Are all waterholes equal from a lion’s view? Exploring the role of prey abundance and catchability in waterhole visitation patterns in a savannah ecosystem

  1. Romain Dejeante
  2. Andrew J. Loveridge
  3. David W. Macdonald
  4. Daphine Madhlamoto
  5. Simon Chamaillé-Jammes
  6. Marion Valeix

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Prey abundance and catchability shape the spatial ecology of predators. Predators can select habitats where prey are more abundant to maximize encounter rate with prey or habitats where prey are more catchable to maximize prey capture. These hypotheses are commonly referred to as prey-abundance and prey-catchability hypotheses. Although these hypotheses are often tested at the landscape scale, little is known about how between-patch variations in prey abundance and catchability determine the space use of predators. In many savannah ecosystems, large herbivores aggregate around waterholes, which become hotspots of prey and their selection by predators is classically interpreted as supporting the prey-abundance hypothesis. Here, we investigated whether between-waterhole variations in prey abundance and catchability influence the frequency and duration of lion visits to waterholes, testing the prey-abundance and prey-catchability hypotheses at the resource-patch scale. We combined datasets on (1) lion movements recorded from GPS collars deployed on 20 adult males and 16 adult females between 2002 and 2015, (2) prey abundance evaluated from long-term, regular monitoring of waterholes and (3) prey catchability evaluated from remote-sensing satellite imagery of vegetation cover around waterholes in Hwange National Park (Zimbabwe). Lions did not use all waterholes in their territory equally: there was a high variability in the frequency and duration of visits. Surprisingly, between-waterhole variations in prey abundance and catchability only slightly explained these variations in frequency – and even less in duration – of lion visits to waterholes. Yet, the frequency of lion visits to waterholes decreased with the number of waterholes within their territory, and male lions more frequently visited the waterholes surrounded by more open habitats. We discuss the limits of our work, but also the ecological mechanisms that may explain these findings. First, lions and their prey are involved in a ‘shell-game’ that leads them to adopt unpredictable movement strategies. Second, lions have only access to a limited number of waterholes amongst which to distribute their hunting effort. Lastly, lions visit waterholes not only to hunt but also to interact with social mates and competitors. This work challenges the implicit assumption that all waterholes are the same from a lion’s view and calls for further studies investigating the drivers of the variability in lion visits at the resource-patch scale.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.24072/pcjournal.705
  2. Peer Community in Ecology

    Predators are often expected to concentrate their activity in places where prey are abundant or easier to capture, ideas formalized in the prey-abundance and prey-catchability hypotheses. Yet testing these hypotheses at fine spatial scales remains challenging, as most studies rely on habitat categories or landscape-level proxies rather than direct comparisons among discrete resource patches. In savannah ecosystems, waterholes represent key dry-season resources where herbivores aggregate and predators frequently hunt. The study by Dejeante et al. investigates whether waterholes differ in their attractiveness to lions and whether variation in prey abundance and catchability among waterholes explains how lions use them. Using long-term data from Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe—including GPS tracking of lions, long-term monitoring of herbivore use of waterholes, and remote-sensing data on vegetation structure—the authors test these classic predator–prey hypotheses at the scale of individual resource patches. 

    The authors examine how often lions visit waterholes and how long they stay during each visit, separating two behavioral components that are often conflated in studies of spatial intensity of use. Their results show strong heterogeneity among waterholes: lions do not use all waterholes equally. Surprisingly, however, differences in prey abundance or vegetation structure explain only a small fraction of this variation. Instead, the number of waterholes available within a territory plays a stronger role in determining visitation frequency, and male lions were more likely to visit waterholes surrounded by open habitats—patterns that do not neatly support the prey-catchability hypothesis. Overall, the findings suggest that prey-related variables alone cannot explain lion visitation patterns at waterholes.

    These results highlight the complexity of predator decision-making at resource hotspots. The authors suggest that several processes may contribute to the observed patterns, including the dynamic “shell game” between predators and prey, territorial constraints that limit the set of available hunting sites, and the social and territorial functions of waterholes for lions. During peer review, the manuscript was substantially improved through clearer presentation of statistical results, expanded discussion of ecological and management implications, and improved methodological transparency. This study is therefore worth recommending because it challenges a widespread assumption—that all waterholes function similarly from a predator’s perspective—and demonstrates how fine-scale heterogeneity and behavioral strategies shape predator space use in natural ecosystems.

    References

    Romain Dejeante, Andrew J. Loveridge, David W. Macdonald, Daphine Madhlamoto, Simon Chamaillé-Jammes, Marion Valeix (2026) Are all waterholes equal from a lion′s view? Exploring the role of prey abundance and catchability in waterhole visitation patterns in a savannah ecosystem. bioRxiv, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.18.649579

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2025.04.18.649579 on bioRxiv