Cutting off rhinos' horns is a contentious last resort to stop poaching. A new study found it works
They hoped the drastic action was working, but evidence was scarce.
Now, a study published Thursday in the academic journal Science has found that dehorning rhinos has led to a large reduction in poaching in game reserves in and around the Kruger National Park in northern South Africa — an area that's home to 25% of the world's rhinos and is especially vulnerable to poaching.
The results of the seven-year study that ended in 2023 are seen as long-awaited evidence that removing rhinos' horns — which needs to be done every one to two years because they grow back — helps them survive, even if the animals lose part of their makeup.
Consistently reduced poaching
The conclusions seem obvious. Lucrative illegal markets in parts of southeast Asia and China crave rhino horns for use in traditional medicines, and removing the rhinos' horns take away what poachers are after.
But Tim Kuiper, a biodiversity scientist at South Africa's Nelson Mandela University and the lead author of the study, said it was new to have long-term data from multiple sites on dehorning rhinos. He said the study, conducted between January 2017 and December 2023, focused on 11 reserves in the Kruger area and compared data from eight that dehorned their rhinos against the three that didn't.
It also analyzed data from the reserves before and after they dehorned their rhinos.
The study showed that dehorning consistently reduced poaching, Kuiper said. It found that the dehorning of more than 2,000 rhinos resulted in a 78% reduction in poaching in those eight reserves, providing some confirmation that such an invasive intervention was worth it.
'It is a big part of what a rhino is, having a horn,' Kuiper said. 'So having to remove it is kind of a necessary evil, if I can put it that way. But it's very effective. There's no doubt it saved hundreds of rhinos' lives.'
South Africa has the largest numbers of black and white rhinos. Namibia, Zimbabwe and Kenya also have significant populations. There are around 17,500 white rhinos and 6,500 black rhinos left in the world, with black rhino numbers reduced from 70,000 in 1970 to less than 2,500 by the time poaching reached a crisis point in the mid-1990s, according to the Save the Rhino organization.
Dehorning was not always accepted
Dehorning rhinos started in southern Africa as early as 1989. It has not been accepted without question.
There has been opposition from animal rights activists but also questions from conservationists over what impact it has on a rhino's wellbeing, and what a future might look like with more hornless rhinos.
Vanessa Duthe, a rhino researcher in South Africa not involved in the study, said rhinos use their horns to defend themselves against predators, to compete for territory and, in the case of black rhinos, to look for food. There is also evidence that dehorned rhinos adjust their movements to live in smaller ranges, she said.
She said conservationists don't know the full impacts of dehorning, but research had found it had no adverse effect on rhinos' breeding rates or mortality rates.
'What we do know is that the benefits of dehorning by far outweigh any ecological cost that we're aware of today,' Duthe said. She said dehorning a rhino now takes around 10 minutes and the process causes minimum distress. Blindfolds and earmuffs are put on sedated rhinos during dehorning, which also provides an opportunity to microchip rhinos and collect samples that aid research.
Only one part of the battle
Conservationists agree that dehorning alone will not end rhino poaching and Kuiper said he saw it as a short-to-mid-term solution. Other efforts like more effective law enforcement and better support for game rangers on the frontline are key.
While South Africa has helped pull rhinos back from the threat of extinction, more than 400 rhinos a year are still killed by poachers in the country.
The dehorning study was a collaboration between scientists from three South African universities, Oxford University in England and game reserve managers and rangers. It also involved the South African National Parks department, the World Wildlife Fund and the Rhino Recovery Fund.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Seen the rare rainbow serpent? The government wants to hear from you…
Wildlife officials are urging Floridians to report sightings of the rare rainbow snake, a nonvenomous species whose population has declined in recent decades. Known for their striking iridescent black or violet-blue bodies with bright red stripes, rainbow snakes are semi-aquatic reptiles that primarily feed on American eels. Experts say declining eel populations and habitat loss have contributed to the species' dwindling numbers across Florida. 'We need help from Floridians and visitors to better understand where rainbow snakes still occur in the state,' said Kevin Enge, research scientist with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 'Every sighting report gives us valuable data about their current distribution and helps us assess the health of the species in Florida.' Rainbow snakes are typically found near rivers, springs, and brackish marshes. A subspecies was historically spotted in Fisheating Creek, Glades County, but has not been seen there since 1952. The FWC encourages anyone who encounters a rainbow snake to report it online, ideally with photos for confirmation. The snakes are visually striking and difficult to mistake for other species, with three red stripes along their back, yellow-marked lip and chin scales, and adults typically reaching three to four feet in length. They spend most of their time hiding under floating vegetation or burrowing near creeks, lakes, marshes and tidal flats, behavior that makes them uncommon even for herpetologists. The species' rarity has led to legal and conservation debates. In 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned to protect the South Florida rainbow snake under the Endangered Species Act, along with 403 other imperiled Southeast freshwater species. The following year, federal authorities declared the snake extinct, though experts say no thorough survey supported that conclusion. In 2020, Tracey Cauthen and Rebecca Boyer spotted a stunning four-foot-long rainbow snake while hiking in the Ocala National Forest, the first confirmed sighting in 50 years. While the rainbow snake is welcomed in Florida, the python is a different story due to its enormous jaws, which allow it to eat virtually anything. A study published in 2024 noted that the apex predator can eat anything as long as it can fit in its mouth. 'Burmese Pythons (Python bivittatus) are apex predators that are larger than all but a few snake species, and their prey, which are swallowed whole, cannot exceed the size of their maximal gape,' researchers led by the Conservancy of Southwest Florida wrote. 'Our study quantified the maximal gape of three large Burmese Pythons, including the longest specimen captured in Florida and one specimen that was captured while eating a deer. 'All three specimens had maximal gape diameters of 26 cm that exceeded the previously reported maximal value of 22 cm'. The experts explained that the python has a huge gape as its lower jawbones are not fused at the front, allowing its mouth to stretch wide. Their elastic skin also accounts for more than half the circumference of the maximal gape in large pythons, allowing them to consume prey six times larger than similar-sized snakes of some other snake species. This means that apart from foxes, bobcats, raccoons, these invasive snakes can also swallow deer, alligators and other prey whole in Florida. 'Watching an invasive apex predator swallow a full-sized deer in front of you is something that you will never forget. The impact the Burmese python is having on native wildlife cannot be denied,' the team shared.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Daily Mail
Mysterious species found living alongside our earliest ancestors deemed missing link in evolution
A lost chapter in human evolution has been discovered among a collection of teeth that dates back 2.8 million years. Researchers from Arizona State University announced that they have found a previously unknown species of ancient humans that appear to have coexisted with members of the genus Homo, our direct ancestors, in Africa. The team added that this era, between 2.6 and 2.8 million years ago, was a critical period in human evolution because it marked the earliest appearance of the Homo species ever found. Researchers also discovered the oldest known stone tools at the Ledi-Geraru site in the Afar region of Ethiopia. In 2013, another team unearthed a 2.8-million-year-old Homo jawbone at the same site. However, the 13 teeth uncovered here recently do not belong to our direct ancestors. Instead, the research team found that they came from a new member of the Australopithecus species, a group closely related to modern humans who lived in Africa between two and four million years ago. Unlike previous fossils from the species Australopithecus afarensis, these teeth were noticeably different, showing that a new evolution of early humans developed in this region and overlapped with members of our family tree. Researchers said this lost Australopithecus species suggests that human evolution was complex, with multiple species coexisting, not just a simple progression from ape to human. The most famous member of the Australopithecus afarensis species has been a fossil named 'Lucy,' whose fossil skeleton was discovered in 1974 in Hadar, Ethiopia. Australopithecus walked upright, a key human trait, but examinations of skull fragments have found they had smaller brains and ape-like features, such as larger teeth and robust jaws for chewing tough plants. However, researchers have not been able to find any fossils at the Ledi-Geraru site that match Lucy's species. The differences in the 13 Australopithecus teeth unearthed there, along with the presence of the Homo species, suggest that Lucy's species did live beyond 2.95 million years ago, according to the study in Nature. ASU paleoecologist Kaye Reed said: 'This new research shows that the image many of us have in our minds of an ape to a Neanderthal to a modern human is not correct — evolution doesn't work like that.' 'Here we have two hominin species that are together. And human evolution is not linear; it's a bushy tree, there are life forms that go extinct,' Reed added in a statement. The 'bushy tree' theory Reed mentioned refers to the concept of multiple early human species living simultaneously in ancient times. Some would go extinct while others would lead to the development of modern humans, like the species Homo. Researchers added that the new fossils don't represent a single 'missing link' but rather show evidence of diverse overlap during this evolutionary period. 'We know what the teeth and mandible of the earliest Homo look like, but that's it,' Reed explained. 'This emphasizes the critical importance of finding additional fossils to understand the differences between Australopithecus and Homo, and potentially how they were able to overlap in the fossil record at the same location,' the study author continued. The genus Homo includes modern humans and our closest extinct relatives. The Ledi-Geraru Homo fossils, including the new teeth and the previously found jawbone, revealed that early Homo individuals likely had slightly larger brains and smaller teeth than Australopithecus. This suggests that the human diet was already shifting millions of years ago towards more meat or softer plants than Lucy's species ate. These humans also learned to use primitive tools, which the ASU researchers also found at the site. The fossils' age was determined by dating volcanic ash layers containing feldspar crystals, a method that pinpoints the time of eruptions sandwiching the fossils. The Ledi-Geraru landscape, once a vegetated area with rivers and lakes, was much different than today's arid badlands. The ASU team noted that future research will focus on tooth enamel to explore diet and potential interactions between the Homo and Australopithecus, such as whether these species competed for food or peacefully lived in different ecological regions of Africa.
The Independent
5 days ago
- The Independent
Stone Age humans were picky about which rocks they used for making tools, study finds
Early human ancestors during the Old Stone Age were more picky about the rocks they used for making tools than previously known, according to research published Friday. Not only did these early people make tools, they had a mental picture of where suitable raw materials were located and planned ahead to use them, traveling long distances. By around 2.6 million years ago, early humans had developed a method of pounding rocks together to chip off sharp flakes that could be used as blades for butchering meat. This allowed them to feast on large animals like hippos that gathered near a freshwater spring at the Nyayanga archaeological site in Kenya. 'But hippo skin is really tough" — and not all rocks were suitable for creating blades sharp enough to pierce hippo skin, said co-author Thomas Plummer, a paleoanthropologist at Queens College of the City University of New York. Co-author Emma Finestone of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History added: 'When we think about stone tools, not every rock is equal in terms of the quality of tools.' At the Nyayanga site, researchers found durable blades made of quartzite, a rock material that they traced to streambeds and other locations around 8 miles (13 kilometers) away. The new research appears in the journal Science Advances. 'This suggests they've got a mental map of where different resources are distributed across the landscape,' said co-author Rick Potts of the Smithsonian 's Human Origins Program. Previously, researchers had assumed the stones may have been found within just a mile or so of the freshwater spring site. The new study shows that 'these early humans were thinking ahead. This is probably the earliest time we have in the archaeological record an indication of that behavior,' said Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History, who was not involved in the research. The oldest previously known example of early human ancestors transporting raw materials for tool-making was about 600,000 years later than the Nyayanga site. Researchers said it's unclear who these early toolmakers were — whether members of the Homo genus or a related but extinct branch of the family tree, such as Paranthropus. Homo sapiens did not arise until much later, around 300,000 years ago. But the knack for seeking out the best raw materials to make simple technology dates back nearly 3 million years. 'We today are a species that's still technology-dependent — using tools to spread around the world and adapt to different environments,' said Finestone. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
