Bushmeat trade in northern Ghana 219
using the total number of individuals recorded per species at the markets multiplied by the average adult body mass (in kg) of the species as reported in the literature (Hoffman & Sales, 2007; Borrow &Demey, 2010; Parr et al., 2014; Sackey, 2014; Kingdon, 2015). We assigned the mean body mass of related taxa for those individuals that were not identifiable to species.We then estimated annual quantities of bushmeat traded within each market by multiplying the mean quantity of carcasses traded per survey day at each market with the total number of market days per year for each of the markets (52 days for Fumbisi and Chiana and 104 days for Sandema). We calculated annual estimates of bushmeat traded in this way because bushmeat was traded only during market days, outside of which no trading activities occur. We then obtained robust 95% confidence intervals associated with these estimates by bootstrapping for 10,000 replications using the package boot (Canty & Ripley, 2017)in R.We divided the study duration into the dry (November–April) and wet (May–October) seasons and compared the num- bers of bushmeat carcasses recorded in the two seasons. We performed regression analyses to investigate the fac-
tors influencing the variation in the numbers of carcasses re- corded at the markets. We used a generalized linear model with Poisson errors because the response variable is counts of number of carcasses recorded per market day. The covari- ates investigated included market (to account for differences in market trade patterns), season (to account for trade var- iations between the wet and dry seasons) and taxonomic group of species traded (to account for differences in the composition of bushmeat species traded). We performed an analysis of deviance to test the statistical significance of each categorical variable. Because of the extremely large numbers of amphibians recorded relative to other species and the possibility of such large numbers influencing the rest of the dataset, we performed all univariate and regres- sion analyses on two datasets: one with amphibians and one without. We examined all models to ensure that the model assumptions of homoscedasticity of variance and normality were met (Zuur et al., 2009). We estimated average prices (per kg) of species from
carcasses for which complete information on weight and price was obtained. We described and mapped the bush- meat trade flow using data on trade volumes and the sources and destinations of different bushmeat species as reported during the market surveys. We mapped trade flows using QGIS 3.12.1 (QGIS Development Team, 2020).
Results
Species composition, carcass numbers and biomass of bushmeat
Nearly all the bushmeat recorded was sold as smoked meat, with the exception of one species (Senegal flapshell turtle
Cyclanorbis senegalensis), which was traded alive. We re- corded 28 species of wild animals but this could be an underestimate, as some individual bushmeat items were not completely identifiable to species and had to be assigned to groups. The total number of bushmeat carcasses recorded (10,407) comprised 20 mammal species (nine ungulates, three primates, four rodents, three carnivores and one lagomorph), three amphibian species, three bird species and two reptile species (Table 1). Frogs constituted the bulk (82%) of the carcasses recorded (Fig. 2). The edible bullfrog Pyxicephalus edulis, one of three frog species recorded, was the most numerous, with a total of 5,243 carcasses, accounting for c. 50% of all the bushmeat car- casses sold (Table 1). We recorded low numbers of rodents (7% of the total), lagomorphs (4%) and birds (3%), and few carnivores, primates and ungulates, which together com- prised 2% of all carcasses. We recorded single individuals for five species of mammals: African buffalo Syncerus caffer, marsh mongoose Atilax paludinosus, olive baboon Papio anubis, red-flanked duiker Cephalophus rufilatus and roan antelope Hippotragus equinus. Table 1 lists all the bushmeat species recorded as being traded during the study, their legal status under Ghana’sWildlife Conservation Regulation, and their category on the IUCN Red List. A total of 8,803 kg of bushmeat was traded in the
markets during the study. Ungulates contributed the highest proportion (52%) of this, followed by rodents (13%; Fig. 2). Lagomorphs comprised 12% of the traded biomass, pri- mates 10%, frogs 5% and the remaining groups combined another 8%.
Differences between markets
The highest biomass of bushmeat was observed in Chiana (46% of the total) and the lowest in Sandema (11%) mainly because of the species composition for sale. Extrapolating these results, an estimated 48,277 bushmeat carcasses are traded each year at the three markets, of which an esti- mated 26,432 carcasses (95%CI 8,960–52,716) are traded in Fumbisi, 20,904 (95%CI 11,122–32,367) in Sandema and 941 (95%CI 541–1,399) in Chiana annually. These estimated numbers correspond to an annual total biomass of 41.84 t of undressed meat (of which an estimated 21.04 t are traded in Chiana, 15.03 t in Fumbisi and 5.77 t in Sandema). These estimates of annual trade are approximate indications only.
Delivery and trading of bushmeat at the sites varied from
day to day and over the course of the year. The three study markets also differed in terms of species composition and numbers of carcasses recorded as well as in their seasonal patterns (Fig. 3, Table 1). Of the 28 species recorded, only seven were common to all three markets. Species diversity was highest in Chiana and lowest in Sandema. This disparity could be because of differences in bushmeat catchment or
Oryx, 2023, 57(2), 216–227 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605322000096
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
