Content uploaded by Debbie Jewitt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Debbie Jewitt on May 13, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
hp://www.abcjournal.org Open Access
Bothalia - African Biodiversity & Conservaon
ISSN: (Online) 2311-9284, (Print) 0006-8241
Page 1 of 10 Original Research
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Author:
Debbie Jewi1,2
Aliaons:
1Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife,
Biodiversity Research and
Assessment, South Africa
2School of Animal, Plant and
Environmental Sciences,
University of the
Witwatersrand, South Africa
Corresponding author:
Debbie Jewi,
debbie.jewi@kznwildlife.com
Dates:
Received: 21 Aug. 2017
Accepted: 03 Mar. 2018
Published: 09 May 2018
How to cite this arcle:
Jewi, D., 2018, ‘Vegetaon
type conservaon targets,
status and level of protecon
in KwaZulu-Natal in 2016’,
Bothalia 48(1), a2294.
hps://doi.org/10.4102/
abc.v48i1.2294
Copyright:
© 2018. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creave Commons
Aribuon License.
Introducon
Systematic conservation planning is used globally to identify priorities for biodiversity
conservation and inform policy and legislation to facilitate the long-term conservation of
biodiversity (Pressey et al. 2007). Conservation planning requires planning for whole landscapes,
ensuring both representivity and persistence of species, habitat types, ecosystems and the
processes that maintain and create diversity (Margules & Pressey 2000). A critical component
of the planning process is to set quantitative targets for biodiversity features or conservation
goals. Targets reflect the conservation value of existing protected areas, inform the selection of
additional areas to meet conservation goals (Margules & Pressey 2000), measure the success
of conservation actions (Desmet & Cowling 2004) and allow for accountability and defensibility
of conservation decisions.
In South Africa (SA), vegetation types are used as higher order biodiversity feature surrogates
for species and ecosystems (Lombard et al. 2003). This coarse-filter approach covers the entire
landscape and reduces the spatial and taxonomic bias associated with species data (Lombard
et al. 2003; Margules & Pressey 2000). Whilst vegetation types have been found to be good
surrogates for arthropods (Schaffers et al. 2008), they are not good surrogates for specialised
habitat or range-restricted species, rare or threatened species and vertebrates (Lombard et al.
2003). Using vegetation types in conservation planning is therefore complementary to species
data and may fill a gap where species data are scarce.
Plant communities or vegetation types underpin trophic structure and functioning (Jewitt et al.
2015a) and sequester nutrients in most ecosystems (Giam et al. 2010). These habitats support
essential ecological processes and provide ecosystem services, materials and food critical for
human well-being (Giam et al. 2010). However, habitat loss and land cover change are currently
the leading cause of biodiversity loss worldwide (Jetz, Wilcove & Dobson 2007; MEA 2005;
Vitousek 1994). Indeed, in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), SA, 7.6% (721 733 ha) of natural habitat was
Background: Systematic conservation planning aims to ensure representivity and persistence
of biodiversity. Quantitative targets set to meet these aims provide a yardstick with which to
measure the current conservation status of biodiversity features and measure the success of
conservation actions.
Objectives: The conservation targets and current ecosystem status of vegetation types and
biomes occurring in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) were assessed, and their level of formal protection
was determined, to inform conservation planning initiatives in the province.
Method: Land cover maps of the province were used to determine the amount of natural
habitat remaining in KZN. This was intersected with the vegetation map and assessed relative
to their conservation targets to determine the ecosystem status of each vegetation type in KZN.
The proclaimed protected areas were used to determine the level of protection of each
vegetation type.
Results: In 17 years (1994–2011), 19.7% of natural habitat was lost to anthropogenic conversion
of the landscape. The Indian Ocean Coastal Belt and Grassland biomes had the least remaining
natural habitat, the highest rates of habitat loss and the least degree of formal protection.
Conclusion: These findings inform conservation priorities in the province. Vegetation type
targets need to be revised to ensure long-term persistence. Business-as-usual is no longer an
option if we are to meet the legislative requirements and mandates to conserve the environment
for current and future generations.
Vegetaon type conservaon targets, status and level
of protecon in KwaZulu-Natal in 2016
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Page 2 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.abcjournal.org Open Access
lost to anthropogenic conversion in only 6 years (Jewitt et al.
2015b). Hence, there is an urgent need to assess the impact of
habitat loss on vegetation types in KZN.
This article assesses the status of vegetation types and biomes
in KZN based on two standardised quantitative indicators
used in SA: ecosystem status (Driver et al. 2012) that compares
the amount of a vegetation type remaining in a natural state
to thresholds of conservation concern based on conservation
targets; and levels that assess how much of each vegetation
target is achieved in protected areas.
Research method and design
Study site
KwaZulu-Natal is a province on the east coast of SA. It has
high levels of biodiversity and forms part of the Maputaland–
Pondoland–Albany biodiversity hot spot with several
centres of endemism [Maputaland, Pondoland (Mucina et al.
2006b), Midlands and Drakensberg Alpine (Mucina et al.
2006a)]. The KZN vegetation map provides greater detail on
vegetation types and is mapped at a finer scale than the
national vegetation map of Mucina and Rutherford (2006)
and was used in this analysis. There are 101 vegetation types
and subtypes (EKZNW 2011a) in the province and five
biomes are recognised [Grassland, Savanna, Indian Ocean
Coastal Belt (IOCB), Forests and Wetlands (azonal)]. Their
historical extents are 4 583 855 ha, 3 259 341 ha, 891 092 ha,
202 879 ha and 393 628 ha, respectively (Figures 1 and 2a).
The forest coverage reflects a more current extent, as their
historical extents could not be accurately mapped. Zonal
and azonal groups are recognised within the forest biome
and wetlands are considered azonal. The provincial biome
classification includes wetlands as a biome, which differs
from the Mucina and Rutherford definition of a biome
(Rutherford, Mucina & Powrie 2006). Wetlands form a major
part of the landscape in KZN and have distinct floristic
communities and were therefore included as a biome in this
analysis.
Input data: Land cover
Five different land cover maps were used to determine the
extent of habitat conversion (non-natural categories) in
KZN. The 1994 (Fairbanks et al. 2000) and 2000 (Van den
Berg et al. 2008) land cover maps were national maps, whilst
the 2005 (EKZNW 2011b; GTI 2008), 2008 (EKZNW 2013a;
GTI 2010) and 2011 (EKZNW 2013b; EKZNW & GTI 2013)
land cover maps were provincial maps developed by
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife. Based on a systematic land cover
change analysis for KZN (Jewitt et al. 2015b), which
demonstrated the extensive categorical swopping between
land cover categories, anthropogenic habitat conversion that
occurred in the province was accumulated, that is, a non-
natural category was not permitted to become a natural
category at some future point in time. This was done
specifically to identify primary natural vegetation occurring
in the province rather than secondary natural vegetation,
which does not harbour the same level of biodiversity as
primary natural habitat (Walters, Kotze & O’Connor 2006).
The land cover maps were projected, clipped to the 2008
vegetation extent to exclude the dynamic coastal rock and
sand category and clipped to the 2010 provincial boundary
(EKZNW 2010). Minor corrections were made to known
errors in the land cover maps. To determine the amount of
natural habitat remaining, two categories were created
across the five land cover maps, namely natural vegetation
and features (untransformed) and non-natural vegetation
(transformed or anthropogenic features such as the built
environment, cropped agriculture, timber plantations, dams
and mines). These were intersected with the vegetation types
and biomes to determine their degree of transformation or
habitat loss.
Input data: Conservaon targets for vegetaon
types
The conservation targets were a combination of the national
targets used in the national protected area expansion strategy
(Government of South Africa 2009), EKZNW vegetation
targets (Jewitt 2009), forest targets (Berliner 2005) and the
vegetation targets in Mucina and Rutherford (2006), using
the higher target where applicable. The conservation targets
for the non-forest vegetation types were determined using
the species-area method developed by Desmet and Cowling
(2004). The forest targets follow the method of Berliner
(2005) where a baseline of 15% was adjusted upwards
dependent on species diversity, rarity, patch fragmentation,
historic reduction and location within regions or centres of
endemism based on expert consultation.
FIGURE 1: (a) The amount of natural habitat remaining per me period in the
larger grassland and savanna biomes. (b) The amount of natural habitat
remaining per me period in the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt (IOCB), Wetland and
Forest biomes.
a
b
Wetlands
IOCB
Forests
5 000
4 500
4 000
3 500
3 000
2 500
2 000
1 500
1 000
500
0
Period
Area (ha × 103)
20001994 2005 2008 2011Original
extent
1 000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Period
Area (ha × 103)
20001994 2005 2008 2011Original
extent
Grasslands
Savanna
Page 3 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.abcjournal.org Open Access
FIGURE 2: (a) The biomes of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), (b) the remaining natural habitat in KZN in 2011, (c) the ecosystem status of vegetaon types in 2011 and (d) the level
of protecon of vegetaon types (January 2016) with Protected Areas shown in red.
a
c d
b
Legend
Forest
Grassland
Indian ocean coastal belt
Savanna
Wetland
N
01020406080
Kilometers
N
N N
01020406080
Kilometers
01020406080
Kilometers 01020406080
Kilometers
Legend
Fully protected (>= biodiversity target)
Moderately protected
(>= 10% - biodiversity target)
Poorly protected (>= 1% – < 10%)
Nominally protected (> 0% – < 1%)
Not protected (0%)
Protected areas
Legend
Crically endangered remaining
natural habitat <= biodiversity target
Endangered remaining
natural habitat <= (biodiversity
target +15%)
Vulnerable remaining
natural habitat <= 60% of original
area of ecosystem
Least threatened remaining
natural habitat > 60% of original
area of ecosystem
Legend
Natural habitat remaining
Transformed
Page 4 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.abcjournal.org Open Access
Input data: Vegetaon map
The provincial vegetation map of KZN was used in this
analysis (EKZNW 2011a). It is mapped at a finer scale than
the national vegetation map (Mucina & Rutherford 2006).
The vegetation map was clipped with the provincial
boundary (EKZNW 2010).
Input data: Protected Areas map
The provincial Protected Areas from 2015 (EKZNW 2015)
and proclaimed Stewardship sites (National Environmental
Management: Protected Areas Act [NEM:PA] 57 of 2003) as at
January 2016 (EKZNW 2016) were used to determine the
level of protection for the vegetation types. The Department
of Environmental Affairs maintains a register of the country’s
conservation estate (the South African Protected Areas
Database [SAPAD]). The Protected Areas map used here
differs slightly from the SAPAD map as there is a lag period
between the provincial Protected Area proclamation and
updating of the Surveyor General cadastres and SAPAD at a
national level. Game farms and municipal reserves were not
included unless proclaimed under NEM:PA.
Analysis
The land cover, vegetation map, conservation targets and
protected areas map were used to calculate ecosystem
status and levels of protection as described in the National
Biodiversity Assessment (Driver et al. 2012). The remaining
natural habitat and conservation targets informed the
conservation or ecosystem status of the vegetation types.
Thresholds of concern are defined as follows: Critically
Endangered (≤ biodiversity target), Endangered (≤
biodiversity target + 15%), Vulnerable (≤ 60%) and Least
Threatened (> 60%). The threshold for Critically Endangered
is based on the vegetation type conservation target
described above. Below this threshold, the basic species
representation target cannot be achieved.
The level of protection represents the area of a vegetation
type within protected areas relative to the conservation
target. In SA, conservation targets are the target for the
amount of each vegetation type that should be represented
within public and private proclaimed protected areas. The
levels of protection thresholds of concern are defined as
follows: Fully Protected (≥ biodiversity target), Moderately
Protected (≥ 10% biodiversity target), Poorly Protected
(≥ 1% – < 10%), Nominally Protected (0% – < 1%) and Not
Protected (0%).
Notes on the analysis
Habitat patches smaller than 4 ha were removed with the
exclusion of naturally fragmented vegetation types such as
forests and wetlands, as well as Drakensberg–Amathole
Afromontane Fynbos, Drakensberg Afroalpine Heathland,
Basotho Montane Shrubland and Lebombo Summit Sourveld.
Small patches were considered unable to support the natural
processes that create and maintain biodiversity, for example
fire. In addition, these small patches have an increased
vulnerability to stochastic events, suffer from edge effects
and increased disturbances (Doherty, Kearns & Barnett 2000),
limiting their long-term persistence.
Results
Between 1994 and 2011 (17 years), 19.7% of natural habitat
was converted to non-natural land classes, representing an
average annual loss of 1.2% (109 906 ha per annum) and a
decline from 73.3% to 53.6% remaining natural. Of the 53.5%
remaining natural in 2011 (Figure 2b), 7.35% was considered
degraded (in terms of aerial cover as detected from satellite
imagery). These degraded areas do not support the full
complement of biodiversity features.
The degree of habitat loss varied across vegetation types and
biomes, as did the conservation targets that ranged between
19% and 31.3% for non-forest targets and 61.6% and 100%
for forest targets. The resulting conservation status of the
vegetation types are: 21 (20.8%) vegetation types are
Critically Endangered, 14 (13.9%) are Endangered, 17
(16.8%) are Vulnerable and 49 (48.5%) Least Threatened
(Table 1, Figure 2c).
The IOCB had the least remaining natural vegetation
(24.9%) as of 2011, followed by grasslands (50.3%), wetlands
(58.7%), savannas (63.7%) and forests (73.9%) (Figure 1).
Similarly, the average annual rates of habitat loss in the
biomes between 1994 and 2011 were 2.9%, 1.7%, 1.3%, 1.3%
and 0.9% in the IOCB, grasslands, wetlands, savannas and
forests, respectively.
At a landscape scale, 9.1% of the terrestrial landscape is
protected. The degree of protection (Figure 2d) within the
biomes (Table 2) varies significantly, with only 6.8% of
grasslands protected, 8.2% of the IOCB protected, 9% of the
savannas protected, 24.6% of wetlands protected and 40.2%
of forests protected.
Compared to the national listed threatened ecosystems,
this analysis identifies additional vegetation types that
TABLE 1: The number of KwaZulu-Natal vegetaon types summarised by their conservaon status per biome.
Biome Crically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Least Threatened
Forests 11 50 7
Wetlands 4 2 515
Savanna 2 1 4 12
Indian Ocean Coastal Belt (IOCB) 2 2 1 1
Grassland 2 4 7 14
Total 21 14 17 49
Page 5 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.abcjournal.org Open Access
TABLE 2: The number of KwaZulu-Natal vegetaon types summarised by their protecon status per biome.
Biome Fully Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Nominally Protected Not Protected
Forests 3 17 2 1 0
Wetlands 13 4 7 0 2
Savanna 4 4 3 53
Indian Ocean Coastal Belt (IOCB) 2 2 1 1 0
Grassland 6 1 11 3 6
Total 28 28 24 10 11
TABLE 3: KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) vegetaon type conservaon targets, extents, ecosystem status and level of protecon based on 2011 accumulated transformaon stascs
and protected area (PA) proclamaon as at January 2016.
Code KZN vegetaon-type name KZN biome Conservaon
target (%)
Original extent
(ha)
Remaining
natural (ha)
Remaining natural
less fragments (ha)
Ecosystem
status
Total PA
(ha)
Level of
protecon
1 Drakensberg-Amathole Afromontane Fynbos Grassland†27§1427 1425 1425 LT 1020 FP
2 Amersfoort Highveld Clay Grassland Grassland 27§13 253 8493 8412 LT 0 N
3 Drakensberg Afroalpine Heathland Grassland 27§6410 6354 6354 LT 5522 FP
4 Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland Grassland 23§360 071 223 583 221 516 LT 29 285 PP
5Basotho Montane Shrubland Grassland 28§2760 2483 2483 LT 0 N
6 Dry Coast Hinterland Grassland Savanna 25¶276 406 125 199 122 677 V 1950 NP
7 East Griqualand Grassland Grassland 23§134 232 67 256 66 360 V 366 NP
8 Eastern Free State Sandy Grassland Grassland 24§4119 3758 3729 LT 0 N
10 Income Sandy Grassland Grassland 23§437 810 198 948 194 765 V 0 N
11 Ithala Quartzite Sourveld Grassland 27§82 024 67 675 67 261 LT 11 159 MP
12 KaNgwane Montane Grassland Grassland 24§8265 2352 2228 E0 N
13 KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld Grassland 25§179 668 19 954 17 978 CE 194 NP
14 Lebombo Summit Sourveld Grassland 24§11 763 3260 3260 E172 PP
15 Lesotho Highland Basalt Grassland Grassland 27§1134 1120 1103 LT 898 FP
16 Low Escarpment Moist Grassland Grassland 23§134 083 117 759 117 463 LT 3547 PP
17 Mabela Sandy Grassland Grassland 23§440 25 12 CE 0 N
18 Maputaland Wooded Grassland IOCB 25§107 929 39 643 39 172 E19 109 MP
19 Maputaland Coastal Belt IOCB 25§221 194 78 535 76 799 E37 176 MP
20 Midlands Mistbelt Grassland Grassland 23§547 445 130 599 126 355 E13 697 PP
21 Moist Coast Hinterland Grassland Grassland 25¶437 556 157 573 153 031 E873 NP
22 Mooi River Highland Grassland Grassland 23§266 938 144 071 142 047 V 13 719 PP
24 Northern Drakensberg Highland Grassland Grassland 27§70 706 69 096 69 044 LT 38 473 FP
25 Northern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland Grassland 24§696 920 391 958 387 698 V 10 854 PP
26 Northern Zululand Mistbelt Grassland Grassland 23§52 896 22 594 22 251 V 931 PP
27 Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland Grassland 24§284 058 120 957 118 688 V 8420 PP
28 Pondoland-Ugu Sandstone Coastal Sourveld IOCB 30.3§§ 37 245 7165 6773 CE 2247 PP
29 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt Grassland IOCB 25§411 500 45 543 40 613 CE 3890 NP
30 Southern Drakensberg Highland Grassland Grassland 27§89 808 88 501 88 471 LT 57 719 FP
31 Southern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland Grassland 23§231 823 96 778 94 713 V 9800 PP
32 uKhahlamba Basalt Grassland Grassland 27§120 155 119 924 119 905 LT 106 550 FP
Table 3 connues on the next page →
are listed as Critically Endangered (e.g. Zululand Coastal
Thornveld, Alluvial wetlands and Lowveld Riverine Forest)
(Table 3). Similarly, a far greater proportion of vegetation
types are listed as Vulnerable.
Discussion
We present the targets, remaining natural habitat,
conservation and protection status of vegetation types and
biomes in KZN. Only 46.2% of the province remains in a
natural state once degraded areas are removed. This figure
is conservative considering the extensive alien invasive
plants that occur in KZN biomes (Van Wilgen et al. 2012).
Currently, alien invasive plants are not detected and
mapped on the land cover maps because of the scale and
resolution at which the land covers are mapped. Further, it
is not always possible to detect secondary vegetation, for
example from abandoned agricultural fields, on satellite
imagery. A further 7% of the landscape that is mapped as
natural vegetation on the land cover maps is estimated to
Page 6 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.abcjournal.org Open Access
TABLE 3 (Connues...): KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) vegetaon type conservaon targets, extents, ecosystem status and level of protecon based on 2011 accumulated
transformaon stascs and protected area (PA) proclamaon as at January 2016.
Code KZN vegetaon-type name KZN biome Conservaon
target (%)
Original extent
(ha)
Remaining
natural (ha)
Remaining natural
less fragments (ha)
Ecosystem
status
Total PA
(ha)
Level of
protecon
33 Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland Grassland 27§131 688 113 395 113 070 LT 4123 PP
34 Delagoa Lowveld Savanna 19§8770 1084 1069 CE 0 N
35 Eastern Valley Bushveld Savanna 25§313 748 211 707 210 176 LT 906 NP
36 Granite Lowveld Savanna 19§3656 1228 1188 E0 N
37 KwaZulu-Natal Highland Thornveld Grassland 23§500 487 307 803 303 496 LT 9073 PP
38 KwaZulu-Natal Hinterland Thornveld Savanna 25§152 542 99 029 97 918 LT 740 NP
39 Makani Clay Thicket Savanna 19§32 327 26 671 26 415 LT 12 760 FP
40.1 Maputaland Pallid Sandy Bushveld Savanna 25§§ 61 429 46 460 46 074 LT 9815 MP
40.2 Muzi Palm Veld and Wooded Grassland Savanna 25¶52 931 41 211 40 744 LT 3535 PP
41 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt Thornveld Savanna 25¶111 926 49 582 48 218 V 611 NP
42 Northern Zululand Sourveld Savanna 19§470 422 306 996 304 135 LT 34 585 PP
44 Southern Lebombo Bushveld Savanna 24§116 567 97 350 96 830 LT 11 972 MP
45 Swaziland Sour Bushveld Savanna 19§50 517 42 378 42 161 LT 12 009 FP
47 Tembe Sandy Bushveld Savanna 19§110 678 85 880 85 139 LT 17 707 MP
48 Thukela Thornveld Savanna 25§215 907 163 740 162 188 LT 6580 PP
49 Thukela Valley Bushveld Savanna 25§268 482 191 381 189 374 LT 1255 NP
50 Western Maputaland Clay Bushveld Savanna 19§152 693 57 032 54 458 V 31 248 FP
51 Western Maputaland Sandy Bushveld Savanna 19§15 132 9895 9664 LT 2819 MP
52 Zululand Coastal Thornveld Savanna 19§67 137 11 181 10 630 CE 0 N
53 Zululand Lowveld Savanna 19§665 917 375 813 372 083 V 135 475 FP
55 Subtropical Coastal Lagoons: Estuary Azonal
Wetland
24§40 090 39 188 39 188 LT 35 224 FP
57 Drakensberg Montane Forests Forest 63.5†† 6393 6077 6077 LT 3665 MP
59 Eastern Mistbelt Forests Forest 66.5†† 44 474 29 933 29 933 E8127 MP
60.1 Eastern Scarp Forests: Ngome-Nkandla Scarp
Forest
Forest 61.6†† 8593 3785 3785 CE 2911 MP
60.2 Eastern Scarp Forests: Northern Coastal
Scarp Forest
Forest 61.6†† 5632 4408 4408 LT 3693 FP
60.3 Eastern Scarp Forests: Northern Zululand
Lebombo Scarp Forest
Forest 61.6†† 7656 6785 6785 LT 3418 MP
60.4 Eastern Scarp Forests: Southern Coastal
Scarp Forest
Forest 61.6†† 11 378 8804 8804 LT 570 PP
61 Pondoland Scarp Forests Forest 61.6†† 4889 3998 3998 LT 2015 MP
62.1 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Forests: Dukuduku
Moist Coastal Lowlands Forest
Forest 71.7†† 8478 5781 5781 CE 7283 FP
62.2 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Forests: Maputaland
Dry Coastal Lowlands Forest
Forest 71.7†† 2406 2053 2053 E1440 MP
62.3 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Forests: Maputaland
Mesic Coastal Lowlands Forest
Forest 71.7†† 8962 7218 7218 E5814 MP
62.4 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Forests: Maputaland
Moist Coastal Lowlands Forest
Forest 71.7†† 13 655 10 833 10 833 E8491 MP
62.5 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Forests: Southern
Mesic Coastal Lowlands Forest
Forest 71.7†† 10 705 5925 5925 CE 1415 MP
62.6 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Forests: Southern
Moist Coastal Lowlands Forest
Forest 71.7†† 3174 1600 1600 CE 280 PP
63.1 KwaZulu-Natal Dune Forests: East Coast Dune
Forest
Forest 69.2†† 2497 1313 1313 CE 451 MP
63.2 KwaZulu-Natal Dune Forests: Maputaland
Dune Forest
Forest 69.2†† 16 390 13 051 13 051 E10 898 MP
64.1 Licua Sand Forests: Eastern Sand Forest Forest 69†† 25 478 23 461 23 461 LT 10 143 MP
64.2 Licua Sand Forests: Western Sand Forest Forest 69†† 909 903 903 LT 870 FP
65 Lowveld Riverine Forests Azonal Forest 100†† 10 039 6134 6134 CE 4592 MP
66.1 Swamp Forests: Barringtonia Swamp Forest Azonal Forest 100†† 94 47 47 CE 47 MP
66.2 Swamp Forests: Ficus trichopoda Swamp
Forest
Azonal Forest 100†† 7722 5156 5156 CE 3570 MP
66.3 Swamp Forests: Raphia Swamp Forest Azonal Forest 100†† 370 172 172 CE 68 MP
Table 3 connues on the next page →
Page 7 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.abcjournal.org Open Access
be historical agricultural fields (circa 1960/1970), which are
depauperate in their species complement especially in
terms of specialised species and geophytic plants (Jewitt
et al. 2017). Hence, estimates of natural habitat remaining
are conservative. It is therefore essential that high diversity,
primary natural vegetation sites are identified and secured
TABLE 3 (Connues...): KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) vegetaon type conservaon targets, extents, ecosystem status and level of protecon based on 2011 accumulated
transformaon stascs and protected area (PA) proclamaon as at January 2016.
Code KZN vegetaon-type name KZN biome Conservaon
target (%)
Original extent
(ha)
Remaining
natural (ha)
Remaining natural
less fragments (ha)
Ecosystem
status
Total PA
(ha)
Level of
protecon
66.4 Swamp Forests: Voacanga thouarsii Swamp
Forest
Azonal Forest 100†† 462 36 36 CE 2 NP
67 Mangrove Forests Azonal Forest 100†† 2522 2382 2382 CE 1798 MP
68 Subtropical Seashore Vegetaon IOCB 20§52 42 23 V 23 FP
69 Subtropical Dune Thicket IOCB 20§1245 1195 1188 LT 1083 FP
70.1 Freshwater Wetlands: Drakensberg Wetlands Azonal
Wetland
24§5759 4256 4256 LT 2405 FP
70.2 Freshwater Wetlands: Lesotho Mires Azonal
Wetland
24§1 1 1 LT 1FP
72.1 Freshwater Wetlands: Eastern Temperate
Wetlands
Azonal
Wetland
24§44 743 24 702 24 702 V 502 PP
72.2 Freshwater Wetlands: Eastern Temperate
Wetlands: Lakes & Pans
Azonal
Wetland
24§41 35 35 LT 10 FP
75.1 Alluvial Wetlands: Subtropical Alluvial
Vegetaon
Azonal
Wetland
31§17 088 5805 5805 E1478 PP
75.3 Alluvial Wetlands: Subtropical Alluvial
Vegetaon: Lowveld Floodplain Grasslands
Azonal
Wetland
31§22 957 6078 6078 CE 3038 MP
75.4 Alluvial Wetlands: Subtropical Alluvial
Vegetaon: Lowveld Floodplain Grasslands:
Tall Reed Wetland
Azonal
Wetland
31§2535 1424 1424 V 753 MP
75.5 Alluvial Wetlands: Subtropical Alluvial
Vegetaon: Lowveld Floodplain Grasslands:
Short Grass/Sedge Wetland
Azonal
Wetland
31§7612 2087 2087 CE 434 PP
76.1 Freshwater Wetlands: Subtropical
Freshwater Wetlands
Azonal
Wetland
24§13 949 6260 6260 V 2129 MP
76.2 Freshwater Wetlands: Subtropical
Freshwater Wetlands: Tall Grassland/Sedge/
Reed Wetlands
Azonal
Wetland
24§14 809 14 442 14 442 LT 11 203 FP
76.3 Freshwater Wetlands: Subtropical
Freshwater Wetlands: Short Grass/Sedge
Wetlands
Azonal
Wetland
24§47 001 38 525 38 525 LT 15 182 FP
76.4 Freshwater Wetlands: Subtropical
Freshwater Wetlands: Short Grass/Sedge
Wetlands: Dune Slack
Azonal
Wetland
24§275 144 144 V 112 FP
76.5 Freshwater Wetlands: Subtropical
Freshwater Wetlands: Short Grass/Sedge
Wetlands: Coastal Plain Depression
Azonal
Wetland
24§782 649 649 LT 57 PP
76.7 Freshwater Wetlands: Subtropical
Freshwater Wetlands: Coastal Lakes & Pans
Azonal
Wetland
24§7595 7097 7097 LT 6166 FP
76.8 Freshwater Wetlands: Subtropical
Freshwater Wetlands: Coastal Lakes & Pans:
Endorheic
Azonal
Wetland
24§6999 6977 6977 LT 6247 FP
76.9 Freshwater Wetlands: Subtropical
Freshwater Wetlands: Coastal Lakes & Pans:
Lacustrine
Azonal
Wetland
24§1 0 CE 0 N
77.1 Inland Saline Wetlands: Subtropical Salt Pans Azonal
Wetland
24§2556 2277 2277 LT 1553 FP
77.2 Inland Saline Wetlands: Subtropical Salt
Pans: Floodplain Pans (Open)
Azonal
Wetland
24§2086 1731 1731 LT 1198 FP
77.3 Inland Saline Wetlands: Subtropical Salt
Pans: Rain fed (Endorheic) Pans (Closed)
Azonal
Wetland
24§538 328 328 LT 0 NP
78.1 Alluvial Wetlands: Temperate Alluvial
Vegetaon
Azonal
Wetland
24§§ 147 288 62 161 62 161 V 5604 PP
78.2 Alluvial Wetlands: Temperate Alluvial
Vegetaon: Midland Alluvial Woodland &
Thicket
Azonal
Wetland
24§§ 207 42 42 CE 18 PP
78.3 Alluvial Wetlands: Temperate Alluvial
Vegetaon: Midland Floodplain Grasslands
Azonal
Wetland
24§§ 1780 1228 1228 LT 274 MP
79.1 Marine Saline Wetlands Azonal
Wetland
24§§ 1761 427 427 E22 PP
79.2 Marine Saline Wetlands: Saline Reed & Sedge
Beds
Azonal
Wetland
24§§ 964 944 944 LT 942 FP
79.3 Marine Saline Wetlands: Saline Grassland &
Mud Flats
Azonal
Wetland
24§§ 4212 2912 2912 LT 2366 FP
†, this vegetaon type has Fynbos anies but for the purposes of stascal reporng has been included in the Grassland biome.
Conservaon targets were based on ††, Berliner (2005); §, Government of South Africa (2009); ¶, Mucina and Rutherford (2006); §§, Jewi (2009).
Ecosystem status abbreviaons are: CE, Crically Endangered: E, Endangered; V, Vulnerable; LT, Least Threatened.
Level of protecon abbreviaons are: N, Not Protected; NP, Nominally Protected; PP, Poorly Protected; MP, Moderately Protected; FP, Fully Protected.
Page 8 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.abcjournal.org Open Access
via Protected Area expansion and Stewardship
programmes. These sites need to be appropriately managed
to maintain their biodiversity value. High livestock stocking
rates, unsustainable indigenous resource harvesting and
alien invasive plant species are contributing to the
degradation of intact ecosystems and are a major concern
for the future.
The vegetation types occurring along the coast and the
midlands have the largest loss of natural habitat and are
thus the most threatened vegetation types in the province.
The IOCB and grassland biomes have the least amount of
natural habitat remaining and have the highest annual
rates of habitat loss. They also have the least amount of
formal protection. These vegetation types and biomes
require urgent conservation action. To ensure representivity,
each vegetation type should be adequately protected and
have the target amount of habitat formally protected. The
current distribution of the Protected Area network is
biased. Future Protected Areas should be created in
vegetation types without any protection or which are
nominally or poorly protected. The Drakensberg, Zululand
and Maputaland areas have a better Protected Area network
than north-western and south-eastern KZN. Rates of
habitat loss in the forest biome were the lowest but this
may reflect the more recent mapping extent of forests rather
than their actual habitat loss.
The indices reported here may help to inform land use
planning and Protected Area expansion by spatially
depicting vegetation types under greatest threat or requiring
Protected Area expansion. These maps may be used in
provincial conservation plans, spatial development
frameworks, Protected Area expansion strategies and other
land use planning initiatives. Whilst Protected Areas have
increased in extent since 1994, the rate of habitat loss is
continuing unsustainably, limiting the options to expand
the Protected Area network and increasing the threat status
of vegetation types. The rates of habitat loss have slowed
over successive time periods, but this could be related to the
sluggish economy (Jewitt et al. 2015b) or other factors and
could potentially increase in future.
Jewitt et al. (2015b) identified the dominant drivers of
transformation, or loss of natural habitat, as cultivated
agriculture, timber plantations, the built environment,
mining and dams. These represent the key sectors that
should be engaged with to guide appropriate land use
change. Rouget et al. (2003) recommend considering future
land use changes to identify future threats and enable the
search for alternative options. For instance, the Carbon Tax
Policy, scheduled to come into effect in 2017, may have a
significant effect on industries such as agriculture (Agri SA
Commodity Chamber 2017). This could have the advantage
of encouraging farmers to take up sustainable land
management practices or it could drive significant land
use changes in the agricultural landscape to remain
economically viable.
South Africa has good environmental legislation (e.g. the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the National
Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998) and is also a
signatory to many different global conventions such as the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). These demand
the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems and species for
current and future generations. The intentions of the
legislation and conventions are good, yet the loss of natural
habitat and species declines continue, resulting in the high
number of threatened ecosystems. A third of the vegetation
types in the province are Endangered or Critically
Endangered. The National List of Ecosystems that are
Threatened and in need of protection (Act No. 1002 of 2011)
was established to protect threatened ecosystems. This
analysis demonstrates that several ecosystems have since
attained a worse conservation status (based only on Criteria
A1 or loss of habitat). This analysis identifies 8.5% of KZN as
Critically Endangered compared to zero in the Threatened
Ecosystem legislation. Similarly, 15.5% is listed as
Endangered compared to 5% in the legislation. However, the
legislation only became effective in 2011, meaning that
future land cover maps will allow an assessment of the
efficacy of the Threatened Ecosystem legislation. If current
legislation, or perhaps the lack of implementation thereof, is
not sufficient to protect ecosystems and species, a new model
for conservation and sustainability must urgently be found.
Indeed, the calls for acknowledging and implementing what
is ultimately required to sustain life on the Earth are
increasing (Noss et al. 2012). It is recognised that humanity
is pushing ecosystems beyond their capacity to support life
and time is running out to change the current failing
trajectory (Ripple et al. 2017).
Targets
The targets used here may differ from national targets.
Differences may arise because of the phytosociological data
available at the time of the analysis, the differences between
calculated targets and extrapolated targets and the finer
scale of the provincial vegetation map compared to the
national vegetation map. Similarly, the conservation status
may differ because of revised vegetation boundaries at the
time of the analysis, dates of land cover maps used and
vegetation types that may extend beyond the boundary of
KZN compared to KZN endemic vegetation types. Processes
are in place to include finer scale mapping initiatives into the
national vegetation map, facilitating a hierarchical level of
mapping from broad scale to fine scale (Dayaram et al. 2017).
The targets provide an estimation of the area required to
represent a single occurrence of 75% of the plant species
occurring within the vegetation type (Desmet 2004). The
targets do not consider ecological processes. Hence, the targets
are conservative and will not ensure adequate representivity
or persistence of all species, but they represent an important
first step in securing representative habitats in the province.
Recent conservation plans based on composite sets of
biodiversity targets aimed at achieving biodiversity
persistence require 60%–65% of the area (Noss et al. 1999).
Page 9 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.abcjournal.org Open Access
It is well known that larger areas conserve more species
(Desmet & Cowling 2004) and are essential for ecological
resilience. The probability of species extinctions is less in larger
areas (Cumming 2011). Given climate change predictions,
larger areas that are more resilient to environmental
perturbations are critical. Noss et al. (2012) suggested that 50%
of landscapes should be managed in a conservation-friendly
manner so that species, populations and communities are
conserved into the future. Similarly, Soulé and Sanjayan (1998)
estimated that 50% of the landscape is required to maintain
functional integrity and ensure biological persistence. Flather
and Bevers (2002) found that there was a rapid decline in the
probability of landscapes supporting viable populations once
less than 50% of habitat remained. Plant pollination is
significantly negatively impacted once 50% of the habitat is
lost (Traveset et al. 2018). It is recommended that the current
vegetation type targets, both provincial and national, should
be revised to accommodate ecological and evolutionary
processes, ensure essential ecosystem services are provided,
maintain landscape connectivity and provide resilience to
climate change impacts and other threats to maintain
viable populations and ensure long-term persistence. It is
recommended that the targets should be closer to 50% (Locke
2013) – significantly higher than the current targets.
KwaZulu-Natal has less than the recommended target
amount of natural habitat remaining. As the province’s
ecological infrastructure is lost, an increasing proportion of
species extinctions can be expected. The long-term social
cost of losing this infrastructure is likely far greater than
the short-term cost of preventing further loss of natural
habitat in the landscape.
Conclusion
The evaluation of the conservation and protection status
of vegetation types in KZN informs conservation priorities
in the province. The rapid rate of habitat loss is creating
an urgency to protect the remaining natural habitat,
especially because the remaining primary, intact vegetation
is below the recommended target of 50%. Restoration efforts
are required in the Critically Endangered and Endangered
vegetation types. Awareness campaigns are required amongst
all stakeholders, highlighting the rapid loss of natural
habitat and the legislative need to protect the environment.
This would be enhanced by demonstrating the value and
benefits of the natural environment to society. Agreements
need to be secured amongst all government sectors to halt
further conversion of primary habitat and rather intensify
development on existing non-natural land. Business-as-
usual is no longer an option if we are to meet the legislative
requirements and mandates to conserve the environment
for current and future generations.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Ed Witkowski for reviewing the
draft manuscript and two anonymous reviewers and the editor
for their comments that helped improve the manuscript.
Compeng interests
The author declares that she has no financial or personal
relationships that may have influenced her in writing this
article.
References
Agri SA Commodity Chamber, 2017, ‘Implicaons of a carbon tax and oset system for
agriculture in South Africa’, A presentaon by Agri SA’s Commodity Chamber to
the Department of Environmental Aairs, The Department of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries and Naonal Treasury, viewed 31 July 2017, from hp://www.
greenagri.org.za/blog/implications-of-a-carbon-tax-and-offset-system-for-
agriculture-in-south-africa/
Berliner, D., 2005, Systemac conservaon planning for the forest biome of South
Africa, Department of Water Aairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.
Cumming, G.S., 2011, ‘Spaal resilience: Integrang landscape ecology, resilience, and
sustainability’, Landscape Ecology 26, 899–909. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-
011-9623-1
Dayaram, A., Powrie, L., Rebelo, T. & Skowno, A., 2017, ‘Vegetaon map of South
Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland 2009 and 2012: A descripon of changes from
2006’, Bothalia 47(1), a2223. hps://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i1.2223
Desmet, P., 2004, ‘Appendix B – Developing species representaon targets for South
African vegetaon types’, in M. Rouget, B. Reyers, Z. Jonas, P. Desmet, A. Driver, K.
Maze, et al. (eds.), South African Naonal Spaal Biodiversity Assessment 2004
technical report Vol 1 terrestrial component, pp. 94–110, South African Naonal
Biodiversity Instute, Pretoria.
Desmet, P. & Cowling, R.M., 2004, ‘Using the species-area relaonship to set baseline
targets for conservaon’, Ecology and Society 9(2), 11, viewed 28 January 2017,
from hp://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss2/art11
Doherty, M., Kearns, A ., Barne, G., Sarre, A., Hochuli, D., Gibb, H. et al., 2000, The
interacon between habitat condions, ecosystem processes and terrestrial
biodiversity – A review, Australia: State of the Environment Second Technical
Paper Series (Biodiversity), Series 2, Department of the Environment and Heritage,
Canberra.
Driver, A., Sink, K.J., Nel, J.L., Holness, S., Van Niekerk, L., Daniels, F. et al., 2012,
Naonal biodiversity assessment 2011: An assessment of South Africa’s
biodiversity and ecosystems, Synthesis Report, South African Naonal Biodiversity
Instute and Department of Environmental Aairs, Pretoria.
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW), 2010, KwaZulu-Natal provincial boundary.
(kznbnd10_w31.zip), GIS coverage, Conservaon Planning Division, Ezemvelo KZN
Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg.
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW), 2011a, KwaZulu-Natal provincial pre-transformaon
vegetaon type map – 2011 (kznveg05v2_011_inhouse_w31.zip), GIS coverage,
Conservaon Planning Division, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg.
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW), 2011b, KwaZulu-Natal land cover 2005 v3.1, (clp_
KZN_2005_LC_v3_1_grid_w31.zip), GIS coverage, Biodiversity Conservaon
Planning Division, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg.
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW), 2013a, KwaZulu-Natal land cover 2008 v2 (clp_
KZN_2008_LC_v2_grid_w31.zip), GIS coverage, Biodiversity Research and
Assessment, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg.
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW), 2013b, KwaZulu-Natal land cover 2011 v1 (clp_
KZN_2011_LC_v1_grid_w31.zip), GIS coverage, Biodiversity Research and
Assessment, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg.
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW), 2015, EKZNW Protected Area boundaries 2015
(Ekznw_pabnd_2015_wdd_new.zip), GIS coverage, Biodiversity Spaal Planning
and Informaon, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg.
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW), 2016, EKZNW Stewardship boundaries 2016
(stewardship_wll_jan2016_dra.zip), GIS coverage, Biodiversity Spaal Planning
and Informaon, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg.
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW) & GeoTerraImage (GTI), 2013, 2011 KZN Province
land-cover mapping (from SPOT5 satellite imagery circa 2011): Data users report
and metadata (version 1d), unpublished report, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife,
Pietermaritzburg.
Fairbanks, D.H.K., Thompson, M.W., Vink, D.E., Newby, T.S., Van den Berg, H.M. &
Everard, D.A., 2000, ‘The South African land-cover characteriscs database: A
synopsis of the landscape’, South African Journal of Science 96, 69–82.
Flather, C.H. & Bevers, M., 2002, ‘Patchy reacon-diusion and populaon abundance:
Relave importance of habitat amount and arrangement’, The American
Naturalist 159, 40–56.
GeoTerraImage (GTI), 2008, KZN Province land-cover mapping (from SPOT2/4 satellite
imagery circa 2005–06): Data users report and metadata (version 2), Unpublished
report, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg.
GeoTerraImage (GTI), 2010, 2008 KZN Province land-cover mapping (from SPOT5
satellite imagery circa 2008): Data users report and metadata (version 1),
unpublished report, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg.
Giam, X., Bradshaw, C.J.A., Tan, H.T.W. & Sodhi, N.S., 2010, ‘Future habitat loss and the
conservaon of plant biodiversity’, Biological Conservaon 143, 1594–1602.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.019
Government of South Africa, 2009, Naonal Protected Area Expansion Strategy
for South Africa 2008. Priories for expanding the protected area network
for ecological sustainability and climate change adaptaon, Government of
South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.
Page 10 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.abcjournal.org Open Access
Jetz, W., Wilcove, D.S. & Dobson, A.P., 2007, ‘Projected impacts of climate and land-
use change on the global biodiversity of birds’, PLoS Biology 5, 1211–1219,
hps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050157
Jewi, D., 2009, Conservaon targets for KZN vegetaon types in KwaZulu-
Natal, unpublished report, Biodiversity Division, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife,
Pietermaritzburg.
Jewi, D., Erasmus, B.F.N., Goodman, P.S., O’Connor, T.G., Hargrove, W.W., Maddalena,
D.M. et al., 2015a, ‘Climate-induced change of environmentally dened orisc
domains: A conservaon based vulnerability framework’, Applied Geography 63,
33–42. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.06.004
Jewi, D., Goodman, P.S., Erasmus, B.F.N., O’Connor, T.G. & Witkowski, E.T.F., 2015b,
‘Systemac land-cover change in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Implicaons for
biodiversity’, South African Journal of Science 111(9/10), Art. #2015-0019, 1–9.
hps://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2015/20150019
Jewi, D., Goodman, P.S., Erasmus, B.F.N., O’Connor, T.G. & Witkowski, E.T.F., 2017,
‘Planning for the maintenance of orisc diversity in the face of land cover and
climate change’, Environmental Management 59, 792–806. hps://doi.
org/10.1007/s00267-017-0829-0
Locke, H., 2013, ‘Nature needs half: A necessary and hopeful new agenda for
Protected Areas’, Parks 19, 9–18. hps://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2013.
PARKS-19-2.HL.en
Lombard, A.T., Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L. & Rebelo, A.G., 2003, ‘Eecveness of land
classes as surrogates for species in conservaon planning for the Cape Florisc
Region’, Biological Conservaon 112, 45–62. hps://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-
3207(02)00422-6
Margules, C.R. & Pressey, R.L., 2000, ‘Systemac conservaon planning’, Nature 405,
243–253. hps://doi.org/10.1038/35012251
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005, Ecosystems and human well-being:
Biodiversity synthesis, World Resources Instute, Washington, DC.
Mucina, L., Hoare, D.B., Löer, M.C., Du Preez, P.J., Rutherford, M.C., Sco-Shaw,
C.R. et al., 2006a, ‘Grassland biome’, in L. Mucina & M.C. Rutherford (eds.), The
vegetaon of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, pp. 348–437, SANBI,
Pretoria.
Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C., 2006, The vegetaon of South Africa, Lesotho and
Swaziland, South African Naonal Biodiversity Instute, Pretoria.
Mucina, L., Sco-Shaw, C.R., Rutherford, M.C., Camp, K.G.T., Mahews, W.S., Powrie,
L.W. et al., 2006b, ‘Indian Ocean coastal belt’, in L. Mucina & M.C. Rutherford
(eds.), The vegetaon of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, pp. 568–583,
SANBI, Pretoria.
Noss, R.F., Dobson, A.P., Baldwin, R., Beier, P., Davis, C.R., Dellasala, D.A. et al., 2012,
‘Bolder thinking for conservaon’, Conservaon Biology 26, 1–4. hps://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01738.x
Noss, R.F., Striholt, J.R., Vance-Borland, K. & Frost, P., 1999, ‘A conservaon plan for
the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion’, Natural Areas Journal 19, 392–411.
Pressey, R.L., Cabeza, M., Was, M.E., Cowling, R.M. & Wilson, K.A., 2007,
‘Conservaon planning in a changing world’, Trends in Ecology and Evoluon 22,
583–592. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.001
Ripple, W.J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T.M., Gale, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E. et al., 2017,
‘World sciensts’ warning to humanity: A second noce’, BioScience 67, 1026–
1028. hps://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125
Rouget, M., Richardson, D.M., Cowling, R.M., Lloyd, J.W. & Lombard, A.T., 2003,
‘Current paerns of habitat transformaon and future threats to biodiversity in
terrestrial ecosystems of the Cape Florisc Region, South Africa’, Biological
Conservaon 112, 63–85. hps://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00395-6
Rutherford, M.C., Mucina, L. & Powrie, L.W., 2006, ‘Biomes and bioregions of Southern
Africa’, in L. Mucina & M.C. Rutherford (eds.), The vegetaon of South Africa,
Lesotho and Swaziland, pp. 31–51, SANBI, Pretoria.
Schaers, A.P., Raemakers, I.P., Sýkora, K.V. & Ter Braak, C.J.F., 2008, ‘Arthropod
assemblages are best predicted by plant species composion’, Ecology 89, 782–
794. hps://doi.org/10.1890/07-0361.1
Soulé, M.E. & Sanjayan, M.A., 1998, ‘Conservaon targets: Do they help?’, Science
279, 2060–2061. hps://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5359.2060
Traveset, A., Castro-Urgal, R., Rotlàn-Puig, X. & Lázaro, A., 2018, ‘Eects of habitat loss
on the plant-ower visitor network structure of a dune community’, Oikos 127,
45–55. hps://doi.org/10.1111/oik.04154
Van den Berg, E.C., Plarre, C., Van den Berg, H.M. & Thompson, M.W., 2008, The South
African naonal land-cover 2000, unpublished report, Report no. GW/A/2008/86,
Agricultural Research Council – Instute for Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria.
Van Wilgen, B.W., Forsyth, G.C., Le Maitre, D.C., Wannenburgh, A., Kotzé, J.D.F., Van
den Berg, E. et al., 2012, ‘An assessment of the eecveness of a large, naonal
scale invasive alien plant control strategy in South Africa’, Biological Conservaon
148, 28–38. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.035
Vitousek, P.M., 1994, ‘Beyond global warming: Ecology and global change’, Ecology 75,
1861–1876, hps://doi.org/10.2307/1941591
Walters, D.J.J., Kotze, D.C. & O’Connor, T.G., 2006, ‘Impact of land use on vegetaon
composion, diversity, and selected soil properes of wetlands in the southern
Drakensberg mountains, South Africa’, Wetlands Ecology and Management 14,
329–348. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-005-4990-5