Abstract Artificial surface water (ASW), created through dams, impoundments, and other engineered water features, is increasingly deployed in arid protected areas to support wildlife. However, our understanding of how and why ASW shapes the spatiotemporal activity and ecologically relevant biomass of large mammalian herbivores remains limited. We evaluated whether one form of ASW, dammed seasonal drainages that create reservoirs, alters the metabolic biomass, spatial distribution, and seasonal activity patterns of large herbivores. Specifically, we tested whether reservoirs shifted large herbivore use from seasonal pulses to persistent disturbance, modify species activity patterns, and if large herbivore distributions correspond with their theoretical water dependence. Using a paired catchment design, we deployed camera traps around 11 reservoirs and 11 undammed drainages in Kruger National Park. Cameras were placed along 2250‐m transects. Species‐specific activity and metabolic biomass were modeled as a function of catchment type, season, and distance from the edge of reservoirs or undammed drainage. Reservoirs concentrated large herbivore activity year‐round, indicating a shift from seasonal to persistent disturbance regimes. Dammed catchments supported higher large herbivore metabolic biomass in both wet and dry seasons, with effects extending to just over 1 km in the dry season and >2 km during the wet season. Elephants comprised more than 50% of the observed biomass, and other species such as hippopotamus, impala, and zebra also concentrated their activity near reservoirs. In contrast, browsing species like giraffe, duiker, and steenbok were more active in catchments with undammed drainages. Contrary to expectation, species' water dependence scores did not consistently predict species responses. While ASW can enhance wildlife visibility and forage access, it also risks excluding some species and concentrating herbivore impacts, with implications for vegetation change, human–wildlife conflict along park boundaries, and ecosystem resilience. We recommend adaptive ASW management strategies, including the strategic placement and temporal manipulation of surface water, to balance wildlife needs with long‐term conservation goals—particularly under increasing climatic variability.
McCleery et al. (Thu,) studied this question.