Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Boots on the ground: in defense of low-tech, inexpensive, and robust survey methods for Africa’s under-funded protected areas

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Protected area managers need reliable information to detect spatial and temporal trends of the species they intend to protect. This information is crucial for population monitoring, understanding ecological processes, and evaluating the effectiveness of management and conservation policies. In under-funded protected areas, managers often prioritize ungulates and carnivores for monitoring given their socio-economic value and sensitivity to human disturbance. Aircraft-based surveys are typically utilized for monitoring ungulates because they can cover large areas regardless of the terrain, but such work is expensive and subject to bias. Recently, unmanned aerial vehicles have shown great promise for ungulate monitoring, but these technologies are not yet widely available and are subject to many of the same analytical challenges associated with traditional aircraft-based surveys. Here, we explore use of inexpensive and robust distance sampling methods in Kafue National Park (KNP) (22,400 km2), carried out by government-employed game scouts. Ground-based surveys spanning 101, 5-km transects resulted in 369 ungulate group detections from 20 species. Using generalized linear models and distance sampling, we determined the environmental and anthropogenic variables influencing ungulate species richness, density, and distribution. Species richness was positively associated with permanent water and percent cover of closed woodland vegetation. Distance to permanent water had the strongest overall effect on ungulate densities, but the magnitude and direction of this effect varied by species. This ground-based approach provided a more cost-effective, unbiased, and repeatable method than aerial surveys in KNP, and could be widely implemented by local personnel across under-funded protected areas in Africa.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig.. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson K, Gaston KJ (2013) Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front Ecol Environ 11:138–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker M, McRobb R, Watson F et al (2013) Evaluating wire-snare poaching trends and the impacts of by-catch on elephants and large carnivores. Biol Conserv 158:26–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer HL (2015) Geospatial modelling environment (Version 0.7.4.0). http://www.spatialecology.com/gme

  • Borg BL, Arthur SM, Bromen NA et al (2016) Implications of harvest on the boundaries of protected areas for large carnivore viewing opportunities. PLoS ONE 11:e0153808

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brashares JS, Golden CD, Weinbaum KZ et al (2011) Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. PNAS 108:13931–13936

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Buckland ST (2001) Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP et al (2007) Advanced distance sampling. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell K, Borner M (1995) Population trends and distribution of Serengeti herbivores: implications for management. In: Sinclair ARE, Arcese P (eds) Serengeti II: dynamics, management, and conservation of an ecosystem. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Caughley G (1974) Bias in aerial survey. J Wildl Manag 38:921–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler RB, Royle JA, King DI (2011) Inference about density and temporary emigration in unmarked populations. Ecology 92:1429–1435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Craigie ID, Baillie JEM, Balmford A et al (2010) Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biol Conserv 143:2221–2228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creel S, Creel NM (2002) The African wild dog: behavior, ecology and conservation. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Creel S, M’soka J, Dröge E et al (2016) Assessing the sustainability of African lion trophy hunting, with recommendations for policy. Ecol Appl 26:2347–2357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A (2005) Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers Conserv 14:2507–2542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A et al (2009) Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conserv Biol 23:31–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dröge E, Creel S, Becker MS, M’soka J (2017) Spatial and temporal avoidance of risk within a large carnivore guild. Ecol Evol 7:189–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Estes R (1991) The behavior guide to African mammals. Russell Friedman Books, Sunvalley

    Google Scholar 

  • Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS et al (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333:301–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske IJ, Chandler RB (2011) Unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. J Stat Softw 43:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick H (2011) Aerial survey: Kafue ecosystem 2011. Zambia Wildlife Authority, Chilanga

    Google Scholar 

  • Geldmann J, Barnes M, Coad L et al (2013) Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol Conserv 161:230–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin PC, Lubow BC, Jenkins KJ et al (2013) A hybrid double-observer sightability model for aerial surveys. J Wildl Manag 77:1532–1544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimsdell JJR, Bell RHV (1972) Population growth of red lechwe, Kobus leche leche Gray, in the Busanga Plain, Zambia. Afr J Ecol 10:117–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gros PM, Kelly MJ, Caro TM (1996) Estimating carnivore densities for conservation purposes: indirect methods compared to baseline demographic data. Oikos 77:197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MW, O’Brien J, Hofmeyr M, Kerley GIH (2006) Prey Preferences of the African wild dog Lycaon pictus (Canidae: Carnivora): ecological requirements for conservation. J Mamm 87:1122–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MW, Boitani L, Burrows ND et al (2015) Forum: ecologists need robust survey designs, sampling and analytical methods. J Appl Ecol 52:286–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henson DW, Malpas RC, D’Udine FAC (2016) Wildlife law enforcement in sub-Saharan African protected areas —a review of best practices. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland

  • IUCN and World Commission on Protected Areas (2016) IUCN green list of protected and conserved areas: standard. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Jachmann H (2001) Estimating abundance of African wildlife: an aid to adaptive management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jachmann H (2002) Comparison of aerial counts with ground counts for large African herbivores. J Appl Ecol 39:841–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolly GM (1969) Sampling methods for aerial censuses of wildlife populations. East Afr Agric For J 34:46–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahler JS, Roloff GJ, Gore ML (2013) Poaching risks in community-based natural resource management. Conserv Biol 27:177–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kéry M, Royle JA, Schmid H (2005) Modeling avian abundance from replicated counts using binomial mixture models. Ecol Appl 15:1450–1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh LP, Wich SA (2012) Dawn of drone ecology: low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Trop Conserv Sci 5:121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krüger O (2005) The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodivers Conserv 14:579–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linchant J, Lisein J, Semeki J et al (2015) Are unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) the future of wildlife monitoring? A review of accomplishments and challenges. Mamm Rev 45:239–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey PA, Frank LG, Alexander R et al (2007) Trophy hunting and conservation in Africa: problems and one potential solution. Conserv Biol 21:880–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey PA, Nyirenda V, Barnes J et al (2014) Underperformance of African protected area networks and the case for new conservation models: Insights from Zambia. PLoS ONE 9:e94109

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linkie M, Martyr DJ, Harihar A et al (2015) Safeguarding Sumatran tigers: evaluating effectiveness of law enforcement patrols and local informant networks. J Appl Ecol 52:851–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litoroh M, Omondi P, Kock R, Amin R (2012) Conservation and management strategy for the elephant in Kenya. Kenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • M’soka J, Creel S, Becker M, Murdoch J (2017) Ecological and anthropogenic effects on the density of migratory and resident ungulates in a human-inhabited protected area. Afr J Ecol 55:618–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh H, Sinclair DF (1989) Correcting for visibility bias in strip transect aerial surveys of aquatic fauna. J Wildl Manag 53:1017–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle MJ (2016) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q) AIC (c)[Software]

  • Midlane N, O’Riain MJ, Balme GA et al (2014) On tracks: a spoor-based occupancy survey of lion Panthera leo distribution in Kafue National Park, Zambia. Biol Conserv 172:101–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shaughnessy R, Cain JW, Owen-Smith N (2014) Comparative diet and habitat selection of puku and lechwe in northern Botswana. J Mamm 95:933–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogada MO, Woodroffe R, Oguge NO, Frank LG (2003) Limiting depredation by African carnivores: the role of livestock husbandry. Conserv Biol 17:1521–1530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogutu JO, Owen-Smith N (2003) ENSO, rainfall and temperature influences on extreme population declines among African savanna ungulates. Ecol Lett 6:412–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogutu JO, Reid RS, Piepho H-P et al (2014) Large herbivore responses to surface water and land use in an East African savanna: implications for conservation and human-wildlife conflicts. Biodivers Conserv 23:573–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins HHT (2000) Competition between wildlife and livestock in Africa. In: Prins HHT, Grootenhuis JG, Dolan TT (eds) Wildlife conservation by sustainable use. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 51–80

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ransom JI, Kaczensky P, Lubow BC et al (2012) A collaborative approach for estimating terrestrial wildlife abundance. Biol Conserv 153:219–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Republic of Zambia (2011) 2010 census of population and housing. Central Statistical Office, Lusaka

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL et al (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343:1241484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ripple WJ, Newsome TM, Wolf C et al (2015) Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Sci Adv 1:e1400103

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblatt E, Becker MS, Creel S et al (2014) Detecting declines of apex carnivores and evaluating their causes: an example with Zambian lions. Biol Conserv 180:176–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblatt E, Creel S, Becker MS et al (2016) Effects of a protection gradient on carnivore density and survival: an example with leopards in the Luangwa valley, Zambia. Ecol Evol 6:3772–3785

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffman R (2014) Drones flying high as new tool for field biologists. Science 344:459

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schuette P, Creel S, Christianson D (2016) Ungulate distributions in a rangeland with competitors, predators and pastoralists. J Appl Ecol 53:1066–1077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhorst RK, Samuel MD (1989) Sightability adjustment methods for aerial surveys of wildlife populations. Biometrics 45:415–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoner C, Caro TM, Mduma SAR et al (2007) Assessment of effectiveness of protection strategies in Tanzania based on a decade of survey data for large herbivores. Conserv Biol 21:635–646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thaker M, Vanak A, Owen C et al (2011) Minimizing predation risk in a landscape of multiple predators: effects on the spatial distribution of African ungulates. Ecology 92:398–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2016) Protected planet report 2016. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, Fourth. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watson F, Becker MS, McRobb R, Kanyembo B (2013) Spatial patterns of wire-snare poaching: Implications for community conservation in buffer zones around National Parks. Biol Conserv 168:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson FGR, Becker MS, Milanzi J, Nyirenda M (2015) Human encroachment into protected area networks in Zambia: implications for large carnivore conservation. Reg Environ Change 15:415–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winnie J, Creel S (2017) The many effects of carnivores on their prey and their implications for trophic cascades, and ecosystem structure and function. Food Webs 12:88–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ et al (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Zambia Department of National Parks and Wildlife for coordinating and carrying out this research. This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation [Grant Number IOS 1145749], National Geographic Society Big Cats Initiative, WWF-Netherlands, Painted Dog Conservation Inc., the Wilderness Trust, World Bank and the Norwegian Government. We appreciate the valuable input from two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped improve this manuscript. We thank C. Fenner, P. Bowen, and Treetops School Camp for their logistical support of the Zambian Carnivore Programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alaska Center for Conservation Science, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Dr, Anchorage, AK, 99508, USA

    Paul Schuette

  2. Zambian Carnivore Programme, P.O. Box 80, Mfuwe, Zambia

    Paul Schuette, Matthew S. Becker, Elias Rosenblatt & Carolyn Sanguinetti

  3. Department of Zoology and Aquatic Sciences, Copperbelt University, Box 21672, Kitwe, Zambia

    Ngawo Namukonde

  4. Department of Ecology, Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA

    Matthew S. Becker, Scott Creel & Wigganson Matandiko

  5. Division of Science and Environmental Policy, California State University Monterey Bay, Chapman Science Center, Seaside, CA, 93955, USA

    Fred G.R. Watson

  6. Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Department of Research, Private Bag 1, Kafue Road, Chilanga, Zambia

    Clive Chifunte

  7. Independent GIS Consultant, 1665 Madison St., Denver, CO, 80206, USA

    Paul Millhouser

  8. Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Aiken Center, 81 Carrigan Drive, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA

    Elias Rosenblatt

Authors
  1. Paul Schuette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ngawo Namukonde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew S. Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fred G.R. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Scott Creel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Clive Chifunte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wigganson Matandiko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Paul Millhouser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Elias Rosenblatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Carolyn Sanguinetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Schuette.

Additional information

Communicated by David Hawksworth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schuette, P., Namukonde, N., Becker, M. et al. Boots on the ground: in defense of low-tech, inexpensive, and robust survey methods for Africa’s under-funded protected areas. Biodivers Conserv 27, 2173–2191 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1529-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1529-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation