GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS IN PIAN UPE WILDLIFE RESERVE KARAMOJA, UGANDA Report by F. E. Kisame, F. Wanyama, E. Buhanga and A. Rwetsiba Uganda Wildlife Authority 2018 I UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS IV ABSTRACT V 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND SURVEYS 1 1.2. THE OBJECTIVES FOR THE SURVEY WERE: 1 2.0 SURVEY AREA AND METHODS 2.1. LOCATION OF THE SURVEY AREA: 2 2.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEY AREA 2 2.3. METHOD (FOOT - TRANSECT SURVEY) 3 2.3.1. Survey design 3 2.3.2. Data collection 3 3.0 RESULTS 5 3.1. DISTRIBUTION 6 3.1.1. Direct observations 6 3.1.2. Distribution of carnivore species by spoors in Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve 11 3.1.3. Distribution of buffalo and topi by spoors in Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve 12 3.2. HUMAN ACTIVITIES 12 3.2.1. Distribution of settlements and cultivation activities in PUWR 14 4.0 DISCUSSION Roan antelope Hippotragus equinus 16 Mountain reedbuck Redunca fulvorufula 16 Gazelle 16 Bushbucks Tragelaphus scriptus 16 Bohor’s Reedbuck Redunca redunca 16 Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus ssp. defassa 16 Zebra 17 Klipspringer Oreotragus oreotragus 17 Eland Tragelaphus oryx 17 Hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus 17 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0 REFERENCES 20 7.0 APPENDICES 21 Appendix I. Teams preparing to start the survey 21 II GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018 FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Uganda showing the location of Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (2018). 3 Figure 2. Map showing the survey design of Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve 5 Figure 3. Distribution of buffalo, Bright gazelle, bushbuck and hartebeest. 7 Figure 4. Distribution of eland, ostrich, reedbuck and Mountain reedbuck. 8 Figure 5. Distribution of Roan antelope, topi, oribi and Uganda kob 9 Figure 6. Distribution of Klipspringer, bush pig, waterbuck and zebra. 10 Figure 7. Distribution of baboons, patas and vervet monkeys. 11 Figure 8. Distribution of cheetah, hunting dog and leopard. 12 Figure 9. Distribution of topi and buffalo signs. 13 Figure 10. Distribution of cattle (left) and cattle grazing signs (right) in PUWR 14 Figure 11. Distribution of Poaching signs 15 Figure 12. Distribution of settlements (left) and cultivation signs (right) in PUWR 16 TABLES Table 1: shows density and population of wild animals 6 Table 2: Species with few encounters 6 PLATES Plate 1. Cattle grazing in PUWR 13 Plate 2. Cattle kraal in PUWR 13 Plate 3. Poaching materials used in PUWR 14 Plate 4. Reedbuck carcass 15 III UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY LIST OF ACRONYMS GIS Geographical Information Systems GMP General Management Plan GPS Global Positioning System PA Protected Area PUWR Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority IV GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018 ABSTRACT Information on wild animal population in PianUpe Wildlife Reserve (PUWR) has been inadequate for decades and this report presents the first ever high intensity ground truthing information. The increase in species observations manifest that PUWR is a biodiversity “hotspot” for Uganda and the world. The survey was to generate informa- tion on the population for medium to large mammals in PUWR as well as the distribution patterns for monitoring purposes. The foot-transect survey was conducted in March during the dry season. The transects were generated using DISTANCE software and the population data analysis was done using the same. The reserve had diverse wildlife species in terms of occurrence and the following mammal species were recorded during the count; buffalo, hartebeests, eland, Dik-dik, cheetah, oribi, topi, Roan antelopes, Uganda kob, zebra, waterbucks, patas monkeys, Mountain reedbucks, kilpspringer, Bright’s gazelle, bushbuck, Bohor’s reedbuck, Bush duiker, warthog, Vervets, baboon, ostrich, bush pig, Hunting dog, cheetah, leopard, spotted hyena and the African hare. In order of abundance, oribi’s (4,261) were the most abundant mammal species recorded followed by Bohor’s reedbuck (838), hartebeest (786), eland (760), waterbuck (659), Roan antelope (190), warthog (172), Mountain reedbuck (163) and Bush duiker (115) in order of reducing population. The diverse wildlife species, translates into a high potential for tourism and other wildlife based enterprises. Challenges of uncontrolled cattle grazing and poaching were still evident in the reserve and could continue to pose threats to the wildlife resources in the reserve if not tackled. There is need to strengthen law enforcement to avert illegal human activities detrimental to the well- being of wildlife. Develop infrastructure such as roads and trails to improve accessibility within the reserve’s inte- rior to allow for timely deployment of staff on patrol to control illegal activities as well the accessibility could facilitate tourism activities such as game drives, bird watching and nature walks. There is also need to encourage conservation management enterprises that improve relations with communities to promote conservation. Lobby stakeholders to provide for water points outside the reserve to limit cattle incursions in the PA. The General Man- agement Plan (GMP) for PUWR was developed but its implementation is not felt at the moment. There is need to implement the zoning system as enshrined in the GMP. There is need to continue sensitizing communities about the importance of wildlife to narrow the knowledge gap; this will promote sustainable management of wildlife resources in the reserve now and in the future. Because of the diverse wildlife species and the increasing mammal population, this report concurs with the former recommendations made in 1995/1996 to upgrade part of Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve to national park status. V UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (PUWR) the largest wildlife reserve; is also the second largest protected area in Uganda. Its integrity had been ruined by decades of lawlessness driven by “warrior” cattle rustlers. With the current peace in the area after the disarmament, PUWR has witnessed a surge in activities. However, PUWR still faces chal- lenges such as, cattle grazing and poaching. Poaching was mainly observed in the central and the western side of the reserve whereas grazing was observed in the entire reserve. There were more cattle recorded than any other animals in the reserve. Interestingly, there were more species observations recorded during this ground survey compared to the pre- vious ground survey conducted in 2012 (Kisame 2014). The increase in observations is a clear manifestation that PUWR is a tourism “hotspot” for Uganda and the international communities. The information generated further signifies the importance of the survey and the need for high sampling intensi- ties while undertaking surveys of this nature. The case in point is that the 2012 survey had a lower sampling inten- sity due to limited resources and could not adequately be used to determine the species abundances required for assessment of management efforts in conservation of PUWR. However, the 2012 survey provided baseline information on human activities that proved a threat to the wild animals therein and the need for a high intensity sampling also. This information was very useful in the management planning for PUWR. Nevertheless, there were also issues of concern with regard to the populations of wild animals in concession areas and the re-designing of this particular survey was one of the mechanisms to address the concern in PUWR. Therefore, the 2018 ground survey was designed to provide a high ground sampling intensity meant to bridge the information gap on wild animal species for management decision making, species monitoring and assessing the population trends. Aware, that PUWR has various vegetation types that range from grassland, bush land and woodland. Thus, a com- bination of survey methods would provide good information for management. However, there are challenges associated with these methods. For example, while the aerial survey would provide information on mammal species in a short time over a large area, it may not be useful in woodlands where the tree canopy obstruct obser- vations. Using GIS support and modern navigation methods, foot-transect surveys can be effective in providing accurate data on woodland herbivore populations even in large study areas (Waltert et al 2008). Primary data (from aerial and transect counts) that involve direct species observations, although very expensive, are required for establishing the status of the target species in terms of density or population size (Msoffe et al, 2007). This survey was carried out from 03rd to 19th of March 2018. In line with the Annual Operation Plan 2017-2018 and the general survey programme that require a periodic review on species population size, abundance and distribu- tion. The exercise was solely funded by Uganda Wildlife Authority. 1.1. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND SURVEYS Estimates of the number of animals in an area are needed for understanding the species dynamics and for man- agement .Management often bases decisions on estimates of animal density and population size (O’kane and Macdonald 2014). Wildlife surveys/censuses are key to generating useful information about the status in terms of numbers and distribution of wildlife as well as the threats to the species habitat. Reliable assessments of large mammal population sizes are crucial for the management of wildlife areas (Waltert et al, 2008). 1.2. THE OBJECTIVES FOR THE SURVEY WERE: 1. To generate information on population estimates for medium to large mammals in PUWR 2. To generate information on the spatial distribution of medium to large mammals. 3. To provide information for monitoring animal species. 1 GROUND COUNTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE MAMMALS PIAN-UPE WILDLIFE - 2018 2.0 SURVEY AREA AND METHODS 2.1. LOCATION OF THE SURVEY AREA: Figure 1. Map of Uganda showing the location of Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (2018).