Wildlife Assessment - Kalahari Ecosystem (WAKE)

Reconnaissance trip funded by University of Alberta FDIC

Dr. Lee Foote University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Canada

Lee.foote@ualberta.ca

Ph (1) (780) 492-4020

Basic Motivation:

Responsible conservation requires we continually work to develop better ways let ecosystems meet the needs of people while ensuring the long-term maintenance of both human cultures and ecosystem integrity.

Such conservation is necessarily an adaptive process that goes on forever because of incessant changes in global economics, climate, population, and knowledge.

Direct enumeration

Indirect enumeration

Based on the success of snow track survey protocols in Alberta, we propose to use local expertise to help develop a similar technique for sand-bed spoor analyses, enumeration, biodiversity analysis and visibility correction factors for aerial surveys.

Moose in AlbertaRed Fox track in snow

Kalahari Lion track

Rationale for specific biodiversity measures proposed:

Why Track Surveys?

1. Dependable; if track is there, animal was there

2. Time-integrated; captures daily cycle of movement

3. Low-impact; non-invasive, no wildlife handling needed

4. Participatory; features and incorporates local knowledge

5. Statistically robust; sample size, independent variable & land use treatments prescribed.

6. Low-tech, low risk; less prone to equipment or personnel failure

7. Less confounded by available water sources (some sp).

8. Comprehensive presence/absence detection; good way to detect very rare species.

9. Compatible with aerial and ground surveys; provides a visibility correction factor (VCF).

Hypothesized Need for Aerial Survey VCF by Species Group

Low Moderate High/Essential

Theory & Hypotheses

Disturbance

Dev

iatio

n fr

om B

asel

ine*

*= species indigenous to KTFP as benchmark (2001 & later)

2. Wildlife species may be predicted from vegetation and habitat types by season.

1. Track count methods provide a parallel and detailed addition to existing visual survey data

4. Extractive safari use is compatible with sustainable wildlife community structure in the Kalahari, question is how to select off-take level? This info aids DPW decisions.

3. Hunting and viewing tourism does not change the basic plant structure.

High impact

Moderate impact

Low impact

Study Areas

Biltong, subsistence hunting permits

Springbok on non-extractive safari drive

Commercial Hunting

Agriculture, intensive human use

Linkage to existing data

University of Uppsala (Sweden) Visual surveys

(Wallgren Dissertation)

4-8% aerial survey Conducted annually

Visibility Correction Factor(VCF) will improve the Interpretation of data

Monthly Parks visual count Wildlife survey

(Botswana side_

Tourists/Photo safari concession

Extractive/ hunting safari operations

(e.g.) Strumpher concession (invited)

Communities (e.g.) Zsutswa, Ngwatle, Mabuasehube,Ukwi

Botswana DPW

Participants

Invited

•NSERC

•FSIDA

•IDRC

Expressed Interest:

•Botswana DPW

•U Botswana

•Select Community members

•Kalahari Cons. Soc.

•IUCN – SUSG

•FSIDA

•U Florida

University affiliates expressing interest in cooperating on project

Dr. Naomi Krogman, International Development/Environmental Sociologist, U of Alberta

Dr. Evelyn Merrill, Range Ecologist, Landscape analyst, U of Alberta

Dr. Mark Boyce; Quantitative Vertebrate Ecologist, U of Alberta

Derek Keeping, MSc. Student

Julia Burger, Prospective MSc Student

Dr. Raban Chanda, U Botswana

Dr. Brian Child, U Florida

Martha Wallgren, Univ. Upsalla, Sweden

Dr. Alistair Franke, U of Alberta

Dr. Lee Foote, Research Director, U of Alberta

Bat-eared Foxes (5-Pula coin for reference)

Black-bellied Korhan

Chacma Baboon (Kalahari re-invader)

Short list of trackers from Communities

Basic field accommodations

Hauled water tanks

Used 4X4 truck

Logistical needs for project

Johnny- Zsutswa

Masada - Ukwi

Grant support (of course) sought through Canadian and International sources

Data inspection for species of special interest. Movement, group size, adult: offspring ratios & time/area association with other surveyed species.

Lion (key management need)

Leopard (quota debate)

Aardwolf (sensitive species?)

Hyenas (2 sp)

Pangolin (recovering?)

Baboon (encroaching?)

Wildebeest (water dependent)

Cattle competition from wildlife

We only provide management recommendations (a) at the invitation of the management authority (DPW), and (b) with defensible supporting data.

Future Work

• The project is envisioned as a 2-phase project (2006-2009).

a. Track survey technique development w/ community members.

b. Survey techniques and employment to community members and game guards as a standard measurement protocol to involve them in resource management at grass roots level (2009-2012) & improve safari employment opportunities in KD1, KD2, & KTFP

Grant Destinations

• FDIC

• NSERC

• WWF

• IDRC

• Calgary Zoological Society