Conservation assessment and management plan for antelope
Post on 29-Sep-2016
Int. Zoo Yb. (1993) 32 117-124 0 The Zoological Society of London
Conservation assessment and management plan for antelope KAREN A. SAUSMAN Executive Director, The Living Desert, 47-900 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, California 92260, USA
The Captive Breeding Specialist Group of the IUCN/SSC has begun the develop- ment of Conservation Assessment and Management Plans (CAMPs) and Global Captive Action Plans (GCAPs) for a variety of taxonomic groups including hornbills, carnivores and rhinoceroses (Foose & Seal, 1992).
The CAMP process reviews the wild and captive status of all taxa in the group under consideration, on a taxon by taxon basis, assesses the degree of threat for each taxon in the wild and recommends levels of intensive action that may reduce the risks for threatened taxa, especially management involving the captive community. The recommendations for intensive management are provided for use by managers of both wild and captive populations.
The CAMPs are being used to test the applicability of the Mace/Lande criteria for assessment of threat in terms of like- lihood of extinction within a specific period of time (Mace & Lande, 1991). This system is still under active development.
The proposed Mace/Lande system defines three categories for threatened taxa: 1 . Critical, 50% probability of extinction within 5 years or two generations, which- ever is longer; 2. Endangered, 20% probability of extinction within 20 years or ten genera- tions, whichever is longer; 3. Vulnerable, 10% probability of extinc- tion within 100 years.
The GCAPs specifically relate the CAMPs to captive populations and what the captive community could and should attempt to contribute to the intensive management needs of threatened taxa. Where captive programmes are recom- mended, there is an attempt to propose the level of captive programme required to reflect the taxas status and prospects in the wild. To date, GCAPs have targeted six levels of captive programmes: 1. 90%/100 years I, population sufficient to preserve 90% of the average hetero- zygosity of the wild gene pool for 100 years, developed as soon as possible (1-5 years); 2. 90%/100 years 11, population sufficient to preserve 90% of I:he average hetero- zygosity of the wild gene pool for 100 years but developed more gradually (5-10 years); 3. Nucleus 1, a captive nucleus (50-100 individuals) to alway:~ represent 98% of the wild gene pool. This type of pro- gramme will require periodic but, in most cases, modest immigration to maintain this high level of genetic diversity in such a limited captive population; 4. Nucleus 11, a well-managed captive nucleus (25-100) for taxa not of conserva- tion concern but present in captivity or otherwise of interest; 5. Elimination or no captive breeding, taxa are not of concern and captive popu- lation should be managed to extinction; 6 . Husbandry purposes only, breed for experience in c,aptive management only.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANTELOPE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN There are approximately 90 species of antelopes within the family Bovidae. Most of the species are found in Africa and the Middle East, with a few forms further east in Asia. They live in various habitats including mountains, deserts, tropical rain forests and jungles. Antelope range in size from the Giant eland Tragelaphus der- biunus, shoulder height 100&1800 mm, to the Dik-dik Mudoqua sp, shoulder height 305405 mm, and Bates dwarf antelope Neotragus batesi, shoulder height c. 355mm (Nowak & Paradiso, 1983). Some forms, such as the vast herds of Wildebeest Connochaetes sp, are still common and appear to be holding their own in the wild while others have either become extinct in the wild or are now balanced precariously on the edge of extinction. Habitat loss and hunting, both for sport and food, have been major factors in the decline of many populations.
A complete review of the status of ante- lope was undertaken by the Antelope Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC as a first step in the development of a global strategy for their conservation. Three of the four Global Surveys and Regional Action Plans for Antelope compiled by Rod East have been published, covering Africa south of the Sahara (East, 1988, 1989, 1990). An action plan for Duikers Cephalophus sp has also been published (Wilson, 1987). Much of the information concerning the status of the wild popula- tions of the various taxa in this report has been drawn directly from these important publications.
In 1989, the author developed the first in a series of surveys of all Artiodactyls in captivity (Sausman, 1989a, 1990, 1991) which included a review of over 600 taxa, their status in the wild, numbers in cap- tivity, current captive programmes, avail- able space in captivity and other relevant information. The CBSG Artiodactyl Working Group assigned captive pro-
gramme priority levels to over 125 taxa. These early surveys and captive breeding priority lists were used as the basis for the development of a more complete review of the antelopes (Sausman, 1989b; Seal et ul., 1990).
The current CBSG Antelope Working Group, chaired by the author, has active members from the IUCN Antelope Specialist Group, the American, British, European, African, Australian and Gulf States regional antelope management groups, and the Veterinary Specialist Group. In January 1992, members of the working group and the Antelope Specialist Group, including Dr Ulysses Seal, Chairman of the IUCN/CBSG, Dr Richard Estes, Chairman of the IUCN/ASG, and Dr Rod East, compiler of the Global Surveys and Regional Action Plans for Antelope, met in Palm Desert, California, to develop a first draft of an Antelope CAMP. By March 1992, the first draft was completed and circu- lated to the workshop participants whose comments, along with those of AAZPAs Antelope Taxon Advisory Group, were incorporated into a second draft. The second draft was reviewed by original working group members as well as indivi- duals who attended a second CBSG Ante- lope Working Group meeting held in South Africa in June 1992 (J. L. Ander- son, pers. comm.). Copies were also circu- lated at a meeting hosted in October 1992, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, by the National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development of Saudi Arabia on Establishing priorities for gazelle conser- vation in the Arabian peninsula.
Integral to the development of the Antelope CAMP was a review of the taxonomy of this group of bovids. The working taxonomic list recognizes ten subfamilies and is generally based on the ASG Action Plans and on Ansell (1971). For some groups, for example, gazelles, dwarf antelopes and duikers, taxonomy at the species level is still open to review. It is probable that many of the described subs- pecies of antelope may reflect individual
variation and even when real taxonomic variations are reflected, there is insuffi- cient information to determine precise distributional limits of many subspecies. The worksheets developed by the Group list recognized subspecies, including many which are not held in captivity, to provide a relatively complete framework for plan- ning captive breeding and future accessions.
ANTELOPE CONSERVATION AND CAPTIVE PROGRAMME RECOMMENDATIONS Of the 395 antelope taxa listed in the June 1992 Antelope CAMP, 135 are currently held in captivity in numbers ranging from a few individuals to thousands. The working group reviewed all 395 taxa using the Mace/Lande criteria to assign a degree of threat to 166 forms: critical, 11; endan- gered, 19; vulnerable 1, 25; vulnerable 2, 21; not of concern/safe, 90 (Table 1). The category vulnerable 2 was added to meet a level of concern that the original Mace/ Lande scale did not address: vulnerable 2 species do not yet meet the criteria for vulnerable but are likely to do so within the next few decades.
East (1992) noted that Application of the Mace/Lande criteria to African ante- lopes suggests that relatively few species are endangered or critical at present, but this situation could change dramatically within the next 100 years. Human popula- tion growth is the fundamental cause of most current and potential loss of bio- diversity. In the case of African antelopes, increasing numbers of people, expansion of settlement, greater numbers of live- stock, loss of habitat and over-hunting inevitably lead to the eventual loss of most species in the absence of effective conservation measures.
The percentage of antelope species at risk as a factor of the human population per square kilometre has been plotted against the level of protection and management provided in the region (East, 1992). It is clear that as human popula- tion densities rise the number of species which are endangered also rises, parti-
cularly in those countries where there are no protected areas. Current growth rates of human populations in most sub- Saharan African countries are within the range of 2.5-3.5% a year. Within 100 years, almost all of i.hese countries will have human population densities suffi- ciently high to place rn ost antelope species at risk unless there are well-managed conservation areas. Some species of ante- lope, such as Wildebeest and Lechwe Kobus sp, tend to be dominant members of their herbivore community and have a major impact on other associated ante- lopes and on the whole ecosystem (Estes, 1992), so the welfare of the whole commu- nity may depend on maintaining large populations of these Ikeystone species.
These concerns along with other rele- vant current population and status reports from scientists working in the field, led the working group to accept the fact that the degree of threat to many species must still be open to re-evaluation as more information becomes available.
In addition to making specific recom- mendations for each taxa, the working group determined there were some general needs for the conservation of antelopes and gazelles. One important consideration is the taxonomic uncertainty of many forms and so, where appropriate, taxo- nomic surveys, including both cytogenetic and molecular genetics, should be conducted for identification of subspecies or other evolutionary significant units. This is needed particularly within the genus Gazella and in 1 he duikers. Recent advances in the application of genetic techniques can help to substantiate and clarify taxonomic confusion. With the development of gene tic laboratories in Kenya and South Africa, this process will become easier and be of direct benefit particularly to in situ conservation programmes.
The working group considers that many species which are vulnerable or critical would benefit from more intensive in situ management and the establishment of protected areas. Indeed, even those
SPECIES: SUBSPECIES CAPTIVE RECOMMEND.
CRITICAL Mountain nyala
Tragelaphus huxtoni Aders duiker
Cephalophus adersi Aders duiker (Zanzibar pop.)
Cephalophus adersi Giant sable antelope
Hippotragus niger variani Scimitar-horned oryx
Oryx dammah Arabian oryx
Oryx leucor>.u Addax
Addax nasomaculatus Swaynes hartebeest
Alcelaphus buselaphus swayner Acacia gazelle
Gazella gazella acaciae Muscat gazelle
G. g. muscatensis Saudi gazelle
ENDAKGERED Jentinks duiker
Cephalophus jentinki Ruwenzori red duiker Cephalophus nigrifrons rubidus
Western mountain reedbuck Redunca fulvorufula adamauae
Bakers roan antelope Hippotragus equinus bakeri
East African sable antelope Hippotragus niger roosevelti
Tord hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus tora
Hunters antelope or Hirola Damaliscus hunteri
Western klipspringer Oreotragus 0. porteousi
Black-faced impala Aepyceros melampus petersi
Yemen gazelle Gazella bilkis
Cuviers gazelle Gazella cuvieri
Darna gazelle Gazella darna
Mhorr gazelle G. d. mhorr
Addra or Kordofan gazelle G. d. ruficollis
Rio de Oro dorcas gazelle Gazella dorcas neglecta
Farasan Island gazelle Gazella gazella farasani
Slender-horned gazelle Gazella leptoceros
~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~
Arabian goitred or Sand gazelle Gazella subgut rurosa marica
Mongolian saiga antelope Saixa tatarica mongolieu
VULNERABLE 1 Western giant eland
Tragelaphus d. derhianus Eastern bongo
Tragelaphus euryceros isuuc I Four-horned antelope
Tetracerus quadricorni.? White-legged duiker
Cephalophus ogilbyi crusalhum Abbotts duiker
Cephalophus spadix Zebra duiker
Cephalophus zebra Chanlers mountain reedbuck
Redunca fulvorufula chanleri Angolan roan antelope
Hippotragus equinus cortoni Black or White-tailed wildebeest
Connochuetes gnou Kenya hartebeest hybrid Alcelaphus buselaphus cokei x A . b. lelwel
Bontebok Damaliscus d. d0rca.s
Korrigum Damaliscus lunatus korrigum
Piacentinis dik-dik Madoqua piacentinii
Beira antelope Dorcatragus megalotis
Haggards oribi Ourebia 0. haggardi
Dibatag Ammodorcas clarkei
Pelzelns gazelle Gazella dorcas pelzelni
Mountain gazelle Gazella gazella
Palestine mountain gazelle Gazella g . gazella
Arabian gazelle G. g. cora
Heuglins gazelle Gazella rujifrons tilonura
Soemmerrings gazelle Gazella soemmerringii
Dahlac gazelle Guzella soemmerringii ssp indet
Spekes gazelle Gazella spekei
Przewalskis gazelle Procapra przewalskii
90%) 100 I 1
90% 100 I
YlJC I I
90% 100 I 1
90% 100 I I
90% 100 I
90% 100 I
90% 100 I
90% 100 I1
9OYo 100 11
90% 100 I
90% 100 1
h U C I
90% 100 11
90% 100 11
90% 100 11
90% 100 I1
90% 100 11
90% 100 I1
90% 100 I1
90%/ 100 I1
SPECIES/SUBSPECIES CAPTIVE RECOMMEND.
SPECIES/SUBSPECIES CAPTIVE RECOMMEND.
VULNERABLE 2 Giant eland
Trugeluphus derbiunus Eastern giant eland
T. d. gigus East African sitatunga
Trugeluphus s. spekii Harveys red duiker
Cephulophus hurveyi Black duiker Cephulophus niger
Ogilbys duiker Cephulophus ogilbyi
Defassa waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus defussu
Red lechwe Kobus 1. leche
Black lechwe K. 1. smithemuni
Kafue lechwe K. 1. kufuensis
Nile lechwe Kobus meguceros
Puku Kobus vardoni
Beisa oryx Oryx guzellu beisu
Fringe-eared oryx 0. g. callotis
Lichtensteins hartebeest Alceluphus lichtensteinii
Tsessebe Dumuliscus 1. lunutus
Royal antelope Neotragus pygmaeus
Blackbuck antelope Antilope cervicupru
Bennetts or Chinkara gazelle Guzella bennetti
Dorcas gazelle Guzella dorcus
Red-fronted gazelle Guzellu rufifrons
NOT OF CONCERNiSAFE
T. s. scriptus
T. s. grutus
T. s. selousi
West African sitatunga
9 O X / l O O I1
no cap. br.
no cap. br.
Lesser kudu Trageluphus imberbis
Southern lesser kudu T. i. australis
Greater kudu Trugeluphus strepsiceros
South African greater kudu T. s. strepsiceros
Bongo Trugeluphus euryceros
Western bongo T. e. euryceros
Common eland Trageluphus oryx
Cape eland T. 0. oryx
Zambesi eland T. 0. livingstonii
East African eland T. 0. puttersoniunus
Nilgai Boseluphus trugocumelus
Peters duiker Cephulophus cullipygus
Bay duiker Cephulophus dorsulis
White-bellied duiker Cephulophus leucogaster
Maxwells duiker Cephulophus muxwellii
Blue duiker Cephulophus monticolu
Red forest or Natal duiker Cephalophus natalensis
Black-fronted duiker Cephalophus nigrifrons
Red-flanked duiker Cephulophus rufilutus
Yellow-backed duiker Cephalophus sylvicultor
Weyns duiker Cephulophus weynsi
Grey or Crowned duiker Sylvicapru grimmiu
Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus
South ellipsen waterbuck K. e. ellipsiprymnus
Lake Victoria defassa watertiuck K. e. ado@-friderici
Kob Kobus kob
Buffons kob K. k . kob
White-eared kob K. k . leucotis
Uganda kob K. k. thomusi
no cap. br.
no cap. br.
no cap. br.
Lechwc Kobus leche
Southern reedbuck Redunca arundinum
Mountain reedbuck Redunca fulvorufula
South African mountain reedbuck R . f fulvorufula
Bohor reedbuck Redunca reduncu
Grey rhebok Pelea capreolus
Roan antelope Hippotragus equinus
East African roan antelope H. e. langheldi
Sable antelope Hippotragus niger
South African sable antelope H . n. niger
Gemsbok Orys g. gazella
Blue or Brindled wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus
Southern wildebeest or Brindled gnu I
C. t . taurinus Eastern white-bearded wildebeest
C. t . albojubatus Cooksons wildebeest
C. t . cooksoni Nyassa or Johnstons wildebeest C. 1. johnstoni
Western white-bearded wildebeest C. t . mearnsi (hecki)
Common hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus
Red or Cape hartebeest A . 6 . caama
Cokes or Kongoni hartebeest A . h. cokei
Lelwel hartebeest A . b. lelwel
Western hartebeest A. 6. major
Bontebok Damaliscus dorcas
Blesbok D. d. phillipsi
Topi or Tsessebe Damaliscus lunatus
Jimela topi D. 1. jimelu
Tiang D. I . tiang
Coastal topi D. 1. topi
Klipspringer Oreotragus oreotragus
no cap. br.
no cap. br.
Guenthers dik-dik Madoqua guentheri
Kirks dik-dik Madoqua kirki
Damara dik-dik M . k . damarensis
Salts dik-dik Mudoqua saltianu
Oribi Ourehia ourebi
Bates dwarf antelope Neotragus batesi
Suni antelope Neotragus moscharu.c
Zanzibar suni N . m. moschatus
Steenbok Raphicerus campesrris
Cape grysbok Raphicerus melanotis
Sharpes grysbok Raphicerus sharper
Impala Aepyceros me1ampu.r
Transvaal impala A . m . melampus
Kenyan impala A. m. rendilis
Springbok Ant idorcas marsupiali.r
Gerenuk Litocranius wnlleri
Grants gazelle Gazella granti
Goitred gazelle Gazella subgutturnxi
Thomsons gazelle Gazella thomsonii
Kilimanjaro Thomsons gazelle G. t . thomsonii
Mongalla gazelle G. t . albanotata
Mongolian (zeren) gazelle Procapra gutturosa
Tibetan (goa) gazelle Procapra picticaudatu
Tibetan antelope Pan tholops hodgson i
Saiga antelope Saiga tatarica
Russian saiga antelope S. t. tatarica
NUC I 1
no cap br
no cdp br
NUC I 1
no cap br
\uc 11 no cap br
Y U C I1
no Cdp br
h U C I1
N U C 11
N U C I1
N U C I1
no cap br
Y U C I1
YUC I I
Table 1. Antelope taxa by the Mace/Lande category system with captive management recommendations.
MACE/LANDE CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS CATEGORY
TOTAL NO. SPECIES
90?'0/100 I 90?'0/100 11 NUCLEUS I NUCLEUS 11 NO CAPTIVE HUSBANDRY BREEDING PURPOSES
CRITICAL 1 1 11 ENDANGERED 17 1 1 19 VULNERABLE 1 6 12 3 1 22 VULNERABLE 2 9 I 4 20 NOT OF CONCERN 8 58 13 3 82
TOTAL NO. SPECIES 34 22 19 63 13 3
Table 2. The numbers of species and subspecies in each of the six levels of the Global Captive Action Plan captive management programmes compared with the Mace/Lande categories. The numbers here do not include forms which have not been assigned captive management recommendations even though they are included in various Mace/Lande categories (see Table 1).
species which have reasonably large popu- lations at this time, may have most of the population located outside protected areas and may be under continued pressure from habitat loss.
Many of the lesser known species of antelopes and gazelles which are critically endangered are not found in captivity and efforts should be made to establish captive 'buffer' populations for these species. The precise origin of all wild-caught indivi- duals must be documented at the time these animals are brought into captivity. Studbooks should be started for any species which is recommended for any level of captive management in the Global Action Plan. It is possible that specimens of some critical species may exist in zoos or private collections in their country of origin and it is urgent that such collec- tions be identified and encouraged to participate in the captive management of these species.
For many taxa, husbandry problems need to be identified and protocols estab- lished. Isolated captive management problems for some species continue to surface and these may reflect inappro- priate husbandry practices and/or genetic compromise. For small antelope such as duikers, research is needed on their social structure, life history and nutritional requirements in order to manage better
the captive populations of this increas- ingly endangered taxa.
For virtually all of the antelope and gazelle species which are declining or criti- cally endangered, the major problems tend to be either hahitat loss or over- hunting. For desert species, habitat loss has been exasperated by the prolonged drought in many areas. Small antelopes are under constant pressure of subsistence hunting.
As habitats continue to be lost and species whose populations were once large and continuous become fragmented into isolated remnant populations, there will be a need to evaluate ithe effects of isola- tion on the health of the individual popu- lations and the species as a whole. On the positive side, sufficient numbers of some critical species exist in captivity to make replenishment and/or reintroduction possible. Efforts should be made to co- operate with local government in deve- loping viable reintroduction programmes.
Of the 395 taxa listed in the Antelope CAMP, over 200 have been left without formal comment at this time. Most of these forms are subspecies for which no scientifically useful information on status in the wild is available. In some cases these are questionable taxonomic forms. The working group generally followed the lead of the Antelope Specialist Group in
recognizing subspecies for assigning degrees of threat and making captive breeding recommendations.
The Antelope Working Group welcomes comments on the material presented here. We recognize these lists will undergo several more modifications as more information comes to light or, 'sadly', as situations in the wild continue to deteriorate.
The development of a Conservation Assessment and Management Plan for a group of animals as diverse as antelopes and gazelles is certainly not the task of a single individual. The number of people who have given generously of their time and information are too numerous to mention. Certain people, though, have played extraordinary roles in the CAMP process. In particular, I would like to thank Terrie Correll, Dr James Dolan, Dr Richard Estes, Dr Rod East, Tom Foose, Dr Arnaud Greth, Larry Kilmar, Bruce Read, Dr Ullyses Seal, Ed Spevak and, also, my secretary Angela Woods, for her efforts in bringing the reports into publishable form.
REFERENCES ANSELL, W. F. H. (1971): Order artiodactyla. In The mammals of Africa: an identification manual part 15: 1-84. Meester, J. I% Setzer, H. W. (Eds). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. EAST, R. (1988): Antelopes. Global survey and regional action plans. Part 1. East and northeast Africa. Gland: IUCNjSSC Antelope Specialist Group. EAST, R. (1989): Antelopes. Global survey and regional action plans. Part 2. Southern and south- centrul Africa. Gland: IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group. EAST, R. (1990): Antelopes. Global survey and regional action plans. Part 3 . West and central Africa. Gland: IUCNjSSC Antelope Specialist Group.
EAST, R. (1992): Conservation status of antelopes in sub-Saharan Africa: a time perspective. In Conservation assessment and management plan .for antelopes draft 11: 177-183. Sausman, K. A. (Comp.). Gland, Apple Valley & Palm Desert: IUCN/SSC/CBSG and The Living Desert. Esns, R. (1992): Conservation of keystone species. In Conservation assessment and management plan for antelopes draft 11: 185. Sausman, K. A. (Comp.). Gland, Apple Valley & Palm Desert: IUCNiSSC CBSG and The Living Desert. FOOSE. T. J. & SEAL, U. S. (1992): C'onservu/ion assessment and management plans and global captive action plans. Gland & Apple Valley: IUCN/SSCCBSG. MACE, G. M. & LANDE, R. (1991): Assessing extinction threats: toward a re-evaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv. B i d . 5(2):
NOWAK, R. M. & PARADISO, J. L. (1983): Walker's mummal.s of the world 2 (4th edn). Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press. SAUSMAN, K. A. (1989a): Survey of artiodactyls in captivity. Gland, Apple Valley & Palm Desert: IUCNjSSCjCBSG and The Living Desert. SAUSMAN, K. A. (1989b): Survey of desert antelopes in eapivity. Gland, Apple Valley & Palm Desert: IUCNjSSCCBSG and The Living Desert. SAUSMAN, K. A. (1990): Survey and action plan f o r artiodactyls in captivity. Gland, Apple Valley & Palm Desert: IUCN,'SSC/CBSG and The Living Desert. SAUSMAN, K. A. (1991): Survey und action plan .for artiodactyls in captivity. Gland, Apple Valley & Palm Desert: IUCNISSCCBSG and The Living Desert. SEAL, U. S., SAUSMAN, K. A. & MIKOLAI, J. (Eds) (1990): CBSG aridland antelope workshop report: Sun Antonio, Texas, USA, 13-15 September 1989. Apple Valley, MN: IUCN/SSC/CBSG. WILSON, V. J. (1987): Pan African decade of duikrr research, i 1985-1994 j . Action plan for duiker conservation. Gland & Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: IUCNjSSC Antelope Specialist Group & Chipangali Wildlife Trust.
Manuscript submitted I3 January 1993