THE IN : ARE WE LOSING OUR HERITAGE? Many authors believe that the Ghanaian lion population is most likely extinct. A study conducted by Angelici et al (2015). in the most important parks and other protected areas of Ghana, mainly focusing on Mole National Park reveals the historical and current status of the Ghanaian lion:

Summary results obtained from literature review and the current work (updated to December 2014)

DATA AREA REFERENCE DATE

Acronyms: (BNP); (DNP); Gbele Resource Reserve (GRR); Mole National Park(MNP); Kogyae Strict Nature Reserve (KNR); Kalapka Resource Reserve (KRR) Records of some stories of BNP; DNP; GRR; north and east Grubb et al. (1998) 1893–1960, some undated being spotted of KNR; KRR Many records (sightings roars, MNP; Frequently outside the Wilson (1993) 1992–1993 droppings prey remains, etc.) park 15–50 lions (estimate) MNP Chardonnet (2002) 2002 Average of 20 lions in MNP; MNP; GRR Bauer & Van Der Merwe (2004) 2004 and 10 in GRR Lioness shot by poachers MNP, unknown locality Angelici & Petrozzi (2010) 2002 Lion shot shepherds MNP Angelici & Petrozzi (2010) 2004 Several direct observations made MNP Angelici & Petrozzi (2010) 1968–2009 by MNP staff Sighting of one lion October DNP Henschel et al. (2010) 2008 Case of human–lion interaction KPP Henschel et al. (2010) February 2009 Sighting of a couple of lions, footprints, prey remains, by a park MNP Angelici & Petrozzi (2010) May 2009 manager Roars heard MNP: staff lodge compound Angelici et al. (2015) April 2011 Roars heard MNP: along the road Angelici et al. (2015) May 2012 Roars heard MNP: three localities Angelici et al. (2015) April 2013 Sighting of a male lion by a staff MNP: close to the staff quarters Angelici et al. (2015) August 2013 guard Possible lion predation of an adult MNP: near Brugbani camp Angelici et al. (2015) October 2013 buffalo MNP: between Lovi and Roars heard Angelici et al. (2015) February 2014 Kwomwoghlugu A couple of lions sighted by MNP: near Gbantala camp Angelici et al. (2015) August 2014 poachers, roars heard 156 Angelici et al.

N Zanwera

W E Kulpawn Sagiya Camp S Belepong

Kporio

Holomuni

Belebile Ducie Sabile Gbantala Chasla Camp Camp Grubagu Wawato Esalakawu Chasia Camp Sogsima Camp Camp Grubagu Camp Ducie Camp Gbanwele Camp Konkori Jinfrono Mole River Camp Seriseeni Daborin Camp Bawena Dagbori Kong Camp Camp Nyanga Camp Yazori Bawena Camp Kpulumbo Jang Jang Camp Kwomwoghlugu Yazori Camp Soma Lovi River Kaden Nikori Lovi Camp Camp Muruga Jelinkan Lion sighting/footprints 2009 Camp Muruga Jandra Brugbani Lion sighting 2013 Camp Camp Mognori Lion sighting 2014 Park H.Q. Camp Kamanto Roars heard 2011 Kabampe Camp Mognori Grupe Degbere Semole Kuboma Camp Roars heard 2012 Camp Camp Camp Grupe Camp Roars heard 2013 Kananto Palma Larabanga Sayire Kobampe Camp Roars heard 2014 Buffalo carcassa 2013 Camp Park H.Q. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation0 5 10 km 38.2 (2015) 153 Damongo Village

Figure 1. Detailed map of MNP Fig.showing 4. Detailed data map on of lionsMNP showingcollected data from on lions 2005 collected to from2014 2005 to 2014.

Fig. 4. Mapa detallado del MNP en el que se muestran los datos, obtenidos entre 2005 y 2014, relativos a la presencia de leones.

ventured outside the boundaries of the park, accor- the village of Larabanga (fig. 4). A few days earlier, ding to rangers' records, particularly those from the the same lion had killed several heads of cattle and camps of Kananto, Jang, Gbanwele and Gbantala had also had an aggressive encounter with another (for all localities see figure 4). man (see Angelici & Petrozzi, 2010). We collected the In Chardonnet's (2002) account of African lions, he results of questionnaires administered in both MNP estimates that 15 (12–18) lions are present in MNP in (n = 47) and GRR (n = 6), and only 21.3% of the the table, while in the text he refers to a range from respondents in MNP reported seeing lions between 15 to 50 lions in MNP according to the estimates of 2000 and 2009. For further details regarding the various specialists. Bauer (2003) and Bauer & Van methodology applied, see Angelici & Petrozzi (2010). Der Merwe (2004) report on an indirect estimate made According to MNP records for the 1968–2009 by the Ghana Wildlife Society of 20 (12–28) lions in A period, the maximum number of sightings of a single MNP and 10 (6–14) in GRR. lion (of any age) observed on a single occasion was In 2002, a lioness was killed by poachers in MNP, 21, in 1969. No sightings were reported between N and in 2004 a male was shot (fig. 6) very close to B1998 and 2008. In 2009, two individuals were spotted W E C D S E Considered absent F Potentially present Confirmed present Ghana border 300 km Figure 2. Map of including all protected areas where lion occurrence has been documented according to Henschel et al. (2014). ProtectedFig. areas 1. inMap Ghana: of A.West Gbele Africa Resource including Reserve; allB. Mole protected National areas Park; C. where Bui National lion occurrence Park; D. Digya hasNational been Park; documented E. Kogyae Strict Nature accordingReserve; F. Kalapka to Henschel Resource etReserve. al. (2014). Protected areas in Ghana: A. Gbele Resource Reserve; B. Mole National Park; C. Bui National Park; D. Digya National Park; E. Kogyae Strict Nature Reserve; F. Kalapka Resource Reserve. Angelici, F. M., Mahama, A. & Rossi, L., 2015. The lion in Ghana: its historical and current status. Animal BiodiversityFig. 1.and Mapa Conservation, del Á�rica occidental38.2: 151–162. con todas las zonas protegidas en las que se ha documentado la presencia del león según Henschel et al. (2014). Zonas protegidas en Ghana: A. Reserva de Recursos The designde Gbele;and printing B. Parque of this Nacional document de Mole; was C.made Parque possible Nacional by the de generousBui; �. Parque support Nacional of the deAmerican �igya; E.People throughReserva the United Natural States de AgencyKogyae forStrict; International F. Reserva Developmentde Recursos de (USAID), Kalapka. under the West Africa Biodiversity and Climate Change (WA BiCC) Program. The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government

Hippotragus equinus, Kobus , Syncerus ca��er, 2002) according to the formula: Alcelaphus buselaphus) (DPR); (v) land use (LNU); AIC = −2 log Likelihood + 2K and (vi) elevation (m a.s.l.) (ELE). In addition, we re- corded the same independent variables for 100 ran- where n depicts effective sample size, and K is the dom points (also with a 100 m radius) within MNP. A number of parameters (= number of variables + 1 to logistic regression modelling approach was applied include the intercept (Sugiura, 1978). to lion presence/absence (Hosmer & Lemeshow, The relative performance of alternative models was 1989) using a backward stepwise model (Luiselli, measured using the delta AIC: 2006) and the Von Bertalannfy growth function ∆AIC = AICi – min AIC (Von Bertalannfy, 1934, 1938, 1951, 1964). In these models, lion presence/absence was the dependent where AICi is the AIC value for model i, and min AIC is variable, and the six above–mentioned variables the AIC value of the best fitting model. Hence, the diffe- were the covariates. These techniques are powerful rences between the AIC scores of the various models analytical tools that can analyse the effects of one (∆AIC) provides a measure of the relative reliability of or several independent variables, both discrete and the competing models. The advantage of this appro- continuous, on a dichotomous dependent variable ach is that it allows the various competing models to (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989; Teixeira et al., 2001). be ranked according to their relative likelihood and is In addition, logistic regression models rely on fewer not dependent on a threshold value (α–level, Vapnik, statistical assumptions than their alternatives and ge- 2000). The AIC penalizes the addition of parameters, nerally produce robust results (Teixeira et al., 2001). and thus selects a model using a minimum number Independence was assessed when r2 < 0.58 (Hosmer of parameters according to the principle of simplicity & Lemeshow, 1989; Arntzen & Alexandrino, 2004). and parsimony (Akaike, 1973); therefore, the models To determine whether the probability of lion pre- with the lowest ∆AIC were selected. sence in relation to the studied covariates was best Starting in 2012, we conducted night sessions described by backward stepwise logistic regression (from about 9 pm to 1 am) along some random paths, or by the Von Bertalannfy growth function, we relied listening for any possible lion roars. We conducted two on a model–selection approach based on the Akaike night sessions in May 2012, 2 in March–April 2013, Information criterion (AIC) (Burnham & Anderson, and 2 in February 2014.