Pan troglodytes verus) USING CAMERA TRAPS IN …€¦ · Study of chimpanzees in non-protected disturbed-fragmented habitats in Sierra Leone. R. M. Garriga. 2013 2 Contents ACRONYMS

STUDY OF CHIMPANZEE POPULATIONS

(Pan troglodytes verus) USING CAMERA TRAPS IN

NON-PROTECTED DISTURBED-FRAGMENTED HABITATS

IN SIERRA LEONE

2012-2013

Rosa M. Garriga

Study of chimpanzees in non-protected disturbed-fragmented habitats in Sierra Leone. R. M. Garriga. 2013

2

Contents

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................4

COLLABORATING INSTITUTIONS...........................................................................................................................5

PROJECT PERSONNEL ............................................................................................................................................5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..........................................................................................................................................5

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................6

CONTEXT ...............................................................................................................................................................7

Sierra Leone ......................................................................................................................................................7

Chimpanzees ....................................................................................................................................................8

Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary - TCS ...........................................................................................................8

Sierra Leone National Chimpanzee Census Project - SLNCCP ..........................................................................8

Tacugama Community Outreach Programme - TCOP ......................................................................................9

OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY ............................................................................................................................... 10

MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................................................... 11

1. Study period .......................................................................................................................................... 11

2. Field team .............................................................................................................................................. 11

3. Study areas ............................................................................................................................................ 11

4. Semi-structured interviews ................................................................................................................... 14

5. Camera traps ......................................................................................................................................... 15

6. Camera location sites ............................................................................................................................ 15

DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................. 16

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 17

1. Semi-structured interviews ....................................................................................................................... 17

1.1. Lawana study area (LA-SA) .................................................................................................................... 18

1.1.1. Socio-cultural profile of interviewees ....................................................................................... 18

1.1.2. Agricultural aspects ................................................................................................................... 19

1.1.3. Measures of crop protection ..................................................................................................... 20

1.1.4. People's perception towards chimpanzees. .............................................................................. 20

1.1.5. Animal identification ................................................................................................................. 21

1.2. Moseilelo study area (MO-SA) ............................................................................................................... 24

1.2.1. Socio-cultural profile of interviewees ....................................................................................... 25

1.2.2. Agricultural aspects ................................................................................................................... 25

1.2.3. Measures of crop protection ..................................................................................................... 26


3

1.2.4. People's perception towards chimpanzees. .............................................................................. 26

1.2.5. Animal identification ................................................................................................................. 27

2. CAMERA TRAPS .......................................................................................................................................... 29

2.1. Lawana study area (LA-SA) .................................................................................................................... 29

2.2. Moseilelo study area (MO-SA) ............................................................................................................... 36

OTHER ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT DURING THE PROJECT .................................................................................. 46

Chimpanzee stool sample collection ............................................................................................................. 46

Rescue of a captive chimpanzee ................................................................................................................... 46

Environmental Education and Sensitization Campaigns ............................................................................... 47

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................... 48

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................................ 50


4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity

CT-SA - Camera Trap Study Area

CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & Flora

GFAS - Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries

GoSL - Government of Sierra Leone

IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature

NBSAP - National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan

PASA - Pan African Sanctuary Alliance

PHVA - Population and Habitat Viability Assessment

RAI - Relative Abundance Index

SA - Study Area

SD - Standard Deviation

SLNCCP - Sierra Leone National Chimpanzee Census Project

SSC - Species Survival Commission

TCOP - Tacugama Community Outreach Programme

TCS - Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary

TN - Trap Nights

UGFB - Upper Guinean Forest Block

WAPFR - Western Area Peninsular Forest Reserve

http://www.tacugama.com/communityoutreach.html


5

COLLABORATING INSTITUTIONS

Government of Sierra Leone Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security -

Conservation and Wildlife Management Unit, Forestry Division (MAFFS)

Barcelona Zoo

The Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund

Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and

Conservation, University of Kent, UK

Associació Amics de Tacugama

Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary - Sierra Leone Chimpanzee Rehabilitation Programme

PROJECT PERSONNEL

In situ main researcher:

Rosa M. Garriga, graduated in Veterinary Medicine, University of Barcelona and Master in

Wildlife Medicine, University of London.

Technical advisors:

Bala Amarasekaran, founder and director of Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary, Sierra

Leone.

Tatyana Humle, PhD, lecturer in Primate Conservation, Durrell Institute of Conservation

and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

Bernd Eckhardt, geographer and specialist in GIS (Geographic information system).

Field assistants:

Yirah Koroma

David Momoh

Joseph Marah

Edward Kongofa Marah

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary staff, Anita McKenna, Stephen Brent, Kay Farmer, Doug Cress,

Kris Vamadevan and John F. Oates.


6

SUMMARY

The objectives of the present study were to obtain data on the wild chimpanzee population living in

human-disturbed habitats, to estimate biodiversity richness, and to learn about the impact of crop

raiding by chimpanzees and other wildlife.

Wild chimpanzee populations are threatened with extinction and their successful conservation

requires a multi and interdisciplinary approach. The Sierra Leone National Chimpanzee Census

Project (SLNCCP) conducted by the Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary (TCS) between 2009 and 2010

estimated a total population of 5,500 individuals widespread across Sierra Leone; more than half of

these were located outside protected areas.

The two study areas selected for this study were located in the Moyamba district, one of the most

populated and deforested districts of Sierra Leone. Both study areas, Lawana and Moseilelo,

present a landscape dominated by active and fallow agricultural farms and affected by wildlife crop

raiding. This study combined semi-structured interviews and camera trap surveys.

A total of 92 interviews were carried out across 23 human settlements (i.e. villages and hamlets)

across both study areas. Rice and cassava are the main subsistence crops cultivated in both study

areas and both crops were reported to be the most raided by animals. Chimpanzees were reported

to raid mostly cassava but the main complaints concerned cane rats, which tended to damage large

expanses of cultivated rice farms. We also obtained information on the types of measures used by

farmers to protect their crops and people’s attitudes towards chimpanzees.

Camera trap study areas were defined based on the answers obtained during the interviews for

where chimpanzees were regularly seen. Camera locations were selected based on chimpanzees'

evidence within a 9 km2 area. The field work was conducted from December 2012 to March 2013,

with a total study effort of 1,626 trap days between both study areas. We captured 3,897 animal

photographs and identified 20 different species including: 5 primate species, 3 ungulate, 6 rodent, 4

carnivores, and 2 bird species.

We obtained abundant photographic evidence of wild chimpanzees in both study areas which has

allowed us to identify most photographed individual chimpanzees. The evidence suggests the

presence of one group of chimpanzees in each study area, i.e. Lawana-SA with a group of 15 to 17

chimpanzees and Moseilelo-SA with a group of a minimum of 10 members.

This survey also provided very interesting additional information on the biodiversity status of the

study areas. The most abundant species identified were Maxwell duikers, sooty mangabeys, giant

pouched rats red river hogs, fire-footed rope squirrels and African brush tailed porcupines.

The results obtained in this study show that despite the high level of habitat degradation the level

of biodiversity is still of interest, including the presence of wild chimpanzees, that seem to have

adapted to these human-modified habitats. The presence of these species emphasizes the need for

further studies to learn more about the demographics and dynamics of the wild chimpanzees living


7

in human disturbed habitats. Such studies can improve our understanding of how chimpanzees and

other wildlife are able to survive in such landscapes dominated mainly by subsistence agriculture.

Such knowledge is key to ensure species survival and viability in the longer term and to promote

modes of coexistence with humans.

This project did not aim per se to estimate population size because we did not employ a capture-

recapture approach. Nevertheless because we obtained many photographs of chimpanzees we

were able to identify some of the individuals allowing us to estimate minimum group/community

size. We calculated capture rates and relative abundance indices for both study areas. These data

will serve as baseline for comparison with future studies. The relative abundance index (RAI) is used

to compare relative abundance between different areas or to observe temporal changes.

CONTEXT

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone is located on the Atlantic coast of West Africa, and lies at the western end of the

Upper Guinean Forest Block (see Fig.1). It is one of the most severely deforested countries in the

region. In the early twentieth century, 70% of the country was covered with primary forest, while

only less than 5% remains today. The Upper

Guinean Forest Block (UGFB), which includes

the area of focus for this project, is among

one of the most biologically rich in the world,

and unfortunately, is also one of the most

threatened. The UGFB has been designated

as one of 25 global biodiversity hotspots

(Myers et al, 2000) and one of the two

highest priorities for primate conservation in

the world (Mittermeier et al. 1999).

Sierra Leone is ranked 177th out of 187 countries on the United Nations Human Development Index

(2012). A vicious 10-year civil conflict which ended in 2002 resulted in large numbers of internally

displaced people, adding to the degradation and increased human pressure on important

ecosystems. The Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) is committed to the on-going protection and

management of its biodiversity assets under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and has

developed a National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan (NBSAP). It is also a signatory to the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

However, at this time, the GoSL has extremely limited resources available and is unable to

implement effectively the majority of its desired strategies without external support.

Fig. 1 Guinean forests of West Africa


8

Chimpanzees

The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), with its four subspecies, is listed as endangered by the

Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

(Oates et al. 2008).

Sierra Leone is home to the western chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus), which ranges from the

Dahomey Gap/Niger River westward to Senegal. Extinction has already probably occurred in three

of the species' former range countries - Benin, Togo and Burkina Faso; populations in Senegal,

Guinea Bissau and Ghana are extremely threatened. With an estimated remaining population of

between 21,300 and 55,600, the western chimpanzee is among the two most endangered

chimpanzee sub-species (Humle et al., 2008), suggesting that if no immediate action is taken to halt

their decline there are highly likely to face extinction in the near future (Kormos et al, 2003).

Chimpanzees in Sierra Leone face a number of serious threats, including habitat loss, hunting and

retaliation as a result of resource competition with humans. In Ivory Coast, which was considered

previously a stronghold for western chimpanzees, has seen in recent years catastrophic declines of

up to 90% of its wild chimpanzee population (Campbell et al. 2008). This dramatic situation

highlights the importance of Sierra Leone for the survival of chimpanzees across West Africa.

Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary is the only national organization working persistently and actively

to conserve wild chimpanzees across the country.

Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary - TCS

Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary (TCS) was founded in 1995 by Mr. Bala Amarasekaran together

with the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL), who allotted 40 hectares of land to be used inside the

Western Area Peninsular Forest Reserve (WAPFR). In 2013, the sanctuary cares for around 100

chimpanzees and unfortunately, each year more orphan chimpanzees continue to arrive at the

sanctuary. TCS is an accredited member of the Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA) and a verified

member of the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS). Membership to these umbrella

organisations confirms the sanctuary's status as a centre of excellence for chimpanzee welfare and

conservation.

The sanctuary has evolved from the rehabilitation of confiscated chimpanzees to include other

important dimensions of chimpanzee conservation including local environmental education,

surveys and assessments of wild chimpanzee population nationwide, habitat conservation,

community-outreach activities and wildlife law enforcement.

Sierra Leone National Chimpanzee Census Project - SLNCCP

The SLNCCP conducted by researcher Terry M. Brncic and managed by the TCS, estimated the total

population of wild chimpanzees in the country at 5,500 individuals (Brncic et al. 2010). This figure

doubled the previous estimates for Sierra Leone and established the country as one of the most

important for chimpanzees in West Africa. Despite this positive news, the national census also

revealed that the number of chimpanzees had fallen sharply in recent years and that there are

many factors threatening their survival.


9

In October 2008, and prior to the start of the SLNCCP, a questionnaire was distributed to human

communities across Sierra Leone to identify potential areas where chimpanzees occurred. A total of

410 completed questionnaires were returned from 11 districts, of which 329 indicated the presence

of chimpanzees in their neighborhood. This information, in addition to interviews, suggested a

widespread nationwide distribution of chimpanzees across Sierra Leone.

The SLNCCP highlighted the extent of human-chimpanzee competition for resources in some rural

areas dominated by fragmented habitats harboring wild chimpanzees that take advantage of

agricultural crops. Outside protected areas, the dependence of chimpanzees on human crops leads

to constant competition with people. Many communities reported losing entire crops of pineapple,

cassava and oil palm to chimpanzees. People also reported using traps to capture wild

chimpanzees, poison to kill them, dogs to try to drive them off, and they also encouraged hunters

to eliminate them.

Between March and April 2009 the census research team conducted a pilot study and interviewed

244 communities in the Moyamba District in order to determine the presence of chimpanzees. The

Moyamba District is a densely populated area to the south of Freetown with few primary forest

sites, even within forest reserves. Primary forests mainly occur along narrow strips about 10 feet

wide lining the margin of rivers and some roads. There are some areas of secondary forest;

however, these are under imminent threat of deforestation by logging for charcoal as well as slash

and burn farming. The landscape is dominated by cultivated or fallow farmland. Almost all villages

reported extensive damage to crops and considered chimpanzees a threat to their livelihoods.

The SLNCCP was followed in September 2010 by a stakeholder dissemination workshop and in May

2011 by a PHVA workshop. These workshops engaged a significant group of stakeholders in the

results of the SLNCCP and in developing recommendations for the long term protection of

chimpanzees in Sierra Leone. The outputs of these workshops have been used to inform the

development of the Community Outreach Programme (TCOP).

Tacugama Community Outreach Programme - TCOP

In 2011 TCS developed and started to pilot implementation of a TCOP following the results of the

National Census (SLNCCP) and subsequent recommendations of the PHVA.

During the initial visits to some rural communities in the Moyamba District, the TCOP team

confirmed the extent of resource competition between humans and chimpanzees, gathering many

reports of chimpanzee crop raiding and human retaliation against chimpanzees. The TCOP has

worked with over 20 communities in 3 districts of Sierra Leone to help them achieve a system of

sustainable management of their natural resources, promoting the cultivation of alternative non-

vulnerable crops and to sensitize people of the need for a respectful coexistence with chimpanzees.

Using a multifaceted approach, the program aims to conserve wildlife species and their habitat,

while at the same time meeting the livelihood needs and development of local human

communities.


10

The program focuses on four main issues, which pose the greatest threat to local fauna and flora: (i)

knowledge (or the lack thereof) in sustainable resource management, (ii) crop raiding and the

negative attitudes towards the chimpanzees and other local wildlife, (iii) hunting for the bushmeat

trade and (iv) deforestation due to mining activities, charcoal burning and farming.

With the TCOP support and guidance, the communities are cultivating alternative crops (rice,

peanuts, sesame and chili pepper) to minimize crop raiding; have successfully constructed latrines

which increases the hygiene levels and decreases the risk of disease transmission to local wildlife;

they are raising livestock (goats) which provides an alternative protein and income source and are

establishing tree nurseries for reforestation. The two areas chosen for this study are located in the

Moyamba District (see Figure 2). One community from each area has been involved with the TCOP

programme since 2011, and they have shown a genuine interest and strong commitment towards

the new alternatives offered by the TCOP.

Fig.2: Location of the two study areas in the Moyamba district of Sierra Leone.

OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY

• To study the wild chimpanzee populations in disturbed-fragmented habitats near human

communities in the Moyamba District in Sierra Leone and to produce an inventory of the medium

and large size wildlife present in these areas.

• To obtain baseline data to monitor over time the progress and effectiveness of the sensitization

and community development programs.

• To study, evaluate and compare the wild chimpanzee populations between the two study areas.

• To gather data which can contribute to the evaluation of the options for the long-term survival of

these isolated populations and to explore possible solutions, like creating or promoting natural

corridor links between forest fragments.


11

• To contribute to the conservation of these non-protected habitats and their wildlife, working

together with local communities, the GoSL and other NGOs to better manage activities that are

currently detrimental to the preservation of the natural habitat and the wildlife in the region.

• To involve actively local communities in the protection of their forests, train local personnel and

provide job opportunities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Study period

The field work started in December 2012 and ended in March 2013.

2. Field team

The team comprised of by four field assistants, a driver and the main researcher. Two local guides

were appointed by the chief village to accompany us during the field work.

3. Study areas

The two study areas chosen for this study lie within the boundaries of Moyamba district in Sierra

Leone (28 N 879736.00, E 758669.00). This district is one of the 13 districts in Sierra Leone and lies

south west within Sierra Leone; it is a heavily populated area near Freetown with a human

population density of 7.3-99.4 people/km2 (DACO/SLIS data from 2004). Very few places remain

with primary forest, even within forest reserves. Narrow strips of forest approximately 10 m wide

lined the sides of most rivers and very few roads. Otherwise the landscape is dominated by active

or fallow farm land. Some areas of secondary forest exist, but are under imminent threat of

clearance.

The two study areas were selected based on the SLNCCP results. The SLNCCP report highlighted

important non-protected areas with almost no forest cover but high density of chimpanzees and

elevated extent of human-chimpanzee resource competition within the Moyamba district. Also, in

both areas, TCS is actively working in community outreach projects where investigating further the

problems associated with crop raiding by wildlife and particularly chimpanzees would directly

contribute to the TCOP.

Both study areas were named in this report after the village where our study camp was set during

the field work, i.e., Lawana (LA-SA) and Moseilelo (MO-SA). These were 44 km apart and separated

by two major rivers, the Kagboro Creek and the Bagru River (see Fig.3).


12

We called camera trap study area (CT-SA) the area where cameras were set. The study area, SA,

encompasses the CT-SA and the area with the communities interviewed. The CT-SA was determined

after evaluating the responses given in the interviews based on confirmed chimpanzees' crop

raiding locations (see Fig. 4).

The Lawana study area (LA-SA) (28P 741684.34 m E, 887163.94 m N) lied inside two chiefdoms, the

north of the area is in the Bumpeh chiefdom and south in the Kagboro chiefdom. The LA-SA

spanned an area of 31.7 km2 and a perimeter of 21.7 km. The study area was approximately 10 km

to the ocean. The LA-CT-SA had an area of 9.5 km2 and a perimeter of 11.8 km. The altitude ranged

between 7 to 27 m above sea level. The land is characterized by swamp areas, cultivated and fallow

farm land. The swamps are used to cultivate rice but during the time of this study, they had not yet

been planted. Farms are largely cultivated with cassava with other intercrops like oil palm, sesame

Fig 4: Closer view of the study areas (in orange), the camera trap study areas (in stripes) and the communities

interviewed (blue points) in Lawana-SA on the left and in Moseilelo-SA on the right.

Fig.3: View of the geographical location of both study areas showing the chiefdom limits (left) and the river locations

(right) within the Moyamba district.


13

and sorghum. In between cultivated farms, the land is fallow land in various growth stages (see Fig.

5 and Photo 1).

Fig. 5: CT-SA in Lawana with the swamp area distribution within the CT-SA in Lawana. Photo 1: Swamp field where

rice is cultivated during the rainy season.

Fig. 6: Kasillah hills in the center of the camera trap study area in Moseilelo. Photo 2: The field team walking through

thick fallow land called "farm-bush" during the setting of the camera traps.


14

The Moseilelo study area (MO-SA) (28N 781480.47 m E, 868659.22 m N) is mostly within the

Bagruwa chiefdom and spans an area of 32.9 km2 and a perimeter of 22.2 km. The Kasillah hills lie

in the center of the CT- study area with a maximum altitude of 182 m above sea level (600 feet).

The MO-CT-SA had an area of 9.7 km2 and a perimeter of 12 km. The Kasillah hills have been heavily

deforested and still continue to be converted for agricultural purposes. The landscape is

characterized by cultivated farms mixed with various growth stages of fallow land, palm trees,

bamboo forests, and scattered areas of secondary forests on top of the hills (see Fig. 6 / Photo 2).

4. Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were first conducted in the community where we were staying. From

the initial interviews, we could locate where chimpanzees were commonly reported to being seen.

From this point onwards, we interviewed most communities around the reported sites. The

interviews were conducted by household (intensive) and in community groups (extensive) (see

Fig.4).

The interviews were designed to determine:

1) Socio-cultural profile of interviewees

2) Types of crops cultivated and causes of crop losses

3) Identification of wildlife by means of a field guide

4) Type and frequency of crops raided by identified wildlife

5) The presence-absence of chimpanzees and other wildlife

6) Which three species of animals were considered the most destructive of crops

7) Measures of protection against crop raiding by animals

8) People's attitude towards chimpanzees

9) The study area where to set cameras based on chimpanzees sightings described during the

interviews.

The interviews were anonymous and voluntary. They covered the socio-economic and cultural

background of each interviewee. There also was section on perception towards chimpanzees. We

also asked respondents to identify animals from a field guide and we noted the names of the

animals in their local language. For each animal identified, we asked them whether the animals raid

crops, which crops, and the frequency of raiding. The animal guide contained 54 drawings of

different animal species. As a control, we included 12 animals known not to exist in the area. The

guide was slightly modified after the first set of interviews conducted in LA-SA, making it more

comprehensible by reducing the number of species to 43 and reordering the pages.

Two questions in the interview yielded confusing answers and were not included in the analysis of

this study. The two questions were about the main causes of crop losses for the farmers and the

frequency and time of the year when the animals identified were seen.

Since many of the animals identified received different local names, to analyse some of the data,

we pooled the different animal species into groups, i.e. all the monkeys together, all the duikers


15

together, and so on, except some key species that were easily recognized, i.e. cane rats,

chimpanzees.

5. Camera traps

With the cooperation of local farmers, we set up camera traps in the areas where farmers

complained about chimpanzee crop-raiding. The use of cameras had two main objectives:

1- To study the wild chimpanzee population

2- To produce an inventory of the medium and large sized wildlife present in these areas

Due to camera availability at the time, we used 16 infra-red digital camera traps for the LA-SA and

20 cameras for the MO-SA. We used two different models, RC55 Hyperfire and the rest HC500

Hyperfire, of the make Reconyx, Inc., Holmen, WI 54636.

The camera triggers when the infrared sensor detects movement and temperature differences. It

does not have flash to avoid disturbing the animal normal activities or scare them off but this also

means that pictures of animals in movement taken at night time are blurred, impeding

identification in some instances. The cameras were all programmed with the same settings: high

sensitivity, three consecutive pictures and no delay, resolution of 1080p, 24h operational, with date

and time showing and infra-red mode.

6. Camera location sites

Camera trap study areas were chosen based upon the answers obtained during the interviews. As

the main objective of this project was to maximize the chances of obtaining pictures of

chimpanzees to gather as much information as possible on their demographics, we did not follow a

systematic layout. The farm fields were surveyed for evidence of crop raiding as well as evidence of

animal presence, like trails, stools, feeding remains, and chimpanzee nests. We recruited farmers

recommended by the town chiefs to act as our guides. Cameras were distributed within a 9 km2

area trying to stay away from sites with high level of human activity, like farms, paths, community

forests and at the same time keeping cameras within at least 150 meters away from each other. In

both study areas, we also had to avoid areas which farmers were planning to cultivate. We did not

set up cameras inside swamp areas and since LA-SA is dominated by swamps, so we were limited as

to where cameras could be set.


16

DATA ANALYSIS

Camera trap pictures were screened for the presence of animals and entered in an Office ACCESS

2007 database created specifically for this project. All interview data were also entered using

ACCESS.

The identification of the species was done using the Kingdon (2001), Wilson (2009) and Oates

(2010) guides.

To analyse the camera trap pictures we defined an EVENT as the whole sequence of photos in

which the same animal species appeared. Since some animals may be in front of the camera for

long periods of time and to reduce repeating individuals, we defined an INDEPENDENT EVENT (IE)

as including all of the following: (1) consecutive photographs of different individuals of the same or

different species, (2) consecutive photographs of individuals of the same species taken more than

40 minutes apart and (3) non-consecutive photos of individuals of the same species. In the case of

gregarious species, in photographs with more than one individual, the number of independent

events was considered equal to the number of individuals observed (Kays et al., 2009 and Monroy-

Vichis et al, 2011).

Fig 7: Camera locations in the camera trap study areas. Lawana CT-SA on the left and Moseilelo CT-SA on the

right.


17

Following published protocols (Tobler et al., 2008, Wirnani et al., 2005, Treves et al., 2010, Monroy-

Vichis et al, 2011), we calculated the following indexes:

TRAP DAY is defined as a camera trap deployed at a single location site for 24 hours.

SURVEY EFFORT is the total number of trap days for all the camera stations.

TRAP NIGHTS OF EFFORT is the number of trap days subtracting the days where the

cameras malfunctioned or run out of batteries.

TRAP SUCCESS as the number of IE per 100 trap nights

DETECTION is one IE of a species per camera and day (24h)

RELATIVE ABUNDANCE INDEX (RAI) is defined as the number of trap days required to get a

single photo capture of a species. It can be calculated summing all detections for each

species for all camera traps over all days, multiplied per 100 and divided by the number of

trap nights (Sanderson, 2004).

RESULTS

1. Semi-structured interviews

The field assistants performed the interviews either singly or in pairs. The local language most

commonly used was Krio, the lingua franca used in Sierra Leone. When the respondents did not

speak Krio, the interview was performed in their vernacular language by means of a translator.

The interviews conducted in individual households often gathered more than one single person

from the same family; in some cases, several people therefore intervened during the interview. The

approximate number of adults present during the interview was recorded in the field sheet.

A total of 92 interviews were carried out in the two study areas, 52 in LA-SA and 40 in MO-SA. The

average time was 30 minutes per interview and the average number of participants was 11 adults

(see Table 1).

Area code Community name No. of interviews Average no. of attendants No. of attendants

LA Kambia 1 3 3

LA Lawana 1 19 5 102

LA Lawana 2 6 7 44

LA Mambo 1 9 9

LA Mendetown 17 6 106

LA Mobele 1 1 26 26

LA Mogbap 1 18 18


18

Area code Community name No. of interviews Average no. of attendants No. of attendants

LA Mokombeti 1 8 8

LA Mongeri 1 15 15

LA Mosondoh 1 3 3

LA Moya 1 12 12

LA Moyongoro 1 30 30

LA Tokpombu 1 9 9

MO Bandabi 1 16 16

MO Bisawo 2 8 16

MO Mano 2 7 14

MO Mokango 2 11 21

MO Mokebi 6 11 45

MO Moseilelo 11 8 85

MO Mosenengo 4 10 38

MO Moyasa 3 11 33

MO Nyandehun 4 6 19

MO Talia 5 10 50

TOTAL 92 11 722

Table 1: List of the communities interviewed, number of interviews per community, average number of attendants

for both study areas (LA: Lawana; MO: Moseilelo).

1.1. Lawana study area (LA-SA)

We travelled to the first study area (LA-SA) on December 8th 2012. We set camp in one of the

communities, Lawana I. The same evening we met with the local chiefs from Lawana I, Lawana II

and Mendetown to explain the project and seek their collaboration and assistance.

We conducted 52 semi-structured interviews during three day period across 13 huma settlements.

Lawana I, II and Mendetown, were the first communities to be interviewed. Interviews were done

by household and we carried out 42 interviews in these three communities. During these

interviews, chimpanzee presence was always reported to occur in the Mokawa area (see Fig.7)

We then decided to do group interviews in 10 other communities located further away in order to

determine whether chimpanzees were also reported in different areas other than the Mokawa

area. The interviewees from the communities closer to the two Lawana's and Mendetown

recognised chimpanzees in the field guide but reported that chimpanzees did not raid their farms.

Instead communities further away reported the presence of chimpanzees groups raiding crops in

three other locations different from the Mokawa-Lawana CT study area.

1.1.1. Socio-cultural profile of interviewees

Data were collected from a total of 52 interviews in the LA-SA. Among the core household

respondents, 82.7% were males and 17.3% were females. The mean age of the respondents was 45

years old (range=20-80, SD= 12.8) and 98% of the respondents were farmers and one respondent

reported to be charcoal maker. All people interviewed declared themselves as Muslims. The


19

dominant ethnicity was Sherbro (82.7%). (For more detailed information see Summary Table in

Annex 1).

Fig. 7: The four separate areas where farmers reported sightings of chimpanzees in the Lawana area.

The blue dots indicate the location of the human settlements where we conducted interviews.

1.1.2. Agricultural aspects

The most common crops cultivated were rice and cassava (see Table 2). The yields are in all cases

used for subsistence and only sold if there is any surplus (13/51). All of the farmers reported crop

raiding by animals as a serious problem for their agricultural yield. When asked if animal crop

raiding was reported to the authorities, 38.5% of the respondents said they did; among those 50%

reported the incidents to the chief of the village, 20% to hunters, 15% discussed the issues in

groups and in two cases, i.e. 10% reported it to Tacugama field officers in previous visits when the

team was implementing the TCOP projects. The main reason stated as to why crop raiding by

wildlife was not reported was that it was a common problem and there was no point in reporting it

to the authorities.

Type of crops Scientific name No. of households reporting cultivating crop-LA-SA (N=52)

%

Rice Oryza sp. 50 96.2

Cassava Manihot esculenta 45 86.5

Sesame Sesamum sp. 32 61.5

Sorghum Sorghum bicolor 31 59.6

Beans Phaseolus sp. 16 30.8

Maize Zea mays 9 17.3

Peanut Arachis hypogaea 9 17.3


20

Okra Abelmoschus esculentus 7 13.5

Pineapple Ananas comosus 6 11.5

Potato Solatum tuberosum 5 9.6

Banana Musa spp. 4 7.7

Chilli pepper Capsicum sp. 4 7.7

Oil palm Elaeis guineensis 3 5.8

Oranges Citrus sinensis 2 3.8

Pumpkin Cucurbita sp. 2 3.8

Yam Dioscorea sp. 1 1.9

Cocoa Theobroma cacao 1 1.9

Aubergine Solanum melongena 1 1.9

Kola nut Cola spp. 1 1.9

Papaya Carica papaya 1 1.9

Total 230

Table 2: Types and number of times crops were reported to be cultivated in the Lawana-SA. Rice and cassava were

the dominant crops (as well as the most raided, see below).

1.1.3. Measures of crop protection

All of the farmers but one used measures to protect their crops and 90% of the farmers reported

using more than one method. Fencing was the most common deterrent used to prevent animals

from entering the cultivated farms (94%). Hunting with traps was reported in 90% of the interviews,

hunting with dogs in 10%, and hunting with gun only in 2% of the cases (see Photo 3).

1.1.4. People's perception towards chimpanzees.

92.4% of the respondents reported seeing chimpanzees in groups and 3.8% reported seeing single

individuals only. The average size of the sighted groups was 5 individuals (N=49, range: 3-12, SD:

2.6). When asked what the chimpanzees do when they are encountered in the fields, among the

total of respondents, 96% reported that chimpanzees run away.

Photo 3: Left: Fence to prevent animals to enter the farms

made with sticks and palm leaves. Right a trap specially

designed to snare monkeys.


21

94.2% (49/52) of the respondents considered chimpanzees to be ‘dangerous’. The most common

reason for why people viewed them as dangerous was that they are destructive (19/24); the others

(5/24) perceived them as dangerous because they are strong and threatening. One case reported

that chimpanzees had some time ago attacked a woman in a field. In the first set of interviews, we

did not ask why people thought chimpanzees were dangerous. But when we realized that for most

people ‘dangerous’ meant destructive, we then integrated this question to our remaining semi-

structured interviews to provide more clarity with respect to people’s perceptions and

interpretation of the word ‘dangerous’.

In 94.2% (49/52) of the interviews, respondents reported chimpanzees were present in the farms

before the civil war (1991-2002). Most, i.e. 86.5% (45/52), felt that there were more chimpanzees

now than before the war. In 10 instances the reason given was that chimpanzees are currently not

hunted and their numbers are increasing. Two interviewees considered there were fewer

chimpanzees now because there is less forest.

A majority of interviewees, i.e. 67.3% (35/52), was aware that chimpanzees are protected by law.

56% (13/23) had known through radio announcements, 22% (5/23) through the town chief and 22%

(5/23) through Tacugama sensitization work.

1.1.5. Animal identification

The average number of species identified per interview was 12 (range: 6-19; SD: 2.98). The

interviewees named the animals with either their local vernacular language, Sherbro, or in Krio.

Annex 2 summarizes the number of times an animal species was identified with the different names

used by the respondents. There was some confusion between species of the same genus, i.e.

between the different species of duikers, monkeys and pangolins due to the poor understanding of

the drawings.

The chimpanzee was identified in 94.2 % of the interviews. It was called by its Krio name, babu as

well as by its Sherbro name, tindeh. Respondents clearly knew what a chimpanzee was, i.e. no-one

indicated another primate species when naming the word chimpanzee.

The second most identified species was the cutting grass or marsh cane rat which was reported in

92.3% of the interviews. Figure 8 shows in decreasing order the group of animals identified in the

field guide which was comprised of 47 different mammal species.


22

Figure 8: Bar graph showing the total number of times the different animal groups were identified in the field guide

in the LA-SA.

Freetambo is the krio name for Maxwell duiker. Respondents often used the term freetambo to

name duiker species displayed the guide. Respondents were often using the same vernacular name

for all monkeys, pangolins and porcupines species; these were consequently pooled into single

groupings without any species distinction.

Animals were reported to either be seen in the bush, farm, on palm trees (mostly in the case of

pangolins), or in the swamp areas. Carnivores were reported to come to the village and kill

chickens. The giant-pouched rat was frequently confused with the common rat and it was reported

to live in peoples' houses. In many cases rats, were referred to as thieves and reported to steal

people’s food and money.

For each animal identified in the guide, we asked whether the animal in question raided crops.

Table 3 shows a list of the animal groups and the occasions they were considered as crop raiders or

not by the respondents.

Groups Total no. of species

included in the group

Total times reported

Raid crops Does not raid crops

Monkeys 9 109 109

Squirrel 2 68 62 6

Cane rat 1 48 48

Chimpanzee 1 49 48 1

Hog 3 47 47

Duiker 1 50 45 5

Bushbuck 1 41 39 2

Porcupine 2 37 36 1

Rat 1 40 35 5


23


included in the group

Total times reported

Raid crops Does not raid crops

Pangolin 3 44 22 22

Civet 1 27 9 18

Mongoose (3 species) 5 15 9 6

Genet 2 17 7 10

Cusimanse 1 12 5 7

Galago 3 5 4 1

Hyrax 1 3 3

Big cats 3 3 1 2

Bovine 1 1 1

Hippo 1 1 1

Palm civet 1 10

10

Table 3: Times animal groups were reported to be crop raiders or not in the LA-SA.

Cassava, rice, peanuts and oil palm were reported as the four types of crops most affected by

animal raids (see Table 4).

Type of crops No. of times the crop was reported to be

raided the different groups of animals No. of times the crop was reported to be

raided by chimpanzees

Cassava 260 44

Rice 126 5

Peanuts 92 0

Oil palm 92 30

Banana 57 9

Oranges 43 7

Okra 33 0

Sorghum 30 0

Beans 26 3

Kola nuts 24 2

Maize 27 2

Potato 17 2

Chili pepper 17 0

Pineapple 11 4

Papaya 9 2

Pumpkin 10 2

Sesame 5 1

Aubergine 3 0

Cucumber 2 0

Mango 2 0

Berry 1 0

Total 887 113

Table 4: List of the crop types reported to be raided by the identified animal groups in the LA-SA and the total

number of which were reported raided by chimpanzees.

Monkeys had the largest number of reported incidents followed by squirrels, marsh cane rats and

chimpanzees. See Annex 3 for summary of the frequencies animal groups are reported to raid the

different type of crops. Chimpanzees were reported to raid mostly cassava crops (the tubercles in


24

34/44 of the reported cases and the leaves in 6/44 of the cases) and oil palm fruits in 20/30 of the

cases and the palm stems in 8/30 of the reported cases.

Annex 4 shows the parts of the crops eaten by the different animal groups. In many cases the

specific part of the crop was not mentioned and it is shown as N/D.

Once the interviewee finished going through the animal field guide, we asked them to rank the 3

animals they thought were the most destructive. Cane rats were considered the worst followed by

chimpanzees and monkeys (see Fig. 9).

Fig 9: Bar chart showing the rank reporting of the 3 most destructive animals according to the respondents in the LA-

SA.

1.2. Moseilelo study area (MO-SA)

We travelled to the second study area (MO-SA) on January 24th 2013. We set camp in the village of

Moseilelo. The same evening we met with the local chiefs from Moseilelo and nearby communities

to explain the project and seek their collaboration and assistance (photo below).

We conducted 40 semi-structured

interviews during a two day period across

10 communities. Interviews were directed

at one member of each household but

others on occasion joined in during the

interview (see table 1). In these interviews,

chimpanzee presence was always described

as occurring in the Kasillah hills. This area

then became the core target area for the


25

camera trap study. Access to the villages in the area was only possible by foot.

1.2.1. Socio-cultural profile of interviewees

Data were collected from a total of 40 interviews in the MO-SA. Of the respondents, 92.5% were

males and 7.5% were females. The age average was 41.6 years old (range=19-78, SD=16.0). The

majority of respondents, i.e. 95% were farmers and two respondents declared a different

occupation, i.e. carpenter and merchant. Most people interviewed declared themselves as Muslims

(87.5%). The dominant ethnic group was Mende (87.5%) (See Annex 1).

1.2.2. Agricultural aspects

The most common crops cultivated were rice and cassava (see Table 5). The yields were in all cases

used for subsistence and only sold if there was any surplus (23/38). All but one farmer, i.e. 97.3%,

reported crop raiding by animals as a serious problem. When asked if animal crop raiding was

reported to the authorities, 28.9% of the respondents said they did; among those 36.4% reported

the incidents to hunters, 27.3% to the village chiefs and in one case, i.e. 9.1% to the Tacugama field

officers in previous visits when the team was implementing the TCOP projects. The main reason

stated as to why crop raiding by wildlife was not reported was that there was no one to report to.

Two respondents reported that they hunted and ate bushmeat.

Type Of Crops Scientific name No. of households reporting cultivating crop

MO-SA (N=40) %

Rice Oryza sp. 37 92.5

Cassava Manihot esculenta 35 87.5

Sesame Sesamum sp. 30 75.0

Sorhgum Sorghum bicolor 26 65.0

Maize Zea mays 16 40.0

Potato Solatum tuberosum 14 35.0

Banana Musa spp. 11 27.5

Yam Dioscorea sp. 9 22.5

Beans Phaseolus sp. 4 10.0

Pineapple Ananas comosus 4 10.0

Cocoa Theobroma cacao 4 10.0

Peanut Arachis hypogaea 2 5.0

Chilli Pepper Capsicum sp. 2 5.0

Oil Palm Elaeis guineensis 2 5.0

Aubergine Solanum melongena 1 2.5

Coffee Coffea sp. 1 2.5

Total 198

Table 5: Types and number of times crops were reported to be cultivated in the Moseilelo-SA. Rice and cassava were

the dominant crops most cultivated as well as the most raided (see below).


26

1.2.3. Measures of crop protection

All of the farmers but three stated the use of measures to protect their crops and 82.8% reported

using more than one method. Fencing was the most common deterrent used to prevent animals

from entering cultivated farms (77.1%). Some of the fences were constructed with palm leaves and

sticks, and rope or wire snare traps were inserted all along the fence (see photo 4). Hunting with

traps was reported in 94.3% of the interviews and hunting with dogs or/and nets in 22.8%.

1.2.4. People's perception towards chimpanzees.

95% of the respondents reported seeing chimpanzees in groups. The average size of the groups was

reported to be 7 individuals (N: 38, range: 2-20, SD: 4.9). Four respondents reported that

chimpanzees came near their village to get food from the fruiting trees and then ran back to the

hills. One of them said that when chimpanzees come near the village, they do so in pairs but in the

forest the groups are larger. When asked what the chimpanzees do when they are encountered in

the fields, among the 32/40 respondents, 93.7% reported that chimpanzees run away and 6.3% said

chimpanzees were threatening and could attack people.

Eighty five percent (34/40) responded that chimpanzees were dangerous. Among these, 31/34

provided a reason why they thought chimpanzees were dangerous: 71% (22/31) considered

chimpanzees to be destructive. Amongst those who perceived in effect chimpanzees to be

dangerous, 44.4% (4/9) considered them to be threatening; one (11.1%) reported that chimpanzees

could attack people carrying food; and 44.4% (4/9) considered that chimpanzees could bite and kill

people. Interestingly, there has never been any report in this area of chimpanzees ever attacking a

person.

Photo 4: Fence made with traps and palm leaves (left).

Device specially designed to trap monkeys with container

where to lay bait (right).


27

Ninety percent (36/40) of the respondents reported that chimpanzees were present in the farms

before the civil war (1991-2002). 52.5% (21/40) felt that there are fewer chimpanzees now than

before the war and 45% (18/40) felt there are more chimpanzees now than before. Reasons for the

differences between now and before the war were given only by 16 interviewees: 11 people

considered there were fewer chimpanzees now because there is less forest left due to

deforestation and 5 thought the increase in chimpanzee numbers was that they are currently not

hunted.

The majority of interviewees, i.e. 65% (26/40), were aware of chimpanzees being protected by law.

The usual route of information had been through radio announcements as well as by the

sensitization work done by Tacugama.

1.2.5. Animal identification

Because of some confusion with the drawings encountered during the interviews carried out in the

LA-SA, an improved animal guide was put together. We reduced the number of species to the genus

level, reduced the number of pages and changed some of the drawings to clearest ones.

The average number of species identified was 16 (range: 10-24; SD: 3.72). The interviewees named

the animals with either their local vernacular language, Mende, or in Krio. Annex 5 shows the

number of times a species was identified with the different names mentioned by the respondents.

The identification process was more accurate compared to LA-SA.

Cane rat was correctly identified by all interviewees. Most people then identified the chimpanzee,

the bushbuck and the fire-footed rope squirrel. The chimpanzee was named either in Krio (babu) or

in Mende language (ngolay). Figure 10 shows a bar graph with the total number of times a species

or a genus was identified.

Figure 10: Graph showing the total number of times the different animal groups were identified in the field guide in

the MO-SA.


28

For each animal identified in the guide, we asked whether the animal in question raided crops.

Table 6 shows a list of the animal groups and the occasions they were considered as crop raiders or

not by the respondents. Monkeys were the most common animal reported to raid crops.


included in the group Total times

reported Raid crops Does not raid crops

Monkey 8 147 134 13

Squirrel 2 52 49 3

Duiker 5 44 43 1

Porcupine 2 44 43 1

Hog 3 43 43

Cane rat 1 40 40


Galago 2 37 12 25

Bushbuck 1 36 36

Rat 1 35 34 1

Mongoose 2 31 4 27

Civet 1 29 15 14

Pangolin 2 29 10 19

Cusimanse 1 22 9 13

Palm civet 1 19 6 13

Genet 1 17 5 12

Table 6: Times animal groups were reported to be crop raiders or not in the MO-SA.

Type of crops No. of times the crop was reported to be

raided the different groups of animals No. of times the crop was reported to be

raided by chimpanzees

Cassava 315 35

Rice 197 4

Maize 138 14

Peanuts 107 4

Oil palm 64 10

Yams 45 2

Banana 41 11

Okra 29 0

Potato 25 0

Chili pepper 24 1

Beans 20 3

Sorghum 16 0

Pumpkin 15 3

Sesame 11 2

Cucumber 11 0

Pineapple 8 7

Papaya 7 4

Kola nuts 4 0

Mango 4 1

Oranges 3 1

Cacao 1 0

TOTAL 1085 102

Table 7: List of the crop types reported to be raided by the identified animals in the MO-SA and the total number of

which were raided by chimpanzees.


29

Cassava, rice, maize and peanuts are the four types of cultivars most raided by wildlife according to

the interview answers (see Table 7).

Monkeys were more often cited as crop-raiders followed by squirrels, duikers and porcupines (see

Annex 6 for more detailed information). Chimpanzees were reported to raid more frequently

cassava, maize and oil palm cultivars.

Annex 7 shows the parts of the crops eaten by the different animal groups. In many cases it was not

mentioned and is shown as N/D.

We asked interviewees to rank the three most destructive animals. Cane rats were considered the

most destructive followed by monkeys and bush hogs. Chimpanzees were not ranked by any of the

respondents as the most destructive (see Fig. 11) and it was only reported in the top three in 13/40

responses, a lower percentage compared to the LA-SA.

Fig 11: Bar chart showing the rank reporting of the 3 most destructive animals according to the respondents in the

MO-SA.

2. CAMERA TRAPS

2.1. Lawana study area (LA-SA)

Based on the information provided in the interviews in the different communities, we could

establish four distinct areas were chimpanzees are regularly seen (see Figure 7).

Mokawa was the area of choice to set the camera traps, as it was in the middle of the farms

cultivated by the Lawana I and II communities with whom Tacugama has been collaborating over


30

the past two years. Mokawa is an abandoned settlement midway between the villages of Lawana I

and II, and Mendetown; this area harbours many abandoned fruit trees. At the time of this project,

the orange trees were fruiting.

There is only one footpath between the two Lawanas and Mendetown. It is wide enough to allow a

car to pass. There is no forest left in this area. The land is composed of cultivated farms, mostly

cassava, fallow land with different levels of overgrown bush, palm trees and swamp areas where

rice is cultivated during the rainy season.

With the help of two local guides, one from Lawana and another from Mendetown, cameras were

deployed across 16 locations based on chimpanzee evidence findings. Animal images were obtained

from 15 camera trap locations. One camera malfunctioned (CL016LA) and did not take any pictures.

We obtained a total of 3,666 photos out of which 2,769 had identifiable wild individual animals.

Two different animal species (the Maxwell duiker and the double spurred francolin) appeared in the

same image in one sequence and were counted as independent events.

The survey effort was 706 trap days with 663 trap nights of effort (mean: 44.2 days; SD: 1.02). Table

8 shows the total number of locations where cameras were set in each study area and the

difference of trap days between survey effort and trap nights of effort.

SET NUMBER

TIME PERIOD TOTAL NUMBER OF LOCATIONS

SURVEY EFFORT (trap days)

TRAP NIGHTS OF EFFORT

Lawana Dec 2012 to Jan 2013 16 706 663

Moseilelo Jan 2013 to Mar 2013 20 920 786

Table 8: Survey effort and trap nights of effort in each study area.

Fig. 12: Bar graph showing the % of IE per each animal species captured with the camera traps in the LA-SA


31

Fig. 13: Comparison between the number of IE and detections for each animal species captured with the camera

traps in the LA-SA

In the LA-SA we identified a total of 18 different species of wild animals including 4 species of

primates, 3 species of ungulates, 6 species of rodents, 3 species of carnivores and 2 bird species.

Table 11 shows the % of IE for each species. The total trapping success was 74.97/100NT (SD: 10.35)

and varied significantly among different animal species. Chimpanzee had the largest trapping

success with a 44.95/100NT and was photographed in 11 locations (73.3% of the total locations).

Maxwell duikers, fire footed rope squirrels and sooty mangabeys followed in the list (see Table 9).

To calculate the relative abundance index, we calculated first the detection rate for each species.

There was a marked difference between detection rate and IE for chimpanzees because there were

many IEs per day (see Fig.13).

Four species of non-human primates were captured on camera: chimpanzee, sooty mangabey,

Campbell's monkey and green monkey.

White spot nose monkey was also reported

present in the area but due to its arboreal

habits was not captured by the camera traps.

We nevertheless obtained images of one

young individual caught by hunters as shown

in the image on the right. These villagers

were also carrying a dead cane rat.

Localization maps of the IE for the most

representative species with the total number

of IE per each species are shown in figure 14.

Common name Scientific name Total

number photos

Number IE Number locations

% IE

Max number of individuals of same species

observed in one single photo

Detection RAI Trap

success

Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes verus 1,269 298 11 60 7 62 9.35 44.95

Maxwell duiker Cephalophus maxwellii 396 47 7 9.5 3 33 4.98 7.09

Fire-footed rope squirrel

Funisciurus pyrropus 123 31 10 6.2 1 30 4.52 4.68

Sooty mangabey Cercocebus atys 153 29 5 5.8 2 18 2.71 4.37

Red river hog Potamochoerus porcus 126 16 2 3.2 2 5 0.75 2.41

Marsh mongoose Atilax paludinosus 42 12 4 2.4 2 11 1.66 1.81

African civet Civettictis civetta 48 11 3 2.2 1 11 1.66 1.66

Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus 408 10 5 2 2 8 1.21 1.51

Giant-pouched rat Cricetomys emini 42 9 4 1.8 1 9 1.36 1.36

Pardine Genet Genetta pardina 27 9 5 1.8 1 9 1.36 1.36

Soft-furred rat Praomys sp 33 7 1 1.4 1 6 0.9 1.06

Campbell's monkey

Cercopithecus campbelli campbelli 48 7 3 1.4 1 7 1.06 1.06

Double spurred francolin

Francolinus bicalcaratus

30 3 1 0.6 1 3 0.45 0.45

African brushtailed porcupine

Atherurus africanus 9 2 2 0.4 1 2 0.3 0.3

Helmeted guineafowl

Numida meleagris 3 2 1 0.4 2 1 0.15 0.3

Red legged sun squirrel

Heliosciurus rufobrachium

3 2 1 0.4 2 1 0.15 0.3

Cane rat Thryonomys sp 3 1 1 0.2 1 1 0.15 0.15

Green monkey Chlorocebus aethiops sabaeus

6 1 1 0.2 1 1 0.15 0.15

TOTAL 2,769 497

74.97

Table 9: Number of pictures captured with the camera traps, independent events (IE), number of locations, and indices for the LA-SA (RAI: relative abundance index).


34

Fig. 14: Independent event (IE) localisations of the most frequent species captured on camera traps. From top left to bottom right: chimpanzee, sooty mangabey, Campbell's monkey, Maxwell duiker, bushbuck, red river hog, fire-footed rope squirrel, African brush-tailed porcupine, giant pouched rat, African civet, marsh mongoose, Pardine genet.

We obtained 1,269 pictures of chimpanzees which permitted the individual identification of some

of the individuals. All of the individuals seem to belong to the same group which consists of 15 to 17

chimpanzees including seven adult males and one juvenile, five adult females and one juvenile and

four infants. All of the chimpanzees showed a good body condition and two of the females were

carrying two offspring with an estimated inter-birth difference of three years, perhaps suggesting a

very short inter-birth interval (see Photo 5).

Photo 5: Chimpanzee male (left) and female with two offspring (right) from CL002 in the Lawana CT-SA.

We found much evidence of chimpanzee activity mostly at the Mokawa site including feeding

remains, feces, trails and nests. Many nests were seen on oil palms (Elaeis guineensis) the only type

of trees present in the area and surface above 10 meters from ground level. We also encountered

one nest on the ground in a dense fallow area (farm-bush) (see Photo 6).

Photo 6: Chimpanzee nests found in the LA-CT-SA. Left: a

fresh nest on a palm tree. Right: a day nest on the ground.


36

2.2. Moseilelo study area (MO-SA)

With the help of two local guides from Moseilelo, cameras were deployed in 20 locations based on

chimpanzee evidence such as feeding remains, nests, trails and feaces. Two cameras malfunctioned

and did not take any pictures (CL005MO, CL010MO). One camera (CL014MO) was removed by the

local farmers after 31 days to prevent damage to the camera due to ongoing brushing/burning of

the area; another camera (CL019MO) was covered by farmers to protect it from clearing/burning

and a third camera (CL012MO ) stopped working after 19 days. In total 18/20 of the cameras took

pictures, and 17/20 took pictures with identifiable wild animals.

We obtained a total of 2,346 photos out of which 1,128 had identifiable wild animals. The survey

effort was 920 trap days. The trap nights (TN) of effort (subtracting days when the cameras stopped

working) was 786 traps days (mean: 43.7 days; SD: 22.12).

In most instances the animals were identified to the species level. Table 10 shows all identified

species (common and scientific names), the total number of pictures obtained and the IE for each

species as well as the total number of locations where each species was photographed and the

maximum number of individuals of the same species captured in one single photo. In MO-SA we

identified a total of 15 different species of wild animals including 3 species of primates, 3 species of

ungulates, 5 species of rodents and 4 species of carnivores. Figure 15 shows the % of IE for each

species.

Fig. 15: Graph showing the % of IE per each animal species captured with the camera traps in the MO-SA.

Common name Scientific name Total

number photos

Number IE

Number locations

% IE

Max number of individuals of same species

observed in one single photo

Detection RAI Trap

success

Maxwell duiker Cephalophus maxwellii 384 55 11 15.09 3 33 4.2 7

Giant-pouched rat Cricetomys emini 93 17 5 7.33 1 16 2.04 2.16

Sooty mangabey Cercocebus atys 144 47 4 6.9 11 15 1.91 5.98

Fire-footed rope squirrel Funisciurus pyrropus 57 15 3 5.6 3 13 1.65 1.91

African brush tailed porcupine Atherurus africanus 42 10 6 4.31 1 10 1.27 1.27

Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes verus 93 30 5 3.45 4 7 0.89 3.82

Red river hog Potamochoerus porcus 180 36 3 2.59 7 6 0.76 0.64

Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus 81 6 5 2.59 1 6 0.76 0.76

African civet Civettictis civetta 21 5 4 2.16 1 5 0.64 0.64

Marsh mongoose Atilax paludinosus 9 2 2 0.86 1 2 0.25 0.25

Pardine Genet Genetta pardina 6 2 1 0.86 1 2 0.25 0.25

Campbell's monkey Cercopithecus campbelli campbelli

6 2 2 0.86 1 2 0.25 0.25

Cane rat Thryonomys sp 6 1 1 0.43 1 1 0.13 0.13

Cusimanse Crossarchus obscurus 3 2 1 0.43 2 2 0.13 0.25

Soft-furred rat Praomys sp 3 2 1 0.4 1 1 0.13 0.25

TOTAL 1128 232

25.56

Table 10: Number of pictures captured with the camera traps, independent events (IE), number of locations, and indices for the MO-SA (RAI: relative abundance index)

The total trapping success was 25.56/100NT (SD: 2.2) and varied significantly among different

animal species. Maxwell duiker had the largest trapping success with a 7/100NT and was

photographed in 11 locations (61.1% of the total locations where cameras took pictures), followed

by sooty mangabey with a trapping success of 5.98/100NT in 4 locations (see Fig. 17). To calculate

the relative abundance index, we calculated first the detection rate for each species (see Fig. 16).

Fig.16: Comparison between the number of IE and detections for each animal species captured with the camera traps

in the MO-SA


40

Fig. 17: Independent event (IE) localisations of the most frequent species captured on camera traps. From top left to bottom right: chimpanzee, sooty mangabey, Campbell's monkey, Maxwell duiker, bushbuck, red river hog, African brush-tailed porcupine, fire-footed rope squirrel, giant pouched rat, marsh mongoose, Pardine genet, African civet.

Although agricultural land and farm-bush dominates the landscape, there are still remaining

pockets of secondary forest on the highest parts of the two hills. The chimpanzee images were

captured from the cameras located in those relict forested areas. Evidence of chimpanzee activity

like nests, trails, feeding remains and feces were also seen and recorded mostly around the same

locations where chimpanzee pictures were captured. We obtained 93 pictures of chimpanzees in 30

different IE. Despite the low number of images, compared to the ones obtained in the LA-SA, we

were able to identify a minimum of 10 individual chimpanzees: 4 males (3 adult and 1 sub-adult

males), 2 adult females with infants under 3 years of age, one sub-adult female, and one youngster

over 3 years of age of undetermined gender (see Photo 7). They were captured in 5 different

locations across the study area (see figure 17). Almost all the individuals were curious about the

cameras and stopped to glance at them. One adult female even got very close to one of the

cameras (see Photo 8).

Photo 7: Chimpanzee female (left) with approximately 1 year old infant from CL013 and on the right and adult male, who seems of an old age, and an infant of 4 to 5 years of age from CL006 in the Moseilelo-CT-SA.


41

Photo 8: Adult female chimpanzee inspecting the camera at CL006MO.

Annex 8 shows the IUCN 2013 status for each of the most representative species identified in this

project of which two species are categorized as being threatened, i.e. chimpanzees are listed as

endangered and sooty mangabeys as vulnerable; tree pangolins are considered as being near

threatened.

DISCUSSION

Usually wildlife surveys concentrate their effort in protected areas. This project has been focused to

study of wild chimpanzees in non-protected areas where the natural habitat had been modified by

human activities. The objectives of this study were to identify type of crops grown by farmers, to

assess what animals were perceived as crop raiders and where chimpanzees stood in that respect,

what crops are most raided and by what animals and people's perceptions of chimpanzees.

Crop raiding is defined as wild animals moving from their natural habitat onto agricultural land to

feed on the produce that humans grow for

their own consumption (Sillero-Zubiri, 2001).

But when the habitat contains only degraded

land with pockets of remaining natural

habitat, there are two options for wildlife, to

become extinct or to adapt.

Rice and cassava are the main subsistence

crops cultivated in both study areas and both

crops were reported to be the most raided by

animals. The cassava leaves as well as the

roots are targeted by various species of

animals. The herbivores like duikers and

bushbucks consume the leaves during the

growing season and when the fruits are mature, the hogs and chimpanzees dig them out to feed on

Photo 9: Male chimpanzee caught in CL002MO with

cassava root in his mouth.


42

them. Hockings et al. (2012) found that cassava was not widely eaten by chimpanzees and that they

preferred sugar fruits. This difference with our study could be related to the amount of cassava

farms compared to other types of cultivars, i.e. banana, mangoes, pineapple, papaya. Also in

Moseilelo, where maize is widely cultivated, cassava was less frequently raided by chimpanzees. In

both study areas, the fruit trees where located near the villages. Thus chimpanzees may avoid

coming too close to the villages, although in MO-SA we had reports of farmers seeing the

chimpanzees near their villages raiding fruit trees.

Through the interviews, monkeys were the most frequently reported crop raiding animal group in

both SA. However, once the respondents had finished going through the animal identification

guide, we asked them to rank what they thought to be the three most destructive animals and it

differed between the two sites. In both SA, cane rats were ranked the first most destructive but in

LA-SA, chimpanzees were ranked second followed by hogs, while in Mo-SA hogs and monkeys were

ranked second and third respectively and chimpanzees were in fifth place.

Even though chimpanzees take a lot of blame for crop raiding, the results showed that they are not

the main culprits. In many occasions, farmers emphasized the amount of damage that cane rats

caused to their farms, mostly their rice crops.

In general terms, the animals identified by the farmers during the interviews are consistent with the

different species of animals captured with camera traps, except for cane rats, and some species of

monkeys. The camera traps only captured cane rats on one occasion in each study area. This could

be because cane rats prefer to live next to swamps and paddy fields where their main source of

food is located and this type of habitats was not targeted during this study. Cane rats are large

rodents that are hunted and eaten frequently. They are a good source of protein and have an

elevated nutritional value (Hoffman et al, 2003). In both study areas, cane rats were frequently

consumed and were considered very tasty or "sweet". Domestication of this species could be

considered as an alternative to provide an extra income to famers' economies.

Protection measures against animal crop raiding were important in both areas. People mainly

reported using fencing to prevent animals to enter their crops as well as using traps with snares to

catch them. These methods may stop small mammals like rodents and monkeys to enter the crops

but cannot successfully prevent large mammals such as chimpanzees and red river hogs to enter

their fields. The types of traps used are snares made of sticks and rope or wire. Bushmeat

consumption is a common practice across Africa being an important source of protein. In West

Africa rodent species are a favored source of meat as there is a limited supply of large game

(Hoffman et al, 2003). Bushmeat consumption is relevant in both areas, although in the LA-SA

where the population is predominantly Muslim, it was reported that monkeys, chimpanzees and

hogs were not eaten. This does not preclude that they are killed and the meat sold. During the

setting up of the cameras, we encountered traps and fences widely distributed within the study

areas. We also recorded hunters stopping by the camera traps and showing off their prey. The

number of reports of hunting with traps was similar for both study areas; however there were more

reports of hunting with dogs and nets in the MO-SA than in the LA-SA.


43

Since the end of the civil war, Sierra Leone has experienced an arms’ embargo. Unfortunately, the

embargo was lifted recently and there is concern that this will increase the number of guns in

circulation and therefore the amount of hunting of wildlife, especially those species perceived as

crop pests by people. Chimpanzees and hogs are large animals that cannot be easily hunted by

means of traps. Some of the respondents mentioned asking hunters to prevent animals from crop

raid their farms. Most of the hunters use dogs and traps but in some cases they used guns even

though their use used to be prohibited. However we did not encounter any gun shells during the

course of our project. Shotgun cartridges are not a rare finding even in protected areas. During the

WAPFR biodiversity survey carried on in 2011-2012 more than 50 cartridges were found in the

forest reserve during the course of the project (Garriga, 2012).

In both areas, all the respondents claimed to have sighted chimpanzees in the "bush", and reported

to see them mostly in groups. There were several reports in the MO-SA of chimpanzees coming to

the villages in pairs to look for food. During the setting of cameras in the LA-SA, we could hear the

calls of chimpanzees within 100 meters of our location. Also in one instance, in the LA-SA, two

chimpanzees came to watch us and stayed for more than 10 minutes less than 25 meters away. This

bold behavior is usually only seen in habituated or ex-captive chimpanzees (Hockings et al, 2009).

The large majority of the respondents thought of the chimpanzees as more destructive than

dangerous; as in people did not seem to fear them as much as they perceived them as damaging

their crops. There was only one report of chimpanzee that had attacked a woman in the past in the

village called Mambo near the LA-SA, where we did one group interview. The incident seemed to

have had the effect of changing the perception of the community towards chimpanzees from being

destructive to being dangerous animals.

In the Lawana SA, there was a general feeling that chimpanzees were more numerous now than 15

years ago. The main reason given was that they are not hunted. Interestingly, this area probably

lost its forests historically longer ago than in the MO-SA; nevertheless, people in LA-SA appear to be

more tolerance towards chimpanzees than in the MO-SA. Chimpanzees have adapted well to live in

this agricultural habitat near human settlements. Instead in the MO-SA, where remaining secondary

forest patches still remain, more than 50% of the respondents felt that there were less

chimpanzees now mostly because of habitat lost due to deforestation. This was evident during our

research, as more forest was being cleared for agricultural land (photo 10). Two of our field

assistants who worked for the SLNCCP, were shocked to see the large amount of land that had been

cleared during these last 3 years.


44

Photo 10: Kasillah hills with remaining secondary forest surrounded by cassava farms. At the time of this study this

part of the forest was being cleared to create more farm land (left). On the right, the field team retrieving one of the

camera traps in CL019MO that had been covered with branches by the farmers to protect it during the clearing of the

area.

Because the main focus of this project was to study the chimpanzee population in areas with high

level human-wildlife resource competition, we set the camera traps based on evidence suggesting

the presence of chimpanzees. We tried to cover as much area as possible but at the same time we

had to avoid setting cameras in areas with high human activity, like farms, villages and footpaths to

prevent the capture of many pictures of humans passing by. Despite this, some of the cameras

were often visited by the villagers. We were grateful that they did not touch any of the cameras. In

MO-SA, three cameras were protected with branches and one was removed from the tree, because

the area was going to be slashed and burned for farming. The co-operation shown by the villagers

can undoubtedly be attributed to the initial explanatory meetings our team had with the village

chiefs.

In LA-SA, cameras captured a large amount of pictures of chimpanzees. This has allowed us to

identify some of the individuals and estimate group number and composition. We believe all the

pictures obtained are from the same group or community which consists of 15 to 17 individuals.

From the interviews we found out that this chimpanzee group seems to range in relatively small

areas and not all human settlements and cultivated areas are affected by them. For example,

chimpanzees ranging in the Mokawa area raid crops from farms within the Lawana I and II and

Mendetown area, but did not appear to either range around or raid farms from villages a little bit

further like Mobele, Tokpombu, Kambia, Mongera, Mosombo and Moyongolo. These communities

told us explicitly that chimpanzees were not seen in their fields nor raided their farms.

In 2009 the SLNCCP did a pilot study in the Moyamba district interviewing 244 communities. Brncic

(2010) found out that 69% reported having chimpanzees living nearby and that there may be a

population of 200-400 chimpanzees for the Moyamba district alone. If we consider that the

Mokawa chimpanzees' home range covers an area of 10 km2 and considering the interview

responses, there could be between 3 to 4 different chimpanzee groups/communities in an area of

less than 100 km2. The Moyamba district covers an area of 6,934 km2, so the number of

chimpanzees in the Moyamba district could well be much higher than estimated by the SLNCCP.


45

The chimpanzees captured with the camera traps show a good body condition and there seem to

be a high reproduction rate. If we assume the infants belong to the same mother, the age

difference seems to be between 3 to 4 years, a lower inter-birth interval than reported in other

studies (Emery Thompson et al, 2007). This would suggest a high reproductive success for

chimpanzees living in a degraded habitat as potentially observed already in habituated

communities such as Bossou in Guinea, West Africa (Sugiyama et al, 2011).

The LA-SA was delimited by cultivated farms, fallow areas, swamps, palm oil trees and villages.

There was no forest left in this SA. Chimpanzees use the oil palm trees for nesting and feeding on

the palm fruits as well as destroying the palm heart by pulling out the uppermost leaves and eating

the base of the leaf. Chimpanzees are using the same resources and travel routes as humans do.

One of the cameras (CL002) in LA-SA captured chimpanzees and humans carrying oranges from a

nearby abandoned farm. See picture 11 below.

Photo 11: Camera trap pictures of a female chimpanzee with her offspring carrying oranges in the Mokawa area

where there is an abandoned settlement. Local people eating oranges from the same source.

Chimpanzees are protected by law in Sierra Leone by the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1972. In both

study areas, around 65% of the respondents were aware of this law mostly through radio

announcements.

Through the interviews we obtained a preliminary list of the wildlife diversity found in the area. The

interviewees were able to identify with good degree of accuracy the different genus of animals

although there was confusion among species belonging to the same genus. The average number of

species identified was higher in the MO-SA with an average of 16 species compared to the 12 from

the LA-SA. When compared with the camera trap results, we have obtained similar number of

pictures of mammal species in both areas (MO-SA=15 species and in LA-SA=16 species). The

difference between species identified by the interviewees and the species captured with camera

could be related to the number of non-human primates species present in the area. Red colobus,

white and black colobus, white spot nose monkey as well as green monkey were reported to exist

in the MO-SA, but we did not get any photographic evidence of these species probably due to their

arboreal habits. Generally, the reliability of the information provided by the respondents was very


46

accurate. There were reports from the community of Mambo village in the LA-SA of the presence of

hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) in the river which were cause of concern because they

disturbed the rice fields as well as flipping over their canoes. This information, although not proven,

was striking because we did not expect to find this species in the area. Hippopotamus are present in

SL in very low numbers (probably no more than 200 individuals left, IUCN, 2013) and are confined

to protected areas. Hippopotamus are considered vulnerable by the IUCN Red List 2013 and their

populations are decreasing throughout their range.

Even though the survey effort was not optimal, due to time constraints and camera malfunctions,

we still obtained images of most of the species identified during the interviews. The diversity of

species found in these agricultural and non-protected areas is similar to the one recorded in the

WAPFR (Garriga, 2012) with 21 mammal species identified. Two species, red river hog and the cane

rat, present in this survey were not recorded in the WAPFR. This shows that degraded habitat can

still harbor an important variety of wildlife species, which not only are relevant in the sense of

biodiversity levels but as a source of protein to the local human population.

Chimpanzees have not only successfully adapted to survive in non-protected and degraded habitats

but seem to thrive reasonably well. Their presence in human disturbed habitats emphasizes the

need for further research to learn more about their demographics and dynamics in order to ensure

their survival and their protection as well as finding mitigation strategies to reduce the level of crop

raiding.

OTHER ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT DURING THE PROJECT

Chimpanzee stool sample collection

We collected two fresh stool samples of chimpanzees in the Lawana CT-SA. These were kept in a

sterile container with desiccant for future DNA analysis. One of the samples was also kept in a SAF

(sodium acetate-acetic acid-formalin) solution. A direct fecal smear and a concentration-

sedimentation technique were used to analyse the sample. No intestinal parasites were found.

Rescue of a captive chimpanzee

During the first tip to Lawana-SA, we received information about one chimpanzee being kept as a

pet in one of the nearby villages. We visited the home where she was kept and informed the

owners about the illegality of keeping the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee called Reggae was

approximately 5 years old. She had been kept in captivity for at least 3 years. She was eventually

handed over by the owner and we took her to the Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary (see Photo 12).

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/10103/0


47

Photo 12: On the left, the cage where Reggae was being kept as a pet, in a village near the Lawana SA. On the right,

Reggae before she was transferred to the Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary.

Environmental Education and Sensitization Campaigns

After we completed the interviews, we handed over environmental educational posters to the

chiefs of the villages. The field team spent time explaining the importance of healthy practices to

protect the environment. Also, when the field team returned to the study areas 6 weeks later to

collect the camera traps, they showed educational films in the evening (see Photo 13).

Photo 13: The field team handing over environmental education posters (left) to the village chief. On the left showing

an educational film in the Moseilelo village.


48

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Brncic, T.M., Amarasekaran, B., McKenna, A. 2010. Sierra Leone National Chimpanzee

Census. Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary, Freetown, Sierra Leone.

2. Campbell, G., Kuehl, H., N'Goran Kouame, P., & Boesch, C., 2008. Alarming decline of West

African chimpanzees in Cote d'Ivoire. Curr Biol, 18 (19), R903-R904.

3. Carlsen, F.; Leus, K.; Traylor-Holzer, K.; McKenna, A. (Editors), 2012. Western Chimpanzee

(Pan troglodytes verus) Population and Habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA) for Sierra Leone,

Freetown, Sierra Leone, 24 to 27 May 2011, Final Report.

4. Emery Thompson, M., Jones, J. H., Pusey, A. E., Brewer-Marsden, S., Goodall, J., Marsden, D.,

Matsuzawa, T., Nishida, T., Reynolds, V., Sugiyama, Y., & Wrangham, R. W. (2007). Aging and

fertility patterns in wild chimpanzees provide insights into the evolution of menopause.

Current Biology, 17(24), 2150-2156

5. Garriga, R., 2012. Camera trap survey in the Western Area Peninsular Forest Reserve, Sierra

Leone. Final report.

6. Hockings, K., Humle, T., 2009. Best Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Mitigation of

Conflict Between Humans and Great Apes.

7. Hockings, K. J., & McLennan, M. R., 2012. From forest to farm: systematic review of cultivar

feeding by chimpanzees--management implications for wildlife in anthropogenic landscapes.

PloS one, 7(4), e33391. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033391.

8. Hoffman, L. C., & Cawthorn, D., 2003. What is the role and contribution of meat from

wildlife in providing high quality protein for consumption? 40-53. doi:10.2527/af.2012-0061

9. Humle, T., Boesch, C., Duvall, C., Ellis, C.M., Farmer, K.H., Herbinger, I., Blom, A. & Oates, J.F.,

2008. Pan troglodytes ssp. verus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Version 2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

10. IUCN (2013). 2013 Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available at

http://www.iucnredlist.org

11. Kormos, R., C. Boesch, M.I. Bakarr, and T. Butynski, (eds.), 2003. West African Chimpanzees.

Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 219 pp.

12. Mittermeier. R. A., N. Myers, and C. G. Mittermeier (eds.), 1999. Hotspots: Earth's

Biologically Richest and most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Cemex, Conservation

International. 430p.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/


49

13. Monroy-Vilchis Octavio, Zarco-González Martha M, Rodríguez-Soto Clarita, Soria-Díaz Leroy,

Urios Vicente. Fototrampeo de mamíferos en la Sierra Nanchititla, México: abundancia

relativa y patrón de actividad. Rev. biol. Trop., 2011 Mar; 59(1): 373-383.

14. Myers N., Mittermeier R. A., Mittermeier C. G., da Fonseca G. A. B., and Kent J., 2000.

Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853-858

15. Oates, J.F., Tutin, C.E.G., Humle, T., Wilson, M.L., Baillie, J.E.M., Balmforth, Z., Blom, A.,

Boesch, C., Cox, D., Davenport, T., Dunn, A., Dupain, J., Duvall, C., Ellis, C.M., Farmer, K.H.,

Gatti, S., Greengrass, E., Hart, J., Herbinger, I., Hicks, C., Hunt, K.D., Kamenya, S., Maisels, F.,

Mitani, J.C., Moore, J., Morgan, B.J., Morgan, D.B., Nakamura, M., Nixon, S., Plumptre, A.J.,

Reynolds, V., Stokes, E.J. & Walsh, P.D., 2008. Pan troglodytes. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List

of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

16. Sillero-Zubiri, C. and Switzer, D. 2001. Crop raiding primates: Searching for alternative,

humane ways to resolve conflict with farmers in Africa. People and Wildlife Initiative.

Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University.

www.peopleandwildlife.org.uk/crmanuals/CropRaidingPrimatesP&WManual

17. Silveira, L., Jácomo, A.T.A., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. Camera trap, line transect census and track

surveys: a comparative evaluation, 2003. Biological conservation 114, 351-355.

18. Sugiyama, Y., & Fujita, S. (2011). The Demography and Reproductive Parameters of Bossou

Chimpanzees. In T. Matsuzawa, T. Humle & Y. Sugiyama (Eds.), Chimpanzees of Bossou and

Nimba (pp. 23-34). Tokyo: Springer-Verlag Tokyo.

19. Tobler, M.W., Carrillo-Percastegui, S.E., Pitman, R.L., Mares, R., Powell, G., 2008. An

evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large- and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest

mammals. Animal Conservation 11, 169-178.

20. Treves, A., Mwima, P., Plumptre, A.J., Isoke, S., 2010. Camera-trapping forest–woodland

wildlife of western Uganda reveals how gregariousness biases estimates of relative

abundance and distribution. Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 521-528.

21. Winarni, N., Carroll, J.P. & O'Brien, T.G., 2005. The application of camera traps to the study

of Galliformes in southern Sumatra, Indonesia. Pp. 109-121 in: Fuller, R.A. & Browne, S.J.

(eds) 2005. Galliformes 2004. Proceedings of the 3rd International Galliformes Symposium.

World Pheasant Association, Fordingbridge, UK.

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Summary of the socio-cultural profile of the interviewees for Lawana and Moseilelo study areas.

Study area

Total interviews

Total communities interviewed

Religion % (total)

Gender %

(total)

Ethnicity % (total)

Age average

(min, max)

Family size Average

Children per family (min,

max)

Born in the village

If born somewhere

else, average years living in

the village (min, max)

Education

Occupation

Lawana 52

(56.5%)

13 100% Muslim (52/52)

82.7% male

(43/52) 17.3 % Female (9/52)

82.7% (43/52) Sherbro

15.4% (8/52) Temne

1.9% (1/52) Mende

45 y.o. (20, 80)

8 children (0, 25)

71% (37/52) 28 years (10, 50) 73% none (38/52)

6% primary (3/52)

8% secondary (4/52)

2% tertiary (1/52)

11% Arabic (6/52)

98% farmers (51/52)

Moseilelo 40

(43.5%)

10 87.5% Muslim (35/40)

7.5% Christian

(3/40) 5% NR (2/40)

92.5% male

(37/40) 7.5%

female (3/40)

87.5% (35/40) Mende

7.5% (3/40) Sherbro

5% (2/40) Temne

42 y.o. (19, 78)

9 children (0, 27)

78% (31/40) 8 years (1, 30) 70% none (28/40)

5% primary (2/40)

8% secondary (3/40)

0% tertiary (0/40)

15% Arabic (6/40)

2% NR (1/40)

95% farmers (38/40)

Both areas

92 23 94.5% Muslim (85/92) 3.3 %

Christian (3/92)

2.2% NR (2/92)

87% male

(80/92) 13%

female (12/92)

39.1% (36/92) Mende

50 % (46/92) Sherbro

10.9 % (10/92) Temne

43.5 y.o. (19,

80)

9 children 74% (68/92) 96.7% farmers (89/92)


51

ANNEX 2: Names and number of occasions the different animal species were identified in the field guide by the interviewees in the Lawana-SA.

ID number

Animal name Animal local name Total number of times identified with the

same local name Total number of times

identified % of times ID / total

interviews

1

Sooty mangabey Gbamu 1 27 51.9

Keleh 9

Monkey 3

Talaku 14

2 Campbell's monkey Gbolongie 4 25 48.1

Gboyeh 1

Kakeh 11

Keleh 3

Kongokula 1

Monkey 1

Peeyeh 1

Pepumbeh 1

White nose 2

3 Diana monkey Gbaway 1 3 5.8

Keleh 1

White nose 1

4 Olive colobus Keleh 1 3 5.8

Sankoie 1

Talaku 1

5 Red colobus Gbolongie 1 2 3.8

Monkey 1

6 B&W colobus Brewe 1 4 7.7

Gbaway 1

Gboyeh 1

Pepumbeh 1

7 Green monkey Black nose 1 10 19.2

Gbolongie 1

Kakeh 1

Keleh 1

Monkey 2

Pueh 1

Talaku 3

8 White spot nose monkey Gbolongie 6 25 48.1


52

ID number




interviews Keleh 3

Pioue monkey 1

Pueh 1

Talaku 2

White nose 12

9 Guinea baboon Gbamu 1 2 3.8

Kekuh 1

10 Potto Bangai 1 4 7.7

Bush rat 1

Compuleh 1

Tumbuleh 1

11 Dwarf galago Arata 1 1 1.9

13 Chimpanzee Babu 45 49 94.2

Tindeh 4

14 Red-flanked duiker Freetambo 1 5 9.6

Keleh 3

Reeya 1

15 Yellow-backed duiker Freetambo 1 1 1.9

16 Black duiker Freetambo 11 18 34.6

Reeya 7

17 Jentinck's duiker Deer 1 2 3.8

Keleh 1

18 Bushbuck Deer 37 41 78.8

Dopeh 1

Keleh 3

19 Bongo Deer 1 1 1.9

20 Royal antelope Deer 1 5 9.6

Freetambo 4

22 Ogilby's duiker Freetambo 2 2 3.8

23 Maxwell duiker Freetambo 13 16 30.8

Reeya 3

24 Bay duiker Freetambo 1 1 1.9

25 Hyrax Cutting grass 2 3 5.8

Popeh 1

27 Hippopotamus Hippo 1 1 1.9


53

ID number




interviews

29 Fire-footed rope Squirrel Baie 1 45 86.5

Balaa 5

Kakeh 1

Kekuh 7

Lundeh 7

Mba 1

Reeya 1

Squirrel 22

30 Giant forest squirrel Baie 1 23 44.2

Bangai 1

Gbayaa 1

Kekuh 2

Lundeh 7

Squirrel 11

31 Giant pouched rat Arata 10 40 76.9

Beleh 4

Gronpik 17

Potei 1

Rat 3

Topeh 5

32 Grass-cutter rat (marsh cane rat) Botakelleh 1 48 92.3

Cutting grass 39

Fandeh 8

33 Crested porcupine Dopeh 1 23 44.2

Pepeh 1

Pewei 1

Purcupine 1

Sekeseke 19

34 Brush-tailed porcupine Chell 1 14 26.9

Sekeseke 13

35 Egyptian mongoose Sekeseke 1 1 1.9

38 Cusimanse Bangai 1 12 23.1

Fowl catcher 1

Fufunde 1

Kakeh 4


54

ID number




interviews Muscat 1

Saudeh 1

Sekeseke 1

Tumbuleh 2

39 Slender mongoose Guana 1 9 17.3

Hamdeh 2

Kakeh 1

Muscat 1

Tumbuleh 4

40 Marsh mongoose Bush cat 1 5 9.6

Kakeh 3

Kakoro 1

41 Spotted genet Bangai 1 8 15.4 Bertel 1

Tanglola 1

Tumbuleh 4

Untengbeh 1

42 African palm civet Bangai 3 10 19.2

Bankaiokeh 1

Kakeh 1

Muscat 3

Toweh 1

Tumbuleh 1

43 African civet Bangai 16 27 51.9

Bankaiokeh 1

Bush cat 1

Butoba 1

Muscat 8

44 West African linsang Bangai 2 9 17.3

Kakeh 1

Muscat 4

Tumbuleh 2

46 Long tailed pangolin Botakelleh 24 24 46.2

47 Giant pangolin Botakelleh 14 15 28.8

Konsur 1


55

ID number




interviews

48 White-bellied tree pangolin Botakelleh 5 5 9.6

49 Common warthog Pioe 1 1 1.9

50 Red river hog Bush hog 10 12 23.1

Pioeseh 1

Pioeweh 1

51 Giant forest hog Bush hog 17 34 65.4

Pioe 8

Pioeseh 8

Pioeweh 1

52 Leopard Njantuway 1 1 1.9

53 African golden cat Bush cat 1 1 1.9

54 Serval Funfundoh 1 1 1.9


56

ANNEX 3: Frequency of the different animal groups raiding the different type of crops in the LA-SA.

Groups

Tota

l

occ

asio

ns

Ban

ana

Be

ans

Sesa

me

Be

rry

Cas

sava

Ko

la n

ut

Mai

ze

Cu

cum

be

r

Au

be

rgin

e

Pe

anu

ts

Man

go

Okr

a

Ora

nge

s

Oil

pal

m

Pap

aya

Ch

ili p

ep

pe

r

Pin

eap

ple

Po

tato

Pu

mp

kin

Ric

e

Sorg

hu

m

Monkey 210 36 11 2

34 12 13

3 1 1 35 4 6 1 6 2 2 33 8


44 2 2

7 30 2

4 2 2 5

Cane rat 95

1 1

20

8

1 8

1

1

38 16

Squirrel 85 2

8 10

1 1 35 1

1 19

7

Bushbuck 77

3 1

25

1

3

25

15

4

Hog 68 1 2

48

1

7

2

6 1

Duiker 62

2

43

1 3

6

1

1 1 3 1

Porcupine 62

24

2

15

2 4 13 2

Rat 41

6

20

3 1

10 1

Pangolin 25 1 1

21

1

1

Mongoose 11

2

2

2

1

4

Civet 10 5

1

3

1

Galagos 7 1

1 1

1

2

1

Genet 6 2

2

1 1

Cusimanse 5

2

1

1

1

Hyrax 5

1

1

2 1

Bovine 3

1

1

1

Big cat 2

1

Hippo 1

1

Palm civet 0

Total 887 57 26 5 1 260 24 27 2 3 92 2 33 43 92 9 17 11 17 10 126 30


57

ANNEX 4: Parts of the crops raided by the different animal groups in LA-SA. (N/D: not specified)

Crop types Part of the plant

Tota

l

occ

asio

ns

Big

cat

Bo

vin

e

Bu

shb

uck

Can

e r

at

Ch

imp

anze

e

Civ

et

Cu

sim

anse

Du

ike

r

Gal

ago

Ge

ne

t

Hip

po

Hyr

ax

Mo

ngo

ose

Mo

nke

y

Pan

golin

Ho

g

Po

rcu

pin

e

Rat

Squ

irre

l

Aubergine Fruits 2

1

1

Aubergine Leaves-stem 1

1

Banana N/D 7

1 3

1

2

Banana Fruits 49

8 2

1

34 1 1

2

Banana Leaves-stem 1

1

Beans N/D 3

1

2

Beans Fruits 17

1

3

2 1

8 1 1

Beans Leaves-stem 6

1 2

1

1

1

Sesame fruits 4

1 1

2

Sesame Leaves-stem 1

1

Berry Fruits 1

1

Cassava N/D 25

4 4

3

4

6 2 2

Cassava Fruits 167 1

5 13 34 1 1 8 1

2 28

39 22 4 8

Cassava Leaves-stem 68

1 20 3 6

32

1

2

3

Kola nut N/D 2

1

1

Kola nut Fruits 22

1

11

10

Maize N/D 4

1

2

1

Maize Fruits 18

4 2

1

9

1 1

Maize Leaves-stem 5

3

2

Cucumber Fruits 2

1

1

Peanuts N/D 11

2

1

3 3 2

Peanuts Fruits 75

1 5

1 2 2

1 3

12 16 32

Peanuts Leaves-stem 6

2 1

1

1 1

Mango Fruits 2

1

1

Okra N/D 1

1

Okra Fruits 9

8

1


58

Crop types Part of the plant

Tota

l

occ

asio

ns

Big

cat

Bo

vin

e

Bu

shb

uck

Can

e r

at

Ch

imp

anze

e

Civ

et

Cu

sim

anse

Du

ike

r

Gal

ago

Ge

ne

t

Hip

po

Hyr

ax

Mo

ngo

ose

Mo

nke

y

Pan

golin

Ho

g

Po

rcu

pin

e

Rat

Squ

irre

l

Okra Leaves-stem 23

1 16

6

Oranges N/D 6

6

Oranges Fruits 37

7

29

1

Oil palm N/D 6

2

2

1 1

Oil palm Fruits 76

1 20 3

2

4 20 6

3 17

Oil palm Leaves-stem 10

8

2

Papaya N/D 3

3

Papaya Fruits 6

2

3

1

Chili pepper N/D 1

1

Chili pepper Fruits 7

5

1

1

Chili pepper Leaves-stem 9

9

Pineapple N/D 2

1 1

Pineapple Fruits 9

3

6

Potato N/D 1

1

Potato Fruits 11

1 1 2

1 2

2 2

Potato Leaves-stem 5

3

1

1

Pumpkin N/D 1

1

Pumpkin Fruits 9

1

2

1

1

1

3

Rice N/D 23

7

1

2 5

2 2 4

Rice Fruits 92

24 5

1 3 1

2 28 1 3 11 6 7

Rice Leaves-stem 11

7

1 2

1

Sorghum N/D 3

2

1

Sorghum Fruits 20

9

7

1 2 1

Sorghum Leaves-stem 7

5

1

1

Total

887 1 3 78 95 113 10 5 62 8 6 1 5 11 210 25 68 61 41 85


59

ANNEX 5: Names and number of occasions the different animal species were identified in the field guide by the interviewees in the Moseilelo-SA.

ID number Animal name Animal local name Total number of times identified with the



interviews

1

Sooty mangabey Kalleh 1 33 82.5

Kowa 1

Talaku 1

Toweh 30

2 Campbell's monkey Kongokula 2 21 52.5

Kowa 1

Logboie 16

Ngagwa 2

3 Diana monkey Guagboie 5 7 17.5

Red monkey 2

5 Red colobus Doweh 1 8 20

Guagboie 1

Kogbakoie 1

Ngagwa 1

Red monkey 2

Toweh 1

Water monkey 1

6 B&W colobus Gbawah 1 17 42.5

Gbogbowa 1

Kogbakoie 1

Kolekole 1

Timai 1

Toweh 12

7 Green monkey Bumeh monkey 1 25 62.5

Guagboie 1

Kalleh 1

Kongolglo 1

Kowa 3

Logboie 3

Ngagwa 14

Water monkey 1

8 White spot nose monkey Gbalakui 1 25 62.5

Kogbakoie 11


60




interviews Kongolglo 1

Kowa 1

Logboie 1

White nose 10

9 Guinea baboon Kongolglo 1 1 2.5

10 Potto Kondeh 21 21 52.5

11 Dwarf galago Kpondeh 16 16 40

13 Chimpanzee Babu 23 39 97.5

Ngolay 16

16 Black duiker Freetambo 1 7 17.5

Towawe 6

17 Jentinck's duiker Dopeh 2 2 5

18 Bushbuck Deer 11 36 90

Dopeh 25

23 Maxwell duiker Freetambo 7 35 87.5

Hagbaway 2

Towawe 22

Toweh 4

29 Fire-footed rope Squirrel Gbofie 1 36 90

Kaikolo 1

Kaikue 17

Keywe 1

Lundeh 1

Nbovee 1

Nguwayen 4

Squirrel 10

30 Giant forest squirrel Gbofie 5 16 40

Gwalei 1

Kaikue 2

Kuwanjan 1

Mornie 1

Nguwayen 4

Pakulay 1

Squirrel 1

31 Giant pouched rat Arata 5 35 87.5


61




interviews

Gronpik 5

Kaikue 1

Keywe 13

Rat 5

Squirrel 1

Yenneh 5

32 Grass-cutter rat Cutting grass 12 40 100

Koguti 26

Sewei 2

33 Crested porcupine Pewe 5 15 37.5

Porcupine 1

Sekeh 8

Sekeseke 1

34 Brush-tailed porcupine Geekoi 1 29 72.5

Njeyie 1

Sekeh 24

Sekeseke 3

38 Cusimanse Pakulay 22 22 55

39 Slender mongoose Dandankuie 19 23 57.5

Mornie 2

Nyagboie 1

Pakulay 1

40 Marsh mongoose Dandankuie 1 8 20

Ngahen 5

Nguwayen 1

Nyangbeh 1

42 African palm civet Bush cat 1 19 47.5

Dandankuie 6

Mornie 3

Muscat 2

Ndogbopusie 3

Peweh 4

43 African civet Geekoi 25 29 72.5

Keywe 1

Muscat 2


62




interviews Ngahen 1

44 West African linsang Bush cat 1 17 42.5

Geekoi 1

Keywe 1

Mornie 1

Muscat 1

Ndogbopusie 3

Peweh 9

47 Giant pangolin Kanjen 8 12 30

Kogbeh 1

Kugbaie 2

Torgboh 1

48 White-bellied tree pangolin Botakelleh 1 17 42.5

Kanjen 15

Kondeh 1

49 Common warthog Dondeh 4 4 10

50 Red river hog Bese 1 4 10

Bush hog 3

50 Red river hog Dondeh 19 19 47.5

51 Giant forest hog Bese 1 16 40

Bush hog 7

Dondeh 8


63

ANNEX 6: Frequency of the different animal groups raiding the different type of crops in the MO-SA.

Groups To

tal

occ

asio

ns

Ban

ana

Be

ans

Sesa

me

Cac

ao

Cas

sava

Ko

la n

ut

nu

ts

Mai

ze

Cu

cum

ber

Pe

anu

ts

Man

go

Okr

a

Ora

nge

s

Oil

pal

m

Pap

aya

Ch

ili p

ep

pe

r

Pin

eap

ple

Po

tato

Pu

mp

kin

Ric

e

Sorg

hu

m

Yam

s

Monkey 317 14 7 7 1 76 1 84 8 6 2 1 1 4 1

1 1 6 84 5 7

Cane rat 114

2 1

32

14

13

1 2

1

4

32 6 6

Porcupine 109 1 1 1

34

12

14

2 2

4 6 26 3 3


35

14

4 1

1 10 4 1 7

3 4

2

Squirrel 87 2

6

7 1 29

22

2

15 1 2

Bushbuck 81

1

30

3

18

13

5

1

10

Hog 75

43

7

1

4

14

6

Duiker 73

40

1

1 1 10

1

8

3

3

5

Rat 71

2

14 3 4

27

2

2

13 1 3

Pangolin 14

1

1

9

2

1

Civet 13 2 1

1

1

6

2

Cusimanse 12

1

2

1 1 1

5

1

Galagos 10 6 1

2

1

Genet 4 2 1

1

Palm civet 3 3

Total 1085 41 20 11 1 315 4 138 11 107 4 29 3 64 7 24 8 25 15 197 16 45


64

ANNEX 7: Parts of the crops raided by the different animal groups in MO-SA. (N/D: not specified)

Crop types Part of the

plant Tota

l

occ

asio

ns

Bu

shb

uck

Can

e r

at

Ch

imp

anze

e

Civ

et

Cu

sim

anse

Du

ike

r

Gal

ago

Ge

ne

t

Mo

ngo

ose

Mo

nke

y

Pal

m c

ive

t

Pan

golin

Ho

g

Po

rcu

pin

e

Rat

Squ

irre

l

Banana N/D 2

2

Banana Fruits 39

11 2

4 2

14 3

1

2

Beans Fruits 20 1 2 3 1 1

1 1

7

1 2

Sesame Fruits 11

1 2

7

1

Cacao Fruits 1

1

Cassava N/D 7

1

5

1

Cassava Fruits 246 6 31 32 1 2 13 1

73

37 32 12 6

Cassava Leaves-stem 62 24 1 2

27 1

3

1 2 1

Kola nut Fruits 4

1

3

Maize N/D 1

1

Maize Fruits 133

13 12

1 1

83

1

11 4 7

Maize Leaves-stem 4

1 1

1

1

Cucumber N/D 1

1

Cucumber Fruits 10

1

8

1

Peanuts N/D 2

1

1

Peanuts Fruits 101 1 13 4

1 1

1

6

1 5 14 25 29

Peanuts Leaves-stem 4 2

1

1

Mango Fruits 3

1

2

Mango Leaves-stem 1

1

Okra Fruits 6 4

1

1

Okra Leaves-stem 23 14

9

Oranges Fruits 3

1 1

1


65

Crop types Part of the

plant Tota

l

occ

asio

ns

Bu

shb

uck

Can

e r

at

Ch

imp

anze

e

Civ

et

Cu

sim

anse

Du

ike

r

Gal

ago

Ge

ne

t

Mo

ngo

ose

Mo

nke

y

Pal

m c

ive

t

Pan

golin

Ho

g

Po

rcu

pin

e

Rat

Squ

irre

l

Oil palm N/D 4

1 2

1

Oil palm Fruits 59

2 10 5 3 1 1

4

8

2 2 21

Oil palm Leaves-stem 1

1

Papaya N/D 1

1

Papaya Fruits 6

3

1

2

Chili pepper Fruits 8 2 1

4

1

Chili pepper Leaves-stem 16 11

1

4

Pineapple Fruits 8

7

1

Potato N/D 1

1

Potato Fruits 16 1 4

1

1

3 3 1 2

Potato Leaves-stem 8 4

2

1 1

Pumpkin Fruits 15

3

6

6

Rice N/D 2

2

Rice Fruits 192 1 31 4 2 1 2

83

2 12 26 13 15

Rice Leaves-stem 3

1

1

1

Sorghum Fruits 16

6

5

3 1 1

Yams Fruits 31 3 6 1

6

1 6 3 3 2

Yams Leaves-stem 14 7

1

5

1

Total 1085 81 114 102 13 12 73 10 4 0 317 3 14 75 109 71 87

ANNEX 8: IUCN 2013 status for each of the most representative species identified in the both study areas.

EN: endangered, VU: vulnerable, NT: near threatened, LC: less concern.

Common name Scientific name IUCN status 2013 Population trend

PRIMATES

Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes verus EN Decreasing

Sooty mangabey Cercocebus atys VU Decreasing

Campbell's monkey Cercopithecus campbelli campbelli LC Unknown

Green monkey Chlorocebus aethiops sabaeus LC Stable

ARTIODACTYLS

Maxwell duiker Philantomba maxwellii LC Decreasing

Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus LC Stable

Red river hog Potamochoerus porcus LC Decreasing

RODENTS

Giant-pouched rat Cricetomys emini LC Stable

Fire-footed rope squirrel Funisciurus pyrropus LC Stable

Red-legged sun squirrel Heliosciurus rufobrachium LC Stable

African brush tailed porcupine Atherurus africanus LC Unknown

SCALY ANT-EATERS

Tree pangolin Phataginus tricuspis NT Decreasing

CARNIVORES

Pardine genet Genetta pardina LC Unknown

Marsh mongoose Atilax paludinosus LC Decreasing

African civet Civettictis civetta LC Unknown

Cusimanse Crossarchus obscurus LC Unknown

BIRDS

Helmeted guineafowl Numida meleagris LC Stable

Double spurred francolin Francolinus bicalcaratus LC Decreasing

Documents

Pan troglodytes verus) USING CAMERA TRAPS IN …€¦ · Study of chimpanzees in non-protected disturbed-fragmented habitats in Sierra Leone. R. M. Garriga. 2013 2 Contents ACRONYMS