Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do ecotypes of bushbuck differ in grouping patterns?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
acta ethologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Grouping patterns within the genus Tragelaphus suggest that species inhabiting open areas tend to live in larger groups, while species preferring dense habitats live solitarily or in small family groups. We asked if similar variation would be concealed in the within-species variation of bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). Recent molecular phylogeographic analyses revealed several locally adapted forms of bushbuck in different ecoregions on the African continent. We compared group sizes of south-eastern bushbuck (Tragelaphus sylvaticus) among six different populations (“ecotypes”). To date, most data on the social organization of bushbuck have been collected from only one population in Queen Elizabeth National Park (QENP) in Uganda. This particular population, however, inhabits an unusual—comparatively open—habitat type, while bushbuck otherwise inhabit dense habitats, leaving doubt whether data collected in QENP are representative of the entire species. We, therefore, compared grouping patterns between ecotypes inhabiting rather open habitats (e.g., dianae and haywoodi) and ecotypes occupying rather dense habitats (e.g., massaicus and ornatus). In bachelor groups and in all-female (spinster) groups, single sightings were the most frequent “group type” in all populations examined. We detected no significant difference among ecotypes in relative frequencies of group size categories in the case of bachelor groups. Spinster group sizes were slightly (albeit significantly) smaller in QENP than in all other areas. Moreover, a comparison of two areas inside (low human pursuit) and outside Lake Mburo National Park (high hunting pressure) in Uganda revealed no significant difference in grouping patterns in response to human pursuit (as reported for impala [Aepyceros melampus] inhabiting the same area). Altogether, our results suggest that group sizes in bushbuck are not dependent on the habitat type they inhabit; neither does human nuisance have an impact on grouping patterns. Hence, an “almost solitary” lifestyle appears to be a characteristic of the entire taxon.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allsopp R (1978) Social biology of bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus Pallas, 1776) in the Nairobi National Park, Kenya. East Afr Wildl J 16:153–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JL (1980) The social organization and aspects of behavior of the nyala (Tragelaphus angasi Gray). Z Saugetierkd 45:90–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Apio A, Plath M, Tiedemann R, Wronski T (2007) Age-dependent mating tactics in male bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). Behaviour 144:585–610. doi:10.1163/156853907780713073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apio A, Kabassa JD, Ketmaier V, Schröder C, Plath M, Tiedemann R (2009) Female philopatry and male dispersal in a cryptic, bush-dwelling antelope (Tragelaphus sylvaticus): a combined molecular and behavioural approach. J Zool (in press)

  • Averbeck C (2001) Integrating rural communities and wildlife conservation in Uganda. Sustainable use as a viable solution. Tropenökologisches Begleitprogramm (TÖB), GTZ, Eschborn, Germany

  • Averbeck C, Apio A, Plath M, Wronski T (2009a) Hunting differentially affects mixed-sex and bachelor-herds in a gregarious ungulate, the impala (Aepyceros melampus: Bovidae). Afr J Ecol (in press)

  • Averbeck C, Apio A, Plath M, Wronski T (2009b) Environmental parameters and anthropogenic effects predicting the spatial distribution of wild ungulates in the Akagera savannah ecosystem. Afr J Ecol (in press)

  • Beauchamp G, Ruxton GD (2008) Disentangling risk dilution and collective detection in the antipredator vigilance of semipalmated sandpipers in flocks. Anim Behav 75:1837–1842. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.12.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer, behaviour and ecology of two sexes. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowling RM, Richardson SM, Pierce SM (2004) Vegetation of Southern Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch JC (1992) Reproductive strategies in a lek-breeding antelope, the Uganda kob. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge

  • Elder WH, Elder NL (1970) Social groupings and primate associations of the bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). Mammalia 34:356–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field CR (1968) A comparative study of the food habits of some wild ungulates in the Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. Symp Zool Soc Lond 21:135–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F, Linsenmair KE (2000) Changes in group size in Kobus kob kob (Bovidae) in the Comoe National Park, Ivory Coast (West Africa). Mamm Biol 65:232–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Grubb P (1978) Patterns of speciation in African mammals. Bull Carnegie Mus Nat Hist 6:152–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MW, Henschel P, O'Brian JO, Hofmeyr M, Balme G, Kerley GIH (2006) Prey preferences of the leopard (Panthera pardus). J Zool (Lond) 270:298–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecklau H (1989) Ostafrika (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda). In: Storkebaum W (ed) Wissenschaftliche Länderkunden. Wissenschaftliche Buchgemeinschaft, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • Heriz-Smith S, Verdcourt B (1962) The vegetation of Nairobi Royal national park. In: Heriz-Smith S (ed) The wild flowers of the Nairobi Royal national park. E-African Natural History Society, D.A. Hawkins Ltd, Nairobi, Kenya, pp 56

  • Hillmann JC (1987) Group size and association patterns of the common eland Tragelaphus oryx. J Zool (Lond) 213:641–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoag A, Clements A, Monday G (1991) Lake Mburo National Park Habitat Project. A study of the vegetation composition and animal use of the major terrestrial habitats in the park. USAID, Unpublished Report to the Uganda Wildlife Authority, UWA

  • Isvaran K (2007) Intraspecific variation in group size in the blackbuck antelope: the roles of habitat structure and forage at different spatial scales. Oecologia 154:435–444. doi:10.1007/s00442-007-0840-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen NHG (1974) Distribution, home range and behaviour patterns of bushbuck in the Lutope and Sengwa Valleys, Rhodesia. J S Afr Wildl Assoc 4(2):75–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarman PJ (1974) The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48:215–267. doi:10.1163/156853974X00345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarman PJ (1982) Prospects for interspecific comparison in sociobiology. In: King's College Sociobiology Group (ed) Current problems in sociobiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 323–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamugisha JR, Ogutu ZA, Ståhl M (1997) Parks and people. Conservation and livelihoods at the crossroads. Regional Soil Conservation Unit (RSCU), African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon J (1982) East African mammals. Volume 3C, Bovids. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuzer W (1979) Ankole: Bevölkerung, Siedlung, Wirtschaft eines Entwicklungsraumes in Uganda. Erdkd Wissen 52:106

    Google Scholar 

  • Langdale-Brown I, Osmaston HA, Wilson JG (1964) The vegetation of Uganda and its bearing on land-use. Uganda Government Printer, Entebbe

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuthold W (1979) The Lesser Kudu, Tragelaphus imberbis (Blyth, 1869). Ecology and behaviour of an African antelope. Saugetierkdl Mitt 27(1):1–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Lock JM (1967) Vegetation in relation to grazing and soils in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge

  • Lock JM (1977) The vegetation of the Rwenzori National Park, Uganda. Bot Jahrb Syst 98(3):372–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Lock JM (1988) Vegetation studies in the Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. Agriconsulting, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell A (1977) Preliminary observations on the daytime activity patterns of lesser kudu in Tsavo National Park, Kenya. East Afr Wildl J 15:199–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Moodley Y, Bruford MW (2007) Molecular biogeography: towards an integrated framework for conserving pan-African biodiversity. PLoS ONE 5:e454. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000454

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moodley Y, Bruford MW, Bleidorn C, Wronski T, Apio A, Plath M (2009) Analayis of mtDNA data reveals non-monophyly in the bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) complex. Mamm Biol (in press). doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2008.05.003

  • Odendaal PB, Bigalke RC (1979) Home range and groupings of bushbuck in the southern Cape. S Afr J Wildl Res 9(3–4):39–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN et al (2001) Terrestrial ecoregion of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience 51:933–937. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith RN (1976) The problem of territoriality, with reference to the tragelaphine antelopes. Publ Univ Pretoria 97:80–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumptre AJ, Wronski T (2009) Tragelaphus scriptus. In: Kingdon JS, Hoffmann M (eds) The mammals of Africa, vol. 6. Pigs, deer, giraffe, bovids, and hippos. Academic, Amsterdam in press

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt DJ, Greenway PJ, Gwynne MD (1966) A classification of East African rangeland, with an appendix on terminology. J Appl Ecol 3:369–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiczigel J, Lang Z, Rózsa L, Tóthmérész B (2008) Measures of sociality: two different views of group size. Anim Behav 75:715–721. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.05.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinage CA (1968) The autecology of Uganda waterbuck (Kobus defassa ugandae) with special reference to territoriality and population controls. Ph.D. thesis, London University

  • Verheyen R (1955) Contribution a l'etude ethologique des du waterbuck (Kobus defassa ugandae) et de l'antelope harnachee (Tragelaphus scriptus). Mammalia 19(2):309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waser PM (1975) Spatial association and social interactions in a “solitary ungulate”: the bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus (Pallas). Z Tierpsychol 37:24–36

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • White F (1983) The vegetation of Africa. A descriptive memoir to accompany the UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map of Africa. UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Willows-Munro S, Robinson TJ, Matthee CA (2005) Utility of nuclear DNA intron markers at lower taxonomic levels: phylogenetic resolution among nine Tragelaphus spp. Mol Phylogenet Evol 35:624–636. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2005.01.018

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson VJ, Child GFT (1964) Notes on bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) from a tsetse fly control area in northern Rhodesia. Puku 2:118–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz P, Lörscher J (1982) Group size of antelopes in an East African National Park. Behaviour 83–84:135–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Wronski T (2004) The social and spatial organisation of bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus Pallas, 1766) in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. Ph.D. thesis, University of Hamburg

  • Wronski T (2005) Home range overlap and spatial organisation as indicators for territoriality among male bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). J Zool (Lond) 266:1–9. doi:10.1017/S0952836905006825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wronski T, Apio A (2006) Home range overlap, social vicinity and agonistic interactions denoting matrilineal organisation in bushbuck, Tragelaphus scriptus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:810–828. doi:10.1007/s00265-005-0128-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wronski T, Apio A, Baranga J, Plath M (2006) Scent marking, agonistic interactions and territorial defence in male bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). J Zool (Lond) 270(1):49–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Zandri E, Viskanic P (1992) Vegetation survey and mapping in the Queen Elizabeth National Park, Kyambura Game Reserve and Kigezi Game Reserve. Uganda National Parks, Technical Assistance to the Uganda Institute of Ecology, Commission of European Communities, EDF Project 6100.037.42.031

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the Research Division of the Uganda Wildlife Authority and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology for the permission to conduct the research projects in QENP and in LMNP/ARS. Both field studies were carried out with the permission of the abovementioned authorities and complied with the current law of Uganda. The QENP study was generously supported by a scholarship from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), and the LMNP/ARS study was funded by the German Technical Co-operation (GTZ), Tropical Ecology Support Program (TÖB). Ludwig Siefert, Makerere University, Uganda kindly assisted with veterinary support in QENP and Kyabulima Solomon helped with the collection of a considerable number of data. The collection of data in LMNP/ARS was carried out with the help of M. Turyaho(†), N. Abaho, G. Abigaba, C. Barigye, J. Kachwante, J. Balukku, W. Mwesigye, W. Karongo, M. Matovu, and R. Mbagaya. Special thanks go to the senior wardens in charge, A. Latif, O. Achoka, A. Mugisha, J. Serugo, and B. Nuwe as well as to the people of Nyabushozi and Bunyaruguru.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Conservation Programs, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London, NW1 4RY, UK

    Torsten Wronski

  2. King Khalid Wildlife Research Centre, National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, P.O. Box 61681, Riyadh, 11575, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Torsten Wronski

  3. Department of Veterinary Physiological Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda

    Ann Apio

  4. Unit of Evolutionary Biology and Systematic Zoology, Institute of Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht Str. 24–25, 14476, Potsdam, Germany

    Ann Apio

  5. 8, Burlington Road, Harare, Zimbabwe

    Christiane Averbeck

  6. Institute of Ecology, Evolution and Diversity, Department of Ecology and Evolution, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Siesmayerstrasse 70–72, 60054, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Martin Plath

Authors
  1. Torsten Wronski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann Apio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Plath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christiane Averbeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Torsten Wronski.

Additional information

Communicated by P. Heeb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wronski, T., Apio, A., Plath, M. et al. Do ecotypes of bushbuck differ in grouping patterns?. acta ethol 12, 71–78 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-009-0058-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-009-0058-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation