Gozi_East-Elephan-Carcass-uc-santa-barbara

An elephant transforms the spot where it dies, with a legacy that lasts long after the body is gone and the bones are scattered. Credit: Courtney Reed

One Elephant Carcass Can Change the Ground for Seven Years or More

In A Nutshell

  • A fallen elephant can raise soil ammonium about 31 times on average, and nutrient levels stayed high at sites up to 7.7 years old.
  • Bacteria and plants stayed less varied near carcasses throughout the study, while fungi recovered.
  • Impala and buffalo foraged at carcass sites far more often than at nearby comparison spots.
  • Effects lasted much longer than those reported for smaller animals such as moose and kangaroos.

A fallen elephant leaves a lot more behind than bones. Its body can flood the soil beneath it with ammonium, a nitrogen compound released as flesh breaks down, at levels averaging 31 times higher than normal. The surge comes with a sharp drop in the variety of plants and microbes living there. Even so, hungry impala and buffalo keep showing up, foraging at roughly triple the usual rate.

Researchers in South Africa’s Kruger National Park found these effects lasted at least seven years, and probably longer, since many of the oldest sites showed no sign of fading.

A drop in variety is the opposite of what happens at sea, where a whale carcass sinking to the ocean floor feeds a thriving community for decades. On land, according to the study in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), elephant carcasses thin out the species around them while still speeding up the chemistry and animal traffic.

Forty Elephant Carcasses Show Soil Nutrients Stay High for Seven Years

Reaching that conclusion meant sampling 40 elephant carcass sites across two soil types, one sandy and one rich in clay. Every elephant was an adult, and each had died anywhere from 8 days to nearly 8 years earlier, from causes including old age, illness, injury, and fights. Park staff located the carcasses through ground patrols, aerial surveys, and gatherings of scavengers such as vultures and hyenas. Researchers mostly compared sites of different ages, a bit like flipping through a time-lapse, setting soil and grass collected within a few feet of the bones against baseline samples from about 50 feet away. Lab tests counted the kinds of bacteria and fungi in the soil and measured how busy those microbes were. Plant surveys, grass-chewing scores, and camera traps at eight carcass sites filled out the picture.

Alongside the ammonium surge, nitrate (another nitrogen compound) ran about 7 times higher and phosphorus, a nutrient plants need to grow, about 3 times higher. Phosphorus barely dropped over the 7.7 years, and ammonium and nitrate stayed above normal at the oldest sites. A chemical fingerprint in the nitrogen pointed to an animal source.

Elephant Carcasses Reshape Savanna Ecosystems
In South Africa’s Kruger National Park, elephant carcasses supercharge soil nutrients and grazing for at least 7 years. (Image by StudyFinds)

Elephant Carcasses Cut Microbe and Plant Variety While Boosting Soil Activity

Carcass sites were typically marked by bare soil and a field of bones. Bacteria became less varied near the carcasses and never rebounded during the study. Fungi dropped too but recovered over time. Plant variety also stayed low through the whole study, while the amount of grass growing slowly recovered but stayed below normal for most of that stretch.

Soil with more ammonium held fewer kinds of bacteria and plants. Gardeners know what too much fertilizer does to a lawn, and the authors consider ammonium’s toxicity to plants a likely reason fresh carcass sites struggled. Microbial activity, meanwhile, ran higher for one to two years before settling back to normal.

Impala and Buffalo Keep Returning to Elephant Remains as Grazing Climbs With Age

Grass at carcass sites held about 1.5 times more nitrogen than grass elsewhere, and animals seemed to notice. Richer grass is better food, which is likely the draw. Cameras recorded more than 24,000 impala and buffalo, the two most common plant-eaters, and both species foraged at carcass sites far more often than at comparison spots nearby. Grazing scores told a similar story, with the gap between carcass sites and surrounding ground widening as carcasses aged. The researchers suspect a feedback loop, in which visiting herds leave dung and urine that keep the soil rich and draw more herds. They flagged that idea as untested.

Smaller animals leave much briefer marks. The highest nitrogen readings at elephant sites ran roughly 14 times those reported near moose carcasses and 20 times those near kangaroo carcasses in earlier studies. Sheer size likely explains the gap, since elephants weigh up to 13,000 pounds and release hundreds of pounds of nutrients into one patch of ground. That patch reaches roughly 16 feet out from the bones, about the footprint of a small apartment. Soil type mattered too, with effects starting stronger in the sandy soil but likely lasting longer in the clay-rich soil, which holds nutrients better.

Hundreds of Elephant Deaths a Year Could Leave Thousands of Altered Patches

Kruger holds about 30,000 elephants, and roughly 600 die there each year. From those figures, the authors estimate around 4,000 carcasses at any given moment could be shaping the park’s ecology, though that number is a calculation rather than a count. Elephants, rhinos, and their relatives were once found worldwide, from the tropics to the poles, so carcasses like these probably played the same role in many ecosystems that no longer have them.

Elephants are declining from human exploitation and habitat loss, and shrinking herds mean fewer of these long-lasting patches. Conservation plans that count only living elephants miss part of what these animals do for the land.


Paper Notes

Limitations

This study is observational, meaning researchers measured sites as they found them instead of running an experiment. They mostly compared different carcasses of different ages rather than following the same carcasses over time (24 sites were sampled again a year later), so the patterns reflect snapshots rather than a single timeline. Carcass age and soil type explained only a small share of the variation between sites (about 5% for plant variety, 18% for bacterial variety, and 15% for soil nitrate), and unmeasured factors such as elephant size and sex, rainfall, and scavenger numbers likely contributed. Sites were limited to open savanna and woodland, and park managers tend to locate carcasses in more open areas near roads, which could bias which carcasses were found. Camera trap data came from only eight sites, with footage lasting 39 to 224 days, and microbe samples were taken at a single spot close to the bones, so they probably show more extreme conditions than the other measures. The link between ammonium and reduced variety is a correlation, meaning the two move together without proving one causes the other, and the authors discuss other possible causes, including soil acidity and competition among plants. The herd feedback loop was not tested. Kruger’s lions, hyenas, and vultures consume carcasses and scatter bones quickly, so the authors think the park’s results likely underestimate the strength and length of these effects in places with fewer scavengers. Season of death was also not tested.

Funding and Disclosures

Funding came from the United States National Science Foundation (DEB 2128092, 2128093, and 2128094), the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the South African National Research Foundation. The South African Environmental Observation Network provided financial, logistical, and administrative support. Work was completed under a permit from South African National Parks. The authors declared no competing interests.

Publication Details

Titled “Nutrient legacies from elephant megacarcasses create coldspots of biodiversity and hotspots of ecosystem processes,” the paper was written by Courtney G. Reed, Nathan P. Lemoine, Michelle L. Budny, Vincent C. Clarke, Johan T. du Toit, Ryan Helcoski, Helga Knoetze, Jane M. Lucas, Joshua P. Schimel, Izak P. J. Smit, Tercia Strydom, Aimee G. Tallian, Dave I. Thompson, and Deron E. Burkepile. The corresponding authors are Courtney G. Reed (now at Princeton University) and Deron E. Burkepile (University of California, Santa Barbara). It appeared in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), Volume 123, Issue 43, article e2605332123, published October 12, 2026, with Mary E. Power as editor. The paper is open access under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2605332123. Data and code are available at DOI: 10.5061/dryad.q2bvq841g.

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor