species increases. As a result, incidents of carnivore retaliatory killings can decrease (Gebresenbet et al., 2018a). Harmonic human-carnivore coexistence has been necessary to ensure carnivore survival (Srivathsa et al., 2019) and the future conservation of carnivore populations (Woodroffe et al., 2007; Lozano et al., 2019). 4 Despite habitat loss and fragmentation, the main target should be dedicated to merging human activities and conservation activities (Gálvez et al., 2018). For example, in developed countries, people in rural areas put a lot of pressure on government agencies because they bear conservation costs like human attacks and livestock depredation as a result of living with these carnivores (Lozano et al., 2019). However, in developing countries where compensation for livestock loss due to carnivores is not a government priority, local people primarily use lethal as well as nonlethal methods to protect livestock (Mekonen, 2020), which affects human-carnivore coexistence. Although some of these techniques are ineffective and temporary, new multiple techniques promoting human-carnivore coexistence should be used as countermeasures (Dickman, 2010). Therefore, more effort should be made to fostering coexistence between humans and carnivores, as this will ultimately enhance their future conservation. 1.4 Human-carnivore conflict in human-dominated landscape Understanding the nature of the human-carnivore conflict in a human-dominated landscape is essential for developing effective conservation plans that can benefit both people and wildlife (Lozano et al., 2019). Anthropogenic land use changes, livestock depredation, and predation control methods have all posed threats to carnivores around the world. 1.4.1 Anthropogenic land use changes Land use change as a result of human development leads to human-wildlife conflict, resulting in habitat loss (Srivathsa et al., 2019). Wildlife habitats are disappearing quickly from the earth‘s surface due to human interference (Gebresenbet et al., 2018b). Overgrazing, deforestation, bushfires, mining, settlement, and cultivation are the primary causes of habitat loss. When humans dominate an area, their activities have a huge negative impact on wildlife (Gervasi et al., 2020). This condition primarily affects mammal species whose conservation necessitates a large areas (Ripple et al., 2014). Another challenge to land use change is the increase in the human population (Ripple et al., 2014). Human population growth drives up demand for land for settlement, agricultural activities for food security, and road development. Such demands tend to encroach on arable and fertile lands adjacent to forest areas, which has a negative impact on carnivore and other wildlife conservation (Kasso and Bekele, 2017; Wait et al., 2018). According to the projection of CSA (2019), the population of Ethiopia is now nearly twice as large (more than 114 million) compared to 25 years ago. Because human population growth control is poor in East Africa, there is a strong negative correlation between human population growth, habitat loss, and carnivore extinction 5 (Willcox, 2020). It is a well-known fact that as the human population grows; wildlife habitats become fragmented, which necessitates immediate conservation intervention. 1.4.2 Livestock depredation Human-carnivore conflict over livestock predation is a serious management issue that wildlife managers are currently dealing with (Miller et al., 2016; Amare and Serekebirhan, 2019). Depredation is becoming more common because of habitat loss and prey depletion (Wolf and Ripple, 2016). When wild prey becomes scarce, carnivores predate on livestock to survive (Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Bruns et al., 2020). For instance, it is estimated that conflict with humans affects almost all of the world's felid species due to livestock depredation (Cork, 2020; TorresRomero et al., 2020). This shows that livestock depredation is one of the causes of humancarnivore conflict. It was also observed that the severity of the conflict increase with the body mass of the species. Some high body mass species (Caracal caracal, Acinonyx jubatus, Panthera pardus, Panthera leo, Leptailurus serval, Panthera tigris, and hyaenas) are identified as having the highest risk of conflict with humans due to livestock depredation (Durant et al., 2010; Gebresenbet et al., 2018a). Depredation losses are more common in cattle, sheep, and goats (Yirga et al., 2013; Gebresenbet et al., 2018b). Such losses can severely affect local people's livelihoods and, as a result, exacerbate human-carnivore conflict. However, in developing countries, the magnitude of conflict caused by livestock depredation, as well as the impact on carnivore conservation, is underestimated. 1.4.3 Depredation control methods Carnivores are on the verge of extinction on a global scale due to direct or indirect retaliatory killings by humans (Woodroffe et al., 2007). When carnivores prey on livestock, local people employ either lethal (on-the-spot killing, snares, and the use of insecticides or pesticides) or nonlethal methods (fencing, guarding, keeping indoors) against carnivores (Lute et al., 2018; Mekonen, 2020; Willcox, 2020). Carnivore retaliatory killing is currently outpacing their ability to re-establish their populations. Mortality increases when a high-density of human population surrounds a given wild area (Willcox, 2020). Consequently, local people frequently retaliate by spearing the animals or poisoning them with pesticides or insecticides (Lute et al., 2018). Several carnivore species have suffered recently as a result of technological advancements that have made poisons (e.g., carbofuran) more accessible and applying carbofuran to carcasses which ultimately kills 6 carnivores that feed on carcasses such as hyaenas, jackals, genets, and mongooses (Lute et al., 2018; Mekonen, 2020; Willcox, 2020). Sometimes, the killing occurs indirectly, such as when herbivores consume pesticide-contaminated grasses and die (Lute et al., 2018). Therefore, evidence-based management efforts to correct this situation are important. 1.5 Local people's knowledge, attitude, and practice towards carnivores Local people's knowledge, attitude, and practice /KAP/ have been influencing human-carnivore coexistence (Jacobsen et al., 2021). Due to livestock depredation, people express minimal willingness to coexist with carnivores (Tessema et al., 2010). Negative attitudes increase the likelihood that humans take revenge by killing carnivores (Lindsey et al., 2013; Teixeira et al., 2021). Local people had knowledge of behavioural and ecological traits of species, such as knowing species names, colour, size, and feeding habits (Gandiwa, 2012; Rutina et al., 2017). Based on the literature, the contribution of local knowledge to effective conservation practices has been well accepted (Logan et al., 2015). High levels of knowledge about wildlife species are linked to a more positive attitude toward the coexistence of species (Tessema et al., 2010; Rutina et al., 2017). Studies identified that local people's perceptions and attitudes towards the problem status of carnivores on livestock and the status of carnivore populations are important (Lozano et al., 2019). Thus, understanding local people's KAP is critical for identifying cryptic species, resolving conflict, and promoting human-wildlife coexistence (Grass et al., 2019; Western et al., 2019). 1.6 Mammalian carnivores diversity and conservation in Ethiopia Ethiopia is one of the world's biodiversity hotspots, and it deserves regional and global attention (Yalden et al., 1996). Ethiopia's fauna is also extremely diverse. Ethiopia has one of Africa's most diverse mammal faunas, with 320 species of mammals (Amare, 2015; Lavrenchenko and Bekele, 2017), 32 of which are carnivores (Yalden et al., 1996). Among these mammals, 55 are endemic, and 116 are threatened (17 are critically endangered, 38 are endangered, and 61 are vulnerable) (IUCN, 2021). Ethiopian carnivores are diverse, with six families and 32 species (Yalden et al., 1996; Yirga et al., 2013; Lavrenchenko and Bekele, 2017; IUCN, 2021). These are cats of the family Felidae (Acinonyx jubatus; Caracal caracal; Felis lybica; Leptailurus serval; Panthera leo; Panthera pardus), civet and genets of the family Viverridae (Civettictis civetta; Genetta abyssinica; Genetta genetta; Genetta maculata), mongooses of the family Herpestidae (Atilax paludinosus; Galerella sanguinea; Helogale hirtula; Helogale parvula; Herpestes ichneumon; Mungos mungo), hyaenas of the family Hyaenidae (Crocuta crocuta; Hyaena hyaena; Proteles cristatus), dogs and foxes of 7 the family Canidae (Vulpes pallida; Vulpes rueppelli; Canis adustus; Canis anthus; Canis mesomelas; Canis simensis; Otocyon megalotis; Lycaon pictus) as well as family Mustelidae (Ictonyx striatus; Mellivora capensis; Hydrictis maculicollis; Aonyx capensis). Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis) is the only endemic carnivore in Ethiopia. Six of these species are in the threatened IUCN category. The Acinonyx jubatus, Panthera leo, and Panthera pardus are listed as vulnerable by the IUCN, while the Canis simensis and Lycaon pictus are listed as critically endangered. Hyaena hyaena and Genetta abyssinica are near threatened and data-deficient species, respectively (IUCN, 2021). In Ethiopia, some carnivores serve as flagship or umbrella species. For example, Panthera leo and Canis simensis are national symbols and an important part of Ethiopian identity. Panthera leo is depicted on the old national flag, coins, and Panthera leo statues are found in cities and towns across Ethiopia (Yirga et al., 2014). Several companies also use the Panthera leo logo in the country. In addition, Canis simensis, considered the rarest canid species in the world, and is used as a flagship species for the conservation of Ethiopia‘s unique Afro-alpine ecosystem. This shows that the extinction of carnivores in Ethiopia would be an important ecological and socio-cultural loss (Gebresenbet et al., 2018a). However, the carnivore populations in Ethiopia have declined in both number and distribution over the last century due to habitat loss, prey depletion, and land clearance for farming and land degradation due to overgrazing (Cheche, 2016; Gebresenbet et al., 2018a; Fetene et al., 2019; Abraham and Simon, 2020). Nonetheless, our understanding of carnivore conservation implications is surprisingly patchy. 1.7 Problem statement The social and ecological research on wildlife in Ethiopia to date has focused mainly on the protected area systems (Serekebirhan and Solomon, 2011; Fetene et al., 2016; Wale, 2017; Shibru et al., 2020). Human-dominated landscapes are assumed to have less ecological value. The study suggests that the diversity and conservation status of mammals, specifically of carnivore species, in a human-dominated landscape have received little attention. However, because of the enormous anthropogenic pressures, the study of mammals in a human-dominated landscape is very important (Srivathsa et al., 2019). Consequently, the coexistence of species with humans as well as the sensitivity of most species to anthropogenic disturbances are poorly understood (Cheche, 2016). Yet to date, there is little information available on the abundance of most species not only in the community-managed forest but also in adjacent lands, which could have critical importance for the long-term maintenance of carnivore populations in human-dominated landscapes. 8 Most of the wildlife studies that have been carried out in Ethiopia are focused on herbivores (e.g., Abraham and Simon, 2020; Shibru et al., 2020). However, very few studies have been conducted on carnivores so far (e.g., Serekebirhan and Solomon, 2011; Gebresenbet et al., 2018a). This might be partly due to difficulties in surveying carnivores resulting from their biology, including extensive-ranging patterns, low densities, cryptic habits, nocturnal movements, or shy nature (Ripple et al., 2014). Thus, our study aims to fill this gap. The abundance of mammalian carnivores in habitats is strongly linked to the abundance of potential prey such as primates, ungulates, birds, and rodents (Červinka et al., 2013; Rich et al., 2017). However, the research on prey-carnivore relationships in Ethiopia has been given less attention. Aside from a scat analyses study (Abay et al., 2011; Serekebirhan and Solomon, 2011; Yirga et al., 2013), no research has been conducted on the effect of prey number on the abundance of carnivore populations in an Ethiopian human-dominated landscape. Therefore, our research will contribute to fill this gap. Understanding local peoples' KAP regarding human-carnivore coexistence, population trends, and conflict mitigation measures is an important first step in developing sustainable and collaborative wildlife conservation and management systems (Tessema et al., 2010; Amare and Serekebirhan, 2019). Few studies have been conducted in Ethiopia to learn more about the KAP of local people toward human-carnivore coexistence and long-term population trends (Gebresenbet et al., 2018b). There are some documented information on carnivores in the human-dominated landscape, but they are skewed toward northern and central Ethiopia (e.g., Yirga et al., 2013; Biru et al., 2017). The social and ecological aspects of carnivores in southern Ethiopia have received little attention. However, southern Ethiopia, with its intact community forest and Rift Valley lakes, could be an important area for wildlife conservation in Ethiopia (e.g., Fetene et al., 2016; Girma and Worku, 2020). Hence, this study will contribute to such gaps. 1.8 Scope and significance of the study The study focused on mammal diversity and human-carnivore coexistence in the humandominated landscape in the FFL of the southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia. The project aimed to bridge the social and ecological aspects of wildlife by addressing both issues within one study. From the ecological perspective, the aim was to address those gaps in knowledge that exist with regard to the diversity of class Mammalia and order Carnivora that currently live on a rural human-dominated landscape in Ethiopia. The study focuses only on medium and large-sized mammals and all sized carnivores. For these species, species composition, relative abundance, and diversity within land uses and seasons were addressed. Prey-carnivore relationships were 9 studied using only mammal and bird prey groups. The social side of the study was concerned with the knowledge, attitude, and practice of local people towards human-carnivore coexistence and livestock depredation, the population trend of carnivores in the last five years, and the local people support towards carnivore conservation. Also, the socio-economic factors affecting human-carnivore coexistence were assessed. For that reason, not all but the representative households with an age of 18 or above were used as sampling units from two Kebeles, Faragosa and Fura. The present study produced the first wildlife data on mammal diversity, human-carnivore coexistence, and local people‘s knowledge, attitude, and practice towards carnivores in a new system, a human-dominated landscape, using an underrepresented socio-ecological approach. The findings of this investigation will serve as a baseline for researchers, local leaders, and grassroots communities to be alerted about wildlife resources in terms of mammal diversity and humancarnivore coexistence. The findings are also useful for devising a strategy for human-wildlife coexistence and sustainable conservation in human-dominated landscapes in Ethiopia and beyond. 1.9 Overview of the study landscape The research was conducted in the FFL in Mirab Abaya Woreda of Gamo Zone, southern Ethiopia. The FFL has an area of 100 km2 and is located between 06°10'12" and 06°15'00" N latitude and 37°42'36" to 37°47'24" E longitude (Fig. 1), with altitudes ranging from 1184 to 1795 msl. Figure 1. Map of Faragosa-Fura Landscape. 10 The study area is located 475 km away from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia, and 30 km north of Arba Minch Town, the capital city of Gamo Zone. The FFL is bounded by Fura Kebele (the lowest administrative unit in Ethiopia) to the south, Faragosa Kebele to the north, Done Kebele to the east, Umo-Lante Kebele to the south, and Lake Abaya to the west and southwest. There is one main asphalt road that runs from Addis Ababa to Arba Minch that crosses the study landscape, making it easily accessible. The FFL was selected and has driven the attention of the researchers for the following main reasons: (1) it is part of the southern Ethiopian Rift Valley system and has lake-created wetlands suitable for wildlife conservation; (2) it is expected to be home to wildlife species that face human-carnivore conflict as a result of anthropogenic land use change and livestock depredation; and (3) the knowledge, attitude, and practice of local people towards carnivores has not yet been assessed. On top of these, the diversity (relative abundance, population trend, species richness, taxonomic composition, diversity index, and distribution) of mammals and human-carnivore coexistence in the study landscape remains untouched. Climate The area has a tropical climate. According to the ten-year rainfall summarized data for the years 2010–2019, the area has a bimodal rainfall distribution, characterized by a prolonged wet season from July to September (heavy rain), locally known as ―Balgo‖ and a short-wet season between March and June (light rain), locally known as ―Asura‖ (ENMSA, 2019; Fig. 2). The wettest month (with the highest mean rainfall of 161 mm) is May, and the driest month (with the lowest mean rainfall of 41 mm) is January. The average monthly temperature of the FFL ranges from 19°C in July to 23°C in March, with a 4°C difference year to year (ENMSA, 2019). Figure 2. Mean monthly rainfall and temperature of the FFL (Source: ENMSA, 2019). 11 Economic activities Almost all local people (95%) in the FFL are dependent on subsistence rain-fed agriculture with traditional ox-plowing technology and livestock rearing (cattle, goats, sheep, and chickens) for their livelihoods (MAW-RDO, 2019). The main economic activities are farming, livestock breeding, beekeeping, forestry, and the collection of forest products. Maize is the staple crop, while bananas and mangos are the major cash crops in the area. Mining of stone for cobble use is another economic activity for small-scale youth enterprises that contributes to forest clearing in the area. As a result, the landscape is under the pressure of anthropogenic activities such as agricultural expansion for vegetables and banana plantations (MAW-RDO, 2019) in the fertile low-lands near Lake Abaya. Livestock intensely competes with wild animals for the same habitat resources such as forage and water; these might have strong impacts on wildlife. Land use/land cover types The landscape is predominantly rural, with settlements, agricultural land, and forested areas. FFL is characterized by its diverse habitats. The landscape has five habitat types based on land use/land cover types and water availability (Fig. 3). The habitats were identified using degrees on a Google Earth map, ArcGIS by Landsat 8, reconnaissance, and Garmin GPS. Forest area Agricultural land Part of grassland Wetland Fura settlement Faragosa settlement Figure 3. Land use/land cover types in the FFL (Source: Live Google Earth, 2020). For the purpose of this dissertation, we defined our land use/land cover types and their proportions as follows. The forest area is defined as land that is dominated by natural trees and has a cover of nearly 50%. Grasslands are areas of land where grass or herb vegetation grows, where the original flora predominates, and where wildlife graze and browse. Wetlands are areas 12 of very wet, muddy land with wild plants growing in them, as well as the areas where Lake Abaya meets the forest in the FFL. Agricultural land is used for sowing, and raising crops such as sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), maize (Zea mays), teff (Eragrostis teff), wheat (Triticum sp.), barley (Hordeum vulgare), banana (Musa spp.), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), mango (Mangifera indica), cotton (Gossypium spp.) and sweet potato (Ipomoea sp.). Settlements are areas associated with houses and have a small community of people (in our case, Faragosa and Fura Kebeles). Fig. 4 presents the proportion of land use/land cover types in the study landscape. Figure 4. Percentage of land use/land cover types in the FFL. Flora and Fauna The landscape is endowed with a wide variety of wildlife species coexisting with humans. The common flora observed in the area were Vachellia and Senegalia spp., Terminalia brownie, Dodonaea angustifolia, Acalypha fruticosa, Maytenus arbutifolia, Olea europaea, Ximenia americana, Bridelia scleroneura, Maytenus undata, Vangueria apiculata, Balanites aegyptiaca, Rhus vulgaris, and Ozoroa insigns (MAW-RDO, 2019). The wild animals in the forest and on Lake Abaya include Madoqua guentheri, Ourebia ourebi, Tragelaphus imberbis, Chlorocebus aethiops, Papio anubis, Hippopotamus amphibius, Crocodylus niloticus, Phacochoerus aethiopicus, Potamochoerus larvatus, Hystrix cristata, Panthera pardus, Panthera leo, different species of birds and amphibians (MAW-RDO, 2019). 1.10 Conceptual framework of the study Sustainable conservation necessitates interdisciplinary approaches that connect the ecological and social aspects (Gálvez et al., 2018; Srivathsa et al., 2019). This is especially true for wildlife conservation, which involves a complex web of ecological and social relationships (Lozano et al., 2019). Despite the fact that few studies have systematically addressed the role of socio-ecological 13 approaches in understanding mammal diversity and human-carnivore coexistence, recent studies indicate that a socio-ecological perspective is quickly gaining attention (Lindsey et al., 2013; Morehouse et al., 2020). The application of a social-ecological approach to studying humanwildlife relations requires consideration of many ecological and social components. The ecological components include habitats and seasons as well as prey availability; the social components are socioeconomic factors that incorporate local people's knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes toward specific carnivore species. For the purpose of our study, wildlife refers to medium and large-sized species of class Mammalia, order Carnivora, and their prey species inhabiting the study landscape. A driver is any human-induced factor that influences the state of the landscape, such as carnivore management practices, habitat fragmentation, road development, settlement, agriculture, and government policies. All the components in the framework are integrated into a socio-ecological system model that examines the impact of various drivers on mammals in general and human-carnivore interactions in particular (Fig. 5). Figure 5. Overall conceptual framework of the research. 14 1.11 Objective of the research The general objective of this dissertation was to gain a better understanding of the effects of socio-ecological drivers on mammal diversity and human-carnivore coexistence in the FFL. In order to achieve this objective, we attempted to answer the following five groups of questions: (1) Do habitats and seasons affect mammal species diversity? (2) Do anthropogenic land use and environmental factors influence carnivore species' richness and occurrence? (3) Do the abundance of preys have an effect on carnivore populations at specific sites? (4) Are local people aware of coexisting carnivores? How do they perceive the problem status and practice depredation control methods against carnivores? (5) How do local people perceive the carnivore population trend over the last five years and the future of carnivore conservation? 1.12 Dissertation outline The diagrammatic presentation of the dissertation is outlined in Fig. 6. This research was initiated to understand the effects of social (demographic, socioeconomic status, as well as KAP of local people) and ecological (land uses, seasons, prey abundance) drivers on the diversity of mammals and human-carnivore coexistence in the FFL. To this end, the dissertation comprises seven chapters: five main Chapters (result sections), a general introductory chapter, and a general discussion chapter. Each main chapter is accompanied by a brief introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Figure 6. Dissertation outline 15 The first Chapter provides background information and reviews literature relevant in the context of mammals and human-carnivore coexistence and their application to the current study. Carnivore diversity and their conservation challenges in a human-dominated landscape are discussed. Ethiopian carnivores, as well as their studies and research gaps, are briefly described. An overview of the study area is also highlighted and describes the location, climate, landscape features, and flora and fauna of the FFL. Following that, the overall conceptual framework of the study and the research objectives are described. Having established the image of mammals and human-carnivore coexistence in the literature, attention is turned to the mammal surveys using the socio-ecological approach, as they serve as key species in the conservation effort. We began our investigation with a broad (mammal survey) and progressed to a more specific one (carnivores). The second Chapter presents the overall mammal investigation report. We used the transect method to study mammal diversity across different habitats and seasons. For a survey of carnivores (Chapter 3), we divided the study area into five homogenous land uses and shifted to advancing ecological surveys using multiple surveys such as camera trapping technology, sign surveys, and direct sighting surveys through the range finder binoculars. Using data from this survey setup, Chapter 3 reports anthropogenic land uses and environmental factors affecting the species richness and occurrence of carnivores. The fourth Chapter describes the effect of prey abundance on carnivore populations in various sites. We implemented camera trapping fixed on 15 grids (2 x 2 km). Chapter 5 addresses the extent of human-carnivore coexistence by focusing on the local people's knowledge of species-specific behaviours of carnivores, the prevailing perception of local people towards problematic species, and depredation control methods practiced in the area. We collected data for this survey using two techniques: semi-structured interviews, including the socioeconomic status of the local people; and photographic sampling of carnivores. The socioeconomic factors most influential in knowledge and attitude models were also analysed using regression analyses. Chapter 6 addresses the long-term trend (over the five years between 2015 and 2019) of the carnivore population in the landscape using a species-specific interview survey. In this chapter, we also addressed factors that influence local people‘s perceptions and attitudes towards carnivore conservation. 16 Finally, Chapter 7 provides a summary and conclusion of the results of chapters 2–6. Recommendations are provided on actions that could promote human-wildlife coexistence by reducing conflict and increasing community participation in the development and implementation of management strategies, particularly land management. Areas where additional work is considered necessary are also identified. 1.13 Ethical considerations and COVID-19 precaution Ethical considerations We got formal letter from Woreda to introduction. Permits were issued by the Mirab Abaya Woreda Administrative Office, Faragosa, and Fura Kebele administrative bodies to undertake this research in the landscape. Although our sampling methods did not expose any wildlife to harm, the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority‘s (EWCA‘s) Policy for Management of Wildlife Resources guidelines have been considered during surveying in the forest. Participants consent was obtained orally. Anonymity, the right to refuse, and the right to ask for clarification were all upheld as ethical considerations. COVID-19 precaution Before the ecological and social surveys, we oriented the data collectors and respondents about the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, we made the participants maintain a physical distance and use face masks to combat the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the data collection processes. 17 Chapter 2: Impacts of habitats and seasons on mammal diversity and distribution in FaragosaFura landscape of southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia Ourebia ourebi Tragelaphus imberbis (droppings) Hippopotamus amphibius Phacochoerus aethiopicus Manuscript Published Berhanu Gebo, Serekebirhan Takele and Simon Shibru. (2021). Impacts of habitats and seasons on mammal diversity and distribution in Faragosa-Fura landscape, Gamo Zone, southern Ethiopia. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes 5: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2021.1944798 18 Abstract In Ethiopia, most of the studies on mammals have focused on a single species and protected areas. In this study, we investigated the impacts of habitats and seasons on medium- and large-sized mammal diversity and distribution in a human-dominated landscape in southern Ethiopia. We used 36 systematically distributed line transects within four stratified major habitat types to collect data. A total of 685 records belonging to 21 species, six orders, and 13 families were identified, including the globally vulnerable Panthera leo, Panthera pardus, and Hippopotamus amphibius. Overall, Papio anubis and Chlorocebus aethiops were the most abundant species recorded in the area. Except for three species (Colobus guereza, Panthera leo, and Panthera pardus), all species encountered in the three habitats were subsets of the species recorded in the grassland. Species record frequency was highest in the forest. The dry season was characterized by a higher frequency of records but lower species richness than the wet season. In general, the study area has the potential for mammalian species conservation in Ethiopia. These results suggest the importance of human-dominated landscapes for mammal diversity; hence, they should not be ruled out from conservation actions. Keywords: Distribution; Diversity; Mammals; Relative abundance; Species richness 19 2.1 Introduction Mammals act as umbrella species of terrestrial ecosystems since they contribute to the conservation endeavours of other species (Bene et al., 2013; Udy et al., 2021) and keep ecosystem balance. Moreover, they provide important human benefits such as food, recreation, and income (Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Penjor et al., 2021). Conversely, mammalian species have been in an extinction crisis globally and locally due to anthropogenic activities (Ripple et al., 2014; Worku and Girma, 2020). Habitat loss and degradation and harvesting (hunting and gathering for food, medicine, fuel, and construction materials) are by far the main threats to mammal species (Kasso and Bekele, 2017; Wale, 2017; Qufa and Bekele, 2019; Mekonen, 2020; Bakala and Mekonen, 2021). Habitat and seasonal heterogeneity can decide the population patterns of wildlife, resulting in either a population decrease or increase. Hence, quantifying their diversity and distribution across habitats and seasons is pivotal for developing conservation strategies to avoid extermination and to secure the richness of mammal diversity (Kasso and Bekele, 2017; Girma and Worku, 2020; Udy et al., 2021), as in the area of the present study. Ethiopia is one of the top 25 biodiversity-rich countries in the world and hosts two of the world‘s 34 biodiversity hotspots. More than 60% of the mammal species are medium-sized or large-sized (Negeri et al., 2015). Topographic diversity and climate are the most significant predictors of mammal species diversity in the country (Tefera, 2011; Amare, 2015; Belete and Melese, 2016; Bakala and Mekonen, 2021). However, wildlife population has diminished both in abundance and distribution through the loss of habitat, hunting, and land clearance for farming and land degradation due to overgrazing (Gebresenbet et al., 2018a; Girma and Worku, 2020; Lemma and Tekalign, 2020). To reverse the situation, research-based action is needed. In Ethiopia, most of the studies on mammal species were confined to protected areas (Wale, 2017; Fetene et al., 2019). However, the diversity and distribution status of mammal species outside protected areas such as human-dominated landscapes are poorly known (Gebresenbet et al., 2018a). The study of mammal species in community managed areas is equally important (Girma and Worku, 2020; Lemma and Tekalign, 2020; Tamrat et al., 2020; Udy et al., 2021) and even more so because of the huge anthropogenic pressures (Girma et al., 2012; Burgin et al., 2018; Legese, Bekele and Kiros, 2019; Worku and Girma, 2020). There is some documented information on mammal species in the human-dominated landscapes in the northern, southwestern, and central parts of Ethiopia (Getachew and Mesele, 2018; Legese et al., 2019; Qufa and Bekele, 2019; Bakala and Mekonen, 2021). However, the study of mammal diversity in 20 southern Ethiopia is highly scarce (Girma et al., 2012; Diriba et al., 2020; Lemma and Tekalign, 2020). There are several intact forests in the southern parts of Ethiopia. However, their faunas are still not well documented. The present study was carried out in the FFL in Mirab Abaya Woreda, Gamo Zone, southern Ethiopia. The landscape is largely a forest habitat that harbours distinctive mammal species. The study area is associated with Lake Abaya, the largest lake in the Ethiopian Rift Valley system, which is the primary water source for mammals and the lake-created wetlands. In spite of this, the landscape has been under human destruction (e.g., poaching, settlement, expansion of banana and vegetable plantations, firewood collection, and logging for charcoal production) and livestock pressure. Such human-induced actions can adversely affect the wildlife of the landscape. Understanding the distribution of prominent biological components such as mammals in the area is important for urgent management actions. Moreover, there has been no ecological study on wildlife diversity undertaken in the area until now. Therefore, to contribute towards closing these gaps and to supply the primary essential quantitative bits of knowledge, we examined the impacts of habitats and seasons on mammal species composition, diversity, and distribution using direct and indirect mammal species evidence along a line transect. The research questions surveyed were: i) Do mammalian species composition and distribution vary between habitat types and seasons? We hypothesized that forested habitats and the wet season would have greater mammal species composition compared to agricultural areas and the dry season as more resources are available in the forest areas and the wet season; ii) Do mammalian species diversity vary among habitats and seasons? We hypothesized that mammalian species richness (number of species) and abundance (frequency of records) vary between wet and dry seasons and between habitats due to resource differences. Our findings are crucial to justify the conservation status of mammals in different habitat types and seasons of the landscape. 2.2 Materials and Methods 2.2.1 Study area FFL is found in Mirab Abaya Woreda in Gamo Zone, southern Ethiopia, and lies between 06°10'12" and 06°15'00" N latitude and 37°42'36" and 37°47'24" E longitude (Fig. 7). The total area of FFL is 100 km2. The rainy season in the area is bimodal: from July to September (heavy rain) and from March to June (light rain) (ENMSA, 2019; Fig. 2). The wettest month is May, and 21 the driest month is January. The mean monthly rainfall and temperature in the area are 41–161 mm and 19–23°C, respectively (ENMSA, 2019). Figure 7. Location of the study area showing the distribution of line transects in different habitats. 2.2.2 Study design FFL is characterized by heterogeneous habitats. Thus, based on land use and water availability, we divided the landscape into four major habitat types (Fig. 7). The habitats were determined using degrees on Google Earth map, ArcGIS, reconnaissance, and with the help of a GPS. Each habitat type was further divided into spatially isolated sites (wetland = 5, forest = 14, grassland = 7, agricultural land = 10) where the line transects lay (Fig. 7). We established a total of 36 line transects across the four major habitat types. The number of transects varied depending on the isolated sites: 14 in forest, 5 in wetland, 7 in grassland, and 10 in agricultural land habitats. The minimum and maximum length of each transect was 2 km and 2.5 km, respectively. An average sighting distance of 100 m on both sides of each transects was used in the habitats. To avoid double counting, the distance between adjacent transects and from the habitat edge to a transect was limited to a minimum of 0.5 km, following Sutherland (2006). We entered the starting and ending points of each transect into a Garmin GPS unit and used it for navigation. 22 2.2.3 Data collection To collect mammal data, a line transect sampling method was used. Combining diurnal line transects with indirect surveys (including fresh tracks, faeces, hair, horns, burrows, and digging) can enhance the detectability of many mammals, contributing to maximizing the species lists (Getachew and Mesele, 2018). We collected data in August and September 2019 during the wet season and in January and February 2020 during the dry season. We carried out mammalian surveys for two days per season and two times per day (early in the morning between 6:00 and 10:00 hr. and late in the afternoon between 15:00 and 18:00 hr., when most animals are thought to be more active) (Woldegeorgis and Wube, 2012; Belete and Melese, 2016). Therefore, each transects was surveyed eight times during the study period. A researcher and 15 trained data collectors traversed transects during transect visits. A team of two data collectors walked along each transect, one at a time. The data collectors walked quietly and gently at a constant speed along each transect, against the direction of the wind, to minimize disturbances of mammals. We collected data by recording animal observations and signs (scats, tracks, burrows, odour, horns, spines, and sounds) (Kingdon, 2015; Rabira et al., 2015). To avoid recounting of the same sign during subsequent monthly sampling periods, only the counted signs by data collectors and the researcher were marked at a place with a wooden stick. We shifted data collectors along transects to minimize bias. We recorded date, time, habitat type, species name, individual number of each species, and GPS location whenever an individual animal or group of animals or signs of animals were sighted (Girma et al., 2012; Rabira et al., 2015; Diriba et al., 2020). For direct sighting, we used the naked eye and Bushnell laser rangefinder binoculars. Whenever deemed necessary, field guidebook was used for the identification of mammal species (Kingdon, 2015). We recorded only unambiguous signs. We pooled data from the four replicate surveys in different seasons for each transect and used it for analyses following Diriba et al. (2020), and Girma and Worku (2020). We classified species by their body weight, such as medium-sized (between 2 and 15 kg) and large-sized (greater than 15 kg) following Kingdon (2015). 2.2.4 Data analyses Based on records of direct and indirect sign surveys along transects, a presence/absence data matrix was generated and processed to study habitats and seasons. We classified the recorded 23 evidence of mammal species into their respective orders, families, and species levels. We also identified the conservation status of each species based on the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2021). We used the rarefaction method to estimate species richness and abundance in habitat types and seasons (Legese et al., 2019; Qufa and Bekele, 2019). We presented similarities in species distribution among habitats using a Venn diagram. The summed abundance (the number of records per species) along each transect for each habitat type in each season was used as the individual-based record frequency. Species richness, diversity, and evenness of mammalian species in the study area were analyzed by the Shannon-Wiener diversity index and the evenness index, respectively (Table 1), following Sutherland (2006). Table 1. Formulas used in the mammal diversity analyses. Biodiversity attributes Equation Shannon-Wiener diversity Index: Evenness index: H′, Shannon-Wiener diversity Index; S, the number of species; E, evenness; pi, the proportion of the sampled species expressed as a proportion of the total sample; ln = logbasen. Then, we tested variations in the overall frequency of records among habitats using 𝜒2 test. To examine the similarity of species records among habitat types, we conducted a Morisita–Horn index analyses between each pair of habitats, following Sutherland (2006). We tested the difference in records of mammalian species among habitats using the Kruskal-Wallis 𝜒2 test. 2.3 Results 2.3.1 Species composition and richness A total of 21 mammals belonging to six orders and 13 families were identified in the FFL (Table 2). Order Carnivora was the first and the second most abundant order in terms of the number of families (5 families) and species (6 species), respectively. Order Artiodactyla was the second and the first most abundant in terms of the number of families (3 families) and species (7 species), respectively. Two mammal orders were represented by a single species each. Based on IUCN Red List categories, three species, such as Hippopotamus amphibius, Panthera leo, and Panthera pardus, were vulnerable species found in the study area (Table 2). Of a total of 21 species recorded, 20 species were recorded during the wet and dry seasons, while Panthera pardus was recorded only during the wet season. 24 Table 2. List of mammal species recorded, and IUCN (2021) Red List categories. Order Family species Common name Local name Chokosho Source of evidence DS, SC, TR IUCN category LC Artiodactyla Bovidae Tragelaphus imberbis Lesser kudu Redunca redunca Bohor reedbuck Genessa DS, SC LC Ourebia ourebi Oribi Gara DS, TR LC Sylvicapra grimmia Common duiker Gara DS. TR LC Gashuwa DS, BU LC Bush pig Guduntha BU, DS, TR LC Hippopotamus Gumara DS, SC, TR VU Tubulidentata Orycteropodidae Orycteropus afer Aardvark Zerusa BU, TR LC Rodentia Kotarissa SP, DS LC LC Suidae Phacochoerus aethiopicus Common warthog Potamochoerus larvatus Hippopotamidae Hippopotamus amphibius Primates Carnivora Hystricidae Hystrix cristata Crested porcupine Sciuridae Xerus rutilus Unstriped ground squirrel Farshole DS, BU Marmota monax Marmot Fuge BU, TR Olive baboon Gelesho DS LC Colobus guereza Mantled guereza Wonuwa DS LC Chlorocebus aethiops Vervet monkey Qaare DS LC Hyeaniadae Crocuta crocuta Spotted hyaena Godare DS, SC, BU LC Mustelidae Mellivora capensis Honey badger Erzuntha DS, SC LC Viverridae Civettictis civetta African civet Sege OD, SC LC Felidae Panthera leo Lion Gaamo SO VU Panthera pardus Leopard Maahe TR, SC VU Canis mesomelas Black-backed jackal Worakana SC, TR, SO LC Lepus habessinicus Rabbit Harbancho DS, SC LC Cercopithecidae Papio anubis Canidae Lagomorpha Leporidae The species IUCN red list category is based on the IUCN (2021). LC, Least concern; VU, Vulnerable; DS, Direct Sighting; SC, Scat; OD – Odour; TR, Track count; SO, Sound; BU, Burrow; SP, Spine. 2.3.2 Species distribution At the habitat level, mammal species richness varied (𝜒2 = 46.143; df = 3; 𝑃 < 0.05) among the four habitat types, in increasing order of wetland < agricultural land < forest < grassland (Fig. 8, Appendix 1). Redunca redunca, Ourebia ourebi, Phacochoerus aethiopicus, Hystrix cristata, Papio anubis, and Chlorocebus aethiops were the six (28.57%) species that shared all habitat types in common (habitat generalists), while Lepus habessinicus, Panthera pardus, and Panthera leo were habitat specialists recorded only in grassland, forest, and wetland, respectively (Fig. 8). Except for Panthera leo, Panthera pardus, and Colobus guereza, all species encountered in the three habitats are subsets of the species recorded in the grassland. 25 Figure 8. Venn diagram showing assemblage of mammal species in habitat types. TI, Tragelaphus imberbis; RR, Redunca redunca; OO, Ourebia ourebi; SG, Sylvicapra grimmia; PA, Phacochoerus aethiopicus; PL, Potamochoerus larvatus; HA, Hippopotamus amphibius; OA, Orycteropus afer; HC, Hystrix cristata, XR, Xerus rutilus; MM, Marmota monax; PAU, Papio anubis; CG, Colobus guereza; CA, Chlorocebus aethiops ; CC, Crocuta crocuta; MC, Mellivora capensis; CIC, Civettictis civetta; PLE, Panthera leo; PP, Panthera pardus; CM, Canis mesomelas; LH, Lepus habessinicus; CP, Chlorocebus aethiops 2.3.3 Species relative abundance A total of 685 pieces of evidence from mammals were recorded in the FFL. The number of records varied among orders and families. The most abundant order by the number of records from the study area was order Primates, which included 290, followed by order Artiodactyla, which recorded 194. The least abundant order was Tubulidentata, which consisted of only eight records. The most abundant family by the number of records was the Cercopithecidae (290), whereas the least was the Viverridae, comprising only three records. Based on the frequency of records (Appendix 2), Papio anubis (20.15%) was the most abundant in the study area, followed by Chlorocebus aethiops (19.27%). Based on IUCN Red List categories, vulnerable species such as Panthera pardus and Panthera leo each contributed less than 0.29%, whereas Hippopotamus amphibius contributed 4.09% of the total records. 26 The results of the present study showed that of the 685 total records, 30.80% (n = 211) were recorded in the natural forest, 20% (n = 137) in the wetland, 29.64% (n = 203) in grassland, and 19.56% (n = 134) in the agricultural land habitats. The number of records of mammals varied significantly among habitats (KW𝜒2 = 6.03; 𝑃 < 0.05). The mean number of species richness and frequency of records computed by the rarefaction curve among the four stratified habitat types and seasons is presented in Fig. 9. Figure 9. Species richness and frequency of records among habitats and seasons. At a species-specific level, Chlorocebus aethiops was the most abundant species in forest habitat (33.18%, n = 70) and wetland (32.11%, n = 44), followed by Papio anubis (26.54%, n = 56) and Hippopotamus amphibius (20.43%, n = 28), respectively. Papio anubis (23.49%, n = 47) was also the most abundant in grassland, followed by Phacochoerus aethiopicus (13.30%, n = 27), while in agricultural land the most abundant was Xerus rutilus (29.14%, n = 39), followed by Crocuta crocuta (22.39%, n = 30). Panthera pardus and Panthera leo were only recorded in forest and wetland habitats, respectively. Frequency of records of mammals among the four habitat types is described in Fig. 10 and Appendices 1 and 2. 27 Figure 10. Mammal species frequency of records among four habitat types. The number of records of mammals was higher during the dry season (n = 377, 55.04%) than the wet season (n = 308, 44.96%). The abundance of mammals varied significantly between seasons (𝜒2 = 40.783; df = 20; 𝑃 < 0.05). Two species (Papio anubis and Chlorocebus aethiops) were relatively the most abundant in both seasons (Fig. 11). These two species contributed 37.99% and 40.58% of the total records of the wet and dry season surveys, respectively. The remaining mammal records contributed between 0.32 and 7.79% during the wet season and between 0.53 and 6.90% during the dry season survey. The frequency of records across habitat types was significantly different (𝜒2 = 43.147; df = 20; 𝑃 < 0.05) between seasons. Figure 11. Mammal species frequency of records during wet and dry seasons. 28 2.3.4 Species diversity and similarity indices The Shannon diversity of mammal species was higher in the grassland (H‘ = 2.543) than in other habitats. However, there was no significant difference in Shannon–Wiener Index values between the four habitat types. The H‘ value of the FFL was 2.56. The higher and lower evenness of the mammas was recorded in grassland (E = 0.7064) and natural forest (E = 0.4761). Of the four habitats, a higher Morisita–Horn similarity index of mammals was observed between forest and grassland (0.609) and the least similarity was observed between wetland and agricultural land (0.273). Fig. 12 presents the Shannon diversity index and evenness index of mammal species across habitats. Figure 12. Mammal species diversity indices across habitat types. 2.4 Discussion 2.4.1 Species taxonomic composition The orders and families of mammal species recorded in the present study were higher than the study conducted on medium-sized and large-sized mammals in different localities. For instance, Legese et al. (2019) identified five orders and seven families in the Wabe forest, Ethiopia. Also, Qufa and Bekele (2019) identified seven orders and 11 families from the Lebu Natural Protected Forest, southwest Showa, Ethiopia; Lemma and Tekalign (2020) recorded four orders and five families in the Humbo Community-Based Forest Area, southern Ethiopia. In our study in the FFL, 6 orders and 13 families were recorded. Primates are the most abundant order recorded, and they are all members of the Cercopithecidae family. Similarly, several studies have also reported a higher relative abundance of primates than other orders from different parts of Ethiopia (Rabira et al., 2015; Belete and Melese, 2016; Bakala 29 and Mekonen, 2020; Worku and Girma, 2020). This could be due to the high reproductive success, their more adaptive nature to different habitats, diversified foraging behaviour, and the high tolerance level of primates to human disturbances (Negeri et al., 2015; Lemma and Tekalign, 2020). Order Carnivora contained the highest number of families (4) among other orders. The result is consistent with the different studies in Ethiopia (Rabira et al., 2015; Girma and Worku, 2020; Bakala and Mekonen, 2020), where they identified more families of Carnivora than other orders. The order Artiodactyla has the highest species richness and is the second most frequently recorded order. This is in agreement with the study in the Nensebo Forest in southern Ethiopia, where Artiodactyla was the most frequently recorded order, containing more species (Girma and Worku, 2020). Orders Rodentia, Tubulidentata, and Lagomorpha were identified as having fewer records. This is in line with other studies in different localities in Ethiopia (Rabira et al., 2015; Getachew and Mesele, 2018; Fetene et al., 2019; Girma and Worku, 2020; Worku and Girma, 2020), where they identified fewer record frequencies for the above orders. 2.4.2 Species richness We found 21 different medium- and large-sized mammal species in the FFL. Some studies that used similar line transect techniques in areas of different protection levels across the country showed that the mammal species recorded were lower than the results obtained from the present study. For example, Lemma and Tekalign (2020) recorded a total of eight large and medium mammal species in the Humbo Community-Based Forest Area, southern Ethiopia; Woldegeorgis and Wube (2012) recorded 14 mammal species from the Yayu forest in southwest Ethiopia; and Getachew and Mesele (2018) recorded even fewer (12) mammal species in the Mengaza communal forest, East Gojjam, Ethiopia. This variation might account for variation in climatic zones, vegetation structure, water access, and human influence. The number of mammal species recorded during the present study was also comparable to several other studies conducted in Ethiopia and Liberia. For instance, Bene et al. (2013) recorded 23 species in the Sime Darby, Liberia; Girma et al. (2012) recorded 19 species in the Wendo Genet, Ethiopia. The relative abundance of food sources, dense green vegetation cover, and availability of water (Lake Abaya) might be the major factors governing their abundance and species richness in the present study area. Our results also showed that globally vulnerable species such as 30 Panthera leo, Panthera pardus, and Hippopotamus amphibius were present in the area. Our findings, therefore, highlight that FFL has valuable importance for the conservation of mammal species in Ethiopia. 2.4.3 Species relative abundance Papio anubis and Chlorocebus aethiops were the most recorded, while Civettictis civetta, Panthera leo, and Panthera pardus were the least recorded mammal species in the study area. The low abundance (frequency of records) of carnivores might be associated with their nocturnal behaviour. As described by Wolf and Ripple (2016), Gebresenbet et al. (2018a), Lemma and Tekalign (2020), and Worku and Girma (2020), most carnivore species are solitary, nocturnal, and crepuscular, as a result their presence could not be easily documented. Our study contradicts the hypothesized trend of a higher frequency of records during the wet season than the dry season because of resource availability. For example, the number of records of mammal species during the dry season (377) surpassed the number recorded during the wet season (308). Moreover, most of the species of the FFL, such as Lepus habessinicus, Mellivora capensis, Crocuta crocuta, Chlorocebus aethiops, Colobus guereza, Papio anubis, Orycteropus afer, Hippopotamus amphibius, Phacochoerus aethiopicus, and Ourebia ourebi, were recorded relatively at a lower frequency during the wet season compared to the dry season. This is in line with the work of Kasso and Bekele (2017) in the Assela fragmented forest in Ethiopia, but disagrees with the work of Worku and Girma (2020) in the Geremba forest of southern Ethiopia, where more mammal species were observed during the wet season than the dry season. The possible explanation for this could be the growth of herbaceous and ground vegetation, which provides thick cover for the mammal species, which makes sighting difficult (Girma et al., 2012; Qufa and Bekele, 2019; Diriba et al., 2020; Girma and Worku, 2020). 2.4.4 Species distribution The frequency of records was higher in the forest (30.80%) than in other habitats. The result disagrees with other studies (e.g., Rabira et al., 2015; Bakala and Mekonen, 2021), where the record frequencies were higher in the wetland than in forested habitats. All species recorded in the forest, wetland, and agricultural habitats (except Panthera leo, Colobus guereza, and Panthera pardus) were subsets of the species recorded in the grassland habitat. This could be due to the presence of a high number of order Artiodactyla (herbivore species) in the grassland (also found in this study), which may have attracted a high number of order Carnivora species, resulting in 31 increased diversity in the grassland (Fetene et al., 2019; Diriba et al., 2020; Girma and Worku, 2020). Further focused studies are needed on prey-predator relationships for impact management planning in the FFL. The species distribution of wetlands was nine and dominated by Hippopotamus amphibius and Chlorocebus aethiops. This indicates that, despite hosting the lowest number of species, wetlands support species that are unique to that habitat type, specifically the vulnerable Hippopotamus amphibius. Thus, wetlands play a complementary role in increasing mammal diversity and providing water for mammal species of the FFL. Similar results have been demonstrated by a number of studies (e.g., Rabira et al., 2015; Fetene et al., 2019; Worku and Girma, 2020; Bakala and Mekonen, 2021; Udy et al., 2021), suggesting that a combination of wetland and other habitats is crucial to the long-term maintenance of viable populations of some species. Panthera pardus and Panthera leo are the most widely distributed cats in the world, where food and cover are available (Burgin et al., 2018; Wolf and Ripple, 2016). However, they are vulnerable and at risk of local extinction (Tefera, 2011; Ripple et al., 2014; Lavrenchenko and Bekele, 2017; IUCN, 2021). Furthermore, in the present study area, they were restricted to wetland and forest habitats, respectively. This might be due to conflict with the local people due to depredation of domestic animals. Also, this might contribute to the rarity of these species. The ecological preferences and adaptations of mammal species play a role in their distribution in different habitat types (Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Tamrat et al., 2020; Penjor et al., 2021; Udy et al., 2021). The presence of these conservation-concern species demonstrates that the study landscape is a potential area for wildlife conservation. 2.4.5 Diversity index of the landscape The species diversity index of the study area showed higher species diversity (H‘ = 2.56) than the study conducted by Qufa and Bekele (2019) in the Lebu natural Protected Forest, Ethiopia (H‘ = 2.119). Grassland habitats have higher species richness and Shannon diversity indexes than the remaining habitats. The present study was also comparable to the species diversity index recorded in the Geremba Forest (H‘ = 2.51) by Worku and Girma (2020). Different possible factors, like availability of food sources, dense forest cover, and water, might have contributed to higher species diversity. 32 2.5 Conclusion The present study identified and documented 21 mammal species, including three globally threatened species: the vulnerable Panthera pardus, Panthera leo, and Hippopotamus amphibius, and gave base-line information about their presence. Order Artidactyla was represented by most mammal species followed by Order Carnivora. The distribution and abundance of mammal species in the area varied significantly between habitats and seasons. The number of records of mammals was higher during the dry season compared to the wet season. The least conservationconcern species, such as Papio anubis, Chlorocebus aethiops, and Phacochoerus aethiopicus, are highly recorded in the study area across habitat types and seasons. Redunca redunca, Ourebia ourebi, Chlorocebus aethiops, Phacochoerus aethiopicus, Hystrix cristata, and Papio anubis were generalist species in the area as they were found in all habitats. Specialist species such as Lepus habessinicus, Panthera pardus, and Panthera leo are more likely to face local extinction as a result of ongoing habitat destruction. The number of medium and large-sized mammal species recorded in the study area is high and comparable to other localities in Ethiopia conducted using similar line transect techniques, sampling, and direct and indirect field methods. These results suggest the importance of human-dominated landscapes for mammal diversity; hence, they should not be ruled out from conservation actions. 33 Chapter 3: Anthropogenic land use and environmental factors affecting the species richness and occurrence of carnivores in Faragosa-Fura Landscape of southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia Galerela sanguinea Ichneumia albicauda Civettictis civetta Crocuta crocuta Manuscript published Berhanu Gebo, Serekebirhan Takele and Simon Shibru. (2022). Anthropogenic land-use and environmental factors affecting the species richness and occurrence of carnivores in the FaragosaFura Landscape of southern Rift Valley, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04930-9 34 Ethiopia. SN Applied Sciences 4:46. Abstract Anthropogenic land use changes pose significant threats to the diversity and occurrence of wildlife species around the world. We investigated how land use and environmental factors affect the richness and occurrence of carnivore species in the FFL of the southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia. We used line transect method to collect data, combining three complementary field survey techniques: sign survey, camera-trapping, and opportunistic sighting surveys. Our finding confirmed the presence of 12 carnivore species belonging to six families, including the vulnerable Felidae species Panthera pardus. More species were found in the family Felidae and Herpestidae, while Hyaenidae and Mustelidae had a single species each. The two large-sized species identified were Panthera pardus and Crocuta crocuta. The species richness was the highest in wetlands (n = 12), while it was the lowest in the settlement (n = 5). The occurrence of most carnivores was negatively associated with agricultural land (β = -0.496, P < 0.05) and settlements area (β = 0.743, P < 0.05), while they were positively associated with wetlands (β = 0.516, P < 0.05). Genetta genetta had the highest occurrence, while Panthera pardus the lowest in the area. The majority (92%) of species were positively correlated with altitude. We concluded that, of the studied habitats, wetlands are the most important, and anthropogenic land uses have a negative impact on species richness. Our findings provide valuable baseline data for stakeholders making critical conservation decisions as well as researchers conducting related ecological studies in a human-dominated landscape. Based on our findings, we propose a basic approach for integrating land management and wildlife conservation. Keywords: Body size, Carnivore conservation, Land uses, Occurrence, Species richness 35 3.1 Introduction Anthropogenic land use changes pose significant threats to the diversity of wildlife species around the world. Recent research has found that anthropogenic and environmental factors can have an impact on the richness and occurrence of carnivore species in various habitats (Mekonen, 2020; Bakala and Mekonen, 2021). Agriculture is the backbone of socioeconomic development in developing countries like Ethiopia, but it often comes at the expense of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Amare and Serekebirhan, 2019). The two most common conservation strategies are establishing protected areas to separate wildlife from human-dominated areas (Srivathsa et al., 2019) and encouraging human-carnivore coexistence, a sustainable state in which humans and wildlife co-adapt to living in a shared landscape (Teixeira et al., 2021; Wall et al., 2021). However, protected areas and native forests are rapidly dwindling due to anthropogenic habitat loss, forcing carnivores to local extinction or to share habitats with humans (IUCN, 2021; Mekonen, 2020; Bakala and Mekonen, 2021). This sharing of habitat leads to human-carnivore conflicts, which have an impact on both local community livelihood and biodiversity conservation (Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Wall et al., 2021). About 95% of the ranges of carnivore species occur outside protected areas in a human-dominated landscape (Ripple et al., 2014). Thus, understanding carnivore species that coexist with humans is important for both carnivore conservation and the local people's livelihood (Bauer et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2021). As a result, for carnivore conservation to be successful, both protected areas and human-dominated landscapes must be addressed (Durant et al., 2010). Furthermore, the human-dominated landscape can be very important for the conservation of medium to small-sized carnivores (Agha et al., 2018; Bauer et al., 2021). As a result, habitats within a human-dominated landscape are becoming increasingly important for carnivore conservation, as protected areas are shrinking. Carnivora is composed of 290 species, belonging to 16 families. Of these, 72 and 32 different species have been found in Africa (Newbold et al., 2015) and Ethiopia (Yalden et al., 1996; Lavrenchenko and Bekele, 2017), respectively. The six families of mammalian carnivores identified in Ethiopia are the Felidae, Viverridae, Herpestidae, Hyaenidae, Canidae, and Mustelidae (Yalden et al., 1996). The endemic Canis simensis is one of the world's most endangered carnivore species as a result of habitat loss (IUCN, 2021). Furthermore, Panthera leo and Panthera pardus are on the verge of extinction in a number of areas (Lavrenchenko and 36 Bekele, 2017). Understanding a region's species richness (number of species) and occurrence is a critical first step toward biodiversity conservation. These two biodiversity attributes have primarily been used in assessing the wildlife conservation potential of areas and developing conservation strategies. A greater number of species and groups indicate a more healthy community, which leads to greater system stability (Ripple et al., 2014; Lavrenchenko and Bekele, 2017). Carnivores have been extensively studied at the community level in various parts of the world (Srivathsa et al., 2019). Nonetheless, carnivore surveys in Africa have focused on single species rather than communities (Durant et al., 2010; Agha et al., 2018). The same is true in Ethiopia, where no quantitative studies on carnivores have been conducted at the community level, and they exist at the species level (Admasu et al., 2004a). For example, studies on Panthera leo and Crocuta crocuta (Yirga et al., 2014, 2017), Panthera pardus (Lin et al., 2020), Civettictis civetta (Mullu and Balakrishnan, 2014), Ichneumia albicauda (Admasu et al., 2004a), and Canis simensis (Estifanos et al., 2020) have been conducted. Most protected areas in Ethiopia are too small to support wide-ranging carnivore species (Lavrenchenko and Bekele, 2017). As a result, carnivores are shifting to a human-dominated landscape and coexisting with humans, implying that wildlife conservation efforts in a shared landscape are necessary. The study of coexisting carnivore species with humans at the community level in the human-dominated landscape, on the other hand, is largely unknown. We conducted this research in the FFL in the Mirab Abaya Woreda of the Gamo Zone, southern Ethiopia. The study landscape is diverse and primarily a forest area with distinct carnivore species. The study area is linked to Lake Abaya, the largest lake in the Ethiopian Rift Valley system, which serves as the primary water source for carnivores and the lake-created wetlands (Girma and Worku, 2020). Understanding the species richness and occurrence of carnivore species in the area is thus important for immediate management actions. Moreover, there are no earlier ecological studies carried out in the study area vis-à-vis carnivores. Because of resource differences, land use types such as forest, grassland, wetland, agricultural land, and human settlement habitats have an impact on carnivore species richness and occurrence (Wolf and Ripple, 2016). Furthermore, altitude and distance from the road (Durant et al., 2010; Vanthomme et al., 2013) are environmental factors that influence the richness and occurrence of carnivore species. We hypothesized that (1) human-dominated landscapes with higher levels of 37 anthropogenic land uses support a lower species richness and occurrence of carnivores compared to areas with more natural habitats; (2) carnivore species richness is negatively affected by higher levels of anthropogenic land uses compared to more natural habitats; and (3) the occurrence of different carnivore species is negatively associated with anthropogenic land uses at the landscape scale. We therefore (1) compared wild carnivore species richness between higher anthropogenic land-uses and habitats that are more natural; (2) examined the effects of land uses and environmental factors on the species richness; and (3) evaluated the effect of different factors on the specific carnivore species inhabiting this area. 3.2 Materials and Methods 3.2.1 Study area We conducted this research in the FFL in Mirab Abaya Woreda, Gamo Zone, southern Ethiopia. The FFL has an area of about 100 km2 and is located between 06°10'12" to 06°15'00" N latitude and 37°42'36" to 37°47'24" E longitude (Fig. 13). Figure 13. Map of FFL showing land use types, line transects (arrows) and camera stations (stars) for carnivore species survey. 38 3.2.2 Study design For this study, we used a line transect sampling method. Our first hypothesis was that a higher level of anthropogenic land use supports a lower level of species richness than more native habitats. To test this, we divided the landscape into five homogeneous land uses during reconnaissance using ArcGIS from Landsat 8. Then, we obtained five major land use types. The area for each major land use was forest (3604 ha), wetlands (1012 ha), grassland (2642 ha), agricultural land (2419 ha), and settlement (323 ha). We further divided each land use type into spatially isolated sites based on the size of the survey area, yielding 30 sites: 4 wetlands, 12 forest sites, 6 grassland sites, 6 agricultural lands, and 2 settlement sites. Using each spatially isolated site, we established a total of 30 transects to collect data (Fig. 13). We limited the distance between adjacent transects and from the habitat edge to a transect to 0.5 km to avoid double counting and edge effects (Vanthomme et al., 2013). The average length of each transect was 2000 ± 23.34 (SE) m. Furthermore, we measured the altitude and distance from the vehicle road where each piece of evidence was recorded using ArcGIS and Garmin GPS. Therefore, we examined the effects of seven factors on carnivore species richness and occurrence in the landscape: five land uses (forest, wetland, grassland, agricultural land, and settlements) and two environmental factors (altitude and distance from the road). 3.2.3 Data collection We collected data from August to September 2020 during the wet season and from January to February 2021 during the dry season. We carried out carnivore surveys for three consecutive days per month for four months. We used three complementary field survey techniques to collect data along 30 transects: a sign survey, a direct sighting survey, and a camera trapping survey. We trained data collectors about the survey protocols and assigned two data collectors for each transect, including the researcher (Appendix 3). Sign and sighting survey along transect Sign surveys can improve survey efficiency for the occurrence of mammal species (Qufa and Bekele, 2019). We observed fresh tracks, scats, hair, burrows, odour, and digging along transect (Kingdon, 2015). We identified scats of carnivore species in the field based on their morphology, which includes diameter at the widest point, length, shape, colour, odour, as well as disjoint segments following Chame (2003). We marked the signs counted by data collectors and the researcher with a wood stick in order to avoid repeating the same sign during subsequent monthly 39 sampling periods. We did not record signs that were ambiguous. For the direct sighting survey, we counted all opportunistically observed carnivores with the naked eye and Bushnell laser rangefinder binoculars along transects. For data collection, we used an average sighting distance of 200 m on the right and left sides of each transect. We did transect walk between 6:00 and 10:00 a.m. when most animals become more active (Girma and Worku, 2020), for three consecutive days per month for four months. As a result, we surveyed each transects 12 times during the study period. We used body size, coloration, and dominant behaviour to identify carnivore species in sightings evidence using the Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals (Kingdon, 2015) and researchers' field experience. Camera trapping survey We used infrared digital camera traps (Bushnell Trophy model Cam HDTM-119447), which were activated automatically by animal movement. We activated the cameras with a default 10-second photographic delay between pictures. We adjusted the time, date, month, year, and auto mode for all camera traps. Then, we fixed one camera trap in each transect by prioritizing signs (tracks and roads) of carnivores. According to the literature, mounting cameras along signs helps to maximize captures within study sites (Agha et al., 2018). We kept two to three-metre fixing distances on either side of the trail or road to get identifiable photographs and protect the cameras from animal damage (Agha et al., 2018). To maintain a suitable degree, we placed each camera on the flat ground at a height of 30 to 40 cm above the ground. We pointed cameras north or south to reduce false triggers from the rising or setting sun, and we set them parallel to the ground to ensure a direct field of view. Finally, we removed any small vegetation that could interfere with the camera's detection of carnivores, such as long grass and bushes. We checked its proper installation before leaving the fixed site. We fixed each camera for three consecutive days per month for four months on the same day as described for the sign and sighting survey. We used the Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals (Kingdon, 2015) and researchers' field experience to identify photographs of carnivores to a species level. 3.2.4 Data analyses We used the total number of different species in each habitat as a measure of species richness. We calculated the proportion of occurrence of each species by dividing the number of transects used by each species by the total number of transects surveyed (30 in this study). We used the ꭓ2 to compare the significant difference in carnivore species richness and occurrence between land 40 uses. We used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) with (i) Poisson distribution and logit link to test the effect of variables on the species richness because the data were a count, and (ii) Binomial distribution and identity link to test the effect of variables on the specific-species occurrence because of presence/absence data (presence = 1, absence = 0). We ran land use types and environmental factors separately. We checked spatial autocorrelation from model residuals using Moran‘s Index and evaluated the collinearity between the predictor variables using variance inflation factors based on Zuur et al. (2010). We interpreted the GLM result based on the value of standardized regression coefficients (β), which were used to compare the direction and magnitude of variable effects. We carried out all statistically significant tests with an alpha level of 0.05. We used Program R version 3.6.1 from the R Development Core Team 2020 (Core Development Team, 2020) for all statistical analyses. 3.3 Results 3.3.1 Species taxonomic and body size composition The FFL had 12 species belong to six families (Table 3, Appendix 4), including the vulnerable Felidae species, Panthera pardus. The families Felidae and Herpestidae each had three species, while the families Canidae and Viverridae each had two. The other two families were represented by a single species each. Of the species identified, two species (Panthera pardus and Crocuta crocuta) were large-sized, six were medium-sized, and the remaining were small-sized carnivores (Table 3). Table 3. Carnivore composition, names, their source of evidence and IUCN status. Family Canidae Felidae Herpestidae Hyaenidae Mustelidae Viverridae Common name Black-backed jackal Bat-eared fox Caracal Serval Leopard Slender mongoose White-tailed mongoose Common-dwarf mongoose Spotted hyaena Honey badger Common genet African civet Scientific name Canis mesomelas Otocyon megalotis Caracal caracal Leptailurus serval Panthera pardus Galerella sanguinea Ichneumia albicauda Halogale parvula Crocuta crocuta Mellivora capensis Genetta genetta Civettictis civetta Evidence CT, RK DS, SC SC, DS DS SC CT CT CT CT, SC DS, SC CT, RK RK, SC, OD Body size M M M M L S S S L S M M IUCN status LC LC LC LC VU LC LC LC LC LC LC LC The species IUCN red list category is based on the IUCN (2021). LC, Least Concern; VU, Vulnerable; CT, Camera Trap; RK, Road Kill; DS, Direct Sighting; SC, Scat; OD, odour; Body size S, Small; M, Medium; L, Large based on Kingdon (2015). 41 3.3.2 Species richness and occurrence between land uses Wetlands had the highest species richness (12), followed by the forest (10), grassland (8), agricultural land (7), and settlement (5). All species recorded in the study area (12) were also recorded in the wetlands. There was a significant difference in species richness between land use types (ꭓ2 = 19.467, df = 4, P = 0.003). The mean species richness was the highest in wetlands (7.67 ± 0.494(SE)), followed by grassland (6.00 ± 0.548(SE) (Fig. 14). Overall, the mean richness of the study area was 5.73 ± 0.284(SE). Figure 14. Mean species richness of carnivores and 95% confidence interval between land use types. Out of 30 sampled transects, Genetta genetta occurred among the 25 transects (the greatest proportion of occurrence = 0.833), followed by Ichneumia albicauda (Fig. 15). Mellivora capensis, caracal caracal, and Panthera pardus were found in the fewest number of sampled transects (Fig. 15; Appendix 5). Panthera pardus was detected only at two transects, both in wetlands (the least proportion of occurrence = 0.067). 42 Figure 15. Proportion of occurrence of carnivore species in transects. 3.3.3 Effects of land use and environmental factors on species richness Overall, species richness was positively associated with distance from the road, forest, grassland, and wetland. Only wetlands had a statistically significant positive association (β = 0.516; P = 0.002; Table 4). However, species richness was negatively associated with settlement (β = -0.743; P = 0.003; Table 4) and agricultural land (β = -0.496; P = 0.024). The associations with other variables and species richness were weak (Table 4). Table 4. Effect of land use and environmental factor outputs from generalized linear models with Poisson distribution on the species richness. Factors Standardized coefficients Standard error t P Altitude -0.470 0.283 -1.660 0.112 Distance from road 0.376 0.252 1.494 0.150 Agricultural land -0.496 0.204 -2.436 0.024 Forest 0.001 0.235 0.004 0.997 Grassland 0.336 0.193 1.746 0.095 Settlement -0.743 0.225 -3.306 0.003 Wetland 0.516 0.145 3.566 0.002 Bold numbers in the p-value indicate significant effect. 43 3.3.4 Effects of land use and environmental factors on specific-species The occurrence of seven species was positively associated with the forest, where two of them having statistically significant effects: Galerella sanguinea (β = 0.562; P < 0.0001) and Leptailurus serval (β = 0.943; P = 0.043; Fig. 16A). Civettictis civetta (β = 0.803; P < 0.0001), Galerella sanguinea (β = 0.459; P = 0.01) and Panthera pardus (β = 0.384; P = 0.038) were found to have a significant positive relationship with wetlands (Fig. 16B). Eight species were found to have a positive association with grassland (Fig. 16C). This relationship was found to be significant for Halogale parvula (β = 0.573; P = 0.006) and Civettictis civetta (β = 0.337; P = 0.027). Four species displayed negative associations with grassland, with only Otocyon megalotis being significant (β = -0.524; P = 0.011). Four and eight species were positively and negatively associated with the settlement, respectively (Fig. 16D). Only Halogale parvula was found to be significantly and positively associated with settlement (β = 0.572; P = 0.004). Five species showed a positive association with agricultural land, while seven species showed a negative association (Fig. 16E). Three species displayed significant positive associations, whereas two species displayed significant negative associations with agricultural land (Fig. 16E). Except for Panthera pardus, all species (92%) exhibited a positive relationship with altitude, with six having a significant preference for higher altitudes (Fig. 16F). The association of carnivore species with distance from the road was variable: seven species showed a positive association (preferring to be farther away from the road), while five species showed a negative association (Fig. 16G). None of the factors studied had a significant effect on Canis mesomelas or Mellivora capensis (Fig. 16). Overall, the occurrence of carnivore communities was associated with settlement and agricultural land in a non-significant negative way. However, it did have a positive association with other factors. The carnivore community was found to have a positive and significant relationship with wetlands and altitude (Fig. 16B and F, see red shaded line). 44 Figure 16. Response of specific species to different factors output from generalized linear model with binomial distribution on the occurrence of carnivore species. Circles indicate significant effect of species, dots indicate coefficient (β) values of each species, solid central axis indicates demarcation (zero point) for positive (avoidance) and negative association (preference), red shaded line indicate community effect, violet shaded colour indicate the significant effect of community. 45 3.4 Discussion Our findings provide insight into the first quantitative data at the community level of carnivores gathered by using multiple survey techniques in the southern Rift Valley. Most surveys in Africa focus on single species (Agha et al., 2018). Furthermore, our findings suggest that the coexistence of humans and carnivores is possible in a human-dominated landscape. Several earlier studies have also shown humans and carnivores coexisting (Dorresteijn et al., 2014; Western et al., 2019). Since little is known about carnivore occurrences in Ethiopia (Easter et al., 2020), our survey confirms that FFL is home to at least 12 carnivore species, including the global conservation concern Panthera pardus, and is one of the most important areas for the conservation of carnivores in Ethiopia. 3.4.1 Taxonomic composition and species richness In this study, we found all six carnivore families previously identified in Ethiopia (Lavrenchenko and Bekele, 2017). Like this, six families of carnivores were also identified in the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania (Durant et al., 2010). In the current study, the Felidae and Herpestidae were composed of three species each, while the Hyaenidae and Mustelidae were composed of a single species each. The family Herpestidae (mongooses) had high species richness. This might be due to their more adaptable nature to different land use types, diverse foraging behaviour (fruits, meat), and high tolerance level for human disturbances (Admasu et al., 2004b; Easter et al., 2020; Teixeira et al., 2021). For the Felidae, it could be wild and domestic prey availability, high vegetation cover, and access to water (Rodrigues et al., 2021). The family Hyaenidae and Mustelidae have low species richness, which could be attributed to anthropogenic pressure in the area. Out of 32 carnivore species in Ethiopia (Yalden et al., 1996), our study documented 12 carnivore species. Out of 12 carnivore species, two were large-sized – Crocuta crocuta and the globally vulnerable Panthera pardus (IUCN, 2021). Large carnivores, in particular, are often used as ―umbrella species‖ in conservation efforts because of their wide area requirements (Ripple et al., 2014). Also, studies have confirmed that areas containing conservation-concern species are important for conservation practice (Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Qufa and Bekele, 2019; Wall et al., 2021). Thus, the FFL is one of the most important areas for the diversity of carnivores in Ethiopia. Our multiple surveys provided the highest number of carnivore species compared to indirect sign surveys and direct visual surveys in different localities in Ethiopia. Qufa and Bekele (2019) identified four carnivore species from the Lebu Natural Protected Forest in Southwest Shewa, Ethiopia, and Girma and Worku (2020) identified six carnivore species from the Nensebo Forest 46 in southern Ethiopia, both of which are lower than in the current study. The higher species composition and richness of carnivores in the current study area could be attributed to the use of advanced survey technology (camera trapping), a longer survey period, access to water, and dense vegetation cover. 3.4.2 Effect of land use on carnivores As expected, wetlands had the highest species richness and almost all (83.3%) carnivore species were positively associated with wetlands, with three species displaying significant association. Wetlands support unique species, specifically the vulnerable Panthera pardus. This could be due to where prey was easier to catch during watering. Prior research has identified water and cover as critical habitat requirements (Wolf and Ripple, 2016). Thus, the presence of conservationconcerned species, strong preference for most species, and the highest species richness in wetlands demonstrate that wetlands play an important role in wildlife conservation in the FFL and in Ethiopia. This could be due to easier access to water (Lake Abaya) and less anthropogenic pressure. The forest is the second most abundant in terms of species richness (contains 10 species) and more than two-thirds of carnivores are positively associated with it. This is possibly due to the high vegetation cover, the cooling effect, and less human disturbances. Observed associations between carnivore species agree with previous research in Ethiopia on Panthera leo and Crocuta crocuta (Yirga et al., 2017) and Civettictis civetta (Mullu and Balakrishnan, 2014). This emphasizes the importance of forests in providing basic needs such as food, shelter, and cover (Estifanos et al., 2020; Bauer et al., 2021). According to studies, the forest is the most important habitat for wildlife and biodiversity conservation worldwide (IUCN, 2021; Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Lavrenchenko and Bekele, 2017). Although grassland is open and unable to hide elusive carnivore species, it contains eight species and is positively associated with a large number of carnivore species (significant for Halogale parvula, Civettictis civetta, and Genetta genetta). Possibly, they might have been attracted to grasslands due to its promotion of ease of movement, access to termites and other insects, and prey availability (Girma and Worku, 2020). As a result, the land use types should be given equivalent conservation attention. Studies have shown that species richness is likely to be lower in settlement and agricultural lands due to increased anthropogenic activities such as farming, poaching, and controlling carnivores by 47 killing them not to harm livestock (Easter et al., 2020; Teixeira et al., 2021). As expected, this is supported by our finding that settlements and agricultural land had fewer carnivore species than other land use types. Most carnivore species would have a negative association with agricultural land, which is consistent with the hypothesis of our study. However, this generalization varies between species, most likely due to differences in dispersal, colonization, and stress tolerance (Gebresenbet et al., 2018b; Easter et al., 2020). For example, the positive associations were significant only for Halogale parvula, Ichneumia albicauda, and Crocuta crocuta. This might be due to access to domestic prey for three of them, scavenging (Crocuta crocuta) and omnivore behaviours (Halogale parvula and Ichneumia albicauda). The current finding may be indicative of an ―ecological trap‖ (i.e., environmental change causes organisms to prefer to settle in poor-quality habitats) (Ripple et al., 2014). Agricultural land expansion may result in decreased habitat (Penjor et al., 2021), escalating the conflict between humans and carnivores and posing a threat to biodiversity conservation. Thus, land sharing (wildlife-friendly agricultural system) for agriculturally adapted carnivore species should be implemented to consider carnivore conservation (Wall et al., 2021). Despite the fact that the effect was statistically insignificant, eight out of twelve carnivore species had a negative association with human settlements (Easter et al., 2020). This might be due to hunting in retaliation for livestock depredation and crop damage (Durant et al., 2010; Amare and Serekebirhan, 2019; Tamrat et al., 2020). These patterns are shared across East Africa and worldwide, where carnivores avoid human disturbance, except for a few species (e.g., hyaenas) that are known to attack livestock inside human settlements at night and are attracted by anthropogenic food sources (e.g., mongooses) (Admasu et al., 2004b; Easter et al., 2020). Similarly, previous research indicates that human disturbance has a negative impact on carnivores in southern Ethiopia (Gebresenbet et al., 2018a). The only positive and significant association with the settlement was displayed by Halogale parvula, most likely due to the high density of rodents and fruit trees, which may provide easy picking for this omnivorous species. 3.4.3 Effects of environmental factors on carnivores The diversity of carnivore species increased significantly as altitude increased. For instance, all carnivore species, with the exception of Panthera pardus, were positively associated with altitude. This is most likely due to higher altitude sites being far removed from human habitation (causing 48 less disturbance), prey cascading (scanning), and lower temperatures at higher altitudes. As temperatures rise in the lowlands, species migrate to higher elevations (Durant et al., 2010). The species richness of carnivores was higher farther away from the vehicle road; this could be due to road-kill, vehicle collisions, and human disturbance. Although only one species, Galerella sanguinea, showed a significant negative response, the vast majority avoided roads. The impact of roads on carnivores has previously been documented (Newbold et al., 2015). The vehicle kills of Genetta genetta, Civettictis civetta, and Canis mesomelas were recorded during the study period. Vehicle-wildlife collisions and human intrusion are major problems in the Maze National Park (Tekalign and Bekele, 2016). Penetrating natural forests with roads results in opening avenues for human encroachment, road-kill, and species collisions with vehicles (Vanthomme et al., 2013; Appendix 6). Roads, in general, have been associated with cascading effects like overexploitation, habitat conversion, fire, farming, and invasive species (Vanthomme et al., 2013; Newbold et al., 2015). 3.5 Conclusion We found that the FFL is home to 12 carnivore species belonging to six families, including the globally vulnerable Panthera pardus. Of these, Panthera pardus and Crocuta crocuta were largesized. Wetlands are the most important land use type for species because of water availability and less human pressure. It provides a tangible target for carnivore conservation in the FFL. A considerable number of species prefer forest and grassland. As expected, many of the carnivore species sampled by the present study require largely less disturbed and forested habitats and may be seriously ill adapted to agricultural land, settlements, and vehicle roads. As a result, intensifying agricultural production on lands that have already been converted to meet human needs, as well as prioritizing the protection of native habitats, is required in the area for wildlife conservation. 49 Chapter 4: Effects of prey abundance on carnivore populations in Faragosa-Fura Landscape of southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia Corvus corax Leptailurus serval Pternistis squamatus Pabio anubis Manuscript published Berhanu Gebo, Serekebirhan Takele and Simon Shibru. (2022). Effects of prey abundance on carnivore populations in the Faragosa-Fura Landscape of the southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Global Ecology and Conservation 34(1): 1-10. https://doi.org/21.00966/j.gecco.2022.e02029 50 Abstract Understanding how prey abundance affects carnivore populations in particular sites is important for the conservation of both prey and carnivore species. However, effects of prey species on carnivore populations in a human-dominated landscape in the southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia are largely unknown. Our central premise was that the abundance of carnivore varies with potential prey abundance in different sites. To test this, we divided the study area into 15 grid cells (2 x 2 km) and installed a camera trap in each grid for four seasons between 2020 and 2021. The result showed a total of 400 photographs of eight carnivore species, of which Ichneumia albicauda (n = 96) and Genetta genetta (n = 80) were the most common, while Panthera pardus (n = 3) was the rarest. The Shannon diversity index and evenness index of carnivores for the study area were 1.868 and 0.809, respectively. A total of 28 prey species were identified, of which 13 were birds and 15 were mammals. Overall, the record frequency of prey species was 801, of which 288 were birds and 513 were mammals. Primates and medium-sized ungulates were the most abundant species among prey groups. Medium ungulates (R2 = 39.46%, CI = 0.378–1.234) and large birds (R2 = 37.26%, CI = 0.298–2.111) both had a significant positive relationship with carnivore abundance, and they contributed to 76.92% of the carnivore abundance in sites. The Shannon diversity index and evenness index of prey in the area were 3.162 and 0.8142, respectively. The community structure analyses showed Civettictis civetta, Crocuta crocuta, Genetta genetta, and Panthera pardus were positively correlated with medium-sized ungulates and large bird prey groups. We found that Crocuta crocuta prefers areas with a high abundance of both large and medium ungulates, while the other carnivore species mainly prefer areas with medium ungulates and/or large birds. Our findings support the importance of prey species abundance for carnivore conservation in the human-dominated rural landscape of the southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Keywords: Carnivore population, Diversity, Human-dominated landscape, Prey abundance, Preycarnivore relationship 51 4.1 Introduction Carnivore populations face massive range contractions and are at risk of local extinction, owing primarily to human-caused habitat fragmentation and prey depletion (Ripple et al., 2014). These landscape changes frequently disrupt ecological processes, resulting in changes in the abundance of a wide number of species. High rates of fragmentation can lead to declining population densities of both carnivores and prey species (Šálek et al., 2010; Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Rich et al., 2017). As the extent and quality of wildlife habitat deteriorates, information on carnivore and prey abundance in specific locations is required to support informed conservation actions aimed at mitigating declines (Durant et al., 2010; Creel et al., 2018). The abundance of mammalian carnivores in habitats is strongly linked to the abundance of potential prey species (Červinka et al., 2013; Rich et al., 2017). Previous research has shown that carnivore populations prefer different sites of habitat in landscapes, which may be explained by differences in prey availability between sites of habitat (Červinka et al., 2013; Rich et al., 2017; Creel et al., 2018; Garciá et al., 2021). The presence of more prey in a habitat is frequently cited as the primary reason for carnivore preference for those sites (Wolf and Ripple, 2016). Ungulates, primates, rodents, and birds are the most important prey species for the majority of mammalian carnivores in landscapes (Fuller and Sievert, 2001; Khosravi et al., 2018). However, prey species abundance is in a declining trend due to human activity such as habitat loss and consumption (Wolf and Ripple, 2016). To survive most carnivore species feed on a variety of food sources. For example, Mellivora capensis, mongooses, and Otocyon megalotis are omnivores (Šálek et al., 2010), whereas many others (e.g., genets and mongooses) eat insects and rodents (Gutema et al., 2019). Some carnivores feed primarily on mammals and birds (e.g., Crocuta crocuta, Panthera pardus, and Canis mesomelas) (Rich et al., 2017; Creel et al., 2018). Mammals are the most important prey species for carnivores, making up the majority of their diet (Lin et al., 2020; Phumanee et al., 2020). Understanding how carnivore populations respond to prey abundance in specific habitats is therefore critical for both prey species and carnivore population conservation. The majority of studies on the effect of prey abundance on carnivore populations have relied on presence-only data (Durant et al., 2010), either for individual species (Yirga et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2020) or for species richness (Lindsey et al., 2013; Wait et al., 2018). As a result, research on the effects of prey groups on carnivore populations is very scanty. Furthermore, camera-trapping 52 surveys were rarely used to determine the abundance of carnivore populations in earlier studies in Ethiopia. Aside from some studies on specific carnivore prey composition using a scat analyses (Abay et al., 2011; Serekebirhan and Solomon, 2011; Yirga et al., 2013), the direct effect of prey abundance on the abundance of carnivore populations in an Ethiopian human-dominated landscape is understudied. The purpose of this study was to examine carnivore and prey population abundance and relationships in the FFL of the southern Rift Valley using data from camera trapping. We hypothesized that (1) carnivore and prey species abundance and diversity are variable among sites because of resource differences; (2) carnivore abundance is related to sites with more abundant prey groups; and (3) different carnivore species prefer different prey groups at variable sites. 4.2 Materials and Methods 4.2.1 Study area We conducted this research in the FFL. The FFL has an area of 100 km2 in Gamo Zone in Mirab Abaya Woreda in the southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia. This study area is located between 06°10'12" and 06°15'00" N latitude and 37°42'36" to 37°47'24" E longitude (Fig. 17). Figure 17. Map of the study area depicting camera trap stations (red stars) for carnivore populations survey. 53 4.2.2 Study design We divided the whole study wild habitat into 15 equal grids (2 x 2 km) using Google Earth Map and ArcGIS, based on the number of available camera traps (Khosravi et al., 2018). We collected data from August to September during the wet season and from January to February during the dry season, for a total of four seasons in the years 2020 and 2021. We deployed one camera trap in each grid (Fig. 17). We trained data collectors and verified the accuracy of their knowledge, both theoretically as well as practically in the field, and assigned two to each grid (Appendix 3). 4.2.3 Carnivore data collection We used 15 infrared digital camera traps (Bushnell Trophy model Cam HDTM-119447) to collect carnivore data. We activated the cameras with a default 10 second photographic delay between shots. We adjusted the time, date, month, year, and auto mode for all camera traps. Then, we deployed one camera trap in each grid by prioritizing signs (trail, scat, track, odour, and burrow) of carnivores to maximize captures within study sites (Agha et al., 2018). Each camera between grids was fixed at a distance of 2000 m ± 403.98 (SD) on either side of the camera. We kept two to three-metre camera fixing distances from the trail or signs to get identifiable photographs and protect the cameras from animal damage (Brassine and Parker, 2015). To maintain wide coverage, we placed each camera on the flat ground at a height of 30 to 40 cm above the ground. Cameras were pointed north or south to reduce false triggers from the rising or setting sun, and they were set parallel to the ground to ensure a direct field of view following Agha et al. (2018). Each camera was fixed at a site for three consecutive days, for a total of four months per year. Apparently, each camera station was surveyed 24 times during the two-year study period. To avoid pseudo-replication (Agha et al., 2018), a photograph of each species was recorded as independent evidence if there was a 20 second delay between camera shots. 4.2.4 Prey data collection We hypothesized that the carnivore community as well as specific carnivore species prefer sites with high prey group abundance. To test this, we used multiple (three) field survey techniques to collect abundance data on prey around camera stations: a camera trapping survey, a sign survey, and a direct sighting survey (Rich et al., 2017; Khosravi et al., 2018). We used prey species captured in the camera trap, which was installed for carnivore surveys, as one data source of prey abundance. For the sign and sightings survey, we established three 200-m transects radiating from 54 each camera station at 0, 120, and 240° (overall, we established 45 transects of 200 m length around 15 camera stations; Fig. 18). Figure 18. Design of a study demonstrating how three line transects (200 m each) radiated from a camera station installed in a grid cell. Prey signs of fresh tracks, scats, hair, burrows, and odour were all recorded within a 200 m transect around camera stations (Kingdon, 2015). A sign survey can increase survey efficiency for many mammal species, contributing to species abundance data (Qufa and Bekele, 2019). For the sighting survey, we used the naked eye and Bushnell laser rangefinder binoculars to count prey species within a 200 m transect around camera stations. A sign survey and a direct sighting survey of prey species were carried out on the same days between 6:00 and 10:00 a.m., when most animals become more active (Girma and Worku, 2020). When an individual animal and signs were spotted, the following data were collected: date, time, grid number, species name and type, altitude, and GPS coordinates, following Legese et al. (2019) and Diriba et al. (2020). Signs counted by data collectors and the researcher were marked at a place with a wooden stick to avoid repeating the same sign during subsequent monthly sampling periods. We used the Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals (Kingdon, 2015) and the Field Guide of Birds of the Horn of Africa (Buechley, 2018) for the identification of evidence of mammal prey and birds, respectively. We used the Scat Identification Protocol (Chame, 2003) for the identification of evidence of scats in prey species. We classified prey species into seven prey groups using taxonomic classes and prey body size based on published data from mammals (Jones et al., 2009) and birds (Dunning, 2007). These groups included large ungulates, small ungulates, primates, other mammals, rodents, large birds, 55 and small birds (Appendix 7). Prey records obtained from multiple surveys were pooled for each camera station for further analyses. 4.2.5 Data analyses The frequency of record was defined as the total record frequency of each carnivore and prey species from pooled survey data in the landscape, and the relative frequency was calculated by dividing the frequency of record of each species by the total frequency of record. Trap success (TS) of each carnivore was calculated as the number of captures per the number of trap days and multiplied by 100 (Rich et al., 2017). We calculated carnivore and prey species diversity at the landscape level using the Shannon-Wiener diversity index and the Evenness index (see Table 1 for their formulas). The difference in the record frequency of each carnivore across sites was calculated using the Wilcoxon test. To calculate the overall prey groups at a given site, it was necessary to standardize estimates of the abundance of seven prey groups, as these abundances were estimated using different sampling methodologies. For each prey group, we therefore took the total number of records of a species encountered in all grids at camera stations and divided this total by the standard deviation of all site-level total abundances for that prey group across the 15 sites (i.e., we scaled the site-level values by their standard deviation) (Zuur et al., 2010). These standardized prey group abundance values for each prey group were then summed up to produce our metric of prey groups. In estimating the relative abundance of all carnivores at a given camera station, we followed a similar standardization to that of the prey group. Then, we checked the normality of carnivore community standardized data and used multiple linear regression to test for the contribution of every seven prey groups to overall carnivore community abundance. Then, the contribution of each prey group was compared using R2 (a statistical measure that represents the proportion of the variance for a dependent variable that is explained by an independent variable), regression line, and confidence interval (CI) from scatter plot diagrams using XLSTAT software version 2016.02.28451. The above carnivore abundance metric provides an estimate of the overall carnivore abundance at a site, but does not provide information on the structure of the prey-predator community (e.g., whether a site is dominated by different carnivores). To quantify community structure, we used partial least squares regression (PLS) using standardized data from eight carnivores and seven prey groups at each site. A PLS regression was calculated using the correlation matrix of these 56 variables and an automatic stop condition using XLSTAT. This PLS regression sheds light on the relationship between prey groups and carnivores using an ordination plot. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) provide a more flexible approach for analyzing nonnormal ecological data when random effects are present (Bolker et al., 2009). We only considered seven species with sufficiently high detection frequencies to support model fitting, excluding species with less than 10 records (Panthera pardus, with only three records). We ran a seven species-specific separate generalized linear mixed model to assess the effect of prey groups on seven species-specific responses at the camera stations using a stepwise selection method. The generalized linear mixed model was fit by assuming a Poisson distribution of errors because the response variable (i.e., the number of species detected) is a count. The predictors used in the models were seven prey group record frequencies measured at the camera stations. The response variable was the pooled data of seven carnivore record frequencies. These predictors were used as fixed factors in the model. The random factors of the mixed model were the camera stations in each grid. We evaluated the collinearity between the predictor variables using variance inflation factors (accepted threshold < 3) and evaluated the variance inflation factors function based on Zuur et al. (2010). The prey groups showed significant effects based on a 95% confidence interval that excludes zero values and were presented for seven carnivore species models. GLMMs analyses was carried out using R software, version 3.6.1 (Core Development Team, 2020). 4.3 Results 4.3.1 Carnivore population abundance and diversity A survey effort of 360 days (24 days per camera station) resulted in the collection of 400 records of eight carnivore species (Table 5). The overall trap success was 13.9. The Shannon diversity index (H') and evenness index (E) for the study area were 1.868 and 0.809, respectively. Ichneumia albicauda (n = 96, RF = 24%, TS = 26.67) and Genetta genetta (n = 80, RF = 20%, TS = 22.22) had higher record frequency and trap success, while Panthera pardus (n = 3, RF = 0.75%, TS = 0.83) had the lowest (Table 5). The overall frequency of records of carnivores differed significantly between camera stations (Wilcoxon z = 3.409, P < 0.001), as well as the record frequencies of all species differed significantly between camera stations, except Panthera pardus (Table 5). 57 Table 5. Frequency of records, trap success, and diversity index of carnivore species. Species scientific Species common name name Total Relative Trap success Wilcoxon test records frequency (RF) (TS) % Z(P) Canis mesomelas Black-backed jackal 22 5.5 6.11 3.107 (0.0018) Crocuta crocuta Spotted hyaena 48 12 13.33 3.102(0.0019) Galerella sanguinea Slender mongoose 62 15.5 17.22 3.203(0.0013) Ichneumia albicauda White-tailed mongoose 96 24 26.67 3.302(0.0009) Genetta genetta Common genet 80 20 22.22 3.070(0.0021) Civettictis civetta African civet 24 6 6.67 2.529(0.0114) Halogale parvula Common-dwarf mongoose 65 16.25 18.06 3.435(0.0005) Panthera pardus Leopard 3 0.75 0.83 1.342(0.1797) 400 100.00 13.89 0.409(0.00065) Total Diversity indices Species richness (S) 8 Shannon diversity index (H‘) 1.868 Evenness index (E) 0.809 4.3.2 Prey species abundance and diversity Table 6 presents the frequency of records of prey species and groups in the FFL. A total of 28 prey species were identified, 13 birds and 15 mammals. There were 801 total prey records, 288 of which were bird records, and 513 were mammal records (Table 6, Appendix 7). Birds (both large and small combined) had the highest prey record, accounting for 35.95% of the total prey in the area. Alopochen aegyptiaca and Numida meleagris had the most records, accounting for 20.78% (n = 80) of the bird prey species. Primates were the second most frequently recorded species, accounting for 24.59% of total prey in the study area. The two primates (Papio anubis and Chlorocebus aethiops) were the most abundant among mammals, accounting for 31.89% (n = 162) of all mammal prey. Primates had the highest relative frequency (RF = 24.59), followed by small birds (RF = 20.97). Both large and medium-sized ungulates accounted for 19.73% (n = 158) of all prey records. Phacochoerus aethiopicus (n = 38) and Madoqua kirkii (n = 42) exhibited the most records among ungulates. Rodents accounted for 11.99% (n = 96) of all prey groups. Among rodents, Xerus rutilus had the best track record. The Shannon diversity index and evenness index of prey in the area were 3.162 and 0.8142, respectively (Table 6). 58 Table 6. Frequency of records of prey species and groups. Prey groups Prey species SE n Total RF (Common name/Scientific name) Large ungulates Medium ungulates Primates Rodents Other mammals Large birds Mean records /15 sites (SD) Lesser kudu (Tragelaphus imberbis) TR, DS, SC 10 Common warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus) DS, CT, SC 38 Bushpig (Potamochoerus larvatus) BU, DS 9 Bohor reedbuck (Redunca redunca) DS, CT 20 Common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia) DS, SC 16 Oribi (Ourebia ourebi) DS, CT 23 Dik dik (Madoqua kirkii) DS, SC 42 Olive baboon (Papio anubis) DS, CT 80 Vervet monkey (Chlorocebus aethiops) DS, CT 82 Mantled guereza (Colobus guereza) DS 35 Unstriped ground squirrel (Xerus rutilus) BU, DS 53 Crested porcupine (Hystrix cristata) SP, CT 28 Striped ground squirrel (Xerus erythropus) DS 15 Bats (genus Chiroptera) DS, SO 47 Rabbit (Lepus habessinicus) DS 15 Marabou stork (Leptoptilos crumeniferus) DS 19 Spur-winged goose DS 14 Egyptian goose (Alopochen aegyptiaca) DS, CT 39 Helmeted guineafowl (Numida meleagris) DS, CT 41 Gray heron (Ardea cinerea) DS 7 Hamerkop (Scopus umbrette) DS 26 Fan-tailed raven (Corvus rhipidurus) DS 9 Yellow-necked francolin DS 21 Crested francolin (Dendroperdix sephaena) DS 21 Speckled pigeon (Columba guinea) DS 27 Scaly francolin (Pternistis squamatus) DS 19 Eastern bronze-naped pigeon DS 26 DS 41 57 7.12 3.800 (2.651) 101 12.61 6.733 (2.840) 197 24.59 13.133 (6.906) 96 11.99 6.400 (4.641) 62 7.74 4.133 (2.232) 120 14.98 8.000 (4.899) (Plectropterus gambensis) Small birds 168 20.97 11.200 (5.158) (Pternistis leucoscepus) (Columba delegorguei) Red-eyed Dove (Streptopelia semitorquata) Frequency of records Diversity indices 801 Species richness (S) 28 Shannon diversity index (H‘) 3.162 Evenness index (E) 0.8142 100 53.4 (15.70) DS, Direct Sighting; CT, Camera trapping; SC, Scat; TR, Track count; SO, Sound; BU, Burrow; SP, Spine; SE, Source of evidence; RF, Relative frequency; n = number of records 59 4.3.3 Contribution of prey groups to carnivore community abundance The scatter plot in Fig. 19 compares the relationship between prey groups and their contribution to carnivore abundance. Medium ungulates and large birds both had a strong positive relationship with carnivore abundance and appear to have contributed significantly to the carnivore abundance in sites (R2 = 39.46%, CI = 0.378–1.234) and (R2 = 37.26%, CI = 0.298–2.111), respectively (Fig. 19). They appeared to account for 76.92% of the total carnivore community abundance in the study area. Other mammal groups (such as bats and rabbits) and small birds contributed the least (R2 less than 0.2%, CI including zero; Fig. 19) to the abundance of carnivores. The abundance of rodents near camera stations was found to be non-significant and negatively related. Figure 19. Direction of effect, contribution, and significance level of prey groups on overall carnivore abundance. The red and blue regression lines represent positive and negative directions based on the coefficient of regression. R 2 presents the proportion of the contribution of prey groups, and CI presents the lower and upper bounds of the confidence interval. 4.3.4 Community structure The PLS regression revealed that Galerella sanguinea and Canis mesomelas were near the centre of the axis, and not affected by any prey abundance (Fig. 20). Civettictis civetta, Genetta genetta, Panthera pardus, and Crocuta crocuta were positively correlated with each other as well as medium ungulates. Ichneumia albicauda seems to be correlated with other mammals, large and 60 small birds, as well as primates. Halogale parvula seems to be correlated with rodents. Large ungulates seemed to be correlated with Crocuta crocuta (Fig. 20). Figure 20. Relationship between the abundance of eight carnivore species and seven prey groups. 4.3.5 Species-specific model of carnivores The direction and strength of variable effects from single species models revealed species-specific differences in carnivore responses to prey group abundance at the landscape level (Table 7). Among carnivores that showed associations with prey groups, the majority showed a significant and positive association with medium-sized ungulates or large birds (Table 7). Civettictis civetta and Genetta genetta significantly preferred sites with medium ungulate abundance, while Halogale parvula avoided sites with medium ungulate abundance. Galerella sanguinea and Ichneumia albicauda significantly preferred sites with large bird abundance. Crocuta crocuta preferred areas with a high abundance of both large and medium ungulates. 61 The abundance of any prey group had no effect on the Canis mesomelas. Most species responded negatively to rodents, small birds, and other mammal (bats and rabbit) abundance, except the Halogale parvula for small birds. Significant avoidance was recorded for Ichneumia albicauda for small birds and Civettictis civetta for rodents (Table 7). Table 7. Contribution, direction, and significance of the effects of prey groups on specific carnivore species using generalized linear models with Poisson distributions in the FFL. Model Standardized coefficients CI (95%) Variable Value Std. error t P Lower Upper Canis mesomelas - - - - - - - Ichneumia albicauda Large birds 0.926 0.198 4.667 < 0.0001 0.520 1.333 Small birds -0.409 0.198 -2.061 0.049 -0.816 -0.003 Galerella sanguinea Large birds 0.444 0.166 2.667 0.012 0.104 0.784 Crocuta crocuta Medium ungulates 0.468 0.149 3.130 0.004 0.162 0.774 Large ungulates 0.407 0.149 2.723 0.011 0.101 0.713 Genetta genetta Medium ungulates 0.683 0.136 5.029 < 0.0001 0.405 0.960 Civettictis civetta Medium ungulates 0.562 0.187 3.004 0.006 0.179 0.945 Rodents -0.670 0.187 -3.581 0.001 -1.053 -0.287 Medium ungulates -0.454 0.173 -2.626 0.014 -0.807 -0.100 Halogale parvula 4.4 Discussion 4.4.1 Carnivore abundance and diversity This survey revealed the effects of prey abundance on carnivore populations in a humandominated landscape in southern Ethiopia. As a result, this study on carnivore population abundance in Ethiopia serves as a baseline for carnivore conservation and further research. The abundance of some carnivores in this study is comparable with previous studies of single species in Ethiopia (e.g., Crocuta crocuta, Yirga et al., 2013; Panthera pardus, Gebresenbet et al., 2018a; Ichneumia albicauda, Admasu et al., 2004a; Civettictis civetta, Admasu et al., 2004b). Smaller species (e.g., Galerella sanguinea) were found to be more abundant in the area, whereas large species (e.g., Panthera pardus) were found to be rare. This could be due to the higher abundance of smaller prey (also observed in this study) as well as the omnivorous (wide-ranging) behaviour of smaller carnivores (Burton et al., 2012). This is also in agreement with the findings of Creel et al. (2018) from Zambia, who demonstrated that the size of prey determines carnivore population abundance. Panthera pardus is found in low densities all over the world (IUCN, 2021), which 62 supports this finding. The Shannon diversity of carnivores is 1.868, possibly due to their low density and cryptic behaviour (Ripple et al., 2014). 4.4.2 Prey abundance and diversity Birds had the highest prey record, accounting for 35.95% of the total prey in the area. This could be attributed to their reproductive and adaptive behaviour. Primates were the second most frequently recorded species, accounting for 24.59% of total prey in the study area. This is in agreement with the study in Ethiopia (Lin et al., 2020), where primates are abundant prey species in their study area. Ungulates, which are important prey groups for carnivores, accounted for 19.73% of the total. This also corroborates with other studies in Africa (Creel et al., 2018), where ungulates are important prey species. The results also found that the most abundant mammal prey were Papio anubis, Chlorocebus aethiops, bats, and Xerus rutilus. This might be due to their tolerance of human disturbance as well as generalist foraging behaviour (Rich et al., 2017). Similar to other studies (Burton et al., 2012), Alopochen aegyptiaca and Numida mcleagris were the most abundant among birds. The Shannon index demonstrated that the diversity index of prey species (H' = 3.162) was twice greater than the diversity index of carnivores (H' = 1.868). This agrees with the findings of other studies (Wolf and Ripple, 2016; Creel et al., 2018), where prey species exist in greater diversity compared to their predator species. 4.4.3 Effect of prey abundance on carnivore community Prey abundance seems to be an important factor affecting carnivore species abundance in camera stations. This finding is consistent with previous field studies that predator foraging activity is concentrated in habitats with more feeding sources (Sálek et al., 2010; Cervinka et al., 2013; Khosravi et al., 2018). Carnivores are generalist and opportunist species, i.e., many species of carnivores are omnivores, and their most frequent food is vegetables, insects, and/or fruits. Despite the fact that carnivores have numerous opportunistic foraging strategies, mammals and birds are the most important food sources for the majority of carnivores (Fuller and Sievert, 2001). Carnivores were recorded more frequently in camera stations where mammals and birds were abundant. This is consistent with findings in Botswana (Rich et al., 2017) that state prey 63 abundance in habitats often contributes to carnivore abundance. However, our results showed that the abundance of carnivores in stations varied according to prey groups. For example, the abundance of medium ungulates (R2 = 39.46%) appeared to be an important and significant factor in the abundance of carnivores in sites, rather than large ungulates (Tragelaphus imberbis, Phacochoerus aethiopicus, and Potamochoerus larvatus). This might be due to the preference of carnivore species for medium-sized prey (Redunca redunca, Sylvicapra grimmia, Ourebia ourebi, and Madoqua kirkii) as they are easy to catch. Our results also showed that, next to medium ungulates, large birds contributed (R2 = 37.26%) more to the abundance of the carnivore community in sites. Similarities have been reported for birds (Burton et al., 2012), where birds contribute more to the entire carnivore community's abundance. Rodents negatively correlated with carnivore abundance, which is in agreement with other studies for rodents (Červinka et al., 2013). 4.4.4 Community structure PLS regression analyses showed that Panthera pardus, Civettictis civetta, Crocuta crocuta, Genetta genetta, and Ichneumia albicauda species were positively associated with medium ungulates and large birds. Similarities have been reported for carnivore species' coexistence with each other (Rich et al., 2017) and their relationships with prey species (Lin et al., 2020; Phumanee et al., 2020). This analyses also showed that the two species (Canis mesomelas and Galerella sanguinea) appeared near the centre of the axis and seemed not to be affected by either carnivore species abundance or prey group abundance. Durant et al. (2010) found that the prey preferences of Canis mesomelas and Galerella sanguinea are broader than those of other species. 4.4.5 Single-species model Single-species studies from other areas agree with some of our studies. For example, Crocuta crocuta prefers areas with larger and medium-sized ungulates. Similarly, Abay et al. (2011) reported that Crocuta crocuta prefers areas with higher prey density. This might be due to its larger body size to hunt the ungulates. Mongooses and Civettictis civetta are omnivores (Šálek et al., 2010). To survive prey species population fluctuations, most carnivore species feed on a variety of other species (Gutema et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020). According to these findings, Civettictis civetta and mongoose species (Halogale parvula, Ichneumia albicauda, and Galerella sanguinea) prefer sites with ungulate and/or bird species abundance to others. 64 4.5 Conclusion Our findings confirmed a total of 400 photographs of eight carnivore species, of which Ichneumia albicauda had the highest record frequency, while Panthera pardus (n = 3) had the lowest. Overall, the record frequency of prey species was 801, belonging to 28 prey species, of which 13 were birds and 15 were mammals. Prey groups of mammals and birds are the most important factors contributing to carnivore community abundance in the study area. Most carnivore species seemed to be positively associated with each other, as well as medium ungulates and large birds. Crocuta crocuta prefers areas with a high concentration of large and medium-sized ungulates, whereas Civettictis civetta and mongoose species prefer areas with a high concentration of ungulates and/or bird species. This data fills gaps in our understanding of the current state of carnivore and prey population abundance in the FFL of the southern Rift Valley. As a result, this study contributes to the future conservation of these carnivores as well as their prey species by developing effective strategies in the human-dominated landscape of the country. 65 Chapter 5: Knowledge, attitude and practice of the local people towards human-carnivore coexistence in Faragosa-Fura Landscape of southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia Manuscript published Berhanu Gebo, Serekebirhan Takele and Simon Shibru. (2022). Knowledge, attitude and practice of the local people towards human–carnivore coexistence in Faragosa–Fura Landscape, Gamo Zone, southern Ethiopia. Wildlife Biology 2022: e01018. https://doi.org/10.1002/wlb.01018 66 Abstract Local people's KAP have played an important role in human-carnivore coexistence and have received increased attention in carnivore conservation. However, studies on the KAP of local people towards human-carnivore coexistence are scarce, species-specific, or limited to the protected areas. Therefore, we investigated the local people's KAP towards carnivore coexistence with humans, the problem of livestock, and mitigation practices in a human-dominated landscape of southern Ethiopia. We collected data from 352 household interviews using a semi-structured questionnaire and photographic sampling. The respondents mentioned 13 carnivores coexisting with local people belonging to six families. Eighty-five percent of the respondents perceived carnivores as problematic species and expressed a negative attitude towards them, primarily due to the damage they caused to their livestock. Respondents who had better knowledge of carnivores showed a positive attitude towards carnivores. Cluster analyses showed that Crocuta crocuta, Leptailurus serval, Panthera leo, Genetta genetta, and Canis mesomelas were grouped under a high-threat cluster. Chickens and goats were the most threatened livestock reported by respondents. The main depredation control methods reported were guarding and fencing for larger livestock and keeping chickens indoors during the night. The regression models predicted that males and respondents with formal education had better knowledge of carnivores than females and those with non-formal education. The respondents who owned more livestock, and experienced more damage to their livestock showed a negative attitude towards carnivores. Although the study area has the critical conservation value of 13 carnivore species, livestock depredation by carnivores, the local people‘s negative attitude towards carnivores, and lethal depredation control practices by local people were affecting human-carnivore coexistence in the area. Our findings call for conservation actions such as conservation education to raise awareness and develop a positive attitude and non-lethal depredation mitigation measures to promote coexistence in consultation with the local community. Keywords: Carnivores, Coexistence, Depredation control methods, Problem status 67 5.1 Introduction Mammalian carnivores are often used as flagship species for conservation efforts (Dickman, 2010; Western et al., 2019; IUCN, 2021). Promoting human-carnivore coexistence (Western et al., 2019; Teixeira et al., 2021) and establishing protected areas (Trajçe et al., 2019; Bauer et al., 2021; Marneweck et al., 2021) are the two most common strategies to conserve carnivores. However, protected areas are decreasing at an alarming rate due to anthropogenic loss of habitat, forcing wildlife to share habitats with humans. This habitat sharing can lead to coexistence or conflict between humans and carnivores (Mkonyi et al., 2017). As a result, developing evidencebased conservation strategies is critical for the peaceful coexistence of carnivores and local people (Lozano et al., 2019). Through learning, imitating, and observing from experience, local people have a set of knowledge systems and attitudes for carnivore conservation (Wang et al., 2020) in shared habitats. Local people‘s knowledge and attitudes are playing an irreplaceable role and have received increasing attention in protecting wildlife (Wang et al., 2020). Human-carnivore coexistence is the sustainable state in which humans and wildlife co-adapt to living in human-dominated landscapes (Expósito-Granados et al., 2019; Lozano et al., 2019). Human-carnivore coexistence has been influenced by local people's knowledge, attitude, and practice (Jacobsen et al., 2020). The contribution of local people's knowledge to effective conservation practices has been well accepted (Logan et al., 2015). A higher level of knowledge about wildlife species among local people is associated with a more favorable attitude toward human-carnivore coexistence (Tessema et al., 2010; Rutina et al., 2017). As a result, carnivore knowledge from local people is critical for identifying cryptic species and protecting local carnivores (Lozano et al., 2019; Western et al., 2019). According to Lozano et al. (2019), ―attitude‖ refers to the ways local people observe and interpret a particular environment. In the context of human-carnivore coexistence, an attitude refers to the positive or negative opinion given by local people towards carnivores (Gebresenbet et al., 2018; Leflore et al., 2020). Perception refers to the feeling of local people towards categorizing carnivores into problem status for livestock, while attitude is a positive or negative response to carnivores based on the problem status. Thus, understanding attitudes and perceptions of local people is vital to promoting coexistence by resolving conflict. Practice is expressed as either lethal or non-lethal depredation control methods that the local people employ to reduce livestock damage by carnivores (Miller et al., 2016; Expósito-Granados 68 et al., 2019). When coexistence directly results in damage to livestock, local people implement depredation control methods (Yosef, 2015; Gebresenbet et al., 2018a; Expósito-Granados et al., 2019). People frequently kill carnivores to prevent attacks on livestock (Woodroffe et al., 2007; Leflore et al., 2020), which has potentially severe implications for the conservation of carnivores. Non-lethal depredation control methods used by local people in various areas include fencing, guarding with dogs, keeping poultry indoors at night, and chasing (Gebresenbet et al., 2018a). Demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental factors at the local level affect human-carnivore coexistence (Abukari and Mwalyosi, 2018; Trajçe et al., 2019). Gender, age, family size, primary source of income, educational status, study site, damage to livestock, and livestock number are influential factors that determine people‘s KAP towards human-carnivore coexistence (Yosef, 2015; Gebresenbet et al., 2018a). Understanding the knowledge and attitude of local people toward carnivores provides insight into variables might influence human-carnivore coexistence and prioritizing management actions in the area. In light of the previous work, we expected individuals to have experience with carnivores, knowledge about carnivores, and attitudes, influencing how they perceive human-carnivore coexistence. Literature from Ethiopia generally suggests that most wildlife coexists with humans outside of protected areas in a human-dominated landscape (Mekonen, 2020; Tamrat et al., 2020), including the present study area. This coexistence poses resource competition and conflict, often linked to carnivore damage to livestock. However, coexistence and conflict studies on the KAP of local people and their associated factors are patchy and limited to some localities. Studies on the KAP of local people towards coexistence have focused on large-sized carnivores, but small and middlesized carnivores have received less attention (Lozano et al., 2019). Although over a quarter of the world‘s small carnivores are endemic to Africa and provide ecosystem services, they are data deficient (Marneweck et al., 2021). Thus, conservation and management of carnivores should give equal emphasis to all-sized carnivores. The overarching aim of this study was to develop a better understanding of local people‘s KAP towards human-carnivore coexistence. We conducted the KAP survey to answer the following four questions: First, what carnivores coexist with the local people in the area? Second, which carnivores are problematic for livestock and influence the attitudes (positive or negative response) of local people? Third, what types of depredation control methods do the local people use as mitigation measures in the area? Fourth, which socioeconomic factors influence the knowledge and attitude of local people towards human-carnivore coexistence? 69 5.2 Materials and Methods 5.2.1 Study area The FFL covers an area of 100 km2 and lies between 06°10'12" and 06°15'00" N latitude and 37°42'36" and 37°47'24" E longitude (Fig. 21). The altitude of the study area ranges from 1184 to 1795 msl. Figure 21. Map of study area showing the two surveyed Kebeles. Almost all local people in the FFL depend on subsistence agriculture and livestock rearing for their livelihood. Livestock compete fiercely with wild animals for the same habitat resources such as forage and water, which can have severe consequences for wildlife. The main economic activities are farming, livestock breeding, beekeeping, forestry, and the collection of forest products. The commonly kept livestock are cattle, goats, sheep, and chickens (MAW-RDO, 2019). The total human population of the five Kebeles surrounding the study landscape is estimated to be 17,740. Of those, 8909 were males and 8831 were females (CSA, 2019). Females are responsible for indoor activities such as caring for children and cooking, while males are responsible for outdoor activities such as farming and livestock rearing. 5.2.2 Target sample size and sampling frame From the five Kebeles in the study area, we selected two Kebeles (Faragosa and Fura) purposefully (Fig. 21), based on their proximity to the forest, the existence of human-wildlife coexistence, and ease of accessibility. The total human population of Faragosa and Fura Kebeles is 1830 and 2388, respectively (CSA, 2019). We calculated the sample size from the total human 70 population of the two Kebeles (4218) following the Cochran formula (Robb, 1963). Cochran suggests the finite population correction for a finite and relatively small population, like in the present study. Thus, the desired sample size and the adjusted sample size were calculated using the formula: SS = Z2 p q d2 , and ss = SS SS −1 N 1+ Where, SS= desired sample size, ss = adjusted sample size for finite population correction factors when the total population is less than 10,000, Z = standard normal deviation (1.96), P = 0.5, q = is 1-P (0.5), N = total number of populations, d = degree of accuracy desired (0.05). Hence, SS = (1.96)2 (0.5) (0.5)/ (0.05)2 = 0.9604/0.0025= 384 households; ss = 384/ (1+ (3841)/4218) = 384/1.09 = 352 households. Then, the sample size (352) was proportionately allocated to the two Kebeles (Faragosa = 153, Fura = 199). We identified sample households using a systematic random sampling method in four steps, following Gebresenbet et al. (2018a). First, the sampling interval (12) was determined by dividing the population size (4218) by the sample size (352). Second, we created a random number table with one to twelve labeled cards. Third, we selected the first household randomly from a random number table. Finally, we determined the sampling unit by taking every 12th household from a master list of household heads documented earlier in each Kebele office. We conducted the KAP survey from August to October 2020 using household heads. In cases when the household head was not available, we surveyed any elderly member of a family whose age was 18 years old or above. We administered each interview face-to-face. A researcher and well-trained data collectors were involved in the survey via direct house-to-house visits for an average of one hour. 5.2.3 Questionnaire design We developed a semi-structured questionnaire for interview (Appendix 8) from similar KAP studies on coexistence and conflict in other parts of Ethiopia (Gebresenbet et al., 2018b), Tanzania (Mkonyi et al., 2017), and Kenya (Mitchell et al., 2019). The questionnaire had three parts: (1) demographic and socioeconomic characteristics; (2) a free-mentioning survey associated with the behaviour and ecology of a carnivore; and (3) photographic survey. We conducted a pilot survey of 21 residents in one of the Kebeles adjacent to the study sites, which was not part of the study. We included residents of different ages, genders, educational status, and primary sources of 71 income in the pilot on the first week of August 2020. We checked the clarity of the questionnaire through a pilot survey before the actual data collection. Finally, we revised and translated the survey questionnaire into the local mother tongue "Gamoththo" for the formal KAP survey. 5.2.4 KAP survey We gathered respondents‘ demographic and socioeconomic characteristics to evaluate the factors affecting local people‘s knowledge and attitudes towards human-carnivore coexistence. These demographic and socioeconomic characteristics were gender, family size, age, educational status, farmland size, livestock numbers, damage to livestock, and primary source of income (Appendix 8). Following Mkonyi et al. (2017) and Rutina et al. (2017), we investigated the respondents knowledge of carnivores as follows. First, we asked respondents to mention all carnivores coexisting with them in the area using their local names. Second, we asked respondents one by one about the species they mentioned, to determine the colour, size, and feeding habits of each species, for an estimation of local people‘s knowledge. Lastly, we have shown all the picture cards to identify which species they are mentioning for further inquiry into people‘s level of knowledge. We recorded only correctly mentioned carnivores for further local people‘s knowledge analyses. We examined local people‘s perceptions and attitudes towards the problem status of carnivores and depredation control methods in the following ways. Firstly, we prepared fourteen picture cards (13 carnivores living in the area and an African elephant (Loxodonta africana)). We included Loxodonta africana (control group), which is absent in the area, to check the consistency of the respondents (Dickman, 2010). The 13 species on picture cards are given in Appendix 9. Secondly, we made respondents observe the 14 picture cards one by one. Thirdly, we asked the question, ―What types of your livestock are predated by each carnivore?‖ to assess the types of livestock predated by carnivores. We categorized the responses of respondents into cattle, goats, sheep, and chicken damage for each carnivore. Fourthly, by showing picture cards, we asked the question ―Which of these carnivores do you think are problematic for your livestock?‖ to evaluate the problem status of each carnivore by clustering into high threat (cluster I), medium threat (cluster II), and low threat (cluster III). From the above question, we also studied the attitude of local people towards the problematic status of the carnivore community. We categorized the opinions of respondents for each species into three groups: a major problem (negative attitude), a 72 minor problem (negative attitude), and no problem (positive attitude). Lastly, we asked the question, ―What types of depredation control methods are you practicing against carnivores?‖ to assess the local people‘s practice of depredation control methods. We recorded all the practicing methods and categorized them into lethal and non-lethal methods. 5.2.5 Data analyses We used chi-square (ꭓ2) tests to determine differences in responses for each variable among respondents because the data were ordinal. The differences between the two study sites for each factor were analyzed using Pearson‘s ꭓ2 test (Mkonyi et al., 2017). We tested the difference in response among species using Kruskal-Wallis ꭓ2. We analyzed the reported attitudes of the respondents to the problematic status of carnivores using UPGMA (Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean) hierarchical cluster analyses. The depredation control methods practiced by the local people were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For independent variable pairs, we checked multi-collinearity problems using Spearman‘s correlation coefficients (rs). A cutoff of rs ≥ 0.6 was chosen to indicate high collinearity between predictor variables, following Zuur et al. (2010). We analyzed the factors that affect local people‘s knowledge and attitudes towards carnivores using ordinal logistic regression (Rutina et al., 2017; Abukari and Mwalyosi, 2018; Trajçe et al., 2019). To make sure whether each model best explained the data, the goodness of fit test statistics and pseudo-R2 were used, while measures of association were checked through the likelihood ratio (LR), following Zuur et al. (2010). All analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) Statistics version 26.0 for Windows. All statistical tests for the significance level were set at P ≤ 0.05. 5.3 Results 5.3.1 Characteristics respondents The detailed information about the characteristics of demographic and socioeconomic variables and statistical tests is presented in Table 8. In the study, 352 respondents participated. Of these, males accounted for 85.5%. Gender varied significantly among respondents (χ² = 177.56, df = 1, P < 0.05). The age of respondents was between 18 and 83, with an overall mean age of 37.057 ± 12.78 (SD) years. Of those surveyed, 71.3% had received formal education while the rest had no formal education (χ² = 63.920, df = 1, P < 0.05). The mean family size was 6.11 ± 1.98 persons per household, ranging from one to 12. 73 Table 8. Characteristics of demographic and socioeconomic variables. Independent variables Category Gender Male Female Younger Middle Older Non-formal education Formal education Small Middle Large Narrow Moderate Wide Few Average Many Livestock Crops Others Yes No Age Educational status Family size Farmland size (ha) Livestock numbers Primary source of income Damage to livestock Faragosa n (%) 133(86.9) 20(13.1) 31(30.1) 46(49.7) 76(20.3) 47(30.7) 106(69.3) 12(42.5) 76(49.7) 65(7.8) 98(24.2) 37(64.1) 18(11.8) 43(28.1) 96(62.7) 14(9.2) 36(23.5) 78(51.0) 39(25.5) 105(68.6) 48(31.4) Fura n (%) 168(84.4) 31(15.6) 20(23.6) 47(66.3) 132(10.1) 54(27.1) 145(72.9) 27(19.6) 133(66.8) 39(13.6) 134(20.6) 41(67.3) 24(12.1) 24(12.1) 140(70.4) 35(17.6) 55(27.6) 115(57.8) 29(14.6) 155(77.9) 44(22.1) Overall n (%) 301(85.5) 51(14.5) 93(26.4) 208(59.1) 51(14.5) 101(28.7) 251(71.3) 104(29.5) 209(59.4) 39(11.1) 78(22.2) 232(65.9) 42(11.9) 67(19.0) 236(67.0) 49(13.9) 91(25.9) 193(54.8) 68(19.3) 260(73.9) 92(26.1) Between study Sites, χ2(p) 0.438 (0.508) 11.648 (0.003) 0.543 (0.461) 22.182 (0.000) 0.648 (0.723) 16.868 (0.000) 6.633 (0.036) 3.844 (0.050) The farm sizes of the respondents ranged from 0.12 to five ha, with the average farmland size being 1.87 ± 1.26 ha per household. Livestock numbers varied considerably between 0 and 76 per household. Most respondents (86.6%) were livestock owners. The most common livestock belonging to households was chicken (94.0%), cattle (73.0%), goat (69.3%), sheep (23.3%), and donkey (12.8%). Fura respondents had significantly more livestock than Faragosa (χ² = 16.868, df = 2, P < 0.05). The main sources of income for respondents were crops (54.8%), livestock (25.9%), and others (19.3%, i.e., off-farm activities such as casual employment, a restaurant business, construction work, and beekeeping). 5.3.2 Knowledge about carnivores Respondents correctly mentioned between one and ten carnivores, with a mean of 3.73 ± 1.74 (SD). At least 54.0% (n = 190) of the respondents mentioned four to six, 27.6% (n = 97) mentioned one to three, and 18.5% (n = 65) mentioned more than six species. Overall, respondents mentioned 13 species that belong to six families (Table 9). The family which contained the highest number of species was Felidae (30.77%, n = 4), followed by Herpestidae (23.08%, n = 3) and Canidae (15.38%, n = 2). Viverridae, Hyaenidae, and Mustelidae were each 74 represented by a single species. Overall, the frequency of mentions was higher for Crocuta crocuta, Panthera pardus, Panthera leo, and Canis mesomelas, in descending order. Table 9. Percentage of mentions and the composition of carnivore species correctly mentioned by respondents (carnivore knowledge). Family Canidae Felidae Herpestidae Hyaenidae Mustelidae Viverridae Common name Black-backed jackal Bat-eared fox Leopard Lion Serval Caracal Slender mongoose Common-dwarf Mongoose White-tailed mongoose Spotted hyaena Honey badger Common genet African civet Local name Worakana Suite Maahe Gaamo Zerusa Gaci gaamo Adusa usie Qantha usie Bota usie Godare Erzuntha Faaro Sege Scientific name Canis mesomelas Otocyon megalotis Panthera pardus Panthera leo Leptailurus serval Caracal caracal Galerella sanguinea Halogale parvula Ichneumia albicauda Crocuta crocuta Mellivora capensis Genetta genetta Civettictis civetta % Mentioned 51.14 6.818 54.83 52.84 19.6 1.99 17.9 12.5 26.99 57.1 15.63 26.99 6.25 5.3.3 Attitude and perception towards problem status of carnivores Eighty-five percent (n = 301) of respondents reported that carnivores cause a problem on their livestock and expressed a negative attitude (52.0% reported a major problem, while 33.5% reported a minor problem). Only 14.5% (n = 51) reported carnivores causing no problems and expressed a positive attitude. Of all respondents, 73.9% (n = 260) reported one or more types of livestock loss by carnivores. Experienced damage to livestock varied among respondents (χ2 = 80.182, df = 1, P < 0.05) and the study sites (χ2 = 3.844, df = 1, P < 0.05). The reported reasons for the perceived problematic species were attributed primarily to the loss of chickens (n = 338), goats (n = 159), sheep (n = 47), cattle (n = 38) and donkeys (n = 4). Local people's attitude to the problem status across all 13 species varied significantly (KWχ2 = 29.56, df = 12, P < 0.05; Fig. 23). Large carnivores such as Crocuta crocuta and Panthera pardus were most problematic for large-sized livestock (cattle, goats, and sheep), while Canis mesomelas was the major problem for goats. Genet and mongooses were more problematic for chickens. Fig. 22 shows the percentage of livestock losses reported by the respondents. 75 Figure 22. Percentage of livestock loss reported by respondents. Based on the degree of problem status reported by respondents, a cluster analyses result grouped 13 carnivores into three distinct clusters (Fig. 23). Cluster I contained species frequently reported as threats to local livestock. Crocuta crocuta, Leptailurus serval, Panthera pardus, Genetta genetta, and Canis mesomelas were grouped into this high-threat cluster. Cluster II contained Caracal caracal, Halogale parvula, Ichneumia albicauda, and Mellivora capensis, which caused medium-scale problems, while Cluster III consisted of species with low problem status. Figure 23. Unweighted pair Group Method with Arithmetic mean (UPGMA) Dendrogram of hierarchical cluster analyses shows the three threat clusters of carnivore species. 76 5.3.4 Practice of depredation control methods The depredation control methods practiced in the area by local people were either lethal (11.78%) or non-lethal (88.22%) (Fig. 24). Lethal depredation control practice was to kill them on the spot while encountering or killing carnivores by using poison or snares. The methods most frequently practiced in the area were fencing and keeping poultry indoors at night. Figure 24. Depredation control methods that are practicing by the local people in the study area. Most respondents reported that killing using poison and at the spot of sighting was widely practiced for Crocuta crocuta and smaller carnivores, respectively. Guarding with dogs has been widely reported against Leptailurus serval and Genetta genetta but not against larger livestock. There were variations in the reported practice of depredation control methods used against carnivores (KWχ2 = 30.65, df = 12, P < 0.05). 5.3.5 Factors that influence KAP of local people Ordinal regression analyses revealed that the evaluation of local people‘s carnivore knowledge was explained by two factors: gender and education status (Table 10, Appendix 10). Hence, the overall analyses of the model of carnivore knowledge was statistically significant (Cox and Snell R2 = 0.274, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.320, LRχ2 = 112.732, df = 8, P < 0.05). Carnivore knowledge of respondents with formal education was 38.865 times more than with non-formal education. The regression model for the attitude of local people towards problem status was explained significantly by the study site, farmland size, gender, livestock number, primary source of income, and damage to livestock (Cox and Snell R2 = 0.290, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.337, LRχ2 = 120.646, df = 16, P < 0.05). Respondents who perceived carnivores as a major problem species in the area were 77 those that owned more livestock, smaller farmland, crops and livestock as their primary source of income, suffered more livestock damage, and were females (Table 10, Appendix 10). Table 10. Variables in the regression model that influence knowledge and attitude of the local people towards carnivores. Attitude towards Problem status Carnivore knowledge variables Dependent Independent Education status Gender Study site Farmland size/ha Gender Livestock numbers Primary source of income Std. Error Wald χ2 Sig. Exp(B) Categories Intercept Non-formal education vs. formal education Male vs. female B 1.522 3.660 .549 .587 7.675 38.839 .006 .000 38.865 -2.723 .610 19.914 .000 .066 Intercept Faragosa vs. Fura < 1 ha vs. >3 ha 1-3 ha vs. >3 ha Male vs. female < 5 heads vs. >20 heads 6 – 20 heads vs. >20 heads Livestock vs. others 1.724 -.740 .073 -1.289 -1.161 -.695 -.592 3.237 1.080 .386 .795 .704 .673 .743 .638 .637 2.546 3.672 .008 3.355 2.975 .875 .861 25.847 .111 .055 .927 .067 .085 .349 .353 .000 .477 1.076 .276 .313 .499 .553 25.460 Crops vs. others 1.775 .410 18.743 .000 5.902 Damage to livestock Yes vs. no 1.316 .437 9.053 .003 3.727 2 B, regression coefficient; Exp(B), odds ratio (OR); Wald χ , Wald-test statistic; sig, level of statistical significance. 5.4 Discussion 5.4.1 Knowledge about carnivores Our findings showed that local people's knowledge of carnivores was diverse. On average, respondents mentioned two to six carnivores. The result indicates the requirement for awarenessraising about carnivores coexisting with humans in the area to reduce the gap in understanding among local people, which leads to better conservation action. Similarly, Gandiwa (2012), Yosef (2015), and Abukari and Mwalyosi (2018) found that knowledge about wildlife species was quite variable among the local people. The present finding also agreed with Logan et al. (2015), where 40–65% of respondents knew species in a human-dominated landscape of Madagascar. Local people's knowledge of larger carnivores was better than that of smaller species in the study area. This is in conformity with Mkonyi et al. (2017) in the human-dominated landscape of Northern Tanzania, where local people had better knowledge of larger carnivores than smaller species. Our results also correspond to previous studies in other parts of Ethiopia (Mekonen, 2020; Tamrat et al., 2020). This might be due to higher livestock depredation by carnivores and a higher encounter rate of large carnivores than the smaller species. 78 5.4.2 Attitude and perception towards the problem status of carnivores Livestock depredation is a major cause of local people‘s negative attitudes in different parts of the world. This is also common in different areas of Ethiopia (Biset et al., 2019; Tamrat et al., 2020). We confirmed that most respondents had negative attitudes toward carnivores and viewed carnivores as problematic species. The negative attitude of the respondents toward carnivores could be due to livestock depredation by carnivores. The result suggests that in the FFL, chicken depredation is the primary driver of local people‘s negative attitudes towards human-carnivore coexistence, followed by depredation on goats. This is in line with the work of Logan et al. (2015), where carnivores were the cause of the higher loss of chickens and goats in the humandominated landscape. Most respondents reported Crocuta crocuta, Panthera pardus, Canis mesomelas, Leptailurus serval, and Genetta genetta as more problematic for livestock. These species were grouped under a high-threat cluster. This finding corresponds to previous studies in different parts of Ethiopia (Mekonen, 2020; Tamrat et al., 2020). Panthera pardus has been frequently cited among the top livestock predator wherever their range overlaps with livestock (Yirga et al., 2013; Biset et al., 2019). This difference in threat clusters among carnivores is an indicator for conservation practitioners and local stakeholders to apply a species-specific depredation mitigation strategy. 5.4.3 Practice of depredation control methods The result revealed that most local people are practicing non-lethal depredation control methods. This is in line with the review by Lozano et al. (2019), where 86% of studies conducted in different continents have shown the use of non-lethal depredation control methods for carnivore management. It is critical to create an opportunity for non-lethal mitigation measures to be scaled up and implemented through husbandry methods as a tool for promoting human-carnivore coexistence in the area. Based on the respondents report, fewer local people were practicing lethal methods as depredation mitigation measures using poison and snares in the area, particularly for the Crocuta crocuta and Canis mesomelas. Similarly, Crocuta crocuta were killed by villagers in the Okavango Delta, Botswana (Leflore et al., 2020). In some parts of Ethiopia, local people killed Panthera pardus in response to livestock depredation mitigation measures (Yirga et al., 2013; Biset et al., 2019). Similarly, large carnivores are killed by local people at different localities in Ethiopia to reduce depredation by carnivores (Gebresenbet et al., 2018b; Tamrat et al., 2020). 79 The most commonly used depredation control measures for larger carnivores by the local people in the area were guarding and fencing. This is in line with studies conducted in different countries worldwide (Lozano et al., 2019). According to studies in Ethiopia, guarding with dogs is a major depredation control measure used by local people (Amare and Serekebirhan, 2019; Mekonen, 2020). Keeping chickens indoors at night was implemented by most local people to minimize chicken depredation by carnivores in Ethiopia (Tamrat et al., 2020) and in northern Kenya (Woodroffe et al., 2007). This is in line with the present study. In many landscapes worldwide, livestock owners and conservation agencies simultaneously use multiple measures to protect livestock from predator species (Miller et al., 2016; Jacobsen et al., 2021). This has an important implication for the development of mitigation measures and management of carnivores that favour both carnivore conservation and local people‘s livelihoods in the area. 5.4.4 Factors influencing KAP of local people Our regression analyses revealed that males and respondents with formal education mentioned more carnivores than females and those with non-formal education. This may be due to the fact that males often encounter carnivores more often than females, as they are responsible for outdoor activities such as rearing livestock and farming in the area. Formal education and gender played a significant role in predicting local people‘s knowledge of wildlife, which is aligned with other researchers (Mkonyi et al., 2017; Abukari and Mwalyosi, 2018). The result indicates that formal education and encounter rates are important for better wildlife knowledge and conservation. As expected, local people‘s attitude toward the problematic status of carnivores was significantly linked with livestock factors rather than other socioeconomic factors studied. The result is in agreement with previous studies in Ethiopia (Tessema et al., 2010; Biru et al., 2017), where livestock damage and number are important factors compared to demographic factors. Local people with high livestock numbers have a higher level of interaction with wildlife and perceive carnivores as threat. Similar results were also reported by Yosef (2015), where households with high livestock numbers experienced higher problem rates than those with fewer livestock heads. Trajçe et al. (2019) found that people who had experienced damage from carnivores had a higher conflict perception than people who had not experienced damage. Females perceive carnivores as more problematic than males. This possibly results from the fact that females in the FFL do fewer outdoor activities than males. The result agrees with the work of Abukari and Mwalyosi (2018), where males perceive carnivores as less problematic than females. This finding calls for effective livestock husbandry practices and conservation education in the area. 80 Respondents knowledge and attitudes towards carnivores followed a similar pattern (i.e., those with more knowledge of carnivores had a more positive attitude toward carnivores). Similarly, higher levels of wildlife species knowledge are associated with a more positive attitude toward species coexistence (Tessema et al., 2010; Rutina et al., 2017). Respondents who reported carnivores as more problematic used more lethal control methods than those who reported them as less problematic. Literature also shows that when coexistence directly results in damage to livestock, local people implement depredation control methods (Gebresenbet et al., 2018b). 5.5 Conclusion Our findings provide an insight into previously understudied coexistence between people and carnivores in southern Ethiopia and have implications for future decision-making. Most respondents perceived that carnivore species were more problematic for livestock, and 85% expressed a negative attitude. Crocuta crocuta, Panthera pardus, and Canis mesomelas were major threats to cattle, goats, and sheep, while smaller carnivores were threats to chickens. Lethal (killing using poison and snares—a great challenge for coexistence) and non-lethal (keeping chickens indoors during the night, fencing, and guarding with dogs) were the most commonly used control methods against carnivores in the area. Respondents‘ carnivore knowledge and attitudes showed a consistent trend (those who had better knowledge of carnivores also showed a positive attitude towards carnivores). The respondents who perceived carnivores as more problematic were practicing more lethal control methods than those perceived as less problematic. Respondents with formal education had higher carnivore knowledge than non-formal education respondents. This would imply a need for targeted carnivore awareness-raising among the local people, as well as educational programs aimed at improving knowledge of carnivores. Respondents that perceived carnivores as more problematic for their livestock and showed negative attitudes were those who had more livestock and experienced damage to livestock. Thus, livestock husbandry methods that tend to decrease the vulnerability of livestock to carnivores should be implemented in the area to develop a positive attitude and to work towards non-lethal depredation control methods that ensure coexistence. 81 Chapter 6: Perception and attitude of the local people towards carnivore population and conservation in Faragosa-Fura Landscape of southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia Manuscript published Berhanu Gebo, Serekebirhan Takele and Simon Shibru. (2022). Perception and attitude of the local people towards carnivore population and conservation in Faragosa-Fura Landscape of southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Conservation Science and Practice 2022; e12705. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12705 82 Abstract Local people's perceptions and attitudes toward wildlife have been advocating for the success of wildlife conservation. However, area-specific data on local people's perceptions and attitudes toward carnivore populations and conservation in a human-dominated landscape is scarce. The purpose of this study was to investigate local people's perceptions of carnivore population abundance and trend, as well as their attitudes toward carnivore conservation in the southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia. We collected data from 352 household interviews using a semi-structured questionnaire and photographic sampling of 13 carnivore species in 2020. Fifty-seven percent of respondents perceived the population abundance trend of carnivores had decreased between 2015 and 2019. The reported decline was higher for Panthera leo, Caracal caracal, and Panthera pardus, while the increase was higher for Genetta genetta, and mongooses. The reported population abundance of carnivore species varied significantly. Fifty-two percent of respondents opposed carnivore conservation, citing livestock depredation as the primary reason. Two-thirds of respondents opposed the conservation of Crocuta crocuta, Canis mesomelas, Genetta genetta, and mongoose species, while supporting the conservation of Panthera leo, Caracal caracal, Civettictis civetta, and Panthera pardus. Respondents‘ livestock number was the most important factor significantly affecting all three models (population abundance, population trend, and support for conservation). Age and education status were displayed to have an effect on population abundance and trend models, while gender, land size, and damage to livestock were shown to have an effect on one of the two models. Thus, we recommend that awareness-raising of human-carnivore coexistence through adult education programs be targeted at people who oppose conservation, those who own more livestock, experience more livestock damage, and have not received formal education. In addition, effective livestock husbandry practices should be implemented to promote peaceful human-carnivore coexistence. Keywords: Attitude and perception, Carnivore conservation, Local people, Population abundance and trend 83 6.1 Introduction The abundance and trend of carnivore populations are critical parameters for their conservation and an indicator of a healthier ecosystem (Lozano et al., 2019; Leflore et al., 2020; Morehouse et al., 2020). Furthermore, carnivore diverse behaviours provide insurance for the conservation of other biodiversity, and carnivores provide emotional, recreational, and cultural benefits to the local people (Ripple et al., 2014; Tilman et al., 2017). Despite their importance, more than half of all carnivore populations, both large and small, are declining in abundance (Marneweck et al., 2021). In comparison to small carnivores, the population trend of larger carnivores has been better surveyed and has received more conservation and management attention (Fetene et al., 2016; Bauer et al., 2021). Since over a quarter of the world's small carnivore species are endemic to Africa (Marneweck et al., 2021), carnivore conservation and management should place equal emphasis on the carnivore community. Protected areas and native forests are rapidly disappearing as a result of anthropogenic habitat loss, forcing carnivores to local extinction or to share habitats with humans (Athreya et al., 2020; Mekonen, 2020; Merkebu and Yazezew, 2021). This habitat sharing and coexistence leads to human-carnivore conflict, which can have an impact on both local people's livelihoods and carnivore conservation (Biset et al., 2019). About 95% of the total ranges of carnivore species occur outside of protected areas in human-dominated landscapes (Ripple et al., 2014; Lozano et al., 2019). Thus, understanding carnivore population abundance and their trend toward promoting human-carnivore coexistence is critical for carnivore conservation (Trajçe et al., 2019; Bauer et al., 2021). A growing number of recent studies have revealed significant declines in wildlife populations worldwide because of different factors such as habitat loss and degradation, bushmeat hunting, diseases, and drought (Ripple et al., 2014; Willcox, 2020). Local people's knowledge gained through experience and daily interaction with wildlife species may hold clues for sustainable wildlife conservation and management (Gandiwa, 2012). Local knowledge is regarded as a valuable source of biological information such as population abundance and trends (Abukari and Mwalyosi, 2018; Teixeira et al., 2021). Moreover, local knowledge could be useful for surveying data-deficient, cryptic, nocturnal, and low-density species such as carnivores (Gebresenbet et al., 2018b; Marneweck et al., 2021). Local people's perceptions (opinions on the carnivore population) have been studied to estimate first-hand information on carnivore population abundance and trend (Gandiwa, 2012). Wildlife attitudes (whether positive or negative toward 84 carnivores) influence human-carnivore coexistence as well as conservation efforts (Yosef, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2019; Merkebu and Yazezew, 2021). Some studies in Ethiopia (e.g., Gebresenbet et al., 2018b; Merkebu and Yazezew, 2021) and in Africa (e.g., Mitchell et al., 2019; Western et al., 2019) have measured the local people's perceptions and attitudes towards wildlife and its conservation. Many factors influence people's perceptions and attitudes toward carnivores and conservation (Biru et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2019). Influencing factors include demographics (e.g., age, gender, education, family size) (Yosef, 2015; Mekonen, 2020; Penjor et al., 2021), livestock depredation, and husbandry methods (Biru et al., 2017; Mkonyi et al., 2017; Teixeira et al., 2021). Economic characteristics such as the primary source of income, land size, and number of livestock owned are other influencing factors (Biset et al., 2019; Western et al., 2019). Understanding human perceptions and attitudes of local people, as well as the factors that influence carnivore conservation, is an important first step in any conservation action. Carnivores and humans have co-existed in multiple-use landscapes in Ethiopia (Amare, 2015; Lavrenchenko and Bekele, 2017; Amare and Serekebirhan, 2019). However, studies on local people's perceptions and attitudes toward carnivore population abundance and trends, as well as conservation, are either scarce or, if available, species-specific and limited to protected areas. To date, studies on attitudes toward carnivores in Ethiopia were biased toward Crocuta crocuta, Canis simensis, and Panthera leo (Yirga et al., 2014; Young et al., 2020). Furthermore, recent wildlife studies have focused on herbivores (Yosef, 2015; Abraham and Simon, 2020), as well as conflicts between humans and wildlife in national parks (Biset et al., 2019; Mekonen, 2020; Merkebu and Yazezew, 2021). As a result, very few studies on perceived carnivore population trends and attitudes toward carnivore conservation have been conducted so far, particularly in human-dominated landscapes. Southern Ethiopia, with its dense community managed forests and Rift Valley lakes, is an important area for biodiversity, but its wildlife population and habitats are constantly declining due to anthropogenic habitat loss (Yirga et al., 2014; Fetene et al., 2016, 2019; Shibru et al., 2020). As a result, carnivore species have to coexist with humans, resulting in conflict. However, quantitative data on perceived carnivore populations and conservation in a human-dominated landscape in Ethiopia in general, and the southern Rift Valley in particular, are largely unknown. 85 This research was carried out in FFL in Mirab Abaya Woreda of Gamo Zone, in the southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia. We investigated the perception and attitude of the local people towards the carnivore population and conservation in order to promote human-carnivore coexistence. The study had four distinct objectives. First, examine local people's perceptions of carnivore population abundance; second, assess local people's perceptions of carnivore population trends in the last five years; third, evaluate local people's attitudes toward carnivore conservation; and fourth, investigate factors influencing local people's perceptions and attitudes toward carnivore abundance, trends, and conservation support in the study area. 6.2 Materials and Methods 6.2.1 Study area For detailed information about the location, economic activities, as well as human population of the study area, refer to section 5.2.1. 6.2.2 Target participants and sampling frame The interview survey included households as participants. We chose two Kebeles (Faragosa and Fura) from among the five in the study area. The two Kebeles are settlement areas that were established during the government settlement program in 1970. These Kebeles have a combined human population of 4218 (Faragosa = 1830 and Fura = 2388) people (CSA, 2019). Based on the total human population of the two Kebeles (4218), the Cochran formula (Robb, 1963) was used to get a representative sample size from the total population. For finite and relatively small populations (as in the present study), Cochran suggests an adjustment to the formula that is the finite population correction. The correction is necessary to give a more precise sample size. Thus, the desired sample size and the adjusted sample size were calculated using the formula: SS = Z2 p q d2 , and ss = SS SS −1 N 1+ Where, SS= desired sample size, ss = adjusted sample size for finite population correction factors when the total population is less than 10,000, Z = standard normal deviation (1.96), P = 0.5, q = is 1-P (0.5), N = total number of populations, and d = degree of accuracy desired (0.05). Hence, SS = (1.96)2 (0.5) (0.5)/ (0.05)2 = 0.9604/0.0025= 384 households; ss = 384/ (1+ (3841)/4218) = 384/1.09 = 352 households. The resultant sample size (352) was used as households (sampling units) and therefore proportionately shared for the two Kebeles (Faragosa = 153, Fura = 199). 86 Thereafter, sample households were identified through a systematic random sampling method using a master list (document) of household heads provided by each Kebele office following Gebresenbet et al. (2018a). First, the sampling interval (12) was determined by dividing the population size (4218) by the sample size (352). Then, the first household was selected randomly from a random number table containing one to twelve labeled cards. Finally, the sampling unit was determined by targeting every 12th household. 6.2.3 Questionnaire design The survey was an interview using a semi-structured questionnaire. Interviews are a widely used technique for surveying and understanding people‘s perceptions and attitudes towards carnivores and conservation (Rutina et al., 2017; Abukari and Mwalyosi, 2018; Western et al., 2019). The questionnaire (Appendix 11) was adapted from studies on carnivore population trends and conservation in other parts of Ethiopia (Yosef, 2015; Gebresenbet et al., 2018b; Young et al., 2020) and Kenya (Mitchell et al., 2019). We conducted a pilot survey in one of the Kebeles around the FFL, which was not part of the study. Twenty-one individuals of different ages, gender, educational status, primary source of income, and farmland size were included in the first week of October 2020. Finally, the survey questionnaire was checked for clarity, revised, and translated into the local mother tongue ―Gamoththo‖ for formal survey. 6.2.4 Data collection The formal survey was conducted from November to December 2020. Only residents 18 years old or older participated in the study. The researcher and well-trained data collectors conducted interviews via direct house-to-house visits. Following this, the purpose of the study was briefly explained at the beginning. Interviews were restricted to one head per household. In cases when the household head was not available, any elderly member of the household willing to participate was surveyed. All interviews were administered face-to-face. Each interview lasted an average of one hour. The first part of the interview contained information about households‘ demographic and socioeconomic characteristics as independent variables. Nine variables were included in the present study. These were the study sites, respondent gender, household family size, respondent age, educational status, household farmland size, household livestock numbers, carnivore damage to livestock, and the household's primary source of income. 87 The second part of the interview was conducted using photographic sampling following Gebresenbet et al. (2018a) and Mkonyi et al. (2017). Fourteen picture cards (13 carnivore species living in the area and an African elephant (Loxodonta africana) were used to evaluate respondent perceptions towards abundance, population trends, and attitudes towards conservation as dependent variables (Appendix 9). Loxodonta africana (control group), which is absent in the area, was included to check the consistency of households following Rutina et al. (2017). Households were made to observe the 14 picture cards one by one. Then, three aspects of these cards were extracted: carnivore abundance, population trend, and support for conservation. First, to assess abundance based on frequency of encounter, the respondents were asked, ―How often did you see/interact with these carnivore animals?‖ to classify picture cards of each species as very common (daily encounter), common (weekly encounter), uncommon (monthly encounter), or rare (encounter every six months). Second, to assess the carnivore population trend over the last five years (2015-2019), the respondents were asked, ―What do you think has happened to the population of these carnivores over the last five years? Why is this so?‖ to categorize whether each species' population trend increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Third, the respondents attitudes toward support for conservation were elicited by asking, ―What do you want the future population abundance trend to be? Why is this so?‖ to categorize carnivore cards into four groups: wanted to increase, wanted to stay the same, wanted to decrease, or had no idea (if any). Although we acknowledge that people's support for or against conservation is a complex issue, for the purpose of this study, we considered the first two response groups (wanted to increase and/or wanted to stay the same) to be local people's support for conservation, while wanting to decrease was considered to be local people's opposition to conservation. 6.2.5 Data analyses The responses of socioeconomic variables were analyzed using percentages and descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation. The responses to each species' population abundance, population trend, and support for carnivore conservation were analyzed using percentages and presented using a stacked bar plot. We used non-parametric χ² tests to determine differences in interview responses to each variable, as well as between study sites (Mkonyi et al., 2017). For measuring differences in interview responses among participants for population abundance, population trend, and support for carnivore conservation of carnivore species, we used the Kruskal-Wallis χ² test. For multiple responses of qualitative data (e.g., ―why‖ questions), the data collected for specific species were pooled and presented for all species combined as the 88 percentage of respondents. The reasons given for the decline of carnivore species combined were coded as habitat degradation and fragmentation, human settlement, human persecution, and roadkill. The reasons given to support for conservation of all species combined were coded as ecological, aesthetic, cultural, and health. We investigated the effects of socioeconomic variables on participants' perceptions and attitudes as follows. First, we converted five continuous variables such as age, education, family size, land size, and livestock number into categorical variables following Mkonyi et al. (2017) to compare the effects within a group. We used the other four categorical variables (gender, primary source of income, study sites, and livestock damage) exactly as they are. We coded all categorical variables for analyses as indicated in Table 11. Table 11. Categories, coding and descriptions of variables used in the regression models. Dependent Independent Variables Categories Age Gender Family size Study sites Education status Farmland size Livestock number Primary source of income Damage to livestock Population abundance Population trend Support for conservation Categories and descriptions 1 = 18 – 35 years; 2 = 36 – 50 years; 3 = > 50 years 1 = male; 2 = female 1 = 1 – 4 members; 2 = 5 – 8 members; 3 = 9 – 12 members 1 = Faragosa; 2 = Fura 1 = non-formal education; 2 = formal education 1 = < 1 ha; 2 = 1 -3 ha; 3 = > 3 ha 1 = < 5 heads; 2 = 5 – 20 heads; 3 = > 20 heads 1 = livestock; 2 = crops, 3 = others 1 = yes; 2 = no 1 = very common; 2 = common; 3 = uncommon; 4 = rare 1 = decreased; 2 = stayed the same; 3 = increased 1 = wanted to decrease; 2 = wanted to stay the same; 3 = wanted to increase Second, we pooled the respondents responses given for each carnivore species‘ population abundance, population trend, and support for carnivore conservation to examine the effect at the community level. Population abundance, population trend, and support for carnivore conservation were used as dependent variables, while nine socioeconomic variables were used as independent variables. Third, we used ordinal logistic regression for analyses with the forward entry stepwise method. This is because all of the variables were categorical and helped to evaluate the effect within groups (e.g., between age categories). In the regression, we adjusted the last category as a reference category with ascending order, model fitting information, and Pseudo-R2 as well as model outputs. Fourth, we ran three separate models (population abundance, population trend, and support for carnivore conservation) by inserting all nine independent variables into each model. Finally, we determined the explaining factors of each model by using model outputs. To evaluate 89 the goodness of fit test statistics and to ensure that the model best explained the data, LRχ² and Pseudo-R2 (Cox and Snell, and Nagelkerke) outputs were used, respectively. The beta coefficient (β), odds ratio (Exp (β)), and P-value were also regression outputs used to assess the direction (negative or positive), magnitude, and significance level of each important factor, respectively. The multi-collinearity problems for independent variables were checked using Spearman‘s correlation coefficients (rs) for all possible variable pairs. A cutoff of rs 0.6 was chosen to decide multi-collinearity between predictor variables following Zuur et al. (2010). We found no multicollinearity problem in our data. All analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0 for Windows. All statistical tests were two-tailed, with a significance level of P = 0.05. 6.3 Results 6.3.1 Perception of respondents towards population abundance Respondents perceptions of population abundance differed significantly between Kebeles (χ² = 7.843, df = 3, P < 0.05) and among respondents (χ² = 64.159, df = 3, P < 0.05). Above half (51.3%) of the respondents indicated that carnivores were either common or very common, while 37.4% indicated that carnivores were either uncommon or very rare (Fig. 25, Appendix 12). Reported abundance also varied among carnivores (KWχ² = 28.08, P < 0.05). Daily encounters, which are expressed as very common, were relatively higher for Leptailurus serval, Genetta genetta and mongoose species. Most of the respondents encountered Panthera leo rarely, once every six months. Caracal caracal was uncommon; it was encountered once every month. Figure 25. Percentage of respondents‘ response to perceptions of carnivore population status. 90 6.3.2 Respondents perception towards population trends Respondents who reported that carnivore population had decreased, increased, or stayed the same accounted for 57.4%, 21.6%, and 21.0%, respectively (Fig. 26, Appendix 12). Respondent‘s perception towards population abundance varied significantly between two Kebeles (χ² = 17.067, df = 2, P < 0.05), among respondents (χ² = 91.659, df = 2, P < 0.05) and among carnivore species (KWχ² = 17.73, P < 0.05). The reported decline was high for Panthera leo, Caracal caracal, Panthera pardus, and Civettictis civetta, while the reported increase was high for smaller species such as Genetta genetta, Ichneumia albicauda, and Galerella sanguinea (Fig. 26). The main reasons given for the decline of all species combined were habitat degradation and fragmentation (51%), human settlement (27%), human persecution (18%), and road-kill (4%). Figure 26. Percentage of respondents‘ response to perceptions towards carnivore population trend. 6.3.3 Attitude towards support for carnivore conservation Fifty-two percent of respondents opposed carnivore conservation; while 48% supported it. Of the 48% of respondents, 31.3% wanted carnivore abundance to increase, and 16.8% wanted it to stay the same. The response to support for conservation varied significantly between two Kebeles (χ² = 15.067, df = 2, P < 0.05), among respondents (χ² = 66.210, df = 2, P < 0.05) and among carnivore species (KWχ² = 15.73, P < 0.05). Support for conservation was higher for Panthera leo and Caracal caracal (Fig. 27, Appendix 12). Most respondents opposed the conservation of mongoose species, Crocuta crocuta, Leptailurus serval, Canis mesomelas, Genetta genetta, and Mellivora capensis. The reasons given for support for conservation of all species combined were primarily for ecological and economic reasons (22.3%, i.e., reducing crop damaging rodents, 91 reducing crop damaging animals (e.g., Phacochoerus aethiopicus), scavenging, protecting overgrazing in wild habitats, reducing human interference to wild habitats since they fear carnivores), aesthetic (4.6%), cultural (12.5%), and benefit for health (4.7%). The main reasons given of all species combined for wanting carnivore populations to decline were to reduce the risk of livestock depredation (32.1%), crop damage (8.4%), fear (7.7%), and beehive damage (6.8%). Figure 27. Percentage of respondents‘ response to attitude towards support for carnivore conservation. 6.3.4 Factors influencing the perception and attitude of local people The regression analyses for the perceived population abundance model was explained by five factors: education status, age, land size, livestock number, and gender. The variables significantly explained the model (Cox and Snell R2 = 0.604, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.652, LRχ² = 326.120, df = 24, P < 0.001; Table 12, Appendix 13). Population abundance was positively associated with education, age, and gender, but negatively associated with land size and livestock numbers. Respondents who thought carnivore abundance was rare in the area were those who had received formal education, older (> 50 years), and female. Those who owned less land and had fewer livestock heads (Table 12), on the other hand, perceived carnivores were very common in the area. Regression revealed that educational status, age, and livestock number contributed to respondents' perceptions of the population trend model. The overall effect is statistically significant (Cox and Snell R2 = 0.195, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.227, LRχ² = 76.144, df = 10, P < 0.001; Table 12, Appendix 13). All the explaining variables displayed a negative relationship, indicating that carnivore population trends have decreased over the last five years. Only livestock numbers correlated 92 significantly with the carnivore population trend among the explained factors. Respondents of older age (> 50 years) significantly showed carnivores had decreased in the area. Respondents who owned more livestock heads thought the carnivore population had decreased more than those who owned fewer heads, with an odds ratio of 0.047. Table 12. Factors influencing the perception and attitude of respondents towards carnivore abundance, population trend and conservation in the regression models. Dependent variables Population trend model Q II Population abundance model QI Education status Support for conservation model Q III Β SD Wald χ² Sig. Exp(β) Intercept Non-formal education vs. formal education 18-35 vs. > 50 36-50 vs. > 50 Male vs. Female 12.469 2.359 1.949 0.887 40.944 7.072 0.000 0.008 0.095 2.188 3.175 3.919 1.164 1.184 0.721 3.532 7.192 29.575 0.060 0.007 0.000 0.112 0.042 50.355 < 1 ha vs. > 3 ha 1-3 ha vs. > 3 ha < 5 heads vs. > 20 heads 5 - 20 heads vs. > 20 heads Intercept -2.954 -2.338 -8.498 1.156 1.030 1.643 6.529 5.152 26.761 0.011 0.023 0.000 0.052 0.097 0.000 -2.360 1.130 4.362 0.037 0.094 3.426 1.340 6.533 0.011 < 5 heads vs. > 20 heads 5 - 20 heads vs. > 20 heads 18-35 vs. > 50 36-50 vs. > 50 Non-formal education vs. formal education Intercept 1-4 vs. 9-12 5-8 vs. 9-12 < 5 heads vs. > 20 heads 5 - 20 heads vs. > 20 heads Yes vs. no -4.348 -3.058 1.143 1.045 14.471 8.560 0.000 0.003 0.013 0.047 -0.397 -0.144 -0.854 0.896 0.903 0.508 0.197 0.025 2.826 0.658 0.874 0.093 0.672 0.866 0.426 3.171 -1.552 -1.510 -2.103 -1.908 9.898 0.792 0.643 0.710 0.650 12.483 3.837 5.521 8.783 8.625 0.000 0.050 0.019 0.003 0.003 Independent variables Age Gender Land size/ha Livestock number Livestock number Age Education status Family size Livestock number 0.212 0.221 0.122 0.148 Damage to -1.350 0.384 12.368 0.000 3.857 livestock β, regression coefficient; Exp(β), odds ratio (OR); SD, standard error; Wald χ2, Wald-test statistic; sig, level of statistical significance, bold number represents significant effect, the last category is the reference. Hint: Population abundance model question Q I. How often did you see/interact with these carnivore animals? (Show picture cards) Qualitative population trend model question Q II. What do you think has happened to the population of these carnivores over the last five years? Why is this so? Support for conservation model question Q III. What do you want the future population abundance trend to be? Why is this so? 93 Support for the conservation model was explained by three variables: family size, livestock number, and livestock damage experienced. The model significantly explained the variation (Cox and Snell R2 = 0.440, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.508, LRχ² = 203.864, df = 10, P < 0.001; Table 12, Appendix 13). All of the explaining variables had negative regression coefficients, indicating that respondents were opposed to carnivore conservation and wanted their numbers to decrease in the area. Respondents with more livestock heads had 0.148 times more negative attitudes toward carnivore conservation than those with fewer livestock. Respondents with larger (9–12) family sizes were opposed to carnivore conservation and wanted it to be reduced (odds ratio = 0.221). There was a significant negative association between local people's experience of livestock damage and support for conservation. Respondents who experienced livestock damage opposed support for carnivore conservation at odds of 3.857 times more than those who had not experienced damage (Table 12). The primary sources of income and study sites did not explain any of the models tested. 6.4 Discussion Understanding the perception and attitude of local people who live with carnivores and who are also often expected to implement conservation practices in a human-dominated landscape is increasingly recognized as a critical component of wildlife conservation (Gandiwa, 2012; Morehouse et al., 2020; Merkebu and Yazezew, 2021). 6.4.1 Perception of the local people towards population abundance Overall, the findings show that the local people perceive carnivores as being common in the area. This might be due to dense forest and access to permanent water (Lake Abaya). Habitat quality and water availability are the most important factors for wildlife abundance and conservation at large (Ripple et al., 2014). The frequency of encounters with carnivores in the respondent‘s area was very common for Leptailurus serval, Genetta genetta, Crocuta crocuta, and Canis mesomelas, and rare for Panthera leo and Caracal caracal. The reason for the commonness and rarity of carnivores is possibly due to their differences in nutritional behaviour and tolerance to anthropogenic disturbance (Bauer et al., 2021; Merkebu and Yazezew, 2021). The perceived rarity of species that are of conservation concern such as Panthera leo and Panthera pardus, and the commonness of smaller-sized species, have implications for developing conservation priorities in the area. 94 6.4.2 Perception of the local people towards population trend Our result revealed that more than half of the respondents perceived carnivore population in the FFL had decreased over the last five years between 2015 and 2019. We found that the main reasons for the perceived decline were attributed to habitat loss for agriculture and livestock grazing. Similar findings have been reported in other areas of Ethiopia (Cheche, 2016; Fetene et al., 2019; Abraham and Simon, 2020; Shibru et al., 2020; Tamrat et al., 2020; Worku and Girma, 2020; Merkebu and Yazezew, 2021; Bauer et al., 2021) where habitat loss is a major threat to the decrease of wildlife populations. This trend is also consistent with the declining trend of Africa's carnivore population (Marneweck et al., 2021). We found that the perceived decline in abundance was pronounced for the Panthera pardus and Panthera leo. Similarly, Gebresenbet et al. (2018a) found that Panthera pardus and Panthera leo were perceived to be declining in abundance. Furthermore, this trend corresponds to the global trend of these two species (IUCN, 2021). The perceived increasing trend was more pronounced for smaller-sized species such as mongooses and Genetta genetta, because of their tolerance for human intervention and omnivorous behaviour (Marneweck et al., 2021). Therefore, habitat management that benefits both carnivore conservation and local people's livelihoods should be implemented to reverse the continuous decline of carnivore populations (e.g., Panthera leo and Panthera pardus), as well as to maintain other carnivores. 6.4.3 Attitude of the local people towards support for conservation Above half (52%) of the respondents opposed carnivore conservation. They did not want a potential increase in the carnivore population, mainly due to carnivore damage to their livestock, crops, and beehives. This finding agrees with most of the studies (e.g., Tessema et al., 2010; Gandiwa, 2012; Mkonyi et al., 2017; Marneweck et al., 2021) in developing countries where most of the local people want the carnivore population to decrease due to damage to their livestock, including in Ethiopia. However, in developed countries (e.g., Norway), more than 84% of the local people support carnivore conservation because of compensation for losses incurred, government policy and response, and conservation education (Tilman et al., 2017). Thus, lessons learnt from other countries can be tested in the Ethiopian context whether relevant and possible. The findings suggest that there is a significant difference in respondents' attitudes toward carnivore conservation among carnivore species. Most respondents opposed and wanted population declines for Crocuta crocuta, Leptailurus serval, Canis mesomelas, Genetta genetta, 95 Mellivora capensis, and mongoose species, while they wanted increases for Panthera leo and Caracal caracal. Exceptions to this trend were Panthera pardus and Civettictis civetta, which respondents wanted to stay the same. Similarly, a study in Westgate Community Conservancy, Samburu, Kenya, primarily wanted to see the Panthera leo population increase and the Crocuta crocuta population decrease (Mitchell et al., 2019). The degree to which residents support Panthera leo conservation is ultimately determined by the aesthetic and cultural value they place on the Panthera leo (Gebresenbet et al., 2018b). Gandiwa (2012) also reported that local people wanted a reduction in the population of Crocuta crocuta, Leptailurus serval, and Canis mesomelas. Due to livestock damage, the studies in Ethiopia were against Crocuta crocuta conservation (Yirga et al., 2014; Biset et al., 2019; Young et al., 2020). In our study, livestock depredation and crop damage are the major causes of negative attitudes, indicating the need to develop effective livestock husbandry practices in the area. 6.4.4 Factors influencing perception and attitude of the local people Livestock number Livestock numbers appear to have an effect on all three models: population abundance, population trend, and support for conservation models. This strong perception could be attributed to the fact that respondents with more livestock tend to lose a greater proportion of their livestock when a predator attack occurs. This shaped their opinion on how to better estimate carnivore population abundance and trends in the FFL. Livestock numbers are an important predictor of the relationship between local communities and carnivore conservation. Those with more livestock have a more negative attitude toward carnivore conservation than those with fewer livestock because those with higher livestock had experienced more damage to their livestock. A similar pattern has been reported in Ethiopia (Tessema et al., 2010; Yosef, 2015; Biru et al., 2017). Thus, effective livestock husbandry methods to be implemented by the local people are needed for effective wildlife conservation in the area. Gender Gender played a significant role in predicting local people's perceptions of wildlife (Teixeira et al., 2021). Similarly, in the current study, gender was an important factor and played a significant role in explaining the population abundance model. Females encountered carnivores less frequently than males did. This is confirmed in other studies when males and females were compared (Mkonyi et al., 2017; Trajçe et al., 2019). This could be because males are responsible 96 for outdoor activities such as confronting predators in order to protect their livestock and crops. Females are responsible for indoor activities. Because females make up half of the population in the study area, they should be aware of carnivore populations and participate in all activities to promote human-carnivore coexistence in the FFL. Educational status Education is the most important factor influencing local people's perceptions of the carnivore population in Ethiopia (Yosef, 2015; Biru et al., 2017), and in Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Kenya (Western et al., 2019). In the current study, education status is an important factor in predicting perceptions of population abundance and population trend models. Education status has been used to increase community awareness of wildlife conservation and provide perceptions of speciesspecific population abundance and trends (Mitchell et al., 2019). Respondents with non-formal education are more likely to work in agriculture and rely on native habitats for livelihood. It is widely acknowledged that a higher level of education provides alternative livelihoods such as job opportunities (Young et al., 2020). Such alternative activities tend to reduce agricultural-related habitat loss and local people's encroachment on native wildlife habitats, thereby promoting human-carnivore coexistence. This calls for awareness-raising education for those with non-formal education in the FFL via adult or formal education programs. Age Age was an important factor in explaining the population's abundance and population trend models. Older people (greater than 50 years old) significantly perceived carnivore abundance as rare in the area, and they also perceived that populations were declining. According to the findings of this study, it is more likely that older people had more livestock and experienced more livestock damage by carnivores, giving them more experience in perceiving carnivore population. Age was an important factor and was correlated with the perceptions of wildlife trends in Ethiopia (Tessema et al., 2010) and Ghana (Abukari and Mwalyosi, 2018), which is consistent with the current finding. As a result, information obtained from older people (> 50 years) can be an important measure in estimating population trends and abundance for conservation efforts. Damage to livestock Damage to livestock (odds ratio = 3.857) from carnivores came up as the strongest predictor in support for conservation model. As expected, people who had faced damage from carnivores 97 developed a negative attitude and were less supportive of their conservation significantly more than people who had not. Carnivore depredation on livestock has been shown to hamper conservation efforts; they stated that households that owned more livestock and had faced livestock depredation developed strong negative attitudes toward wildlife (Trajçe et al., 2019; Girma and Worku, 2020; Merkebu and Yazezew, 2021). Thus, livestock damage is a major contributor to local people's negative attitude in a human-dominated landscape. As a result, reducing livestock damage could be a conservation strategy. Establishing and understanding of methods to control carnivore damage (Mitchell et al., 2019) as well as effective husbandry practices may be an important conservation tool in developing a positive attitude among local people toward carnivore conservation in Ethiopia. Land size Modelling results illustrated that land size had an effect on the population abundance model. A respondent with less farmland had a significantly higher encounter rate, and believed carnivores were common in the area. This could be due to their increased and frequent encroachment into wildlife habitats for livelihood options, which has made them familiar with wildlife abundance and increased encounter rates. Size of land for agriculture within communities has been shown to influence community perceptions of wildlife and sighting rates in general (Tessema et al., 2010; Gandiwa, 2012). Family size Family size of the household was a significant predictor of support for the conservation model. A larger family was found to be inversely related to a positive attitude toward conservation. This could be due to large rural families requiring more natural resources such as fuelwood (for household energy needs) and rafters and poles (as construction materials), requiring them to spend more time in the natural spaces that come into contact with carnivores. In Tanzania, Abukari and Mwalyosi (2018) found a similar result. The outcome necessitates alternative livelihood options and awareness-creation education about conservation to reduce conflict between humans and carnivores. 98 6.5 Conclusion The findings illustrate decreasing population trend of larger-sized carnivores such as Panthera leo and Panthera pardus, with an increasing proportion of smaller carnivores. More than half of those interviewed opposed carnivore conservation in the area, particularly for Crocuta crocuta, Canis mesomelas, Genetta genetta, and mongoose species, because they are the primary cause of livestock depredation. Age, livestock number, education status, and livestock damage are the most influential determinants of the perception and attitude of local people towards carnivores. The current study could be used (1) to gain insight coarse changes in population size as well as local people's attitudes toward conservation, (2) as a base-line data set for further quantitative studies, (3) as a basis for developing a sustainable conservation strategy in the current study area that promotes human-carnivore coexistence, (4) as a foundation for developing new research questions and/or hypotheses for future studies, as well as (5) a proxy in cases of limited resources. Given the importance of the FFL in promoting human-carnivore coexistence, a concerted effort of all stakeholders and a practical strategy for addressing both the needs of carnivore conservation and the needs of local people are essential. Thus, we recommend that awareness-raising of human-carnivore coexistence through adult education programmes be targeted at people who oppose conservation, own more livestock, experience more livestock damage, and have not received formal education. In addition, effective livestock husbandry practices are important in the area to reduce conflict. 99 Chapter 7: General conclusion and recommendation 100 7.1 Summary of major findings Although literatures recognize the values of human-dominated landscapes as habitats for humanwildlife coexistence (e.g., Lozano et al., 2019; Tamrat et al., 2020), little attention has been paid to this habitat to date. To address this gap, our study aimed to develop a better understanding of the socio-ecological drivers affecting mammal diversity as well as carnivore coexistence with local people in the rural landscape of the southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia. The key findings (Chapters 2–6) are presented here, along with their general implications for wildlife conservation and future research directions. For the ecological survey, we hypothesized that the diversity of mammals, specifically carnivores is affected by anthropogenic land use types, seasons, and prey abundance, which are the most significant drivers for wildlife conservation today (Khosravi et al., 2018; Fetene et al., 2019; García et al., 2020). To that end, we conducted a mammal survey in stratified habitats using a line transect approach, and we studied carnivore species richness and occurrence using a variety of methodologies in different land use types. We investigated the effect of prey abundance on carnivore populations using grid cells (2 x 2 km). The impact of land uses and seasons on mammal diversity and distribution in general, and carnivore diversity as well as their relationship with prey abundance in particular, were discussed in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In Chapter 2, we identified 685 records of mammals belonging to 21 species, six orders, and 13 families, including the globally endangered Panthera leo, Panthera pardus, and Hippopotamus amphibius. When compared to other orders, the order Carnivora had the highest number of families (four). The order Primates was the most abundant, whereas the order Artiodactyla (ungulates) had the highest species richness and was the second most abundant. The dominant species in the area were Papio anubis and Chlorocebus aethiops. Mammal species richness and record frequency were highest in grassland and forest, respectively. Dry season had a higher frequency of recordings than the wet season, but had lower species richness. Species richness was low in the wetlands and frequency of records were low in the agricultural area. Shannon-Wiener index (H‘ = 2.56) revealed that the area is home to a wide variety of animal species. The study area has a larger and comparable number of medium and large-sized mammal species than studies in other localities in Ethiopia (Qufa and Bekele, 2019; Worku and Girma, 2020). About 83.3% and more than two-thirds of carnivore species were found to be positively related to wetland and forest habitats, respectively (Chapter 3). In addition, the wetland is the most 101 important ecosystem because it supports a diverse range of species, including the endangered Panthera pardus. Most carnivore species are negatively associated with agricultural land and human settlement, and they tend to avoid roads. As hypothesized, many carnivore species prefer less disturbed land use types and are seriously ill adapted to agricultural land and settlement. Most carnivores avoid vehicle road and almost all (92%) prefer higher altitudes. Half of the carnivore species significantly prefer areas of higher altitude (Galerella sanguinea, Otocyon megalotis, Genetta genetta, Leptailurus serval, Ichneumia albicauda, and Caracal caracal). Our findings support the conclusions of a prior study on the impact of anthropogenic land uses on wildlife conservation (Yirga et al., 2014; Fetene et al., 2016; Torres-Romero et al., 2020; Penjor et al., 2021). Although anthropogenic land uses have a negative impact on carnivore species occurrence, conservation intervention should not be ruled out. Chapter 4 confirmed that the abundance of carnivore populations on sites where they persist is related to prey abundance. Of the eight carnivores recorded, Ichneumia albicauda and Genetta genetta were the most abundant, while Panthera pardus was the rarest. We also found 28 prey species belonging to 15 mammals and 13 birds. Primates and medium-sized ungulates were the most abundant species among mammal prey groups. According to the Shannon diversity index, the prey diversity was twice that of carnivores. Among mammal and bird prey groups, medium ungulates and large birds contributed significantly to most of the carnivore abundance in sites. Our findings have been supported by other investigations (Kasso and Bekele, 2017; Creel et al., 2018), ungulates and birds are important prey for carnivores. For the social survey, we hypothesized that local people are a component of many ecosystems, and their attitudes and perceptions play a significant role in shaping these ecosystems. Therefore, effective wildlife protection requires their engagement. With this in mind, we investigated the KAP towards human-carnivore coexistence and depredation control methods (Chapter 5), carnivore population status, and conservation (Chapter 6) in a new system (human-dominated landscape) by employing underrepresented innovative interview methods such as free mentioning and photographic sampling of carnivores. According to Chapter 5, local people correctly mentioned 13 carnivores coexisting with them, but their knowledge varied by species. Males and respondents with formal education knew more about carnivores than those with non-formal education and female respondents. Carnivores were mostly threats to chickens and goats. Crocuta crocuta, Panthera pardus, and Canis mesomelas all threatened cattle, goats, and sheep, while small-sized carnivores (mongooses and Genetta genetta) 102 threatened chickens. Non-lethal predator control methods were often used in the area. Respondents who perceived carnivores as more problematic were those who owned more livestock, had smaller farmland, had experienced damage to livestock, and females. The findings were consistent with other studies (e.g., Gandiwa, 2012; Gebresenbet et al., 2018b; Lozano et al., 2019; Bauer et al., 2021). In Chapter 6, it is found that the populations of Panthera leo, Caracal caracal, Civettictis civetta, and Panthera pardus were declining, while the populations of other species were increasing. According to local people, the main causes of carnivore population decline are habitat losses caused by agricultural expansion of banana and tomato plantations. Another reason given was conflict between humans and carnivores because of livestock depredation. This chapter also revealed that two-thirds of respondents were opposed to the conservation of Crocuta crocuta, Canis mesomelas, Genetta genetta, and mongoose species, while supporting the conservation of Panthera leo, Caracal caracal, Civettictis civetta, and Panthera pardus. It is worth noting that the intensity of the local people's negative attitude toward carnivore conservation was strongly associated with household land size, damage to livestock, and the livestock number. Our findings are in accord with those of other studies in Ethiopia (e.g., Tessema et al., 2010; Yosef, 2015; Gebresenbet et al., 2018b; Mekonen, 2020). Our integrated socio-ecological survey framework provides insights into how anthropogenic land use and local people's attitudes toward wildlife affect the species richness, abundance, and composition of mammals and human-carnivore coexistence in a human-dominated landscape in the southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Our socio-ecological study framework revealed a total of 21 (685 records) mammals, 13 (400 records) carnivores, and 28 (801 records) potential prey species that are coexisting with the local people in the area. However, overall populations are in a declining trend. Our findings showed that species richness and abundance varied between land uses, and both were highest in more native habitats (wetland, forest, and grassland) and lowest in higher anthropogenic land uses (agricultural land, and settlements). The pattern of species richness and abundance between the land uses observed here has important implications for the conservation of mammal biodiversity, as it suggests that mammal diversity decreases with increasing human impacts. The lower species richness and abundance, particularly of larger carnivores in the study landscape, shows that large carnivores are more sensitive to human activities because of livestock depredation and competition for space and prey species. 103 Ecological study proved that mammal diversity decreases as human pressure increases. Thus, long-term conservation of mammal diversity in the FFL must involve local people. Overall, we found that local people had negative attitudes toward support for carnivore conservation because of the problem status of carnivores. Specifically, local people with non-formal education and those who experienced more livestock damage from carnivores developed negative attitudes and opposed carnivore conservation in the area. The social survey also revealed that carnivore populations have been declining over the last five years, owing primarily to anthropogenic habitat loss and depredation control methods. As a result, mechanisms allowing coexistence have been demonstrated by both carnivores and humans, with humans exhibiting some level of avoidance behaviour for human-carnivore coexistence and carnivores exhibiting a significant preference for sites with less human activities. Our studies have also shown that camera traps are more effective at surveying mammals when compared to line transects. Line transects work well for surveying larger species of mammals in open habitats where animals are more conspicuous. The method is less effective for smaller, shy, elusive, or low-density species, as is the case with some carnivores. Interviews with households have shown that the carnivore abundance status recorded was consistent with an ecological survey, with large carnivores being low in species richness and abundance and gaining a positive attitude from local people towards carnivore conservation, while smaller carnivores showed the opposite trend. This result indicates that a socio-ecological approach using multiple survey techniques for carnivore surveys was important to maximize a complete species list and records. Our results demonstrate the benefits of integrating socio-ecological data into a single framework to gain a more systematic understanding of the drivers of mammals and human-carnivore coexistence. While our framework might not resolve conflict directly, it can help guide potential stakeholder controversies by improving our understanding of mammal diversity and humancarnivore coexistence in human-dominated landscapes. The framework serves as a foundation for making informed conservation recommendations and informing which future interventions for wildlife species conservation should be prioritized. 7.2 General conclusion Our socio-ecological study framework revealed a total of 21 (685 records) mammals out of 320 mammal species in Ethiopia, 13 (400 records) carnivores out of 32 Ethiopian carnivore species, and 28 (801 records) potential prey species that are coexisting with the local people in the area. In 104 addition, three conservation-concerned species have been detected in the area, including Panthera leo, Panthera pardus, and Hippopotamus amphibius. Our results indicate that the study area has potential for mammal species conservation in the southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Anthropogenic land uses, local people's low socioeconomic status, their negative attitude toward carnivore conservation, and depredation control methods used against carnivores are the main factors affecting wildlife diversity in the FFL. In general, this study has shown that mammal diversity has decreased with increasing human pressure. Although local people supported the conservation of declining species (Panthera leo, Caracal caracal, Civettictis civetta, and Panthera pardus) in the area, these species are more likely to face local extinction due to ongoing pressures. This is the first socio-ecological dataset on the diversity and abundance of mammal as well as carnivore species in the FFL, but equally important is the local people's knowledge, perception, and attitude toward human-carnivore coexistence. As a result, the current findings provide insight into the previously understudied carnivore diversity and coexistence of people and carnivores in southern Ethiopia in a new system (human-dominated landscape) using an underrepresented socioecological approach. 7.3 Recommendations  Despite the importance of FFL as the home of mammal species, it is affected by humancarnivore conflict due to land use change. Therefore, a concerted effort and practical strategy for addressing the needs of carnivore conservation and their prey species, as well as the local people‘s livelihood, is important. This will include land management (land sharing and land sparing), intensive farming on previously converted lands, and a clear delineation of the undisturbed area.  Harmonic human-carnivore coexistence is only possible if conflicts related to livestock depredation are reduced. To ensure a bright future for carnivores, proper mitigation measures must be implemented. For example, livestock husbandry methods that reduce livestock‘s vulnerability to carnivores should be implemented.  Although local people had a better understanding of coexisting species, they showed a negative attitude toward most species and opposed carnivore conservation. This calls for local people's participation, which is extremely valuable in the quest for coexistence between humans and carnivores. As a result, local people should be involved in wildlife conservation practices that bring stakeholders together to work toward human-carnivore coexistence. 105 7.4 Future research needs The possibilities for future research are almost limitless when attempting to cover a subject as broad as human-wildlife coexistence and socio-ecological approach. This study highlights several key areas based on the limitations that should be investigated.  Due to financial constraints, this dissertation focused on medium and large-sized mammals. As a result, the success of small mammals (e.g., rodents, common prey for carnivores) and other taxa other than mammals in the areas have not been studied. From these symptoms of conservation concern, more research on wildlife taxa is needed in the area.  Anthropogenic land use and livestock depredation were the most prominent sources of conflict identified in the study area. Similarly, studies of conflict with humans could be conducted, focusing on the potential for crop raiding mammals and crop pests (e.g., rodents), which would presumably be a more important factor in the area of coexistence.  The prey-carnivore relationship in our study focuses on abundance data from sites. To understand the prey base of the study area, scat analyses for specific species should be investigated.  KAP are location-specific and determined by different socioeconomic factors. Future research involving the KAP of local people living around the FFL and in Kebeles other than those included in this survey should be investigated.  The zoonotic diseases and disease transmissions between domestic and wild animals need to be researched. 106 8. REFERENCES Abay, G. Y., Bauer, H., Gebrihiwot, K. and Deckers, J. (2011). Peri-urban spotted hyaena (Crocuta crocuta) in Northern Ethiopia: Diet, economic impact, and abundance. European Journal of Wildlife Research 57, 759–765. Abraham, T. and Simon, S. (2020). Diurnal activity pattern and social behaviour of Swaynes Hartebeest in Maze National Park, southern Ethiopia. Journal of Ecology and The Natural Environment 12, 77–84. Abukari, H. and Mwalyosi, R. B. (2018). Comparing Conservation Attitudes of Park-Adjacent Communities: The Case of Mole National Park in Ghana and Tarangire National Park in Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science 11. doi:10.1177/1940082918802757 Admasu, E., Thirgood, S. J., Bekele, A. and Laurenson, M. K. (2004a). A note on the spatial ecology of African civet Civettictis civetta and common genet Genetta genetta in farmland in the Ethiopian Highlands. African Journal of Ecology 42, 160–162. Admasu, E., Thirgood, S. J., Bekele, A. and Laurenson, M. K. (2004b). Spatial ecology of whitetailed mongoose in farmland in the Ethiopian Highlands. African Journal of Ecology 42. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00498.x Agha, M., Batter, T., Bolas, E. C., Collins, A. C., Gomes da Rocha, D., Monteza-Moreno, C. M., Preckler-Quisquater, S. and Sollmann, R. (2018). A review of wildlife camera trapping trends across Africa. African Journal of Ecology 56, 694–701. Amare, A. (2015). Wildlife Resources of Ethiopia: Opportunities, Challenges and Future Directions: From Ecotourism Perspective: A Review Paper. Natural Resources 06, 405–422. Amare, Y. and Serekebirhan, T. (2019). Human-wildlife conflict around Midre-Kebid Abo Monastry, Gurage Zone, Southwest Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 11, 212–229. Athreya, V., Isvaran, K., Odden, M., Linnell, J. D. C., Kshettry, A., Krishnaswamy, J. and Karanth, U. K. (2020). The impact of leopards (Panthera pardus) on livestock losses and human injuries in a human-use landscape in Maharashtra, India. Peer Journal 2020. doi:10.7717/peerj.8405 Ayalew, B., Afework, B. and Balakrishnan, M. (2013). Home range and movement patterns of African Civet Civettictis civetta in Wondo Genet, Ethiopia. Small Carnivore Conservation 107 48, 83–86. Bakala, F. and Mekonen, G. (2021). Species Diversity and Relative Abundance of Medium and Large-Sized Wild Mammals: a study from Adaba Community Forest, West Arsi Zone, Southeast Ethiopia. African Journal of Ecology 59, 538–543. Bauer, H., Chardonnet, B., Scholte, P., Kamgang, S. A., Tiomoko, D. A., Tehou, A. C., Sinsin, B., Gebresenbet, F., Asefa, A., Bobo, K. S., Garba, H., Abagana, A. L., Diouck, D., Mohammed, A. A. and Sillero-Zubiri, C. (2021). Consider divergent regional perspectives to enhance wildlife conservation across Africa. Nature Ecology and Evolution 5, 149–152. Belete, T. and Melese, M. (2016). Assessment of large mammals potential in Tululujia Wildlife Reserve, Southwestern Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural and Life Sciences 2, 80–86. Bene, J. K., Bitty, E. A., Bohoussou, K. H., Abedi-, M., Gamys, J. and Soribah, P. A. J. (2013). Current Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Sime Darby Oil Palm Concession in Liberia. Global Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Health Sciences 2, 93–102. Biru, Y., Tessema, Z. K. and Urge, M. (2017). Perception and attitude of pastoralists on livestockwildlife interactions around Awash National Park, Ethiopia: implication for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Processes 6. doi:10.1186/s13717-017-0081-9 Biset, A., Mengesha, G. and Girma, Z. (2019). Human-wildlife conflict in and around Borena Sayint National Park, northern Ethiopia. Human-Wildlife Interactions 13. doi:10.26076/fk60mp27 Bolker, B. M., Brooks, M. E., Clark, C. J., Geange, S. W., Poulsen, J. R., Stevens, M. H. H. and White, J. S. S. (2009). Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24, 127–135. Brassine, E. and Parker, D. (2015). Trapping elusive cats: Using intensive camera trapping to estimate the density of a rare african felid. PLoS ONE 10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142508 Bruns, A., Waltert, M. and Khorozyan, I. (2020). The effectiveness of livestock protection measures against wolves (Canis lupus) and implications for their co-existence with humans. Global Ecology and Conservation 21. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00868 Buechley, E. R. (2018). Birds of the Horn of Africa: Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia and Socotra Birds of the Horn of Africa: Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia and Socotra , 108 revised and expanded edition, by Nigel Redman, Terry Stevenson, and John Fanshawe; illustrated by. The Condor 120, 467–468. Burgin, C. J., Colella, J. P., Kahn, P. L. and Upham, N. S. (2018). How many species of mammals are there? Journal of Mammalogy 99, 1–14. Burton, A. C., Sam, M. K., Balangtaa, C. and Brashares, J. S. (2012). Hierarchical multi-species modeling of carnivore responses to hunting, habitat and prey in a West African protected area. PLoS ONE 7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038007 Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M. and Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 1. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253 Červinka, J., Šálek, M., Padyšáková, E. and Šmilauer, P. (2013). The effects of local and landscape-scale habitat characteristics and prey availability on corridor use by carnivores: A comparison of two contrasting farmlands. Journal for Nature Conservation 21, 105–113. Chame, M. (2003). Terrestrial Mammal Feces: A Morphometric Summary and Description. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 98, 71–94. Cheche, S. S. (2016). Responses of Vegetation, Small Mammals and Large Herbivores to Human Induced Pressures in the Savannah Plains of Nech Sar National Park, South Ethiopia Rift Valley. PhD dissertation. University of ANTWERP, Belgium Faculty of Science Department of Biology. Core Development Team, R. (2020). A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2, https://www.R-project.org. Cork, S. C. (2020). Examining Options to Promote Human–Wildlife Coexistence. Conservation Biology 34, 1051–1056. Creel, S., Matandiko, W., Schuette, P., Rosenblatt, E., Sanguinetti, C., Banda, K., Vinks, M. and Becker, M. (2018). Changes in African large carnivore diets over the past half-century reveal the loss of large prey. Journal of Applied Ecology 55, 2908–2916. CSA (2019). Population projection of Ethiopia for all regions at Wereda level for 2015 - 2018. Federal republic of Ethiopia, Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa. Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for 109 effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation 13, 458–466. Diriba, G., Tamene, S., Mengesha, G. and Asefa, A. (2020). Diversity of medium and large mammals in the Loka Abaya National Park, southern Ethiopia. Ecology and Evolution 10, 9896–9905. Dunning, J. B. (2007). ‗CRC handbook of avian body masses, second edition‘. doi:10.1201/9781420064452 Durant, S. M., Craft, M. E., Foley, C., Hampson, K., Lobora, A. L., Msuha, M., Eblate, E., Bukombe, J., Mchetto, J. and Pettorelli, N. (2010). Does size matter? An investigation of habitat use across a carnivore assemblage in the Serengeti, Tanzania. Journal of Animal Ecology 79, 1012–1022. Easter, T., Bouley, P. and Carter, N. (2020). Intraguild dynamics of understudied carnivores in a human-altered landscape. Ecology and Evolution 10, 5476–5488. ENMSA (2019). Ethiopia National Meteorological Service Agency, Data base for metrological data source (2009‐2019) of Mirab Abaya District, Ethiopia. Fetene, A., Hilker, T., Yeshitela, K., Prasse, R., Cohen, W. and Yang, Z. (2016). Detecting Trends in Landuse and Landcover Change of Nech Sar National Park, Ethiopia. Environmental Management 57, 137–147. Fetene, A., Yeshitela, K. and Gebremariam, E. (2019). The effects of anthropogenic landscape change on the abundance and habitat use of terrestrial large mammals of Nech Sar National Park. Environmental Systems Research 8, 1–16. Fuller, T. and Sievert, P. (2001). Carnivore demography and the consequences of changes in prey availability. Carnivore conservation, 163–179. Gálvez, N., Guillera-Arroita, G., St. John, F. A. V., Schüttler, E., Macdonald, D. W. and Davies, Z. G. (2018). A spatially integrated framework for assessing socioecological drivers of carnivore decline. Journal of Applied Ecology 55, 1393–1405. Gandiwa, E. (2012). Local knowledge and perceptions of animal population abundances by communities adjacent to the northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Tropical Conservation Science 5, 255–269. Garciá, C. B., Svensson, G. L., Bravo, C., Undurraga, M. I., Diáz-Forestier, J., Godoy, K., 110 Neaman, A., Barbosa, O., Abades, S. and Celis-Diez, J. L. (2021). Remnants of native forests support carnivore diversity in the vineyard landscapes of central Chile. ORYX 55, 227–234. Gebresenbet, F., Baraki, B., Yirga, G., Sillero-Zubiri, C. and Bauer, H. (2018a). A culture of tolerance: Coexisting with large carnivores in the Kafa Highlands, Ethiopia. Oryx 52, 751– 760. Gebresenbet, F., Bauer, H., Vadjunec, J. M. and Papeş, M. (2018b). Beyond the numbers: Human attitudes and conflict with lions (Panthera leo) in and around Gambella National Park, Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 13. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204320 Getachew, A. and Mesele, Y. (2018). Species composition and relative abundance of medium and large mammals in Mengaza communal forest, East Gojjam, Ethiopia. Journal of Ecology and The Natural Environment 10, 34–40. Girma, Z., Mamo, Y. and Ersado, M. (2012). Species composition, distribution and relative abundance of large mammals in and around wondo genet forest patch, southern Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences 5, 538–551. Girma, Z. and Worku, Z. (2020). Large Mammal Diversity in Nensebo Forest, southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Zoology 2020. doi:10.1155/2020/8819019 Grass, I., Loos, J., Baensch, S., Batáry, P., Librán-Embid, F., Ficiciyan, A., Klaus, F., Riechers, M., Rosa, J., Tiede, J., Udy, K., Westphal, C., Wurz, A. and Tscharntke, T. (2019). Landsharing/-sparing connectivity landscapes for ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. People and Nature 1, 262–272. Gutema, T. M., Atickem, A., Tsegaye, D., Bekele, A., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Marino, J., Kasso, M., Venkataraman, V. V., Fashing, P. J. and Stenseth, N. C. (2019). Foraging ecology of African wolves (Canis lupaster) and its implications for the conservation of Ethiopian wolves (Canis simensis). Royal Society Open Science 6. doi:10.1098/rsos.190772 IUCN. (2021). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-3. In https://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 12 January 2021. Jacobsen, K. S., Dickman, A. J., Macdonald, D. W., Mourato, S., Johnson, P., Sibanda, L. and Loveridge, A. (2021). The importance of tangible and intangible factors in human–carnivore coexistence. Conservation Biology 35, 1233–1244. 111 Jones, K. E., Bielby, J., Cardillo, M., Fritz, S. A., O‘Dell, J., Orme, C. D. L., Safi, K., Sechrest, W., Boakes, E. H., Carbone, C., Connolly, C., Cutts, M. J., Foster, J. K., Grenyer, R., Habib, M., Plaster, C. A., Price, S. A., Rigby, E. A., Rist, J., Teacher, A., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Gittleman, J. L., Mace, G. M. and Purvis, A. (2009). PanTHERIA: a species-level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals. Ecology 90, 2648–2648. Kasso, M. and Bekele, A. (2017). Diversity , Abundance and Distribution of Mammals in Fragmented Remnant Forests around Asella Town, Ethiopia. MAYFEB Journal of Biology 1, 1–12. Khosravi, R., Hemami, M. R. and Cushman, S. A. (2018). Multispecies assessment of core areas and connectivity of desert carnivores in central Iran. Diversity and Distributions 24, 193– 207. Kingdon, J. (2015). ‗Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals-Bloomsbury Natural History(2nd)‘. Lavrenchenko, L.A. and Bekele, A. (2017). Diversity and conservation of Ethiopian mammals: what have we learned in 30 years? Ethiopia Journal of Biological Science, 16, 1–20. Leflore, E. G., Fuller, T. K., Tomeletso, M., Dimbindo, T. C. and Stein, A. B. (2020). Human dimensions of human-lion conflict: A pre-and post-assessment of a lion conservation programme in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Environmental Conservation 47. doi:10.1017/S0376892920000120 Legese, K., Bekele, A. and Kiros, S. (2019). A Survey of large and medium-sized mammals in Wabe forest fragments, Gurage zone, Ethiopia. International International Journal of Avian and Wildlife Biology 4, 32–38. Lemma, A. and Tekalign, W. (2020). Abundance, species diversity, and distribution of diurnal mammals in humbo community-based forest area, southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Zoology 2020. doi:10.1155/2020/5761697 Lin, B., Foxfoot, I. R., Miller, C. M., Venkatamaran, V. V., Kerby, J. T., Bechtold, E. K., Kellogg, B. S., Nguyen, N. and Fashing, P. J. (2020). Leopard predation on gelada monkeys at Guassa, Ethiopia. American Journal of Primatology 82. doi:10.1002/ajp.23098 Lindsey, P. A., Havemann, C. P., Lines, R., Palazy, L., Price, A. E., Retief, T. A., Rhebergen, T. 112 and van der Waal, C. (2013). Determinants of Persistence and Tolerance of Carnivores on Namibian Ranches: Implications for Conservation on Southern African Private Lands. PLoS ONE 8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052458 Logan, K. M., Gerber, B. D., Karpanty, S. M., Justin, S. and Rabenahy, F. N. (2015). Assessing carnivore distribution from local knowledge across a human-dominated landscape in centralsoutheastern Madagascar. Animal Conservation 18, 82–91. Lozano, J., Olszańska, A., Morales-Reyes, Z., Castro, A. A., Malo, A. F., Moleón, M., SánchezZapata, J. A., Cortés-Avizanda, A., von Wehrden, H., Dorresteijn, I., Kansky, R., Fischer, J. and Martín-López, B. (2019). Human-carnivore relations: A systematic review. Biological Conservation 237, 480–492. Lute, M. L., Carter, N. H., López-Bao, J. V. and Linnell, J. D. C. (2018). Conservation professionals agree on challenges to coexisting with large carnivores but not on solutions. Biological Conservation 218, 223–232. Marneweck, C., Butler, A. R., Gigliotti, L. C., Harris, S. N., Jensen, A. J., Muthersbaugh, M., Newman, B. A., Saldo, E. A., Shute, K., Titus, K. L., Yu, S. W. and Jachowski, D. S. (2021). Shining the spotlight on small mammalian carnivores: Global status and threats. Biological Conservation 255. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109005 MAW-RDO (2019). Mirab Abaya Woreda rural development office report, Annual report of the office, Mirab Abaya Woreda, Birbir. Mekonen, S. (2020). Coexistence between human and wildlife: The nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia. BMC Ecology 20, 1–9. Merkebu, S. and Yazezew, D. (2021). Assessment of Human-Wildlife Conflict and the Attitude of Local Communities to Wild Animal Conservation around Borena Sayint National Park, Ethiopia. International Journal of Ecology 2021. doi:10.1155/2021/6619757 Miller, J. R. B., Stoner, K. J., Cejtin, M. R., Meyer, T. K., Middleton, A. D. and Schmitz, O. J. (2016). Effectiveness of contemporary techniques for reducing livestock depredations by large carnivores. Wildlife Society Bulletin 40, 806–815. Mitchell, A. M., Bruyere, B. L., Otieno, T. O., Bhalla, S. and Teel, T. L. (2019). A comparison between human-carnivore conflicts and local community attitudes toward carnivores in 113 Westgate Community Conservancy, Samburu, Kenya. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 24, 168–179. Mkonyi, F. J., Estes, A. B., Msuha, M. J., Lichtenfeld, L. L. and Durant, S. M. (2017). Socioeconomic correlates and management implications of livestock depredation by large carnivores in the Tarangire ecosystem, northern Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 13. doi:10.1080/21513732.2017.1339734 Morehouse, A. T., Hughes, C., Manners, N., Bectell, J. and Bruder, T. (2020). Carnivores and Communities: A Case Study of Human-Carnivore Conflict Mitigation in Southwestern Alberta. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8. doi:10.3389/fevo.2020.00002 Mullu, D. and Balakrishnan, M. (2014). Ecology of African Civet (Civettictis civetta) in Arba Minch Forest, Arba Minch, Ethiopia. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal 3, 99. doi:10.4314/star.v3i3.16 Negeri, D., Gadisa, T. and Habtamu, T. (2015). The Diversity, Distribution and Relative Abundance of Medium and Large-sized Mammals in Baroye Controlled Hunting Area, Illubabor Zone, Southwest Ethiopia. International Journal of Molecular Evolution and Biodiversity 5, 1–9. Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Hill, S. L. L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R. A., Börger, L., Bennett, D. J., Choimes, A., Collen, B., Day, J., De Palma, A., Díaz, S., EcheverriaLondoño, S., Edgar, M. J., Feldman, A., Garon, M., Harrison, M. L. K., Alhusseini, T., Ingram, D. J., Itescu, Y., Kattge, J., Kemp, V., Kirkpatrick, L., Kleyer, M., Correia, D. L. P., Martin, C. D., Meiri, S., Novosolov, M., Pan, Y., Phillips, H. R. P., Purves, D. W., Robinson, A., Simpson, J., Tuck, S. L., Weiher, E., White, H. J., Ewers, R. M., MacE, G. M., Scharlemann, J. P. W. and Purvis, A. (2015). Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50. Penjor, U., Wangdi, S., Tandin, T. and Macdonald, D. W. (2021). Vulnerability of mammal communities to the combined impacts of anthropic land use and climate change in the Himalayan conservation landscape of Bhutan. Ecological Indicators 121. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107085 Phumanee, W., Steinmetz, R., Phoonjampa, R., Bejraburnin, T., Grainger, M. and Savini, T. 114 (2020). Occupancy-based monitoring of ungulate prey species in Thailand indicates population stability, but limited recovery. Ecosphere 11. doi:10.1002/ecs2.3208 Qufa, C. A. and Bekele, A. (2019). A preliminary survey of medium and large-sized mammals from Lebu Natural Protected Forest, Southwest Showa, Ethiopia. Ecology and Evolution 9, 12322–12331. Rabira, G., Tsegaye, G. and Tadesse, H. (2015). The diversity, abundance and habitat association of medium and large-sized mammals of Dati Wolel National Park, Western Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 7, 112–118. Rich, L. N., Miller, D. A. W., Robinson, H. S., McNutt, J. W. and Kelly, M. J. (2017). Carnivore distributions in Botswana are shaped by resource availability and intraguild species. Journal of Zoology 303, 90–98. Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M. P., Schmitz, O. J., Smith, D. W., Wallach, A. D. and Wirsing, A. J. (2014). Status and ecological effects of the world‘s largest carnivores. Science 343, 12414841–124148411. Robb, R. A. (1963). W. G. Cochran, Sampling Techniques (John Wiley and Sons, 2nd edition, 1963), ix+413 pp., 72s. Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 13, 342–343. Rodrigues, P., Dorresteijn, I., Guilherme, J. L., Hanspach, J., De Beenhouwer, M., Hylander, K., Bekele, B., Senbeta, F., Fischer, J. and Nimmo, D. (2021). Predicting the impacts of human population growth on forest mammals in the highlands of southwestern Ethiopia. Biological Conservation 256. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109046 Rutina, L. P., Mogwera, K. M., Seonyatseng, E., Mpofu, C. and Ntloyathuto, D. (2017). Herders‘ ecological knowledge and carnivore predation on livestock investigations in Makgadikgadi and Nxai national parks, Botswana. Koedoe 59. doi:10.4102/koedoe.v59i2.1389 Šálek, M., Kreisinger, J., Sedláček, F., and Albrecht, T. (2010). Do prey densities determine preferences of mammalian carnivores for habitat edges in an agricultural landscape? Landscape and Urban Planning 98, 86–91. Serekebirhan, T. and Solomon J. (2011). Diet composition of black-backed jackal. Journal for nature conservation 23, 169–181. Shibru, S., Vancampenhout, K., Deckers, J. and Leirs, H. (2020). Human pressure threaten 115 Swayne‘s Hartebeest to point of local extinction from the Savannah Plains of Nech Sar National Park, South Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Journal of Biodiversity and Endangered Species 8, 1–6. Srivathsa, A., Puri, M., Karanth, K. K., Patel, I. and Samba Kumar, N. (2019). Examining human - Carnivore interactions using a socio-ecological framework: Sympatric wild canids in India as a case study. Royal Society Open Science 6. doi:10.1098/rsos.182008 Sutherland, W. J. (2006). ‗Ecological census techniques: A handbook, Second Edition‘. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169534797826882 Tamrat, M., Atickem, A., Tsegaye, D., Nguyen, N., Bekele, A., Evangelista, P., Fashing, P. J. and Stenseth, N. C. (2020). Human-wildlife conflict and coexistence: A case study from Senkele Swayne‘s Hartebeest Sanctuary in Ethiopia. Wildlife Biology 2020, 1–9. Tefera, M. (2011). Wildlife in Ethiopia: Endemic Large Mammals. World Journal of Zoology 6. Teixeira, L., Tisovec-Dufner, K. C., Marin, G. de L., Marchini, S., Dorresteijn, I. and Pardini, R. (2021). Linking human and ecological components to understand human–wildlife conflicts across landscapes and species. Conservation Biology 35, 285–296. Tekalign, W. and Bekele, A. (2016). Anthropogenic Influences on the Wildlife Conservation Efforts in Maze National Park, southern Ethiopia. Journal of Environment and Earth Science 6, 1–8. Tessema, M. E., Lilieholm, R. J., Ashenafi, Z. T. and Leader-Williams, N. (2010). Community attitudes toward wildlife and protected areas in Ethiopia. Society and Natural Resources 23, 489–506. Tilman, D., Clark, M., Williams, D. R., Kimmel, K., Polasky, S. and Packer, C. (2017). Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546, 73–81. Torres-Romero, E. J., Giordano, A. J., Ceballos, G. and López-Bao, J. V. (2020). Reducing the sixth mass extinction: Understanding the value of human-altered landscapes to the conservation of the world‘s largest terrestrial mammals. Biological Conservation 249. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108706 Trajçe, A., Ivanov, G., Keçi, E., Majić, A., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mustafa, S., Skrbinšek, T., Stojanov, A., Todorovska, A., von Arx, M. and Linnell, J. D. C. (2019). All carnivores are not equal in the rural people‘s view. Should we develop conservation plans for functional 116 guilds or individual species in the face of conflicts? Global Ecology and Conservation 19. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00677 Udy, K., Fritsch, M., Meyer, K. M., Grass, I., Hanß, S., Hartig, F., Kneib, T., Kreft, H., Kukunda, C. B., Pe‘er, G., Reininghaus, H., Tietjen, B., Tscharntke, T., van Waveren, C. S. and Wiegand, K. (2021). Environmental heterogeneity predicts global species richness patterns better than area. Global Ecology and Biogeography 30, 842–851. Vanthomme, H., Kolowski, J., Korte, L. and Alonso, A. (2013). Distribution of a Community of Mammals in Relation to Roads and Other Human Disturbances in Gabon, Central Africa. Conservation Biology 27. doi:10.1111/cobi.12017 Wait, K. R., Ricketts, A. M. and Ahlers, A. A. (2018). Land use change structures carnivore communities in remaining tallgrass prairie. Journal of Wildlife Management 82, 1491–1502. Wale, M. (2017). Wildlife Threats and Their Relative Severity of Eastern Ethiopia Protected Areas. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 2, 59. Wall, J. L., Loken, B. and Brodie, J. F. (2021). Reconciling resource extraction and species conservation in a multi-use landscape: Immediate and long-term impacts of logging on rainforest mammal diversity. Global Ecology and Conservation 28. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01642 Wang, S. W., Lee, W. K., Brooks, J. and Dorji, C. (2020). Awareness of the Convention on Biological Diversity and provisions regarding access and benefit sharing among multiple stakeholder groups in Bhutan. ORYX 54, 735–742. Western, G., Macdonald, D. W., Loveridge, A. J. and Dickman, A. J. (2019). Creating Landscapes of Coexistence: Do Conservation Interventions Promote Tolerance of Lions in Human-dominated Landscapes? Conservation and Society 17, 204–217. Willcox, D. (2020). Conservation status, ex situ priorities and emerging threats to small carnivores. International Zoo Yearbook 54, 19–34. Woldegeorgis, G. and Wube, T. (2012). A Survey on Mammals of The Yayu Forest in Southwest Ethiopia. Journal of Science 35, 135–138. Wolf, C. and Ripple, W. J. (2016). Prey depletion as a threat to the world‘s large carnivores. Royal Society Open Science 3. doi:10.1098/rsos.160252 117 Woodroffe, R., Frank, L. G., Lindsey, P. A., Ole Ranah, S. M. K. and Romañach, S. (2007). Livestock husbandry as a tool for carnivore conservation in Africa‘s community rangelands: A case-control study. Biodiversity and Conservation 16, 1245–1260. Worku, Z. and Girma, Z. (2020). Large Mammal Diversity and Endemism at Geremba Mountain Fragment, southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Ecology 2020, 1–11. Yalden, D. W., Largen, M. J., Kock, D. and Hillman, J. C. (1996). Catalogue of the mammals of Ethiopia and Eritrea. 7. revised checklist, zoogeography and conservation. Tropical Zoology 9, 73–164. doi:10.1080/03946975.1996.10539304 Yirga, G., De Iongh, H. H., Leirs, H., Gebrehiwot, K., Berhe, G., Asmelash, T., Gebrehiwot, H. and Bauer, H. (2013). The ecology of large carnivores in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. African Journal of Ecology 51, 78–86. Yirga, G., Gebresenbet, F., Deckers, J. and Bauer, H. (2014). Status of Lion (Panthera leo) and Spotted Hyaena (Crocuta crocuta) in Nechisar National Park, Ethiopia. Momona Ethiopian Journal of Science 6, 127. Yirga, G., Leirs, H., De Iongh, H. H., Asmelash, T., Gebrehiwot, K., Vos, M. and Bauer, H. (2017). Densities of spotted hyaena (Crocuta crocuta) and African golden wolf (Canis anthus) increase with increasing anthropogenic influence. Mammal Biology 85, 60–69. Yosef, M. (2015). Attitudes and perceptions of the local people towards benefits and conflicts they get from conservation of the Bale Mountains National Park and Mountain Nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni), Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 7, 28–40. Young, J. K., Coppock, D. L., Baggio, J. A., Rood, K. A. and Yirga, G. (2020). Linking human perceptions and spotted hyaena behaviour in urban areas of ethiopia. Animals 10, 1–16. Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. and Elphick, C. S. (2010). A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1, 3–14. 118 9. APPENDICES 1 Raw data of mammal species recorded in each habitat types and seasons in the FFL. P = presence, R = records. Habitat type Season Forest Wet Wetland Wet Dry Dry Total Grassland Wet Dry Agricultural land Wet Dry Species Tragelaphus imberbis P R P R P R P R P R P R P R P R P Total R P R P R P R Wet Dry Total 1 4 1 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 4 Redunca redunca 1 5 1 3 1 8 1 3 1 6 1 9 1 9 1 10 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 16 1 19 1 2 0 0 1 2 19 19 Ourebia ourebi 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 5 1 38 6 1 11 1 4 1 3 1 7 9 12 Sylvicapra grimmia 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Phacochoerus aethiopicus 1 7 1 9 1 16 0 0 1 3 1 3 1 16 1 4 1 7 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 4 8 1 11 1 27 0 0 1 4 1 4 23 27 50 Potamochoerus larvatus 1 4 1 4 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Hippopotamus amphibious Orycteropus afer 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 18 1 28 0 2 1 12 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16 22 0 1 6 1 6 1 5 0 0 1 5 15 24 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 1 2 1 3 1 5 0 0 1 2 1 2 3 5 Hystrix cristata 8 1 3 1 5 1 8 1 2 1 6 1 Xerus rutilus Marmota monax 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 6 1 6 1 3 1 3 1 6 8 20 28 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 1 3 7 1 1 3 11 1 1 21 14 1 1 12 7 1 1 33 21 21 21 15 19 36 40 Papio anubis 1 25 1 31 1 56 1 13 1 9 Colobus guereza 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 10 1 22 1 20 1 27 1 47 1 7 1 6 1 13 65 73 138 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12 20 Chlorocebus pygerythrus Crocuta crocuta 1 31 1 39 1 70 1 11 1 1 4 1 7 1 11 0 0 0 33 1 44 1 6 1 6 1 12 1 4 1 2 1 6 52 80 132 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 1 9 1 11 1 19 1 30 24 26 Mellivora capensis 1 5 1 5 1 10 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 Civettictis civetta 12 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Panthera leo 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 Panthera pardus Canis mesomelas 5 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 5 2 Lepus habessinicus 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 6 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 10 Total 14 97 13 114 16 211 7 48 9 89 9 137 14 89 16 114 18 203 11 74 11 60 14 134 308 377 685 Total 119 Total Overall 2. Overall frequency of mammal species records in the study landscape 3. Training of data collectors on the data collection procedures and installation of camera traps (Photograph source: Author, 2020). 120 4. Carnivore species recorded in the FFL during survey period and sources of evidences (Photograph source: Author). Halogale parvula (Camera trap) Ichneumia albicauda (Camera trap) Galerella sanguinea (Camera trap) Crocuta crocuta (Camera trap) Canis mesomelas (Camera trap) Genetta genetta (Camera trap and road kill) 121 Lptailurus serval (photo taken by mobile) Civettictis civetta (Road kill) Scat of Mellivora capensis Scat of Caracal caracal Scat of Panthera pardus Scat of Otocyon megalotis 122 5. ArcGIS maps showing the occurrence (red triangle) of 12 carnivore species in surveyed transects as well as their proportion of occurrence (site occupied per 30 sites). Canis mesomelas, n = 16, mean = 0.533, SD = 0.507 Caracal caracal, n = 4, mean = 0.133, SD = 0.346 Civettictis civetta, n = 20, mean = 0.667, SD = 0.479 Crocuta crocuta, n = 18, mean = 0.600, SD = 0.498 Galerella sanguinea, n = 22, mean = 0.733, SD = 0.450 Genetta genetta, n = 25, mean = 0.833, SD = 0.379 123 Halogale parvula, n = 22, mean = 0.733, SD = 0.466 Ichneumia albicauda, n = 23, mean = 0.767, SD = 0.407 Leptailurus serval, n = 16, mean = 0.533, SD = 0.507 Mellivora capensis, n = 6, mean = 0.200, SD = 0.407 Otocyon megalotis, n = 15, mean = 0.500, SD = 0.509 Panthera pardus, n = 2, mean = 0.067, SD = 0.254 124 6. Road killed carnivores in the study area (Photograph source: Author, 2020 and 2021). Genetta genetta Civettictis civetta 7. Scientific names and mean body mass for all species included in the study, with relative abundance for prey species detected in the FFL. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Potential prey species Scientific Name Prey 1- Mammals Tragelaphus imberbis Redunca redunca Ourebia ourebi Sylvicapra grimmia Phacochoerus aethiopicus Potamochoerus larvatus Orycteropus afer Hystrix cristata Xerus rutilus Marmota monax Papio anubis Colobus guereza Chlorocebus aethiops Lepus habessinicus Madoqua guentheri Prey 2 - Birds Alopochen aegyptiaca Plectropterus gambensis Pternistis squamatus Dendroperdix sephaena Columba guinea Columba delegorguei Streptopelia semitorquata Numida meleagris Pternistis leucoscepus Leptoptilos crumenifer Scopus umbretta Corvus rhipidurus Ardea cinerea Mean body mass Common name Lesser kudu Bohor reedbuck Oribi Common duiker Common warthog Bushpig Aardvark Crested porcupine Unstriped ground squirrel Marmot Olive baboon Mantled guereza Vervet monkey Rabbit Dik dik 92 45.5 17.2 18.5 87.5 84.5 4.5 20 0.6 4 19.5 7.7 4 2.6 4 Egyptian goose Spur-winged goose Scaly francolin Crested francolin Speckled pigeon Eastern bronze-naped pigeon Red-eyed Dove Helmeted guineafowl Yellow-necked francolin Marabou stork Hamerkop Fan-tailed raven Gray heron 1.8 5.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.6 0.6 6.25 0.5 0.4 1.5 125 8. Semi-structured questionnaire used for interview in the KAP survey. 1. Demography and socioeconomic variable questions (tick x) Study site Gender Age Education Family size status Land size (ha) Livestock owned No. of livestock owned Cattle Donkey Goat Sheep Primary source of income Livestock Crop Others Chicken 2. Local people‘ knowledge on coexisting carnivores – listing by local name 2.1 Please tell me all of the carnivores that live in this area that you can think of. 1 5 9 13 17 2 6 10 14 18 3 7 11 15 19 4 8 12 16 20 2.2 Would you tell me the colour, size, feeding habits of the carnivores mentioned above? (Knowledge on species behaviour and ecology for approval) 1 5 9 13 17 2 6 10 14 18 3 7 11 15 19 4 8 12 16 20 2.3 Would you sort the carnivore species you mentioned and characterized above from these 13 picture cards? Picture card Species Picture card Species Picture card Species 1 6 11 2 7 12 3 8 13 4 9 5 10 3. Attitude of local people towards problem status of carnivores – picture cards 3.1 Have you experienced livestock damage by carnivore? yes No If yes 3.2 In the last five years, how many livestock killed/attacked by these carnivores? (Show picture cards) Picture cards Cattle Goat Sheep Donkeys Chickens Does not occur here 1 2 3 3.3 Can you sort these pictures into animals that are a big problem, medium problem or minor problem around this Kebele? And explain why? (Show picture cards): Problem Does not occur Why is it a problem? Picture cards here Big Small No problem 1 2 3 4. Depredation control methods survey 4.1 Would you mention the control methods you took to protect your livestock against these carnivores? Picture cards Control methods 1 2 3 - 126 9. Picture cards of carnivores that are used to examine social survey towards KAP of local people and carnivore population status (Photograph source: animaldiversity.org/accounts). Black backed jackal (Canis mesomelas) Lion (Panthera leo) Elephant (Loxodonta africana) Leopard (Panthera pardus) Spotted hyaena (Crocuta crocuta) Honey badger (Mellivora capensis) African civet (Civettictis civetta) Bat-eared fox (Otocyon megalotis) 127 Serval (Leptailurus serval) Caracal (Caracal caracal) White-tailed mongoose (Ichneumia albicauda) Slender mongoose (Galerella sanguinea) Common-dwarf mongoose (Halogale parvula) Common genet (Genetta genetta) 128 10. Dependent variables, their modelling and model fitting information for KAP models Attitude towards problem status Carnivore knowledge Dependent variables Effect(s) -2 Log Likelihood original model -2 Log Likelihood of reduced model ChiSquare df Sig. Over all model fitting information 621.183 508.451 0.000 0 2 .000 40.733 2 .000 LRχ2 (8) = 112.732; Sig = 0.000; Pseudo-R2 (Cox and Snell) =0.274; Pseudo-R2 (Nagelkerke) =0.320 Education status 549.184 594.365 85.915 Gender 508.451 549.184 Intercept 634.018 513.372 0.000 0 Primary source of income Livestock damage Gender 570.818 577.839 64.467 4 .000 554.339 536.632 23.260 2 .000 542.698 524.556 11.184 2 .004 Livestock number Study site 530.052 523.476 10.104 4 .039 513.372 519.370 5.998 2 .050 Farmland size/ha 519.370 524.012 10.640 4 .031 LRχ2 (16) = 120.646; sig = 0.000; Pseudo-R2 (Cox and Snell) = 0.290; Pseudo-R2 (Nagelkerke) = 0.337 11. Semi-structured questionnaire used for interview for population trend and conservation survey I. Socio-economic survey (Demography and socioeconomic variables), tick x. 1) Study site 2) Gender 3) Age 4) Education 5) Family 6) Land status size size (ha) 8) No. of livestock owned Cattle Goat Sheep 9) Have you experienced livestock damage by carnivores? 7) Primary source of income livestock Crop Others Donkey Yes chicken No II. Perception survey (population abundance and trend) 10) How often did you see/interact with these carnivore animals? (Show picture cards)? Animal‘s picture Very common Common Uncommon Rare 1 2 3 11) What do you think has happened to the number of these carnivores in the last five years period (2015-2019)? Why? Animal pictures Increased Decreased Stayed the same Why? 1 2 3 III. Attitude survey (support for carnivore conservation) 12) What do you want to be the population abundance trend in the future? Why? Animal pictures Wanted to Wanted to decrease Wanted to Stay the same increase 1 2 3 - 129 Why? 12. The number of respondent reports on species names, population abundance, population trend and support for conservation, and IUCN red list category. Species common name Species scientific name Rare Increased Stayed the same Decreased Wanted to decrease Wanted to stay the same Wanted to increase IUCN red list category Uncommon Support for conservation Common Population trend Very common Population abundance Black-backed jackal Canis mesomelas 48 153 101 50 58 162 132 218 87 47 LC Lion Panthera leo 10 66 101 175 9 17 326 51 99 202 VU Leopard Panthera pardus 51 142 108 51 18 42 292 80 210 62 VU Spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta 85 179 62 26 51 168 133 264 73 15 LC African civet Civettictis civetta 56 161 106 29 37 43 272 58 201 93 LC Honey badger Mellivora capensis 87 152 91 22 59 166 127 238 77 37 LC Common-dwarf mongoose Halogale parvula 41 168 87 56 45 47 260 174 154 24 LC Caracal Caracal caracal 42 96 115 99 23 13 316 75 88 189 LC Serval Leptailurus serval 111 144 66 31 76 149 127 238 95 19 LC White-tailed mongoose Ichneumia albicauda 88 156 75 33 165 29 158 244 88 20 LC Bat-eared fox Otocyon megalotis 81 159 90 22 79 64 209 229 96 27 LC Slender mongoose Galerella sanguinea 93 179 54 26 173 44 135 272 66 14 LC Common genet Genetta genetta 91 182 62 17 195 18 139 238 96 18 LC Mean 68 149 86 49 76 74 202 183 110 59 % 19.3 42.3 24.4 13.9 21.6 21.0 57.4 52.0 31.3 16.8 KW χ² 28.08,0.000 13.07, 0.000 130 15.73,0.000 13. Dependent variables, their modelling and model fitting information in carnivore population status and conservation Support for conservation model Population abundance model Population trend model Dependent variables Effect(s) -2 Log Likelihood original model -2 Log Likelihood of reduced model ChiSquare df Intercept 615.328 539.184 0.000 0 Education status 588.585 554.806 15.622 2 .000 sig =0.000 Livestock number 557.116 570.473 31.290 4 .000 Pseudo-R2 (Cox and Snell = 0.195) Age 539.184 557.116 17.932 4 .001 Intercept 875.379 549.259 0.000 0 Gender 729.387 728.269 179.010 3 .000 sig =0.000; Livestock number 643.170 641.753 92.494 6 .000 Pseudo-R2 (Cox and Snell =0.604); Education status 607.437 605.866 56.607 3 .000 Pseudo-R2 (Nagelkerke =0.652) Age 562.368 596.154 46.895 6 .000 Land size 549.259 562.368 13.109 6 .041 Intercept 626.573 422.708 0.000 Family size 491.687 563.793 141.084 4 .000 sig =0.000 Livestock damage 460.244 460.244 37.536 4 .000 Pseudo-R2 (Cox and Snell =0.440) Livestock number 422.708 457.309 31.600 2 .000 Pseudo-R2 (Nagelkerke =0.508) 131 Sig. Over all model fitting information LRχ2 (10) = 76.144 Pseudo-R2 (Nagelkerke = 0.227) LRχ2 (24) = 326.120; LRχ2 (10) = 203.866 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE RESEARCHER Name - Berhanu Gebo Geto 1. Education Institution and location Degree MM/GC Field of study Primary education (1-6) Wajjifo primary school 1987 General education 1993 General education 1997 General education Diploma 11/1998 Biology Dilla university Degree 3/2004 Biology Hawassa university MSc 11/2010 Microbiology Junior secondary school (7- 8) High school Hawassa college of teachers‘ Mirab Abaya Junior secondary school Arba Minch Comprehensive school education 2. Personal Statement Berhanu Gebo Geto was born in 1979 in Wajifo Kebele in Mirab Abaya Woreda, Gamo Zone of Ethiopia. My first experience as an undergraduate teacher changed my entire perspective, and I knew from that moment forward that teaching would be a critical component of my professional happiness and success. Although teaching was always something I relegated, I have wanted to be a scientist for most of my life, and the Biodiversity Conservation and Management doctoral program at Arba Minch University is a vital addition to this end. I have a variety of research experiences that have prepared me well for a career as a research educator. As an undergraduate, I studied "Medicinal Plants: Their Parts and Uses in Mirab Abaya Woreda, Gamo Gofa Zone" as a summer intern at Dilla University. This experience introduced me to conducting small, independent research projects. As an MSc student at the University of Hawassa, I conducted "Phenotypic Characteristics and Preliminary Symbiotic Effectiveness of Rhizobia Associated with Haricot Bean Growing in Diverse Locations of southern Ethiopia". This was instrumental in my transition to studying a large-scale research question with direct relevance to human livelihood. I am currently studying the "Socio-Ecological Drivers of Mammal diversity and Human-Carnivore Coexistence in the Faragosa-Fura Landscape of the southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia". I feel this is an important research question for a research educator, as it combines human and wildlife dimensions to promote human-wildlife coexistence in an understudied human-dominated landscape, which contributes to landscape scale conservation and sustainability. 3. Job experiences I have a variety of teaching experiences, including four years as an undergraduate teacher of biology in grades 7-8. I also taught of biology in grades 9-12 in Mirab Abaya Woreda for three years. Also, I was a lecturer in biology at Arba Minch College of Teacher Education for six years. The courses I taught of were Microbiology, Ecology and Conservation, as well as General Biology. In addition to teaching, I have also played leadership roles at different levels. I have been a high school principal for three years, Woreda education office head for one year, and Zone education office head for three years. At Arba Minch College of Teachers‘ Education, I have been vice dean for four years, research office coordinator for one year, chief of research board for two years, core process owner of teachers‘ development directorate for three years, and coordinator of the science and technology centre for two years. 4. Professional Development i. HDP Diploma – Higher Diploma program for higher education teachers from Arba Minch University ii. Computer Certificate – from Gamo Gofa Zone Education Department ICT Core (Introduction to Computer Science Training) iii. Environmental and Sustainability Education Certificate for teacher education from Leuphana University, Luneburg, German iv. MOE Certificate for laboratory teaching and practical setup 5. PhD study achievements Carried out research on SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL DRIVERS OF MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY AND HUMAN-CARNIVORE COEXISTENCE IN FARAGOSA-FURA LANDSCAPE OF SOUTHERN RIFT VALLEY, ETHIOPIA. All the five study objectives investigated in this dissertation have been published. All publications qualified the database and indexing criteria of Arba Minch University's PhD student‘s research publication guidelines. 6. Peer-reviewed Publications during PhD dissertation I. Berhanu Gebo, Serekebirhan Takele and Simon Shibru. (2021). Impacts of habitats and seasons on mammal diversity and distribution in the Faragosa-Fura landscape, Gamo Zone, southern Ethiopia. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes 5, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2021.1944798 II. Berhanu Gebo, Serekebirhan Takele and Simon Shibru. (2022). Anthropogenic land-use and environmental factors affecting the species richness and occurrence of carnivores in the Faragosa-Fura Landscape of southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia. SN Applied Sciences 4:46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04930-9 III. Berhanu Gebo, Serekebirhan Takele and Simon Shibru. (2022). Effects of prey abundance on carnivore populations in the Faragosa-Fura Landscape of the southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Global Ecology and Conservation 34 (1): 1-10. https://doi.org/21.00966/j.gecco.2022.e02029 IV. Berhanu Gebo, Serekebirhan Takele and Simon Shibru. (2022). Knowledge, attitude and practice of the local people towards human–carnivore coexistence in Faragosa–Fura Landscape, Gamo Zone, southern Ethiopia. Wildlife Biology 2022: e01018. https://doi.org/10.1002/wlb3.01018 V. Berhanu Gebo, Serekebirhan Takele and Simon Shibru. (2022). Perception and attitude of the local people towards carnivore population and conservation in Faragosa-Fura Landscape of southern Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Conservation Science and Practice 2022; e12705. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12705