Content uploaded by Matthias Hammer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthias Hammer on Nov 18, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
EXPEDITION REPORT
Expedition dates: 22 September – 18 October 2019
Report published: November 2020
From elephants to cats to butterflies:
Monitoring biodiversity of Vwaza
Marsh Wildlife Reserve, Malawi
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
1
EXPEDITION REPORT
From elephants to cats to butterflies:
Monitoring biodiversity of Vwaza
Marsh Wildlife Reserve, Malawi
Expedition dates:
22 September – 19 October 2019
Report published:
November 2020
Authors:
Amanda Harwood
Lilongwe Wildlife Trust
Emma Stone
Conservation Research Africa & University of the West of England
Brennan PetersonWood
Conservation Research Africa
Matthias Hammer (editor)
Biosphere Expeditions
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
2
ABSTRACT
The Lilongwe Wildlife Trust (LWT) and Conservation Research Africa are the first to conduct long-term
research projects in Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve (VMWR). These projects focus on large mammals,
elephants, primates, bats and insects, and aim to identify and monitor biodiversity and long-term trends in
VMWR. Habitats are under increasing pressure from climate change and wildlife populations are at risk
from many anthropogenic threats, such as poaching and deforestation. Biosphere Expeditions citizen
scientists supported these research projects for the first time in 2018. Field work was conducted for a
second year between 22 September and 18 October 2019 in two two-week long groups comprising twelve
citizen scientists per group from Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK and the USA.
Large mammal surveys
Camera trapping surveys were successful and recorded a high species diversity in VMWR (24 species) in
1,670 images. One large carnivore (leopard) and seven mesocarnivores was detected, proving again the
success of camera traps at providing data on elusive and nocturnal species. Transect surveys, covering
nearly 200 km, recorded 11 different species and a 43% encounter rate. Species of note were roan
antelope, which are rarely sighted, and puku, as they are classified by the IUCN Red List as Near
Threatened. Hippo surveys of the populations in Lake Kazuni along the southern border of VMWR yielded
an average of 125 hippos, which is lower than the previous year. Survey results confirm a high species
diversity in VMWR.
Elephants were observed mainly along the shores of Lake Kazuni, with data collected on herd
demographics and individual identification. These observations produced numerous second-sighting
records and 10 new individual identifications, bringing the total elephant database to more than 200
individuals, which is estimated to be two-thirds of the total VMWR elephant population.
Bat, insect and vegetation monitoring
Bat surveys resulted in 51 bats caught representing 11 species. Two new bat species, Myotis bocagii and
Laephotis botswanae were recorded for VMWR. Kerivoula lanosa was also caught for the first time in
Malawi for African Bat Conservation. Nine standardised bat surveys were conducted at 7 different sites
comprising 6 surveys in floodplain and 3 in woodland. The highest relative bat species richness was
recorded in woodland. Of the new bat species records, Laephotis botswanae is of particular interest as little
is known about its distribution and the few records indicate patchy distribution. This record therefore
provides valuable data for the conservation of this species. Over 9,000 insects were captured in 13 different
orders. Four new orders were captured not previously recorded in 2018, although in very low numbers,
suggesting they likely occur at low densities in VMWR. Although the 2018 and 2019 expedition results are
based on relatively low sample sizes, they add to growing records of biodiversity surveys for bats and
insects in VMWR and show high diversity in abundance and overall presence of orders. In addition,
vegetation surveys completed in conjunction with bat and insect surveys provide baseline ecological data
and serve as indicators for any changes to the local environment. Climate change and other anthropogenic
impacts in VMWR will first be noticed in changes to the vegetation and insects and bats, which feed on
them. As such, the continued monitoring of these species is of upmost importance for the conservation
management of VMWR.
Primate behaviour
In March 2019, LWT released a troop of 13 vervet monkeys into Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve. After initial
predations and emigrations, the troop observed during this expedition was 6 individuals. Data collected
during the expedition contributed to the year-long post-release monitoring and data collection of the release
troop. Activity budgets were determined and showed that the troop mimics wild conspecifics in terms of
their activity budgets, with the majority of their time spent being Vigilant, followed by Feeding, Travelling,
and spending little time Resting. A social network web was created; reflecting observations that the alpha
male was the most central figure in the troop and the beta male was the least, often not seen by observers.
Both analyses show that the troop is doing well with their new life in the wild.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
3
CHIYAMBI
Ma bungwe a Lilongwe Wildlife Trust ndi Conservation Research Africa ndi ma bungwe oyamba kupanga kafukufuku wokhazikika ku Vwaza Marsh
Wildlife Reserve (VMWR). Kafukufuku ameneyu amawona za nyama zosiyanasiyana monga; nyama zomwe zimayamwitsa, njobvu, gulu la anyani,
mileme ndi tizilombo ting’ono ting’ono towuluka, ndi cholinga chofuna kudziwa ndi kulondoloza kusinthasintha kwa chilengedwe mu nkhalango ya
Vwaza. Kusintha kwa nyengo kukupangitsa kuti malo omwe nyama zimakhala azikumana ndi mavuto, komanso zachilengwe zosiyanasiyana
zikukumana ndi mavuto chifukwa cha zichitochito za anthu, monga; kupha nyama za kutchire komanso kudula mitengo mopanda chilolezo. Gulu la
akatswiri aza sayansi lotchedwa Biosphere Expeditions linathandizira ntchito ya kafukufukuyi koyamba mu chaka cha 2018. Anthu omwe amagwira
ntchitoyi anayigwila kwa masabata anayi kuchokela pa 22 September m’paka pa 18 october mu chaka cha 2019, ndipo anthuwa amakhala
m’magulu, ndipo gulu lililose limakhala ndi akatswiri a zasayansi khumi ndi awiri ochokera kumaiko monga; Austria, Canada, China, France,
Germany, Malaysia, Switzerland, UK ndi USA.
Kawuniwuni wa Nyama Zikuluzikulu Zomwe Zimayamwitsa
Chiwelengero cha nyama zikuluzikulu zomwe zimayamwitsa chikunka chichepa pa dziko lonse lapansi. Kuchepa kwa chiwelengero cha nyama
zoyamwitsa kukhoza kudzetsa mavuto osiyanasiyana ku ubale wa pakati pa nyama ndi zachilengedwe, nyama zinzake, zomera, malo okhala
nyama, komaso pa chikhalidwe cha anthu ndi ntchito za chuma. Kalondolondo wa chiwelengero cha nyama zazikulu (zomwe zimayamwitsa) mu
mnkhalango ndi kofunikira pa kasamalidwe ka chilengedwe, komaso zimathandiza anthu oyang’anira nkhalangoyo kuti adziwe umoyo,
chiwelengero cha nyama, ndikupeza zinthu zomwe zasintha komaso zomwe zimadzetsa kusinthako. Kawuniwuni ogwiritsa ntchito zinthu
zojambulira komanso kugawa nkhalango m’magawo magawo zimathandizira kupeza chiwelengerocho. Kafukufuku pogwiritsa ntchito zida zomwe
zimajambura ndi zomwe zinathandiza kupeza za chilengedwe zosiyana siyana zomwe zimapezeka mu nkhalango ya Vwaza, ndipo izi zimakwana
makumi awiri ndi zinayi (24) kuchokera muzithuzi 1,670 zomwe zinajambulidwa. Njira yotchera zinthu zojambulira inathandizila kupeza nyama
zomwe zimayenda usiku komaso nyama zomwe zimavuta kupeza. Inathandizaso kupeza nyama zikuluzikulu ziwiri zomwe zimadya nyama
zimnzake zomwe zili mkango ndi kambuku ndi zina zokwaana zisanu ndi ziwiri. Njira yogawa nkhalango m’magawo inagwiritsidwa ntchito
pamtunda wokwana pafupifupi 200km, inathandiza kupeza mitundu khumi ndi imodzi ya zachilengedwe zosiyanasiyana mosayembekezeka ndi
43%. Mitundu ya nyama ya zomwe zinaoneka kudzera munjira imeneyi ndi monga mpherembe ndi puku zomwe zili zosowa kuzipeza komaso zili
m’gulu la nyama zomwe zili pa chiopsezo chakutha, kuchokera mu ma report a bungwe la (IUCN). Kawuniwuni wa chiwelengero cha Mvuu mu
Nyanja ya Kazuni, m’mbali mwa malire a kummwera kwa VMWR anawonetsa kuti nyanjayi ili ndi Mvuu zokwana pafupifupi 125 zomwe zili
zochepa kusiyana ndi chaka cha mmbuyo. Zotsatira zonse za kafukufukuyu zinawonetsa kuti ku Vwaza kuli za chilengwe zosiyanasiyana komaso
zochuluka. Chiwelengero cha njobvu ku Malawi chili pa chiopsezo kwambiri. Kuchokela mu zaka za 1970, Njobvu za m’dziko la Malawi
kuphatikizapo za ku Vwaza Marsh zakhala zikuphedwa chifukwa chofuna nyanga zake. Chiwelengero cha Njobvu zomwe zili mu nkhalango ya
Vwaza ndi chachikula koposa mu dera la kumpotoli ndipo njobvuzi sizozungulilidwa ndi mpanda pofuna kupereka mwayi kuti zizitha kuchoka dera
limodzi ndi kupita dera loyandikana nalo mmalo otetezedwa. Ndipo kafukufuku wa Njobvuzi wachitika wochepa. Chiwelengero cha njobvu
chinawerengedwa kuchokera ku njobvu zomwe zimapezeka m’mbali mwa Nyanja ya Kazuni ndipo zimapezeka m’magulu komaso zina zimapezeka
pazokha. Kafukufukuyi anatipatsa zotsatira zabwino komanso tinakwanitsa kuwona Njobvu zina khumi zoyenda zokha, zomwe zinapangitsa kuti
m’ndandanda wa chiwelengero chonse cha njobvu ukhale opitilira 200, ndipo izi zikuyimila pafupifupi 2/3 ya chiwelengero cha Njobvu zopezeka mu
nkhalango ya Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve.
Zotsatira za kafukufuku ameneyi zimathandizira mu m’ndandanda omwe ulipo wa nyama zikuluzikulu zomwe zimayamwitsa m’nkhalangoyi kumbali
ya kuchuluka kwa chiwelengero chake, umoyo ndi mmene zinthu zilili mu nkhalango ya Vwaza Marsh, kuti zithandize ntchito ya kayendetsedwe
kabwino ka nkhalangoyi.
Kalondolondo wa Mileme, Tizilombo ndi Zomera
Mileme yokwana 51 inagwidwa popanga kawuniwuni yomwe inali mitundu khumi ndi umodzi yosiyana. Mitundu iwiri yamilemeyi yotchedwa Myotis
bocagii ndi Laephotis botswanae inapezeka ku Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve. Ndipo kwa nthawi yoyamba ku Malawi, mtundu wa mileme
yotchedwa Kerivoula lanosa inapezeka ndi bungwe la African Bat Conservation. Kawuniwuni wina anachitika mofanana kokwanira kasanu ndi
kanayi (9) m’malo asanu ndi awiri (7) osiyana, ndipo kawuniwuni okwanira kasanu ndi kamodzi (6) anachitika mmalo otsika, pomwe kawuniwuni
mutatu anachitika ku nkhalango. Zotsatira zinaonetsa kuti m’tundu wa mileme yofanana inapezeka yambiri ku nkhalango. Zolembedwa za mtundu
wa mileme ya chilendo yotchedwa Laephotis botswanae ndi amene akupereka chidwi chifukwa kufalikira kwawo ndi kochepa ndipo zolembedwa
zikuonetsa mbiri pang’ono chabe. Zolembedwazi zikupereka ndondomeko yofunikira kwambiri za mmene mtundu ya milemeyi ingasamalidwe.
Tizilombo topitilira 9,000 tinagwidwa mu ma gulu khumi ndi atatu (13) osiyana. Magulu atsopano okwana anayi anagwidwa, ndipo maguluwa
sanalembedwe mu chaka cha 2018, ngakhale zikusonyeza kuti akupezeka ochepa kwambiri ku Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve. Ngakhale zotsatira
za mu chaka cha 2018 ndi zomwe zinapezeka mu 2019 zikuchokera mu kawuniuni yemwe anachika mu ka dera kochepa chabe, zimaonjezera
kuchuluka kwa kawuniwuni wa chilengedwe cha mileme ndi tilombo topezeka ku Vwaza ndipo zimaonetsa kuchuluka kwa magulu awo. Kuonjezera
apo, kawuniwuni wa zomera anamalizika pophatikizana ndi kawuniwuni wa mileme ndi tizilombo zomwe zimapereka ndondomeko ya chilengedwe
komaso ngati zidziwitso za kusintha kwa chilengedwe mu dera. Kusintha kwa nyengo ndi mavuto ena achilengedwe odza Kamba kazichito- chito za
munthu angadziwike mofulumira makamaka ku zomera, mileme ndi tizilombo tomwe timadya zomerazi. Choncho kalondolondo wa mitundi ya
zolengedwazi ndiwofunikira kwambiri pothandiza kayendetsedwe ka Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve.
Khalidwe la Magulu a Nyani
Mu dziko la Malawi, chiopsezo chomwe chilipo m’malo omwe nyama zimakhala, zapangitsa kuti mchitidwe wopha nyama za kutchire pofuna kudya
ndi kuzisunga kunyumba ngati ziweto kuti ukule. Zimenezi ndi mavuto omwe magulu anyani akukumana nawo makamaka a mtundu wa apusi. Izi
zapangitsa kuti Lilongwe Wildlife Centre (LWC), malo okhawo m’dziko la Malawi omwe ntchtio yawo ndikumalanditsa nyama zosiyana siyana ndi
kusunga zachilengedwe, kupulumutsa magulu anyani ochuluka omwe ali amasiye komaso ovulala. Cholinga chokhazikitsa malowa ndi kusunga
nyama zimenezi ndi cholinga choti ngati kuli kotheka m’tsogolomo adzathe kuzibwezeretsa ku nkhalango komwe zikuyenela kukhala. Mu chaka cha
2012 bungwe la Lilongwe Wildlife Trust linakhazikitsa ndondomeko ya mmene nyama zomwe zasungidwa komanso ndizoyenera kubwezeretsedwa
ku nkhalango ingamayendere. M’mwezi wa March mu chaka cha 2019, bungwe la LWT linapititsa gulu la apusi okwana 13 ku nkhalango ya Vwaza
Marsh. Zotsatira zomwe zinapezeka mu nthawi ya kafukufukuyi zinathandizira mu m’ndandanda wa pa chaka oyang’anira komanso m’ndandanda
obwezeretsa magulu a nyani ku nkhalango komwe akuyenera kukhala. Tsiku ndi tsiku, nyani m’modzi amakhala a kumutsatira kwa mphindi
makumi awiri mu nthawi yomwe kumachitika kalondolondo wa nyamazi, izi zinawoneka pogwiritsa ntchito njira yowelengera ya pompopompo
komaso yopitilira. Ndondomeko ya ndalama zofunikira pogwiritsa tchitioyi inakozedwa ndipo anawonetsa ndondomeko ya ndalama za gulu lili lonse
la anyani potengeranso makhalidwe awo a tsiku ndi tsiku. Tsamba la mchezo pa makina a internet linakozedwa ndipo likuwonetsera zinthu zeni
zeni zomwe zinachitika. Njira zonsezi zinasonyeza kut magulu a nyaniwa akukhala mosangalala kunkhalangoko. Zotsatirazi zimathandizira kuti
LWT likhale ndi ndondomeko yokhazikika komanso yabwino ya ntchito yobwezeretsa nyama ku tchire.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
4
Contents
Abstract
2
Chiyambi
3
Contents
4
1. Expedition Review
5
1.1. Background
5
1.2. Dates & team
5
1.3. Research area
6
1.4. Partners
8
1.5. Acknowledgements
8
1.6. Further information & enquiries
8
1.7. Expedition budget
9
2. Large mammal monitoring
10
2.1. Introduction
10
2.2. Methods
11
2.3. Results
14
2.4. Discussion and conclusions
28
2.5. Outlook for future expedition work
30
2.6. Literature cited
30
3. Elephant monitoring
32
3.1. Introduction
32
3.2. Methods
34
3.3. Results
35
3.4. Discussion and conclusions
36
3.5. Outlook for future expedition work
36
3.6. Literature cited
37
4. Bat and insect monitoring
38
4.1. Introduction
38
4.2. Methods
39
4.3. Results
42
4.4. Discussion
47
4.5. Outlook for future expedition work
49
4.6. Literature cited
49
5. Primate behaviour surveys
52
5.1. Introduction
52
5.2. Methods
54
5.3. Results
55
5.4. Discussion and conclusions
58
5.5. Outlook for future expedition work
58
5.6. Literature cited
59
Appendix I: Primate ethogram
60
Appendix II: Expedition diary, reports and resources
62
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
5
1. Expedition Review
Matthias Hammer (editor)
Biosphere Expeditions
1.1. Background
Background information, location conditions and the research area are as per Harwood et al.
(2019). The citizen science expedition in Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve (VMWR) in northern
Malawi focused on wildlife monitoring of (1) large mammals, through driving and walking line
transect surveys and camera trap arrays, (2) the elephant population, through herd observations
and identification of individuals, and (3) bat, insect and vegetation monitoring, conducted through
standardised bat surveys and light trapping techniques. Citizen scientists also assisted in (4) data
collection on primate behaviour as part of an ongoing primate release programme. All data
contribute to a long-term dataset and monitoring programme in VMWR and the larger Malawi-
Zambia Transfrontier Conservation Area and are shared with local managing groups to empower
and influence effective conservation strategies.
1.2. Dates & team
The project ran over a period of one month divided into two 13-day slots, each composed of a
team of national and international citizen scientists, professional scientists and an expedition
leader. Group dates were as shown in the team list below. Dates were chosen to coincide with the
dry season in Malawi and its corresponding ease of access to the reserve and wildlife sightings.
The expedition team was recruited by Biosphere Expeditions and consisted of a mixture of ages,
nationalities and backgrounds. They were (in alphabetical order and with country of residence):
22 September – 4 October 2019: Peter Anderson-Barr (Australia), Kristian Baensch (Germany),
Kathleen Byrnes (Australia), Helen Cory (Australia), Steven Crowther (UK), Edward Durell
(Germany), Marion Fink-Schneider (Germany), Gary Hogben (UK), Sandra Hogben (UK), Rodney
Logan (USA), Winona Selby (Germany).
6 – 18 October 2019: Neil Bowman (UK), Neil Goodall (UK), Matthias Herold (Germany), Charlotte
Hull (UK), Thomas Klaus (Germany), Alex Loucks (USA), Carole Mahoney (UK), Brianne Miers
(USA), Lora Pope* (Canada), Linda Snodden (UK).
*Blogger producing a feature and an opinion piece
On site field scientists were:
Amanda Harwood – Research Manager, Lilongwe Wildlife Trust
Pilirani Sankhani – Senior Research Assistant, Lilongwe Wildlife Trust (group 2 only)
Leigh-Anne Bullough – Research Assistant, Lilongwe Wildlife Trust
Marta Miguel – Research Assistant, Lilongwe Wildlife Trust (group 1 only)
Karen Shevlin – Lead Research Scientist, Conservation Research Africa
Dominque Greeff – Research Assistant, African Bat Conservation
Brennan PetersonWood – Programmes Manager, Conservation Research Africa (group 2 only)
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
6
Ida Vincent, the expedition leader, grew up in Sweden and lived in Australia for ten years before
moving to Seattle in the USA. Ida studied Marine Biology at the University of Queensland and
Environmental Science at Murdoch University (both in Australia), graduating with BSc and Masters
degrees respectively. Ida has worked as a marine scientist and aquatic ecologist in Madagascar,
Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Australia and the Pacific Northwest in the USA. She is also a
qualified PADI divemaster, Reef Check trainer, as well as a climbing leader and instructor with the
North Cascade Mountains as her backyard. Ida also enjoys photography, painting and writing. She
has published both scientific and magazine articles about alpine climbing, as well as a murder
mystery novel.
A medical umbrella, safety and evacuation procedures were in place. There was a bout of
sleeping sickness during the second group of the expedition with staff and citizen scientists
affected, but now recovered. Persons affected were evacuated in line with safety procedures and
the second group was cut short by two days because of the outbreak. An investigation into the
causes of the outbreak, as well as research into the tsetse fly and disease prevalence in VMWR,
and a review of risk assessment and safety procedures, are ongoing.
1.3. Research area
Malawi is a landlocked country in southern Africa, bordered by Zambia to the northwest, Tanzania
to the northeast and Mozambique on the east, south and west. The country is separated from
Tanzania and Mozambique by Lake Malawi. Malawi encompasses 119,000 km2, of which 20% is
water. Malawi has an estimated population of 17 million with an average population density of 139
people/km2 and a population growth rate of 2.8% per annum.
Figure 1.3a. Flag and location
of Malawi and study site.
An overview of Biosphere
Expeditions’ research sites,
assembly points, base camp
and office locations is at
Google Maps.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
7
Malawi is listed as a World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Global 2000 Ecoregion because of its
high species richness and endemism. It lies at the heart of three eco-region categories including
the central and eastern Miombo Woodlands, Zambezi Flooded Savannahs and Southern Rift
Montane Woodlands. According to WWF-SARPO (2002) there are 26 areas of special biodiversity
importance within the country.
The country has five national parks, four wildlife reserves, 87 forest reserves and three nature
sanctuaries, most of which are listed as Important Bird Areas (IBAs). VMWR is a wildlife reserve
located in the Northern Region of the country. It covers an area of 1,000 km2 of mostly flat terrain
located in the Central African Plateau on the watershed between Lake Malawi and the eastern lip
of the Luangwa rift to the southeast of the Nyika Plateau. The western half of VMWR borders
Zambia and comprises plateau Miombo woodland, clay soils dominated by Mopane
Colophospermum mopane woodland and wetland marshes, while the eastern half of the reserve
contains Miombo and broad-leaved Combretum woodlands in the foothills of the Nyika plateau.
VMWR is a part of the Malawi-Zambia Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA), encompassing
30,621 km2. This is a transboundary link to the Luangwa-Zambezi Valley, which connects
protected and managed areas in Zambia with VMWR, Nyika and Kasungu National Parks in
Malawi (Figure 1.3b).
Figure 1.3b Map of the Malawi-Zambia Transfrontier Conservation Area
linking wildlife important protected areas and corridors (from Peace Parks 2017).
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
8
1.4. Partners
Biosphere Expeditions' two main partners for this expedition were the Lilongwe Wildlife Trust
(LWT) and Conservation Research Africa (CRA).
LWT was established in 2009 and has grown into one of Malawi’s leading conservation NGOs.
LWT’s mission is to save wildlife, campaign for conservation justice and inspire people to value
and protect nature in Malawi. Working in collaboration with local and international partners, the
trust responds to urgent conservation challenges and drives long-term social and institutional
change. It runs several projects across five programme areas: Wildlife rescue and rehabilitation,
wildlife research, environmental education, community conservation and wildlife advocacy and
enforcement. LWT has 90 staff working across three offices and several field sites across the
country. The government of Malawi has appointed LWT to administer a number of national wildlife
management, justice, and advocacy initiatives. They are also a member of the International Union
for Conservation of Nature, the Malawi representative for the Species Survival Network, and the
Secretariat for the Malawi Parliamentary Conservation Caucus.
CRA is a science-driven registered charity in England, working in Malawi, whose mission is to
conduct applied research to inform wildlife conservation in Africa. CRA works in partnership with
the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Malawi (DNPW), LWT and several research
institutions worldwide.
1.5. Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to all the expedition citizen scientists, who not only dedicated their spare time
to helping but also, through their expedition contributions, funded the research. We would also like
to thank our key partners, the DNPW for supporting our programme and assisting with local
expertise, logistics and of course assistance from the wildlife rangers. We would like to thank
Elephants for Africa (EfA) for developing the elephant research protocols. Biosphere Expeditions
would also like to thank members of the Friends of Biosphere Expeditions and donors for their
sponsorship, as well as Amanda Harwood, Karen Shevlin, Pilirani Sankani and Jonny Vaughan for
their hard work in making the expedition a reality. We extend our appreciation to our expedition
cooks Emmanuel and Fellister Nkhata.
1.6. Further information & enquiries
More background information on Biosphere Expeditions in general and on this expedition in
particular including pictures, diary excerpts and a copy of this report can be found on the
Biosphere Expeditions website www.biosphere-expeditions.org. Enquires should be addressed to
Biosphere Expeditions at the address given on the website.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
9
1.7. Expedition budget
Each citizen scientist paid a contribution of €2,480 per person per twelve-day period towards
expedition costs. The contribution covered accommodation and meals, supervision and induction,
special research equipment and all transport from and to the team assembly point. It did not cover
excess luggage charges, travel insurance, personal expenses such as telephone bills, souvenirs
etc., or visa and other travel expenses to and from the assembly point (e.g. international flights).
Details on how this contribution was spent are given below.
Income
€
Expedition contributions
48,245
Expenditure
Staff
Includes local and Biosphere Expeditions staff salaries and travel expenses
9,509
Research
Includes equipment and other research expenses
2,401
Transport
Includes hire cars, fuel, taxis and other in-country transport
2,450
Expedition base
Includes accommodation, food, services & conservancy fees
13,748
Miscellaneous
Includes miscellaneous fees & sundries
561
Team recruitment Malawi
As estimated % of annual PR costs for Biosphere Expeditions
4,981
Income – Expenditure
14,595
Total percentage spent directly on project
70%
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
10
2. Large Mammal Monitoring
Amanda Harwood
Lilongwe Wildlife Trust
Matthias Hammer (editor)
Biosphere Expeditions
2.1. Introduction
Large mammal populations are declining globally (Ripple et al. 2015). Loss of large mammals can
have cascading effects on ecosystems, including other mammal species, vegetation and habitats,
as well as socio-economic consequences for humans (Diplock et al. 2018). Wildlife population
declines also have considerable impacts on other animal populations (e.g. loss of prey species
leads to a decline in carnivores), ecological effects such as a lack of proper seed dispersal, and a
decrease in local tourism revenue (Diplock et al. 2018). In addition, little is known on how large
mammal declines affect mutualistic species population trends (Galetti et al. 2018, Diplock et al.
2018).
Between 1970 and 2005, large mammal populations across Africa’s protected areas have
decreased by nearly 60% (Craigie et al. 2010). Poaching for ivory is a particularly grave threat,
mainly to elephants (Loxodonta africana) (Maisels et al. 2013), leading to a 75% decline of
elephant populations (Wittemyer et al. 2014). Similarly, large carnivore populations are facing
threats from rising anthropogenic pressures (Nowell and Jackson, 1996) and are known to face
extirpation (Maisels et al. 2001). In Malawi, these species have already experienced devastating
losses over many years (Munthali and Mkanda 2002).
Monitoring populations of large mammals is important for conservation management, allowing
park managers to assess the health and resilience of populations, and to identify changes in
populations and potential drivers of change. Transect and camera trap surveys work together to
deliver data to assess these.
Camera trapping has rapidly become one of the most popular tools for conservation researchers
and wildlife managers to monitor wildlife. Camera traps are automated cameras triggered remotely
by movement to capture records of animals. Today, remote cameras are used by researchers
around the world, in a range of environments and for a variety of objectives. They have been
established as a standard non-invasive surveying method, with the number of published papers
utilising them continuing to increase (Rovero et al. 2013). Because the use of remote cameras for
wildlife research allows researchers to address questions that traditional survey techniques have
been unable or difficult to address, particularly in detection of elusive and nocturnal species, their
results provide important information for governing and regulatory bodies that need to make
wildlife conservation and management decisions.
This research project monitors large mammal populations using camera trapping and transect
surveys. These data provide a crucial look at wildlife in VMWR, a critical part of the Malawi-
Zambia Transfrontier Conservation Area.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
11
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Camera trapping surveys
Photographic surveys were conducted with 23 digital camera traps located at stations spaced an
average of 1.76 km apart, with one camera per station, along roads throughout VMWR (Figure
2.2.1a). One camera was placed opportunistically aiming at a possible den site during group 1.
Forty-six separate sites were covered during the expedition. Group 1 cameras surveyed the
southern part of VMWR, while group 2’s covered the northern sections. Cameras were deployed
for a total of 15 nights for the expedition (group 1: 25 September – 3 October; group 2: 9 – 15
October), with cameras being checked, SD cards changed and data collected twice during group 1
(once after three days and then on the eighth day after setting) (Figure 2.2.1b). Cameras were
checked once in group 2 after seven nights. Images that captured no animals or humans (i.e. just
grass or shadows) were deleted. All other images were sorted into folders and catalogued through
the program Wild.ID version 0.9.28. Animals (or humans) in each image were manually identified
by citizen scientists with assistance from staff (Figure 2.2.1c). Only images with animals were
used in analysis. Eleven images captured unidentifiable animals, which were discarded for
analysis.
Figure 2.2.1a. Camera trap placement in Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve 2019.
The number of species sighted per station and group are summarised in section 2.3. We
calculated the number of capture events (defined as a series of pictures in a time sequence
separated by less than five minutes) and the overall capture rate across the expedition (total
events/number of camera trap survey nights x 100) for each species recorded. The inter-camera
distance was determined using a distance matrix in QGIS. The total sampling area was calculated
by using a 2 km spacing grid, creating the same width buffer zone around the camera traps and
calculating the area of the polygon in QGIS.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
12
Figure 2.2.1b. Setting a camera trap.
Figure 2.2.1c. Citizen scientists identifying camera trap photos.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
13
2.2.2. Large mammal transect surveys
All roads in VMWR were surveyed for the presence of large mammal species via driven mammal
transects (DMTs) (length = 5 km, with a 2 km spacing between transects) (Figure 2.2.2a). Three
new driving transects were created during the expedition, on a newly constructed road by DNPW
and only accessible in the dry season, bringing the total number of driving transects to 20.
Transects were driven at dawn travelling at a maximum of 20-25 km per hour. Walked mammal
transects (WMTs) (length = 5 km, n = 10 routes) were also conducted, by walking in teams of four
to six persons commencing at dawn from starting points selected using a stratified sampling
design across VMWR (Figure 2.2.2a). Animals were recorded if they were between 90° and 0°
from either the left or right side of the transect. Upon sighting animals, the following parameters
were recorded: GPS coordinates, date, time, habitat, species, number of individuals, group
demographics, distance (m) from observer to animal using a range finder, angle of the animal from
the transect, and compass angle. Groups of the same species were determined to be different
groups if there was a distance of 25 m between them.
We calculated the encounter rate (number of sightings/total km surveyed) and the number of
individuals sighted per km surveyed. Each sighting was mapped in QGIS by formula
(ActualX=ObserverX+(SIN(RADIANS(Bearing))*Distance), using the distance from observer and
the compass angle, producing the GPS coordinates of the sighted individual or group.
Hippos were surveyed using walked 5 km transects along the lakeshore of Lake Kazuni starting
from the research camp (Figure 2.2.2b). When hippos were sighted the following parameters were
recorded: GPS location, date, time, number of individuals, their perpendicular (90°) distance from
observer, and their distance from water (if applicable). Hippos were determined to be in a different
pod if there was at least 50 metres between individuals.
Figure 2.2.2a. Location of 2019 transect surveys in Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
14
Figure 2.2.2b. Collecting data during a hippo transect.
2.3. Results
2.3.1. Camera Trapping Surveys
We conducted two camera trapping sessions, for a total of 15 trapping nights, located on the major
roads throughout VMWR. We captured a total of 1,670 images of wildlife, covering a total
sampling area of 327 km2 (Table 2.3.1a). One camera was placed opportunistically near a possible
den (species unknown) during group 1.
Table 2.3.1a. Camera trap survey effort across expedition groups.
Expedition group
Number of photos
Number of species
Camera traps set
Camera trap nights
1
1,535
21
23
8
2
135
18
23
7
Totals
1,670
24
46
15
A total of 24 different animal species were recorded and identified on the camera traps, comprising
21 mammal and three bird species (Table 2.3.1b). Cameras set during group 1 captured more
than 10 times the number of images than the group 2 cameras. Both group’s images captured
nearly the same number of species, with three species that were only captured in group 2. No
images of poachers were captured.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
15
Table 2.3.1b. Species capture record across expeditions. LC = Least Concern, VU = Vulnerable.
Common name
Scientific name
IUCN
Red List
status
Group
1
Group
2
Total
occurrence
across
groups
Primates
Vervet monkey
Chlorocebus pygerythrus
LC
✔
1
Yellow baboon
Papio cynocephalus
LC
✔
✔
2
Ungulates
African elephant
Loxodonta africana
VU
✔
✔
2
Bushbuck
Tragelaphus scriptus
LC
✔
1
Cape buffalo
Syncerus caffer
LC
✔
✔
2
Common duiker
Sylvicapra grimmia
LC
✔
✔
2
Greater kudu
Tragelaphus strepsiceros
LC
✔
✔
2
Hippopotamus
Hippopotamus amphibious
VU
✔
1
Impala
Aepyceros melampus
LC
✔
✔
2
Roan antelope
Hippotragus equinus
LC
✔
1
Warthog
Phacochoerus africanus
LC
✔
✔
2
Carnivores
African civet
Civettictis civetta
LC
✔
✔
2
Caracal
Caracal caracal
LC
✔
✔
2
Honey badger
Mellivora capensis
LC
✔
1
Large-spotted genet
Genetta maculata
LC
✔
✔
2
Leopard
Panthera pardus
VU
✔
1
Serval
Leptailurus serval
LC
✔
1
Spotted hyaena
Crocuta crocuta
LC
✔
✔
2
Water mongoose
Atilax paludinosus
LC
✔
✔
2
Other mammals
Four-toed elephant shrew
Elephantulus rozeti
LC
✔
1
Porcupine
Hystrix africaeaustralis
LC
✔
✔
2
Birds
Helmeted guineafowl
Numida meleagris
LC
✔
1
Southern ground hornbill
Bucorvus leadbeateri
VU
✔
1
Spotted eagle owl
Bubo africanus
LC
✔
1
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
16
Figure 2.3.1a. Eight examples of interesting camera trap pictures.
Southern ground hornbill Bucorvus leadbeateri.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
17
African elephant Loxodonta Africana.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
18
Leopard Panthera pardus.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
19
Honey badgers Mellivora capensis.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
20
Caracal Caracal caracal.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
21
Serval Leptailurus serval.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
22
Large-spotted genet Genetta maculata.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
23
Spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
24
Overall, in comparison to the 2018 expedition (Harwood et al. 2019), twelve fewer species were
recorded during the 2019 expedition. Large carnivore target species were recorded with a lower
capture rate than the previous year’s expedition, with only one capture event of leopard (Figure
2.3.1b). We also did not capture any photos of the VMWR lion, despite receiving reports of
hearing a lion a month prior. Both diurnal primate species (vervet monkey and yellow baboon)
were captured, but no nocturnal galago species. Of the 24 species recorded, elephants were the
most frequently captured (8.12% capture rate), followed by baboon (6.67%), bushbuck (5.51%)
and civet (4.64%) (Figure 2.3.1c).
Figure 2.3.1b. Comparative capture rates for large carnivore species compared across two expeditions.
Figure 2.3.1c. Capture rates for all species in 2019.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
25
The cameras in group 1 were 100% successful for captures, whereas only 61% of the cameras
were successful in group 2. Elephants were the most widely recorded species across camera
stations (30% of stations), followed by bushbuck (26% of stations), and baboon and porcupine
(each 24% of stations). All target species (elephants, primates, and large carnivores) were
captured at fewer locations than in 2018 (Figure 2.3.1d).
Figure 2.3.1d. Comparative camera trap capture success for target species across two expeditions.
2.3.2. Large mammal transect surveys
We conducted a total of 39 transect surveys across this year’s expedition (Table 2.3.2a), covering
a total of 195 km, during which we recorded eleven different species. No walking transects were
conducted during group 2 of the expedition due to time and staff constraints. We had an average
of 2.4 sightings per transect and an overall encounter rate of 0.45 sightings/km (Table 2.3.2b). The
majority of mammal sightings were in the southern part of VMWR closest to the permanent water
sources that remain present during the dry season (Figure 2.3.2a). The two expedition groups
each recorded the same 10 diurnal large mammal species, except for Cape buffalo, which were
only recorded during group 1, and elephants, which were only recorded during group 2.
Table 2.3.2a. Large mammal transects survey effort during the 2019 expedition.
Activity
Group 1
Group 2
Total
Driven Mammal Transect (DMT)
18
18
36
Walked Mammal Transect (WMT)
3
0
3
No. sightings on DMTs
40
48
88
No. individuals recorded on DMTs
323
195
518
No. sightings on WMTs
7
0
7
No. individuals recorded on WMTs
30
0
30
Total species recorded on DMTs and WMTs
10
10
11
Mean no. sightings per transect
2.2
2.7
2.4
Total km DMT
90
90
180
Total km WMT
15
0
15
Total km surveyed
105
90
195
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
26
Table 2.3.2b. Species survey results and encounter rates.
Species
Sightings
Individuals
recorded
Mean
individuals per
sighting (SD)
Encounter rate
(sightings/km)
Individuals per
km
Bushbuck
5
5
1.0 (±0)
0.03
0.03
Cape buffalo
1
2
2.0 (±0)
0.01
0.01
Common duiker
3
3
1.0 (±0)
0.02
0.02
Elephant
2
24
12.0 (±4.2)
0.01
0.12
Greater kudu
8
23
2.9 (±0.8)
0.04
0.12
Impala
12
92
7.7 (±7.1)
0.06
0.47
Puku
3
23
7.7 (±2.5)
0.02
0.12
Roan antelope
10
66
6.6 (±5.9)
0.05
0.34
Vervet monkey
9
31
3.4 (±3.2)
0.05
0.16
Warthog
11
40
3.1 (±1.9)
0.06
0.21
Yellow baboon
19
209
11.0 (±31.4)
0.10
1.07
Figure 2.3.2a. Locations of large mammal sightings from transect surveys 2019.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
27
Yellow baboons were the most frequently sighted species on transect surveys (encounter rate =
0.10/km), followed by impala (encounter rate = 0.06/km) and warthog (encounter rate = 0.06/km).
These were also the most frequently sighted species during the 2018 expedition survey. Unlike
the camera trap survey, which saw an overall smaller capture rate of species between survey
years, the encounter rate during the transect survey in 2019 was higher for all species than the
2018 survey results (Figure 2.3.2b), discounting bushpig and hippo, which were only captured in
the 2018 survey year.
Figure 2.3.2b. Comparative species encounter rates from transect surveys 2018 and 2019.
Hippo surveys
We conducted eleven hippo transects across the two expedition groups. These yielded a mean
sighting of 124.80 hippos per transect (Table 2.3.2c). This mean is suggestive of the total number
of hippos likely to be in the area during this time of year.
Table 2.3.2c. Hippo transect survey effort and sightings 2019.
Activity
Group 1
Group 2
Total
Hippo walking transect
5
6
11
No. hippos sighted
542
831
1373
Mean no. hippos per transect
108.40
138.50
124.80
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
28
2.4. Discussion and conclusions
The camera trap survey was successful in capturing a high diversity of species, including a
number of nocturnal or elusive species. The number of captures, capture rates and species
diversity from this year’s survey were lower than 2018. This may be explained by the lower sample
size as three groups were conducted in 2018 compared to two in 2019. Almost twice as many
images were recorded in 2018 than 2019. The lower capture rates are not necessarily reflective of
actual lower species diversity and density; this can only be confirmed by collecting a larger
dataset.
We recorded fewer leopard captures than expected, with only one capture event for leopard,
although leopards are known to be shy and elusive. The first leopard density estimates in miombo
woodlands are currently in press (Davis et al. 2020 in press). It is possible that these low capture
records are due to high poaching pressure but further surveys across VMWR are needed to
provide robust estimates.
Capture rates for interesting and rare species can be used comparatively between species to give
an idea of relative abundance. The higher capture rates for mesocarnivores, such as civet, genet,
and honey badger, compared with large carnivores, such as lion and leopard, might suggest
potential mesocarnivore increase caused by a reduction in the large carnivore populations.
However, all capture rates for target species were low (<10%), requiring a larger sampling effort in
order to draw conclusions.
There were no images caught of lion. The reduced sampling effort this year might account for this,
however, the previously recorded lone male lion is likely to be transient and might have moved out
of the area. However, research and DNPW staff have recorded indirect evidence, such as tracks,
signs and vocalisations of lion in the park quite regularly throughout the year.
We captured over ten times the number of images with expedition group 1 than with group 2.
Cameras during group 2 were placed in the northern area of the park, which has fewer permanent
water sources during the survey time of year, Malawi’s dry season. This forces mammals to
congregate in the southern region where the South Rukuru River and Lake Kazuni provide a large
permanent water source, potentially explaining the lower concentration of wildlife in the northern
reaches of VMWR. Compared to similar placement during the 2018 expedition, we still captured a
lower than expected number of images in this region. It is possible that there was less permanent
water in 2019, decreasing resource availability in the north. We also had a low camera success
rate (61%) in group 2, with only 14 cameras recording wildlife. As all cameras were working
properly, we can assume this was due to low animal numbers or changes in activity patterns or
movement, rather than camera malfunction.
Camera trap surveys are also able to yield information on the health of wildlife populations. From
images we were able to ascertain body condition and physical ailments. This study captured no
images of animals with snares, which is a positive indicator that perhaps there are fewer snares in
VMWR than in the previous year.
Large mammal transects recorded all of the targeted diurnal species. Of these, baboons were the
most frequently encountered, suggesting there is a healthy yellow baboon population in VMWR.
Baboons are also arguably the most detectible species as they travel in large groups, are vocal,
and have a low flight distance.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
29
Species of note that were sighted during the transect surveys are roan antelope (which are elusive
and often occupy woodland habitats) and puku (a shy antelope species that prefer floodplain
habitats and classified as Near Threatened by the IUCN). Puku were only sighted on the
floodplain transect along Lake Kazuni and the South Rukuru River along the southern edge of
VMWR.
The majority of mammal sightings were in the southern part of VMWR closest to the remaining
water in the dry season. The southern area is under pressure from human encroachment and
identification of these wildlife hotspots helps assist the DNPW in anti-poaching. Animals sighted in
the northern part of VMWR were in close proximity to the Central Luwewe River running through
the middle of VMWR, which has limited pools of permanent water in the dry season.
Interestingly, while the camera trap survey yielded lower capture rates in 2019 than the 2018
survey, the large mammal survey encounter rates were higher than those in 2018. This could be
due to the later time of year the 2019 expedition was conducted, further concentrating the wildlife
at the end of the dry season. This year’s survey also had over double the sightings per transect
than 2018. A larger dataset is needed to make long-term inferences about the population trends of
VMWR.
Hippo surveys of the population inhabiting Lake Kazuni in the south of VMWR were successful,
yielding an average of 125 hippos per transect. Although this count is lower than the 2018 average
(147 hippos), this still presents a healthy population for the area. These data contribute to a long-
term dataset from which inferences can be made over a longer period of time.
These results continue to indicate high species diversity in VMWR. Four species recorded by the
expedition are classified as Vulnerable and one species as Near Threatened by the IUCN. These
species are threatened by the increasing human pressures in VMWR, including snares for
bushmeat and targeted hunting for ivory. An aerial survey conducted in 2015 (Macpherson 2015)
recorded eland (Taurotragus oryx; n=2), sable (Hippotragus niger; n=1), reedbuck
(Redunca arundinum; n=42) and zebra (Equus quagga; n=5). These species were not sighted
during the expeditions in 2018 or 2019 or indeed by any of the research activities conducted since
2017. This suggests that the larger antelope species make easier targets for poaching and are
more sensitive to the anthropogenic habitat pressures of the area. A three-year absence of
sightings suggests that these species may have been extirpated from the area since 2015.
Historical records of these species (Macpherson 2015, Happold 2014), suggest that VMWR is
able to support an even larger diversity of large mammals.
Data collected during this expedition contribute valuable data to our larger dataset to build a long-
term monitoring database of large mammal, hippo, and carnivore populations in VMWR. As more
research and future expeditions are conducted, we will be able to perform more robust analyses of
population trends, including density, occupancy, and population dynamics to inform effective
management of large mammals in VMWR.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
30
2.5. Outlook for future expedition work
The expedition continues to be a showcase on how citizen science can make a significant,
efficient and effective contribution to conservation data collection in partnership between
international citizen science non-profit and national wildlife conservation NGOs. As such, the
expeditions should be continued as soon as the coronavirus pandemic is sufficiently under control
to allow international citizen scientists to travel to Malawi again. As soon as this is possible, the
expedition should:
Build the dataset during future expeditions to investigate if the preliminary results presented
here are representative of long-term population trends. To do this, we should expand the
camera trap survey to cover at least three months of the dry season to yield further insight
into the large and meso-carnivore populations of VMWR. Transect surveys should also be
continued to develop a more robust dataset to determine large mammal density estimates
and trends.
Based on existing and further results from the activities above, conduct occupancy
modelling of uniquely identifiable species to calculate density estimates, occupancy
patterns, niche partitioning, and habitat characteristics in relation to carnivore population
trends.
Continue to share all data with the DNPW to assist them in making conservation
management decisions.
2.6. Literature cited
Craigie, I.D., Baillie, J.E.M., Balmford, A., Carbone, C., Collen, B., Green, R.E. and Hutton, J.M.
(2010) Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biological Conservation.
143:2221-2228.
Davis, R.S., Stone, E.L., Gentle, L.K., Mgoola, W.O., Uzal, A. and Yarnell, R.W. (in press) (2020)
Spatial partial identity model reveals low densities of leopard and spotted hyaena in a miombo
woodland. Journal of Zoology.
Diplock, N., Johnston, K., Mellon, A., Mitchell, L., Moore, M., Schneider, D., Taylor, A., Whitney,
J., Zegar, K., Kioko, J. and Kiffner, C. (2018) Large mammal declines and the incipient loss of
mammal-bird mutualisms in an African savanna ecosystem. PLoS ONE 13(8): e0202536. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202536.
Galetti, M., Moleón, M., Jordano, P., Pires, M.M., Guimarães, P.R., Pape, T., Nichols, E., Hansen,
D., Olesen, J.M., Munk, M., and de Mattos, J.S. (2018) Ecological and evolutionary legacy of
megafauna extinctions. Biological Reviews. 93(2):845–862.
Happold, D. (2014) Mammal checklist for the Nyika National Park and Vwaza Marsh Wildlife
Reserve. Nyika-Vwaza News. 18:8-15.
Harwood, A., Stone, E., Shevlin, K., Hammer, M. (2019) From elephants to cats to butterflies:
Monitoring biodiversity of Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve, Malawi. Expedition report available via
www.biosphere-expeditions.org/reports.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
31
Macpherson, D. (2015) Report on an aerial wildlife census of Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve,
Malawi – October 2015. Unpublished, Department of National Parks and Wildlife. Lilongwe,
Malawi.
Maisels, F., Strindberg, S., Blake, S., Wittemyer, G., Hart, J., Williamson, E.A., Aba’a, R., Abitsi,
G., Ambahe, R.D., Amsini, F., Bakabana, P.C., Hicks, T.C., Bayogo, R.E., Bechem, M., Beyers,
R.L., Bezangoye, A.N., Boundja, P., Bout, N., Akou, M.E., Bene, L.B., Fosso, B., Greengrass, E.,
Grossmann, F., Ikamba-Nkulu, C., Ilambu, O., Inogwabini, B.I., Iyenguet, F., Kiminou, F.,
Kokangoye, M., Kujirakwinja, D., Latour, S., Liengola, I., Mackaya, Q., Madidi, J., Madzoke, B.,
Makoumbou, C., Malanda, G.A., Malonga, R., Mbani, O., Mbendzo, V.A., Ambassa, E., Ekinde,
A., Mihindou, Y., Morgan, B.J., Motsaba, P., Moukala, G., Mounguengui, A., Mowawa, B.S.,
Ndzai, C., Nixon, S., Nkumu, P., Nzolani, F., Pintea, L., Plumptre, A., Rainey, H., de Semboli,
B.B., Serckx, A., Stokes, E., Turkali, A., Vanleeuwe, H., Vosper, A., and Warren, Y. (2013)
Devastating decline of forest elephants in central Africa. PLOS One 8, e59469.
Maisels, F., Keming, E., Kemei, M. and Toh, C. (2001) The extirpation of large mammals and
implications for mountain forest conservation: the case of the Kilum-Ijum Forest. Northwest
Province, Cameroon. Oryx. 35: 322- 331.
Munthali, S.M. & Mkanda, F. X (2002) The plight of Malawi’s wildlife: is translocation of animals
the solution? Biodiversity and Conservation. 11:751-768.
Nowell, K. & Jackson, P. (1996) Wild cats: status survey and action plan. IUCN. Gland,
Switzerland.
Ripple, J.W., Newsome, T.M., Wolf, C., Dirzo, R., Everatt, K.T., Galetti, M., Hayward, M.W.,
Kerley, G.I.H., Levi, T., Lindsey, P.A., Macdonald, D.W., Malhi, Y., Painter. L.E., Sandom, C.J.,
Terborgh, J., and van Valkenburgh, B. (2015) Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Science
Advances. 1(4):e1400103.
Rovero, F., Zimmermann, F., Merzi, D., and Meek, P. (2013) “Which camera trap type and how
many do I need?” A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research
applications. Hystrix. doi:10.4404/hystrix-24.2-6316.
Wittemyer, G., Northrup, J.M., Blanc, J., Douglas-Hamilton, I., Omondo, P., and Burnham, K.P.
(2014) Illegal killing for ivory drives global decline in African elephants. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 111(36): 13117-13121.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
32
3. Elephant Monitoring
Amanda Harwood
Lilongwe Wildlife Trust
Matthias Hammer (editor)
Biosphere Expeditions
3.1. Introduction
Best estimates of elephant populations in Malawi suggest a 71% decline in elephants between
2002 and 2006 alone (Thouless et al. 2016). Since the 1970s, elephants across Malawi, including
Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve (VMWR), have been heavily poached for their ivory. Threats to
elephant populations in Malawi differ from most other range states, because Malawi is a small
country with a very high population density and therefore human population pressure, few
contiguous protected areas (only 9% of the country is protected) (Blanc et al. 2007) and the
second highest rate of deforestation in Southern Africa (UNEP 2002). Elephant populations in
Malawi are small and isolated, only remaining in protected areas, which are decreasing due to
human encroachment and deforestation (Blanc et al. 2007). Losing elephant populations in Malawi
will lead to a significant gap in the African elephant range. Malawi’s elephants are geographically
important as they provide a transboundary link to priority populations (as listed by the African
Elephant Conservation Fund) in the Luangwa-Zambezi Valley through the Malawi-Zambia
Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA), encompassing 30,621 km2, including VMWR, along with
Nyika and Kasungu National Parks in Malawi. This TFCA facilitates elephant dispersal,
movements, and genetic diversity. Elephants in Malawi are suffering from increasing isolation
caused by decreasing connectivity through agricultural expansion and human encroachment
(Thouless et al. 2016). This brings elephants into increasing conflict with human populations
surrounding the protected areas.
Isolation, encroachment and habitat loss are threatening elephant populations in Malawi (Munthali
1998). Management and conservation are limited by a lack of rigorous research and survey data
(Blanc et al. 2007). Over 50% of elephant population estimates are low quality guesses (Blanc et
al. 2007) and surveys are not standardised or rigorous, limiting interpretation of elephant status
and trends across Malawi. Accurate data on elephant numbers and distribution are essential for
effective conservation management of the species (Blanc et al. 2007). However, precise and
accurate estimates of elephant numbers in Malawi are lacking (see Table 3.1a).
There has been no previous systematic census or monitoring of the elephant populations in
VWMR. There are an estimated 300 elephants in VMWR, with some populations migrating to
areas in the TFCA throughout the year. VMWR is unique as large mammals there are heavily
dependent on the few water resources that remain available in the dry season (May-November),
e.g. Lake Kazuni and the South Rukuru River located in the southern part of VMWR. These are
utilised by elephants throughout the year for drinking, swimming, bathing and to cover themselves
with mud and sand. This means that large numbers of elephants congregate at these resources.
The aim of the elephant monitoring project is to obtain close population estimates and herd
demographics by creating an individual identification database. This database will enable
monitoring of long-term trends as well as allow researchers to study behavioural ecology once the
database is well established.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
33
Table 3.1a. Elephant population estimates in Malawi (from Blanc et al. 2007).
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
34
3.2. Methods
We followed methods developed by Elephants for Africa (www.elephantsforafrica.org), a
Botswana-based NGO. We observed elephant herds both from vehicles in VMWR and
from the expedition base camp. Because of the tendency for large numbers of elephants
to congregate at the water resource of Lake Kazuni, we used this location to conduct
many of our research sessions. However, we were careful to record groups that arrive at
the lake together and leave together, not short-term interactions brought on by resource
availability (Figure 3.2a). To guarantee this, we recorded data only on groups that arrived
at the lake after the researchers.
At the start of each observation session, we recorded the date, time, GPS coordinates,
and situational data on the datasheet. Focusing on one herd at a time, we recorded herd
composition data, including age and sex classes, herd leader and herd size. Sex and age
classes were determined by certain developmental and physical characteristics. Often it
was difficult to tell one herd from another and if this was the case, we focused solely on
individual elephant identification.
Figure 3.2a. An elephant herd on the Lake Kazuni floodplain, with hippos in the lake in the background.
Photo courtesy of Laura Pope.
Once each herd was counted, we focused on the individual identification of each elephant.
We used photos of the notches and holes in the ears, tusk and tail characteristics, and
other physical markers to identify individual elephants. Photos were taken of both ears,
straight on, both tusks, and the full body. Binoculars were also used to identify these
characteristics. Identifying features were characterized according to a set of standard
terminology.
At the end of an observation session, photographs were reviewed to identify each
elephant. If an individual had been identified previously, we recorded it as a repeat
sighting for that individual in our master database. If the elephant was new to the
database, an ID descriptive datasheet was drawn with the individual’s characteristics,
photos were stored and catalogued, a profile page for the elephant was created, and all of
the characteristic and sighting information was recorded in the master database.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
35
3.3. Results
We completed 26 herd observations and confirmed 14 second sightings of identified
elephants. We identified 10 new individual elephants (see Figure 3.3a for an example),
five males and five females.
Figure 3.3a. Example profile of an adult male elephant, Elias, identified during the expedition.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
36
One new identified elephant was a subadult, while the rest were adults. Four males were
identified in a bachelor herd, one male by himself, and five females from two different
herds. These new individuals brought the database total to 203 identified individuals.
Three of the second-sighted elephants were individuals first identified by the 2018
expedition. Herd observations revealed a mean herd size of 18 individuals each with an
average of eight adults. Of the observed herds, 78% had at least one infant, with 61%
having more than one infant.
3.4. Discussion and conclusions
Elephants were observed solely around Lake Kazuni and in front of the expedition base
camp. During the height of the dry season, elephants need to drink at least once a day
and come to Lake Kazuni as the main permanent water source to drink and bathe. Often
multiple herds were observed congregating at once on the lakeshore, making herd
demographic data difficult to collect. During these times we focused on individual
identification. The ten elephants identified during this year’s expedition pushed our total
database to over 200 individuals. Passing the 200 individuals mark was a goal we were
excited to accomplish with Biosphere Expeditions, as we believe the database now
comprises the majority of the VMWR elephant population, estimated to be around 300
individuals (pers. comm. Leonard Moyo, DNPW, 2017). An aerial count by Macpherson
(2015) reported 203 elephants, but our database, casual observations and DNPW
communications suggest that there are now more, however numbers can often be affected
by seasonal migratory patterns.
These identifications provide a solid baseline from which we can monitor elephant
populations long-term. The number of second-sighted elephants was low due to the time it
takes to identify each elephant accurately, a challenge we experienced throughout the
expedition. Data will continue to be analysed by the permanent research staff. The high
percentage of herds with infants, including the majority having more than one infant, is an
encouraging indication for this population, especially given the high rate of elephant
poaching in the area. The reproductive success of the elephant population will be
monitored and can be an indicator of the success of the DNPW law enforcement efforts in
the area. The elephant ID database is also useful in identifying poached animals (of which
we identified three in the previous year).
3.5. Outlook for future expedition work
This long-term research project will continue to monitor, identify, and refine our database
of individual elephants and the herds of the VMWR elephant population, using continued
observations and possibly capture-recapture techniques to monitor densities. Once we
have a solid baseline, we will focus further on herd compositions and expand into
behavioural interactions. We will also refine our database to present it and provide training
to the DNPW so they can continue to work with us on monitoring the VMWR elephant
population long-term.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
37
3.6. Literature cited
Blanc, J.J., Barnes, R.F.W., Craig, G.C., Dublin, H.T., Thouless, C.R., Douglas-Hamilton,
I., and Hart, J.A. (2007) African elephant status report 2007: An update from the African
Elephant Database. Occasional paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 33.
IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. vi-276.
Macpherson, D. (2015) Report on an aerial wildlife census of Vwaza Marsh Wildlife
Reserve, Malawi – October 2015. Unpublished, Department of National Parks and Wildlife.
Lilongwe, Malawi.
Moyo, Leonard (2017) Reserve Manager, Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve. Personal
Communication.
Munthali, S. M. (1998) The State of Biodiversity in Malawi. Unpublished Consultancy
Report. Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment, Malawi.
Thouless, C.R., Dublin, H.T., Blanc, J.J., Skinner, D.P., Daniel, T.E., Taylor, R.D., Maisels,
F., Frederick, H.L., and Bouche, P. (2016) African elephant status report 2016: An update
from the African Elephant Database. Occasional Paper Series of the IUCN Species
Survival Commission. IUCN / SSC Africa Elephant Specialist Group IUCN 60; vi-309.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2002) Africa environment outlook: past,
present and future perspectives. http://www.grida.no/publications/80.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
38
4. Bat and insect monitoring
Emma Stone
Conservation Research Africa
Brennan PetersonWood
Conservation Research Africa
Matthias Hammer (editor)
Biosphere Expeditions
4.1. Introduction
Bats
Bats are members of the order Chiroptera, one of the most diverse and widely distributed
groups of animals (Nowak et al. 1994). Bat populations are declining worldwide (Hutson et
al. 2001). The rapid increase in human populations and associated habitat loss and
degradation poses the most serious threat to bat populations. In Africa, these threats are
increasing with the annual human population increasing more rapidly than that of any
other continent (Hutson et al. 2001). Bats are key indicator species as they are nocturnal,
relatively taxonomically stable, perform key ecosystem services and have a rich trophic
diversity (Tsang et al. 2016). Bats therefore make effective bio-indicators, capturing the
responses of a range of taxa and reflecting components of biological diversity such as
species richness (Jones et al. 2009). Bats are the second most species-rich mammalian
order in the world (Wilson & Reeder 2005) and represent a significant contribution to
global and African biodiversity (Altringham et al. 1996).
Insects
Insects, a class of animals within the phylum Arthropoda, are the most diverse group of
animals on the planet, making up three quarters of all known species (Samways 1993).
They have colonised every continent, can live on land, in water, and in air. With
approximately 1 million species currently described, estimates of the actual number of
insect species on earth vary from 5.5 million to 10 million (Ødegaard 2000, Stork et al.
2015). As a result, insects occupy a vast number of ecological niches in almost every
habitat on earth. They maintain ecological functions (Bengtsson et al. 2000, Srivastava
2006, Zavaleta et al. 2010), deliver ecosystem services (the services provided by insects
are worth $57 billion to the US economy alone according to Losey & Vaughan (2006)) and
are effective, cheap indicators of ecological interactions and ecosystem health (McGeoch
1998, Rainio & Niemelä 2003, Forup et al. 2008, Arimoro & Ikomi 2009).
Despite these well-known facts, entomology remains a heavily neglected area of study in
Africa, especially for applied conservation research. Africa's protected species and
habitats are disappearing at a rate faster than they can recover (Ceballos et al. 2015, De
Vos et al. 2015, WWF, 2018). At the same time, the continent’s human population is
rapidly expanding (United Nations 2011). These issues combined with the importance of
insects for maintaining and monitoring protected areas (Foster 1993, Nervo et al. 2017;
Wills & Landis 2018), sustaining Africa's growing human population (either as a direct
source of food (Gahukar 2011), or indirectly as a food producer through pollination or soil
turnover (Rodger et al. 2004)), leave entomology as a serious gap in conservation
research that requires urgent attention. Insects themselves have drastically declined
worldwide in recent decades (Alstad et al. 1982, Hallmann et al. 2017), leading to
worldwide concern and alarm amongst scientists as to the fate of all global natural
systems that are largely reliant on insects (Potts et al. 2010, Rader et al. 2016).
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
39
The bat and insect surveys conducted during the expedition provide critical data for an
ongoing long-term population and biodiversity-monitoring programme by African Bat
Conservation (ABC), which aims to: (a) identify temporal changes in bat and insect
populations to inform biodiversity management and IUCN action planning, (b) assess and
compare species richness and composition between protected (undisturbed) areas and
unprotected (disturbed) areas subject to anthropogenic change and (c) identify drivers of
population change; creating an early warning system to identify any declines or significant
negative trends in populations.
Biodiversity monitoring through bat and insect captures during this Biosphere Expedition
adds to ABC’s ongoing database of ecosystem health monitoring. Surveys completed in
Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve (VMWR) represent data for undisturbed, protected areas.
ABC’s other survey sites include highly disturbed urban areas such as Lilongwe and
mono-culture crop lands such as tea estates in Southern Malawi. Other undisturbed
survey sites include Kasungu, Nyika and Liwonde National Parks, Kuti Wildlife Reserve
and many forest reserves.
Vegetation surveys
Vegetation surveys were conducted in conjunction with bat mist netting and harp trapping
surveys. In addition to providing a baseline dataset of tree species present in VMWR,
vegetation surveys allow for fine scale analysis of bat micro-habitat preferences and
providing quantitative data on the physical environment bats are caught in. Bat species are
adapted to forage and navigate in different habitats and acoustic environments. A more
densely “cluttered” environment requires a unique form of echolocation to avoid collision
with objects and specific wing loading and aspect ratios to allow for slow manoeuvrable
flight. As such, specific morphological differences have evolved to suit the favoured
environment of each bat species. Comparing tree density with bat species caught in the
area can help reinforce species identification and provide insights into the feeding and
roosting behaviour and preferences of bats. Long-running baseline vegetation data are
also important for measuring the health of the ecosystem as a whole, as plants and trees
are often the first victims of invasive species, toxins or changes in global and local climate.
Local weather conditions have been monitored with a Davis Instruments Vantage VUE
weather monitoring station (model no. 6250UK).
4.2. Methods
Bat surveys
Bats were surveyed at spatially independent survey sites in VMWR using standardised
trapping as part of the ABC biodiversity monitoring programme (BMP) at permanent
survey sites, or opportunistically at randomly selected sites in each habitat (floodplain and
woodland) (Fig 4.2a). The surveys provide insights into the species richness across
different survey sites with varying levels of human disturbance and different habitat types
as well as general population monitoring. Bats were surveyed for one night per site during
each expedition group. Bats were captured at each site using two mist nets and two harp
traps set over trails, slow moving water, or openings where bats forage. A distance of at
least 2 km separated each site to prevent pseudoreplication. The limited geographical
spread of the bat survey sites was due to timing restrictions during the expedition (each
survey takes 3.5 hours at each site).
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
40
All surveys were carried out either along the floodplain of Lake Kazuni in the south east of
VMWR, or in the Miombo woodland within 5 km of camp.
The size of mist nets (2.6 x 12 m and 2.6 x 6 m) were selected to suit the physical
characteristics of each site. Traps were opened 30 minutes before sunset and monitored
at 10-minute intervals for a period of three and a half hours using a standard trapping
procedure described by Kunz & Parsons (2009). The presence of dangerous animals
occasionally limited the total trapping time to under 3.5 hours. Additionally, one harp trap
(1.8 x 1.8 m) was also used at each site for a total of 50 square metres of net at each
survey site. Species richness is then calculated by number of individuals caught per metre
of net (which is standard across all surveys) by time (which had slight deviations due to the
presence of dangerous animals).
The species of captured individuals were identified using external characteristics and
dentition from keys and published information (Happold & Happold 1989, 1997).
Individuals were photographed and the following biometrics collected: age (juvenile, adult),
sex, reproductive status, forearm length, ear length & width, and weight. Age is determined
by observing the degree of ossification of hand joints. Females were checked for signs of
lactation to determine reproductive state. Male reproductive status was determined by
assessing the extent of descended testes. Tissue samples for DNA analysis were taken
with wing puncture kits to improve our understanding of the taxonomic ranks of the species
captured.
Insect surveys
As with the bat surveys, all insect surveys were carried out at the same standardised
biodiversity monitoring sites in floodplain or woodland habitat. All surveys were carried out
within a range of 8 km of camp. The limited geographical spread of the insect surveys was
due to the need for time for processing and identification after each survey during the
expedition. Insects were surveyed using Standardised Biodiversity Monitoring Surveys.
Standardised Biodiversity Monitoring insect surveys
ABC uses a standardised biological diversity monitoring programme (BMP) to assess the
status, distribution of and threats to bats and biodiversity in Malawi. Surveys are
conducted in the different habitat types of VMWR at permanent sites, over different
seasons, which are monitored using bat harp-trapping and mist netting, vegetation and
insect surveys.
ABC use these data to measure relative species diversity and abundance of bats between
habitats, and across landscapes to predict diversity and abundance of bats and determine
spatial and temporal trends in bat populations to inform conservation management.
Insects surveyed as part of the BMP were sampled for the duration of each bat survey.
Surveys were conducted at randomly selected sites within the different habitats of VMWR
and used one Heath light trap, fixed with a 20W cylinder black light. These surveys were
used to estimate order level richness and relative abundance, and relate this to bat
species richness and abundance over time.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
41
Figure 4.2a. BMP survey sites for bats and insects representing undisturbed survey locations in two different habitats, woodland and floodplain.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
42
Each trap was placed a minimum of 25 metres from all bat traps, out of the line of sight of
the bat traps to reduce influence on bat capture rates. Light traps were positioned on
game trails, on edge habitat or close to water bodies. Each trap was left active (switched
on) for 30 minutes before sunset, and three hours thereafter, according to ABC BMP
protocols for surveying bats.
At the end of each survey, all insects caught were euthanised using cotton wool soaked in
ethyl acetate in a jar, which was inserted into the light trap box. The light trap box was then
sealed in a plastic bag overnight and processed the following day. All insects in each trap
were identified to order level and separated into size classes of 6 mm each ranging from 5
mm to 95 mm. This range is based on the variation in catch from pilot surveys conducted
in VMWR.
As it is very difficult to examine morphological characteristics accurately with individuals
below 5 mm, all catch under 5 mm was compiled and weighed in grams. This was used to
give an indication of the insect biomass under 5 mm collected from each survey. All
identification was carried out using Sholtz & Holm (1985).
Vegetation surveys
Vegetation surveys were conducted when logistically possible at each bat and insect
trapping location. External factors such as time and the presence of dangerous wildlife
limited the vegetation surveys. Surveys were conducted within a 20 m x 50 m plot centred
on the nets, which was then divided into ten 10 m x 10 m subplots, of which five were
randomly selected and sampled for vegetation. The following variables are then recorded:
species, tree or sapling, height, diameter at breast height (DBH), canopy length and width,
clutter at sample point, basal area, status, foliage height density (FHD), use of
herbicides/pesticides/fertilisers.
4.3. Results
Bat surveys
A total of nine bat trapping surveys were completed at seven sites and two habitats
(floodplain, n=6 and woodland, n=3), yielding a total of 2714.4 trapping metre survey hours
(Table 4.3a).
Table 4.3a. Bat survey effort across expedition groups and survey type.
Expedition
Group No.
No.
opportunistic
trapping
surveys
Total
Trapping
Metre Hours
(TMH)
Total No.
bats caught
No. bats
/TMH
No. spp.
caught
No. spp. /
TMH
1
6
1688.4
34
0.02
9
0.005
2
3
1026
17
0.016
6
0.005
Totals
9
2714.4
51
0.018
11
0.004
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
43
Fifty-one bats were captured in total, with an average no. of spp. / TMH of 0.004 and 11
different species.
Figure 4.3a. Bat species richness (bats/trapping metre hour (TMH)) per habitat.
Table 4.3b. Bat species caught during the expedition.
Latin name
English name
Mops niveiventer
White-bellied free-tailed bat
Neoromicia nana
Banana Pipistrelle bat
Vespertilionidae species 1*
Vespertilionidae species 2*
Epomophorus labiatus
Ethiopian epauletted fruit bat
Mimetillus thomasi
Thamas’s flat-headed bat
Scotophilus dinganii
Yellow house bat
Myotis bocagii
Rufous mouse-eared bat
Laephotis botswanae
Botswanan long-eared bat
Kerivoula lanosa
Lesser woolly bat
Hipposideros caffer
Sundevall’s roundleaf bat
*Two Vesper species were thought to have been caught based on slight physical differences. This will have to be confirmed via DNA
from wing samples
Expedition group 1 recorded nine bat species out of 34 individuals captured. Group 2
recorded six different bat species out of 17 individuals captured. In total eleven bat species
were recorded (Figure 4.3b) over the two groups. Overall species richness was dominated
by Neoromicia nana (37% of total captures), Mops niveiventer (15% of total captures) and
closely followed by Vespertilionidae species 1 (13% of total captures).
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
44
Trapping metre hour (TMH) is defined by the number of bats captured per hour and square
metre of netting deployed during the survey including both harp traps and mist nets giving
a standardised and quantifiable number of bats species richness. The highest relative bat
species richness was recorded in woodland habitat at 0.006 species/TMH, followed by
floodplain with an average of 0.004 species/TMH. Although bat abundance between sites
was almost identical (woodland habitats 0.0019 bats/TMH, floodplain 0.0018 bats/TMH),
floodplain nets captured 39 total bats during 6 surveys while woodland nets caught 12 total
bats during 3 surveys. Mops niveiventer was only recorded in woodland, and all but one N.
nana were recorded in floodplain, while all but Vespertilionidae species 1 were captured in
floodplain (Figure 4.3a).
Vegetation surveys
Three vegetation surveys were completed with a fourth not completed due to elephants
passing through the area.
Table 4.3c. Results of three vegetation surveys.
Activity
Group 1
Group 2
Total
Surveys completed
2
1
3
Trees measured
8
73
81
Tree species identified
5
2
7
Tree species
Acacia spp.
Acacia karroo
Lantana camara
Lantana trifolia,
Albizia harveyi
Friedolesia obovate
Terminalia sericea
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
45
Insect surveys
A total of six BMP surveys were conducted with over 15,000 insects processed (Table
4.3d). An insect “soup” of species under 5 mm was weighed in grams as the sheer
quantity would have been extremely difficult and time consuming to order and count. An
estimated number was then calculated from the weight based on the known weight of
insects such as mosquitos and other small flying insects. Group 2 had a large quantity of
insect “soup”, which brought their total number from 757 individually identified insects up to
roughly over 6,000 when including the insect “soup”.
Table 4.3d. Insect survey effort per group.
Activity
Group 1
Group 2
Total
BMP Survey
3
3
6
Insect processing
3
3
6
Insects processed
9,000+
6,000+
15,000+
No. of orders identified
11
11
11
Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
Thirteen orders of insects were represented in the BMP surveys (Table 4.3e). Apart from
Diptera, the number of orders and abundances recorded for each order were relatively
equal between groups. Only four orders (Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera and
Lepidoptera), were recorded by both groups out of thirteen recorded throughout the
expedition.
The most numerous orders for BMP surveys were Diptera (n=8424), Coleoptera (n=657)
and Lepidoptera (n=536). The highest abundance recorded was in the Diptera and the
lowest abundance was recorded in the Mecoptera and Odonata (n=1 each) orders.
Interestingly, a massive drop in captures was recorded for Diptera between groups 1 and 2
(G1=8291, G2=133). All other orders had relatively even capture numbers between both
groups.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
46
Table 4.3e. Number of individuals from each insect order caught during BMP surveys per expedition group.
Order
Group 1
Group 2
Total #
Diptera (true flies)
8291
133
8424
Coleoptera (beetles)
294
363
657
Lepidoptera (moths & butterflies)
346
190
536
Hymenoptera (bees, wasps & ants)
63
15
78
Hemiptera (true bugs)
42
42
Neuroptera (antlions & lacewings)
7
7
Heteroptera (true bugs)
6
6
Mantodea (praying mantids)
3
3
Orthoptera (crickets, grasshoppers & katydids)
3
3
Ephemeroptera (mayfly)
2
2
Isoptera (termites)
2
2
Mecoptera (scorpionflies)
1
1
Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies)
1
1
Total number of insects
9005
757
9762
.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
47
4.4. Discussion
Bat surveys
Bat surveys were very successful with 51 bats captured representing eleven species.
Neoromicia nana dominated the species composition despite all but one bat being caught
in floodplain habitat, a change from 2018 when most N. nana were captured in woodland.
This difference in capture location could be related to seasonal changes in insect diversity
and abundance across habitat types, potentially influenced by climatic factors on a local
scale. These differences highlight the importance of long-term monitoring as over time
patterns can be analysed alongside environmental variables such as rain fall, temperature,
vegetation density and diversity which might influence local foraging patterns and
preferences of bats.
Neoromicia nana, being the most common capture, is representative of other studies in
Africa, as this species is a generalist, occupying a range of habitat types (Skinner and
Chimimba 2005). This species is known for roosting in banana plants, using its sticky
thumb pads to stick to the inside of the unfurled banana leaves. It will also roost in
buildings, caves and crevices. This species may be roosting both in the reserve and in the
villages where banana crops are grown and commuting into the park for foraging.
Currently the taxonomy of this species is in debate as it was previously listed as
Pipistrellus nanus, or the banana pipistrelle after its common roost habitat of banana
leaves. Recent genetic studies have shown that it is actually more closely related to
species in the Neoromicia genus. Our wing punch samples will be used to add to the
regional genetic database for this species to improve our understanding of the species
group. Global population trends of this species are currently unknown. Data from the
expedition will contribute to long-term monitoring being conducted by African Bat
Conservation to inform our understanding of population trends in Malawi. Neoromicia nana
was also the most frequently captured species during the 2018 expedition. The similarity
between 2018 and 2019 surveys is expected and the consistency is encouraging as it
shows no drastic ecosystem-wide changes. Since bats act as important indicator species,
drastic changes in the local environment from climate, human pollutants or other sources
would be reflected in bat survey data.
Captures of Kerivoula lanosa, Myotis bocagii and Laephotis botswanae are of particular
interest and excitement as they represent new species records for Malawi and VMWR for
ABC. Myotis bocagii and Laephotis botswanae are new species records for VMWR while
Kerivoula lanosa is new for Malawi for the ABC records. This may suggest that these
species have a limited distribution in VMWR, however, this can only be confirmed by
additional surveys and increased sample size to provide a robust assessment of range
and distribution of the species. Kerivoula lanosa are typically only found near water, as
such its close proximity to Lake Kazuni is unsurprising. They often roost in abandoned
bird’s nests, particularly those of weavers whose enclosed nests provide protection from
predators and the elements. (Monadjem et al. 2017). Myotis bocagii are usually found in
dry savannah habitat and have a broad yet patchy and isolated known distribution across
the African continent (Monadjem & Jacobs 2017). Laephotis botswanae is found in dry and
moist savannahs and often within the presence of rivers. Little is known on its distribution
although it appears to have patchy distribution, which can be a cause for concern as
populations become isolated. Little is known about its roost requirements although Ansell
& Dowsett (1988) recorded it roosting under the bark of trees in pairs in Malawi.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
48
With further work in VMWR, we hope to find out more about the ecology and roosting
requirements of these species to fill knowledge gaps and inform conservation
management.
Vegetation surveys
Vegetation survey results show no significant changes from 2018 to 2019, corroborating
results of the bat and insect surveys of a stable environment.
Group 2 measured 73 trees during their single survey, while group 1 measured eight. This
large difference can be attributed to the habitat type of the survey location. Both surveys of
group 1 were conducted on the floodplain surrounding Lake Kazuni, which has limited
vegetation due to seasonal flooding. The survey of group 2 was conducted in woodland
habitat. Miombo woodland is characterised by dense foliage and thick tree structure,
hence the large difference in number of measured trees between each group.
Insect surveys / Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
There was a wide representation of insect orders from the BMP surveys, with thirteen
orders recorded, up three from the ten recorded during the 2018 expedition. Four orders
were captured in 2019 that were not recorded on the 2018 expedition. Those orders are
Ephemeroptera (two captures), Isoptera (two captures), Mecoptera (one capture) and
Odonata (one capture), which were the four least captured orders (Table 4.3e). With only
six total individuals captured across all four orders, it is likely they were not recorded in
2018 simply because they exist at a low density in VMWR. Diptera, Coleoptera and
Lepidoptera were by far the most numerous orders of those recorded for BMP surveys.
This could be sampling bias due to the use of a light trap, which uses black light to attract
nocturnal insects, but could also indicate that the Diptera, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera are
three of the main food source insect groups for insectivorous bats at night. However, a
much larger sample size and deeper analysis would be required to be able to interpret
these data with confidence. Similar results were recorded on the 2018 expedition where
Diptera, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera were the most numerous recorded groups. Similar to
the results from bat surveys, in which the same species was most commonly recorded
from both 2018 and 2019 expeditions, the results are expected and again provide an
insight into the health of the ecosystem. If major climatic or human caused events had
impacted the local environment, insects would be an important indicator species from
which to record the changes, furthering highlighting the importance of long-term insect
monitoring.
Orders such as Odonata, Mecoptera, Mantodea, Ephemerotera, Isoptera and Orthoptera
occurred in much smaller numbers in general, and were absent completely from some
groups. Members of these orders typically tend to be less active at night, and are also not
as diverse as the Diptera, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. Seasonality will also be expected
to impact abundance of certain orders. As the expedition took place in September and
October at the end of the cold/dry season and moving into the hot/wet season, orders
such as Isoptera (termites) would not be expected until after the first rains when they leave
their underground burrows in the millions. As such, the low numbers of Isoptera is not
unusual, even for an order that is usually commonly found in massive numbers in VMWR.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
49
Although these results are based on a small sample size, they do show quite a variation in
abundances and presence of orders overall. As the second year of surveys in conjunction
with Biosphere Expeditions, these results continue to build on a growing body of data for
VMWR. Continued monitoring of insect populations alongside bat populations will allow us
to monitor any trends and any effect that these variations may have on the insectivorous
bat populations of Vwaza Marsh, across seasons and habitats.
4.5. Outlook for future expedition work
Further surveys of the bat species and populations of VMWR are needed to support the
data collected during the inaugural 2018 and follow-up 2019 expeditions, in particular to
assess the new and interesting records of Kerivoula lanosa, Myotis bocagii and Laephotis
botswanae bat species. ABC are commencing behavioural ecology research on these rare
species to ascertain their habitat and foraging preferences to inform habitat and
conservation management.
It is our intention to use data collected by Biosphere Expeditions on both of these
important indicator groups to assess the health and function of the VMWR ecosystem, and
inform management practices in partnership with the Malawi Department of National Parks
and Wildlife.
4.6. Literature cited
Alstad, D.N., Edmunds Jr, G.F. and Weinstein, L.H. (1982). Effects of air pollutants on
insect populations. Annual Review of Entomology, 27(1), pp.369-384.
Altringham, J.D., Hammond, L. and McOwat, T. (1996). Bats: biology and behaviour (Vol.
3). Oxford: Oxford university press.
Ansell WFH, Dowsett RJ. (1988). Mammals of Malawi - an Annotated Checklist and Atlas.
The Trendrine Press, Zennor, St Ives, Cornwall, UK.
Arimoro, F.O. and Ikomi, R.B. (2009). Ecological integrity of upper Warri River, Niger Delta
using aquatic insects as bioindicators. Ecological indicators, 9(3), pp.455-461.
Bengtsson, J., Nilsson, S.G., Franc, A. and Menozzi, P. (2000). Biodiversity, disturbances,
ecosystem function and management of European forests. Forest ecology and
management, 132(1), pp.39-50.
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P.R., Barnosky, A.D., García, A., Pringle, R.M. and Palmer, T.M.,
(2015). Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass
extinction. Science advances, 1(5), p.e1400253.
De Vos, J.M., Joppa, L.N., Gittleman, J.L., Stephens, P.R. and Pimm, S.L. (2015).
Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction. Conservation Biology, 29(2),
pp.452-462.
Craze, P.G. and Memmott, J. (2008). The restoration of ecological interactions: plant–
pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(3),
pp.742-752.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
50
Foster, R. (1993). Dung beetle community ecology and dung removal in the Serengeti
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford).
Gahukar, R.T. (2011). Entomophagy and human food security. International Journal of
Tropical Insect Science, 31(3), pp.129-144.
Hallmann, C.A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., Stenmans,
W., Müller, A., Sumser, H., Hörren, T. and Goulson, D. (2017). More than 75 percent
decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PloS one, 12(10),
p.e0185809.
Happold, D.C.D. & Happold, M. (1989). Reproduction of Angola free-tailed bats (Tadarida
condylura) and little free-tailed bats (Tadarida pumila) in Malawi (Central Africa) and
elsewhere in Africa. Journal of Reproductive Fertility, 85, pp.133-149.
Happold, M. & Happold, D.C.D. (1997). New records of bats (Chiroptera: Mammalia) from
Malawi, east-central Africa, with an assessment of their status and conservation. Journal
of Natural History, 31, pp. 805-836.
Hutson, A.M., Mickleburgh, S.P. & Racey, P.A. (2001). Microchiropteran bats: global
status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Chiroptera Specialist Group, IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Jones, G., Jacobs, D.S., Kunz, T.H., Willig, M.R. & Racey, P. (2009). Carpe noctem: the
importance of bats as bioindicators. Endangered Species Research, 8, pp. 93-115.
Kunz, T.H. Parsons S. (eds.) (2009). Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of
bats. 2nd ed.Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 901 pp.
Losey, J.E. and Vaughan, M. (2006). The economic value of ecological services provided
by insects. AIBS Bulletin, 56(4), pp.311-323.
McGeoch, M.A. (1998). The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as
bioindicators. Biological reviews, 73(2), pp.181-201.
Monadjem, A. & Jacobs, D. 2017. Myotis bocagii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2017: e.T14148A22059585. Downloaded on 07 October 2020
Monadjem, A., Taylor, P.J., Jacobs, D. & Cotterill, F. 2017. Kerivoula lanosa. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T10977A22021700. Downloaded on 07 October
2020.
Nervo, B., Caprio, E., Celi, L., Lonati, M., Lombardi, G., Falsone, G., Iussig, G., Palestrini,
C., Said‐Pullicino, D. and Rolando, A. (2017). Ecological functions provided by dung
beetles are interlinked across space and time: evidence from 15N isotope tracing.
Ecology, 98(2), pp.433-446.
Nowak, R.M., Walker, E.P., Kunz, T.H. and Pierson, E.D. (1994). Walker's bats of the
world. JHU Press.
Ødegaard, F. (2000). How many species of arthropods? Erwin's estimate revised.
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 71(4), pp.583-597.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
51
Potts, S.G., Biesmeijer, J.C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O. and Kunin, W.E.,
(2010). Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in ecology &
evolution, 25(6), pp.345-353.
Rader, R., Bartomeus, I., Garibaldi, L.A., Garratt, M.P., Howlett, B.G., Winfree, R.,
Cunningham, S.A., Mayfield, M.M., Arthur, A.D., Andersson, G.K. and Bommarco, R.,
(2016). Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(1), pp.146-151.
Rainio, J. and Niemelä, J., (2003). Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as
bioindicators. Biodiversity & Conservation, 12(3), pp.487-506.
Rodger, J.G., Balkwill, K. and Gemmill, B. (2004). African pollination studies: where are
the gaps?. International journal of tropical insect science, 24(1), pp.5-28.
Samways, M.J. (1993). Insects in biodiversity conservation: some perspectives and
directives. Biodiversity & Conservation, 2(3), pp.258-282.
Skinner, J.D. and Chimimba, C.T. (2005). The Mammals of the Southern African
Subregion. Cambridge University Press.
Srivastava, D.S. (2006). Habitat structure, trophic structure and ecosystem function:
interactive effects in a bromeliad–insect community. Oecologia, 149(3), pp.493-504.
Stork, N.E., McBroom, J., Gely, C. and Hamilton, A.J. (2015). New approaches narrow
global species estimates for beetles, insects, and terrestrial arthropods. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), pp.7519-7523.
Tsang S.M., Cirranello A.L., Bates P.J.J., Simmons N.B. (2016) The Roles of
Taxonomy and Systematics in Bat Conservation. In: Voigt C., Kingston T. (eds) Bats in
the Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in a Changing World. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25220-9_16
United Nations, Population (2011). Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-
depth/population/.(Accessed: 6th December 2018).
Wills, B.D. and Landis, D.A. (2018). The role of ants in north temperate grasslands: a
review. Oecologia, 186(2), pp.323-338.
Wilson, D.,D., & Reeder, D, M. (2005). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and
Geographic Reference, Volume 1. John Hopkins University Press.
WWF. 2018. Living Planet Report - 2018: Aiming Higher. Grooten, M. and Almond, R.E.A.
(eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Zavaleta, E.S., Pasari, J.R., Hulvey, K.B. and Tilman, G.D. (2010). Sustaining multiple
ecosystem functions in grassland communities requires higher biodiversity. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 107(4), pp.1443-1446.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
52
5. Primate Behaviour Surveys
Amanda Harwood
Lilongwe Wildlife Trust
Matthias Hammer (editor)
Biosphere Expeditions
5.1. Introduction
Malawi, one of the world’s least developed and most densely populated countries, is
dealing with extreme poverty, high population growth, and a rapid expansion rate and
clearing of land for agriculture. As a result, habitat pressures allow the bushmeat and pet
trades to have become a problem for primates, mainly vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus
pygerythrus) and yellow baboons (Papio cynocephalus), as has been seen across primate
species in Africa (Munthali and Mkanda 2002). This has led to the Lilongwe Wildlife Centre
(LWC), Malawi’s only wildlife rescue and rehabilitation facility, taking in hundreds of
orphaned and injured primates. LWC’s goal is to rehabilitate these animals for the purpose
of releasing them back into the wild whenever possible. In 2012, LWT developed a
Primate Release Programme (PRP) to ensure that all releases are done to the highest
standard. The aim of LWT’s PRP is to return groups of rescued and rehabilitated Malawian
primates back into protected Malawian habitats where they will eventually be able to settle
and sustain without direct human support, to actively improve the welfare of the release
stock, enabling them to function normally and live self-sufficiently in their natural
environment.
While vervet monkeys in Malawi are listed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List
(Kingdon et al. 2008), the LWT releases are strictly speaking welfare releases. LWT’s
release programme is one of the first primate release programmes to adopt the IUCN
guidelines for primate welfare release (Beck et al. 2007). Since the start of the programme
in 2012, LWC has conducted five troop releases, totalling over 100 individuals, of both
vervets and yellow baboons, which have all been considered successful. All primates are
rehabilitated at LWC in naturally replicated troops and assessed extensively pre-release to
ensure their highest success post-release.
The success of a welfare release programme is based on the idea that the welfare of a
wild animal in captivity is compromised when compared to that of wild conspecifics (Broom
2011). Therefore, the success of a welfare release should be measured in terms of
increased welfare and therefore must determine welfare status pre- and post-release.
LWT’s PRP works to define these parameters and establish a precedent for scientific
research on primate releases. The primary welfare indicators that are recorded are
behavioural indicators such as stress, maintaining positive social relationships, expressing
activity budgets closely matching those of wild conspecifics (based on previous studies),
physical indicators measured by body condition, and life history indicators such as births,
deaths, immigrations, and emigrations.
Data collected and information gathered during the release and post-release process will
be able to better inform the scientific community, provide feedback on LWC’s rehabilitation
techniques, as well as inform other rehabilitation centres about primate release methods,
which is still a small but growing body of knowledge (Armstrong and Seddon, 2007). Most
importantly, data collected post-release will help us understand the changes in welfare for
our troops and individuals. Expedition citizen scientists assisted the author in collecting
these data.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
53
5.2. Methods
Data collection
In March of 2019, LWT released a troop of 13 vervet monkeys into VMWR. This was the
first release in VMWR for LWT (the others were previously in Kasungu National Park). Five
adult monkeys were fitted with Very High Frequency (VHF) radio transmitter collars
allowing the LWT research team to find and follow the troop every day (Figure 5.2a). Each
collar emitted a specific frequency. Individual monkeys were identified by uniquely
coloured eartags and physical characteristics. At the time of the expedition, there were six
individuals still in the group (Table 5.2a). In the first three months of the release, three
adult males emigrated from the troop and four adult females were predated.
Figure 5.2a. Adult male vervet monkey, Mr Poop, wearing a VHF radio collar.
Table 5.2a. Demographic details of the six individuals in the study group.
Name
Code
Sex
Age
Mr Poop
MP
Male
Adult
Kuti
KU
Male
Adult
Dexter
DX
Female
Adult
Thursday
TH
Female
Adult
Ghost
GO
Female
Juvenile
Leilo
LE
Female
Juvenile
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
54
During surveys of the troop, one individual was observed at a time for a 20-minute
sampling period, using a combination of instantaneous and continuous focal sampling
methods (Table 5.2b). All behaviours, determined by the ethogram (Appendix I), were
recorded at one-minute intervals as event behaviours. Dominance, stress, and human-
directed behaviours were recorded continuously whenever they occurred during the 20-
minute focal observation. Social indicator behaviours (e.g. grooming) were recorded as
one-zero occurrences continually during the focal sampling period. Each individual in the
troop was sampled during each field session.
Table 5.2b. Recorded primate behaviours by recording method.
CODE
BEHAVIOUR
CATEGORY
RECORDING METHOD
Instantaneous
Continuous
One-Zero
G-
Grooming (allogrooming)
Social
X
X
G+
Grooming received
Social
X
X
PR-
Presenting to another
Social
X
X
PR+
Being presented to by another
Social
X
X
C
Contact
Social
X
CL
Clinging
Social
X
N
Nursing
Social
X
SU
Suckling
Social
X
PL
Playing
Social
X
X
MA
Mating
Social
X
X
MO
Mounting
Social
X
X
FE
Feeding
Feed
X
FO
Foraging
Feed
X
L
Locomotion
Other
X
R
Resting
Other
X
V
Vigilance
Other
X
PA
Predator Avoidance
Other
X
O
Other
Other
X
OS
Out of Sight
Other
X
A+
Aggression
Dominance
X
X
A-
Receive Aggression
Dominance
X
X
TH+
Threat
Dominance
X
X
TH-
Receive Threat
Dominance
X
X
MP+
Making place for focal individual
Dominance
X
X
MP-
Making place by focal individual
Dominance
X
X
SC
Scratching
Stress
X
X
SG
Self-grooming (autogroom)
Stress
X
X
YA
Yawning
Stress
X
X
SM
Self-mutilation
Stress
X
X
PC
Pacing
Stress
X
X
PH
Positive towards humans
Human
X
X
AH
Agonistic towards humans
Human
X
X
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
55
On the 0, 10 and 20 minutes of the focal period, a proximity scan was conducted. Each
visible monkey in the troop was placed into an approximate distance category (<1 m, 1-5
m, 5-10 m, >10 m) from the focal individual, based on the observer’s visual estimate.
These data can then be used during analysis to create a social network web indicating
relationships and cohesiveness.
During each focal period and at every full hour, the GPS coordinates of the troop were
recorded. These data contribute to measuring the establishment of a home range. When
the troop was first found for each field session, a census of the animals present was taken.
If an animal was missing, extra effort was put in to find that animal.
Data analysis
Activity budgets were determined by calculating the percentage of each individual’s and
the whole troop’s time spent performing each recorded behaviour. This percentage was
calculated by dividing the total occurrences of each behaviour by the total number of all
observed behaviours. These data were taken from the instantaneous focal observations.
Detailed behaviours were aggregated into five main categories, Feeding, Locomotion,
Resting, Social and Vigilance. These are standard categories across primate research for
analysing activity. Feeding comprised of ‘foraging (FO)’ and ‘feeding (FE)’; Social
combined ‘grooming (G-, G+, SG)’, ‘presenting (PR-, PR+)’, ‘playing (PL)’, ‘mating (MA)’,
‘mounting (MO)’, ‘aggression (A-, A+)’, ‘threatening (TH-, TH+)’ and ‘making place (MP-,
MP+)’.
Social Network Analysis was conducted using the proximity scan data (physical distance)
through the program Gephi. Associations were weighted on a scale of 1-4 mirroring the
recorded categories of distance between individuals. Distance was categorised as
‘undirected’ as both the focal individual and the associated individual serve as actors in
determining their own physical distance to one another. Multiple data points between the
same individuals were aggregated.
5.3. Results
The troop spent most of its time being vigilant (37%), followed by feeding (28%) and
travelling (18%) (Figure 5.3a). Resting made up little of their activity at only 0.4%. Activity
budgets broken down by sex reflect similar results (Figure 5.3b). Females displayed more
of each behaviour than males, except when it came to Feeding, where males spent over
5% more time.
Social Network Analysis indicated that adult male Kuti (KU) was the least central member
of the troop and Mr. Poop (MP) was the most (Figure 5.3c). MP and juvenile female Ghost
(GO) were in closest proximity to each other most often. As the resulting graph shows, MP
was the most central figure in this troop.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
56
Figure 5.3a. Activity budget of the vervet study troop.
Figure 5.3b. Activity budget broken down by sex.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
57
Figure 5.3c. Social Network Analysis of the vervet study troop.
Thicker lines indicate closer physical distance.
Colours differentiate male (green) and female (pink).
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
58
5.4. Discussion and conclusions
The activity budget of this troop is consistent with both previous release troops as well as
wild studies (Brennan et al. 1985, Isbell and Young 1993). Feeding and travelling together
present the majority of behaviours recorded. This is as expected, especially during the dry
season as animals need to move farther and forage more to find food. Results for resting
were less than expected as this time of year is very hot and most animals rest in the heat
of the day. This may be attributed to the fact that we observed this troop mostly in the early
morning and late afternoon when the temperatures were lower. Resting and vigilance also
go hand in hand as monkeys will often be resting, but also maintain a level of vigilance.
Vigilant was the behaviour recorded most, as was expected. This is a good sign for a
released troop as they are unused to the changes and threats of a wild and dynamic
environment, and thus must remain vigilant more than natural wild troops.
We see that males spent more time foraging/feeding, likely to support their larger weights.
Interestingly, females also engaged in more vigilant behaviour, which is usually
predominantly in males. It is a good adaptation that the core of the troop is being so
vigilant, especially after three early deaths in the troop within one month post-release and
with so few adult males, the females must take on this responsibility. The frequent
demonstrations of vigilance indicate a positive longevity for this troop.
The social network analysis based on the physical distance kept between individuals
corroborate what we would expect based on the dynamics observed of this troop. MP is
the most central figure in the troop, which reflects his status as alpha male and leader. Kuti
is confirmed to be more on the outskirts of the troop. This is consistent with what we
observe in the field, as Kuti is often not even seen by the researchers. He prefers to stay
farther away from humans than the other members of the troop do and is often not seen
for days, perhaps indicating that he leaves the troop for periods of time. The relationships
between the females are stronger than those between the males, meaning that the core of
the group is close-knit and remains strong after 6-7 months since being released. MP’s
close relationship with GO is surprising as adult males are usually not that close to juvenile
females. However, GO is the daughter of the alpha female, so it is interesting that her
dominance status even as a juvenile and without the presence of her mother, remains high
and close to the alpha male.
5.5. Outlook for future expedition work
The data collected during the expedition will be combined with the data LWT researchers
have been collecting since the troop was released in March. This larger dataset will be
analysed on its own, compared to data collected pre-release, and combined with release
data from other years to create a much larger dataset. These cumulative datasets are
being analysed and modelled for welfare, activity budgets, social network analysis,
dominance relationships, and troop survival. We are currently performing this analysis and
preparing the data for peer-reviewed scientific publication. The Lilongwe Wildlife Centre is
also currently preparing another vervet troop of 23 individuals for released in early 2021.
They are in their pre-release phase where they are being monitored and data are being
collected. We plan to continue our primate release research to continue to build our
dataset, in order to make robust conclusions about the nature of welfare releases to inform
both our own release strategies and those of other wildlife centres.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
59
5.6. Literature cited
Armstrong, D. P. and Seddon, P. J. (2007) Directions in reintroduction biology. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution. 23 (1): 20-25.
Beck, B. B., Walkup, K., Rodrigues, M., Unwin, S., Travis, D., StoInski, T., and Williamson,
E.A. (2007) Best Practice Guidelines for the Re-introduction of Great Apes. Gland,
Switzerland. SSC Primate Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union.
Brennan, E.J., Else, J.G., and Altmann, J. (1985) Ecology and behaviour of a pest primate:
vervet monkeys in a tourist-lodge habitat. African Journal of Ecology. 23(1): 35–44.
Broom, D.M. (2011) A History of Animal Welfare Science. Acta Biotheoretica. 5:121-137.
Isbell, L.A. and Young, T.P. (1993) Social and ecological influences on activity budgets of
vervet monkeys, and their implications for group living. Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology. 32: 377-385.
Kingdon, J., Gippoliti, S., Butynski, T.M. and De Jong, Y. (2008) Chlorocebus pygerythrus.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: iucnredlist.org Downloaded on 03
February 2016.
Munthali, S.M., and Mkanda, F.X. (2002) The plight of Malawi’s wildlife: is translocation of
animals the solution? Biodiversity and Conservation. 11:751-768.
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
60
Appendix I: Primate ethogram
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
61
© Biosphere Expeditions, a not-for-profit conservation organisation registered in Australia, England, France, Germany,
Conservation of Nature and the European Citizen Science Association.
62
Appendix II: Expedition diary, reports and resources
Project updates, reports and publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Malawi-Monitoring-and-protecting-wildlife-of-Vwaza-
Marsh-Wildlife-Reserve-through-citizen-science
All expedition reports, including this and previous expedition reports:
https://www.biosphere-expeditions.org/reports
Expedition diary/blog:
https://blog.biosphere-expeditions.org/category/expedition-blogs/malawi-2019/
Pictures, videos, media coverage of the expedition:
https://www.biosphere-expeditions.org/malawi
