biological survey of the bia conservation … ·...

documents/reportsmabnationalsecretariatbiologicalsurvey.doc

BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE BIA

CONSERVATION AREA AND UNESCO BIOSPHERE RESERVE

REPORT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE GHANA MAB NATIONAL COMMITTEE

MAB NATIONAL SECRETARIAT

July, 2014


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES 3 LIST OF FIGURES 4 LIST OF APPENDICES 5 PREFACE 6 SUMMARY 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION 8 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 9 3.0 METHODOLOGY 10

3.1 The Bia Biosphere Reserve 10 3.2Distribution of Transects 12 3.3Data Collection 13 3.4 Data Analysis 16

4.0 RESULTS 17 4.1 Land-use Types 17

4.2 Fauna Survey 17 4.3 Flora Survey 27

5.0 DISCUSSION 29 5.1 Summary of status of key wildlife species 30 5.2 Patterns of association between biodiversity and socio-economic conditions 34

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 38

7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 41 8.0 REFERENCES 42 APPENDICES 45


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Description of major land-use types encountered in study area 17

Table 2: Richness and diversity indices 18

Table 3: A key to rarity status for butterfly species 25


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Study Area showing distribution transects 11

Figure 2: Density of large mammal species in the various zones in the study area 19

Figure 3: Density of small mammal species in the various zones in the study area 20

Figure 4: Density of bird Families in the various zones in the study area 22

Figure 5a: Density of butterfly species in the various zones in the study area 23

Figure 5b: Density of butterfly species in the various zones in the study area 24

Figure 6: Density of herpetofauna species in the various zones in the study area 26

Figure 7: Density of tree Families in the various zones in the study area 28


LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: International and local systems of classifying threat of fauna 45

Appendix 2: Mean primate sign densities and relative abundance 47

Appendix 3: Mean rodent sign densities and relative abundance 48

Appendix 4: Mean carnivore sign densities and relative abundance 49

Appendix 5: Mean ungulate sign densities and relative abundance 50

Appendix 6: Mean small mammal sign densities and relative abundance 51

Appendix 7: Mean bird sign densities and relative abundance 52

Appendix 8: Mean butterfly densities and relative abundance 57

Appendix 9: Mean herpetofauna densities and relative abundance 60

Appendix 10: Mean tree densities and relative abundance 62


PREFACE

This report describes the findings of a biological survey of the Bia Biosphere Reserve in

southwestern Ghana in May 2014.

The study formed an integral part of an overall project of UNESCO, the MAB National

Committee and the Korean International Cooperation Agency, (KOICA) towards

implementation of Green Economies in Biosphere Reserves (GEBR). Within the context

of UNESCO's priority in Africa, the idea of attaining Green economies in Biosphere

Reserves has been outlined as a viable option to alleviate poverty while ensuring that BRs

serve their three functions of contributing to conservation, sustainable economic

development and logistic support. The concept was extensively discussed and accepted

by members of the African Network of Biosphere Reserves (AfriMAB) during its third

session held in September 2013, where members supported the need for the

implementation of GEBR projects in every African country. As part of the

implementation of GEBR projects at Bia, there was the need to establish the baseline

condition in the reserve prior to the introduction of sustainable biodiversity livelihoods as

an incentive to community members to secure their support for conservation of resources

in the reserve. The study involved consultations with key stakeholders while participatory

survey methods were used to build the capacity of field staff to conduct fauna inventory

and assessment. This was done to ensure adequate stakeholder awareness and

involvement and to secure their support with information gathering for the assessment,

and to identify information gaps and possible threats to sustainable land and forest

management and biodiversity conservation. The results were also presented to all the

stakeholders in a validation workshop in the Reserve where stakeholder input,

particularly, ideas on traditional knowledge were shared and compared with the results of

the survey.


SUMMARY

The biological survey was conducted in the Bia Biosphere Reserve in southwestern

Ghana in May 2014. Sampling of fauna and flora to estimate abundance and distribution

in the area was done using a systematic transect layout in the Biosphere Reserve.

Additional data was gathered from patrol reports of the Wildlife Division and local

interviews with farmers and hunters. Generally, fauna and flora densities were high in the

Core and Buffer Zones, compared to the Transition Zone. Also the Core and Buffer

Zones had the highest species diversity compared to the Transition Zone. In total, 34

large mammal, 5 small mammal, 60 bird, 42 butterfly, 15 herpetofauna and 115 plant

species �GEK��FP� were confirmed in the Bia Biosphere Reserve during the survey.

Three primates, three carnivores, two ungulates and one reptile species are listed in the

IUCN List of Threatened Species, whilst two primates are of national conservation

importance. Also, members of the Family Accipitridae (birds of prey) are of special

conservation importance in Ghana. No Black Star species, i.e. botanical species of the

highest priority in Ghana’s color-coded conservation categories, were recorded in the

entire study area.No Gold Star species were also recorded. However, seven Blue Star and

ten Scarlet Star species were recorded. Other species included 10 Red Star and 17 Pink

Star species. The remaining 71 species were of Green Star rating. The apparent lower

mammal abundance in the Transitional Zone may be related to exploitation, because the

Core and Buffer Zones are wildlife protected areas where hunting is prohibited and there

is better natural-resource protection through law enforcement. Thus, understanding the

impact of anthropogenic effects on biodiversity and devising appropriate mitigation

strategies might hold promise for buffering, maintaining or restoring landscapes within

off-reserve areas that are suitable for wildlife populations. Provision of alternative

livelihoods under the current project is expected to reduce pressure on the forest

resources.


1.0 Introduction

This report presents information on a biological survey in the Core, Buffer and Transition

Zones of the Bia Biosphere Reserve in the Western Region of Ghana. The fauna

environment that was sampled included terrestrial mammals, avifauna, butterflies and

herpetofauna. The biological survey was undertaken in May 2014.To increase sampling

effort, additional information on fauna sightings and flora was compiled from patrol data

recorded by wildlife field teams and interviews conducted within selected communities.

The survey had the following objectives:

ͻ Survey the fauna (mammals, avifauna, butterflies and herpetofauna) and

flora(dbh>10 cm) of the Bia Biosphere Reserve;

ͻ Identify fauna and flora and generate species list for the Bia Biosphere Reserve

using the latest scientific and common names, and classifying species according

to the Ghana Wildlife Conservation Regulation Schedules;

ͻ Investigate the presence or absence of threatened species as defined by the IUCN

Red List 2014;

ͻ Establish whether or not there are factors relating to mammal distributions in the

area.


2.0 Scope of Services Required for this Assignment

Contribute to the attainment of green economies in Biosphere Reserves as a viable option

to alleviate poverty while ensuring that BRs serve their three functions of contributing to

conservation, sustainable economic development and logistic support.

2.1 Specific tasks for this assignment include:

a) Collate and review existing studies of fauna and flora in the Bia Biosphere

Reserve.

b) Identify key species including globally threatened and restricted range species; for

the Bia Biosphere Reserve and specifically analyze their presence, absence and

distribution.

c) Propose biodiversity index and methodology for monitoring changes in the status

of target species over the life of the GEBR project.

d) Record and document areas of interest with GPS points and descriptions where

possible.

2.2 Outputs

The expected outputs of this assignment are:

1. Report on the biological survey in Bia Biosphere Reserve (including species

diversity and distribution) submitted within same month of field sampling.

2. Baseline biodiversity index to provide basis for future monitoring.


3.0 Methodology

3.1 The Bia Community Resources Management Area

The Bia Biosphere Reserve lies in the moist evergreen and moist semi-deciduous forest

zones of western Ghana and comprises of the Core Zone in the middle and the

surrounding Buffer and Transitional Zones at the periphery. The Buffer Zone is 400m in

width and lies on the periphery of the Core Zone (i.e. 200m within the Core Zone and the

remaining 200m in the Transitional Zone). The area lies between latitude 6º04’ to 6º40’N

and longitude 2º56’ to 3º16’W (Figure 1), sandwiched between the Bia River and the

border with Cote d’Ivoire.

The vegetation comprises mainly of Celtis zenkeri-Triplochiton scleroxylon moist semi-

deciduous forest, which is transitional towards the more typical rainforest Lophira alata-

Triplochiton scleroxylon association in the southern part (Hall and Swain 1976, Taylor

1960). The area has an annual rainfall of between 1500 mm and 1750 mm (Hall and

Swaine 1976) with two peaks in June and October. Average monthly temperature in the

area falls between 24 ºC and 28 ºC with extremes being 18 ºC and 34 ºC. The farming

system is rain-fed, with farming activities being undertaken throughout the year.


Figure 1: Map Of Study Area Showing The Distribution Of Transects In The Zones


3.2 Distribution of Transects

A grid consisting of cells, each 1 minute of length or breadth was superimposed on a map

of the study area using GIS applications (Figure 1). Eighty transects of length 1km each

were systematically distributed within the various management zones based on the

importance of its contribution to wildlife conservation. The intersections of the grid

formed the likely beginning for each transect. Thus, 40 transects were distributed in the

Core Zone. The remaining forty transects were distributed in the proportion of Buffer

Zone (14 transects) and Transitional Zone (26 transects), conforming to a systematic

segmented line transect design. All transects were orientated northwards as a rule of

thumb (Norton-Griffiths 1978).

Determination of the survey transect system set-up was based on three basic

requirements;

1. A length of transect long enough to cover animals with large territories and home

ranges (ungulates, carnivores);

2. A transect system sufficiently fine-grained to determine the habitat preferences

and density estimation of species with restricted range and small territories;

3. A length of transect long enough to include most vegetation and farm types

typical of the study area.

3.3 Data Collection

3.3.1Terrestrial Mammals

Information on large terrestrial mammals was systematically recorded by direct

observation and record of signs (vocalizations, droppings and footprints) along line


transects. Surveys were conducted during the early hours of the day and evenings.

Additional information was obtained from wildlife patrol data and by interviewing local

people, particularly hunters and farmers. Pictures in field guides (Stuart and Stuart, 2006;

Happold, 1990) were shown to the local people to help in the identification of the

mammals; it also gave the opportunity for others to corroborate or challenge the

authenticity of information.

Sampling for small terrestrial mammals involved a systematic live trap lay-out (10 meter

intervals) in addition to casual observations and refuge examinations (searching under

rocks, logs, in rotten tree stumps, in leaf litter, old termite mounds and rodent burrows)

along line transects. Main reference for identifying small mammals was Happold (1990).

3.3.2 Avifauna

Bird surveys were also conducted opportunistically along the line transects. Direct

observations, including visual as well as vocal records were made to determine bird

species occurrence. Additional information was also obtained from local people through

interviews. Pictures in the field guide (Barrow and Demey, 2008) were shown to the local

people to help in the identification.

3.3.3 Butterflies

Survey for butterflies was conducted opportunistically along line transects using a swoop

net for specimen collection. This sampling protocol targeted all feeding guilds as opposed

to recording only fruit feeding guilds in the event of using fruit traps. Specimen were

collected with the help of forceps and put into glassine envelope for latter identification

with appropriate taxonomic treatise (Larsen, 2005).


3.3.4 Herpetofauna

Reptiles and amphibian surveys involved casual observations and refuge examinations

(searching under rocks, logs, in rotten tree stumps, in leaf litter, old termite mounds and

rodent burrows) along line transects. Main reference for identifying herpetofauna was

Hughes (1988).

All captured and identified specimens were released as soon as possible at the point of

capture.

3.3.5 Floral Assessment

Sample plots were laid in representative areas of the Core, Buffer and Transitional Zones

that represented the three main vegetation types. The sample plots were of 100m by

100m dimensions, demarcated with the help of ranging poles, a prismatic compass and a

linear measuring tape. The enumeration team was made up of a tree spotter and a

recorder. Moving clock-wisely, all trees of 10cm diameter at breast height ((DBH) and

above were identified, measured and recorded. The diameter measurement was done at

breast height (1.3m) from the ground and in the case of buttressed trees 10cm above the

point of convergence of the buttress. Nomenclature of tree species followed Hawthorne

and Jockind, (2006) and Hawthorne and Ntim Gyakari, (2006) rule/convention.


3.3.6 Conservation status

The conservation status of the fauna in the area of influence was assessed using the

global (International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); Appendix 1a) and

national (Ghana Wildlife Laws) criteria (Appendix 1b). All recorded tree species were

classified according to the “Star rating” scheme used in Ghana (Hawthorne and Abu-

Juam, 1995) to indicate the status of the species in terms of national and international

rarity (Appendix 1c).

3.3.6.1 Global Criteria

The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red

List of Threatened Species (2014) provides taxonomic, conservation status and

distribution information on taxa that have been evaluated using the IUCN Red List

Categories and Criteria (Appendix 1a). The main purpose of the IUCN Red List is to

catalogue and highlight those taxa that are facing a higher risk of global extinction(i.e.

those listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable). The IUCN Red List

also includes information on taxa that are categorized as Extinct or Extinct in the Wild;

and taxa that cannot be evaluated because of insufficient information (Data Deficient).

3.3.6.2 National Criteria

Ghana’s wildlife laws (Ghana Wildlife Conservation Regulations, 1995) also categorize

animal species into two main schedules based on the level of protection required for the

particular species. The complete list is also provided in Appendix 1b.


3.4 Data Analysis

3.4.1 Faunal Assessment

An indirect technique such as an index count, which produces relative numbers based on

encounter rates, was used to estimate species densities.

Animal sign density = [number of signs / total distance walked]----------------(1)

Index counts relate animal numbers to an index of animal signs detected along line

transects (Buckland et al., 2001; Barnes et al., 1997).

Where appropriate, simple descriptive statistics was used and results presented in the

form of graphs, tables and charts for easy observation and understanding.

3.4.2 Floral Assessment

Tree density and relative density were estimated as:

Tree density = Total number of trees in all plots

Total sampled area

Relative density = Number of a particular species

Total number of species


4.0 Results

4.1Land-use Types

Mammal abundance was estimated from three major vegetation types: forest, farmland

and fallowed bush(Table 1).

Table 1: Description of major vegetation types encountered in study areas

# Vegetation Type Land-use Description

1 Forest

Selectively logged forest (some of the large emergent

canopy trees have been removed). Natural forests with

little to moderate human disturbances. Tree basal area

(Hédlet al., 2009; DBH>10cm) ranged from 30 - 20 m2/ha

in slightly disturbed areas to 19 – 10 m2/ha in moderately

disturbed areas

Farmland Croplands mainly represented by mixed arable agricultural

lands

2 Fallowed Bush

Fallowed bush are old cropland with typically very low tree

densities left unseeded during a growing season. They

also range from highly disturbed forests with isolated

thickets of Chromolaena odorata and isolated trees (basal

area of less than 10 m2/ha)

4.2Faunal Survey

4.2.1 Large Mammals

A total of 470 large mammal signs were recorded: 338 signs in the Core Area, 65 signs in

the Buffer Zone and 67 signs in the Transition Area (Appendices 2, 3, 4, and 5). Mammal


densities were significantly higher(Mann-Whitney U-Test: U=995.238, P<0.05)in the

Core Area compared to the Buffer and Transitional Zones.

Four large mammal taxonomic groups, representing 18 Families, 28 Genera, and 34

Species were confirmed in the Bia Biosphere Reserve during the survey (Appendices 2,

3, 4, 5). The Core Area ranked highest with a record of 34 mammal species, followed by

Buffer Zone with 13 species and the Transitional Zone with10 species (Figure 2).

Similarly, the Core Area was found to be most diverse compared to both the Buffer Zone

and Transition Area when various richness and diversity indices were applied to the data

(Table 2).

Table 2: Mammal richness and diversity indices generated by EstimateSWin800

Richness Index Diversity Index

Management Zone Bootstrap Mean Bootstrap SD Bootstrap Mean Bootstrap SD

Core Zone 34.00 1.21 13.19 0.89

Buffer Zone 13.00 1.44 4.06 1.69

Transitional Zone 10.00 1.34 3.84 1.75

NB: SD is standard deviation

Rodents and Ungulates generally favoured the Core Area and also Buffer zone and

Transition area whilst carnivores and primates were largely restricted to Core Zones

(Figure 2). Rodents (e.g. Giant Rats (Cricetomys gambiensis), Marsh Cane Rats

(Thryonomys swinderianus) and Brush-Tailed Porcupines (Antherurus africanus)) and

Ungulates (e.g. Maxwell’s Duikers (Cephalophus maxwelli), Bushbucks (Tragelaphus

scriptus) and Tree Hyraxes (Dendrohyrax dorsalis)) were also among the most abundant

and widespread mammal groups with most of them having densities of over 20 signs per

km whilst Carnivores (e.g. Leopards (Panthera pardus)) and Primates (e.g. Geoffroy's

Pied Colobus (Colobus vellerosus) in general were very rare with majority having

densities of less than 10 signs per km.


Figure 2: Density of large mammal species in the various zones in the study area


Three of the recorded primates; Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus),Olive Colobus

(Procolobus verus) and Geoffroy’s Pied Colobus (Colobus vellerosus) are listed in the

IUCN Threatened Species List as Endangered, Near Threatened and Vulnerable species

respectively. Also, three of the recorded carnivores;Tree Pangolin (Dendrohyrax

dorsalis), Leopard (Panthera pardus) and Golden Cat (Profelisaurata) area listed as Near

Threatened whilst two ungulates; Forest Elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) and

Bongo (Tragelaphus euryceros) are listed as Vulnerable and Near Threatened

respectively in the IUCN List of Threatened Species. The Potto (Perodicticus potto) and

Demidoff’s Galago (Galago demidovii) are however of local conservation importance

(Schedule 1) in Ghana [Ghana Wildlife Conservation Regulations (1995) (Appendices 2,

3, 4, 5)].

4.2.2 Small Mammals

Five (5) small mammal species, belonging to 5Genera and 3 Families were recorded

(Figure 3; Appendix 6).More than 60% of the species recorded belong to the Family

Muridae.

Figure 3: Density of small mammal species in the various zones in the study area


The Common Musk Shrew (Crocidura flavescens), Common African Dormouse

(Graphiurus murinus) and Rufous-Bellied Rat (Lophuro myssikapusi) were the most

widespread small mammal species.

Majority of small mammals were recorded in the Core Zone (20) compared to Buffer (9)

and Transitional (4) Zones. The Tullberg’s Soft-furred Rat (Praomys tullbergi) and

Multimammamte Rat (Mastomys natalensis) only occurred in the Core and Buffer Zones.

None of the identified small mammal species are of any conservation importance.

4.2.3 Avifauna

Sixty (60) Species, belonging to 52 Genera and 20 Families were recorded on transects

(Figure 4; Appendix 7). More than 60% of the species recorded belong to the Families

Accipitridae, Ploceidae, Cuculidae, Pycnonotidae, Sylviidae, Nectariniidae,

Muscicapidae and Ploceidae with a record of more than 5% species each. The Common

bulbul (Pycnonotus barbatus; relative density of 7.0%) and the European swallow (Hirun

dorustica; 5.0%) were the most recorded and widespread bird species. Though the Great

white heron (Egretta alba) had a relative density of 6.0% of the total bird species, it was

confined to the Transitional Zone. Accipiter melanoleucus, Turtur tympanistria,

Chrysococcyx klaas, Raphidura sabini, Apus affinus, Buccanodon duchaillui,

Dendropicos gabonensis, Pitta angolensis, Illadopsis cleaveri, I. rufescens, Alethe

diademata, Luscinia megarhychos, Muscicapa olivascens, Tersphone viridis, Dicrurus

adsimilis and D.atripennis accounted for about less than 2.0 signs per km of the specimen

recorded and produced the least number of species.

Most bird species were recorded in the Core Zone (54), then Buffer Zone (26), and then

Transitional Zone (19). All bird species that had densities of more than 10 signs per km

are typical of degraded habitats. Apart from the Hornbills (e.g. Tockus albocristatus and

Ceratogymna subcylindricus) which are largely typical primary forest species, most of


the birds recorded were either forest fringe species or birds of farmland or secondary

growth. Generally members of the Family Accipitridae (birds of prey) are of special

conservation importance in Ghana and are listed in Schedule 1 of the Ghana Wildlife

Conservation Regulations (1995)(Appendix 1b).

Figure 4: Density of bird Families in the various zones in the study area


4.2.4 Butterflies

Forty-two (42) species, belonging to 23Genera were identified from the specimen

collected (Figure 5; Appendix 8). Most of the specimen collected belonged to the Family

Nymphalidae (60%)(Figure 5a). Other Families included Hesperiidae (19%). Rarer

Families were represented by Papilionidae (12%) and Pieridae (9%)(Figure 5b).The fairly

unfavourable weather conditions that characterised the sampling period might have

accounted for the relatively low densities of Hesperiidae (skippers) in the list.

Figure 5a: Density of butterfly species in the various zones in the study area


Figure 5b: Density of butterfly species in the various zones in the study area

Euphaedra ceres, Bebearia absolon and Papilio demodocus recorded the highest number

of individuals in the survey (Figure 5) although were not recorded in Buffer and

Transitional Zones possibly because of the degraded nature of the habitat compared to the

Core Zone (Larsen, 2005). The activity of the Family Charaxinae known to be canopy

dwellers was not recorded. They presumably rarely make frequent flights to the ground

where our methods of butterfly capture were concentrated.

All identified butterfly species were of lowest priority in conservation importance (i.e.

rarity status of 1 – 2; Table 3; Appendix 8).


Table 3: A key to rarity status for butterfly species

Rarity Status

1 Very common – species found on almost any suitable habitat

2 Common – species found regularly (75%) on suitable habitat

3 Not rare – species found regularly (25% - 75%) on suitable habitat

4 Rare – species found regularly (10% - 20%) on suitable habitat

5 Very rare – species often never found regularly (less than 25%) on

suitable habitat

Source: Larsen (2005)

4.2.5Herpetofauna

The herpetofauna recorded in the study area are shown in Figure 6 and Appendix 9.

Compared to reptiles, amphibians were generally difficult to encounter in the study area.

Six frog species and one toad (Bufo regularis) were identified in the area. For reptiles, six

species of snakes, one Dwarf Crocodile (Osteolaemus tetraspis) and one Nile Monitor

Lizard (Varanus niloticus) were recorded. The commonest reptile recorded was the Nile

Monitor Lizard mostly seen in swamp vegetation. Most of the reptile signs (47%) were

recorded in the Core Zone.


Figure 6: Density of herpetofauna species in the various zones in the study area

Apart from the Dwarf Crocodile (Osteolaemus tetraspis) which is classified as

Vulnerable in the IUCN Threatened Species List (Figure 6), none of the recorded

herpetofauna were of any special conservation importance in Ghana.


4.3 Floral Survey

A total of 115 plant species �GEK� �� FP�� from 40 Families were recorded (Figure 7,

Appendix 10). Elaeis guineensis (Oil Palm) ranked highest in abundance with relative

density of 7.4%. This was expected because oil palm cultivation constitutes one of the

most favoured cash crops (after cocoa) grown in the Transitional Zone in the Bia

Biosphere Reserve. Oil palm was followed by Scottellia klaineana, Guarea cedrata and

Sterculia tragacantha, all with relative densities of 1.6%. About 62% of the species had

relative density of less than 1.0%. Very rare species included Danielli aogea, Parinari

excelsa, Discoclaoxylon hexandrum, Anthocleista vogelli, Xylia evansii and Tetrapleura

tetraptera with relative densities lower than 0.1%.Portions of the remaining natural forest

including some areas of the Core Zone were given a forest condition score of 3 (partly

degraded), hence, many different plant species constituting light-demanding and pioneer

species were undergoing various stages of ecological succession.

No Black Star species, i.e. botanical species of the highest priority in Ghana’s color-

coded conservation categories (Appendix 1c), were recorded in the entire study area.No

Gold Star species were also recorded. However, seven Blue Star and ten Scarlet Star

species were recorded. Other species included 10 Red Star and 17 Pink Star species. The

remaining 71 species were of Green Star rating as indicated in Appendix 10.


Figure 7: Density of tree Families in the various zones in the study area


5.0 Discussion

The abundance of wildlife species has been shown to vary considerably between sites

with varying intensities of law enforcement (Danquah et al., 2009a, 2009b), and the data

show a similar pattern. Mammal encounter rates were considerably higher in the Core

Zone than in the Buffer and Transition Zones. The transition zone comprises communal

lands where hunting is not regulated and there is higher exposure to anthropogenic

mortality rates. There were also marked absence in occurrence of some species in the

Buffer and Transition Zones compared to Core Zone. This is particularly the case for

larger mammal species such as elephants, bongos, yellow-backed duikers, leopards and

chimpanzees. The apparent absence of these larger mammal species in the Transitional

Zone is presumably related to exploitation, because the Core and Buffer Zones are

wildlife protected areas where hunting is prohibited and there is better natural-resource

protection through law enforcement.

Management goals for protected areas, which act as reservoirs for harvesting in adjacent

communal areas typically require populations to be at, or close to, carrying capacity

(Balmeet al., 2010). This suggests that, although mammals seem adequately protected in

the Core and Buffer Zones, differential anthropogenic mortality and lower probability of

survival might have kept the mammal population below carrying capacity in the

Transitional Zone. While it is unlikely that mammals will disappear completely from the

Transitional Zone, given the proximity of protected populations, such as Bia North and

Krokosua Hills Forest Reserves, the overall effectiveness of the protected area system

appears weakened by the apparent higher persecution in the Transitional Zone and

associated effects on vital rates.

The most effective options for combating such effects are increasing forest buffers within

the Transitional Zone or decreasing the number of people living outside its boundaries

(Balme et al., 2010; Harcourt et al., 2001). However, with the rapid expansion of local

human populations, both are unlikely. A suitable alternative is the implementation of

conservation measures in fringe communities (Forbes and The berge, 1996). In 2000, the


Wildlife Division policy for collaborative community based wildlife management was

instituted to secure Ghana’s network of protected areas by developing wildlife

management as a legitimate and viable land-use option in fringe communities (WD,

2000). Currently, the Bia Biosphere Reserve enjoys three of such collaborative local

efforts (i.e. Kwamebikrom, Asempaneye/Elloukrom and Asuopri CREMAs) within its

immediate environs. The strategy is to promote wildlife as a viable complement to

existing agricultural practices through the sustainable production of bushmeat and other

wildlife products. This involves developing a working partnership between the protected

areas and people living in and around them to each other’s benefit.

As human populations continue to increase around protected areas, approaches that

manage human activities on and off-reserves will be essential if conservation of wide

ranging taxa is to succeed (Wittemyeret al., 2008). Relatively resilient, large mammals

such as leopards can act as surrogates for conservation outcomes that benefit other

species (Sergio et al., 2008). In the Transitional Zone, activities that mitigate

anthropogenic activities for leopards for example, would favour civets, genets and

mongooses, although implementation would need to occur on a smaller scale to benefit

civets, genets and mongooses, given their less demanding area requirements

(Woodroffeand Ginsberg, 1998). Similar non-carnivore potential surrogates include

elephants and chimpanzees. Understanding the impact of anthropogenic effects on

wildlife populations and devising appropriate mitigation strategies might hold promise

for buffering, maintaining or restoring landscapes within the Bia Biosphere Reservethat

are suitable for more locally endangered species such as leopards.

5.1 Summary of Status of Key Faunal Species

The original faunal composition of the Transitional Zone was undoubtedly very diverse

and complex in nature. However, due to ongoing human activities, populations of several

larger mammals, particularly canopy dwelling primates, carnivores and possibly ungulate

species might have been reduced in numbers. On the other hand, some smaller fauna


including some antelope species and rodents are adapted to secondary or colonizing

forests and might have persisted or even increased (Struhsaker and Oates, 1995). In

addition, most antelopes, especially duikers, can probably withstand relatively high

hunting pressures to a greater degree than other more susceptible species including

primates and some carnivores.

1. Primates were generally rare and may be disappearing in the Transitional Zone. Hence,

it is difficult to make any realistic assessment of their status. Nevertheless, we can

confidently conclude that their numbers are low. Encounter rates in the core zone suggest

a relatively higher density in less disturbed forests compared to very disturbed forests.

Western chimpanzee (Pantroglodytes verus) : This a subspecies of the common

chimpanzee. It inhabits western Africa, mainly in Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea but with

populations in surrounding countries. Other populations survive in Liberia, Sierra Leone,

and Guinea-Bissau. Relict populations live in Ghana, Senegal, and Mali. It is extinct in

the wild in the Gambia, and possibly Benin, Burkina Faso, and Togo. The IUCN lists the

western chimpanzee as an Endangered species on their Red List of Threatened Species.

There are an estimated 21,300 to 55,600 individuals in the wild. Danquah et al. (2012)

gave an estimate of 0.26 chimpanzees per sq km (SE = 0.25, CV = 111.7%) for the Bia

Biosphere Reserve. The primary threat to the western chimpanzee is habitat loss,

although it is also killed for bushmeat. In the Core Zone, chimpanzee signs were

encountered in the Bia Resource Reserve (close to the Bongo Sub-Range Camp and

Camps 5, 7 and 8 areas in the southeastern sectors).Field observations suggest that the

activities may constitute a small group of chimpanzees that constantly patrol the area. It

is likely that proximity to these camps provide security to the chimpanzees.

Olive colobus (Procolobus verus): This is the smallest of all colobine monkeys and is

rarely observed in its natural habitat because of its cryptic coloration and secretive nature.

It is found in the rain forests of West Africa, ranging from southern Sierra Leone to

Nigeria. The olive colobus is classified as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List, the

cause of its decline attributed to habitat loss and hunting. Though much of the land within


the range of the olive colobus has been affected by human activities, it retains its ability

to thrive in small degraded forest fragments. The activities of olive colobus were few and

patchily distributed; nevertheless, these activities indicated a clear difference in

distribution for the Core Zone and the Buffer and Transitional Zones. The team visually

confirmed the presence of the Olive colobus on only three occasions in the Core Zone.

Geoffroy's Pied Colobus (Colobus vellerosus): It is found in Benin, Ivory Coast, Ghana,

Nigeria, and Togo, as well as very southernmost Burkina Faso. Its natural habitat is

subtropical or tropical moist lowland forests. It is threatened by habitat loss. No direct

observations of Geoffroy's Pied Colobus were made. They occurred in very low numbers,

so their distribution was especially difficult to describe accurately in the Core Zone.

Though these monkeys seem sparsely dispersed in Bia Biosphere Reserve, very few

activities were recorded in the northern fringes (formerly Bia National Park) of the

Reserve.

2. Carnivores: The most prominent carnivores common to the Core, Buffer and

Transition Zones were mongooses (Atilax paludinosus, Crossarchus obscurus), followed

by genets (Genetta servalina) and then civets (Civettictis civetta). All these species are

vigorously hunted. Mongooses are especially vulnerable to hunting dogs, which may

pose a threat in most communities. The tree pangolin is subject to widespread and often

intensive exploitation for bushmeat and traditional medicine, and is by far the most

common of the pangolins found in African bushmeat markets. Conservationists believe

this species has undergone a decline of 20-25% over the past 15 years due mainly to the

impact of the bushmeat hunting and have recently elevated its status from "Least

Concern" to "Near Threatened".

The leopard (Panthera pardus) is a large carnivore that was recorded only in Core Zone.

It is a member of the Felidae family with a wide range in some parts of Africa and

tropical Asia, from Siberia, South and West Asia to across most of sub-Saharan Africa. It

is listed as Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List because it is declining in large parts of

its range due to habitat loss and fragmentation, and hunting for trade and pest control.


3. Ungulates: Danquah et al. (2009a) reported 136 forest elephants (Loxodonta africana

cyclotis) for the Bia Biosphere Reserve. Apart from forest elephants which were confined

to the Bia Biosphere Reserve, majority of ungulate signs were those of Bushbuck

(Tragelaphus scriptus) and Maxwell’s Duiker (Cephalophus maxwelli). The bushbuck’s

ability to withstand heavy hunting pressure and adapt to secondary vegetation and

human-dominated landscapes has enabled it to persist locally in suitable habitats

throughout West Africa (Stuart and Stuart, 2006). In the Core, Buffer and Transitional

Zones, bushbucks are fairly widespread and still thrive in both less and very disturbed

vegetation types. Maxwell’s Duikers also withstand heavy off take by hunters and remain

common throughout its range from west of the Niger River to Senegal (Stuart and Stuart,

2006), including areas of primary moist lowland forest, secondary vegetation, dense

thickets and farm bush (Wilson, 1994). It was also abundant in both areas and has

probably benefited from the destruction of primary forests.

The bongo, Tragelaphus eurycerus, is among the largest of the African forest antelope

species and was recorded only in the Core Zone. In 2002, the IUCN, listed the species as

Near Threatened. Bongos may be endangered due to human environmental interaction, as

well as hunting and illegal actions towards wildlife. CITES lists Bongos as an Appendix

III species, only regulating their exportation from a single country, Ghana. It is not

protected by the US Endangered Species Act and is not listed by the USFWS. The IUCN

Antelope Specialist Group considers the western or lowland bongo, T. e. eurycerus, to be

Lower Risk (Near Threatened), and the eastern or mountain bongo, T. e. isaaci, of Kenya,

to be Critically Endangered.

4. Rodents: Rodents are adapted to secondary or colonizing forests, thereby persisting or

increasing (Struhsaker and Oates, 1995) and do not appear to have suffered to the same

extent as primates or carnivores due to hunting or commercial logging activities.

Common rodents whose activities were spotted throughout the Biosphere Reserve were

Giant Rats (Cricetomys gambianus), Cane Rats (Thryonomys swinderianus) and Brush-

tailed Porcupines (Atherurus africanus).


5.2 Patterns Of Association Between Biodiversity And Socio-Economic Conditions

The decline in range and abundance of species have been linked to the socio-economic

conditions (Cullen et al., 2001; Lopes and Ferrari, 2000) and poverty levels in rural

communities. There is a fair degree of consensus that decreased economic growth can

lead to increased environmental degradation. Large population numbers have more

implications on the environment. For example, the larger the population, especially in

rural subsistence agricultural settings, the more intensive the subsistence exploitation by

poor people of the natural resources base to satisfy basic needs for survival and

sustenance (food, water, energy and shelter). Large numbers of poor people therefore put

more pressure on the environment because their subsistence needs often require great

direct use of natural resources. The income earning potential in rural areas tends to have a

greater impact on environmental health because economic problems are related to the

degree of damage or destruction of the natural resources that should provide sustainable

livelihoods (NPC, 2006).

5.2.1 Biosphere reserves

The UNESCO MAB Biosphere Reserve concept is one of the important standard bearers

of what may be called the bioregional or, as it has been referred to in the Convention on

Biological Diversity, the ecosystem approach. Unlike the “protected area approach”,

biosphere reserves are designed from the start to get the local people involved in

conserving and managing biodiversity while at the same time meeting their livelihood

needs. This is achieved through sustainable utilization of natural resources in the buffer

and transition areas.

Biosphere Reserves are to reconcile and achieve a sustainable balance between the

conflicting goals of conserving biological diversity, promoting economic and social

development and maintaining associated cultural values. Thus, many protected areas

including Biosphere Reserves have been established in many places in order to minimize


the negative effects of harmful human activities, including hunting activity and also

contribute to the maintenance of natural and cultural values while conserving biological

diversity. Biosphere reserves hence play an important role in the maintenance of wildlife

populations and in many cases also serve as a source of livelihood support to the fringe

human communities (Carrillo et al., 2000).

In Ghana, Biosphere Reserves could dramatically change the status of wildlife and other

resources outside reserves. While the Biosphere Reserve concept focuses on human

welfare and wildlife resources, their implementation has long-term significant and

positive implications for a wide range of other resources.

5.2.2 Bia Biosphere Reserve, Biodiversity And Local Livelihoods

The Bia Biosphere Reserve contributes significantly as wildlife habitat for most forest

plant and animal species in Ghana and it is a major stronghold for several species of

international conservation interest including Forest Elephant (Loxodonta africana

cyclotis) (Vulnerable in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species); Chimpanzee (Pan

troglodytes verus) (Endangered); Olive Colobus (Procolobus verus) (Near Threatened);

Geoffroy’s Pied Colobus (Colobus vellerosus) (Vulnerable); Tree Pangolin (Dendrohyrax

dorsalis) (Near Threatened); Leopard (Panthera pardus) (Near Threatened); Golden Cat

(Profelis aurata) (Near Threatened) and Bongo (Tragelaphus euryceros) (Near

Threatened). However, the Bia Biosphere Reserve also coincides with areas where

indigenous people live, and most of the Transitional Zone is inhabited or exploited by

indigenous peoples for agriculture, hunting or other activities. Major cash crops

cultivated in the area are cocoa and oil palm in descending order. Interest in oil palm

cultivation is lower, due to poorer marketing opportunities for the fruit. Cocoa with long

economic lifetimes, are considered by farmers, crops that guarantee them property for

posterity. Major food crops grown are roots and tubers (cassava, cocoyam and yams),

cereals (maize and rice), plantains, and vegetables. Settlers who live in hamlets in remote

areas have poor accessibility to markets for their produce. The main crops processed in

the area are cassava and oil palm, out of which gari and palm oil are produced. Processed


cassava adds 50% value. Processing of oil palm results in 50% value added. Processing is

thus an important way of improving the incomes obtained and thus reducing the need to

clear more land.

Alternative land uses observed in the field included bee keeping, snail farming, fish

farming and grass cutter domestication. Captive wildlife production of this nature is a

new concept in the area, practiced only on a minor level but seems to be promising.

Constraints include lack of capital, high cost of pond/cage/hive construction, inadequate

technical knowledge especially with regard to feeding, harvesting and population

management. Access to bank loans and credit schemes is low and it may be a few cocoa

farmers whose products are purchased by the produce buying companies who can obtain

bank loans. Moreover, loan size in these instances is too small. The livelihood support

interventions being implemented through the Green Economies project is expected to

ensure rural development, stimulate economic growth and reduce rural poverty in the

long term. Similarly, monitoring mechanisms will be developed on production, trade and

pricing, population trends of wildlife species, human structures and organization, and

regulation compliance.

Forest fringe communities depend on NTFPs for most of their domestic needs whether

for food or any other household needs. The vast majority obtain these produce from

farms, fallow areas and remnant forests in the agricultural landscape. A special group of

NTFPs are wildlife products, with an emphasis on bushmeat. The list of animals hunted

for bushmeat certainly exceeds 20 species. Preferred species are rodents and antelopes.

Hunting is carried out at all times of the day and season of the year, and in all available

habitats, by either shot gun, traps (mainly wire snares) or dogs. Although bushmeat

activities are of major importance for the households and economy of the communities,

neither hunting nor the bushmeat trade are organized or effectively regulated by any local

by-laws or current national wildlife regulations.


5.2.3 Monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity and livelihood support interventions

The type of large scale cocoa farming practiced in most communities creates a vegetation

mosaic that is particularly not favoured by animals. Most forest patches which should

have provided refuge for animals have been cleared within the Transitional Zone. The

tragedy of the situation is that while struggling to feed their families, farmers are

increasingly creating the conditions that are not attractive to animals. It is therefore

necessary to monitor wildlife populations; in particular, numbers and trends as more and

more areas are affected by human activities.

Monitoring plant and animal populations is key to the objectives and core activities of

conservation biology (Marsh and Trenham, 2007) and has currently taken on great

importance as biosphere reserve managers are presently faced with an increasing struggle

to demonstrate progress made towards protecting the earth’s biological resources (Stem

et al., 2005). Biosphere reserve managers recognize that good management goes beyond

implementation—effective management is integrally linked to well-designed monitoring

and evaluation systems (Stem et al., 2005; Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998; Woodhill,

2000). Monitoring and evaluation is used to assess whether specific management

strategies are working and identifies the conditions under which a conservation action is

likely to succeed or falter (Hatry, 1999; Blann and Light, 2000). Moreover, monitoring

data are used to track the progress of livelihood support interventions, identify rates of

habitat degradation and species in potential problem of extinction (Shea and Mangel,

2001) and can serve as an early warning system for potential remedial actions (Hatry,

1999; Rigby et al., 2000). In essence, monitoring and evaluation forms the basis for

improved decision making (Stem et al., 2005) to ensure rural development, stimulate

economic growth and reduce rural poverty in the long term.


6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

The study documents a case in which the level of protection of a wildlife habitat clearly

has had an effect on the populations of some wildlife species (Carrillo et al., 2000). The

type of activities allowed in a management zone and the level of law enforcement are

directly affecting the abundance of mammals in general. Evidence from Danquah et al.

(2009a, 2009b) suggests that the main factor differentiating the abundance of wildlife

between the Core area and Buffer Zones on one hand and Transitional Area could be the

level of hunting. Although all wildlife species may be influenced, the ones that were

more severely affected were larger mammals. Even though some communities within the

Transitional Zone have been elevated to CREMA status, they seemto be achieving only

partial success in protecting wildlife, whereas the Bia Biosphere Reserve seem to be

significantly more effective.

Enforcement of hunting restrictions in the Transitional Zone may be difficult because of

lack of patrol posts and perhaps even socially undesirable, as long as the current

socioeconomic conditions persist. Yet overexploitation must be avoided so that many

large animals do not become ecologically (or economically) extinct in the region; hunting

should be sustainable. This goal can be reached, however, only if we have basic

information about the populations of wildlife in the area so that changes in their

abundance and the effects of disturbance and management can be assessed.

Standardization of methods to undertake these assessments in tropical forests is of

foremost importance. It is also necessary to work with the communities that live in and

around protected areas: if their standards of living improve, then pressure on wildlife

populations will be minimized (Carrillo et al., 2000). Provision of alternative livelihoods

under the current project is expected to reduce pressure on the forest resources. In

addition, EPA and WD could erect large advertising billboards displaying the various

species in strategic locations in the Bia Biosphere Reserve as a means of educating locals.

There is the need to establish intensively managed wildlife refuges (Priority Biodiversity

Hotspots) within the Transitional Zone, where absolutely no human activity occurs.


Swamp and Riverine vegetation, sacred grooves and the general habitat around water

bodies should be given precedence because of the high biodiversity that exists in those

places and the unattractive farming prospects associated with them. In establishing farms,

WD should ensure strict adherence to a minimum of 30m buffer to rivers and streams in

order to safeguard their integrity. This could be expanded if necessary and should be

given priority in tree planting exercises. Creating and subsequently expanding intensively

managed refuges within the Transitional Zone forms the basis of establishing internal

wildlife corridors within the larger landscape and is an effective way of curtailing illegal

forest clearing activities, whilst enhancing landscape connectivity (Harvey et al., 2006;

Schrothet al., 2004).

Monitoring and evaluation is important to assess the effectiveness of the Bia Biosphere

Reserve over time in achieving a sustainable balance between biodiversity conservation

and promoting economic and social development of local communities. Hence,

monitoring flora and fauna population and distribution should be done regularly. The

design consists of the transects used to survey flora and fauna in the current baseline

study. These transects cover both high and low human, flora and fauna population density

zones. Each transect could be sampled at the mid-way and at the end of the project cycle.

Socioeconomic data on the prevailing local economic conditions (e.g. annual incomes,

diversification of livelihoods, property owned, assess to banks and credit facilities, etc.)

and data on flora and fauna density estimates can be compared with the baseline data to

check whether the specific management strategies and livelihood support interventions

being implemented through the Greening Biosphere Reserves Initiative are working.

These analyses are based on the principle that the income earning potential of a

community has a direct impact on its surrounding environmental health. This is largely

because decreased economic conditions in a community will result to increased

environmental degradation. For example, worsening economic conditions in a

community, especially in rural subsistence agricultural settings, will result in greater

subsistence exploitation by the poor people of the natural resources base to satisfy basic

needs for survival and sustenance (food, water, energy and shelter). Large numbers of

poor people therefore put more pressure on the environment because their subsistence


needs often require greater direct use of natural resources. In this respect, trend

information on flora, fauna and local economic conditions gathered in the project will be

used to directly assess the extent that the livelihood support interventions implemented in

the Bia Biosphere Reserve have achieved the objectives set for them. Ideally, two

comparative analyses (monitoring and evaluation) should be completed; one at mid-way

of project cycle to monitor progress of project and evaluate the conditions under which

the interventions are likely to succeed or falter, and the other at the end of the project to

assess the overall performance of livelihood support interventions. These monitoring and

evaluation surveys will also be one way of ensuring that at most parts of the Bia

Biosphere Reserve are patrolled and fauna and flora monitored on regular basis.


Acknowledgments

The MAB National Committee acknowledges the support of UNESCO Headquarters and

KOICA for the opportunity provided to be part of this project. We also express

appreciation to all the members of the MAB national committee particularly the

workgroup for the Bia biosphere Reserve as well as the local stakeholders for all their

support


8.0 References

1. Barnes, R., F., W., Beardsley, K., Michelmore, F., Barnes, K., L., Alers, M., P.,

T., Blom, A. (1997) Estimating forest elephant numbers with dung counts and a

geographic information system. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 1384-1393.

2. Blann, K., and Light, S., S. (2000). The path of last resort: adaptive environmental

assessment and management (AEAM). Adaptive Management Practitioners’

Network, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

3. Buckland, S., T., Anderson, D., R., Burnham, K., P., Laake, J., L., Borchers, D.,

L. and Thomas, L. (2001). Introduction to distance sampling: estimating

abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press.

4. Carrillo E., Wong G. and Cuaro´ n A., D. (2000). Monitoring mammal

populations in Costa Rican protected areas under different hunting restrictions.

ConservationBiology 14: 1580–1591.

5. Cullen, L., Bodmer, E. R. and Valladares-Padua, C. (2001). Ecological

consequences of hunting in Atlantic forest patches, São Paulo, Brazil. Oryx,

35:137-144.

6. Danquah, E., Oppong, S., K., Akom, E. and Sam, M, K. (2012). Preliminary

Survey of Chimpanzees and Endangered Monkeys in the Bia-Goaso Forest Block

in Southwestern Ghana. African Primate 7 (2), pp 163-174.

7. Danquah, E., Sam, M., K., Akom, E., Appiah-Kubi, S., K. and Ayiku, T. (2009a):

Elephant Conservation and Possibilities of Creating Corridors in Western Ghana.

Project_ AFE-0348. Technical report submitted by A Rocha Ghana to African

Elephant Conservation Fund of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

8. Danquah, E., Sam, M., K. and Marshal P. (2009b). Monitoring Matters: A survey

of large mammals of the Ankasa and Bia Conservation Areas. Report submitted to

EU/WD Protected Areas Development Programme Phase II Project.

9. Danquah, E., Sam, M., K. and Marshal P. (2007). A survey of large mammals of

the Ankasa and Bia Conservation Areas. Report submitted to EU/WD Protected

Areas Development Programme Phase II Project.


10. Happold C, D, C, and Happold, M. (1990). The Mammals of West Africa. Oxford

University Press.

11. +DUYH\�� &�� $��0HGLQD�� $�� 6�DQFKH]�0HUOR�� '�� 9�ÕOFKH]�� 6�� +HUQ�DQGH]�� %��

Saenz, J., Maes, J., Casanovas, F. and Sinclair, F., L. (2006). Patterns of animal

diversity associated with different forms of tree cover retained in agricultural

landscapes. Ecological Applications16: 1986–1999.

12. Hatry, H., P. (1999). Performance measurement: getting results. Urban Institute

Press, Washington, D.C.

13. Hawthorne, W., D. and Abu-Juam, M. (1995). Forest Regulation in Ghana.

I.U.C.N, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge. U.K.

14. IUCN (World Conservation Union) (2014). IUCN Red List categories and

criteria. Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland,

Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom.

15. Lopes M., A. and Ferrari S., F. (2000). Effects of human colonization on the

abundance and diversity of mammals in eastern Brazilian Amazonia.

Conservation Biology 14: 1658–1665.

16. Margoluis, R., and Salafsky, N. (1998). Measures of success: designing,

managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects. Island Press,

Washington, D.C.

17. NPC (National Population Council) (2006). Ghana’s Development Agenda and

Population Growth: The Unmet Need for Family Planning. Unpublished Report.

18. Norton-Griffiths, M. (1978). Counting animals. African Wildlife Foundation,

Nairobi.

19. Rigby, D., Howlett, D. and Woodhouse, P. (2000). Sustainability indicators for

natural resource management and policy: a review of indicators of agricultural

and rural livelihood sustainability. University of Manchester, Manchester, United

Kingdom.

20. Stem, C., Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N. and Brown, M. (2005). Monitoring and

Evaluation in Conservation: a Review of Trends and Approaches. Conservation

Biology, 295–309: 19 (2).


21. Struhsaker, T.T. and Oates, J.F. (1995). The biodiversity crisis in southwestern

Ghana. African Primates 1(1): 5-6.

22. Stuart, C. and Stuart, S. (2006). Field Guide to the Larger Mammals of Africa.

Struik Publishers, South Africa. Pp. 320.

23. Taylor, C., J. (1960). Synecology and sylviculture in Ghana. Thomas Nelson and

Sons, Edinburgh.

24. Wildlife Division (WD), (2000). Wildlife Division Policy for Collaborative

Community Based Wildlife Management. Technical Report, Accra Ghana

25. Wilson, V.J. (1994). The duikers of Ghana. Chipangali Wildlife Trust, Bulawayo,

Zimbabwe.

26. Woodhill, J. (2000). Planning, monitoring and evaluating programmes and

projects: introduction to key concepts, approaches and terms. World Conservation

Union, Gland, Switzerland.

27. Woodroofe R. and Ginsberg J., R. (1998). Edge effects and the extinction of

populations inside protected areas. Science 280: 2126–2128.


Appendices

Appendix 1a: The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN, 2014) The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (2014) provides taxonomic, conservation status and distribution information on taxa that have been evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. The main purpose of the IUCN Red List is to catalogue and highlight those taxa that are facing a higher risk of global extinction (i.e. those listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable). The IUCN Red List also includes information on taxa that are categorized as Extinct or Extinct in the Wild; on taxa that cannot be evaluated because of insufficient information (i.e. are Data Deficient); and on taxa that are either close to meeting the threatened thresholds or that would be threatened were it not for an ongoing taxon-specific conservation programme (i.e. Near Threatened) (http://www.redlist.org) The following categories have been developed:

(1) EX (Extinct) - No reasonable doubt that the last individual has died (2) EW (Extinct in the Wild) - Known only to survive in captivity or as a naturalized

populations well outside its previous range (3) CR (Critically Endangered) - The species is in imminent risk of extinction in the wild (4) EN (Endangered) - The species is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild (5) VU (Vulnerable) - The species is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild (6) NT (Near Threatened) - The species does not meet any of the criteria that would

categorize it as risking extinction but it is likely to do so in the future (7) LC (Least Concern) - There are no current identifiable risks to the species (8) DD (Data Deficient) - There is inadequate information to make an assessment of the

risks to this species

Appendix 1b: Ghana Wildlife Conservation Regulations (1995)

The following categories have been developed:

(1) Schedule 1 – the hunting, capturing or destroying of any species listed in this schedule is absolutely prohibited

(2) Schedule 2 – the hunting, capturing or destroying of any species listed in the schedule is absolutely prohibited between 1 August and 1 December in any year. The hunting, capturing or destroying of any young or adult accompanied by his young of any specie listed in this schedule is absolutely prohibited at all times.

(3) Schedule 3 – the hunting, capturing or destroying of any species listed in the schedule is absolutely prohibited between 1 August and 1 December in any year.


Appendix 1c: Star Rating Scheme for Forest Species in Ghana (Hawthorne and Abu-Juam, 1995)

The following star rating categories have been developed:

(1) Black - Highly significant in context of global biodiversity; Rare globally and not widespread in Ghana.

(2) Gold - Significant in context of global biodiversity; fairly rare globally and/or nationally. (3) Blue - Mainly of national biodiversity interest; e.g. globally widespread, nationally rare;

or globally rare but of no concern in Ghana due to commonness. (4) Scarlet - Common and widespread commercial species with potential seriously

threatened by overexploitation. (5) Red - Common and widespread commercial species; under significant pressure from

exploitation. (6) Pink - Common and widespread commercial species; not currently under significant

pressure from exploitation. (7) Green - Species common and widespread in tropical Africa; no conservation concern. (8) Other - Unknown, or non-forest species e.g. ornamentals or savannah plants.


Appendix 2: Mean primate sign densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in BiaBiosphere Reserve

Management Zones

Common Name Scientific Name Core Buffer Trans Density per km

Relative Density (%)

IUCN Status

WD Schedules

PRIMATES PRIMATES Apes Hominidae Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes verus 4 0 0 4 9 EN 1 Monkeys Cercopithecoidea Olive Colobus Procolobusverus 2 0 0 2 5 NT 1 Geoffroy’s Pied Colobus Colobusvellerosus 1 0 0 1 2 VU 1 Lowe’s Monkey Cercopithecuslowei 14 0 0 14 33 LC 2 Lesser Spot-nosed Monkey Cercopithecuspetaurista 8 0 0 8 19 LC 2 Prosimians Strepsirhni Potto Perodicticuspotto 3 1 0 4 9 LC 1 Demidoff’sGalago Galagodemidovii 7 1 2 10 23 LC 1 Number of signs 39 2 2 43 Number of species 7 2 1 7


Appendix 3: Mean rodent sign densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

WD Schedules

RODENTS RODENTIA Squirrels Sciuridae Striped Ground Squirrel Euxeruserythropus 13 4 2 19 9 LC 3 Fire-footed Rope Squirrel Funisciuruspyrropus 5 0 0 5 2 LC 3 Small Forest Squirrel Heliosciurusgambianus 5 0 0 5 2 LC 3 Red-legged Sun Squirrel Heliosciurusrufobrachium 4 0 0 4 2 LC 3 Anumalures Anumaluridae Pel’sAnomalure Anumaluruspeli 3 0 0 3 1 DD 2 Porcupines Hystricidae Brush-tailed Porcupine Antherurusafricanus 23 5 2 30 14 LC 2 Cane-rats Thryonomyidae Marsh Cane Rat Thryonomysswinderianus 34 12 21 67 30 LC 3 Pouched Rats Cricetomyinae Giant Gambian Rat Cricetomysgambiensis 48 16 24 88 40 LC 3 Number of signs 135 37 49 221 Number of species 8 4 4 8


Appendix 4: Mean carnivore sign densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

WD Schedules

CARNIVORES CARNIVORA Mongooses Herpestidae Slender Mongoose Herpestessanguinea 5 0 0 5 13 LC 2 Cusimanse Crossarchusobscurus 3 2 0 5 13 LC 2 Marsh Mongoose Atilaxpaludinosus 6 2 1 9 23 LC 2 Genets and Civets Viverridae Blotched (Pardine) Genet Genettatigrinapardina 4 2 1 7 18 LC 2 African Civet Civettictiscivetta 2 0 0 2 5 LC 2 African Palm Civets Nandininae African Palm Civet Nandiniabinotata 6 0 0 6 15 LC 2 Cats Felidae Golden Cat Felisaurata 2 0 0 2 5 NT 1 Leopard Panthera pardus 1 0 0 1 3 NT 1 Scaly Ant-eaters Pholidota Tree Pangolin Phataginustricuspis 2 0 0 2 5 NT 1 Number of signs 31 6 2 39 Number of species 9 3 2 9


Appendix 5: Mean ungulate sign densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

WD Schedules

UNGULATES UNGULATA Hyraxes Hyracoidea Western Tree Hyrax Dendrohyraxdorsalis 9 3 2 14 8 LC 2 Proboscids Proboscidea African Forest Elephant Loxodontaafricanacyclotis 29 0 0 29 17 VU 1 Pigs Suidae Red River Hog Potamochoerusporcus 14 0 0 14 8 LC 2 Bovids Bovidae Bushbuck Tragelaphusscriptus 19 3 6 28 17 LC 2 Bongo Tragelaphuseuryceros 6 0 0 6 4 NT 1 Antelopes Antelopinae Maxwell’s Duiker Cephalophusmaxwelli 36 12 6 54 32 LC 2 Black Duiker Cephalophusniger 3 0 0 3 2 LC 2 Yellow-backed Duiker Cephalophussilvicultor 2 0 0 2 1 LC 2 Bay Duiker Cephalophusdorsalis 7 2 0 9 5 LC 2 Royal Antelope Neotraguspygmaeus 8 0 0 8 5 LC 2 Number of signs 133 20 14 167 Number of species 10 4 3 10


Appendix 6: Mean small mammal densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

WD Schedules

SMALL MAMMALS SMALL MAMMALIA Dormice Gliridae Common African Dormouse Graphiurusmurinus 3 2 2 7 21 LC - Shrews Soricidae Common Musk Shrew Crociduraflavescens 6 2 1 9 27 LC - Murid Rats and Mice Muridae Multimammate Rat Mastomysnatalensis 4 2 0 6 18 LC - Tullberg’s Soft-furred Rat Praomystullbergi 5 1 0 6 18 LC - Rufous-bellied Rat Lophuromyssikapusi 2 2 1 5 15 LC - Number of signs 20 9 4 33 Number of species 5 5 3 5


Appendix 7a: Mean bird sign densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

WD Schedules

Herons and Egrets Ardeidae Great White Egret Egretta alba 0 0 12 12 6 LC 1 Birds of Prey Accipitridae Hooded Vulture Necrosyrtesmonachus 0 0 2 2 1 LC 1 Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus 1 0 0 1 1 LC 1 African Goshawk Accipiter tachiro 1 1 0 2 1 LC 1 Black Kite Milvusmigrans 3 0 0 3 2 LC 1 African Hobby Falco cuvierii 2 2 0 4 2 LC 1 Francolins Phasianidae African Jacana Francolinusahantensis 4 0 0 4 2 LC 3 Pigeons and Doves Columbidae Green Fruit Pigeon Treroncalva 3 1 1 5 3 LC 2 Blue-headed Wood Dove Turturbrehmeri 2 0 0 2 1 LC 2 Tambourine Dove Turturtympanistria 1 0 0 1 1 LC 2 Afep Pigeon Columba unicincta 3 0 0 3 2 LC 2 Woodpeckers Picidae Gabon Woodpecker Dendropicosgabonensis 2 0 0 2 1 LC 3


Appendix 7b: Mean bird sign densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

WD Schedules

Cuckoos and Coucals Cuculidae Olive Long-tailed Cuckoo Cercococcyxolivinus 2 1 0 3 2 LC 3 Klaas Cuckoo Chrysococcyxklaas 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3 Yellowbill Ceuthmocharesaereus 4 2 0 6 3 LC 3 Senegal Coucal Centropussenegalensis 1 3 2 6 3 LC 3 Swifts Apodidae Sabine’s Spinetail Raphidurasabini 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3 Mottled-throated Spinetail Telecanthuraussheri 2 0 0 2 1 LC 3 Little African Swift Apusaffinus 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3 Hornbills Bucerotidae White-crested Hornbill Tockusalbocristatus 2 0 0 2 1 LC 3 Pied-casqued Hornbill Ceratogymnasubcylindricus 2 0 0 2 1 LC 3 Barbets and Tinkerbirds Capitonidae Naked-faced Barbet Gymnobuccocalvus 2 0 1 3 2 LC 3 Lemon-rumpedTinkerbird Pogoniulusbilineatus 1 1 0 2 1 LC 3 Yellow-spotted Barbet Buccanodonduchaillui 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3


Appendix 7c: Mean bird sign densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

WD Schedules

Pittas Pittidae African Pitta Pitta angolensis 3 2 2 7 4 LC 3 Swallows Hirundinidae European Swallow Hirundorustica 2 3 5 10 5 LC 3 House Martin Delichonurbica 0 1 4 5 3 LC 3 Babblers Timaliidae Blackcap Illadopsis Illadopsiscleaveri 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3 Rufous-winged Illadopsis Illadopsisrufescens 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3 Bulbuls and Greenbuls Pycnonotidae Little Greenbul Andropadusvirens 1 1 0 2 1 LC 3 Slender-billed Greenbul Andropadusgracilirostris 4 0 0 4 2 LC 3 Simple Leaf-love Chlorocichla simplex 2 1 0 3 2 LC 3 IcterineGreenbul Phyllastrephusicterinus 1 1 0 2 1 LC 3 Western Bearded Greenbul Crinigerbarbatus 3 0 0 3 2 LC 3 Common Bulbul Pycnonotusbarbatus 6 3 5 14 7 LC 3 Drongos Dicruridae Fork-tailed Drongo Dicrurusadsimilis 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3 Shining Drongo Dicrurusatripennis 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3


Appendix 7d: Mean bird sign densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

WD Schedules

Sunbirds Nectariniidae Collared Sunbird Anthreptescollaris 1 1 3 5 3 LC 3 Little Green Sunbird Nectariniaseimundi 3 0 0 3 2 LC 3 Olive Sunbird Nectariniaolivacea 1 2 0 3 2 LC 3 Superb Sunbird Nectariniasuperba 2 2 1 5 3 LC 3 Thrushes, Chats and Robins Turdidae Forest Robin Stiphrorniserythrothorax 2 0 0 2 1 LC 3 Fire-crested Alethe Alethediademata 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3 Nightingale Lusciniamegarhychos 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3 Warblers Sylviidae Olivaceous Warbler Hippolaispallida 2 0 0 2 1 LC 3 West African Prinia Priniasubflava 3 0 0 3 2 LC 3 Olive-green Camaroptera Camaropterachloronota 1 1 0 2 1 LC 3 Rufous-crowned Eremomela Eremomelabadiceps 2 0 1 3 2 LC 3 Green Hylia Hyliaprasina 2 1 1 4 2 LC 3 Lily-trotters Jacanidae African Jacana Actophilornisafricana 2 0 0 2 1 LC 3


Appendix 7e: Mean bird sign densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

WD Schedules

Flycatchers Muscicapidae Forest Flycatcher Fraseriaocreata 2 0 0 2 1 LC 3 Olivaceous Flycatcher Muscicapaolivascens 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3 Little Grey Flycatcher Muscicapaepulata 2 1 0 3 2 LC 3 Dusky Crested Flycatcher Elminianigromitrata 2 1 1 4 2 LC 3 Paradise Flycatcher Tersphoneviridis 1 0 0 1 1 LC 3 Weavers and Malimbes Ploceidae Village Weaver Ploceuscucullatus 0 2 5 7 4 LC 2 Red-headed Malimbe Malimbusrubricollis 1 2 2 5 3 LC 2 Fire-crowned Bishop Euplecteshordeaceus 0 2 2 4 2 LC 2 Grey-headed Sparrow Passer griseus 0 1 5 6 3 LC 2 Pin-tailed Whydah Viduamacroura 2 1 2 5 3 LC 2 Number of signs 102 40 57 199 Number of species 54 26 19 60


Appendix 8a: Mean butterfly densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

Rarity Status

PAPILIONIDAE Green-banded Swallowtail Papilionireus 3 0 0 3 4 DD 1 Papiliomenestheus 2 1 0 3 4 DD 1 Citrus Swallowtail Papiliodemodocus 4 0 0 4 5 DD 1 Veined Swordtail Graphiumleonidas 3 0 0 3 4 DD 2 Small Striped Swordtail Graphiumpolicenes 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1

PIERIDAE Catopsiliaflorella 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Small Grass Yellow Euremabrigitta 0 2 1 3 4 DD 2 Pioneer White Belenoisaurota 1 0 0 1 1 DD 2 Belenois Calypso Belenois calypso 3 0 0 3 4 DD 1 HESPERIIDAE Coeliadeschalybe 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Coeliadesforestan 2 0 0 2 2 DD 1 Coeliadespisistratus 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Tagiadesflesus 2 1 0 3 4 DD 2 Eagrisdenuba 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Pardaleodesedipus 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Meza meza 2 1 0 3 4 DD 2 Monza alberta 1 0 0 1 1 DD 2


Appendix 8b: Mean butterfly densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

Rarity Status

NYMPHALIDAE Danauschrysippus 2 0 0 2 2 DD 2 Bicyclus vulgaris 1 2 0 3 4 DD 2 Bicyclusdorothea 2 0 0 2 2 DD 1 Bicyclussandace 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Bicyclusmartius 1 0 1 2 2 DD 2 Pearl Emperor Charaxesvaranes 3 0 0 3 4 DD 1 Charaxesfulvescens 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Charaxescynthia 2 0 0 2 2 DD 2 Charaxeslucretius 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Euriphenebarombina 1 0 0 1 1 DD 2 Euriphene veronica 2 0 1 3 4 DD 2 Bebeariaabsolon 4 0 0 4 5 DD 2 Bebeariazonara 2 0 0 2 2 DD 1 Bebeariamandinga 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Euphaedraceres 4 0 0 4 5 DD 1 Euphaedraphaethusa 3 0 0 3 4 DD 1 Catunaoberthueri 2 0 1 3 4 DD 2 Catunaangustatum 1 0 0 1 1 DD 2 Harmatheobene 1 0 0 1 1 DD 2


Appendix 8c: Mean avifauna densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

Rarity Status

NYMPHALIDAE Cymothoeegesta 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Cymothoefumana 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Neptisagouale 2 0 0 2 2 DD 2 Junoniaoenone 1 0 0 1 1 DD 2 Junoniaterea 0 2 0 2 2 DD 1 Acraeaalciope 1 0 0 1 1 DD 1 Number of signs 70 9 4 83 Number of species 40 6 4 42


Appendix 9a: Mean herpetofauna(reptile) densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for the management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

WD Schedules

REPTILES REPTILIA Varanus Varanidae Monitor Lizard Varanusniloticus 4 2 3 9 24 LC 1 Crocodiles Crocodylidae Dwarf Crocodile Osteolaemustetraspis 2 2 1 5 14 VU 1 Cobras Elapidae Forest Cobra Najamelanoleuca 2 3 4 9 24 DD 3 Green Mamba Dendroaspisviridis 1 1 2 4 11 LC 3 Pythons Pythonidae Royal Python Python regius 2 0 2 4 11 LC 2 Rock Python Python sebae 3 0 0 3 8 LC 2 Adders Viperidae Puff Adder Bitisarietans 1 0 0 1 3 DD 3 Gaboon viper Bitisgabonica 0 2 0 2 5 DD 3 Number of signs 15 10 12 37 Number of species 7 5 5 8


Appendix 9b: Mean herpetofauna(amphibian) densities (per km) and relative abundance (%) for management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

WD Schedules

AMHIBIANS AMPHIBIA Common toad Buforegularis 0 0 3 3 16 LC - Common frog Ranagalamensis 2 0 2 4 21 DD - Crowned bullfrog Arthroleptisspp 1 0 0 1 5 DD - Hyperoliusguttulatus 3 0 0 3 16 LC - Phrynobatrachuscalcaratus 2 1 0 3 16 LC - Phrynobatrachusgutturosus 2 2 0 4 21 LC - Phrynobatrachuslatifrons 1 0 0 1 5 LC - Number of signs 11 3 5 19 Number of species 6 2 2 7


Appendix 10a: Mean tree densities (per ha) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones

Family Local Name Scientific Name Core Buffer Trans Density per km


IUCN Status

Star Rating

ANACARDIACEAE KUMANINI Lanneawelwitschii 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Green ANACARDIACEAE APROKUMA Antrocaryonmicraster 1 2 1 4 0.8 VU Red ANNONACEAE DUABAHA Hexalobuscrispiflorus 3 1 1 5 1.0 DD Green ANNONACEAE NGONENKYENE Cleistopholis patens 2 1 0 3 0.6 DD Green ANNONACEAE KUMDWIE Pachypodanthiumstaudtii 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Green ANNONACEAE oBAAetc Xylopiaacutiflora 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Green ANNONACEAE oBAAFUFUO Xylopiavillosa 3 0 2 5 1.0 DD Green ANNONACEAE WEDEABA Monodoramyristica 1 2 0 3 0.6 DD Green APOCYNACEAE SINURO Alstoniaboonei 4 3 0 7 1.4 DD Green APOCYNACEAE FRUNTUM Funtumiaelastica 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Green APOCYNACEAE SESE Holarrhena floribunda 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Green APOCYNACEAE OKAE Funtumiaafricana 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Green BALANITACEAE KROBODUA Balaniteswilsoniana 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Blue BIGNONIACEAE NUFUTEN Kigeliaafricana 3 0 1 4 0.8 DD Green BOMBACACEAE ONYINAKoBEN Rhodognaphalonbrevicuspe 2 3 0 5 1.0 DD Red BOMBACACEAE ONYINA Ceibapentandra 3 2 1 6 1.2 DD Green BOMBACACEAE AKATA Bombaxbuonopozense 3 1 1 5 1.0 DD Green BORAGINACEAE TWENEBOA Cordiaplatythyrsa 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Pink BURSERACEAE ADWEA Dacryodesklaineana 3 2 0 5 1.0 DD Green BURSERACEAE BEDIWONUA Canariumschweinfurthii 2 0 1 3 0.6 DD Pink CAESALPINIACEAE DUABANKYE Dialiumaubrevillei 6 0 0 6 1.2 DD Green


Appendix 10b: Mean tree densities (per ha) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

Star Rating

CAESALPINIACEAE KOTOPRePre Busseaoccidentalis 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Green CAESALPINIACEAE ANOKYEHYEDUA Guibourtiaehie 3 0 0 3 0.6 VU Red CAESALPINIACEAE BONSAMDUA Distemonanthusbenthamianus 4 3 0 7 1.4 DD Pink CAESALPINIACEAE TETEKON Gilbertiodendronlimba 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Green CAESALPINIACEAE YAYA Amphimaspterocarpoides 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Green CAESALPINIACEAE Afzeliaafricana 4 2 0 6 1.2 VU Red CAESALPINIACEAE KWATAFOMPABOA Berliniaconfusa 2 1 0 3 0.6 DD Green CAESALPINIACEAE POTRODOM Erythrophleumivorense 3 1 0 4 0.8 DD Pink CAESALPINIACEAE Danielliaogea 1 0 0 1 0.2 DD Pink CAESALPINIACEAE DWEDWEEDWE Dialiumdinklagei 1 2 0 3 0.6 DD Green CAPPARACEAE KONINI Buchholziacoriacea 4 1 0 5 1.0 DD Green CHRYSOBALANACEAE AFAM Parinariexcelsa 1 0 0 1 0.2 DD Green COMBRETACEAE oFRAM Terminaliasuperba 4 0 0 4 0.8 DD Pink COMBRETACEAE EMIRE Terminaliaivorensis 3 2 0 5 1.0 VU Scarlet DICHAPETALACEAE eSONOWEDIE Dichapetalumguineense 4 0 0 4 0.8 DD Green EBENACEAE ATWEA Diospyrosviridicans 2 2 0 4 0.8 DD Green EBENACEAE ATWEAFUFU Diospyrosmannii 2 1 2 5 1.0 DD Green ERYTHROXYLACEAE PEPEANINI Erythroxylummannii 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Green EUPHORBIACEAE KONTAN-MIRI Uapacaguineensis 3 0 2 5 1.0 DD Green EUPHORBIACEAE WAMA Ricinodendronheudelotii 3 2 1 6 1.2 DD Green EUPHORBIACEAE FeTeFRe Discoglypremnacaloneura 2 0 1 3 0.6 DD Green


Appendix 10c: Mean tree densities (per ha) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

Star Rating

EUPHORBIACEAE oPAM Macarangaspinosa 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Blue EUPHORBIACEAE KETEBONTORE Sapiumellipticum 3 0 2 5 1.0 DD Green EUPHORBIACEAE KYIRIKUSA Anthostemaaubryanum 2 1 1 4 0.8 DD Blue EUPHORBIACEAE AWORATEe Spondianthuspreussii 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Green EUPHORBIACEAE PEPEA Margaritariadiscoidea 4 1 1 6 1.2 DD Green EUPHORBIACEAE DUBRAFONINI Discoclaoxylonhexandrum 1 0 0 1 0.2 DD Green FLACOURTIACEAE TIABUTUO Scottelliaklaineana 6 2 0 8 1.6 DD Pink GUTTIFERAE SONKYI Allanblackia floribunda 3 0 2 5 1.0 DD Green GUTTIFERAE BOMPAGYA Mammeaafricana 2 0 2 4 0.8 DD Pink IRVINGIACEAE ABESEBUO Irvingiagabonensis 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Green IRVINGIACEAE KROMA Klainedoxagabonensis 3 2 0 5 1.0 DD Green IXONANTHACEAE AKoKORABEDITOA Phyllocosmusafricanus 2 2 0 4 0.8 DD Green LECYTHIDACEAE ESIA Petersianthusmacrocarpus 3 1 0 4 0.8 DD Green LOGANIACEAE BONTODEE Anthocleistavogelli 1 0 0 1 0.2 DD Green MELIACEAE TANDRO Trichiliamonadelpha 3 3 1 7 1.4 DD Green MELIACEAE EDINAM Entandrophragmaangolense 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Red MELIACEAE KAKADIKURO Trichiliaprieureana 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Green MELIACEAE TANUNINI Trichiliatessmannii 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Green MELIACEAE PENKWA Entandrophragmacylindricum 2 1 0 3 0.6 VU Scarlet MELIACEAE EFOoBRODEDWO Entandrophragma utile 2 2 2 6 1.2 DD Scarlet MELIACEAE DUBINI Khayaivorensis 2 0 1 3 0.6 VU Scarlet


Appendix 10d: Mean tree densities (per ha) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

Star Rating

MELIACEAE DUBINIBIRI Lovoatrichilioides 3 0 1 4 0.8 VU Red MELIACEAE KWABOHORO Guareacedrata 4 3 1 8 1.6 VU Pink MELIACEAE KWAKUOBESE Carapaprocera 6 0 0 6 1.2 DD Green MELIACEAE PENKWA-AKOA Entandrophragmacandollei 3 0 2 5 1.0 DD Scarlet MIMOSACEAE DAHOMA Piptadeniastrumafricanum 4 2 0 6 1.2 DD Pink MIMOSACEAE ASOMA Parkia bicolor 2 1 0 3 0.6 DD Green MIMOSACEAE ABOBABEMA Xyliaevansii 1 0 0 1 0.2 DD Blue MIMOSACEAE AWIEMFOSAMINA Albiziaferruginea 3 0 1 4 0.8 VU Scarlet MIMOSACEAE ATAA Pentaclethramacrophylla 2 2 0 4 0.8 DD Green MIMOSACEAE oKORO Albiziazygia 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Green MIMOSACEAE PReKeSE Tetrapleuratetraptera 1 0 0 1 0.2 DD Green MIMOSACEAE DENYAo Cylicodiscusgabunensis 2 1 0 3 0.6 DD Blue MIMOSACEAE oKORA-AKOA Albiziaglaberrima 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Green MORACEAE NYANKUMABRE Myrianthusarboreus 5 0 0 5 1.0 DD Green MORACEAE NYANKUMANINI Myrianthuslibericus 2 0 2 4 0.8 DD Green MORACEAE KYEN-KYEN Antiaristoxicaria 4 3 0 7 1.4 DD Pink MORACEAE ODUM Miliciaexcelsa 3 0 0 3 0.6 NT Scarlet MORACEAE oDWUMA Musangacecropioides 1 2 0 3 0.6 DD Green MORACEAE BReBReTIM Treculiaafricana 5 1 0 6 1.2 DD Green MORACEAE WoNTon Morusmesozygia 1 1 0 2 0.4 DD Green MYRISTICACEAE OTIE Pycnanthusangolensis 3 2 2 7 1.4 DD Pink


Appendix 10e: Mean tree densities (per ha) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

Star Rating

OCHNACEAE KAKU Lophiraalata 2 0 0 2 0.4 VU Red OLACACEAE AFENA Strombosiaglaucescens 3 2 2 7 1.4 DD Pink OLACACEAE BODWE Ongokea gore 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Green PALMAE ABE Elaeisguineensis 0 13 24 37 7.4 DD Green PANDACEAE KOKROBOBA Panda oleosa 4 3 0 7 1.4 DD Green PAPILIONACEAE SANTE Lonchocarpussericeus 3 1 0 4 0.8 DD Green PAPILIONACEAE oDWENKOBIRI Baphiapubescens 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Green RHIZOPHORACEAE KoKoTE Anopyxisklaineana 5 0 0 5 1.0 VU Red RUBIACEAE PAMPENAMA Corynanthepachyceras 4 2 1 7 1.4 DD Green RUBIACEAE KUSIA Naucleadiderrichii 2 2 0 4 0.8 VU Scarlet RUBIACEAE KONKROMA Morindalucida 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Green RUTACEAE OKUO Zanthoxylumgilletii 3 0 2 5 1.0 DD Green SAPINDACEAE AKYE Blighiasapida 2 0 1 3 0.6 DD Green SAPOTACEAE AKASAA Chrysophyllumbeguei 5 2 0 7 1.4 DD Blue SAPOTACEAE ASAMFENA Aningeriaaltissima 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Red SAPOTACEAE BAKU Tieghemellaheckelii 2 1 0 3 0.6 EN Scarlet SAPOTACEAE DUAPOMPO Omphalocarpumahia 2 0 0 2 0.4 DD Blue SIMAROUBACEAE FOTIE Hannoaklaineana 2 2 1 5 1.0 DD Green STERCULIACEAE WAWA Triplochitonscleroxylon 3 2 0 5 1.0 LC Scarlet STERCULIACEAE DANTA Nesogordoniapapaverifera 2 2 0 4 0.8 VU Pink STERCULIACEAE oHAA Sterculiaoblonga 4 3 0 7 1.4 DD Green


Appendix 10f: Mean tree densities (per ha) and relative abundance (%) for the various management zones in Bia Biosphere Reserve

Management Zones



IUCN Status

Star Rating

STERCULIACEAE KYEREYe Pterygotamacrocarpa 2 1 0 3 0.6 VU Red STERCULIACEAE WAWABIMA Sterculiarhinopetala 2 4 1 7 1.4 DD Pink STERCULIACEAE OPRONO Mansoniaaltissima 3 4 0 7 1.4 DD Pink STERCULIACEAE SOFO Sterculiatragacantha 5 3 0 8 1.6 DD Green STERCULIACEAE BESE Cola nitida 3 0 0 3 0.6 DD Pink TILIACEAE AKOKORAGYEHINI Dubosciaviridiflora 2 0 1 3 0.6 DD Green TILIACEAE eSONOWISAMFIE Desplatsiadewevrei 3 1 0 4 0.8 DD Green ULMACEAE ESA Celtismildbraedii 3 1 1 5 1.0 DD Green ULMACEAE ESAKOKOo Celtiszenkeri 2 2 0 4 0.8 DD Green ULMACEAE ESAKOSUA Celtisadolfi-friderici 3 1 0 4 0.8 DD Green Number of signs 313 119 69 501 Number of species 114 58 34 115

biological survey of the bia conservation … ·...

Documents