Skip to content

DNA From Kudu Dung Identified 91 Individuals and Produced a Population Estimate Close to an Aerial Count

Female greater kudu standing in woodland in Kruger National Park
Conservation · Population & status

A South African pilot study published in 2026 shows how DNA collected from dung can be used to identify individual greater kudus (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) and estimate their abundance without capturing or directly observing the animals.

Researchers collected 137 faecal samples during two sampling periods in March and May 2024 in Doornkloof Nature Reserve in South Africa’s Northern Cape. A mitochondrial DNA test successfully identified the species in 124 samples: 114 came from greater kudu, while nine were from common eland and one from waterbuck.

The 114 kudu samples were then analysed at five microsatellite markers — short, variable DNA regions that together act like a genetic fingerprint for each animal. Samples with the same multilocus profile could therefore be assigned to the same kudu without seeing or capturing it. After duplicate detections were combined, the researchers identified 91 individuals. Only four of those animals were detected in both the March and May sampling periods; these cross-period genetic matches functioned as true “recaptures” for the population model.

Genetic recaptures produced an initial estimate of about 162 kudus

Using these genetic recaptures in a capture–recapture model, the study produced an initial estimate of about 162 kudus in the sampled section of the reserve. The logic is the same as physical mark–recapture: if previously identified animals are found again frequently, a larger share of the population has probably already been sampled; if most detections are new individuals, more unseen animals are likely to remain. An aerial survey conducted in June 2024 independently estimated 172 greater kudus, so the two totals were close, but the genetic estimate remained highly uncertain.

The researchers also developed a genetic test for sex. Sex could be assigned to 71 of the 91 identified animals, producing an essentially even ratio of approximately one female to 1.03 males.

Two sampling occasions limit the population estimate

The authors stress that the population estimate is exploratory rather than definitive. With only two real sampling occasions and four animals genetically recaptured between them, the model could not cleanly separate how likely a kudu was to be detected from demographic processes such as survival and recruitment. That means the close match to the aerial count is encouraging, but not proof that the estimate was precise. Diagnostic simulations showed that a third sampling occasion allowed detection probability to be estimated separately and greatly improved model stability; the authors therefore recommend at least three real sampling periods for defensible inference.

The genetic data themselves performed well: mitochondrial DNA amplified successfully in more than 90% of the collected samples, and the individual-identification markers had low error rates. Non-invasive genetic sampling could therefore complement conventional wildlife counts for species such as kudu that are difficult to detect consistently in dense vegetation.

Sources and image credit

  1. Jacobs, R., Reilly, B. K., Zachos, F. E., Du Plessis, M., & Grobler, J. P. (2026). Estimating greater kudu abundance using non-invasive genetic sampling methods – A pilot study. African Journal of Wildlife Research, 56(1). https://doi.org/10.3957/056.056.0234Primary peer-reviewed study, published online 8 June 2026.

Image: Bernard Gagnon — female greater kudu in Kruger National Park, South Africa; representative image, not from Doornkloof. Source: Wikimedia Commons. · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Source

About this content: This story was produced with AI assistance within an editorial workflow developed by Wildlife Vagabond. Editorial responsibility remains with Wildlife Vagabond.How AI is used

Population & status

SPECIES IN THIS STORY

Species in this story

Greater Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros Explore species

Independent research and conservation news archive

Did you find this information useful?

Wildlife Vagabond is independently built and maintained. Voluntary support helps cover source verification, hosting and continued work on research and conservation news.

Support Wildlife Vagabond

The news archive will remain freely available.