During last season’s drought in the Kruger National Park, there were calls for park management to provide the animals with additional water. Wild asked Izak Smit, Science Manager: Systems Ecology, GIS and Remote Sensing, to shed light on the use of artificial waterholes.
Did the drought impact various parts of Kruger in different ways, and are these effects still visible?
Although the entire park received below average rainfall during the 2015/2016 rainfall season, the drought was most severe in the central and southern parts of the park where the lowest rainfall was recorded. In fact, for some rainfall stations it was the lowest rainfall recorded in history, with Skukuza receiving for the first time less than 200mm within a climatic year.
-
- The drought was most severe in the central and southern parts of the Kruger National Park.
What are the current conditions in the park?
On average, most of the park experienced normal rainfall over the past rainfall season, and as such the plants that animals depend on for food (forage) have recovered well in most areas. Our intensive field monitoring data show that grasses south of the Olifants River (where the drought was most severe) have increased from on average 1,051kg/hectare during the drought to on average 3,264kg/hectare during the past season.
Nonetheless, the rainfall was very variable across the park and whilst certain rainfall stations recorded good rainfall, other stations experienced another dry year. For example, Lower Sabie Camp had more than double its average long term rainfall (1,256mm), whilst Olifants Camp had another dry year and recorded only 312mm in the past rainfall season (63% of long-term average).
The following satellite images show the difference in vegetation and greenness between the end of the growing season in 2016 and 2017. The more red an area, the lower the greenness, and vice versa for more green areas.
-
- During droughts animals mostly die due to a lack of food, not due to a lack of water.
Surface water is widely available as pools in seasonal streams and springs, and all the perennial rivers are flowing, with good storage in upstream catchment dams.
Why did the Kruger National Park decide to close down some artificial waterholes?
When artificially provided water is widely available, it can impact the ecosystem negatively in a number of ways. Firstly, it may change the number of herbivores and their distribution. For example, if you place a waterhole in a certain area of the park where water does not occur naturally, then water dependent species like hippo, buffalo and elephant may settle in that area or visit the area more frequently. This may have knock-on effects such as a shortage of food and changes in predator behaviour. Ultimately this may disadvantage certain less water dependent species like sable and roan.
Secondly, if water attracts more herbivores into a specific area, the effect of these animals on the environment will also change markedly. If you locate a waterhole in a certain area, the grazing and browsing patterns change and will impact the environment. For example, if you place a waterhole in an area that used to be waterless, then elephant impact on trees in that area may increase. In short, artificial waterholes favour certain species (animals and plants alike). If artificial waterholes are available across the landscape, it will most likely have negative implications for other species.
Wouldn’t the waterholes have helped animals during the drought?
It’s a misconception that a high density of waterholes during droughts would be of benefit. In fact, most herbivores that die during droughts die due to the lack of food rather than the lack of water. Simply stated, if you provide a lot of waterholes, the number of water-dependent herbivores can increase unnaturally in years leading up to a drought, reducing food availability during the ensuing drought and increasing starvation-induced deaths. What’s more, veld condition is also affected as grazing is spread over a wider landscape. In short, by providing water, you can reduce the food available during droughts, which may ultimately increase the number of animals that die.
Rather than taking artificial waterholes to tourist roads, a better alternative is to take tourist roads to natural water sources.
Waterholes make for great game viewing opportunities. Aren’t visitors losing out now?
We need to balance tourism and conservation objectives. At the height of the water provision programme there were more than 350 boreholes providing water for game in the park. Clearly an unnatural situation for a “semi-arid” savanna system. Many of these waterholes were not even close to tourist roads. As such, we started closing some of them since the mid-1990s when the water provision policy was changed after careful consideration and consultation and in line with scientific understanding. Although the number of artificial waterholes has been significantly reduced since then, there are still many operational waterholes available for tourists to visit and it is not our intention to remove all of them.
What’s more, in some areas we have also started to take tourist roads to (natural) water sources, instead of the other way around of taking (artificial) waterholes to tourist roads! This way we can achieve our tourism objectives without compromising our conservation mandate. In my opinion this also provides a more authentic wilderness experience – a river pool makes for much better ambience and photos than a cement trough or earthen dam. One such example is the recently opened one-way loop road (off the H1-4) next to the Ngotso Stream, where the artificial Ngotso Dam was recently breached.
Kruger is also increasingly investing energy into ensuring that the rivers flowing through the park are in a good condition and receive the water necessary to keep the system healthy. This is achieved through active monitoring of the rivers and constant engagement and interaction with our shared river users outside the park and the Department of Water and Sanitation.
These measures illustrate that we are passionate about ensuring conservation is not compromised, whilst ensuring the tourism product in Kruger remains of a high standard.
-
- During the past drought, the Kruger actively engaged with other water users in the catchments in order to ensure the park’s perennial rivers kept flowing, benefiting all water users along the river.
What can visitors do to be even more water wise when visiting the park?
To be honest, I think this is the wrong question – visitors should not only use water wisely when visiting Kruger, but wherever they are. The water visitors use at their homes and work, wherever that may be, a city or a town, comes from an ecosystem that sustains biodiversity… Maybe not hippos like in Kruger, but a myriad of other living things like insects, fish, plants, etc.
Modern society has become so removed from resources we often don’t realise that whenever we open the tap, the water comes from an ecosystem that is providing a ‘service’ to us. The same applies to our use of electricity – we need to be reminded that water does not come from a tap, and electricity does not come from a plug!
During the midst of the drought a remark by my five-year old son brought the message home. As we were doing the dishes, he said we should use water sparingly as the hippos have little water left in the Sabie River. I realised then that he understood something many of us adults often forget or choose to ignore for our own comfort!
Just a thought, when you see the rivers in full flow and this water just hurtles down to the coastline and into the sea. Would it not be feasible instead of building more artificial water holes s to build m.ore dams / catchment areas wherein we can keep some of the water for a period of time before drying up for winter months. Also in doing so living quarters for hippos
What about the areas the water flows through on its way to the sea? By building dams, you are taking water away from people, animals, and plants near those waterways downstream. That is part of the problem for Kruger in fact – dams UPSTREAM from Kruger take water from the game reserve. Kruger has the problem that none of the main rivers has its source within the game reserve itself. Therefore the water that flows through the Park has already been impacted by what happens outside it – dams, industries, built-up areas and settlements that use (and often pollute) the water.
Hallo …………..IZAK
Chris here,……I wrote about this water-matter 3 times, twice directley to SAN PARKS and once to Sanpark Times( they did not publish my letter) …………me and my family visit the Park ,60 years , for me and the wife , and about 35 years ,for the kids
WE and YOU must remember if something worked for a hunderd years !, WHY ? changed it ???? at this moment and time we and many South Afrikans CANT ! afford to visit Kruger any more, ………Sanparks cater for the oversees visitors !!!! , NB !, now IF ? we CAN ? , go , it is only for a few days …………!!, okay , now the people get there , going out for the day , and what do they find ?, several dams and waterholes have been demolished ( lets not talk about the cost !!!!…….,every – one know what it cost to build a Dam ) no map show any waterhole and dam that has been demolished. Now there is nothing to see , ( thank GOD we are birdwatchers ) and what happend now , they , the tourist , SPEED ! and dont they speed ?? , to the next waterhole ,river , dam . Why ?, because what cost the SA TOUREST FOR 10 DAYS in money…… NOW COME TO ONLY 3 DAYS , Etc. .
Good, secondly………now the game must walk to the next?, ( if there is one ??) WATER SOURCE , now more game acumalate around certain water holes, ETC. , so the area become overexposed(overgraced) and ……and …..and , ………… that also count for rivers ! , in other words there is fewer areas wher the tourist can see nature in it’s Natural state or so called game (wildlife)………….I am not even going to mention the PROBLEM you people have in the drought ( that could have been ? , and were ???? , a desaster on its own )
Thirdly …….you people must remember PAUL KRUGER said the park belongs to the people of SA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! , SANPARK ONLY MUST MANAGE IT FOR US (them)!! .He, in 1926 , gave the “SENATE” the right to aministered KRUGER for all the people of SA , in future………
Fourthly, now all the SCIENTISTS (slim mense ) want to put their names on the “DATA-bank” , and try and do and organise, all sorts of funny ?? things to KRUGER’s ecology (nature) , and , YES !, the wellbeing of the animals ………….they try all sorts of things !, exept to let NATURE TAKE ITS COURSE ??!( ok, certain things must be done to help the park to assist all its wildlife, etc ) but not to make things more difficelt FOR the tourist andddddd park itself ……………………NB !
THAT IS WHY THE “OLD PEOPLE SAID ” …..if a thing works ………let it be !!!!!!
Soet Wees
Chris
Izak’s son has his head screwed on right.
I agree. I’m trying to teach our cleaning lady to use water sparingly, but that means different things to her than to us. I think a water wise(ly) campaign should be launched right across the country. If people are used to saving water at home, they will be more likely to doing it when they come to Kruger.
An excellent article. Everyone in South Africa should read it.
Yes a very interesting article. On the other hand judging by the constant deterioration of the general condition of the camps due to lack lack of maintenance. Would it be unfair to say that to maintain the equipment at the water holes, constitutes work, and it would be far easier to remove the equipment under the guise of conservation practices. The maintenance staff do not have the experience to do the job properly in the camp let alone in the field where one has to think and apply. Eish! why we don’t appoint people who can and will do proper maintenance is difficult to understand.
Thanks Izak. It’s good to have a clear explanation based on scientific data for the reasoning behind waterhole closures. it appears that some waterholes have now been closed for approximately 20 years and I wondered if data collected in these areas indicate significant and positive changes – for example have the important grasses grown back; is there yet less pressure on Roan and Sable in these areas; are trees beginning to grow again. (Of course, much longer that 20 years may be necessary for these things to show). Great photos.
I would love to contribute to saving water, but find standing under a poorly marked tap in the shower leads to running water for ages in the hope it will become hot , only to discover that it was the cold tap all along. Parks Board needs to look to seeing that hot and cold taps are clearly marked.
Correct. And also there are signs in all the accommodation saying that “if you want new towels, please leave the old ones on the floor. If you are happy to keep the old ones, hang them up”, but so often when we hang them up the towels are taken and replaced anyway. Water wasted.
We haven been going to Kruger since 1961 and absolutely love the bush. As we live in Cape Town now and we are getting older the frequency of our visits had to be minimized and in the light of our present drought situation we have become extremely ‘water sensitive’. We really appreciate the way in which Izak has explained the scientific background to the way in which water holes are managed. It makes a lot of good sense.
I would like to refer to the following from the article: ‘These measures illustrate that we are passionate about ensuring conservation is not compromised, whilst ensuring the tourism product in Kruger remains of a high standard.’
Can something not be done to decrease or control the number of safari vehicles that enter the park daily? They create such obstruction especially when there is a sighting and some of the drivers are very stubborn and wont give any one a else an opportunity to view. This does not contribute or ensure a tourism product of a high standard.
AMEN to that Rienette. We have been going to Kruger annually since we got married in the 1960’s (not counting previous visits as children), I we heartily concur with you that the advent of the non -sanparks safari vehicles has done a lot to spoil our park experience. They rush from “sighting” to “sighting”, push their way in and hog the viewi. Another sore point for us is the use of the “sighting apps”. Again, people rush from sighting to sighting, kicking up clouds of dust, and cause a huge jam around the sighting, instead of simply driving round and enjoying the park.