ArticlePDF Available

Priority Primate Areas in Tanzania

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

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.
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 identied in Tanzania,
mainland Africas 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
Tanzanias primate taxa, using IUCN Red List criteria, as
well as the rst national inventory of primates for 62 sites.
The Priority Primate Areas, encompassing 102,513 km
2
,
include nine national parks, one conservation area, seven
game reserves, six nature reserves, 34 forest reserves and ve
areas with no ocial 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
2
, would protect all 27 of
Tanzanias 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
2
(1.1%of
Tanzanias total land area), whose conservation would
ensure the protection of all 43 of Tanzanias 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
S
ince the mid 1990s a variety of priority setting concepts
have been designed to guide policy and help reap
maximum benet in a world of limited conservation
resources (Balmford, 2002; Caro, 2010; Gauthier et al.,
2010). Often employing dierent 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 41997; Endemic Bird Areas,
Statterseld et al., 1998 ), or more ne-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
Buttery 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 continents highest mountain, deepest
lakes and two globally signicant 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 signicant
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 IUCNs
Gap Analysis evaluated whether protected areas safeguard
biodiversity and how much biodiversity falls outside them
(Langhammer et al., 2007). More specically, 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 identied 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
K
ATARZYNA NOWAK Udzungwa Elephant Project, Iringa, Tanzania
A
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.
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
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 identication of the nations
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 gure 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-specic 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 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 benet 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
Tanzanias primates.
Specically, 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 Tanzanias primates, (5) complement other taxa-
specic analyses such as Important Bird Areas, (6) identify
gaps in knowledge and conservation at a national scale, thus
limiting duplication of conservation eort, 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 agship 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 Tanzanias 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 TanzaniaKenya
border (Alberts & Altmann, 2001) and the several inter- and
intraspecic 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 classication 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.
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
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
1
(criteria
2
)
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 Schmidts red-tailed monkey LC LC NT*
mitis monoides Tanzania Sykes monkey LC LC LC LC
moloneyi Moloneys white-collared monkey LC LC
doggetti Doggetts blue monkey LC LC
albogularis Zanzibar Sykes monkey LC LC
Chlorocebus pygerythrus hilgerti Hilgerts 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 Sharpes Angola colobus VU(B1a,b,c)* VU(B1a,b,c)*
ruwenzorii Adolf Friedrichss 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
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
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
denition (Ricketts et al., 2005): an area with a denable
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
dierent 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 rst 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 taxons irreplaceability and vulnerability.
For irreplaceability we modied 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
reecting the percentage of a taxons 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 quantied
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
1
(criteria
2
)
Global sp. Global subsp. National sp. National subsp.
Galagoides cocos Kenya coast galago NT EN
demido anomurus Demidos 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
1
CR, Critically Endangered; EN, Endangered; VU, Vulnerable; NT, Near Threatened; LC, Least Concern; NE, Not Evaluated
2
IUCN (2003, 2012a)
*Recommended change, or assessed in this study
4 T. R. B. Davenport et al.
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
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 identied (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
2050 1.50 0.75
520 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
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
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, ve 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 Decient 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 justications are given
in Table 1.
The comparative rankings of each taxon are illustrated in
Tables 45. 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 identied as being of
importance for conservation of primates 57 are ocially 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 ve 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. demido 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. demido 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.
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
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 S2S3). 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 dierent 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: 15,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
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 1–13
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40
importance of Tanzanias 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 identied for the 27 primate species, and 14 sites (with
alternatives) for the 43 primate taxa (Tables 67). Seven
Priority Primate Areas were identied 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.
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
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 signicance. 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
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 1–13
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40
eective 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 rst such national
analysis, and oers an objective, quantiable protocol for
the identication 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 Tanzanias 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
1
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
1
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 Tanzanias 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
2
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
1
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
2
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
2
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
1
7 Kilulu Hill FR 2
8 Jozani NP or Masingini FR
or Uzi-Vundwe
or Kiwengwa-Pongwe
2
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.
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 1–13
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Jul 2013 IP address: 196.41.45.40
to dene a site. We concluded that an area must have a
denable 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 eort
(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 dicult 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 dierent 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 agship
or umbrella species (Caro, 2011) for the conservation of
key habitats. The list of Priority Primate Areas identied
diers according to whether species and subspecies, and
diurnal or nocturnal taxa are considered (Supplementary
Tables S2S3). 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 humanprimate
conict.
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 citys 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 ve (Ilole,
Madehani, Magombera, Mbuzi and Uzi and Vundwe
Islands) have no ocial 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 67)
attempts to rationalize through complementarity the full list
of areas and demonstrates how selective targeting could
conserve Tanzanias primates. The protection of just nine
sites, totalling 8,679 km
2
, would protect all 27 of Tanzanias
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
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
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
2
(1.1%) of Tanzanias total land area, the conservation of
which would ensure the protection of all 43 of Tanzanias
primate taxa (species and subspecies). We believe therefore
that adoption of the Priority Primate Area system as a
guiding concept could help focus eorts 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].
A
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, 139154.
A
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].
B
AKER,N.&BAKER,E.(2002) Important Bird Areas in Tanzania.
Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania.
B
ALMFORD,A.(2002) Selecting sites for conservation. In Conserving
Bird Biodiversity: General Principles and their Application (eds
K. Norris & D.J. Pain), pp. 75104. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
B
IRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL.(2012) Ecosystem Prole: Eastern
Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot. Critical Ecosystem Partnership
Fund. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
B
OITANI, L., CORSI, F., DE BIAE, A., D INZILLO CARRANZA, I.,
R
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.
B
RUGIÈRE,D.(2012) Identifying priority areas for the conservation of
antelopes in the Republic of Guinea, West Africa, using the
complementarity approach. Oryx, 46, 253259.
B
URGESS, N.D., BUTYNSKI, T.M., CORDEIRO, N.J., DOGGART, N.,
F
JELDSÅ, J., HOWELL, K.M. et al. (2007) The biological importance
of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Biological
Conservation, 134, 209231.
B
URGESS, N., DAMICO HALES, J., UNDERWOOD, E., DINERSTEIN, E.,
O
LSON, D., ITOUA, I. et al. (2004b) Terrestrial Ecoregions of
Africa and Madagascar: A Continental Assessment. Island Press,
Washington, DC, USA.
B
URGESS, N., LOVETT, J., RODGERS, A., KILAHAMA,F.,
D
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 mann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks,
C. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux & G. da Fonseca), pp. 245255.
Conservation International/CEMEX, Mexico City, Mexico.
C
ARO,T.(2010) Biodiversity: need for balanced reports of solutions
and failures. Nature, 465, 289.
C
ARO,T.(2011) Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, Umbrella, Keystone,
Flagship, and Other Surrogate Species. Island Press, Washington,
DC, USA.
D
AVE N POR T, T.R.B., DE LUCA, D.W., BRACEBRIDGE, C.E.,
M
ACHAGA , S.J., MPUNGA, N.E., KIBURE,O.&ABEID,Y.(2010) Diet
and feeding patterns in the kipunji (Rungwecebus kipunji)in
Tanzanias Southern Highlands: a rst analysis. Primates, 51, 213
221.
D
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 Upa Plateau, southwest Tanzania:
newly-discovered, threatened and extinct populations. Primate
Conservation, 22, 97105.
D
AVE N POR T, T.R.B., STANLE Y, W.T., SARGIS, E.J., DE LUCA, D.W.,
M
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, 13781381.
D
E JONG, Y.A. & BUTYNSKI, T.M. (2012) The primates of East Africa:
country lists and conservation priorities. African Primates, 7, 135
155.
D
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. 7997.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, USA.
D
ETWILER, K.M., BURRELL, A.S. & JOLLY, C.J. (2005) Conservation
implications of hybridization in African Cercopithecine monkeys.
International Journal of Primatology, 26, 661684.
D
OGGART, N.H., PERKIN, A., KIURE, J., FJELDSA, J., POYNTON,J.&
B
URGESS, N.D. (2006) Changing places: how the results of new
eldwork in the Rubeho Mountains inuence conservation
priorities in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. African Journal
of Ecology, 44, 134144.
D
OHERTY, D.A. & HARCOURT, A.H. (2004) Are rare primate taxa
specialists or simply less studied? Journal of Biogeography, 31, 5761.
FAO (F
OOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED
NATIONS)(2005) FAO Statistical Database 2005. Http://faostat.fao.
org/ [accessed 16 May 2013].
F
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.
G
AUTHIER, P., DEBUSSCHE,M.&THOMPSON, J.D. (2010) Regional
priority setting for rare species based on a method combining three
criteria. Biological Conservation, 143, 15011509.
G
ROVES, C.P. (2001) Primate Taxonomy. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC, USA.
G
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. 111184. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, USA.
G
ROVES, C.P. (2007) The taxonomic diversity of the Colobinae of
Africa. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 85, 734.
G
RUBB, P., BUTYNSKI, T.M., OATES , J.F., BEARDER, S.K.,
D
ISOTELL, T.R., GROVES, C.P. & STRUHSAKER,T.T.(2003)
Assessment of the diversity of African primates. International
Journal of Primatology, 24, 13011357.
12 T. R. B. Davenport et al.
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
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 Scientic and Technical
Reports. Oce for Ocial Publications of the European
Communities, Luxembourg. Http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/APAAT/
[accessed 10 May 2013].
H
OWARD, P.C., DAV EN PO RT, T.R.B., KIGENYI, F.W., VISKANIC,P.,
B
ALTZER, M.C., DICKINSON, C.J. et al. (2000) Protected area
planning in the tropics: Ugandas national system of forest nature
reserves. Conservation Biology, 14, 858875.
H
OWARD, P.C., VISKANIC, P., DAVE NP OR T, T.R.B., KIGENYI, F.W.,
B
ALTZER, M.C., DICKINSON, C.J. et al. (1998) Complementarity and
the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature,
394, 472475.
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].
K
INGDON,J.(1997) The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA
L
ANGHAMMER,P.F.,BAKARR, M.I., BENNUN, L.A., BROOKS, T.M.,
C
LAY, R.P., DARWALL,W.etal.(2007) Identication 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.
M
CCLEAN, C.J., DOSWALD, N., KUPER, W., SOMMER, J.H.,
B
ARNARD,P.&LOVETT, J.C. (2006) Potential impacts of climate
change on Sub-Saharan African plant priority area selection.
Diversity and Distributions, 12, 645655.
M
ONGA,E.&GWEGIME,J.(2011) Dar is being stripped of its greenbelt:
we need action now! The Arc Journal, 26, 13. Http://www.tfcg.org/
pdf/Arc%20Journal%2026%20FINAL.pdf [accessed 10 May 2013].
M
YERS, N., MITTERMEIER, R.A., MITTERMEIER, C.G., DA
FONSECA, G.A. & KENT,J.(2000) Biodiversity hotspots for
conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853858.
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.
N
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, 2445.
N
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, 1416. Http://www.
tfcg.org/pdf/Arc%20Journal%2026%20FINAL.pdf [accessed 10 May
2013].
P
ICTORIAL GUIDE TO LIVING PRIMATES (2013) Http://www.
alltheworldsprimates.org [accessed 16 May 2013].
P
LANTLIFE INTERNATIONAL.(2004) Identifying and Protecting the
Worlds Most Important Plant Areas: A Guide to Implementing
Target 5 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Plantlife
International, Salisbury, UK.
P
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].
R
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. 589626. Academic Press, New York,
USA, and London, UK.
R
ICKETTS, T.H., DINERSTEIN, E., BOUCHER, T., BROOKS, T.M.,
B
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,
1849718501.
R
ONDININI, C., WILSON, K.A., BIOTANI, L., GRANTHAM,H.&
P
OSSINGHAM, H.P. (2006) Tradeosofdierent types of species
occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecology
Letters, 9, 11361145.
R
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.
R
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, 8696.
R
OVERO, F., MTUI, A., KITEGILE, A., NIELSEN,M.&JONES,T.(2010)
Uzungwa Scarp Forest Reserve in Crisis: An Urgent Call to Protect
one of Tanzanias Most Important Forests. Unpublished Report.
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
S
ILKILUWASHA,F.(1981) The distribution and conservation status of
the Zanzibar red colobus. African Journal of Ecology, 19, 187194.
S
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.
T
ANZANIA MAMMAL ATLAS PROJECT (2013) Http://www.
tanzaniamammals.org [accessed 16 May 2013].
T
SUSHABE, H., KALEMA, J., BYARUHANGA, A., ASASIRA, J.,
S
SEGAWA, P., BALMFORD,A.etal.(2006) A nationwide assessment
of the biodiversity value of Ugandas IBA Network. Conservation
Biology, 20, 8599.
V
AN SWA AY, C.A.M. & WARREN, M.S. (2003) Prime Buttery Areas of
Europe: an initial selection of priority sites for conservation. Journal
of Insect Conservation, 10, 511.
W
ILSON, K.A., MCBRIDGE, M.F., BODE,M.&POSSINGHAM, H.P.
(2006) Prioritizing global conservation eorts. Nature, 440, 33740.
W
ITTEMEYER, G., ELSEN, P., BEAN, W.T., BURTON, A.C.O. &
B
RASHARES, J.S. (2008) Accelerated human population growth at
protected area edges. Science, 321, 123126.
WWF & IUCN (199497) Centres of Plant Diversity: A Guide and
Strategy for Their Conservation. WWF & IUCN, Gland, Switzerland,
and Cambridge, UK.
Biographical sketches
TIM DAVENPORTs 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 ooded and montane forests.
A
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
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 1–13
... Long-term population monitoring in two forests of the Udzungwa Mountains indicates that the population in the Udzungwa Mountains National Park is stable while the population in the virtually unprotected Uzungwa Scarp Forest (recently upgraded to Nature Reserve status) has rapidly declined to near extinction, due to hunting and habitat degradation, with an average annual finite rate of population change of -0.62 during 2002-2012 (Rovero et al. 2015). The C. a. sharpei population in the Southern Highlands is smaller, more sparsely distributed and more threatened (Davenport et al. 2014). The biggest and probably most stable population occurs in Mt Rungwe Nature Reserve and the adjacent Livingstone Forest within Kitulo National Park. ...
... This subspecies is hunted for meat and skins (Rovero et al. 2012;Davenport et al. 2014). In the unprotected Uzungwa Scarp Nature Reserve, Rovero et al. (2012Rovero et al. ( , 2015 documented a 10-year decline, due to hunting, to near local extinction. ...
... Colobus a. sharpei is threatened in most parts of its range by habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation mainly caused by removal of timber and fuelwood, conversion of forest to farmland (often illegal), and expansion of human settlements and infrastructure. The root-cause is the fast growing human population-doubling every 20-25 years (Rovero et al. 2012, Bocian and Anderson 2013, Davenport et al. 2014). This subspecies is also hunted for meat and skins (Rovero et al. 2012,;Davenport et al. 2014). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
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.
... After 1981 - Lernould (1988), Groves (1993Groves ( , 2001Groves ( , 2005, Grubb (2001Grubb ( , 2002, Detwiler et al. (2005), Davenport et al. (2013), Lawes et al. (2013), and Zinner et al. (2013a) all make brief mention of the Manyara Population, referring to it as either a hybrid swarm or comprising hybrids. ...
... Tanzania is one of the most important countries in Africa for primate conservation Butynski 2012, 2018;Davenport et al. 2013;IUCN 2020) given its large number of non-human primates-14 genera, 28 species, and 44 species and subspecies, including C. m. manyaraensis. Of these, six monotypic species and seven subspecies are endemic to Tanzania. ...
Article
Full-text available
The complex taxonomy and biogeography of the highly polytypic and widespread gentle monkey Cercopithecus mitis continue to be debated. Tanzania and Kenya, together, support eight of the currently recognized 17 subspecies of C. mitis. This paper reviews the taxonomy of the eight subspecies of C. mitis recognized for Kenya and Tanzania and presents an overview of their geographic distribution and pelage coloration and pattern. This paper also describes a new, endemic, subspecies of C. mitis for Tanzania, offers two hypotheses for its origin and phylogenetic affinities, and assesses its conservation status and conservation needs. Cercopithecus mitis in the Lake Manyara-Ngorongoro Region of central north Tanzania (i.e., the "Manyara Population") has often been referred to as "C. m. stuhlmanni × C. m. albogularis hybrids" and as representative of a "hybrid swarm." To better understand the taxonomic and conservation status of this population, four field surveys totaling 25 days were undertaken in southwest Kenya and central north Tanzania. The aim was to determine the geographic distribution of this population and to obtain detailed descriptions and photographs of as many individuals as possible. In addition, the literature was searched, and 88 C. mitis specimen skins were directly examined at four museums. We found no evidence to support the contention that C. mitis of the Lake Manyara-Ngorongoro Region are hybrids or represent a hybrid swarm. The Manyara C. mitis is geographically isolated from other C. mitis by >90 km of semi-arid habitat, is phenotypically distinct from other C. mitis, and presents little intra-population variation. As such, the diagnosable phenotypic characters of this population appear to be fixed, genetic, and heritable.
... While studies on other primate species have been conducted, few studies on Rungwecebus kipunji have been conducted. Rungwecebus kipunji is an endangered species of Old-World monkey (Davenport et al., 2006;Davenport et al., 2008Davenport et al., , 2014 and endemic to Tanzania. It is found in both the Rungwe-Livingstone Forest in the Southern Highlands and the Ndundulu Forest Reserve in the south-west of Tanzania (Davenport et al., 2006;Davenport et al., 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
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.
... They also justify the change in the IUCN Red List status for this species from 'Critically Endangered' to 'Endangered' (Davenport, 2019b). The species still faces serious challenges, and with 1,966 individuals in total remains very rare by most primate standards, even in Tanzania (Davenport et al., 2014). However, numbers have significantly increased since 2007 on the back of a persistent and holistic conservation approach. ...
Article
Full-text available
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.
... As of the early 20th century, the distance between E. p. pyrrhonotus Tanzania is one of the most important countries in Africa for primate conservation (Davenport et al., 2013; given its large number of non-human primates (14 genera, 28 species, and 44 species and subspecies). Of these, six monotypic species and seven subspecies are endemic to Tanzania. ...
Article
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.
... In the case of the latter, primate conservation priority setting has to date generally been used to identify important locations for the conservation of specific taxa (e.g. Thorn et al. 2009;Davenport et al. 2014) or to direct attention towards specific species (e.g. Mittermeier et al. 2009) or populations (e.g. ...
Chapter
We make several recommendations for how future research activity could make meaningful contributions to primate conservation. We discuss how additional field studies are needed to fill gaps in our taxonomic and geographic knowledge, encourage behavioral research with conservation applications, and advocate additional investigation of primates inhabiting marginal habitats and living outside protected areas. We also describe how climate change research could be expanded and made more sophisticated, and discuss the conservation benefits of work that assesses and publicizes the economic value of ecosystem services provided by primates. We discuss conservation prioritization and note that primatologists could provide expertise that informs the efficient allocation of conservation funds. Finally, we discuss how primate conservation might be improved through greater embracement of interdisciplinary, more widespread appreciation of applied research, and increased engagement outside academia.
... The most represented groups were the ungulates (twelve species belonging to ten genera) and carnivores (eleven species belonging to nine genera). Several species were detected only by camera traps, particularly nocturnal species, such as the aardvark (Orycteropus afer), but also some diurnal ones, such as Moloney's monkey (Cercopithecus m. moloneyi) (Davenport, Nowak & Perkin, 2013). The species detection accumulation curve tended to take an asymptotic form at the end of the study period (Fig. 3), which suggested that few species remained to be detected with an increase in research effort. ...
Article
The ability of low-status protected areas under community management to achieve a conservation objective is frequently questioned, particularly in developing countries. The lack of sound, scientific-based biodiversity monitoring frequently undermines attempts to evaluate the extent to which these areas are contributing to biodiversity conservation. Based on data collected between 2008 and 2010 in a Forest Reserve under community management in western Tanzania, our study tested fives methods: camera trapping, walking line transects, vehicle transects, opportunistic encounters and indirect signs, to find the most appropriate for future monitoring. Method comparisons confirmed a higher performance of camera trapping compared to other methods for the ability to detect species. However, our results identified the need of a better survey design to ensure a sound monitoring in the future. Besides method comparisons, our study provides the first fine-scale data on mammal communities in such a low-status protected area. Combined methods allow the identification of 49 species of medium and large mammals, a surprisingly high diversity for such area. These findings outline the potential conservation value of this type of protected area and call for better biodiversity monitoring throughout complexes of protected areas of different statuses and management regimes.
... Over the last decade, the status of G. rondoensis on the IUCN Red List has changed from Endangered in 2000 to Critically Endangered in 2008 (Perkin et al. 2008). In fact, based on a comparative ranking of the 27 primate species of Tanzania, the Taxon conservation score of Galagoides rondoensis was the second highest (7.13 out of 8; Davenport et al. 2014), thus, making this species one of particular conservation concern. It has an extremely limited and fragmented range in a number of ...
Article
Ecological niche models can be useful for clarifying relationships between environmental factors and a species' geographic distribution. In this study, we use presence-only data and environmental layers to create an ecological niche model to better understand the distribution of the East African Angolan black and white colobus monkey, Colobus angolensis palliatus, and to assess whether the model supports considering the population as two separate subspecies, Colobus angolensis sharpei and C. a. palliatus. We found the range of the predicted distribution for suitable habitat of C. a. palliatus as currently classified to be only 12.4% of that shown in the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List range map and to be fragmented. As C. angolensis is considered a "Least Concern" species, this difference suggests that generalized maps may lead to understating the species' extinction risk. When presence points were divided into two previously proposed subspecies -C. a. palliatus (Kenya and Northern Tanzania) and C. a. sharpei (Southern Tanzania)-we found significant environmental differences between the distributions. The most important ecological variable for C. a. palliatus was predominantly precipitation of the driest month (69.1%) whereas for C. a. sharpei annual precipitation (44.8%) and land cover (normalized difference vegetation index, 16.4%) were the most important. When comparing suitable ranges for the separate distributions, we found only a 1.2% geographical overlap. These differences are consistent with previous subspecies delineations of C. a. palliatus and C. a. sharpei based upon morphology, pelage, and genetics. Our study suggests that extirpation of C. a. palliatus in suitable habitat areas and occurrence of this subspecies in anthropogenic environments, warrant further consideration for conservation actions.
Article
We present the first systematic assessment of the population, demography and distribution of the Endangered Zanzibar red colobus Piliocolobus kirkii , in Unguja in the Zanzibar archipelago, based on a survey effort of 4,725 hours. We estimate the total population comprises 5,862 individuals in 342 groups (mean group size 17.12); 3.4 times the mean of all previous estimates. We calculated a total area of occupancy of 376 km ² , with 4,042 individuals living within protected areas. Mean group sizes were significantly higher within protected areas (20.57) than outside (12.80). The number of adult females was 3,179 (54.21%), with a mean of 9.29 per group, and the number of adult males was 932 (15.89%), with a mean of 2.71 per group, giving a ratio of 3.31 adult females to adult males. This ratio was significantly lower outside protected areas. The total number of infants was 958 (16.34%), with a mean of 2.80 per group, and the number of subadults/juveniles was 793 (13.52%), with a mean of 2.32 per group, giving ratios of 0.30 infants to adult females, and 0.25 subadults/juveniles to adult females. The results indicate that P. kirkii is resilient and thriving far better than assumed. However, recruitment is low and the population may be in decline, with individuals outside protected areas most at risk. We tentatively support the categorization of P. kirkii as Endangered on the IUCN Red List, argue for greater protected area status for southern Uzi, Vundwe and Mchamgamle, and discuss conservation implications for this charismatic flagship species.
Book
Full-text available
http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/groenekennis/512692
Article
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.
Article
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
Article
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.