Publication: Monitoring great ape and elephant abundance at large spatial scales: measuring effectiveness of a conservation landscape.
Monitoring great ape and elephant abundance at large spatial scales: measuring effectiveness of a conservation landscape.
dc.contributor.author | Stokes, E.J. | |
dc.contributor.author | Strindberg, S. | |
dc.contributor.author | Bakabana, P.C. | |
dc.contributor.author | Elkan, P.W. | |
dc.contributor.author | Iyenguet, F.C. | |
dc.contributor.author | Madzoké, B. | |
dc.contributor.author | Malanda, G.A.F. | |
dc.contributor.author | Mowawa, B.S. | |
dc.contributor.author | Moukoumbou, C. | |
dc.contributor.author | Ouakabadio, F.K. | |
dc.contributor.author | Rainey, H.J. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:55:15Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:55:15Z | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/535 | |
dc.title | Monitoring great ape and elephant abundance at large spatial scales: measuring effectiveness of a conservation landscape. | en |
dcterms.abstract | Protected areas are fundamental to biodiversity conservation, but there is growing recognition of the need to extend beyond protected areas to meet the ecological requirements of species at larger scales. Landscape-scale conservation requires an evaluation of management impact on biodiversity under different land-use strategies; this is challenging and there exist few empirical studies. In a conservation landscape in northern Republic of Congo we demonstrate the application of a large-scale monitoring program designed to evaluate the impact of conservation interventions on three globally threatened species: western gorillas, chimpanzees and forest elephants, under three land-use types: integral protection, commercial logging, and community-based natural resource management. We applied distance-sampling methods to examine species abundance across different land-use types under varying degrees of management and human disturbance. We found no clear trends in abundance between land-use types. However, units with interventions designed to reduce poaching and protect habitats - irrespective of land-use type - harboured all three species at consistently higher abundance than a neighbouring logging concession undergoing no wildlife management. We applied Generalized-Additive Models to evaluate a priori predictions of species response to different landscape processes. Our results indicate that, given adequate protection from poaching, elephants and gorillas can profit from herbaceous vegetation in recently logged forests and maintain access to ecologically important resources located outside of protected areas. However, proximity to the single integrally protected area in the landscape maintained an overriding positive influence on elephant abundance, and logging roads – even subject to anti- poaching controls - were exploited by elephant poachers and had a major negative influence on elephant distribution. Chimpanzees show a clear preference for unlogged or more mature forests and human disturbance had a negative influence on chimpanzee abundance, in spite of anti-poaching interventions. We caution against the pitfalls of missing and confounded co-variables in model-based estimation approaches and highlight the importance of spatial scale in the response of different species to landscape processes. We stress the importance of a stratified design-based approach to monitoring species status in response to conservation interventions and advocate a holistic framework for landscape-scale monitoring that includes smaller-scale targeted research and punctual assessment of threats. | en |
dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Stokes, E.J., Strindberg, S., Bakabana, P.C., Elkan, P.W., Iyenguet, F.C., Madzoké, B., Malanda, G.A.F., Mowawa, B.S., Moukoumbou, C., Ouakabadio, F.K. and Rainey, H.J., 2010. Monitoring great ape and elephant abundance at large spatial scales: measuring effectiveness of a conservation landscape. PloS one, 5(4), p.e10294 | en |
dcterms.issued | 2010-04-23 | |
dcterms.language | en | |
dcterms.license | CC-BY-3.0 | en |
dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
fsc.focus.forestZone | Tropical | |
fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
fsc.issue.environmental | Biodiversity | |
fsc.subject | Animal biodiversity | |
fsc.subject | Biodiversity | |
fsc.subject | Conservation | |
fsc.topic.environmental | Animal biodiversity | |
fsc.topic.environmental | Biodiversity | |
fsc.topic.environmental | Conservation | |
is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
is.contributor.funderType | Private funds (NGOs, companies, VSS self-funded etc) | |
is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
is.coverage.country | Congo | |
is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | CG | |
is.coverage.geographicLevel | Region | |
is.coverage.latitude | -0.228021 | |
is.coverage.longitude | 15.827659 | |
is.coverage.region | Africa | |
is.evaluation.collection | Interviews/surveys with certified entities and their representatives and workers/producers | |
is.evaluation.counterfacts | Yes | |
is.evaluation.dataSource | Independent researcher data | |
is.evaluation.findings | Elephant densities in the protected area were as high as in the certified FMU and non-certified FMUs. They also measured significantly lower elephant densities in other non-certified FMUs and in the community-based management area. | |
is.evaluation.findings | Chimpanzee densities were highest in the protected area, followed by a non-certified FMU. There were also similar densities in the certified FMU as in non-certified ones. | |
is.evaluation.findings | Gorilla density was highest in a non-certified FMU, followed by the certified FMU, a non-certified FMU, and the community-based management area. | |
is.evaluation.notes | The authors also highlighted some habitat characteristics (forest clearings, closed-understory forests) that were disproportionally associated with high animal density. While these findings were not directly used in the analysis to ponder the effect of the various forest management regimes on animal density, they could be influential factors that prevent us from recognizing the specific impact of management regime. | |
is.evaluation.notes | In the same line of argument, the study design poorly serves to isolate the effect of FSC certification given that only one certified FMU is studied (no replication) and that no confounding factors are considered in the analysis. Moreover, no strong association between animal density and FSC certification is detected in this study. The attribution of any impact of FSC certification on elephant, chimpanzee or gorilla density is therefore hazardous based on these findings. | |
is.evaluation.notes | Yet the study provides important findings regarding the potential of the inclusion of FSC-certified logging within a landscape-scale conservation approach. | |
is.evaluation.notes | Finally, the authors highlight that: 'the degree of wildlife management intervention [e.g. designed to reduce poaching] within different land-use types had an overwhelming effect on species abundance: elephant and gorilla populations in certain managed logging concessions were comparable with, and in the case of gorillas higher than, density estimates in the strictly protected area' | |
is.evaluation.outcome | yes | |
is.evaluation.scope | This study explores the effect of three different forest management regimes, namely, integrally protected area, community-based conservation and resource management, and commercial logging concession on the abundance of three large emblematic vertebrate species, the forest elephant, the chimpanzee and the western gorilla, within a 28,000 km2 landscape in the Republic of Congo. The authors further test the effects of various ecological variables in addition to the management regimes to understand in more details the spatial distribution of wildlife in the landscape. The logging concession is made of several forest management units but only one of them was FSC certified during the time of the study. | |
is.evaluation.significance | Statistically significant | |
is.evidenceSubType | Modeling study - future scenario or potential effects | |
is.evidenceType | Modeling study | |
is.focus.products | Other forestry and logging | |
is.focus.sdg | SDG 15 - Life on Land | |
is.focus.sectors | Services | |
is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
is.focus.sustainIssue | Plant and wildlife conservation | |
is.focus.sustainLens | Landscape approaches | |
is.focus.sustainOutcome | Rare, threatened and endangered species | |
is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010294 | |
is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international643 | |
is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
is.journalName | PLoS ONE |