THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA - Selous … · small mammal survey of the selous-niassa wildlife...
Transcript of THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA - Selous … · small mammal survey of the selous-niassa wildlife...
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
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 2
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
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 3
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).
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 4
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.
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 5
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.
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 6
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
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 7
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.
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 8
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
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 9
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
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 10
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
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 11
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
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 12
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
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 13
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
Camera trap/Questionnaire/Direct
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
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 14
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
Camera trap/Questionnaire/Direct
observation Medium Confirmed
32 Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus
Camera trap/Questionnaire/Direct
observation Medium Confirmed
33 Vervet monkey
Cercopithecus
aethiops
Camera trap/Questionnaire/Direct
observation Medium Confirmed
34 Warthog
Phacochoerus
aethiopicus
Camera trap/Questionnaire/Direct
observation Medium Confirmed
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
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 15
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
Camera trap/Questionnaire/Direct
observation Large Confirmed
52 Elephant Loxodanta africana
Camera trap/Questionnaire/Direct
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.
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 16
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.
SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE PROTECTION CORRIDOR Page 17
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