1 / 15

Wildlife Assessment - Kalahari Ecosystem (WAKE)

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:.

idola
Download Presentation

Wildlife Assessment - Kalahari Ecosystem (WAKE)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. Rationale for specific biodiversity measures proposed: Indirect enumeration Direct enumeration Red Fox track in snow Moose in Alberta 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. Kalahari Lion track

  4. Why Track Surveys? • Dependable; if track is there, animal was there • Time-integrated; captures daily cycle of movement • Low-impact; non-invasive, no wildlife handling needed • Participatory; features and incorporates local knowledge • Statistically robust; sample size, independent variable & land use treatments prescribed. • Low-tech, low risk; less prone to equipment or personnel failure • Less confounded by available water sources (some sp). • Comprehensive presence/absence detection; good way to detect very rare species. • Compatible with aerial and ground surveys; provides a visibility correction factor (VCF).

  5. Hypothesized Need for Aerial Survey VCF by Species Group Low Moderate High/Essential

  6. Theory & Hypotheses 1. Track count methods provide a parallel and detailed addition to existing visual survey data 2. Wildlife species may be predicted from vegetation and habitat types by season. Deviation from Baseline* 3. Hunting and viewing tourism does not change the basic plant structure. 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. Disturbance *= species indigenous to KTFP as benchmark (2001 & later)

  7. Agriculture, intensive human use Study Areas Biltong, subsistence hunting permits Commercial Hunting High impact Moderate impact Low impact Springbok on non-extractive safari drive

  8. 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_

  9. Participants Communities (e.g.) Zsutswa, Ngwatle, Mabuasehube,Ukwi Botswana DPW Extractive/ hunting safari operations (e.g.) Strumpher concession (invited) Tourists/Photo safari concession • Expressed Interest: • Botswana DPW • U Botswana • Select Community members • Kalahari Cons. Soc. • IUCN – SUSG • FSIDA • U Florida • Invited • NSERC • FSIDA • IDRC

  10. University affiliates expressing interest in cooperating on project Dr. Evelyn Merrill, Range Ecologist, Landscape analyst, U of Alberta Dr. Naomi Krogman, International Development/Environmental Sociologist, U of Alberta Dr. Lee Foote, Research Director, U of Alberta Dr. Raban Chanda, U Botswana Dr. Brian Child, U Florida Martha Wallgren, Univ. Upsalla, Sweden Dr. Mark Boyce; Quantitative Vertebrate Ecologist, U of Alberta Derek Keeping, MSc. Student Julia Burger, Prospective MSc Student Dr. Alistair Franke, U of Alberta

  11. Black-bellied Korhan Bat-eared Foxes (5-Pula coin for reference) Chacma Baboon (Kalahari re-invader)

  12. Logistical needs for project Grant support (of course) sought through Canadian and International sources Basic field accommodations Hauled water tanks Johnny- Zsutswa Masada - Ukwi Short list of trackers from Communities Used 4X4 truck

  13. Lion (key management need) Leopard (quota debate) Aardwolf (sensitive species?) Hyenas (2 sp) Pangolin (recovering?) Baboon (encroaching?) Wildebeest (water dependent) Cattle competition from wildlife Data inspection for species of special interest. Movement, group size, adult: offspring ratios & time/area association with other surveyed species. We only provide management recommendations (a) at the invitation of the management authority (DPW), and (b) with defensible supporting data.

  14. 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

  15. Grant Destinations • FDIC • NSERC • WWF • IDRC • Calgary Zoological Society

More Related