GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS IN PIAN UPE WILDLIFE RESERVE KARAMOJA,

Report by F. E. Kisame, F. Wanyama, E. Buhanga and A. Rwetsiba Uganda Wildlife Authority 2018

I UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS IV ABSTRACT V 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND SURVEYS 1 1.2. THE OBJECTIVES FOR THE SURVEY WERE: 1 2.0 SURVEY AREA AND METHODS 2.1. LOCATION OF THE SURVEY AREA: 2 2.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEY AREA 2 2.3. METHOD (FOOT - TRANSECT SURVEY) 3 2.3.1. Survey design 3 2.3.2. Data collection 3 3.0 RESULTS 5 3.1. DISTRIBUTION 6 3.1.1. Direct observations 6 3.1.2. Distribution of carnivore species by spoors in Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve 11 3.1.3. Distribution of buffalo and topi by spoors in Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve 12 3.2. HUMAN ACTIVITIES 12 3.2.1. Distribution of settlements and cultivation activities in PUWR 14 4.0 DISCUSSION Roan equinus 16 Mountain Redunca fulvorufula 16 16 Bushbucks scriptus 16 Bohor’s Reedbuck Redunca redunca 16 Waterbuck ellipsiprymnus ssp. defassa 16 Zebra 17 Oreotragus oreotragus 17 Eland Tragelaphus 17 Alcelaphus buselaphus 17 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0 REFERENCES 20 7.0 APPENDICES 21 Appendix I. Teams preparing to start the survey 21

II GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Uganda showing the location of Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (2018). 3 Figure 2. Map showing the survey design of Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve 5 Figure 3. Distribution of buffalo, Bright gazelle, bushbuck and hartebeest. 7 Figure 4. Distribution of eland, ostrich, reedbuck and Mountain reedbuck. 8 Figure 5. Distribution of Roan antelope, topi, and Uganda 9 Figure 6. Distribution of Klipspringer, bush , waterbuck and zebra. 10 Figure 7. Distribution of baboons, patas and vervet monkeys. 11 Figure 8. Distribution of cheetah, hunting dog and leopard. 12 Figure 9. Distribution of topi and buffalo signs. 13 Figure 10. Distribution of cattle (left) and cattle grazing signs (right) in PUWR 14 Figure 11. Distribution of Poaching signs 15 Figure 12. Distribution of settlements (left) and cultivation signs (right) in PUWR 16 TABLES Table 1: shows density and population of wild 6 Table 2: Species with few encounters 6 PLATES Plate 1. Cattle grazing in PUWR 13 Plate 2. Cattle kraal in PUWR 13 Plate 3. Poaching materials used in PUWR 14 Plate 4. Reedbuck carcass 15

III UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

LIST OF ACRONYMS GIS Geographical Information Systems GMP General Management Plan GPS Global Positioning System PA Protected Area PUWR Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority

IV GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

ABSTRACT Information on wild population in PianUpe Wildlife Reserve (PUWR) has been inadequate for decades and this report presents the first ever high intensity ground truthing information. The increase in species observations manifest that PUWR is a biodiversity “hotspot” for Uganda and the world. The survey was to generate informa- tion on the population for medium to large mammals in PUWR as well as the distribution patterns for monitoring purposes. The foot-transect survey was conducted in March during the dry season. The transects were generated using DISTANCE software and the population data analysis was done using the same. The reserve had diverse wildlife species in terms of occurrence and the following species were recorded during the count; buffalo, , eland, Dik-dik, cheetah, oribi, topi, Roan , Uganda kob, zebra, waterbucks, patas monkeys, Mountain , kilpspringer, Bright’s gazelle, bushbuck, Bohor’s reedbuck, Bush , , Vervets, baboon, ostrich, bush pig, Hunting dog, cheetah, leopard, and the African hare. In order of abundance, oribi’s (4,261) were the most abundant mammal species recorded followed by Bohor’s reedbuck (838), hartebeest (786), eland (760), waterbuck (659), Roan antelope (190), warthog (172), Mountain reedbuck (163) and Bush duiker (115) in order of reducing population. The diverse wildlife species, translates into a high potential for tourism and other wildlife based enterprises. Challenges of uncontrolled cattle grazing and poaching were still evident in the reserve and could continue to pose threats to the wildlife resources in the reserve if not tackled. There is need to strengthen law enforcement to avert illegal human activities detrimental to the well- being of wildlife. Develop infrastructure such as roads and trails to improve accessibility within the reserve’s inte- rior to allow for timely deployment of staff on patrol to control illegal activities as well the accessibility could facilitate tourism activities such as game drives, bird watching and nature walks. There is also need to encourage conservation management enterprises that improve relations with communities to promote conservation. Lobby stakeholders to provide for water points outside the reserve to limit cattle incursions in the PA. The General Man- agement Plan (GMP) for PUWR was developed but its implementation is not felt at the moment. There is need to implement the zoning system as enshrined in the GMP. There is need to continue sensitizing communities about the importance of wildlife to narrow the knowledge gap; this will promote sustainable management of wildlife resources in the reserve now and in the future. Because of the diverse wildlife species and the increasing mammal population, this report concurs with the former recommendations made in 1995/1996 to upgrade part of Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve to national park status.

V UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

1.0 INTRODUCTION Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (PUWR) the largest wildlife reserve; is also the second largest protected area in Uganda. Its integrity had been ruined by decades of lawlessness driven by “warrior” cattle rustlers. With the current peace in the area after the disarmament, PUWR has witnessed a surge in activities. However, PUWR still faces chal- lenges such as, cattle grazing and poaching. Poaching was mainly observed in the central and the western side of the reserve whereas grazing was observed in the entire reserve. There were more cattle recorded than any other animals in the reserve. Interestingly, there were more species observations recorded during this ground survey compared to the pre- vious ground survey conducted in 2012 (Kisame 2014). The increase in observations is a clear manifestation that PUWR is a tourism “hotspot” for Uganda and the international communities. The information generated further signifies the importance of the survey and the need for high sampling intensi- ties while undertaking surveys of this nature. The case in point is that the 2012 survey had a lower sampling inten- sity due to limited resources and could not adequately be used to determine the species abundances required for assessment of management efforts in conservation of PUWR. However, the 2012 survey provided baseline information on human activities that proved a threat to the wild animals therein and the need for a high intensity sampling also. This information was very useful in the management planning for PUWR. Nevertheless, there were also issues of concern with regard to the populations of wild animals in concession areas and the re-designing of this particular survey was one of the mechanisms to address the concern in PUWR. Therefore, the 2018 ground survey was designed to provide a high ground sampling intensity meant to bridge the information gap on wild animal species for management decision making, species monitoring and assessing the population trends. Aware, that PUWR has various vegetation types that range from grassland, bush land and woodland. Thus, a com- bination of survey methods would provide good information for management. However, there are challenges associated with these methods. For example, while the aerial survey would provide information on mammal species in a short time over a large area, it may not be useful in woodlands where the tree canopy obstruct obser- vations. Using GIS support and modern navigation methods, foot-transect surveys can be effective in providing accurate data on woodland herbivore populations even in large study areas (Waltert et al 2008). Primary data (from aerial and transect counts) that involve direct species observations, although very expensive, are required for establishing the status of the target species in terms of density or population size (Msoffe et al, 2007). This survey was carried out from 03rd to 19th of March 2018. In line with the Annual Operation Plan 2017-2018 and the general survey programme that require a periodic review on species population size, abundance and distribu- tion. The exercise was solely funded by Uganda Wildlife Authority. 1.1. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND SURVEYS Estimates of the number of animals in an area are needed for understanding the species dynamics and for man- agement .Management often bases decisions on estimates of animal density and population size (O’kane and Macdonald 2014). Wildlife surveys/censuses are key to generating useful information about the status in terms of numbers and distribution of wildlife as well as the threats to the species habitat. Reliable assessments of large mammal population sizes are crucial for the management of wildlife areas (Waltert et al, 2008). 1.2. THE OBJECTIVES FOR THE SURVEY WERE: 1. To generate information on population estimates for medium to large mammals in PUWR 2. To generate information on the spatial distribution of medium to large mammals. 3. To provide information for monitoring animal species.

1 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

2.0 SURVEY AREA AND METHODS 2.1. LOCATION OF THE SURVEY AREA: Figure 1. Map of Uganda showing the location of Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (2018).

2.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEY AREA The survey area was Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (Figure 1). The reserve was gazetted as a game reserve in 1964 and forms part of the Karamoja wildlife reserves that include the Bokora and Matheniko. PUWR is located between 340 14’ to 340 48’E and 010 32’ to 020 15’N within Nakapiripirit District in Eastern Uganda and covers an area of 2,043 sq. Km. It is separated from Mt. Elgon National Park by the traditional grazing grasslands of the Sabiny people of Kap- chorwa District which is also a controlled hunting area (UWA, 1996). It is neighbor to Kween, Bulambuli, Bukedea, Kumi, Katakwi, Amudat and Napak Districts.

2 UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

2.3. METHOD (FOOT - TRANSECT SURVEY) 2.3.1. Survey design The Transects were made using the DISTANCE software. The program calculated the start and end coordinates that were uploaded in the GPS units to aid in navigation during the survey. A total of 153 transects each measuring approximately 4.03 Kilometers long and spaced at 2km intervals were covered (Figure 2). It was assumed that at any given time, the wild animals in the survey area are evenly distributed. But this is not the reality mainly because of irregular dispersion of animals in relation to availability and distribution of the natural resources thus, implying that the temporal and spatial distribution of animals at any one time is not the same.

2.3.2. Data collection Ten survey teams, each headed by a competent team leader in using Distance sampling walked along the tran- sects each day to collect data. Waypoints were uploaded on to the GPS to ease identification of the start and end points of each transect during census (Figure 2). Each team collected data in the morning hours between 07:00 AM and 12:30 AM. To ease movement of census teams to the starting point of each transect, vehicles were used but most of the area was inaccessible due to lack of roads. Thus, the teams had to travel long distances to access the transects. While at the starting point of each transect, the census teams walked quietly in a straight line from north to the south direction with the aid of a compass to show the direction and a GPS for marking the coordinates used for geo-referencing. Each individual or a group of mammals sighted were recorded and their perpendicular distances from each transect to the individual or the centre of the animal group was recorded using a range finder. Binoculars were used to provide for clear observations and estimations of species at a distance. Spoors were also recorded as opportunistic observations for determination of wild animal absence or presence in the survey area and for future research. The data collected was recorded on specially designed data sheets and entered into an excel spread sheet preparing it for cleaning and analysis.

3 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

Figure 2. Map showing the survey design of Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve

4 UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

3.0 RESULTS The following mammal species were recorded during the survey; Bush duiker, eland, hartebeest, Mountain reed- buck, reedbuck, oribi, Roan antelope, warthog, waterbuck, buffalo, bushbuck, Uganda kob, topi, zebra, Dik-dik, Bright’s gazelle, klipspringer and baboons. Oribi’s (4,261) were the most abundant mammal species recorded followed by reedbuck (838), hartebeest (786), eland (760), waterbuck (659), Roan antelope (190), warthog (172), Mountain reedbuck (163), bushbuck (115) in order of reducing populations (Table 1). However, cattle had the highest numbers among all animals recorded in PUWR. Table 1: shows density and population of wild animals SPECIES DENSITY POPULATION ESTIMATE SE 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL LCL UCL Bush duiker 1.2 115 17 87 153 Cattle 54.2 24,405 6,340 14,741 40,406 Dik dik 0.9 813 266 433 1,526 Eland 1.8 790 271 409 1,527 Hartebeest 2.0 786 130 568 1,087 Mountain reedbuck 1.1 163 42 99 268 Oribi 5.7 4,261 630 3,192 5,688 Ostrich 0.5 59 12 40 87 Reedbuck 1.4 838 151 589 1,193 Roan 0.7 190 100 70 514 Warthog 0.9 172 53 95 312 Waterbuck 1.6 659 275 298 1,457 The Buffalo, bushbuck, Uganda kob, topi, zebra and baboons whose encounters were few and could not be anal- ysed with DISTANCE is given (Table 2). The Buffalo (159), had the highest encounter followed by baboons (116), topi (64), Uganda kob (26), zebra (24), bushbuck (12) and Bright’s gazelle (6) in order of reducing population encoun- ters (Table 2). Table 2: Species with few encounters

SPECIES ENCOUNTER POPULATION Baboons 4 116 Buffalo 12 159 Bushbuck 10 12 Kob 14 26 Topi 7 64 Zebra 11 24 Bright’s gazelle 6

5 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

3.1. DISTRIBUTION 3.1.1. Direct observations The distribution of species as recorded during the survey is given (Figures 3 to 7) Figure 3. Distribution of buffalo, Bright gazelle, bushbuck and hartebeest.

6 UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

Figure 4. Distribution of eland, ostrich, reedbuck and Mountain reedbuck.

7 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

Figure 5. Distribution of Roan antelope, topi, oribi and Uganda kob

8 UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

Figure 6. Distribution of Klipspringer, bush pig, waterbuck and zebra.

9 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

Figure 7. Distribution of baboons, patas and vervet monkeys.

10 UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

3.1.2. Distribution of carnivore species by spoors in Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve The carnivore action plan 2010-2020 provides for monitoring of carnivore ranges. In this survey we document PUWR as one of the home ranges for carnivore species such as, cheetah, leopard spotted hyena and surprisingly, the hunting dogs (Figure 8). Figure 8. Distribution of cheetah, hunting dog and leopard.

11 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

3.1.3. Distribution of buffalo and topi by spoors in Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve Discussions on presence or absence and possible numbers of buffalo and topi in PUWR have arisen. The encoun- ters of these species was recorded for monitoring purposes of their ranging areas as documented. The spoor distribution of topi and buffalo is given (Figure 9) Figure 9. Distribution of topi and buffalo signs.

3.2. HUMAN ACTIVITIES During the ground survey the following opportunistic observations were made: They include; cattle grazing due to presence of cattle and kraals (Plates 1 and 2) and (Figure 10) Plate 1. Cattle grazing in PUWR Plate 2. Cattle kraal in PUWR

12 UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

Figure 10. Distribution of cattle (left) and cattle grazing signs (right) in PUWR

and poaching due to presence of thorn traps used for trapping wild animals, carcass and roasted meat for reed- buck, jerryicans used for ferrying waragi, and water, and saucepans confiscated from poachers (Plates 3 and 4) and (Figure 11). Plate 3. Poaching materials used in PUWR

13 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

Figure 11. Distribution of Poaching signs

Plate 4. Reedbuck carcass

3.2.1. Distribution of settlements and cultivation activities in PUWR Settlements and cultivation activities were recorded mainly in Nabwal areas along Napak hills north of the reserve. Cultivation activities were recorded in namalu sub-county (Figure 12).

14 UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

Figure 12. Distribution of settlements (left) and cultivation signs (right) in PUWR

15 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

4.0 DISCUSSION From the survey results Oribi’s (4,261) were the most abundant mammal species recorded followed by reedbuck (838), hartebeest (786), eland (760), waterbuck (659), Roan antelope (190), warthog (172), Mountain reedbuck (163), bush duiker (115) in order of reducing populations (Table 1). A study of the migratory behavior of some open plain species in Karamoja conducted in 1970/71 indicates that Zebra, topi and eland emigrate from Pian-Upe wild- life reserve to Matheniko/Bokora wildlife reserve at the onset of the wet season (MTWA 1995-1996).

Roan antelope Hippotragus equinus Roan Antelopes were recorded in the southern part of PUWR. The roans formerly occurred widely in the woodlands and grasslands of sub-Saharan Africa, but were eliminated from large parts of its former range. The Roan Antelope has been eliminated from large parts of its former range because of poaching and loss of habitat to the expansion of settlement and agriculture (Chardonnet and Crosmary 2013, cited in IUCN 2018).

Mountain reedbuck Redunca fulvorufula Mountain reedbuck were recorded mainly in areas surrounding the hills in PUWR. It occurs on rocky hillsides in the centre and south of , including the Aberdares, and in Uganda in eastern Karamoja. The main threats to Chanler’s Mountain Reedbuck include the expansion of human settlement, poaching, widespread disturbance by cattle herders and their livestock, and hunting by dogs (Avenant 2013, cited in IUCN 2018). In PUWR a density of 1.1/ km2 was registered. lrby 1977, cited in IUCN 2018) reported a density of 4.9/km² of Chanler’s Mountain Reedbuck on ranchland in Kenya’s Rift Valley.

Gazelle were recorded in the southern part of PUWR. N. (g.) notata (Bright’s Gazelle) is distributed from north- east Uganda to southern Somalia with a range that surrounds Lake Turkana and extends across the very arid regions of northern Kenya. A belt of uplands and forest is thought to have separated Grant’s Gazelle from Bright’s Gazelle. The species as a whole remains widespread within and outside protected areas, despite the loss of parts of its range to the expansion of agriculture and the decline of some populations because of poaching and com- petition with increasing numbers of livestock (IUCN 2018).

Bushbucks Tragelaphus scriptus The southern part of PUWR is where bushbucks were recorded most. In this survey bushbuck encounters were small that they could not be with DISTANCE software. However, bushbucks can reach high densities in localized favorable habitats. For example, in Nairobi National Park in Kenya, 78 resident bushbuck individuals were identi- fied within a 2.6 km2 area of open forest giving a population density of 30/km2 (East 1999, cited in IUCN 2018)

Bohor’s Reedbuck Redunca redunca They were recorded in the central, western, southern and in the northern part of the reserve. The reedbucks regis- tered a population density of 1.4/km2. The numbers are in gradual decline over most of its remaining range, apart from some protected areas in East Africa (IUCN 2018).

Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus ssp. defassa Waterbucks were recorded only in the southern part of PUWR within the riverine woodland along River Girik and Loporokocho swamps. Defassa Waterbuck inhabits savanna woodlands and forest-savanna mosaics near per-

16 UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

manent water (East 1999, cited in IUCN 2018). This survey registered a density of 1.6/km2. Elsewhere ground surveys have provided density estimates of the order 0.4-1.5/km² in areas where the species is common (IUCN 2018).

Zebra Zebras were recorded in the southern part of the reserve near Napeded areas and along River Girik. A population of 24 individuals was registered in PUWR contrary to Zwick et al. 1998 assertion that Plains Zebras were locally extinct in Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve, from over 2,000 in 1968. Plains Zebra is listed as Near Threatened as it is close to qualifying for Vulnerable under A2a+3c+4ac (IUCN 2018). The quagga was driven to in the late 19th century by overhunting and competition with livestock (IUCN 2018). There is need for research on Zebras in PUWR

Klipspringer Oreotragus oreotragus were recorded in the southern part of the reserve around Napeded hills area in PUWR. However, the encounters were small for analysis with DISTANCE. Occurrence is confined to rocky and mountainous areas, both contiguous areas of habitat, and also isolated outcrops (Roberts 2013, cited in IUCN 2018).

Eland Tragelaphus oryx The eland were recorded in the southern part of PUWR. In Uganda elands are found in Lake Mburo N.P, Kidepo Valley N.P and PianUpe Wildlife Reserve. In PUWR density estimates of 1.8/km2 was registered. Higher density estimates (0.6-1.0/km²) have been obtained in areas such as Omo National Park (N.P.) in Ethiopia and Nyika N.P. in Malawi(Thouless 2013, cited in IUCN 2018).

Hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus Hartebeests were typically recorded in the southern part of PUWR. The distribution equally followed the same trend (Figures 3 to 7). River Girik forms the southern boundary of PUWR. This could be the reason for the high concentrations during the dry season but also it could be due to the grazing pressure from cattle as they compete for pasture and water. The abundance results for all species recorded during the survey conducted in 2012 were small for the analysis using DISTANCE software and so the results were presented as indices of abundance. The few encounters could have been because of the survey design ( low sampling intensity) due to limited resources. This partly prompted a change in the survey design used in 2018. Similarly, the 2018 survey also recorded a small number of encounters for buffalo, bushbuck, Uganda kob, topi, zebra and baboons which could not be analysed in DISTANCE because their existence was characterised by few localised individuals. However, there was a general increase in species sightings in 2018 when compared to the survey conducted in 2012. Topi, bushbucks, buffalo and Mountain reedbucks were recorded in 2018 compared to the survey conducted in 2012; where no sightings were recorded using the same line transect method (Figure 14). The distribution and abundance of wild animals was higher in the southern part than any other part of the reserve in agreement with previous aerial surveys conducted by Lamprey and Michelmore in 1995 and 1996 that identified small but important numbers of wildlife still using the south of the Sebei CHA with the and zebra reported to have become extinct in Pian-Upe since 1995. The presence of hunting dog, cheetah and leopard species add to the species richness of the reserve. This implies that in Uganda the cheetah and hunting dogs in the wild are found exclusively in the protected areas of PUWR, KVNP and areas outside the protected areas in the Karamoja land- scape contrary to earlier reports that hunting dogs had become extinct in Uganda. However, their presence in some of the protected areas is a conservation concern. The trend in observation and the variations thereafter, could be attributed to the high sampling intensity used in this survey and the decline in lawlessness in Karamoja.

17 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

Poaching is still a challenge in PUWR (Plates 3 and 4) and (Figure 11). We recorded a carcass and roasted meat for reedbuck as well as the thorn traps confiscated from poachers as evidence for poaching in PUWR. However, the level of poaching has been on the decline when you compare it with records for a baseline survey conducted in 2012 where 16 wire snares, 2 (15kg) metal traps, 311 thorn traps, 17 spears, 9 bows and arrows and 3 bullet shells were recorded in the reserve (Kisame 2014). Poaching is known for its negative impact on animal numbers. As evidenced in PUWR, the uncontrolled human activities are the limiting factors in the survival of large ungu- lates (Kisame 2014). Poaching during the time of insurgency led to a decline in numbers of species (Lamprey and Michelmore 1996). The drivers to the poaching vice could be due to poverty and partly because the meat from wild animals is a cheap source for proteins. Weber et al (2001) noted that the search for additional protein sources has exercabated poaching activities in the reserve. Andy (2013) observed that the removal of fauna from an area due to poaching flows from the immediate impact of killing an existing animal, the medium term effect of reducing breeding numbers and hence the rate of reproduction, and the long term effects of thinning the gene pool and the symbiotic- and often irreversible – impact this has on overall biodiversity. Andy (2013) further noted that in additional to the drop of animal populations, poaching affects ecosystems. Natural ecosystems often develop a rather delicate balance between different types of fauna and their local habitat. Cattle presence still manifests itself in the reserve. There was an estimated 24,405 heads of cattle in the reserve (Table 1) compared to the 12,225 counted in 2012. Over the years cattle grazing in PUWR has become the biggest challenge and continues to be a nightmare to the reserve management. With the General Management Plan (2013- 2023) it was envisaged that the creation of zones (i.e. Tourism, community resource use, water access, admin- istrative and wilderness zones) was to regulate resource access in the reserve and minimise conflict. However, implementation of the zoning system is still very weak. There are no observed signs for its implementation thus, cattle continue to wonder all over the reserve (Figure 10). UWA Act Cap 200 of 2000 condemns introduction of domestic animals in conservation areas. Mishara et al (2003) also noted that the growing numbers in livestock populations create an overlap of diets and forage competition with wild herbivores, resulting in overgrazing and decline or in wild herbivore populations.

18 UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve is an important wildlife area with a diverse number of animal species. The improvement in species observations demonstrates that PUWR is a tourism and biodiversity “hotspot” for Uganda and the world. The change in the survey design provided information that management can depend on to make informed decisions and will provide the basis for future surveys in PUWR. The distribution and abundance of wild animals was higher in the southern part than any other part of the reserve. Therefore, the southern part of PUWR is an area of great importance. The anthropogenic factors recorded were a threat not only to the survival of animals therein but also to the changes in distributions for sensitive species such as the roans.

Measures to conserve: 1. Encourage conservation management enterprises that improve relations with the communities and mini- mize human-wildlife conflicts. 2. are now in PUWR but there is also need to translocate zebras to PUWR whose population has re- mained small for decades. The translocation of zebras could also help to minimize Human-Wildlife Conflicts being caused by the increasing zebra populations in the Mburo ranches and rampant zebra-vehicle collisions as they cross the road. 3. Provide timely intelligence information to avert illegal activities before they happen in PUWR. 4. Strengthen community awareness protocols in PUWR. 5. Implement the zoning management system as per the General Management Plan for Pian Upe Wildlife Re- serve. 6. Research on zebras in PUWR whose numbers have remained relatively small for decades is needed to ascer- tain the limiting factors 7. There is need to upgrade the southern part of PUWR into a National Park to better protect the wild animal species 8. There is need for genetic research on gazelles in PUWR and the neighbouring areas. Acknowledgement We thank UWA for funding this activity. Great thanks go out to all the staff from MECA, and the Kampala based Ecological Monitoring and Research Unit staff, who endured the long walks, and the harsh environment to make the activity a success. .

19 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

6.0 REFERENCES Andy (2013). The problem of poaching. International anti-poaching foundation. Available at https// the problem of poaching.wordpress.com downloaded on 17th May, 2018 at 1300hrs. BUCKLAND, S.T., ANDERSON, D.R., BURNHAM, K.P., & LAAKE, J.K (1993): Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman & Hall, London & New York. Kisame, F.E (2014). The status and distribution of large ungulates in Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve, Uganda. Un published MSc. Dissertation, Makerere University, Kampala. Lamprey, R. H. & Michelmore, F. (1996). Surveys of Protected Areas Phase 1: Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities, Kampala. Ogutu, J. O., Piepho, H. P., Reid, R. S., Rainy, M. E., Kruska, R. L., Worden, J. S., Nyabenge, M., Hobbs,N. T. (2010). “Large herbivore responses to water and Settlements in ” Ecological monographs 80 (2):241-266. Weber, W., Lee, W. J. T., Vedder, A. & Lisa Naughton-Treves. (2001). African Rain Forest Ecology and Conservation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Yale University Press, New Haven & London. M. Waltert, B. Meyer, M. W. Shanyangi, J. J. Balozi, O. Kitwara, S. Qolli, H. Krischke and M. Mühlenberg (2008) Foot Surveys of Large Mammals in Woodlands of Western . Journal of Wildlife Management 72(3):603-610. Published by: The Wildlife Society Msoffe, F., Mturi, F.A., Galanti, V. (2007) Comparing data of different survey methods for sustainable wildlife management in hunting areas: the case of Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem, northern Tanzania. 53: 112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-006-0078-7, Springer-Verlag O’Kane, C. A. J., Page, B. R. and Macdonald, D. W. (2014), Conducting animal censuses amongst abrupt topography; a GIS-based alternative to Distance. Austral Ecology, 39: 848–854. doi:10.1111/aec.12153 Norton-Griffiths, M. 1978. Counting animals. Handbook No. 1: ecological monitoring programme. Second edition. African Wildlife Foundation, Afropress. Nairobi, Kenya. IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group. 2016. granti. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T8971A50186774. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T8971A50186774.en. Downloaded on 13 August 2018. http://www.iucnredlist.org IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group. 2017. Hippotragus equinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T10167A50188287.http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-2.RLTS.T10167A50188287.en.Downloaded on 13 August 2018. http://www.iucnredlist.org IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group. 2017. Kobus ellipsiprymnus ssp. defassa. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T11040A50190098. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-2.RLTS.T11040A50190098. en. Downloaded on 13 August 2018. http://www.iucnredlist.org King, S.R.B. & Moehlman, P.D. 2016. Equus quagga. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41013A45172424. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T41013A45172424.en. Downloaded on 13 August 2018. http://www.iucnredlist.org IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group. 2016. Tragelaphus oryx (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22055A115166135. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS. T22055A50196938.en. Downloaded on 13 August 2018. http://www.iucnredlist.org

20 UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

7.0 APPENDICES

Appendix I. Teams preparing to start the survey

21 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018

22 UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

Uganda Wildlife Authority 7 Kira Road Kamwokya P.O.Box, Kampala Uganda Tel: +256 414 355 000 Fax: +256 414 546 291 Email: [email protected] facebook,.com/ugandawildlifeauthority twitter.com/ugandawildlife

23