Galago Moholi)

SPECIES DENSITY OF THE

SOUTHERN LESSER BUSHBABY (GALAGO MOHOLI)

AT LOSKOP DAM NATURE RESERVE, MPUMALANGA, SOUTH AFRICA,

WITH NOTES ON HABITAT PREFERENCE

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

MASTER OF ARTS

IAN S. RAY

DR. EVELYN BOWERS, CHAIRPERSON

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY

MUNCIE, INDIANA

MAY 2014

SPECIES DENSITY OF THE SOUTHERN LESSER BUSHBABY (GALAGO MOHOLI)

AT LOSKOP DAM NATURE RESERVE, MPUMALANGA, SOUTH AFRICA,

WITH NOTES ON HABITAT PREFERENCE

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

MASTER OF ARTS

IAN S. RAY

Committee Approval:

______Committee Chairperson Date

______Committee Member Date

Departmental Approval:

______Department Chairperson Date

______Dean of Graduate School Date

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY MUNCIE, INDIANA MAY 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT...... iii

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iv

3. LIST OF TABLES...... v

4. LIST OF FIGURES...... vi

5. LIST OF APPENDICES...... vii

6. INTRODUCTION...... 1

a. BACKGROUND AND THEORY...... 1

b. LITERATURE REVIEW...... 2

i. HABITAT...... 4

ii. MORPHOLOGY...... 5

iii. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY...... 7

iv. REPRODUCTION...... 8

v. SOCIALITY...... 10

vi. DIET...... 11

vii. LOCOMOTION...... 12

c. OBJECTIVES...... 13

7. MATERIALS AND METHODS...... 15

a. STUDY SITE...... 15

b. DATA COLLECTION...... 16

c. DATA ANLYSES...... 16

8. RESULTS...... 20

a. SPECIES DENSITY...... 20

b. ASSOCIATED PLANT SPECIES...... 21

9. DISCUSSION...... 24

a. SPECIES DENSITY...... 24

b. HABITAT PREFERENCE...... 25

10. CONCLUSION...... 28

11. REFERENCES CITED...... 29

12. APPENDICES...... 33

ABSTRACT

THESIS: Species Density of the Southern Lesser Bush Baby (Galago moholi) at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve, Mpumalanga, South Africa with notes on habitat preference.

STUDENT: Ian S. Ray

DEGREE: Master of Arts

COLLEGE: Sciences and Humanities

DATE: May 2014

PAGES: 68

A population survey was conducted on Galago moholi along the road system at Loskop

Dam Nature Reserve, Mpumalanga province, South Africa. The data were analyzed using the maximum perpendicular distance, mean perpendicular distance, and maximum reliable perpendicular distance methods. Vegetation sample plots were constructed at the location of each individual sighted in order to analyze the species’ habitat use. The results indicate that the species density of G. moholi is significantly lower at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve than previously reported at other sites within South Africa. G. moholi was found to prefer areas with high concentrations of Dichrostachys sp., Combretum sp., or Acacia sp. One individual was observed consuming vegetative matter, which may indicate that the population within the reserve is utilizing available resources in a different way than populations in other parts of southern

Africa.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I will be eternally grateful to all who helped to make this project possible... My adviser

and committee chairperson, Dr. Evelyn Bowers, deserves much gratitude for supplying me with

a seemingly endless amount of advice and resources, both in the classroom and in the field. I

thank my other committee members, Dr. S. Homes Hogue and Dr. Ronald Hicks, for their continued support throughout my academic career. Furthermore, I would like to extend my thanks to the full staff of Ball State University’s Department of Anthropology for their genuine

compassion and dedication to the discipline.

I would like to thank Dr. Brandi Wren for her help both in field training and throughout

my field research, as well as Ruby Malzoni and Michele Mingini for their assistance in

conducting the population survey. I am grateful to the aid provided by Jannie Coetzee and the

staff of the Applied Behavioural Ecology and Ecosystem Research Unit (ABEERU) of the

University of South Africa (UNISA), and for being allowed to work at Loskop Dam Nature

Reserve.

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: ESTIMATED SPECIES DENSITY OF G. MOHOLI ALONG VARIOUS TRANSECT SEGMENTS...... 20

TABLE 2: ESTIMATED SPECIES DENSITY OF G. MOHOLI AT LOSKOP DAM NATURE RESERVE...... 21

TALBE 3: PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED AND NUMBER OF EACH SPECIES...... 22

TABLE 4: MAJOR PLANT GENUS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL WOODY SPECIES. . 23

TABLE 5: PERCENTAGE OF TREES BY SIZE CLASS...... 23

TABLE 6: PERCENTAGE OF CENTER TREE DBH BY SIZE CLASS...... 23

TABLE 7: PERCENT CANOPY COVER BY CLASS...... 23

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: MAP DISPLAYING THE PROVINCES OF SOUTH AFRICA...... 2

FIGURE 2: MAP DISPLAYING THE RANGE OF O. CRASSICAUDATUS AND G. MOHOLI...... 3

FIGURE 3: LOCATION OF THE LOSKOP DAM NATURE RESERVE IN THE MPUMALANGA PROVINCE OF SOUTH AFRICA...... 15

FIGURE 4: TRANSECTS LABELED BY COLOR...... 18

FIGURE 5: LOCATION OF EACH INDIVIDUAL AT INITIAL SIGHTING...... 19

FIGURE 6: G. MOHOLI CONSUMING THE FRUIT OF D. CINEREA...... 27

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: TRANSECT DATA...... 33

APPENDIX 2: VEGETATION SAMPLE PLOT DATA...... 44

vii

INTRODUCTION

Background and Theory

Speciation by means of natural selection was first proposed by Darwin (2009). The

concept of natural selection has been modified, resulting in the Synthetic Theory of evolution

(Huxley 1939). This synthetic theory combines natural selection, genetics, and random processes

(Huxley 1939). It is necessary to understand a population’s environment in order to understand the selective pressures to which the population is exposed. Thus, ecological studies are an important step towards understanding the evolution of a species, both past and present.

The study of ecology would be impossible without the concept of a niche (Colwell and

Rangel 2009; Wake et al. 2009). A niche is commonly described as a multidimensional hypervolume of space having the required resources and environmental conditions allowing a species to live (Colwell and Rangel 2009). In the face of climate change, niches change and populations may shift to new territory, adapt, or go into decline (Colwell and Rangel 2009; Wake et al. 2009). These niche changes produce differing pressures upon which natural selection acts, providing the mechanism for evolution (Darwin 2009; Wake et al. 2009)

Two generally recognized species of prosimians are found within South Africa, Galago moholi A. Smith 1836 and Otolemur crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy 1812 (Ravosa et al. 2010).

These species are partially sympatric and may display similar ecological adaptations, thus their exact evolutionary relationship is not entirely clear. The goal of this research is to determine what ecological niche G. moholi occupies and whether this niche could overlap with that of a population of O. crassicaudatus should one be introduced to Loskop Dam Nature Reserve, through either natural processes or artificial releases.

Literature Review

The family Galagidae, or the bush babies, is composed of small nocturnal primates that

inhabit the forests, woodlands, and savannahs of the African continent (Stephenson et al. 2010).

Galagidae, along with the sister family Lorisidae, form the order Lorisiformes (Seiffert et al.

2003). In turn, Lorisiformes is a sister group to the Lemuriformes of Madagascar (Seiffert et al.

2003). The clade of the Galagidae, the African Lorisiformes, is of interest not only because

ancestral populations are a likely source of the Madagascar Lemuriformes, but also because of

the role of the animals within their own ecosystem (Stankiewicz et al. 2006).

Many species of galago have been described and considerable debate exists over which

populations belong to each species (Stephenson et al. 2010). Many species depend heavily on

tree exudates, with saps and gums

forming up to 75 percent of the diet of

some species (Stephenson et al. 2010).

The establishment of species currently

is based predominantly on behavioral

and genetic distinctions rather than on

physical similarities between

populations (Lawes 2005). This is

contrary to the morphological Figure 1: Map displaying the provinces of South Africa (Skinner and Chimimba 2005:XVII) observations that have previously been

used to distinguish galago species.

Within South Africa, two generally accepted species are found. Galago moholi (the South

African galago) is found in Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Gauteng, and northeast KwaZulu-Natal

provinces (Lawes 2005). The South

African galago was grouped with Galago

senegalensis É. Geoffroy 1796 as Galago

senegalensis moholi (Anderson 1998;

Nash et al. 1989). Otolemur crassicaudatus (the thick-tailed galago) is

found in Limpopo, eastern Mpumalanga,

and only at lower elevations in KwaZulu-

Natal provinces (Lawes 2005). Bearder

(1974) suggested that the discontinuous

distribution of both species indicates that

the forests of South Africa have not been

continuous since bushbabies first evolved.

The two species occur sympatrically in

some areas but at lower overall densities

than in areas where they are separate

(Bearder and Doyle 1974). These are the

only members of the Lorisidae that are

known to be sympatric outside of the

tropics (Crompton 1980). This may be due

to niche overlap or to sympatric

environments being suboptimal habitat for Figure 2: Maps displaying the distribution of O. both species (Bearder and Doyle 1974). crassicaudatus (top) and G. moholi (bottom) (Lawes 2005:212, 214)

Habitat

O. crassicaudatus has been said to prefer riverine savannah and woodlands (Nash et al.

1989). O. crassicaudatus is found from sea level to over 1,800 m (Lawes 2005). In Limpopo and

Mpumalanga provinces, they often are found in dry woodlands that are adjacent to riverine areas

(Lawes 2005).They have been found to rest in plantations of nonnative Eucalyptus spp. and

Pinus spp. (Bearder and Doyle 1972; Lawes 2005).

G. moholi is also found in riverine bush but can be found in more dry areas as well (Nash

et al. 1989). It is most often found in association with Acacia sp. woodlands and the highest

densities are found in Acacia karoo thickets (Bearder and Doyle 1972). G. moholi is independent

of water sources, allowing it to inhabit areas away from rivers and streams (Lawes 2005). They

occur only on the fringes of true forests, seeming to prefer slightly more open habitat (Lawes

2005). Outside of South Africa, they are replaced by Galagoides grantii at elevations under

200m (Lawes 2005).

The population density of both South African galago species varies depending on the

habitat. For O. crassicaudatus, Bearder and Doyle (1972) report a density of 88 individuals per

square kilometer in riparian bush and scrub, 110 per km2 in mixed woodland and plantation

forests, and 125per km2 in dune forest. This is of interest because the plantation forests are

typically considered sterile areas where wildlife does not thrive (Bearder and Doyle 1972). The

density of G. moholi is greatest in A. karoo woodlands, with up to 500 animals per square kilometer being reported (Bearder and Doyle 1972). In riparian bush and scrub G. moholi are found at a density of 95 individuals per km2, while the density decreases to 87 per km2 in areas

of mixed woodlands and plantations (Bearder and Doyle 1972).

Morphology

O. crassicaudatus is the most massive of the galagos, being 1131g on average (Nash et

al. 1989). O. crassicaudatus occurs sympatrically with many other galago species over its

extensive range, including Otolemur garnettii, G. senegalensis, and G. moholi (Nash et al. 1989).

The average length of the head and body is 313mm, plus an average tail length of 410mm (Nash

et al. 1989). The pelage of O. crassicaudatus varies in color from brown to grey (Nash et al.

1989). O. crassicaudatus has larger ears, a more robust snout, and a larger overall body size than

the similar O. garnettii (Masters and Bragg 2000). The hind foot of O. crassicaudatus, however, is smaller in proportion to overall body size when compared with O. garnettii (Masters and

Bragg 2000).

G. moholi is significantly smaller than O. crassicaudatus, averaging only 158g (Nash et

al. 1989). It is largely sympatric with O. crassicaudatus, O. garnettii, and has been shown to

occasionally be sympatric with G. senegalensis (Nash et al. 1989). G. moholi averages only

438mm in total length, with a 288mm tail and a 150mm head and body (Nash et al. 1989). The

pelage of G. moholi varies dorsally from brownish-gray to light brown. The flanks and the limbs

have a distinctive yellow tinge and dark facial markings are present (Nash et al. 1989).

The differences in penile morphology are of taxonomic interest due to the promiscuous

mating system of galagos (Dixon 1989). Varying genital morphology may lead to differing

reproductive rates, thus providing a basis on which natural selection can act. The penile length of

O. crassicaudatus averages 20 mm with a maximum width of 6.5 mm (Anderson 1998). The

baculum can be seen protruding from the end of the penis (Anderson 1998). This differs from O.

garnettii which has a unique set of curves not seen in other galago species (Anderson 1998).

Like G. senegalensis, G. moholi on average has a 10 mm penis (Anderson 1998). However, G.

moholi has a uniformly thick shaft of 3mm with a visible baculum and thick spines pointing

towards the body (Anderson 1998). G. senegalensis has thin penile spines and no visible

baculum (Anderson 1998).

G. moholi was split as a species from the similar G. senegalensis on the basis of sympatry

in Tanzania (Masters and Bragg 2000). G. moholi has a smaller, narrower snout than G. senegalensis with longer ears and different skull morphology (Masters and Bragg 2000).

Although these are cryptic species, Masters and Bragg (2000) found they could distinguish preserved specimens with an accuracy of 89 percent using snout width and the length of the tail, ear, hind foot, and palate.

The hair of G. moholi is 0.08mm in diameter with scales every 0.02mm on average

(Anderson 1998). The hand and foot pads of G. moholi differ from those of G. senegalensis

(Stephenson et al. 2010). This further helps to confirm the separation of G. moholi from G.

senegalensis.

The dentition of both species follows the standard primate dental formula of 2/2 1/1 3/3

3/3 (Lawes 2005). Like most galagos, the lower incisors and canines are modified to form a

tooth-scraper (Stephenson et al. 2010). This is thought to aid in the collection of exudates from

trees (Stephenson et al. 2010). In line with this, the ascending ramus of O. crassicaudatus

develops at a faster rate than the rest of the mandible, allowing for the mouth to be opened

extremely widely to utilize this tooth scraper (Ravosa et al. 2010). Ravosa et al. (2010) found

that the ascending ramus of G. moholi develops at the same rate as seen in non-exudivore

galagids, implying that the ability to open the mouth extremely wide to feed on gum is not

necessary for gumivorous prosimians. Interestingly, the jaw has not been found to be more

robust in species like O. crassicaudatus and G. moholi than in other non-exudivorious galagids

(Ravosa et al. 2010).

Molecular Biology

Molecular studies have been used to establish phylogenetic relationships and to estimate the timing of speciation events (Masters et al. 2007; Seiffert et al. 2003). As technology has progressed there has been a transition from using karyotyping methods to using more precise

DNA sequence data. The taxonomy of the galagos is well supported at the family and genus levels by mitochondrial DNA sequences (Masters et al. 2007). Both Lorisidae and Galagidae are supported as monophyletic families by the molecular analysis and previous morphological analyses (Masters et al. 2007). Within the Galagidae, the sequencing supports the monophyly of the genera Galago and Otolemur (Masters et al. 2007). This supports the previous removal of O. crassicaudatus from the genus Galago (Anderson 1998).

Ying and Butler (1971) reported that five chromosome polymorphisms were found in what they considered a single species of G. senegalensis. They constructed karyotypes for each of 11 individuals studied from groups they termed G. s. zanzibaricus, G.s. moholi, and G.s. braccatus (Ying and Butler 1971). It was found that all individuals of G.s. moholi had a diploid chromosome number of 38, while G.s. zanzibaricus had a diploid number of 36 (Ying and Butler

1971). The third group, G.s. braccatus, was found to have diploid numbers of 36, 37, and 38 in different individuals (Ying and Butler 1971). Individuals were assigned to these subspecies groupings using pelage color, size, weight, and geographic origin (Ying and Butler 1971).

Individuals assigned to G.s. braccatus come from an area recognized today as a zone of sympatry between G. moholi and G. senegalensis, thus possibly accounting for the discrepancies in diploid chromosome number within the G.s. braccatus group (Nash et al. 1989; Ying and

Butler 1971). The hybrid with 37 chromosomes may be a result of nondisjunction of

chromosomes rather than of direct hybridization between n=36 and n=38 chromosome parents

(Ying and Butler 1971). While such hybrids are possible in the wild, the two species are unlikely

to interbreed due to the differing reproductive timing of G. moholi and G. senegalensis (Nash et

al. 1989). This is supported by the observation that all offspring from n=37 individuals had only

36 chromosomes (Ying and Butler 1971)

Reproduction

Mating in O. crassicaudatus occurs during two weeks at the beginning of the cold, dry

winter in June (Clark 1985). Gestation lasts until late October or early November with weaning

occurring three months after birth (Clark 1985). According to a paper by Welker and Schafer-

Witt (1988), twins or triplets are born and newborns cling to and climb on the mother shortly

after birth. A study at the Duke University Primate Center found that, with captive O.

crassicaudatus, twins or triplets were found in approximately 50 percent of all pregnancies

(Izard and Simons 1986). There was not a statistically significant difference in infant survival between wild-born females and captive-born females, or between females who previously had

successful pregnancies and first-time mothers (Izard and Simons 1986). A statistically significant male-biased sex ratio was found within all three species of bushbaby studied including O. crassicaudatus and G. moholi, with respective p-values of p=0.0336 and p=0.0091 (Izard and

Simons 1986).

G. moholi has two breeding season per year and a gestation period of 122 to 125 days.

This results in their giving birth in late September or October and in early February (Doyle et al.

1967; Pullen et al. 2000). This corresponds to the beginning and end of the summer wet season

(Pullen et al. 2000). In a study at Duke University, twinning occurred in 60 percent of all

pregnancies with no triplets occurring (Izard and Simons 1986). Izard and Simons (1986) found

a male-bias sex ratio in G. moholi. This may be due to the dispersal pattern of the genus Galago, with males traveling farther and females remaining matrilocal. The pattern allows male offspring to spread their genes farther and more rapidly than female offspring, creating a selective pressure favoring male offspring (Izard and Simons 1986).

The nests of O. crassicaudatus are only constructed by females with young, although sleeping in open sites does occur both with and without young (Bearder et al. 2003; Clark 1985).

By May, offspring gain up to 75 percent of their adult weight but do not grow further until the next spring (Clark 1985). Dispersal occurs the year after adult size is reached (Clark 1985).

Female O. crassicaudatus often retain home ranges near to or overlapping with their mother’s

(Clark 1985). Cannibalism has been observed in captivity, where it was likely the stress of experimental conditions that led mothers to cannibalize their infants (Tartabini 1991).

G. moholi males have been found to be significantly heavier during breeding seasons than during other times of the year (Pullen et al. 2000). Generally, larger males are more successful in copulation and out-compete smaller males, giving evolutionary significance to this finding

(Pullen et al. 2000). Within captive breeding groups of G. moholi, frequent short-duration copulations of 10-15 seconds were observed with a few longer duration mounts up to 450 seconds (Doyle et al. 1967). In the wild, only long duration mounts have been observed lasting

540 seconds on average with the maximum copulation time being 53 minutes in length (Pullen et al. 2000). It is possible that this extended copulation time gives selective influence to the penile morphology, supporting the observations made by Anderson (1998) of differences in penile morphology between G. senegalensis and G. moholi.

The nests of G. moholi are built from leaves and form a sleeping platform (Bearder

1969). Old birds’ nests are sometimes used as sleeping sites, with weaver birds’ nests in

particular being utilized (Bearder 1969). Nests may be used for months, with favored nests sites

being changed at different times of the year (Bearder 1969). Data from captive individuals

indicates that nests are built by females and shared with their group, which may include a male

and the female’s offspring (Bearder 1969).

Sociality

Scent marking and vocalizations are often observed in both species of South African

Galago (Bearder and Doyle 1972; Bearder et al. 2003; Clark 1985; Welker and Schafer-Witt

1988). O. crassicaudatus males have been shown to group together after a loud call, moving from as far away as 0.3 km (Clark 1985). Juvenile O. crassicaudatus are known to emit a buzzing noise when contact with the foraging group is lost (Bearder et al. 2003). Many individuals of both species have been known to scent mark at specific sites, likely because information such as fertility can be exchanged through scent (Bearder and Doyle 1972; Clark

1985).

Although often described as solitary, social interactions do consume a significant portion of O. crassicaudatus nightly activity (Bearder et al. 2003). Social interactions range from grooming and play to agonistic actions taken to cause a conspecific to leave the immediate area

(Clark 1985). Groups have been observed foraging together at night, with each group containing a female, her offspring, and occasionally a single male (Bearder et al. 2003).

On a nightly basis, the social interactions of O. crassicaudatus occur most frequently at

areas of home range overlap where gum trees are present (Clark 1985). Females, on average,

have smaller home ranges than males (Clark 1985). Males disperse farther and continue to move

later in life than females, resulting in females being the stable unit of socialization (Clark 1985;

Welker and Schafer-Witt 1988).

The territory of one male G. moholi averages 11 hectares and overlaps with the smaller

territory of several females, each averaging 6.7 hectares (Harcourt and Bearder 1989). Dispersal

is similar to O. crassicaudatus, with males traveling farther away than females, who remain close to their birth territory (Harcourt and Bearder 1989).

Many different calls are used by G. moholi, possibly conveying different meanings ranging from food to territorial calls (Bearder and Doyle 1972). It has been observed that, in captive specimens, a call will be uttered by the dominant animal during play (Bearder and Doyle

1972). In captive G. moholi, all age-class and sex combinations were tolerant of juveniles, with grooming being the most common social interaction followed by displacement and play (Bearder and Doyle 1972; Nash and Flinn 1978). While group formation occurs in captivity, it is noted that G. moholi is on average more solitary than O. crassicaudatus in the wild (Bearder and Doyle

1972). Also, it is noted that aggression seen in captivity may be a result of confinement rather than of a dominance conflict, as in the wild two individuals having conflict could easily separate

(Nash and Flinn 1978). Groups of wild G. moholi have been observed in numbers from two to

six, with very few observations of animals in groups of four or more (Bearder 1969).

Diet

The diet of both species of South African bushbaby is similar, consisting of many invertebrates and tree sap (Harcourt 1986). The average height for feeding on Acacia sap was 20 feet for G. moholi and varied for O. crassicaudatus from a low of around five feet during the summer to a high of around 25 feet during the winter (Harcourt 1986). G. moholi has never been reported consuming fruit in its natural habitat, while O. crassicaudatus has been observed

feeding on the berries of Zizyphus mucronata and fecal samples have contained Euclea sp. seeds

and Combretum sp. flowers (Harcourt 1980; Harcourt 1986; Harcourt and Bearder 1989).

O. crassicaudatus has been said to consume vertebrates, including domestic chickens, but

this activity is not known from many well studied populations (Bearder 1974; Harcourt 1980).

The consumption of invertebrates by both species is similar during the summer months, and O.

crassicaudatus has been known to prey on large millipedes of up to 150mm long (Harcourt

1986). O. crassicaudatus consumes larger insects than G. moholi during summer months,

although both species feed on similarly sized prey during the winter months. (Harcourt 1980). O. crassicaudatus was observed to reduce its’ consumption of insects during the winter months and instead spent time feeding on gum, likely because fewer insects were available at the study site during the winter (Harcourt 1986).

O. crassicaudatus relies more heavily on gum than G. moholi, although both species consume more gum during winter months than during other times of the year (Harcourt 1986).

G. moholi was found to feed on gum for around 50 seconds per night during the summer to 3360 seconds during the winter while O. crassicaudatus was found to increase from 40 sec during the summer to 2280 seconds during the winter (Harcourt 1986). However the time spent feeding on gum does not mean the overall intake was greater, as gum becomes more crystalline during the winter. G. moholi may have a more difficult time than O. crassicaudatus taking in this harder winter gum (Harcourt 1986).

Locomotion

G. moholi is known to utilize leaping as the primary means of locomotion, accounting for over 50 percent of locomotion in one study (Crompton 1980). Climbing accounted for a further

20 percent of locomotor activity, with walking, running, and descending accounting for less than

15 percent each (Crompton 1980). Leaping was found to account for approximately 700m for

every km traveled, with all other types of locomotion accounting for no more than 150m each

(Crompton 1980). The majority of movement occurred from 1933h to 2033h nightly with a sharp

decline thereafter (Crompton 1980). Locomotion during the day is rare but has been reported in

the winter months (Bearder 1969). This is in line with behavior observed at Loskop Dam Nature

Reserve, where several individuals were observed up to one hour before sunset and no animals

were observed after 2100h throughout the study period.

Conversely, O. crassicaudatus uses walking and climbing as the primary means of

locomotion (Crompton 1980). It was found that climbing and walking each account for a third of

O. crassicaudatus’ movement, while running makes up 10 percent of all movements (Crompton

1980). Walking accounts for 300m for every km traveled while climbing and running each

account for approximately 250m (Crompton 1980). Leaping also accounts for 200m per km traveled (Crompton 1980). The movements of O. crassicaudatus have been said to resemble those of Perodicticus potto, likely because both species utilize similar resources (Crompton

1980).

Objectives

The purpose of this research was to find the answers to two major questions. First, what

behavioral niche does G. moholi occupy? Second, could Loskop Dam Nature Reserve be expected to support a population of O. crassicaudatus?

Limitations to this study included difficulty finding or observing the nocturnal primates,

potentially small amounts of data being collected over the duration of the study, and limited

utility of statistical analyses on the collected data. Also, published accounts of O. crassicaudatus

did not provide enough information to determine the suitability of Loskop Dam Nature Reserve

as a potential habitat. Contrary to what was expected, G. moholi was not observed in habitat centering exclusively on gum producing trees located in areas more distant from park boundaries and campsites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Site

Loskop Dam Nature Reserve is a Provincial Nature Reserve located 52 km north of

Middleburg in Mpumalanga, South Africa (Barrett et al. 2010; Ferrar and Lotter 2007). Ferrar and Lotter (2007) state that Loskop Dam Nature Reserve is currently 22,900 hectares in size.

Barrett et al. (2010) give the location between longitude 29°15’00” and 29°40’00” east and latitude 25°34’00” and 25°56’00” south. Minimum temperature for July averages 8.5°C, with yearly temperatures ranging from -8°C to 40°C (Barrett et al. 2010).

Figure 3: Location of the Loskop Dam Nature Reserve in the Mpumalanga Province of South Africa (Barrett et al. 2010:3)

Data Collection

Transects were driven throughout the tourist road system of Loskop Dam Nature Reserve

between the hours of 1800 and 2200 on 12 days between June 29 and July 12, 2011. The system was broken down into segments based on major landmarks, including junctions in the road. The transects included the following road segments: Landberg road, Blesbok loop, T-junction 1 to T-

Junction 2, T-Junction 2 to picnic site, Camp to T-Junction 1, and the Water Pump road (see

Figure 4). Additional transects had been planned but were not performed because access to a four-wheel-drive vehicle could not be secured.

Speed varied between four and 13 km per hour with a target speed of 10 km per hour.

The following were recorded for each sighting: the degrees off of transect, distance to the individual, a brief description of the tree the individual was in, estimated height in vegetation, and GPS coordinates of the vehicle.

Vegetation sample plots were constructed during the following days at the location of each individual (see Figure 5). The center of the plot was the tree in which the individual was sighted. A tape measurer was used to determine 5m from the center tree in all directions. Any vegetation with over one half of its mass within the 5m radius was considered to be inside the plot. Species and diameter at breast height (DBH) were recorded for all woody species over

2.5cm in diameter. Woody species were identified using Schmidt et al. (2002) and Van Wyk and

Van Wyk (2011). Canopy cover was determined by using a densitometer at 1m intervals from the center point in each cardinal direction.

Data Analyses

Transect data was analyzed using six methods presented by the National Research

Council in Techniques for the Study of Primate Population Ecology (1981). Mean perpendicular

distance, maximum perpendicular distance, and maximum reliable perpendicular distance were

used to extrapolate a population estimate for the entire reserve. Mean observer-to-animal distance, maximum observer-to-animal distance, and maximum reliable observer-to-animal distances were also used to estimate the population of the reserve (NRC 1981). Each transect segment was analyzed using the same techniques. However the sample was too small to accurately determine maximum reliable perpendicular or maximum reliable observer-to-animal distances (NRC 1981)

Vegetation Analyses

Data from the vegetation sample plots were analyzed in order to determine the following: total plants observed, percentage of the total each species accounted for, and the percentage of the total that potential fruiting species accounted for. Percent canopy cover was calculated for each sample plot and placed into four classes, 0 to 25 percent, 30 to 50 percent, 55 to 75 percent, and 80 to 100 percent.

DBH data was counted to determine the average DBH of each sample plot and of all plots. The DBH of each identified woody species was also placed into one of five size classes;

2.5 cm to five cm, five cm to 10 cm, 10 cm to 20 cm, 20 cm to 35 cm and greater than 35 cm.

This was then analyzed to determine the most prevalent size class for each center tree and across all plots.

Figure 4: Transects Labeled By Color Blue: Water Pump Road Green: T-junction 1 to Camp Yellow: Landberg Road Red: T-junction 1 to T-junction 2 Purple: Blesbok Loop Black: T-junction 2 to Picnic Site 18

Figure 5: Location of Each Individual at Sighting

RESULTS

Species Density

The transect segments varied in estimated density from a minimum of 0.58 animals per kilometer to a maximum of 8.5 animals per kilometer (Table 1). The most frequent estimate across all analytical methods was approximately three individuals per km (Table 1).

Table 1: Estimated Species Density of G. moholi Along Various Transect Segments (animals/km2)

Transect Maximum Mean Maximum Mean Observer- Segment Perpendicular Perpendicular Observer-to- to-Animal Distance Method Distance Method Animal Distance Distance Method Method Camp to T- 3.735 8.5 3.384 6.895 junction 1 T-junction 1 3.3258 8.4 2.016 5.593 to T-junction 2 Picnic Road 1.27 1.27 0.5846 0.5846 Landberg 2.48 8.147 1.521 3.722 Road Blesbok Loop 2.13 2.169 1.11 1.965

The estimated population of G. moholi at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve ranges from a minimum of 196 individuals to a maximum of 1029 individuals depending on the analytical method used (Table 2). The mean perpendicular distance method and mean observer to animal distance method yielded estimates of 1028.9 and 609.0 animals throughout the reserve. The maximum perpendicular distance and maximum observer to animal distance methods provided an estimate of 323.9 and 196.5 animals, respectively. The maximum reliable perpendicular distance method provided an estimate of 772.8 animals with a cut off of 15m, but only 515 animals with a cut off of 30m. The maximum reliable observer to animal distance provided an estimate of 365.1 animals with a cut off of 30m and 296.2 animals with a cut off of 50m.

Table 2: Estimated Species Density of G. moholi at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve

Analytical Method Estimated Density Estimated Population of (animals/km2) Reserve (animals) Maximum Perpendicular Distance 1.58 323.9 Maximum Reliable Perpendicular 3.77 772.85 Distance (15m) Maximum Reliable Perpendicular 2.51 515 Distance (30m) Maximum Observer to Animal 0.959 196.595 Distance Maximum Reliable Observer to 1.781 365.105 Animal Distance (30m) Maximum Reliable Observer to 1.445 296.225 Animal Distance (50m) Mean Perpendicular Distance 5.019 1028.99 Mean Observer to Animal Distance 2.971 609.055

Associated Plant Species

Fifty plant species were identified within a 5m radius of each sighting (Table 3). Of

these, the most frequently identified belonged to the genus Acacia, Combretum, and

Dichrostachys (Table 4). DBH of each woody plant over 2.5cm was measured with multiple

stems of the same species being added together to yield one overall DBH. Overall,

approximately 29 percent of woody species were between 2.5 and 5.0 cm in DBH, 32 percent

were between 5.1 and 10.0 cm DBH, 20 percent were between 20.1 and 35.0 cm DBH, and only

six percent were over 35cm DBH (Table 5). However, the DBH trees in which individuals were

initially spotted occurred at different frequencies. Approximately 3.1 percent of sightings

occurred in the 2.5 to 5.0 cm range, with 9.3 percent occurring in the 5.1 to 10.0 range (Table 6).

The 20.1 to 35.0 cm range had the most occurrences, with 46.8 percent, followed by 10.1 to 20.0

with 25 percent of sightings and 15.6 percent in trees with an overall DBH of greater than 35.0 cm.

Percent canopy cover ranged from 10 percent to 90 percent. The greatest number (46.8 percent) of sightings occurred in areas with between 30 percent and 50 percent canopy cover

(Table 7). Sightings in areas of 55 to 75 percent were also common (21.8 percent), as were 80 percent to 100 percent (28.1 percent). The lowest number of sightings occurred in areas of 0 to

25 percent canopy cover (6.2 percent)

Table 3: Plant Species Identified and Flueggea virosa 3 Number of Each Species Grewia monticola 22 Grewia flavescens 12 Plant Species Individuals Identified Gymnosporia 1 Acacia burkei 23 senegalensis Gymnosporia tenuispina 2 Acacia caffra 1 Lippa javanica 42 Acacia karoo 25 Lycium cinercum 1 Acacia nigrescens 12 Maytenus undata 2 Acacia nilotica 10 Ozoroa paniculosa 5 Acacia sp. 6 Peltophorum africanum 1 Acacia tortillis 7 Protea caffra 11 Berchemia zaire 1 Rhus leptodictia 10 Bridellia mollis 3 Rhus pyroides 13 Burkea Africana 8 Rhus zaire 1 Combretum apiculatum 52 Salvodora persica 2 Combretum kraussii 1 Sandpaper bushwillow 1 Combretum molle 25 Sclerocarpa birrea 13 Combretum zeyheri 18 Strychnos 3 Corelia ovalis 1 madagascariensis Croton megalobotrys 2 Strychnos spinosa 2 Dichrostachys cinerea 193 Terminalia prunoides 11 Dombeya rotundifolia 48 Teinnea rhodesiana 3 Dyplorhyncus 3 Vangueira parvifolia 1 condylocarpon Warburgia salutaris 4 Ealodendron 28 transvaalense Ziziphus mucronata 5 Ehretia amoena 1 unknown 32 Ehretia crispa 4 Ehretia rigida 4 Total Plants 735 Ehretia obtusfolia 1 Euclea crispa 54 Euclea undulate 1

Table 4: Major Plant Genus and Percent of Total

Major Plant Genus Percentage of Total Acacia sp. 11.4754 Combretum sp. 13.1148

Dichrostachys sp. 26.3661

Table 5: Percentage of Trees By Size Class

Size Class (cm) Percent of All Trees (n=249)

2.5 to 5.0 28.9 5.1 to 10.0 31.7 10.1 to 20.0 20.5 20.1 to 35.0 12.9 Greater than 35.0 6.0

Table 6: Percentage of Center Tree DBH by Size Class

Size Class (cm) Percent of Center Trees (n=32)

2.5 to 5.0 3.1

5.1 to 10.0 9.4 10.1 to 20.0 25 20.1 to 35.0 46.9 Greater than 35.0 15.6

Table 7: Percent Canopy Cover by Class

Percent Canopy Percentage of Cover Sample Plots (n=32) 0 to 25 6.3 30 to 50 46.9 55 to 75 21.9 80 to 100 28.1

DISCUSSION

Species Density

The National Research Council of the United States of America (1981) determined the

most reliable methods for the maximum reliable observer-to-animal distance method and the

maximum reliable perpendicular distance method. These methods were employed to estimate the

population density of G. moholi throughout the reserve (Table 1). The maximum reliable

perpendicular distance method with a cutoff of 15m yielded an estimate of 3.77 animals per

square kilometer, or 772 animals throughout the reserve. If a 30 m cutoff is used, that estimate

drops to 2.51 animals per square kilometer or 515 animals throughout the reserve.

The maximum reliable observer-to-animal distance method may be the most reliable estimate (NRC 1981). If a cutoff of 30 m is used, the estimated population density is 1.78 animals per square kilometer or 365 animals throughout the reserve. If a cutoff of 50 m is used, the estimate drops to 1.44 animals per square kilometer or 296 animals throughout the reserve.

The various methods used yielded a range of estimates of 0.58 individuals per square kilometer to 8.5 individuals per square kilometer (Table 2). According to Techniques for the

Study of Primate Population Ecology, both the mean perpendicular distance method and the mean observer to animal distance method yield estimates of density off by as much as 85 percent

(NRC 1981). Due to the low number of sightings, it was not possible to determine a maximum reliable sighting distance for each individual transect. The next most reliable methods are the maximum perpendicular distance and the maximum observer-to-animal distance methods (NRC

1981). These yielded estimates of between 3.7 and 0.58 individuals per square kilometer for various transects

Regardless of the method used, the estimated density of G. moholi at Loskop Dam Nature

Reserve is lower than the estimate of 95 animals per square kilometer reported by Bearder and

Doyle (1972). Because of the cold temperatures associated with higher latitudes and the lower

activity of G. moholi during winter months, the population of the reserve may be underestimated.

It is not likely that the season alone accounts for the substantial difference in population

estimates. Rather, the population at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve is likely under significantly increased ecological stress compared populations at lower latitudes.

Habitat Preference

The habitat preference of G. moholi could not be statistically demonstrated due to a lack of published information on the areas of the reserve where G. moholi was observed. However, the majority of sightings occurred in areas where Dichrostachys cinerea, Acacia sp., or

Combretum sp. were present (Table 4). Filmalter (2010) surveyed the vegetation in the

Honderkraal section of Loskop Dam Nature Reserve and Barrett et al. (2010) surveyed the vegetation in the home ranges of Chlorocebus pygerythrus F. Cuvier 1821. Neither of these areas overlapped with the observed locations of G. moholi.

The majority of sightings occurred in areas of 30 to 50 percent canopy cover, but this may represent observer bias rather than the preference of G. moholi for more open areas. G. moholi may prefer to locomote between trees of at least 10.0 cm in DBH, as only nine percent of sightings occurred on trees of below 10.0 cm DBH. This is not likely due to observer bias, as sighting an individual on a smaller tree was no more difficult than spotting in a larger tree

(Figure 2).

On July fifth at approximately 16:40h, an individual G. moholi was observed consuming the fruit of a Dichrostachys cinerea (Figure 3). The individual consumed the entire seed pod

before moving out of observable range. Because of the marginal habitat available at Loskop Dam

Nature Reserve, this may represent a unique dietary adaptation used by the population around the

University of South Africa Research Camp.

Figure 4: G. moholi consuming the fruit of D. cinerea

CONCLUSION

The density of G. moholi at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve is extremely low compared to

the density observed in other areas (Bearder 1972; Bearder and Doyle 1974; Harcourt and

Bearder 1989). This may indicate the need for a species management plan to ensure G. moholi does not become locally extinct. Additional population surveys are needed to determine the population density in areas of the reserve not surveyed by the present study.

The consumption of vegetative matter by G. moholi is a previously unobserved phenomenon and may have significant implications as a fallback food source. The population of

G. moholi at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve may be exploiting a different niche than other populations of the same species due to the elevation and the location of the reserve at the edge of the species’ range. O. crassicaudatus may be capable of surviving at Loskop Dam Nature

Reserve, but may be out competed by G. moholi due to increased niche overlap. Additionally, the high percentage of Combretum sp. found in the vegetation sample plots may indicate that

Dichrostachys cinerea is not the only vegetative matter being consumed by G. moholi. Many

Combretum sp. were observed to be fruiting during the study period. Further study is needed to

demonstrate the extent to which G. moholi is utilizing vegetative matter as a food source.

Although outside the current range of O. crassicaudatus, Loskop Dam Nature Reserve

was hypothesized to be capable of supporting a population of O. crassicaudatus as well as G. moholi. An analysis of the potential impact of the introduction of O. crassicaudatus would have been needed if Loskop Dam Nature Reserve was found to be capable of supporting a population.

However, the low population of G. moholi combined with the observation of the ingestion of fruit likely indicates that Loskop Dam Nature Reserve is suboptimal habitat for G. moholi, and would not be expected to support a population of the larger O. crassicaudatus.

REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, Matthew J. 1998 Comparative Morphology and Speciation in Galagos. Folia Primatologica 69(1):325-331.

Barrett, Alan S., Leslie R. Brown, Lousie Barrett, and Peter Henzi 2010 A Floristic Description and utilization of Two Home Ranges by Vervet Monkeys in Loskop Dam Nature Reserve, South Africa. Koedoe 52(1):1-12.

Bearder, S. K. 1969 Territorial and Intergroup Behaviour of the Lesser Bushbaby, Galago senegalensis moholi in Semi-Natural Conditions and in the Field. MsC thesis, University of the Witwaterstrand.

Bearder, Simon Kenneth 1974 Aspects of the Ecology and Behaviour of the Thick-Tailed Bushbaby Galago crassicaudatus. PhD thesis, University of the Witwaterstrand.

Bearder, Simon K., Lesley Ambrose, Caroline Harcourt, Paul Honess, Andrew Perkin, Elizabeth Pimley, Samantha Pullen, and Nadien Svoboda 2003 Species-Typical Patterns of Infant Contact, Sleeping Site Use and Social Cohesion among Nocturnal Primates in Africa. Folia Primatologica 74:337-354.

Bearder, Simon K. and G. A. Doyle 1972 Field and Laboratory Studies of Social Organization in Bushbabies (Galago senegalensis). Journal of Human Evolution 3:37-50.

Bearder, S.K., and G.A. Doyle 1974 Ecology of Bushbabies Galago senegalensis and Galago crassicaudatus. In Prosimian Biology. Martin, Robert D., Gerald A. Doyle, and Alan C. Walker, eds. Pp. 109-130. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.

Clark, Anne B. 1985 Sociality in a Nocturnal “Solitary” Prosimian: Galago crassicaudatus. International Journal of Primatology 6(6):581-600.

Colwell, Robert K., and Thiago F. Rangel 2009 Huchinson’s duality: The once and future niche. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences 106(2):19651-19658.

Crompton, Robin H. 1980 A Leap in the Dark: Locomotor Behaviour and Ecology in Galago senegalensis and Galago crassicaudatus. PhD thesis. Harvard University.

Darwin, Charles. 2009 The Origin of Species. 150th Anniversary ed. Alachua, FL: Bridge Logos. Originally published as On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life (London: John Murray, 1859).

Dixon, A.F. 1989 Sexual Selection, Genital Morphology and Copulatory Behavior in Male Galagos. International Journal of Primatology 10(1):47-55.

Doyle, G.A., A. Pelletier, and T. Bekker 1967 Courtship, Mating and Partuition in the Lesser Bushbaby (Galago senegalensis moholi) Under Semi-Natural Conditions. Folia Primatologica 7:169-197.

Ferrar, Tony A., and Mervyn C. Lotter 2007 Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan Handbook. Mpumalanga Parks and Tourism Agency, Nelspruit.

Filmalter, Nicolene 2010 A Vegetation Classification and Management Plan for the Honderkraal Section of the Loskop Dam Nature Reserve. MTech dissertation. University of South Africa.

Harcourt, Caroline Susan 1980 Behavioural adaptations in South African Galagos. MsC dissertation. University of the Witwaterstrand.

Harcourt, Caroline 1986. Seasonal Variation in the Diet of South African Galagos. International Journal of Primatology 7(5):491-506.

Harcourt, Caroline S., and Simon K. Bearder 1989 Comparison of Galago moholi in South Africa with Galago zanzibaricus in Kenya. International Journal of Primatology 10(1):35-45.

Huxley, J.S. 1939 Ecology and Taxonomic Differentiation. Journal of Ecology 27(5):408-420.

Izard, M. Kay, and Elwyn L. Simons 1986 Infant Survival and Liter Size in Primigravid and Multigravid Galagos. Journal of Medical Primatology 15:27-35.

Lawes, M. J. 2005 XVI. Family Galagidae. In The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. John D. Skinner and Christian T. Chimimba eds. Pp 210-217. Cape Town: Cambridge University Press.

Masters, Judith C., Michele Boniotto, Sergeio Crovella, Christian Roos, Lucia Pozzi, and Massimiliano Delpero 2007 Phylogenetic Relationships Among the Lorisoidea As Indicated by Craniodental Morphology and Mitochondrial Sequence Data. American Journal of Primatology 69:6-15.

Masters, Judith C., and Nigel P. Bragg 2000 Morphological Correlates of Speciation in Bush Babies. International Journal of Primatology 21(5):793-813.

Nash, Leanne T., Simon K. Bearder, and Todd R. Olson 1989 Synopsis of Galago Species Characteristics. International Journal of Primatology 10(1):57-80.

Nash, Leanne T., and Lynn Flinn 1978 Group Formation in Captive Lesser Galagos (Galago senegalensis). Primates 19(3):493-503.

National Research Council Subcommittee on Conservation of Natural Populations 1981 Techniques for the Study of Primate Population Ecology. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Pullen, S.L., S.K. Bearder, and A.F. Dixson 2000 Preliminary Observations on Sexual Behavior and the mating System in Free- ranging Lesser Galagos (Galago moholi). American Journal of Primatology 51:78-88

Ravosa, Matthew J., Ashley N. Daniel, and Destiny B. Costly 2010 Allometry and Evolution in the Galago Skull. Folia Primatologica 81:177-196.

Schmidt, Ernst, Mervyn Lotter, and Warren McCleland 2002 Trees and Shrubs of Mpumalanga and Kruger National Park. Johannesburg: Jacana Media.

Seiffert, Erik R., Elwyn L. Simons, and Yousry Attia 2003 Fossil evidence for an ancient divergence of lorises and galagos. Nature 44:421- 424.

Skinner, John D, and Christain T. Chimimba 2005 Explainatory Notes. In The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. John D. Skinner and Christian T. Chimimba eds. Pp XII. Cape Town: Cambridge University Press.

Stankiewicz, J., C. Thiart, J.C. Masters, and M.J. de Wit 2006 Did lemurs have sweepstake tickets? An exploration of Simpson’s model for the colonization of Madagascar by mammals. Journal of Biogeography 33:221-235.

Stephenson, Isobel R., Simon K. Bearder, Guiseppe Donati, and Johann Karlsson 2010 A Guide to Galago diversity: Getting a Grip on How Best to Chew Gum. In: The Evolution of Exudativory in Primates. Anne M. Burrows and Leanne T. Nash, eds. Pp 235-255. New York: Springer Science.

Tartabini, Angelo 1991 Mother-infant Cannibalism in Thick-tailed Bushbabies (Galago crassicaudatus umbrosus). Primates 32(3): 379-383.

Van Wyk, Braam, and Piet Van Wyk 2011 Field Guide to Trees of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Struik Publishers

Wake, David B., Elizabeth A. Hadly, and David D. Ackerly 2009 Biogeography, changing climates, and niche evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(2):19631-19636.

Welker, C., and C. Schaver-Witt 1988 Preliminary Observations on Behavioral Differences Among Thick-Tailed Bushbabies. International Journal of Primatology 9(6):507-518.

Ying, K.L., and H. Butler 1971 Chromosomal Polymorphism in the Lesser Bush Babies (Galago senegalensis). Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology 13:793-800.

Appendix 1: Transect Data Transect 1 Date 6/30/2011 Start Time 19:46 End Time 19:56 Start Location S 25°24.5431' End Location S 25°24.0880' E 29°20.9685' E 29°21.0390' Route Water Pump Distance 873m Road

Sighting None

Transect 2 Date 6/30/2011 Start Time 20:21 End Time 20:58 Start Location S 25°25.1297' End Location S 25°25.2865' E 29°17.6832' E 29°17.9593' Route Blesbok Loop Distance 5.27km

Sighting None

Transect 3 Date 6/30/2011 Start Time 21:02 End Time 22:02 Start Location S 25°25.1263' End Location S 25°24.4571' E 29°17.6813' E 29°21.0448' Route T2 to camp Distance 3.5km

Sighting None

Transect 4 Date 7/1/2011 Start Time 18:55 End Time 19:45 Start Location S 25°25.1293' End Location S 25°25.2902' E 29°17.6791' E 29°17.9873' Route Blesbok Loop Distance 2.59km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 1 19:10 S 25°25.2902' E 29°18.0666' 43m 272° 10m 2 19:16 S 25°25.8526' E 29°18.1345' 25m 245° 2m

Transect 5 Date 7/1/2011 Start Time 19:55 End Time Start Location S 25°25.1257' End Location S 25°24.4377' E 29°17.6782' E 29°19.0892' Route T2 to T1 Distance 3.51km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 3 20:18 S 25°24.6606' E 29°19.0892' 18m 338° 1m

Transect 6 Date 7/1/2011 Start Time 20:45 End Time 22:11 Start Location S 25°24.4377' End Location S 25°24.6541' E 29°19.0889' E 29°20.7159' Route Langberg Distance 7.28km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 4 21:11 S 25°23.7967' E 29°19.6454' 15m 35° 2m 5 21:36 S 25°24.2260' E 29°20.7792' 43m 284° 2.5m

Transect 7 Date 7/3/2011 Start Time 17:58 End Time 18:56 Start Location S 25°24.6568' End Location S 25°24.4367' E 29°20.7196' E 29°19.0917' Route Langberg Distance 7.28km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 6 18:02 S 25°24.4770' E 29°20.8126' 60m 0° 8m 7 18:15 S 25°24.4770' E 29°20.8126' 36m 7° 3m

Transect 8 Date 7/3/2011 Start Time 19:05 End Time 19:30 Start Location S 25°24.4367' End Location S 25°25.1289' E 29°19.0917' E 29°17.6805' Route T1 to T2 Distance 3.44km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 8 19:40 S 25°24.7977' E 29°18.8458' 15m 123° 15m

Transect 9 Date 7/3/2011 Start Time 19:40 End Time 20:10 Start Location S 25°25.1249' End Location S 25°25.2978' E 29°17.6793' E 29°17.9941 Route Blesbok Loop Distance 5.19km

Sighting None

Transect 10 Date 7/3/2011 Start Time 20:10 End Time 20:54 Start Location S 25°24.4518' End Location S 25°24.4270' E 29°19.0691' E 29°21.0113' Route T1 to Camp Distance 4.49km

Sighting None

Transect 11 Date 7/4/2011 Start Time 17:51 End Time 18:28 Start Location S 25°25.1291' End Location S 25°25.2924' E 29°17.6826' E 29°17.9850' Route Blesbok Loop Distance 5.29km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 9 18:20 S 25°25.1446' E 29°18.4181' 5m 323° 0.5m

Transect 12 Date 7/4/2011 Start Time 18:36 End Time 19:22 Start Location S 25°25.1306' End Location S 25°26.9066' E 29°17.6755' E 29°15.7612' Route Picnic In Distance 7km

Sighting None

Transect 13 Date 7/4/2011 Start Time 19:59 End Time 20:25 Start Location S 25°25.1262' End Location S 25°24.4386' E 29°17.6779' E 29°19.1005' Route T2 to T1 Distance 3.49km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 10 20:16 S 25°24.552' E 29°19.1752' 95m 355° 8m

Transect 14 Date 7/4/2011 Start Time 20:29 End Time 21:00 Start Location S 25°24.4368' End Location S 25°24.4573' E 29°19.1003' E 29°21.0447' Route T1 to Camp Distance 4.54km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 11 20:48 S 25°24.6681' E 29°20.6992' 25m 75° 2m

Transect 15 Date 7/4/2011 Start Time 21:06 End Time 21:12 Start Location S 25°24.5093' End Location S 25°24.0870' E 29°20.9728' E 29°21.0402' Route Waterpump Distance 866m

Sighting None

Transect 16 Date 7/6/2011 Start Time 18:00 End Time 18:43 Start Location S 25°24.4598' End Location S 25°24.4369' E 29°21.0468' E 29°19.0898' Route Camp to T1 Distance 4.56km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 12 18:07 S 25°24.8473' E 29°20.4168' 33m 343° 1.5m 13 18:20 S 25°25.0282' E 29°20.3030' 13m 90° 2m

Transect 17 Date 7/6/2011 Start Time 18:47 End Time 19:47 Start Location S 25°24.4385' End Location S 25°25.1304' E 29°19.0900' E 29°17.6825' Route T1 to T2 Distance 3.47km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 14 18:48 S 25°24.4531' E 29°19.0862' 15m 321° 1m 15 19:00 S 25°24.6125' E 29°19.0329' 19m 338° 3m 16 19:30 S 25°24.9950' E 29°17.9791' 68m 122° 1.5m

Transect 18 Date 7/6/2011 Start Time 19:43 End Time 20:15 Start Location S 25°25.1270' End Location S 25°25.2938' E 29°17.6824' E 29°17.9918' Route Blesbok Loop Distance 5.16km

Sighting None 38

Transect 19 Date 7/6/2011 Start Time 20:23 End Time 21:17 Start Location S 25°25.1273' End Location S 25°26.9012' E 29°17.6814' E 29°15.7578' Route Picnic Out Distance 7.09km

Sighting None

Transect 20 Date 7/6/2011 Start Time 21:55 End Time 22:35 Start Location S 25°24.4356 End Location S 25°24.6542' E 29°19.0917 E 29°20.7198' Route Langberg in Distance 7.15km

Sighting None

Transect 21 Date 7/7/2011 Start Time 18:10 End Time 19:11 Start Location S 25°24.6514' End Location S 25°24.4355' E 29°20.7152' E 29°19.0915' Route Langberg out Distance 7.19km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 17 18:16 S 25°24.3271' E 29°20.7715' 19m 285° 1.5m

Transect 22 Date 7/7/2011 Start Time 19:14 End Time 19:59 Start Location S 25°24.4368' End Location S 25°25.1278' E 29°19.0924' E 29°17.6758' Route T1 to T2 Distance 3.47km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 18 19:31 S 25°24.8282' E 29°18.8129' 24m 60° 2.5m 19 19:42 S 25°24.9700' E 29°18.3440' 39m 310° 0.5m

Transect 23 Date 7/7/2011 Start Time 20:01 End Time 21:02 Start Location S 25°25.1263' End Location S 25°26.9057' E 29°17.6771' E 29°15.7613' Route Picnic Out Distance 7.17km

Sighting None

Transect 24 Date 7/8/2011 Start Time 18:10 End Time 19:08 Start Location S 25°24.5218' End Location S 25°24.4367' E 29°21.0158' E 29°19.0918' Route Camp to T1 Distance 5.21 Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 20 18:15 S 25°24.6516' E 29°20.7517' 11m 80° 0.5m 21 18:28 S 25°24.7895' E 29°20.4585' 44m 55° 7m 22 18:34 S 25°24.8258' E 29°20.4275' 14m 45° 0.5m 23 18:42 S 25°25.0305' E 29°20.2947' 55m 65° 3m 40

Transect 25 Date 7/8/2011 Start Time 19:17 End Time 20:20 Start Location S 25°24.4383' End Location S 25°24.6542' E 29°19.0921' E 29°20.7187 Route Langberg In Distance 7.22km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 24 19:55 S 25°24.0658' E 29°20.7500' 5m 270° 4m 25 19:55 S 25°24.0658' E 29°20.7500' 18m 50° 0m 26 20:10 S 25°24.3191' E 29°20.7726' 20m 313° 4.5m

Transect 26 Date 7/9/2011 Start Time 18:25 End Time 19:21 Start Location S 25°26.9014' End Location S 25°25.1269' E 29°15.7463' E 29°17.6760' Route Picnic in Distance 7.41km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 27 18:45 S 25°26.0207' E 29°15.4519' 53m 10° 1.5m

Transect 27 Date 7/9/2011 Start Time 19:45 End Time 20:03 Start Location S 25°24.5056' End Location S 25°24.0874' E 29°20.9710' E 29°21.0374' Route Waterpump Distance 873m Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 28 19:52 S 25°24.3478' E 29°21.0374' 39m 310° 3m 41

Transect 28 Date 7/10/2011 Start Time 18:19 End Time 19:12 Start Location S 25°24.6534' End Location S 25°24.4360' E 29°20.7198' E 29°19.0912' Route Langberg Out Distance 7.37km Time GPS Distance Degrees off Height (est) Coordinates transect Sighting 29 18:32 S 25°23.9261 E 29°19.0912' 68m 350° 0m

Transect 29 Date 7/10/2011 Start Time 19:26 End Time 20:13 Start Location S 25°25.1248' End Location S 25°26.9033' E 29°17.6760' E 29°15.7613' Route Picnic In Distance 7.09km

Sighting None

Transect 30 Date 7/11/2011 Start Time 18:27 End Time 19:11 Start Location S 25°26.9031' End Location S 25°25.1280' E 29°15.7570' E 29°17.6759' Route Picnic In Distance 7.00km

Sighting None

Transect 31 Date 7/11/2011 Start Time 19:20 End Time 19:52 Start Location S 25°25.1288' End Location S 25°25.2955' E 29°17.6778' E 29°17.9920' Route Blesbok Loop Distance 5.2km

Sighting None

Transect 32 Date 7/12/2011 Start Time 18:03 End Time 18:43 Start Location S 25°26.8969' End Location S 25°25.1266' E 29°15.7492' E 29°17.6786' Route Picnic In Distance 6.97km

Sighting None

Appendix 2: Vegetation Sample Plot Data Sighting 1 GPS Center Point S 25°25.8233' E 29°18.0700' Percent Canopy Cover 45% Hits 9 Misses 11 Center Tree DBH (cm) Strychnos spinosa 125.1

Other Species DBH (cm) Rhus leptodyctia 7.1 Rhus leptodyctia 10 Dichrostachys cinerea 5.8 Grewia monticola 4.2 Maytenus undata 8.8 Maytenus undata 6.8 Burkea africana 6

Sighting 2 GPS Center Point S 25°25.8388' E 29°18.1277' Percent Canopy Cover 35% Hits 7 Misses 13 Center Tree DBH (cm) Burkea africana 18.2

Other Species DBH (cm) Burkea africana 28.1 Burkea africana 9.2 Burkea africana 12.3 Burkea africana 30.7 Burkea africana 22.8 Burkea africana 10.2

Sighting 3 GPS Center Point S 25°24.6514' E 29°19.0021 Percent Canopy Cover 65% Hits 13 Misses 7 Center Tree DBH (cm) Grewia monticola 35

Other Species DBH (cm) Combretum molle 9.7 Elaeodendron transvaalense 6.9 Elaeodendron transvaalense 2.8 Grewia monticola 4 Euclea crispa 4 Rhus leptodictea 12.6 Rhus leptodictea 1.1 Acacia karoo 15.5 Acacia karoo 22.1 Acacia karoo 18.7 Unknown 2.8 Unknown 7.6

Sighting 4 GPS Center Point S 25°23.7917' E 29°19.6422' Percent Canopy Cover 25% Hits 5 Misses 15 Center Tree DBH (cm) Diplorhyncus condylocarpon 18.3

Other Species DBH (cm) Combretum apiculatum 1.7 Combretum apiculatum too small Sclerocarya birrea 4.6 Grewia monticola too small Grewia monticola too small Acacia burkei too small Acacia burkei too small Acacia burkei 25.4 Combretum apiculatum 3

Sighting 5 GPS Center Point S 25°24.2316' E 29°20.7997 Percent Canopy Cover 50% Hits 10 Misses 10 Center Tree DBH (cm) Sclerocarya birrea 15.7

Other Species DBH (cm) Grewia flavescense too small Ozora sphaerocarpa 6.4 Sclerocarya birrea 8.4 Bridelia mollis 29.5 Combretum apiculatum 35.2 Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea 2.5 Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea 11.6 Dichrostachys cinerea 2.5 Dichrostachys cinerea 3.1

Sighting 6 GPS Center Point S 25°24.4482' E 29°20.8226' Percent Canopy Cover 70% Hits 14 Misses 6 Center Tree DBH (cm) Acacia caffra 32.2

Other Species DBH (cm) Combretum molle 45.1 Dichrostachys cinerea 6.5 Dead tree 16.5

Sighting 7 GPS Center Point S 25°24.0576' E 29°20.7453' Percent Canopy Cover 80% Hits 16 Misses 4 Center Tree DBH (cm) Ehretia obtusifolia 36

Other Species DBH (cm) Combretum molle 2.7 Combretum molle 46.5 Combretum molle 6 Combretum molle too small Combretum molle too small

Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Grewia monticola too small Grewia monticola too small Grewia monticola too small Grewia monticola too small Rhus leptodictea 30.2 Rhus leptodictea 2.5 Acacia karoo 4.4 Elaeodendron transvalense too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small

Sighting 8 GPS Center Point S 25°24.7864' E 29°18.8492' Percent Canopy Cover 85% Hits 17 Misses 3 Center Tree DBH (cm) Combretum molle 41.5

Other Species DBH (cm) Combretum molle 7 Combretum molle 2.7 Combretum molle too small Rhus leptodictea too small Rhus leptodictea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Protea caffra 14.3

Sighting 9 GPS Center Point S 25°25.1429 E 29°18.4347 Percent Canopy Cover 40% Hits 8 Misses 12 Center Tree DBH (cm) Acacia karoo 8.7

Other Species DBH (cm) Acacia nilotica 38.4

Acacia nilotica 4 Acacia nilotica 9.9 Acacia nilotica 10.6 Acacia nilotica 9.5 Acacia nilotica 13.2 Acacia nilotica 2.6 Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Acacia burkei 7.2 Acacia tortillis 11 Acacia tortillis 13.4 Acacia tortillis too small Dichrostachys cinerea 8.3

Sighting 10 GPS Center Point S 25°24.5182' E 29°19.1461' Percent Canopy Cover 70% Hits 14 Misses 6 Center Tree DBH (cm) Acacia burkei 29.8

Other Species DBH (cm) Grewia monticola 20.8 Acacia burkei too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Ziziphus mucronata 2.7 Ziziphus mucronata too small Ziziphus mucronata 7.9 Ziziphus mucronata 5.2 Terminalia prunoides 2.8 Terminalia prunoides too small Terminalia prunoides too small Terminalia prunoides 2.5 Terminalia prunoides too small Terminalia prunoides too small Terminalia prunoides too small Terminalia prunoides too small Terminalia prunoides 5 Terminalia prunoides 7.3

Grewia flavecens too small Grewia flavecens too small

Sighting 11 GPS Center Point S 25°24.6740' E 29°20.7040' Percent Canopy Cover 50% Hits 10 Misses 10 Center Tree DBH (cm) Acacia nigrescens 28.4

Other Species DBH (cm) Acacia nigrescens 21.8 Acacia nigrescens 6.4 Combretum molle too small Combretum apiculatum too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Dombeya rotundifolia 4.4 Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea 7.4 Dichrostachys cinerea 3.5

Sighting 12 GPS Center Point S 25°24.5647' E 29°20.4156' Percent Canopy Cover 40% Hits 8 Misses 12 Center Tree DBH (cm) Combretum zeyheri 13.2

Other Species DBH (cm) Combretum zeyheri 21.9 Combretum zeyheri 5.6 Combretum zeyheri 8.9 Combretum zeyheri 5.9 Combretum zeyheri 14 Dombeya rotundifolia 2.8 Dombeya rotundifolia 3.4 Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Gymnosporia senegalensis 4.5 Ozoroa paniculosa 3 Acacia burkei 24.3

Sighting 13 GPS Center Point S 25°25.0235' E 29°20.3015' Percent Canopy Cover 45% Hits 9 Misses 11 Center Tree DBH (cm) Combretum zeyheri 23

Other Species DBH (cm) Dombeya rotundifolia 19.8 Dombeya rotundifolia 16.2 Dombeya rotundifolia 18.6 Dombeya rotundifolia too small Grewia monticola too small Lippa javanica too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Euclea crispa too small

Sighting 14 GPS Center Point S 25°24.4608' E 29°19.0876' Percent Canopy Cover 65% Hits 13 Misses 7 Center Tree DBH (cm) Acacia karoo 31.5

Other Species DBH (cm) Acacia sp. 3 Acacia sp. too small Acacia sp. too small Acacia sp. 4.8 Acacia sp. 6.7 Acacia sp. 6.4 Unknown 3.5 Unknown 10.8

Sighting 15 GPS Center Point S 25°24.6185' E 29°19.0235 Percent Canopy Cover 45% Hits 9 Misses 11 Center Tree DBH (cm) Acacia karoo 32.5

Other Species DBH (cm) Grewia monticola 11.5 Grewia monticola too small Grewia monticola 9.4 Dombeya rotundifolia 4.5 Dombeya rotundifolia 6 Dombeya rotundifolia 8.7 Acacia karoo too small Acacia karoo too small Acacia karoo 2.2 Euclea crispa 5.9

Sighting 16 GPS Center Point S 25°24.9654' E 29°18.0033' Percent Canopy Cover 10% Hits 2 Misses 18 Center Tree DBH (cm) Protea caffra 8.4

Other Species DBH (cm) Vangueira parvifolia too small Sclerocarya birrea too small Sclerocarya birrea too small Sclerocarya birrea 26.9 Protea caffra too small

Sighting 17 GPS Center Point S 25°24.3253' E 29°20.7630' Percent Canopy Cover 85% Hits 17 Misses 3 Center Tree DBH (cm) Combretum zeyheri 20

Other Species DBH (cm) Combretum apiculatum 4.9 Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum 11.4 Combretum apiculatum 2.8 Combretum apiculatum too small Acacia nigrescens 4 Acacia nigrescens too small Acacia nigrescens 7.3 Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Bridelia mollis 11.4 Bridelia mollis 3.8 Salvadora persica too small

Salvadora persica too small Flueggea virosa too small Cordia ovalis 19 Tinnea rhodesiana too small Tinnea rhodesiana too small Tinnea rhodesiana too small Gymnosporia tenuispina 2.8 Gymnosporia tenuispina too small Ehretia amoena too small Combretum zeyheri 13.5 Acacia burkei 26.1 Elaeodendron transvaalense too small Elaeodendron transvaalense too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Unknown 11.5 Unknown too small

Sighting 18 GPS Center Point S 25°24.8283' E 29°18.8042' Percent Canopy Cover 60% Hits 12 Misses 8 Center Tree DBH (cm) Acacia burkei 19.1

Other Species DBH (cm) Combretum apiculatum 28.3

Combretum apiculatum 4 Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Dombeya rotundifolia 7.1 Dombeya rotundifolia 19.7 Dombeya rotundifolia 2.9 Dombeya rotundifolia 20.8 Dombeya rotundifolia too small Rhus pyroides too small Rhus pyroides too small Strychnos madagascariensis too small Strychnos madagascariensis too small Dichrostachys cinerea 6.6 Dichrostachys cinerea 4.8 Combretum molle 6.3 Combretum molle too small Combretum molle too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Acacia karoo too small Dyplorhyncus condylocarpon 99.4

Sighting 19 GPS Center Point S 25°24.9931' E 29°18.3405' Percent Canopy Cover 50% Hits 10 Misses 10 Center Tree DBH (cm) Euclea crispa 7

Other Species DBH (cm) Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Acacia karoo 30.2

Acacia karoo too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Dichrostachys cinerea 5.6 Unknown dead tree 12.2

Sighting 20 GPS Center Point S 25°24.6407' E 29°20.7522' Percent Canopy Cover 80% Hits 16 Misses 4 Center Tree DBH (cm) Combretum zeyheri 13.4

Other Species DBH (cm) Combretum apiculatum 10.5 Combretum apiculatum 5.2 Combretum apiculatum 6.7 Combretum apiculatum 9 Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum 8.9 Combretum apiculatum 9.3 Acacia nilotica 13.9 Acacia nilotica too small Acacia burkei 31.7 Acacia burkei 8.3 Acacia burkei 3.6 Acacia burkei 20.7 Sclerocarya birrea 9 Sclerocarya birrea 29.9 Combretum zeyheri too small Dichrostachys cinerea 29.6

Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Ozora paniculosa 5.8 Acacia karoo 5 Combretum kraussii too small Rhus pyroides too small Unknown too small Unknown too small Unknown too small Unknown too small

Sighting 21 GPS Center Point S 25°24.7848' E 29°20.4343' Percent Canopy Cover 40% Hits 8 Misses 12 Center Tree DBH (cm) Combretum apiculatum 29.7

Other Species DBH (cm) Dombeya rotundifolia 21.5 Dombeya rotundifolia 11 Dombeya rotundifolia too small Combretum apiculatum 6.5 Combretum apiculatum 13.2 Combretum apiculatum 2.5 Combretum apiculatum 3.4 Combretum apiculatum 9.2 Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small

Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea 12.7 Dichrostachys cinerea 7.4 Dichrostachys cinerea 14.8 Dichrostachys cinerea 2.5 Dichrostachys cinerea 18.2 Sclerocarya birrea too small Combretum zeyheri 14.3 Combretum zeyheri too small Unknown 2.9 Unknown too small Unknown too small

Sighting 22 GPS Center Point S 25°24.8258' E 29°20.4275' Percent Canopy Cover 30% Hits 6 Misses 14 Center Tree DBH (cm) Dombeya rotundifolia 4.5

Other Species DBH (cm) Dombeya rotundifolia 7.9 Dombeya rotundifolia 4.8 Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Acacia burkei 17.3 Acacia burkei 21 Elodendron transvalensis too small Elodendron transvalensis too small Elodendron transvalensis too small Rhus pyroides too small Acacia karoo 4.1 Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small

Combretum apiculatum 8.3 Ehretia rigida too small Ehretia rigida too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Sclerocarya birrea 21.9 Lippa javanica too small Unknown 4.1 Unknown too small Unknown too small Unknown too small

Sighting 23 GPS Center Point S 25°25.0247' E 29°20.2721' Percent Canopy Cover 40% Hits 8 Misses 12 Center Tree DBH (cm) Combretum zeyheri 28.2

Other Species DBH (cm) Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small

Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Grewia monticola 10 Grewia monticola too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Lippa javanica too small Combretum zeyheri 27.5 Combretum zeyheri 26.6 Euclea crispa too small Dombeya rotundifolia 22.2

Sighting 24 GPS Center Point S 25°24.0646' E 29°20.7518' Percent Canopy Cover 60% Hits 12 Misses 8 Center Tree DBH (cm) Terminalia prunoides 22

Other Species DBH (cm) Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Dichrostachys cinerea 48.9 Dichrostachys cinerea 9.7 Dichrostachys cinerea 21.7 Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Euclea crispa 4.5 Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small

Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Grewia monticola 16.9 Grewia monticola 8.1 Grewia monticola too small Grewia monticola too small Combretum molle 44.8 Eleodendron transvaalensis too small Eleodendron transvaalensis too small Euclea undulata too small Berchemia zaire too small Ozoroa paniculosa too small Acacia karoo 6 Acacia karoo too small Acacia karoo too small Acacia karoo too small Rhus pyroides too small Acacia burkei too small Acacia burkei too small Warburgia saltaris too small

Sighting 25 GPS Center Point S 25°24.0658' E 29°20.7500 Percent Canopy Cover 40% Hits 8 Misses 12 Center Tree DBH (cm) Combretum zeyheri 32.1

Other Species DBH (cm) Croton menyharthii too small Croton menyharthii too small Ziziphus mucronata too small Dichrostachys cinerea 7.3 Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Acacia karoo 21.5

Acacia karoo 13.4 Acacia karoo too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Rhus pyroides too small Combretum apiculatum 29.4

Sighting 26 GPS Center Point S 25°24.3323' E 29°20.7814' Percent Canopy Cover 80% Hits 16 Misses 4 Center Tree DBH (cm) Combretum molle 32.9

Other Species DBH (cm) Grewia flavescens too small Grewia flavescens too small Grewia flavescens too small Grewia flavescens too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Dombeya rotundifolia too small Diplorhyncus condylocarpon 34.7 Acacia karoo too small Acacia karoo too small Dichorstachys cinerea 2.5 Dichorstachys cinerea 20.6 Dichorstachys cinerea 4.6 Dichorstachys cinerea 3.6 Dichorstachys cinerea 5.3 Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small

Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Dichorstachys cinerea too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis 2.6 Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Acacia burkei too small Combretum zeyheri 34.9 Lippa javanica too small Rhus zaire too small Rhus zaire too small Grewia monticola 10.8 Warburgia salutaris too small Warburgia salutaris too small Warburgia salutaris too small Flueggea virosa too small Flueggea virosa too small Combretum molle 41 Unknown too small

Sighting 27 GPS Center Point S 25°26.0198' E 29°15.4815' Percent Canopy Cover 90% Hits 18 Misses 2 Center Tree DBH (cm) Acacia karoo 92.6

Other Species DBH (cm) Rhus pyroides too small Rhus pyroides too small

Rhus pyroides too small Rhus pyroides too small Rhus pyroides too small Combretum apiculatum too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Rhus leptodictea too small Rhus leptodictea too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Unknown too small Unknown too small Unknown too small

Sighting 28 GPS Center Point S 25°24.3325' E 29°20.9699' Percent Canopy Cover 90% Hits 18 Misses 2 Center Tree DBH (cm) Sclerocarya birrea 39

Other Species DBH (cm) Dichrostachys cinerea 3.1 Dichrostachys cinerea 5.2 Dichrostachys cinerea 8 Dichrostachys cinerea 5 Dichrostachys cinerea 6.9 Dichrostachys cinerea 3.5 Dichrostachys cinerea 7.5 Dichrostachys cinerea 8.8 Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small

Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small

Dichrostachys cinerea too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis 4.4 Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Elaeodendron transvaalensis too small Combretum molle 7.9 Combretum molle 4.5 Combretum molle 8.5 Combretum molle too small Combretum molle too small Combretum molle too small Combretum molle too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Euclea crispa too small Ehretia rigida too small Ehretia rigida too small Grewia flavescens too small Grewia flavescens too small Grewia flavescens too small Grewia flavescens too small Dombeya rotundifolia 3.4 Dombeya rotundifolia 2.9 Acacia burkei too small Acacia burkei too small Strychnos madagascariensis too small Strychnos spinosa too small Sclerocarya birrea too small

Rhus pyroides too small Unknown 3 Unknown 9.1 Unknown 18.7 Unknown 5.2 Unknown too small Unknown too small Unknown too small Unknown too small Unknown too small Unknown too small

Sighting 29 GPS Center Point S 25°23.9305' E 29°20.5247' Percent Canopy Cover 30% Hits 6 Misses 14 Center Tree DBH (cm) Acacia nigrescens 24.7

Other Species DBH (cm) Acacia nigrescens 8.3 Acacia nigrescens 8.4 Acacia nigrescens 25.8 Acacia nigrescens too small Combretum apiculatum 6.2 Combretum apiculatum 4.5 Combretum apiculatum 5.6 Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Combretum apiculatum too small Dichrostachys cinerea 2.7 Dichrostachys cinerea 5 Dichrostachys cinerea too small Lycium cinereum too small

Sighting 30 GPS Center Point S 25°24.9987' E 29°18.0172' Percent Canopy Cover 40% Hits 8 Misses 12

Center Tree DBH (cm) Sclerocarya birrea 29.7

Other Species DBH (cm) Dombeya rotundifolia 24.3 Dombeya rotundifolia 7.3 Acacia burkei 7.2 Protea caffra too small Protea caffra too small Protea caffra 20.9 Protea caffra 4.3 Protea caffra 6.5 Protea caffra 5.7 Protea caffra 6.1 Protea caffra 14.4

Sighting 31 GPS Center Point S 25°24.7356' E 29°20.5844' Percent Canopy Cover 70% Hits 14 Misses 6 Center Tree DBH (cm) Dicrhostachys cinerea 15.3

Other Species DBH (cm) Dichrostachys cinerea 6.2 Dichrostachys cinerea 3.6 Dichrostachys cinerea 4.9 Dichrostachys cinerea 36.6 Dichrostachys cinerea 2.7 Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Acacia nilotica too small Acacia tortillis 2.5 Acacia tortillis 19.4 Acacia tortillis too small Acacia tortillis too small Rhus pyroides too small

Sighting 32 GPS Center Point S 25°24.4588' E 29°21.0310' Percent Canopy Cover 90% Hits 18 Misses 2 Center Tree DBH (cm) Dichrostachys cinerea 20.4

Other Species DBH (cm) Dichrostachys cinerea 9.3 Dichrostachys cinerea 21.2 Dichrostachys cinerea 7.8 Dichrostachys cinerea 9.8 Dichrostachys cinerea 51.4 Dichrostachys cinerea 14.3 Dichrostachys cinerea 11.5 Dichrostachys cinerea too small Dichrostachys cinerea too small Acacia burkei too small Grewia monticola too small Ozoroa paniculosa 4.4 Combretum apiculatum 46.1 Grewia flavescens too small Peltophorum africanum 10.7