ArticlePDF Available

Priority Primate Areas in Tanzania

January 2013
Oryx 48(1):39-51

DOI:10.1017/S0030605312001676

Authors:

Katarzyna Nowak

University of Warsaw

Andrew Perkin

Priority Primate Areas are identified in Tanzania, mainland Africa's most important country for conservation of primates, on the basis of occupancy by globally rare, Red-Listed and range-restricted primate species and subspecies. We provide a comprehensive list and regional assessment of Tanzania's primate taxa, using IUCN Red List criteria, as well as the first national inventory of primates for 62 sites. The Priority Primate Areas, encompassing 102,513 km2, include nine national parks, one conservation area, seven game reserves, six nature reserves, 34 forest reserves and five areas with no official protection status. Primate species were evaluated and ranked on the basis of irreplaceability and vulnerability, using a combination of established and original criteria, resulting in a primate Taxon Conservation Score. Sites were ranked on the basis of summed primate scores. The majority (71%) of Priority Primate Areas are also Important Bird Areas (IBAs), or part of an IBA. Critical subsets of sites were derived through complementarity analyses. Adequate protection of just nine sites, including six national parks (Kilimanjaro, Kitulo, Mahale, Saadani, Udzungwa and Jozani-Chwaka Bay), one nature reserve (Kilombero) and two forest reserves (Minziro and Mgambo), totalling 8,679 km2, would protect all 27 of Tanzania's primate species. The addition of three forest reserves (Rondo, Kilulu Hill and Ngezi) and two game reserves (Grumeti and Biharamulo), results in a list of 14 Priority Primate Areas covering 10,561 km2 (1.1% of Tanzania's total land area), whose conservation would ensure the protection of all 43 of Tanzania's species and subspecies of primates.

Location of the 62 sites considered in the ranking analysis of Priority Primate Areas.

…

Figures - uploaded by Katarzyna Nowak

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Katarzyna Nowak

Content may be subject to copyright.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

Priority Primate Areas in Tanzania

T IM R.B. DAVENPORT,KATARZYNA N OWAK and A NDREW P ERKIN

Abstract Priority Primate Areas are identiﬁed in Tanzania,

mainland Africa’s most important country for conservation

of primates, on the basis of occupancy by globally rare, Red-

Listed and range-restricted primate species and subspecies.

We provide a comprehensive list and regional assessment of

Tanzania’s primate taxa, using IUCN Red List criteria, as

well as the ﬁrst national inventory of primates for 62 sites.

The Priority Primate Areas, encompassing 102,513 km

include nine national parks, one conservation area, seven

game reserves, six nature reserves, 34 forest reserves and ﬁve

areas with no oﬃcial protection status. Primate species were

evaluated and ranked on the basis of irreplaceability and

vulnerability, using a combination of established and ori-

ginal criteria, resulting in a primate Taxon Conservation

Score. Sites were ranked on the basis of summed primate

scores. The majority (71%) of Priority Primate Areas are also

Important Bird Areas (IBAs), or part of an IBA. Critical

subsets of sites were derived through complementarity

analyses. Adequate protection of just nine sites, including

six national parks (Kilimanjaro, Kitulo, Mahale, Saadani,

Udzungwa and Jozani-Chwaka Bay), one nature reserve

(Kilombero) and two forest reserves (Minziro and

Mgambo), totalling 8,679 km

, would protect all 27 of

Tanzania’s primate species. The addition of three forest

reserves (Rondo, Kilulu Hill and Ngezi) and two game

reserves (Grumeti and Biharamulo), results in a list of 14

Priority Primate Areas covering 10,561 km

(1.1%of

Tanzania’s total land area), whose conservation would

ensure the protection of all 43 of Tanzania’s species and

subspecies of primates.

Keywords Conservation status, primates, priority sites,

protected areas, Tanzania

This paper contains supp lementary material that can be

found online at http://journals.cambridge.org

Introduction

ince the mid 1990s a variety of priority setting concepts

have been designed to guide policy and help reap

maximum beneﬁt in a world of limited conservation

resources (Balmford, 2002; Caro, 2010; Gauthier et al.,

2010). Often employing diﬀerent taxa and/or criteria, these

have been either coarse-scale and global in reach (e.g. Global

Biodiversity Hotspo ts, Myers et al., 2000; Centres of Plant

Diversity, WWF & IUCN 199 4–1997; Endemic Bird Areas,

Stattersﬁeld et al., 1998 ), or more ﬁne-scale and regional,

(e.g. Important Bird Areas, Fishpool & Evans, 2001; Impor-

tant Plant Areas, Anderson, 2002 , Plantlife International,

2004; Important Mammal Areas, Linzey, 2002; Prime

Butterﬂy Areas, van Swaay & Warren, 2003). Others (e.g.

Key Biod iversity Areas) are sites of global importance for

conservation of biodiversity and yet aimed at the site-scale

(Langhammer et al., 2007), with the irreplaceability and

vulnerability of species the main criteria.

Tanzania is widely regarded as being the most important

country in mainland Africa for biodiversity and biological

endemism, with the continent’s highest mountain, deepest

lakes and two globally signiﬁcant biodiversity hotspots, the

Eastern Arc Mountains and the Albertine Rift (Burgess

et al., 2004a, 2004b). However, Tanzania has the second

highest rate of forest loss in sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2005)

and, despite considerable conservation investment and a

large amount of land nominally under protection, natural

habitats and biodiversity continue to be lost at a signiﬁcant

rate (e.g. Rovero et al., 2012). For a developing nation of

such global natural resource importance, priority setting is

an essential conservation tool.

A range of general national-level priority setting analyses

has been carried out in Tanzania. The African Mammal

Databank undertook an environmental suitability and

species occurrence analysis (Boitani et al., 1999), although

extrapolations were based on species habitat suitability

rather than species occupancy. No distinction was made

at the subspecies level, and the extent and number of

occupied protected areas was overestimated. The European

Commission subsequently used these data to assess 31 pro-

tected areas in Tanzania for mammal, bird, amphibian and

habitat irreplaceability (Hartley et al., 2007), and IUCN’s

Gap Analysis evaluated whether protected areas safeguard

biodiversity and how much biodiversity falls outside them

(Langhammer et al., 2007). More speciﬁcally, the Alliance

for Zero Extinction (Ricketts et al., 2005) aimed to identify

sites that contain at least 95% of a known population of one

or more Critically Endangered or Endangered species. In

Africa, 76 sites and 122 species were identiﬁed and Tanzania

had the most (eight) Alliance for Zero Extinction sites,

seven of which are based on amphibians. However, because

of the nature of the Alliance for Zero Extinction process

there is a bias towards sites that have been better

investigated, and thus the list for Tanzania is neither topical

TIM DAVENPORT (Corresponding author) Wildlife Conservation Society, P.O.

Box 922, Zanzibar, Tanzania. E-mail: tdavenport@wcs.org

ATARZYNA NOWAK Udzungwa Elephant Project, Iringa, Tanzania

NDREW PERKIN c/o Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, Dar es Salaam,

Tanzania

Received 14 July 2012. Revision requested 26 October 2012.

Accepted 16 November 2012.

Oryx

, Page 1 of 13 doi:10.1017/S0030605312001676

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

nor complete. Currently, the Critical Ecosystem Partnership

Fund is identifying Key Biodiversity Areas across the

Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot, including in

Tanzania, but this work is not yet complete (BirdLife, 2012).

At the species level there have been only two national

analyses, the 77 Important Bird Areas of Tanzania (Baker &

Baker, 2002) and a partial identiﬁcation of the nation’s

Important Plant Areas (McClean et al., 2006).

Primates are one of the most threatened and charismatic

groups. The taxon is largely forest-dependent and Tanzania

hosts eight endemic species. This represents 29% of its total

primate species, a ﬁgure second only to Madagascar.

Usually, it is the rare primate species that are less well

studied, and this rarity is attributed to ecological special-

ization (Doherty & Harcourt, 2004). In Tanzania, however,

the two rarest species are not obligate specialists (Davenport

et al., 2010; Nowak & Lee, 2011) and as little is known about

their distribution and conservation status as about that of

the more common species. With the exception of a species

list recently constructed as part of a photographic atlas of

East African primates (De Jong & Butynski, 2012) and a few

site-speciﬁc primate lists (e.g. Rovero et al., 2009), Tanzania

lacks a complete annotated list of its species (and

subspecies/races) of diurnal and nocturnal primates, or a

nationwide dataset of primate distribution and status. We

provide here the ﬁ rst complete annotated list of Tanzanian

primates, including diurnal and nocturnal species and

subspecies. We also present a novel concept synonymous

with Important Bird Areas, which we have called Priority

Primate Areas, based on our compilation and comprehen-

sive nationwide analysis of distributions and status. We

identify these Priority Primate Areas to facilitate a focus on

the range-restricted and threatened primate species and

subspecies that will most beneﬁt from conservation at the

site-level. The intention is to quantify at a national scale the

immediacy and precedence of threats to a group that has

both considerable conservation relevance and charismatic

appeal, thus identifying conservation gaps, providing ‘watch

lists’ of priority sites and taxa using globally consistent

criteria (Langhammer et al., 2007), and ensuring there is an

objective, empirical and ranked plan to protect all of

Tanzania’s primates.

Speciﬁcally, we aim to (1) identify major populations and

subpopulations of all primate species and subspecies in

Tanzania, (2) rank species and subspecies according to their

irreplaceability, vulnerability and conservation status (and

anticipating future taxonomic change), (3) identify priority

sites for conservation of primates on the basis of number

of species present and rank, (4) provide a minimum critical

list of sites whose protection would ensure the conservation

of all of Tanzania’s primates, (5) complement other taxa-

speciﬁc analyses such as Important Bird Areas, (6) identify

gaps in knowledge and conservation at a national scale, thus

limiting duplication of conservation eﬀort, and (7) provide

a concept (Priority Primate Areas) that could be adopted

internationally to prioritize implementation of the con-

servation of primate taxa. Primates are often ﬂagship species

(Caro, 2010); by identifying and quantifying priority sites for

primates in Tanzania we hope to ameliorate resource al-

location problems facing government and conservation

organizations (Rondinini et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2006)

and focus conservation attention on Tanzania’s unique

primate fauna and the habitats in which they dwell.

Methods

Species list

A full species list of the diurnal and nocturnal primates of

Tanzania was drawn up (Table 1). We followed the taxo-

nomy of Grubb et al. (2003), and referred to Groves (2007)

for Lophocebus johnstoni, Kingdon (1997) and Groves

(2005) for Cercocebus sanjei, Davenport et al. (2006) for

Rungwecebus kipunji,Groves(2001, 2005) for Chlorocebus

pygerythrus, and Rahm (1970), Napier (1985) and Kingdon

(1997) for Colobus angolensis sharpei. Primate taxonomy is

developing, occasionally contentious, and compounded by

concepts such as superspecies and clines, and by personal

interpretation. It is not our intention here to enter into

taxonomic debate. Tanzanian primates also experience high

levels of hybridization, such as between the baboons Papio

anubis and Papio cynocephalus on the Tanzania–Kenya

border (Alberts & Altmann, 2001) and the several inter- and

intraspeciﬁc Cercopithecine hybrid zones (Detwiler et al.,

2005), including Cercopithecus mitis albogularis and

Cercopithecus mitis stuhlmanni in Ngorongoro and Lake

Manyara, and Cercopithecus ascanius schmidti and

Cercopithecus mitis doggetti in Gombe National Park

(Detwiler, 2002). Although we recognize the presence of

hybrids we did not include them in the analysis. We

recognize two forms of Galagoides rondoensis, based on

recent data (Perkin et al., unpubl. data).

Species scores

For each species and subspecies IUCN (2012b) proscriptions

were applied. Following IUCN (2003) we also made

assessments of the extinction risk of Tanzanian national

populations of species and subspecies, as such evaluations

were previously lacking. We thus assigned regional Red List

categories to all Tanzanian taxa if the national status mer-

ited a classiﬁcation higher than the global status (Table 1).

Nationwide primate distributions were comp iled from the

literature, online databases, local expert knowledge and

personal observations from our combined experience in

Tanzania. Databanks included the IUCN Red List (IUCN,

2012b),thePrimateInformationNetworkfactsheets(Primate

Info Net, 2011), the African Mammals Databank (1999),

2 T. R. B. Davenport et al.

Oryx

, 1–13

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

TABLE 1 List of primate species and subspecies in Tanzania, with their Red List status at the global (IUCN, 2012b) and national levels (see text for sources). Endemic taxa are in bold (note that

national and global assessments are the same when a taxon is endemic).

Genus Species Subspecies Common name

Red List status

(criteria

)

Global sp. Global subsp. National sp. National subsp.

Hominidae

Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii Eastern robust chimpanzee EN EN EN

Cercopithecidae

Cercocebus sanjei Sanje mangabey EN EN

Cercopithecus ascanius schmidti Schmidt’s red-tailed monkey LC LC NT*

mitis monoides Tanzania Sykes’ monkey LC LC LC LC

moloneyi Moloney’s white-collared monkey LC LC

doggetti Doggett’s blue monkey LC LC

albogularis Zanzibar Sykes’ monkey LC LC

Chlorocebus pygerythrus hilgerti Hilgert’s vervet LC LC LC

nesiotes Pemba vervet VU(B1a,bi,iii)*

rufoviridis Reddish-green vervet LC

tantalus Tantalus monkey LC

Erythrocebus patas baumstarki Serengeti patas monkey LC VU(B1a,b,C2a,D1)* VU(B1a,b,C2a,D1)*

Lophocebus ugandae Uganda grey-cheeked mangabey LC E(B1a,biii,B2a,b)*

Papio anubis Olive baboon LC LC

cynocephalus cynocephalus Yellow baboon LC LC LC LC

kindae Kinda yellow baboon LC LC

Rungwecebus kipunji Kipunji CR CR

Colobidae

Colobus angolensis palliatus Peters’ Angola colobus LC LC LC LC

sharpei Sharpe’s Angola colobus VU(B1a,b,c)* VU(B1a,b,c)*

ruwenzorii Adolf Friedrichs’s Angola colobus VU NE

subsp. nov. Nkungwe Angola colobus DD NE

guereza caudatus Mt Kilimanjaro guereza LC LC LC VU(B1a,b)*

matschei Mau Forest guereza LC NT*

Procolobus rufomitratus tephrosceles Eastern red colobus LC EN EN

gordonorum Udzungwa red colobus EN EN

kirkii Zanzibar red colobus EN EN

Galagidae

Galago senegalensis braccatus Kenya lesser galago LC LC LC LC

sotikae Uganda lesser galago LC LC

moholi Southern lesser galago LC LC

Priority Primate Areas in Tanzania 3

Oryx

, 1–13

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

the Tanzania Mammal Atlas Project (2013), the Pictorial

Guide to Living Primates (2013), Tanzania National

Parks websites and grey literature, although these mainly

provided extent of occurrence estimates rather than occu-

pancy.

Site list

A list of discrete sites in which species occur was compiled

(Fig. 1). This followed the Alliance for Zero Extinction

deﬁnition (Ricketts et al., 2005): ‘an area with a deﬁnable

boundary within which the character of habitats, biological

communities, and/or management issues have more in

common with each other than they do with those in ad-

jacent areas.’ Thus, sites such as Tongwe East (Forest

Reserve) and Ugalla River (Game Reserve), and Kitulo

(National Park) and Mt Rungwe (Nature Reserve) were

treated separately, although contiguous, because of their

diﬀerent protected area status and hence management.

Protected area data came from Protected Planet (2013), the

Tanzania Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism,

and Tanzania National Parks. Areas to which species were

introduced (Rubondo Island for Pan troglodytes and

Colobus guereza, and Ngezi Forest, Pemba, for Procolobus

kirkii), were not included although we recognize that these

sites may contribute to species’ conservation and genetic

and behavioural diversity.

Taxon conservation score

To rank sites it was ﬁrst necessary to assign conservation

scores to each taxon so that a summed score based on taxon

presence could be applied. The taxon conservation score

is a sum of a taxon’s irreplaceability and vulnerability.

For irreplaceability we modiﬁed the index used by the

European Community (Hartley et al., 2007), calculating 1/n

(maximum 5 1), where n 5 the number of sites in which a

taxon occurs. To this site occupancy score we added a value

reﬂecting the percentage of a taxon’s total range that falls

within Tanzania (maximu m 5 2.5; Table 2); this gives a

proxy for percentage of the total population within

Tanzania, data that are unavailable for most taxa. Thus

taxon irreplaceability score 5 (1/n) + (% range score). We

calculated a taxon vulnerability score using global Red List

data (IUCN, 2012b) and our recommended Tanzanian Red

List status (maximum 5 4; Table 3), and the current popu-

lation trend for each taxon. The latter was quantiﬁed

according to whether the Tanzanian population is decreas-

ing (0.5), stable or assumed stable (0), increasing (−0.5)or

unknown (−0.25). Thus vulnerability score 5 Red List

score + population trend score. Summing the scores of

taxon irreplaceability and vulnerability produces an overall

taxon conservation sco re (maximum total 5 8).

Table 1 (Cont.)

Genus Species Subspecies Common name

Red List status

(criteria

)

Global sp. Global subsp. National sp. National subsp.

Galagoides cocos Kenya coast galago NT EN

demidoﬀ anomurus Demidoﬀ’s galago LC VU VU

granti Mozambique galago LC LC

orinus Mountain galago NT NT*

rondoensis CR CR

subsp. A Rondo galago CR CR

subsp. B Rondo galago CR CR

sp. nov. Rungwe galago EN(B1abi,ii)* EN(B1abi,ii)*

thomasi Thomas’ galago LC VU

zanzibaricus udzungwensis Matundu galago LC LC LC LC

zanzibaricus Zanzibar galago EN EN

Otolemur crassicaudatus montieri Large-eared greater galago LC LC

garnettii garnettii Zanzibar small-eared galago LC LC LC LC

lasiotis White-tailed small-eared galago LC VU

panganiensis Pangani small-eared galago LC LC

CR, Critically Endangered; EN, Endangered; VU, Vulnerable; NT, Near Threatened; LC, Least Concern; NE, Not Evaluated

IUCN (2003, 2012a)

*Recommended change, or assessed in this study

4 T. R. B. Davenport et al.

Oryx

, 1–13

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

Site scores

A matrix was compiled of the 62 sites identiﬁed (Fig. 1) and

occupancy by primates (Supplementary Table S1). The

taxon conservation scores for primates at each site were

summed, producing total site scores for nocturnal, diurnal

and all (combined nocturnal and diurnal) species and all

taxa (Supplementary Tables S2 &S3, respectively). Sites

were then ranked according to their taxon scores: all species,

nocturnal species, diurnal species, all taxa, nocturnal taxa

and diurnal taxa. To derive a ranked list of Priority Primate

Areas two simple complementarity analyses were per-

formed, one by taxa frequency and the other by site rank.

For the former we began with the site in each category that

had the highest number of taxa and then added the next site

that would add more taxa. This was continued until a list of

Priority Primate Areas for species and taxa had been

produced. For the latter we began with the site that ranked

highest and subsequent complementary sites were added

consecutively from the site rank list that added more species

(Howard et al., 2000; Brugiere, 2012).

Results

We recognize 27 species of primates in Tanzania (15 diurnal

and 12 nocturnal species) and 43 taxa (26 diurnal and 17

nocturnal) including subspecies (Table 1). Of these, four are

endemic diurnal primate species (C. sanjei, R. kipunji,

Procolobus gordonorum and P. kirkii), four are endemic

nocturnal species (Galagoides orinus, G. rondoensis,

FIG. 1 Location of the 62 sites considered in the ranking analysis of Priority Primate Areas.

TABLE 2 Scores assigned to the percentage of the total range of a

primate species or subspecies that falls within Tanzania, for the

calculation of the taxon conservation score (see text for details).

% of range Species Subspecies

100 2.50 1.25

.50 2.00 1.00

20–50 1.50 0.75

5–20 1.00 0.50

,5 0.50 0.25

TABLE 3 Scores assigned to the global Red List status (IUCN, 2012b)

or our recommended Tanzanian Red List status of primate species

or subspecies (Table 1), for the calculation of the taxon

conservation score (see text for details). The highest possible

score for each taxon was applied.

Red List status

Global Tanzania

Species Subspecies Species Subspecies

Critically

Endangered

42 10.5

Endangered 3 1.5 0.75 0.375

Vulnerable 2 1 0.5 0.25

Near Threatened 1 0.5 0.25 0.125

Least Concern 0 0 0 0

Priority Primate Areas in Tanzania 5

Oryx

, 1–13

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

Galagoides sp. nov. and Galagoides zanzibaricus), and four

are endemic diurnal subspecies (Chlorocebus pygerythrus

nesiotes, Erythrocebus patas baumstarki, Colobus angolensis

subsp. nov. and Colobus guereza caudatus). The list includes

two species that are categorized on the IUCN Red List

as Critically Endangered, ﬁve as Endangered, two as Near

Threatened and 18 as Least Concern (IUCN, 2012b). At

the subspecies level two are categorized as Critically

Endangered, three as Endangered, four as Vulnerable, one

as Data Deﬁcient and 19 as Least Concern (IUCN, 2012b). At

the national level two species are categorized as Critically

Endangered, eigh t as Endangered, three as Vulnerable,

two as Near Threatened and 11 as Least Concern, and at

national subspecies level, two as Critically Endangered,

one as Endangered, four as Vulnerable, one as Near

Threatened, two as Not Evaluated and 13 as Least Concern

(IUCN, 2012b). We assigned putative Red List categories

(IUCN, 2003) for 11 taxa; the relevant justiﬁcations are given

in Table 1.

The comparative rankings of each taxon are illustrated in

Tables 4–5. The taxon conservation scores produced the

same top six primates irrespective of whether the analysis

was at the species or taxon level. These were R. kipunji,

G. rondoensis, C. sanjei, P. gordonorum, P. kirkii and

Galagoides sp. nov. Of the 62 sites identiﬁed as being of

importance for conservation of primates 57 are oﬃcially or

nominally protected (nine national parks; six nature

reserves; 34 forest reserves, including four proposed nature

reserves; seven game reserves; and one conservation area).

The other ﬁve sites are either privately managed or have no

protection status.

On application of the taxon conservation scores to the 62

sites, a matrix was drawn up illustrating the Priority Primate

Areas across Tanzania according to all diurnal and

TABLE 4 The comparative ranking of each primate species based on

the taxon conservation score (maximum 5 8; see text for details).

Rank Species Score

1 R. kipunji 7.33

2 G. rondoensis 7.13

3 C. sanjei 6.50

4 P. kirkii 6.33

5 P. gordonorum 6.24

6 G. sp. nov. 6.20

7 P. troglodytes 4.17

8 G. orinus 4.07

9 G. cocos 3.50

10 L. ugandae 3.25

11 G. zanzibaricus 2.54

12 G. thomasi 2.50

13 P. rufomitratus 2.45

145 E. patas 2.00

145 G. demidoﬀ 2.00

16 G. moholi 1.75

17 G. granti 1.60

185 C. angolensis 1.53

185 O. garnettii 1.53

20 C. mitis 1.52

21 C. guereza 1.25

22 G. senegalensis 1.11

23 C. ascanius 1.08

245 P. cynocephalus 1.02

245 C. pygerythrus 1.02

26 O. crassicaudatus 0.53

27 P. anubis 0.11

TABLE 5 The comparative ranking of each primate taxon (i.e.

species or subspecies) based on the taxon conservation score

(maximum 5 8 ; see text for details).

Rank Taxon Score

1 R. kipunji 7.33

2 C. sanjei 6.50

35 P. kirkii 6.33

35 P. gordonorum 6.25

5 G. rungwe sp. nov. 6.20

6 G. zanzibaricus zanzibaricus 4.50

7 P. troglodytes schweinfurthi 4.42

8 G. orinus 4.07

9 G. rondoensis subsp. nov. B 3.83

10 G. rondoensis subsp. nov. A 3.70

115 C. pygerythrus nesiotes 3.50

115 G. cocos 3.50

13 L. ugandae 3.25

14 C. angolensis subsp. nov. 2.75

15 P. rufomitratus tephrosceles 2.70

16 G. zanzibaricus udzungwensis 2.55

175 C. angolensis ruwenzorii 2.50

175 G. thomasi 2.50

195 E. patas baumstarcki 2.25

195 G. demidoﬀ anomurus 2.25

21 O. garnettii lasiotis 2.00

225 C. angolensis sharpei 1.75

225 C. guereza caudatus 1.75

225 G. senegalensis sotikae 1.75

225 G. moholi 1.75

26 C. guereza matschiei 1.63

27 G. granti 1.60

28 O. garnettii panganiensis 1.28

29 P. cynocephalus kindae 1.25

30 C. ascanius schmidti 1.08

31 P. cynocephalus cynocephalus 1.03

32 C. mitis doggetti 1.00

33 O. garnettii garnettii 0.95

34 C. pygerythrus hilgerti 0.89

355 C. mitis monoides 0.88

355 G. senegalensis braccatus 0.88

37 C. mitis moloneyi 0.84

38 C. pygerythrus rufoviridis 0.83

39 C. angolensis palliatus 0.79

40 C. mitis albogularis 0.78

41 C. pygerythrus tantalus 0.54

42 O. crassicaudatus montieri 0.53

43 P. anubis 0.11

6 T. R. B. Davenport et al.

Oryx

, 1–13

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

nocturnal species and all diurnal and nocturnal taxa

(Supplementary Tables S2–S3). When all primates are con-

sidered, either at the species level or species and subspecies

level, the sites that emerged to be most important are

Kilombero Nature Reserve, Udzungwa Mountains National

Park and Uzungwa Scarp Forest Reserve, with Kitulo

National Park and Mt Rungwe Nature Reserve in joint

fourth place (Fig. 2). If diurnal and nocturnal primates are

treated separately, Mahale Mountains National Park is

placed fourth for diurnal taxa (Fig. 3). The nocturnal

primates produced a diﬀerent assessment. At both the

species and all taxa levels, Saadani National Park, Pande

Game Reserve, and Pugu/Kazimzumbwe, Chitoa, Litipo,

Rondo, Ruawa and Ziwani Forest Reserves all illustrated the

1–10

11–20

21–30

31–62

1–10

11–20

21–30

31–62

(a)

(b)

FIG. 2 Top-ranking sites for (a) all

primate species and (b) all taxa

(i.e. species and subspecies). All

species: 1, Kilombero Nature

Reserve*†; 2, Udzungwa Mts

National Park†; 3, Uzungwa Scarp

Forest Reserve†; 45, Mt Rungwe

Nature Reserve*†; 45, Kitulo

National Park*†; 6, Saadani

National Park; 7, Mahale National

Park; 85, Pande GR*†; 85, Pugu/

Kazimzumbwe Forest Reserve*†;

10, Magombera†. All taxa: 1–5,as

above; 6, Mahale National Park; 7,

Magombera; 8, Jozani-Chwaka

Bay National Park†; 9, Minziro

Forest Reserve; 105, Kiwengwa-

Pongwe Forest Reserve†; 105, Uzi

and Vundwe Islands†.

*Critically Endangered species;

†endemic species present.

Priority Primate Areas in Tanzania 7

Oryx

, 1–13

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

importance of Tanzania’s coastal forests for galago taxa

(Fig. 4).

To derive an applied and ranked list of priority areas for

conservation of primates, two sets of Priority Primate Areas

were determined based on the two complementarity

analyses. For both the taxa frequency analysis and the site

rank analysis, a list of nine sites (with possible alternatives)

was identiﬁed for the 27 primate species, and 14 sites (with

alternatives) for the 43 primate taxa (Tables 6–7). Seven

Priority Primate Areas were identiﬁed separately for the 15

diurnal species, eight for the 12 nocturnal species, 11 for the

26 diurnal taxa, and 10 for the 17 nocturnal taxa.

1–10

11–20

21–30

31–62

1–10

11–20

21–30

31–62

(a)

(b)

FIG. 3 Top-ranking sites for

(a) diurnal primate species and

(b) taxa (i.e. species and

subspecies). Diurnal species: 1,

Kilombero Nature Reserve*†; 25,

Udzungwa Mts National Park†;

25, Uzungwa Scarp Forest

Reserve†; 4 , Mahale National

Park; 55, Mt Rungwe Nature

Reserve*†; 5 5, Kitulo National

Park*†; 7, Magombera†; 8, Gombe

National Park; 9, Jozani-Chwaka

Bay National Park†; 105,

Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest

Reserve†; 105 , Uzi/Vundwe

Islands†. Diurnal taxa: 1 –55 ,as

above; 7, Gombe National Park;

8, Magombera; 9, Jozani-Chwaka

Bay National Park; 10, Minziro

Forest Reserve.

*Critically Endangered species;

†endemic species present.

8 T. R. B. Davenport et al.

Oryx

, 1–13

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

Discussion

Given that endemism of primates in Tanzania is 29.6%

at species level and 28.6% at species and subspecies level

combined, with the highest number of threatened primate

taxa in mainland Africa, the country is of global con-

servation signiﬁcance. However, Tanzania still faces

substantial challenges, with a growing human population,

ever pressing needs for development and growth, and

an increasingly fragmented and human-dominated land-

scape. Prioritization of conservation interventions is thus

of particular importance for a nation with such a

responsibility. Because of their diversity, broad appeal and

taxonomic tractability, birds have often been used as

1–10

11–20

21–30

31–62

1–10

11–20

21–30

31–62

(a)

(b)

FIG. 4 Top-ranking sites for

(a) nocturnal primate species and

(b) taxa (i.e. species and

subspecies). Nocturnal species: 1,

Saadani National Park; 25, Pande

GR*†; 25 Pugu/Kazimzumbwe

Forest Reserve*†; 45, Ruawa

Forest Reserve; 45, Chitoa Forest

Reserve; 45, Litipo Forest

Reserve*†; 45, Rondo Forest

Reserve*†; 45, Ziwani Forest

Reserve*†; 9, Udzungwa Mts

National Park†; 10, Kilombero

Nature Reserve†. Nocturnal taxa:

1, Udzungwa Mts National Park; 2,

Saadani National Park; 3,

Kilombero Nature Reserve; 45,

Amani Forest Reserve; 45,

Mkungwe Forest Reserve; 45,

Nilo Nature Reserve; 7, Selous GR;

85, Pande GR; 85, Pugu/

Kazimzumbwe Forest Reserve;

105, Mt Rungwe Nature Reserve†

105, Kitulo National Park†.

*Critically Endangered species;

†endemic species present.

Priority Primate Areas in Tanzania 9

Oryx

, 1–13

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

eﬀective indicators of biodiversity and habitat health

(Howard et al., 1998), although cross-taxon congruence

has been less reliable, in part because of birds’ greater

mobility (Tsushabe et al., 2006). Despite their charismatic

qualities and evolutionary proximity to humans, primates

have been less of a focus for priority setting and less often

used as surrogate taxa for broader conservation needs. This

priority setting for primates is the ﬁrst such national

analysis, and oﬀers an objective, quantiﬁable protocol for

the identiﬁcation of Priority Primate Areas. We have

developed this method both to provide the means to

replicate the process of prioritizing sites important for

primates in other countries and to help focus national

conservation priorities in Tanzania.

There were a number of challenges, and compromises

made, in design ing this system, the foremost being how best

TABLE 6 Minimum critical set of Priority Primate Areas, based on

complementarity analyses (see text for further details), for all,

diurnal and nocturnal species. The sites are those that would at a

minimum need to be protected to conserve at least one population

of each of Tanzania’s primate species.

Rank Area*

No. of

species

All species

1 Kilombero NR 10

2 Udzungwa Mts NP 2

3 Kitulo NP or Mt Rungwe NR 1

4 Saadani NP 1

5 Mahale Mountains NP 5

6 Jozani-Chwaka Bay NP 1

7 Minziro FR 4

8 Mgambo FR 1

9 Kilimanjaro NP 2

Total 27

Diurnal species

1 Kilombero NR 6

2 Udzungwa Mts NP or

Uzungwa Scarp FR

3 Mahale Mts NP 3

4 Gombe Stream NP 1

5 Jozani-Chwaka Bay NP 1

6 Minziro FR 1

7 Arusha NP or Kilimanjaro NP 2

Total 15

Nocturnal species

1 Sadaani NP 4

2 Chitoa FR or Litipo FR or Rondo

FR or Ruawa FR or Ziwani FR

3 Udzungwa Mts NP 1

4 Kilombero NR 1

5 Selous 1

6 Kitulo NP or Mt Rungwe NR 1

7 Kilulu Hill FR or Mgambo FR 1

8 Minziro FR 2

Total 12

*NR, Nature Reserve; NP, National Park; FR, Forest Reserve

TABLE 7 Minimum critical set of Priority Primate Areas, based on

complementarity analyses (see text for further details), for all,

diurnal and nocturnal taxa (i.e. species and subspecies). The sites

are those that would at a minimum need to be protected to

conserve at least one population of each of Tanzania’s primate taxa.

Rank Area*

No. of

taxa

All taxa

1 Kilombero NR 10

2 Udzungwa Mts NP 3

3 Kitulo NP or

Mt Rungwe NR

4 Mahale Mountains NP 8

5 Jozani-Chwaka Bay NP 5

6 Minziro FR 5

7 Saadani NP 1

8 Chitoa FR or Litipo FR or

Rondo FR or Ruawa FR

or Ziwani FR

9 Kilimanjaro NP 3

10 Mgambo FR 1

11 Kilulu Hill FR 1

12 Grumeti GR 1

13 Biharamulo GR 1

14 Ngezi FR 1

Total 43

Diurnal taxa

1 Kilombero NR 6

2 Udzungwa Mts NP or

Uzungwa Scarp FR

3 Mahale Mts NP 6

4 Kitulo NP or Mt Rungwe NR 1

5 Gombe Stream 1

6 Jozani-Chwaka Bay NP 3

7 Minziro FR 2

8 Tongwe East GR 1

9 Arusha NP or

Kilimanjaro NP

10 Grumeti GR 1

11 Ngezi FR 1

Total 26

Nocturnal taxa

1 Udzungwa Mts NP 4

2 Sadaani NP 1

3 Kilombero NR 1

4 Selous GR 2

5 Kitulo NP or Mt Rungwe NR 1

6 Chitoa FR or Litipo FR or

Rondo FR or Ruawa FR or

Ziwani FR

7 Kilulu Hill FR 2

8 Jozani NP or Masingini FR

or Uzi-Vundwe

or Kiwengwa-Pongwe

9 Minziro FR 2

10 Biharamulo GR 1

Total 17

*NR, Nature Reserve; NP, National Park; FR, Forest Reserve; GR, Game

Reserve

10 T. R. B. Davenport et al.

Oryx

, 1–13

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

to deﬁne a site. We concluded that an area must have a

deﬁnable boundary within which the character of habitats,

biological communities, and/or management issues have

more in common with each other than they do with those in

adjacent areas. Conservation must be pragmatic. However,

it is clear that prioritization of forest sites can change as

lesser known areas are investigated (Burgess et al., 2007;

Davenport et al., 2007). That notwithstanding, the corre-

lation between site rankings and degree of survey eﬀort

(Doggart et al., 2006) is less of an issue with smaller

taxonomic groups such as primates.

There are a number of sites in Tanzania where primate

species have been introduced, notably Rubondo Island in

Lake Victoria (P. troglodytes and C. guereza), Ngezi

Forest on Pemba Island and Masingini Forest on Zanzibar

(Unguja) Island (P. kirkii). We made the decision not to

include sites where species had been introduced, although in

some instances this was diﬃcult to prove. For example, it is

not known whether vervets are indigenous to Zanzibar but

there is no irrefutable evidence to the contrary. It is the case

that introductions are diﬀerent to reintroductions on the

basis that reintroductions are a valid conservation tool.

However, although P. kirkii were introduced to Masingini

(Silkiluwasha, 1981) it is unclear if they were there formerly.

Therefore, we omitted P. troglodytes and C. guereza in

Rubondo and P. kirkii in Ngezi and, as we have no evidence

of their former presence in Masingini, we omitted them at

this site too. For the same reason we retained vervets in the

analysis.

Our study highlighted eight species of particular con-

servation concern in Tanzania: R. kipunji, G. rondoensis,

C. sanjei, P. kirkii, P. gordonorum, Galagoides sp. nov.,

P. troglodytes and G. orinus. We also assigned a threat

category to a number of taxa that had not previously been

designated ( Table 1). However, our main aim was to identify

all key primate sites in Tanzania, to prioritize conservation

intervention and facilitate the role of primates as ﬂagship

or umbrella species (Caro, 2011) for the conservation of

key habitats. The list of Priority Primate Areas identiﬁed

diﬀers according to whether species and subspecies, and

diurnal or nocturnal taxa are considered (Supplementary

Tables S2–S3). Top-ranking sites for diurnal taxa are in the

Udzungwa Mountains, Southern Highlands, Zanzibar archi-

pelago, two forested western national parks (Gombe and

Mahale), and the north-western forest of Minziro within the

Guinea-Congo biome. The top-ranking sites for nocturnal

taxa, although also including the Udzungwa Mountains and

Southern Highlands, predominantly include sites in the

coastal forest zone from the East Usambaras in the north to

the south-eastern Lindi forests, as well as the Selous Game

Reserve in south-central Tanzania. There is, therefore, little

overlap in the importance of sites for diurnal and nocturnal

primate species, suggesting that the former cannot be used

as a surrogate for the latter.

Forests are of most relevance for conservation of

primates and are ranked accordingly in our analyses.

This is in contrast to many Important Bird Areas, where

savannah and wetland habitats are often equally important.

However, 44 of the 62 Priority Primate Areas are also Impor-

tant Bird Areas or parts of them. Highest ranking in the

Priority Primate Areas are the species-rich forests of the

Eastern Arc Mountains, the Southern Highlands, includ-

ing Mt Rungwe and Livingstone Mountains, and the

northern ranges incorporating Kilimanjaro, Mt Meru

(Arusha National Park) and Ngorongoro. However, because

of their soils, rainfall and drainage, forested areas are

also important for agriculture and forest products, and

are therefore often zones of the greatest human–primate

conﬂict.

Based on recent reports of accelerating forest loss, sites

needing particular conservation attention include the forest

reserves of Chome, East Usambaras, Ilole, Mbizi, Milo,

Uzungwa Scarp and Ziwani, and the unprotected forests of

Magombera, Mbuzi, Uzi and Vundwe Islands (Davenport

et al., 2007; Nowak et al., 2009; Nowak & Lee, 2011;Rovero

et al., 2010, 2012). The coastal forests of Pugu and

Kazimzumbwe (two of four forests in the Dar es Salaam

greenbelt; Monga & Gwegime, 2011) are subjected to high

human disturbance because of their proximity to Dar es

Salaam and the city’s demand for charcoal and timber.

However, these forests are potentially manageable as an

urban recreational and educational asset. In general

however, the charcoal industry is growing rapidly and is a

major threat to forests nationwide. Remote locations, such

as the Lindi forests (Perkin et al., 2011 ), are safer from these

pressures but often receive little management attention as a

result.

Of the 62 Priority Primate Areas only ﬁve (Ilole,

Madehani, Magombera, Mbuzi and Uzi and Vundwe

Islands) have no oﬃcial protection status. However, this

gives a misleading impression because few forest reserves in

Tanzania are actively managed in any way. Game Reserve

management usually depends on the zeal of individual

concession holders. Thus not all of the Priority Primate

Areas we propose are equal in terms of conservation

management. Although a national park should be con-

sidered safer than a forest reserve, few protected areas are

managed adequately and adjacent human density can be an

important factor determining conservation success

(Wittemeyer et al., 2008).

The critical subset of Priority Primate Areas (Tables 6–7)

attempts to rationalize through complementarity the full list

of areas and demonstrates how selective targeting could

conserve Tanzania’s primates. The protection of just nine

sites, totalling 8,679 km

, would protect all 27 of Tanzania’s

primate species. This subset includes six national parks

(Kilimanjaro, Kitulo, Mahale, Saadani, Udzungwa and

Jozani-Chwaka Bay), one nature reserve (Kilombero) and

Priority Primate Areas in Tanzania 11

Oryx

, 1–13

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

two forest reserves (Minziro and Mgambo). The addition of

just three forest reserves (Rondo, Kilulu Hill and Ngezi) and

two game reserves (Grumeti and Biharamulo) results in a

list of 14 Priority Primate Areas comprising 10,561 km

(1.1%) of Tanzania’s total land area, the conservation of

which would ensure the protection of all 43 of Tanzania’s

primate taxa (species and subspecies). We believe therefore

that adoption of the Priority Primate Area system as a

guiding concept could help focus eﬀorts to conserve

primates in Tanzania, and also globally.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Wildlife Conservation Society.

We are grateful to the following people for information and

assistance: Liz Baker, Simon Bearder, Tom Butynski, Tim

Caro, Anthony Collins, Daniela De Luca, Kate Detwiler,

Nike Doggart, Richard Estes, Charles Foley, Trevor Jones,

Yvonne de Jong, Alex Lobora, Jonathan Kingdon, Sophy

Machaga, Noah Mpunga, Arafat Mtui, Alex Piel, the late

Alan Rodgers, Francesco Rovero, Bill Stanley, Fiona St ewart

and Tom Struhsaker.

References

AFRICAN MAMMALS DATABANK (1999) Http://www.gisbau.uniroma1.

it/amd [accessed 16 May 2013].

LBERTS, S.C. & ALTMA NN,J.(2001) Immigration and hybridization

patterns of yellow and anubis baboons in and around Amboseli,

Kenya. American Journal of Primatology, 53, 139–154.

NDERSON,S.(2002) Identifying Important Plant Areas. Plantlife

International, London, UK. Http://hirc.botanic.hr/HBoD/IPA/

Identifying-IPAs-in-Europe.pdf [accessed 10 May 2013].

AKER,N.&BAKER,E.(2002) Important Bird Areas in Tanzania.

Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam,

Tanzania.

ALMFORD,A.(2002) Selecting sites for conservation. In Conserving

Bird Biodiversity: General Principles and their Application (eds

K. Norris & D.J. Pain), pp. 75–104. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK.

IRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL.(2012) Ecosystem Proﬁle: Eastern

Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot. Critical Ecosystem Partnership

Fund. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

OITANI, L., CORSI, F., DE BIAE, A., D’ INZILLO CARRANZA, I.,

AVAG LI , M., REGGIANI, G. et al. (1999) A Databank for the

Conservation and Management of the African Mammals. Institute of

Applied Ecology, Rome, Italy.

RUGIÈRE,D.(2012) Identifying priority areas for the conservation of

antelopes in the Republic of Guinea, West Africa, using the

complementarity approach. Oryx, 46, 253–259.

URGESS, N.D., BUTYNSKI, T.M., CORDEIRO, N.J., DOGGART, N.,

JELDSÅ, J., HOWELL, K.M. et al. (2007) The biological importance

of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Biological

Conservation, 134, 209–231.

URGESS, N., D’AMICO HALES, J., UNDERWOOD, E., DINERSTEIN, E.,

LSON, D., ITOUA, I. et al. (2004b) Terrestrial Ecoregions of

Africa and Madagascar: A Continental Assessment. Island Press,

Washington, DC, USA.

URGESS, N., LOVETT, J., RODGERS, A., KILAHAMA,F.,

AVE NPO RT, T.R.B. & BUTYNSKI,T.(2004a) Eastern Arc

Mountains and Southern Rift. In Hotspots Revisited (eds

R. Mittermeier, P. Gil, M. Ho ﬀ mann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks,

C. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux & G. da Fonseca), pp. 245–255.

Conservation International/CEMEX, Mexico City, Mexico.

ARO,T.(2010) Biodiversity: need for balanced reports of solutions

and failures. Nature, 465, 289.

ARO,T.(2011) Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, Umbrella, Keystone,

Flagship, and Other Surrogate Species. Island Press, Washington,

DC, USA.

AVE N POR T, T.R.B., DE LUCA, D.W., BRACEBRIDGE, C.E.,

ACHAGA , S.J., MPUNGA, N.E., KIBURE,O.&ABEID,Y.(2010) Diet

and feeding patterns in the kipunji (Rungwecebus kipunji)in

Tanzania’s Southern Highlands: a ﬁrst analysis. Primates, 51, 213–

221.

AVE N POR T, T.R.B., MPUNGA, N.E. & MACHAGA, S.J. (2007) Census

and conservation assessment of the red colobus (Procolobus

rufomitratus tephrosceles) on the Uﬁpa Plateau, southwest Tanzania:

newly-discovered, threatened and extinct populations. Primate

Conservation, 22, 97–105.

AVE N POR T, T.R.B., STANLE Y, W.T., SARGIS, E.J., DE LUCA, D.W.,

PUNGA, N.E., MAC HAGA , S.J. & OLSON, L.E. (2006) A new genus

of African monkey, Rungwecebus: morphology, ecology, and

molecular phylogenetics. Science, 312, 1378–1381.

E JONG, Y.A. & BUTYNSKI, T.M. (2012) The primates of East Africa:

country lists and conservation priorities. African Primates, 7, 135–

155.

ETWILER, K.M. (2002) Hybridization between red-tailed monkeys

(Cercopithecus ascanius) and blue monkeys (C. mitis) in East

African forests. In The Guenons: Diversity and Adaptation in

African Monkeys (eds M.E. Glenn & M. Cords), pp. 79–97.

Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, USA.

ETWILER, K.M., BURRELL, A.S. & JOLLY, C.J. (2005) Conservation

implications of hybridization in African Cercopithecine monkeys.

International Journal of Primatology, 26, 661–684.

OGGART, N.H., PERKIN, A., KIURE, J., FJELDSA, J., POYNTON,J.&

URGESS, N.D. (2006) Changing places: how the results of new

ﬁeldwork in the Rubeho Mountains inﬂuence conservation

priorities in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. African Journal

of Ecology, 44, 134–144.

OHERTY, D.A. & HARCOURT, A.H. (2004) Are rare primate taxa

specialists or simply less studied? Journal of Biogeography, 31, 57–61.

FAO (F

OOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED

NATIONS)(2005) FAO Statistical Database 2005. Http://faostat.fao.

org/ [accessed 16 May 2013].

ISHPOOL, L.D.C. & EVA NS , M.I. (2001) Important Bird Areas in Africa

and Associated Islands: Priority Sites for Conservation. BirdLife

Conservation Series No. 11. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

AUTHIER, P., DEBUSSCHE,M.&THOMPSON, J.D. (2010) Regional

priority setting for rare species based on a method combining three

criteria. Biological Conservation, 143, 1501–1509.

ROVES, C.P. (2001) Primate Taxonomy. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington, DC, USA.

ROVES, C.P. (2005) Order Primates. In Mammal Species of the World.

A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd edition (eds

D.E. Wilson & D.M. Reeder), pp. 111–184. Johns Hopkins University

Press, Baltimore, USA.

ROVES, C.P. (2007) The taxonomic diversity of the Colobinae of

Africa. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 85, 7–34.

RUBB, P., BUTYNSKI, T.M., OATES , J.F., BEARDER, S.K.,

ISOTELL, T.R., GROVES, C.P. & STRUHSAKER,T.T.(2003)

Assessment of the diversity of African primates. International

Journal of Primatology, 24, 1301–1357.

12 T. R. B. Davenport et al.

Oryx

, 1–13

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40

HARTLEY, A., NELSON, A., MAYAUX,P.&GRÉGOIRE, J-M. (2007) The

Assessment of African Protected Areas. JRC Scientiﬁc and Technical

Reports. Oﬃce for Oﬃcial Publications of the European

Communities, Luxembourg. Http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/APAAT/

[accessed 10 May 2013].

OWARD, P.C., DAV EN PO RT, T.R.B., KIGENYI, F.W., VISKANIC,P.,

ALTZER, M.C., DICKINSON, C.J. et al. (2000) Protected area

planning in the tropics: Uganda’s national system of forest nature

reserves. Conservation Biology, 14, 858–875.

OWARD, P.C., VISKANIC, P., DAVE NP OR T, T.R.B., KIGENYI, F.W.,

ALTZER, M.C., DICKINSON, C.J. et al. (1998) Complementarity and

the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature,

394, 472–475.

IUCN (2003) Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at

Regional Levels v. 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland,

Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK.

IUCN (2012a) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria Version 3.1. 2nd

edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK.

IUCN (2012b) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species v. 2012.1.

Http://www.iucnredlist.org [accessed 5 July 2012].

INGDON,J.(1997) The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals.

Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA

ANGHAMMER,P.F.,BAKARR, M.I., BENNUN, L.A., BROOKS, T.M.,

LAY, R.P., DARWALL,W.etal.(2007) Identiﬁcation and Gap

Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

LINZEY, A.V. (2002) Important Mammal Areas: a US pilot project.

In Society for Conservation Biology, 16th Annual Meeting:

Programme and Abstracts. Durrell Institute of Conservation and

Ecology, Canterbury, UK.

CCLEAN, C.J., DOSWALD, N., KUPER, W., SOMMER, J.H.,

ARNARD,P.&LOVETT, J.C. (2006) Potential impacts of climate

change on Sub-Saharan African plant priority area selection.

Diversity and Distributions, 12, 645–655.

ONGA,E.&GWEGIME,J.(2011) Dar is being stripped of its greenbelt:

we need action now! The Arc Journal, 26, 1–3. Http://www.tfcg.org/

pdf/Arc%20Journal%2026%20FINAL.pdf [accessed 10 May 2013].

YERS, N., MITTERMEIER, R.A., MITTERMEIER, C.G., DA

FONSECA, G.A. & KENT,J.(2000) Biodiversity hotspots for

conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.

NAPIER,P.H.(1985) Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum

(Natural History) and Elsewhere in the British Isles, Part 2: Family

Cercopithecidae, Subfamily Colobinae. British Museum (Natural

History), London, UK.

OWAK,K.&LEE, P.C. (2011) Demographic structure of Zanzibar red

colobus populations in unprotected coral rag and mangrove forests.

International Journal of Primatology, 32, 24–45.

OWAK, K., PERKIN,A.&JONES,T.(2009) Update on Habitat Loss

and Conservation Status of the Endangered Zanzibar Red Colobus on

Uzi and Vundwe Islands. Unpublished Report for Department of

Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Http://

www.primate.org/publications.htm [accessed 10 May 2013].

PERKIN, A., SAMUEL, B., & GWEGIME,J.(2011) Going for gold in the

Noto Plateau, SE Tanzania. The Arc Journal, 26, 14–16. Http://www.

tfcg.org/pdf/Arc%20Journal%2026%20FINAL.pdf [accessed 10 May

2013].

ICTORIAL GUIDE TO LIVING PRIMATES (2013) Http://www.

alltheworldsprimates.org [accessed 16 May 2013].

LANTLIFE INTERNATIONAL.(2004) Identifying and Protecting the

World’s Most Important Plant Areas: A Guide to Implementing

Target 5 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Plantlife

International, Salisbury, UK.

RIMATE INFO NET (2011) Http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets

[accessed 16 May 2013].

PROTECTED PLANET (2013) Http://www.protectedplanet.net [accessed

16 May 2013].

AHM,U.H.(1970 ) Ecology, zoogeography, and systematics of

some African forest monkeys. In Old World Monkeys (eds.

J.R. Napier & P.H. Napier), pp. 589–626. Academic Press, New York,

USA, and London, UK.

ICKETTS, T.H., DINERSTEIN, E., BOUCHER, T., BROOKS, T.M.,

UTCHART, S.H.M., HOFFMANN, M. et al. (2005) Pinpointing

and preventing imminent extinctions. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102,

18497–18501.

ONDININI, C., WILSON, K.A., BIOTANI, L., GRANTHAM,H.&

OSSINGHAM, H.P. (2006) Tradeoﬀsofdiﬀerent types of species

occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecology

Letters, 9, 1136–1145.

OVERO, F., MARSHALL, A.R., JONES,T.&PERKIN,A.(2009) The

primates of the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania: diversity, ecology

and conservation. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 87, 93 –126.

OVERO, F., MTUI, A., KITEGILE,A.&NIELSEN,M.(2012) Hunting or

habitat degradation? Decline of primate populations in Udzungwa

Mountains, Tanzania: an analysis of threats. Biological

Conservation, 146, 86–96.

OVERO, F., MTUI, A., KITEGILE, A., NIELSEN,M.&JONES,T.(2010)

Uzungwa Scarp Forest Reserve in Crisis: An Urgent Call to Protect

one of Tanzania’s Most Important Forests. Unpublished Report.

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

ILKILUWASHA,F.(1981) The distribution and conservation status of

the Zanzibar red colobus. African Journal of Ecology, 19, 187–194.

TATTERSFIELD, A.J., CROSBY, M.J., LONG, A.J. & WEGE, D.C. (1998)

Endemic Bird Areas of the World. BirdLife Conservation Series 7.

BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

ANZANIA MAMMAL ATLAS PROJECT (2013) Http://www.

tanzaniamammals.org [accessed 16 May 2013].

SUSHABE, H., KALEMA, J., BYARUHANGA, A., ASASIRA, J.,

SEGAWA, P., BALMFORD,A.etal.(2006) A nationwide assessment

of the biodiversity value of Uganda’s IBA Network. Conservation

Biology, 20, 85–99.

AN SWA AY, C.A.M. & WARREN, M.S. (2003) Prime Butterﬂy Areas of

Europe: an initial selection of priority sites for conservation. Journal

of Insect Conservation, 10, 5–11.

ILSON, K.A., MCBRIDGE, M.F., BODE,M.&POSSINGHAM, H.P.

(2006) Prioritizing global conservation eﬀorts. Nature, 440, 337–40.

ITTEMEYER, G., ELSEN, P., BEAN, W.T., BURTON, A.C.O. &

RASHARES, J.S. (2008) Accelerated human population growth at

protected area edges. Science, 321, 123–126.

WWF & IUCN (1994–97) Centres of Plant Diversity: A Guide and

Strategy for Their Conservation. WWF & IUCN, Gland, Switzerland,

and Cambridge, UK.

Biographical sketches

TIM DAVENPORT’s research interests include biogeography, explora-

tion, herpetology, human impacts, orchidology, primatology and

protected areas. KATE NOWAK studies primate and elephant behav-

iour and the use of refuge habitats in ﬂooded and montane forests.

NDREW PERKIN studies the phylogeography, bioacoustics and

taxonomy of galagos with a focus on forested landscapes, and hyrax

and elephant shrew diversity.

Priority Primate Areas in Tanzania 13

Oryx

, 1–13

Sharpe's Angola Colobus (Colobus angolensis sharpei)

Technical Report

Full-text available

Jul 2020

Rovero, F., Davenport, T., de Jong, Y.A. & Butynski, T.M. 2020. Colobus angolensis ssp. sharpei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T92576098A92576128. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T92576098A92576128.en.

Designation of a New Subspecies of Angola Colobus Colobus angolensis Sclater, 1860 (Primates: Cercopithecidae) Endemic to the Mahale Mountains of Western Tanzania

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2024

The polytypic Angola colobus Colobus angolensis is a widespread species that, in eastern Africa, is often restricted to small, highly isolated, areas. In 1966, evidence for an undescribed subspecies of C. angolensis was obtained in Mahale Mountains National Park, central west Tanzania. Mahale C. angolensis has only been observed twice by scientists (1976 and 1979) and remained unnamed. In April 2022, 43 years after the last published observation, we observed, heard, and photographed a group of Mahale C. angolensis. Given the considerable current geographic isolation (~100 km across L. Tanganyika; ~330 km across land) of this monkey from its conspecifics, together with the distinctive coloration and pattern of its pelage, we here designate this as a new subspecies. We also describe the environment in which Mahale C. angolensis lives, discuss its paleobiogeography, taxonomic arrangement, and threats, and provide recommendations for conservation and research. Mahale C. angolensis is endemic to the montane forests of Mahale Mountains National Park where it has been observed at only two sites, the south slope of Mt. Ihumo (~1,970 m asl) and on the ridge between Mt. Nkungwe and Mt. Kahoko (~2,350 m asl). In addition, bouts of 'roar' loud calls were heard on nearby Mt. Mhensabantu (~2,050 m asl) on two occasions. The geographic distribution of Mahale C. angolensis is likely between 10 km² and 50 km². The size of this population is probably <400 individuals, with <200 adults. This monkey appears to occur wholly within a remote and rugged part of Mahale Mountains National Park where agricultural encroachment and poaching are not major concerns at this time. The primary threats are habitat loss due to fire, and to a warming climate. With its small population and severely restricted geographic distribution, Mahale C. angolensis qualifies as a 'Critically Endangered' subspecies under current IUCN Red List degree of threat criteria.

Taxonomic revision and evolutionary history of the climbing mice in eastern Africa (Dendromus mystacalis clade): the role of elevation and geographical barriers in the speciation process

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

There is increasing evidence that the Ethiopian highlands have functioned as a long-term refugium for many montane taxa. They also served as a source of colonization for other mountain blocks in eastern Africa during warm and humid Plio-Pleistocene episodes. The climbing mice (Dendromus) are widely distributed in grassy habitats across most African mountain regions, making them a suitable model to investigate how climate and topography have impacted the evolution of diversity in the Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot. A recent phylogenetic study based mostly on mitochondrial DNA sequences identified a monophyletic Dendromus clade that grouped all known Ethiopian taxa plus two lineages outside Ethiopia. However, the species limits in this group, phylogenetic relationships, and biogeography remained unresolved. Here, we analyse the genomic variability at thousands of double-digest restriction-site-associated DNA (ddRAD) loci, sequences of the mitochondrial gene for cytochrome b, and morphological data from all major phylogenetic lineages in this clade, sampled from across their known distribution ranges, with an aim to delimit species and assess their distribution and evolutionary history. Both nuclear and mitochondrial phylogenies provide congruent results, i.e. the presence of seven well-supported major lineages (putative species), which are morphologically and ecologically distinguishable. We also provide a taxonomic revision (including sequencing of the mitogenome of the holotype of D. mystacalis) that resulted in the re-description of D. mystacalis, the description of two new species, and the resurrection of one species from synonymy. The most likely evolutionary scenario included a radiation in the Ethiopian highlands, followed by an “out-of-Ethiopia” dispersal event of a montane lineage, leading to the colonization of Imatong Mts. and Mt. Kilimanjaro.

Primates Decline Rapidly in Unprotected Forests: Evidence from a Monitoring Program with Data Constraints

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2015

Calibrating occupancy to density estimations to assess abundance and vulnerability of a threatened primate in Tanzania

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023

The current decline of mammals worldwide makes quantitative population assessments crucial, especially for range-restricted and threatened species. However, robust abundance estimations are challenging for elusive or otherwise difficult to detect species. Alternative metrics requiring only presence/absence data, that is, occupancy, are possible but calibration with independent density estimates should be foreseen, although rarely performed. Here, we calibrated density estimates from acoustic surveys to occupancy estimates from camera-trapping detections to derive the abundance of the endangered Sanje mangabey (Cercocebus sanjei) across its entire range in the Udzungwa Mountains of Tanzania. We found marked occupancy-density relationships for the two forest blocks where this primate occurs and used them to derive spatially explicit density estimates. Occupancy increased in montane forest zones at mid-elevation but decreased slightly with proximity to forest borders. We predicted an average density (±SE) of 0.26 ± 0.05 groups/km 2 in the national park and 0.24 ± 0.06 in the nature reserve. Accordingly, and given the much larger area of the reserve, the average predicted individual abundance was 1555 ± 325 and 2471 ± 571 in the national park and nature reserve, respectively. We found higher density and abundance in the nature reserve compared with previous studies. Given the past disturbance and poorer protection in the nature reserve relative to the national park, our results instill optimism for the status of the species, although occupancy analysis highlighted the potential vulnerability of this primate to human disturbance. Our approach appears valuable for spatially explicit density estimations of elusive species, and provides robust assessments of vulnerability and identification of priority areas for conservation of threatened populations.

Prioritizing Areas for Primate Conservation in Argentina

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2022
Diversity

Argentina lies within the southernmost distributional range of five neotropical primates, the brown howler monkey Alouatta guariba, the black-and-gold howler monkey Alouatta caraya, the black-horned capuchin Sapajus nigritus, the Azara’s capuchin Sapajus cay, and the Azara’s owl monkey Aotus azarae; the first three of which are globally threatened. These species occupy different ecoregions: the Alto Paraná Atlantic forest, the Araucaria moist forest, the humid Chaco, the Southern Cone Mesopotamian savanna, the Paraná Ffooded savanna, and the Southern Andean Yungas. The recently approved National Primate Conservation Plan of Argentina calls for identifying priority areas to focus conservation actions for these species. We used species distribution models to estimate species ranges and then used the Zonation software to perform a spatial conservation prioritization analysis based on primate habitat quality and connectivity to identify potential areas of importance at national and ecoregional levels. Only 7.2% (19,500 km2) of the area inhabited by primates in Argentina is under protection. Outside the current protected areas, the top-ranked 1% and 5% priority areas identified in our analysis covered 1894 and 7574 km2, respectively. The top 1% areas were in the Atlantic forest of Misiones province, where S. nigritus, A. guariba, and A. caraya are distributed, and in the humid portion of eastern Chaco and Formosa provinces, where A. azarae and A. caraya are present. The top 5% areas included portions of the Yungas, where S. cay is the only primate present. Priority areas in Chaco and Formosa provinces are particularly relevant because of the paucity of protected areas and the high deforestation rate. The endangered A. guariba population will benefit from the better protection of the priority areas of Misiones. The potential priority areas proposed herein, considered within a context of a broad participatory process involving relevant stakeholders and local people, will help guide new and innovative conservation policies and practices while supporting management objectives.

Awareness, Habitats and Population Status of the Endangered Rungwecebus kipunji in Mt. Rungwe Nature Reserve, Tanzania

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2022

The Mount Rungwe Nature Reserve in Tanzania is a significant ecological area that protects the endangered Rungwecebus kipunji. The goal of the study was to analyze the ecological habitat and population of R. kipunji in Mount Rungwe Nature Reserve. During our study, we recorded 412 (mean: 41.2 ± S.E: 5.7) R. kipunji individuals in the reserve. The R. kipunji population was found in a comparatively low abundance at sites with a significant number of anthropogenic activities. Human activities were observed to occur less frequently (χ 2 = 40.76, p = 0.0001) inside the nature reserve (n = 33, 17.19%) than outside and/or along the border zones (n = 159, 82.81%). Respectively, the peeling of tree bark and firewood collection were the most common anthropogenic indicators found inside and outside the forest reserve. We also found that >40% of male and > 30% of female respondents were aware of R. kipunji's presence. We found that 30% of female and 32% of male respondents had previously received conservation education. In comparison to other age groups, >25% of respondents aged > 45 years old claimed to have already learned about R. kipunji. Furthermore, 48% of the respondents claimed that Mount Rungwe Nature Reserve helps them live by providing fuelwood and building materials. People aged 31-43 and > 43 years old collect fuelwood and building materials, respectively, while those under 31 years old collect food resources. In summary, our findings imply that, to improve R. kipunji, local residents surrounding the forest reserve should be made aware of the species to reduce anthropogenic activities within and along the reserve's buffer zones. Thus, our findings suggest that the R. kipunji populations and habitat quality in Mount Rungwe Nature Reserve could be used as a benchmark for the conservation of other endangered species elsewhere.

A Reassessment of the Population Size, Demography, and Status of Tanzania’s Endemic Kipunji Rungwecebus kipunji 13 Years on: Demonstrating Conservation Success

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2022
INT J PRIMATOL

Long-term population data on endangered species are fundamental to measure conservation implementation objectively, but they are rare, especially in remote forest locations and with total counts. Following the scientific description of the kipunji (Rungwecebus kipunji), we implemented a range of long-term conservation interventions. Thirteen years later, we reassess with a complete count the population size, demography, and distribution of R. kipunji in Tanzania’s Southern Highlands, employing the identical sweep census methods across 1,428 km. We also monitored a habituated group daily over the same period. We report a total of 1,866 individuals in 59 groups (μ = 31.63 ± SE 1.2) in Livingstone Forest (within Kitulo National Park), Mt Rungwe Nature Reserve, and Madehani Village Forest. We estimate a 65% increase in individuals, a 59% increase in group numbers, and a 19% increase in area of occupancy (AoO). Mean group sizes were similar in Mt Rungwe (32.9) and Livingstone (31.9), but lower in the unprotected Madehani (24). The ratio of adult females to adult males was significantly higher in Mt Rungwe than Livingstone. The ratio of subadults/juveniles to adult females, a proxy for survival, was good (1.77), but higher in Livingstone (2.61) than Mt Rungwe (1.11). In the habituated group, we recorded a 121% increase in group size. Signs of human activity fell by 81%, with a 100% and 98% reduction in the number of charcoal pits and timber felling, respectively, in Mt Rungwe. Both temporal and spatial data demonstrate that long-term holistic conservation leads to increased primate numbers.

Is the southern patas monkey Erythrocebus baumstarki Africa's next primate extinction? Reassessing taxonomy, distribution, abundance, and conservation

Article

Sep 2021

The "Critically Endangered" southern patas monkey Erythrocebus baumstarki, thought to be endemic to Tanzania, has been resurrected to species level based on its geographic isolation, and on the coloration and pattern of its pelage. This study presents the first evidence for E. baumstarki in Kenya and reviews its historic and current geographic distributions based on the literature, museum specimens, online platforms, responses to requests for site records, and our own fieldwork. The distribution of E. baumstarki in the early 20th century was roughly 66,000 km2 . This has declined about 85% to around 9700 km2 at present (post-2009). The current "Extent of Occurrence" is only about 2150 km2 . This species was extirpated from Kenya in about 2015 and from the Kilimanjaro Region in Tanzania in about 2011. At present, E. baumstarki appears to be restricted to the protected areas of the western Serengeti, with the western Serengeti National Park being the stronghold. The number of individuals remaining is probably between 100 and 200, including between 50 and 100 mature individuals. The ultimate threat to E. baumstarki is the very rapidly increasing human population, while the main proximate threats are the degradation, loss, and fragmentation of natural habitats, and the related competition with people and livestock for habitat and water, particularly during droughts. Other problems are hunting by poachers and domestic dogs, and probably loss of genetic variation and climate change. This article provides recommendations for reducing the threats and promoting the recovery of E. baumstarki. We hope this article heightens awareness of the dire conservation status of E. baumstarki and encourages an increase in research and conservation action for this monkey.

Ecological Status of Galagos in Pugu Hills and Ruvu South Forest Reserves

Chapter

Nov 2024

Terrestrial eco-regions of africa and Madagascar: A conservation assessment

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2004

Important Bird Areas in Europe

Book

Full-text available

Jan 1989

http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/groenekennis/512692

Hunting or habitat degradation? Decline of primate populations in Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania: An analysis of threats

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2012
BIOL CONSERV

Update on Habitat Loss and Conservation Status of the Endangered Zanzibar Red Colobus on Uzi and Vundwe Islands

Technical Report

Full-text available

Jan 2009

Prime Butterfly Areas in Europe – Priority Sites for Conservation

Book

Full-text available

Jan 2003

IUCN red list categories and criteria: Version 3.1

Book

Jan 2012

IUCN

Identifying priority areas for the conservation of antelopes in the Republic of Guinea, West Africa, using the complementarity approach

Article

Apr 2012
ORYX

David Brugière

The Republic of Guinea has one of the highest diversities of mammal species in West Africa. However, its protected area network is poorly developed and little quantitative information has been available to help guide national conservation strategies. I therefore examined the distribution of antelopes and related species (families Bovidae and Tragulidae) across 17 sites, including four protected areas, to determine how the existing protected area network contributes to the conservation of antelope species and where action should best be focused for the conservation of this group. A total of 21 species of antelope have been recorded in the 17 sites; four of these species are absent from the four protected areas. An iterative heuristic complementarity approach was used to determine an irreplaceability index, which accounts for both species richness and species rarity, for each of the sites. The Kankan Faunal Reserve and Nimba Strict Nature Reserve have the second and fourth highest irreplaceability indices, respectively. The two other protected areas have moderate to very low irreplaceability indices, showing that they protect species widespread throughout the 17 sites. The Ziama Forest has the highest index (because it contains a high number of species and of globally threatened species), highlighting the significance of this site. I discuss the importance of the other sites and the threats affecting antelopes in Guinea, and make recommendations to improve the study and conservation of antelope species in the country.

Census and Conservation Assessment of the Red Colobus ( Procolobus Rufomitratus Tephrosceles ) on the Ufipa Plateau, Southwest Tanzania: Newly-Discovered, Threatened and Extinct Populations

Article

Jan 2007

Wildlife Conservation Society, Mbeya, Tanzania Abstract: Surveys were carried out in the last remaining forests of southwest Tanzania's Ufipa Plateau to determine the pres- ence, distribution and abundance of the red colobus Procolobus rufomitratus tephrosceles. In 2002, we investigated the Chala and Misheta forests. Chala was in poor condition, and no primates were seen, although it is not known if red colobus ever existed there. There was almost no natural forest remaining in Misheta, and we consider its red colobus population to be now extinct. Analysis of satellite imagery revealed that the Nsangu Forest no longer exists, and we assume its population is also now extinct. In August 2006, a previously undocumented red colobus population was discovered in Mbuzi, 55 km north of the only other extant population in Mbizi. Complete count censuses were performed in Mbuzi and Mbizi. A total of 1,217 individuals were recorded in Mbizi and 137 individuals in Mbuzi, giving a combined total of 1,354 individual Ufipa red colobus. Mean group size in Mbizi was 40.56 (n = 30; SD = 6.57; range 30 - 56) and in Mbuzi was 34.25 (n = 4; SD = 13.07; range 24 - 50). The Mbuzi subpopulation may no longer be viable and the subpopulation of Mbizi may be declining. Both forests are heavily degraded and require urgent

The Kingdon Field Guide to African

Article

May 1999

J.S. Kingdon

This field guide begins with a checklist. The main part of the volume consists of entries for each species. Each entry provides information on common names, measurements, recognition, geographical distribution (plus map), habitat, diet, behaviour, adaptations and conservation status. Illustrations are also included. Brief notes are also provided on the African environment (physical, climate and vegetation) and palaeoecology (habitats and species). Finally a short section examines African wildlife conservation.

The revised IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: version 3.1

Conference Paper