International Journal of Primatology

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 513–528

Population Declines of Colobus in Western Uganda and Conservation Value of Forest Fragments

  • Colin A. Chapman
  • Lisa Naughton-Treves
  • Michael J. Lawes
  • Michael D. Wasserman
  • Thomas R. Gillespie
Special Issue: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation of Colobine Monkeys

Abstract

The processes of habitat loss and fragmentation are probably the most important threats to biodiversity. It is critical that we understand the conservation value of fragments, because they may represent opportunities to make important conservation gains, particularly for species whose ranges are not in a protected area. However, our ability to understand the value of fragments for primates is limited by the fact that researchers have conducted many studies in protected areas, which do not represent most fragments, and studies are typically short term. Here we determine the long-term survival probability of red (Procolobus pennantii) and black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza) inhabiting forest fragments outside of Kibale National Park, Uganda. Local communities use the fragments primarily for subsistence agriculture and fuelwood. We surveyed primate populations 3 times over 8 yr, made a total inventory of all trees 2 times, contrasted behavior of groups inhabiting 1 fragment with groups in the continuous forest, and judged the conservation value of the fragments by quantifying patterns of forest use by local people. Of the 20 fragments surveyed, 16 supported resident populations of colobus in 1995, 2 were cleared in 2000, and an additional 2 fragments were cleared by 2003. In 1995 we counted 165 black-and-white colobus, whereas in 2000 and 2003, we counted 119 and 75 individuals, respectively. Seven fragments supported red colobus in 1995, 11 in 2000, and 9 in 2003. In 2000 we counted 159 red colobus, while in 2003, we saw 145 individuals. For both species, activity patterns in continuous forest were similar to those in a fragment, with the exception that individuals in the fragment rested more. Colobus in the fragment ate more mature leaves than colobus in the continuous forest did. Fragments supported all the fuelwood needs of an average of 32 people who lived immediately adjacent to them, and partially supported families up to 3 farms away (ca. 400 m), representing 576 people. Intensive harvesting for fuelwood occurred when neighboring households engaged in beer brewing (an average of 9.6% of the households), gin distilling (8.8%), or charcoal production (14.5%). Overall, between 2000 and 2003, the average density of trees declined by 14 trees/ha (range = 0–60 trees/ha). If current rates of clearing continue, the probability that the fragments will continue to support colobus populations is low.

Keywords

black-and-white colobus conservation forest fragments population decline red colobus 

References

  1. Bradley, P. N. (1991). Women, woodfuel and woodlots. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Chapman, C. A. (1987). Flexibility in diets of three species of Costa Rican Primates. Folia Primatologica, 49, 90–105.Google Scholar
  3. Chapman, C. A., Balcomb, S. R., Gillespie, T. R., Skorupa, J., & Struhsaker, T. T. (2000). Long-term effects of logging on African primate communities: A 28 year comparison from Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology, 14, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman, C. A., & Chapman, L. J. (2002). Foraging challenges of red colobus monkeys: Influence of nutrients and secondary compounds. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 133, 861–875.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapman, L. J., Chapman, C. A., Crisman, T. L., & Nordlie, F. G. (1998). Dissolved oxygen and thermal regimes of a Ugandan crater lake. Hydrobiology, 385, 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman, C. A., Chapman, L. J., & Gillespie, T. R. (2002). Scale issues in the study of primate foraging: Red colobus of Kibale National Park. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 117, 349–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman, C. A., Chapman, L. J., Wrangham, R., Isabirye-Basuta, G., & Ben-David, K. (1997). Spatial and temporal variability in the structure of a tropical forest. African Journal of Ecology, 35, 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman, C. A., Gillespie, T. R., & Speirs, M. L. (2005). Dynamics of gastrointestinal parasites in two colobus monkeys following a dramatic increase in host density: Contrasting density-depended effects. American Journal of Primatology, 67, 259–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman, C. A., & Lambert, J. E. (2000). Habitat alterations and the conservation of African primates: A case study of Kibale National Park, Uganda. American Journal of Primatology, 50, 169–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman, C. A., & Onderdonk, D. A. (1998). Forests without primates: Primate/plant codependency. American Journal of Primatology, 45, 127–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman, C. A., & Peres, C. (2001). Primate conservation in the new millennium: The role of scientists. Evolutionary Anthropology, 10, 16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coley, P. D. (1983). Herbivory and defensive characteristics of tree species in a lowland tropical forest. Ecological Monographs, 53, 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Debinski, D. M., & Holt, R. D. (2001). A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology, 14, 342–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Estrada, A., & Coates-Estrada, R. (1996). Tropical rainforest fragmentation and wild populations of primates at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. International Journal of Primatology, 17, 759–783.Google Scholar
  15. Fairgrieve, C. (1995). The Comparative Ecology of Blue Monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis stuhlmanni) in logged and unlogged forest, Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda: The effects of logging on habitat and population density. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  16. Ganzhorn, J. U. (1995). Low-level forest disturbance effects on primary production, leaf chemistry, and lemur populations. Ecology, 76, 2048–2096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert, K. A. (2003). Primates and fragmentation of the Amazon forest. In L. K. Marsh (ed.), Primates in fragments: Ecology and conservation (pp. 145–157). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  18. Gillespie, T. R., & Chapman, C. A. (2001). Determinants of group size in the red colobus monkey (Procolobus badius): An evaluation of the generality of the ecological constraints model. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Government of Uganda (1992). 1991 National housing and rural settlement census. Kampala, Uganda.Google Scholar
  20. Hamilton, A. C. (1974). Distribution patterns of forest trees in Uganda and their historical significance. Vegetatio, 29, 218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanski, I., & Gilpin, M. E. (1997). Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Harcourt, A. H., & Parks, S. A. (2003). Threatened primates experience high human densities: Adding an index of threat to the IUCN Red List criteria. Biological Conservation, 109, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holmes, R. T., & Pitelka, F. A. (1968). Food overlap among coexisting sandpipers on northern Alaskan tundra. Systematic Zoology, 17, 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howard, P. C. (1991). Nature conservation in uganda’s tropical forest reserves. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  25. Kammen, D. (1995). Cookstoves for the developing world. Scientific American, 273, 64–67.Google Scholar
  26. Kapos, V., Wandelli, E., Camargo, J., & Ganade, G. (1997). Edge-related changes in environment and plant responses due to forest fragmentation in central Amazonia. In W. F. Laurance & R. O. Bierregaard (eds.), Tropical forest remnants: Ecology, management and conservation of fragmented communities (pp. 33–44). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Laurance, W. F., & Bierregaard, R. O. (1997). Tropical forest remnants: Ecology, management, and conservation of fragmented communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Laurance, W. F., & Cochrane, M. A. (2001). Synergistic effects in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology, 15, 1488–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laurance, W. F., Lovejoy, T. E., Casconcelos, H. L., Bruna, E. M., Didham, R. K., Stouffer, P. C., et al. (2002). Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: A 22 year investigation. Conservation Biology, 16, 605–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lawes, M. J., Mealin, P. E., & Piper, S. E. (2000). Patch occupancy and potential metapopulation dynamics of three forest mammals in fragmented afromontane forest in South Africa. Conservation Biology, 14, 1088–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawes, M. J., & Piper, S. E. (1992). Activity patterns in free-ranging samango monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis erythrarchus Peters, 1852) at the southern range limit. Folia Primatologica, 59, 186–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lovejoy, T. E., Bierregaard, R. O., Jr., Rylands, A. B., Malcolm, J. R., Quintela, C. E., Harper, L. J., et al. (1986). Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazon forest fragments. In M.E. Soule (ed.), Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity (pp. 257–285). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Maisels, F., Gautier-Hion, A., & Gautier, J.-P. (1994). Diets of two sympatric colobines in Zaire: More evidence on seed-eating in forests on poor soils. International Journal of Primatology, 15, 681–701.Google Scholar
  34. Marsh, L. K. (2003). Primates in fragments: Ecology in conservation. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  35. Naughton-Treves, L. (1997). Farming the forest edge: Vulnerable places and people around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Geographical Review, 87, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Naughton-Treves, L. (1998). Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology, 12, 156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Naughton-Treves, L. (1999). Whose animals? A history of property rights to wildlife in Toro, western Uganda. Land Degradation and Development, 10, 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Naughton-Treves, L., & Chapman, C. A. (2002). Fuelwood resources and forest regeneration on fallow land in Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 14, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. NEMA National Environment Management Authority (1997). Kabarole District Environment Profile. Kampala, Uganda: NEMA.Google Scholar
  40. Oates, J. F. (1977). The guereza and its food. In T. H. Clutton-Brock (ed.), Primate Ecology (pp. 275–321). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Oates, J. F. (1996). Habitat alteration, hunting, and the conservation of folivorous primates in African forests. Australian Journal of Ecology, 21, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Onderdonk, D. A., & Chapman, C. A. (2000). Coping with forest fragmentation: The primates of Kibale National Park, Uganda. International Journal of Primatology, 21, 587–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Osmaston, H. A. (1959). Working Plan for the Kibale and Itwara Forests (pp. 60). Entebbe: Uganda Forest Department.Google Scholar
  44. Paterson, J. D. (1991). The ecology and history of Uganda’s Budongo Forest. Forest and Conservation History, 35, 179–187.Google Scholar
  45. Steinhart, E. I. (1971). Transition in western Uganda: 1891–1901. Ph.D. Dissertation. History. Northwestern University, Chicago.Google Scholar
  46. Struhsaker, T. T. (1975). The red Colobus monkey (pp. 311). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Struhsaker, T. T. (1976). A further decline in numbers of Amboseli vervet monkeys. Biotropica, 8, 211–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Struhsaker, T. T. (1997). Ecology of an African rain forest: Logging in kibale and the conflict between conservation and exploitation (pp. 434). Gainesville: University of Florida Press.Google Scholar
  49. Struhsaker, T. T., & Leland, L. (1987). Colobines: infanticide by adult males. In B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham, & T. T. Struhsaker (eds.), Primate societies (pp. 83–97). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Struhsaker, T. T., Marshal, A. R., Ketwiler, K., Siex, K., Ehardt, C., Lisbjerg, D. D., et al. (2004). Demographic variation among Udzungwa red colobus in relation to gross ecological and sociological parameters. International Journal of Primatology, 25, 615–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Struhsaker, T. T., & Oates, J. F. (1975). Comparison of the behavior and ecology of red colobus and black-and-white colobus monkeys in Uganda: A summary. In R. H. Tuttle (ed.), Socioecology and psychology of primates (pp. 103–124). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  52. Taylor, B. K. (1962). The Western Lacustrine Bantu. London: Sidney Press.Google Scholar
  53. Tutin, C. E. G. (1999). Fragmented living: Behavioural ecology of primates in a forest fragment in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon. Primates, 40, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tutin, C. E. G., White, L. J. T., & Mackanga-Missandzou, A. (1997). The use of rainforest mammals of natural forest fragments in an equatorial African savanna. Conservation Biology, 11, 1190–1203.Google Scholar
  55. Wallmo, K., & Jacobson, S. K. (1998). A social and environmental evaluation of fuel-efficient cook-stoves and conservation in Uganda. Environmental Conservation, 25, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin A. Chapman
    • 1
  • Lisa Naughton-Treves
    • 2
  • Michael J. Lawes
    • 3
  • Michael D. Wasserman
    • 4
  • Thomas R. Gillespie
    • 5
  1. 1.Anthropology Department and McGill School of EnvironmentMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Forest Biodiversity Programme, School of Botany and ZoologyUniversity of NatalScottsvilleSouth Africa
  4. 4.Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  5. 5.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations