3. Endangered Animal of the Week: 5th-11th Jan 2009

Giant Panda (Ailuropoda Melanoleuca)

Status: Endangered

Population Trend: Decreasing

Found: China

Range: The giant panda is confined to south-central China. Currently, it occurs in portions of six isolated mountain ranges (Minshan, Qinling, Qionglai, Liangshan, Daxiangling, and Xiaoxiangling) in Gansu, Shaanxi and Sichuan Provinces (about 75% of the population inhabits Sichuan Province). The panda's total range encompasses approximately 30,000 sq km between 102–108.3° E longitude and 28.2–34.1° N latitude. This range highly overlaps that of the Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), although the ecological requirements of these species differ appreciably (Schaller et al. 1989).

Significant climatic changes combined with thousands of years of cultivation of lower and flatter habitats and hunting by humans caused the giant pandas’ range to shrink to a remnant at the rugged western fringe of a once more expansive area (Schaller et al. 1985). This species previously ranged throughout most of southern and eastern China, with fossils indicating presence as far south as northern Myanmar and northern Viet Nam and stretching north nearly to Beijing. Another related species, the pygmy giant panda (A. microta), now extinct, also once existed in this area. As recently as 1850, giant pandas existed in eastern Sichuan and Hubei and Hunan Provinces. By 1900, they occurred only in the Qinling Mountains and along the edge of the Tibetan plateau. Soon after 1900, the expansion of agriculture upstream along principal river valleys separated this distribution into separate regions in the six mountain ranges.

Population: Three range-wide surveys have been conducted, in the mid-1970s, mid-late1980s, and 2000–2002. All surveys were based on incidence of sign, but techniques varied, so results are not directly comparable. Present best estimates indicate a total wild population between 1,000–2,000. Greater protection of forests and from poaching in recent years suggest that panda populations should be increasing, but this has not been confirmed empirically.

Results from the most recent survey, coordinated by the State Forestry Administration (SFA) of China and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), indicated a total population of ~1600 individuals. This is over 40% higher than previous estimates. It is believed that the increase in the estimated number of pandas is due largely to differences in survey methodology and a larger search area, as well as possibly an actual increase in panda population size in some areas. Conversely, in other areas, habitat conditions were deemed to be worse and panda numbers lower in 2000–2002 than in the 1980s survey.

The most recent population estimate was based on differentiating individual pandas from measurements of bamboo fragments in scats. It is known that different age classes of pandas have different bite-sizes of bamboo (Schaller et al. 1985), but the validity of differentiating individuals of the same age class based on bite-sizes has not been well tested. Recent information on DNA-identified scats suggests that the bite-size method may underestimate population size in some cases (e.g., dense populations; Zhan et al. 2006).

Many surviving wild giant panda subpopulations have fewer than 50 individuals (Loucks et al. 2001). No major reductions in the genetic diversity of these populations is apparent, although they likely experienced modest genetic losses from a much larger ancestral population (Lü 2001). Some controversial research suggests that the Qinling (Shaanxi Province) population is a genetically isolated and distinct subspecies (Wan et al. 2005)




Habitat and Ecology: Giant pandas occupy temperate montane forests with dense stands of bamboo at altitudes of 1,200–4,100 m asl (more typically 1,500–3,000 m asl; Hu and Wei 2004). Habitat use depends both on the type and density of bamboo, the overstory (which influences the growth of bamboo), and the hillslope (Reid and Hu 1991). Giant pandas do not hibernate but they generally descend to lower elevations in the winter (Liu et al. 2002), and may take temporary shelter in hollow trees, rock crevices and caves.

Giant pandas spend about 55% of the day (both daytime and night-time) feeding, mainly on bamboo (Schaller et al. 1985, 1989). Bamboo comprises 99% of their diet. They utilize over 60 species of bamboo, but 35 species comprise their main food source (Hu and Wei 2004). They often use different species of bamboo in different elevational bands, varying use with the seasons (Pan et al. 2001, Loucks et al. 2003)

Pandas are often erroneously believed to be poor breeders, an impression rooted in the previous disappointing reproductive performance of captive animals (Lü et al. 2000). Studies of wild pandas, however, indicate that their reproductive rates are comparable to those of some other species of bears (Garshelis 2004, Harris 2004, Wang et al. 2004). Moreover, captive populations in China are now reproducing well.

Giant pandas are usually solitary, except during the mating season and while rearing a cub. During the March–May breeding season, females may breed with multiple males. Birthing, often in rock dens or hollow trees, occurs in August–September (Schaller et al. 1985, Zhu et al. 2001). One or two cubs are born, but the mother raises only one.

Threats: Restricted and degraded habitat is the greatest threat to giant pandas. Population fragmentation exists on two scales — six mountain ranges separated by agriculture, and within these, fragments of bamboo forest separated by patches of cleared lands and forest without a bamboo understory. The giant panda's range contracted as trees were removed in logging operations and land was cleared for farming. Populations of pandas thereby became small and isolated, and confined to high ridges, hemmed in by cultivation.

Chinese authorities have established a network of panda reserves, and linkages now exist among some of these, but small population size and small total range remains a threat to the viability of this species. Moreover, in some reserves, and especially in panda range outside reserves, habitat has become degraded by intensive human use (Liu et al. 2001).

A further threat to pandas relates to their reliance on bamboo for food. Bamboo is subject to periodic, synchronous (and hence large-scale) flowering and die-off (at intervals of 15–120 years). Before significant human encroachment of their habitat, pandas could move to areas with healthy bamboo when a die-off occurred. Studies following the latest major bamboo die-off in the early 1980s indicated that pandas were still able to survive by finding patches that had not flowered, and also by moving to alternate habitats and feeding on less-favoured species of bamboo (Johnson et al. 1988, Reid et al. 1989).

Poaching of pandas was a serious problem in the past, but it has greatly diminished, and is no longer considered a major threat. Markets for panda skins have virtually disappeared, and penalties for poaching pandas have become far more severe (including death sentences in some cases). Panda parts are not used in Traditional Chinese Medicine. However, giant pandas are still sometimes killed in snares set for musk deer and other species.

Conservation Actions: Giant pandas are considered a threatened and precious species in China. They are listed under Category 1 (maximum level of protection) of the Chinese Wildlife Conservation Law of 1988 and on Appendix I of CITES. In 1989 the Chinese Ministry of Forestry (now SFA) and WWF drafted a joint national conservation plan for the giant panda, which was eventually adopted by the Chinese government in 1992. This plan now guides conservation initiatives for this species.

Since poaching of pandas has been largely controlled, the major conservation issue is restoring their habitat (Reid and Gong 1999, Lü et al. 2000). Previous considerations to clone pandas have been largely abandoned. There are still plans to release captive animals (experimental tests of this are presently occurring), but this effort addresses mainly a problem of overcrowding in captivity (due to enormous success in captive breeding) rather than the wild situation. Reintroduction of captive animals may be limited by lack of suitable release sites with adequate habitat but few or no pandas, which are necessary conditions to avoid possible transmission of disease and social disruption of the wild population.

A concerted effort has been made to increase both the quantity and quality of panda habitat. Beginning in 1963, forest reserves were established specifically for the conservation of giant pandas. By 1990, 13 panda reserves had been established — presently there are nearly 60 (under either federal or provincial jurisdiction). Increasing linkages among these reserves is a conservation priority (Loucks et al. 2003).

In addition to creating new reserves, China has worked to increase and improve forested area outside reserves. Following extensive flooding in 1998, tied directly to deforestation, China implemented the Natural Forest Conservation Program to enhance forest cover throughout major river basins; this included a ban on logging in natural forests. Additionally, a “Grain-to-Green” policy has forced farmers to abandon agricultural fields on steep slopes and replant these areas with trees (for which they are given grain and cash subsidies). As a result of these policies, China has become first in the world in terms of forest area gained per year (FAO 2006). The suitability of many of these newly forested areas for pandas, though, is still questionable. Additionally, the rising pace of economic development, particularly in presently undeveloped areas, has created more road and hydro-power construction, causing more forest fragmentation.

A new species of land iguana found in the Galapagos

A species of pink land iguana overlooked by Charles Darwin during his visits to the Galápagos Islands may provide evidence of the ancient animal's diversification in the archipelago.

Park rangers first noted the presence of a pink variety of iguana on the slopes of Volcano Wolf on the island of Isabela in 1986, but it was not until 2000 that scientists began to examine it.

On his visit to the Galápagos Islands in 1835, Darwin failed to explore the Volcan Wolf volcano on the island of Isabela, the only home of the "rosada" iguana, a newly identified species of the land iguana Conolophus.

Ancient divergence
Genetic analysis of the rosada and other species of land iguanas performed by Dr Gabriele Gentile of the University Tor Vergata in Rome show that the rosada iguana originated in the Galápagos more than five million years ago, and diverged from the island's other iguana populations when the archipelago was still forming.

The ancient divergence between the rosada and other land iguanas - prior to the formation of the Volcan Wolf volcano - provides evidence for one of the most ancient diversification events recorded in the Galápagos. It is thought that the Wolf volcano is just 350,000 years old so the iguanas were present long before the volcano was formed.

Critically Endangered
This newly recognized species of iguana is already endangered and probably in danger of extinction, Gentile warns. The pink iguanas are only found on the slope of the Wolf volcano, and Dr Gentile's team believes that fewer than 100 Rosadas still exist.

Dr Gentile said "Our studies would indicate that the population size is very small. We only collected 36 during the two years study; and last year a large research team hiked up Wolf Volcano and only found 10, and most of those were ones that we'd marked earlier."

These numbers are low enough to make rosada a Critically Endangered species.

Tanzania forests yield 17 new species of amphibians and reptiles

Despite the vicinity of a major road, the rainforests of the South Nguru Mountains in eastern Tanzania were virtually unexplored until 2004, particularly from a herpetological point of view.

Several surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2006 with the aim of providing a comprehensive list of the amphibian and reptile species of this overlooked hotspot of biological diversity. The surveys were carried out by Michele Menegon, a researcher from the Natural Science Museum of Trento, Italy, in collaboration with the Tanzanian NGO Tanzania Forest Conservation Group and the Frontier Tanzania Forest Research Program.

17 new species
The surveys have resulted in the discovery of 17 reptile and amphibian species new to science. These species are only known from the Nguru Mountains. Overall, the surveys recorded a total of 92 herpeto-faunal species of which 15 were species previously only known from other areas.

Conservation Urgently Needed
Pressure on the forests, particularly the lowland forests, remains high. A conservation planning process is now underway that is attempting to address the loss of these critically important forests. These results, documenting the high species richness and the outstanding number of endemics of the forests, strongly highlight the biological importance of the South Nguru Mountains and place them among the most important sites for the conservation of herpetofauna in Africa.

A paper summarizing the results of the surveys, is published in the current issue of the scientific journal Acta Herpetologica and can be downloaded here.

Other recent discoveries in Tanzania - New genus of monkey!
Despite being a relatively well known and studied country, there are still many surprises lurking in some of Tanzania's nooks and crannies. Recent discoveries include a New Species of Giant Elephant-Shrew and, amazingly, a new genus of monkey, the Kipunji which is critically endangered.

Forgotten Mozambique forest yields 3 new species of butterfly and a new snake!

Until just three years ago the vast area of forest was known only to villagers nearby. The team 'found' Mount Mabu after looking at Google Earth maps in 2005 while trying to finding a site for a conservation project, looking at land above 1,600m where higher rainfall means there is likely to be forest.

Julian Bayliss, a locally-based conservationist, investigated the unexpected patch of green and used satellite photos to identify a large, unexplored forest. In October and November 2008 an international team of 28 scientists and support staff from the UK, Mozambique, Malawi, Tanzania, Belgium and Switzerland hiked into it.
Expedition leader, RBG Kew botanist Jonathan Timberlake said "The phenomenal diversity is just mind-boggling: seeing how things are adapted to little niches, to me this is the incredible thing. Even today we cannot say we know all of the world's key areas for biodiversity - there are still new ones to discover."

They found a wealth of wildlife including pygmy chameleons, Swynnerton's robin, butterflies such as the Small Striped Swordtail and Emperor Swallowtail as well as three new species, a previously undiscovered species of adder and many exotic plants, including a rarely seen orchid. The team brought back over 500 plant specimens and are looking forward to finding out more about the species they collected.

2. Endangered Animal of the Week: 29th Dec-4th Jan 2009

African Wild Dog (Lycaon Pictus)

Status: Endangered

Population Trend: Decreasing

Found: Botswana; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Ethiopia; Kenya; Malawi; Mozambique; Namibia; Senegal; South Africa; Sudan; Tanzania; Zambia; Zimbabwe

Range: Historical data indicate that African Wild Dogs were formerly distributed throughout sub-Saharan Africa, from desert (Lhote 1946) to mountain summits (Thesiger 1970), and probably were absent only from lowland rainforest and the driest desert (Schaller 1972). They have disappeared from much of their former range – 25 of 39 former range states no longer support populations (Fanshawe et al. 1997). The species is virtually eradicated from West Africa, and greatly reduced in central Africa and north-east Africa. The largest populations remain in southern Africa (especially northern Botswana, western Zimbabwe, eastern Namibia, and Kruger National Park, South Africa) and the southern part of East Africa (especially Tanzania and northern Mozambique). Details of current distribution and status are in Woodroffe et al. (1997) and Sillero-Zubiri et al. (2004).

Population: African Wild Dogs are rarely seen, even where they are relatively common, and it appears that populations have always existed at very low densities. Ginsberg and Woodroffe (1997) used population densities in well-studied areas to estimate the size of remaining populations. These estimates suggest that between 3,000–5,500 free-ranging wild dogs remain in Africa.

Estimated sizes and trends of national wild dog populations in Africa, updated from Woodroffe et al. (1997), can be found in Sillero-Zubiri et al. (2004).



Habitat and Ecology: African Wild Dogs are generalist predators, occupying a range of habitats including short-grass plains, semi-desert, bushy savannas and upland forest. While early studies in the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania, led to a belief that wild dogs were primarily an open plains species, more recent data indicate that they reach their highest densities in thicker bush (e.g., Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania; Mana Pools National Park, Zimbabwe; and northern Botswana). Several relict populations occupy dense upland forest (e.g., Harenna Forest, Ethiopia: Malcolm and Sillero-Zubiri 2001; Ngare Ndare Forest, Kenya). African Wild Dogs have been recorded in desert (Lhotse 1946), although they appear unable to establish themselves in the southern Kalahari (M.G.L. Mills, unpubl.), and montane habitats (Thesiger 1970; Malcolm and Sillero-Zubiri 2001), although not in lowland forest. It appears that their current distribution is limited primarily by human activities and the availability of prey, rather than by the loss of a specific habitat type.

African Wild Dogs mostly hunt medium-sized antelope. Whereas they weigh 20–30 kg, their prey average around 50 kg, and may be as large as 200 kg. In most areas their principal prey are Impala (Aepyceros melampus), Greater Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), Thomson's Gazelle (Gazella thomsonii) and Common Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus). They will give chase of larger species, such asCommon Eland (Tragelaphus oryx) and African Buffalo (Syncerus caffer), but rarely kill such prey. Small antelope, such as dik-dik (Madoqua spp.), Steenbok (Raphicerus campestris) and duiker (tribe Cephalophini) are important in some areas, and warthogs (Phacochoerus spp.) are also taken in some populations. Wild dogs also take very small prey such as hares, lizards and even eggs, but these make a very small contribution to their diet.

Threats: The principal threats to African Wild Dogs are conflict with human activities and infectious disease. Both of these are mediated by habitat fragmentation, which increases contact between wild dogs, people and domestic dogs. The important role played by human-induced mortality has two long-term implications. First, it makes it likely that, outside protected areas, wild dogs may well be unable to co-exist with the increasing human population unless better protection and local education programmes are implemented. This will be a serious problem for wild dog populations outside protected areas. Second, wild dog ranging behaviour leads to a very substantial "edge effect", even in large reserves. Simple geometry dictates that a reserve of 5,000 km² contains no point more than 40 m from its borders – a distance well within the range of distances travelled by a pack of wild dogs in their usual ranging behaviour. Thus, from a wild dog's perspective, a reserve of this size (fairly large by most standards) would be all edge. As human populations rise around reserve borders, the risks to wild dogs venturing outside are also likely to increase. Under these conditions, only the very largest unfenced reserves will be able to provide any level of protection for wild dogs. In South Africa, proper fencing around quite small reserves has proved effective in keeping dogs confined to the reserve (although fencing has costs, as well as benefits, in conservation terms).

Even in large, well-protected reserves, or in stable populations remaining largely independent of protected areas (as in northern Botswana), wild dogs live at low population densities. Predation by lions, and perhaps competition with hyaenas, contribute to keeping wild dog numbers below the level that their prey base could support. Such low population density brings its own problems. The largest areas contain only relatively small wild dog populations; for example, the Selous Game Reserve, with an area of 43,000 km² (about the size of Switzerland), contains about 800 wild dogs. Most reserves, and probably most wild dog populations, are smaller. For example, the wild dog population in Niokolo-Koba National Park and buffer zones (about 25,000 km², larger than the state of Israel) is likely to be not more than 50–100 dogs. Such small populations are vulnerable to extinction. "Catastrophic" events such as outbreaks of epidemic disease may drive them to extinction when larger populations have a greater probability of recovery – such an event seems to have led to the extinction of the small wild dog population in the Serengeti ecosystem on the Kenya-Tanzania border. Problems of small population size will be exacerbated if, as seems likely, small populations occur in small reserves or habitat patches. As discussed above, animals inhabiting such areas suffer a strong "edge effect". Thus, small populations might be expected to suffer disproportionately high mortality as a result of their contact with humans and human activity.

There are no commercial uses for wild dogs, other than non-consumptive ecotourism.

Conservation Actions: Wild dogs are legally protected across much of their range. However, this protection is rarely enforced and wild dogs are extinct in several countries despite stringent legal protection. Outside reserves, legal protection may have questionable value when it concerns a species that comes into conflict with people, often in remote areas with poor infrastructure. Under such circumstances, legal protection may serve only to alienate people from conservation activities.

The occurrence of wild dogs in protected areas is described in detail in Fanshawe et al. (1997). The largest populations inside protected areas occur in Tanzania: Selous Game Reserve and Ruaha National Park; South Africa: Kruger National Park; Botswana: Chobe National Park and Moremi Wildlife Reserve; and Zimbabwe: Hwange National Park.

Virtually no conservation measures have been implemented specifically for wild dogs. The establishment of very large protected areas (e.g., Selous Game Reserve, Kruger National Park), as well as conservancies on private and communal land, has ensured wild dogs' persistence in parts of eastern and southern Africa, and maintenance of such areas remains the highest priority for wild dog conservation. Attempts are underway to re-establish wild dogs in a network of very small reserves in South Africa, but this approach will demand intensive management in perpetuity and need not, at present, be used as a model for wild dog conservation elsewhere.

Conservation priorities include: (i) to maintain and expand connectivity of habitat available to wild dogs, particularly in northern Botswana/eastern Namibia/western Zimbabwe, South Africa/western Mozambique/south-east Zimbabwe, northern South Africa/south-east Botswana/south-west Zimbabwe and southern Tanzania/northern Mozambique; (ii) to work with local people to reduce deliberate killing of wild dogs in and around these areas, and also in smaller populations in Senegal, Cameroon and Kenya; (iii) to establish effective techniques for protecting small wild dog populations from serious infections such as rabies and distemper; (iv) to carry out surveys to establish the status of other potentially important populations, particularly in Algeria, Angola, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Sudan, and (v) to continue long-term monitoring of 'sentinel' populations to identify emerging threats. Re-establishment of extinct populations through reintroduction currently has a low priority in most areas, although natural recolonizations should be encouraged.

Occurrence in captivity
There are more than 300 wild dogs in captivity in 55 zoos, as listed on ISIS and as many as 200 additional animals occur in zoos and private collections, particularly in South Africa.

Early attempts to reintroduce captive-bred animals to the wild were hampered by the dogs' poor hunting skills and naive attitudes to larger predators. However, recent reintroductions have overcome this problem by mixing captive-bred dogs with wild-caught animals and releasing them together. This approach has been very valuable in re-establishing packs in several fenced reserves in South Africa, but is not considered a priority in other parts of Africa at present. Nevertheless, captive populations have important roles to play in developing conservation strategies for wild populations, through research (e.g., testing of vaccination protocols), outreach and education.

Gaps in knowledge
Several pieces of information are needed to enable more effective conservation of African wild dogs. These include: 1) establishing which techniques will be most effective and sustainable for protecting wild dogs from disease, including whether vaccinating wild dogs against rabies and distemper can ever be safe and effective, and whether other methods (including control or vaccination of domestic dogs) can reduce the risks to wild dogs; 2) determining the true impact of wild dogs on livestock under different conditions of husbandry, and the effectiveness of techniques to reduce this; 3) establishing the true impact of wild dogs on managed wild game and the effectiveness of techniques to resolve conflicts with game ranchers; 4) surveys of wild dog distribution and status are also required, particularly in Algeria, Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Sudan; 5) genetic research would be valuable to establish the distinctiveness of wild dog populations remaining in west, central and north-east Africa; and 6) the reasons for and degree of fluctuation in packs and populations need to be better understood. In addition, several aspects of wild dogs' basic biology require further study, particularly: 1) mechanisms of ranging and dispersal; 2) causes of increased mortality among dispersers; 3) reasons for large home range; 4) mechanisms of sex-ratio biasing; 5) paternity; and 6) communication.