\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[greek,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{The population size and distribution of diurnal large wild mammals in
southern Great Rift Valley, Ethiopia}



\author[1]{Yacob Kassa}%
\author[2]{Wondimagegnehu Tekalign}%
\affil[1]{Affiliation not available}%
\affil[2]{Wolaita Sodo University}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 24, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
The study was carried out to assess the population size and distribution
of diurnal large wild mammals in southern Great Rift Valley, Ethiopia.
The study area was stratified into four habitat types; such as riverine
forest, and ground-water forest, grassland, and bushland. Samples of
animals were surveyed through the transect method. The total number of
mammals belonging to the 15 different species was 1681 and 1245 during
the wet and dry seasons. The Burchell's zebra, Anubis baboon, Vervet
monkey, and Grant's gazelle were the most abundant species; while,
Abyssinian hare and Bush duiker were the least abundant species. The
highest mammalian species has been supported by the bushland habitat
followed by open grassland, riverine forest, and ground-water forest in
both seasons. Despite the park is home to various types of mammalian
species, the management plan of the park should consider getting
sustainable benefits from the mammalian species in the future.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Introduction}

The diurnal large mammals have a special role in maintaining important
ecological healthy functions of terrestrial ecosystems and are good
indicators of the habitat value (Estes et al. 2011). Particularly, the
large predators often shape the population size, distribution, and
behavioral activities of the prey population (Berger et al. 2001); and
the large herbivores act as ecological engineers by changing the
structure and species composition of the vegetation (Dinerstein 2003).
Beyond the direct species interaction, the mammalian species manipulate
the whole ecosystem through cascading trophic effects (Berger et al.
2001; Crooksand Soule 1999).

The high diversity of large mammals is a natural feature of the African
tropical savanna biomes and the present distribution of such species
within the topographically diverse Rift Valley region of the East
African savanna (Turpie and Crowe 1994).

Understanding the distribution, abundance, and habitat requirements of
mammalian species is basic to establish a baseline for its long-term
monitoring at a particular site. Even though high mammalian species
diversity is present in Ethiopia, its mammalian species are extremely
declining, and there is little information about the mammalian resources
(Girma et al. 2012). Nech Sar National Park is one of the protected
areas in Southern Ethiopia which was thought to be home to a variety of
wildlife including large mammals (Vreugdenhil et al. 2012).
Nevertheless, only very little published information exists about large
mammalian species.

Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the population size and
distribution of diurnal large wild mammals along systematically laid
transects in the study area. It will strongly believe that, contribute
in the filling of some information gaps and significant to provide the
current information on the large mammals for the strong management
actions in the park area.

\textbf{Methods and materials}

\emph{The study area}

Nech Sar National Park is one of the National Parks of southern Ethiopia
with various wonders (Fig. 1). The Park was established in 1974 in the
scenic part of the Rift Valley floor between the Lakes Abaya and Chamo
adjacent to the Arbaminch town. It comprises 514km\textsuperscript{2},
of which 85\% island covered and 15\% as water (EWCA 1999). It is
located between the coordinates of 5051'N to 6050'N latitude and 37032'E
to 37048' E longitudes with the elevation ranging between 1108 m to1650
m asl. The temperature ranges from 12.2\textsuperscript{0}C to
34.3\textsuperscript{0}C.

The lakes and lakeshore areas are an interesting component of the great
biodiversity of the park ecosystem. The Lake Chamo supports a high
density of very large Nile crocodiles with a particular concentration of
them at the beach known as the Crocodile Market, the largest hippo
population in Ethiopia, abundant fish including Nile perch and
water-related birds. The Nech Sar plains are the dominant feature of the
National Park and the main source of food for grazing animals.

\emph{Methods}

The study area was stratified into four main study units or census zones
based on the main vegetation types and data was collected from these
census zones; such as riverine forest, and ground-water forest (67.5
km\textsuperscript{2}), grassland (270 km\textsuperscript{2}), and
bushland (80.87 km\textsuperscript{2}) census zones through
line-transect survey following the work of Sutherland (2006). Out of the
possible transects formed in each area of the census zone, several
representative samples of transect were randomly selected and marked for
sampling using random numbers.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image1/image1}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 1} : Location map of Nech Sar National Park (Source:
Kelboro and Stellmacher 2012)

A total of 16 transect lines; six for grassland, five for bushland, four
for the ground-water forest, and the remaining one for the riverine
forest was established. The sampling transects selected from each census
zone represented about 25-30\% of each census zone (Yates 1960) (Table
1). The study was conducted during both the dry (December-February) and
wet (March-May) seasons. A survey was conducted using GPS and binocular
in each randomly selected block along the selected transects. The
transect width varied between 100 m up to 500 m. The variation was
determined based on the type of vegetation cover of each of the census
zone. The length of transects also varied from 3.5 to 5 km and it was
determined based on the type of ecological units (Figure 2, 3, 4, and
5).

The survey was conducted on foot along the established transects
observing the prevailing mammals on each transect's left and right
sides. Two observers were involved in collecting data from the left and
the right side of each line transect. Both were assigned to the left or
right side of the transect line and scanned the route with the
spotlight. Intensive transect samplings were carried out to maximize
sampling effort. Accordingly, all transects were visited bi-monthly
during the data collection periods of both wet and dry seasons. To
enhance sampling effort, in a single visit, each transect was walked
twice, early in the morning during 06:00-10:00 am and late in the
afternoon 03:00- 06:00 pm when the wild animals were more active.

Table 1: Number, length, width, and proportion for randomly selected
transects\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
Census zones & Potential Transects & Sampled Transects & Length and
width of transects (km x km) & Proportion\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Ground-water Forest & 13 & 4 & 3.5x0.1 & 30.00\tabularnewline
Riverine Forest & 4 & 1 & 4.5 x 0.1 & 25.00\tabularnewline
Bushland & 16 & 5 & 3.5x 0.3 & 30.00\tabularnewline
Grassland & 20 & 6 & 5 x0.5 & 30.00\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image2/image2}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 2} : Map of sampled transect in riverine forest habitat\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image3/image3}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 3} : Map of sampled transects in ground water forest
habitat\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image4/image4}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 4} : Map of random transects in bush land habitat\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image5/image5}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 5} : Map of random transect in grassland habitat

Whenever an individual or group of mammals were observed, group size,
sighting distance as the distance from each line transect to the
geometric center of the groups or individual, and the sighting angle
between the transect line and individual or group were recorded on the
datasheet. The perpendicular distance from the transect line to the
animal was calculated. The same transect was used to carry out a census
during the investigation period. When the animals were observed,
vegetation or other obstacles might hinder clear visibility. Then the
observer silently approached them by leaving the transect route;
however, the sighting distance was measured from the centerline to the
animals. Double recording of the same individual or group in a single
visit was avoided to the extent possible using easily recognizable
features of the individual or group size and composition.

For the purpose of this study, the large mammals were defined as all
mammals focus on herbivores and primates with an average weight of [?]2 kg
and were detected with direct observation. Identification and recording
numbers of huge mammalian species were made through direct observation
with naked eyes and/or aided with binocular (7 x 50 mm imaging). Kingdon
and Largen's (2003) field guidebook was used for the identification of
mammals. Field identification of diurnal mammalian species was done
based on visible morphological characters. To have clear pictures of
each mammal the observer noise was minimized to zero levels. The
location point of each mammalian species whether group or individual in
the field at each vegetation type was also identified and recorded using
GPS to map their distribution.

In order to understand the views of the local people in relation to the
wildlife resource of the park, a focus group interview was undertaken
with the experts, representatives of the local communities, and park
scouts who are working in and living around the park.

\emph{Data analysis}

The data collected in the present study were analyzed by the use of SPSS
version 20. The chi-square test was also used to compare the seasonal
variations in species composition and abundance of individuals among
habitats at 0.05 levels of significance. The abundance of mammalian
species in each of the habitats was calculated as follows: Abundance =
the total number of individuals of the species/ sampled habitats.

\section*{Results}

{\label{results}}

During the present investigation, a total number of 15 diurnal large
mammalian species (herbivores and primates) were identified and recorded
in the Nech Sar National Park in both the dry and wet seasons. In the
survey, all of these species were recorded within the randomly selected
sampling habitats of the four major habitat types. The numbers of
mammals recorded in the four habitat types of the park were; in the
grassland habitat, 568 and 351 followed by bushland 506 and 326,
ground-water forest 341 and 354, and riverine forest habitat with 266
and 214, during both wet and dry seasons, respectively (Table 2 and3).
Seasonal variations in abundance of individuals between wet and dry
seasons in ground-water forest habitat (\selectlanguage{greek}χ\selectlanguage{english}2 = 43, df =1,
p\textless{}0.05), riverine forest (\selectlanguage{greek}χ\selectlanguage{english}2 = 52.10, df = 1,
p\textless{}0.05), bushland (\selectlanguage{greek}χ\selectlanguage{english}2 = 38, df = 2, p\textless{}0.05) and
grassland habitat (\selectlanguage{greek}χ\selectlanguage{english}2 = 56, df =2, p\textless{}0.05), respectively were
significantly different.

Table 2: The relative abundance of large mammals during the wet and dry
seasons\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llllll@{}}
\toprule
Common name & Species name & Season & Season & Season &
Season\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
& & Wet & Wet & Dry & Dry\tabularnewline
& & Number of Mammals & Relative Abundance & Number of Mammals &
Relative Abundance\tabularnewline
Burchell's zebra & \emph{Equus burchellii} & 501 & 29.80 & 343 &
27.55\tabularnewline
Anubis baboon & \emph{Papio anubis} & 412 & 24.51 & 332 &
26.67\tabularnewline
Vervet monkey & \emph{Chlorocebus pygerythrus} & 157 & 9.34 & 116 &
9.32\tabularnewline
Grants gazelle & \emph{Nanger granti} & 151 & 8.98 & 94 &
7.55\tabularnewline
Colobus monkey & \emph{Colobus guereza} & 124 & 7.38 & 135 &
10.84\tabularnewline
Warthog & \emph{Phacochoerus africanus} & 63 & 3.75 & 41 &
3.29\tabularnewline
Hippopotamus & \emph{Hippopotamus amphibious} & 53 & 3.15 & 28 &
2.25\tabularnewline
Greater kudu & \emph{Tragelaphus strepsiceros} & 48 & 2.86 & 28 &
2.25\tabularnewline
Lesser kudu & \emph{Tragelaphus imberbis} & 36 & 2.14 & 25 &
2.01\tabularnewline
Water buck & \emph{Kobus ellipsiprymnus} & 32 & 1.90 & 35 &
2.81\tabularnewline
Bushbuck & \emph{Tragelaphus sylvaticus} & 32 & 1.90 & 37 &
2.97\tabularnewline
Guenther's dik-dik & \emph{Madoqua guentheri} & 26 & 1.55 & 6 &
0.48\tabularnewline
Bushpig & \emph{Potamochoerus larvatus} & 25 & 1.49 & 12 &
0.96\tabularnewline
Abyssinian hare & \emph{Lepush abessinicus} & 15 & 0.89 & 9 &
0.73\tabularnewline
Bush duiker & \emph{Sylvica pragirmma} & 6 & 0.36 & 4 &
0.32\tabularnewline
Total & Total & 1681 & 100 & 1245 & 100\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

There was no difference in the total number of mammalian species
recorded during both seasons. The total number of mammals belonging to
the different species recorded during the wet season survey was
1681(57.45\%); while in the dry season it was 1245(42.55\%). There was a
marked difference in the total number of mammals recorded during the dry
and wet seasons (\selectlanguage{greek}χ\selectlanguage{english}2 = 127.309, df = 1, p\textless{}0.05).

The relative abundance of different mammalian species of the study area
varied from 0.36 to 29.80\% in the wet season and from 0.32 to 27.55 \%
in the dry season. The most abundant species in the sampled area during
the wet and dry season as Burchell's zebra (n=501, and n=343), Anubis
baboon (n=412, and n=332), Vervet monkey (n=157, and n=116), Grant's
gazelle (n=151, and n=94) and Colobus monkey (n=124, and n=135),
respectively. This was followed by Warthog (n=63, and n=41),
Hippopotamus (n=53, and n=28) and Greater kudu (n=48, and n=28);
respectively. Abyssinian hare (n=15, and n=9), and Bush duiker (n=6, and
n=4) were the least abundant species in the study area in both wet and
dry seasons, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3: Relative abundance of large mammals in four habitat types
during the wet and dry season\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llllllllll@{}}
\toprule
Common name & Species name & GWF & GWF & RF & RF & BL & BL & GL &
GL\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
& & Wet & Dry & Wet & Dry & Wet & Dry & Wet & Dry\tabularnewline
Burchell's zebra & \emph{Equus burchellii} & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 &
37.75 & 42.94 & 54.58 & 57.83\tabularnewline
Anubis baboon & \emph{Papio anubis} & 50.73 & 46.61 & 52.63 & 51.87 &
12.65 & 11.96 & 6.16 & 4.84\tabularnewline
Vervet monkey & \emph{Chlorocebus pygerythrus} & 26.98 & 24.29 & 14.66 &
7.48 & 5.14 & 4.29 & 0.00 & 0.00\tabularnewline
Grants gazelle & \emph{Nanger granti} & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 7.11
& 7.06 & 20.25 & 20.23\tabularnewline
Colobus monkey & \emph{Colobus guereza} & 15.25 & 22.88 & 12.78 & 25.23
& 7.50 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00\tabularnewline
Warthog & \emph{Phacochoerus africanus} & 3.81 & 2.54 & 6.02 & 4.67 &
4.55 & 3.99 & 1.94 & 2.56\tabularnewline
Hippopotamus & \emph{Hippopotamus amphibious} & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 &
0.00 & 6.32 & 6.13 & 3.70 & 2.28\tabularnewline
Greater kudu & \emph{Tragelaphus strepsiceros} & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.88 &
1.87 & 3.16 & 4.29 & 4.75 & 2.85\tabularnewline
Lesser kudu & \emph{Tragelaphus imberbis} & 0.00 & 0.85 & 5.26 & 6.08 &
3.56 & 5.83 & 0.00 & 0.00\tabularnewline
Water buck & \emph{Kobus ellipsiprymnus} & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 &
2.77 & 2.77 & 3.87 & 4.56\tabularnewline
Bushbuck & \emph{Tragelaphus sylvaticus} & 0.00 & 0.00 & 2.63 & 0.93 &
2.96 & 7.06 & 1.76 & 3.43\tabularnewline
Bushpig & \emph{Potamochoerus larvatus} & 2.35 & 1.69 & 3.38 & 1.87 &
1.58 & 0.61 & 0.00 & 0.00\tabularnewline
Guenther's dik-dik & \emph{Madoqua guentheri} & 0.59 & 0.00 & 0.76 &
0.00 & 2.57 & 1.23 & 1.58 & 0.57\tabularnewline
Abyssinian hare & \emph{Lepush abessinicus} & 0.29 & 0.85 & 0.00 & 0.00
& 1.19 & 1.53 & 1.41 & 0.28\tabularnewline
Bush duiker & \emph{Sylvica pragirmma} & 0.00 & 0.29 & 0.00 & 0.00 &
1.19 & 0.31 & 0.00 & 0.57\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

(GWF=Ground-water Forest, RF=Riverine Forest, BL=Bushland and
GL=Grassland)

The relative abundance of mammalian species in the groundwater forest
habitat was varied between 0-50.73\% and 0--46.61\% during the wet and
dry season, respectively. In the riverine forest habitat, it was between
0--52.63\% and between 0-51.87\% in the wet and dry season,
respectively. For the bushland habitat it was between 1.19--37.75\% and
0.31-42.94\% in the wet and dry season, respectively. While in the
grassland habitat, the relative abundance was between 0-54.58 \% and
0-57.83 percent during the wet and dry season, respectively (Table 3).

According to the responses of the discussants and observation in the
study area, the following four major and most pronounced conservation
challenges of the park were identified during the study period.

Currently, Guji (denoted `Ganda Irgansa') Oromo people are transforming
from a pastoralist way of subsistence to the establishment of permanent
settlement, particularly they reside in two main villages (Kebeles)
(Oddu Darba and Irgaansa/Ganda Kebele). The Oddu Darba Kebele is found
out of the traditional park boundary (15 km to the northeast), while the
Irgaansa/Ganda Irgansa Kebele is completely inhabiting inside the park
(Figure 6). Based on the direct observation, interview, and focus group
discussions carried out, this research argues that the need of
establishing a strong settlement on an agricultural base is the latest
occurrence.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image6/image6}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 6} : Irgaansa Kebele settlements in Nech Sar National
Park (Photo by Yacob Kassa, 2018)

The local people living adjacent to the Nech Sar National Park replied
that there was illegal hunting practice on most mammals for the purpose
of feeding and to utilize them for disease resistance. Previously, the
poaching activities of mammals particularly Warthog, Grant's gazelle,
the Greater kudu, and Lesser kudu were the most common in the park. This
occurs especially in the site of the Guji people area. The local hunters
kill a large number of Warthog for tuberculosis disease resistance.
Since the people was a pastoralist, the mammal's Grants gazelle, the
Greater kudu, and Lesser kudu were killed for their food purpose during
the study period (Table 4). According to the witness obtained from the
park experts and archives, poaching and illegal wildlife trade
activities in and around the park as well as the unwise use of natural
resources have been the major problems facing the Park area, and have
led to the extinction of some mammalian fauna species (e.g.; the
endangered endemic subspecies of Swayne hartebeest (\emph{Alcelaphus
buselaphus swaynei} ) was locally extinct due to the reason of illegal
hunting in the park during the past few years).

Table 4: Number of killed animals during the study period in NSNP\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llll@{}}
\toprule
Species name & Number & Purpose & Measures taken\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Greater kudu & 4 & Food & Had not taken\tabularnewline
Lions & 11 & Unknown & Had not taken\tabularnewline
Lesser kudu & 2 & Food & Had not taken\tabularnewline
Grants gazelle & 8 & Food & Had not taken\tabularnewline
African python & 3 & Unknown & Had not taken\tabularnewline
Hippopotamus & 2 & Unknown & Had not taken\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Source : Nech Sar National Park office

The Guji~people considered~Nech~Sar~grassland~plains, the~Park's~core
conservation~area as their main grazing land, and the Abaya and Chamo
Lakesas crucial sources for watering their cattle. The Sermelle River of
the Park area is also an alternative source to water the cattle.
However, the water from the two lakes is preferred by the livestock due
to its salty taste. Securing access to grazing for cattle is extremely
important for Guji people because their cattle are integral parts of
their life. They have highly dependent on the cattle and their products
as the source of their diet and income (Figure 7).\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image7/image7}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 7} : Livestock grazing inside the park (Photo by Yacob
Kassa, 2018)

Deforestation in the park illegally occurred by the local community for
their basic needs. The Park is surrounded by intensive agricultural
activities and increasing human settlements, which have been evidenced
by already cleared trees in and/or surrounding the Park area (Figure 8
and 9). A large amount of fuelwood in the park is collected by
inhabitants that illegally exist in the park. Another cause for cutting
trees from the park is the need for wood of small canoes required to
practice the lakes for fishing and shipping. The loss of indigenous
vegetation in the park is also caused by livestock grazing needs. As the
human population increases, so do the livestock populations nearby the
park. With less and less land available for grazing, local pastoralists
are taking their cattle into the National Park for fodder.

Arba Minch town shares an immediate border of about 15 km with Nech Sar
National Park. The discussion made with the discussants revealed that
fuelwood collection is also being considered as the major source of
livelihood for many inhabitants of the city. People from neighboring
districts are also believed to come to Arba Minch city to be engaged in
fuelwood collection as a source of additional income generation and
means of livelihood.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image8/image8}

\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image9/image9}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 8} : Charcoal productions by men \textbf{Figure 9} :
Firewood collection by women

(Photo by Yacob Kassa, 2018)

\textbf{Discussion}

Large mammals' distribution and abundance in the present study were
highly associated with the habitat types. In this study, the bushland
habitat has supported the highest number of mammalian species followed
by open grassland, riverine forest, and ground-water forest in both wet
and dry seasons. A similar result was obtained by Lemma and Tekalign
(2020) in the Humbo Community Based Forest, in which the highest numbers
of mammals were found in the bushland area, followed by the open
grassland, while the riverine forest supported the least number of
mammalian species. Whereas, the study of Chane and Yirga (2014) in
Borena-Sayint National Park indicated that, woodland habitat has
supported the highest number of mammalian species followed by the
riverine forest and open grassland habitat, respectively. The possible
reason for this distribution of large mammalian species might be due to
the presence of food, and water, and stability of the area from the
human disturbances. According to Tolcha et al. (2021), the availability
of quality forage and other resources determines the habitat preference
and association of ungulates. Large mammals in this study area had no
consistent distribution among the habitat types. Therefore, their
abundance significantly varies among habitats between seasons.
Balakrishinan and Easa (1986) also described that water and pasture
conditions or the combinations of both are the major factors determining
the distribution of wildlife populations in their natural habitats.

The five large mammalian species, the Burchell's zebra, Anubis baboon,
Vervet monkey, Grants gazelle, and Colobus monkey were the most abundant
in both wet and dry seasons. The Burchell's zebra and Grants gazelle
were favored in the bushland and open grassland habitats. Whereas,
Anubis baboon was found in all the four habitats and, Vervet monkey and
Colobus monkey were totally absent from the open and bushy grassland.
This might be attributed to the feeding behavior that it is adapted to
feed on a variety of food items. Kingdon and Largen (2003) described
that primates commonly need forested areas with tall trees. A large
number of Colobus monkey individuals were recorded in the present study
from the different habitats during both wet and dry seasons. Some
mammalian species including Guenther's dik-dik, Bushpig, Abyssinian
hare, and Bush duiker were the least abundant during this study.
Burchell's zebra or plains zebra was closely associated with the
availability of water and edible grasses. The present study showed that
plains zebra lives in areas where few other plain ungulates and
livestock also depend upon. The number of individuals of Lesser kudu
that was recorded in the habitats of open grassland and bushland during
both seasons is comparable with the individuals recorded by Stuart and
Stuart (2000). These animals had been frequently occurred in the open
woodland, less frequent in the wooded grasslands, and the least observed
in shrublands and open grassland areas. These animals were hardly
observed in dense forests, riverine forests, and water-logged areas. The
habitat choice of animals in the study area probably is a consequence of
competition and predation, which allow species to coexist. The number of
individuals of large mammals recorded during the wet season surpassed
the number recorded during the dry season. In the open grassland and
ground-water forest area was the common habitat for livestock and human
encroachment, which was thought to be ideal habitat for the Burchell's
zebra and Anubis baboon species.

Gundogdu (2011) showed that livestock and human encroachments often
reduce the foraging opportunities of the wild mammals, which in turn
reduce the mammal's opportunities of being sighted (Figure 10). Doku et
al. (2006) recorded that, a total of 7587 heads of cattle and goats from
the households in the nearby villages of Nech Sar National Park. Fetene
et al. (2019) indicated that, within the Nech Sar National Park, between
2005 and 2013, the number of livestock has increased by half. Higher
grazing pressure depreciates the scenery and the visibility of the
wildlife species of the park (Fetene et al. 2011). Besides, firewood
collection and harvesting of grasses were higher in the dry season, thus
reducing the sighting of mammals. According to Fetene et al. (2019),
fuelwood and construction wood gathering are also every day activities
that highly have an effect on the wildlife habitats of the park. Fetene
et al. (2011) also identified that grazing deteriorates the scenery and
the wildlife visibility diminishing greatly over time and putting
obstacles for the income-generating from ecotourism activities of the
park.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image10/image10}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 10} : Map showing major illegal activities in the study
area (Source: Nechi Sar National Park)

The personal observation during the study period indicated that the park
was surrounded by agricultural communities from its eastern and western
boundaries that might cause the expansion of settlement in and/or around
the park. Girma and Stellmacher (2012) stated that the wildlife species
might be decline as the level of development in the surrounding natural
habitat has increased through the modification of vegetation structure
and composition by the human settler.

The study indicated that poaching is the leading among the list of
problems in over 85\% of the Parks. Kolahi et al. (2012) investigated
that, poaching is one of the greatest threats to the conservation of
wildlife. Onadeko (2004) indicated that poaching is associated to the
roles of wildlife species in cultural ceremonies and therefore the
traditional marriage of the local people. The discussion made with the
discussants indicated that the local people are involving in poaching
for the purpose of getting food and to keep their families from pandemic
diseases like malaria.

The present study shows that deforestation through fuelwood collection
and charcoal production followed by grass cutting was the prominent
threat to the park. This was mostly exercised by the poor local
communities as a means of their livelihood via selling, and this was
discussed and agreed upon by the park experts. The widespread use, as
well as potential harvesting of the forest products, can have impacts on
forested landscapes and wildlife habitats. Even though charcoal
production is an important economic activity and an important source of
energy in developing countries, it is being however conducted informally
without any license (Bekele 2011). The research done by Mulat et al.
(2004) proved that charcoal making and selling were the major non-farm
employment along the main roads of the country which exposes the fragile
ecosystem for severe deterioration. Luoga et al. (2000) explained that
charcoal is a cheap commodity that requires low-priced, affordable, and
readily available metal or ceramic stoves in the market as compared to
electric and gas stoves for cooking purposes.

Therefore, there is a need for intervention by various stakeholders
including the adjacent communities, to alleviate such devastating
effects of the area on the existing wildlife resources with special
consideration for the large mammalian fauna of the park. The Ethiopian
Wildlife Conservation Authority should also design an appropriate
management plan to upgrade the current status with all the logistics and
personnel are recommended as a long-range conservation measure to
safeguard the ecosystem and the resources existing in the Nech Sar
National Park.

\textbf{Acknowledgments}

We would like to thank Wolaita Sodo University and, Southern Nations
Nationalities, and People's Regional State Culture and Tourism Bureau
for the permit. We are also grateful to the local people and the staff
of the NechSar National Park.

\textbf{Declarations}

\textbf{Funding}

This research didn't receive any specific grant from funding agencies
within the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

\textbf{Competing interests}

The authors declare as there are no competing interests.

\textbf{Availability of data and material ~}

Data sharing isn't applicable to the present manuscript as no datasets
were generated or analyzed during the current study.

\textbf{Authors' contributions}

All authors contributed to the study's conception and project design.
Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by
Yacob Kassa and Wondimagegnehu Tekalign. The first draft of the
manuscript was written by Yacob Kassa and all authors commented on
previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the
manuscript.

\textbf{Ethics approval}

This study~was conducted~in accordance with~the declaration of Helsinki
that provides guidance for the researcher to protect research subjects.
The study~was approved~by the Institutional Research Review Board (IRB)
of~Wolaita~Sodo~University.

\textbf{Consent to participate}

Consent to participation isn't applicable to the present article.

\textbf{Consent for publication}

All authors agreed to the general public this original research work.

\textbf{References}

Balakrishinan, M. and Easa, P.S. (1986). Habitat preference of large
mammals in the Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary. Kerala, India. Biol.
Conserv.\textbf{37}
:191-200.https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(86)90081-9.

Bekele, M. (2011). Forest plantations and woodlots in Ethiopia. A
platform for stakeholders in African Forestry. African Forest Forum
Working Series \textbf{1:} 12-24.

Berger, J., Stacey, P.B., Bellisand, L. and Johnson. P. (2001). A
mammalian predator--prey imbalance: grizzly bear and wolf extinction
affect avian neotropical migrants. Ecol. Appl. \textbf{11} : 947--960.

Chane, M. and Yirga, S. (2014). Diversity of Medium and Large-sized
Mammals in Borena-Sayint National Park, South Wollo, Ethiopia. Int. J.
Sci.: Basic Appl. \textbf{15} (1): 95-106.

Crooks, K.R.and Soule,M.E. (1999). Mesopredator release and avian faunal
extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563--566.

Dinerstein, E. (2003). The Return of the Unicorns. New York: Columbia
University Press, pp. 673.

Doku, Y., Bekele, A. and Balakrishnan, M. (2006). Human impact on the
plains Zebra population in Nechisar Plains.Nechisar National Park,
Ethiopia. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci. \textbf{32} (2):137-142.

Estes, J.A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J.S., Power, M.E., Berger, J.,
Bond, W.J., Carpenter, S.R., Essington, T.E., Holt, R.D., Jackson,
J.B.C., Marquis, R.J., Oskanen, L., Oskanen, T., Paine, R.T., Pikitch,
E.K., Ripple, W.J., Sandin, S.A., Scheffer, M., Schoener, T.W., Shurin,
J.B., SInclair, A.R.E., Soule, M.E., Virtanen, R., and Wardle, D.A.
(2011). Trophic downgrading of the planet earth. Sci.\textbf{333}
:301-306. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1205106

EWCA (Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority) (1999). General
description of the NechSar National Park produced Information Bulletin,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: EWCA.

Fetene, A., Mengesha, G. and Bekele, T. (2011). Spatial distribution and
habitat preferences of selected large mammalian species in the Nech Sar
National Park (NSNP), Ethiopia. Nat. Sci. \textbf{9} :80-90.

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 NechSar National Park. Environ. Syst.
Res.\textbf{8} :19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-019-0147-z.

Girma, Z., Mammo,Y., and Ersado, M. (2012). Species Composition,
Distribution and Relative Abundance of Large Mammals in and around Wondo
Genet Forest Patch, Southern Ethiopia. Asian J. Appl. Sci. 5(8):
538-551. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajaps.2012.538.551

Girma, K. and Stellmacher, T. (2012). Contesting the National Park
theorem. Governance and land use in Nechsar National Park, Ethiopia.
Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, ZEF Working Paper
Series 1864-6638.

Gundogdu, E. (2011). Population size, structure, and behaviors of wild
goat in Cehennemdere wildlife improvement area. Asian J. Anim. Vet.
Adv.\textbf{6} : 555-563.https://doi.org/10.3923/ajava.2011.555.563

Kelboro, G. and Stellmacher, T. (2012). Contesting the National Park
theorem? Governance and land use in NechSar National Park, Ethiopia.
Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, ZEF Working Paper
Series1864-6638.

Kingdon, J., and Largen, M. (2003). The Kingdon Field Guide to African
Mammals. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. \textbf{120} (4): 479.{[}Google Scholar{]}

Kolahi, M., Sakai, T., Moriya, K. and Makhdoum, M.F. (2012). Challenges
to the future development of Iran's protected areas system. Environ.
Manage. \textbf{50} :750-765.

Lemma, A. and Tekalign, W. (2020). Abundance, Species Diversity, and
Distribution of DiurnalMammals in Humbo Community-Based Forest Area,
Southern Ethiopia. Int. J. Zool. Volume 2020, Article ID 5761697.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5761697.

Luoga, E. J., Witkowski, E.T.F. and Balkwill, K. (2000). Subsistence use
of tree products and shifting Cultivation within a miombo woodland of
eastern Tanzania, with some notes on commercial uses. S. Afr. J.
Bot.\textbf{66} :72-85.

Mulat, D., Fantu, G. and Tadelle, F. (2004). Agricultural development in
Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp.12-62.

Onadeko, S.A. (2004). Home on the range: crises, consequences and
consolations. Unaab Inaugural Lecture Series no.17.University of
Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria. Pp. 86.

Stuart, C. and Stuart, T. (2000). Field Guide to the Large Mammals of
Africa. Cape Town, South Africa: Struik Publisher, Cape Town.

Sutherland, W.J. (2006). Ecological Census Techniques: a handbook,
2\textsuperscript{nd} ed. USA: Cambridge University Press. New York.

Tolcha, A., Shibru, S. and Ayechew, B. (2021). Population Status and
Habitat Association of Swayne's Hartebeest (\emph{Alcelaphus buselaphus
swaynei} ; Sclater, 1892) in Maze National Park, Southern
Ethiopia.bioRxiv 2021.01.07.425692; doi:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.07.425692.

Turpie, J.K., and Crowe, T.M. (1994). Patterns of distribution,
diversity, and endemism of larger African mammals. Afr. J.
Zool.\textbf{29} : 19--32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02541858.1994.11448322

Vreugdenhil, D., Vreugdenhil, A.M., Tilahun, T., Shimelis, A., and
Tefera, Z. (2012). Gap analysis of the protected areas system of
Ethiopia. Ethiopia: EWCA, Addis Ababa.

Yates, F. (1960). Sampling Methods for Censuses and Surveys. UK: Charles
Griffin and Co. Ltd. London.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

