DOCSLIB.ORG

Malelane Safari Lodge, Kruger National Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Malelane Safari Lodge, Kruger National Park INVERTEBRATE SPECIALIST REPORT Prepared For: Malelane Safari Lodge, Kruger National Park Dalerwa Ventures for Wildlife cc P. O. Box 1424 Hoedspruit 1380 Fax: 086 212 6424 Cell (Elize) 074 834 1977 Cell (Ian): 084 722 1988 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 3 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Safari Lodge Development .................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Invertebrate Specialist Report ............................................................................................................... 5 2.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 8 3. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 10 4. DATA SOURCING ....................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 DESKTOP STUDY .............................................................................................................................................. 12 4.1.1 Arachnids ............................................................................................................................................. 13 4.1.2 Insects .................................................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 SITE VISIT ....................................................................................................................................................... 23 5. SITE SENSITIVITY........................................................................................................................................ 24 5.1 TIMFENHENI RIVER LOCATION . ........................................................................................................................... 25 6. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................... 26 6.1 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................... 26 7. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. .......................................................................................................... 30 8. CONCLUSION. ............................................................................................................................................ 34 9. PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS .......................................................................................................................... 35 10. REFERENCES. ........................................................................................................................................... 36 APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................................. 37 APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................................................. 40 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................................................... 40 Invertebrate Specialist Report Malelane Safari Lodge 2 1. Executive Summary When considering the impact of a listed activity in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 0f 1998) one should take a step back to the second chapter of the Bill of Rights. Section 24b (Environment) states that “Everyone has the right to have an environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that - i. prevent pollution and ecological degradation; ii. promote conservation; and iii. secure ecological sustainable development and the use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.’ According to Henning (2001a) these statements from the constitution make individuals and corporations responsible for their actions and accountable to the nation. To promote a system of environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to or within protected areas the concept of what constitutes a protected area needs to be addressed (Henning, 2001b).Even though protected areas are key to in situ conservation under the Convention on Biological Diversity they are unlikely to be sustainable if established or managed in isolation. A systems approach is therefore required, which focuses on relationships between component parts and the broader implications of actions related to individual components. In some areas there is evidence of long standing focus on relatively large or otherwise attractive wildlife species leading to too much attention on charismatic wildlife and not enough on habitats and communities. The implementation of a new development requires impact assessments to be undertaken and mitigation applied where impacts on the environment may be considered harmful. Where mitigation measures are insufficient, the implementation of the development may be in jeopardy. The process of determining whether any components of the invertebrate groups of organisms may be affected by the development in question at the proposed Malelane Safari Lodge commences at a baseline level i.e. historically protected species. The desktop study indicated that there may be certain ‘Threatened or Protected Species’ present on the site but the serious lack of baseline data or comprehensive long-term data on most of the invertebrate groups at the particular site precludes conclusive results. On a ‘lower’ level consideration of the habitat requirements of the invertebrate organisms can be investigated and compared to the habitat within the Invertebrate Specialist Report Malelane Safari Lodge 3 development footprint. Where the required habitat is restricted and not commonly available, mitigation would be difficult. In this case , the habitat is well represented in the region and cannot be considered a threat to any invertebrate organism through ‘habitat losses’. Food sources may be a limiting factor especially to invertebrate organisms that are reliant on specific plant species to complete a part of the lifecycle (i.e. Lepidoptera) and therefore ensure their survival. As the vegetation type is well represented, it is assumed due to lack of detailed floristic data, that this aspect would not be problematic. Other groups that are predatory are also considered to be secure due to the fact that no essential habitat or food source required for their survival is lacking in adjacent areas or further afield. Factors that may have detrimental effects on local populations of any invertebrate group during both the construction and operational phases of the development are mentioned as they could eradicate or adversely affect viable local populations. The impact of pollution in the form of spills of toxic substances or airborne detrimental chemicals (poisons) may impact on both terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. Destruction of microhabitats on the proposed site, such as the rocky outcrops, the drainage line embankment or rotting tree stumps may have an impact on certain invertebrates. Excessive lighting at night also warrants mention as invertebrates, which are active at night are drawn to such light sources. This study has been based on historical data and consultation with specialists and authors of publications on specific groups of invertebrates. Time constraints did not allow for extensive surveys do be done on the invertebrate groups of interest even to obtain baseline information. McGeoch, et al (2011) showed that in South Africa there are already several examples of invertebrates (a) being successfully inventoried, (b) having their conservation status assessed, (c) being used in conservation planning, and (d) being used as bioindicators in monitoring programmes. In the light of this a monitoring programme has been recommended to determine whether the development has impacted on, or continues to impact on the invertebrate populations at the specific site. Invertebrate Specialist Report Malelane Safari Lodge 4 2. Introduction 2.1 Description of Proposed Project 2.1.1 Safari Lodge Development The proposed development project located in the Malelane region of the Kruger National Park comprises the establishment of a four star 240-bed safari lodge, with its associated activities as described
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Archiv Für Naturgeschichte
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Archiv für Naturgeschichte Jahr/Year: 1905 Band/Volume: 71-2_2 Autor(en)/Author(s): Lucas Robert Artikel/Article: Arachnida für 1904. 925-993 © Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/; www.zobodat.at Arachnida fiir 1904. Bearbeitet von Dr. Robert Lucas. A. Publikationen (Autoren alphabetisch). d'Agostino, A. P. Prima nota dei Ragni deU'Avelliiiese. Avellino 1/8 4 pp. Banks, Nathan (1). Some spiders and mites from Bermuda Islands. Trans. Connect. Acad. vol. XI, 1903 p. 267—275. — {%), The Arachnida of Florida. Proc. Acad. Philad. Jan. 1904 p. 120—147, 2 pls. (VII u. VIII). — (3). Some Arachnida from CaUfornia. Proc. Californ. Acad. III No. 13. p. 331—374, pls. 38—41. — (4). Arachnida (in) Alaska; from the Harriman Alaska Ex- pedition vol. VIII p. 37—45, 11 pls. — Abdruck der Publikation von 1900 aus d. Proc. Washington Acad. vol. II p. 477—486. Berthoumieu, L' Abbe. Revision de l'entomologie dans 1' Antiquite. Arachnides p. 197—200 (Chelifer, Scorpiones, Galeodes, Aranea, Ixodes, Tyroglyphus et Cheyletus). Eev. Sei. Bourbonnais 1904, p. 167. Bolton, H. The Palaeontology of the Lancashire Goal Measures. Manchester. Mus. Owens Coli. Publ. 50. Mus. Handb. p. 378—415. — Abdruck aus Trans. Manchester geol. min. Soc. vol. 28. Brown, Rob. (I). Rectifications tardives mais necessaires. Proc- verb. Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, vol. 59 p. LXVIII—LXX. — Auch über Arachniden. Calman, W. T. Arachnida in Zool. Record for 1903 vol. XL. XI 47 pp. Cambridge, F. 0. Pickard. 1901. Further Contributions towards the Knowledge of the Arachnida of Epping Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Fasanbi SHOWCASE
    Threatened Species Monitoring PROGRAMME Threatened Species in South Africa: A review of the South African National Biodiversity Institutes’ Threatened Species Programme: 2004–2009 Acronyms ADU – Animal Demography Unit ARC – Agricultural Research Council BASH – Big Atlassing Summer Holiday BIRP – Birds in Reserves Project BMP – Biodiversity Management Plan BMP-S – Biodiversity Management Plans for Species CFR – Cape Floristic Region CITES – Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CoCT – City of Cape Town CREW – Custodians of Rare and Endangered Wildflowers CWAC – Co-ordinated Waterbird Counts DEA – Department of Environmental Affairs DeJaVU – December January Atlassing Vacation Unlimited EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment EMI – Environmental Management Inspector GBIF – Global Biodiversity Information Facility GIS – Geographic Information Systems IAIA – International Association for Impact Assessment IAIAsa – International Association for Impact Assessment South Africa IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature LAMP – Long Autumn Migration Project LepSoc – Lepidopterists’ Society of Africa MCM – Marine and Coastal Management MOA – memorandum of agreement MOU – memorandum of understanding NBI – National Botanical Institute NEMA – National Environmental Management Act NEMBA – National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act NGO – non-governmental organization NORAD – Norwegian Agency for Development Co–operation QDGS – quarter-degree grid square SABAP – Southern African Bird Atlas Project SABCA – Southern African
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Embrik Strand (Arachnida: Araneae) 22-29 Arachnologische Mitteilungen / Arachnology Letters 59: 22-29 Karlsruhe, April 2020
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Arachnologische Mitteilungen Jahr/Year: 2020 Band/Volume: 59 Autor(en)/Author(s): Nentwig Wolfgang, Blick Theo, Gloor Daniel, Jäger Peter, Kropf Christian Artikel/Article: How to deal with destroyed type material? The case of Embrik Strand (Arachnida: Araneae) 22-29 Arachnologische Mitteilungen / Arachnology Letters 59: 22-29 Karlsruhe, April 2020 How to deal with destroyed type material? The case of Embrik Strand (Arachnida: Araneae) Wolfgang Nentwig, Theo Blick, Daniel Gloor, Peter Jäger & Christian Kropf doi: 10.30963/aramit5904 Abstract. When the museums of Lübeck, Stuttgart, Tübingen and partly of Wiesbaden were destroyed during World War II between 1942 and 1945, also all or parts of their type material were destroyed, among them types from spider species described by Embrik Strand bet- ween 1906 and 1917. He did not illustrate type material from 181 species and one subspecies and described them only in an insufficient manner. These species were never recollected during more than 110 years and no additional taxonomically relevant information was published in the arachnological literature. It is impossible to recognize them, so we declare these 181 species here as nomina dubia. Four of these species belong to monotypic genera, two of them to a ditypic genus described by Strand in the context of the mentioned species descriptions. Consequently, without including valid species, the five genera Carteroniella Strand, 1907, Eurypelmella Strand, 1907, Theumella Strand, 1906, Thianella Strand, 1907 and Tmeticides Strand, 1907 are here also declared as nomina dubia. Palystes modificus minor Strand, 1906 is a junior synonym of P.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Basis of the Remarkable Species Selectivity of an Insecticidal
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Molecular basis of the remarkable species selectivity of an insecticidal sodium channel toxin from the Received: 03 February 2016 Accepted: 20 June 2016 African spider Augacephalus Published: 07 July 2016 ezendami Volker Herzig1,*, Maria Ikonomopoulou1,*,†, Jennifer J. Smith1,*, Sławomir Dziemborowicz2, John Gilchrist3, Lucia Kuhn-Nentwig4, Fernanda Oliveira Rezende5, Luciano Andrade Moreira5, Graham M. Nicholson2, Frank Bosmans3 & Glenn F. King1 The inexorable decline in the armament of registered chemical insecticides has stimulated research into environmentally-friendly alternatives. Insecticidal spider-venom peptides are promising candidates for bioinsecticide development but it is challenging to find peptides that are specific for targeted pests. In the present study, we isolated an insecticidal peptide (Ae1a) from venom of the African spider Augacephalus ezendami (family Theraphosidae). Injection of Ae1a into sheep blowflies (Lucilia cuprina) induced rapid but reversible paralysis. In striking contrast, Ae1a was lethal to closely related fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) but induced no adverse effects in the recalcitrant lepidopteran pest Helicoverpa armigera. Electrophysiological experiments revealed that Ae1a potently inhibits the voltage-gated sodium channel BgNaV1 from the German cockroach Blattella germanica by shifting the threshold for channel activation to more depolarized potentials. In contrast, Ae1a failed to significantly affect sodium currents in dorsal unpaired median neurons from the American cockroachPeriplaneta americana. We show that Ae1a interacts with the domain II voltage sensor and that sensitivity to the toxin is conferred by natural sequence variations in the S1–S2 loop of domain II. The phyletic specificity of Ae1a provides crucial information for development of sodium channel insecticides that target key insect pests without harming beneficial species.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Reports 2006
    KNP 15/1/2 - 06 Project Reports 2006 Scientific Reports on Research Projects undertaken in the Kruger National Park during 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS FELINE LENTIVIRUS: MOLECULAR ANALYSIS AND EPIDEMIOLOGY IN SOUTHERN AFRICAN LIONS ................................................................................. 13 Adams H .....................................................................................................................13 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION THROUGH PEOPLE CENTRED APPROACHES TO NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND THE CONTROL OF WILDLIFE EXPLOITATION........................................................................................................ 14 Algotsson EM ..............................................................................................................14 A REGIONAL SCALE PASSIVE MONITORING STUDY OF SULPHUR DIOXIDE (SO2), NITROGEN OXIDES (NOX) AND OZONE (O3) ........................................................ 15 Annegarn HJ ...............................................................................................................15 METAL ANALYSIS AND PHYSICO-CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FOUR MAJOR RIVER SYSTEMS THAT TRANSECT THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK (SOUTH AFRICA)..................................................................................................... 16 Barker HJ ....................................................................................................................16 TOWARDS A SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS VIEW OF THE SAND RIVER CATCHMENT, SOUTH AFRICA: A RESILIENCE ANALYSIS
    [Show full text]
  • Hypothesis of Eurypterid Palaeoecology
    Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 311 (2011) 63–73 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/palaeo Testing the ‘mass-moult-mate’ hypothesis of eurypterid palaeoecology Matthew B. Vrazo ⁎, Simon J. Braddy Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen's Road, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, UK article info abstract Article history: The eurypterids (Arthropoda: Chelicerata), some of the earliest arthropods to undertake amphibious Received 6 May 2011 excursions onto land, are generally rare in the fossil record, but are sometimes found in great abundance, for Received in revised form 16 July 2011 example in the Late Silurian Bertie Group of New York State. The mass-moult-mate hypothesis has been Accepted 29 July 2011 proposed to explain such occurrences, whereby eurypterids undertook mass migrations into near shore Available online 5 August 2011 settings and lagoons to moult, mate and spawn, similar to the behaviour of living horseshoe crabs. This hypothesis is tested using measurements from over 600 Eurypterus specimens from three localities in the Keywords: Arthropod Bertie Group; Eurypterus remipes, from the Fiddlers Green Formation, and the slightly larger Eurypterus Exuvia lacustris, from the overlying Williamsville Formation. Disarticulation patterns support previous evidence for Taphonomy moulted assemblages. A significant predominance of female exuviae is noted at each locality, unlike studies on Biofacies modern Limulus populations. Therefore, a modified mass-mate-spawn-moult hypothesis is proposed here: Silurian males returned to deeper waters after mating, whereas females, having mated, remained at the breeding sites Eurypterus to deposit their eggs before moulting. After hatching, eurypterid larvae and juveniles remained in these spawning grounds until they matured and could move to deeper water, in comparison with Limulus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spider Club News
    The Spider Club News Editor: Joan Faiola SEPTEMBER 2011 - Vol.27 #3 WEE RIGGER – A POEM IN SCOTS by Robert Menzies Banks Ye creep alang the skirting board You creep along the skirting board Ye scamper ower the flair You scamper over the floor Ye hide in wee dark corners You hide in small dark corners Pretending ye’re no there. Pretending you’re not there. Sic industrious wee craters, Such industrious little creatures Why are ye sae reviled? Why are you so reviled? Why dae Arachnid haters Why do Arachnid haters By yer presence feel sae riled? By your presence feel so riled? Ah ken mesel, Ah tend toward I know myself, I tend toward A certain admiration, A certain admiration For riggin skills, Ah wad award For rigging skills, I would award A very high citation. A very high citation. For ance Ah was a rigger tae, For once I was a rigger too, No aa that lang ago, Not all that long ago, Compared tae you, aa Ah kin say Compared to you all I can say Is, Ah was awfy slow! Is, I was very slow. Ye can rig baith stayer an braces, You can rig both stayer and braces, An anchor wi a tweek, And anchor with a tweak, Ye can feenish in twae meenits You can finish in two minutes Tegenaria sp. They are really not Whit wad take me, neer a week! What would take me near a week! so small! Photographed in Scotland I’m glad little beastie, you’re so Ah’m gled, wee Beastie, ye’re 21.9.2009 by Astri Leroy sae wee small For I would bet my shirt For Ah wad bet mah sark, That had you been as big as me That had ye been as big as me I’d have long been out of work.
    [Show full text]
  • Faunal Impact Assessment
    FAUNAL, FLORAL, WETLAND AND AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORISATION PROCESS FOR A PROPOSED COAL MINE ON THE REMAINING EXTENT OF THE FARM THE DUEL 186 MT, LIMPOPO PROVINCE Prepared for Jacana Environmentals CC May 2019 Section C: Faunal Assessment Prepared by: Scientific Terrestrial Services Report authors: J.J. du Plessis C. Hooton Report reviewer(s): K. Marais (Pr. Sci. Nat) S. van Staden (Pr Sci. Nat) Report Reference: STS 190011 Date: May 2019 Scientific Terrestrial Services CC CC Reg No 2005/122329/23 PO Box 751779 Gardenview 2047 Tel: 011 616 7893 Fax: 086 724 3132 E-mail: [email protected] STS 190011 - SECTION C: FAUNAL ASSESSMENT May 2019 DOCUMENT GUIDE The Document Guide below is for reference to the procedural requirements for environmental authorisation applications in accordance to GN267 of 24 March 2017, as it pertains to the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA); No. Requirement Section in report a) Details of - (i) The specialist who prepared the report Section A: Appendix D (ii) The expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae Section A: Appendix D b) A declaration that the specialist is independent Section A: Appendix D c) An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared Section 1 cA) An indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report Section A cB) A description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed Section
    [Show full text]
  • Arachnides 76
    Arachnides, 2015, n°76 ARACHNIDES BULLETIN DE TERRARIOPHILIE ET DE RECHERCHES DE L’A.P.C.I. (Association Pour la Connaissance des Invertébrés) 76 2015 0 Arachnides, 2015, n°76 LES PREDATEURS DES SCORPIONS (ARACHNIDA : SCORPIONES) G. DUPRE Dans leur revue sur les prédateurs de scorpions, Polis, Sissom & Mac Cormick (1981) relèvent 150 espèces dont essentiellement des espèces adaptées au comportement nocturne de leur proie (chouettes, rongeurs, carnivores nocturnes) mais également des espèces diurnes (lézards, rongeurs, carnivores....) qui débusquent les scorpions sous les pierres ou dans leurs terriers. Dans une précédente note (Dupré, 2008) nous avions effectué un relevé afin d'actualiser cette étude de 1981. Sept ans après, de nouvelles données sont présentées dans cette synthèse. Voici un nouveau relevé des espèces prédatrices. Nous ne faisons pas mention des scorpions qui feront l'objet d'un futur article traité avec le cannibalisme. Explication des tableaux: La première colonne correspond aux prédateurs, la seconde aux régions concernées et la troisième aux références. Dans la mesure du possible, les noms scientifiques ont été rectifiés en fonction des synonymies ou des nouvelles combinaisons appliquées depuis les dates de publication d'origine. ARTHROPODA ARACHNIDA SOLIFUGAE Solifugae Afrique du Nord Millot & Vachon, 1949; Punzo, 1998; Cloudsley-Thompson, 1977 Eremobates sp. USA Bradley, 1983 ARACHNIDA ARANEAE Acanthoscurria atrox Brésil Lourenço, 1981 Aphonopelma sp. et autres Amérique centrale Mazzotti, 1964 Teraphosidae Phormictopus auratus Cuba Teruel & De Armas, 2012 Brachypelma vagans Mexique Dor et al., 2011 Epicadus heterogaster Brésil Lourenço et al. 2006 Latrodectus sp. USA Baerg, 1961 L. hesperus USA Polis et al., 1981 L. mactans Cuba Teruel, 1996; Teruel & De Armas, 2012 L.
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2017/035099 Al 2 March 2017 (02.03.2017) P O P C T
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2017/035099 Al 2 March 2017 (02.03.2017) P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, C07C 39/00 (2006.01) C07D 303/32 (2006.01) DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, C07C 49/242 (2006.01) HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IR, IS, JP, KE, KG, KN, KP, KR, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, MG, (21) International Application Number: MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, OM, PCT/US20 16/048092 PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SA, SC, (22) International Filing Date: SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, TN, 22 August 2016 (22.08.2016) TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW. (25) Filing Language: English (84) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every kind of regional protection available): ARIPO (BW, GH, (26) Publication Language: English GM, KE, LR, LS, MW, MZ, NA, RW, SD, SL, ST, SZ, (30) Priority Data: TZ, UG, ZM, ZW), Eurasian (AM, AZ, BY, KG, KZ, RU, 62/208,662 22 August 2015 (22.08.2015) US TJ, TM), European (AL, AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LT, LU, (71) Applicant: NEOZYME INTERNATIONAL, INC.
    [Show full text]
  • A Check List of the Spider Fauna of the Western Soutpansberg, South Africa (Arachnida: Araneae)
    foord.qxd 2005/12/09 10:03 Page 35 A check list of the spider fauna of the Western Soutpansberg, South Africa (Arachnida: Araneae) S.H. FOORD, ANNA S. DIPPENAAR-SCHOEMAN and M. VAN DER MERWE Foord, S.H., Anna S. Dippenaar-Schoeman and M. van der Merwe. 2002. A check list of the spider fauna of the Western Soutpansberg, South Africa (Arachnida: Araneae). Koedoe 45(2): 35–43. Pretoria. ISSN 0075-6458. By virtue of its geological history and geographical location the Soutpansberg consti- tutes a refuge for a high diversity of organisms. The Western Soutpansberg forms part of the Savanna Biome and is presently the area with the highest concentration of Nat- ural Heritage Sites in South Africa. A unique private initiative is under way to improve its national and international conservation status in a bid to conserve the mountain. A checklist of the spider species of the Western Soutpansberg collected over a five-year period is presented. Forty-six families, represented by 109 genera and 127 species have been collected. Of the species collected, 81 (64 %) were wandering spiders and 46 (36 %) web builders. The Thomisidae have the highest number of species (15) followed by the Araneidae and the Salticidae with 10 species each. Ninety-six genera are repre- sented by a single species. Ninety six percent of the species collected are new records for the area. This survey is the first for the area and forms part of the South African National Survey of Arachnida (SANSA). Keywords: biodiversity, guilds, conservancy. S.H. Foord ( ) and M. van der Merwe, Department of Biological Sciences, Universi- ty of Venda, Thohoyandou, 0950, Republic of South Africa; Anna S.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened Species PROGRAMME Threatened Species: a Guide to Red Lists and Their Use in Conservation LIST of ABBREVIATIONS
    Threatened Species PROGRAMME Threatened Species: A guide to Red Lists and their use in conservation LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AOO Area of Occupancy BMP Biodiversity Management Plan CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EOO Extent of Occurrence IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature NEMA National Environmental Management Act NEMBA National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act NGO Non-governmental Organization NSBA National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment PVA Population Viability Analysis SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SANSA South African National Survey of Arachnida SIBIS SANBI's Integrated Biodiversity Information System SRLI Sampled Red List Index SSC Species Survival Commission TSP Threatened Species Programme Threatened Species: A guide to Red Lists and their use in conservation OVERVIEW The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List is a world standard for evaluating the conservation status of plant and animal species. The IUCN Red List, which determines the risks of extinction to species, plays an important role in guiding conservation activities of governments, NGOs and scientific institutions, and is recognized worldwide for its objective approach. In order to produce the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™, the IUCN Species Programme, working together with the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and members of IUCN, draw on and mobilize a network of partner organizations and scientists worldwide. One such partner organization is the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), who, through the Threatened Species Programme (TSP), contributes information on the conservation status and biology of threatened species in southern Africa.
    [Show full text]