DOCSLIB.ORG

Mpenjati Nature Reserve PAMP Final June 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mpenjati Nature Reserve PAMP Final June 2013 Mpenjati Nature Reserve KwaZulu-Natal South Africa Protected Area Management Plan Prepared by Brousse-James & Associates and Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife Protected Area Management Planning Unit Citation Mpenjati Nature Reserve: Management Plan. Version 1.0 (June 2013), Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg. This Management Plan for Mpenjati Nature Reserve is recommended by the Nature Reserve Planning Committee (NRPC), a multi-disciplinary team consisting of: Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Ken Morty Regional Conservation Co-ordinator Vumani Mthethwa Conservation Manager South Coast West Reserves Irene Hatton Acting Coordinator Protected Area Management Planning Magda Goosen Protected Area Management Planner Roger Uys Regional Ecologist South Coast Santosh Bachoo Senior Ecologist (Marine) Consultant Barry James Brousse-James & Associates Mpenjati Nature Reserve i Protected Area Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS AUTHORISATION ........................................................................................................................ II TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. III LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................................VI LIST OF MAPS ............................................................................................................................VI LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................VII LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................VII PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................VIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. IX 1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 The values of Mpenjati Nature Reserve .................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Purpose of the plan ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Planning approach .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.4.1 Adaptive management ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.2 Collaboration and transparency ......................................................................................................... 5 1.4.3 Structure of the plan ........................................................................................................................... 6 2 DESCRIPTION OF MPENJATI NATURE RESERVE AND ITS CONTEXT ................................... 8 2.1 Institutional and administrative framework for the management of Mpenjati Nature Reserve ........... 8 2.2 The legislative basis for the management of Mpenjati Nature Reserve ................................................. 8 2.2.1 Proclamation status of Mpenjati Nature Reserve ............................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Invasive species control in terms of the Biodiversity Act ..................................................................... 9 2.3 The policy framework guiding the management of Mpenjati Nature Reserve ...................................... 9 2.4 The regional and local planning context of Mpenjati Nature Reserve ................................................. 11 2.4.1 The National Protected Area Expansion Strategy ............................................................................. 13 2.4.2 The Provincial Protected Area Expansion Plan .................................................................................. 13 2.4.3 EIA Regulations in terms of NEMA .................................................................................................... 14 2.4.4 Local government planning mechanisms .......................................................................................... 14 2.5 The history of the Mpenjati Nature Reserve ........................................................................................ 14 2.6 Ecological context of the nature reserve .............................................................................................. 16 2.6.1 Climate and weather ......................................................................................................................... 16 2.6.2 Topography ....................................................................................................................................... 17 2.6.3 Geology and soils .............................................................................................................................. 18 Mpenjati Nature Reserve iii Protected Area Management Plan 2.6.4 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................... 20 2.6.5 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 22 2.6.6 Fire regime ........................................................................................................................................ 27 2.6.7 Invasive vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 28 2.6.8 Alien Animals .................................................................................................................................... 28 2.6.9 Mammalian fauna ............................................................................................................................ 28 2.6.10 Avifauna ............................................................................................................................................ 29 2.6.11 Herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians) .......................................................................................... 30 2.6.12 Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................................... 30 2.6.13 Fish .................................................................................................................................................... 31 2.7 Socio-economic context ........................................................................................................................ 32 2.8 Operational management within Mpenjati Nature Reserve ................................................................ 34 2.8.1 Management infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 34 2.8.2 Conservation infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 34 2.8.3 Eco-tourism (environmental education) infrastructure .................................................................... 35 2.8.4 Staff establishment ........................................................................................................................... 35 2.8.5 Funding levels at Mpenjati Nature Reserve ...................................................................................... 36 2.8.6 Management effectiveness in Mpenjati Nature Reserve .................................................................. 36 2.8.7 Key operational issues at Mpenjati Nature Reserve ......................................................................... 36 2.8.8 Summary of management issues and challenges ............................................................................. 37 3 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ....................................................................... 39 3.1 Mpenjati Nature Reserve vision............................................................................................................ 39 3.2 Objectives and strategic outcomes ....................................................................................................... 39 4 ZONATION PLAN .............................................................................................................. 42 4.1 Conceptual development guidelines .................................................................................................... 44 5 OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ................................................................. 51 5.1 Determination of priorities for strategic outcomes .............................................................................. 51 5.1 Linking to the Mpenjati Estuary Management Plan (2012) – Appendix G ............................................ 51 5.2 Legal compliance and law enforcement ............................................................................................... 52 5.3 Stakeholder engagement .....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Effects of Crude Ficus Thonningii Stem-Bark Extract on High-Fructose Diet Fed Growing Sprague Dawley Rats
    THE EFFECTS OF CRUDE FICUS THONNINGII STEM-BARK EXTRACT ON HIGH-FRUCTOSE DIET FED GROWING SPRAGUE DAWLEY RATS Yvonne Mhosva A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, School of Physiology in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Medicine. Johannesburg, 2019 DECLARATION I, Yvonne Mhosva, declare that this dissertation is my own unaided work. Where work from other sources has been used; it has been appropriately acknowledged. It is being submitted for the degree of Master of Science in Medicine at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination at any other University. I confirm that all the experimental procedures used in this dissertation were approved by the Animal Ethics Screening Committee of the University of the Witwatersrand (AESC number: 2016/03/13/B). __________________________ Yvonne Mhosva Signed on the _________6th day of ______________April 20________20 ii DEDICATION To my loving and supportive siblings, To my supervisors, colleagues, and friends for the motivation and tireless support. iii PRESENTATIONS ARISING FROM THIS STUDY Yvonne Mhosva, Trevor Nyakudya and Eliton Chivandi (2018). Effect of Ficus thonningii stem-bark extract on liver mass, hepatic lipid content and plasma triglyceride levels in fructose-fed Sprague Dawley rats. The First Conference of Biomedical and Natural Sciences and Therapeutics (CoBNeST), Spier Conference Centre, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 7-12th October 2018. iv ABSTRACT The consumption of fructose-rich diets is one of the causes of the global increase in the prevalence of obesity and metabolic derangements (MD) in children.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Seismic Reflection Survey and Well Drilling, Umkhanyakude District Municipality, Northern Kzn
    SFG1897 v2 Public Disclosure Authorized ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SEISMIC REFLECTION SURVEY AND WELL DRILLING, UMKHANYAKUDE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, NORTHERN KZN Public Disclosure Authorized Client: SANEDI–SACCCS Consultant: G.A. Botha (PhD, Pr.Sci.Nat) in association with specialist consultants; Brousse-James and Associates, WetRest, Jeffares & Green, S. Allan Council for Geoscience, P.O. Box 900, Pietermaritzburg, 3200 Council for Geoscience report: 2016-0009 June, 2016 Copyright © Council for Geoscience, 2016 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project description ................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Location and regional context ....................................................................................................... 5 2.2 2D seismic reflection survey and well drilling; project description and technical aspects ............ 7 2.2.1 Seismic survey (vibroseis) process ....................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Well drilling ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian Diversity and Community-Based Ecotourism in Ndumo Game Reserve, South Africa
    Amphibian diversity and Community-Based Ecotourism in Ndumo Game Reserve, South Africa FM Phaka orcid.org/0000-0003-1833-3156 Previous qualification (not compuLsory) Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Masters degree in Environmental Science at the North-West University Supervisor: Prof LH du Preez Co-supervisor: Dr DJD Kruger Assistant Supervisor: Mr EC Netherlands Graduation May 2018 25985469 Declaration I, Fortunate Mafeta Phaka, declare that this work is my own, that all sources used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references, and that this thesis was not previously submitted by me or any other person for degree purposes at this or any other university. Signature Date 18/11/2017 i i AcknowLedgements A great debt of gratitude is owed to my study supervisor L.H. Du Preez, co-supervisor D.J.D. Kruger, and assistant supervisor E.N. Netherlands for guidance and encouragement to focus on my strengths. To my mentors, D. Kotze and L. De Jager, and the Phaka clan, your faith in me has kept me going through all these years. Thank you to African Amphibian Conservation Research Group and Youth 4 African Wildlife for accepting me as part of your family. Members of the Zululand community are thanked for their enthusiasm and assistance towards this study. Fieldwork and running expenses for this research were funded by the South African National Biodiversity Institute’s (SANBI) Foundational Biodiversity Information Programme (Grant UID 98144). Financial assistance for studying towards this degree was provided by SANBI’s Foundational Biodiversity Information Programme (National Research Foundation Grant- Holder Linked Bursary for Grant UID 98144), and the North-West University (NWU Masters Progress Bursary, and NWU Masters Bursary).
    [Show full text]
  • Check-List of the Butterflies of the Kakamega Forest Nature Reserve in Western Kenya (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea)
    Nachr. entomol. Ver. Apollo, N. F. 25 (4): 161–174 (2004) 161 Check-list of the butterflies of the Kakamega Forest Nature Reserve in western Kenya (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea) Lars Kühne, Steve C. Collins and Wanja Kinuthia1 Lars Kühne, Museum für Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Invalidenstraße 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany; email: [email protected] Steve C. Collins, African Butterfly Research Institute, P.O. Box 14308, Nairobi, Kenya Dr. Wanja Kinuthia, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museums of Kenya, P.O. Box 40658, Nairobi, Kenya Abstract: All species of butterflies recorded from the Kaka- list it was clear that thorough investigation of scientific mega Forest N.R. in western Kenya are listed for the first collections can produce a very sound list of the occur- time. The check-list is based mainly on the collection of ring species in a relatively short time. The information A.B.R.I. (African Butterfly Research Institute, Nairobi). Furthermore records from the collection of the National density is frequently underestimated and collection data Museum of Kenya (Nairobi), the BIOTA-project and from offers a description of species diversity within a local literature were included in this list. In total 491 species or area, in particular with reference to rapid measurement 55 % of approximately 900 Kenyan species could be veri- of biodiversity (Trueman & Cranston 1997, Danks 1998, fied for the area. 31 species were not recorded before from Trojan 2000). Kenyan territory, 9 of them were described as new since the appearance of the book by Larsen (1996). The kind of list being produced here represents an information source for the total species diversity of the Checkliste der Tagfalter des Kakamega-Waldschutzge- Kakamega forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Cephalophus Natalensis – Natal Red Duiker
    Cephalophus natalensis – Natal Red Duiker listed two subspecies, including C. n. natalensis from KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), eastern Mpumalanga and southern Mozambique, and C. n. robertsi Rothschild 1906 from Mozambique and the regions north of the Limpopo River (Skinner & Chimimba 2005). Assessment Rationale This species is restricted to forest patches within northeastern South Africa and Swaziland. They can occur at densities as high as 1 individual / ha. In KZN, there are an estimated 3,046–4,210 individuals in protected areas alone, with the largest subpopulation of 1,666–2,150 Sam Williams individuals occurring in iSimangaliso Wetland Park (2012– 2014 counts; Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife unpubl. data). This Regional Red List status (2016) Near Threatened subpopulation is inferred to have remained stable or B2ab(ii,v)* increased over three generations (2000–2015), as the previous assessment (2004, using count data from 2002) National Red List status (2004) Least Concern estimated subpopulation size as 1,000 animals. While no Reasons for change Non-genuine change: other provincial subpopulation estimates are available, New information they are regularly recorded on camera traps in the Soutpansberg Mountains of Limpopo and the Mariepskop Global Red List status (2016) Least Concern forests of Mpumalanga, including on private lands outside protected areas (S. Williams unpubl. data). TOPS listing (NEMBA) None Reintroductions are probably a successful conservation CITES listing None intervention for this species. For example, reintroduced individuals from the 1980/90s are still present in areas of Endemic No southern KZN and are slowly moving into adjacent *Watch-list Data farmlands (Y. Ehlers-Smith unpubl. data). The estimated area of occupancy, using remaining (2013/14 land cover) Although standing only about 0.45 m high forest patches within the extent of occurrence, is 1,800 (Bowland 1997), the Natal Red Duiker has km2.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This PDF File
    terblance 2.qxd 2005/12/09 10:31 Page 73 The vegetation of three localities of the threatened butterfly species Chrysoritis aureus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) R.F. TERBLANCHE, T.L. MORGENTHAL and S.S. CILLIERS Terblanche, R.F., T.L. Morgenthal and S.S. Cilliers. 2003. The vegetation of three local- ities of the threatened butterfly species Chrysoritis aureus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Koedoe 46(1): 73–90. Pretoria. ISSN 0075-6458. The vegetation and habitat characteristics of three localities of Chrysoritis aureus at the Alice Glockner Nature Reserve, Suikerbosrand Nature Reserve and Malanskraal farm near Heidelberg in South Africa, were compared. A numerical classification technique, TWINSPAN, was used and refined by using Braun Blanquet procedures to classify the vegetation at the different localities. A DCA ordination was applied to confirm the results of the classification. Although the general vegetation structure at the three habi- tats of Chrysoritis aureus were found to be similar, marked differences in the floristic composition were evidenced. A different sub-community, compared to the vegetation at Suikerbosrand and Alice Glockner Nature Reserve, was recorded at the Malanskraal habitat of Chrysoritis aureus. These differences in floristic composition, but with simi- larities in vegetation structure, indicate the possible importance of fire for the ultimate survival of these butterflies in the Rocky Highveld Grassland. The host plant of Chrysoritis aureus, Clutia pulchella, collected at Malanskraal differed markedly and consistently in their morphology, compared to the individuals from the habitats at Suikerbosrand and Alice Glockner Nature Reserve. These differences in the floristic composition of one of the habitats compared to the others, raise research questions con- cerning the butterfly metapopulation structure, since the subpopulations seem to be adapted to slightly different habitat conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Bush Palletability
    Mr Farmer--- Please send me a note or contact me with any suggestions with regard to bush or trees which should be added to this "sugested only" list! -- I will keep it updated as best I can! All I am trying to do is get info to farmers.-- Please, every farmer must do their own further research as i have found a lot of conflicting information on the internet! --- Thanks! To: [email protected] My cel: 0844534499 Please Note: (This is only a suggested guide. All users must please varify correctness before use of any kind!) 1. Ritlee Xecutech, Cedara or Marc Custers will NOT accept any liability or responsability of any kind whatsoever if there are any mistakes, conflicts or incorrect information on this listing! 2. Ritlee received a list with No, Species,Index from a bush specialist stationed at Cedara in Howick 3.This list has never been published and is only a help for those interested in this information. 4. Ritlee (Marc Custers -- Cell 0844534499) Added Common Name, Brief Description, Normal Location and picture to this list to try and assist with those interested. 5.The reason why Ritlee have done this is to help us premote our Ritlee 225 Chipper with grinder which is ideal for chipping bush into a consistacy we feel ideal for cattle and game feed addition. Woody plant palatability Index-- 0 – Not Acceptable, 0.1- Only plant parts eaten and 1 - Acceptable ->> No Species Common Name Brief Description Normal Location Index Pictures African tree – red pods and numerous Gauteng, Kzn, Namibia, Botswana and 1 Acacia Ataxacantha Flame Thorn 1 hooked prickles.
    [Show full text]
  • Herpetological Bulletin
    The HERPETOLOGICAL BULLETIN Number 80 — Summer 2002 PUBLISHED BY THE BRITISH HERPETOLOGICAL SOCIETY THE HERPETOLOGICAL BULLETIN The Herpetological Bulletin is produced quarterly and publishes, in English, a range of articles concerned with herpetology. These include full-length papers of mostly a semi-technical nature, book reviews, letters from readers, society news, and other items of general herpetological interest. Emphasis is placed on natural history, conservation, captive breeding and husbandry, veterinary and behavioural aspects. Articles reporting the results of experimental research, descriptions of new taxa, or taxonomic revisions should be submitted to The Herpetological Journal (see inside back cover for Editor's address). ISSN 1473-0928 © The British Herpetological Society. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the permission of the Editor. Printed by Metloc Printers Limited, Old Station Road, Loughton, Essex. Information for contributors 1. Contributions should be submitted in hard copy form (2 copies of manuscript, double-spaced) AND on computer diskette in Windows format only. The Bulletin is typeset directly from the author's diskette, so wherever possible all manuscripts should be prepared using a word-processor. Please indicate word-processing software used, and if possible also include a text-only version of the file. The text should be arranged in the following order: Title; Name(s) of author(s); Address(es) of authors (please indicate corresponding author); Abstract (optional - if included should not exceed 10% of total word length); Text; Acknowledgements; References; Appendices. Footnotes should not be included. Refer to this issue for style and format information. 2. Slides and high resolution scanned images are the preferred form of illustration, although good quality prints are also acceptable.
    [Show full text]
  • Mt Mabu, Mozambique: Biodiversity and Conservation
    Darwin Initiative Award 15/036: Monitoring and Managing Biodiversity Loss in South-East Africa's Montane Ecosystems MT MABU, MOZAMBIQUE: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION November 2012 Jonathan Timberlake, Julian Bayliss, Françoise Dowsett-Lemaire, Colin Congdon, Bill Branch, Steve Collins, Michael Curran, Robert J. Dowsett, Lincoln Fishpool, Jorge Francisco, Tim Harris, Mirjam Kopp & Camila de Sousa ABRI african butterfly research in Forestry Research Institute of Malawi Biodiversity of Mt Mabu, Mozambique, page 2 Front cover: Main camp in lower forest area on Mt Mabu (JB). Frontispiece: View over Mabu forest to north (TT, top); Hermenegildo Matimele plant collecting (TT, middle L); view of Mt Mabu from abandoned tea estate (JT, middle R); butterflies (Lachnoptera ayresii) mating (JB, bottom L); Atheris mabuensis (JB, bottom R). Photo credits: JB – Julian Bayliss CS ‒ Camila de Sousa JT – Jonathan Timberlake TT – Tom Timberlake TH – Tim Harris Suggested citation: Timberlake, J.R., Bayliss, J., Dowsett-Lemaire, F., Congdon, C., Branch, W.R., Collins, S., Curran, M., Dowsett, R.J., Fishpool, L., Francisco, J., Harris, T., Kopp, M. & de Sousa, C. (2012). Mt Mabu, Mozambique: Biodiversity and Conservation. Report produced under the Darwin Initiative Award 15/036. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London. 94 pp. Biodiversity of Mt Mabu, Mozambique, page 3 LIST OF CONTENTS List of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Acoustic Profiling of the Landscape
    Acoustic profiling of the landscape by Paul Brian Charles Grant Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Stellenbosch Supervisor: Professor M.J. Samways Faculty of AgriSciences Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology April 2014 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Paul B.C. Grant Date: November 2013 Copyright © 2014 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved 1 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract Soft, serene insect songs add an intrinsic aesthetic value to the landscape. Yet these songs also have an important biological relevance. Acoustic signals across the landscape carry a multitude of localized information allowing organisms to communicate invisibly within their environment. Ensifera are cryptic participants of nocturnal soundscapes, contributing to ambient acoustics through their diverse range of proclamation songs. Although not without inherent risks and constraints, the single most important function of signalling is sexual advertising and pair formation. In order for acoustic communication to be effective, signals must maintain their encoded information so as to lead to positive phonotaxis in the receiver towards the emitter. In any given environment, communication is constrained by various local abiotic and biotic factors, resulting in Ensifera utilizing acoustic niches, shifting species songs spectrally, spatially and temporally for their optimal propagation in the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Chromatographic and Antiproliferative Assessment of the Aerial Root of Ficus Thonningii Blume (Moraceae)
    MicroMedicine ISSN 2449-8947 RESEARCH ARTICLE Chromatographic and antiproliferative assessment of the aerial root of Ficus thonningii Blume (Moraceae) Maryam Odufa Adamu 1,2 , Solomon Fidelis Ameh 3, Utibe Abasi Okon Ettah 1, Samuel Ehiabhi Okhale 1* 1 Department of Medicinal Plant Research and Traditional Medicine (MPR & TM), National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research and Development (NIPRD), Idu Industrial Area, P. M. B. 21, Garki, Abuja, Nigeria 2 Department of Chemistry, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nasarawa State, Nigeria 3 Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research and Development (NIPRD), Idu Industrial Area, P. M. B. 21, Garki, Abuja, Nigeria *Corresponding author: Dr. Samuel Ehiabhi Okhale; Tel: +2348036086812; Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Ficus thonningii (Blume) has long history of use for variety of ailments. The hot aqueous extract of Ficus thonningii aerial root (FT) was obtained by infusion. The antiproliferative activity of FT was evaluated using Sorghum bicolor seed radicle over a period of 24 h to 96 h. The mean radicle length (mm), percentage inhibition and percentage growth were calculated. Chemical characterization of Citation: Adamu MO, Ameh SF, Ettah Utibe AO, FT was done using chromatographic techniques. Thin layer chromatography Okhale SE. Chromatographic and antiproliferative assessment of the aerial root of revealed the presence of β-sitosterol. High performance liquid chromatography Ficus thonningii Blume (Moraceae). MicroMed. showed ten peaks with gallic acid, tannins, caffeic acid, rutin, ferulic acid and 2018; 6(1): 1-9. morin eluting at 3.530, 3.928, 4.668, 6.706, 7.669 and 18.844 minutes DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1143651 respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps
    Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps DRAFT May 2009 South African National Biodiversity Institute Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Contents List of tables .............................................................................................................................. vii List of figures............................................................................................................................. vii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8 2 Criteria for identifying threatened ecosystems............................................................... 10 3 Summary of listed ecosystems ........................................................................................ 12 4 Descriptions and individual maps of threatened ecosystems ...................................... 14 4.1 Explanation of descriptions ........................................................................................................ 14 4.2 Listed threatened ecosystems ................................................................................................... 16 4.2.1 Critically Endangered (CR) ................................................................................................................ 16 1. Atlantis Sand Fynbos (FFd 4) .......................................................................................................................... 16 2. Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland
    [Show full text]