Lemur conservation updates 823


PLATE 1 Typical Eulemur flavifrons (left: (a) male and (d) female) and E. macaco (right: (c) male and (f) female), with a possible intermediate form from Beraty (centre: (b) male), with similar eye colour but a shorter ruff compared to E. macaco. (e) Putative E. flavifrons (female) from Antsahabilahy A (Table 1), with pale eyes and no ruff.


the south-east E. macaco was bounded by the Tsaratanana Reserve for similar reasons, although such limited surveys have been conducted in this region that this should be con- sidered a low-confidence boundary. This revision reduces the EOO for E. macaco to 6,510 km2, only 55% of the previ- ous estimate of 11,740 km2 (Andriaholinirina et al., 2014b). When these EOOs are limited to suitable habitat and re- maining forest cover, E. macaco has an AOO of #1,992 km2 and E. flavifrons of #884 km2. Throughout their ranges these lemurs endure extensive


habitat disturbance and other anthropogenic threats. Sub- sistence hunting and tavy were present in a majority of the 29 surveyed locations (69%, n = 20; Table 1), including 100%of the E. flavifrons locations we visited. Only nine sites had no evidence of hunting or tavy. Eight were within pro- tected areas managed by Madagascar National Parks and one was a heavily trafficked site on Nosy Komba where local people procure lemurs to entertain tourists. There was evidence of hunting, tavy or both in all four protected areas managed by an NGO, whereas there were threats present in only three of the 11 sites managed by Madagascar National Parks (Table 1).


Discussion


Although these changes in EOO do not warrant immediate adjustments to the species’ IUCN Red List status, the range contraction for E. macaco is of concern and suggests the


need for updated population estimates (Volampeno et al., 2010, 2015). A census of the newly identified population of E. flavifrons at Maherivaratra and Antsahabilahy is also needed urgently. The area it occupies south of Manon- garivo Special Reserve is part of the largest continuous forest in this species’ AOO (Fig. 3), and this population may be the largest remaining without any protection. We were unable to confirm the ongoing presence of


hybrid lemurs, despite visiting three of the four sites where they had been reported previously (Supplementary Table 1). Surveys between the headwaters of the Antsa- hakolana and Sandrakota Rivers are needed to deter- mine a more accurate boundary between E. flavifrons and E. macaco and to collect genetic samples to examine any potential hybridization. During our surveys we encountered traps, hunters, live-


stock, and/or tavy in 20 of the 29 study sites (Table 1), indi- cating that disturbance is an ongoing concern both inside and outside protected areas. The recent pressures on these lemur populations were described by our local guide for the Bemabaza fragment, where we observed fewer than a dozen E. macaco in 2016. He informed us that there had been nearly 100 lemurs 5 years previously but most of these had been wiped out by hunting. This increased pres- sure may be partly a result of cultural shifts. This region was traditionally home to the Sakalava people, for whom lemur consumption is taboo (Ramanantsoa, 1976; Harpet et al., 2000); however, there has been a recent influx of


Oryx, 2020, 54(6), 819–827 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318000868


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164