952 S. Tudge et al.
TABLE 2 Estimates of occupancy (ψ) and detection probability (p) for mammals identified by camera trapping in the community forestand adjacent habitat surrounding the study village, from the top-ranked model or the average of the top ranked models. The effect of each covariate on ψ and p is shown by symbols if it occurs in the top ranked model or models: + is a positive effect and – is a negative effect. Parentheses indicate significant effects (P,0.05).
Occupancy Species
Carnivores Servaline genet Herpestidae spp.
Pangolins Tree pangolin
Ungulates Blue duiker Bay duiker
Yellow-backed duiker Peter’s duiker
Bates’ pygmy antelope Red river hog
Primates Chimpanzee
Agile mangabey Rodents
Brush-tailed porcupine Giant pouched rat
African giant squirrel ψ ± SE 0.60 ± 0.18
0.92 ± 0.07 0.60 ± 0.12 0.66 ± 0.28 0.84 ± 0.10 0.46 ± 0.42 0.58 ± 0.14
0.72 ± 0.23 + 0.52 ± 0.61 + –
– –
0.72 ± 0.40 + 0.77 ± 0.09
0.88 ± 0.08 + 0.85 ± 0.08 0.71 ± 0.10
Fire-footed rope squirrel 0.66 ± 0.11 Lady Burton’s rope squirrel 0.35 ± 0.10 +
+ +
+ + + –
+ –
Proximity to river
Proximity to road
Detection probability
Proximity to Reserve Tree cover p ± SE Slope
0.05 ± 0.02 0.07 ± 0.03
0.03 ± 0.02 0.40 ± 0.03
0.15 ± 0.03 0.02 ± 0.01 0.19 ± 0.02 0.03 ± 0.03 0.10 ± 0.03
0.04 ± 0.02 0.26 ± 0.03
0.35 ± 0.03
0.41 ± 0.03 + 0.23 ± 0.03 (+) 0.16 ± 0.03 + 0.46 ± 0.05
(+) (+) +
(–) – (+) –
Proximity to road
Proximity to Reserve
(–)
(+) (+)
.50% of the study area, albeit with low detection proba- bility (#0.15), suggesting they are relatively widespread, despite the presence of a human settlement, road and persistent hunting. Our results highlight the conservation value of the community forest and support previous find- ings that the Dja Biosphere Reserve landscape, including the core and buffer zone, remains important for Central African mammals (Bruce et al., 2018c; Lhoest et al., 2020). The species richness in our study area is less than esti-
mates from within the Dja Biosphere Reserve of 26 (Northern Sector) and 31 (Southern Sector) medium-sized and large species (Bruce et al., 2018a), consistent with the as- sumption that human activity within and around the village and community forest is greater than inside the Reserve. In cases of severe overexploitation, with hunters optimizing their catch value (Alvard, 1998), only highly productive, generalist species remain, such as giant pouched rats and blue duikers (Abernethy et al., 2013; Rosin & Poulsen, 2016). However, some medium-sized and large species were detected in the community forest, suggesting it is not a completely empty forest sensu Redford (1992). However, we did not detect most of the large species, including forest elephant, bongo Tragelaphus eurycerus, large felids and the giant ground pangolin, and the community was dominated by smaller species. Although we do not have conclusive
evidence that the larger species are absent, our findings are similar to other studies that have documented a reduced mammal species richness and dominance of smaller species around villages and community forests in Central Africa, characteristic of local wildlife depletion (Beirne et al., 2019; Lhoest et al., 2020). The numbers of great apes usually decline rapidly under
intensive hunting (Walsh et al., 2003); the presence of both the gorilla and chimpanzee is therefore a positive sign for conservation within the community forest. Populations of both have declined in the Dja Biosphere Reserve (Bruce et al., 2018c; UNESCO, 2019), and neither were identified in the community forests surveyed by Lhoest et al. (2020). However, the low number of records of gorillas suggests they may be rare or present at low density. Chimpanzees appear to be well distributed throughout most of the study area, although the occupancy estimate is imprecise, and we found no relationship between occupancy and proximity to the logging road, suggesting some tolerance of disturbance (Vanthomme et al., 2013). We also found a slightly positive correlation between chimpanzee occupancy and cropland, possibly reflecting an attraction to crops in the study area (Arlet & Molleman, 2010). Medium-sized duikers responded positively to human activity, with greater occupancy near the road (Peter’s
Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 947–955 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000806
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
