madagascar forest conservation programme phase 181science ... · entire animal groups, such as...
TRANSCRIPT
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
Madagascar Forest Conservation Programme
Phase 181Science Report
Madagascar, Nosey Be
January–March 2018
Principal Investigator: Ryan M. Clark
Assistant Research Officer: Matthew Smart
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
Table of Contents
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 3
1.1 Madagascar................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Measuring Biodiversity ................................................................................................... 5
2. STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................. 6
2.1 ‘Big Island’ ................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Survey Routes ........................................................................................................... 7
3. PROJECTS .................................................................................................................. 13
3.1 Lemur Abundance ................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Herpetofauna abundance and species richness ........................................................ 15
4. Summary ..................................................................................................................... 17
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 19
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Madagascar
“Continental Island of the first rank”—Wallace (1892, p.563).
The majority of extant flora and fauna on Madagascar are found nowhere else on earth
(Goodman & Benstead 2003; Hobbes & Dolan 2008; Phillipson et al. 2006). Many of the
island’s unique species are nested in ancient clades that host entirely native genera and families
(e.g. Callmander et al. 2011), leading some to claim that higher taxa endemism leaves
Madagascar peerless in biological uniqueness (Ganzhorn et al. 2014).
Modern estimates hold that over 90 percent of Madagascar’s endemic animals live in, or rely on
forests (Dufils 2003). Although our understanding of the historic relationship between
Madagascar’s human population and the island’s forests is mired in conflicting interpretations
and innuendo (Kline 2002), humans have undoubtedly shaped significant aspects of
Madagascar’s modern vegetative cover (Randrianja & Ellis 2009). Forest clearance for
agriculture using methods such as ‘tavy’ (slash and burn) and oxen grazing are central to
Malagasy culture, widely practiced, and thought to reduce biodiversity (Clark 2012; Gade 1996;
Marcus 2001).
The above factors, exacerbated by stochastic socioeconomic climes across Madagascar have
largely contributed to the island being classified as a biodiversity ‘hotspot’ (Myres et al. 2000)
and being considered a global conservation priority (Goodman & Benstead 2005; Mittermeier et
al. 2005).
1.1.1 Geologic Origins
Much of Madagascar’s extraordinary biological distinctness is thought to have arisen due to its
isolation from other landmasses, which has lasted at least 90 million years (Storey et al. 1995).
Compounded by the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event (K–T) ~65 million years ago (mya)
(Alvarez et al. 1980), geographic isolation has allowed Madagascar’s taxa to radiate into
previously impoverished niche space (Ali & Krause 2011; Fortey 1999; Renne et al. 2013).
Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the role of dispersal in the post-Mesozoic faunal
colonisation of Madagascar was largely ignored in favour of a vicariance dominated narrative
(Yoder & Nowak 2006). The first years of the 21st century have seen this status quo reversed;
current thinking is that the majority of Madagascar’s basal fauna stocks originated from
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
Cenozoic colonisation events from 65 million years ago onwards (Salmonds et al. 2012; 2013).
Fossil records buttress this model by revealing that most extant Malagasy vertebrate taxa were
not present during the Cretaceous (Krause et al. 1997; 1998; 1999)—hence their arrival must
have been later. However some clades are known to have survived from Madagascar’s shared
plate tectonic history with Gondwanaland (Gaffney & Forster 2003; Noonan & Chippindale
2006).
Stochastic dispersal post-K–T has given rise to peculiar taxonomic assemblages on Madagascar
(e.g. Poux et al. 2005; Reinthal & Stiassny 1991), where a handful of speciose radiations make
up the majority of fauna (Bossuyt & Milinkovitch 2001; Nagy et al. 2003; Vences 2004) and
entire animal groups, such as large mammals, are absent. However, human driven extinctions of
certain taxa during the Holocene may compound our ability to assess ‘natural’ patterns of
Madagascan biodiversity (Crowley 2010). Nevertheless, modern biological communities on
Madagascar are widely thought to be unique in structure and composition (Ganzhorn et al.
2014; Horvath et al. 2008; Reddy et al. 2012; Salmonds et al. 2012; 2013).
1.1.2 Modern Biogeography
Often cited as a pseudo-continent (de Wit 2003), Madagascar is the world’s fourth largest island
(587,000 km2), lying ~400km east of mainland Africa in the Indian Ocean. Madagascar’s
topography is dominated by an eastern massif running north-south, dividing the island into two
slopes: a steep eastern escarpment and a gentler western slope (27% and 73% of land cover
respectively (Ganzhorn et al. 2014)). This topography determines large aspects of moisture
deposition across Madagascar. Humid prevailing winds rolling in off the Indian Ocean are
forced upward by eastern mountains and unload precipitation on the east coast and central
highlands; western Madagascar is left in a seasonal rain shadow and experiences pseudo-
monsoon conditions (Jury 2003). What results is a fine-grain diversity of microclimes: discrete
abiotic pockets of different weather conditions (Dewar & Richard 2007; Rakoto-Joseph et al.
2009). These heterogeneous moisture patterns shape much of Madagascar’s local landscape
diversity. Although ~65% of the island’s land cover is savannah (Moat & Smith 2007), habitat
mosaics of scrub, wetland, and forests typify most regions (Mayaux 2000; 2004). The
centrepieces of these landscapes are scattered woodland blocks; forest archipelagos that support
the majority of Madagascar’s species (Dufils 2003).
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
The unique structure, composition, and history of Madagascar’s biological communities leaves
them as exquisite examples of radiation in isolation, and bolster calls for conservation of these
ecosystems.
1.2 Measuring Biodiversity
More biodiverse communities are considered to be ecologically healthier; generally having
greater stability, productivity, and resistance to disturbance (Levins 2013; Purvis & Hector
2000). Thus, measuring biodiversity can provide insights into the condition of biological
communities, track changes over space and time, and inform practical management and
conservation (Casey 1999; Gotteli & Chao 2013).
Most often biodiversity is measured in two ways: richness and evenness. Richness, often
synonymous with species richness, is recorded by a total tally of species in an area, ecosystem,
or landscape. While this method hints at biodiversity levels, the structure and composition of
wild populations is not eluded to. Evenness, describes the proportions of individuals in an area:
the more equal groups are the greater the evenness of the site. Both measures are required to
give a relatively robust estimate of biodiversity, and indeed there are many more detailed
methods to quantify more specific aspects of biodiversity.
Estimating biodiversity provides a snapshot in biological time but regular and consistent repeat
measures can provide a window onto the trends and trajectories of species in an area with
reference to external factors, such as human driven reordering of biological communities. Ergo,
at the beginning of this, our project’s new five year research plan, we build surveys around a
framework of measuring the abundance and proportions of various taxa in our research area
over time; various estimates that denote richness and evenness will be made at least once per
dry and wet season for core animal clades (lemurs, reptiles and amphibians). In exploring finer-
grained aspects of ecological dynamics we hope to expand our repertoire of surveys to include
habitat descriptions, more complete inventories of terrestrial invertebrates, and
ecomorphological investigations of certain reptiles. Further, we aim to measure different aspects
of human disturbance in our study area and to pair this data with that of our ecological
investigations. It is hoped that elucidating these relationships, and others, will not only develop
a more complete understanding of these ecosystems but also spread awareness of these forests
and support future conservation management in the area if required.
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
2. STUDY AREA
2.1 ‘Big Island’
The Madagascar Frontier project (MGF) is currently located on Nosy Be, Madagascar’s largest
offshore island (25, 000 ha), Nosy Be lies ~8km from the mainland and is itself part of an
offshore archipelago of several islands and many more small islets (Fig. 2.1).
Within Madagascar Nosy Be is a relatively developed area. The island’s thriving tourist
industry has fuelled the development of several large holiday resort areas that provide a large
proportion of the islands 75,000 inhabitants a sustainable income. Ecotourism on Nosy Be takes
the form of guided tours of the islands forests or seas; these are very popular as Nosy Be has a
large area of pristine woodland and has several coral reefs in its coastal waters.
The MGF study area is located at the southeast tip of Nosy Be, on a peninsula bordered by
Lokobe National Park. The small adjacent village of Ambalahonko has a population of ~100
Figure 2.1: Map showing Nosy Be, its surrounding islands, and MGF’s camp.
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
people that are largely a subsistence community. No road access exists for this area; hence,
small local boats are the only method of reaching our study area.
2.1.2 Sambirano
Named after a mainland watershed, the Sambirano region is a semi-distinct biogeographic
domain of which Nosy Be occupies the northern extreme locality. This region is a transitional
zone between the dry deciduous forests of western Madagascar and the humid eastern
rainforests. As such, characteristics’ of both habitats are found on Nosy Be. This transitional
arrangement defines much of the ecology in our research area.
2.2 Survey Routes
The beginning of phase 181 marked the beginning of MGF’s new five year research plan. This
plan will refocus the research methodology and aims of the project. As such a variety of new
projects, with new study methods will be implemented from this period onwards; new forest
survey routes are a major component of this enterprise.
MGF’s previous forest survey routes were separated into ‘lemur’, ‘bird’, and ‘herp’ routes and
were different (arbitrary) lengths. These methods were defenestrated at the beginning of phase
181 by the creation of nine new survey routes that are each 400 m in length and are suitable for
both lemur and herpetofauna surveys. Bird surveys will begin in phase 182 and will be based on
a random point count methodology; not ‘transects’.
As the main focus of our new five year plan will be focused on the long-term biodiversity
monitoring of lemuriforms and herpetofauna, these new routes will take centre stage in MGF’s
core study effort in phases to come. These new survey routes follow MGF’s old method of
categorising habitat along routes as ‘primary’, ‘secondary’, or ‘degraded’ forests based on past
histories of the routes, current use by human populations, and observations of ‘forest health’ by
trained research staff. Survey routes run along pre-existing forest trails to align with MGF’s ‘no
chop’ policy—thereby avoiding unnecessary deforestation and/or habitat degradation. Routes
were chosen to run as straight as possible; this (a). reduces variation in visual overlap between
observers, i.e. over/under-surveying on bends (b). simplifies routes so as to flatten the learning
curve for new researchers attempting to memorise the complex network of forest trails in our
study area.
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
Next we describe each new terrestrial forest survey route:
2.2.1 Degraded 1 (D1)
D1 begins at the rear of Ambalahonko (the village where our camp is based). This path is well
sheltered by the forest canopy (~5-15 m high) and later opens up into a rocky gorge-type habitat
in its final 100 m. Vegetation bordering this route while initially thick and comprised mostly of
relatively wide trees, wanes in its later section and gives way to large shrubs and more arid
biological communities. D1 ends adjacent to a small patch of agricultural land. The diameter
and condition of this path varies greatly along its length: there are many patches of thick mud,
small streams, and wide openings dispersed throughout. The prevalence of open areas of
habitat, frequent use by human populations, and proximity to agricultural land justifies this
survey route as being classified ‘degraded’.
2.2.2 Degraded 2 (D2)
D2 begins at the end of D1: adjacent to a small agricultural patch. From here the route follows a
medium incline over rocky terrain for ~50 m (vegetation only borders one side of the path here).
The remaining majority of the route runs a straight forest path where the canopy height rarely
exceeds 8 m. On one side this band of flora is no more than 10 m thick and overlooks a large
human altered landscape comprising of rice paddies and areas for oxen grazing (Fig. 2.4?). A
sharp 45o bend is made before the final ~30 m of the survey route; the habitat characteristics do
not change following this. Muddy areas and rocky outcrops are common along this route. The
relatively low canopy density, frequency of open areas and gaps in vegetation, and nearby
human use of land warrant that this route be classified ‘degraded’.
Figure 2.2: D1 path.
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
2.2.3 Degraded 3 (D3)
This route is the ‘healthiest’ of the degraded routes. D3 runs a straight path through forest that
backs on to several areas of farmland then curves through a flooded area and ends in an ylang-
ylang plantation. The condition of this path is poor, mud ridden patches and streams are very
common along all of this path—likely due to heavy human use of the path and surrounding area.
Despite this the forest bordering D3 is seemingly in good condition; canopy cover is relatively
dense, and canopy height relatively high along the majority of this route. Heavy human traffic
along this path and several human-altered landscapes being in the vicinity allows us to classify
this route as ‘degraded’.
2.2.4 Secondary 1 (S1)
S1 begins in close proximity to D2; as this route bends left in its final quarter S1 begins right of
this turning. S1 follows a straight path that runs slightly down hill and ends close to a coastline.
The habitat is all healthy forest excluding a ~50 m section at its terminus that is bordered by a
Figure 2.3: agricultural land adjacent to D2.
Figure 2.4: deforestation on D3.
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
human plantation. The forest that envelops S1 is ~10–15 m in height and canopy density rarely
falls below 20% cover. While a small area of this route is used as agricultural land, and the path
itself is used not infrequently by the local population, the relative health of the forest and
thickness of the vegetation band that borders this route indicate that it should be classified
‘secondary’.
2.2.5 Secondary 2 (S2)
S2 is by far in the best condition of our secondary routes. S2 begins on the edge of a forest
stream and runs up a semi-steep incline into montane tropical forest. Vegetation is very thick on
both sides of this path. Canopy cover is constantly >60%; canopy height rarely falls below 5 m.
The factor leading us to classify this route as ‘secondary’ and not ‘primary’ is heavy use by
humans. This route is used by locals to ascend to an adjacent mountain top where there is a
regional phone mast and a small compound; not only is this path heavily used by people but also
heavy equipment is frequently transported up the mountain along S2. It is reasonable therefore
to infer that disturbance along this path may be relatively high. Further, canopy height along S2
is slightly below what would be expected from a primary forest.
Figure 2.5: (A). Start of S1 path (B). End of S1 path; farmland runs along one side of
this section.
A B
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
2.2.6 Secondary 3 (S3)
Of our secondary routes S3 is in the worst condition. This survey route runs adjacent to several
plantations and in fact bisects a section of agricultural land at its midway point. Beginning at the
foot of a rice paddy S3 travels a short incline in its first 50 m then steadily declines as the route
continues. Despite this vicinity to human-altered landscapes the majority of S3 is covered by
healthy secondary forest; canopy height is for the most part above 10 m. However canopy cover
is not as dense as our other secondary routes. The width and condition of this path vary greatly.
Muddy and flooded sections of this route are frequent. The structure of the habitat along S3
allow us to term this route ‘secondary’.
2.2.7 Primary 1 (P1)
Figure 2.6: S2 path.
Figure 2.7: (A). water-logged section of S3 (B). beginning of S3.
A B
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
P1 runs adjacent to the border of Lokobe National Park (LNP), a protected area of montane and
coastal tropical rainforest. This habitat is considered to be relatively pristine. As the habitat of
LNP runs continuously across the border adjacent to our research area, it is reasonable to infer
that the environment along our survey route is similar, if not identical. P1 begins close to the
coast and steeply ascends into thick rainforest. Punctuated by a few <50 m ‘flat’ sections in the
first half of P1, towards the second, incline generally decreases until a level plateau is reached at
the end of the route that is adjacent to a waterfall (Fig.). The canopy height along P1 is very
high, often stretching beyond 20–25 m. Canopy density is also relatively high, mostly being
>70% cover except above water bodies. The vegetation on either side of the path is very thick
but does thin out on some steep valley sections towards the last 100 m of P1. High and dense
canopy are key indicators of ‘primary’ habitat.
2.2.8 Primary 2 (P2)
P2 is very close and very similar in habitat type to P1. Thus, characteristics of vegetative
structure are analogous to P1. P2 runs through several montane streams and thus is composed of
Figure 2.8: (A). beginning of P1, adjacent to the coast (B). level section of P1 (C). waterfall
at the end of P1.
C
B A
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
numerous small valleys. Other than this the route is relatively flat. The condition of the path
varies and frequently changes with stormy conditions—likely due to flooding and receding of
the streams that punctuate its length. This route has been a challenge to track on occasion.
Similar high and dense canopy to that seen on P1 allows us to label P2 a ‘primary’ route.
2.2.9 Primary 3 (P3)
A site for P3 has been selected however this route has not been measured or tracked; this work
will be completed at the beginning of phase 182.
2.2.10 Summary
The new survey route described here are a core framework of the projects to emerge in 2018.
Once every route has been properly marked out and mapped a complete map of these trails will
be made and included in phase 182’s report. In the meantime MGF will look to explore new
locations within our study area that could serve as additional routes; eventually a roster of 4–5
survey routes per habitat type should be maintained and walked regularly by the MGF team.
3. PROJECTS
3.1 Lemur Abundance
Lemuriforms are old world prosimians endemic to Madagascar. Placing their date of divergence
from the other primates is still the subject of robust scientific debate; some studies argue this is
around 60 million years ago (Yoder & Nowak 2006; Horvath et al. 2008), while others have
suggest dates tens of millions of years later (Godinot 2006; Sussman 2003). Nevertheless, most
Figure 2.9: (A). & (B). Forest streams bisecting P2.
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
authors on the subject agree that this date was after Madagascar split from India. Hence, lemurs
are thought to have colonised the island transoceanicaly sometime later, most likely by rafting
on vegetation (Tattersall 2006).
Once on mainland Madagascar, lemurs underwent several million years of adaptive innovation
and radiated into diverse niche space provided by the island’s fine-grained habitat diversity and
stochastic climate. Modern lemurs are near exclusively arboreal and have a broad repertoire of
ecological roles within Madagascar’s forests. From tiny mouse lemurs that are the world’s
smallest primates, to the largest living lemur, the Indri, these animals occupy diverse and
intricate positions in their respective trophic webs and are linchpins in many of their woodland
ecosystems. A good example of this is the role of lemuriforms as seed dispersers (Dew and
Wright 2006).
Three lemur species are found on Nosy be: the black lemur (Eulemur macaco macaco), Hawk’s
sportive lemur (Lepilemur tymerlachsonorum), and Clair’s mouse lemur (Microcebus
mamiratra). These species have different niches and life histories, and may use their habitat in
different ways. For instance, both L. tymerlachsonorum and M. mamiratra are nocturnal and are
found in relatively small groups (often solitary); this is not true for diurnal, group-living E.
macaco macaco. Thus, impacts from external stimuli such as human disturbance or
environmental catastrophe may be different among these species. We aim to address this
question.
Aims:
Determine if lemuriform abundance varies in our research area as a function of habitat
type.
Determine if lemuriform abundance varies in our research area as a function of human
disturbance level.
3.1.1 Methods
During phase 181 lemur surveys were walked along several 400 m pre-existing forest routes
that run through the forest in our study area. Teams of trained research staff walked these routes
at a regular pace and visually scanned the path and surrounding area for lemurs. Observers left
at least 2 m between each other. When an individual was spotted, the survey leader—a member
of research staff—identified the species and confirmed the group size and measurements. A tape
measure was used to measure the distance from path. Height of individuals was estimated by
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
eye as most lemurs were well above a height that could be recorded using a tape measure. Both
day and night surveys were conducted; electric light was used to assist observations during
night routes.
3.1.2 Outcome
Due to restriction in time and resources (heavily influenced by several large storms that hit our
research area over this period) the total number of surveys completed during phase 181 was
insufficient to draw any conclusions from. The data from this phase will be carried over to the
next and included in the interpretation of phase 182’s research.
3.2 Herpetofauna abundance and species richness
Madagascar’s trend of hosting peculiar assemblages owing to stochastic transoceanic dispersal
following separation from other landmasses and biological impoverishment after a catastrophic
environmental event ~65 million years ago also hold true for its reptiles and amphibians—for
instance, Madagascar is the global hub of chameleon diversity yet hosts no salamanders (Glaw
& Vences 2007).
All wild amphibians on Madagascar are frogs; these species are near exclusively restricted to
woodland habitat, not being able to withstand long periods in direct sunlight and needing humid
conditions and access to waterbodies for reproduction. As such, amphibian diversity is heavily
concentrated in the islands eastern rainforests. The heterogeneity of these habitats has helped
catalyse micro endemism of frogs along Madagascar’s eastern coast. These amphibians fill a
diverse range of niches in their habitats, from leaf litter dwelling Stumpfia, to Boophids capable
of bounding between high tree tops, Madagascar’s frogs can be very locally abundant and
occupy important positions in their trophic webs.
Reptiles on Madagascar are generally less restricted to the islands forests, their scaled dermis
allows them to thrive in areas of intense ultraviolet exposure and to store water so as to go much
longer between needing hydration. Therefore, Madagascar’s reptiles can occupy areas of scrub
and savannah—the most common habitat type on the island. These reptiles include a number of
charismatic and well-known species, such as the chameleons; Madagascar holds ~50% of the
globes chameleon species.
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
Nosy Be hosts ~60 reptile species; these range from tiny leaf litter skinks to the largest predator
present on the island and Madagascar as a whole: the Nile crocodile. Within our study area the
majority of reptile species are lizards; geckos, chameleons and skinks are by far the most
common species seen on surveys.
Aims
Determine if herpetile abundance and species diversity varies in our research area as a
function of habitat type
Determine if herpetile abundance and species diversity varies in our research area as a
function of human disturbance level.
3.2.1 Methods
During phase 181 herpetofauna surveys were walked along several 400 m pre-existing forest
routes that run through the forest in our study area. Teams of trained research staff walked these
routes at a regular pace and visually scanned the path and surrounding area for reptiles and
amphibians. Observers left at least 2 m between each other. When an individual was spotted the
survey leader—a member of research staff—identified the species. A tape measure was used to
measure the distance from path and height of individual. Both day and night surveys were
conducted; electric light was used to assist observations during night routes.
3.2.2 Results
In total ten herpetofauna surveys were walked (four night; six day). Four surveys were done in
degraded habitat, three in secondary, and three in primary. These surveys observed 103
individuals; 43 in degraded, 22 in secondary, and 38 in primary. However as degraded routes
were walked once more than other habitats, total encounter tallies cannot be used to draw
conclusions about the biological communities in our research area. On average 10.75
individuals were observed on each degraded route, 7.3 in secondary, and 12.7 in primary. On
average 6.5 species were observed on each degraded survey, 5.3 in secondary, and 6.3 in
primary.
Unfortunately due to a relatively poor sample size (only having one or zero surveys walked for
some routes), it would be misleading to analyse these results with more detailed methods,
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
looking at species richness for example. The results from phase 181 will be joined with 182 and
looked at as one data set.
Some species were found exclusively in certain habitat types. Phelsuma laticauda was only
found on primary surveys, while Langaha madagascariensis was only found on degraded
routes. As these results were only taken from several specific surveys that span a relatively short
period of time, it is difficult to make any lasting statements about whether these species will
turn up in other habitat types on later surveys. Specialisation to specific habitat types will be
revisited in later reports.
3.2.3 Discussion
While our data set was too small to elude to biodiversity values as discussed in section 1.2, we
can see that both the number of individuals and species observed on average on secondary
routes is lower than that of degraded or primary routes. This could be due to gaps in surveying
but there are many primary and degraded specialist species that may not be able to persist in
secondary habitat. Next phase we must look to expand our surveying effort and gather more
data to compare assemblages across habitat types.
4. Summary
The major achievement of phase 181 was the construction of nine new terrestrial survey routes
to be used for herpetile and lemuriform surveys; with the intent of further incorporating lemur
behaviour and invertebrate projects. This will underlie MGF’s core biodiversity monitoring
research that aims to explore the changes in our study area’s biological community with
reference to human influences over time. While is a long-term aim, the infrastructure used here
can allow smaller, more hypotheses based projects to take place; this is our aim in the coming
phases.
Completion of terrestrial survey route tracking/mapping is an immediate priority at the
beginning of phase 182, with the aim of producing a comprehensive map of all our routes. We
also aim to explore new routes for each habitat type.
Lemur behaviour surveys will be introduced during phase 182. The central aim of this
investigation will be to determine if black lemur behaviour towards human observers differs in
its composition and/or frequency along a human disturbance gradient. This project will run in
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
tandem with an attempt to measure disturbance on our routes. This project is expected to be
completed during phase 182.
Introducing butterfly and dragonfly surveying is also a priority for the next phase. This will take
the form of point counts where random GPS points are chosen and teams survey the
surrounding area for target species; water way surveys where forest streams into the forest are
followed for an extended period to scan for target species; and opportunistic surveying when
teams are out in our study area with different objectives.
With these research plans in place our understanding of ecological workings in our research area
will be greater than ever before and provide a platform for continued elucidating of biological
dynamics on Nosy Be.
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
REFERENCES
Ali, J. R. & Krause, D. W. (2011) Late Cretaceous bioconnections between Indo-
Madagascar and Antarctica: refutation of the Gunnerus Ridge causeway hypothesis. Journal
of Biogeography, 38, 1855–1872.
Alvarez, L.W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F. & Michel, H.V. (1980) Extraterrestrial cause for the
Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction. Science, 208 (4448), 1095–1108.
Bossuyt, F. & Milinkovitch M.C. (2001) Amphibians as indicators of early tertiary “out-
of-India” dispersal of vertebrates. Science, 292: 93–95.
Callmander, M.W., Phillipson, P.B., Schatz, G.E., Andriambololonera, S.,
Rabarimanarivo, M., Rakotonirina, N., Raharimampionona, J., Chatelain, C.,
Gautier, L. & Lowry, P.P. (2011) The endemic and non-endemic vascular flora of
Madagascar updated. Plant Ecology and Evolution, 144 (2), 121–125.
Casey, P. (1999) Estimating animal abundance by distance sampling techniques,
Wellington (NZ), Department of Conservation.
Clark, M. (2012) Deforestation in Madagascar: Consequences of Population Growth and
Unsustainable Agricultural Processes. Global Majority E-Journal, 3 (1), 61–71.
Crowley, B.E. (2010) A refined chronology of prehistoric Madagascar and the demise of the
megafauna. Quaternary Science Reviews, 29, 2591–2603.
Dew, J.L. & Wright, P. (2006) Frugivory and Seed Dispersal by Four Species of Primates in
Madagascar's Eastern Rain Forest. Biotropica, 30 (3), 425–437.
Dewar, R.E. & Richard, A.F. (2007) Evolution in the hypervariable environment of
Madagascar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104 (34),
13723–13727.
Dufils, J.M. (2003) Remaining forest cover. In: Goodman, S.M. & Benstead, J.P. (eds.) The
natural history of Madagascar, Chicago, Illinois, University of Chicago Press, pp.88–
96.
Fortey, R.A. (1999) Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on
Earth, London, HarperCollins, pp.238–260.
Gade, D.W. (1996) Deforestation and its effects in highland Madagascar. Mountain
Research and Development, 16 (2), 101–116.
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
Gaffney, E. & Forster, C. (2003) Side-necked turtle lower jaws (Podocnemididae,
Bothremydidae) from the Late Cretaceous Maevarano Formation of Madagascar.
American Museum Novitates, 3397, 1–13.
Godinot, M. (2006) Lemuriform origins as viewed from the fossil record. Folia
Primatologica, 77 (6), 446–464.
Goodman, S.M. & Benstead, J.P. (2003) The natural history of Madagascar, Chicago,
Illinois, University of Chicago Press.
Goodman, S. & Benstead, J. (2005) Updated estimates of biotic diversity and endemism for
Madagascar. Oryx, 39, 73–7.
Gotelli, N.J. & Chao, A. (2013) Measuring and Estimating Species Richness, Species
Diversity, and Biotic Similarity from Sampling Data. In: Levin S.A. (ed.) Encyclopedia of
Biodiversity (second edition), Volume 5, pp.195–211. Waltham, Academic Press.
Horvath, J.E., Weisrock, D.W., Embry, S.L., Fiorentino, I., Balhoff, J.P., Kappeler, P., Wray,
G.A., Willard, H.F. & Yoder, A.D. (2008) Development and application of a
phylogenomic toolkit: Resolving the evolutionary history of Madagascar’s lemurs.
Genome Research, 18, 489–499.
Jury, M.R. (2003) The climate of Madagascar. In: Goodman S.M. and Benstead J.P. (eds.)
The Natural History of Madagascar, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Kline, J. (2002) Deforestation in the Madagascar Highlands – Established ‘truth’ and
scientific uncertainty. Geojournal, 56, 191–199.
Krause, D.W., Asher, R.J., Buckley, G., Gottfried, M. & Laduke, T.C. (1998) Biogeographic
origins of the non-dinosaurian vertebrate fauna of Madagascar: new evidence from the Late
Cretaceous. Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology, 18, 57–59.
Krause, D.W., Prasad, G.V.R., von Koenigswald, W., Sahni, A. & Grine, F.E. (1997)
Cosmopolitanism among Gondwanan Late Cretaceous mammals. Nature, 390, 504–507.
Krause, D.W., Rogers, R.R., Forster, C.A., Hartman, J. H., Buckley, G.A. & Sampson,
S.D. (1999) The Late Cretaceous vertebrate fauna of Madagascar: implications for
Gondwanan paleobiogeography. Geological Society of America, 9, 1–7.
Levin S.A. (2013) Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (second edition), Waltham, Academic
Press.
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
Marcus, R.R. (2001) Seeing the forest for the trees: integrated conservation and development
projects and local perceptions of conservation in Madagascar. Human Ecology, 29, 381–396.
Mayaux, P., Bartholomé, E., & Fritz, S. (2004) A new land-cover map of Africa for the year
2000. Journal of Biogeography, 31 (6), 861–877.
Moat, J. & Smith, P. (2007) Atlas of the Vegetation of Madagascar, Kew, Royal Botanical
Gardens Publishing.
Nagy, Z.T., Joger, U., Wink, M., Glaw, F., & Vences, M. (2003) Multiple colonization of
Madagascar and Socotra by colubrid snakes: Evidence from nuclear and
mitochondrial gene phylogenies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 270,
2613–2621.
Noonan, B.P. & Chippindale, P.T. (2006) Vicariant origin of Malagasy reptiles supports Late
Cretaceous Antarctic land bridge. The American Naturalist, 168, 730–741.
Phillipson, P.B., Schatz, G.E., Lowry II, P.P. & Labat, J.-N. (2006) A catalogue of the
vascular plants of Madagascar. In: S.A. Ghazanfar & H.J. Beentje (eds.)
Taxonomy and Ecology of African Plants: Their Conservation and Sustainable
Use, Kew, Royal Botanical Gardens Publishing.
Poux, C., Madsen, O., Marquard, E., Vieites, D.R., de Jong, W.W. & Vences, M. (2005)
Asynchronous colonization of Madagascar by the four endemic clades of primates, tenrecs,
carnivores, and rodents as inferred from nuclear genes. Systematic Biology, 54 (5), 719–730.
Rakoto-Joseph, O., Garde, F., David, M., Adelard, L. & Randriamanantany, Z.A.
(2009) Development of climatic zones and passive solar design in Madagascar.
Energy Conversion and Management, 50 (4), 1004–1010.
Randrianja, S. & Ellis, S. (2009) Madagascar: A Short History, Chicago, Illinois,
University of Chicago Press.
Reddy, S., Driskell, A., Rabosky, D.L., Hackett, S.J. & Schulenberg, T.S. (2012)
Diversification and the adaptive radiation of the vangas of Madagascar. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.2380.
Reinthal, P.N. & Stiassny, M.L.J. (1991) The freshwater fishes of Madagascar: A study of an
endangered fauna with recommendations for a conservation strategy. Conservation Biology,
5, 231–242.
MGF 181 Ryan. M. Clark and Matthew Smart
Renne, P.R., Deino, A.L., Hilgen, F.J., Kuiper, K.F., Mark, D.F., Mitchell, W.S., Morgan, L.E.,
Mundil, R. & Smit, J. (2013) Time Scales of Critical Events Around the Cretaceous-
Paleogene Boundary. Science, 339 (6120), 684– 687.
Samonds, K.E., Godfrey, L.R., Ali, J.R., Goodman, S.M., Vences, M., Sutherland, M.R., Irwin,
M.T. & Krause, D.W. (2012) Spatial and temporal arrival patterns of Madagascar's
vertebrate fauna explained by distance, ocean currents, and ancestor type. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109 (14), 5352–5357.
Samonds, K.E., Godfrey, L.R., Ali, J.R., Goodman, S.M., Vences, M., Sutherland, M.R., Irwin,
M.T. & Krause, D.W. (2013) Imperfect Isolation: Factors and Filters Shaping
Madagascar’s Extant Vertebrate Fauna. PLoS ONE, 8 (4), e62086.
Storey, M., Mahoney, J.J., Saunders, A. & Coffin, N. (1995) Timing of Hot Spot- Related
Volcanism and the Breakup of Madagascar and India. Science, 267 (5199), 852–855.
Sussman, R.W. (2003) Primate Ecology and Social Structure, London, Pearson Custom
Publishing.
Vences, M. (2004) Origin of Madagascar’s extant fauna: A perspective from amphibians,
reptiles and other non-flying vertebrates. Italian Journal of Zoology, 2, 217–228.
Wallace, A.R. (1892) Island Life (2nd
ed), London, Macmillan. p.563.
de Wit, M.J. (2003) Madagascar: Heads It’s a Continent, Tails It’s an Island. Annual
Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 31, 213–248.
Yoder, A.D. & Nowak, M.D. (2006) Has vicariance or dispersal been the predominant
biogeographic force in Madagascar? Only time will tell. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 37, 405–431.