**5. Conclusions**

A total of 33 mammal species were observed in the study area, including the two rhinoceros species. A variety of mammals were present in the study area, but the basic list of mammals provided here can be expanded if a larger area in the same supersite can be included, more camera traps (especially at the waterholes) and longer survey periods (including seasonal and climatic differences) can be used. On the one granitic catena (hillslope) alone, 23 mammal species were found across all four zones, 21 species at the waterholes and their surrounding areas, 16 species at the granite-boulder outcrops and 13 species at the mud wallows, excluding the two rhino species. Some of these species were similar between different zones and areas. A few species only occurred at the outcrops and waterholes but were not observed on the catena. The hypothesis, that specific mammal species might frequent or associate with certain zone/s on the catena, could not be investigated properly in this current study. This could be due to zones being too small to limit mammals to a specific zone in such an open, natural system. Most mammals also need to pass through certain zones to reach waterholes located outside the catena studied. Some species stay close to the waterhole, while others move larger distances away to feed. The two closer waterholes were less than 4.5 km from the centre of the study area and that is close enough for non-mobile water dependent species to reach, while the furthest one was 6 km away and can even be reached by mobile water-dependent species.

If more than one catena can be included in future studies, it could provide a better understanding of how these mammals use similar zones on other hillslopes in the area and how the various feeding guilds interact with the environment on a landscape scale. Small differences were found in mammal species presence between the three survey periods but the extreme drought possibly limited species richness. The presence of a variety of different sized mammals (small to mega-sized) from different feeding guilds (herbivores to carnivores and omnivores) and dietary classes (grazer to browser and mixed feeder) most probably indicate a functioning ecosystem consisting of various interlinked trophic levels.

Some mammal species may not have been recorded because of the extreme drought during the study period (lack of predator cover and food availability forced them to leave the area), normal movement or migration (they are only present during a certain season or opportunistically arrive when conditions are right—which might have been outside the survey periods) or simply because they travelled outside the view of the cameras in the study area. There is thus scope for future studies to add to the basic list of mammals observed during this study to make it more complete, such as to include a longer time period, a wetter period with normal precipitation, seasonal variation, other types of animals (i.e., birds, reptiles, amphibians, small rodents, invertebrates), etc. It is also known that the numbers of certain mammal species (group sizes) can fluctuate seasonally due to availability of food—in summer they aggregate into large groups, while in winter or when conditions become less favourable; they break up into smaller groups and disperse more widely in search of food. All of these factors and more can contribute to the total variety and species richness of catenas inside the Southern Granite Supersite during different climatic, seasonal or environmental conditions. All the knowledge from this study can be beneficial in monitoring and conservation of species in Kruger National Park.

**Funding:** This research was partially funded by the University of the Free State (UFS) Strategic Research Fund and the NRF Thuthuka Grant (TTK14052267732). The UFS Central Research Fund provided the funds to publish this article.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the University of the Free State Interfaculty Animal Ethics Committee (UFS-AED2019/0121 on 22 August 2019).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** There is no data available from this specific study, but some of the larger multidisciplinary project's data are available at the SANParks Scientific Services repository.

**Acknowledgments:** Jeremy Bolton, camera trapping specialist from Bushcam Consulting is acknowledged for his part in camera trapping procedures and assistance with data processing of some results. Errol Cason from Department of Animal Science, UFS, is thanked for his assistance with Table 3. The multidisciplinary team of the UFS is acknowledged. Staff at Scientific Services in Skukuza and the game guards from SANParks are also thanked for all their assistance.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish the results.
