Biodiversity and Conservation (2006) 15:1219–1252
DOI 10.1007/s10531-005-0768-6
Springer 2006
-1
Biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities
in the Campo-Ma‘an rain forests, Cameroon
M.G.P. TCHOUTO1,*, M. YEMEFACK2, W.F. DE BOER3, J.J.F.E. DE
WILDE4, L.J.G. VAN DER MAESEN4 and A.M. CLEEF5
1
Limbe Botanic Garden, BP 437, Limbe, Cameroon; 2International Institute for Geo-Information
Science and Earth Observation (ITC), PO Box 6, 7500 AA Enschede, The Netherlands; 3Resource
Ecology Group, Wageningen University, Bornsesteeg 69, 6708 PD, Wageningen, The Netherlands;
4
Biosystematics Group, Wageningen University, Generaal Foulkesweg 37, 6703 BL, Wageningen, The
Netherlands; 5Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED) Research Group, Palynology and Paleo/Actuo-ecology, University of Amsterdam, Kruislaan 318, 1090 GB Amsterdam, The
Netherlands; *Author for correspondence (e-mail: peguy2000@yahoo.com)
Received 3 February 2004; accepted 7 January 2005
Key words: Biodiversity, Cameroon, Campo-Ma’an, Central Africa, Conservation, Endemic
species, Forest refuge, Genetic Heat Index, Pioneer Index, Plant diversity, Tropical rain forest
Abstract. Until recently, patterns of species richness and endemism were based on an intuitive
interpretation of distribution maps with very limited numerical analyses. Such maps based solely on
taxonomic collections tend to concentrate on collecting efforts more than biodiversity hotspots,
since often the highest diversity is found in well-collected areas. During the last decades, there has
been an overwhelming concern about the loss of tropical forest biological diversity, and an
emphasis on the identification of biodiversity hotspots in an attempt to optimise conservation
strategies. Furthermore, the concept of sites of high diversity, or hotspots, has attracted the
attention of conservationists as a tool for conservation priority settings. With the development of
GIS tools, geostatistics, phytosociological and multivariate analysis software packages, more rigorous numerical analyses of distributional and inventory data can be used for assessing conservation priorities. In the Campo-Ma’an rain forest, inventory data from 147 plots of 0.1 ha each and
7137 taxonomic collections were used to examine the distribution and convergence patterns of strict
and narrow endemic species. We analysed the trends in endemic and rare species recorded, using
quantitative conservation indices such as Genetic Heat Index (GHI) and Pioneer Index (PI), together with geostatistic techniques that help to evaluate and identify potential areas of high conservation priority. The results showed that the Campo-Ma’an area is characterised by a rich and
diverse flora with 114 endemic plant species, of which 29 are restricted to the area, 29 also occur in
southwestern Cameroon, and 56 others that are also found in other parts of Cameroon. Although
most of the forest types rich in strict and narrow endemic species occur in the National Park, there
are other biodiversity hotspots in the coastal zone and in areas such as Mont d’Eléphant and Massif
des Mamelles that are located outside the National Park. Unfortunately, these areas, supporting 17
strict endemic species that are not found in the park, are under serious threat and do not have any
conservation status for the moment. Taking into consideration that with the growing human
population density, pressure on these hotspots will increase in the near future, it is suggested that
priority be given to the conservation of these areas and that a separate management strategy be
developed to ensure their protection.
1220
Introduction
Central African rain forests are among the top conservation priority areas
in the world (Davis et al. 1994; Heywood and Watson 1995; Myers et al.
2000). The Campo-Ma’an rain forest, in the southern part of Cameroon,
falls under the Guineo–Congolian Regional Centre of Endemism that is
reported to be species-rich with high levels of endemism (White 1979, 1983;
Davis et al. 1994). It is situated in the middle of the Atlantic Biafran forest
zone that extends from Southeast Nigeria to Gabon and the Mayombe area
in Congo (Letouzey 1968, 1985). The vegetation in the Campo-Ma’an area
is determined by climate, especially rainfall, altitude, soils, proximity to the
sea and human disturbance (Tchouto 2004). The structure and composition
of the forest, as well as the vegetation types change progressively from the
mangrove or coastal forest on sandy shorelines through the endemic lowland evergreen forest rich in Caesalpinioideae with Calpocalyx heitzii and
Sacoglottis gabonensis, to the submontane forest on hilltops and the mixed
evergreen and semi-deciduous forest in the drier Ma’an area. Other vegetation types/sub-types include swamps, seasonally flooded forests, riverine
and secondary forests. The forest in the Ma’an area is described as transitional between the coastal evergreen forest and the semi-deciduous forest
of the interior.
In view of the rich and diverse flora of the Campo-Ma’an rain forest, as
well as its high level of endemism, it has been identified as one of the key
conservation sites in Cameroon (Gartlan 1989; Foahom and Jonkers 1992).
The Campo-Ma’an area is a Technical Operational Unit (TOU) that comprises a National Park, five forest management units, two agro-industrial
plantations, and a multi-uses zone (Tchouto 2004). Despite the low population density, there are many stakeholders and different types of land use.
Activities such as logging, industrial and shifting agriculture exert varying
ecological impact on the forest ecosystem. This has led to deforestation,
habitat fragmentation and alteration of the coastal forests. With the
increasing destruction of natural ecosystems, it is important to identify
biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities in order to enable an
effective management. To achieve this, we need to study the species composition and species distribution, so that we can target conservation resources and efforts to rich and diverse areas with a high number of endemic
species. Endemism is commonly regarded as an important criterion for
assessing the conservation value of a given area. In this study, forest
inventory data and taxonomic collections will be used to examine the distribution and convergence patterns of strict and narrow endemic species. We
will use new quantitative conservation indices such as GHI (Genetic Heat
Index) and Pioneer Index (PI) to analyse trends in endemic and rare species
in the various forest types. Finally, geostatistic analysis and techniques
will help to evaluate and identify potential areas of high conservation
priority.
1221
Materials and methods
Study area
The study was conducted in the Campo-Ma’an rain forest in south Cameroon.
The site covers about 7700 km2 and it is located between latitudes 210¢–
252¢ N and longitudes 950¢–1054¢ E. Following the FAO classification system, soils in the Campo-Ma’an area are generally classified as Ferrasols and
Acrisols (Franqueville 1973; Muller 1979; van Gemerden and Hazeu 1999).
They are strongly weathered, deep to very deep and clayey in texture (except at
the seashores and in river valleys where they are mainly sandy), acid and low in
nutrients with pH (H2O) values generally around 4. The topography ranges
from undulating to rolling in the lowland area, to steeply dissect in the more
mountainous areas. In the Campo area, altitudes are mostly low, ranging from
sea level to about 500 m. In the eastern part, which is quite mountainous, the
altitude varies between 400 and 1100 m and the rolling and steep terrain brings
about a more variable landscape.
The area has a typical equatorial climate with two distinct dry seasons
(November–March and July to mid-August) and two wet seasons (April–June
and mid-August to October). The average annual rainfall generally decreases
with increasing distance from the coast, ranging from 2950 mm/year in Kribi
and 2800 mm in Campo to 1670 mm in Nyabissan in the Ma’an area. The
average annual temperature is about 25 C and there is little variation between
years. The hydrography of the area shows a dense pattern with many rivers,
small river basins, fast-flowing creeks and rivers in rocky beds containing many
rapids and small waterfalls. Generally, the area has a low population density of
about 10 inhabitants per square kilometre and is sparsely populated (ca. 61,000
inhabitants) with most people living around Kribi, along the coast, and in
agro-industrial and logging camps (ERE Développement 2002; de Kam et al.
2002). Despite the low population density, there are few employment opportunities. The local people are very poor and so far rely solely on the forest
resources to meet their basic needs. As a result, local pressure on the CampoMa’an rain forest is increasing and there are several activities that are carried
out in the area with varying ecological impacts on the forest ecosystem. These
activities include agriculture, logging, poaching and hunting.
Botanical assessment
Sampling was carried out between 2000 and 2003 in 147 plots of 0.1 ha
(50 m · 20 m) in representative and homogeneous vegetation types (see Table 6
for an overview of the plots per vegetation type). In each 0.1-ha plot, all trees,
shrubs, herbs and lianas with DBH ‡1 cm (diameter at breast height, about 1.3 m
above ground) were measured, recorded and identified. These plots were established in undisturbed forests or matured secondary forests within 12 vegetation
1222
Table 1. Star categories and GHI weight classes as defined for Cameroon.
Star category Weight for GHI Comments
Black (BK)
27
Gold (GD)
9
Blue (BU)
3
Scarlet (SC)
1
Red (RD)
Pink (PK)
Green (GN)
1
1
–
Species which are only found in Campo-Ma’an area (strictly
endemic) or near endemics (species which also occur in some
localities around Campo-Ma’an such as Bipindi, Edea-Kribi,
Lolodorf or southern part of Cameroon). Urgent attention to
conservation of population is needed.
Cameroon endemics, rare and threatened Lower Guinea
endemics. Cameroon has definitely responsibility for preserving
these species.
Lower Guinea and Guineo–Congolian endemics which are
widespread internationally but rare in Cameroon, or vice versa.
Common but under serious pressure from heavy exploitation.
Exploitation needs to be curtailed if usage is to be sustainable.
Protection of all scales vital.
Common but under pressure from exploitation.
Common and moderately exploited.
Widespread Guineo–Congolian, pantropical and tropical
African species that are not under pressure. No particular
conservation concern.
Adapted from Hawthorne and Abu-Juam (1995), Hawthorne (1996) and Tchouto et al. (1998).
types ranging from coastal forest, mangrove, swamp, lowland evergreen forest,
mixed evergreen and semi-deciduous forest to submontane forest at higher elevations (800–1100 m above sea level). Most of the plots were located in the
National Park and the forest management units which are less affected by human
activities. Furthermore, in each representative vegetation type, a provisional
plant species checklist was made in the field with information on their growth
form, guild and frequency. A guild refers to a group associated with a common
way of life (Table 2). For unknown species, a voucher specimen was collected.
The study also involved the collection of fertile specimens encountered in plots,
vegetation types and specific habitats such as exposed rocks and riverbanks. The
geographic co-ordinates of each plot, sample or specimen were recorded using the
Global Positioning System (GPS, Garmin 12XL model with estimated precision
of ±10 m). These co-ordinates were used for mapping main vegetation types,
species distribution, and biodiversity hotspots. A duplicate of each specimen was
mounted and preserved in the Kribi Herbarium. Others duplicates were sent to
the National Herbarium in Yaounde, Cameroon (YA) and the Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Wageningen University Branch (WAG) for further identification and preservation.
Criteria for taxa inclusion
A plant species checklist was generated from the inventory data, from the plant
collections made during the study, and from specimens previously collected in
the area by other scientists, stored in the Cameroon and Wageningen herbaria.
Furthermore, a taxonomic search for potential taxa of high conservation
1223
Table 2. Guild and weight classes.
Guild
Weight for PI
Comment
Pioneer (PI)
2
Non-Pioneer
light demanding (NP)
1
Shade-bearers (SB)
0
Regenerating only in forest gaps and therefore
indicating disturbed forest (e.g. Ceiba, Musanga,
Harungana, Macaranga).
Although some juveniles are also found in the
understorey of undisturbed forest, they require
gaps to develop to full maturity. Generally,
non-pioneer light demanding are abundant
in matured disturbed forest (e.g. Albizia,
Entandrophragma, Piptadeniastrum,
Pycnanthus).
Understorey herbs, shrubs and trees which
grow, flower and fruit in undisturbed forest
(e.g. Cola, Diospyros, Psychotria, Rinorea).
Adapted from Hawthorne and Abu-Juam (1995), Hawthorne (1996) and Cable and Cheek (1998).
priority such as endemic, rare, new and threatened species was carried out
using existing floras and monographs (Keay and Hepper 1954–1972; Aubréville and Leroy 1961–1992; Aubréville and Leroy 1963–2000; Lebrun and Stork
2003; Satabié and Leroy 1980–1985; Satabié and Morat 1986–2001), the IUCN
(2002) red list categories, and the WCMC (1998) world list of threatened trees.
On the basis of this information, a list of 141 species of high conservation
values was produced with information on their habit, guild, star category
(Table 1) and chorology. In this list, priority was given to taxa that are strictly
endemic to the Campo-Ma’an area. Followed by species that are endemic to
southwestern Cameroon (also occurring in Bipindi and Lolodorf areas) or
Cameroon and Lower Guinea endemics (especially if they reach their northern
or southern limit of distribution in Campo-Ma’an). Furthermore, species that
reach their northern or southern limit of distribution in the Campo-Ma’an area
were also included in the list.
Star rating of species and measurement of forest conservation value
A star rating system, based on the work of Hawthorne and Abu-Juam (1995)
and Hawthorne (1996) in Ghana, Cable and Cheek (1998) and Tchouto et al.
(1998) in Cameroon, was used to define the conservation status of each species
recorded (Table 1). The factors considered when categorising species into star
categories are their distribution, ecology, local abundance, taxonomy, life
history, interaction with ecosystem parameters and economic importance
(Hawthorne 1996). Therefore, species that are endemic, rare, threatened, or
likely to represent a scarce genetic resource, are more valuable than others are.
Hence, forests richer in such species receive a higher score than others.
The GHI concept was developed by Hawthorne (1996) to express the conservation value of a given forest, and the PI concept to express the level of
1224
disturbance in a given forest. GHI is an attempt to provide a scale, on which to
measure the genetic ‘temperature’ or value of the forest. A plot/forest with an
average GHI >150 will be considered warm or hot. In general, for species with
completed monographs, black stars occupy about 1–3 filled degree squares on
a standard distribution map, gold stars 4–14, blue stars 15–30, and green star
more than 30 degree squares.
Hawthorne (1996) defined the guild as a flexible concept used to circumscribe
a group of plant species with a similar ecology and way of life. All the species
were grouped into guild classes as defined in Table 2 and a PI score was
calculated as an expression of the relative contribution of pioneers. Five classes
of human disturbance were used to evaluate the forest quality and condition as
defined in Table 3. These classes were mainly based on the field observation of
the level of human disturbance and the state of forest degradation.
The GHI and PI values of each sample were calculated using the TREMA
database as follows:
Genetic Heat Index (GHI) ¼ ½ð(BK BK weightÞ þ ðGD GD weightÞ
þ ðBU BU weightÞ þ ðRD RD weight))=
ðBK þ GD þ BU þ GN þ RDÞ 100;
where BK = number of black star species; GD = number of gold star species;
BU = number of blue star species; GN = number of green star species; and
RD = number of red, scarlet and pink star species.
Pioneer Index (PI) ¼
ðPioneer PI weightÞ þ (NP NP weightÞ
100;
Total number of species
where PI = number of pioneer species and NP = number of non-pioneer
light demanding species.
Table 3. Forest condition classes showing the degree of human disturbance on the natural forest
cover.
Forest condition
Classes
Notes
Excellent
Virtually
undisturbed
Good
Less than 25%
disturbed
25–50% disturbed
Undisturbed forest, with good canopy
and few signs of human disturbance
except for hunting and NTFPs collection.
Small patches of recent disturbances (<25%) with
good canopy cover.
Obviously disturbed with significant patches (25–50%)
of recent degradation but with good predominant
forest and broken upper canopy.
Considerable are (>50%) of recent degradation.
Patchy with heavily disrupted canopy.
No significant forest left (<2% good forest).
Massive land conversion for plantation or farm.
Slightly
degraded
Mostly
degraded
Very poor
More than 50%
disturbed
Farm land
1225
Geostatistical analysis
Conservation indices such GHI and PI are likely to vary throughout a region.
Geostatistics (Isaaks and Srivastava 1989; Webster and Oliver 2001) were applied
to quantify the spatial distribution of GHI within the Campo-Ma’an forest.
Geographic analyses were done using ILWIS software (ILWIS 2001) and
GSTAT package (Pebesma and Wesseling 1998) of R software (R Development
Core Team 2002). The semivariance was calculated for GHI data on a minimum
lag distance of 1250 m and each lag distance class contained at least 105 pairs of
points. The semivariogram parameters (nugget, sill and range) were computed
using the GSTAT fit variogram function. During the study of GHI spatial variability, the main objective was to obtain a map from point observations. Since
this also required the estimation of a value at un-visited locations, the technique
commonly used is known as kriging (Isaaks and Srivastava 1989). The semivariogram function was then used to extrapolate the GHI values in the CampoMa’an forest at 100 m · 100 m grid, using ordinary kriging. The output map was
reclassified into five classes of conservation value (Hawthorne 1996).
Results
Species richness and endemism
A plant species checklist made of 2297 species of vascular plants, ferns and fern
allies was generated from inventory data and from 2348 herbarium specimens and
4789 ecological specimens collected in the various plots. They belonged to 851
genera and 155 families. More than 67% of the specimens were identified at species
level, 28% at generic level, 4% at family level and 1% remained unidentified. The
20 most important families and genera are shown in Tables 4 and 5. In terms of
growth form, tree species contributed for 26% to the total number of 2297 species
recorded, followed by herbs (24%), shrubs (23%) and climbers (17%), respectively. About 72% of the total number of species recorded was also found in the
Campo-Ma’an National Park and the remaining 28% were only found in the
coastal forest and the semi-deciduous forests located outside the park.
In addition to a list of 92 threatened species (Appendix 2) recorded in IUCN
(2002) and WCMC (1998), a list with 141 plant species of high conservation
priorities was produced, with information on their growth forms, guild, chorology and star categories (Appendix 1). Only species that are endemic to
Cameroon and species that reach their northern or southern limit of distribution are included in this list. The Campo-Ma’an area has about 114 endemic
species, 29 of which are only known from the area, 29 only occur in the
southwestern part of Cameroon, and 56 near endemics that also occur in other
parts of Cameroon (Appendix 1 and Figure 1).
Shrubs contributed for 38% of the 114 endemic species (Appendix 1), herbs
29%, trees 20% and climbers 11%. Moreover, 540 species (23% of the total
1226
Table 4. Most important families recorded in the Campo-Ma’an area.
No.
Family
No. of species
Predominant growth forms
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Rubiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Apocynaceae
Annonaceae
Acanthaceae
Leguminosae-Papilionaideae
Sterculiaceae
Gramineae
Orchidaceae
Melastomataceae
Moraceae
Celastraceae
Cyperaceae
Dichapetalaceae
Sapindaceae
Araceae
Loganiaceae
Sapotaceae
Begoniaceae
Others(135 families)
279
117
96
80
69
68
65
62
54
54
46
40
39
39
39
36
34
33
30
29
988
Trees, shrubs, herbs and climbers
Trees, shrubs, herbs and climbers
Trees and shrubs
Trees, shrubs, herbs and climbers
Trees, shrubs and climbers
Herbs
Trees, herbs and climbers
Shrubs and trees
Herbs
Terrestrial and epiphytic herbs
Shrubs and herbs
Trees, shrubs and herbs
Climbers
Herbs
Climbers
Trees and shrubs
Herbs and hemi-epiphytes
Shrubs and climbers
Trees and shrubs
Terrestrial and epiphytic herbs
Trees, shrubs, climbers and herbs
Table 5. Most important genera recorded in the Campo-Ma’an area.
No.
Genus
No. of species
Predominant growth forms
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Dichapetalum (Dichapetalaceae)
Psychotria (Rubiaceae)
Cola (Sterculiaceae)
Begonia (Begoniaceae)
Diospyros (Ebenaceae)
Salacia (Celastraceae)
Strychnos (Loganiaceae)
Rinorea (Violaceae)
Drypetes (Euphorbiaceae)
Combretum (Combretaceae)
Dorstenia (Moraceae)
Campylospermum (Ochnaceae)
Bulbophyllum (Orchidaceae)
Ficus (Moraceae)
Garcinia (Guttiferae)
Asplenium (Aspleniaceae)
Culcasia (Araceae)
Landolphia (Apocynaceae)
Tricalysia (Rubiaceae)
Bertiera (Rubiaceae)
Others (831 genera)
37
35
32
29
27
27
24
23
21
18
18
17
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
14
1867
Climbers
Shrubs
Trees and shrubs
Terrestrial and epiphytic herbs
Trees and shrubs
Climbers
Climbers
Trees and shrubs
Trees and shrubs
Climbers
Herbs
Shrubs
Terrestrial and epiphytic herbs
Trees and stranglers
Trees and shrubs
Epiphytic herbs
Herbs and hemi-epiphytes
Climbers
Trees an shrubs
Shrubs
Trees, shrubs, climbers and herbs
1227
Figure 1. Distribution of 114 strict and narrow endemic plant species recorded in the CampoMa’an area (gray circle). Black circle represents the distribution of 17 threatened strict endemics
that are not found in the National Park. The size of the circle represents the relative density of
endemics at a given point.
number of species) recorded are endemic to the Lower Guinea Centre of
Endemism, 1123 species (49%) are Guineo–Congolian endemics and 105
species (5%) are Guinea endemics as described by White (1979). Overall, there
was a high concentration of strict and narrow endemic species in the lowland
evergreen forest rich in Caesalpinioideae, coastal and submontane forests located in the western and northern parts of Ma’an and a relatively low concentration of these species in Ma’an area (Figure 1). Although more than 70%
of the total endemic species recorded were also found in the National Park, 17
of the 29 strict endemic species were not recorded in the park (Appendix 1).
The distribution patterns of these 17 taxa showed a high concentration of
species around Campo, Lobe, Massif des Mamelles, Mont d’Eléphant and
Zingui and a very poor representation in the Ma’an area (Figure 1).
GHI and measurement of forest conservation value
More than 57% of the plots have a high GHI score with the highest score
recorded in the submontane forest (GHI = 294.4) and the lowest score in
mangrove (GHI = 3.1). As shown in Figure 2, the submontane forest had the
highest average GHI score of 214.7, followed by the lowland evergreen forest
rich in Caesalpinioideae with Calpocalyx heitzii and Sacoglottis gabonensis
1228
Figure 2. The average Genetic Heat Index (GHI = bars) and average Pioneer Index (PI = line)
for the various vegetation types as defined in Table 6.
(GHI = 194.1). The mangrove and the coastal forest on sandy shorelines had
the lowest average GHI score (GHI = 3 and 120.2, respectively). The average
PI was very high in the mangrove forest (PI = 125), coastal forest on sandy
shorelines (PI = 66.9) and in the forest rich in Aucoumea klaineana (PI = 60).
Generally, there was a significant decrease in average GHI with increasing
average PI (Figure 2). As shown in Figure 3, there was a very strong significant
negative correlation between the average GHI scores and the PI scores
recorded in the various vegetation types (F1–10 = 111.71, R2 = 0.918,
p < 0.0001). However, the correlation was rather weak with a low explanatory
factor when the analysis was carried out using all plots as individual data
points (F1–45 = 94.00, R2 = 0.393, p<0.0001). Most of the forest types within
the National Park were virtually undisturbed or less than 25% disturbed
(Figure 4). The coastal forest between Campo and Kribi, as well as the forests
around Massif des Mamelles, Mont d’Eléphant, agro-industrial plantations,
logging concessions and settlements were much more affected by human
activities (Figure 4). These forests were often more than 25% disturbed by
human activities and were characterised by a high PI scores (Figures 2 and 4).
Geostatistical results
The analysis of the spatial structure of the dataset did not show any preferential
spatial trend. Therefore, an omni-directional analysis of the semivariance (best
described by a spherical model) was applied. Figure 5 shows the semivariogram
and its characteristics. The GHI variable showed a strong spatial dependence
1229
Figure 3. Correlation between the average GHI scores and the average PI scores for the various
vegetation types.
Figure 4.
Impact of human disturbance on the Campo-Ma’an rain forest.
within a range of 10,500 m. The nugget (645) was low compared to the total
variance or sill (3700). This suggests that more than 82% (100*(Sill-Nugget)/Sill)
of the semivariance of GHI could be modelled by the variogram over a range of
10 km. The output map of the ordinary kriging (Figure 6) was reclassified into
1230
Figure 5. Spherical variogram model for GHI in the Campo-Ma’an rain forest (estimated from
147 points of 0.1 ha each).
Figure 6. Ordinary kriging map showing the distribution of GHI scores and conservation hotspots within the Campo-Ma’an rain forest The following GHI values are defined for the various
conservation classes (Hawthorne 1996): Very high conservation value for GHI >200; High conservation value (150 ‡ GHI <200); Moderate conservation value (100 ‡ GHI <150); Low conservation value (50 < GHI <100) and very low conservation value (GHI <50).
1231
five GHI classes, partitioning the conservation value of the Campo-Ma’an forest.
This partition showed that 1% of the area was characterised by a very high
conservation value, 45% by a high conservation value, 30% by an average
conservation value, 15% by a low conservation value and 9% by a very
low conservation value. A considerable portion of the National Park and the
forests around Massif des Mamelles and Mont d’Eléphant was characterised by a
high conservation value, with highest values found in Dipikar Island, Massif des
Mamelles, Mont d’Eléphant and in the submontane forest on hilltops. The forests in the Ma’an area, around Campo and agro-industrial plantations, near
villages and along the roads had a low conservation value. Similar patterns were
observed for the distribution of strict and narrow endemic species (Figure 1).
Discussion
General vegetation patterns
The Campo-Ma’an has a diverse range of vegetation that changes progressively from sea level to 1100 m at higher altitudes. The wetter Campo
area was dominated by the lowland evergreen forest rich in Caesalpinioideae
and the drier Ma’an area by the mixed evergreen and semi-deciduous forest.
More than 65% of the forest types recorded had at least 250 species
(Table 6). The submontane forest had the highest frequency of species-rich
plots (93% of the plots had above 100 species/0.1 ha). Other rich vegetation
types included the lowland evergreen forest rich in Caesalpinioideae with
Calpocalyx heitzii and Sacoglottis gabonensis (81%), the lowland evergreen
forest rich in Caesalpinioideae with Sacoglottis gabonensis (78%), the lowland evergreen forest rich in Caesalpinioideae (76%) and the mixed evergreen and semi-deciduous forest (67%). The mangroves, swamps and the
coastal vegetations on sandy shorelines were species-poor. The explanation
for the diverse range of forest types and habitats might stem partly from the
fact that the Campo-Ma’an vegetation is influenced by several environmental factors such as rainfall, altitude, soil, the proximity to the sea and
the degree of human disturbance (Tchouto 2004). As a result there was a
gradual variation in dominant species, forest type and structure from the
coast to the hilltops and the drier forest in the Ma’an region.
Species richness and endemism
The Campo-Ma’an area is characterised by a rich and diverse flora with more
than 2297 species of vascular plants, ferns and fern allies. The site has about
114 endemic plant species out of which 29 are strictly endemic to the site. The
number of endemic plant species is relatively high considering the size of the
area, and more than 75% of the current vegetation cover was characterised
1232
Table 6. Number of plots, number of species and number of stem/ha recorded within the various
vegetation types for all plants with DBH ‡1 cm.
Vegetation types
No of plots
No of species
Average No of stems/ha
Caesalp (2.3 ha)
Caesalpcasa (2.5 ha)
Caesalpsa (1.4 ha)
Cosaga (0.9 ha)
Cosaca (0.9 ha)
Cosas (0.4 ha)
Mixevergreen (2.1 ha)
Mixsemideci (1.6 ha)
Submontane (1.4 ha)
Swamps (0.5 ha)
Mangrove (0.2 ha)
Okoumé forests (0.5 ha)
Total for the Campo-Ma’an area
23
25
14
9
9
4
21
16
14
5
2
5
147
557 (75–128)
555 (93–139)
474 (86–138)
303 (81–140)
326 (78–108)
100 (27–55)
523 (63–135)
481 (86–147)
499 (79–148)
246 (18–108)
4 (3–4)
234 (18–107)
1116 (3–148)
4380
5326
5935
5810
5864
4710
4983
5460
6094
4276
8630
4802
5312
(2500–5750)
(3120–7020)
(4350–7120)
(4940–8010)
(4740–7570)
(3630–5700)
(3890–6980)
(4390–6340)
(3680–8449)
(2070–5960)
(8150–9100)
(3720–5800)
(2070–9100)
Minimum and maximum values are given betweem brackets.
Submontane = Submontane forest; Caesalpcasa = Lowland evergreen forest rich in Caesalpinioideae, Calpocalyx heitzii and Sacoglottis gabonensis; Casealpsa= Lowland evergreen forest rich
in Caselpinioideae and Sacoglottis gabonensis; Caesalp= Lowland evergreen forest rich in Caesalpinioideae; Cosaga= Coastal forest with Sacoglottis gabonesis; Mixsemideci= Mixed evergreen
and semi-deciduous forest with elements predominant; Mixevergreen= Mixed evergreen and semideciduous forest with semi-deciduous elements of evergreen forest predominant; Okoumé= forest
rich in Aucoumea klaineana; Cosaca= Coastal forest with Sacoglottis gabonensis and Calpocalyx
heitzii; and Cosas= Coastal forest on sandy shorelines.
either by very high, high or average GHI values (Figure 6). Furthermore, the
distributions of strict and narrow endemic species showed a high concentration
of these species in the submontane forest between Ebianemeyong and Akom II,
in Dipikar Island, and in the forests in and around Massif des Mamelles, Lobe,
Mont d’Eléphant and Zingui. Surprisingly, the mixed evergreen and semideciduous forest in the Ma’an area showed a relatively low concentration of
these species (Figure 1). The explanation for the high occurrence of endemics
might stem partly from the fact that the area falls within a series of postulated
rain forest refugia in Central Africa (Hamilton 1982; White 1983; Maley 1987,
1989, 1990, 1993, 1996; Sosef 1994, 1996). In such refugia, the unique combination of climatic and geological histories, contemporary ecological factors,
and inherent biological properties of taxa and their combinations, may have
contributed to survival and/or speciation (Barbault and Sastrapradja 1995;
Hawksworth and Kalin-Arroyo 1995). Furthermore, the Campo-Ma’an area
forms part of the Guineo–Congolian Regional Centre of Endemism (White
1983). All families endemic to this biogeographic region are also found in the
Campo-Ma’an area (White 1983). They include Hoplestigmataceae, Huaceae,
Lepidobotryaceae, Medusandraceae, Pandaceae, Pentadiplandraceae and
Scytopetalaceae. Moreover, 82% of endemic genera cited by White (1983) also
occur in the area.
1233
Forest richness and biodiversity hotspots
Considering the fact that the occurrence of endemic species contributes significantly to the conservation value of a forest, it is important to study their
distribution and abundance prior to any conservation initiatives. This is mainly
due to the fact that strict and narrow endemic species are restricted to small
areas, and are therefore highly vulnerable to human disturbance and other
forms of environmental changes (Myers 1988; Williams 1993; Heywood and
Watson 1995). A study carried out in the Campo-Ma’an rain forest has revealed that the submontane forest, the lowland evergreen forest rich in Caesalpinioideae with Calpocalyx heitzii and Sacoglottis gabonensis, and the
lowland evergreen forest rich in Caesalpinioideae are richer in strict and narrow endemics compared to the other forest types found in secondary forest and
along the coast. This is confirmed by the high average GHI scores recorded in
these forest types (Figure 2). Most of these forest types were located in the
National Park and the lowland evergreen forests around Massif des Mamelles
and Mont d’Eléphant. They were virtually undisturbed or less than 25% disturbed by human activities (Figure 4). This implies that the Massif des
Mamelles and the Mont d’Eléphant areas represent other biodiversity hotspots, located outside of the Park (Figure 6).
There was a strong significant negative correlation between the average GHI
scores and the average PI scores recorded in the various vegetation types. Most
plots located near settlements and in secondary forests were characterised by a
low conservation value with low GHI scores and high PI scores. This confirmed that disturbed forests are rich in pioneer species but poor in plant
species with high conservation priority. It is worth reiterating that a considerable portion of the Campo-Ma’an area has been selectively logged at least
twice during the past 30 years. Although logging damages were moderate and
had low impact on the total forest biodiversity, it has created forest gaps that
allowed the development of many pioneer species. This might have contributed
to the high average PI scores registered in the coastal forest types. In these
areas with conflicts between human and conservation activities, there is an
urgent need to develop participatory approaches to sustainable natural resource management that integrates the objectives of conservation with local
development.
Threatened species
During the selection of species of high conservation priority, taxa were chosen
on a global rather than a Cameroonian or a Campo-Ma’an perspective of
conservation importance. Of the 29 strict endemic species that are only known
from the Campo-Ma’an area, 17 were not recorded in the National Park
illustrating the need for conservation activities outside the park. Although
these 17 strict endemics are not immediately threatened with extinction, the
1234
most threatened are probably those occurring in the coastal zone and in areas
located at the vicinity of large agro-industrial plantations, since these areas are
heavily exploited. As shown in Figure 4, their habitats are fragmented and
degraded because these areas are surrounded by farms and heavily disturbed
forests.
Considering the fact that extinct species are taxa that are no longer known to
exist in the world after repeated search in their type localities (WCMC 1998;
IUCN 2002), we cannot yet talk about extinction because no attempt has been
made to search for these species. Furthermore, only 67% of the total amount
of specimens collected was identified at species level. However, with the
ongoing speed of forest degradation noticed in the coastal area, eight of these
strict endemics (Beilschmiedia dinklagei, Deinbollia macroura, Ledermanniella
batangensis, Psychotria aemulans, P. batangana, P. dimorphophylla, P. oligocarpa, and Strychnos canthioides) that are only known from the coastal zone
can be categorised as endangered species. While the nine others that are located
inland around Efoulan, Fenda, Massif des Mamelles, Mont d’Eléphant and
Zingui can be categorised as vulnerable. They are Afrotrewia kamerunica,
Bulbophyllum alinae, Begonia montis-elephantis, Calvoa stenophylla, Dorstenia
dorstenioides, Guaduella mildbraedii, Hypolytrum sp. nov., Scaphopetalum acuminatum and S. brunneo-purpureum. Some of them so far are only known
from type specimens or from a few collections made in the type locality before
the 60s. Others such as Afrotrewia kamerunica, Begonia montis-elephantis and
Hypolytrum sp. nov. have a restricted range with a small and restricted population. Furthermore, habitat fragmentation may convert a previously more
continuous population structure to a metapopulation structure, with local
populations becoming so small that they may have a substantial risk of
extinction (Hawksworth and Kalin-Arroyo 1995).
Implications for biodiversity conservation
The Campo-Ma’an National Park
The National Park is the core conservation area of the Campo-Ma’an Technical Operational Unit. It is surrounded by areas under several land uses that
have varying ecological impact on the park and the surrounding forests. The
park is of high conservation priority with about 72% of the 2297 species of
vascular plants, ferns and fern allies recorded so far in the Campo-Ma’an area.
More than 70% of the total endemic species recorded were also found in the
National Park, and most of the forest types with high GHI scores, low PI
scores and high conservation priority species were also found in the park
(Figures 2 and 6). The most important one is the endemic lowland evergreen
forest rich in Caesalpinioideae with Calpocalyx heitzii and Sacoglottis gabonensis, a vegetation type that only occurs in the Campo area (Letouzey 1985;
Gartlan 1989; Thomas and Thomas 1993). Other forest types such as the
submontane forest on hilltops, the lowland evergreen forest rich in
1235
Caesalpinioideae and the mixed evergreen and semi-deciduous forests are also
well represented. So far the National Park is the only area with a legal conservation status. It is a permanent state forest that is protected by law and
solely used for forest and wildlife conservation. However, its boundaries have
not been marked, the management plan has not yet been produced and protection is weak. Therefore, it is of urgent need to demarcate the boundary of
the park, to reinforce its protection, and to complete and implement its
management plan as soon as possible.
Massif des Mamelles and Mont d’Ele´phant
This study has demonstrated that other hotspots for biodiversity conservation,
such as Mont d’Eléphant and Massif des Mamelles, are located outside the
National Park (Figure 6). These areas are non-permanent forest estates that
can be allocated for human activities such as logging, agro-industry, agriculture, agro-forestry, community forest, communal forest or private forest.
Moreover, hunting, fishing, mineral exploitation or any other form of economic activities is allowed if done in accordance to the 1994 forest law.
Unfortunately, these areas do not have any conservation status and a number
of ongoing human activities have negative impacts on the forest ecosystem
(Tchouto 2004). In addition to the construction of the Tchad-Cameroon oil
pipeline terminal at Grand Batanga and the rock exploitation on Mont
d’Eléphant, there exists a plan to exploit the iron ore deposits of the Massif des
Mamelles. All these activities, if realized, would affect the vegetation and thus
impact the biodiversity. As shown in Figure 4, these fragmented forest patches
with high conservation priorities are more seriously exposed to forest degradation and habitat loss since they are surrounded by disturbed and degraded
forests. Furthermore, they are the type localities for some rare endemic species
such as Afrotrewia kamerunica, Begonia montis-elephantis, Bulbophyllum alinae
and Hypolytrum sp. nov. that are so far only known from the type specimens or
from few collections made in these areas. Pressure on these fragmented hotspots will increase in the future with the growing human population density,
the few local employment opportunities and the poverty of the local people, for
whom the forest is a major resource. In order to ensure the protection of these
areas, it is suggested that local community be encouraged to create community
forests with several management zones. Each community forest should have
the identified biodiversity hotspot as the core conservation area, surrounded by
a buffer zone stimulating the sustainable management of non-timber forest
products and hunting practices.
The coastal zone, Ntem basin, Lobe and Memve’ele waterfalls
The coastal zone is a narrow strip (65 km long) along the Atlantic Ocean from
the Lobe waterfalls to the Ntem estuary in the Dipikar Island that extends
about 2–3 km inland. It has suffered and continues to suffer from intense
1236
human pressure that has led to the destruction of most of its natural vegetation
(Figure 4). However, it is worth mentioning that some rare endemic species
such as Deinbollia macroura, Psychotria batangana, P. dimorphophylla, P. oligocarpa, and Strychnos canthioides are so far only known from this zone.
Furthermore, there is an impressive network of rivers and streams in the
Campo-Ma’an area that presents a number of very specialised riparian habitats. Our study confirmed that the Lobe, Bongola, Memve’ele waterfalls and
Ntem basin (Boucle du Ntem) support a rich riparian flora with many endemic
and rare rheophile species (Cusset 1987; Thomas and Thomas 1993). Most of
the endemic rheophytes are of the genus Ledermanniella in the Podostemaceae
family. These rheophytes which are found on exposed rocks in streambeds, are
seasonally submerged by fast-flowing water, and normally reproduce in drier
periods when the water level recedes. The Ntem basin is also reported to
constitute an important refuge for wildlife and fish fauna because of the
presence of many rare species of freshwater fishes (Vivien 1991; Matthews and
Matthews 2000; Djama 2001). Therefore, it is suggested to develop a separate
management strategy in order to protect these riparian habitats.
Conclusion
The study provides important information on the abundance and distribution
of endemic species, as well as the location of biodiversity hotspots in the
Campo-Ma’an area. This information is essential for any decision-making
process for biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource management. Our study has revealed that the area is characterised by a rich flora
with more than 2297 species of vascular plants and about 114 endemic plant
species, of which 29 are only found in the area. Although most of the forest
types with plant species of high conservation priorities appeared to occur in the
Campo-Ma’an National Park, there are several human activities in the area
with varying negative ecological impacts on the forest ecosystem. Therefore,
the successful management and long-term sustainability of the Park will largely
depend on the ability to reconcile the objectives of conservation and other uses
at its vicinity.
The study also demonstrated that there are other biodiversity hotspots in the
coastal zone and areas such as Mont dEléphant and Massif des Mamelles that
are located outside the National Park. These areas support 17 strict endemic
species that are not found in the park. Unfortunately, these strict endemics are
the most threatened since their habitats are fragmented and degraded as a
result of past and present land conversion to subsistence and industrial plantations. Furthermore, these hotspots are the type localities for some rare endemic species that are so far only known from type specimens or from a few
collections made in these areas. Contrary to the National Park, these hotspots
do not yet have any conservation status per se. However, although the park is a
1237
permanent state forest which is protected by law and should be solely used for
forest and wildlife conservation, its boundaries have not been marked, the
management plan has not yet been produced and protection is weak. It is,
therefore, of urgent need to demarcate its boundary, reinforce its protection,
and complete and implement its management plan as soon as possible. Furthermore, in view of the fact that pressure on these fragmented hotspots is
likely to increase in the future with the growing human population density, it is
suggested that a separate management strategy be developed to ensure the
protection of these biodiversity hotspots and their endemic species.
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out in the framework of the Campo-Ma’an Biodiversity
Conservation and Management Project, Cameroon, and was financially supported by Tropenbos International, The Netherlands. We will like to thank G.
Achoundong, J.M. Onana, B. Sonke, L. Zapfack and P. Mezili at the National
Herbarium, Cameroon, and F.J. Breteler and C.C.H. Jongkind at the Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Wageningen University Branch, who assisted in
plant identification. The staff of Campo-Ma’an Project is also acknowledged
with gratitude for their assistance and support during the fieldwork. Particular
thanks are for my field assistants Elad Maurice and Ossele Mathilde for their
enthusiastic support and cooperation. We will also like to extend our sincere
thanks to all chiefs and village representatives, for their active participation in
the organisation and collection of field data.
No. Family
1
Acanthaceae
2
Annonaceae
3
Annonaceae
4
Apocynaceae
5
Apocynaceae
6
Apocynaceae
7
Apocynaceae
8
9
Araceae
Araceae
Species
Guild Star Habit Chorology
Notes
sb
GD Hb
Cam
Akom II, Dipikar Island, Western and South Cameroon
sb
GD Sh
Sw-Cam
sb
GD Sh
Cam
Akom II, Dipikar Island, Massif des Mamelles, Bipindi and
Lolodorf
Massif des Mamelles, Bipindi and Lolodorf
sb
GD Sh
Cam
Ma’an, South, Centre and East Cameroon
Np
GD Lwcl
Cam
Efoulan, Bipindi, Makak and Mt. Cameroon
sb
BK
Sw-Cam
Campo, Bipindi and Lolodorf
sb
GD Sh
Lg
sb
sb
BK He
GD Hb
Sw-Cam
Cam
Np
GD Swcl
Cam
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Akom II, Onoyong and Ma’an
Massif des Mamelles, Dipikar Island, Ma’an and Bipindi
Bifa, Zingui, Akom II, Dipikar Island, Bipindi, Mt Cameroon
and Eseka
Dipikar Island, Ebolowa and Mt. Cameroon
sb
bu
Hb
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Bipindi, Zingui
sb
bu
Hb
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Ebianemeyong
sb
bu
Hb
Lg
sb
bu
Hb
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Bipindi, Zingui
and Grand Batanga
Northern limit of distribution, from Congo, Gabon to Mvini
and Efoulan
10
Aristolochiaceae
11
Balsaminaceae
12
Balsaminaceae
13
Begoniaceae
Stenandrium thomense
(Milne-Redh.) Vollesen
Monanthotaxis elegans
(Engl. and Diels) Verdc.
Monodora zenkeri Engl.
and Diels*
Callichilia monopodialis
(K.Schum.) Stapf*
Landolphia flavidiflora
(K. Schum.) Persoon*
Petchia africana
Leeuwenb.*
Tabernaemontana hallei
(Boiteau) Leeuwenb.
Culcasia bosii Ntepe-Nyame
Culcasia panduriformis
Engl. and Krause
Pararistolochia preussii
(Engl.) Hutch. & Dalziel
Impatiens hians Hook.f. var.
bipindensis (Gilg)
Grey- Wilson
Impatiens gongolana
N.Hallé
Begonia anisosepala Hook.f.
14
Begoniaceae
Begonia clypeifolia Hook.f.
Sh
1238
Appendix 1 List of 141 plant species that are either strictly endemic to the Campo-Ma’an area (only found in Carapo-Ma’an) or near endemic (also occur in
the western parts of south Cameroon or other parts of Cameroon).
15
Begoniaceae
16
Begoniaceae
17
18
19
Begoniaceae
Begoniaceae
Begoniaceae
20
Begoniaceae
21
Burseraceae
22
Burseraceae
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Begonia mbangaensis Sosef
Begonia microsperma Warb.
Begonia montis’-elephantis
J.J.de Wilde*
Begonia zenkeriana Smith
and Wassh.
Aucoumea klaineana Pierre
Dacryodes buettneri (Engl.)
Lam.
Capparaceae
Ritchiea simplicifolia Oliv.
var. Caloneura (Gilg) Kers
Celastraceae
Pristimera luteoviridis (Exell) N.Hallé var. kribiana
N.Hallé
Chrysobalanaceae Dactyladenia cinera (Engl.
ex de Wild) Prance and
F.White**
Chrysobalanaceae Dactyladenia icondere (Baill.) Prance and F.White
Combretaceae
Combretum cinnabarinum
Engl. and Diels
Cyperaceae
Hypolytrum sp. nov. ined.*
Dichapetalaceae
Dichapetalum altescandens
Engl. *
Dichapetalaceae
Dichapetalum cymulosum
(Oliv.) Engl.*
Dichapetalaceae
Dichapetalum librevillense
Pellegr.*
bu
Ep
bu
Hb
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Mvini, Efoulan
and around Kom River
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Lolabe and
around Kribi
Sw-Cam
Akom II, Efoulan, Bipindi and Lolodorf
Cam
Ebianemeyong, Ma’an, South-west and South Cameroon
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from a small population on Mt
d’Eléphant
Sw-Cam
Campo, Massif des Mamelles, Dipikar Island, Bipindi and
Lolodorf
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Ma’an and
Ebianemeyong
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Ma’an and
Ebianemeyong
Cam
Lobe, Campo, Kienke, Dipikar Island, Bipindi, Lolodorf and
Ebolowa
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from few collections on Mt d’Eléphant and Dipikar Island
sb
sb
sb
BK Hb
GD Hb
BK Hb
sb
BK
Hb
Pi
bu
Tr
Np
bu
Tr
sb
BK
Sh
Np
BK
Swcl
sb
BK
Tr
Sw-Cam
sb
bu
Sh
Lg
np
bu
Lwcl
sb
np
BK
bu
Hb
Lwcl
np
GD Lwcl
Northern limit of distribution, from Congo, Gabon to Grand
Batanga, Campo and Dipikar Island
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Bipindi and
Dipikar Island
Campo-Ma’an New species only known from Mont d’Eléphant
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Efoulan and
Zingui
Cam
Grand Batanga, Campo, Bipindi, Lolodorf and Douala
np
bu
Lg
Lwcl
Rare species, only known from type specimens (Bipindi) and a
record from Grand Batanga
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Mt d’Eléphant
and Campo
1239
31
Begonia elaeagnifolia Hook. ep
f.
Begonia heterochroma Sosef sb
No. Family
Species
Guild Star Habit Chorology
32
Dichapetalaceae
np
BK
Lwcl
33
Dichapetalaceae
Dichapetalum oliganthum
Breteler*
Tapura tchoutoi Breteler
sb
BK
Sh
34
Dryopteridaceae
sb
bu
He
35
Ebenaceae
sb
BK
Tr
36
Ebenaceae
sb
Bu
Tr
37
Euphorbiaceae
sb
BK
Sh
38
Gnetaceae
Lastreopsis davalliaeformis
(Tardieu) Tardieu*
Diospyros
alboflavescens
(Gürke) F.White
Diospyros soyauxii Gürke
and K. Schum.
Afrotrewia kamerunica Pax
and Hoffm.*
Gnetum buchholzianum Engl.
np
GD Hcl
39
Gramineae
Guaduella mildbraedii Pilg.*
sb
BK
Hb
40
Gramineae
pi
bu
Hb
41
42
Guttiferae
Guttiferae
Hyparrhenia wombaliensis
(Vanderyst ex Robyns)
Clayton*
Garcinia conrauana Engl.
Garcinia densivenia Engl.
Sb
ri
GD Tr
GD Tr
43
Icacinaceae
Alsodeiopsis zenkeri Engl.
rh
GD Sh
44
45
Icacinaceae
Icacinaceae
46
Icacinaceae
Iodes kamerunensis Engl.
sb
Rhaphiostylis ovalifolia Engl. sb
ex Sleumer*
Rhaphiostylis subsessilifolia sb
Engl.
GD Swcl
GD Swcl
BK
Swcl
Notes
Sw-Cam
Grand Batanga, Campo, Mt d’Eléphant, Kribi, Longi and
Lolodorf.
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from few collections around Bifa and
Dipikar Island
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Bipindi and
Zingui
Sw-Cam
Rare species, only known from few collections from Bifa,
Zingui and Bipindi
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Campo and
Zingui
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from Massif des Mamelles
Cam
Dipikar Island, Onoyong, Ma’an, Littoral, South-west and
South provinces of Cameroon
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from few collections in the Campo
area
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Congo to Campo
Cam
Cam
Akom II, South-west and South Cameroon
Dipikar Island, Ebianemeyong, Mvini, Littoral and South
Cameroon
Cam
Frequent along the Bongola and Ntem rivers, and other rivers
in Littoral, East and South Cameroon
Cam
Akom II, Dipikar Island, Bipindi, Bertoua and Nanga Eboko
Cam
Coastal forest around Kribi, Grand Batanga, Lolabe, Elabi
Massif des Mamelles, Littoral and South Cameroon
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from Grand Batanga, Ebianemeyong
and Mt d’Eléphant
1240
Appendix 1 (Continued)
Ixonanthaceae
48
Lauraceae
49
Lauraceae
50
Lauraceae
51
Lauraceae
52
Lauraceae
53
Leguminosae
-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae
-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae
-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae
-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae
-Caesalpinioideae
LeguminosaeCaesalpinioideae
Leguminosae
-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae
-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae
-Caesalpinioideae
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
np
bu
Tr
sb
BK
Tr
sb
BK
Tr
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from few records around Grand
Batanga
sb
BK
Tr
Sw-Cam
sb
BK
Tr
Sw-Cam
sb
BK
Tr
Sw-Cam
np
bu
Tr
Lg
sb
GD Tr
Cam
np
GD Tr
Cam
sw
bu
Tr
Lg
np
bu
Tr
Lg
ri
bu
Tr
Lg
sb
BK
Tr
Sw-Cam
Gilbertiodendron pachyant- np
hum (Harms) J.Léonard
Plagiosiphon longitubus
sb
(Harms) J.Léonard
BK
Tr
Sw-Carm
BK
Tr
Sw-Cam
Ochthocosmus calothyrsus
(Mildbr.) Hutch. and Dalziel
Beilschmiedia cuspida
(K. Krause) Robyns and
Wilczek
Beilschmiedia dinklagei
(Engl.) Robyns and
Wilczek*
Beilschmiedia klainei Robyns
and Wilczek
Beilschmiedia papyracea
(Stapf) Robyns and R.Wilczek
Beilschmiedia welczekii
Fouilloy
Amphimas ferrugineus Pierre
ex Pellegr.
Anthonotha leptorrhachis
(Harms) J.Léonard
Aphanocalyx hedinii
(A.Chev.) Wieringa
Aphanocalyx ledermannii
(Harms) Wieringa
Copaifera religiosa
J.Léonard
Daniellia klainei A.Chev.
Dialium zenkeri Harms
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Cameroon
(frequent in the Campo-Ma’an area)
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from Fenda and Akom II
Rare species, only known from few records from Akom II,
Ebianemeyong and Bipindi
Rare species, only known from Ebianemeyong, Akom II,
Fenda and Bipindi
Akom II, Mvini, Nkoelon, Dipikar Island, Ebianemeyong,
Ma’an, Bipindi and Lolodorf
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Dipikar Island,
Ma’an, Onoyong and Akom II
Bifa, Campo, Dipikar Island, Lobe, Massif des Mamelles, Mt
d’Eléphant, Bipindi, Lolodorf and Mt Cameroon
Akom II, Ebianemeyong, Kom, Ma’an, Bipindi and Eseka
Northern limit of distribution, occurs along rivers from Gabon,
Equatorial Guinea to the Dipikar Island
Northern limit of distribution, from Congo to Akom II and
Efoulan
Northern limit of distribution, from Congo to Akom II, Eoulan
and Ma’an
Campo, Dipikar Island, Onoyong, Bipindi and Lolodorf
Ebianemeyong, Kom, Massif des Mamelles, Bipindi and Lolodorf
Akom II, Efoulan, Ma’an, Bipindi, and Lolodorf
1241
47
No. Family
Species
Guild Star Habit Chorology
Notes
62
Plagiosiphon multijugus
(Harms) J.Léonard
Tetraberlinia moreliana
Aubrév.*
Chlorophytum petrophyllum
K.Krause
Mostuea neurocarpa Gilg
sb
GD Tr
Cam
Akom II, Dipikar Island, Ma’an, Bipindi and Kribi-Edea areas
sb
bu
Lg
sb
GD Hb
Cam
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon, Bidou and Mt.
D’Eléphant
Bifa, Dipikar Island, Mvini, Littoral and South Cameroon
sb
bu
Sh
Lg
np
BK
Lwcl
ri
GD Tr
np
GD Lwcl
pa
GD Pa
pi
GD Hb
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Bifa, Campo and
Dipikar Island
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from few collections around Grand
Batanga and Lolabe
Cam
Akom II, Dipikar Island, Ebianemeyong, Onoyong, Bipindi,
Lolodorf, Kribi-Edea and South-west Cameroon
Cam
Dipikar Island, Mvini, Ma’an, Bipindi, Masok, Douala-EdeaKribi areas.
Cam
Grand Batanga, Bongola, Bipindi, Eseka, Barombi and along
the Lokoundje and Nyong rivers.
Cam
Ma’an, Onoyong and South Cameroon
sb
BK
Hb
Sw-Cam
sb
BK
Hb
sb
BK
Hb
sb
bu
Hb
BK
Sh
64
Leguminosae
-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae
-Caesalpinioideae
Liliaceae
65
Loganiaceae
66
Loganiaceae
63
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Strychnos canthioides Leeuwenb. *
Loganiaceae
Strychnos elaeocarpa Gilg ex
Leeuwenb.
Loganiaceae
Strychnos mimfiensis Gilg ex
Leeuwenb.
Loranthaceae
Tapinanthus preussii (Engl.)
Tiegh.
Marantaceae
Hypselodelphys zenkeriana
(K.Schum.) Milne-Redh.
Melastomataceae Amphiblemma
letouzeyi
Jacq.-Fél.*
Melastomataceae Calvoa calliantha Jacq.-Fél.
Melastomataceae Calvoa stenophylla
Jacq.-Fél*
Melastomataceae Guyonia tenella Naud.
Melastomataceae Memecylon arcuato-margin- sb
atum
Gilg ex Engl. var. arcuatomarginatum
Tr
Rare species, only known from few collections recorded on hills
around Akom II, Efoulan and Bipindi
Sw-Cam
Rare species, only known from Ebianemeyong, Akom II and
Bipindi
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from type specimens collected in
Zingui
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Equatorial Guinea to Lobe
and Bongola
Cam
Akom II Dipikar Island, Kom, Mt. D’Eléphant, Kienke, Longi
and Kribi-Edea
1242
Appendix 1 (Continued)
76
Menispermaceae
77
Menispermaceae
78
Moraceae
79
Moraceae
80
Myrsinaceae
Albertisia glabra (Diels and
Troupin) Forman
Penianthus
camerounensis
A.Dekker
Dorstenia dorstenioides
(Engl.)
Hijman and C.C.Berg*
Dorstenia involuta
M.Hijman
Ardisia dolichocalyx Taton
sb
BK
81
Myrtaceae
Eugenia kameruniana Engl.* sb
82
Ochnaceae
83
Ochnaceae
84
Ochnaceae
Campylospermum letouzeyi
Farron
Campylospermum zenkeri
(Engl. ex Tiegh.) Farron
Testulea gabonensis Pellegr.
85
Olacaceae
86
Orchidaceae
87
Orchidaceae
88
Orchidaceae
89
Orchidaceae
Swcl
sb
GD Sh
sb
BK
Hb
sb
BK
Hb
sb
GD Hb
Cam
BK
Sh
Cam
sb
GD Sh
Cam
sb
GD Sh
Cam
np
bu
Octoknema dinklagei Engl.
sb
GD Tr
Bulbophyllum alinae
Szlachetko*
Corymborkis minima
P.J.Cribb*
Podandriella batesii
(la Croix)
Szlachetko and Olszewski*
Polystachya letouzeyana
Szlachetko and Olszewski*
ep
BK
sb
GD Hb
sb
BK
Hb
ep
BK
Ep
Tr
Ep
Sw-Cam
Rare species, only known from Dipikar Island and Bipindi
Cam
Afan, Akom II, Dipikar Island, Ebianemeyong, Mekok, Littoral, South and South-west Cameroon
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from few collection around Kienke
and Fenda
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from Dipikar Island and Ma’an
Bifa, Campo, Dipikar Island, Onoyong, Littoral, South and
South-west Cameroon
Rare species, only known from Ebianemeyong, Ma’an, Nyabissan
Dipikar Island and South Cameroon
Campo, Massif des Mamelles, Kribi-Edea and South Cameroon
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Dipikar Island,
Ma’an and Onoyong
Cam
Akok, Grand Batanga, Lolabe, South and South-west Cameroon
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from few collections on Mt d’Eléphant
Cam
Rare species, only known from few collections around Campo,
Lolabe and Korup National Park
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from Akom II, Efoulan and Ebianemeyong
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from Efoulan
1243
No. Family
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Orchidaceae
Species
Vanilla africana Lindley
subsp. cucullata
(Kraenzlin and K. Shum.)
Szlachetko and Olszewski *
Podostemaceae Ledermanniella annithomae
C. Cusset*
Podostemaceae Ledermanniella batangensis
(Engl.) C. Cusset*
Podostemaceae Ledermanniella bosii C.Cusset
Podostemaceae Ledermanniella boumiensis
C. Cusset
Podostemaceae Ledermanniella kamerunensis
(Engl.) C. Cusset
Podostemaceae Ledermanniella linearifolia
Engl.
Podostemaceae Ledermanniella variabilis
(G.Taylor) C.Cusset
Rhizophoraceae Cassipourea
kamerunensis
(Engl.) Alston
Rhizophoraceae Cassipourea zenkeri (Engl.)
Alston
Rubiaceae
Chazaliella sciadephora (Hiern) Petit
and Verdc, var. condensata
Verdc.
Rubiaceae
Ecpoma apocynaceum
K.Schum.
Rubiaceae
Hymenocoleus glaber Robbr.
Guild Star Habit Chorology
Notes
np
BK
Hcl
Sw-Cam
Campo, Massif des Mamelles, Mt d’Eléphant and Bipindi
rh
BK
Hb
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from Memve’ele water falls
rh
BK
Hb
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from Lobe water falls
rh
BK
Hb
rh
bu
Hb
rh
BK
Hb
rh
GD Hb
rh
GD Hb
sb
GD Sh
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from the Ntem Basin, Bongola, Lobe
and Memve’ele waterfalls
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to the Bongola and
Memve’ele water falls
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from the Bongola water falls in
Dipikar Island
Cam
Lobe and Bongola falls in the Campo-Ma’an area, and in the
Nkam river in Yabassi
Cam
Bongola and Lobe water falls, and in Mamfe river in Southwest Cameroon
Cam
Akom II, Littoral and South Cameroon
sb
GD Sh
Cam
sb
GD Sh
Cam
Akom II Bifa, Ebianemeyong, Eboundja, Lobe, Ma’an, Bipindi, Lolodorf and South Cameroon
Mvini, Onoyong, Ma’an, Littoral and South Cameroon
pi
BK
Sw-Cam
Rare species, only known from Bifa, Zingui and Bipindi
sb
GD Hb
Cam
Akom II, Dipikar Island, Massif des Mamelles, Mvini, Littoral,
South and South-west Cameroon
Sh
1244
Appendix 1 (Continued)
103
Rubiaceae
104
105
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
106
Rubiaceae
107
108
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
109
Rubiaceae
110
Rubiaceae
111
Rubiaceae
112
Rubiaceae
113
Rubiaceae
114
Rubiaceae
115
Rubiaceae
116
Rubiaceae
117
Rubiaceae
118
Rubiaceae
lxora aneimenodesma
K.Schum. subsp.
aneimenodesma
Ixora synactica De Block*
Oxyanthus oliganthus
K.Schum.
Pavetta camerounensis
S.Manning subsp.
camerounensis
Pavetta kribiensis J.Manning
Pavetta mpomii S.Manning
GD Sh
Cam
Akom II, Dipikar Island, Bipindi and Lolodorf
sb
sb
BK Sh
GD Sh
Sw-Cam
Cam
Rare species, only known from Efoulan, Zingui and Bipindi
Akom II, Ma’an and South Cameroon
sb
GD Sh
Cam
Akom II, Bifa, Campo, Dipikar Island, Massif des Mamelles,
Mt d’Eléphant, Littoral and South Cameroon
sb
sb
BK
BK
Sw-Cam
Sw-Cam
sb
GD Sh
Cam
Rare species, only known from Mvini, Bipindi and Lolodorf
Mt d’Eélephant, Mvini, Nkoelon, Ebianemeyong, Bipindi and
Lolodorf
Dipikar Island, Mvini, Nkoelon and South Cameroon
np
GD Hb
Cam
sb
BK
Sh
Campo-Ma’an
sb
BK
Sh
Campo-Ma’an
sb
GD Sh
Cam
ri
BK
Sh
Campo-Ma’an
sb
BK
Sh
Sw-Cam
sb
BK
Sh
Campo-Ma’an
sb
GD Sh
Cam
sb
GD Sh
Cam
Sh
Sh
Ebianemeyong, Nyabissan, Ma’an, Centre and South Cameroon
Rare species, only known from few collections around Grand
Batanga
Rare species, only known from few collections around Grand
Batanga
Akom II, Bifa, Ma’an, Bipindi, Lolodorf, Centre and South
Cameroon
Rare species, only known from few collections from Grand
Batanga and Lobe
Rare species, only known from Akom II, Onoyong, Bipindi and
Lolodorf
Rare species, only known from few collections around Grand
Batanga
Akok, Bifa, Campo, Dipikar Island, Kom, Mvini and South
Cameroon
Akom II, Dipikar Island, Massif des Mamelles, Mvini, and
South Cameroon
1245
Pavetta staudtii Hutch. and
Dalziel
Pseudosabicea medusula
(K.Schum.) N.Hallé
Psychotria aemulans
K. Schum.**
Psychotria batangana
K. Schum.*
Psychotria camerunensis
Petit
Psychotria dimorphophylla
K. Schurm.*
Psychotria lanceifolia
K.Schum.
Psychotria oligocarpa
K.Schum.*
Psychotria sadebeckiana
K.Schum.var. elongata Petit
Psychotria sadebeckiana
K.Scham. var. sadebeckiana
sb
No. Family
Guild Star Habit Chorology
Notes
sb
GD
Sh
Cam
sb
GD
Sh
Cam
Dipikar Island, Massif des Mamelles, Centre and South Cameroon
Ebianemeyong, Mvini, Centre and South Cameroon
sb
GD
Swcl
Cam
Mvini, Nkoelon, Centre and South Cameroon
sb
BK
Sh
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from few collections around Campo
sb
BK
Sh
sb
bu
Sh
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from Bifa, Massif des Mamelles and
Dipikar Island
Lg
Northern limit of distribution, from Gabon to Dipikar Island
sb
GD
Sh
Cam
BK
Sh
BK
Tr
128
Scytopetalaceae Rhaptopetalum sessilifoIium sb
Engl.*
Sterculiaceae
Cola fibrillosa Engl. and
sb
Krause
Sterculiaceae
Cola letouzeyana Nkongm.
sb
GD
Sh
129
Sterculiaceae
sb
GD
Sh
130
Sterculiaceae
sb
BK
Sh
131
Sterculiaceae
sb
BK
Sh
132
Sterculiaceae
sb
BK
Sh
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
Species
Rubiaceae
Tricalysia amplexicaulis
Robbr.
Rubiaceae
Tricalysia talbotii
(Wemham) Keay
Rubiaceae
Vangueriella laxiflora
(K.Schum.) Verdc.
Sapindaceae
Deinbollia macroura Gilg ex
Radlkofer*
Sapindaceae
Deinbollia mezilii D.W.Thomas and D.J.Harris
Sapindaceae
Deinbollia pycnophylla Gilg
ex Radlk.
Scytopetalaceae Pierrina zenkeri Engl.
Cola praeacuta Brenan and
Keay
Scaphopetalum acuminatum
Engl. and K. Krause*
Scaphopetalum brunneo-purpureum Engl. and K. Krause**
Scaphopetalum zenkeri
K-Schum.
Bifa, Campo, Ebianemeyong, Ma’an, Nyabissan, Littoral and
South Cameroon
Sw-Cam
Rare species, only known from few collections around Efoulan
and Bipindi
Sw-Cam
Rare species, only known from few collections around Dipikar
Island and Bipindi
Cam
Akora II, Dipikar Island, Ebianemeyong, Onoyong, Centre and
South Cameroon
Cam
Bifa, Dipikar Island, Massif des Mamelles, South and Southwest Cameroon
Carapo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from few collections from Efoulan
and Fenda
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from few collections from Fenda and
Zingui
Sw-Cam
Akom II, Dipikar Island, Ebianemeyong, Bipindi and Lolodorf
1246
Appendix 1 (Continued)
133
Thymelaeaceae
134
Urticaceae
135
Violaceae
136
Violaceae
137
138
Dicranolepis glandulosa
H.H.W.Pearson
Urera gravenreuthi Engl.
sb
GD
Sh
pi
GD
Hcl
sb
BK
Sh
sb
BK
Sh
Violaceae
Violaceae
Allexis zygomorpha
Achoundong and Onana*
Rinorea campoensis
M. Brandt ex Engl.
Rinorea microglossa Engl.*
Rinorea sp. nov. 1 ined.*
sb
sb
BK
GD
Sh
Sh
139
Violaceae
Rinorea sp. nov. 2 ined.*
sb
GD
Sh
140
Zingiberaceae
Sb
BK
Hb
141
Zingiberaceae
Aulotandra kamerunensis
Loes.
Renealmia densispica
Koechlin
Sb
BK
Hb
Cam
Akom II, Dipikar Island, Grand Batanga, Campo, Littoral
South, and South-west Cameroon
Cam
Dipikar Island, Ma’an, Littoral, South and South-west Cameroon
Cam
Coastal forest between Edea and Campo, Bidou, Akok, Longi,
Bipindi and Lolodorf
Campo-Ma’an Rare species, only known from Campo, Dipikar Island, Lobe
and Massif des Mamelles
Sw-Cam
Efoulan, Bipindi, Lolodorf, Centre and South Cameroon
Cam
Coastal forest between Kribi and Campo, Dipikar Island, and
Douala-Edea-Kribi regions
Cam
Kienke, Massif des Mamelles, Dipikar Island, Kribi, KribiEdea, Douala- Yaounde, and Eseka regions
Sw-Cam
Rare species, only known from few collections from Ebianemeyong, Nyabissan and Bipindi
Sw-Cam
Rare species, only known from few collections from Dipikar
Island, Ebianemeyong and Ambam
Those species that reach their northern or southern limit of distribution in the Campo-Ma’an area are also included in the list.
*Species strictly endemic to the Campo-Ma’an area that were not recorded in the National Park.
**Species for which the status or range needs more investigation.
Guild: ep, epiphyte; np, non-pioneer light demanding; pi, pioneer; rh, rheophyte; ri, riverine; sb, shade-bearer; and sw, swamp.
Star: as defined in Table 1.
Habit: Ep, epiphyte; Hb, herb; Hcl, herbaceous climber; He, hemi-epiphyte; Lwcl, large woody climber; Swcl, small woody climber; Pa, parasite; Sh, shrub;
and Tr, tree.
Chorology: Campo-Ma’an, strict endemic to Campo-Ma’an; Sw-Cam, endemic to southwestern part of Cameroon; Cam, endemic to Cameroon; Lg, Lower
Guinea endemic (especially those species that reach either their northern or southern limit of distribution in the Campo-Ma’an area).
1247
No. Family
Species
Guild Habit Chorology IUCN/WCMC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Afrofittonia silvestris Lindau
Sclerochiton preussii (Lindau) C.B.Clarke
Antrocaryon micraster A. Chev. and Guillaum.
Trichoscypha bijuga Engl.
Trichoscypha mannii Hook. f.
Boutiquea platypetala Le Thomas
Pachypodanthium barteri (Benth.) Hutch. and Dalziel
Uvariastrum zenkeri Engl. and Diels
Uvariodendron connivens (Benth.) R.E.Fr.
Tylophora cameroonica N.E.Br.
Cordia platythyrsa Baker
Aucoumea klaineana Pierre
Dacryodes igaganga Aubrev. And Pellegr.
Salacia lehmbachii Loes. var. pes-ranulae N.Hallé
Dactyladenia cinera (Engl. ex de Wild) Prance and F.White
Terminalia ivorensis A.Chev.
Hemandradenia mannii Stapf
Diospyros barteri Hiern
Diospyros crassiflora Hiern
Amanoa strobilacea Müll.Arg.
Crotonogyne manniana Müll.Arg.
Drypetes preussii (Pax) Hutch.
Drypetes tessmanniana (Pax) Pax and K.Hoffm.
Neoboutonia mannii Benth.
Pseudagrostistachys africana (Müll.Arg.) Pax and K.Hoffm.
Garcinia brevipedicellata (Baker f.) Hutch. and Dalziel
Garcinia kola Heckel
Garcinia staudtii Engl.
Hoplestigma pierreanum Gilg
Afrostyrax kamerunensis Perkins and Gilg
sb
sb
pi
sb
sb
sb
sw
sb
sb
pi
pi
pi
np
np
sb
np
sb
sb
sb
sb
sb
sb
sb
pi
sb
sb
sb
sb
np
sb
Acanthaceae
Acanthaceae
Anacardiaceae
Anacardiaceae
Anacardiaceae
Annonaceae
Annonaceae
Annonaceae
Annonaceae
Asclepiadaceae
Boraginaceae
Burseraceae
Burseraceae
Celastraceae
Chrysobalanaceae
Combretaceae
Connaraceae
Ebenaceae
Ebenaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Guttiferae
Guttiferae
Guttiferae
Hoplestigmataceae
Huaceae
Hb
Hb
Tr
Tr
Tr
Sh
Tr
Sh
Tr
Swcl
Tr
Tr
Tr
Swcl
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Sh
Sh
Tr
Sh
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Lg
Lg
Lg
Lg
Lg
Lg
Lg
Lg
Lg
Lg
Gc
Lg
Lg
Lg
Sw-Cam
Gu
Lg
Gu
Gc
Gu
Lg
Lg
Lg
Gu
Lg
Lg
Gc
Lg
Lg
Lg
VU A1c + 2c
EN B1 + 2e
VU A1cd
CR A1c + 2abc
VU A1C, B1 + 2c
EN A1c + 2c
VU A1c
VU A1c, B1 + 2c
LR/nt
LR/nt
VU A1d
VU A1cd
VU A1cd + 2cd
VU B1 + 2c
CR B1 + 2c
VU A1cd
LR/nt
VU A1c
EN A1d
VU A1c, B1 + 2c
LR/nt
VU B1 + 2c
CR A1c + 2c
LR/nt
VU A1c, B1 + 2c
VU A1c, B1 + 2c
VU A1cd
VU A1c, B1 + 2c
CRA1c + 2c
VU A1c, B1 + 2c
1248
Appendix 2 IUCN (1994) threat categories for 92 plant species recorded in the Campo-Ma’an area that are listed in The IUCN (2002) Red List of Threatened
Species and The World List of Threatened Trees (WCMC 1998).
Huaceae
Irvingiaceae
Irvingiaceae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae
Leguminosae-Mimosoideae
Leguminosae-Mimosoideae
Leguminosae-Mimosoideae
Leguminosae-Papilionoideae
Leguminosae-Papilionoideae
Leguminosae-Papilionoideae
Leguminosae-Papilionoideae
Liliaceae
Melastomataceae
Melastomataceae
Melastomataceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Afrostyrax lepidophyllus Mildbr.
Irvingia excelsa Mildbr.
Irvingia gabonensis (Aubry-Lecomte ex O’Rorke) Baill.
Afzelia bipindensis Harms
Afzelia pachyloba Harms
Anthonotha leptorrhachis (Harms) J.Léonard
Aphanocalyx hedinii (A.Chev.) Wieringa
Daniellia klainei A.Chev.
Daniellia oblonga Oliv.
Dialium bipindense Harms
Dialium tessmannii Harms
Didelotia unifoliolata J.Léonard
Gilbertiodendron pachyanthum (Harms) J.Léonard
Guibourtia ehie (A. Chev.) J. Léonard
Loesenera talbotii Baker f.
Pellegriniodendron diphyllum (Harms) J.Léonard
Plagiosiphon longitubus (Harms) J.Léonard
Swartzia fistuloides Harms
Calpocalyx heitzii Pellegr.
Calpocalyx letestui Pellegr.
Calpocalyx ngouniensis Pellegr.
Craibia atlantica Dunn
Millettia laurentii De Wild.
Millettia macrophylla Benth.
Ormocarpum klainei Tisser.
Chlorophytum petrophyllum K.Krause
Memecylon candidum Gilg
Memecylon dasyanthum Gilg ex Lederman and Engl.
Warneckea wildeana Jacq.-Fél.
Entandrophragma angolense (Welw.) C.DC.
Entandrophragma candollei Harms
Entandrophragma cylindricum (Sprague)Sprague
Entandrophragma utile (Dawe and Sprague) Sprague
Guarea cedrata (A.Chev.) Pellegr.
sb
np
np
np
np
sb
np
ri
np
np
sb
sb
np
np
sb
sb
sb
sb
np
sb
sb
sb
np
pi
sb
sb
sb
sb
sb
np
np
np
np
np
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Sh
Hb
Sh
Tr
Sh
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Lg
Gc
Gc
Gc
Gc
Cam
Cam
Lg
Lg
Lg
Lg
Lg
Sw-Cam
Gc
Lg
Gu
Sw-Cam
Gc
Lg
Gc
Gc
Gc
Gc
Lg
Lg
Cam
Lg
Lg
Lg
Tra
Gc
Gc
Gc
Gc
VU A1c, B1 + 2c
LR/nt
LR/nt
VU A1cd
VU A1d
CR A1c + 2c
CR B1 + 2abcd, C1 + 2ab
LR/nt
VU A1c
LR/nt
LR/nt
LR/nt
VU D2
VU A1c
VU A1c, B1 + 2c
LR/nt
CR A1 + 2c
EN A1cd
VU A1c, B1 + 2c
VU D2
VU A1c
VU A1c
EN A1cd
VU A1c, B1 + 2c
CR A1c
CR A1c + 2c
VU B1 + 2c
VU B1 + 2c
VU D2
VU A1cd
VU A1 cd
VU A1cd
VU A1cd
VU A1c
1249
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
No.
Family
Species
Guild
Habit
Chorology
IUCN/WCMC
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Moraceae
Myrtaceae
Ochnaceae
Ochnaceae
Rhizophoraceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rutaceae
Sapotaceae
Sapotaceae
Sapotaceae
Sapotaceae
Simaroubaceae
Sterculiaceae
Sterculiaceae
Sterculiaceae
Sterculiaceae
Sterculiaceae
Sterculiaceae
Sterculiaceae
Sterculiaceae
Violaceae
Violaceae
Guarea thompsonii Sprague and Hutch.
Khaya anthotheca (Welw.) C. DC.
Khaya ivorensis A.Chev.
Lovoa trichilioides Harms
Turraeanthus africanus (Welw. ex C DC.) Pellegr.
Milicia excelsa (Welw.) C.C.Berg
Eugenia kameruniana Engl.
Lophira alata Banks ex Gaertn.f.
Testulea gabonensis Pellegr.
Anopyxis klaineana (Pierre) Engl.
Hallea stipulosa (DC.) Leroy
Nauclea diderrichii (De Wild. And T.Durand) Merrill
Vepris heterophylla Letouzey
Autranella congolensis (De Wild.) A.Chev.
Baillonella toxisperma Pierre
Gluema ivorensis AubréV. and Pellegr.
Tieghemella africana Pierre
Nothospondias staudtii Engl.
Cola hypochrysea K.Schum.
Cola philipijonesii Brenan and Keay
Cola praeacuta Brenan and Keay
Cola semecarpophylla K.Schum.
Mansonia altissima (A.Chev.) A.Chev. var. kamerunica Jacq.-Fél.
Pterygota bequaertii De Wild.
Pterygota macrocarpa K.Schum.
Sterculia oblonga Mast.
Allexis cauliflora (Oliv.) Pierre
Allexis obanensis (Baker f.) Melchior
np
np
np
np
sb
pi
sb
pi
np
np
sw
pi
sb
np
np
np
np
np
sw
sb
sb
sb
np
np
np
pi
sb
sb
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Sh
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Sh
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Sh
Sh
Sh
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Sh
Sh
Gc
Gc
Gc
Gc
Gc
Tra
Cam
Gc
Lg
Gc
Gc
Gc
Gc
Gc
Lg
Gc
Lg
Gc
Lg
Lg
Cam
Lg
Gu
Gc
Gc
Gc
Lg
Lg
VU A1c
VU A1cd
VU A1cd
VU A1cd
VU A1cd
LR/nt
CR A1c
VU A1cd
EN A1cd
VU A1cd
VU A1cd
VU A1cd
EN A1c, B1 + 2c
CR AIcd
VU A1cd
VU B1 + 2c
EN A1cd
VU B1 + 2c
VU A1c
EN B1 + 2c
CR A1c + 2c
LR/cd
EN A1cd
VU A1cd
VU A1cd
VU A1cd
VU A1c, B1 + 2c
VU B1 + 2c
NB: Guild, habit and chorology categories as defined in Appendix 1.
1250
Appendix 2 (Continued)
1251
References
Aubréville A. and Leroy J.-F. (eds) 1961–1992. Flore du Gabon. Muséum National d’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris.
Aubréville A. and Leroy J.-F. (eds) 1963–2000. Flore du Cameroun, vol. 1–20. Muséum National
d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
Barbault R. and Sastrapradja S. 1995. Generation, maintenance and loss of biodiversity. In
Heywood V.H. and Watson R.T. (eds), Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University
Press, UNEP, pp. 192–294.
Cable S. and Cheek M. 1998. The plants of Mount Cameroon. A conservation checklist. Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Cusset C. 1987. Flore du Cameroun. In: Satabié B. and Morat Ph. (eds), Podostemaceae, vol. 30.
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
Davis S.D., Heywood V.H. and Hamilton A.C. 1994. Centres of Plant Diversity. A Guide and
Strategy for their Conservation. WWF, IUCN.
de Kam M., Fines J.-P. and Akogo G. (eds) 2002. Schéma Directeur pour le developpement de
l’Unité Technique Opérationnelle de Campo-Ma’an, Cameroun. Campo-Ma’an Series 1, .
Djama T. 2001. Inventaire quantitatif des poissons dans l’UTO Campo-Ma’an. Projet CampoMa’an, Kribi, Cameroon.
ERE Développement 2002. Etude socio-économique dans l’UTO de Campo-Ma’an. Rapport final
phase 2: résultats d’énquetes auprés des ménages. SNV/Projet Campo-Ma’an.
Foahom B. and Jonkers W.B.J. 1992. A Programme for Tropenbos Research in Cameroon. Final
report. Tropenbos-Cameroon Programme (Phase I). The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen.
Franqueville A. 1973. Atlas regional Sud-Ouest 1. République du Cameroun. ORSTOM, Yaoundé,
Cameroun.
Gartlan J.S. 1989. La conservation des ecosystemes forestiers du Cameroun. IUCN.
Hamilton A.C. 1982. Environmental History of Africa: A Study of the Quaternary. Academic
Press, London.
Hawks worth D.L. and Kalin-Arroyo M.T. 1995. Magnitude and distribution of biodiversity. In:
Heywood V.H. and Watson R.T. (eds), Global Biodiversity Assessment. UNEP, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 108–191.
Hawthorne W.D. 1996. Holes and the sums of parts in Ghanian forest: regeneration, scale and
sustainable use. Proc. R. Soc. Edin. 104: 75–176.
Hawthorne W.D. and Abu-Juam M. 1995. Forest protection in Ghana with particular reference
to vegetation and plant species. The IUCN Forest Conservation Programme.
Heywood V.H. and Waston R.T. 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. UNEP, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
ILWIS 2001. ILWIS 3.0 Academic: User’s Guide. ITC, Enschede.
Isaaks E.H. and Srivastava R.M. 1989. An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New York.
IUCN 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN, Gland.
IUCN 2002. 2002 IUCN Red list of Threatened Species. IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre,
Cambridge.
Keay R.W.J. and Hepper F.N. (eds) 1954. Flora of West Tropical Africa. 2nd edn., 3 vols. Crown
Agents, London.
Lebrun J.P. and Stork A.L. 2003. Tropical African flowering plants-ecology and distribution,
vol. 1. Annonaceae-Balanitaceae. Conservatoire et Jardin Botanique de la Ville de Genéve.
Letouzey R. 1968. Etude phytogeographique du Cameroun. Le Chevalier, Paris.
Letouzey R. 1985. Notice de la carte phytogéographique du Cameroun, vol. 1–5. Institut de la
Carte Internationale de la Végétation, Toulouse.
Maley J. 1987. Fragmentation de la forêt dense humide Africaine et extention des biotopes montagnards du Quaternaire recent. Paleoecol. Afr. 18: 307–309.
1252
Maley J. 1989. Late Quaternary climatic changes in the African rainforest: the question of forest
refuges and the major role of sea surface temperature variations. In Lewen M. and Sarthein M.
(eds), Paleoclimatology and Paleometeolorogy: Modern and Past Patterns of Global Atmospheric Transport. Kluwer, London, pp. 585–616.
Maley J. 1990. Histoire récente de la forêt dense humide africaine: essai sur le dynamisme de
quelques formations forestières. In: Lanfranchi R. and Schwartz D. (eds), Paysage quaternaire de
l’afrique centrale Atlantique pp.367–382.
Maley J. 1993. The climatic and vegetational history of the equatorial regions of Africa during the
upper Quaternary. In: Shaw T., Sinclair P., Andah B. and Okpoko A. (eds), The Archeology of
Africa: Food, Metals and Towns, pp. 43–52.
Maley J. 1996. Le cadre paléoenvironnemental des refuges forestiers africains : quelques données et
hypothéses. In: der Maesen L.J.G., der Burgt X.M. and de Rooy J.M. (eds), The Biodiversity of
African Plants. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 519–535.
Matthews A. and Matthews A. 2000. Primate Population and Inventory of Large and Medium
Sized Mammals in the Campo-Ma’an Project Area in Southwest Cameroon, including Management Recommendations. Projet Campo-Ma’an, Kribi, Cameroun.
Muller J.P. 1979. Carte des sols du Cameroun. Atlas de la République Unie du Cameroun.
Myers N. 1988. Threatened biotas ‘hotspots’ in tropical forests. Environmentalist 8: 187–208.
Myers N., Mittermeir R.A., Mittermeir C.G., da Fonseca G.A.B and Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity
hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.
Pebesma E.J. and Wesseling C.G. 1998. GSTAT: a program for geostatistical modelling, prediction
and simulation. Comput. Geosci. 24: 17–31.
R Development Core Team 2002. The R Environment for Statistical Computing and Graphics:
Reference Index. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Version 1.6.2.
Satabié, B. and Leroy J.-F. 1980. Flore du Cameroun, vol. 21–28. Muséum National d’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris.
Satabié B. and Morat Ph. 1986–2001. Flore du Cameroun, vol. 29–37. Muséum National d’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris.
Sosef M.S.M. 1994. Refuge Begonias. Taxonomy, phylogeny and historical biogeography of
Begonia sect. Loasibegonia and sect. Scutobegonia in relation to glacial rain forest refuges in
Africa. PhD Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University.
Sosef M.S.M. 1996. Begonias and African rain forest refuges : general aspects and recent progress.
In: der Maesen L.J.G., der Burgt X.M. and de Rooy J.M. (eds), The Biodiversity of African
Plants. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 602–611.
Tchouto P., Pouakouyou D. and Acworth J. 1998. Rapid Botanical Survey methodology. Technical report to DFID/Mount Cameroon Project. Limbe Botanic Garden and Herbarium.
Tchouto M.G.P. 2004. Plant diversity in a Central African rain forest: implifications for biodiversity conservation in Cameroon. Phd Thesis, Wageningen University.
Thomas D.W. and Thomas J.C. 1993. Botanical and ecological survey of the Campo-Ma’an area.
A report to the World Bank, Washington.
Van Gemerden B.S. and Hazeu G.W. 1999. Landscape ecolofical survey (1:100,000) of the BipindiAkom II-Lolodorf region, Southwest Cameroon. Tropenbos-Cameroon Document 1.
Vivien J. 1991. Faune du Cameroun. Guide des mammiféres et poisons. GICAM, Cameroun.
WCMC 1998. The World List of Threatened Trees. World Conservation Press, .
Webster R. and Oliver M.A. 2001. Geostatistics for Environmental Scientists. Wiley & sons,
Chichester.
White F. 1979. The Guineo-Congolian region and its relationships to other phytochoria. Bull. Jard.
Nat. Belg./Bull. Nat. Plant. Belg. 49: 11–55.
White F. 1983. The Vegetation of Africa. UNESCO, Paris.
Williams P.H. 1993. Measuring more of biodiversity for chosing conservation areas, using taxonomic relatedness. In: Moon T.-Y. (ed.), International Symposium on Biodiversity and Conservation. Korean Entomological Institute, Seoul, pp. 199–227.