THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA - Selous … · small mammal survey of the selous-niassa wildlife protection corridor page 1 the united republic of tanzania ministry of natural resources

SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 1

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM WILDLIFE DIVISION

NAMTUMBO DISTRICT COUNCIL

TUNDURU DISTRICT COUNCIL

IN CO-OPERATION WITH

BMZ ID 2004 66 243

CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE

SELOUS - NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR PROJECT

STUDY REPORT NO. 09

SMALL FAUNA SURVEY OF

THE SELOUS – NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR

MARCH 2010

Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 3

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 4

2 STUDY AREA, MATERIALS AND METHODS....................................................................... 5

2.1 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................ 5

2.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS ..................................................................................................... 6

3 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 CAMERA TRAPPING ......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 DIRECT OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................... 8

3.3 QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................................................................. 9

4 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 15

5 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................. 16

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 16

7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 17


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) through the Tanzania Mammal Atlas

Project (TMAP) surveyed the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor (SNWPC) from

21st October to 1

st December, 2009 using remote camera traps and interviews. A total of 59

cameras were deployed over 20 days in Mbarang’andu WMA and then moved to Nalika

WMA for another 24 days making a total 44 trap days. The survey aimed to gather data over

a minimum of 1000 camera trap days for the corridor area. Overall, the survey recorded a

total of 1027 photographs, with an average of 0.48 photographs per trap night. This is a

relatively good capture rate, one of the top ten recorded capture rates in 23 surveys across the

country (Table 1).

Semi structured interviews in villages around the SNWPC, targeted at individuals known to

have local wildlife knowledge, were used to gather additional information. A total of 86

peasant farmers from 8 villages were interviewed and 73 mammal species were reported from

questionnaires, 32 of which were captured by camera traps. Of particular interest was the

photographing of the ground pangolin (Smutsia temminckii), the first record in Tanzania as it

has not been recorded anywhere else in the country before. The survey recorded a total of 34

mammal species including among others; Banded mongoose, slender mongoose, bushy tailed

mongoose, Ground pangolin, honey badger and Marsh mongoose. Other species trapped

include Aadvark, African Buffalo, Bush duiker, Bush pig, Bushbuck, Cape hare, Common

waterbuck, Crested porcupine, Elephant, Four toed elephant shrew, Giant pouched rat,

Greater galago just to mention but a few.

Interviews indicated that an additional 36 mammal species might also be present in the

corridor. However, our team could find no evidence, e.g. through indirect sign that Alexander

Cusimanse, Palm Civet, Zanj Elephant Shrew, Blue Monkey, Bohor reedbuck, Cane rat,

Egyptian mongoose, Grass mouse, Lesser pouched rat, Long eared hedgehog, Oribi,

Reedbuck, Rhino, Side Striped Jackal, Spotted necked, Steinbuck, Striped Squirrel, Suni,

Tree hyrax, Tree Squirrel, Wild cat, Zorilla were in the area as reported by some interviewees.

The above species can often be confused.

Despite the high species diversity, SNWPC was identified as experiencing a few threats

including encroachment for illegal hunting for bush meat and spontaneous burning of certain

parts of forests. Such impacts if left unchecked, may lead to serious concern, particularly

given the fact that the area provides a significant biological link between the Selous and

Niassa reserves and the Miombo woodland eco-system, which conserve one of the largest

elephant ranges in the world containing also 20 to 25% of the world’s remaining wild dog

population (Lotter, personal communication).


1 INTRODUCTION

The Selous-Niassa Miombo woodland ecosystem is the largest trans-boundary natural dry

forest ecosystem in Africa covering 154,000 km2 and extends across southern Tanzania into

neighbouring Mozambique (Jones et al, 2009). It is comprised of mixed Miombo

(Brachystegia spp) and grassy woodlands dominated by Acacia spp with permanent water

sources that include the Mbarangandu, Lukimwa, Msangesi and Sasawara Rivers and the

Ruvuma forming its southern boundary which also form the international boundary between

Tanzania and Mozambique (TAWIRI, 2009). Within this ecosystem, the Selous - Niassa

Wildlife Corridor provides an important landscape linkage between the extensive protected

areas of the Selous Game Reserve (47,000 km2) southern Tanzania and the Niassa National

Reserve (42,000 km2) northern Mozambique (Jones at al, 2009).

The SNWPC has been documented to have a total size of approximately 17,030km2 (Games,

2009) with a north-south length of 160-180 km (Jones et al, 2009). Long-term and effective

conservation management of the Selous and two communal Associations Mbarang’andu and

Nalika adjacent to the Selous resulted into larger concentrations of wildlife in the northern

part of the corridor. According to aerial surveys undertaken every three years, the wildlife

populations are relatively stable but some are changing as per the 2009 census report (Tawiri,

2009). In the southern part, the wildlife populations are recovering since the communities are

actively involved in their management. However, wildlife is still timid and it will need some

years (depending on species type) to reach sizable populations in the south. According to the

existing literature, main species found in the corridor include Elephant, Buffalo, Eland, Sable

Antelope, Hippo, Lichtenstein Hartebeest, Common Waterbuck, Bushbuck, Common Duiker,

Southern Reedbuck, Wildebeest, Zebra, Impala, Klipspringer, Warthog, Bush pig. Leopards

are said to be common in the entire corridor whereas lions are more numerous in the northern

part whilst in the south, Spotted Hyena, Jackal, Civet Cat, wild dog and others carnivore

species are also common.

Like many other parts of the country, the people of the communities are in broadly

subsistence farmers based on shifting cultivation and the production of some cash crops like

sesame, tobacco, cashew nut, and to a certain extent the sale of food crops such as maize and

rice. Their lifestyle is adapted to the surrounding environment with a strong dependence on

natural resources for their daily needs like medicinal plants, firewood honey, construction

material, bee products such as beeswax, mushrooms, and wild fruits, mats fibres for baskets,

ropes and fish-traps and clay for pottery. Some villagers (mostly men) are really good hunters

and fishermen with excellent skills. Due to trypanosomiasis in the area, there are no cattle in

the area though people keep goats, dairy cows and poultry for their protein needs.

Various studies have been conducted in the SNWPC and various reports written, including

TAWIRI, 2006; Kideghesho & Abdallah 2009; Lotter, 2008; Picard, 2008; Mpanduji, 2007,

just to mention but a few. However, none of these studies investigated small mammal

diversity in the area and therefore obviously causing a gap as far as small fauna in the area is

concerned. It is for this reason that SNWPCP, commissioned the Tanzania Wildlife Research

Institute through the Tanzania Mammal Atlas Project to undertake a small mammal fauna

survey in the Selous -Niassa wildlife corridor towards the end of 2009.


2 STUDY AREA, MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Study area

The SNWPC is located in Southern Tanzania within Namtumbo and Tunduru Districts of

Ruvuma Region (Jones et al, 2009) with the size of approximately 17,030 km2

(Games,

2009). It extends approximately from 10° S to 11°40’ S over a north – south length of 160 to

180 km, measured from the most southern border of the Selous until reaching Ruvuma River,

the border of the Niassa Reserve in Mozambique (Fig 1). The area is composed of a

contiguous network of five Wildlife Management Areas managed by five Community Based

Organisations (CBOs) representing 29 villages namely Mbaran’gandu, Nalika, Chingoli,

Kisungule, Kimbanda. The corridor experiences one rainy season lasting from the end of

November to April reaching its peak in March whilst the coldest months are July and August

when the temperature can drop to 10 degrees Celsius in the night while the hottest month is

November with the temperature reaching 36 degrees Celsius at Ruvuma River (Hahn 2008).

Figure 1: Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor with adjacent areas.


2.2 Materials and Methods

The survey made use of camera trap methodologies, already employed successfully in a

number of sites across Tanzania, to establish measures of species presence for all small to

large mammals found at each site. Camera trap surveys use fixed cameras, triggered by

infrared sensors, in order to “trap” images of passing animals. This approach has several

advantages over other field methods for population monitoring as it provides quantitative

information amenable to statistical analysis; has relatively low labour costs; is non-invasive;

incurs minimal environmental disturbance; and is robust to variation in ground conditions or

climate (Cutler & Swan 1999). It can therefore be used to gain information on all ground

dwelling medium to large mammals, including highly cryptic species, in difficult terrain and

across a range of habitats (including forests) where other field methods are likely to fail

(Cutler & Swan 1999, Silveira et al. 2003). In this survey, 59 camera traps were placed in

the northern part of the survey area (Mbarang’andu WMA) in a grid system, at a minimum

distance of 1km for a period of approximately three weeks, during which time they were

checked to download storage cards and replace batteries to ensure that cameras are

functioning throughout to minimise un-necessary missing days. The cameras were then

moved to Nalika WMA a second grid, adjacent to the first, for another three weeks. This

enabled the collection of presence data at a total of 118 sites, meeting the requirements for

our analysis. Camera positions with associated habitat features were marked using a Global

Position System (GPS).

In addition to camera trapping, our team also conducted questionnaires surveys and a total of

86 respondents from surrounding 8 villages were interviewed to compliment the camera

trapping survey.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Camera trapping

A total of 59 camera traps were set

for a total number of 44 days (Fig.

2) giving a potential total effort (59

cameras x 44 trapping days ) and

actual effort (59 cameras x 44

trapping days less missing days) of

2,596 and 2,109 respectively. A

total of 35 mammal species were

photographed throughout the

survey period (Table 2). Of

particular interest were the two

records of the ground pangolin

which are the first time this species

has been recorded on camera trap

in Tanzania. Though not

endangered overall, ground pangolin has been exterminated in many parts of its

overall range by hunting for both its flesh and scale which are used as love charms

(Kingdom, 1997). Other notable records were the Mellers and Bushy tailed mongoose.

Generally, trap rates were relatively high, particularly for an area that is not a National

Fig 2: Location of surveyed sites in the SNWPC


Park, with a total of 1027 photographs and an average of 0.48 photographs per trap

night (Table 1).

Table 1: Comparison of efforts and trap successes in other surveyed areas

Survey location

Area km

2

No. of cameras

Duration of

survey (days)

Actual effort

(camera trap days)

Number of

species filmed

Trap success

Start date (D/M/Y)

End date (D/M/Y)

Mahale Mountains NP

1,613 67 13 653 23 0.80 21/10/05 11/3/05

Arusha NP 137 20 79 1073 27 1.21 7/3/2006 26/05/06 Serengeti NP

14,763 40 40 1219 29 0.57 27/05/06 7/6/06

Minziro lowland forest

311 54 30 1503 14 0.07 1/8/2006 1/9/06

North Tanga NA 42 27 949 29 0.23 19/11/06 16/12/06 Saadani NP 1,062 41 30 1065 22 0.38 4/1/07 5/1/07 Burigi-Biharamulo Game Reserves

736 50 22 893 30 0.28 9/6/07 1/7/07

Ukaguru mountains

86 60 19 675 14 0.19 12/8/07 1/9/07

Muhuwesi Forest Reserve

1,758 55 24 1225 31 0.36 13/10/07 7/11/07

Moyowosi Game Reserve

11,482 47 30 968 28 0.70 11/10/07 12/10/07

Ufiome Forest Reserve

54 43 30 1052 24 0.60 2/2/08 2/3/08

Maswa Game Reserve

2,675 81 22 1260 46 0.99 3/6/08 25/06/08

Gelai Mountain Game Controlled Area

NA 54 30 1099 38 0.80 3/7/08 4/8/08

Uluguru Forest Reserve

176 70 30 1810 9 0.02 16/08/08 15/09/08

Ugalla Game Reserve

4,744 70 24 1421 36 0.50 3/10/08 27/10/08

Mbangala Forest Reserve

368 34 25 815 22 0.23 6/11/08 1/12/08

Lukwika-Lumesule Game Reserve

433 60 21 1106 31 0.27 9/11/08 28/11/08

Selous-Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor

17,030 118 44 2109 34 0.48 21/10/09 01/12/09

Relative abundance index is a percentage of the number of times an animal is trapped divided

by the actual trap nights. The most numerous species were Elephant (which were recorded at

very high levels), Bushbuck, African civet, Spotted Hyaena, Warthog and Large spotted

genet.


Table 2: Mammal species camera-trapped in the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor.

S/N Species No. trapped No. trapped /night

Probability of detection

Relative abundance index

1 Aardvark 9 0.0088 0.0088 0.8850

2 African civet 71 0.0698 0.0698 6.9813

3 Buffalo 22 0.0216 0.0216 2.1632

4 Bush duiker 25 0.0246 0.0246 2.4582

5 Bush pig 9 0.0088 0.0088 0.8850

6 Bushy tailed Mongoose 13 0.0128 0.0128 1.2783

7 Bushbuck 121 0.1190 0.1190 11.8977

8 Cape hare 26 0.0256 0.0256 2.5565

9 Common waterbuck 3 0.0029 0.0029 0.2950

10 Crested porcupine 31 0.0305 0.0305 3.0482

11 Elephant 401 0.3943 0.3943 39.4297

12 Four toed elephant shrew 8 0.0079 0.0079 0.7866

13 Giant pouched rat 2 0.0020 0.0020 0.1967

14 Greater galago 6 0.0059 0.0059 0.5900

15 Ground pangolin 2 0.0020 0.0020 0.1967

16 Hippopotamus 17 0.0167 0.0167 1.6716

17 Honey badger 2 0.0020 0.0020 0.1967

18 Litchtenstein’s hartebeest 1 0.0010 0.0010 0.0983

19 Large spotted genet 58 0.0570 0.0570 5.7030

20 Leopard 21 0.0206 0.0206 2.0649

21 Lion 1 0.0010 0.0010 0.0983

22 Natal duiker 1 0.0010 0.0010 0.0983

23 Marsh mongoose 19 0.0187 0.0187 1.8682

24 Meller's mongoose 3 0.0029 0.0029 0.2950

25 Sable antelope 4 0.0039 0.0039 0.3933

26 Serval cat 2 0.0020 0.0020 0.1967

27 Slender mongoose 5 0.0049 0.0049 0.4916

28 Spotted hyaena 62 0.0610 0.0610 6.0964

29 Striped bush squirrel 3 0.0029 0.0029 0.2950

30 Vervet monkey 1 0.0010 0.0010 0.0983

31 Warthog 49 0.0482 0.0482 4.8181

32 White tailed mongoose 3 0.0029 0.0029 0.2950

33 Wild dog 3 0.0029 0.0029 0.2950

34 Yellow baboon 8 0.0079 0.0079 0.7866

35 Zebra 5 0.0049 0.0049 0.4916

3.2 Direct observations

All signs of mammals were recorded whilst the team were implementing the field survey,

either through direct observation of the species themselves, or through sign, such as tracks or


dung. Eighteen mammal species were directly observed during this survey by the survey

team, of which fourteen were also trapped (Table 3).

Table 3: Mammal species directly observed in Selous-Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor

Species Evidence Recorded by camera traps

(Yes/No)

1. Elephant Direct observation Yes

2. Zebra Direct observation Yes

3. Egyptian mongoose

4. Warthog 5. Klipspringer 6. Bushbuck 7. Side striped

jackal 8. Waterbuck 9. Hartebeest 10. Spotted hyaena 11. Banded

mongoose 12. Slender

mongoose 13. Vervet monkey 14. Yellow baboon 15. Buffalo 16. African Civet 17. Greater Galago 18. Eland

Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct observation Direct Observation Direct Observation Direct observation

No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No

3.3 Questionnaire

The questionnaire survey was carried out in 8 villages namely Nambecha, Likuyuseka,

Songambele and Mchomoro in Mbarang’andu WMA as well as Darajambili, Namwinyu,

Kalulu, and Mbungulaji in Nalika WMA. A total of 86 individuals from the above villages

were identified and interviewed using the structured questionnaire, all of whom were farmers

with some wildlife knowledge. The questionnaire focused on three major areas of interest:

mammalian biodiversity; trends; and threats. A total of 57 different mammal species were

reported to have been seen by respondents (Table 4). The correspondents could often identify

a mammal to genus level but not to species, for instance many simply said genet or mongoose.

Only three species were camera trapped but not mentioned by any interviewees. Two of these,

Marsh and Mellers mongoose, are cryptic or nocturnal species that are seldom seen. The third

was the Red duiker, and this ommision is more surprising as it is likely to be an animal that is

trapped by hunters. After eliminating species that were obviously incorrectly identified (such

as Alexander’s Cusimanse), there were a total of 26 species reported by villagers that were

not camera trapped. Six of those were observed by the field team, including Eland,

Klipspringer, Egyptian mongoose, Banded mongoose and Side striped jackal. Of the 20

species that were reported by villagers, but not seen or camera trapped by the field team,

several are dubious records that can probably be eliminated. These would include, Black

backed jackal (probably mistaken for Side striped jackal), Blue monkey (not a Miombo

species), and Palm civet, which is a forest species. There are also question marks against

rhino (presumably extinct in the area), Striped weasel (a possibility but most likely confused

with Zorilla) and Impala, which were only reported by 2 interviewees. There were two


reports of suni, though this species is easily confused with Blue duiker, which is also likely to

occur in the area, and more information is needed to clarify the presence of that species.

Based on the aforementioned, we have therefore categorized them as inaccurate, good or very

good depending on how they responded to the questions. A respondent was categorized as

‘inaccurate’ if he/she gave contradicting information when asked the same question in

different ways. For instance if the respondent said bush pigs were absent in the area in one

question but the same respondent (in a similar question) reported that bush pigs were the

most problematic species then this respondent was ranked ‘inaccurate’. A ‘good’ respondent

was the one who gave consistent responses to the questions but had some problems with

species identification and sighting dates. A respondent who answered the questions

consistently, with precision and confidence was put in the ‘very good’ category. Out of 86

respondents, 80% were categorized as very good, 15% of the respondents were categorized as

good and the remaining 5% as inaccurate and therefore excluded from our analysis.

Table 4: Mammals identified during structured questionnaire survey.

S/No Animal Reported No of times

reported Trapped Y/N

1 Aardvark 5 Y

2 African Civet 31 Y

3 Yellow baboon 44 Y

4 Banded Mongoose 7 N

5 Bat eared fox 1 N

6 Jackal 9 N

7 Black backed Jackal 4 N

8 Side Striped Jackal 2 N

9 Blue Monkey 1 N

10 Buffalo 60 Y

11 Bush duiker 3 Y

12 Bush pig 24 Y

13 Bushbuck 14 Y

14 Cane rat 3 N

15 Cape hare 11 Y

16 Genet 39 Y


17 Crested Porcupine 10 Y

18 Dikdik 1 Y

19 Dwarf Mongoose 1 N

20 Egyptian mongoose 3 N

21 Eland 20 N

22 Elephant 62 Y

23 Elephant shrew (Zanj) 4 (1) Y

24 Greater galago 1 Y

25 Ground Pangolin 13 Y

26 Ground Squirrel 3 N

27 Litchtensteins hartebeest 5 Y

28 Hippopotamus 34 Y

29 Honey Badger 12 Y

30 Impala 2 N

31 Klipspringer 2 N

32 Kudu 2 N

33 Leopard 45 Y

34 Lion 46 Y

35 Hedgehog 1 N

36 Vervet Monkey 24 Y

38 Palm Civet 1 N

39 Reedbuck 7 N

40 Rhino 8 N

41 Sable antelope 16 Y

42 Serval cat 6 Y

43 Slender Mongoose 4 Y


44 Spotted necked Otter 5 N

45 Hyeana (Spotted hyeana) 44 (11) Y

46 Steenbuck 1 N

47 Striped weasel 1 N

48 Suni 2 N

49 Tree hyrax 2 N

50 Warthog 12 Y

51 Waterbuck 8 Y

52 White tailed Mongoose 1 Y

53 Wild cat 11 N

54 Wild dog 13 Y

55 Wildebeest 7 N

56 Zebra 22 Y

57 Zorilla 3 N

Interviewees were also asked to identify threats to species. A key (major) threat listed by the

interviewees was unregulated local hunting. Sixty seven (67% of all respondents) reported

the Buffalo as the most hunted species. Others are Bushbuck, Eland, Elephant, Hippos, Sable

antelope and Zebra (Table 5). Nearly all the respondents said that the main reason for

hunting was access to bush meat.

Table 5: Species listed by respondents as most hunted

Species No of times reported as

hunted

% respondents

Reason for hunting

Buffalo 58 67 Food and Money

Eland 23 27 Food

Bushbuck 12 14 Food

Sable 10 12 Food

Elephant 5 6 Food and Money

Hippopotamus 1 1 Food

Zebra 1 1 Food

Respondents were also asked whether any of the species posed a problem to

themselves, their crops or their livestock. They ranked the Elephant highest followed


by Baboon and Bushbuck (Table 6).

Table 6: Species listed by respondents as problem animals

About half (48%) of all trapped/direct observations/questionnaire were small mammals

followed by medium sized (32%) and large (20%) indicating a high diversity of small

mammal species in the area (Table 7). For the purpose of this survey, small mammals were

classified as those species weighing from 0-1kg, 1kg-45kg as medium and greater than 45kg

as large. For authenticity, the above statistics only includes probable/possible species

recorded during the questionnaire survey and excludes those ones that we don’t think they are

likely to be present in the area. The final mammal list for the area includes 40 species that

were confirmed through camera trapping or direct sightings by the field team, 11 species that

were recorded by interviewees and are probably there, based on their known ranges in

Tanzania, and a further 5 species that are possibilities but which may be misidentifications.

Table 7: Final species list, method of identification and size of species (small,

medium, large).

S/N Common name Scientific name Method Size Status

1 Banded Mongoose Mungos mungos Questionnaire/Direct observation Small Confirmed

2 Blue duiker

Cephalophus

monticola Literature Medium Possible

3 Egyptian mongoose Herpestes ichneumon Questionnaire/Direct observation Small Confirmed

4 Greater galago

Otolemur

crassicaudatus

Camera trap/Questionnaire/Direct

observation Small Confirmed

5 Slender mongoose Herpestes sanguinea


observation Small Confirmed

6

Bushy tailed

Mongoose Bdeogale crassicauda Camera trap/Questionnaire Small Confirmed

7 Cape hare Lepus capensis Camera trap/Questionnaire Small Confirmed

8 Crested porcupine Hystrix cristata Camera trap/Questionnaire Small Confirmed

Problem Animal % Respondents No. times reported

Elephant 63 73

Baboon 55 64

Bushpig 38 44

Vervet Monkey 37 43

Hippopotamus 14 16

Hyena 11 13

Leopard 8 9

Lion 7 8

Sable 4 5

Warthog 4 5

Buffalo 3 3

Jackal 3 3

Eland 2 2

Ground squirrel 2 2

Honey Badger 2 2

Banded mongoose 1 1

Black backed jackal 1 1

Cane rat 1 1

Civet 1 1

Snakes 1 1


9 Ground pangolin Smutsia temminckii Camera trap/Questionnaire Small Confirmed

10 Honey badger Mellivora capensis Camera trap/Questionnaire Small Confirmed

11 Large spotted genet Genetta tigrina Camera trap/Questionnaire Small Confirmed

12 Marsh mongoose Atilax paludinosus Camera trap/Questionnaire Small Confirmed

13

Four toed elephant

shrew

Petrodromus

tetradactylus Camera trap Small Confirmed

14 Giant pouched rat Cricetomys gambianus Camera trap Small Confirmed

15 Meller's mongoose Rhynchogale melleri Camera trap Small Confirmed

16 Striped bush squirrel Paraxerus flavovittis Camera trap Small Confirmed

17

White tailed

mongoose Ichneumia albicauda Camera trap Small Confirmed

18 Cane rat Thryonomys spp Questionnaire Small Probable

19 Dwarf Mongoose Helogale parvula Questionnaire Small Probable

20 Ground Squirrel Xerus spp Questionnaire Small Probable

21 Hedgehog Atelerix albiventris Questionnaire Small Probable

22

Otter - Cape

clawless or Spotted

necked Lutra spp Questionnaire Small Probable

23 Tree hyrax Dendrohyrax arboreus Questionnaire Small Probable

24 Wild cat Felis sylvestris Questionnaire Small Probable

25 Zorilla Ictonyx striatus Questionnaire Small Probable

26 Bat eared fox Otocyon megalotis Questionnaire Small Possible

27 Suni Neotragus moschatus Questionnaire Small Possible

28 Natal duiker

Cephalophus

natalensis Camera trap Medium Confirmed

29 Wild dog Lycon pictus Camera trap/Questionnaire Medium Confirmed

30 Klipspringer

Oreotragus

oreotragus Questionnaire/Direct observation Medium Confirmed

31 Aadvark Orycteropus afer


observation Medium Confirmed

32 Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus



33 Vervet monkey

Cercopithecus

aethiops



34 Warthog

Phacochoerus

aethiopicus



35 African civet Civettictis civeta Camera trap/Questionnaire Medium Confirmed

36 Bush duiker Slyvicapra grimmia Camera trap/Questionnaire Medium Confirmed

37 Bush pig

Potamochoerus

larvatus Camera trap/Questionnaire Medium Confirmed

38 Common waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus Camera trap/Questionnaire Medium Confirmed

39 Sable antelope Hippotragus niger Camera trap/Questionnaire Medium Confirmed

40 Serval cat Hystrix cristata Camera trap/Questionnaire Medium Confirmed

41 Spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta Camera trap/Questionnaire Medium Confirmed

42 Yellow baboon Papio cynocephalus Camera trap/Direct observation Medium Confirmed

43 Southern Reedbuck Redunca arundinum Questionnaire Medium Probable

44 Impala Aepyceros melampus Questionnaire Medium Possible

45

46

Litchtensteins

hartebeest

Alcelaphus

lichtensteinii Camera trap/Questionnaire Large Confirmed


47 Zebra Equus burchelli Questionnaire/Direct observation Large Confirmed

48 Leopard Panthera pardus Camera trap/Questionnaire Large Confirmed

49 Lion Panthera leo Camera trap/Questionnaire Large Confirmed

50 Eland Tourotragus oryx Questionnaire/Direct observation Large Confirmed

51 Buffalo Syncerus caffer


observation Large Confirmed

52 Elephant Loxodanta africana


observation Large Confirmed

53 Hippopotamus

Hippopotamus

amphibious Camera trap/Questionnaire Large Confirmed

54 Greater kudu

Tragelaphus

strepciseros Questionnaire Large Probable

55 Wildebeest

Connochaetes

taurinus Questionnaire Large Probable

56 Rhino Dicernos bicornis Questionnaire Large Confirmed

57 Side striped jackal Canis adustus Questionnaire Medium Confirmed

58 Black backed jackal Canis mesomelas Questionnaire Medium Possible

4 DISCUSSION

The best two known hotspot areas, close together and furthest away from villages/settlements

as possible within the corridor were sampled during the survey. It is also important to note

that this survey was conducted towards the end of the dry season when wildlife is

concentrated close to water sources and hence this might have contributed to our results.

During this survey, we recorded 35 mammal species ranging from small to large with a total

of 1027 photographs, an average of 0.48 photographs per trap night. This is a high trapping

rate and suggests that the area has both a high diversity and density of mammal species.

Elephants were particularly common and this area is obviously a stronghold for them.

Whether the population is always this high or if this was just a seasonal surge is not known.

Meller’s mongoose was recorded at both sites, and is an interesting record as, being a fairly

non-descript and nocturnal mongoose, very little is known about this species in Tanzania.

This survey, and others carried out in the south of the country suggest that it is found in low

densities in areas of Miombo woodland. The Bushy tailed mongoose was originally

considered extremely rare in East Africa, though TMAP’s work has shown that it is much

more common and widespread than originally thought. This survey alone recorded the

species 13 times and confirms that it is common in Miombo woodland and not just restricted

to montane or coastal forest.

The responses to our questionnaire surveys indicate some of the problems inherent in this

method. Whilst the survey team selected respondents with the most wildlife knowledge, their

knowledge was localized, and there were numerous other errors in mammal identification,

especially with regard to small antelopes and carnivores. During the analysis we removed all

records that were obviously incorrect (such as species that were not known from the country

or are found in very different habitat) and then sorted the species into ones which were likely

to be found in the area based on their known range, and those which we think are errors but

there is a chance that they occur there. For some of the species (such as reedbuck and otters)

we are confident they are found in the survey zone, but it is unclear which species it is. The

interviewees reported two species of jackal (the Black backed and the Side striped) in the

area, though other species distribution records suggest only the latter should occur there and

the former remains as a possibility.


The level of human impact in the Selous - Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor is generally

low. Being a protected area, it does not allow human settlement and other associated

activities such as crop cultivation and livestock keeping. Illegal settlement and crop

cultivation has however been reported from certain parts of the SNWPC. However, from the

area where this survey was conducted it is clear that illegal hunting is the major problem

facing this area.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

WMA is a core element of the 'Wildlife Policy' of Tanzania (1998) and contributes not only

to conservation but equally important to development and poverty alleviation in the rural

areas. With an area of 17,030km2, Selous - Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor is of a

relatively big size and is one of the biologically rich areas. The high trapping success of

mammalian species observed in this survey suggests that the mammalian biodiversity in the

corridor is very high. In order to maintain the high diversity in this area, we recommend

intensified patrols to combat illegal activities in the corridor. This should be combined with

community outreach activities to establish ecosystem services provided by the reserve and to

increase community support. Regular surveys, at 1-3 year intervals, should be used to assess

the effectiveness of community and law enforcement activities. A longer camera trap survey

combined with other survey techniques (e.g. Sherman’s traps for small mammals) in the

corridor might expose more species than those covered in this survey, further analysis of the

accumulation curve to establish predicted species richness would identify whether this would

be worthwhile.

6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute would like to render a vote of thanks to the

following for invaluable support that was critical to the success of this survey. We would like

to give the word of thanks to Mr. Issa Ndomondo, the acting Namtumbo District Game

Officer and Mzee Msusa, the Tunduru District Game Officer who tirelessly guided the survey

team even when the field vehicle got stuck often in the field due to torrential rains. Many

thanks also to the Wildlife Division who gave permission for the team to work in Selous-

Niassa Wildlife Corridor. Last but not least, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to

all village governments and all villagers who received and hosted us during the survey period.

Many thanks also goes to SNWPC implementation consultants lead by Wayne Lotter who

commissioned this survey to us and subsequently funded the same through KfW of the

Selous-Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor Project. The project staff and equipment were

supported by funding from the Darwin Initiative of the British Government, the Wildlife

Conservation Society, Zoological Society of London and TAWIRI.


7 REFERENCES

Cutler, T. L. & Swann, D. E. (1999) Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: a review.

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27: 571–581.

Games, I. (2009) GIS and Mapping Component, 2nd

Progress Report. Selous-Niassa Wildlife

Protection Corridor Project, Namtumbo District.

Jonathan Kingdon (1997) The kingdon field guide to African Mammals.

Jones,T.,Caro,T and Davernport,T.R.B (2009). Wildlife Corridors in Tanzania. Unpublished

report. Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), Arusha.

Kideghesho, J. R. & Abdallah, J.M. (2009) Ruvuma WMA Feasibility Study. Study Report

No. 07. Selous-Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor Project.

Lotter, W.D. (2008) Preliminary Survey for Ruvuma Pre-Feasibility Study. Study Report No.

04. Selous-Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor Project.

MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Royle, J.A., Pollock, K.H., Bailey, L.L., & Hines, J.E. (2006)

Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species

Occurrence Academic Press, Burlington MA.

Rudolf Hahn (2008) Background information to Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor: A

report to the Wildlife Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.

Silveira, L., A.T.A. Jacomo, and J.A.F. Diniz-Filho 2003. Camera trap, line transect census

and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Biological Conservation 114: 351-355.

TAWIRI (2009) Aerial Census in the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor; Dry season

December 2009

Documents

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA - Selous … · small mammal survey of the selous-niassa wildlife protection corridor page 1 the united republic of tanzania ministry of natural resources