Cape Mountain Zebra (Equus Zebra Zebra)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cape Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra zebra) Figure 1. Distribution records for Cape Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra zebra) within the assessment region (global range). THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™ Table 1. Countries of occurrence within southern Africa Country Presence Origin Botswana Absent — Lesotho Absent — Mozambique Absent — Namibia Absent — South Africa: Eastern Cape Extant Native South Africa: Western Cape Extant Native South Africa: Free State Extant Introduced South Africa: Northern Cape Extant Native & Introduced Swaziland Absent — Zimbabwe Absent — Figure 2. Historical distribution of Cape Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra zebra) within the assessment region: background colours represent biomes (source: Boshoff et al. 2015). Table 2. Subpopulation numbers of Cape Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra zebra) aggregated by province, 2009 to 2014/15. Inside No. of Sub- Sub- Mature Mature natural reserves/ population population 55% 75% Province Type distribution properties total total range (2009, 2014) (2009) (2013-2015) Eastern Cape Formally protected Yes 6 1,022 1,903 1,047 11,427 Private Yes 10, 26 319 868 477 651 Northern Cape Formally protected Yes 2 34 35 19 26 Western Cape Formally protected Yes 10 821 1,179 648 884 Private Yes 23, 27 473 628 345 471 Free State Formally protected No 1 93 112 62 84 Private No 1 Unknown 8 4 6 Northern Cape Private No Unknown Unknown Unknown Total formally protected (eligible) 18 3,117 1,714 2,338 Total privately protected (eligible) 53 1,496 823 1,122 Extrapolated total eligible (81%) 53 1,212 666 909 Grand total 55 4,733 2,603 3,550 Total eligible adjusted 53 4,329 2,381 3,247 Table 3. Use and trade summary for the Cape Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra zebra). Category Applicable? Rationale Proportion of total harvest Trend Subsistence use Yes Localised bushmeat consumption. Minimal. Stable Commercial use Yes — 100% Stable No hunting from formally Translocations/sales occur in most protected protected areas, only Harvest from wild population Yes Stable areas as part of management plans. translocations and game sales to the private sector. Hunting is minimal. Harvest from ranched population Yes All private populations considered here. Translocations/sales are the Increasing majority. Six populations may be considered captive- breeding populations, totaling 143 individuals Harvest from captive population Yes Minimal. Increasing in 2015. Individuals from these populations are sold to privately-owned, managed areas. Table 4. Possible net effects of wildlife ranching on the Cape Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra zebra) and subsequent management recommendations. Net effect Positive Data quality Estimated Private landowners have successfully increased total population size and Rationale available habitat Cooperate with provincial authorities in implementing a scientifically sound Management metapopulation plan aimed at creating a genetically diverse and resilient recommendation population. Table 5. Threats to the Cape Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra zebra) ranked in order of severity with corresponding evidence (based on IUCN threat categories, with regional context). Evidence in the Data Scale of Rank Threat description Current trend scientific literature quality study 1 5.1.1 Hunting & Collecting Terrestrial Sasidharan et al. Empirical Regional Increasing due to proliferation of small, Animals: historical overhunting caused a 2011 isolated private subpopulations and lack of population bottleneck of 30 individuals. biodiversity and metapopulation management Current stresses 2.3.5 Inbreeding and 2.3.6 plan. Skewed Sex Ratios: continued loss of genetic diversity through inbreeding and skewed sex ratios. Smith et al. 2008 Indirect Local Subpopulations with low genetic diversity shown to be susceptible to sarcoid outbreaks. 2 8.2.2 Problematic Native Species: Taplin et al. 2015 Empirical Local Suspected to be increasing due to continued Hatmann’s Mountain and Plains Zebra. co-occurrence of Cape Mountain Zebra, Current stress 2.3.1 Hybridisation. Hartmann’s Mountain Zebra and Plains Zebra. Hraber & Kerley Empirical National 28% of population is currently at risk of 2015 hybridization, while 35% has been previously exposed to hybridization threat. 3 3.2.2 Livestock Farming & Ranching: fenced, Komers & Curman Indirect Global Increasing due to proliferation of small, isolated habitat patches. Current stress 2.3.7 2000 (review) isolated private subpopulations and lack of Reduced Reproductive Success: low growth biodiversity and metapopulation management rate through small founder groups. plan. Hraber & Kerley Empirical National Most subpopulations <14 individuals and have 2015 not reintroduced new individuals in past ten years. 4 5.1 Hunting & Collecting Terrestrial Animals: Milner et al. 2007 Indirect Global Increasing due to growing demand for trophy unregulated hunting. Current stresses 2.3.6 (review) hunting and offtake not connected to Skewed Sex Ratios and 2.3.7 Reduced Biodiversity Management Plan. Reproductive Success: reduced growth rate through skewed sex ratio and disruption of social systems. Evidence in the Data Scale of Rank Threat description Current trend scientific literature quality study 5 2.1 Annual & Perennial Non-timber Crops: Weel et al. 2015 Indirect Local Stable. Core protected areas are fragmented farmlands fragment available habitat. Current and often confined to mountainous regions, stresses 1.2 Ecosystem Degradation and 1.3 thus inhibiting access to nutrient-rich lowlands. Indirect Ecosystem Effects: degradation and However, some formally protected areas have fragmentation of remaining ecosystems limits Strauss 2015 Indirect Regional increased in size in the last 5-10 years. resource availability and subpopulation growth. 6 8.2.2 Problematic Native Species: Lion and — Anecdotal — Increasing due to continuing reintroduction of Cheetah reintroduced into protected areas. carnivores onto formally protected and private Current stress 2.1 Species Mortality: nature reserves. increased predation from high predator densities. Table 6. Conservation interventions for the Cape Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra zebra) ranked in order of effectiveness with corresponding evidence (based on IUCN action categories, with regional context). Evidence in the Data Scale of Current conservation Rank Intervention description scientific quality evidence Demonstrated impact projects literature 1 3.3.1 Reintroduction: Hraber & Kerley Review National Mean annual growth rate was 10% Cape Mountain Zebra translocations and reintroductions 2015 from 2002-2009 compared to 8.6% Research Project, Nelson under a metapopulation strategy from 1985-1995. The % on privately Mandela Metropolitan as informed by a Biodiversity owned land rose from 14% in 1998 University. Management Plan, including both to 32% in 2009. private and formally protected areas. 2 3.1.2 Trade Management: Taplin et al. 2015 Empirical — Detected hybrids were removed. SANParks translocated animals to be subject to genetic testing to detect and euthanise hybrids to prevent spread of hybrid genes. 3 1.1 Site/Area Protection: formal — Anecdotal — Gamkaberg expanded to include CapeNature protected area expansion to grassy areas. include grassy habitats. 4 1.2 Resource & Habitat Protection: — Anecdotal — — Biodiversity Stewardship biodiversity stewardship as programme, CapeNature (e.g., potential reintroduced sites. Denel Overberg Test Range). 5 2.1 Site/Area Management: Watson et al. Indirect Local Subpopulation growth spurts (80% — habitat management of patches or 2005 of growth in Gamka Nature private lands using integrated fire Reserve) following burns. thresholds aimed at maintaining Watson & Indirect Local landscape diversity inclusive of Chadwick 2007 grass-rich areas. 6 6.3 Market Forces and 6.4 — Anecdotal — — — Conservation Payments: designing incentives for private landowners to participate in biodiversity stewardship and metapopulation management. Table 7. Data Sources & Quality: Information and interpretation qualifiers for the Cape Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra zebra) assessment. Data sources Census (literature and unpublished), field study (literature and unpublished Data quality (max.) Observed Data quality (min.) Estimated Uncertainty resolution Confidence intervals Risk tolerance Evidentiary References: Boschoff, A.F., Landman, M. and Kerley, G. 2015. Filling the gaps on the maps: historical distribution patterns of some larger mammals in part of southern Africa. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 70: 1-65. Hraber, H. and Kerley, G.I.H. 2015. Cape Mountain Zebra 2014/15 Status Report. Report 63. Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Komers, P.E. and Curman, G.P. 2000. The effect of demographic characteristics on the success of ungulate re-introductions. Biological Conservation 93: 187-193. Milner, J.M., Nilsen, E.B. and Andreassen, H.P. 2007. Demographic side effects of selective hunting in ungulates and carnivores. Conservation Biology 21: 36-47. Sasidharan, S.P., Ludwig, A., Harper, C., Moodley, Y., Bertschinger, H.J. and Guthrie, A.J. 2011. Comparative genetics of sarcoid tumour-affected and non-affected mountain zebra (Equus zebra) populations. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 41: 36-49. Smith, R.K., Marais, A., Chadwick, P., Lloyd, P.H. and Hill, R.A. 2008. Monitoring and management of the endangered Cape mountain zebra Equus zebra zebra in the Western Cape, South Africa. African Journal of Ecology 46: 207-213. Strauss, T. 2015. Cape mountain zebra