{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028201219512195123, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006859756097560976, 'mean_word_length': 5.698979591836735, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Elephants and water provision: what are the management links?

In a recent paper we demonstrated that elephant bull groups and mixed herds exhibited spatial and resource segregation across the Kruger National Park. It was found, inter alia, that both bull groups and mixed herds occurred more frequently closer to rivers than expected if they were randomly distributed, but that only bull groups occurred more frequently closer to the artificial waterholes. Although Chamaillé‐Jammes et al. (2007 ) accepted these results, they disagreed with our interpretation regarding the potential effect that closure of artificial waterholes might have. Here we address some of the specific concerns expressed and provide a broader context regarding water provision and elephant management. Although water provision can influence elephant density and distribution, we argue that the effectiveness of surface‐water manipulation as a management tool will depend on (1) natural surface‐water availability, (2) forage quality, (3) elephant densities, (4) position of a population on its growth trajectory, and (5) management objectives. Even though elephants are water‐dependent, the effectiveness of water provision as a management tool will therefore be area‐ and population‐specific and will depend on management objectives.