Conservation news 811


this individual could be part of a previously unrecorded re- lictual population. Genetic analysis of fecal samples could shed light on this. Using camera traps, we have identified the animal as a


male and found no evidence of other accompanying giant otters. To ensure the survival of this individual, it is para- mount that deforestation around the Park is halted and any poaching in the Bermejo River deterred. Federal and provincial governments need to work together to increase patrolling in the lands around the Park and along rivers. Conservation translocations of captive-bred and wild indi- viduals could be considered, to increase the likelihood of establishing a founding population.


CAROLINE LEUCHTENBERGER ( orcid.org/0000-0002-1639- 2593) Federal Institute of Education Science and Technology of Farroupilha, Santa María, Brazil


SEBASTIÁN DI MARTINO,GERARDO CERÓN ( orcid.org/0000- 0003-2723-4205), ALEJANDRO SERRANO-SPONTÓN ( orcid.org/ 0000-0002-6048-4583) and EMILIANO DONADIO ( orcid.org/ 0000-0001-5257-4100) Fundación Rewilding Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina E-mail edonadio@rewildingargentina.org


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC BY 4.0.


There was a relatively constant detection rate in the con-


trol zone .70 km upstream of the dam (0.11 and 0.10 detections/10 km before and after, respectively). In the dir- ectly impacted zone (,50 km upstream of the dam, as established in the environmental impact assessment) the detections declined (0.03 and 0 detections/10 km before and after, respectively), with no evidence that giant otters remained in the impacted zone. Considering this region has a high coverage of protected areas, low deforestation rates (forest cover .90% in the control zone) and a low human population density, it is imperative to emphasize the importance of mitigation to minimize the negative ef- fects of new and planned hydropower dams. We expect that, in the absence of effective mitigation actions, the increasing number of new hydropower dams across Amazonia are likely to cause further reductions in giant otter populations. Contrary to portrayal in the media, run-of-river dams are not necessarily eco-friendly. Gov- ernment efforts for more sustainable energy generation using a combination of technologies (e.g. in-stream tur- bines, solar and wind power) need to be reinforced.


FERNANDA MICHALSKI ( orcid.org/0000-0002-8074-9964) Ecology and Conservation of Amazonian Vertebrates Research Group, Federal University of Amapá, Macapá, Amapá, Brazil, and Pro-Carnivores Institute, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil. E-mail fmichalski@gmail.com


Giant otters are negatively affected by a new hydropower dam in the most protected state of the Brazilian Amazon


The giant otter Pteronura brasiliensis is endemic to South America and categorized as Endangered on the IUCN Red List. The Amazon basin is one of the last strongholds for this species, yet recent human expansion across Amazonia has led to an increase in the number of hydropower dams, whichnegatively affect both freshwater and terrestrial biodiver- sity. Although areas with low human population density that held giant otters before dam construction may have potential for the conservation of the species (Rosas et al., 2007, Oryx, 41, 520–524), there has been no previous robust documentation of the impacts of hydropower developments on the species. We conducted a before–after control–impact study to


evaluate the effects of a new run-of-river hydropower dam on giant otters in the State of Amapá, eastern Brazilian Amazon. This state has the lowest deforestation rates and the highest territorial coverage of protected areas among all states of the Legal Brazilian Amazon, and has low human population densities. In surveys before (2011–2013 and 2015) and after (2016–2020) the construction of a large run-of-river hydropower dam (219MW, height 20.6 m, reservoir covering 47.99 km2) we surveyed a total of 9,356 km along 139 km of rivers by boat.


DARREN NORRIS ( orcid.org/0000-0003-0015-8214) School of Environmental Sciences, Federal University of Amapá, Macapá, Amapá, Brazil


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC BY 4.0.


Biodiversity hotspot and Ramsar site under threat


Ndumo Game Reserve in South Africa, bordering Mozambique, is facing an existential threat and may not make its 100th anniversary in 2024. Ndumo, gazetted to protect the Vulnerable hippopotamus Hippopotamus am- phibious, lies within the Maputaland–Pondoland Centre of Endemism and Biodiversity Hotspot. The northern and eastern borders were originally the Usuthu and Phongolo Rivers, respectively, but the Usuthu has since shifted course to flow through the Reserve. Mozambique now has claims on Reserve land north of the river, and Mozambicans have access to unfenced Reserve land. An additional problem is illegal farming on the Phongolo


floodplain in the eastern part of the Reserve. Ndumo protects 10%of the 13,000 ha floodplain, amajor reason whyNdumo is a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance. This flood- plain has the richest fish fauna of any river system in South Africa. Fishes breed there and migrate into the surrounding


Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 809–817 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321001174


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