Status of terrestrial mammals at the Kafue-Zambezi interface: implications for transboundary connectivity
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Status of terrestrial mammals at the
Kafue–Zambezi interface: implications for
transboundary connectivity
R O B I N L I N E S , J O S E P H T Z A N O P O U L O S and D O U G L A S M A C M I L L A N
Abstract The Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Introduction
Area Programme promotes landscape-level connectivity
between clusters of wildlife management areas in five neigh-
bouring countries. However, declining regional biodiversity W ildlife management areas are frequently clustered
along international borders, with ecosystems divided
by arbitrarily drawn political boundaries (Zbicz, ;
can undermine efforts to maintain, expand and link wildlife
populations. Narratives promoting species connectivity Hanks, ). Where fences and physical barriers are com-
should thus be founded on studies of system and state bined with expanding human settlements and intensifying
changes in key resources. By integrating and augmenting agro-pastoralist activities, overexploitation and decline of
multiple data sources throughout eight wildlife management wildlife populations can occur (Ogutu et al., ).
areas, covering . million ha, we report changes during Additionally, invasion, disease, pollution and climate
– in the occurrence and distribution of mammal change (Pachauri et al., ; Maxwell et al., ) interact
species throughout a landscape linking the Greater Kafue with intrinsic species traits (Cardillo et al., ) to inhibit
System to adjacent wildlife management areas in Namibia or sever wildlife movement patterns, isolating core wildlife
and Botswana. Results indicate species diversity is largely un- management areas (Margules & Pressey, ; Newmark,
changed in Kafue National Park and Mulobezi and Sichifulo ). Together these drivers are exposing wildlife popula-
Game Management Areas. However, % of large carnivore tions to escalating edge-effects and ecological traps, threa-
and % of prey diversity have been lost in the Simalaha tening species persistence within and outside protected
areas, and there is no evidence of migrational behaviour or areas (Woodroffe & Ginsberg, ; Battin, ).
species recolonization from adjacent wildlife areas. Conversely, intact species assemblages have wide-ranging
Although temporal sampling scales influence the definition implications for sustainable and resilient social-ecological
of species occupancy and distribution, and data cannot elu- systems (Cumming, ). Heterogeneity and functional
cidate population size or trends, our findings indicate an diversity drive productivity and a system’s capacity to ab-
emerging connectivity bottleneck within Simalaha. sorb, resist and respond to shocks, perturbations and other
Evidence suggests that at current disturbance levels the stressors that negatively affect its structure and function
Greater Kafue System, Zambia’s majority component in (Fischer et al., ). Cumulatively, threats to species per-
the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area, is sistence undermine habitat integrity, ecosystem services,
becoming increasingly isolated at the trophic scale of large food security, the development of sustainable wildlife-based
mammals. Further investigations of the site-specific, inter- land uses and human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem
acting drivers influencing wildlife distribution and occur- Assessment, ; Lindsey et al., b).
rence are required to inform appropriate conservation Acknowledging the limitations imposed by these con-
interventions for wildlife recovery in key areas identified to straints, stakeholders in southern Africa are increasingly
promote transboundary connectivity in the Kavango– embracing Transfrontier Conservation Areas as a new con-
Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. servation paradigm (Hanks, ), considered to be an evo-
lution of previous community-based natural resource
Keywords Connectivity, Kafue, Kavango–Zambezi Transfron- management approaches that yielded mixed results
tier Area, mammal loss, transboundary conservation, wildlife (Andersson, ). Enticing narratives include the integra-
management area tion of biodiversity conservation with the promotion of sus-
tainable socio-economic development and a culture of peace
and cooperation at the ecosystem level, linked to the re-
moval of fences and other barriers inhibiting the free move-
ment of wildlife across vast interconnected landscapes (van
ROBIN LINES (Corresponding author), JOSEPH TZANOPOULOS and DOUGLAS der Linde et al., ; Hanks, ).
MACMILLAN Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, Marlow Building, The Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area
The University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NR, UK
E-mail rl291@kent.ac.uk is intended to capitalize on the region’s unique diversity and
Received February . Revision requested June . distribution of wildlife assets by advocating shared natural
Accepted October . First published online May . resource management and development goals across a
Oryx, 2019, 53(4), 764–773 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317001594
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 14 Mar 2021 at 03:55:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594The Kafue–Zambezi interface 765
network of protected areas spanning . , km at the the Zambezi River. This landscape is promoted as a key link-
interface of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and age to the central cluster of wildlife management areas in
Zimbabwe (KAZA TFCA Secretariat, b; Hanks & Namibia and Botswana, at the heart of the Kavango–
Myburgh, ). Stated objectives to integrate conservation Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA
and development, promote peace and cooperation, and fa- Secretariat, ). Through integration, harmonization
cilitate connectivity of wildlife populations between clusters and triangulation of data we were able to determine changes
of wildlife management areas have become popular and in species occurrence and distribution by wildlife manage-
compelling programme narratives driving north–south fi- ment area and designation.
nance initiatives, NGO engagement, and state buy-in
(PPF, ; KAZA TFCA Secretariat, a; WWF, ).
Notwithstanding evolving conservation and develop- Study area
ment narratives, the success of the Kavango–Zambezi
Transfrontier Conservation Area Programme is constrained The boundaries of the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier
by many existing and emerging challenges. Mounting Conservation Area are imprecise (Andersson, ) but
anthropogenic pressures combined with poor land-use Cumming () characterized the area as comprising a
planning, institutional conflicts and stakeholder disenfran- matrix of . wildlife management areas, from National
chisement (Andersson, ) are driving encroachment into Parks under strict state control to multiple-use areas
wildlife areas, habitat loss and fragmentation (Newmark, under community management. These wildlife manage-
; Simukonda, ; Watson et al., ), and unsustain- ment areas are grouped into three major clusters and five
able harvesting of wildlife, threatening many of the periphery sub-clusters, with Kafue National Park and sur-
Conservation Area’s iconic natural assets (Lindsey et al., rounding wildlife management areas constituting the
a). With the region’s human population expected to major northern cluster (Fig. ).
double by (United Nations, Department of Kafue National Park (, km) is Zambia’s oldest and
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, ) largest protected area, the largest National Park in the
and likely impacts of climate change exacerbating challenges Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area and the
to socio-economic development (Bellard et al., ; second largest National Park in Africa (UNEP/WCMC, ).
Pachauri et al., ), even moderately optimistic scenarios Together with nine surrounding IUCN category VI Game
imply regional biodiversity loss will accelerate significantly Management Areas and multiple Forest Reserves, the effective
this century (Biggs et al., ). unfenced wildlife management area, referred to as the Greater
Collectively these challenges raise important questions Kafue Landscape or System, covers , km and includes
about the scope, scale and ambition of narratives promoting % of Zambia’s land mass and . % of the Kavango–
landscape-level linkages, the interventions required to Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area estate (Moss, ).
maintain or expand connectivity, and the purposes these Most of the Greater Kafue System lies at –, m
proposed linkages may serve in the long term (Cumming, altitude. Mean annual rainfall is mm in the south and
). There is thus a clear imperative to promote evidence- , mm in the north, falling predominantly during
based socio-economic and environmental policies and in- November–April. Vegetation is characterized by the
terventions built around the application of conservation sci- Zambezian Miombo Woodland ecoregion, typical of large
ence (Sutherland et al., ), including research and areas throughout southern and eastern Africa, dominated
monitoring of changes in the state of sites and systems, by Brachystegia spp., Combretum spp., Mopane spp.,
and their response to factors driving connectivity at the Terminalia spp. and Baikaea spp. Woodlands are inter-
scale of interest. The process of informed decision-making spersed with open floodplain grasslands and dambos
is data hungry, and local, regional and transboundary data (ZAWA, ). Species records include mammals,
sources are disparate and inconsistent, undermining attempts birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, with the great-
to understand complex social-ecological systems such as the est diversity of antelopes in Africa ( species), an intact car-
Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. Data nivore guild and a full complement of Zambia’s large
deficiencies ultimately constrain effective decision-making mammals, with the exception of the giraffe Giraffa giraffa,
and appropriate interventions to promote biodiversity con- black rhinoceros Diceros bicornis and tsessebe Damaliscus
servation and development. lunatus (Moss, ).
Here we interrogate and synthesize existing data sources, The Greater Kafue System is Zambia’s majority component
and supplement them with additional research to document within the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation
the historical and contemporary status of the African ele- Area (KAZA TFCA Secretariat, ), with connectivity to
phant Loxodonta africana, five large carnivores, one meso- the broader Kavango–Zambezi landscape contingent on the
predator and prey species throughout eight wildlife maintenance of a landscape-level linkage routing south–south-
management areas between the Greater Kafue System and west through a mosaic of nominally, potentially and possibly
Oryx, 2019, 53(4), 764–773 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317001594
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 14 Mar 2021 at 03:55:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594766 R. Lines et al.
FIG. 1 Clusters of wildlife
management areas in the
Kavango–Zambezi
Transfrontier Conservation
Area landscape in southern
Africa (adapted from KAZA
TFCA Secretariat, ; PPF,
).
protected wildlife management areas, including Mulobezi and indicate that Kafue National Park (operating with only
Sichifulo Game Management Areas, Nachitwe, Martin and –% of recommended protected area budgets) has re-
Machili Forest Reserves, the Nyawa communal areas, and the ceived the greatest level of long-term support for biodiver-
Simalaha Communal Conservancy, proclaimed in (Fig. ). sity conservation throughout the study area, followed by
Together these wildlife management areas extend the Greater Mulobezi and then Sichifulo Game Management Areas,
Kafue System to c. . million ha. which receive minor budget allocations from the State
A secondary (south-westerly) linkage passing through Wildlife Authority, augmented by finance and in-kind op-
Mulobezi to Sioma National Park (bordering Namibia and erational support from resident safari hunting operators and
Angola) has been proposed, although our focus is on the conservation NGOs. Nachitwe, Martin and Machili Forest
linkage that broadly follows the Machili stream catchment Reserves have received minor budgets intermittently from
basin from the border of Kafue National Park to the northern the State Wildlife Authority and Forestry Department
bank of the Zambezi River, adjacent to Kasika and Salambala (ZAWA, ; C. Chifunte, pers. comm. .). The
Communal Conservancies of the eastern Zambezi region in Simalaha Communal Conservancy started receiving formal
Namibia, and through to Chobe National Park in Botswana. wildlife resource protection as recently as , having had
The proposed landscape linkage is – km. The no formal biodiversity conservation budgets since before
human population is c. , and increasing by .% an- (HRH Chief Inyambo Yeta, pers. comm. ). We
nually, with a population density of c. people per km were unable to ascertain if the Nyawa communal areas receive
(CSO, ). Communities are centred on a few larger set- any formal wildlife management budget. In addition, a
tlements of ,–, residents, and otherwise in clus- , ha fenced Wildlife Recovery Sanctuary to the south
ters of scattered villages typically concentrated along water of Simalaha, with an extensive open border along the
courses, seasonal waterholes and a few pumped ground- Zambezi River, has received . head of game of eight spe-
water supplies. Subsistence agro-pastoralists dominate this cies since : a significant investment promoted as a justifi-
landscape, with residents largely dependent on exploiting cation for restocking the broader Simalaha Communal
a wide range of natural resources to meet their basic liveli- Conservancy (PPF, ).
hood needs (Musgrave, ). Formal employment oppor-
tunities beyond a few distant urban settlements are
negligible. Customary law within the Lozi, Nkoya and Methods
Tonga ethnolinguistic groups constitutes the de facto re-
gional governance system (Brelsford, ; Musgrave, ). Data sources
Biodiversity conservation budgets have varied signifi-
cantly throughout this landscape, both spatially and tem- The earliest records of occurrence and distribution of
porally. Although precise figures are unavailable, sources terrestrial mammals in the vicinity of the proposed
Oryx, 2019, 53(4), 764–773 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317001594
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 14 Mar 2021 at 03:55:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594The Kafue–Zambezi interface 767
FIG. 3 Boundaries of contemporary wildlife management areas
(in white) and the study area (dotted line) projected onto
Ansell’s () map of the known (filled squares), possible
(half-filled squares) and former range (unfilled squares) of the
FIG. 2 Wildlife management areas within the study area. blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus.
Kafue–Zambezi linkage are limited to disparate notes and Ansell () reported on terrestrial mammals . kg
reports in the grey literature from early explorers, hunters, in weight, from families, but we restricted the contempor-
traders and missionaries, dating back to the late th century ary list to readily detected species from nine families, omit-
(e.g. Sampson, ; Holub, ), with approximate ting seven species considered to be at the edge of their known
location data variously reported in relation to key landscape range and/or habitat specialists requiring species-specific
features. The first published checklists for Zambia (Pitman, survey techniques beyond the scope of this study.
; Lancaster, ; Ansell, , , ) indicate there Boundaries of contemporary land-use classifications
were no changes to the assemblage of large mammals in and (UNEP-WCMC, ) were projected over Ansell’s ()
around Kafue National Park prior to the extirpation of the maps using QGIS (QGIS Development Team, ; Fig. ),
black rhinoceros in the mid s, although there are unre- to facilitate extraction of historical species distribution data
solved questions regarding anecdotal records of a relic gir- at comparable spatial scales, for Kafue National Park
affe population (P. Moss, pers. comm. ). Data for these (Kaunga and Nanzhila management blocks, , ha),
checklists were collected ostensibly through ad hoc and op- Mulobezi Game Management Area (hereafter Mulobezi,
portunistic sightings by government staff and expert obser- , ha), Sichifulo Game Management Area, including
vers reporting from their travels throughout the country, Nachitwe, Martin and Machili Forest Reserves (hereafter
augmented by trading records and hunting ledgers kept Sichifulo, , ha), and the Nyawa/Simalaha areas
by District Commissioners. (c. , ha).
The first systematic collation of species occurrence and dis- In compiling contemporary data sets (Fig. ) we con-
tribution data was published by Ansell (), superseding strained data gathering to three broadly comparable
previous literature. Amalgamated checklist data were mapped ground-based survey approaches. We omitted aerial survey
within quarter-degree grid squares, based on : , data (e.g. DNPW, ) because of limitations to detection
Ordnance Survey map sheets. Given the absence of reports rates for many species of primary interest in forested areas
from many inaccessible and largely unmapped periphery (Jachmann, ).
areas, the data reflect minimum regional species ranges; none- Firstly, the resident safari hunting operator, operational
theless, much of the study area can be considered to be well throughout Mulobezi and Sichifulo during the preceding
mapped because of the established network of access routes decade, was asked to provide sighting reports for terres-
developed alongside the nascent teak logging and safari hunt- trial mammals of interest through a questionnaire survey
ing industries (Musgrave, ). following the hunting season. Multiple groups of
Oryx, 2019, 53(4), 764–773 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317001594
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 14 Mar 2021 at 03:55:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594768 R. Lines et al.
three times by RL and two experienced local trackers from
the safari hunting industry, amounting to , km of spoor
transects during the dry season of May–October .
Data analysis
A confirmed sighting from any of the three selected expert
contemporary sources was considered to be sufficient to de-
tect species presence at the scale of interest. Given the atyp-
ical nature of ongoing ungulate reintroductions and
management in the fenced Simalaha Wildlife Sanctuary,
we restrict reporting to the detection of the carnivore
guild for this subset of the Simalaha Communal
Conservancy.
Data for each of the four composite wildlife management
area blocks, from the three data sources, were compiled
against historical data to determine if any changes in species
occurrence and distribution had occurred. Outputs reflected
species persistence, loss or colonization at the composite
wildlife management area scale.
As survey methods were optimized for resident large car-
nivores and their principal prey species, the risk of non-
detection was elevated for species that exhibited significant
FIG. 4 Sources of data within the study area for contemporary seasonal (migration) or non-resident (emigration and im-
analyses of terrestrial mammals at the Kafue–Zambezi interface migration) movement patterns, or where surveys did not
(Fig. ). cover the restricted ranges of habitat specialists. These con-
straints are acknowledged in Table and subsequent
analyses.
guides, hunters and skilled trackers traverse both Mulobezi
An amalgamated distribution map was generated for the
and Sichifulo on and off road, covering . , km each
five extant large carnivores, indicating their historical range
dry season (R. Kraljic, pers. comm. ). This was consid-
within the survey area, and current known range within
ered to amount to sufficient survey effort and expertise to
studied wildlife management areas.
detect target species.
Secondly we collected patrol data from the local State and
Community Wildlife Police Officers responsible for wildlife Results
protection in southern Kafue National Park, Mulobezi and
Sichifulo. We amalgamated data for the Kafue patrol blocks Table indicates few non-detections recorded against any
adjacent to Mulobezi and Sichifulo to cover a single area in- data sources since throughout southern Kafue
cluding the border area north of both Mulobezi and National Park, Mulobezi or Sichifulo. However, the hippo-
Sichifulo Game Management Areas. These data comprised potamus Hippopotamus amphibius appears to be no longer
, georeferenced wildlife sightings from , man-days resident in any of the waterways along the Machili stream
of foot patrols during – (ZAWA, unpubl. data). and catchment area, and the klipspringer Oreotragus oreo-
In we undertook a systematic randomized spoor and tragus appears to be absent from Mulobezi, although core
sightings survey of large carnivores and their principal prey habitat for this species went unsurveyed. The steenbok
throughout -km survey blocks in Mulobezi, Sichifulo Raphicerus campestris is considered to be at the extent of
and the Nyawa/Simalaha areas. Detection probability and its north-east range approaching Kafue National Park,
survey effort were optimized for large carnivores following with a single sighting recorded in Mulobezi.
Funston et al. () and Thorn et al. (). In addition, a The absence of confirmed sightings of the caracal
site-specific calibration process was undertaken during Caracal caracal and serval Leptailurus serval by Wildlife
July–September , conducted at various spatio-temporal Police Officer patrols in southern Kafue National Park ap-
scales, to establish the survey effort required to detect large pear to be an anomaly, given detections of the species in ad-
carnivores and sample the landscape in a single season jacent Game Management Areas. Although it is likely this
(MacKenzie & Royle, ; D.I. MacKenzie, pers. comm. anomaly represents non-detection error versus absence,
). In total, -km transects were surveyed on foot we discarded these species from the final checklist.
Oryx, 2019, 53(4), 764–773 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317001594
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 14 Mar 2021 at 03:55:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 14 Mar 2021 at 03:55:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
TABLE 1 Species detected in various studies conducted in wildlife management areas at the Kafue–Zambezi interface (Fig. ), their IUCN Red List status, and whether or not there was a change
in distribution between and –.
Oryx, 2019, 53(4), 764–773 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317001594
R. Kraljik (unpubl. Zambia Wildlife Authority
Ansell (1978) data, 2013/2014) (unpubl. data, 2014/2015) This study (2014/2015) Distribution change 1978–2014/2015
Red List Kafue NP/ Kafue NP/ Kafue NP/
Species status1 South Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha Mulobezi Sichifulo South Mulobezi Sichifulo Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha South Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha
Cheetah Acinonyx VU ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes
jubatus
Lion Panthera leo VU ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes2
Leopard Panthera VU ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes2
pardus
Spotted hyaena LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes2
Crocuta crocuta
Side-striped jackal LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No No
Canis adustus
African wild dog EN ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes
Lycaon pictus
African elephant VU ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes2
Loxodonta africana
Burchell’s zebra NT ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes3
Equus quagga
Warthog Phacochoerus LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes
africanus
Bushpig Potamochoerus LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes
larvatus
Hippopotamus VU ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No Yes2 Yes2 Yes2
Hippopotamus
amphibius
Hartebeest Alcelaphus LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes
lichtensteinii
Blue wildebeest LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes3
Connochaetes taurinus
Klipspringer Oreotragus LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No No
oreotragus
Oribi Ourebia ourebi LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No No
Steenbok Raphicerus LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ UK4 No Yes Yes
campestris
Sharpe’s grysbok LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No No
Raphicerus sharpei
African buffalo LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes
Syncerus caffer
The Kafue–Zambezi interface
Common eland LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes
Tragelaphus oryx
Bushbuck Tragelaphus LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No Yes
scriptus
Sitatunga Tragelaphus LC ✓ Yes No No No
spekii
Greater kudu LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No No
Tragelaphus
strepsiceros
Common duiker LC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No No No No
Sylvicapra grimmia
769770 R. Lines et al.
Significant losses have occurred in the Simalaha
Kafue NP/ Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha Mulobezi Sichifulo Kafue NP/ Mulobezi Sichifulo Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha Kafue NP/ Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha
Distribution change 1978–2014/2015
Communal Conservancy, where of terrestrial mammals
Yes3
Yes3
Yes3
No3
Yes
Yes
No
No
were undetected (Fig. ) and the side-striped jackal Canis adu-
stus was the only widespread carnivore detected. The spotted
No hyaena Crocuta crocuta and the leopard Panthera pardus
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
were the only large carnivores detected within km of the
Zambezi River in the Nyawa communal areas (Fig. ). The re-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
mainder of the large carnivore guild appears to be extirpated
from the Simalaha/Nyawa area, along with all ungulates
. kg except the southern reedbuck Redunca arundinum
South
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
and the greater kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros. Kudu were
also the only herding ungulate to be detected in Simalaha, al-
This study (2014/2015)
✓
though no aggregations of more than three individuals were
✓ detected. Neither the warthog Phacochoerus africanus nor the
bushpig Potamochoerus larvatus, both habitat and feeding
generalists with high reproductive rates, were detected in
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Simalaha. Although . head of game, comprising seven
species, have been introduced into the , ha Simalaha
Wildlife Recovery Sanctuary since , only the side-striped
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
jackal was detected inside the (non-predator-proof) area.
Zambia Wildlife Authority
(unpubl. data, 2014/2015)
There was no evidence of any species range extension or re-
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
colonization throughout any of the sampled areas.
Although no long-term or landscape-level survey pro-
gramme is in place for systematic monitoring of changes
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
in species occurrence, distribution or abundance, much ex-
isting expertise and anecdotal evidence implies there have
South
been large-scale population declines throughout the
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Greater Kafue System and beyond since (C. Chifunte,
R. Kraljik (unpubl.
data, 2013/2014)
L. Daka, J. Hanks, HRH Chief Moomba, P. Moss & HRH
Chief Inyambo Yeta, pers. comms). Contemporary data in-
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
dicate Kafue National Park, the region’s prime wildlife area,
is maintaining the majority of terrestrial mammals at sig-
Non-resident individuals moving through the area, reported periodically by local people
nificantly below carrying capacity (Simukonda, ).
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Nonetheless, with few historical survey data available for
direct comparison, we restricted our analyses to species di-
LC, Least Concern; NT, Near Threatened; VU, Vulnerable; EN, Endangered
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
versity at the scale of interest, versus any interpretation of
spatio-temporal changes to community structure and abun-
Reintroduced in fenced , ha breeding camp during –
dance, which is beyond the scope of this article.
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Discussion
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Ansell (1978)
Formal historical records accounting for species loss in the
South
Simalaha and Nyawa areas are unavailable, although local
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Traditional Authorities (HRH Chief Inyambo Yeta &
HRH Chief Moomba, pers. comms ) emphasized the
Red List
status1
impact of the Angolan Bush War (–) as a key dri-
NT
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
ver, describing encampments of foreign combatants in
Sable antelope Hippotragus
Simalaha being used as a base to exploit the area’s wildlife
Cape porcupine Hystrix
Extent of known range
Hippotragus equinus
Redunca arundinum
for rations and profit. Following the cessation of hostilities
Puku Kobus vardonii
Lechwe Kobus leche
Southern reedbuck
Defassa waterbuck
there was a proliferation of small firearms in the area, and in
Table 1 (Cont.)
africaeaustralis
Impala Aepyceros
Kobus defassa
Roan antelope
conjunction with an increasing human population and lim-
melampus
ited funding for law enforcement and natural resource man-
niger
Species
agement, unsustainable harvesting of wildlife continued.
Given these circumstances we hypothesize that wildlife
Oryx, 2019, 53(4), 764–773 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317001594
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 14 Mar 2021 at 03:55:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594The Kafue–Zambezi interface 771
FIG. 5 Changes in carnivore and herbivore diversity in wildlife
management areas at the Kafue–Zambezi interface (Fig. ) during
–.
management areas closer to Kafue National Park were
spared much of this pressure, having also received more pol-
itical and revenue support for wildlife management in the
long term (L. Daka, pers. comm. ).
Surveys at the Kafue–Zambezi interface have employed a
range of ad hoc methodological approaches that failed to
detect the majority of resident species throughout this land-
scape. The absence of a reliable baseline undermines efforts
to evaluate the effectiveness of large-scale conservation in-
terventions required to deliver key programme objectives
within and between clusters of wildlife management areas. FIG. 6 Distribution of the spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta,
cheetah Acinonyx jubatus, African wild dog Lycaon pictus, lion
Acknowledging non-detection error, we confirm that the
Panthera leo and leopard Panthera pardus at the Kafue–Zambezi
diversity of terrestrial mammals (. kg) in southern Kafue interface (Fig. ) in –.
National Park remains unchanged since . Mulobezi and
Sichifulo retain largely intact mammalian diversity, with the of wildlife occurrence and distribution south of the Zambezi
notable exception of the hippopotamus. No new data could River throughout the wildlife management areas of the east-
be provided for the presence of free-ranging giraffes in any ern Zambezi region in Namibia, and the potential effects of
of these wildlife management areas. ecological traps/attractive sinks at transboundary scales on
A single-season survey design increases non-detection wildlife management interventions in Simalaha and other
error associated with species dispersal or seasonal wildlife neighbouring wildlife management areas of Zambia.
movement patterns; nonetheless, widespread losses, includ- Broader scale implications of species loss and ecological
ing three of six carnivore species and of prey species, traps within the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conser-
were detected in the Simalaha Communal Conservancy/ vation Area relate to dominant narratives about the
Nyawa areas, which link wildlife management areas at the connectivity of wildlife management areas. The extent to
interface of the Greater Kafue System and adjacent wildlife which existing and emerging drivers of species loss are
management areas in Namibia and Botswana. severing biological linkages between the Greater Kafue
These data emphasize the challenges associated with the System and adjacent wildlife management areas remain
scope and scale of conservation interventions required to unquantified and subject to speculation. However, data sug-
limit factors driving species loss from seven of nine taxo- gest there is a connectivity bottleneck for large mammals in
nomic families, representing a wide range of species traits. the Simalaha Communal Conservancy, with only of
If drivers of species loss continue to limit population recov- species known from historical records detected throughout
ery in the Simalaha/Nyawa areas then source–sink dynam- this area in –.
ics and edge effects can have a negative impact on the The long-distance dispersal capabilities of large carni-
population viability of vulnerable species in peripheral wild- vores imply scope for gene flow between the Greater
life management areas at local and transboundary scales. Kafue System and adjacent wildlife management areas in
Wide-ranging species are particularly susceptible to the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area,
source–sink dynamics and edge effects, and therefore the and therefore the extent to which connectivity bottlenecks
absence of large carnivores from the Simalaha and the impact processes of immigration and emigration in highly
Simalaha Wildlife Recovery Sanctuary indicates the need mobile species is a priority area of research for regional con-
for additional research to understand the status and drivers nectivity conservation management.
Oryx, 2019, 53(4), 764–773 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317001594
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 14 Mar 2021 at 03:55:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594772 R. Lines et al.
We focused on ascertaining changes to the occurrence and A N S E L L , W.F.H. () Some mammals from Northern Rhodesia.
distribution of terrestrial mammals . kg known from Journal of Natural History, , –.
A N S E L L , W.F.H. () Further data on Northern Rhodesian
four composite wildlife management areas between the
ungulates. Mammalia, , –.
Greater Kafue System and a central cluster of wildlife manage- A N S E L L , W.F.H. () Mammals of Northern Rhodesia. The
ment areas in the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Government Printer, Lusaka, Northern Rhodesia.
Conservation Area, and the methodological approach was A N S E L L , W.F.H. () The Mammals of Zambia. National Parks &
successful for species at the scale of interest. These data can- Wildlife Service. The Government Printer, Lusaka, Zambia.
B AT T I N , J. () When good animals love bad habitats: ecological
not elucidate population numbers and trends, but it is appar-
traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conservation
ent that ongoing attempts to maintain population viability of Biology, , –.
vulnerable species and wildlife connectivity between clusters B E L L A R D , C., B E R T E L S M E I E R , C., L E A D L E Y , P., T H U I L L E R , W. &
of wildlife management areas, and the promotion of wildlife- C O U R C H A M P , F. () Impacts of climate change on the future of
based land uses, will depend on diagnosing and treating the biodiversity. Ecology Letters, , –.
interacting ecological, socio-economic and political drivers B I G G S , R., S I M O N S , H., B A K K E N E S , M., S C H O L E S , R.J., E I C K H O U T , B.,
VA N V U U R E N , D. & A L K E M A D E , R. () Scenarios of biodiversity
of species loss within and between clusters of wildlife manage- loss in southern Africa in the st century. Global Environmental
ment areas, utilizing comparative studies at appropriate tem- Change, , –.
poral and spatial scales. The limits to which sufficient political B R E L S F O R D , W.V. () The Tribes of Zambia. The Government
and economic capital can be leveraged to bridge these knowl- Printer, Lusaka, Zambia.
edge gaps, act accordingly on the findings, and implement C A R D I L LO , M., M A C E , G.M., G I T T L E M A N , J.L., J O N E S , K.E., B I E L B Y , J.
& P U R V I S , A. () The predictability of extinction: biological and
monitoring, evaluation and feedback are likely to determine
external correlates of decline in mammals. Proceedings of the Royal
future connectivity for Zambia’s majority component within Society B: Biological Sciences, , –.
the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. CSO (C E N T R A L S T AT I S T I C S O F F I C E O F Z A M B I A ) () Http://www.
zamstats.gov.zm/ [accessed June ].
C U M M I N G , D.H.M. () Large Scale Conservation Planning and
Acknowledgements Priorities for the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation
Area. A report for Conservation International, Arlington, USA.
We thank A. Nambota for assistance with study development; C U M M I N G , G.S. () Spatial Resilience in Social-ecological Systems.
Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
D. MacKenzie and P. Henschel for assistance with study de-
DNPW (D E P A R T M E N T O F N AT I O N A L P A R K S A N D W I L D L I F E ) ()
sign; P. Moss, J. Hanks and M. Musgrave for insights into Report on the Aerial Census of Elephants and Other Large
Kafue National Park and surrounding Game Management Mammals in Zambia: Volume II, Population Estimates for Other
Areas; the Chilanga, Ngoma, Mulobezi and Mulanga offices Large Mammals and Birds. Department of National Parks and
of the Department of Parks and Wildlife Management (for- Wildlife, Chilanga, Zambia.
merly the Zambia Wildlife Authority) for permissions and F I S C H E R , J., L I N D E N M AY E R , D.B. & M A N N I N G , A.D. ()
Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding
field support; P. Matape, M. Samuntafu, E. Kashaye, principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in
D. Mundia, G. Kambole and R. Kraljic for field support; and Ecology and the Environment, , –.
HRH Chief Inyambo Yeta of the Lozi and the late HRH Chief F U N S T O N , P.J., F R A N K , L., S T E P H E N S , T., D AV I D S O N , Z., L O V E R I D G E ,
Moomba of the Nkoya, for granting smooth passage through A., M AC D O N A L D , D.M. et al. () Substrate and species
their Chiefdoms. Funding was provided by Humane Society constraints on the use of track incidences to estimate African large
carnivore abundance. Journal of Zoology, , –.
Australia, WWF Namibia, MergerMarket Group and H A N K S , J. () The role of Transfrontier Conservation Areas in
Westwood, with grant management through TUSK Trust southern Africa in the conservation of mammalian biodiversity. In
UK and the Namibia Nature Foundation. RL’s PhD is sup- Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Diversity. Has the
ported by a University of Kent at Canterbury th Panda had its Day? (eds A. Entwistle & N. Dunstone), pp. –.
Anniversary Graduate Teaching Scholarship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
H A N K S , J. () Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) in
southern Africa: their role in conserving biodiversity,
socioeconomic development and promoting a culture of peace.
Author contributions Journal of Sustainable Forestry, , –.
H A N K S , J. & M Y B U R G H , W. () The evolution and progression of
RL designed and undertook fieldwork and wrote the article, Transfrontier Conservation Areas in the southern African
with input from JT and DM on structure and analysis. development community. In Institutional Arrangements for
Conservation, Development and Tourism in Eastern and Southern
Africa (eds R. van der Duim, M. Lamers & J. van Wijk), pp. –.
References Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
H O L U B , E. () Emil Holub’s Travels North of the Zambezi, –.
A N D E R S S O N , J., D E G A R I N E -W I C H AT I T S K Y , M., C U M M I N G , D., Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK.
D Z I N G I R A I , V. & G I L L E R , K. (eds) () Transfrontier J AC H M A N N , H. () Comparison of aerial counts with ground
Conservation Areas: People Living on the Edge. Routledge, counts for large African herbivores. Journal of Applied Ecology, ,
Abingdon, UK. –.
Oryx, 2019, 53(4), 764–773 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317001594
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 14 Mar 2021 at 03:55:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594The Kafue–Zambezi interface 773
KAZA TFCA S E C R E TA R I AT (a) Treaty Between the Governments QGIS D E V E LO P M E N T T E A M () Quantum GIS Geographic
of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe on the Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project.
Establishment of the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Https://www.osgeo.org/projects/qgis/.
Area. Kavango–Zambezi TFCA Secretariat, Kasane, Botswana. S A M P S O N , R. () The Man with a Toothbrush in His Hat: The Story
KAZA TFCA S E C R E T A R I A T (b) Strategic Action Plan. Kavango– and Times of George Copp Westbeech in Central Africa. Multimedia
Zambezi TFCA Secretariat, Kasane, Botswana. Publications, Lusaka, Zambia.
KAZA TFCA Secretariat () Master Integrated Development Plan. S I M U KO N D A , C. () A Countrywide Survey of Large Mammals,
Kavango–Zambezi TFCA Secretariat, Victoria Falls, Zambia. Zambia. Zambia Wildlife Authority, Lusaka, Zambia.
L A N C A S T E R , D.G. () A Check List of the Mammals of Northern S U T H E R L A N D , W.J., P U L L I N , A.S., D O L M A N , P.M. & K N I G H T , T.M.
Rhodesia. The Government Printer, Lusaka, Northern Rhodesia. () The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology
L I N D S E Y , P., B A L M E , G., B E C K E R , M., B E G G , C., B E N T O , C., & Evolution, , –.
B O C C H I N O , C. et al. (a) Illegal hunting and the bush-meat trade T H O R N , M., G R E E N , M., B AT E M A N , P.W., C A M E R O N , E.Z., Y A R N E L L ,
in savanna Africa: drivers, impacts and solutions to address the R.W. & S C O T T , D.M. () Comparative efficacy of sign surveys,
problem. FAO, Panthera/Zoological Society of London/Wildlife spotlighting and audio playbacks in a landscape-scale carnivore
Conservation Society report, New York, USA. survey. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, , –.
L I N D S E Y , P.A., H AV E M A N N , C.P., L I N E S , R.M., P R I C E , A.E., R E T I E F , T. UNEP-WCMC (U N I T E D N AT I O N S E N V I R O N M E N T P R O G R A M M E
A., R H E B E R G E N , T. et al. (b) Benefits of wildlife-based land uses WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE) (). Protected Planet
on private lands in Namibia and limitations affecting their Database. Http://www.protectedplanet.net [accessed May ].
development. Oryx, , –. U N I T E D N AT I O N S , D E P A R T M E N T O F E C O N O M I C A N D S O C I A L
M AC K E N Z I E , D.I. & R O Y L E , J.A. () Designing occupancy studies: A F F A I R S , P O P U L A T I O N D I V I S I O N () World Population
general advice and allocating survey effort. Journal of Applied Prospects: The Revision. Key Findings and Advance Tables.
Ecology, , –. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP..
M A R G U L E S , C.R. & P R E S S E Y , R.L. () Systematic conservation VA N D E R L I N D E , H., O G L E T H O R P E , J., S A N D W I T H , T., S N E L S O N , D.,
planning. Nature, , –. T E S S E M A , Y., T I É G A , A. & P R I C E , T. () Beyond Boundaries:
M A X W E L L , S.L., F U L L E R , R.A., B R O O K S , T.M. & W AT S O N , J.E.M. Transboundary Natural Resource Management in Sub-Saharan
() Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature, Africa. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC, USA.
, –. W AT S O N , F.G.R., B E C K E R , M.S., M I L A N Z I , J. & N Y I R E N D A , M. ()
M I L L E N N I U M E C O S Y S T E M A S S E S S M E N T () Ecosystems and Human encroachment into protected area networks in Zambia:
Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. implications for large carnivore conservation. Regional
M O S S , P. () Handbook to Kafue National Park. Future Publishing Environmental Change, , –.
(PTY) Ltd., Johannesburg, South Africa. W O O D R O F F E , R. & G I N S B E R G , J.R. () Edge effects and the
M U S G R AV E , M. () Scale, Governance and Change in Zambezi Teak extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science, ,
Forests: Sustainable Development for Commodity and Community. –.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. WWF () A brighter future for communities and wildlife. Http://
N E W M A R K , W.D. () Isolation of African protected areas. Frontiers www.worldwildlife.org/stories/a-brighter-future-for-communities-
in Ecology and the Environment, , –. and-wildlife [accessed February ].
O G U T U , J.O., P I E P H O , H.P., S A I D , M.Y., O J WA N G , G.O., N J I N O , L.W., ZAWA (ZAMBIA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY) () General Management Plan
K I F U G O , S.C. & W A R G U T E , P.W. () Extreme wildlife declines for Kafue National Park. ZAWA, Chilanga, Zambia.
and concurrent increase in livestock numbers in Kenya: what are the Z B I C Z , D. () Transboundary cooperation between internationally
causes? PLoS ONE, (), e. adjoining protected areas. In On the Frontiers of Conservation:
P AC H A U R I , R.K., A L L E N , M.R., B A R R O S , V.R., B R O O M E , J., C R A M E R , Proceedings of the th Conference on Research and Resource
W., C H R I S T , R. et al. () Climate Change : Synthesis Report. Management in Parks and on Public Lands. The George Wright
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Society, Hancock, USA.
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. Biographical sketches
P I T M A N , C. () A Report on a Faunal Survey of Northern Rhodesia.
Government Printer, Livingstone, Northern Rhodesia. R O B I N L I N E S is a conservation biologist working on large carnivore con-
PPF (P E AC E P A R K S F O U N D AT I O N ) () Integrated Development servation, human–wildlife interactions, community conservation and the
Plan for the Zambian Component of the Kavango–Zambezi promotion of wildlife-based land uses. J O S E P H T Z A N O P O U L O S is inter-
Transfrontier Conservation Area. Peace Parks Foundation, ested in geographical information systems, nature conservation policy and
Stellenbosch, South Africa. governance, and impact assessment of land-use changes. D O U G L A S
PPF (P E AC E P A R K S F O U N D AT I O N ) () Restocking Simalaha M A C M I L L A N is interested in the economics of wildlife conservation,
Community Conservancy. Http://www.peaceparks.org/news.php? wildlife trade and poaching, human–wildlife interactions, and land-use
pid=&mid=&lid= [accessed July ]. change.
Oryx, 2019, 53(4), 764–773 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317001594
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 14 Mar 2021 at 03:55:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594You can also read
