19.06.2014 Views

mtwara reconnaissance project - Coastal Forests of Kenya and ...

mtwara reconnaissance project - Coastal Forests of Kenya and ...

mtwara reconnaissance project - Coastal Forests of Kenya and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

MTWARA RECONNAISSANCE PROJECT<br />

A Reconnaissance to Prioritise Biological Knowledge<br />

for Community Conservation Initiatives<br />

2005<br />

Giulia Wegner<br />

Kim M. Howell, Neil Burgess, Paul Rubio & Eibleis Fanning<br />

(Eds.)


Frontier-Tanzania<br />

Forest Environmental Research Programme<br />

Mtwara Reconnaissance Project<br />

A Reconnaissance to Prioritise Biological Knowledge for<br />

Community Conservation Initiatives<br />

2005<br />

Wegner, G.<br />

Howell, K. M., Burgess N., Fanning, E. & Rubio, P. (Eds.)<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund<br />

Frontier-Tanzania<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam<br />

Society for Environmental Exploration<br />

Dar es Salaam<br />

2005


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

THE CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM PARTNERSHIP FUND (CEPF)<br />

The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund is a joint initiative <strong>of</strong> Conservation International, the Global<br />

Environmental Facility, the Government <strong>of</strong> Japan, the MacArthur Foundation <strong>and</strong> the World Bank.<br />

The CEPF is designed to safeguard the world’s threatened biodiversity hotspots in developing<br />

countries by providing funding <strong>and</strong> technical support to civil society.<br />

THE UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM (UDSM)<br />

The University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam was established in July 1970 as a centre for learning <strong>and</strong> research in<br />

the arts <strong>and</strong> the physical, natural, earth, marine, medical <strong>and</strong> human sciences. The University is<br />

surveying <strong>and</strong> mapping the flora <strong>and</strong> fauna <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, <strong>and</strong> is conducting research into the<br />

maintenance <strong>and</strong> improvement <strong>of</strong> the environment <strong>and</strong> the sustainable exploitation <strong>of</strong> Tanzania’s<br />

natural resources.<br />

THE SOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLORATION (SEE)<br />

The Society for Environmental Exploration was formed in 1989 <strong>and</strong> is a non-pr<strong>of</strong>it making company<br />

limited by guarantee. The Society’s objectives are to advance field research into environmental<br />

issues, <strong>and</strong> implement practical <strong>project</strong>s contributing to the conservation <strong>of</strong> natural resources.<br />

Projects organised by the Society are joint initiatives developed in collaboration with national<br />

research agencies in co-operating countries.<br />

FRONTIER-TANZANIA FOREST RESEARCH PROGRAMME (FT FRP)<br />

The Society for Environmental Exploration <strong>and</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam have been<br />

conducting collaborative research into environmental issues since July 1989 under the title <strong>of</strong><br />

Frontier-Tanzania, one component <strong>of</strong> which is the Frontier-Tanzania Forest Research Programme<br />

(FT FRP). Biological field surveys were conducted in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania from 1989 to<br />

1994, in the East Usambara Mountains in collaboration with EUCAMP, Tanga, from 1995 to 2002,<br />

in the Udzungwa Mountains in collaboration with MEMA, Iringa, from 1999 to 2001, in the<br />

Mahenge Mountains in 2003, in Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve in collaboration with WWF-<br />

TPO, Dar es Salaam, in 2003, <strong>and</strong> in the Uluguru Mountains in collaboration with CARE-Tanzania,<br />

Dar es Salaam, in 2004. The Mtwara Reconnaissance Project is the most recent study, completed in<br />

September 2005 <strong>and</strong> funded by CEPF, Washington, USA.<br />

Department <strong>of</strong> Zoology & Wildlife Conservation<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam<br />

P.O. Box 35064, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania<br />

Tel: 255 (0)22 2410462<br />

E-mail: zoology@udsm.ac.tz<br />

Frontier Tanzania<br />

P.O. Box 9473, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania<br />

Tel: 255 (0)22 2780063<br />

E-mail: frontier@africaonline.co.tz<br />

Society for Environmental Exploration<br />

50-52 Rivington Street, London, UK<br />

Tel: +44 (0)20 76 13 24 22<br />

Fax: +44 (0)20 76 13 29 92<br />

E-mail: research2@frontier.ac.uk<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership<br />

1919 M Street, Washington, DC 20036, USA<br />

www.cepf.net<br />

ii


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Published by: the Society for Environmental Exploration<br />

Copyright: © Frontier-Tanzania 2005.<br />

All rights reserved. All material appearing in this publication is copyrighted <strong>and</strong> may be<br />

reproduced with permission. Any reproduction in full or in part <strong>of</strong> this publication must credit<br />

the Society for Environmental Exploration as the copyright owner.<br />

Front cover photograph: granite kopjes protruding from the plain in Ndechela Forest<br />

Reserve, Tanzania. Credit: all photographs in this report were taken by Frontier-Tanzania<br />

field research team.<br />

Report citation:<br />

Frontier-Tanzania (2005). Wegner, G., Howell, K. M., Burgess, N., Rubio, P. & Fanning, E.<br />

(Eds.). Mtwara Reconnaissance Project 2005. The Society for Environmental Exploration<br />

<strong>and</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam; the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund.<br />

Section citation:<br />

Wegner, G. (2005). Executive summary. In: Mtwara Reconnaissance Project 2005. The<br />

Society for Environmental Exploration <strong>and</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam; the Critical<br />

Ecosystems Partnership Fund.<br />

Wegner, G. <strong>and</strong> Cutts, M. J. (2005). Introduction. In: Mtwara Reconnaissance Project 2005.<br />

The Society for Environmental Exploration <strong>and</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam; the Critical<br />

Ecosystems Partnership Fund.<br />

Cutts, M. J. (2005). Study site. In: Mtwara Reconnaissance Project 2005. The Society for<br />

Environmental Exploration <strong>and</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam; the Critical Ecosystems<br />

Partnership Fund.<br />

Wegner, G. <strong>and</strong> Salter, R. (2005). Methods. In: Mtwara Reconnaissance Project 2005. The<br />

Society for Environmental Exploration <strong>and</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam; the Critical<br />

Ecosystems Partnership Fund.<br />

Sangu, G. <strong>and</strong> Wegner, G. (2005). Results <strong>and</strong> discussion <strong>of</strong> Flora for all forest reserves. In:<br />

Mtwara Reconnaissance Project 2005. The Society for Environmental Exploration <strong>and</strong> the<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam; the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund.<br />

Wegner, G. <strong>and</strong> Salter, R. (2005). Results <strong>and</strong> discussion <strong>of</strong> Fauna for all forest reserves. In:<br />

Mtwara Reconnaissance Project 2005. The Society for Environmental Exploration <strong>and</strong> the<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam; the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund.<br />

Sweeney, O. (2005). Results <strong>and</strong> discussion <strong>of</strong> disturbance for all forest reserves. In: Mtwara<br />

Reconnaissance Project 2005. The Society for Environmental Exploration <strong>and</strong> the University<br />

<strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam; the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund.<br />

Wegner, G. <strong>and</strong> Sweeney, O. (2005). Discussion <strong>and</strong> comparison for all forest reserves. In:<br />

Mtwara Reconnaissance Project 2005. The Society for Environmental Exploration <strong>and</strong> the<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam; the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund.<br />

iii


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Wegner, G. (2005). Conclusions <strong>and</strong> prioritisations. In: Mtwara Reconnaissance Project<br />

2005. The Society for Environmental Exploration <strong>and</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam; the<br />

Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund.<br />

Salter, R. <strong>and</strong> Sweeney, O. (2005). Conservation Recommendations. In: Mtwara<br />

Reconnaissance Project 2005. The Society for Environmental Exploration <strong>and</strong> the University<br />

<strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam; the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund.<br />

Editorial Comments: Mr. Michael Cutts, Mr. Paul Rubio, Miss Giulia Wegner, Miss Sarah<br />

Woodcock, SEE;<br />

Pr<strong>of</strong>. Kim H. Howell, UDSM; Dr. Neil Burgess, WWF-USA.<br />

iv


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................v<br />

2. LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................... viii<br />

3. LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................xi<br />

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. xii<br />

5. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .........................................................................................13<br />

6. REPORT STRUCTURE....................................................................................................................14<br />

7. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................15<br />

Overview <strong>of</strong> the study............................................................................................................................15<br />

Biodiversity value <strong>of</strong> the study area......................................................................................................16<br />

Human resources use <strong>and</strong> disturbance...................................................................................................19<br />

Conservation prioritisation ....................................................................................................................20<br />

Conservation recommendations ............................................................................................................21<br />

Summary <strong>of</strong> findings .............................................................................................................................22<br />

8. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................26<br />

Background to the biodiversity survey..................................................................................................26<br />

The biodiversity hotspot concept ..........................................................................................................26<br />

The Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania <strong>and</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> (EACF) hotspot ................26<br />

The <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic ....................................................................................................................27<br />

The <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest vegetation types......................................................................................................29<br />

Conservation initiatives in the EACF hotspot.......................................................................................31<br />

The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund’s investment in the EACF hotspot.....................................32<br />

Aims <strong>and</strong> objectives <strong>of</strong> the FT MRP biodiversity survey.....................................................................32<br />

Objective linkages to Frontier-Tanzania Forest Research Programme................................................33<br />

9. STUDY SITE.....................................................................................................................................35<br />

Location .................................................................................................................................................35<br />

Topography............................................................................................................................................35<br />

Geology <strong>and</strong> soil ....................................................................................................................................35<br />

Climate...................................................................................................................................................37<br />

Socio-economic characteristics .............................................................................................................37<br />

Conservation status <strong>of</strong> forest reserves in the Mtwara Region ..............................................................37<br />

10. SURVEY EFFORT ...........................................................................................................................39<br />

11. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................41<br />

Flora .......................................................................................................................................................41<br />

Data collection ...................................................................................................................................41<br />

Specimen collection <strong>and</strong> curation procedures...................................................................................42<br />

Species identification <strong>and</strong> repository ................................................................................................42<br />

Data analysis ......................................................................................................................................42<br />

Fauna......................................................................................................................................................44<br />

Data collection ...................................................................................................................................45<br />

Specimen collection <strong>and</strong> curation procedures...................................................................................48<br />

Species identification <strong>and</strong> repository ................................................................................................48<br />

Data analysis ......................................................................................................................................48<br />

Human resource-use <strong>and</strong> disturbance....................................................................................................49<br />

Data collection ...................................................................................................................................49<br />

Data analysis ......................................................................................................................................50<br />

Community days....................................................................................................................................51<br />

Structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions......................................................................................51<br />

Definition <strong>of</strong> key categories ..................................................................................................................52<br />

Mammals............................................................................................................................................52<br />

Growth habit – flora...........................................................................................................................52<br />

Forest dependency – flora <strong>and</strong> fauna.................................................................................................52<br />

Distribution – flora ............................................................................................................................53<br />

Endemism – flora <strong>and</strong> fauna..............................................................................................................53<br />

Extinction threat – flora <strong>and</strong> fauna....................................................................................................54<br />

Important Bird Areas (IBAs).............................................................................................................55<br />

Poles, timbers <strong>and</strong> large timbers........................................................................................................55<br />

12. KAMBONA FOREST RESERVE....................................................................................................56<br />

Methods..................................................................................................................................................57<br />

v


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Results....................................................................................................................................................57<br />

Flora ...................................................................................................................................................58<br />

Fauna..................................................................................................................................................61<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management.................................................................................63<br />

Discussion ..............................................................................................................................................67<br />

Flora ...................................................................................................................................................67<br />

Fauna..................................................................................................................................................67<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management.................................................................................70<br />

13. MAKONDE SCARP I PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE..............................................................71<br />

Methods..................................................................................................................................................72<br />

Results....................................................................................................................................................72<br />

Flora ...................................................................................................................................................73<br />

Fauna..................................................................................................................................................76<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management.................................................................................78<br />

Discussion ..............................................................................................................................................81<br />

Flora ...................................................................................................................................................81<br />

Fauna..................................................................................................................................................81<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management.................................................................................84<br />

14. MAKONDE SCARP II PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE ............................................................85<br />

Methods..................................................................................................................................................86<br />

Results....................................................................................................................................................86<br />

Flora ...................................................................................................................................................87<br />

Fauna..................................................................................................................................................91<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management.................................................................................93<br />

Discussion ..............................................................................................................................................96<br />

Flora ...................................................................................................................................................96<br />

Fauna..................................................................................................................................................97<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management.................................................................................99<br />

15. MKUNYA RIVER PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE .................................................................100<br />

Methods................................................................................................................................................101<br />

Results..................................................................................................................................................101<br />

Flora .................................................................................................................................................102<br />

Fauna................................................................................................................................................106<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management...............................................................................108<br />

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................112<br />

Flora .................................................................................................................................................112<br />

Fauna................................................................................................................................................112<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management...............................................................................115<br />

16. MTINIKO PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE ...............................................................................116<br />

Methods................................................................................................................................................117<br />

Results..................................................................................................................................................117<br />

Flora .................................................................................................................................................118<br />

Fauna................................................................................................................................................121<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management...............................................................................123<br />

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................126<br />

Flora .................................................................................................................................................126<br />

Fauna................................................................................................................................................127<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management...............................................................................129<br />

17. MTULI HINJU PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE .......................................................................130<br />

Methods................................................................................................................................................130<br />

Results..................................................................................................................................................131<br />

Flora .................................................................................................................................................132<br />

Fauna................................................................................................................................................135<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management...............................................................................136<br />

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................139<br />

Flora .................................................................................................................................................139<br />

Fauna................................................................................................................................................139<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management...............................................................................141<br />

18. MAKONDE SCARP III PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE .........................................................142<br />

Methods................................................................................................................................................143<br />

vi


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Results..................................................................................................................................................143<br />

Flora .................................................................................................................................................144<br />

Fauna................................................................................................................................................147<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management...............................................................................149<br />

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................151<br />

Flora .................................................................................................................................................151<br />

Fauna................................................................................................................................................152<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management...............................................................................154<br />

19. NDECHELA FOREST RESERVE.................................................................................................155<br />

Methods................................................................................................................................................156<br />

Results..................................................................................................................................................156<br />

Flora .................................................................................................................................................157<br />

Fauna................................................................................................................................................160<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management...............................................................................162<br />

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................165<br />

Flora .................................................................................................................................................165<br />

Fauna................................................................................................................................................166<br />

Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management...............................................................................168<br />

20. DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES .....................................170<br />

Flora .....................................................................................................................................................170<br />

Vegetation types ..............................................................................................................................170<br />

Species richness <strong>and</strong> diversity.........................................................................................................172<br />

Endemism ........................................................................................................................................174<br />

Extinction threat...............................................................................................................................174<br />

Fauna....................................................................................................................................................177<br />

Species richness ...............................................................................................................................177<br />

Forest dependence ...........................................................................................................................180<br />

Endemism ........................................................................................................................................183<br />

Extinction threat...............................................................................................................................185<br />

Important Bird Areas (IBA) ............................................................................................................188<br />

Range extensions <strong>and</strong> new records..................................................................................................189<br />

Human Resource-use <strong>and</strong> Local Management....................................................................................190<br />

21. CONCLUSION AND PRIORITISATION.....................................................................................196<br />

Priority sites for the conservation <strong>of</strong> biodiversity...............................................................................197<br />

Priority sites for the protection <strong>of</strong> environmental services.................................................................200<br />

22. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................202<br />

23. BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................205<br />

APPENDICES .........................................................................................................................................212<br />

Appendix 1 - List <strong>of</strong> taxonomists ........................................................................................................212<br />

Appendix 2 - GPS co-ordinates <strong>of</strong> base camps for all forest reserves ...............................................215<br />

Appendix 3 - GPS coordinates <strong>of</strong> vegetation plots for all forest reserves .........................................216<br />

Appendix 4 - Description <strong>of</strong> vegetation plots for all forest reserves..................................................220<br />

Appendix 5 - Description <strong>of</strong> regeneration plots for all forest reserves ..............................................229<br />

Appendix 6 - GPS co-ordinates <strong>and</strong> description <strong>of</strong> zoological trap sites for all forest reserves........233<br />

Appendix 7 - GPS coordinates <strong>and</strong> site description <strong>of</strong> transects for all forest reserves.....................234<br />

Appendix 8 - List <strong>of</strong> pitsawing sites that were recorded with GPS....................................................236<br />

Appendix 9 - List <strong>of</strong> plant species for all forest reserves ...................................................................237<br />

Appendix 10 - List <strong>of</strong> endemic & threatened plant species found in the Swahilian regional centre <strong>of</strong><br />

endemism sensu latu for all forest reserves ........................................................................................266<br />

Appendix 11 - Medicinal plant species, their growth habit, the ailments they are used to cure, the part<br />

<strong>of</strong> the plant that is utilised <strong>and</strong> the study area in which they were found to be used .........................269<br />

Appendix 12 - List <strong>of</strong> faunal species reported to be hunted in the forest reserves ............................271<br />

Appendix 13 - Mammal species list for all forest reserves.................................................................273<br />

Appendix 14 - Bird species list for all forest reserves........................................................................277<br />

Appendix 15 - Reptile species list for all forest reserves ...................................................................287<br />

Appendix 16 - Amphibian species list for all forest reserves.............................................................289<br />

Appendix 17 - Butterfly species list for all forest reserves.................................................................291<br />

Appendix 18 - Number <strong>of</strong> captures <strong>and</strong> recaptures <strong>and</strong> specimen record numbers <strong>of</strong> small mammals,<br />

amphibians <strong>and</strong> reptiles for all forest reserves....................................................................................296<br />

Appendix 19 - Structured interview sheet...........................................................................................301<br />

vii


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

2. LIST OF TABLES<br />

Table 7-a Total number <strong>and</strong> number <strong>of</strong> strictly endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened species for the flora <strong>and</strong> fauna<br />

<strong>of</strong> all forest reserves...........................................................................................................................17<br />

Table 8-a Frontier-Tanzania <strong>project</strong>s in the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> hotspot..........34<br />

Table 9-a Protection status <strong>and</strong> size <strong>of</strong> forest reserves studied.................................................................38<br />

Table 10-a Summary <strong>of</strong> survey effort .......................................................................................................40<br />

Table 12-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Kambona FR .........................................................58<br />

Table 12-b Species number <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the<br />

top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in Brachystegia forest in Kambona FR..........59<br />

Table 12-c Species number <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the<br />

top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy layer in Brachystegia forest in Kambona FR...59<br />

Table 12-d Species number <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the<br />

top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in Riverine forest in Kambona FR.................60<br />

Table 12-e Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Kambona FR ...................................61<br />

Table 12-f Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Kambona FR ......................62<br />

Table 12-g Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Kambona FR .....................................64<br />

Table 12-h Plant pecies utilised in Kambona FR as identified by field observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions. Local names, where known, are presented in Appendix 9.........65<br />

Table 13-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR .............................73<br />

Table 13-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in<br />

Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR .....................................................................74<br />

Table 13-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy layer in<br />

Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR .....................................................................74<br />

Table 13-d Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR.......76<br />

Table 13-e Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Makonde Scarp I proposed<br />

FR.......................................................................................................................................................77<br />

Table 13-f Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR ..........79<br />

Table 13-g Plant species utilised in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR as identified by field observations,<br />

structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions. Local names, where known, are presented in<br />

Appendix 9.........................................................................................................................................79<br />

Table 14-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR............................87<br />

Table 14-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in<br />

Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR....................................................................88<br />

Table 14-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy layer in<br />

Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR....................................................................88<br />

Table 14-d Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in Mixed<br />

scrub forest in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR ................................................................................89<br />

Table 14-e Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species in Thicket in Makonde Scarp II<br />

proposed FR.......................................................................................................................................89<br />

Table 14-f Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR ......91<br />

Table 14-g Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Makonde Scarp II proposed<br />

FR.......................................................................................................................................................92<br />

Table 14-h Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR........94<br />

Table 14-i Plant species utilised in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR as identified by field observations,<br />

structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions. Local names, where known, are presented in<br />

Appendix 9.........................................................................................................................................95<br />

Table 15-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Mkunya River proposed FR................................102<br />

Table 15-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in<br />

Brachystegia forest in Mkunya River proposed FR .......................................................................103<br />

viii


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 15-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, relative abundance, %<br />

relative abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub<br />

canopy layer in Brachystegia forest in Mkunya River proposed FR .............................................103<br />

Table 15-d Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, relative abundance, %<br />

relative abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the<br />

canopy layer in Riverine forest in Mkunya River proposed FR.....................................................104<br />

Table 15-e Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Mkunya River proposed FR .........105<br />

Table 15-f Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Mkunya River proposed FR<br />

..........................................................................................................................................................107<br />

Table 15-g Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Mkunya River proposed FR............109<br />

Table 15-h Plant species utilised in Mkunya River proposed FR as identified by field observations,<br />

structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions. Local names, where known, are presented in<br />

Appendix 9.......................................................................................................................................110<br />

Table 16-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Mtiniko proposed FR ..........................................118<br />

Table 16-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in Mixed<br />

dry forest in Mtiniko proposed FR..................................................................................................119<br />

Table 16-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy layer in<br />

Mixed dry forest in Mtiniko proposed FR ......................................................................................119<br />

Table 16-d Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Mtiniko proposed FR....................121<br />

Table 16-e Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Mtiniko proposed FR.......122<br />

Table 16-f Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Mtiniko proposed FR.......................124<br />

Table 16-g Plant species utilised in Mtiniko proposed FR as identified by field observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussion. Local names, where known, are presented in Appendix 9........125<br />

Table 17-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Mtuli Hinju Proposed FR....................................131<br />

Table 17-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in Legumedominated<br />

dry forest in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR..........................................................................132<br />

Table 17-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy layer in<br />

Legume-dominated dry forest in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR...........................................................133<br />

Table 17-d Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR .............134<br />

Table 17-e Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR.135<br />

Table 17-f Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR.................137<br />

Table 17-g Plant species utilised in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR as identified by field observations,<br />

structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussion. Local names, where known, are presented in Appendix<br />

9........................................................................................................................................................138<br />

Table 18-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Makonde Scarp III Proposed FR ........................144<br />

Table 18-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in<br />

Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR ................................................................145<br />

Table 18-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy layer in<br />

Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR ................................................................145<br />

Table 18-d Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR ..147<br />

Table 18-e Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Makonde Scarp III proposed<br />

FR.....................................................................................................................................................148<br />

Table 18-f Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR .....150<br />

Table 18-g Plant species utilised in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR as identified by field observations<br />

only. Local names, where known, are presented in Appendix 9...................................................151<br />

Table 19-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Ndechela FR........................................................157<br />

Table 19-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in Legumedominated<br />

dry forest in Ndechela FR .............................................................................................158<br />

Table 19-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance<br />

<strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy layer in<br />

Legume-dominated dry forest in Ndechela FR...............................................................................158<br />

Table 19-d Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Ndechela FR .................................160<br />

Table 19-e Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Ndechela FR ....................161<br />

ix


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 19-f Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Ndechela FR.....................................163<br />

Table 19-g List <strong>of</strong> plant species utilised in Ndechela FR as identified by field observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions. Local names, where known, are presented in Appendix 9......164<br />

Table 20-a Forest types, total number <strong>of</strong> floral species, diversity index, <strong>and</strong> number <strong>of</strong> endemic <strong>and</strong><br />

threatened floral species found in the eight forest reserves surveyed ............................................172<br />

Table 20-b Endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened floral species found in the eight forest reserves surveyed ...........175<br />

Table 20-c Total number <strong>of</strong> faunal species found in each forest reserve for all studied taxa <strong>and</strong>, in<br />

brackets, their percentage contribution to the number <strong>of</strong> species recorded as a whole in each forest<br />

reserve ..............................................................................................................................................177<br />

Table 20-d Forest dependent faunal species found in the eight forest reserves surveyed .....................182<br />

Table 20-e Endemic faunal species found in the eight forest reserves surveyed...................................185<br />

Table 20-f Threatened faunal species found in the eight forest reserves surveyed................................187<br />

Table 20-g Species found to occur outside their documented range. See Appendix 2 for the GPS coordinates<br />

<strong>of</strong> the base camps in each reserve....................................................................................190<br />

Table 20-h Percentage <strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> disturbance found in the eight forest reserves surveyed,<br />

recorded as occurring in 50m sections along transect lines............................................................190<br />

x


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

3. LIST OF FIGURES<br />

Figure 1 Map <strong>of</strong> the study region showing the forest reserves studied, major towns, roads <strong>and</strong> base<br />

camps .................................................................................................................................................36<br />

Figure 2 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Kambona FR ..............................................................................................................61<br />

Figure 3 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 22) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human disturbance<br />

along transects in Kambona FR.........................................................................................................64<br />

Figure 4 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR ..................................................................................75<br />

Figure 5 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 52) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human disturbance<br />

along transects in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR ............................................................................78<br />

Figure 6 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR.................................................................................91<br />

Figure 7 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 76) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human disturbance<br />

along transects in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR ...........................................................................94<br />

Figure 8 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Mkunya River proposed FR.....................................................................................105<br />

Figure 9 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 133) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Mkunya River proposed FR ...........................................................109<br />

Figure 10 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Mtiniko proposed FR ...............................................................................................120<br />

Figure 11 Percentage <strong>of</strong> strictly endemic <strong>and</strong> widespread faunal species in Mtiniko proposed FR .....123<br />

Figure 12 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 48) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Mtiniko proposed FR......................................................................124<br />

Figure 13 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR.........................................................................................134<br />

Figure 14 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 23) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR ...............................................................137<br />

Figure 15 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR..............................................................................146<br />

Figure 16 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 60) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR ....................................................149<br />

Figure 17 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Ndechela FR.............................................................................................................159<br />

Figure 18 Percentage <strong>of</strong> strictly endemic <strong>and</strong> widespread faunal species in Ndechela FR ...................162<br />

Figure 19 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 104) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Ndechela FR ...................................................................................163<br />

Figure 20 Graph showing the relationship between floral species richness <strong>and</strong> levels <strong>of</strong> disturbance .173<br />

Figure 21 Percentage <strong>of</strong> endemic (to the Swahilian Region sensu lato) <strong>and</strong> widespread floral species for<br />

the whole study site .........................................................................................................................174<br />

Figure 22 Percentage <strong>of</strong> endemic (to the Swahilian Region sensu lato) <strong>and</strong> threatened floral species for<br />

each forest reserve ...........................................................................................................................176<br />

Figure 23 Graph showing the relationship between faunal species richness <strong>and</strong> forest reserve size ....178<br />

Figure 24 Graph showing the relationship between faunal species richness <strong>and</strong> levels <strong>of</strong> disturbance178<br />

Figure 25 Percentage <strong>of</strong> strictly endemic <strong>and</strong> widespread faunal species for the whole study site ......183<br />

Figure 26 The East coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi) photographed in Mtiniko proposed FR..........187<br />

Figure 27 Number <strong>of</strong> strictly endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened faunal species for each forest reserve ..............188<br />

Figure 28 Cultivation on steep slopes in Makonde Scarp III Proposed FR ...........................................191<br />

Figure 29 Pit sawing site in Mtiniko proposed FR .................................................................................192<br />

Figure 30 Baboons killed by local farmers because raiding crops adjacent to Ndechela FR ................194<br />

xi


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />

This report is the culmination <strong>of</strong> the co-operation, hard work, advice <strong>and</strong> expertise <strong>of</strong> many<br />

people. In particular we would like to acknowledge <strong>and</strong> thank the following:<br />

MTWARA NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE<br />

Regional Natural Resource Advisor: Mr. Mshana<br />

TANDAHIMBA NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE<br />

Natural Resource Officer: Mr. R. H. Hamza<br />

Forest Officer: Mr. Mkumbi<br />

NEWALA NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE<br />

Acting District Natural Resources Officer: Mr. John Njogopa<br />

District Wildlife Officer: Mr. Liw<strong>and</strong>a<br />

NEWALA DISTRICT COUNCIL<br />

District Executive Director: Mr. Ndungwi<br />

MASASI NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE<br />

Senior Forest Officer: Mr. Barnabas T. Mdenye<br />

Assistant Forest Officer: Mr. Mlelwa<br />

TRAFFIC - EAST/SOUTHERN AFRICA<br />

Deputy Director: Mr. Simon Milledge<br />

SOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLORATION<br />

Managing Director:<br />

Ms. Eibleis Fanning<br />

Programme Manager (Development):<br />

Mr. Paul Rubio<br />

Programme Manager (Operations):<br />

Ms. Patricia Davis<br />

Programme Officer (Research <strong>and</strong> Development): Ms. Sarah Woodcock<br />

Programme Officer (Research <strong>and</strong> Development): Ms. Jenny Birch<br />

UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM<br />

FT Co-ordinators: Dr. Masoud Muruke <strong>and</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>. Kim M. Howell<br />

FRONTIER TANZANIA<br />

Country Co-ordinator:<br />

Project Co-ordinator:<br />

Principal Investigator:<br />

Research Officers:<br />

Botanist (independent)<br />

Ornithologist (independent):<br />

Field Assistants:<br />

Miss Freya St. John (2003-05) <strong>and</strong><br />

Mr. Mark Gillies (2005-06)<br />

Miss Giulia Wegner<br />

Miss Rosalind Salter<br />

Mr. Michael Cutts <strong>and</strong> Mr. Oisín Sweeney<br />

Mr. George Sangu<br />

Mr. Jacob Kiure<br />

Mr. Ramathan Rajabu, Mr. Hassani Abedi <strong>and</strong><br />

Mr. Mohammed Ali<br />

We are extremely grateful to all <strong>of</strong> the taxonomists listed in Appendix 1 for providing us with<br />

the identifications <strong>of</strong> the botanical <strong>and</strong> zoological specimens, to Mr. Matthew J. Grainger for<br />

compiling the ArcView map for this report, <strong>and</strong> to many people from the villages <strong>and</strong> towns<br />

<strong>of</strong> Masasi, Newala, Chidya, Chiwata, Chiwambo Juu, Nambunga, Chihanga, Chinunjila,<br />

Mpilipili <strong>and</strong> Chikwedu for all their help <strong>and</strong> assistance.<br />

xii


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

5. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS<br />

CMEAMF<br />

CEPF<br />

CI<br />

CITES<br />

DANIDA<br />

EACF<br />

EUBS<br />

FINNIDA<br />

FR<br />

FT FRP<br />

FTEA database<br />

GEF<br />

GJ<br />

GPS<br />

ICBP<br />

IUCN<br />

JICA<br />

LEAP<br />

m asl<br />

MAF<br />

MNRT<br />

FT-MRP<br />

PDF<br />

SEE<br />

SHCP<br />

TFCG<br />

TSD<br />

Tsh<br />

UCBS<br />

UNDP<br />

WB<br />

WCS<br />

WCST<br />

WWF-EARPO<br />

Conservation & Management <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc Mountain <strong>Forests</strong><br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund<br />

Conservation International<br />

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species <strong>of</strong> Wild<br />

Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora<br />

Danish International Development Agency<br />

Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

East Usambara Biodiversity Surveys<br />

Finnish International Development Agency<br />

Forest Reserve<br />

Frontier Tanzania Forest Research Programme<br />

Flora <strong>of</strong> Tropical East Africa database<br />

Global Environment Facility<br />

Government <strong>of</strong> Japan<br />

Global Positioning System<br />

International Council for Bird Preservation (now BirdLife<br />

International)<br />

The World Conservation Union<br />

Japan Official Development Assistance<br />

List <strong>of</strong> East African Plants<br />

Metres above sea level<br />

MacArthur Foundation<br />

Ministry <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources <strong>and</strong> Tourism<br />

Frontier Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project<br />

Project Development Fund<br />

Society for Environmental Exploration<br />

Southern Highl<strong>and</strong>s Conservation Project<br />

Tanzania Forest Conservation Group<br />

Terra Surveys Limited<br />

Tanzanian Shillings<br />

Uluguru Component Biodiversity Surveys<br />

United Nations Development Programme<br />

World Bank<br />

Wildlife Conservation Society<br />

Wildlife Conservation Society <strong>of</strong> Tanzania<br />

World Wide Fund for Nature - Eastern Africa Regional<br />

Programme Office<br />

13


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

6. REPORT STRUCTURE<br />

The report begins with an executive summary, which gives an outline <strong>of</strong> the overall findings<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Reconnaissance Project. The introduction contains background information on<br />

various aspects <strong>of</strong> the study, including an overview <strong>of</strong> the ‘Hotspot’ concept <strong>and</strong> a description<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (EACF) hotspot. The various forest types<br />

that form the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic are described with their characteristic floral species<br />

composition. Also addressed in this section is the history <strong>of</strong> conservation initiatives in the<br />

EACF hotspot from 1978 to the present day, as well as the role that the Critical Ecosystem<br />

Partnership Fund (CEPF), as a funding programme for biodiversity hotspots managed through<br />

Conservation International, plays in its conservation. Finally, the aims <strong>and</strong> objectives <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Mtwara Reconnaissance Project (FT-MRP) are outlined with reference to their contribution to<br />

overall conservation aims in the EACF hotspot, <strong>and</strong> to previous work conducted by Frontier-<br />

Tanzania’s Forest Research Programme (FT FRP) in the region.<br />

The next section includes information on the study site itself. The location <strong>of</strong> the study in<br />

relation to the districts that comprise the Mtwara Region is given <strong>and</strong> information on<br />

topography, geology, soils, climate <strong>and</strong> socio-economics is presented. The conservation status<br />

<strong>of</strong> the forests found in the region <strong>and</strong> more specifically <strong>of</strong> the reserves surveyed by this study<br />

is discussed, <strong>and</strong> the reasons behind the creation <strong>of</strong> the forest reserves are given. A map<br />

details the location <strong>of</strong> the forest reserves, major towns, roads <strong>and</strong> research camps.<br />

The methods used by the FT-MRP <strong>project</strong> when carrying out the research are described in the<br />

following section, including information on the length <strong>of</strong> time spent <strong>and</strong> a summary <strong>of</strong> the<br />

survey effort <strong>and</strong> sampling intensity carried out in each reserve. This section contains<br />

definitions <strong>of</strong> key terms <strong>and</strong> categories used in the study <strong>and</strong> describes the field methods <strong>and</strong><br />

analysis techniques utilised.<br />

The paper then moves on to describe each forest reserve separately (Kambona, Makonde<br />

Scarp I, Makonde Scarp II, Mkunya River, Mtiniko, Mtuli Hinju, Makonde Scarp III, <strong>and</strong><br />

Ndechela). For each, geographical information, historical background <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>-use are listed.<br />

Results <strong>and</strong> discussions are presented separately for Flora, Fauna, Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong><br />

Local Management.<br />

A separate section is devoted to summarise <strong>and</strong> further discuss results for all flora, fauna <strong>and</strong><br />

human resources-use from the eight forest reserves surveyed, <strong>and</strong> to compare their biological<br />

importance by assessing values <strong>of</strong> species richness, diversity, forest dependency, endemism<br />

<strong>and</strong> extinction threat. Important Bird Areas, species range extensions <strong>and</strong> new records from<br />

this study are also discussed here.<br />

In the final sections conclusions are made <strong>and</strong> conservation action for the reserves is<br />

prioritised, accompanied by a set <strong>of</strong> conservation recommendations applicable to all forest<br />

reserves studied.<br />

14


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

7. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />

G. Wegner<br />

The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is a joint initiative <strong>of</strong> Conservation<br />

International (CI), the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the Government <strong>of</strong> Japan (GJ),<br />

the MacArthur Foundation (MAF) <strong>and</strong> the World Bank (WB). The CEPF is designed to<br />

safeguard the world’s biologically richest <strong>and</strong> most threatened hotspots, by providing funding<br />

<strong>and</strong> technical support to civil society. The Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (EACF) region was approved for grant funding in July 2003 <strong>and</strong> active<br />

grant making started in January 2004.<br />

The Forgotten <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mtwara: A Reconnaissance to Prioritise Biological<br />

Knowledge for Community Conservation Initiatives <strong>project</strong> (abbreviated as the Frontier<br />

Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FTFT-MRP) is a CEPF funded initiative<br />

implemented by Frontier-Tanzania, a collaboration between the Society <strong>of</strong> Environmental<br />

Exploration <strong>and</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam, to perform biological research in the least<br />

studied <strong>of</strong> 160 eligible Key Biodiversity Sites <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot (strategic funding<br />

direction 3.2). This aim was pursued through pioneering baseline biodiversity surveys <strong>and</strong><br />

the compilation <strong>of</strong> indigenous knowledge (strategic funding direction 3.5) in eight relatively<br />

unexplored <strong>and</strong> understudied <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region (south-eastern Tanzania).<br />

These <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> partially comprise the CI-numbered Key Biodiversity Sites 81, 95 <strong>and</strong><br />

102. Research was conducted from April to August <strong>of</strong> 2005.<br />

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY<br />

The study sites are located in five districts <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region: Mtwara Rural (Mtiniko FR<br />

<strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju FR), Masasi (Makonde Scarp I FR, Kambona FR <strong>and</strong> Ndechela FR), Newala<br />

(Makonde Scarp II FR) <strong>and</strong> T<strong>and</strong>ahimba (Makonde Scarp III FR), within 10º 35' 25.9'' <strong>and</strong><br />

11º 06' 35.6'' latitude <strong>and</strong> 038º 09' 43.1'' <strong>and</strong> 039º 56' 14.7'' longitude. These areas were<br />

proposed between 1955 <strong>and</strong> 1977 as sites <strong>of</strong> protected forest reserve by the government, in<br />

recognition <strong>of</strong> their importance to the local villages <strong>and</strong> towns as water catchments, for<br />

prevention <strong>of</strong> soil erosion, <strong>and</strong> for provision <strong>of</strong> timber <strong>and</strong> non-timber forest resources. At<br />

present, two <strong>of</strong> the sites are gazetted as Forest Reserves (Kambona <strong>and</strong> Ndechela) <strong>and</strong> six are<br />

proposed Forest Reserves (Makonde Scarp I, Makonde Scarp II, Makonde Scarp III, Mtiniko,<br />

Mtuli Hinju <strong>and</strong> Mkunya River). The study sites have an elevation range between 120 <strong>and</strong><br />

720m asl <strong>and</strong> cover a total area <strong>of</strong> 17,812.2ha. Ndechela <strong>and</strong> Mkunya River are the largest <strong>of</strong><br />

the study sites, covering 6,216ha <strong>and</strong> 4,797.3ha each, followed by Mtiniko (1,736ha),<br />

Makonde Scarp I (1,748.3ha), II (1,554ha) <strong>and</strong> III (1,434.7ha), Mtuli Hinju (296.0ha) <strong>and</strong><br />

Kambona (29.9ha).<br />

Frontier-Tanzania conducted a baseline biological survey in the eight gazetted <strong>and</strong> proposed<br />

forest reserves between the 2 nd April <strong>and</strong> the 17 th July 2005. Data were collected through a<br />

variety <strong>of</strong> field methods. Floral surveys were conducted through vegetation plots <strong>and</strong><br />

opportunistic observation. For the fauna bucket pitfall traps <strong>and</strong> timed searches were utilised<br />

to capture amphibians <strong>and</strong> reptiles, <strong>and</strong> sherman traps to capture small mammals, along with<br />

opportunistic observation. Birds were surveyed using a combination <strong>of</strong> mist netting, timed<br />

searches <strong>and</strong> opportunistic observation, <strong>and</strong> butterflies were captured using canopy traps <strong>and</strong><br />

through sweep netting. Large mammal signs were recorded along 1km transects <strong>and</strong> through<br />

opportunistic observation. Forest disturbance was assessed through the use <strong>of</strong> 1km transects,<br />

along which the level <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting was recorded together with any<br />

other sign <strong>of</strong> disturbance.<br />

15


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

When identification in the field was not possible botanical specimens were collected for<br />

identification <strong>and</strong> repository at the Herbarium <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,<br />

<strong>and</strong> at Missouri Botanical Gardens, USA. Faunal specimens that could not be identified in the<br />

field were collected for identification <strong>and</strong> repository at the Department <strong>of</strong> Zoology <strong>and</strong><br />

Wildlife Conservation <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Butterfly specimens<br />

were sent for identification <strong>and</strong> repository to the Southern Highl<strong>and</strong>s Conservation<br />

Programme (SHCP) <strong>of</strong> the Wildlife Conservation Society, Tanzania. Faunal specimens were<br />

sent on loan for further identification to: the British Natural History Museum, UK; the<br />

California Academy <strong>of</strong> Sciences, USA; the Chicago Field Museum, USA; the Zimbabwe<br />

Natural History Museum, Zimbabwe; the Copenhagen Zoological Museum, Denmark.<br />

Data from this study are contributed to the Biodiversity Database <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es<br />

Salaam, Tanzania, the CEPF Conservation Outcomes Database, USA, <strong>and</strong> the TROPICOS<br />

database <strong>of</strong> the Missouri Botanical Gardens, USA. This report is made available through the<br />

CEPF web-site (www.cepf.net) <strong>and</strong> the Frontier web-site (www.frontier.ac.uk). The <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mtwara: a Kiswahili layman’s report (Frontier-Tanzania, 2005) was also produced<br />

during the FT MRP for distribution to district natural resources <strong>of</strong>fices, community groups<br />

<strong>and</strong> schools in close proximity to the forest reserves, to act as a tool for environmental<br />

education <strong>and</strong> awareness promotion.<br />

BIODIVERSITY VALUE OF THE STUDY AREA<br />

Findings from this study <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Masasi, Mtwara Rural, Newala <strong>and</strong><br />

T<strong>and</strong>ahimba districts, Mtwara Region, show that the eight forest reserves studied are <strong>of</strong><br />

important environmental value to the surrounding human population, providing it with<br />

precious water, abundant forest resources <strong>and</strong> protection from soil erosion. However, high<br />

population growth rate, accompanied by severe poverty <strong>and</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> environmental awareness,<br />

have resulted in the extensive conversion <strong>of</strong> these <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> into farml<strong>and</strong>, the<br />

unsustainable exploitation <strong>of</strong> their natural resources, <strong>and</strong> the conspicuous decrease <strong>of</strong> their<br />

biodiversity <strong>and</strong> endemism.<br />

As a consequence <strong>of</strong> the high degree <strong>of</strong> habitat destruction taking place in the area, only small<br />

patches <strong>of</strong> closed-canopy coastal forest remain in the study area. Various types <strong>of</strong> eastern<br />

African closed-canopy coastal forest were identified: Brachystegia forest, Legume-dominated<br />

dry forest, Mixed dry forest, Mixed scrub forest <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest. Brachystegia forest was<br />

the most dominant forest type, occurring extensively on the Makonde escarpment <strong>and</strong> in the<br />

adjacent Mkunya River proposed FR <strong>and</strong> Kambona FR. Legume-dominated dry forest, the<br />

most vulnerable plant community <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>, was found to be rarer, occurring in<br />

Mtuli Hinju proposed FR <strong>and</strong> Ndechela FR. A relatively extensive area <strong>of</strong> Mixed nonlegume-dominated<br />

dry forest was found in Mtiniko proposed FR, while in Makonde Scarp II<br />

proposed FR Mixed scrub forest constituted a seral stage that resulted from clearance <strong>of</strong><br />

climax forest <strong>and</strong> the practice <strong>of</strong> shifting cultivation. Finally, small patches <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest<br />

were recorded in Kambona FR <strong>and</strong> Mkunya River proposed FR.<br />

Overall, 265 floral species were detected. Of the 229 species identified to species level, 26<br />

(12%) were endemic to the Swahilian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism sensu lato, <strong>and</strong> 30 (13%)<br />

were listed as threatened or potentially threatened (Table 7-a). These figures are not<br />

negligible, especially when considering that most <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest endemics are also likely to<br />

face a degree <strong>of</strong> threat, <strong>and</strong> this highlights the importance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> studied as a<br />

habitat for the endemic plants found here.<br />

Plant species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato were Barleria holstii, Ozoroa<br />

obovata, Monodora gr<strong>and</strong>idieri, Cussonia zimmermannii, Bombax rhodognaphalon,<br />

Commiphora zanzibarica, Tetracera boiviniana, Cleistanthus schlechteri, Cynometra<br />

16


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

gillmanii, Scorodophloeus fischeri, Entada stuhlmannii, Erythrina schliebenii, Xylotheca<br />

tettensis, Gardenia transvenulosa, Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus, Rytigynia decussata,<br />

Mimusops schliebenii, Cola clavata, Sterculia appendiculata, Grewia forbesii, Grewia<br />

lepidopetala, Vitex mossambicensis, Vitex zanzibarensis, Rinorea elliptica <strong>and</strong> Aframomum<br />

orientale.<br />

Five <strong>of</strong> the species found are listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List (2004), including<br />

Cynometra gillmanii (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Critically Endangered), Gardenia transvenulosa <strong>and</strong> Vitex<br />

zanzibarensis (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable), Khaya anthotheca <strong>and</strong> Mesogyne insignis<br />

(Vulnerable). Another 22 plants are recognised to be potentially threatened by Gereau <strong>and</strong><br />

Luke (2006), including Cussonia zimmermannii, Bombax rhodognaphalon, Commiphora<br />

zanzibarica, Maytenus mossambicensis, Tetracera boiviniana, Drypetes natalensis, Cassia<br />

abbreviata, Scorodophloeus fischeri, Acacia nilotica, Entada stuhlmannii, Baphia punctulata,<br />

Craibia brevicaudata, Erythrina schliebenii, Millettia impressa, Xylotheca tettensis, Syzygium<br />

cordatum, Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus, Lasianthus kilim<strong>and</strong>scharicus, Rytigynia<br />

decussata, Cola clavata, Vitex mossambicensis, Rinorea angustifolia, Rinorea elliptica <strong>and</strong><br />

Aframomum orientale.<br />

Table 7-a Total number <strong>and</strong> number <strong>of</strong> strictly endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened species for the flora <strong>and</strong><br />

fauna <strong>of</strong> all forest reserves<br />

Taxa<br />

Total no.<br />

<strong>of</strong> species<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> strictly<br />

endemic species a<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> threatened<br />

species listed by<br />

IUCN b <strong>and</strong>/or<br />

CITES I c<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> potentially<br />

threatened species<br />

(flora only) d<br />

Flora 265 26 5 25<br />

Mammals 59 0 4 -<br />

Birds 159 1 2 -<br />

Reptiles 30 1 0 -<br />

Amphibians 21 1 1 -<br />

Butterflies 71 1 0 -<br />

Total 605 30 12 23<br />

a - Floral endemism refers to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000), whereas faunal<br />

endemism refers to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains, sometimes including other habitats in a few<br />

adjacent locations (e.g. Masasi District in S Tanzania, N Mozambique etc) (Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000)<br />

b - Species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable (VU) in the IUCN Red List<br />

(IUCN, 2004)<br />

c - Species listed in CITES Appendix I as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade<br />

(CITES, 2005)<br />

d - Plant species included in the list <strong>of</strong> Potentially Threatened Plants in the EACF Hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania<br />

(Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

In terms <strong>of</strong> fauna, the study yielded 340 species. Birds were the largest contributor to this<br />

figure with 159 species detected, followed by butterflies (71), mammals (59) <strong>and</strong> reptiles (30),<br />

while amphibians contributed the lowest number (21) (Table 7-a).<br />

The loss <strong>of</strong> suitable forest habitat explains the low proportion <strong>of</strong> forest dependent <strong>and</strong><br />

endemic faunal species in the study. In total, only four (less than 2%) <strong>of</strong> the animal species<br />

recorded are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains. The<br />

proportion <strong>of</strong> Red List <strong>and</strong> CITES threatened faunal species was also low, with seven species<br />

constituting 2% <strong>of</strong> all fauna recorded. Therefore, within the context <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot <strong>and</strong><br />

on a global level these forests are <strong>of</strong> modest faunal biological importance.<br />

17


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

The largest proportion <strong>of</strong> forest dependent species found were butterflies (9): the B<strong>and</strong>ed<br />

evening brown (Gnophodes betsimena diversa), the Silver striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti<br />

lasti), the Flame bordered charaxes (C. protoclea azota), Cymothoe herminia, the Gold<br />

b<strong>and</strong>ed forester (Euphaedra neophron littoralis), the Forest queen (Euxanthe wakefieldi), a<br />

Glider species (Harma theobene blassi), Bematistes epaea epitellus <strong>and</strong> the Common sailor<br />

(Neptis alta). Five mammals <strong>and</strong> seven birds complete the list, including the Moloney’s<br />

monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis sub sp.), the Red-bellied coastal squirrel (Paraxerus palliates),<br />

the Blue duiker (Cephalophus monticola), the Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis), the<br />

Suni (Neotragus moschatus), the African crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus), the<br />

African broadbill (Smithornis capensis), the Yellow streaked greenbul (Phyllastrephus<br />

flavostriatus), the Fischer’s greenbul (P. fischeri), the East coast akalat (Sheppardia<br />

gunningi), the Blue-mantled crested flycatcher (Trochocercus cyanomelas) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Reichenow’s batis (Batis reichenowi).<br />

The endemic species found were one bird, one reptile, one amphibian <strong>and</strong> one butterfly. The<br />

Reichenow’s batis (Batis reichenowi) is strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>, representing<br />

the only example <strong>of</strong> such strict endemism for this study. The Spotted flat lizard (Platysaurus<br />

maculatus) is only found in areas <strong>of</strong> suitable habitat in northern Mozambique <strong>and</strong> the Masasi<br />

district in south-eastern Tanzania. The ‘true’ toad Mertensophryne micranotis is<br />

geographically restricted to the Eastern Arc lowl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic <strong>of</strong> southeastern<br />

<strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> eastern Tanzania. The Silver striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti) is<br />

restricted in its habitat to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania. None <strong>of</strong> the mammal species recorded by this study are<br />

strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains. However, it is likely<br />

that shrews (Crocidura sp.) collected from this survey will yield interesting results once<br />

taxonomic verification is accomplished. Two <strong>of</strong> the mammals <strong>and</strong> one <strong>of</strong> the birds found, the<br />

Small-eared bushbaby (Otolemur garnetti - CITES II), the Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei<br />

- near threatened) <strong>and</strong> the East coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi - Vulnerable) are not strictly<br />

endemic, but are rare species with restricted distribution in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> a few other<br />

habitats in coastal <strong>and</strong> south-eastern Africa. Despite the relatively high richness <strong>of</strong> the<br />

butterfly communities observed, none <strong>of</strong> the studied sites were found to be characterised by<br />

the unique butterfly fauna found in other <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania.<br />

Threatened faunal species included four large mammals, two birds <strong>and</strong> one amphibian. The<br />

Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei - Vulnerable) <strong>and</strong> the Dwarf squeaker<br />

(Arthroleptis xenodactyloides - Vulnerable) were the most frequently recorded. The Elephant<br />

(Loxodonta africana - Vulnerable <strong>and</strong> CITES I) was only recorded from an old footprint <strong>and</strong><br />

the extent <strong>of</strong> its occurrence in the studied area needs further clarification. The Leopard<br />

(Panthera pardus), a species listed on CITES Appendix I (2005) as threatened with extinction<br />

<strong>and</strong> therefore excluded from international trade, was reported to inhabit sheltered areas <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Makonde Scarp. The East coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi - Vulnerable) was only recorded<br />

in Mtiniko proposed FR. The Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus - CITES I), a species<br />

threatened with extinction if trade is not subject to strict regulation, was observed on the cliffs<br />

<strong>of</strong> Makonde Scarp II proposed FR <strong>and</strong> in Mtiniko proposed FR. Species Red listed with a<br />

lower degree <strong>of</strong> threat were also recorded in various reserves. These included one near<br />

threatened mammal species - the Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei); seven conservation<br />

dependent mammal species - the Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), the Buffalo (Syncerus<br />

caffer), the Greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), the Natal duiker (Cephalophus<br />

natalensis), the Sable antelope (Hippotragus niger), the Suni (Neotragus moschatus) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus); <strong>and</strong> three near threatened bird species - the Southern<br />

B<strong>and</strong>ed snake eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus), a Lovebird (Agapornis lilianae), <strong>and</strong> the Greycrested<br />

helmet shrike (Prionops poliolophus).<br />

18


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Our findings seem to confirm the designations <strong>of</strong> five <strong>of</strong> the forest reserves studied (Mtiniko,<br />

Mkunya River, <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III proposed FRs) as Important Bird Areas <strong>of</strong><br />

Tanzania (IBA TZ052 <strong>and</strong> IBA TZ053). Moreover, if the Reichenow’s batis (Batis<br />

reichenowi - <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> Endemic) recorded in Mtiniko proposed FR was to be confirmed<br />

as a separate species from the Forest batis (B. mixta), then the IBA TZ052 would be entitled<br />

to become part <strong>of</strong> a Secondary or Full Endemic Bird Area (EBA).<br />

The study also revealed some interesting range extensions, including the Lesser bushbaby<br />

(Galago moholi – CITES II), the Grey-crested helmet shrike (Prionops poliolophus - near<br />

threatened), the Red-headed bluebill (Spermophaga ruficapilla) <strong>and</strong> one sub-species <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Savanna vine snake (Thelotornis capensis oatesi). Finally, some <strong>of</strong> the widespread <strong>and</strong><br />

common bird species observed are likely to constitute first records for the studied area, among<br />

which the Verreaux’s eagle (Aquila verreauxii - CITES II), the White-naped raven (Corvus<br />

albicollis), the White-browed sparrow-weaver (Plocepasser mahali), the Black saw-wing<br />

(Psalidoprocne holomelas), the Lesser seedcracker (Pyrenestes minor), the African wood owl<br />

(Strix woodfordii - CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the Red-faced crombec (Sylvietta whytii).<br />

HUMAN RESOURCES USE AND DISTURBANCE<br />

The major threats to the Mtwara <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> are high population growth rate, severe<br />

poverty, <strong>and</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> environmental awareness. These factors result in the extensive<br />

conversion <strong>of</strong> the forest into farml<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> the unsustainable exploitation <strong>of</strong> its resources.<br />

Signs <strong>of</strong> disturbance included agricultural encroachment, timber extraction, fire damage,<br />

hunting, bark ringing <strong>and</strong> paths. However, different types <strong>of</strong> disturbance affect the forest<br />

reserves with varying degrees. Conversion to agriculture was the most destructive form <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance recorded. The reserves most affected by agricultural encroachment are Makonde<br />

Scarp I (29%), II (42%) <strong>and</strong> III (43%) proposed FRs. Encroachment into reserves occurs more<br />

extensively where the forest boundaries are not clearly demarcated.<br />

Levels <strong>of</strong> pole cutting were found to be high in comparison to elsewhere in the EACF hotspot.<br />

Kambona <strong>and</strong> Mkunya River FRs are the most severely affected by pole <strong>and</strong> timber cutting<br />

(>90% <strong>of</strong> 50m sections), followed by Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III (78-87% <strong>of</strong> sections). In all<br />

studied sites, poles <strong>and</strong> timber extraction is selective <strong>and</strong> therefore ecologically destructive. In<br />

addition, pit sawing was found to be widespread, with five <strong>of</strong> the eight study areas containing<br />

at least one recently active <strong>and</strong> several old pit sawing sites. The degree <strong>of</strong> pole <strong>and</strong> timber<br />

cutting was observed to be linked to the high population growth rate <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region,<br />

implying that levels <strong>of</strong> extraction tend to increase.<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the firewood collected from the eight forest reserves was said to be obtained from<br />

dead trees <strong>and</strong> branches. Four <strong>of</strong> the eight reserves were found to contain ringed 1 <strong>and</strong> hence<br />

dead trees, with Kambona having the highest intensity <strong>of</strong> bark ringing (9% <strong>of</strong> sections).<br />

However, as population grows the dem<strong>and</strong> for fuelwood <strong>and</strong> bark may exceed the trees<br />

regeneration capacity. Further research to determine the sustainable levels <strong>of</strong> timber, firewood<br />

<strong>and</strong> bark extraction in the studied area would be needed.<br />

Burning was another particularly destructive form <strong>of</strong> disturbance observed. The forest<br />

reserves most affected are Ndechela FR <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> II proposed FRs (≥70% <strong>of</strong><br />

sections).<br />

1 Bark ringing is the removal <strong>of</strong> a circular section <strong>of</strong> the bark from a tree, either for medicinal use or to kill the tree<br />

<strong>and</strong> make it available as fire wood. This practice causes the disruption <strong>of</strong> the phloem <strong>and</strong>/or the xylem vessels<br />

contained in the outer tissues <strong>of</strong> the trunk, resulting in the blockage <strong>of</strong> photosynthates <strong>and</strong>/or water translocation<br />

<strong>and</strong> the death <strong>of</strong> the tree (Bailey, 1999).<br />

19


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Hunting takes place in most <strong>of</strong> the studied areas to different degrees. Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju<br />

proposed FRs had the highest density <strong>of</strong> traps recorded (in 5% <strong>and</strong> 3% <strong>of</strong> 50m sections<br />

respectively). Hunting in Kambona, Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> Ndechela involves the Chequered<br />

elephant shrews (Rhynchocyon cirnei), a species listed as Vulnerable, <strong>and</strong> the Natal duiker<br />

(Cephalophus natalensis) <strong>and</strong> the Sable antelope (Hippotragus niger), two species listed as<br />

conservation dependent in the IUCN Red List (2004).<br />

The study found that all areas suffer from the lack <strong>of</strong> a clearly demarcated boundary.<br />

Similarly, local management initiatives range from absent to ineffective among the forest<br />

reserves. Mtuli Hinju proposed FR is the only reserve that currently has an Environmental<br />

Committee to patrol the reserve boundaries. In those reserves where management has been<br />

interrupted or has not been initiated yet the reasons appeared to be tw<strong>of</strong>old: lack <strong>of</strong> will <strong>and</strong>/or<br />

lack <strong>of</strong> funds. The lack <strong>of</strong> enforcement <strong>of</strong> national forest legislation in the study site <strong>and</strong><br />

absence <strong>of</strong> local by-laws constitute another problem that hampers the management <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong><br />

the reserves.<br />

CONSERVATION PRIORITISATION<br />

Among the studied reserves, the most important in terms <strong>of</strong> biological value are Mtiniko<br />

Proposed FR <strong>and</strong> Ndechela FR.<br />

Mtiniko proposed FR is covered by Mixed dry forest, a forest type unique to the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

Forest Mosaic. It is one <strong>of</strong> the least disturbed <strong>and</strong> richest with floral species, <strong>and</strong> contains<br />

among the highest numbers <strong>of</strong> forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened faunal species for<br />

this study. Mtiniko proposed FR is certainly the most important reserve in terms <strong>of</strong> avifauna,<br />

<strong>and</strong> it has been previously classified as an Important Bird Area (TZ052 - category A1). It<br />

hosts the Reichenow’s batis (Batis reichenowi - <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> Endemic) the East coast<br />

akalat (Sheppardia gunningi - Vulnerable), <strong>and</strong> the Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus -<br />

CITES I), as well as the highest number <strong>of</strong> forest dependent bird species, including the<br />

African broadbill (Smithornis capensis), the Yellow streaked greenbul (Phyllastrephus<br />

flavostriatus), the Blue-mantled crested flycatcher (Trochocercus cyanomelas) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Fischer’s greenbul (Phyllastrephus fischeri). Mtiniko proposed FR should be immediately<br />

gazetted in order to protect the Mixed dry forest <strong>and</strong> the endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened species it<br />

hosts.<br />

Ndechela FR is comprised <strong>of</strong> Legume-dominated dry forest, which is the most vulnerable<br />

plant community <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic, <strong>and</strong> contains various important plant species<br />

such as Gardenia transvenulosa (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable). Ndechela FR is also singular for<br />

the presence <strong>of</strong> granite kopjes dramatically protruding from the plain <strong>and</strong> reaching up to<br />

800m, which contribute to the scenic beauty <strong>of</strong> this site <strong>and</strong> create a variety <strong>of</strong> rocky<br />

microhabitats for a rich reptile community. The Spotted flat lizard (Platysaurus maculatus)<br />

found here is endemic to northern Mozambique <strong>and</strong> the Masasi district in south-eastern<br />

Tanzania. Due to its close proximity to the Lukwika-Lumesule Game Reserve, this reserve<br />

contains the highest number <strong>of</strong> large mammal species recorded, as well as the larger<br />

proportion <strong>of</strong> threatened mammal species. These include the Elephant (Loxodonta africana -<br />

Vulnerable), the Lion (Panthera leo – Vulnerable) <strong>and</strong> the Chequered elephant shrews<br />

(Rhynchocyon cirnei - Vulnerable), as well as two species (Loxodonta africana <strong>and</strong> Panthera<br />

pardus) listed on CITES Appendix I (2005). It would be highly beneficial to designate this<br />

area as a National Park incorporating Ndechela FR, the Lukwika-Lumesule Game Reserve<br />

<strong>and</strong> possibly a reserve across the river in Mozambique.<br />

The topographic variation <strong>of</strong> the Makonde escarpment creates an array <strong>of</strong> habitats <strong>and</strong> nesting<br />

sites that promote a rich bird community. Together with Mkunya River proposed FR, these<br />

reserves have been classified as an Important Bird Area (TZ053 - category A1). The Leopard<br />

20


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

(Panthera pardus) <strong>and</strong> the Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), species listed on CITES<br />

Appendix I (2005), were observed to occur on the Makonde scarp in sheltered areas near the<br />

cliff face. Other important species found here are the ‘true’ toad Mertensophryne micranotis<br />

<strong>and</strong> the Silver striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti), which are both strictly endemic to the<br />

lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania. Highly<br />

threatened plant species are also present here, such as Cynometra gillmanii (Endemic <strong>and</strong><br />

Critically Endangered), Gardenia transvenulosa <strong>and</strong> Vitex zanzibarensis (Endemic <strong>and</strong><br />

Vulnerable). It would be advisable for the whole <strong>of</strong> the Makonde Scarp to be protected as one<br />

large reserve, including Mkunya River, Makonde scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III, the management <strong>of</strong> the<br />

whole area as a continuous conservation site being potentially more effective.<br />

The importance <strong>of</strong> Mtuli Hinju resides in its Legume-dominated forest <strong>and</strong> wetl<strong>and</strong>. In this<br />

reserve encroachment is among the lowest <strong>and</strong> a species rich <strong>and</strong> stable plant community has<br />

therefore developed, with important species such as Mesogyne insignis (Vulnerable),<br />

Tetracera boiviniana, Erythrina schliebenii, Xylotheca tettensis, Rytigynia decussata <strong>and</strong><br />

Cola clavata (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Potentially Threatened). Nevertheless, the small size <strong>of</strong> this<br />

reserve constitutes a threat to the continuity <strong>of</strong> its vulnerable forest type should disturbance<br />

ensue.<br />

Kambona FR is threatened by its small size <strong>and</strong> severe timber extraction that has noticeably<br />

reduced the floral species richness. Nevertheless, this reserve harbours some important plant<br />

<strong>and</strong> animal species, such as Khaya anthotheca (Vulnerable), Tetracera boiviniana, Erythrina<br />

schliebenii <strong>and</strong> Rytigynia decussata (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Potentially Threatened), <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Chequered Elephant Shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei - Vulnerable).<br />

Beyond their biological value, all <strong>of</strong> the forest reserves surveyed are important because they<br />

provide the local communities with water sources, protection from soil erosion <strong>and</strong> natural<br />

resources. Priority sites for the conservation <strong>of</strong> water sources include Mkunya River,<br />

Makonde Scarp III <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju proposed FRs <strong>and</strong> Kambona FR. Soil erosion <strong>and</strong> the<br />

l<strong>and</strong>slides <strong>and</strong> floods it can cause at the foot <strong>of</strong> the Makonde Scarp are a significant threat to<br />

the livelihoods <strong>of</strong> thous<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> people. The protection <strong>of</strong> the forests located along the<br />

escarpment (Mkunya River, Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III) is therefore a priority.<br />

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS<br />

The conservation approach used should concentrate on developing an effective management<br />

plan for the safeguard <strong>of</strong> the reserves <strong>and</strong> sustainable use <strong>of</strong> resources, <strong>and</strong> on promoting<br />

awareness <strong>of</strong> the values <strong>of</strong> the forests studied, including their provision <strong>of</strong> natural resources,<br />

their protection <strong>of</strong> water sources <strong>and</strong> soil, <strong>and</strong> their unique biodiversity. Various suggestions<br />

to improve conservation practice in the studied reserves are given: gazettement, boundary<br />

demarcation, management capacity building, compensation to people who have been<br />

relocated outside the reserves, establishment <strong>of</strong> environmental committees, patrols,<br />

enforcement <strong>of</strong> fines for illegal practices, environmental awareness promotion, tree planting<br />

inside <strong>and</strong> in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the reserves, encouragement <strong>of</strong> sustainable resources extraction,<br />

investment in rural development <strong>and</strong> development <strong>of</strong> affordable alternative sources <strong>of</strong> energy.<br />

The <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> are part <strong>of</strong> a mosaic system <strong>and</strong> rely on the stability <strong>of</strong> the whole system<br />

for the continuity <strong>of</strong> their floral <strong>and</strong> faunal communities. Adequate conservation measures<br />

need therefore to be taken in as many <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> as possible, <strong>and</strong> efforts should be<br />

made to restore <strong>and</strong> increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches.<br />

However, no conservation plan can be successful if a holistic approach aiming at reducing<br />

poverty <strong>and</strong> limiting population growth in the Mtwara Region is not developed. Only by<br />

complementing major efforts to improve the life st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>of</strong> the local communities can<br />

21


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

national law enforcement <strong>and</strong> environmental awareness promotion succeed in preserving the<br />

highly threatened <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region for the present <strong>and</strong> future<br />

generations. Considering that the majority <strong>of</strong> the people in the Mtwara Region heavily depend<br />

on natural resources from the forest for their livelihoods, improved forest management <strong>and</strong><br />

sustainable utilisation <strong>of</strong> natural resources constitute two fundamental elements <strong>of</strong> any<br />

strategy aiming at the mitigation <strong>of</strong> poverty.<br />

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS<br />

What follows is a brief summary <strong>of</strong> the findings for each forest reserve separately, including<br />

the vegetation types that cover them, the most important plant <strong>and</strong> animal species found, the<br />

main threats that affect them <strong>and</strong> their conservation priorities.<br />

FOREST RESERVE: KAMBONA FOREST RESERVE<br />

Vegetation types: Eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest<br />

Important plant species: Barleria holstii, Cleistanthus schlechteri, Mimusops schliebenii<br />

<strong>and</strong> Grewia lepidopetala are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato; Khaya anthotheca is<br />

threatened; Drypetes natalensis, Baphia punctulata, Craibia brevicaudata <strong>and</strong> Syzygium<br />

cordatum are potentially threatened; Tetracera boiviniana, Erythrina schliebenii <strong>and</strong><br />

Rytigynia decussata are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> potentially<br />

threatened.<br />

Important animal species: Otolemur garnetti has a restricted distribution in the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> a few other habitats in coastal eastern Africa; Beamys hindei has a restricted<br />

distribution in a few forest types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania, including the Eastern Arc Mountains<br />

<strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>; Rhynchocyon cirnei <strong>and</strong> Arthroleptis xenodactyloides are threatened.<br />

Main threats: Commercial timber extraction, pole cutting <strong>and</strong> hunting. The small size<br />

(29.9ha) <strong>of</strong> the reserve <strong>and</strong> the large surrounding population utilising it.<br />

Conservation priorities:<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> water source<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Khaya anthotheca<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Rhynchocyon cirnei <strong>and</strong> Arthroleptis xenodactyloides<br />

FOREST RESERVE: MAKONDE SCARP I PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE<br />

Vegetation type: Eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest<br />

Important plant species: Ozoroa obovata, Mimusops schliebenii <strong>and</strong> Sterculia<br />

appendiculata are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato; Drypetes natalensis <strong>and</strong><br />

Millettia impressa are potentially threatened; Vitex zanzibarensis is endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened;<br />

Commiphora zanzibarica, Erythrina schliebenii, Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus, Rytigynia<br />

decussata <strong>and</strong> Vitex mossambicensis are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong><br />

potentially threatened.<br />

Important animal species: Otolemur garnetti has a restricted distribution in the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> a few other habitats in coastal eastern Africa; Beamys hindei has a restricted<br />

distribution in a few forest types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania, including the Eastern Arc Mountains<br />

<strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>; Arthroleptis xenodactyloides is threatened; the record <strong>of</strong> Galago moholi<br />

represents a range extension for this species.<br />

Main threats: Encroachment <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong>, pole cutting <strong>and</strong> hunting.<br />

Conservation priorities:<br />

• Prevention <strong>of</strong> soil erosion<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Vitex zanzibarensis <strong>and</strong> Arthroleptis xenodactyloides<br />

• Protection as an Important Bird Area<br />

22


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

FOREST RESERVE: MAKONDE SCARP II PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE<br />

Vegetation type: Eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest, Mixed scrub forest <strong>and</strong><br />

Thicket.<br />

Important plant species: Monodora gr<strong>and</strong>idieri <strong>and</strong> Grewia lepidopetala are endemic to the<br />

Swahilian region sensu lato; Monanthotaxis trichocarpa, Cassia abbreviata, Craibia<br />

brevicaudata <strong>and</strong> Millettia impressa are potentially threatened; Gardenia transvenulosa <strong>and</strong><br />

Vitex zanzibarensis are endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened; Monanthotaxis fornicata, Tetracera<br />

boiviniana <strong>and</strong> Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu<br />

lato <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened.<br />

Important animal species: Mertensophryne micranotis is endemic to the Eastern Arc<br />

lowl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic <strong>of</strong> south-eastern <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> eastern Tanzania;<br />

Panthera pardus <strong>and</strong> Falco peregrinus are listed in CITES Appendix 1; the record <strong>of</strong><br />

Thelotornis capensis oatesi represents a range extension for this species.<br />

Main threats: Encroachment <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong>, pole cutting, bark ringing for beehives, <strong>and</strong><br />

hunting.<br />

Conservation priorities:<br />

• Prevention <strong>of</strong> soil erosion<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Gardenia transvenulosa <strong>and</strong> Vitex zanzibarensis<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Panthera pardus, Falco peregrinus <strong>and</strong> Mertensophryne micranotis<br />

• Protection as an Important Bird Area<br />

FOREST RESERVE: MKUNYA RIVER PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE<br />

Vegetation type: Eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest<br />

Important plant species: Cleistanthus schlechteri, Mimusops schliebenii, Sterculia<br />

appendiculata <strong>and</strong> Grewia forbesii are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato; Mesogyne<br />

insignis is threatened; Drypetes natalensis <strong>and</strong> Millettia impressa are potentially threatened;<br />

Cynometra gillmanii is endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened; Commiphora zanzibarica, Scorodophloeus<br />

fischeri, Erythrina schliebenii, Xylotheca tettensis, Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus <strong>and</strong><br />

Rytigynia decussata are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> potentially<br />

threatened.<br />

Important animal species: Charaxes lasti lasti is endemic to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania; Beamys hindei has a<br />

restricted distribution in a few forest types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania, including the Eastern Arc<br />

Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>; Rhynchocyon cirnei <strong>and</strong> Arthroleptis xenodactyloides are<br />

threatened; the record <strong>of</strong> Prionops poliolophus <strong>and</strong> Spermophaga ruficapilla represents a<br />

range extension for these species.<br />

Main threats: Encroachment <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong>, pole cutting, pit sawing, hunting <strong>and</strong><br />

agriculture.<br />

Conservation priorities:<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> water source<br />

• Prevention <strong>of</strong> soil erosion<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Cynometra gillmanii <strong>and</strong> Mesogyne insignis<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Rhynchocyon cirnei <strong>and</strong> Arthroleptis xenodactyloides<br />

• Protection as an Important Bird Area<br />

23


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

FOREST RESERVE: MTINIKO PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE<br />

Vegetation type: Eastern African coastal Mixed dry forest<br />

Important plant species: Monodora gr<strong>and</strong>idieri, Cleistanthus schlechteri, Grewia<br />

lepidopetala <strong>and</strong> Rinorea elliptica are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato; Mesogyne<br />

insignis is threatened; Drypetes natalensis, Craibia brevicaudata <strong>and</strong> Rinorea angustifolia are<br />

potentially threatened; Bombax rhodognaphalon, Tetracera boiviniana, Erythrina schliebenii,<br />

Rytigynia decussata, Cola clavata <strong>and</strong> Vitex mossambicensis are endemic to the Swahilian<br />

region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened.<br />

Important animal species: Batis reichenowi is endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>; Charaxes<br />

lasti lasti is endemic to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania; Beamys hindei has a restricted distribution in a few forest<br />

types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania, including the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>;<br />

Rhynchocyon cirnei is threatened; Sheppardia gunningi is threatened <strong>and</strong> restricted in<br />

distribution to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> a few other forest types in Tanzania, <strong>Kenya</strong>, Malawi,<br />

<strong>and</strong> coastal Mozambique; Falco peregrinus is listed in CITES Appendix 1; the record <strong>of</strong><br />

Galago moholi represents a range extension for this species.<br />

Main threats: Timber <strong>and</strong> pole cutting, pit-sawing <strong>and</strong> hunting.<br />

Conservation priorities:<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> important remnants <strong>of</strong> Mixed dry forest<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Mesogyne insignis<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Rhynchocyon cirnei, Sheppardia gunningi, Batis reichenowi <strong>and</strong><br />

Falco peregrinus<br />

• Protection as an Important Bird Area<br />

FOREST RESERVE: MTULI HINJU PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE<br />

Vegetation type: Eastern African coastal Legume-dominated dry forest<br />

Important plant species: Cleistanthus schlechteri <strong>and</strong> Grewia lepidopetala are endemic to<br />

the Swahilian region sensu lato; Mesogyne insignis is threatened; Maytenus mossambicensis,<br />

Cassia abbreviata, Acacia nilotica, Craibia brevicaudata <strong>and</strong> Lasianthus kilim<strong>and</strong>scharicus<br />

are potentially threatened; Tetracera boiviniana, Erythrina schliebenii, Xylotheca tettensis,<br />

Rytigynia decussata <strong>and</strong> Cola clavata are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong><br />

potentially threatened.<br />

Important animal species: Charaxes lasti lasti is endemic to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania; Rhynchocyon cirnei is<br />

threatened; the record <strong>of</strong> Galago moholi represents a range extension for this species.<br />

Main threats: Pole cutting <strong>and</strong> pit sawing; the small size (296ha) <strong>of</strong> the reserve <strong>and</strong> the large<br />

surrounding population utilising it.<br />

Conservation priorities:<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> water source<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Legume-dominated dry forest<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Mesogyne insignis<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Rhynchocyon cirnei <strong>and</strong> Charaxes lasti lasti<br />

• Protection as an important wetl<strong>and</strong> for birds <strong>and</strong> amphibians<br />

24


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

FOREST RESERVE: MAKONDE SCARP III PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE<br />

Vegetation type: Eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong> Thicket.<br />

Important plant species: Sterculia appendiculata <strong>and</strong> Grewia lepidopetala are endemic to<br />

the Swahilian region sensu lato; Khaya anthotheca <strong>and</strong> Mesogyne insignis are threatened;<br />

Drypetes natalensis, Cassia abbreviata <strong>and</strong> Lasianthus kilim<strong>and</strong>scharicus are potentially<br />

threatened; Cussonia zimmermannii, Bombax rhodognaphalon, Tetracera boiviniana,<br />

Scorodophloeus fischeri, Xylotheca tettensis <strong>and</strong> Aframomum orientale are endemic to the<br />

Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened.<br />

Important animal species: Charaxes lasti lasti is endemic to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania; Beamys hindei has a<br />

restricted distribution in a few forest types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania, including the Eastern Arc<br />

Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>; Arthroleptis xenodactyloides is threatened.<br />

Main threats: Encroachment <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong>, cattle movement, timber <strong>and</strong> pole cutting <strong>and</strong><br />

hunting.<br />

Conservation priorities:<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> water source<br />

• Prevention <strong>of</strong> soil erosion<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Khaya anthotheca <strong>and</strong> Mesogyne insignis<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Arthroleptis xenodactyloides<br />

• Protection as an Important Bird Area<br />

FOREST RESERVE: NDECHELA FOREST RESERVE<br />

Vegetation type: Eastern African coastal Legume-dominated dry forest.<br />

Important plant species: Sterculia appendiculata <strong>and</strong> Grewia lepidopetala are endemic to<br />

the Swahilian region sensu lato; Gardenia transvenulosa is endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened; Cassia<br />

abbreviata <strong>and</strong> Millettia impressa are potentially threatened; Cussonia zimmermannii,<br />

Commiphora zanzibarica, Tetracera boiviniana, Scorodophloeus fischeri, Entada stuhlmannii<br />

<strong>and</strong> Vitex mossambicensis are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> potentially<br />

threatened.<br />

Important animal species: Platysaurus maculatus is endemic to northern Mozambique <strong>and</strong><br />

the Masasi district in south-eastern Tanzania; Rhynchocyon cirnei <strong>and</strong> Loxodonta Africana<br />

are threatened; Panthera pardus <strong>and</strong> L. Africana are listed by CITES Appendix I; the record<br />

<strong>of</strong> Prionops poliolophus represents a range extension for this species.<br />

Main threats: Fire damage, pit sawing <strong>and</strong> hunting.<br />

Conservation priorities:<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> water source <strong>and</strong> large timbers<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Legume-dominated dry forest<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Gardenia transvenulosa<br />

• Protection <strong>of</strong> Rhynchocyon cirnei, Panthera leo, P. pardus, Loxodonta africana <strong>and</strong><br />

Platysaurus maculatus<br />

25


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

8. INTRODUCTION<br />

G. WEGNER AND M. J. CUTTS<br />

BACKGROUND TO THE BIODIVERSITY SURVEY<br />

The Forgotten <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mtwara: A Reconnaissance to Prioritise Biological<br />

Knowledge for Community Conservation Initiatives <strong>project</strong> (abbreviated as the Frontier<br />

Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FTFT-MRP) is a CEPF funded initiative<br />

implemented by Frontier-Tanzania, a collaboration between the Society <strong>of</strong> Environmental<br />

Exploration <strong>and</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam, to perform biological research in the least<br />

studied <strong>of</strong> 160 eligible Key Biodiversity Sites <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot (strategic funding<br />

direction 3.2). This aim was pursued through pioneering baseline biodiversity surveys <strong>and</strong><br />

the compilation <strong>of</strong> indigenous knowledge (strategic funding direction 3.5) in eight relatively<br />

unexplored <strong>and</strong> understudied <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region (south-eastern Tanzania).<br />

These <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> partially comprise the CI-numbered Key Biodiversity Sites 81, 95 <strong>and</strong><br />

102. Research was conducted from April to August <strong>of</strong> 2005.<br />

THE BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT CONCEPT<br />

The loss <strong>of</strong> biodiversity is one <strong>of</strong> the foremost environmental issues <strong>of</strong> the modern age. In<br />

response to this predicament, in 1988 Norman Myers developed the biodiversity hotspot<br />

concept <strong>and</strong> Conservation International (CI) <strong>and</strong> the MacArthur Foundation (MAF) adopted it<br />

the following year as their central conservation strategy. Central to the notion is that a small<br />

number <strong>of</strong> ecoregions occupying a small portion <strong>of</strong> the world’s l<strong>and</strong>mass hold an<br />

exceptionally large share <strong>of</strong> the world’s terrestrial biodiversity <strong>and</strong> have high concentrations<br />

<strong>of</strong> endemism (Myers et al., 2000).<br />

A four-year study started in 1996 by CI identified 25 hotspots significant to long-term<br />

conservation. These hotspots were found to cover 1.4% <strong>of</strong> the Earth’s l<strong>and</strong> surface <strong>and</strong> yet<br />

harbour 44% <strong>of</strong> the global total <strong>of</strong> endemic plant species, 35% <strong>of</strong> the global total <strong>of</strong> endemic<br />

vertebrate species, <strong>and</strong> 60% <strong>of</strong> all known plant <strong>and</strong> vertebrate species. The majority <strong>of</strong> these<br />

hotspots is in tropical developing countries <strong>and</strong> is subject to human activities <strong>and</strong> population<br />

growth threatening their existence (Myers et al., 2000).<br />

THE EASTERN ARC MOUNTAINS AND COASTAL FORESTS OF TANZANIA<br />

AND KENYA (EACF) HOTSPOT<br />

The Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania <strong>and</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> hotspot (hereafter<br />

referred to as the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> hotspot – EACF) runs along the<br />

coast <strong>of</strong> eastern Africa from the southern border <strong>of</strong> Somalia down to the northern border <strong>of</strong><br />

Mozambique. This covers the whole Tanzanian <strong>and</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong>n coasts, including the Indian<br />

Ocean isl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Mafia, Pemba <strong>and</strong> Zanzibar, <strong>and</strong> comprises the intervening habitats between<br />

forest patches. The majority <strong>of</strong> the hotspot is in the east <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, moving inl<strong>and</strong> to<br />

include the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> incorporating the water catchment system <strong>of</strong> the Rufiji<br />

River 2 .<br />

2 In 2005 a hotspots reappraisal conducted by Conservation International separated the EACF hotspot into two<br />

separate entities – the Eastern Afromontane Hotspot <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa Hotspot. The<br />

partition was based on the two regions being characterised by separate plant phytocoria differentiated by altitude<br />

<strong>and</strong> climatic regimes <strong>and</strong> each containing a significant number <strong>of</strong> strict endemics. However, this report follows<br />

CEPF’s current definition <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot as a single entity (CEPF, 2005).<br />

26


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

The biological importance <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot resides in the high density <strong>of</strong> its endemic<br />

species: because <strong>of</strong> the small area <strong>of</strong> the hotspot, the densities <strong>of</strong> its endemic species are<br />

among the highest in the world. Consequently, this hotspot is likely to suffer high plant <strong>and</strong><br />

vertebrate extinction for a given loss <strong>of</strong> habitat. Moreover, the fragmentation, variation <strong>and</strong><br />

small size <strong>of</strong> forest patches (e.g. no Tanzanian <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> are larger than 40 km 2 ) make<br />

the sites susceptible to invasion by generalists <strong>and</strong> vulnerable to habitat loss (CEPF 2005;<br />

Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000). Because <strong>of</strong> the high degree <strong>of</strong> threat present in the area, the<br />

CFEA hotspot has been classified as one <strong>of</strong> 11 ‘hyperhot’ priorities for conservation<br />

investment (Brooks et al., 2002).<br />

THE COASTAL FOREST MOSAIC<br />

The <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> element <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot is referred to as the “<strong>Coastal</strong> Forest<br />

Mosaic”, highlighting the highly variable occurring vegetation, which includes closed-canopy<br />

forest as well as other vegetation types (CEPF, 2005). The closed-canopy forest <strong>of</strong> this<br />

mosaic is referred to as the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>. This complex mosaic <strong>of</strong> vegetation types is a<br />

consequence <strong>of</strong> a heterogeneous set <strong>of</strong> abiotic (climate, geology, topography etc.), biotic<br />

(anthropogenic disturbance, termites etc.) <strong>and</strong> historical (glaciations etc.) factors which may<br />

not be repeated at different sites (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000). Much <strong>of</strong> the mosaic has been<br />

converted into agricultural l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> human settlements, including Mombasa in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

Dar es Salaam in Tanzania (CEPF, 2005).<br />

The <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic has been recognised to constitute a distinct phytocorion 3 occurring<br />

along the coastal strip <strong>of</strong> eastern tropical Africa (CEPF 2005; Clarke, 2000). Defining the<br />

exact extent <strong>of</strong> this phyto-region is a difficult task as insufficient data area available,<br />

especially from Somalia <strong>and</strong> Mozambique. Clarke (2000a), treats the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic<br />

as corresponding to the “Zanzibar-Inhambane regional phytocorion” identified by White<br />

(1983a), which was later renamed as the “Swahilian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism” with an<br />

adjacent “Swahilian/Maputal<strong>and</strong> regional transition zone” to the south, abbreviated as the<br />

“Swahilian region sensu lato” (Clarke, 1998). According to this classification, the eastern<br />

African <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic extends between the equator in southern Somalia <strong>and</strong> the<br />

estuary <strong>of</strong> Limpopo River in Mozambique (Clarke, 2000a, pp. 10-17). The CEPF ecosystem<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>ile (2005, p. 10), on the other h<strong>and</strong>, defines the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic as corresponding to<br />

the “Northern Zanzibar-Inhambane <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic” identified by WWF (2003),<br />

excluding Somalia <strong>and</strong> Mozambique. In this report, we use Clarke’s definition <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

Forest Mosaic as broadly corresponding to the “Swahilian region sensu lato”.<br />

Within the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic, the closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> extend to 3,172km 2 ,<br />

making up just 1% <strong>of</strong> the whole Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke et al., 2000).<br />

Nevertheless, the patches <strong>of</strong> closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> are characterised by the highest<br />

concentration <strong>of</strong> biodiversity <strong>and</strong> endemism. In terms <strong>of</strong> flora, 70% <strong>of</strong> all endemic species are<br />

also present in the closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> all the species recorded from the<br />

Swahilian region sensu lato (more than 1356) at least 554 species (42%) are restricted to the<br />

closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Clarke et al., 2000).<br />

In the closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, 33% <strong>of</strong> vascular plant species were found<br />

to be endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke, 2000). Rates <strong>of</strong> faunal endemism in<br />

the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic vary from 7% (31 species) for mammals to 10% (24 species) for<br />

birds, 57% (47 species) for reptiles, 36% (5 species) for amphibians <strong>and</strong> 19% (75 species) for<br />

3 A phytocorion is an area <strong>of</strong> plant endemism (encompassing various vegetation types) restricted to a particular<br />

geographical area <strong>and</strong> defined on the basis <strong>of</strong> its vegetation physiognomy <strong>and</strong> the richness <strong>of</strong> its endemic flora (i.e.<br />

>1000), whereby a large fraction <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species <strong>of</strong> higher plants is restricted in distribution to such<br />

geographical area (White, 1983a).<br />

27


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

butterflies, with 786 known species in eight taxonomic groups being strictly endemic to the<br />

closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (CEPF, 2005; Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000).<br />

Closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> comprise various forest types: dry forest, Brachystegia forest,<br />

scrub forest, riverine forest, groundwater forest, swamp forest, <strong>and</strong> coastal-afromontane<br />

transition forest. Many assemblages <strong>of</strong> heterogeneous vegetation make up the rest <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic, including woodl<strong>and</strong>, savanna woodl<strong>and</strong>, bushl<strong>and</strong>, thicket <strong>and</strong><br />

grassl<strong>and</strong> interspersed with farml<strong>and</strong> under cultivation or fallow, altogether containing more<br />

than 500 endemic plant species (CEPF, 2005; Clarke, 2000).<br />

Areas <strong>of</strong> these closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>, <strong>and</strong> especially Caesalpinoidae-dominated dry<br />

forest, may be remnants <strong>of</strong> the original pre-Miocene pan-African lowl<strong>and</strong> forest, which once<br />

comprised the now separated blocks <strong>of</strong> West African Guineo-Congolian Forest <strong>and</strong> East<br />

African Swahilian <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest. This is demonstrated by the fact that many species that<br />

occur in, <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten dominate, these forests (such as Cynometra, Scorodophloeus <strong>and</strong><br />

Brachystegia) are endemic to both the Guineo-Congolian <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Swahilian <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000). It is possible that prior to human intervention<br />

Caesalpinoidae-dominated dry forest covered much <strong>of</strong> the eastern African coastal strip,<br />

constituting the climatic vegetation climax for this ecoregion (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000).<br />

In terms <strong>of</strong> species richness, the closed-canopy Eastern African <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest ranks between<br />

the Guineo-Congolian Forest <strong>and</strong> the Eastern Arc Mountain Forest, containing at least 1050<br />

plant genera <strong>and</strong> more than 4500 plant species (CEPF 2005; Clarke et al., 2000). The plant<br />

communities occurring in the closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> are highly variable in their<br />

assemblage combinations <strong>and</strong> dominance patterns. In general, however, monospecific canopy<br />

dominance is common in these forests, with up to 80% <strong>of</strong> the entire canopy being composed<br />

<strong>of</strong> only five species (Clarke et al., 2000).<br />

Endemic species in the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic are <strong>of</strong>ten disjunct in their distribution pattern:<br />

only a few <strong>of</strong> the strictly endemic species are distributed throughout the whole range <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (e.g. Bombax rhodognaphalon), but many have disjunct ranges (e.g.<br />

Sheppardia gunningi) <strong>and</strong> single site endemism is common. There is also a high turnover <strong>of</strong><br />

local species between adjacent forest patches, with forests that are only 100km apart differing<br />

in up to 70% <strong>of</strong> their millipedes <strong>and</strong> 80% <strong>of</strong> their plants. These distribution patterns indicate<br />

that much <strong>of</strong> the habitat heterogeneity <strong>and</strong> fragmentation, <strong>and</strong> the associated degree <strong>of</strong><br />

biological endemism, are primarily natural <strong>and</strong> relictual rather than <strong>of</strong> recent anthropogenic<br />

origin. However, habitat fragmentation has also been incremented by widespread forest<br />

clearance by humans in the past hundred years (Burgess, 2000). Single site endemism,<br />

disjunct distribution <strong>and</strong> a high degree <strong>of</strong> species turnover make the prioritisation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

forests in terms <strong>of</strong> their biodiversity a difficult task (CEPF, 2005)<br />

Severe disturbance is known to reduce the level <strong>of</strong> endemism in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>. More<br />

endemic species were probably present in the forests <strong>of</strong> coastal eastern Africa <strong>and</strong> are now<br />

extinct following the introduction <strong>of</strong> repeated fires <strong>and</strong> widespread forest clearance. The<br />

threat <strong>of</strong> further extinction is unfortunately a serious one for the endemic species <strong>of</strong> these<br />

forests, since in many <strong>of</strong> them fragmentation <strong>and</strong> habitat loss may have caused populations <strong>of</strong><br />

long-lived endemic species (e.g. trees) to become genetically unviable (Clarke et al., 2000;<br />

Cronk, 1997).<br />

28


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

THE COASTAL FOREST VEGETATION TYPES<br />

The following description for the closed-canopy forest types <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic is<br />

taken from Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson (2000).<br />

• Eastern African coastal dry forest<br />

This is the predominant <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> type. Prior to human intervention it probably covered<br />

much <strong>of</strong> the eastern African coastal strip, constituting the climatic vegetation climax for this<br />

ecoregion, with other vegetation types being subtypes, variants <strong>and</strong> transitions to dry forest.<br />

There are two broad varieties <strong>of</strong> coastal dry forest: Legume-dominated <strong>and</strong> Mixed. Legumedominated<br />

dry forest comprises the bulk <strong>of</strong> this forest type. It grows on well drained soils but<br />

appears not to be limited by edaphic conditions. It is dominated by trees <strong>of</strong> the family<br />

Leguminosae, <strong>and</strong> one or two species <strong>of</strong> this family <strong>of</strong>ten dominate (between 50-95%) a<br />

rather simple vegetation structure that lacks the tree strata typical <strong>of</strong> other tropical forest<br />

types. The subfamily Caesalpinioideae is particularly well represented, especially the genera<br />

Scorodophloeus, Cynometra, Julbernardia, Hymenaea, Berlinia, Guibourtia, Erythrophleum,<br />

Paramacrolobium <strong>and</strong> Dialium. Legumes belonging to the genera Baphia, Craibia <strong>and</strong><br />

Millettia (subfamily Papilionoideae) <strong>and</strong> Newtonia (subfamily Mimosoideae) are frequently<br />

associated with members <strong>of</strong> the Caesalpinioideae. Shrubs are generally frequent <strong>and</strong> mainly<br />

comprise saplings <strong>of</strong> the canopy species, indicating a climax community, whilst herbs <strong>and</strong><br />

lianas are usually rare to scarce. The seeds <strong>of</strong> the Caesalpinoidae are heavy <strong>and</strong> not dispersed<br />

by wind or animal. In southern Tanzania the Scorodophloeus fischeri association is frequently<br />

found. Mixed non-legume-dominated dry forest is more difficult to classify owing to the<br />

absence <strong>of</strong> a single recurring vegetation community node, instead many associations occur<br />

that are sometimes unique to a particular forest area. In the literature 152 trees have been<br />

given as dominant or common species in at least one forest area. Lianas <strong>and</strong> shrubs are also<br />

common. This floristic complexity is also matched by structural complexity, with sub canopy<br />

tree layers becoming more distinct with increasing moisture availability. Seeds from the<br />

species typical <strong>of</strong> this forest type are wind or animal dispersed, indicating that Mixed dry<br />

forest may occur as a regeneration climax in the absence <strong>of</strong> competition from slower<br />

dispersed legume seeds typical <strong>of</strong> Legume-dominated dry forest.<br />

• Eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest<br />

This forest type is dominated by B. spiciformis or B. microphylla, with Hymenaea verrucosa<br />

<strong>and</strong> Julbernardia magnistipulata occurring as co-dominants <strong>and</strong> 19 more tree species<br />

recorded as dominant or frequent. This forest type is a variant <strong>of</strong> the Legume-dominated dry<br />

forest <strong>and</strong> occurs on well-drained, nutrient poor, heavily leached <strong>and</strong>/or eroded soils, which<br />

are archetypal <strong>of</strong> the Makonde escarpment. It is thought to be a non-fire generated climax<br />

community over soils that have become too degraded to support eastern African coastal dry<br />

forest. The cause <strong>of</strong> the soil erosion may be anthropic (clearance <strong>and</strong> shift-cultivation) or the<br />

natural <strong>and</strong> rapid erosion <strong>of</strong> the s<strong>and</strong>stone plateaux <strong>and</strong> hills <strong>of</strong> the Makonde Scarp (Burgess<br />

<strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000) (see Geology <strong>and</strong> Soil sections). In this forest type Brachystegia trees form<br />

a closed-canopy over a scarce to dense shrub layer, while grasses are sparsely present to<br />

absent. Although the wide tree crowns rarely overlap, this vegetation type satisfies all other<br />

physiognomic criteria for classification as a forest. It is this physiognomy, as well as its fireexcluded<br />

character <strong>and</strong> the dominance <strong>of</strong> Swahilian endemic species, that distinguish this<br />

vegetation type from the Brachystegia or ‘miombo’ woodl<strong>and</strong> that constitutes the firegenerated<br />

climax <strong>of</strong> the Zambezian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism 4 (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson,<br />

2000).<br />

4 The Brachystegia or ‘miombo’ woodl<strong>and</strong> formations <strong>of</strong> the Zambezian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism are also<br />

dominated by Brachystegia sp. (B. microphylla or B. spiciformis), but they differ from the coastal Brachystegia<br />

forest <strong>of</strong> the Swahilian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism in both ecological <strong>and</strong> physiognomic terms. They are firegenerated<br />

climax vegetations characterised by an open canopy <strong>and</strong> a dense grass layer, <strong>and</strong> composed <strong>of</strong> tree <strong>and</strong><br />

shrub species restricted in distribution to the Zambezian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism (Clarke, 2000).<br />

29


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Eastern African coastal scrub forest<br />

Scrub forest is a common feature <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic belt. Most <strong>of</strong> it constitutes a<br />

seral or sub-climax regeneration phase, resulting from <strong>and</strong> prevented from succession to<br />

forest by heavy disturbance, such as seasonal burning or shifting cultivation. The two broad<br />

categories are Mixed scrub forest <strong>and</strong> Maritime scrub forest. Mixed scrub forest has up to<br />

141 species recorded as dominant or common, <strong>and</strong> the most frequent include Afzelia<br />

quanzensis, Bombax rhodognaphalon, Brachylaena huillensis, Caloncoba welwitschii,<br />

Combretum schumannii, Grewia sp., Hymenocardia ulmoides, Manilkara sulcata, Oldfieldia<br />

somalensis, Pteleopsis myrtifolia, Suregada zanzibarensis <strong>and</strong> Zanthoxylum holtzianum. This<br />

vegetation type is typical <strong>of</strong> the Makonde plateau, where it can become virtually<br />

impenetrable. Maritime scrub forest has species with typically thick coriaceous leaves to<br />

prevent desiccation from the strong salt-laden sea breezes, <strong>and</strong> it can be found at intervals<br />

along the coast <strong>of</strong> eastern Africa. Dominance by one or two species is again rare.<br />

• Eastern African coastal riverine/groundwater/swamp forest<br />

These forests are the result <strong>of</strong> an additional groundwater moisture supply. In strict terms they<br />

do not constitute an element <strong>of</strong> the Swahilian phytocorion, as they are dominated by tree<br />

species which are widespread throughout tropical Africa, even though some <strong>of</strong> the lianas,<br />

shrubs <strong>and</strong> herbs are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu latu (White, 1983a). They tend to<br />

be similar in species composition; however some species do characterize the separate types.<br />

Among dominant species occurring in both riverine <strong>and</strong> ground water forest the most frequent<br />

are Antidesma venosum, Barringtonia racemosa, Bridelia micrantha, Burttdavya nyasica,<br />

Celtis phillippensis, Cordia goetzei, Diospyros mespiliformis, Ficus scassellatii, Ficus<br />

sycomorus, Garcinia livingstonei, Khaya anthotheca, Kigelia africana, Milicia excelsa,<br />

Mimusops obtusifolia, Parkia filicoidea, Sorindeia madagascariensis, Sterculia<br />

appendiculata, Syzygium guineense, Terminalia sambesiaca <strong>and</strong> Trichilia emetica. <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

riverine forest develops along permanent or semi-permanent watercourses <strong>and</strong> it has a diverse<br />

mix <strong>of</strong> species in the canopy with typically large scattered trees. <strong>Coastal</strong> groundwater forest<br />

is found in areas with a dissected topography where seasonal <strong>and</strong> permanent drainage courses<br />

form from the accumulation <strong>of</strong> surface <strong>and</strong> groundwater. It is characterised by large emergent<br />

trees <strong>of</strong> a deciduous type <strong>and</strong> species from the Moraceae family (e.g. Antiaris, Ficus, Milicia<br />

<strong>and</strong> Trilepsium) are prominent, accompanied by frequent shrubs <strong>and</strong> lianas. Swamp forest is<br />

dominated by distinctive monocotyledon species.<br />

• Eastern African coastal-afromontane transitional forest<br />

Found in higher locations with high rainfall (1500mm <strong>and</strong> above), <strong>and</strong> typically at the base <strong>of</strong><br />

the Eastern Arc Mountains, this forest type is the closest in physiognomy to lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

rainforest. Multiple tree strata are characteristic, with a denser shrub layer <strong>and</strong> a greater<br />

number <strong>of</strong> epiphytes <strong>and</strong> lianas than in other coastal forest types.<br />

• Woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> grassl<strong>and</strong><br />

The woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> grassl<strong>and</strong> formations present in the eastern African coastal strip are not<br />

climax communities (Holdridge et al., 1971). Instead they are a consequence <strong>of</strong> widespread<br />

<strong>and</strong> frequent burning <strong>and</strong> clearance for cultivation that have been repeatedly practiced for<br />

many generations. These practices can cause the local extinction <strong>of</strong> many Swahilian endemic<br />

plant species that are unable to regenerate where burning regularly occurs, <strong>and</strong> have<br />

encouraged the incursion <strong>of</strong> plant species characteristic <strong>of</strong> the Zambezian regional centre <strong>of</strong><br />

endemism. In some areas this process has resulted in the Swahilian <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> being<br />

converted into floristically impoverished woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> Zambezian affinity or further degraded<br />

into grassl<strong>and</strong> (Clarke, 2000). Many Swahilian endemic plant species are nonetheless able to<br />

tolerate some fire <strong>and</strong> can be found in these woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> grassl<strong>and</strong> formations (White,<br />

1993).<br />

30


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

CONSERVATION INITIATIVES IN THE EACF HOTSPOT<br />

Interest in the biological value <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot has been relatively recent, with<br />

publications, workshops <strong>and</strong> conferences on the biodiversity <strong>and</strong> conservation <strong>of</strong> this area<br />

mostly organised by the United Nations Development Programme/Global Environment<br />

Facility (UNDP/GEF), the WWF Eastern Africa Regional Programme Office (WWF-<br />

EARPO), BirdLife International <strong>and</strong> the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF).<br />

The Fourth East African Wildlife Symposium at Arusha in 1978 started a new interest in the<br />

biodiversity value <strong>of</strong> the region. This was followed by a report to the Government <strong>of</strong><br />

Tanzania, drawing its attention to the biological importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>and</strong> threats to the Eastern Arc<br />

Mountains. In 1983 the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) was founded to address<br />

the issues discussed in the report.<br />

In the same year, a team from the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP, now<br />

BirdLife International) surveyed the avifauna <strong>of</strong> Arabuko-Sokoke Forest on the northern coast<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> drew attention to its globally threatened bird species <strong>and</strong> the state <strong>of</strong> eastern<br />

African <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> there. More comprehensive surveys followed, drawing attention to<br />

different aspects <strong>of</strong> the coastal belt (for a complete summary refer to Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke,<br />

2000). In 1993 a workshop on the eastern African <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> was held in Dar es Salaam.<br />

This raised the pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> these forests <strong>and</strong> promoted more definitive conservation action.<br />

In December 1997 there was an international conference on the Eastern Arc Mountains at<br />

Morogoro, Tanzania, that addressed the status <strong>of</strong> the remaining forest <strong>and</strong> their biodiversity,<br />

as well as socio-economic <strong>and</strong> management issues pertinent to the area. A UNDP/DANIDA<br />

<strong>project</strong> was started at this time, which led to a GEF Project Development Fund (PDF Block<br />

A) to specify <strong>and</strong> address conservation issues in the Eastern Arc Mountains in more detail.<br />

From the accrued knowledge a three-way matrix was constructed showing levels <strong>of</strong><br />

biodiversity, endemism <strong>and</strong> threat <strong>and</strong> assessing the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> previous interventions.<br />

This revealed exceptional diversity in the East Usambara, Udzungwa <strong>and</strong> Uluguru mountains.<br />

A PDF Block B proposal supported by UNDP <strong>and</strong> the World Bank was developed to focus on<br />

the Ulugurus.<br />

In February 2002 a workshop on the Eastern Africa <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Programme covering<br />

<strong>Kenya</strong>, Tanzania <strong>and</strong> Mozambique was developed by WWF-EARPO to develop a regional<br />

synthesis on <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> conservation issues (WWF-EARPO, 2002). On 12 March 2003,<br />

a CEPF workshop was held in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, to define <strong>and</strong> build upon all previous<br />

effort. Participants included 48 people from government departments, NGOs, scientific <strong>and</strong><br />

research institutions, field <strong>project</strong>s <strong>and</strong> donor organizations, all <strong>of</strong> whom worked in or had<br />

knowledge <strong>of</strong> the hotspot. The outputs from the workshop were subsequently incorporated<br />

into a consultation process that helped to define the investment priorities for CEPF <strong>and</strong> avoid<br />

duplication <strong>of</strong> efforts in the hotspot. Along with other research initiatives in the hotspot, the<br />

FT-MRP was approved for grant funding in 2004. The eight forest reserves surveyed by the<br />

FT-MRP had been included within the eligible Key Biodiversity Sites 81, 95 <strong>and</strong> 102 by CI in<br />

1996, but these reserves had not been systematically researched before.<br />

More recently (30 May to 1 June 2005) a BirdLife workshop on Biodiversity Monitoring in<br />

the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> Hotspot was held in Dar es Salaam. This<br />

sought to bring key stakeholders together to review, st<strong>and</strong>ardise <strong>and</strong> plan coordinated longterm<br />

monitoring in the hotspot.<br />

31


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

THE CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM PARTNERSHIP FUND’S INVESTMENT IN THE<br />

EACF HOTSPOT<br />

The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is a joint initiative <strong>of</strong> Conservation<br />

International (CI), the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the Government <strong>of</strong> Japan (GJ),<br />

the MacArthur Foundation (MAF) <strong>and</strong> the World Bank (WB). The CEPF is designed to<br />

safeguard the world’s threatened biodiversity hotspots in developing countries by providing<br />

funding <strong>and</strong> technical support to civil society. The EACF region was approved for grant<br />

funding in July 2003 <strong>and</strong> active grant making started in January 2004, focusing on conserving<br />

the EACF hotspot’s 333 globally threatened species.<br />

The total allocation is $7 million to:<br />

• Increase the ability <strong>of</strong> local populations to benefit from <strong>and</strong> contribute to<br />

biodiversity conservation, especially in <strong>and</strong> around the lower Tana River <strong>Forests</strong>,<br />

East Usambaras/Tanga, Udzungwas <strong>and</strong> Jozani in Zanzibar,<br />

• Restore <strong>and</strong> increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches in the hotspot,<br />

• Improve biological knowledge in all 160 eligible sites in the hotspot,<br />

• Establish a small grants programme in the hotspot that focuses on critically<br />

endangered species, <strong>and</strong> small-scale initiatives to increase connectivity <strong>of</strong><br />

biologically important habitat patches,<br />

• Develop <strong>and</strong> support efforts for further fundraising for the hotspot.<br />

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE FT MRP BIODIVERSITY SURVEY<br />

The conservation value <strong>of</strong> the eight forest reserves surveyed by the Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara<br />

Reconnaissance Project is highlighted by their inclusion within the eligible 160 Key<br />

Biodiversity Sites (81, 95 <strong>and</strong> 102) by CI in 1996. However, these Key Biodiversity Sites<br />

were not systematically researched <strong>and</strong> represent some <strong>of</strong> the least studied sites <strong>of</strong> the EACF<br />

hotspot. The specific aim <strong>of</strong> the FT-MRP was therefore to perform biological research in<br />

these sites through preliminary baseline biodiversity surveys <strong>and</strong> the compilation <strong>of</strong><br />

indigenous knowledge.<br />

The long-term goal <strong>of</strong> this <strong>project</strong> is to contribute to the conservation <strong>of</strong> the biodiversity <strong>of</strong><br />

the Mtwara <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> without compromising current livelihoods. This was done by<br />

conducting preliminary baseline biodiversity <strong>and</strong> disturbance surveys. Results from these<br />

surveys can be used to promote increased environmental awareness, alternative income<br />

generating initiatives <strong>and</strong> observation <strong>of</strong> the regulations pertaining to the forest reserves<br />

among communities who are in close proximity to the reserves studied.<br />

More specifically, through baseline biodiversity surveys conducted in eight forest reserves in<br />

the Mtwara Region the FT MRP aims to contribute to the following conservation outcomes:<br />

• Improved protection <strong>and</strong> management <strong>of</strong> the forest reserves studied<br />

• Decrease in illegal <strong>and</strong> unsustainable activities within the forest reserves (e.g.<br />

logging, poaching <strong>and</strong> encroachment beyond forest reserve boundaries)<br />

• Endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened species monitored <strong>and</strong> protected<br />

• Range extensions identified<br />

• Data contributed to the IUCN Red List process<br />

32


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

The specific short-term objectives <strong>of</strong> the FT MRP were:<br />

1. To conduct a preliminary biodiversity survey <strong>and</strong> compile indigenous knowledge in<br />

eight forest reserves, in order to produce baseline information on the following:<br />

- Flora: species richness, diversity, dominance, relative abundance,<br />

composition, endemism, conservation status <strong>and</strong> range extensions<br />

- Fauna (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians <strong>and</strong> butterflies): species<br />

richness, composition, endemism, conservation status <strong>and</strong> range extensions<br />

- Human disturbance <strong>and</strong> levels <strong>of</strong> resource extraction<br />

2. To assist in the identification <strong>of</strong> priority sites most suitable for biodiversity<br />

conservation <strong>and</strong> the provision <strong>of</strong> environmental services within the studied area;<br />

3. To provide management recommendations for the establishment <strong>of</strong> sustainable<br />

conservation programmes for the studied sites;<br />

4. To provide baseline biological data against which future monitoring may be based,<br />

in order to detect changes in the biodiversity status <strong>of</strong> the studied sites;<br />

5. To raise local awareness <strong>of</strong> the importance <strong>of</strong> forest conservation, biodiversity<br />

promotion, water sources protection, soil erosion prevention, sustainable use <strong>of</strong><br />

resources <strong>and</strong> the interaction <strong>of</strong> these issues through a layman’s report in Kiswahili<br />

for use by district natural resources <strong>of</strong>fices, community groups <strong>and</strong> schools in close<br />

proximity to the studied sites;<br />

6. To raise awareness <strong>of</strong> the biological values <strong>of</strong> the lesser known <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

nationally <strong>and</strong> internationally, by contributing data to the CEPF Conservation<br />

Outcomes Database, the TROPICOS database <strong>of</strong> Missouri Botanical Gardens <strong>and</strong><br />

the Biodiversity Database <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam, <strong>and</strong> through the<br />

distribution <strong>of</strong> this report to national <strong>and</strong> international government departments <strong>and</strong><br />

NGOs;<br />

7. To contribute to global biodiversity monitoring <strong>and</strong> conservation efforts through<br />

collaboration with specialists in national <strong>and</strong> international institutions.<br />

OBJECTIVE LINKAGES TO FRONTIER-TANZANIA FOREST RESEARCH<br />

PROGRAMME<br />

FT FRP has been conducting baseline biodiversity surveys within the EACF hotspot since<br />

1989. The aim <strong>of</strong> FT FRP is to undertake systematic baseline biological surveys <strong>and</strong> to record<br />

local knowledge in targeted areas <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot, in order to describe the flora <strong>and</strong><br />

fauna present by assessing the following:<br />

1. Species richness, diversity <strong>and</strong> composition <strong>of</strong> vascular flora,<br />

2. Population density <strong>of</strong> key floral indicator species,<br />

3. Species richness, diversity <strong>and</strong> composition <strong>of</strong> vertebrate fauna,<br />

4. Presence/absence <strong>of</strong> endemic <strong>and</strong> globally threatened Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong><br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> species.<br />

5. Levels <strong>of</strong> human disturbance <strong>and</strong> resource extraction.<br />

FT FRP has developed a comprehensive methodology (Frontier-Tanzania, 1997) for the<br />

effective implementation <strong>of</strong> systematic baseline biological surveys.<br />

Projects undertaken by Frontier-Tanzania in the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

hotspot since 1989 are listed in Table 8-a.<br />

33


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Project Name Location Key Biodiversity<br />

Sites<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

Biological Surveys<br />

East Usambara<br />

Biodiversity Surveys<br />

(EUBS)<br />

Mahenge Mountains<br />

Biodiversity Surveys<br />

Udzungwa<br />

Mountains<br />

Biodiversity Surveys<br />

Uluguru Component<br />

Biodiversity Surveys<br />

(UCBS)<br />

Coast Region, Lindi Region, Tanga<br />

Region, <strong>and</strong> Chumbe Isl<strong>and</strong>-<br />

Zanzibar Archipelago, Tanzania<br />

(Various <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>)<br />

East Usambara Mountains, Tanga<br />

Region, Tanzania<br />

(Amani NR, Bamba Ridge FR,<br />

Bombo East I <strong>and</strong> II FR, Kambai<br />

FR, Kwamarimba FR, Kwamgumi<br />

FR, Longuza FR, Magoroto Forest,<br />

Manga FR, Mgambo FR, Mlinga<br />

FR, Mlungui Proposed FR, Mpanga<br />

Village FR, Mtai FR, Nilo FR,<br />

Segoma FR, Semdoe FR)<br />

Mahenge Mountains, Morogoro<br />

Region, Tanzania<br />

(Nawenge FR)<br />

Udzungwa Mountains, Iringa<br />

Region, Tanzania<br />

(New Dabaga/Ulangambi FR, West<br />

Kilombero Scarp)<br />

Uluguru Mountains, Morogoro<br />

Region, Tanzania<br />

(Uluguru North <strong>and</strong> South FRs)<br />

65 - Lindi District<br />

37 - Tanga<br />

Morogoro<br />

Time<br />

frame<br />

139 - Tanga<br />

Pangani<br />

N/A Jun 1995 -<br />

Jun 2002<br />

75 - Mahenge<br />

Scarp Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

44 - Udzungwa<br />

Mountains<br />

149 - Uluguru<br />

Mountains<br />

Donor<br />

1989-1994 SEE<br />

Jan 1999 -<br />

Apr 2001<br />

Jan 1999 -<br />

Apr 2001<br />

Sep 2004 -<br />

Apr 2005<br />

FINNIDA,<br />

JICA<br />

SEE<br />

DANIDA<br />

UNDP-<br />

GEF<br />

Mtwara<br />

Reconnaissance<br />

Project<br />

Lesser Known<br />

Eastern Arc<br />

Mountains<br />

Biodiversity Surveys<br />

Mtwara <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>, Mtwara<br />

Region, Tanzania<br />

(Makonde Scarp I, II, <strong>and</strong> III,<br />

Mtiniko, Mtuli Hinju <strong>and</strong> Mkunya<br />

River Proposed FRs; Kambona <strong>and</strong><br />

Ndechela FRs)<br />

Mahenge, Nguru, Rubeho <strong>and</strong><br />

Ukaguru Mountains, Morogoro<br />

Region, Tanzania<br />

(Sali, Mselezi, Kanga, Nguru South,<br />

Maboto/Ikwamba, Mamiwa Kisara<br />

North <strong>and</strong> South, <strong>and</strong> Pala Ulanga<br />

FRs)<br />

80 - Masasi<br />

District<br />

94 - Mtwara<br />

District<br />

101 - Newala<br />

District<br />

70 - Mahenge<br />

74 - Mahenge<br />

Sali<br />

103 - Nguru Mt<br />

120 - Rubeho Mt<br />

Sep 2004 –<br />

Apr 2005<br />

Oct 2005 –<br />

Nov 2007<br />

CEPF<br />

CEPF<br />

146 - Ukaguru Mt<br />

Table 8-a Frontier-Tanzania <strong>project</strong>s in the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> hotspot<br />

Technical reports from work in the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> hotspot have<br />

been published <strong>and</strong> are available on Frontier’s Publications List (www.frontier.ac.uk) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

website <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc Mountains Conservation Endowment Fund (EAMCEF -<br />

www.easternarc.or.tz).<br />

34


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

9. STUDY SITE<br />

M. J. CUTTS<br />

LOCATION<br />

The Mtwara Region is located in south-eastern Tanzania <strong>and</strong> constitutes 1.9% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Tanzanian mainl<strong>and</strong>, making it the second smallest region after Kilimanjaro. The Region was<br />

created by the separation <strong>of</strong> Lindi <strong>and</strong> Mtwara into two separate identities in 1971 <strong>and</strong> it<br />

covers an area <strong>of</strong> 16,720 km 2 . It is bordered in the north by the Lindi Region, in the east by<br />

the Indian Ocean, in the south by Mozambique <strong>and</strong> the Ruvuma River <strong>and</strong> in the west by the<br />

Ruvuma Region.<br />

The Region has five districts: Mtwara/Mikindani Urban, Mtwara Rural, Masasi, Newala <strong>and</strong><br />

T<strong>and</strong>ahimba. The Makonde escarpment, which runs along the base <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region<br />

through the Mtwara Rural, Newala, T<strong>and</strong>ahimba <strong>and</strong> Masasi districts, covers an area <strong>of</strong><br />

73,055ha (Maganga, 2004) <strong>and</strong> its plateau lies between 700m <strong>and</strong> 900m asl. Mtwara Rural<br />

district is low-lying with much agriculturally modified coastal woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> forest rising to<br />

only 300 metres. Here the Rivers <strong>of</strong> Maombi <strong>and</strong> Mbuo drain most <strong>of</strong> the plateau south into<br />

the Ruvuma River. Newala district covers most <strong>of</strong> the Makonde plateau <strong>and</strong> the raised area<br />

inl<strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara/Mikindani district <strong>and</strong> south <strong>of</strong> the Rondo plateau. Here the Kitame,<br />

Mkundi <strong>and</strong> Mutumnudi Rivers flowing <strong>of</strong>f the Makonde plateau, either eastwards to the<br />

ocean or southwards into the Ruvuma River, create deep valleys. T<strong>and</strong>ahimba district is<br />

between the districts <strong>of</strong> Mtwara in the east <strong>and</strong> Newala in the west (Figure 1).<br />

Of the five districts the areas <strong>of</strong> study are in Mtwara Rural (Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju), Masasi<br />

(Makonde Scarp I, Kambona <strong>and</strong> Ndechela), Newala (Makonde Scarp II) <strong>and</strong> T<strong>and</strong>ahimba<br />

(Makonde Scarp III) (Figure 1).<br />

TOPOGRAPHY<br />

With regards to topography there are two distinct regions: the coastal plain with its<br />

complexity <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong>forms <strong>and</strong> the basement plain dominated by the Makonde plateau. The<br />

coastal plain is generally low-lying with isolated rocky hills <strong>and</strong> steep river sides. The western<br />

half <strong>of</strong> this plain lies beyond the Makonde plateau with its run<strong>of</strong>f draining to the south<br />

through the tributaries <strong>of</strong> the Ruvuma River. The basement plain is dominated by the<br />

Makonde plateau at 300m to 400m asl. The Maombi <strong>and</strong> Mbuo Rivers drain most <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Makonde plateau (www.lindi-<strong>mtwara</strong>-region.com/eng).<br />

GEOLOGY AND SOIL<br />

The Region has two geological zones <strong>and</strong> hence two geologically determined soil types. The<br />

first zone is the coastal sedimentary formation extending 125km from the Indian Ocean to the<br />

edge <strong>of</strong> the Makonde plateau. In this zone s<strong>and</strong>stone bedrock produces deep, well drained<br />

s<strong>and</strong>y soils <strong>of</strong> low fertility <strong>and</strong> low moisture holding capacity. Some areas give rise to marine<br />

heavy clay soils or vertisols. Further inl<strong>and</strong>, coastal limestones produce red, well drained <strong>and</strong><br />

heavy textured soils. The second geological zone extends west <strong>of</strong> the coastal sediments. It is a<br />

zone <strong>of</strong> pre-Cambrian basement rocks consisting <strong>of</strong> gneisses <strong>and</strong> granulites. Soils from this<br />

basement are variable, comprising deep, well drained, red clays to the north <strong>of</strong> Masasi town,<br />

course grained s<strong>and</strong>y soils to the south <strong>of</strong> Masasi town, <strong>and</strong> well drained, nutrient poor <strong>and</strong><br />

heavily leached soils on the Makonde escarpment. The red clays are the most fertile soils in<br />

the region that best suit the upl<strong>and</strong> crops <strong>of</strong> the area (www.lindi-<strong>mtwara</strong>-region.com/eng,<br />

2005).<br />

35


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Figure 1 Map <strong>of</strong> the study region showing the forest reserves studied, major towns, roads <strong>and</strong><br />

base camps<br />

36


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

CLIMATE<br />

Prevailing winds from the Indian Ocean are critical in determining the climate for this region.<br />

During the period November/December to April/May the dominant winds come from northeast<br />

bringing a hot <strong>and</strong> humid rainy season. This season has its wettest part in January, but it<br />

can reach into February or March. The rest <strong>of</strong> the year the region is kept drier <strong>and</strong> cooler by<br />

the south-easterly winds. The amount <strong>of</strong> total annual precipitation varies with altitude. In the<br />

Mtwara Region rains vary from 116mm to 935mm on the hills <strong>and</strong> the plateau, 893mm at<br />

Masasi <strong>and</strong> 1001mm at Newala. Temperatures in coastal Mtwara vary from 27 0 C as the<br />

highest monthly mean temperature in December to 23 0 C in July. Relative humidity in coastal<br />

Mtwara ranges from 87% in March to 79% in October. Temperatures <strong>and</strong> humidity are lower<br />

inl<strong>and</strong> (www.lindi-<strong>mtwara</strong>-region.com/eng, 2005).<br />

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS<br />

The population <strong>of</strong> Mtwara Region was reported to be around 857,977 people in 2000 <strong>and</strong> it<br />

has an average annual growth rate <strong>of</strong> 4% (Milledge <strong>and</strong> Kaale, 2005). As most <strong>of</strong> the south <strong>of</strong><br />

the country, the Mtwara Region is characterised by one <strong>of</strong> the highest levels <strong>of</strong> poverty in<br />

Tanzania. The transport <strong>and</strong> communication infrastructures are scarce <strong>and</strong> unreliable in<br />

relation to the rest <strong>of</strong> the country. Within the context <strong>of</strong> a poorly developed local economy<br />

<strong>and</strong> in absence <strong>of</strong> alternative sources <strong>of</strong> livelihood, 92% <strong>of</strong> the people are engaged in<br />

agricultural production <strong>of</strong> food crops <strong>and</strong> depend heavily upon free forest products <strong>and</strong><br />

services. Food crops include cassava, millet, sorghum, maize <strong>and</strong> cow <strong>and</strong> pigeon peas. The<br />

major cash crop is cashew nuts, <strong>of</strong> which the Mtwara Region is the first national producer,<br />

contributing about 50% <strong>of</strong> the national production (Milledge <strong>and</strong> Kaale, 2005).<br />

CONSERVATION STATUS OF FOREST RESERVES IN THE MTWARA REGION<br />

About 8.33% <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region is covered by forest, amounting to about 139,295ha<br />

(Milledge <strong>and</strong> Kaale, 2005). Nineteen government gazetted <strong>and</strong> proposed protective <strong>and</strong><br />

productive forest reserves (FR) 5 are found within the Mtwara Region. These forest reserves<br />

5 A national forest reserve may be, as stated in the Forest Act 2002 [Acts Supplement No. 14 <strong>of</strong> June 2002]:<br />

(a) an area <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> covered by forest, reserved or used principally for purposes <strong>of</strong> sustainable production <strong>of</strong><br />

timber <strong>and</strong> other forest produce, known as ‘production forest reserve’;<br />

(b) an area <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> covered by forest, reserved or used principally for the purposes <strong>of</strong> protection <strong>of</strong> water<br />

sheds, soil conservation <strong>and</strong> the protection <strong>of</strong> wild plants, known as ‘protection forest reserve’;<br />

(c) an area <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> covered by forest, reserved principally to protect nature <strong>and</strong> scenic areas <strong>of</strong> national or<br />

international significance <strong>and</strong> to maintain <strong>and</strong> enhance biodiversity <strong>and</strong> genetic resources in an<br />

undisturbed, dynamic <strong>and</strong> evolutionary state, known as ‘nature forest reserve’.<br />

An area <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> is proposed to become a national forest reserve by the Minister <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources <strong>and</strong> Tourism<br />

(MNRT) responsible for forests. Upon production <strong>of</strong> a proposal, separate reports are produced by the Director <strong>of</strong><br />

Forestry, collecting any objections received, the National Forestry Advisory Committee, containing<br />

recommendations, <strong>and</strong> an Investigator appointed by the Minister, investigating any claim arising out <strong>of</strong> customary<br />

or written laws. The Minister then produces a written declaration for the l<strong>and</strong> area within 90 days <strong>of</strong> receipt <strong>of</strong> the<br />

reports, determining the rights to l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> forest produce exercisable within that national reserve. As s soon as<br />

practicable after the publication <strong>of</strong> the declaration, the Director shall cause the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the forest to be<br />

visibly demarcated on the ground <strong>and</strong> a map or plan to be prepared. On <strong>and</strong> after the coming into force <strong>of</strong> a<br />

declaration <strong>of</strong> a national forest reserve, the following acts are forbidden within its boundaries: removal, damage or<br />

destruction <strong>of</strong> any produce that is naturally found in the forest; residing on or usage <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong> for any<br />

activity (cultivation, grazing, hunting, fishing, honey collection, mining, construction <strong>of</strong> roads <strong>and</strong> other structures,<br />

research, for which a permit is required, etc.). The function <strong>of</strong> managing a national forest reserve is determined by<br />

the Director in consultation with the Minister, <strong>and</strong> may be undertaken by: a Forestry Division, the Executive<br />

Agency, a local authority, a village council, a community group, an organization in the private sector, a Non-<br />

Governmental Organization or a person holding a concession (Forest Acts Supplement No. 14, 2002).<br />

On all Tanzanian territory, with the exception <strong>of</strong> private l<strong>and</strong>, village l<strong>and</strong> forest reserves <strong>and</strong> community forest<br />

reserves, a license is required for hunting <strong>and</strong> harvesting natural forest produces (Forest Acts Supplement No. 14,<br />

2002). These licenses are conferred by the District Wildlife Division <strong>and</strong> District Natural Resources <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

Development Office respectively (Mlowe, 2005).<br />

37


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

cover a designated area <strong>of</strong> 17,812ha <strong>and</strong> comprise vegetation types typical <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong>. However, the proportion <strong>of</strong> closed-canopy forest <strong>and</strong> other vegetation types within<br />

these reserves remains unknown (CEPF, 2005). Another 65,450ha is designated as game<br />

reserves, but tourism development has been limited by insufficient infrastructure (Milledge<br />

<strong>and</strong> Kaale, 2005). The CEPF Ecosystem Pr<strong>of</strong>ile (2005) lists six threatened species from these<br />

forest reserves, though many more are believed to inhabit the area.<br />

Eight forest reserves occurring along <strong>and</strong> nearby the Makonde escarpment were researched in<br />

this study. These areas were designated as sites <strong>of</strong> protected forest reserve by the government<br />

in recognition <strong>of</strong> their importance to local villages <strong>and</strong> towns as water catchments, for<br />

prevention <strong>of</strong> soil erosion <strong>and</strong> for provision <strong>of</strong> resources such as timber, fuel wood, food <strong>and</strong><br />

medicine (Adkins, 2005). Of these, two reserves are gazetted (Kambona <strong>and</strong> Ndechela) <strong>and</strong><br />

six are proposed (Makonde Scarp I, Makonde Scarp II, Makonde Scarp III, Mtiniko, Mtuli<br />

Hinju Mkunya River). Kambona was gazetted in 1955 to protect the water source near St.<br />

Joseph’s College (now Chidya Secondary School) in Chidya. Ndechela was gazetted in 1958<br />

to protect timber resources <strong>and</strong> biodiversity. The area covered by Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> II <strong>and</strong><br />

Mkunya River was proposed, mapped <strong>and</strong> demarcated in 1977 to prevent soil erosion on the<br />

plateau <strong>and</strong> scarp <strong>and</strong> to protect water sources <strong>and</strong> catchment, but they have not yet been<br />

gazetted as full reserves. In 1980 <strong>and</strong> 1981 a survey was conducted to estimate the cost <strong>of</strong><br />

compensating people for their relocation from within the forest boundaries, as it is required in<br />

fully gazetted reserves, concluding that Tsh 40 million was needed for compensation.<br />

Compensation <strong>of</strong> TSh 1.7 million was made available to Masasi district in 1983-84 but no<br />

subsidies were made available to Newala <strong>and</strong> T<strong>and</strong>ahimba districts. Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju<br />

were proposed to be forest reserves in 1976 to protect timber <strong>and</strong> water resources <strong>and</strong><br />

biodiversity, but they have not yet been fully gazetted. All FRs surveyed are managed by the<br />

central government (Table 9-a) (Masasi District Natural Resources Office, 2005).<br />

Table 9-a Protection status <strong>and</strong> size <strong>of</strong> forest reserves studied<br />

Forest Reserve District Management Body Protection Status Size (ha)<br />

Makonde Scarp I Masasi Central Government Proposed 1,748.3<br />

Kambona Masasi Central Government Gazetted 29.9<br />

Ndechela Masasi Central Government Gazetted 6,216<br />

Mtuli Hinju Mtwara Rural Central Government Proposed 296.0<br />

Mtiniko Mtwara Rural Central Government Proposed 1,736<br />

Makonde Scarp II Newala Central Government Proposed 1,554<br />

Mkunya River Newala Central Government Proposed 4,797.3<br />

Makonde Scarp III T<strong>and</strong>ahimba Central Government Proposed 1,434.7<br />

Total area 17,812.2<br />

38


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

10. SURVEY EFFORT<br />

G. WEGNER AND R. SALTER<br />

For the Mtwara Reconnaissance Project (FT-MRP), fieldwork was conducted from 2 nd April<br />

to 17 th July 2005. A total <strong>of</strong> 82 days were spent in eight forest reserves conducting field<br />

research <strong>and</strong> community days. The remaining days were spent in nearby towns sorting data,<br />

collecting field supplies <strong>and</strong> liaising with local <strong>of</strong>ficials. Each reserve was surveyed for five,<br />

seven or fourteen nights depending on the size <strong>of</strong> the reserve (4000ha = 14 days).<br />

Survey work concentrated on investigations <strong>of</strong> flora, fauna <strong>and</strong> human disturbance.<br />

Quantitative, st<strong>and</strong>ardised <strong>and</strong> repeatable methods were employed to record <strong>and</strong> analyse data<br />

on species richness, diversity, dominance, relative abundance <strong>and</strong> composition <strong>of</strong> flora,<br />

species richness <strong>and</strong> composition <strong>of</strong> specific faunal taxonomic groups (mammals, birds,<br />

reptiles, amphibians <strong>and</strong> butterflies), presence/absence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc<br />

Mountains endemic <strong>and</strong> globally threatened species, <strong>and</strong> levels <strong>of</strong> disturbance <strong>and</strong> resources<br />

extraction.<br />

In total 93 vegetation plots, 93 regeneration plots, 1840 sherman trapping nights, 460 bucket<br />

pitfall trapping nights, 52.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna searches; 200.45 bat net/hours,<br />

134 man/hours <strong>of</strong> bird mist netting, 100 man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed bird searches, 138 butterfly<br />

canopy trapping days, 37.5 sweep net/hours <strong>and</strong> 32 disturbance/large mammal transect lines<br />

(totalling 31km) were undertaken throughout the eight forest reserves. Opportunistic<br />

observations <strong>of</strong> all taxa <strong>and</strong> human disturbance were conducted throughout the study.<br />

Structured interviews, lasting for up to one hour, were carried out with local groups (including<br />

forestry <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>and</strong> community committees <strong>and</strong> representatives) in the villages which were<br />

in close proximity to the forest reserves. Table 10-a gives a break down <strong>of</strong> the survey effort<br />

employed for each survey technique for each forest reserve (for work site descriptions see<br />

Appendices 2-7).<br />

39


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 10-a Summary <strong>of</strong> survey effort<br />

SAMPLING INTENSITY<br />

FLORA<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

(93)<br />

TOTAL<br />

Reserve size (ha) 29.9 1,748.3 1,554 4,797.3 1,736 296.0 1,434.7 6,216 1,7812.2<br />

Days 5 7 7 14 7 5 7 14 66<br />

Sampling intensity (% <strong>of</strong> each FR) 0.5 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.01<br />

Vegetation plot (VP)<br />

Trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses (4 plots) (9 plots) (5 plots) (21 plots) (12 plots) (5 plots) (9 plots) (21 plots)<br />

20m x 20m x no. <strong>of</strong> plots<br />

1600m 2 3600m 2 4800m 2 8400m 2 4800m 2 2000m 2 3600m 2 8400m 2 37200m 2<br />

(93)<br />

Regeneration plot (RP) Trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses (4 plots) (9 plots) (5 plots) (21 plots) (12 plots) (5 plots) (9 plots) (21 plots)<br />

2m x 2m x no. <strong>of</strong> plots<br />

16m 2 36m 2 48m 2 84m 2 48m 2 20m 2 36m 2 84m 2 372m 2<br />

Opportunistic obs./collection Trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses - - - - - - - - -<br />

FAUNA Sherman traps<br />

Small mammals 120 200 200 400 200 120 200 400 1840<br />

40 traps x no. trapping nights<br />

Bucket pitfall traps<br />

Reptiles, amphibians, rodents 30 50 50 100 50 30 50 100 460<br />

10 buckets x no. trapping nights<br />

Bat netting (net-hours) ** Bats 20.25 2.7 6 39 31.5 15 - 86 200.45<br />

Bird netting (man-hours) ** Birds -* 20.5 -* 38.5 37.5 24.5 -* 13 134<br />

Timed bird searches (man-hours) Birds 15 6 8 16 14 7 18 16 100<br />

Canopy traps<br />

Canopy dwelling butterflies 9 15 15 30 15 9 15 30 138<br />

3 traps x no. trapping days<br />

Butterfly sweep netting Lower storey dwelling butterflies 2 4.5 6 10.5 6 2 4.5 4 37.5<br />

(sweep-net hours)<br />

Timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna searches Reptiles, Amphibians 4 4.5 4.5 17.5 6 4 4.5 7 52.5<br />

(man-hours)<br />

Animal signs transects (m²) Larger mammals<br />

1x500m & (3) (4) (7) (4) 1x1000m (3) (7) (31)<br />

1000m x 2m either side<br />

1x600m 12000m² 16000 m² 28000 m² 16000 m² & 1x900m 12000 m² 28000 m² 124000m²<br />

4400m²<br />

7600 m²<br />

Opportunistic/collection All animal taxa - - - - - - - - -<br />

HUMAN Transects (m²)<br />

Human disturbance (1.1) (3) (4) (7) (4) (1.9) (3) (7) (31)<br />

DISTURBANCE 1000m x 5m either side<br />

11000m² 30000m² 40000m² 70000m² 40000m² 19000m² 30000m² 70000m² 310000m²<br />

Opportunistic observation Human disturbance - - - - - - - - -<br />

*Mist netting was not conducted in these reserves as the camp was located at a distance from the reserves <strong>and</strong> in order to avoid theft nets could not be left unattended;<br />

**Varying sizes <strong>of</strong> bird <strong>and</strong> bat mist-nets were used each time<br />

Survey technique (<strong>and</strong> sampling unit)<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

40


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

11. METHODS<br />

G. WEGNER AND R. SALTER<br />

Survey methods were based on those employed by the Frontier-Tanzania Forest Research<br />

Programme (FT FRP) <strong>and</strong> described in full details in the Technical report No 34:<br />

methodology report (Frontier-Tanzania, 1997).<br />

FLORA<br />

Quantitative, st<strong>and</strong>ardised <strong>and</strong> repeatable methods were employed to record <strong>and</strong> analyse data<br />

on richness, diversity, composition, dominance <strong>and</strong> relative abundance <strong>of</strong> floral species, <strong>and</strong><br />

presence/absence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains endemic <strong>and</strong> globally<br />

threatened floral species.<br />

Vegetation data are presented in the form <strong>of</strong> species lists (Appendices 9-11). Here the family,<br />

genus <strong>and</strong> species are presented along with the author, altitude range, distribution, growth<br />

habit, endemic <strong>and</strong> conservation status <strong>and</strong> local name where known. Data collected through<br />

this study are comparable with data collected by other forest surveys undertaken by FT FRP.<br />

Data collection<br />

Three methods were used to collect data on flora:<br />

- Vegetation plots<br />

- Regeneration plots<br />

- Opportunistic collection <strong>and</strong> observation<br />

• Vegetation plots (VPs)<br />

Three plots (20m x 20m) were sampled at 0m, 500m <strong>and</strong> 1000m intervals along each 1000m<br />

disturbance transect line (see section on Human Resource-Use for a description <strong>of</strong> disturbance<br />

transects). The location <strong>of</strong> vegetation plots <strong>and</strong> disturbance transects was recorded using the<br />

Global Positioning System (GPS). Inside the vegetation plot, all trees with diameter at breast<br />

height (dbh) ≥10cm, from both the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers, were marked, recorded,<br />

counted <strong>and</strong> identified. Diameter was measured at a st<strong>and</strong>ard height <strong>of</strong> 1.3m above ground<br />

level, on the uphill side <strong>of</strong> the stem. Multi-stem trees with individual stems <strong>of</strong> dbh ≤10cm<br />

were recorded if the cumulative dbh was ≥10cm (only stems arising from the central stem at<br />

or below 1.3m were considered). If the tree had a buttress, the dbh was measured 1.3m above<br />

the top <strong>of</strong> the buttress. Fallen trees that were still alive were processed as above. Dead trees<br />

were not counted. Habitat notes were taken for each vegetation plot. The percentage cover for<br />

canopy, sub canopy, shrub <strong>and</strong> ground layers was estimated (Appendix 4). The sampling unit<br />

was the vegetation plot. The sampling intensity was calculated as follows:<br />

Area <strong>of</strong> vegetation plot (20m x 20m) x no. vegetation plots per reserve = total<br />

area per forest reserve<br />

• Regeneration plots (RPs)<br />

One (2m x 2m) regeneration plot was laid out at the centre <strong>of</strong> each 20m x 20m vegetation<br />

plot. Species from the shrub <strong>and</strong> ground layers were recorded, counted <strong>and</strong> identified,<br />

including tree saplings with dbh


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

estimated (Appendix 5). The sampling unit was the regeneration plot. The sampling intensity<br />

was calculated as follows:<br />

Area <strong>of</strong> regeneration plot (2m x 2m) x no. regeneration plots per reserve = total<br />

area per forest reserve<br />

• Opportunistic collection <strong>and</strong> observation<br />

Opportunistic collection <strong>and</strong> observation <strong>of</strong> tree, shrub <strong>and</strong> ground flora were made<br />

throughout field work <strong>and</strong> were accompanied by habitat notes. Opportunistic collections were<br />

made to supplement the data collected through the vegetation <strong>and</strong> regeneration plots <strong>and</strong> to<br />

collect extra plant specimens in order to aid the taxonomic identification <strong>of</strong> species. The<br />

amount <strong>of</strong> time allocated for such sampling was relative to the size <strong>of</strong> the forest, its vegetation<br />

diversity <strong>and</strong> the requirements <strong>of</strong> other field activities.<br />

Specimen collection <strong>and</strong> curation procedures<br />

When identification in the field was not possible two duplicate specimens <strong>of</strong> leaves <strong>and</strong>, when<br />

possible, flowers <strong>and</strong> fruits were retained. Specimen collection procedures followed those <strong>of</strong><br />

the Missouri Botanical Gardens (Frontier-Tanzania, 1997). All specimens were pressed <strong>and</strong><br />

dried in the field <strong>and</strong> then mounted at the Herbarium <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam,<br />

Tanzania.<br />

Species identification <strong>and</strong> repository<br />

George Sangu (Appendix 1) provided the field identification <strong>of</strong> plant species. When<br />

identification in the field was not possible, floral specimens were collected for identification<br />

<strong>and</strong> storage at the Herbarium <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, <strong>and</strong> at Missouri<br />

Botanical Gardens, USA.<br />

Data analysis<br />

Vegetation data were analysed using various statistical techniques. Data collected through<br />

systematic methods were used to determine species richness, dominance <strong>and</strong> relative<br />

abundance in the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers, <strong>and</strong> species composition for all layers. Data<br />

collected through opportunistic methods were used in addition to systematic data to determine<br />

species richness in the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers, as well as species composition for all<br />

layers. Endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status were also determined for all floral species.<br />

No statistical analysis was conducted to compare data among reserves because in this study<br />

the sampling intensity was chosen to be roughly proportional to the size <strong>of</strong> each forest<br />

reserve, <strong>and</strong> therefore dissimilar sampling intensities were applied to each reserve (Table<br />

10-a). Values <strong>of</strong> species richness <strong>and</strong> diversity recorded in separate reserves were instead<br />

compared through graphs <strong>and</strong> by taking in consideration a combination <strong>of</strong> factors, including<br />

the size <strong>of</strong> the reserve, the type <strong>of</strong> plant communities present, the level <strong>of</strong> habitat<br />

fragmentation <strong>and</strong> the degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance.<br />

• Species richness<br />

The species richness was calculated for each forest reserve. It was determined by counting the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> species found in all vegetation plots assessed as well as through opportunistic<br />

observation. The richness index is given by the following formula:<br />

Species richness = ∑ (no. <strong>of</strong> species in the whole forest reserve)<br />

42


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Species diversity<br />

The species diversity was calculated for each forest reserve using a Shannon diversity index<br />

(Shannon, 1948). This diversity index takes into account the species richness as well as their<br />

proportional abundance, which is obtained by dividing the number <strong>of</strong> individuals for a<br />

specific species by the total number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> all species in the area sampled.<br />

Sampling was carried out with an effort to represent all species in each FR. Samples were<br />

obtained r<strong>and</strong>omly. The diversity index is given by the following formula:<br />

Η¹ = -∑(P i ln P i )<br />

Where:<br />

H¹ is the Shannon diversity index<br />

P i is the relative abundance <strong>of</strong> n species<br />

ln is the natural log<br />

H¹ = 0 when there is no diversity. Values <strong>of</strong> H¹ typically fall between 1.5 <strong>and</strong> 3.5. The greater the<br />

number the greater the diversity (Magurran, 1988).<br />

• Species relative frequency (RF) or dominance<br />

The species relative frequency or dominance was calculated for the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy<br />

layers <strong>of</strong> each homogeneous (i.e. floristically uniform) vegetation assemblage/st<strong>and</strong> identified<br />

within each forest reserve. It was calculated using data collected systematically from the<br />

canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers <strong>and</strong> treating the two layers separately. It was calculated only<br />

for the five top ranking canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy species. This was because in lowl<strong>and</strong> forests<br />

<strong>of</strong> tropical Africa usually up to five species account for 80% <strong>of</strong> all canopy trees in any 1ha<br />

block <strong>of</strong> forest (Clarke et al., 2000). The species relative frequency or dominance takes into<br />

account the number <strong>of</strong> plots within which a species occurs relative to the total number <strong>of</strong> plots<br />

sampled, <strong>and</strong> it is used to classify a vegetation type. It is determined by dividing the number<br />

<strong>of</strong> plots within which a species occurs by the total number <strong>of</strong> plots sampled, <strong>and</strong> it is given as<br />

a percentage, where the relative frequency is multiplied by one hundred.<br />

RF = (p/P) x 100<br />

Where:<br />

RF is the relative frequency <strong>of</strong> a species<br />

p is the number <strong>of</strong> plots in which the species occurs.<br />

P is the total number <strong>of</strong> plots<br />

Plant species were ranked according to their relative frequency. All species with a relative<br />

frequency 40% ≤ 60% <strong>and</strong> 60% ≤ 100% were chosen to represent frequent <strong>and</strong> dominant<br />

species respectively (Mueller-Dombois <strong>and</strong> Ellenberg, 1974), <strong>and</strong> were used to classify the<br />

vegetation type in which they occurred.<br />

• Species relative abundance (RA)<br />

The relative abundance <strong>of</strong> a species was calculated for the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers <strong>of</strong><br />

each homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong> identified within each forest reserve. It was calculated<br />

using data collected systematically from the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers <strong>and</strong> treating the<br />

two layers separately. It was calculated only for the five top ranking canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy<br />

species. This was because in lowl<strong>and</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> tropical Africa usually up to five species<br />

account for 80% <strong>of</strong> all canopy trees in any 1ha block <strong>of</strong> forest (Clarke et al., 2000). The<br />

relative abundance <strong>of</strong> a species takes into account the number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> a species<br />

relative to the total number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> all species <strong>and</strong> is used to classify a vegetation<br />

type. It is determined by dividing the number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> a particular species by the total<br />

43


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> all species, <strong>and</strong> it is given as a percentage, where the relative<br />

abundance is multiplied by one hundred. The relative abundance is given by the formula:<br />

% RA = (ni/N) x 100<br />

Where:<br />

RA is the relative abundance <strong>of</strong> a species<br />

ni/N is the proportional abundance <strong>of</strong> a species<br />

ni is the number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> a species<br />

N is the total number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> all species<br />

The species were ranked according to their relative abundance. All species with a percentage<br />

relative abundance >4% were chosen to represent high abundance species, <strong>and</strong> to classify the<br />

vegetation type in which they occurred.<br />

The comparative relative abundance <strong>of</strong> individuals in the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers were<br />

also calculated <strong>and</strong> compared in order to help in the identification <strong>of</strong> the vegetation types. The<br />

comparative relative abundance <strong>of</strong> individuals in the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers is<br />

determined by dividing the overall number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> all species occurring in each<br />

layer separately by the total number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> all species occurring in the two layers<br />

combined, <strong>and</strong> is given as a percentage, where the relative abundance is multiplied by one<br />

hundred.<br />

• Species composition <strong>and</strong> vegetation type<br />

The species composition was analysed by looking at data from homogeneous vegetation<br />

assemblages/st<strong>and</strong>s separately. The species composition for the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers<br />

was determined by looking at both dominant <strong>and</strong> frequent species <strong>and</strong> high abundance<br />

species. For the shrub <strong>and</strong> ground layers the species composition was determined through<br />

data recorded in the regeneration plots. Homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>s within each forest<br />

reserve were then classified by comparing their species composition with that <strong>of</strong> the<br />

vegetation types classified in Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke (2000) 6 .<br />

• Endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status were determined for all floral species recorded through<br />

systematic <strong>and</strong> opportunistic methods, structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions in each<br />

forest reserve. The endemism <strong>of</strong> a species was determined by looking at its geographical<br />

distribution <strong>and</strong> the conservation status by using the IUCN Red List (2004) <strong>and</strong> Gereau <strong>and</strong><br />

Luke’s List <strong>of</strong> Potentially Threatened plants (2006).<br />

FAUNA<br />

Quantitative, st<strong>and</strong>ardised <strong>and</strong> repeatable methods were employed to record <strong>and</strong> analyse data<br />

on species richness <strong>and</strong> composition within specific faunal taxonomic groups, <strong>and</strong><br />

presence/absence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains endemic <strong>and</strong> globally<br />

threatened faunal species. Taxa chosen for this study were mammals, birds, reptiles,<br />

amphibians <strong>and</strong> butterflies. These taxonomic groups were chosen according to the<br />

practicalities <strong>of</strong> capture methods, identification techniques utilised <strong>and</strong> potential information<br />

that could be extracted from the data.<br />

6 Species dominance could not be used as a parameter to determine the species composition <strong>and</strong> vegetation types<br />

<strong>of</strong> Kambona FR due to the small size <strong>of</strong> the reserve <strong>and</strong> consequently low number <strong>of</strong> vegetation plots (4) sampled<br />

there.<br />

44


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Data on fauna were collected at zoological trap sites (abbreviated as zoosites), each <strong>of</strong> which<br />

was located within 500m from a base camp. Zoosites were chosen to cover the largest range<br />

<strong>of</strong> habitats possible, <strong>and</strong> one zoosite was placed r<strong>and</strong>omly within each habitat, e.g. one in<br />

Riverine forest, one in Open woodl<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> one in Grassl<strong>and</strong>. The size <strong>of</strong> the zoosite was<br />

determined by the length <strong>of</strong> the bucket pitfall line (20m) <strong>and</strong> the area used to place sherman<br />

traps around this line (see following section on sherman trapping for details).<br />

Data on fauna are presented in the form <strong>of</strong> species lists (Appendices 13-18). Here the order,<br />

family, genus <strong>and</strong> species are presented along with the ecological type, endemic <strong>and</strong><br />

conservation status. Number <strong>of</strong> captures <strong>and</strong> recaptures <strong>and</strong> specimen record numbers for<br />

small mammals, reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians are provided in Appendix 18.<br />

Data collection<br />

Combinations <strong>of</strong> methods were used to collect data on fauna, including:<br />

- Bucket pitfall traps<br />

- Sherman traps<br />

- Timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna searches<br />

- Bird mist netting<br />

- Timed bird searches<br />

- Butterfly canopy trapping<br />

- Butterfly sweep netting<br />

- Bat mist netting<br />

- Mammal track <strong>and</strong> sign transects<br />

- Opportunistic collection <strong>and</strong> observation<br />

• Bucket pitfall trapping<br />

Bucket Pitfall Traps were used to record <strong>and</strong> sample small rodent <strong>and</strong> insectivorous<br />

mammals, reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians (diurnal, crepuscular <strong>and</strong> nocturnal) whose habitat is the<br />

forest floor. One 50m linear transect was placed r<strong>and</strong>omly within each trap site <strong>and</strong> ten 1ltr<br />

plastic buckets were positioned at 5m intervals. Buckets were sunk into the ground with their<br />

rims flush to ground level. Buckets had small holes in the base to allow rainwater to drain<br />

from them. A 20m single sheet <strong>of</strong> plastic (approximately 0.5m high, <strong>and</strong> no less than 0.2m)<br />

was erected as a “drift fence” that ran perpendicular to the ground <strong>and</strong> crossed the centre <strong>of</strong><br />

each bucket. A 10-15cm lip <strong>of</strong> plastic sheeting was left flat on the ground onto which soil <strong>and</strong><br />

leaf litter was placed to prevent any gap in the drift fence at ground level. Animals moving<br />

into the area from either side are channelled along the plastic sheet towards the bucket traps.<br />

Buckets were checked twice a day, early in the morning (07:00hr) <strong>and</strong> in the evening<br />

(16:00hr). Data on the taxonomy, sex, breeding status <strong>and</strong> biometrics <strong>of</strong> each animal captured,<br />

as well as habitat notes <strong>and</strong> associated vegetation types, were recorded on st<strong>and</strong>ardised data<br />

sheets. Small mammals that were to be released were identified, measured, described <strong>and</strong><br />

finally marked by trimming a small patch <strong>of</strong> fur in order to avoid duplicity <strong>of</strong> results. Reptiles<br />

<strong>and</strong> amphibians were not marked because sophisticated equipment that was not in the remit <strong>of</strong><br />

this study would have been required, e.g. Passive Integrated Transponder (Sutherl<strong>and</strong>, 2001).<br />

Specimens were retained when the species level could not be ascertained <strong>and</strong> subsequently<br />

sent to in-country <strong>and</strong> international taxonomic experts (Appendix 1). The sampling unit was<br />

the trapping night. The sampling intensity was calculated as follows:<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> buckets (10) x no. <strong>of</strong> trapping nights in each zoosite (3, 5 or 10) x no. <strong>of</strong><br />

zoosites in each reserve = total bucket trapping nights per forest reserve<br />

45


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Sherman trapping<br />

Sherman traps were used to record <strong>and</strong> sample small rodent <strong>and</strong> insectivorous mammals<br />

(diurnal, crepuscular, <strong>and</strong> nocturnal) whose habitat is the forest floor or that are adapted to<br />

climbing (scansorial). In each zoosite, traps were placed around each bucket pitfall line,<br />

approximately 5m apart. Traps were placed in situations in which small mammals are likely<br />

to occur, including: the base <strong>of</strong> large trees; on/under/near rotting logs; on branches; in dense<br />

understory; around rocks; <strong>and</strong> attached to the lower branches <strong>of</strong> trees (up to 1.3m above<br />

ground). Large open spaces with no ground cover were avoided as these are unlikely habitats<br />

for the target species. Traps were baited with st<strong>and</strong>ard sized toasted coconut <strong>and</strong> peanut butter<br />

baits every evening (around 16:00hr) <strong>and</strong> checked early the following morning (around<br />

07:00hr). Data on the identification, sex, breeding status <strong>and</strong> biometrics <strong>of</strong> each animal<br />

captured, as well as habitat notes <strong>and</strong> associated vegetation types, were recorded on<br />

st<strong>and</strong>ardised data sheets. Small mammals that were to be released were identified, measured,<br />

described, <strong>and</strong> finally marked by trimming a small patch <strong>of</strong> fur in order to avoid duplicity <strong>of</strong><br />

results. Specimens were retained when species level could not be ascertained <strong>and</strong><br />

subsequently sent to in-country <strong>and</strong> international taxonomic experts (Appendix 1). The<br />

sampling unit was the trapping night. The sampling intensity was calculated as follows:<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> traps (40) x no. <strong>of</strong> trapping nights in each zoosite (3, 5 or 10) x no. <strong>of</strong><br />

zoosites in each reserve = total sherman trapping nights per forest reserve<br />

• Timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna searches<br />

Timed searches were used to record <strong>and</strong> sample reptile <strong>and</strong> amphibian species. Various<br />

habitats were searched, including dead wood, leaf litter, leaves surface, tree holes, rocks,<br />

streams banks, puddles etc. Searches <strong>of</strong> various lengths were conducted during both the day<br />

<strong>and</strong> the night where possible (for many sites, searches after dark were not permitted by hired<br />

game guards due to the presence <strong>of</strong> large mammals). Approximately thirty minutes were spent<br />

conducting timed searches within each habitat. Data on the survey effort, taxonomy, sex,<br />

breeding status, <strong>and</strong> biometrics, as well as habitat notes <strong>and</strong> associated vegetation types, were<br />

recorded on st<strong>and</strong>ardised data sheets. If not taken as specimens, captures were released<br />

unmarked. Sound recordings using a Dictaphone were also taken. Sampling was carried out<br />

within a st<strong>and</strong>ardised effort. The sampling unit was the man/hour. Sampling intensity was<br />

calculated as follows:<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> man/hours = total man/hours per forest reserve<br />

• Bird mist netting<br />

Bird mist netting was used to record <strong>and</strong> sample birds within the zoosites. Mist netting<br />

targeted understory <strong>and</strong> lower canopy bird species. Where possible, the nets were set so that a<br />

funnel effect could be obtained using the vegetation. The nets were erected <strong>and</strong> checked every<br />

15 minutes in the early morning (06:00-09:00hr), <strong>and</strong> towards dusk (after 16:00hr). Bird mistnets<br />

<strong>of</strong> varying sizes were utilised each time. Data on the taxonomy <strong>and</strong> sex, as well as habitat<br />

notes <strong>and</strong> associated vegetation types, were recorded on st<strong>and</strong>ardised data sheets. When<br />

possible blood <strong>and</strong>/or tissue samples were taken. Birds that were to be released were<br />

identified, described <strong>and</strong> marked by trimming a small amount <strong>of</strong>f the tail feather to avoid<br />

duplicity <strong>of</strong> results. The sampling unit was the man/hour. Sampling intensity was calculated<br />

as follows:<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> man/hours = total man/hours per forest reserve<br />

46


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Timed bird searches<br />

Various habitats <strong>and</strong> vegetation types were searched. Searches <strong>of</strong> various lengths were<br />

conducted in the early morning (06:00-09:00hr), <strong>and</strong> towards dusk (after 16:00hr). Data on<br />

the survey effort, taxonomy <strong>and</strong> sex, as well as habitat notes <strong>and</strong> associated vegetation types,<br />

were recorded on st<strong>and</strong>ardised data sheets. The sampling unit was the man/hour. Sampling<br />

intensity was calculated as follows:<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> man/hours = total man/hours per forest reserve<br />

• Butterfly canopy trapping<br />

This method sampled fruit-feeding canopy-dwelling butterflies. Blendon style canopy traps<br />

(38cm round base x 69cm high) were located in the upper-, mid- <strong>and</strong> lower-canopy within<br />

each zoosite. An attempt was made to sample in a range <strong>of</strong> different habitats. The traps were<br />

baited with st<strong>and</strong>ard sized fermented banana baits early in the morning (07:00hr) <strong>and</strong> checked<br />

in the late afternoon (16:00hr). Data on the taxonomy <strong>and</strong> sex (when possible), as well as<br />

habitat notes, associated vegetation types <strong>and</strong> altitude were recorded on st<strong>and</strong>ardised data<br />

sheets. If not taken as specimens, captures were released unmarked. The sampling unit was<br />

the canopy trapping day. The sampling intensity was calculated as follows:<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> trapping days x no. <strong>of</strong> traps in each zoosite (3) x no. <strong>of</strong> zoosites in each<br />

reserve = total canopy trapping days per forest reserve<br />

• Butterfly timed sweep netting<br />

This method sampled butterflies in the forest under storey/scrub/thicket <strong>and</strong> around ground<br />

herbs <strong>and</strong> grasses. Timed sweep netting was conducted within each vegetation plot. Data on<br />

the taxonomy <strong>and</strong> sex (when possible), as well as habitat notes, associated vegetation types<br />

<strong>and</strong> altitude were recorded on st<strong>and</strong>ardised data sheets. If not taken as specimens, captures<br />

were released unmarked. The sampling unit was the sweep net/hour. The sampling intensity<br />

was calculated as follows:<br />

no. <strong>of</strong> sweep netting hours x no. <strong>of</strong> sweep nets x no. <strong>of</strong> vegetation plots in each<br />

reserve = total sweep net/hours per forest reserve.<br />

• Bat mist netting<br />

Bat mist netting was used to record <strong>and</strong> sample bat species (nocturnal <strong>and</strong> crepuscular) within<br />

the zoosites. Nets were located close to likely bat roost sites <strong>and</strong> flyways within the forest<br />

(e.g. across streams <strong>and</strong> pools <strong>of</strong> still water, <strong>and</strong> across paths <strong>and</strong> passes between valleys).<br />

Where possible, the nets were set so that a funnel effect could be obtained using the<br />

vegetation. The net was erected at dusk <strong>and</strong> constantly attended or checked every 15 minutes.<br />

Bat mist-nets <strong>of</strong> varying sizes were utilised each time (2.5m x 6m, 2.5m x 9m, 2.5m x 10m).<br />

Data on the identification, sex, breeding status, <strong>and</strong> biometrics, as well as habitat notes <strong>and</strong><br />

associated vegetation types, were recorded on st<strong>and</strong>ardised data sheets. The sampling unit was<br />

the man/hour. Sampling intensity was calculated as follows:<br />

no. <strong>of</strong> man/hours x meters <strong>of</strong> net erected in each reserve = total bat mist<br />

net/hours per forest reserve.<br />

• Mammal track <strong>and</strong> sign transects (indirect observation)<br />

One kilometre animal sign transects were carried out to record data on large mammal species<br />

in each forest reserve. Dung was recorded within a 4m strip (2m either side <strong>of</strong> the transect).<br />

Presence <strong>of</strong> all other signs (footprints, burrows, scratchings, nests <strong>and</strong> ground resting sites)<br />

47


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

were recorded within a 10m strip (5m either side) <strong>of</strong> the transect. The transect was subdivided<br />

into 50m sections <strong>and</strong> records were taken separately for each section. Information was<br />

gathered on associated habitats <strong>and</strong> vegetation types along the transect, <strong>and</strong> ease <strong>of</strong> visibility<br />

for large mammal signs was estimated. Expertise from two pr<strong>of</strong>essional field assistants was<br />

utilised in conjunction with Walker’s field guide (1996) for identification <strong>of</strong> dung <strong>and</strong> signs.<br />

The sampling unit was the mammal transect. Sampling intensity was calculated as follows:<br />

Σ (no. <strong>of</strong> 1km transects in each forest reserve) = total no. <strong>of</strong> mammal transects<br />

per forest reserve<br />

• Opportunistic collection <strong>and</strong> observation<br />

Opportunistic collection <strong>and</strong> observation <strong>of</strong> mammals, birds, amphibians <strong>and</strong> reptiles, <strong>and</strong><br />

vocalisation recording <strong>of</strong> amphibians <strong>and</strong> bush babies were conducted to determine the<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> species otherwise omitted by the systematic survey techniques <strong>and</strong> to aid the<br />

taxonomic identification <strong>of</strong> species.<br />

• Climatic data<br />

A weather station provided with rain gauge <strong>and</strong> minimum/maximum thermometer was set up<br />

at each study site to collect climatic data that can influence analysis <strong>and</strong> results.<br />

Specimen collection <strong>and</strong> curation procedures<br />

Specimens for all taxa, with the exception <strong>of</strong> large mammals <strong>and</strong> IUCN <strong>and</strong> CITES listed<br />

species, were retained when identification in the field was not possible. For collection <strong>and</strong><br />

curation procedures see Technical report No 34: methodology report (Frontier-Tanzania,<br />

1997).<br />

Species identification <strong>and</strong> repository<br />

Frontier-Tanzania field team provided the field identification <strong>of</strong> mammals, herpet<strong>of</strong>auna,<br />

butterflies <strong>and</strong> animal tracks <strong>and</strong> signs. Jacob Kiure (Appendix 1) provided the field<br />

identification <strong>of</strong> bird species. When identification in the field was not possible, faunal<br />

specimens were collected for identification <strong>and</strong> repository at the Department <strong>of</strong> Zoology <strong>and</strong><br />

Wildlife Conservation <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Butterfly specimens<br />

were sent for identification <strong>and</strong> repository to the Southern Highl<strong>and</strong>s Conservation<br />

Programme (SHCP) <strong>of</strong> the Wildlife Conservation Society, Tanzania.<br />

When necessary, faunal specimens were sent on loan for further identification to: the British<br />

Natural History Museum, UK; the California Academy <strong>of</strong> Sciences, USA; the Chicago Field<br />

Museum, USA; the Zimbabwe Natural History Museum, Zimbabwe; the Copenhagen<br />

Zoological Museum, Denmark. These specimens were incorporated into the collections <strong>of</strong> the<br />

receiving institutions. Once specimens were identified species lists were sent back to the<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam <strong>and</strong> frontier-Tanzania.<br />

Data analysis<br />

Faunal data collected through systematic <strong>and</strong> opportunistic methods were used to determine<br />

species richness <strong>and</strong> species composition. Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation<br />

status were also determined for all faunal species.<br />

No statistical analysis was conducted to compare data among reserves because in this study<br />

the sampling intensity was chosen to be proportional to the size <strong>of</strong> each forest reserve, <strong>and</strong><br />

therefore dissimilar sampling intensities were applied to each reserve (Table 10-a). Values <strong>of</strong><br />

species richness recorded in separate reserves were instead compared through graphs <strong>and</strong> by<br />

taking in consideration a combination <strong>of</strong> factors, including the size <strong>of</strong> the reserve, the<br />

48


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

structure <strong>of</strong> the plant communities present, the level <strong>of</strong> habitat fragmentation <strong>and</strong> the degree<br />

<strong>of</strong> disturbance.<br />

• Species richness<br />

The species richness was calculated for each taxon <strong>and</strong> for each reserve separately. It was<br />

determined by counting the number <strong>of</strong> species recorded through systematic <strong>and</strong> opportunistic<br />

methods in all zoological trap sites. The richness index is given by the following formula:<br />

Species richness = ∑ (no. <strong>of</strong> species in the whole forest reserve)<br />

Species richness values were defined as low, intermediate or high in relation to the sampling<br />

intensity <strong>of</strong> the study <strong>and</strong> the size <strong>of</strong> the forest reserves.<br />

A species diversity index <strong>of</strong> fauna was not calculated for this study. As this study was<br />

designed as a preliminary biodiversity assessment, data collected were not sufficient to allow<br />

the calculation <strong>of</strong> a relative abundance index, which is used in the calculation <strong>of</strong> the species<br />

diversity index.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status were determined for all faunal species<br />

recorded in each forest reserve through systematic <strong>and</strong> opportunistic methods, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions. The endemism <strong>of</strong> a species was determined by looking at its<br />

geographical distribution, <strong>and</strong> the conservation status by using the IUCN Red List (2004) <strong>and</strong><br />

CITES Appendices I <strong>and</strong> II (2005).<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND DISTURBANCE<br />

Quantitative, st<strong>and</strong>ardised <strong>and</strong> repeatable methods were employed to record <strong>and</strong> analyse data<br />

on human resources-use <strong>and</strong> disturbance.<br />

Data collection<br />

Two methods were used to collect data on human resources-use <strong>and</strong> disturbance:<br />

- Disturbance transects<br />

- Opportunistic collection <strong>and</strong> observation<br />

GPS coordinates <strong>and</strong> description <strong>of</strong> disturbance transect sites <strong>and</strong> pit-sawing sites for all<br />

forest reserves are given in Appendices 7 <strong>and</strong> 8.<br />

• Disturbance transects<br />

Disturbance transects were used to record the incidence <strong>of</strong> disturbance caused by various<br />

human activities, i.e. clearance for cultivation, pole/timber extraction, bark ringing, burning,<br />

hunting <strong>and</strong> paths. One kilometre disturbance transects were placed r<strong>and</strong>omly at 1km<br />

intervals within each forest reserve. The size <strong>of</strong> the reserve meant that this was not always<br />

possible, e.g., Kambona FR is less than 1km at its widest point <strong>and</strong> shorter transects making<br />

up 1km were used instead. The number <strong>of</strong> transects used varied according to the size <strong>of</strong> the<br />

forest reserves. Transects were subdivided into 50m sections <strong>and</strong> records were taken<br />

separately for each section. Every self-st<strong>and</strong>ing tree <strong>and</strong> sapling (not lianas or creepers) with<br />

dbh ≥5cm within 5m either side <strong>of</strong> the transect line was measured <strong>and</strong> classified as pole,<br />

timber <strong>and</strong> large timber, <strong>and</strong> each plant was recorded as live, naturally dead, old cut or new<br />

cut (see section on Definition <strong>of</strong> Key Categories). Pit sawing sites were also recorded.<br />

Whether these sites had been recently active at the time <strong>of</strong> study was determined by the<br />

49


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> freshly cut timber. Information was gathered on altitude <strong>and</strong> GPS coordinates, as<br />

well as associated habitats (Appendices 7 <strong>and</strong> 8). The sampling unit was the disturbance<br />

transect. Sampling intensity was calculated as follows:<br />

Σ (no. <strong>of</strong> 1km transects in each forest reserve) = total no. <strong>of</strong> disturbance<br />

transects per forest reserve<br />

• Opportunistic observation<br />

Observations <strong>of</strong> human disturbance were made in each vegetation plot, zoological trap site<br />

<strong>and</strong> throughout each forest reserve to record data on the extent <strong>of</strong> human activities <strong>and</strong><br />

complement data collected through systematic disturbance transects.<br />

Data analysis<br />

Data collected through systematic methods were used to determine the relative level <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance occurring in an area, <strong>and</strong> the relative abundance <strong>and</strong> average no. <strong>of</strong> individuals<br />

per hectare <strong>of</strong> live, naturally dead <strong>and</strong> cut poles/timbers/large timbers. Data collected through<br />

opportunistic methods were used in addition to systematic data to determine the forms <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance occurring in an area.<br />

• Relative level <strong>of</strong> disturbance (RLD)<br />

The level <strong>of</strong> disturbance was analysed in each forest reserve by calculating the percentage <strong>of</strong><br />

50m sections containing various forms <strong>of</strong> disturbance. The relative level <strong>of</strong> disturbance takes<br />

into account the number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections containing a form <strong>of</strong> disturbance relative to the total<br />

number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections recorded along a transect. It is determined by dividing the number <strong>of</strong><br />

50m sections containing a form <strong>of</strong> disturbance by the total number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections recorded<br />

along a transect, <strong>and</strong> it is given as a percentage, where the relative level <strong>of</strong> disturbance is<br />

multiplied by one hundred. The relative level <strong>of</strong> disturbance is given by the formula:<br />

% RLD = (ni/N) x 100<br />

Where:<br />

RLD is the relative level <strong>of</strong> a form <strong>of</strong> disturbance<br />

ni/N is the proportional abundance <strong>of</strong> 50m sections containing a form <strong>of</strong> disturbance<br />

ni is the number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections containing a form <strong>of</strong> disturbance<br />

N is the total number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections along a transect<br />

Although this analysis does not show the intensity <strong>of</strong> a given form <strong>of</strong> disturbance within each<br />

50m section, it gives an overall picture <strong>of</strong> the disturbance occurring within an area.<br />

• Relative abundance <strong>of</strong> live, naturally dead <strong>and</strong> cut poles/timbers/large timbers (RA)<br />

The relative abundance was calculated for live, naturally dead <strong>and</strong> cut poles/timbers/large<br />

timbers by using data from the disturbance transects. The relative abundance takes into<br />

account the number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> one category (live, naturally dead or cut) relative to the<br />

total number <strong>of</strong> individuals from all categories recorded in an area. It is determined by<br />

dividing the number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> a particular category by the total number <strong>of</strong> individuals<br />

recorded in an area, <strong>and</strong> it is given as a percentage, where the relative abundance is multiplied<br />

by one hundred. The relative abundance is given by the formula:<br />

% RA = (ni/N) x 100<br />

50


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Where:<br />

RA is the relative abundance <strong>of</strong> a category<br />

ni/N is the proportional abundance <strong>of</strong> n category<br />

ni is the number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> a category<br />

N is the total number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> all categories<br />

• Average no. <strong>of</strong> individual poles/timbers/large timbers per hectare<br />

The average no. <strong>of</strong> individuals per hectare was calculated for live, naturally dead, <strong>and</strong> cut<br />

poles/timbers/large timbers. It is determined by dividing the total number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong><br />

one category (live, naturally dead or cut) by the number <strong>of</strong> hectares covered by the<br />

disturbance transects. The average no. <strong>of</strong> individuals per hectare is given by the formula:<br />

Average no. <strong>of</strong> individuals per ha = total no. <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> one<br />

category/total no. <strong>of</strong> ha covered by the disturbance transects<br />

COMMUNITY DAYS<br />

Structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions<br />

Frontier “community days” were held as a means <strong>of</strong> communicating with inhabitants <strong>of</strong> the<br />

villages within the vicinity <strong>of</strong> <strong>and</strong> adjacent to the forest reserves in question. For the FT FRP,<br />

community days took the form <strong>of</strong> structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions with community<br />

groups, forest <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>and</strong> key informants. The aim <strong>of</strong> the community days was to collate<br />

local <strong>and</strong> indigenous knowledge about the forest resources, to gain an overview <strong>of</strong> natural<br />

resource use in the reserves, <strong>and</strong> to obtain information on the attitude <strong>of</strong> local inhabitants<br />

towards the reserves. The following topics were addressed:<br />

- Flora <strong>and</strong> fauna species occurrence<br />

- Species degree <strong>of</strong> extraction <strong>and</strong> utilisation<br />

- Management practices (from the district <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>and</strong> from community groups)<br />

- Perceived value <strong>of</strong> <strong>and</strong> attitudes toward the forest reserves<br />

On average, a minimum <strong>of</strong> three village elders from each village were asked to participate <strong>and</strong><br />

interviews lasted for up to one hour in total (Appendix 19). Forest Officers from Mtwara,<br />

Masasi, T<strong>and</strong>ahimba <strong>and</strong> Newala district natural resources <strong>of</strong>fices contributed to the<br />

information collected during this <strong>project</strong>. Community days took place on the following dates:<br />

- Kambona FR (Chidya <strong>and</strong> Chiwata villages): 10th April 2005<br />

- Makonde Scarp I proposed FR (Chidya village): 18th April 2005<br />

- Makonde Scarp II proposed FR (Chiwambo juu <strong>and</strong> Nambunga villages): 1st May<br />

2005<br />

- Mkunya River proposed FR (Chiunjila, Chihanga, Chikwedu <strong>and</strong> Mpilipili<br />

villages): 19th May 2005<br />

- Mtiniko forest proposed FR (Mtiniko village): 14th June 2005<br />

- Mtuli Hinju proposed FR (Mtuli Hinju village): 18th June 2005<br />

- Makonde Scarp III proposed FR (Lidumbe village): 28th June 2005<br />

- Ndechela FR (Ndechela village): 18 th July 2005<br />

The information obtained through the community days has contributed to the compilation <strong>of</strong><br />

The <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mtwara: a Kiswahili layman’s report (Frontier-Tanzania, 2005),<br />

which is being distributed to district natural resources <strong>of</strong>fices, community groups <strong>and</strong> schools<br />

in close proximity to the studied sites.<br />

51


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

DEFINITION OF KEY CATEGORIES<br />

Various criteria were used to evaluate the uniqueness <strong>of</strong> the biodiversity <strong>of</strong> the reserves<br />

studied <strong>and</strong> its vulnerability to disturbance, including species’ growth habit (for plants only),<br />

forest dependency (for animals only), distribution, endemism, conservation status <strong>and</strong><br />

presence <strong>of</strong> Important Bird Areas, as well as presence <strong>of</strong> live, naturally dead <strong>and</strong> cut poles,<br />

timbers <strong>and</strong> large timbers.<br />

Information on <strong>and</strong> definition <strong>of</strong> these categories were taken from various sources.<br />

Information on growth habit, habitat <strong>and</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong> flora was taken from Iverson (1991b),<br />

Bailey (1999), the Flora <strong>of</strong> Tropical East Africa (FTEA) (all published families), <strong>and</strong> the List<br />

<strong>of</strong> East African Plants (LEAP) (Knox, 2000). The forest dependency <strong>and</strong> endemic status <strong>of</strong><br />

fauna were gleaned from the <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa (Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000).<br />

The conservation status <strong>of</strong> flora <strong>and</strong> fauna was obtained from the IUCN Red List <strong>of</strong><br />

Threatened Species (IUCN, 2004), the List <strong>of</strong> Potentially Threatened Plants in the EACF<br />

hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006) <strong>and</strong> CITES (2005). Other<br />

information, including taxonomy <strong>and</strong> nomenclature, was sourced from the following<br />

references:<br />

All taxa: Burgess & Clarke (2000)<br />

Mammals: Kingdon (2003, 1989 <strong>and</strong> 1974)<br />

Birds:<br />

Sinclair & Ryan (2003), Stevenson & Fanshawe (2002) <strong>and</strong><br />

Zimmerman et al. (1996)<br />

Reptiles: Spawls et al (2002), Howell (1993)<br />

Amphibians: Channing (2001), Schiotz (1999) <strong>and</strong> Passmore & Carruthers (1995)<br />

Butterflies: Davenport (2001), Larsen (1996) <strong>and</strong> Kiell<strong>and</strong> (1990)<br />

Plants:<br />

FTEA (all published families), LEAP (Knox, 2000), Gereau & Luke<br />

(2006)<br />

Mammals<br />

For the purpose <strong>of</strong> this study mammals have been categorised as follows:<br />

- Small mammal: mammals captured by using sherman <strong>and</strong> bucket pitfall traps,<br />

including mice, rats <strong>and</strong> shrews (not including elephant shrews)<br />

- Large mammal: any other mammal recorded (including elephant shrews)<br />

Growth habit – flora (based on Bailey, 1999)<br />

- S – shrub<br />

- T – tree<br />

- C – climber<br />

- H – herb<br />

- B – bamboo<br />

Forest dependency – flora <strong>and</strong> fauna (based on Iverson, 1991b, <strong>and</strong> Mlingwa et al., 2000)<br />

• F – ‘Forest dependent’ or ‘specialist’ species: species recorded as restricted to primary or<br />

closed-canopy forest only <strong>and</strong> typical <strong>of</strong> the forest interior, e.g. wet evergreen forest, dry<br />

evergreen forest <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest; does not include forest edge or secondary forest species;<br />

likely to disappear if the forest is modified to any great extent.<br />

• f – ‘Forest dwelling’ or ‘generalist’ species: species that may occur in undisturbed primary<br />

or closed-canopy forest, but are able to exist in clearings, fragmented <strong>and</strong> secondary forest,<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> at the forest edge; these species may still depend upon the forest for some <strong>of</strong><br />

52


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

their resources, such as nesting sites, thus they may also be adversely affected by forest<br />

destruction.<br />

• O – ‘Non-forest’ or ‘forest visitor’ species: species that may occur in primary or secondary<br />

forest or at the forest edge but are usually recorded in open habitats <strong>and</strong> are not dependent<br />

upon the forest (e.g. species that have been recorded in bushl<strong>and</strong>, heathl<strong>and</strong>, thicket,<br />

secondary scrub, grassl<strong>and</strong>, rocky outcrops, swamps, wastel<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> cultivation).<br />

Distribution – flora (based on the FTEA index <strong>of</strong> collecting localities - Polhill, 1988)<br />

- T1 – Kagera, Mwanza, <strong>and</strong> Mara regions<br />

- T2 – Arusha <strong>and</strong> Manyara regions<br />

- T3 – Tanga <strong>and</strong> Kilimanjaro regions<br />

- T4 – Kigoma <strong>and</strong> Rukwa regions<br />

- T5 – Dodoma <strong>and</strong> Singida regions<br />

- T6 – Dar es Salaam, <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>and</strong> Morogoro regions<br />

- T7 – Mbeya <strong>and</strong> Iringa regions<br />

- T8 – Lindi, Mtwara <strong>and</strong> Ruvuma regions<br />

- K7 – <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> regions<br />

- R – Rare: plant species present in less than two out <strong>of</strong> the eight FTEA vegetation<br />

regions <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (based on the LEAP - Knox, 2000)<br />

Endemism – flora <strong>and</strong> fauna<br />

- Strict endemic – species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone or in the<br />

Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>, sometimes including other habitats in a<br />

few adjacent locations (e.g. Masasi District in south-eastern Tanzania, northern<br />

Mozambique etc).<br />

- Broad endemic – species with limited ranges in a large region that includes part or<br />

all <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic (e.g. south-eastern Tanzania, coastal eastern<br />

Africa, south-eastern Africa etc).<br />

Endemic status flora (based on Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

- E – Endemic: species with limited ranges in the Swahilian region <strong>of</strong> endemism<br />

sensu lato 7<br />

Endemic status fauna (adapted from Burgess et al., 2000a):<br />

- CF – Species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

- EACF – Species with limited ranges in the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> hotspot<br />

- SE Tanzania – Species with limited ranges in south-eastern Tanzania<br />

- E Africa – Species with limited ranges in eastern Africa<br />

- SE Africa – Species with limited ranges in south-eastern Africa<br />

7<br />

This is a phytocorion consisting <strong>of</strong> a “Swahilian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism” with an adjacent<br />

“Swahilian/Maputal<strong>and</strong> regional transition zone”, together referred to as the “Swahilian region sensu lato”. It<br />

extends between the Limpopo River in Somalia <strong>and</strong> the equator in Mozambique (Clarke, 1998) <strong>and</strong> represents the<br />

new nomenclature for the “Zanzibar-Inhambane regional phytocorion” identified by White (1983a). Clarke defines<br />

the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic as corresponding to this phytocorion (Clarke, 2000a, pp 10-17).<br />

53


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Extinction threat – flora <strong>and</strong> fauna<br />

- Threatened species = Species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered<br />

(EN) or Vulnerable (VU) in the IUCN Red List (2004), or in CITES Appendix I<br />

(2005), or as Potentially Threatened (PT) by Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke (2006).<br />

Conservation status – IUCN (2004). Versions 3.1 (2001) <strong>and</strong> 2.3 (1994)<br />

- CR = Critically Endangered; extremely high risk <strong>of</strong> extinction in the wild (ver 3.1,<br />

2001)<br />

- EN = Endangered; very high risk <strong>of</strong> extinction in the wild (ver 3.1, 2001)<br />

- VU = Vulnerable; high risk <strong>of</strong> extinction in the wild (ver 3.1, 2001)<br />

- NT = Near Threatened; taxa that do not qualify as Critically Endangered,<br />

Endangered or Vulnerable now, but are close or are likely to qualify for a<br />

threatened category in the near future (ver 3.1, 2001)<br />

- LC = Least Concerned; taxa that do not qualify for conservation dependent or near<br />

threatened. Widespread <strong>and</strong> abundant taxa are included in this category (ver 3.1,<br />

2001)<br />

- DD = Data Deficient; lack <strong>of</strong> adequate information to make a direct or indirect<br />

assessment <strong>of</strong> a taxon’s risk <strong>of</strong> extinction based on distribution <strong>and</strong>/or population<br />

status (ver 3.1, 2001)<br />

- NE = Not Evaluated; not yet assessed against the criteria (ver 3.1, 2001)<br />

- LR nt = Lower Risk, near threatened; taxa that do not qualify as Critically<br />

Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable now, but are close or are likely to qualify<br />

for a threatened category in the near future (ver 2.3, 1994)<br />

- LR cd = Lower Risk, conservation dependent; taxa which are the focus <strong>of</strong> taxa<br />

specific or habitat specific conservation programmes targeted towards the taxon in<br />

question, the cessation <strong>of</strong> which would result in the taxa qualifying for one <strong>of</strong> the<br />

threatened categories over the next 5 years (ver 2.3, 1994)<br />

- LR/lc = Lower Risk, least concerned; taxa that do not qualify for conservation<br />

dependent or near threatened. Widespread <strong>and</strong> abundant taxa are included in this<br />

category (ver 2.3, 1994)<br />

Conservation status – CITES (2005)<br />

- CITES Appendix I = species threatened with extinction which are or may be<br />

further endangered by trade <strong>and</strong> are therefore excluded from international trade.<br />

- CITES Appendix II = species which although not necessarily yet threatened with<br />

extinction may become so unless trade is subject to strict regulation, thus export<br />

permits are required.<br />

- CITES Appendix III = species identified as needing <strong>and</strong>/or subject to regulation<br />

for the purpose <strong>of</strong> preventing or restricting exploitation<br />

Conservation status – Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke (2006)<br />

- PT = Plants included in the List <strong>of</strong> Potentially Threatened Plants in the EACF<br />

hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania<br />

54


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Important Bird Areas (IBAs) (based on BirdLife International, 2005)<br />

A site qualifies as an IBA if it fulfils one <strong>of</strong> the following criteria’s:<br />

A1. Globally threatened species = the site is known, estimated or thought to hold a<br />

population <strong>of</strong> a species categorized by the IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered,<br />

Endangered or Vulnerable. In general, the regular presence <strong>of</strong> a Critically Endangered or<br />

Endangered species, irrespective <strong>of</strong> population size, at a site may be sufficient for a site to<br />

qualify as an IBA. For Vulnerable species, the presence <strong>of</strong> more than threshold numbers at a<br />

site is necessary to trigger selection. The site may also qualify under this category if it holds<br />

more than threshold numbers <strong>of</strong> other species <strong>of</strong> global conservation concern in the Near<br />

Threatened, Data Deficient <strong>and</strong>, formerly, in the no-longer recognised Conservation<br />

Dependent categories. Thresholds are set regionally, <strong>of</strong>ten on a species by species basis.<br />

A2. Restricted-range species = the site forms one <strong>of</strong> a set selected to ensure that, as far as<br />

possible, all restricted-range species <strong>of</strong> an EBA or SA are present in significant numbers in at<br />

least one site <strong>and</strong>, preferably, more. The term 'significant component' is intended to avoid<br />

selecting sites solely on the presence <strong>of</strong> one or more restricted range species that are common<br />

<strong>and</strong> adaptable within the EBA <strong>and</strong>, therefore, occur at other chosen sites. Sites may, however,<br />

be chosen for one or a few species that would be otherwise under-represented, e.g. because <strong>of</strong><br />

particular habitat requirements.<br />

A3. Biome-restricted species = the site forms one <strong>of</strong> a set selected to ensure, as far as<br />

possible, adequate representation <strong>of</strong> all species restricted to a given biome, both across the<br />

biome as a whole <strong>and</strong>, as necessary, for all <strong>of</strong> its species in each range state. The 'significant<br />

component' term in the category definition is intended to avoid selecting sites solely on the<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> one or a few biome-restricted species that are common, widespread <strong>and</strong> adaptable<br />

within the biome <strong>and</strong>, therefore, occur at other chosen sites. Additional sites may, however,<br />

be chosen for the presence <strong>of</strong> one or a few species that would be otherwise under-represented,<br />

e.g. for reasons <strong>of</strong> particular habitat requirements.<br />

A4. Congregations = this applies to:<br />

- 'Waterbird' species as defined by Delaney <strong>and</strong> Scott (2002). The site is modelled on<br />

criterion 6 <strong>of</strong> the Ramsar Convention for identifying wetl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> international<br />

importance.<br />

- Seabird species not covered by Delaney <strong>and</strong> Scott (2002). Quantitative data are<br />

taken from a variety <strong>of</strong> published <strong>and</strong> unpublished sources. The site is modelled on<br />

criterion 5 <strong>of</strong> the Ramsar Convention for identifying wetl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> international<br />

importance. Where quantitative data are good enough to permit the application <strong>of</strong><br />

A4i <strong>and</strong> A4ii, the use <strong>of</strong> this criterion is discouraged. The site is known or thought<br />

to exceed thresholds set for migratory species at bottleneck sites. Thresholds are set<br />

regionally or inter-regionally, as appropriate.<br />

Poles, timbers <strong>and</strong> large timbers<br />

- Poles – 5≥15cm dbh <strong>and</strong> ≥2m relatively straight trunk<br />

- Timbers – 15≥50cm dbh <strong>and</strong> ≥3m relatively straight trunk<br />

- Large timbers – dbh ≥50cm <strong>and</strong> ≥3m relatively straight trunk<br />

- Live – Every self-st<strong>and</strong>ing tree <strong>and</strong> sapling (not lianas or creepers) with dbh ≥5cm<br />

- Naturally dead – Death not caused by human disturbance<br />

- Freshly cut stems (approximately within the past 3 months) – New cut stems<br />

recognised by a cream coloured slash. However the colour <strong>of</strong> the slash may depend<br />

on the species cut<br />

- Old cut stems (approximately more than 3 months old) – Old cut stems recognised<br />

by a black coloured slash<br />

55


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

12. KAMBONA FOREST RESERVE<br />

Status<br />

Management Body<br />

Location<br />

Area<br />

Altitude<br />

Topography<br />

Temperature<br />

Rainfall<br />

Soil type<br />

Vegetation type<br />

L<strong>and</strong> Use<br />

History <strong>and</strong> Status<br />

Gazetted Forest Reserve<br />

Central Government<br />

Masasi district. The reserve is located 10 kilometres outside <strong>of</strong><br />

Masasi town (where the District Forestry Office is located) <strong>and</strong> 23<br />

kilometres up a dirt road to the Chidya village <strong>and</strong> school. It is<br />

situated between the villages <strong>of</strong> Chiwata <strong>and</strong> Chidya <strong>and</strong> next to<br />

Chidya Secondary School. Next to the school is a maize mill factory<br />

<strong>and</strong> directly next to this is where the boundary <strong>of</strong> the reserve starts.<br />

29.9ha<br />

670-700m asl<br />

Lowl<strong>and</strong> plain<br />

Min: 19 o C, Max: 30 o C (recorded 9-11 April, start <strong>of</strong> dry season)<br />

Average 0mm (recorded 9-11 April, start <strong>of</strong> dry season)<br />

S<strong>and</strong>y-loam<br />

Eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest<br />

The forest reserve protects a water source used by the local villages<br />

<strong>and</strong> schools in the area. Chidya Secondary School has an electric<br />

pump system taking water from the source to the school site, but this<br />

is currently not in use. Timber is extracted on a commercial basis.<br />

Pole cutting, bark removal <strong>and</strong> root digging take place on a<br />

subsistence level. Hunting is widespread.<br />

Kambona FR was surveyed, mapped <strong>and</strong> demarcated in 1955 to<br />

protect the spring located near St. Joseph’s College (now Chidya<br />

Secondary School) in the village <strong>of</strong> Chidya. At this time the reserve<br />

covered 134.8ha, however this has been reduced by encroachment to<br />

29.9ha in 1963.<br />

56


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Maps Topographical map: Nd<strong>and</strong>a South sheet 306/1, East Africa 1:50 000,<br />

1968. From the Institute <strong>of</strong> Mapping, Dar es Salaam (from Series<br />

Y742, Edition 1-TSD).<br />

L<strong>and</strong> use <strong>and</strong> cover map: Masasi sheet SC-37-10/11, 1996. From the<br />

Institute <strong>of</strong> Resource Planning, UDSM.<br />

METHODS<br />

Survey work was conducted over five days (7-11 April 2005). Four vegetation plots (1600m 2 ),<br />

four regeneration plots (16m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> one zoosite were carried out, incorporating 120 sherman<br />

trapping nights, 30 bucket trapping nights, four man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna searches,<br />

20.25 bat mist net/hours, 15 man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed bird searches, nine canopy trapping days,<br />

two butterfly sweep net/hours, two animal sign transects <strong>of</strong> 600m <strong>and</strong> 500m respectively<br />

(totalling 4,400m 2 ), two disturbance transects <strong>of</strong> 600m <strong>and</strong> 500m respectively (totalling<br />

11,000m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> opportunistic observations (see Appendices 2 to 8 for GPS coordinates <strong>and</strong><br />

work site descriptions). Ornithological work was conducted on separate days (12-14 July<br />

2005). Bird mist netting was not conducted in this reserve as the camp had to be located at a<br />

distance from the forest (as requested by the inhabitants <strong>of</strong> Chidya village) <strong>and</strong> nets could not<br />

be left unattended due to threat <strong>of</strong> theft. Full 1000m transects could not be completed due to<br />

the small size <strong>of</strong> the reserve. Habitat notes were taken for vegetation plots (Appendices 4 <strong>and</strong><br />

5) <strong>and</strong> zoological trap sites (Appendix 6). Structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions were<br />

conducted with the environmental committee <strong>of</strong> the two villages <strong>of</strong> Chidya <strong>and</strong> Chiwata.<br />

Twenty-two people attended the meeting. For a detailed break down <strong>of</strong> survey effort see<br />

Table 10-a.<br />

RESULTS<br />

In Kambona FR 79 plant species belonging to 36 families were recorded. Nine percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />

total number <strong>of</strong> floral species are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> 10% are<br />

listed as threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006) (Table<br />

12-a; Appendices 9 <strong>and</strong> 10).<br />

One hundred <strong>and</strong> seven faunal species were found representing 54 families. Of these species<br />

5% are forest dependent, none are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc<br />

Mountains <strong>and</strong> 2% are listed as threatened by IUCN (2004) <strong>and</strong>/or CITES (2005) (Table 12-a;<br />

Appendices 13-17).<br />

57


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 12-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Kambona FR<br />

Taxa No. <strong>of</strong><br />

families<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

species c<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

forest<br />

dependent<br />

species d<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

widespread<br />

species<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> strictly<br />

endemic<br />

species:<br />

e <strong>and</strong> f<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

threatened<br />

species:<br />

g <strong>and</strong> h<br />

Mammals 16 22 2 22 0* 1 -<br />

Birds a 25 57 1 57 0 0 -<br />

Reptiles 4 4 0 4 0 0 -<br />

Amphibians 4 5 0 5 0 1 -<br />

Butterflies 5 19 2 19 0 0 -<br />

Total for 54 107 5 107 0 2 -<br />

animals<br />

Flora b 36 79 0 72 7 1 7<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> PT<br />

species i<br />

Combined<br />

Total<br />

90 186 5 179 7 3 7<br />

a - Includes birds seen on the forest boundary edge<br />

b - All trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses <strong>and</strong> ferns<br />

c - Includes information collected from all systematic survey work, opportunistic observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions<br />

d - Species dependent on <strong>and</strong> associated with primary or closed-canopy forest, not forest edge or secondary forest<br />

e - Faunal species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone or the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a), sometimes being found also in other habitats in a few adjacent locations (e.g.<br />

Masasi District in S Tanzania, N Mozambique etc.)<br />

f - Floral species restricted to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

g - Species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable (VU) in the IUCN Red List<br />

(IUCN, 2004)<br />

h - Species listed in CITES Appendix I as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade<br />

(CITES, 2005)<br />

i - Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

*The identification <strong>of</strong> Crocidura sp. may increase this number. We await verification<br />

FLORA<br />

In Kambona FR two homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>s were observed: Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong><br />

Riverine forest.<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> diversity<br />

During the survey 79 floral species were recorded. Out <strong>of</strong> these, 37 species were recorded<br />

from four vegetation plots, 22 species from four regeneration plots <strong>and</strong> 20 species through<br />

opportunistic collection. More specifically, 35 trees, 20 shrubs, 18 herbs <strong>and</strong> six grasses were<br />

recorded (Appendix 9). A value <strong>of</strong> 3.37 was calculated for the Shannon diversity index.<br />

• Species relative abundance<br />

In the canopy layer Pteleopsis myrtifolia contributed 7% <strong>of</strong> all the vegetation sampled, <strong>and</strong><br />

Brachystegia spiciformis, Brachystegia longifolia <strong>and</strong> Terminalia sambesiaca contributed 5%<br />

each (Table 12-b).<br />

58


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 12-b Species number <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance<br />

for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in Brachystegia forest in Kambona FR<br />

Family Genus Species No. <strong>of</strong> indv. %RA Rank RA<br />

in all plots<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis myrtifolia 3 7 1<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia spiciformis 2 5 2<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia longifolia 2 5 2<br />

COMBRETACEAE Terminalia sambesiaca 2 5 3<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus angolensis 1 2 3<br />

Total 1 3 4 5 10 24<br />

Total 2 12 19 24 40 100<br />

%RA = Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

In the sub canopy layer Bauhinia petersiana contributed 20%, Diplorhynchus condylocarpon<br />

12% <strong>and</strong> Bauhinia tomentosa 5% <strong>of</strong> all individuals sampled (Table 12-c).<br />

Table 12-c Species number <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for<br />

the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy layer in Brachystegia forest in Kambona FR<br />

Family Genus Species No. <strong>of</strong> indv. %RA Rank RA<br />

in all plots<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia petersiana 8 20 2<br />

APOCYNACEAE Diplorhynchus condylocarpon 5 12 2<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia tomentosa 2 5 3<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus capassa 1 2 4<br />

BIGNONIACEAE Markhamia acuminata 1 2 3<br />

Total 1 4 4 5 17 41<br />

Total 2 12 19 24 40 100<br />

%RA = Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all species in sub canopy layer in the reserve<br />

When looking at the overall number <strong>of</strong> trees recorded in both the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy<br />

layers, the sub canopy layer contributed a higher number <strong>of</strong> individuals (63%) than the<br />

canopy layer (37%) to the overall number <strong>of</strong> adult trees in this reserve.<br />

The structure <strong>of</strong> the Riverine forest does not include a sub canopy layer. Here, Syzygium<br />

cordatum <strong>and</strong> Bridelia cathartica covered about 18% <strong>and</strong> 12% respectively <strong>and</strong> Bridelia<br />

micrantha <strong>and</strong> Milicia excelsa about 7% each <strong>of</strong> all the vegetation sampled in this vegetation<br />

type (Table 12-d).<br />

59


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 12-d Species number <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance<br />

for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in Riverine forest in Kambona FR<br />

Family. Genus Species No. <strong>of</strong> indv. % RA Rank RA<br />

in all plots<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cordatum 5 18 1<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Bridelia cathartica 3 12 2<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Bridelia micrantha 2 7 3<br />

MORACEAE Milicia excelsa 2 7 3<br />

MORACEAE Ficus natalensis 1 3 4<br />

Total 1 3 4 5 13 47<br />

Total 2 12 17 20 31 100<br />

%RA = Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

• Species composition <strong>and</strong> vegetation types<br />

Two homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>s were observed, whose species composition <strong>and</strong> relative<br />

abundance confirmed to be eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong> eastern<br />

African coastal Riverine forest (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000).<br />

In the Brachystegia forest the canopy layer was dominated by Pteleopsis myrtifolia,<br />

Brachystegia sp. (B. spiciformis <strong>and</strong> longifolia) <strong>and</strong> Terminalia sambesiaca, together making<br />

22% <strong>of</strong> all individuals recorded in this layer. In the sub canopy layer Bauhinia petersiana,<br />

Diplorhynchus condylocarpon <strong>and</strong> Bauhinia tomentosa were the most abundant, together<br />

constituting 37% <strong>of</strong> all individuals. Other species recorded included Pterocarpus angolensis,<br />

Julbernardia globiflora, Albizia gummifera, Albizia versicolor in the canopy layer <strong>and</strong><br />

Lonchocarpus capassa, Markhamia acuminata, Swartzia madagascariensis, Markhamia<br />

obtusifolia <strong>and</strong> Kigelia africana in the sub canopy layer. The shrub layer was comprised <strong>of</strong><br />

species from the genus Combretum <strong>and</strong> species such as Salacia madagascariensis, Ochna<br />

holstii, Strychnos cocculoides, Strychnos madagascariensis, Flacourtia indica,<br />

Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia <strong>and</strong> Croton pseudopulchellus, which were found<br />

extensively together with saplings <strong>of</strong> the canopy species mentioned above. The herbaceous<br />

layer was constituted by grasses such as Sporobolus sp. <strong>and</strong> Themeda tri<strong>and</strong>ra, together with<br />

herbs such as Dicoma tomentosa, Crotalaria sp., Maerua sp., Tephrosia sp. <strong>and</strong> Jasminum sp.<br />

The Riverine forest occurs along the water source situated at the centre <strong>of</strong> the reserve <strong>and</strong><br />

extending further south. Within this vegetation type the dominant species in the canopy layer<br />

included Syzygium cordatum, Bridelia cathartica, Bridelia micrantha <strong>and</strong> Milicia excelsa,<br />

which together constituted 44% <strong>of</strong> the individuals sampled. Other canopy species recorded in<br />

Riverine forest included Ficus natalensis, Apodytes dimidiata, Albizia gummifera <strong>and</strong><br />

Syzygium cumini, which were recorded through opportunistic sampling. The shrub layer was<br />

observed to be characterised by Antidesma venosum, Grewia lepidopetala, Barringtonia<br />

racemosa <strong>and</strong> Lasianthus sp. In the herbaceous layer sedges from the family Cyperaceae,<br />

such as Cyperus sp., were recorded together with Bidens pilosa <strong>and</strong> species from the genus<br />

Vernonia <strong>and</strong> Conyza.<br />

• Endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Seven <strong>of</strong> the species recorded were found to be endemic to the Swahilian region sensu latu,<br />

including Barleria holstii, Cleistanthus schlechteri, Mimusops schliebenii, Grewia<br />

lepidopetala, Tetracera boiviniana, Erythrina schliebenii <strong>and</strong> Rytigynia decussata (Clarke<br />

<strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000) (Appendix 10), amounting to 9% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species<br />

recorded (Figure 2).<br />

60


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

9%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

91%<br />

Figure 2 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Kambona FR<br />

Eight among the species recorded are recognised to be threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially<br />

threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006) (Table 12-e), amounting to 10% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong><br />

species recorded.<br />

Table 12-e Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Kambona FR<br />

Family Species name Conservation status Habit<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana PT S/T<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Drypetes natalensis PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Baphia punctulata PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Craibia brevicaudata PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Erythrina schliebenii PT T<br />

MELIACEAE Khaya anthotheca VU T<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cordatum PT T<br />

RUBIACEAE Rytigynia decussata PT S<br />

PT = Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

T= Tree, S= Shrub, B= Bamboo, C= Climber, H= Herb<br />

FAUNA<br />

Although the identification <strong>of</strong> about 90% <strong>of</strong> the species recorded is certain, the identification<br />

<strong>of</strong> a few specimens remains tentative whilst awaiting taxonomic verification.<br />

Mammals<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 22 mammals representing 16 families were recorded (Appendix 13).<br />

For the small mammals eight species were recorded in total from 13 captures (excluding three<br />

recaptures) that took place during 120 sherman trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 30 bucket pitfall trapping<br />

nights. The Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei) was the most commonly found species,<br />

accounting for 58% <strong>of</strong> captures. There was only one capture <strong>of</strong> the Multimammate rat<br />

(Mastomys natalensis), the Strict-footed woodl<strong>and</strong> mouse (Grammomys dolichurus), <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Pygmy mouse (Mus minutoides). Two species <strong>of</strong> the White-toothed shrew (Crocidura sp.)<br />

were recorded out <strong>of</strong> three captures (Appendix 18).<br />

No bats were recorded during 20.25 bat mist net/hours.<br />

61


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

For the larger mammals, 14 species representing 14 families were recorded during sign<br />

transects totalling 1.1km, through opportunistic observations <strong>and</strong> from local knowledge<br />

(Appendix 13). No one species was recorded on more than two separate occasions during the<br />

survey. All <strong>of</strong> the larger mammals were recorded by indirect observation, such as<br />

vocalisations <strong>and</strong> dung, with exception <strong>of</strong> the Red-bellied coastal squirrel (Paraxerus<br />

palliatus). Species found included the Small-eared bushbaby (Otolemur garnetti), the Suni<br />

(Neotragus moschatus), the Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei) <strong>and</strong> the Redbellied<br />

coastal squirrel (Paraxerus palliatus). From interviews it was learnt that the Leopard<br />

(Panthera pardus), Lion (Panthera leo), Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) <strong>and</strong> Jackal (Canis<br />

adustus) occasionally move through the forest. Panthera pardus <strong>and</strong> P. leo were sighted by<br />

local residents in 2004 <strong>and</strong> Crocuta crocuta in 2005.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Two species were found to be forest dependent, although many <strong>of</strong> the species recorded <strong>of</strong>ten<br />

frequent <strong>and</strong> some favour a forest habitat. None <strong>of</strong> the species found are strictly endemic to<br />

the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains, yet two are rare species with a restricted<br />

distribution in eastern Africa. Only one <strong>of</strong> the species recorded is listed as threatened (Table<br />

12-f).<br />

Table 12-f Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Kambona FR<br />

Species Common name Forest Endemic<br />

Threatened<br />

dependent<br />

Otolemur garnetti Small-eared galago - CF, a few other -<br />

habitats in coastal E<br />

Africa<br />

Rhynchocyon cirnei Chequered Elephant - - VU<br />

shrew<br />

Paraxerus palliatus Red bellied coastal F - -<br />

squirrel<br />

Beamys hindei Lesser pouched rat - EACF, a few other -<br />

forest types in <strong>Kenya</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong> Tanzania<br />

Neotragus moschatus Suni F - -<br />

F= Forest dependent or specialist (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CF= species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF= species with limited ranges in the Eastern<br />

Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

Birds<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Fifty-seven bird species representing 25 families were observed in Kambona FR during 15<br />

man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed bird searches. Species included the Southern b<strong>and</strong>ed snake eagle<br />

(Circaetus fasciolatus) <strong>and</strong> the Pale batis (Batis soror) (Appendix 14).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

One species, the Blue-mantled crested flycatcher (Trochocercus cyanomelas), is forest<br />

dependent. No strictly endemic or threatened species were observed in this reserve.<br />

Reptiles<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Four species <strong>of</strong> reptiles representing four families were recorded from four captures that took<br />

place during 30 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> four man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological searches<br />

(Appendices 15 <strong>and</strong> 18). Tracks <strong>of</strong> the Southern rock python (Python natalensis), the White-<br />

62


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

throated savannah monitor (Varanus albigularis) <strong>and</strong> the Leopard tortoise (Geochelone<br />

pardalis) were observed, <strong>and</strong> the Tropical plated lizard (Cordylus tropidosternum) was also<br />

recorded.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent, strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Amphibians<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Five species <strong>of</strong> amphibian representing four families were recorded from 23 captures that<br />

took place during 30 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> during four man/hours <strong>of</strong><br />

herpetological searches, <strong>and</strong> through opportunistic observations. Species included<br />

Arthroleptis stenodactylus, Arthroleptis xenodactyloides, Hyperolius punticulatus, Bufo sp.<br />

<strong>and</strong> Xenopus muelleri (Appendices 16 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent or strictly endemic. Arthroleptis stenodactylus<br />

<strong>and</strong> A. xenodactyloides are known to favour forest habitats, while Bufo sp., Hyperolius<br />

punticulatus <strong>and</strong> Xenopus muelleri are regarded as non-forest dwelling species (Howell,<br />

1993). A. xenodactyloides is listed as Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004).<br />

Butterflies<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Nineteen species <strong>of</strong> butterfly representing five families were recorded from 24 captures that<br />

took place during nine canopy trapping days <strong>and</strong> two sweep net/hours (Appendix 17).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Two Nymphaloidea species, Bematistes epaea epitellus <strong>and</strong> the Flame bordered charaxes<br />

(Charaxes protoclea azota), are forest dependent. No species were found to be strictly<br />

endemic or threatened.<br />

Fauna’s strict endemism<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the faunal species recorded in Kambona FR are endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains.<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Twenty-two 50m long <strong>and</strong> 10m wide sections were sampled along two disturbance transects<br />

<strong>of</strong> 600m <strong>and</strong> 500m respectively (totalling 11,000m 2 ), to record levels <strong>of</strong> pole/timber cutting,<br />

fire, bark ringing <strong>and</strong> path densities. Out <strong>of</strong> twenty-two 50m sections, 21 (95%) were subject<br />

to some form <strong>of</strong> disturbance, 21 (95%) showed signs <strong>of</strong> pole/timber cutting, six (27%) were<br />

bisected by one or more paths, two (9%) showed signs <strong>of</strong> fire damage <strong>and</strong> a further two (9%)<br />

were subject to bark ringing (Figure 3). No traps were sighted in any section. Information on<br />

resource use is summarised in Table 12-h.<br />

63


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections affected<br />

25<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

Cutting Fire Paths Ringing<br />

Disturbance category<br />

Figure 3 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 22) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Kambona FR<br />

Agricultural encroachment<br />

Disturbance transects did not reveal any cultivation in the forest reserve. On the eastern,<br />

northern <strong>and</strong> southern sides <strong>of</strong> the reserve the boundary is not clearly demarcated. On the<br />

southern part <strong>of</strong> the reserve there are new farms (established within the last five years) where<br />

vegetables are grown for sale in Masasi town. Mango (Mangifera indica) <strong>and</strong> cashew nut<br />

(Anacardium occidentale) trees were observed within the boundaries.<br />

Poles <strong>and</strong> timbers<br />

Discussions <strong>and</strong> field observations identified 16 species used for timber in Kambona FR.<br />

Field observations detected four main species harvested for timber: Afzelia quanzensis,<br />

Milicia excelsa, Pterocarpus angolensis <strong>and</strong> P. rotundifolius. Discussions identified a further<br />

14 that are commonly used for timber. Nine species are commonly cut for poles as determined<br />

from disturbance transects (Table 12-h). No currently active or old pit sawing sites were<br />

recorded.<br />

• Relative abundance <strong>and</strong> average no. <strong>of</strong> live, dead <strong>and</strong> cut individuals per ha<br />

The study indicates that 30% <strong>of</strong> poles <strong>and</strong> 7% <strong>of</strong> timbers are cut within Kambona FR (Table<br />

12-g).<br />

Table 12-g Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Kambona FR<br />

Total<br />

transect<br />

length<br />

in m<br />

Total no.<br />

<strong>of</strong> indiv.<br />

sampled<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> %<br />

RA) <strong>of</strong><br />

live indiv.<br />

Average<br />

live indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> %<br />

RA) <strong>of</strong> dead<br />

indiv.<br />

Average<br />

dead<br />

indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> %<br />

RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> cut indiv.<br />

Poles 1,100 735 503 (68) 457 15 (2) 14 217 (30) 197<br />

Timbers 1,100 277 249 (90) 226 8 (3) 7 20 (7) 18<br />

Large<br />

timbers<br />

1,100 39 37 (95) 34 2 (5) 1.8 0 (0) 0<br />

Average<br />

cut indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Fuel wood<br />

Residents mentioned 21 different tree species that are used for fuel wood in Kambona FR<br />

(Table 12-h). The residents stated that fuel wood is mainly collected from dead trees.<br />

64


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Tools <strong>and</strong> utensils<br />

Species used to make items such as h<strong>and</strong>les for hoes, wooden spoons <strong>and</strong> ropes are listed in<br />

Table 12-h. Bark ringing (to extract bark for rope making) was observed on two separate<br />

occasions.<br />

Edible non-timber forest products<br />

From discussion, 13 species were identified that supply food to the local inhabitants (Table<br />

12-h). The roots <strong>of</strong> Dioscorea hirtiflora were found to be an important source <strong>of</strong> carbohydrate<br />

exploited for sale on local markets.<br />

Medicinal plants<br />

Discussions with the local elders revealed 12 species that are used as medicinal plants (Table<br />

12-h).<br />

Table 12-h Plant pecies utilised in Kambona FR as identified by field observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions. Local names, where known, are presented in Appendix 9<br />

FAMILY Species Poles Timber Fuel<br />

wood<br />

Tools Rope Food Medici<br />

ne<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Sclerocarya birrea X X X<br />

ANNONACEAE Annona<br />

X X X X<br />

senegalensis<br />

APOCYNACEAE L<strong>and</strong>olphia<br />

X<br />

buchananii<br />

BOMBACACEAE Ceiba pent<strong>and</strong>ra X<br />

CAOMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis<br />

X<br />

myrtifolia<br />

CHRYSOBALANAC Parinari<br />

X<br />

X<br />

EAE<br />

curatellifolia<br />

DIOSCOREACEAE Dioscorea<br />

X<br />

hirtiflora<br />

EBENACEAE Diospyros kirkii X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Afzelia quanzensis X X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia<br />

tomentosa<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia<br />

X X<br />

longifolia<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia X X X X<br />

microphylla<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia<br />

X X<br />

spiciformis<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia petersiana X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Hymenaea<br />

X<br />

verrucosa<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Julbernardia<br />

X X X X<br />

globiflora<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Piliostigma<br />

X X X<br />

thonningii<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Scorodophloeus<br />

X<br />

fischeri<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Swartzia<br />

X X<br />

madagascariensis<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia amara X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia gummifera X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia versicolor X X X X<br />

65


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

FAMILY Species Poles Timber Fuel<br />

wood<br />

Tools Rope Food Medici<br />

ne<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Dalbergia<br />

X X X<br />

melanoxylon<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia<br />

X<br />

stuhlmannii<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus X X X X<br />

bussei<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus<br />

X X X<br />

capassa<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus<br />

X X X X<br />

angolensis<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus<br />

X<br />

rotundifolius<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Flacourtia indica X X X<br />

HYMENOCARDIAC Hymenocardia<br />

X X X X<br />

EAE<br />

ulmoides<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

X X X X X<br />

cocculoides<br />

MELIACEAE Khaya anthotheca X X<br />

MORACEAE Ficus sur X X<br />

MORACEAE Milicia excelsa X X X<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cordatum X X<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cumini X<br />

RUBIACEAE Vangueria infausta X<br />

RUTACEAE<br />

Zanthoxylum<br />

chalybeum<br />

SAPOTACEAE Bequaertiodendron X X X<br />

natalense<br />

STERCULIACEAE Cola greenwayi X<br />

STERCULIACEAE Sterculia<br />

X<br />

appendiculata<br />

VERBANACEAE Vitex doniana X X X<br />

Hunting<br />

A diverse range <strong>of</strong> species from a variety <strong>of</strong> families are hunted in <strong>and</strong> around Kambona FR,<br />

including toads, civets, bush babies, elephant shrews <strong>and</strong> pythons (Appendix 12). All hunted<br />

species were said by residents to have declined over the last 10 years. Twenty years ago<br />

Buffalo <strong>and</strong> El<strong>and</strong> were present <strong>and</strong> hunted, <strong>and</strong> are now absent from Kambona FR. Among<br />

the species hunted the Chequered elephant shrews (Rhynchocyon cirnei) is listed as<br />

Vulnerable <strong>and</strong> the Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis) is listed as conservation dependant<br />

in the IUCN Red List (2004) (Appendix 12).<br />

Local management<br />

No management takes place in Kambona FR. Although it has been gazetted (since 1963) no<br />

patrols <strong>of</strong> the reserve take place <strong>and</strong> there is no enforcement <strong>of</strong> laws concerning illegal<br />

hunting <strong>and</strong> extraction <strong>of</strong> timber.<br />

66


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

DISCUSSION<br />

FLORA<br />

Kambona FR is comprised <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest.<br />

In the Brachystegia forest the canopy layer is dominated by Pteleopsis myrtifolia,<br />

Brachystegia sp. (B. spiciformis <strong>and</strong> B. longifolia) <strong>and</strong> Terminalia sambesiaca. However,<br />

disturbance has resulted in clearance <strong>of</strong> many canopy trees, such as Brachystegia spiciformis,<br />

Julbernardia globiflora, Albizia gummifera <strong>and</strong> A. versicolor, these being the species most<br />

affected by bark ringing (Gauslaa, 1989; Lind <strong>and</strong> Morrison, 1974). Sub canopy trees have<br />

taken over to cover the gap left by the removal <strong>of</strong> canopy trees <strong>and</strong> now dominate in terms <strong>of</strong><br />

relative abundance, a phenomenon that has been previously observed during a study in Pugu<br />

Forest Reserve, Coast Region (Ndangalasi, 1997.) Even though disturbance from timber<br />

extraction <strong>and</strong> bark ringing has changed the physiognomy <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer into a more<br />

open configuration, the presence <strong>of</strong> Swahilian endemic species <strong>and</strong> the sparse character <strong>of</strong> the<br />

grass layer still distinguish this vegetation type from the ‘miombo’ Brachystegia woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

the Zambezian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000). The understory<br />

vegetation in this reserve is sparse; further study would be necessary to determine whether the<br />

sparcity <strong>of</strong> the shrub layer is a natural incidence <strong>of</strong> the Brachystegia forest here, as described<br />

by Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson (2000), or a consequence <strong>of</strong> disturbance.<br />

A small pocket <strong>of</strong> forest located around a natural spring at the centre <strong>of</strong> the reserve is<br />

comprised <strong>of</strong> species that are characteristic <strong>of</strong> coastal Riverine Forest, such as Syzygium<br />

cordatum, Bridelia cathartica, Bridelia micrantha, Milicia excelsa <strong>and</strong> Ficus natalensis. Here<br />

sub canopy trees have taken over to cover the gap left by the removal <strong>of</strong> canopy trees.<br />

The species richness in this forest reserve is relatively low (79), being caused by the intense<br />

level <strong>of</strong> selective timber <strong>and</strong> bark extraction taking place. However, the Shannon diversity<br />

index (H¹=3.37) is high. This reflects a community in succession (Magurran, 1988), where a<br />

relatively high number <strong>of</strong> species (particularly understory species) can colonise the area <strong>and</strong><br />

reach high rates <strong>of</strong> population growth following the removal <strong>of</strong> more competitive canopy<br />

trees (Ndangalasi, 1997). If this forest could be allowed to fully regenerate, <strong>and</strong> canopy <strong>and</strong><br />

sub canopy species to achieve their potential population size, then the species diversity would<br />

be expected to decline.<br />

Despite its small size, Kambona FR harbours some important plant species, among which<br />

various species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Barleria holstii, Cleistanthus<br />

schlechteri, Mimusops schliebenii, Grewia lepidopetala, Tetracera boiviniana, Erythrina<br />

schliebenii <strong>and</strong> Rytigynia decussata). One species occurring here, the African mahogany<br />

(Khaya anthotheca), yields a very valuable termite resistant timber that is marketed for<br />

joinery <strong>and</strong> cabinet work (Schulman et. al, 1998), <strong>and</strong> is listed as Vulnerable by IUCN<br />

(2004). If the extraction <strong>of</strong> timber from Kambona FR is not regulated this <strong>and</strong> other species<br />

may become locally rare.<br />

FAUNA<br />

Despite its small size, a comparatively high number <strong>of</strong> faunal species (107) were recorded in<br />

Kambona FR, <strong>and</strong> this may reflect the relatively low level <strong>of</strong> encroachment affecting this<br />

reserve (Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996) (See Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management<br />

section).<br />

67


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Small mammals<br />

For the small mammals the overall number <strong>of</strong> species (6) <strong>and</strong> individuals (13) captured was<br />

low. The most commonly captured species was the Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei - near<br />

threatened) accounting for 58% <strong>of</strong> all captures. Beamys hindei is endemic to a few forest<br />

types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania, including the coastal <strong>and</strong> mountain forests <strong>of</strong> the EACF<br />

hotspot. Until recently it was regarded as one <strong>of</strong> the rarest rodents in Africa (Groombridge,<br />

1994) but it is now known to be more widespread. Our survey in Kambona FR seems to<br />

support this evidence, since this reserve holds a relatively large population <strong>of</strong> this species (see<br />

Results section <strong>and</strong> Appendix 18). Two species <strong>of</strong> White-toothed shrew (Crocidura sp.) were<br />

recorded. The shrews <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania are poorly known <strong>and</strong> already there<br />

are five unidentified species that have been collected from these forests, each from a separate<br />

site (Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000). It is likely that shrews collected from this study will yield<br />

interesting results once taxonomic verification is accomplished.<br />

Bats<br />

No bats were recorded in this reserve, which may be a result <strong>of</strong> the low number <strong>of</strong> netting<br />

hours carried out <strong>and</strong> the small size <strong>of</strong> the reserve.<br />

Large mammals<br />

For the large mammals a moderate number <strong>of</strong> species (14) were recorded <strong>and</strong> no one species<br />

was recorded more than twice. This suggests that the populations <strong>of</strong> all species are suppressed<br />

due to the small size <strong>of</strong> the reserve <strong>and</strong> disturbance from timber extraction, fire <strong>and</strong> hunting,<br />

whereby species ecological requirements (e.g. shelter, prey) may not be sufficient to support<br />

larger populations. In this reserve only the Red-bellied coastal squirrel (Paraxerus palliatus)<br />

<strong>and</strong> the Suni (Neotragus moschatus - conservation dependent) were found to be forest<br />

dependent, while the Small-eared bushbaby (Otolemur garnetti - CITES II) is a forest<br />

dwelling species endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> a few other habitats in coastal eastern<br />

Africa (Burgess et al., 2000). These species are likely to be under local threat from further<br />

degradation <strong>of</strong> the forest reserve. Most <strong>of</strong> the other large mammals recorded only occasionally<br />

frequent the forest <strong>and</strong> therefore will be less affected by encroachment. Nonetheless, these<br />

species may need the reserve as a corridor between suitable patches <strong>of</strong> habitat or for<br />

alternative sources <strong>of</strong> food or shelter. Predators such as the Lion (Panthera leo – Vulnerable,<br />

CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta - conservation dependent) were reported to<br />

occur in this forest by inhabitants <strong>of</strong> adjacent villages <strong>and</strong> farms. These species are able to<br />

utilise different habitats <strong>and</strong> to adapt well to changes in their environment, <strong>and</strong> so are likely to<br />

be less threatened by further forest degradation. Nevertheless, any reduction in habitat will<br />

reduce the visits <strong>of</strong> these animals as shelter <strong>and</strong> populations <strong>of</strong> predated animals are likely to<br />

decrease. Further research would need to be conducted to assess the extent <strong>of</strong> reliance <strong>of</strong> large<br />

mammals <strong>and</strong> predators on Kambona FR. Panthera pardus was reported to occur here <strong>and</strong> in<br />

the adjacent Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> II proposed FRs. This species is listed on CITES Appendix<br />

I (2005) as a species threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> therefore excluded from international<br />

trade, <strong>and</strong> if its presence in these reserves will be confirmed then its protection will be<br />

necessary. The finding <strong>of</strong> the Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei), a species<br />

listed as Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004), confirms the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> to be a globally important<br />

area for this genus, closely followed by the Eastern Arc Mountains (Burgess et al., 2000a).<br />

Rhynchocyon species are forest-dwellers that rely on dense vegetation cover to produce the<br />

thick leaf litter they require for foraging <strong>and</strong> nest construction (Rathbun, 2005). R. cirnei may<br />

therefore become locally threatened should further habitat destruction ensue.<br />

68


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Birds<br />

In Kambona FR the low number <strong>of</strong> bird species recorded (57), especially forest dependent<br />

species (1), may be a consequence <strong>of</strong> the small size <strong>of</strong> this reserve (29.9ha), the short period<br />

<strong>of</strong> time spent studying it (Table 10-a), <strong>and</strong> the sparse understory <strong>of</strong> the Brachystegia forest<br />

occurring in this reserve (Mlingwa et al., 2000). This reserve was found to contain the<br />

Southern b<strong>and</strong>ed snake-eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus). This is a near threatened bird species<br />

(IUCN, 2004) whose presence in the adjacent Makonde Scarp <strong>and</strong> Mkunya River forests<br />

demarcated them as the Newala District <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> IBA (TZ053 - category A1) (BirdLife<br />

International, 2005). If more than a threshold population <strong>of</strong> C. fasciolatus was found to be<br />

present in Kambona FR than this reserve could be classified as a component <strong>of</strong> the Newala<br />

District <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> IBA. Further research would be required to confirm this.<br />

Reptiles<br />

Despite the presence <strong>of</strong> a water source in Kambona FR, the number <strong>of</strong> reptile species (4) <strong>and</strong><br />

individuals (4) captured was low. Low numbers may reflect the low sampling intensity<br />

applied to this reserve (Table 10-a) but also continuous disturbance by people collecting water<br />

from the spring. Apart from one species found in Brachystegia forest all records came from a<br />

small patch <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest around the water source, but none <strong>of</strong> the species recorded are<br />

forest dependent. None <strong>of</strong> the species found are endemic or threatened either. The Tropical<br />

girdled lizard (Cordylus tropidosternum) is an arboreal species that shelters <strong>and</strong> forage in<br />

holes <strong>and</strong> under the bark <strong>of</strong> trees, <strong>and</strong> consequently this species may become locally<br />

threatened by further loss <strong>of</strong> well-wooded habitats. Conducting further research in the wet<br />

season may however reveal more comprehensive results.<br />

Amphibians<br />

For the amphibians a low number <strong>of</strong> species (5) were recorded from a relatively high number<br />

<strong>of</strong> captures (23). Again, low numbers may reflect the low sampling intensity in this reserve<br />

(Table 10-a) <strong>and</strong> continuous disturbance by people collecting water from the spring. The high<br />

capture rate was due to an intensive search around the spring, where dense vegetation <strong>and</strong><br />

moist humus soil create an ideal breeding ground for these species (Howell, 1993). The<br />

Squeakers (Arthroleptis stenodactylus <strong>and</strong> A. xenodactyloides) are forest dwelling species that<br />

were commonly captured in Brachystegia forest. These species favour a forested habitat as<br />

they rely on the presence <strong>of</strong> damp soil <strong>and</strong> loose leaf mould protected from shrub <strong>and</strong> canopy<br />

cover to lay their eggs (Howell, 1993). Consequently, the Dwarf squeaker (Arthroleptis<br />

xenodactyloides) is listed as Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004) <strong>and</strong> both species may become locally<br />

threatened by further loss <strong>of</strong> forest habitat. No other species recorded are forest dwelling or<br />

forest dependent. The intrusion into Brachystegia <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest by species that normally<br />

inhabit transient open situations is known to be a recurrent characteristic encouraged by the<br />

heterogeneous pattern <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic, whereby such species breed in their open<br />

habitat but enter the enclosed habitat for refuge, especially during dry periods (Poynton,<br />

2000). Many species recorded here are water dependent, <strong>and</strong> therefore the quality <strong>of</strong> the water<br />

source <strong>and</strong> the forest cover protecting it are vital to their continued presence.<br />

Butterflies<br />

For the butterflies there was a moderate number <strong>of</strong> species (19) <strong>and</strong> individuals (24) captured.<br />

An important butterfly community was found in a small pocket <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest surrounding<br />

the water source, which contained a large proportion <strong>of</strong> all the species recorded <strong>and</strong> two forest<br />

dependent species from the order Nymphaloidae, Bematistes epaea epitellus <strong>and</strong> the Flame<br />

bordered charaxes (Charaxes protoclea azota). This indicates the importance <strong>of</strong> the Riverine<br />

forest for butterflies <strong>and</strong> the vulnerability <strong>of</strong> forest dependent species. Butterfly species<br />

recorded in the remaining Brachystegia forest are non-forest dwellers, reflecting the absence<br />

in this reserve <strong>of</strong> a dense shrub layer (see Flora section).<br />

69


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Timber extraction is the only commercial activity that takes place in Kambona FR. Other<br />

activities, such as pole cutting, bark removal <strong>and</strong> root digging take place on a subsistence<br />

basis. Pole cutting was the largest form <strong>of</strong> disturbance. Both pole cutting <strong>and</strong> timber<br />

extraction are selective, focusing on species that produce high quality timber primarily used<br />

for making furniture, such as the Gum copal (Hymenaea verrucosa), the African teak<br />

(Pterocarpus angolensis), the Snake bean tree (Swartzia madagascariensis) <strong>and</strong> the Pod<br />

mahogany (Afzelia quanzensis). This is destructive for the ecology <strong>of</strong> this forest reserve <strong>and</strong><br />

for the threatened species harvested here (e.g. Scorodophloeus fischeri).<br />

At present encroachment is low. It is likely that the mango (Mangifera indica) <strong>and</strong> cashew nut<br />

(Anacardium occidentale) trees detected in the reserve were planted before Kambona was<br />

gazetted <strong>and</strong> so overall encroachment levels were low at the time <strong>of</strong> the study. The residents<br />

proved to be aware that the forest should be conserved to protect the spring, which they rely<br />

on as a water source, <strong>and</strong> to preserve it from the threats <strong>of</strong> soil erosion. Thus the boundaries <strong>of</strong><br />

the forest reserve, although not well marked, are largely respected by the inhabitants.<br />

However, the fast growing business <strong>of</strong> vegetable sales (predominately tomatoes) encourages<br />

farmers to exp<strong>and</strong> their cultivated l<strong>and</strong> so as to increase production <strong>and</strong>, with the lack <strong>of</strong> a<br />

clear boundary on the eastern, northern <strong>and</strong> southern sides <strong>of</strong> the reserve, it is possible that<br />

farms will encroach into the reserve. Moreover, non-timber resources within the forest are<br />

said to have been significantly depleted despite the knowledge that it is illegal to harvest<br />

within the forest boundaries.<br />

Hunting in Kambona is widespread with a large number <strong>of</strong> species being targeted. All hunted<br />

species are said by residents to have declined over the last 10 years as pressure on the forest’s<br />

resources increased. Among the species hunted the Chequered elephant shrews (Rhynchocyon<br />

cirnei) is listed as Vulnerable <strong>and</strong> the Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis) is listed as<br />

conservation dependant in the IUCN Red List (2004), while the Small-eared bushbaby<br />

(Otolemur garnetti - CITES II) is a rare species with restricted distribution in coastal eastern<br />

Africa. Measures must be taken to try to protect these globally important species from being<br />

overexploited. Possible solutions are discussed in the Conservation Recommendations<br />

section.<br />

70


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

13. MAKONDE SCARP I PROPOSED FOREST<br />

RESERVE<br />

Status<br />

Management Body<br />

Location<br />

Area<br />

Altitude<br />

Topography<br />

Temperature<br />

Rainfall<br />

Soil type<br />

Vegetation type<br />

L<strong>and</strong> Use<br />

History <strong>and</strong> Status<br />

Proposed Forest Reserve<br />

Central Government<br />

Masasi district. The proposed area starts south east <strong>of</strong> Chidya village<br />

<strong>and</strong> about an hour <strong>and</strong> a half walk along a distinct path from Chidya<br />

Secondary school. The proposed site then continues across to below<br />

Mjembe village.<br />

1,748.3ha<br />

600-640m asl<br />

Lowl<strong>and</strong> plain <strong>and</strong> gentle lower slope<br />

Min: 19 o C, Max: 37 o C (recorded 17-21 April, start <strong>of</strong> dry season)<br />

Average 0.4mm (recorded 17-21 April, start <strong>of</strong> dry season)<br />

S<strong>and</strong>y-loam<br />

Eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest<br />

The reserve was proposed to preserve the soil on the plateau <strong>and</strong><br />

scarp <strong>and</strong> to protect a water source <strong>and</strong> catchment. L<strong>and</strong> is used for<br />

agriculture (shifting cultivation is common practice) <strong>and</strong> timber is<br />

extracted on a commercial basis. Hunting occurs.<br />

Signs <strong>of</strong> destruction on the escarpment were noticed <strong>and</strong> documented<br />

in the 1940’s (Maganga, 2004). Makonde Scarp I was agreed to be a<br />

proposed forest reserve in 1976, the same year as funding for<br />

boundary beacons was made available. In 1977 some residents were<br />

moved from the escarpment <strong>and</strong> relocated. In 1980-81 complaints by<br />

people who had been moved <strong>of</strong>f their original properties were<br />

acknowledged, concluding that Tsh 40 million was needed for<br />

compensation. Compensation <strong>of</strong> TSh 1.7 million was made available<br />

to Masasi district in 1983 <strong>and</strong> 1984 but no subsidies were made<br />

71


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

available to Newala <strong>and</strong> T<strong>and</strong>ahimba districts. Presently the site is<br />

not yet fully gazetted <strong>and</strong> there are no boundary markers. There is no<br />

staff, effective capacity or resources to enforce protected area<br />

legislation <strong>and</strong> regulations.<br />

Maps Topographical map: Nd<strong>and</strong>a South sheet 306/1, East Africa 1:50 000,<br />

1968. From the Institute <strong>of</strong> Mapping, Dar es Salaam (from Series<br />

Y742, Edition 1-TSD).<br />

L<strong>and</strong> use <strong>and</strong> cover map: Masasi sheet SC-37-10/11, 1996. From the<br />

Institute <strong>of</strong> Resource Planning, UDSM.<br />

METHODS<br />

Survey work was conducted over seven days (15-21 April 2005). Nine vegetation plots<br />

(3600m 2 ), nine regeneration plots (36m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> one zoosite were carried out, incorporating 200<br />

sherman trapping nights, 50 bucket trapping nights, .5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna<br />

searches, 2.7 bat mist net/hours, 20.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> bird mist netting, six man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed<br />

bird searches, 15 canopy trapping days, 4.5 butterfly sweep net/hours, 4three animal sign<br />

transects (totalling 12,000m 2 ), three disturbance transects (totalling 30,000m 2 ), <strong>and</strong><br />

opportunistic observations (see Appendices 2 to 8 for GPS coordinates <strong>and</strong> work site<br />

descriptions). Ornithological work was conducted on separate days (16-18 July 2005). Habitat<br />

notes were taken for vegetation plots (Appendices 4 <strong>and</strong> 5) <strong>and</strong> zoological trap sites<br />

(Appendix 6). Structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions were conducted with the<br />

environmental committee <strong>of</strong> the two villages <strong>of</strong> Chidya <strong>and</strong> Chiwata. Twenty-two people<br />

attended the meeting. An interview was also conducted with Mr Swalele, a hunter from<br />

Chidya village who had been involved with boundary demarcation in 1982. For a detailed<br />

break down <strong>of</strong> survey effort see Table 10-a.<br />

RESULTS<br />

In Makonde Scarp I proposed FR 73 plant species were recorded from 19 families. Twelve<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> floral species are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato<br />

<strong>and</strong> 11% are listed as threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke,<br />

2006) (Table 13-a; Appendices 9 <strong>and</strong> 10).<br />

One hundred <strong>and</strong> thirty eight faunal species were found representing 66 families. Of these<br />

species 6% are forest dependent, none are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or<br />

Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> less than 1% are listed as threatened (IUCN, 2004) <strong>and</strong>/or CITES<br />

(2005) (Table 13-a; Appendices 13-17).<br />

72


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 13-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR<br />

Taxa No. <strong>of</strong><br />

families<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

species c<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

forest<br />

dependent<br />

species d<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

widespread<br />

species<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> strictly<br />

endemic<br />

species:<br />

e <strong>and</strong> f<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

threatene<br />

d species:<br />

g <strong>and</strong> h<br />

Mammals 19 26 3 23 0* 0 -<br />

Birds a 32 78 2 76 0 0 -<br />

Reptiles 6 9 0 9 0 0 -<br />

Amphibians 4 5 0 5 0 1 -<br />

Butterflies 5 20 3 17 0 0 -<br />

Total for 66 138 8 130 0 1 -<br />

animals<br />

Flora b 16 73 0 66 9 1 7<br />

Combined 82 211 8 196 5 2 7<br />

Total<br />

a - Includes birds seen on the forest boundary edge<br />

b - All trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses <strong>and</strong> ferns<br />

c - Includes information collected from all systematic survey work, opportunistic observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions<br />

d - Species dependent on <strong>and</strong> associated with primary or closed-canopy forest, not forest edge or secondary forest<br />

e - Faunal species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone or the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a), sometimes being found also in other habitats in a few adjacent locations (e.g.<br />

Masasi District in S Tanzania, N Mozambique etc.)<br />

f - Floral species restricted to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

g - Species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable (VU) in the IUCN Red List<br />

(IUCN, 2004)<br />

h - Species listed in CITES Appendix I as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade<br />

(CITES, 2005)<br />

i - Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

*The identification <strong>of</strong> Crocidura sp. may increase this number. We await verification<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

PT<br />

species i<br />

FLORA<br />

In Makonde Scarp I FR one single homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong> was observed, which was<br />

identified as Brachystegia forest regenerating following past disturbance <strong>and</strong> extensively<br />

interrupted by cultivated <strong>and</strong> fallow farml<strong>and</strong> in all parts <strong>of</strong> the reserve.<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> diversity<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 73 species were recorded. Out <strong>of</strong> these, 37 species were found in nine vegetation<br />

plots <strong>and</strong> 15 species in nine regeneration plots. The other 15 species were recorded from<br />

opportunistic collections made within the reserve. More specifically, 29 trees, 19 shrubs, 13<br />

herbs, <strong>and</strong> six grasses were recorded (Appendix 9). A value <strong>of</strong> 2.95 was calculated for the<br />

Shannon species diversity index.<br />

• Species dominance<br />

Within the Brachystegia forest species from the genus Brachystegia (B. spiciformis <strong>and</strong> B.<br />

microphylla) dominated at the canopy level, both occurring in 67% <strong>of</strong> the plots <strong>and</strong> therefore<br />

ranking as the most dominant species. Other frequent species were Pterocarpus angolensis<br />

(56%), Pteleopsis myrtifolia (44%) <strong>and</strong> Brachystegia longifolia (22%) (Table 13-b).<br />

73


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 13-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy<br />

layer in Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF Rank<br />

(Dominance) dominance<br />

No. indv. %<br />

in all plots RA<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia spiciformis 6 67 1 46 22 1<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia microphylla 6 67 1 13 6 3<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus angolensis 5 56 2 12 5 4<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis myrtifolia 4 44 3 16 7 2<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia longifolia 2 22 4 6 2 5<br />

Total 1 3 3 5 93 42<br />

Total 2 16 27 36 201 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

Rank<br />

RA<br />

The sub canopy layer is dominated by Combretum paniculatum, which occurs in 67% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

plots. Combretum zeyheri was also frequent, being present in 44% <strong>of</strong> the plots (Table 13-c).<br />

Table 13-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy<br />

layer in Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF<br />

(Dominance)<br />

Rank<br />

dominance<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

indv. in<br />

all plots<br />

%RA Rank<br />

RA<br />

COMBRETACEAE Combretum paniculatum 4 67 1 10 6 2<br />

COMBRETACEAE Combretum zeyheri 3 44 2 15 4 3<br />

APOCYNACEAE Diplorhynchus condylocarpon 6 33 3 14 7 1<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia petersiana 2 22 4 6 2 4<br />

COMBRETACEAE Combretum molle 2 22 4 4 1 5<br />

Total 1 3 3 5 49 20<br />

Total 2 16 27 36 201 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

• Species relative abundance<br />

In the canopy layer 30% <strong>of</strong> the trees recorded were individuals from the genus Brachystegia<br />

(B. spiciformis, B. microphylla <strong>and</strong> B. longifolia). Pterocarpus angolensis <strong>and</strong> Pteleopsis<br />

myrtifolia constitute about 5% <strong>and</strong> 7% each. In the sub canopy layer Combretum zeyheri,<br />

Diplorhynchus condylocarpon <strong>and</strong> Combretum paniculatum were the top three species,<br />

together making up 17%.<br />

When looking at the overall number <strong>of</strong> trees recorded in both the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy<br />

layers, the canopy contributed a higher number <strong>of</strong> individuals (68%) than the sub canopy<br />

layer (32%) to the overall number <strong>of</strong> adult trees in this reserve.<br />

• Species composition <strong>and</strong> vegetation types<br />

In Makonde Scarp I proposed FR one single homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong> was observed,<br />

which from the species composition <strong>and</strong> trees’ dbh was recognised to be degraded eastern<br />

African coastal Brachystegia forest (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000; Lowe <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000).<br />

74


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

The species composition <strong>of</strong> the forest was characterised by Brachystegia spiciformis <strong>and</strong><br />

Brachystegia microphylla from the canopy layer <strong>and</strong> Combretum paniculatum from the sub<br />

canopy layer as both dominant <strong>and</strong> most abundant species, contributing 28% <strong>and</strong> 6% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

total number <strong>of</strong> individuals in their respective layers. Other species occurring in the canopy<br />

layer included Pterocarpus angolensis <strong>and</strong> Pteleopsis myrtifolia, which ranked as frequent,<br />

<strong>and</strong> Brachystegia longifolia, Julbernardia globiflora, Millettia stuhlmannii, Pterocarpus<br />

rotundifolius <strong>and</strong> Acacia nigrescens. In the sub canopy layer we also found Diplorhynchus<br />

condylocarpon, Combretum zeyheri, C. molle, Bauhinia petersiana, Cussonia arborea,<br />

Craibia brevicaudata <strong>and</strong> Lonchocarpus bussei. The shrub layer was observed to be<br />

comprised <strong>of</strong> saplings <strong>of</strong> the dominant species from the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers, <strong>and</strong><br />

shrub species such as Salacia madagascariensis, Strychnos usambarensis, Strychnos<br />

madagascariensis, Ochna holstii, Catunaregam spinosa, Vangueria infausta, Vangueriopsis<br />

sp. <strong>and</strong> various species from the genus Combretum. The herbaceous layer was observed to be<br />

comprised <strong>of</strong> grasses, particularly Sporobolus sp., Themeda tri<strong>and</strong>ra, Digitaris sp. <strong>and</strong><br />

Panicum maximum. Herbs found in association with these grasses were Dicoma tomentosa,<br />

Hypoestes sp., Jasminum sp., Jussiaea repens, Vernonia sp. <strong>and</strong> species from the genus<br />

Bidens. These herbs were recorded as dominant on the edge <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> open areas<br />

where grasses had been removed by fire or cultivation.<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the tree species recorded range from small to medium size class, the average dbh<br />

recorded being 15cm <strong>and</strong> only three plots having trees with a single stem measuring >30 cm<br />

dbh.<br />

• Endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Nine <strong>of</strong> the species recorded were found to be endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato,<br />

including Ozoroa obovata, Mimusops schliebenii, Sterculia appendiculata, Vitex<br />

zanzibarensis, Commiphora zanzibarica, Erythrina schliebenii, Lamprothamnus<br />

zanguebaricus, Rytigynia decussata <strong>and</strong> Vitex mossambicensis (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

(Appendix 10) <strong>and</strong> this amounts to 12% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (Figure 4).<br />

12%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

88%<br />

Figure 4 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR<br />

Eight <strong>of</strong> the species recorded are recognised to be threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially<br />

threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006), amounting to 11% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species<br />

recorded (Table 13-d).<br />

75


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 13-d Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR<br />

Family Species name Conservation status Habit<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana PT S/T<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia abbreviata PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Craibia brevicaudata PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia impressa PT C<br />

RUBIACEAE Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus PT S/T<br />

RUBIACEAE Rytigynia decussate PT S<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex mossambicensis PT S/T<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex zanzibarensis VU S<br />

PT = Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

T= Tree, S= Shrub, B= Bamboo, C= Climber, H= Herb<br />

FAUNA<br />

Although the identification <strong>of</strong> about 90% <strong>of</strong> the species recorded is certain, the identification<br />

<strong>of</strong> a few specimens remains tentative whilst awaiting taxonomic verification.<br />

Mammals<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 26 mammals representing 19 families were recorded (Appendix 13).<br />

For the small mammals six species representing five families were recorded in total from six<br />

captures (not counting eight recaptures) that took place during 200 sherman trapping nights<br />

<strong>and</strong> 50 bucket pitfall trapping nights. Species found were the Multimammate rat (Mastomys<br />

natalensis), the Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei) <strong>and</strong> one species <strong>of</strong> the White-toothed<br />

shrew (Crocidura sp.), which were captured in equal numbers <strong>of</strong> individuals (2) (Appendix<br />

18).<br />

One species <strong>of</strong> bat, the Slit-faced bat (Nycteris gr<strong>and</strong>is), was recorded from one capture<br />

during 2.7 bat mist net/hours.<br />

For the larger mammals, 19 species representing 13 families were recorded during sign<br />

transects totaling 3km, <strong>and</strong> through opportunistic observations <strong>and</strong> structured interviews. No<br />

one species was recorded on more than two separate occasions during the survey. With the<br />

exception <strong>of</strong> the Red-bellied coastal squirrel (Paraxerus palliatus), which was sighted in two<br />

occasions, all large mammals were recorded by indirect observation, such as vocalizations<br />

<strong>and</strong> dung. Species found included the Small-eared bushbaby (Otolemur garnetti), the<br />

Southern Africa bushbaby (Galago moholi) 8 , the Blue duiker (Cephalophus monticola) <strong>and</strong><br />

the Suni (Neotragus moschatus). From interviews it was learnt that the Leopard (Panthera<br />

pardus), Lion (Panthera leo), Spotted hyaena (Crocuta crocuta) <strong>and</strong> Jackal (Canis adustus)<br />

occasionally pass through the forest. Panthera pardus <strong>and</strong> P. leo were last sighted by local<br />

inhabitants in 2004 <strong>and</strong> Crocuta crocuta in 2005.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Three <strong>of</strong> the species found are forest dependent, although many species <strong>of</strong>ten frequent <strong>and</strong><br />

some favour this habitat (Table 13-e). None <strong>of</strong> the species found are strictly endemic to the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains, yet two are rare species with a restricted<br />

distribution in eastern Africa. No threatened species were recorded.<br />

8 The field identification <strong>of</strong> Galago moholi was undertaken by Frontier-Tanzania research team.<br />

76


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 13-e Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Makonde Scarp I<br />

proposed FR<br />

Species Common name Forest dependent Endemic Threatened<br />

Otolemur garnetti Small-eared galago - CF, a few other -<br />

habitats in coastal E<br />

Africa<br />

Beamys hindei Lesser pouched rat - EACF, a few other -<br />

forest types in <strong>Kenya</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong> Tanzania<br />

Cephalophus monticola Blue duiker F - -<br />

Cephalophus natalensis Natal duiker F - -<br />

Neotragus moschatus Suni F - -<br />

F= Forest dependent or specialist (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CF= species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF= species with limited ranges in the Eastern<br />

Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

Birds<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Seventy-eight species from 32 families were recorded in total during 25.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> mist<br />

netting <strong>and</strong> six man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed bird searches. Ten species were detected through mist<br />

netting from a total <strong>of</strong> 13 captures <strong>and</strong> 68 species through timed searches. Species recorded<br />

included the African crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus), the African broadbill<br />

(Smithornis capensis), the Livingstone’s flycatcher (Erythrocercus livingstonei) <strong>and</strong> the Pale<br />

batis (Batis soror) (Appendix 14).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Two forest dependent species, the African crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

African broadbill (Smithornis capensis) were observed. No strictly endemic or threatened<br />

species were recorded in Makonde Scarp I.<br />

Reptiles<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Nine species <strong>of</strong> reptile representing six families were recorded from eight captures that took<br />

place during 50 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 4.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological searches<br />

(Appendices 15 <strong>and</strong> 18). Most reptiles were found around the base camp where the l<strong>and</strong> was<br />

disturbed by clearance for cultivation.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

All reptiles were recorded in cultivated l<strong>and</strong> within the forest reserve. None <strong>of</strong> the species<br />

recorded are forests dependent, <strong>and</strong> only the Rufus egg-eater (Dasypeltis medici) is known to<br />

favour the forest habitat. No species were found to be strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Amphibians<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Five species <strong>of</strong> amphibian representing four families were recorded from 42 captures that<br />

took place during 50 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 4.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological<br />

searches. Species included Arthroleptis stenodactylus, A. xenodactyloides <strong>and</strong> Breviceps<br />

mossambicus (Appendices 16 <strong>and</strong> 18). Arthroleptis sp. made up 95% <strong>of</strong> captures.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent or strictly endemic. Arthroleptis stenodactylus<br />

<strong>and</strong> A. xenodactyloides are known to favour forest habitat, while Breviceps mossambicus is<br />

77


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

regarded as a non-forest dwelling species (Howell, 1993). Arthroleptis xenodactyloides is<br />

listed as Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004).<br />

Butterflies<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Twenty species <strong>of</strong> butterfly representing five families were recorded from 30 captures that<br />

took place during 15 canopy trapping days <strong>and</strong> 4.5 sweep net/hours (Appendix 17).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

One species from the family Nymphalidae, the Forest queen (Euxanthe wakefieldi), is forest<br />

dependent. No species were found to be strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Fauna’s strict endemism<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the faunal species recorded in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR are endemic to the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains.<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Through disturbance transects levels <strong>of</strong> pole cutting, fire damage, path densities <strong>and</strong> other<br />

forms <strong>of</strong> disturbance were recorded. Out <strong>of</strong> sixty 50m sections eight (13%) were found to be<br />

free <strong>of</strong> any form <strong>of</strong> disturbance. Pole or timber cutting were evident in 47 (78%) sections, 42<br />

(70%) showed signs <strong>of</strong> fire disturbance, 21 (29%) had been cultivated, five (8%) contained<br />

one or more paths cutting through <strong>and</strong> one (2%) was subject to bark ringing (Figure 5). No<br />

traps were detected in any section. Forest resource use is summarised in Table 13-g.<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections affected<br />

50<br />

45<br />

40<br />

35<br />

30<br />

25<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

Cutting Fire Paths Ringing Cultivation<br />

Disturbance category<br />

Figure 5 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 52) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR<br />

Agricultural encroachment<br />

During the survey crops were encountered in all parts <strong>of</strong> the reserve. Encroachment is so<br />

extensive that one cannot walk far within the reserve without crossing cultivated l<strong>and</strong>.<br />

Poles <strong>and</strong> timbers<br />

Through disturbance transects it was observed that the four main species harvested for timber<br />

are Afzelia quanzensis, Milicia excelsa, Pterocarpus angolensis <strong>and</strong> P. rotundifolius.<br />

Discussions with local communities identified another 12 species that are used for timber <strong>and</strong><br />

eight species that are used to supply poles (Table 13-g). Evidence <strong>of</strong> old <strong>and</strong> recent pit sawing<br />

was observed inside the proposed reserve, targeting commercially valuable species (Afzelia<br />

quanzensis, Pterocarpus angolensis <strong>and</strong> P. rotundifolius).<br />

78


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Relative abundance <strong>and</strong> average no. <strong>of</strong> live, dead <strong>and</strong> cut individuals per ha<br />

The survey indicates that 21% <strong>of</strong> all poles, 8% <strong>of</strong> all timbers <strong>and</strong> 9% <strong>of</strong> all large timbers are<br />

cut. All cut timber <strong>and</strong> poles were old apart from one fresh timber cut (Table 13-f).<br />

Table 13-f Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR<br />

Total<br />

transect<br />

length<br />

in m<br />

Total no.<br />

<strong>of</strong> indiv.<br />

sampled<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> %<br />

RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> live<br />

indiv.<br />

Average<br />

live indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> %<br />

RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> dead<br />

indiv.<br />

Averag<br />

e dead<br />

indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> %<br />

RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> cut<br />

indiv.<br />

Average<br />

cut indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Poles 3,000 2182 1688 (77) 563 36 (2) 12 458 (21) 257<br />

Timbers 3,000 447 297 (66) 99 14 (3) 5 36 (8) 12<br />

Large<br />

timbers<br />

3,000 11 10 (91) 3 0 (0) 0 1 (9) 0.03<br />

Fuel wood<br />

Residents indicated that collected fuel wood comes from 18 tree species (Table 13-g) <strong>and</strong><br />

mostly from dead trees or branches.<br />

Tools <strong>and</strong> utensils<br />

Through discussion it was determined that various species were used in Makonde Scarp II to<br />

make items such as cooking utensils, tool h<strong>and</strong>les <strong>and</strong> ropes (Table 13-g).<br />

Edible non-timber forest products<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> nine plant species were said by the inhabitants <strong>of</strong> the area to provide food. The<br />

roots <strong>of</strong> Dioscorea hirtiflora were found to be an important source <strong>of</strong> carbohydrate exploited<br />

for sale on local markets (Table 13-g).<br />

Medicinal plants<br />

Twenty-one species were recorded to be used for medicinal purposes (Table 13-g, Appendix<br />

11).<br />

Table 13-g Plant species utilised in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR as identified by field<br />

observations, structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions. Local names, where known, are<br />

presented in Appendix 9<br />

Family Species Poles Timber Fuel Tools Ropes Food Medicine<br />

wood<br />

ANACARDIACEA Sclerocarya birrea X X<br />

ANNONACEAE Annona senegalensis X X X<br />

APOCYNACEAE L<strong>and</strong>olphia<br />

X<br />

buchananii<br />

ARALIACEAE Cussonia<br />

X<br />

zimmemanii<br />

BOMBACACEAE Ceiba pent<strong>and</strong>ra X X<br />

CHRYSOBALANACE Parinari<br />

X<br />

AE<br />

curatellifolia<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis myrtifolia X X<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana X<br />

DIOSCOREACEAE Dioscorea hirtiflora X<br />

EBENACEAE Diospyros kirkii X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Afzelia quanzensis X X X X<br />

79


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Species Poles Timber Fuel Tools Ropes Food Medicine<br />

wood<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia petersiana X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia tomentosa X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia X X X X<br />

spiciformis<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Hymenaea verrucosa X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Julbernardia X X X<br />

globiflora<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Julbernardia X X X<br />

magnistipulata<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Piliostigma<br />

X<br />

X<br />

thonningii<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia nigrescens X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia amara X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia gummifera X X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia versicolor X X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus bussei X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus<br />

X X X<br />

capassa<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus<br />

X X X X<br />

angolensis<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus<br />

X X<br />

rotundifolius<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Dalbergia X X X X<br />

melanoxylon<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Scorodophloeus X<br />

fischeri<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Flacourtia indica X<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

X X X<br />

cocculoides<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

X<br />

madagascariensis<br />

MORACEAE Milicia excelsa X X X X<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cordatum X X X<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cumini X<br />

OCHNACEAE Ochna holstii X<br />

POLYGALACEAE Securidaca<br />

X<br />

longipedunculata<br />

RUBIACEAE Vangueria infausta X<br />

RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum<br />

X<br />

chalybeum<br />

SAPOTACEAE Bequaertiodendron<br />

X<br />

natelense<br />

STERCULIACEAE Sterculia<br />

X X X<br />

appendiculata<br />

VERBANACEAE Vitex doniana X<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex zanzibarensis X<br />

80


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Hunting<br />

The populations <strong>of</strong> Chidya <strong>and</strong> Chiwata hunt within Makonde Scarp I. It transpired from<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> discussions that hunting is largely indiscriminate with a wide variety <strong>of</strong><br />

animals taken. These include the Chequered elephant shrews (Rhynchocyon cirnei), a species<br />

listed as Vulnerable, <strong>and</strong> the Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis), a species listed as<br />

conservation dependent (IUCN, 2004) (Appendix 12).<br />

Local management<br />

Makonde Scarp I FR is only proposed, therefore at present no management plan is in place,<br />

no patrolling <strong>of</strong> the FR boundaries is conducted <strong>and</strong> no laws are enforced to protect the area.<br />

DISCUSSION<br />

FLORA<br />

Makonde Scarp I proposed FR falls under the degraded eastern African coastal Brachystegia<br />

forest category. Much <strong>of</strong> this proposed reserve has been converted to farml<strong>and</strong>, with the little<br />

forest remaining consisting <strong>of</strong> secondary forest that is regenerating following past<br />

disturbance, as demonstrated by the small to medium size <strong>of</strong> most trees. Even though<br />

disturbance from timber extraction has changed the physiognomy <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer into a<br />

more open configuration, the presence <strong>of</strong> a dense shrub layer dominated by Swahilian<br />

endemic species <strong>and</strong> the sparse character <strong>of</strong> the grass layer still distinguish this vegetation<br />

type from the ‘miombo’ Brachystegia woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Zambezian regional centre <strong>of</strong><br />

endemism (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000). The presence <strong>of</strong> saplings <strong>of</strong> the dominant canopy<br />

<strong>and</strong> sub canopy species in the shrub layer indicates that the forest has approached a climax<br />

stage, where no species different from the dominant ones are colonising <strong>and</strong> replacing them<br />

(Schmidt, 1991).<br />

In Makonde Scarp I proposed FR the high degree <strong>of</strong> encroachment <strong>and</strong> timber extraction<br />

accounts for the low number <strong>of</strong> species found (73). However, the Shannon diversity index for<br />

this forest reserve (H¹=2.95) is moderately high, reflecting a community in succession<br />

(Magurran, 1988), where a relatively high number <strong>of</strong> species, <strong>and</strong> particularly understory<br />

species, can colonise the area <strong>and</strong> reach high rates <strong>of</strong> population growth following the<br />

removal <strong>of</strong> more competitive canopy trees (Ndangalasi, 1997). If this forest could be allowed<br />

to fully regenerate, <strong>and</strong> canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy species to achieve their potential population<br />

size, then the species diversity would be expected to decline. However, human activities<br />

(particularly cultivation) have continued to interrupt the regeneration <strong>of</strong> this forest from<br />

degraded to fully developed Eastern Africa coastal Brachystegia forest. These activities also<br />

threaten some important plant species present here, such as Vitex zanzibarensis (Endemic <strong>and</strong><br />

Vulnerable), Commiphora zanzibarica, Erythrina schliebenii, Lamprothamnus<br />

zanguebaricus, Rytigynia decussata <strong>and</strong> Vitex mossambicensis (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Potentially<br />

Threatened).<br />

FAUNA<br />

In Makonde Scarp I proposed FR the species composition within most taxa reflects the high<br />

level <strong>of</strong> clearance for agriculture, timber extraction <strong>and</strong> burning <strong>and</strong> the consequent dryness <strong>of</strong><br />

the environment in this reserve (Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996). Research carried out in<br />

small patches <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest yielded a relatively high number <strong>of</strong> species (138), some<br />

<strong>of</strong> which are forest dependent. However, large sections <strong>of</strong> the proposed reserve have already<br />

been converted into farml<strong>and</strong> or cut for timbers <strong>and</strong> poles, <strong>and</strong> if resource extraction is not<br />

regulated the species richness may gradually decline (Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996).<br />

81


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Small mammals<br />

For the small mammals the overall number <strong>of</strong> species (3) <strong>and</strong> individuals (6) captured was<br />

low, reflecting the high incidence <strong>of</strong> deforestation for timber <strong>and</strong> agriculture in this reserve<br />

(see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management section) <strong>and</strong> the open <strong>and</strong> dry habitat<br />

resulting from it (Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996). The Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei -<br />

near threatened) found here is a relic species endemic to a few forest types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

Tanzania, including the coastal <strong>and</strong> mountain forests <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot. Until recently it<br />

was regarded as one <strong>of</strong> the rarest rodents in Africa (Groombridge, 1994) but it is now known<br />

to be more widespread. In Makonde Scarp I this species was found in small pockets <strong>of</strong><br />

regenerating Brachystegia forest on the edge <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> this emphasises its<br />

vulnerability to further habitat degradation (Kingdon 1993). Mastomys natalensis is known to<br />

frequent a variety <strong>of</strong> habitats <strong>and</strong> in southern Tanzania is a prolific <strong>and</strong> recurrent member <strong>of</strong><br />

the rodent community (Kingdon, 1993), as recorded by this study. One species <strong>of</strong> Whitetoothed<br />

shrew (Crocidura sp.) was recorded. The shrews <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania<br />

are poorly known <strong>and</strong> already there are five unidentified species that have been collected from<br />

these forests, each from a separate site (Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000). It is likely that shrews<br />

collected from this survey will yield interesting results once taxonomic verification is<br />

accomplished. None <strong>of</strong> the species recorded are forest dependent or threatened, the lack <strong>of</strong><br />

forest dependent species reflecting the disturbed <strong>and</strong> open habitat found here.<br />

Bats<br />

Only one species <strong>of</strong> bat, the Slit-faced bat (Nycteris gr<strong>and</strong>is), was recorded from a single<br />

capture. This is a forest dwelling species commonly found in forest <strong>and</strong> forest relics across<br />

tropical Africa (Kingdon, 1974). Therefore, as the forest is degraded here this species is<br />

locally vulnerable.<br />

Large mammals<br />

Although the overall number <strong>of</strong> large mammal species recorded (19) was relatively high, the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> individuals for each species was low, no one species being recorded more than<br />

twice. This suggests that the populations <strong>of</strong> all species are suppressed due to a significant<br />

degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance in this reserve (see Human-Resources Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management<br />

section), a factor that has decreased the extent <strong>of</strong> suitable habitat <strong>and</strong> ecological requirements<br />

(e.g. prey, shelter) available to support larger populations. The Suni (Neotragus moschatusconservation<br />

dependent), the Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis - conservation<br />

dependent), the Blue duiker (Cephalophus monticola - CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the Red-bellied coastal<br />

squirrel (Paraxerus palliatus) are forest dependent <strong>and</strong> therefore vulnerable to further<br />

encroachment <strong>and</strong> degradation <strong>of</strong> the forest reserve. It is possible that Paraxerus palliatus<br />

recorded here has hybridized with the Smith’s bush squirrel (Paraxerus cepapi) (Kingdon,<br />

2003). Further research needs to be conducted on the hybrids <strong>of</strong> Paraxerus in this region <strong>of</strong><br />

Tanzania as very little is known. Most other large mammals recorded only occasionally<br />

frequent the forest <strong>and</strong> therefore will be less affected by encroachment. Nevertheless, these<br />

species may need this reserve as a corridor between suitable patches <strong>of</strong> habitat or for<br />

alternative sources <strong>of</strong> food <strong>and</strong> shelter. Predators such as the Lion (Panthera leo - Vulnerable,<br />

CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta - conservation dependant) were reported to<br />

occur in this forest by inhabitants <strong>of</strong> adjacent villages <strong>and</strong> farms. These species are able to<br />

utilize different habitats <strong>and</strong> to adapt well to changes in their environment, <strong>and</strong> so are likely to<br />

be less threatened by further forest degradation. Nevertheless, any reduction in habitat will<br />

reduce the visits <strong>of</strong> these animals as shelter <strong>and</strong> populations <strong>of</strong> predated animals are likely to<br />

decrease. Further research needs to be conducted to assess the extent <strong>of</strong> reliance <strong>of</strong> large<br />

mammals <strong>and</strong> predators on Makonde Scarp I proposed FR. Panthera pardus was reported to<br />

occur here <strong>and</strong> in the adjacent Makonde Scarp II proposed FR <strong>and</strong> Kambona FR. This species<br />

is listed on CITES Appendix I (2005) as a species threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> therefore<br />

excluded from international trade, <strong>and</strong> if its presence in these sites will be confirmed then its<br />

82


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

protection will be necessary. No large mammal species were found to be strictly endemic to<br />

the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains, but the Small-eared bushbaby (Otolemur<br />

garnetti - CITES II) has a restricted distribution in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> a few other<br />

habitats in coastal eastern Africa (Burgess et al., 2000). The South African bushbaby (Galago<br />

moholi - CITES II) is an arboreal species usually found in the semiarid scrub woodl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong><br />

savanna grassl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> central southern Africa (Alvarado, 2000). The finding <strong>of</strong> this species in<br />

the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic <strong>of</strong> southern Tanzania therefore represents a range extension.<br />

Birds<br />

Even though only two forest dependent species, the African crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus<br />

coronatus - CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis), were detected here, a<br />

high number <strong>of</strong> species (78) were recorded. This probably reflects the proximity <strong>of</strong> this<br />

reserve to the ridges <strong>of</strong> the Makonde Scarp, where the topographic variation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

escarpment creates a variety <strong>of</strong> habitats <strong>and</strong> nesting sites for birds. High species richness is<br />

also favoured by the dense understory <strong>of</strong> the Brachystegia forest remaining in this reserve<br />

(Mlingwa et al., 2000) (see Flora section). None <strong>of</strong> the species recorded here are endemic to<br />

the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> none are listed as threatened by the<br />

IUCN Red List (2004). However, Makonde Scarp I proposed FR constitutes part <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Newala District <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> IBA (TZ053 - category A1) (BirdLife International, 2005)<br />

because <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> more than a threshold population <strong>of</strong> the Southern b<strong>and</strong>ed snake<br />

eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus), a species categorized by the IUCN Red List as near threatened.<br />

Even though C. fasciolatus was not recorded in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR during this<br />

study, this species was recorded in adjacent Kambona FR <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

<strong>and</strong> is therefore likely to occur also in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR. Unfortunately, much <strong>of</strong><br />

the forest has been converted to farml<strong>and</strong>, so drastically reducing the habitat for birds.<br />

Reptiles<br />

Local knowledge suggested that snakes <strong>and</strong> reptiles in general should be abundant in this<br />

reserve. The low numbers <strong>of</strong> species (8) <strong>and</strong> individuals (8) captured may therefore be a<br />

consequence <strong>of</strong> the rapid nature <strong>of</strong> this study, which did not permit comprehensive collection<br />

<strong>of</strong> data during the wet season <strong>and</strong> the study <strong>of</strong> fossorial species (Broadley <strong>and</strong> Howell, 2000).<br />

However, low numbers may also reflect the largely open <strong>and</strong> dry environment that has<br />

resulted from high levels <strong>of</strong> encroachment, timber extraction <strong>and</strong> burning in this reserve<br />

(Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996) (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management<br />

section). In fact, <strong>of</strong> all the species recorded only the Rufus egg-eater (Dasypeltis medici) is<br />

known to favour a forested habitat, <strong>and</strong> none <strong>of</strong> the species recorded are forest dependent<br />

(Spawls et al., 2002).<br />

Amphibians<br />

The number <strong>of</strong> amphibian species captured (5) was low <strong>and</strong> reflects the open <strong>and</strong> dry nature<br />

<strong>of</strong> large part <strong>of</strong> the reserve (Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996). Apart from Arthroleptis<br />

species, all species are non-forest dwellers <strong>and</strong> non-forest dependent, <strong>and</strong> were captured in<br />

high numbers (42) in cultivated l<strong>and</strong> as well as in small patches <strong>of</strong> regenerating Brachystegia<br />

forest. The intrusion into forested areas by species that normally inhabit transient open<br />

situations is known to be a recurrent characteristic encouraged by the heterogeneous pattern<br />

<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic, whereby such species breed in their open habitat but enter the<br />

enclosed habitat for refuge, especially during dry periods (Poynton, 2000). Arthroleptis<br />

stenodactylus <strong>and</strong> A. xenodactyloides favour a forested habitat as they rely on the presence <strong>of</strong><br />

damp soil <strong>and</strong> loose leaf mould protected from shrub <strong>and</strong> canopy cover to lay their eggs<br />

(Howell, 1993. Consequently, the Dwarf squeaker (Arthroleptis xenodactyloides) is listed as<br />

Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004) <strong>and</strong> both species may become locally threatened by further loss <strong>of</strong><br />

forest habitat.<br />

83


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Butterflies<br />

For the butterflies there was a moderate number <strong>of</strong> species (20) <strong>and</strong> individuals (30) recorded.<br />

This reserve contains small patches <strong>of</strong> regenerating Brachystegia forest with a dense<br />

understory (see Flora section) where re-colonisation by forest dependent species such as the<br />

Forest queen (Euxanthe wakefieldi) is taking place. However, most <strong>of</strong> this reserve has been<br />

converted to farml<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> consequently most butterfly species recorded are non-forest<br />

dwellers.<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Population growth in the areas adjacent to Makonde Scarp I proposed FR has accelerated <strong>and</strong><br />

the dem<strong>and</strong> on l<strong>and</strong> for cultivation <strong>and</strong> wood for building has resulted in severe degradation<br />

<strong>of</strong> the forest reserve. Most <strong>of</strong> the farmers that were moved out when the area was proposed to<br />

be a reserve are now going back to their shambas (cultivated l<strong>and</strong>), in part because <strong>of</strong> the<br />

failure <strong>of</strong> the government to fully compensate their relocation in new houses <strong>and</strong> farms<br />

(Baldus et al., 2004).<br />

Natural resource use in Makonde Scarp I proposed FR is widespread with various species<br />

being exploited for timber, poles, fuel wood, food, medicines <strong>and</strong> other products. The most<br />

urgent problem is the clearing <strong>of</strong> new l<strong>and</strong> for agriculture. This problem is exacerbated by the<br />

practice <strong>of</strong> shifting cultivation, where people clear new l<strong>and</strong> after exhausting the fertility <strong>of</strong><br />

the previously cultivated l<strong>and</strong>. Hunting also appears to be largely indiscriminate with a wide<br />

variety <strong>of</strong> animals taken. These include the Chequered elephant shrews (Rhynchocyon cirnei),<br />

a species listed as Vulnerable, <strong>and</strong> the Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis), a species listed<br />

as conservation dependent (IUCN, 2004) (Appendix 12).<br />

84


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

14. MAKONDE SCARP II PROPOSED FOREST<br />

RESERVE<br />

Status<br />

Management Body<br />

Location<br />

Area<br />

Altitude<br />

Topography<br />

Temperature<br />

Rainfall<br />

Soil type<br />

Vegetation Type<br />

L<strong>and</strong> Use<br />

History <strong>and</strong> Status<br />

Proposed Forest Reserve<br />

Central Government<br />

Newala district. The proposed site starts north east <strong>of</strong> Lulindi <strong>and</strong><br />

continues south easterly along the escarpment, ending just before<br />

Newala town.<br />

1,554ha<br />

550-780m asl<br />

Lowl<strong>and</strong> plain <strong>and</strong> gentle lower slope<br />

Min: 19 o C, Max: 30 o C (recorded 28 April - 2 May, dry season)<br />

Average 0.3mm (recorded 28 April - 2 May, dry season)<br />

S<strong>and</strong>y-loam<br />

Eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest, Mixed scrub forest<br />

<strong>and</strong> Thicket<br />

The reserve was proposed to preserve the soil on the plateau <strong>and</strong><br />

scarp <strong>and</strong> to protect a water source <strong>and</strong> catchment. Areas are used for<br />

agriculture, especially cashew, rice <strong>and</strong> maize plantations (shifting<br />

cultivation is common practice). Brick making occurs, along with<br />

timber <strong>and</strong> pole cutting <strong>and</strong> hunting.<br />

Signs <strong>of</strong> habitat destruction on the escarpment were noticed <strong>and</strong><br />

documented in the 1940’s (Maganga, 2004). Makonde Scarp II was<br />

agreed to be a proposed forest reserve in 1976, the same year as<br />

funding for boundary beacons was made available. In 1977 some<br />

residents were moved from the escarpment <strong>and</strong> relocated. In 1980-81<br />

complaints by people who had been moved <strong>of</strong>f their original<br />

properties were acknowledged, concluding that Tsh 40 million was<br />

needed for compensation. Compensation <strong>of</strong> TSh 1.7 million was<br />

made available to Masasi District in 1983 <strong>and</strong> 1984 but no subsidies<br />

85


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

were made available to Newala <strong>and</strong> T<strong>and</strong>ahimba districts. Presently<br />

the site is not yet fully gazetted <strong>and</strong> there are no boundary markers.<br />

There is no staff, effective capacity or resources to enforce protected<br />

area legislation <strong>and</strong> regulations.<br />

Maps Topographical map: Lulindi sheet 306/3 <strong>and</strong> Newala sheet 306/4,<br />

East Africa 1:50 000, 1968. From the Institute <strong>of</strong> Mapping, Dar es<br />

Salaam (from Series Y742, Edition 1-TSD).<br />

METHODS<br />

Survey work was conducted over seven days (27 April - 2 May 2005). Five vegetation plots<br />

(4800m 2 ), five regeneration plots (48m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> one zoosite were carried out, incorporating 200<br />

sherman trapping nights, 50 bucket trapping nights, 4.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna<br />

searches, four bat mist net/hours, eight man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed bird searches, 15 canopy trapping<br />

days, six butterfly sweep net/hours, four animal sign transects (totalling 16,000m 2 ), four<br />

disturbance transects (totalling 40,000m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> opportunistic observations (see Appendices 2<br />

to 8 for GPS coordinates <strong>and</strong> work site descriptions). Ornithological work was conducted on<br />

separate days (1-2 July 2005). Bird mist netting was not conducted in this reserve as the camp<br />

was located some distance from the escarpment <strong>and</strong> in order to avoid theft nets could not be<br />

left unattended. Habitat notes were taken for the vegetation plots (Appendices 4 <strong>and</strong> 5) <strong>and</strong><br />

zoological trap sites (Appendix 6). Structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions were<br />

conducted with four elders from the villages <strong>of</strong> Chiwambo juu <strong>and</strong> Nyambunga. For a<br />

detailed break down <strong>of</strong> survey effort see Table 10-a.<br />

RESULTS<br />

In Makonde Scarp II proposed FR 76 plant species were recorded from 22 families. Eight<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> floral species are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato<br />

<strong>and</strong> 12% are listed as threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke,<br />

2006) (Table 14-a; Appendices 9 <strong>and</strong> 10).<br />

The forest reserve has 99 faunal species found within 54 families. Of these species 2% are<br />

forest dependent, 1% are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc<br />

Mountains <strong>and</strong> 2% are listed as threatened by IUCN (2004) <strong>and</strong>/or CITES (2005) (Table 14-a;<br />

Appendices 13-17).<br />

86


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 14-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

Taxa No. <strong>of</strong><br />

families<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

species c<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

forest<br />

dependent<br />

species d<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

widespread<br />

species<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> strictly<br />

endemic<br />

species:<br />

e <strong>and</strong> f<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

threatened<br />

species:<br />

g <strong>and</strong> h<br />

Mammals 15 18 1 17 0 1 -<br />

Birds a 30 64 0 64 0 1 -<br />

Reptiles 4 7 0 7 0 0 -<br />

Amphibians 2 2 0 2 1 0 -<br />

Butterflies 3 8 1 7 0 0 -<br />

Total for 54 99 2 97 1 2 -<br />

animals<br />

Flora b 22 76 0 70 6 3 7<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

PT<br />

species i<br />

Combined<br />

Total<br />

76 175 2 167 7 5 6<br />

a - Includes birds seen on the forest boundary edge<br />

b - All trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses <strong>and</strong> ferns<br />

c - Includes information collected from all systematic survey work, opportunistic observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions<br />

d - Species dependent on <strong>and</strong> associated with primary or closed-canopy forest, not forest edge or secondary forest<br />

e - Faunal species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone or the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a), sometimes being found also in other habitats in a few adjacent locations (e.g.<br />

Masasi District in S Tanzania, N Mozambique etc.)<br />

f - Floral species restricted to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

g - Species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable (VU) in the IUCN Red List<br />

(IUCN, 2004)<br />

h - Species listed in CITES Appendix I as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade<br />

(CITES, 2005)<br />

i - Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

*The identification <strong>of</strong> Crocidura sp. may increase this number. We await verification<br />

FLORA<br />

In Makonde Scarp II proposed FR three homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>s were observed,<br />

which were identified as Brachystegia forest, Mixed scrub forest <strong>and</strong> Thicket, interrupted by<br />

cultivated <strong>and</strong> fallow farml<strong>and</strong>.<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> diversity<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 76 species were recorded. Out <strong>of</strong> these, 42 species were found in 12 vegetation<br />

plots <strong>and</strong> 17 in 12 regeneration plots. The remaining 17 species were recorded from<br />

opportunistic collection. More specifically, 32 trees, 36 shrubs <strong>and</strong> eight grasses were<br />

recorded (Appendix 9). A value <strong>of</strong> 3.01 was calculated for the Shannon diversity index.<br />

• Species dominance<br />

In the eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest Brachystegia spiciformis was the most<br />

frequent species in the canopy layer (29% <strong>of</strong> the plots), accompanied by Albizia gummifera,<br />

Pterocarpus rotundifolius, Pterocarpus angolensis <strong>and</strong> Albizia versicolor (14% <strong>of</strong> the plots<br />

respectively) (Table 14-b). No species were found to occur in more than 40% <strong>of</strong> the plots to<br />

be ranked as frequent or dominant (Mueller-Dombois <strong>and</strong> Ellenberg, 1974).<br />

87


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 14-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy<br />

layer in Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF Rank<br />

(Domina dominance<br />

nce)<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

indv. in<br />

all plots<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia spiciformis 2 29 1 4 5 1<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia gummifera 1 14 2 3 4 2<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus rotundifolius 1 14 2 3 4 2<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia versicolor 1 14 2 2 3 3<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus angolensis 1 14 2 2 3 3<br />

Total 1 3 3 5 14 19<br />

Total 2 18 23 30 78 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

%<br />

RA<br />

Rank<br />

RA<br />

In the sub canopy layer Cassia didymobotrya <strong>and</strong> Diplorhynchus condylocarpon were the<br />

most dominant, each one occurring in 29% <strong>of</strong> the plots, while Cussonia arborea, Schefflera<br />

barteri <strong>and</strong> Sclerocarya birrea occurred in 14% <strong>of</strong> the plots respectively (Table 14-c). None<br />

<strong>of</strong> the species were found to occur in more than 40% <strong>of</strong> the plots to be ranked as frequent or<br />

dominant (Mueller-Dombois <strong>and</strong> Ellenberg, 1974).<br />

Table 14-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy<br />

layer in Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF<br />

(Dominan<br />

ce)<br />

Rank<br />

dominance<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

indv. in<br />

all plots<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia didymobotrya 2 29 2 8 10 1<br />

APOCYNACEAE Diplorhynchus condylocarpon 2 29 2 6 8 2<br />

ARALIACEAE Cussonia arborea 1 14 3 2 3 3<br />

ARALIACEAE Schefflera barteri 1 14 3 1 1 4<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Sclerocarya birrea 1 14 3 1 1 4<br />

Total 1 4 5 5 18 23<br />

Total 2 18 23 30 78 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

%<br />

RA<br />

Rank<br />

RA<br />

Mixed scrub forest was dominated by Parinari curatellifolia, occurring in 57% <strong>of</strong> the plots<br />

<strong>and</strong> ranking as the most dominant species (Table 14-d). Other species found in the canopy<br />

layer were Cassia didymobotrya <strong>and</strong> Diplorhynchus condylocarpon, both occurring in 29% <strong>of</strong><br />

the plots, <strong>and</strong> Hymenocardia ulmoides <strong>and</strong> Pteleopsis myrtifolia, each occurring in 14% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

plots.<br />

88


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 14-d Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy<br />

layer in Mixed scrub forest in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF<br />

(Dominan<br />

ce)<br />

Rank<br />

dominance<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

indv. in<br />

all plots<br />

CHRYSOBALANACEAE Parinari curatellifolia 4 57 1 16 20 1<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia didymobotrya 2 29 2 8 10 2<br />

APOCYNACEAE Diplorhynchus condylocarpon 2 29 2 6 8 3<br />

HYMENOCARDIACEAE Hymenocardia ulmoides 1 14 3 3 4 4<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis myrtifolia 1 14 3 2 3 5<br />

Total 1 5 5 5 35 45<br />

Total 2 18 23 30 78 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

%<br />

RA<br />

Rank<br />

RA<br />

In the Thicket Strychnos madagascariensis <strong>and</strong> Ochna kirkii were the most frequent species,<br />

both occurring in 29% <strong>of</strong> the plots sampled, while Flacourtia indica, Securidaca<br />

longipedunculata <strong>and</strong> Ochna holstii occurred in 14% <strong>of</strong> the plots respectively (Table 14-e).<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the species were found to occur in more than 40% <strong>of</strong> the plots to be ranked as<br />

frequent or dominant (Mueller-Dombois <strong>and</strong> Ellenberg, 1974).<br />

Table 14-e Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species in Thicket in<br />

Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF<br />

(Domina<br />

nce)<br />

Rank<br />

dominance<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

indv. in<br />

all<br />

plots<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos madagascariensis 2 29 1 4 5 1<br />

OCHNACEAE Ochna kirkii 2 29 1 2 3 2<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Flacourtia indica 1 14 2 4 5 1<br />

POLYGALACEAE Securidaca longipedunculata 1 14 2 4 5 1<br />

OCHNACEAE Ochna holstii 1 14 2 2 3 2<br />

Total 1 4 4 4 16 21<br />

Total 2 18 23 30 78 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

%<br />

RA<br />

Rank<br />

RA<br />

• Species relative abundance<br />

In eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest the most abundant species in the canopy layer<br />

were Brachystegia spiciformis, Albizia gummifera <strong>and</strong> Pterocarpus rotundifolius, together<br />

contributed only 13% <strong>of</strong> all the species sampled in this layer (Table 14-b). In the sub canopy<br />

layer Cassia didymobotrya <strong>and</strong> Diplorhynchus condylocarpon made up 10% <strong>and</strong> 8% each <strong>of</strong><br />

all the individuals sampled (Table 14-c).<br />

In Mixed scrub forest Parinari curatellifolia was the most abundant species in the canopy<br />

layer, making up 20% <strong>of</strong> the trees recorded, while Cassia didymobotrya, Diplorhynchus<br />

condylocarpon <strong>and</strong> Hymenocardia ulmoides made 10%, 8% <strong>and</strong> 4% respectively (Table 14-<br />

d).<br />

89


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

In the Thicket Strychnos madagascariensis, Flacourtia indica <strong>and</strong> Securidaca<br />

longipedunculata contributed 5% each <strong>of</strong> all individuals in this vegetation type (Table 14-e).<br />

When looking at the overall number <strong>of</strong> trees recorded in both the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy<br />

layers, the canopy layer (71%) contributed a higher number <strong>of</strong> individuals than the sub<br />

canopy layer (29%) to the overall number <strong>of</strong> adult trees in this reserve.<br />

• Species composition <strong>and</strong> vegetation types<br />

In Makonde Scarp II proposed FR three homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>s were observed. On<br />

the western side <strong>of</strong> the escarpment, near to Chiwambo Chini village, eastern African coastal<br />

Brachystegia forest was found. On the plateau the vegetation was mainly comprised <strong>of</strong><br />

Mixed scrub forest, while down the escarpment to the south, east <strong>and</strong> north <strong>of</strong> Chiwambo<br />

juu village, the vegetation graded into Thicket (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000).<br />

In the eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest, the canopy layer was characterised by<br />

species such as Brachystegia spiciformis, Albizia gummifera, <strong>and</strong> Pterocarpus rotundifolius,<br />

<strong>and</strong> the sub canopy layer by Cassia didymobotrya <strong>and</strong> Diplorhynchus condylocarpon. Other<br />

species occurring in the canopy layer included Albizia versicolor, Pterocarpus angolensis,<br />

Julbernardia globiflora, Millettia stuhlmannii, Pericopsis angolensis <strong>and</strong> Terminalia brownii.<br />

In the sub canopy layer we observed Cussonia arborea, Schefflera barteri, Sclerocarya<br />

birrea, Lonchocarpus capassa, Maerua sp., Craibia brevicaudata <strong>and</strong> Lonchocarpus bussei.<br />

The shrub layer was observed to be comprised <strong>of</strong> saplings <strong>of</strong> the dominant species from the<br />

canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers, <strong>and</strong> shrub species such as Salacia madagascariensis,<br />

Strychnos usambarensis, Strychnos madagascariensis, Ochna holstii, Catunaregam spinosa,<br />

Vangueria infausta, Vangueriopsis sp. <strong>and</strong> various species from the genus Combretum. The<br />

herbaceous layer was comprised <strong>of</strong> grasses, particularly Sporobolus sp., Themeda tri<strong>and</strong>ra,<br />

Digitaris sp., <strong>and</strong> Panicum maximum. Herbs found in association with these grasses were<br />

Dicoma tomentosa, Hypoestes sp. <strong>and</strong> Jasminum sp. These herbs were recorded as dominant<br />

on the edge <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> open areas where grasses have been removed by fire or<br />

cultivation.<br />

Mixed scrub forest was recognised by the presence <strong>of</strong> Parinari curatellifolia in the canopy, an<br />

interspersed emergent typical <strong>of</strong> this forest type, as well as species such as Hymenocardia<br />

ulmoides <strong>and</strong> Pteleopsis myrtifolia. In the shrub layer the presence <strong>of</strong> Strychnos<br />

madagascariensis <strong>and</strong> Strychnos cocculoides confirmed the classification <strong>of</strong> this forest type<br />

as Mixed scrub forest. Herbs here were missing, leaving only grasses such as Heteropogon<br />

contortus, Themeda tri<strong>and</strong>ra <strong>and</strong> Digitaris sp. to characterise the herbaceous layer.<br />

Thickets were typically characterised by the absence <strong>of</strong> canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers, <strong>and</strong><br />

were comprised mainly <strong>of</strong> shrub species such as Strychnos madagascariensis, Ochna kirkii,<br />

Flacourtia indica, Securidaca longipedunculata <strong>and</strong> Ochna holstii. Other shrub species<br />

recorded included Vangueria infausta, Strychnos spinosa <strong>and</strong> Bequaertiodendron natalense.<br />

No herbs or grasses were recorded underneath the thicket.<br />

• Endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Seven <strong>of</strong> the species recorded were found to be endemic to Swahilian region sensu lato,<br />

including Monodora gr<strong>and</strong>idieri, Monanthotaxis fornicata, Tetracera boiviniana, Gardenia<br />

transvenulosa, Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus, Grewia lepidopetala <strong>and</strong> Vitex zanzibarensis,<br />

(Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000) (Appendix 10). This amounted to 8% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong><br />

species recorded (Figure 6).<br />

90


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

8%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

92%<br />

Figure 6 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

Ten among the species recorded are recognised to be threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially<br />

threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006), amounting to 12% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species<br />

recorded (Table 14-f).<br />

Table 14-f Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Makonde Scarp II proposed<br />

FR<br />

Family Species name Conservation status Habit<br />

ANNONACEAE Monanthotaxis trichocarpa PT C/S<br />

ANNONACEAE Monanthotaxis fornicata PT S<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana PT S/T<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia abbreviata PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Craibia brevicaudata PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia impressa PT C<br />

MELIACEAE Khaya anthotheca VU T<br />

RUBIACEAE Gardenia transvenulosa VU S/T<br />

RUBIACEAE Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus PT S/T<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex zanzibarensis VU S<br />

PT = Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

T= Tree, S= Shrub, B= Bamboo, C= Climber, H= Herb<br />

FAUNA<br />

Although the identification <strong>of</strong> about 90% <strong>of</strong> the species recorded is certain, the identification<br />

<strong>of</strong> a few specimens remains tentative whilst awaiting taxonomic verification.<br />

Mammals<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 18 mammals representing 15 families were recorded (Appendix 13).<br />

For the small mammals seven species representing five families were recorded from seven<br />

captures (not counting three recaptures) that took place during 200 sherman trapping <strong>and</strong> 50<br />

bucket pitfall trapping nights (Table 10-a). Common species found were the Multimammate<br />

rats (Mastomys natalensis) <strong>and</strong> the Spiny mouse (Acomys spinosissimus) making up 55% <strong>of</strong><br />

all captures. Other species included the Mouse (Mus minutoides) <strong>and</strong> a species <strong>of</strong> the Whitetoothed<br />

shrew (Crocidura sp.) (Appendix 18).<br />

91


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

No bats were recorded during six bat mist net/hours.<br />

For the larger mammals, 11 species representing 10 families were recorded during sign<br />

transects totalling 4km, through opportunistic observations <strong>and</strong> from local knowledge<br />

(Appendix 13). Species found included the Greater galago (Otolemur crassicaudatus) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis). Signs from each species were not observed more than<br />

twice. The discovery <strong>of</strong> a foot print <strong>of</strong> a Leopard (Panthera pardus) confirms records <strong>of</strong> its<br />

presence from local knowledge. From interviews with local communities it was also learnt<br />

that the Lion (Panthera leo), Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) <strong>and</strong> Jackal (Canis adustus)<br />

occasionally pass through the proposed forest reserve.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

One species, the Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis), was found to be forest dependent,<br />

although many other <strong>of</strong>ten frequent <strong>and</strong> some favour a forested habitat. None <strong>of</strong> the species<br />

recorded are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains, <strong>and</strong> only<br />

one species is listed as threatened (Table 14-g).<br />

Table 14-g Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Makonde Scarp II<br />

proposed FR<br />

Species Common name Forest dependent Endemic Threatened<br />

Panthera pardus Leopard - - CITES 1<br />

Cephalophus natalensis Natal duiker F - -<br />

F= Forest dependent or specialist (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CF= species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF= species with limited ranges in the in the<br />

Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

CITES I = Threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade;<br />

Birds<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Sixty-four species from 30 families were detected during eight man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed bird<br />

searches. Species included the Brown-breasted barbet (Lybius melanopterus), the Pale batis<br />

(Batis soror) <strong>and</strong> the Livingstone’s flycatcher (Erythrocercus livingstonei) (Appendix 14).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

The Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is listed on CITES Appendix I (2005) as threatened<br />

with extinction <strong>and</strong> therefore excluded from international trade. No forest dependent or<br />

strictly endemic species were found in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR.<br />

Reptiles<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Seven species <strong>of</strong> reptiles representing four families were recorded from seven captures that<br />

took place during 50 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 4.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological<br />

searches. Species included the Burrowing asp (Mehelya nyassae juv.), the White-lipped snake<br />

(Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia), the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus), the Savanna vine snake<br />

(Thelotornis capensis oatesi) 9 , a apecies <strong>of</strong> skink (Trachylepis sp.) 10 <strong>and</strong> the Mozambique<br />

agama (Agama mossambica) (Appendices 15 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

9 The identification <strong>of</strong> Thelotornis capensis oatesi was carried out by Michele Menegon (Appendix 1). We are<br />

awaiting taxonomic confirmation.<br />

10 The Afro-magalasian mabuyas have been recognised to constitute a separate genus <strong>and</strong> have been renamed<br />

Trachylepis sp. For the partitioning <strong>of</strong> the genus Mabuya see Mausfeld et al. (2002); for the taxonomy <strong>and</strong><br />

nomenclature <strong>of</strong> Traxhyletis sp. see Honda et al. (2003) <strong>and</strong> Whiting et al. (2003).<br />

92


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent, strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Amphibians<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Two species <strong>of</strong> amphibians representing two families were recorded from two captures that<br />

took place during 50 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 4.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological<br />

searches. Species included Arthroleptis stenodactylus <strong>and</strong> Mertensophryne micranotis<br />

(Appendices 16 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Mertensophryne micranotis is endemic to the Eastern Arc lowl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest<br />

Mosaic <strong>of</strong> south-eastern <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> eastern Tanzania. No species were found to be forest<br />

dependent. Arthroleptis stenodactylus favours forest habitats but is not forest dependent<br />

(Howell, 1993). No threatened species were recorded.<br />

Butterflies<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Eight species <strong>of</strong> butterfly representing three families were recorded from 11 captures that took<br />

place during 15 canopy trapping days <strong>and</strong> 4.5 sweep net/hours (Appendix 17). The Large blue<br />

charaxes (Charaxes bohemani) accounted for 36% <strong>of</strong> all captures.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent, strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Fauna’s strict endemism<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the faunal species recorded in Makonde Scarp II are endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains.<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Through disturbance transects, levels <strong>of</strong> pole cutting, fire damage, path densities <strong>and</strong> other<br />

forms <strong>of</strong> disturbance were recorded. Out <strong>of</strong> seventy-nine 50m sections, only three (4%) were<br />

found to be free from disturbance. Sixty-nine (87%) were subject to pole/timber cutting, 58<br />

(73%) showed signs <strong>of</strong> fire disturbance <strong>and</strong> 33 (41%) had been cultivated. Fifteen (19%) were<br />

bisected by one or more paths, two (3%) were subject to bark ringing <strong>and</strong> one (1%) contained<br />

a trap (Figure 7). Forest resource use is summarised in Table 14-i.<br />

93


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections affected<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

Cutting Fire Paths Ringing Cultivation Traps<br />

Disturbance category<br />

Figure 7 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 76) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

Agricultural encroachment<br />

The wooded grassl<strong>and</strong> on top <strong>of</strong> the scarp was found to have been reduced to a very narrow<br />

strip at the edge <strong>of</strong> the scarp. The presence <strong>of</strong> a brick factory was recorded. Some areas on the<br />

side <strong>of</strong> the escarpment still support woodl<strong>and</strong> with some large individual trees, but most <strong>of</strong> it<br />

has been cleared <strong>and</strong> converted to farml<strong>and</strong> or has regenerated into Thicket. Rice, maize <strong>and</strong><br />

groundnuts were observed growing on the slopes <strong>of</strong> the escarpment. The foot <strong>of</strong> the scarp<br />

hosted very few undisturbed areas, most having been converted for agriculture.<br />

Poles <strong>and</strong> timbers<br />

According to the inhabitants <strong>of</strong> the area, timber in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR is derived<br />

from 15 tree species (Table 14-i). Disturbance transects <strong>and</strong> information from the residents<br />

showed the extensive exploitation <strong>of</strong> four preferred species (Afzelia quanzensis, Milicia<br />

excelsa, Pterocarpus angolensis <strong>and</strong> P. rotundifolius). Disturbance transects revealed that 10<br />

species in total are exploited to obtain poles for building materials. No currently active or old<br />

pit sawing sites were recorded.<br />

• Relative abundance <strong>and</strong> average no. <strong>of</strong> live, dead <strong>and</strong> cut individuals per ha<br />

From disturbance transects the level <strong>of</strong> pole <strong>and</strong> timber cutting within the proposed area was<br />

determined to be 27% <strong>and</strong> 19% respectively, with no evidence <strong>of</strong> large cut timbers. No fresh<br />

cut poles or timbers were recorded (Table 14-h).<br />

Table 14-h Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

Total<br />

transect<br />

length<br />

in m<br />

Total no.<br />

<strong>of</strong> indiv.<br />

sampled<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> % RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> live indiv.<br />

Average<br />

live indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> % RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> dead indiv.<br />

Average<br />

dead<br />

indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> % RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> cut indiv.<br />

Average<br />

cut<br />

indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Poles 3,950 2669 919 (34) 258 52 (2) 13 727 (27) 184<br />

Timbers 3,950 310 225 (73) 57 27 (9) 7 58 (19) 15<br />

Large<br />

timbers<br />

3,950 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) 0<br />

Fuel wood<br />

Residents indicated a total <strong>of</strong> 18 species (Table 14-i) that are utilised as fuel wood.<br />

94


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Tools <strong>and</strong> utensils<br />

Various species were found to be used in Makonde Scarp II to make items such as cooking<br />

utensils, tool h<strong>and</strong>les <strong>and</strong> ropes (Table 14-i). Two 50m sections were found to contain one<br />

ringed tree each, the trees being dead. Species targeted to make beehives included<br />

Brachystegia longifolia, Brachystegia spiciformis, Piliostigma thonningii <strong>and</strong> Vitex doniana.<br />

Edible non-timber forest products<br />

Residents identified five species used for food in Makonde Scarp II. The roots <strong>of</strong> Dioscorea<br />

hirtiflora were found to be an important source <strong>of</strong> carbohydrate exploited for sale on local<br />

markets (Table 14-i). Honey is produced <strong>and</strong> sold locally.<br />

Medicinal plants<br />

Twenty-two species were found to be used for medicine (Table 14-i, Appendix 11).<br />

Table 14-i Plant species utilised in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR as identified by field<br />

observations, structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions. Local names, where known, are<br />

presented in Appendix 9<br />

Family Species Poles Timber Fuel Tools Ropes Hives Food Medicine<br />

wood<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Sclerocarya birrea<br />

X<br />

ANNONACEAE Annona senegalensis X X X X<br />

BIGNONIACEAE Markhamia acuminata X<br />

BIGNONIACEAE Markhamia obtusifolia X X X<br />

BOMBACACEAE Ceiba pent<strong>and</strong>ra X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Afzelia quanzensis X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia petersiana X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia tomentosa X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia longifolia<br />

X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia spiciformis X X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia abbreviata<br />

X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Hymenaea verrucosa X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Julbernardia globiflora X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Julbernardia<br />

X X X<br />

magnistipulata<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Piliostigma thonningii X X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia brevispica<br />

X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia nigrescens<br />

X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia gummifera X X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia versicolor X X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Dalbergia melanoxylon X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus bussei X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus capassa X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Milletia stuhlmannii X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus angolensis X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus rotundifolius X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Scorodophloeus fischeri X<br />

CHRYSOBALANAC Parinari curatellifolia X X<br />

EAE<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis myrtifolia X X<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana X<br />

DIOSCOREACEAE Dioscorea hirtiflora<br />

X<br />

EBENACEAE Diospyros kirkii X<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Flacourtia indica<br />

X<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos cocculoides X X X X<br />

95


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Species Poles Timber Fuel Tools Ropes Hives Food Medicine<br />

wood<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

X<br />

X<br />

madagascariensis<br />

MELIACEAE Khaya anthotheca X X<br />

MORACEAE Milicia excelsa X X X<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cordatum X X X<br />

OCHNACEAE Ochna holstii X<br />

POLYGALACEAE Securidaca<br />

X<br />

longipedunculata<br />

RUBIACEAE Vangueria infausta X<br />

RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum chalybeum X<br />

SAPOTACEAE Bequaertiodendron<br />

X<br />

natalense<br />

STERCULIACEAE Sterculia appendiculata X X X<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex doniana X X X X<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex zanzibarensis X<br />

Hunting<br />

Upon being questioned about hunting practices in the area residents responded that hunting<br />

does not take place. However, this statement was contradicted by the observation <strong>of</strong> traps<br />

along disturbance transects. In one small area used for cultivation no fewer than eight<br />

different traps for small antelopes were observed.<br />

Management<br />

Makonde Scarp II FR is only proposed, therefore no management plan is in place, no<br />

patrolling <strong>of</strong> the FR boundaries is conducted <strong>and</strong> no laws are enforced to protect the area.<br />

DISCUSSION<br />

FLORA<br />

Makonde Scarp II proposed FR has been transformed by major human disturbance,<br />

particularly clearance for agriculture <strong>and</strong> timber harvesting, into three main vegetation types<br />

largely interspersed by cultivated <strong>and</strong> fallow farml<strong>and</strong>.<br />

Small patches <strong>of</strong> eastern African Brachystegia forest were found to still be present on the<br />

western side <strong>of</strong> the escarpment, near to Chiwambo Chini village. The low frequency (≤60%)<br />

<strong>and</strong> abundance <strong>of</strong> the Brachystegia sp. recorded in this forest reserve, <strong>and</strong> the absence <strong>of</strong><br />

Brachystegia as a single dominant genus characteristic <strong>of</strong> this vegetation type may be<br />

attributed to the high level <strong>of</strong> timber extraction observed in this forest reserve (see Human<br />

Resources-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management section), but further study would be needed to<br />

ascertain this. Even though disturbance from timber extraction has changed the physiognomy<br />

<strong>of</strong> the canopy layer into a more open configuration, the presence <strong>of</strong> a dense shrub layer<br />

dominated by Swahilian endemic species <strong>and</strong> the sparse character <strong>of</strong> the grass layer still<br />

distinguish this vegetation type from the ‘miombo’ Brachystegia woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Zambezian<br />

regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000).<br />

Deforestation on the plateau has degraded the climax forest into Thicket <strong>and</strong> Mixed scrub<br />

forest. Both these vegetation types are seral stages that resulted from the historical practice <strong>of</strong><br />

shifting cultivation on the Makonde Plateau, whereby farml<strong>and</strong> is left fallow for at least seven<br />

years, allowing grassl<strong>and</strong> first, then Thicket <strong>and</strong> finally Mixed scrub forest to regenerate. If<br />

96


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

the clearing cycle was not perpetrated this vegetation type could complete its succession to<br />

climax forest (Gillman, 1954).<br />

Makonde Scarp II has one <strong>of</strong> the lowest plant species richness recorded (76 species), which<br />

may be caused by the high proportion <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong> comprising this reserves <strong>and</strong> the<br />

intense degree <strong>of</strong> timber extraction taking place. The Shannon diversity index for this forest<br />

reserve (H¹=3.01) is relatively high, reflecting a community in succession (Magurran, 1988),<br />

where a relatively high number <strong>of</strong> species, <strong>and</strong> particularly understory species, can colonise<br />

the area <strong>and</strong> reach high rates <strong>of</strong> population growth following the removal <strong>of</strong> more competitive<br />

canopy trees (Ndangalasi, 1997). If this forest could be allowed to fully regenerate, <strong>and</strong><br />

canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy species to achieve their potential population size, then the species<br />

diversity would be expected to decline. Important species, such as Khaya anthotheca<br />

(Vulnerable), Gardenia transvenulosa <strong>and</strong> Vitex zanzibarensis (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable),<br />

would also be preserved. The African mahogany (Khaya anthotheca), yields a very valuable<br />

termite resistant timber that is marketed for joinery <strong>and</strong> cabinet work (Schulman et. al, 1998),<br />

<strong>and</strong> is listed as Vulnerable by IUCN (2004). If the extraction <strong>of</strong> timber from Makonde Scarp<br />

II proposed FR is not regulated this <strong>and</strong> other species may become locally rare.<br />

FAUNA<br />

Overall a low number <strong>of</strong> faunal species (99) were recorded, reflecting the fact that large<br />

sections <strong>of</strong> the reserve have been converted into farml<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> are disturbed by timber<br />

extraction, fires <strong>and</strong> hunting, factors that have decreased the extent <strong>of</strong> suitable habitat <strong>and</strong><br />

ecological requirements (e.g. prey, shelter) available to animal species (Zullini, 2003; Begon<br />

et al., 1996).<br />

Small mammals<br />

For the small mammals the overall number <strong>of</strong> species (4) <strong>and</strong> individuals (7) captured was<br />

low, reflecting the high incidence <strong>of</strong> deforestation in this reserve (see Human Resource-Use<br />

<strong>and</strong> Local Management section) <strong>and</strong> the open <strong>and</strong> dry habitat resulting from it (Zullini, 2003;<br />

Begon et al., 1996). The dominance <strong>of</strong> the Multimammate rat (Mastomys natalensis) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Spiny mouse (Acomys spinosissimus), together making up more than half <strong>of</strong> the total capture,<br />

<strong>and</strong> the recording <strong>of</strong> the Pygmy mouse (Mus minutoides) also reflect the type <strong>of</strong> habitat<br />

present, i.e. open canopy forest, scrub <strong>and</strong> thicket. One species <strong>of</strong> the White-toothed shrew<br />

(Crocidura sp.) was found. Shrews found in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania are poorly<br />

known <strong>and</strong> already there are five unidentified species that have been collected from the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, each from a separate forest (Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000). It is<br />

possible that the shrews collected from this survey will yield interesting results once<br />

taxonomic verification is accomplished.<br />

Large mammals<br />

For the larger mammals a moderate number <strong>of</strong> species (11) were recorded <strong>and</strong> no one species<br />

was recorded more than twice. The low number <strong>of</strong> individuals recorded for all species was<br />

probably caused by a significant degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance in this reserve (see Human Resource-<br />

Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management section), a factor that has decreased the extent <strong>of</strong> suitable habitat<br />

<strong>and</strong> ecological requirements (e.g. prey, shelter) necessary to support larger populations. In this<br />

reserve the forest dependent Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis - conservation dependent)<br />

was found, together with several species such as the Greater galago (Otolemur crassicaudatus<br />

- CITES II) which, although not forest dependent, <strong>of</strong>ten favour a forest environment. Due to<br />

their habitat requirements these species are likely to be locally threatened from further<br />

encroachment <strong>and</strong> degradation <strong>of</strong> the reserve. Otolemur crassicaudatus was found to frequent<br />

cultivated l<strong>and</strong>, where it feeds on fruit, indicating a possible adaptation to the change in<br />

habitat. Predators such as the Lion (Panthera leo – Vulnerable, CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the Spotted<br />

hyena (Crocuta crocuta - conservation dependent) are able to utilise different habitats <strong>and</strong> to<br />

97


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

adapt well to changes in their environment, <strong>and</strong> so are likely to be less threatened by further<br />

forest degradation. Nevertheless, any reduction in habitat will reduce the visits <strong>of</strong> these<br />

animals as shelter <strong>and</strong> populations <strong>of</strong> predated animals are likely to decrease. Further research<br />

needs to be conducted to assess the extent <strong>of</strong> reliance <strong>of</strong> large mammals <strong>and</strong> predators on<br />

Makonde Scarp II proposed FR. Signs from the Leopard (Panthera pardus) were recorded,<br />

<strong>and</strong> the species was reported by local inhabitants to inhabit sheltered areas near the cliff face<br />

<strong>of</strong> the scarp <strong>and</strong> to be a permanent resident <strong>of</strong> this reserve. P. pardus is listed on CITES<br />

Appendix I (2005) as a species threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> therefore excluded from<br />

international trade, <strong>and</strong> if its presence in this site will be confirmed then its protection will be<br />

necessary.<br />

Birds<br />

Despite the removal <strong>of</strong> the forest cover in large portions <strong>of</strong> the reserve a moderate number <strong>of</strong><br />

species (64) was recorded. This is a consequence <strong>of</strong> the proximity <strong>of</strong> this reserve to the ridges<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Makonde Scarp, where the topographic variation <strong>of</strong> the escarpment creates a variety <strong>of</strong><br />

habitats <strong>and</strong> nesting sites for birds. However, the extensive removal <strong>of</strong> forest cover may be<br />

responsible for the low record <strong>of</strong> forest dependent species. Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

constitutes part <strong>of</strong> the Newala District <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> IBA (TZ053 - category A1) (BirdLife<br />

International, 2005) because <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> more than a threshold population <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Southern b<strong>and</strong>ed snake eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus), a species categorized by the IUCN Red<br />

List (2004) as near threatened. C. fasciolatus was recorded in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

during this study together with the Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), a species listed on<br />

CITES Appendix I (2005), confirming the classification <strong>of</strong> this reserve as part <strong>of</strong> the TZ053<br />

IBA.<br />

Reptiles<br />

The low number <strong>of</strong> species (7) <strong>and</strong> individuals (7) captured may be a consequence <strong>of</strong> the<br />

rapid nature <strong>of</strong> this study, which did not permit comprehensive collection <strong>of</strong> data during the<br />

wet season <strong>and</strong> the study <strong>of</strong> fossorial species (Broadley <strong>and</strong> Howell, 2000). Conducting<br />

further research in the wet season may reveal more comprehensive results. However, low<br />

numbers may also reflect the largely open <strong>and</strong> dry environment that has resulted from high<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> encroachment, timber extraction <strong>and</strong> burning in this reserve (Zullini, 2003; Begon et<br />

al., 1996) (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management section). A sub-species <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Savanna vine snake, characterised by high ventral counts <strong>and</strong> a black <strong>and</strong> pink Y-shape on the<br />

head, was recognised to be Thelotornis capensis oatesi 11 . This species has been previously<br />

recorded to occur across the Tanzanian border at Mbala, Zambia (Spawls et al., 2002). If the<br />

identification is confirmed then this record represents the first one for Tanzania <strong>and</strong> a range<br />

extension for this species. A species <strong>of</strong> skink sighted in this reserve was recognised to<br />

resemble either the Rainbow Skink (Trachylepis margaritifer) or the Five-lined skink<br />

(Trachylepis quinquetaeniata). T. margaritifer is known to occur in central <strong>and</strong> south-eastern<br />

Tanzania (Spawls et al., 2002). T. quinquetaeniata has not been recorded south <strong>of</strong> the border<br />

with <strong>Kenya</strong>, apart from a record in Kwa Mtoro (north <strong>of</strong> Dodoma) (Spawls et al., 2002), <strong>and</strong><br />

its record in the Mtwara Region would therefore represent a range extension. Further research<br />

is necessary to ascertain this.<br />

Amphibians<br />

The number <strong>of</strong> species (2) <strong>and</strong> individuals (4) captured was low, reflecting the open <strong>and</strong> dry<br />

nature <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong> the reserve (Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996). Conducting further research<br />

in the wet season may however reveal more comprehensive results. The ‘true’ toad<br />

Mertensophryne micranotis is a strictly endemic species restricted to the Eastern Arc lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

11 The identification <strong>of</strong> Thelotornis capensis oatesi was carried out by Michele Menegon (Appendix 1). We are<br />

awaiting taxonomic confirmation.<br />

98


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

<strong>and</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic <strong>of</strong> south-eastern <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> eastern Tanzania, occurring mainly<br />

in closed-canopy forest, but also in thicket <strong>and</strong> miombo woodl<strong>and</strong> within the mosaic<br />

(Conservation International, 2005; IUCN et al., 2004). This bufonidae species was found in<br />

an area <strong>of</strong> regenerating Brachystegia forest, demonstrating that it can also survive in modified<br />

secondary habitats, as long as there is good cover necessary to provide moisture rich crevices<br />

where eggs are laid <strong>and</strong> larvae develop (Howell et al., 2000). Arthroleptis stenodactylus was<br />

recorded in one <strong>of</strong> the small patches <strong>of</strong> undisturbed Brachystegia forest remaining. This<br />

species favours a forested habitat as it relies on the presence <strong>of</strong> damp soil <strong>and</strong> loose leaf<br />

mould protected from shrub <strong>and</strong> canopy cover to lay its eggs (Howell, 1993), so it may<br />

become locally threatened by further loss <strong>of</strong> forest habitat.<br />

Butterflies<br />

For the butterflies there was a low number <strong>of</strong> species (8) <strong>and</strong> individuals captured (11), none<br />

<strong>of</strong> which are forest dependent. This may be a consequence <strong>of</strong> the disturbed, open <strong>and</strong> dry<br />

nature <strong>of</strong> the vegetation covering most <strong>of</strong> this reserve (Kiell<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Cordeiro, 2000) (see<br />

Flora section).<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

The encroachment <strong>of</strong> agriculture within the reserve boundaries was the most severe form <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance recorded; it is not possible to walk far in the proposed reserve without crossing<br />

cultivated l<strong>and</strong>. Most <strong>of</strong> the farmers that were moved out when the area was proposed to be a<br />

reserve are now going back to their shambas (cultivated l<strong>and</strong>), in part because <strong>of</strong> the failure <strong>of</strong><br />

the government to fully compensate their relocation in new houses <strong>and</strong> farms (Baldus et al.,<br />

2004). The top <strong>of</strong> the escarpment has been largely transformed from Brachystegia forest into<br />

cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale) plantations, while rice <strong>and</strong> maize are grown on the<br />

slopes <strong>and</strong> the plain at the foot <strong>of</strong> the escarpment. Large areas <strong>of</strong> the slopes are also covered<br />

by Thicket, indicating that shifting agriculture is common practice <strong>and</strong> that undisturbed areas<br />

are likely to become threatened in the future.<br />

Notable about the disturbance patterns in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR was the high<br />

number <strong>of</strong> cut timbers (almost 20% <strong>of</strong> all recorded timbers). The extensive exploitation <strong>of</strong><br />

four preferred species (Afzelia quanzensis, Milicia excelsa, Pterocarpus angolensis <strong>and</strong> P.<br />

rotundifolius) has resulted in the complete absence <strong>of</strong> large individuals <strong>of</strong> these species from<br />

the proposed reserve. The level <strong>of</strong> pole cutting was also high (almost 30%), which may<br />

indicate a high level <strong>of</strong> building activity in the area.<br />

Bee farming was common here. When material for the construction <strong>of</strong> beehives is obtained in<br />

a sustainable way, apiculture has been found to be ecologically preferable to harvesting <strong>of</strong><br />

wild honey, as the latter <strong>of</strong>ten results in the cutting <strong>of</strong> the tree to access the hive (Wegner,<br />

2003). However, bee farming in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR may also result in tree death,<br />

as bark is here used for the construction <strong>of</strong> beehives <strong>and</strong> is extracted by ringing <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten<br />

killing the trees. Since the most desirable piece <strong>of</strong> bark is a complete circle <strong>and</strong> as larger<br />

pieces <strong>of</strong> bark result in larger hives, large trees are targeted (suggestions to mitigate this<br />

impact are discussed in the Conservation Recommendations section). Brick making (which<br />

uses large volumes <strong>of</strong> wood to produce heat) was also found to be a common practice, while<br />

hunting was signalled by the presence <strong>of</strong> several small traps for birds <strong>and</strong> small mammals in<br />

the reserve area.<br />

Residents were found to be unconcerned about the reduction in the size <strong>of</strong> the forest <strong>and</strong> the<br />

potential that this has for increasing erosion rates <strong>and</strong> the risk <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong>slides.<br />

99


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

15. MKUNYA RIVER PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE<br />

Status<br />

Management Body<br />

Location<br />

Area<br />

Altitude<br />

Topography<br />

Temperature:<br />

Rainfall:<br />

Soil type<br />

Vegetation type<br />

L<strong>and</strong> Use<br />

History <strong>and</strong> Status<br />

Proposed Forest Reserve<br />

Central Government<br />

Newala district. The forest starts at the Mkunya River spring below<br />

Mkunya Village <strong>and</strong> runs east parallel to the border alongside the<br />

Ruvuma River. It comprises <strong>of</strong> the base <strong>and</strong> part <strong>of</strong> the escarpment<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Makonde Scarp. There are several villages nearby including<br />

Chiunjila to the west <strong>of</strong> the water source <strong>and</strong> Chikwedu, Mapili,<br />

Nanguruwe <strong>and</strong> Magunchila along the base <strong>of</strong> the escarpment.<br />

4,797.3ha<br />

88-250m asl<br />

Lowl<strong>and</strong> plain <strong>and</strong> gentle lower slope<br />

Min: 21 o C, Max: 39 o C (recorded 7-11 May <strong>and</strong> 16-20 May, dry<br />

season)<br />

0mm (recorded 7-11 May) <strong>and</strong> 5.1mm (recorded 16-20 May)<br />

S<strong>and</strong>y-loam<br />

Eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest<br />

The reserve was proposed for protection <strong>of</strong> the water spring <strong>and</strong><br />

prevention <strong>of</strong> soil erosion on the escarpment. Encroachment <strong>of</strong><br />

cultivated l<strong>and</strong> (especially cashew plantations), pole cutting <strong>and</strong><br />

hunting occur.<br />

The area was first planned to be a forest reserve in 1976 but has not<br />

yet been gazetted as a full reserve. Local elders from adjacent<br />

villages fine people who make illegitimate use <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong>, but there<br />

is no effective capacity nor sufficient resources to enforce legislation<br />

<strong>and</strong> regulations.<br />

100


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Maps Topographical map: Newala sheet 306/4 <strong>and</strong> Mnavira sheet 318/2,<br />

East Africa 1:50 000, 1968. From the Institute <strong>of</strong> Mapping, Dar es<br />

Salaam (from Series Y742, Edition 1-TSD).<br />

METHODS<br />

Survey work was conducted in two study sites over two periods <strong>of</strong> seven days each (5-11 <strong>and</strong><br />

14-20 May 2005). Twenty-one vegetation plots (8400m 2 ), 21 regeneration plots (84m 2 ), <strong>and</strong><br />

two zoosites were carried out, incorporating 400 sherman trapping nights, 100 bucket trapping<br />

nights, 17.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna searches, 39 bat mist net/hours, 38.5 man/hours<br />

<strong>of</strong> bird mist netting, 16 man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed bird searches, 30 canopy trapping days, 10.5<br />

butterfly sweep net/hours, seven animal sign transects (totalling 28,000m 2 ), seven disturbance<br />

transects (totalling 70,000m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> opportunistic observations (see Appendices 2 to 8 for GPS<br />

coordinates <strong>and</strong> work site descriptions). Ornithological work was conducted on separate days<br />

(22-27 June 2005). Habitat notes were taken for vegetation plots (Appendices 4 <strong>and</strong> 5) <strong>and</strong><br />

zoological trap sites (Appendix 6). Structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions were<br />

conducted with four elders from the villages <strong>of</strong> Chihange <strong>and</strong> Chinunjila. For a detailed break<br />

down <strong>of</strong> survey effort see Table 10-a.<br />

RESULTS<br />

In the Mkunya River proposed FR 102 plant species were recorded from 22 families. Eleven<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> floral species are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato<br />

<strong>and</strong> 12% are listed as threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke,<br />

2006) (Table 15-a; Appendices 9 <strong>and</strong> 10).<br />

One-hundred <strong>and</strong> seventy-six faunal species were found within 69 families. Of these species<br />

5% are forest dependent, less than 1% are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or<br />

Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> 1% are listed as threatened by IUCN (2004) <strong>and</strong>/or CITES (2005)<br />

(Table 15-a; Appendices 13-17).<br />

101


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 15-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Mkunya River proposed FR<br />

Taxa No. <strong>of</strong><br />

families<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

species c<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

forest<br />

dependent<br />

species d<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

widespread<br />

species<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> strictly<br />

endemic<br />

species:<br />

e <strong>and</strong> f<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

threatened<br />

species:<br />

g <strong>and</strong> h<br />

Mammals 18 29 3 26 0* 1 -<br />

Birds a 36 103 2 101 0 0 -<br />

Reptiles 6 12 0 12 0 0 -<br />

Amphibians 5 8 0 8 0 1 -<br />

Butterflies 4 24 4 20 1 0 -<br />

Total for 69 176 9 167 1 2 -<br />

animals<br />

Flora b 22 102 0 93 11 3 9<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

PT<br />

species i<br />

Combined<br />

Total<br />

91 278 9 260 12 5 9<br />

a - Includes birds seen on the forest boundary edge<br />

b - All trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses <strong>and</strong> ferns<br />

c - Includes information collected from all systematic survey work, opportunistic observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions<br />

d - Species dependent on <strong>and</strong> associated with primary or closed-canopy forest, not forest edge or secondary forest<br />

e - Faunal species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone or the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a), sometimes being found also in other habitats in a few adjacent locations (e.g.<br />

Masasi District in S Tanzania, N Mozambique etc.)<br />

f - Floral species restricted to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

g - Species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable (VU) in the IUCN Red List<br />

(IUCN, 2004)<br />

h - Species listed in CITES Appendix I as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade<br />

(CITES, 2005)<br />

i - Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

*The identification <strong>of</strong> Crocidura sp. may increase this number. We await verification<br />

FLORA<br />

In Mkunya River proposed FR two homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>s were observed <strong>and</strong><br />

identified as Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest intercepted by cultivated <strong>and</strong> fallow<br />

farml<strong>and</strong>.<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> diversity<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 102 species were recorded. Out <strong>of</strong> these, 44 species were found in 17 vegetation<br />

plots <strong>and</strong> 19 species were recorded in 17 regeneration plots. The remaining 39 species were<br />

recorded from opportunistic collection <strong>and</strong> observation. More specifically, 42 trees, 46<br />

shrubs, eight herbs, <strong>and</strong> six grasses were recorded (Appendix 9). A value <strong>of</strong> 2.80 was<br />

calculated for the Shannon diversity index.<br />

• Species dominance<br />

Within the Brachystegia forest two genera (Brachystegia <strong>and</strong> Scorodophloeus) from the<br />

Caesalpinioideae family dominated the canopy level. Brachystegia spiciformis occurred in<br />

59% <strong>of</strong> the plots <strong>and</strong> ranked as the most dominant species (Table 15-b).<br />

102


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 15-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy<br />

layer in Brachystegia forest in Mkunya River proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF Rank No.<br />

(Domina dominance indv.<br />

nce)<br />

in all<br />

plots<br />

%RA Rank<br />

RA<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia spiciformis 10 59 1 31 16 1<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Scolodophloeus fischeri 5 29 2 8 4 2<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia longifolia 3 17 3 4 2 4<br />

BOMBACACEAE Bombax rhodognaphalon 1 6 4 1 1 5<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia microphylla 1 6 4 7 4 3<br />

Total 1 2 3 5 51 27<br />

Total 2 18 27 39 191 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

In the sub canopy layer, Diplorhynchus condylocarpon was the most dominant species<br />

occurring in 77% <strong>of</strong> the plots (Table 15-c).<br />

Table 15-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, relative<br />

abundance, % relative abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant<br />

species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy layer in Brachystegia forest in Mkunya River proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF Rank<br />

(Dominan dominance<br />

ce)<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

indv.<br />

in all<br />

plots<br />

%RA Rank<br />

RA<br />

APOCYNACEAE Diplorhynchus condylocarpon 13 77 1 55 29 1<br />

COMBRETACEAE Combretum paniculatum 5 30 2 8 4 2<br />

COMBRETACEAE Combretum hereroense 3 18 3 7 4 3<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Sclerocarya birrea 3 18 3 4 2 4<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus bussei 1 6 4 2 1 5<br />

Total 1 4 4 5 76 40<br />

Total 2 18 27 39 191 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

Within the Riverine forest relatively few tree species were recorded. These were Barringtonia<br />

racemosa, Bridelia micrantha <strong>and</strong> Hyphaene compressa, each occurring in only 6% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

plots sampled (Table 15-d).<br />

103


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 15-d Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, relative<br />

abundance, % relative abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant<br />

species <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer in Riverine forest in Mkunya River proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF<br />

(Domina<br />

nce)<br />

Rank<br />

dominance<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

indv. in<br />

all plots<br />

%RA Rank<br />

RA<br />

LECYTHIDACEAE Barringtonia racemosa 1 6 1 2 50 1<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Bridelia micrantha 1 6 1 1 25 2<br />

PALMAE Hyphaene compressa 1 6 1 1 25 2<br />

Total 1 3 3 3 4 100<br />

Total 2 18 27 39 191 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

• Species relative abundance<br />

In the canopy layer 22% <strong>of</strong> the trees recorded were individuals from the genus Brachystegia<br />

(B. spiciformis, B. microphylla <strong>and</strong> B. longifolia). Scorodophloeus fischeri constituted about<br />

4% (Table 15-b). In the sub canopy layer Diplorhynchus condylocarpon (29%), Combretum<br />

paniculatum (4%) <strong>and</strong> Combretum hereroense (4%) were the most abundant species (Table<br />

15-c).<br />

In the Riverine forest Barringtonia racemosa (50%), Hyphaene compressa (25%) <strong>and</strong><br />

Bridelia micrantha (25%) were the most abundant species found in the canopy layer.<br />

When looking at the overall number <strong>of</strong> trees recorded in both the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy<br />

layers <strong>of</strong> both forest types, the sub canopy layer contributed a slightly higher number <strong>of</strong><br />

individuals (57%) than the canopy layer (43%) to the overall number <strong>of</strong> adult trees in the<br />

reserve.<br />

• Species composition <strong>and</strong> vegetation types<br />

In Mkunya River proposed FR two homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>s were observed, whose<br />

species composition <strong>and</strong> relative abundance confirmed to be eastern African coastal<br />

Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong> eastern African coastal Riverine forest (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson,<br />

2000).<br />

The species composition <strong>of</strong> the Brachystegia forest was characterised by Brachystegia<br />

spiciformis as the dominant <strong>and</strong> most abundant species in the canopy layer, contributing 16%<br />

<strong>of</strong> all individuals, accompanied by Scorodophloeus fischeri, Brachystegia longifolia, Bombax<br />

rhodognaphalon <strong>and</strong> Brachystegia microphylla. In the sub canopy layer Diplorhynchus<br />

condylocarpon was the dominant <strong>and</strong> most abundant species, contributing 29% <strong>of</strong> all<br />

individuals, accompanied by Combretum paniculatum, Combretum hereroense, Sclerocarya<br />

birrea <strong>and</strong> Lonchocarpus bussei. Other species occurring in the canopy layer included<br />

Millettia stuhlmannii, Tamarindus indica, Brachystegia utilis, Sterculia appendiculata,<br />

Pericopsis angolensis <strong>and</strong> Pterocarpus angolensis, <strong>and</strong> in the sub canopy layer we also found<br />

Afzelia quanzensis, Swartzia madagascariensis <strong>and</strong> Albizia versicolor. The shrub layer was<br />

observed to be comprised <strong>of</strong> saplings <strong>of</strong> the dominant species from the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub<br />

canopy layers, <strong>and</strong> shrub species such as Salacia madagascariensis, Strychnos usambarensis,<br />

Strychnos madagascariensis, Ochna holstii, Catunaregam spinosa, Vangueria infausta <strong>and</strong><br />

various species from the genus Combretum. The herbaceous layer was observed to be<br />

comprised <strong>of</strong> grasses, particularly Sporobolus sp., Themeda tri<strong>and</strong>ra, Digitaris sp., <strong>and</strong><br />

Panicum maximum. Herbs found in association with these grasses were Dicoma tomentosa,<br />

Hypoestes sp., Jasminum sp., Vernonia sp. <strong>and</strong> species from the genus Bidens. These herbs<br />

104


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

were recorded as dominant on the edge <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> open areas where grasses have<br />

been removed by fire or cultivation.<br />

The species composition <strong>of</strong> the Riverine forest included Barringtonia racemosa, Hyphaene<br />

compressa <strong>and</strong> Bridelia micrantha as the most abundant species in the canopy layer. Other<br />

species recorded were Sorindeia madagascariensis in the canopy layer, Vepris lanceolata <strong>and</strong><br />

Nuxia congesta in the shrub layer, <strong>and</strong> the liana Paullinia pinnata in the ground layer.<br />

• Endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Eleven <strong>of</strong> the species recorded were found to be endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato,<br />

including Commiphora zanzibarica, Cleistanthus schlechteri, Cynometra gillmanii,<br />

Scorodophloeus fischeri, Erythrina schliebenii, Xylotheca tettensis, Lamprothamnus<br />

zanguebaricus, Rytigynia decussata, Mimusops schliebenii, Sterculia appendiculata <strong>and</strong><br />

Grewia forbesii (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000) (Appendix 10) accounting for 11% <strong>of</strong> all<br />

species recorded (Figure 8).<br />

11%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

89%<br />

Figure 8 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Mkunya River proposed FR<br />

Twelve among the species recorded are threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially threatened<br />

(Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006), amounting to 12% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (Table<br />

15-e).<br />

Table 15-e Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Mkunya River proposed FR<br />

Family Species name Conservation Habit<br />

status<br />

BURSERACEAE Commiphora zanzibarica PT T<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Drypetes natalensis PT T<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cynometra gillmanii CR T<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Scorodophloeus fischeri PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Erythrina schliebenii PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia impressa PT T<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Xylotheca tettensis PT S<br />

MORACEAE Mesogyne insignis VU S/T<br />

RUBIACEAE Gardenia transvenulosa VU S/T<br />

RUBIACEAE Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus PT S/T<br />

RUBIACEAE Rytigynia decussate PT S<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex zanzibarensis VU S<br />

PT = Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

T= Tree, S= Shrub, B= Bamboo, C= Climber, H= Herb<br />

105


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

FAUNA<br />

Although the identification <strong>of</strong> about 90% <strong>of</strong> the species recorded is certain, the identification<br />

<strong>of</strong> a few specimens remains tentative whilst awaiting taxonomic verification.<br />

Mammals<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 29 mammals representing 18 families were recorded (Appendix 13).<br />

For the small mammals 10 species representing five families were recorded in total from 12<br />

captures (not counting one recapture) that took place during 400 sherman trapping nights <strong>and</strong><br />

100 bucket pitfall trapping nights. Common species found were the Multimammate rat<br />

(Mastomys natalensis) <strong>and</strong> the Spiny mouse (Acomys spinosissimus), which made up 58% <strong>of</strong><br />

all captures. Other species included the Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei), the Narrowfooted<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong> mouse (Grammomys dolichurus) <strong>and</strong> two species <strong>of</strong> the White-toothed<br />

shrew (Crocidura sp.) (Appendix 18). All species were recorded within Riverine forest with<br />

the exception <strong>of</strong> Acomys spinosissimus <strong>and</strong> Mastomys natalensis, which were recorded in<br />

Legume-dominated dry forest.<br />

Two species <strong>of</strong> bat, the Evening bat (Scotoecus hirundo) <strong>and</strong> Wahlberg’s fruit bat<br />

(Epomophorus wahlbergi), were recorded from nine captures that took place during 39 bat<br />

mist net/hours carried out in a patch <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest along the Mkunya River. Eight <strong>of</strong> these<br />

captures were individuals <strong>of</strong> Scotoecus hirundo.<br />

For the larger mammals, 17 species representing 11 families were recorded during sign<br />

transects totalling 7km, through opportunistic observations <strong>and</strong> from local knowledge.<br />

Species recorded included the Greater galago (Otolemur crassicaudatus), the Natal duiker<br />

(Cephalophus natalensis), the Klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus), the Chequered elephant<br />

shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei), <strong>and</strong> the Red-bellied coastal squirrel (Paraxerus palliatus). Signs<br />

<strong>of</strong> digging from the Bush pig (Potamochoerus larvatus) were commonly recorded. None <strong>of</strong><br />

the other species were observed more than twice during the survey. The Moloney’s monkey<br />

(Cercopithecus mitis sub sp.) was observed in two valleys where Legume-dominated forest is<br />

dense <strong>and</strong> relatively undisturbed, with up to five individuals being sighted on two separate<br />

occasions in one valley. The discovery <strong>of</strong> footprints <strong>of</strong> the Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta)<br />

confirms local knowledge <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> this species. From structured interviews it was<br />

also learnt that the Leopard (Panthera pardus), Lion (Panthera leo) <strong>and</strong> Jackal (Canis<br />

adustus) occasionally pass through the proposed forest reserve.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Three species were found to be forest dependent, although many species <strong>of</strong>ten frequent <strong>and</strong><br />

some favour a forested habitat. None <strong>of</strong> the species recorded are strictly endemic to the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains, yet one species has a restricted distribution in<br />

eastern Africa. Two species are listed as threatened (Table 15-f).<br />

106


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 15-f Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Mkunya River<br />

proposed FR<br />

Species Common name Forest dependent Endemic Threatened<br />

Cercopithecus mitis (sub Moloney’s monkey F - -<br />

sp.)<br />

Rhynchocyion cirnei Chequered - - VU<br />

elephant shrew<br />

Paraxerus palliatus Red bellied coastal F - -<br />

squirrel<br />

Beamys hindei Lesser pouched rat - EACF, a few other VU<br />

forest types in<br />

<strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

Tanzania<br />

Cephalophus natalensis Natal duiker F - -<br />

F= Forest dependent or specialist (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CF= species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF= species with limited ranges in the Eastern<br />

Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

Birds<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

A combination <strong>of</strong> mist netting (38.5 hours) <strong>and</strong> timed bird searches (16 hours) detected 103<br />

species from 36 families, making this reserve the most bird species rich one surveyed during<br />

this study. Mist netting yielded 16 species from a total <strong>of</strong> 41 captures. Species included the<br />

African broadbill (Smithornis capensis), the Pale batis (Batis soror), the Grey-crested helmet<br />

shrike (Prionops poliolophus), the Red-headed bluebill (Spermophaga ruficapilla) 12 , the<br />

Livingstone’s flycatcher (Erythrocercus livingstonei), the African barred owlet (Glaucidium<br />

capense) <strong>and</strong> the Yellow weaver (Ploceus subaureus) (Appendix 14). Mist netting in Riverine<br />

forest yielded a high number <strong>of</strong> understory species (14), while mist netting in the<br />

Brachystegia forest <strong>of</strong> the slopes yielded only 2 species.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Two forest dependent species, the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis) <strong>and</strong> the Bluemantled<br />

crested flycatcher (Trochocercus cyanomelas), were found. No strictly endemic or<br />

threatened species were found.<br />

Reptiles<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Twelve species <strong>of</strong> reptiles representing six families were recorded from 12 captures that took<br />

place during 100 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 17.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological searches.<br />

Species included the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus), the Snouted night adder (Causus<br />

defilippii), the Speckled green snake (Philothamnus semivariegatus), the Striped skink<br />

(Trachylepis varia) 13 <strong>and</strong> the Mozambique Agama (Agama mossambica) (Appendices 15 <strong>and</strong><br />

18).<br />

12 The field identification <strong>of</strong> Prionops poliolophus <strong>and</strong> Spermophaga ruficapilla was undertaken by Jacob Kiure<br />

(Appendix 1).<br />

13 The Afro-magalasian mabuyas have been recognised to constitute a separate genus <strong>and</strong> have been renamed<br />

Trachylepis sp. For the partitioning <strong>of</strong> the genus Mabuya see Mausfeld et al. (2002); for the taxonomy <strong>and</strong><br />

nomenclature <strong>of</strong> Traxhyletis sp. see Honda et al. (2003) <strong>and</strong> Whiting et al. (2003).<br />

107


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent, although several species <strong>of</strong>ten frequent <strong>and</strong><br />

some favour a forested habitat. No strictly endemic or threatened species were recorded.<br />

Amphibians<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Eight species <strong>of</strong> amphibians representing five families were recorded from 28 captures that<br />

took place during 100 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 17.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological<br />

searches. Species included Arthroleptis stenodactylus, A. xenodactyloides, Hemisus<br />

marmoratus, Afrixalus fornasinii, Leptopelis flavomaculatus, Xenopus muelleri, Ptychadena<br />

anchietae <strong>and</strong> Phrynobatrachus sp. (Appendices 16 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent or strictly endemic. Arthroleptis<br />

xenodactyloides is listed as Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004).<br />

Butterflies<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Twenty-four species <strong>of</strong> butterfly representing four families were recorded from 86 captures<br />

that took place during 30 canopy trap trapping days <strong>and</strong> 10.5 sweep net/hours (Appendix 17).<br />

The Blue spotted charaxes (Charaxes citherion kennethi) accounted for 17% <strong>and</strong> the Silver<br />

striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti) for 10% <strong>of</strong> all captures.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Three species from the family Nymphalidae are forest dependent: the Silver striped charaxes<br />

(Charaxes lasti lasti), the Flame bordered charaxes (C. protoclea azota) <strong>and</strong> the Gold b<strong>and</strong>ed<br />

forester (Euphaedra neophron littoralis). One species, Charaxes lasti lasti, is restricted to the<br />

closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

Tanzania. No butterfly species were found to be threatened.<br />

Fauna’s strict endemism<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the faunal species recorded in Mkunya River proposed FR is endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains.<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Through disturbance transects, levels <strong>of</strong> pole cutting, fire damage, path densities <strong>and</strong> other<br />

forms <strong>of</strong> disturbance were recorded. Out <strong>of</strong> one-hundred <strong>and</strong> forty 50m sections, seven (5%)<br />

were disturbance free. One-hundred <strong>and</strong> thirty-one (94%) were subject to pole/timber cutting,<br />

57 (41%) showed signs <strong>of</strong> fire disturbance, three (2%) had been cultivated <strong>and</strong> 11 (8%) had<br />

one or more paths cutting through. No traps were located (Figure 9). Information on resource<br />

use is summarised in Table 15-h.<br />

108


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections affected<br />

140<br />

120<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

40<br />

20<br />

0<br />

Cutting Fire Paths Cultivation<br />

Disturbance category<br />

Figure 9 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 133) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Mkunya River proposed FR<br />

Agricultural encroachment<br />

All valleys that run into the escarpment have been planted with cashew trees (Anacardium<br />

occidentale) <strong>and</strong> some are inhabited, while the slopes are free <strong>of</strong> cultivation.<br />

Poles <strong>and</strong> timbers<br />

Open discussions with residents <strong>and</strong> disturbance transects determined that 15 species are<br />

harvested for timber (Table 15-h). Thirteen species were observed to be cut to supply poles.<br />

Five pit sawing sites were observed in the proposed reserve, three <strong>of</strong> which had been recently<br />

active.<br />

• Relative abundance <strong>and</strong> average no. <strong>of</strong> live, dead <strong>and</strong> cut individuals per ha<br />

The survey indicated that 20% <strong>of</strong> all poles <strong>and</strong> 2% <strong>of</strong> all timbers were cut. No new cut poles,<br />

timbers or large timbers were found <strong>and</strong> no large timbers were found to have been cut (Table<br />

15-g).<br />

Table 15-g Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Mkunya River proposed FR<br />

Total<br />

transect<br />

length in<br />

m<br />

Total no.<br />

<strong>of</strong> indiv.<br />

sampled<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> %<br />

RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> live<br />

indiv.<br />

Average<br />

live indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> % RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> dead<br />

indiv.<br />

Average<br />

dead indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> %<br />

RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> cut<br />

indiv.<br />

Poles 7,000 4774 3640(76) 520 164 (3) 23 970 (20) 139<br />

Timbers 7,000 1027 919 (90) 131 83 (8) 12 25 (2) 4<br />

Large<br />

timbers<br />

7,000 20 20 (100) 3 0 (0) 0 0 (0) 0<br />

Average<br />

cut indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Fuel wood<br />

Residents listed 18 species used for fuel wood (Table 15-h). Cashew nut (Anacardium<br />

occidentale) trees have been planted to provide fuel wood <strong>and</strong> fuel wood collection was said<br />

to mainly occur in small wooded patches outside the FR.<br />

Tools <strong>and</strong> utensils<br />

Sixteen species were identified by the inhabitants as important sources <strong>of</strong> materials to make<br />

such products as cooking utensils, tool h<strong>and</strong>les <strong>and</strong> ropes (Table 15-h).<br />

109


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Edible non-timber forest products<br />

Eleven species were said to be used for food (Table 15-h). The roots <strong>of</strong> Dioscorea hirtiflora<br />

were found to be an important source <strong>of</strong> carbohydrate exploited for sale on local markets.<br />

Medicinal plants<br />

During the survey 23 species were said by residents to provide medicine (Table 15-h<br />

Appendix 11).<br />

Table 15-h Plant species utilised in Mkunya River proposed FR as identified by field<br />

observations, structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions. Local names, where known, are<br />

presented in Appendix 9<br />

Family Species Poles Timber Fuel Tools Ropes Food Medicine<br />

wood<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Sclerocarya birrea X X X<br />

ANNONACEAE Annona<br />

X X X X<br />

senegalensis<br />

APOCYNACEAE L<strong>and</strong>olphia<br />

X<br />

buchananii<br />

ARALIACEAE Cussonia arborea X<br />

BIGNONIACEAE Markhamia X<br />

acuminata<br />

BIGNONIACEAE Markhamia X X X<br />

obtusifolia<br />

BOMBACACEAE Bombax<br />

X<br />

rhodognaphalon<br />

BOMBACACEAE Ceiba pent<strong>and</strong>ra X X<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis<br />

X X<br />

myrtifolia<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera<br />

X<br />

boiviniana<br />

DIOSCOREACEAE Dioscorea hirtiflora X<br />

EBENACEAE Diospyros kirkii X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Afzelia quanzensis X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia<br />

X X X<br />

petersiana<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia tomentosa X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia X X X X<br />

spiciformis<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia abbreviata X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cynometra<br />

X<br />

X<br />

gillmanii<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Hymenaea<br />

X<br />

verrucosa<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Julbernardia X X X<br />

globiflora<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Julbernardia X X X<br />

magnistipulata<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Piliostigma<br />

X<br />

X<br />

thonningii<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Swartizia<br />

X<br />

madagascariensis<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia brevispica X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia gummifera X X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia versicolor X X X<br />

110


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Species Poles Timber Fuel Tools Ropes Food Medicine<br />

wood<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus<br />

X<br />

bussei<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus<br />

X X X<br />

capassa<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Milletia<br />

X<br />

stuhlmannii<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus<br />

X X X<br />

angolensis<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus<br />

X X<br />

rotundifolius<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Scorodophloeus X<br />

fischeri<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Flacourtia indica X<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

X X X X X<br />

cocculoides<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

X X X<br />

madagascariensis<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

X<br />

X<br />

usambarensis<br />

MORACEAE Milicia excelsa X X X<br />

MORACEAE Mesogyne insignis X X X<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cordatum X X X<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cumini X<br />

RUBIACEAE Crossopteryx<br />

X<br />

febrifuga<br />

RUBIACEAE Vangueria infausta X<br />

RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum<br />

X<br />

chalybeum<br />

SAPOTACEAE Bequaertiodendron<br />

X<br />

natalense<br />

STERCULIACEAE Sterculia<br />

X X X<br />

appendiculata<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex doniana X X X<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex zanzibarensis X<br />

Hunting<br />

The populations <strong>of</strong> Chihanga, Mpilipili <strong>and</strong> Chikwedu villages stated that they do not practice<br />

hunting.<br />

Management<br />

Mkunya River proposed FR is only proposed, therefore no <strong>of</strong>ficial management plan is in<br />

place <strong>and</strong> no policing <strong>of</strong> the reserve boundaries is conducted. Village committees were found<br />

to spend time educating the local inhabitants about the importance <strong>of</strong> the water source for the<br />

supply <strong>of</strong> fresh water to the nearby town <strong>of</strong> Newala <strong>and</strong> to surrounding villages. Anyone<br />

found to be encroaching on the reserve boundary or harvesting poles or timbers was said to be<br />

fined by the village committee.<br />

111


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

DISCUSSION<br />

FLORA<br />

Much <strong>of</strong> Mkunya River proposed FR has been converted to farml<strong>and</strong>. As a consequence, the<br />

reserve is comprised <strong>of</strong> a narrow strip <strong>of</strong> closed-canopy forest on the steep sides <strong>of</strong> the scarp<br />

on the northern edge <strong>of</strong> the reserve, interrupted by cashew (Anacardium occidentale)<br />

plantations in the valleys. The little forest remaining is mainly comprised <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia<br />

forest at varying levels <strong>of</strong> degradation <strong>and</strong> regeneration. The understory <strong>of</strong> this vegetation is<br />

sparse, probably as a consequence <strong>of</strong> the steepness <strong>of</strong> the scarp slope.<br />

In some parts <strong>of</strong> the reserve the canopy trees have been removed, giving chance to sub canopy<br />

species such as Diplorhynchus condylocarpon to dominate. The presence <strong>of</strong> saplings <strong>of</strong> the<br />

dominant canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy species among shrub species in the shrub layer indicates<br />

that the forest is approaching a climax stage, where no species different from the dominant<br />

ones are colonising <strong>and</strong> replacing them (Schmidt, 1991).<br />

A small pocket <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest occurs along the Mkunya River. Here most <strong>of</strong> the big<br />

canopy trees have been removed by people who were previously residing within the forest, as<br />

shown by the presence <strong>of</strong> mango trees (Mangifera indica) <strong>and</strong> remains <strong>of</strong> buildings a few<br />

meters from the river. As a result, species characteristic <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest are missing <strong>and</strong><br />

what can be seen is a regenerating form <strong>of</strong> this vegetation type.<br />

The species richness recorded in this forest reserve was relatively high (102 species) <strong>and</strong> can<br />

be attributed to high variations in topography (see Appendices 4 <strong>and</strong> 5) that allow species<br />

with differing micro-habitat requirements to colonise (George Sangu’s personal comms,<br />

2005). The Shannon diversity index (H¹=2.80) was also high, reflecting a community in<br />

succession (Magurran, 1988), where a relatively high number <strong>of</strong> species, <strong>and</strong> particularly<br />

understory species, can colonise the area <strong>and</strong> reach high rates <strong>of</strong> population growth following<br />

the removal <strong>of</strong> more competitive canopy trees (Ndangalasi, 1997). If this forest could be<br />

allowed to fully regenerate, <strong>and</strong> canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy species to achieve their potential<br />

population size, then the species diversity would be expected to decline. However, the<br />

succession process <strong>of</strong> the forest toward a climax stage is being regularly interrupted by<br />

cultivation (see Human-Resources Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management section).<br />

The high number <strong>of</strong> endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened plant species recorded, such as Cynometra<br />

gillmanii (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Critically Endangered) Mesogyne insignis (Vulnerable) <strong>and</strong> Vitex<br />

zanzibarensis (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable), shows that this reserve is <strong>of</strong> significant conservation<br />

value. These species are among the ones used by local inhabitants for construction <strong>and</strong> for<br />

making various tool h<strong>and</strong>les. If human disturbance is not controlled the remaining patches <strong>of</strong><br />

Brachystegia coastal forest <strong>and</strong> the threatened species they host risk to disappear.<br />

FAUNA<br />

In Mkunya River proposed FR the species composition within most taxa reflects extensive<br />

clearing for agriculture <strong>and</strong> the consequent dryness <strong>of</strong> the environment (Zullini, 2003; Begon<br />

et al., 1996). Yet, research carried out in small patches <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest on the slopes <strong>of</strong><br />

the escarpment <strong>and</strong> in small pockets <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest yielded a relatively high number <strong>of</strong><br />

species (176), including various forest dependent <strong>and</strong> endemic species.<br />

Small mammals<br />

The high sampling intensity applied to this reserve (400 trapping nights) revealed a species<br />

poor rodent community (6 captured species), reflecting the high incidence <strong>of</strong> deforestation<br />

for timber <strong>and</strong> agriculture in this reserve (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management<br />

section) <strong>and</strong> the open <strong>and</strong> dry habitat resulting from it (Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996).<br />

112


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

The majority <strong>of</strong> these species (five) were found in a patch <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest, where a larger<br />

number <strong>of</strong> ecological niches are available. The most commonly captured species was the<br />

Multimammate rat (Mastomys natalensis), which is a recurrent member <strong>of</strong> the rodent<br />

community in southern Tanzania (Kingdon, 1974). The Spiny mouse (Acomys spinosissimus)<br />

is known to favour dry areas (Kingdon, 2003) <strong>and</strong> was recorded in open Brachystegia forest.<br />

The Narrow-footed woodl<strong>and</strong> mouse (Grammomys dolichurus) is known to primarily inhabit<br />

tall grasses <strong>and</strong> secondary growth (Kingdon, 1974), <strong>and</strong> its presence here reflects the fact that<br />

a large section <strong>of</strong> the reserve has been modified by agriculture <strong>and</strong> timber extraction. The<br />

Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei - near threatened) is a relic species endemic to a few forest<br />

types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania, including the coastal <strong>and</strong> mountain forests <strong>of</strong> the EACF<br />

hotspot. Until very recently it was regarded as one <strong>of</strong> the rarest rodents in Africa<br />

(Groombridge, 1994) but it is now known to be more widespread (Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000).<br />

Two species <strong>of</strong> White-toothed shrew (Crocidura sp.) were also recorded. The shrews <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania are poorly known <strong>and</strong> already there are five unidentified species<br />

that have been collected from the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, each from a separate forest<br />

(Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000). It is likely that shrews collected from this survey will yield<br />

interesting results once taxonomic verification is accomplished.<br />

Bats<br />

Most captures were individuals <strong>of</strong> the Evening bat (Scotoecus hirundo), which may suggest<br />

that the trap site was in close proximity to a roosting site for this species. The Wahlberg’s<br />

fruit bat (Epomophorus wahlbergi) was instead found only in a very small patch <strong>of</strong> Riverine<br />

forest, which is its preferred habitat, <strong>and</strong> therefore it may be locally threatened. Both species<br />

are known to be forest dwellers (Cockle at al, 1998).<br />

Large mammals<br />

Although the overall number <strong>of</strong> large mammal species recorded (17) was relatively high, the<br />

overall number <strong>of</strong> individuals was low <strong>and</strong> no one species was recorded more than twice. This<br />

suggests that the populations <strong>of</strong> all species are suppressed due to a significant degree <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance in this reserve (see Human-Resources Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management section), a<br />

factor that has decreased the extent <strong>of</strong> suitable habitat <strong>and</strong> ecological requirements (e.g. prey,<br />

shelter) necessary to support larger populations. The reserve is very long <strong>and</strong> thin <strong>and</strong> in most<br />

places it is not wider than one kilometre, making any animal here vulnerable. The Moloney’s<br />

monkey (Cercopithecus mitis sub sp. - CITES II), the Red-bellied coastal squirrel (Paraxerus<br />

palliatus) <strong>and</strong> the Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis - conservation dependent) are forest<br />

dependent species (Kingdon, 2003). In this reserve patches <strong>of</strong> forest are small <strong>and</strong> affected by<br />

varying levels <strong>of</strong> degradation, <strong>and</strong> therefore these specialists are locally threatened. Other<br />

species such as the Greater galago (Otolemur crassicaudatus - CITES II) although not forest<br />

dependent <strong>of</strong>ten favour a forest environment, <strong>and</strong> are also likely to be locally threatened. The<br />

elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon sp.) observed in this reserve is characterised by dark grey <strong>and</strong><br />

rufous fur with very indistinct chequers, <strong>and</strong> is likely to represent a sub-species <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei macrurus) rather than a range extension for<br />

the similar looking Black <strong>and</strong> rufous elephant shrew (R. petersi) (Rathbun, 2005; Corbet,<br />

1970). 14 The finding <strong>of</strong> R. cirnei, a species listed as Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004), confirms the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> to be a globally important area for this genus, closely followed by the Eastern<br />

Arc Mountains (Burgess et al., 2000a). Rhynchocyon species are forest-dwellers that rely on<br />

dense vegetation cover to produce the thick leaf litter they require for foraging <strong>and</strong> nest<br />

construction (Rathbun, 2005). R. cirnei may therefore become locally threatened should<br />

further habitat destruction ensue. Predators such as the Lion (Panthera leo - Vulnerable,<br />

CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta - conservation dependent) were reported to<br />

14 At present R. petersei has been recorded to occur only in the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

as far as the Rufiji River. South <strong>of</strong> the Rufiji River <strong>and</strong> further down into Mozambique, R. cirnei has been recorded<br />

instead (Rathbun <strong>and</strong> Butinski, 2005; Corbet, 1970).<br />

113


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

occur in this forest by inhabitants <strong>of</strong> adjacent villages <strong>and</strong> farms. These species are able to<br />

utilise various habitats <strong>and</strong> to adapt well to changes in their environment, <strong>and</strong> so are likely to<br />

be less threatened by further forest degradation. Nevertheless, any reduction in habitat will<br />

reduce the visits <strong>of</strong> these animals as shelter <strong>and</strong> populations <strong>of</strong> predated animals are likely to<br />

decrease. Further research needs to be conducted to assess the extent <strong>of</strong> reliance <strong>of</strong> large<br />

mammals <strong>and</strong> predators on Mkunya River proposed FR. The Leopard (Panthera pardus) was<br />

reported to occur here. This species is listed on CITES Appendix I (2005) as a species<br />

threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> therefore excluded from international trade. If its presence in<br />

this site will be confirmed then its protection will be necessary.<br />

Birds<br />

Much <strong>of</strong> Mkunya River proposed FR has been deforested by timber extraction <strong>and</strong><br />

encroachment <strong>of</strong> agricultural l<strong>and</strong> (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management<br />

section). However, this reserve was the most bird species rich in this study, with 103 species<br />

being recorded. This high species richness is probably linked to the large size <strong>of</strong> this reserve<br />

(4,797 ha), which may compensate for the degree <strong>of</strong> habitat fragmentation occurring here, <strong>and</strong><br />

its proximity to the ridges <strong>of</strong> the Makonde Scarp, where the topographic variation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

escarpment creates a variety <strong>of</strong> habitats <strong>and</strong> nesting sites for birds. The long period <strong>of</strong> time<br />

spent surveying this reserve may have also contributed to the figure recorded. Mist netting in<br />

Riverine forest yielded a high number <strong>of</strong> understory species in comparison to the<br />

Brachystegia forest <strong>of</strong> the slopes (see Results section). This may be due to the presence <strong>of</strong><br />

denser understory in Riverine forest (Mlingwa et al., 2000) (see Flora section). The only<br />

forest dependent species recorded, the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis) <strong>and</strong> the Bluemantled<br />

crested flycatcher (Trochocercus cyanomelas), were also found in the dense<br />

understory <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest. Other bird species where found to occur in both forest types.<br />

The Grey-crested helmet shrike (Prionops poliolophus - near threatened) has been previously<br />

recorded to inhabit open woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> wooded grassl<strong>and</strong>, including Acacia/Tarchonanthus<br />

vegetation (1,200-2,200m), in a restricted area encompassing south-western <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

northern Tanzania (BirdLife International, 2005). The Red-headed bluebill (Spermophaga<br />

ruficapilla) has been formerly reported to be a fairly common resident <strong>of</strong> primary forest <strong>and</strong><br />

secondary growth in western <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> a scarcer one in north-eastern Tanzania. Records <strong>of</strong><br />

these birds in Mkunya River proposed FR therefore indicate a range extension for these<br />

species. Mkunya River proposed FR constitutes part <strong>of</strong> the Newala District <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

IBA (TZ053 - category A1) (BirdLife International, 2005) because <strong>of</strong> the previously recorded<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> more than a threshold population <strong>of</strong> the Southern b<strong>and</strong>ed snake eagle (Circaetus<br />

fasciolatus), a species categorized by the IUCN Red List (2004) as near threatened. Even<br />

thugh C. fasciolatus was not recorded here during this study, the importance <strong>of</strong> Mkunya River<br />

proposed FR for birds is highlighted by its high bird species richness.<br />

Reptiles<br />

Species were mainly found in a small pocket <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest along the Mkunya River. The<br />

species richness recorded here (11 captured species) was the highest for this study <strong>and</strong> is<br />

probably linked to the presence <strong>of</strong> a water body as well as the high sampling intensity applied<br />

to this reserve (see Table 10-a). However, none <strong>of</strong> the species recorded are forest dependent<br />

or endemic. A species <strong>of</strong> skink sighted in this reserve was recognised to resemble either the<br />

Rainbow Skink (Trachylepis margaritifer) or the Five-lined skink (Trachylepis<br />

quinquetaeniata). T. margaritifer is known to occur in central <strong>and</strong> south-eastern Tanzania<br />

(Spawls et al., 2002). T. quinquetaeniata has not been recorded south <strong>of</strong> the border with<br />

<strong>Kenya</strong>, apart from a record in Kwa Mtoro (north <strong>of</strong> Dodoma) (Spawls et al., 2002), <strong>and</strong> its<br />

record in the Mtwara Region would therefore represent a range extension. Further research is<br />

needed to ascertain this.<br />

114


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Amphibians<br />

For the amphibians, species were mainly captured within a small patch <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest<br />

along the Mkunya River. The high capture rate (eight species) was due to an intensive search<br />

around the spring, where dense vegetation <strong>and</strong> moist humus soil create an ideal breeding<br />

ground (Howell, 1993). Some <strong>of</strong> these species are water dependent <strong>and</strong> therefore likely to be<br />

affected by further reduction <strong>of</strong> the forest habitat along the river. The Yellow-spotted tree frog<br />

(Leptopelis flavomaculatus) <strong>and</strong> the Squeakers (Arthroleptis stenodactylus <strong>and</strong> A.<br />

xenodactyloides) were found in small remnant patches <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong> are forest<br />

dwelling species (Channing, 2001). These squeakers favour a forested habitat as they rely on<br />

the presence <strong>of</strong> damp soil <strong>and</strong> loose leaf mould protected from shrub <strong>and</strong> canopy cover to lay<br />

their eggs (Howell, 1993). Consequently, the Dwarf squeaker (Arthroleptis xenodactyloides)<br />

is listed as Vulnevable (IUCN, 2004) <strong>and</strong> both species may become locally threatened by<br />

further loss <strong>of</strong> forest habitat.<br />

Butterflies<br />

An important butterfly community composed <strong>of</strong> 24 different species was found in a small<br />

pocket <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest along the Mkunya River, which contained a large proportion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

species recorded in this reserve <strong>and</strong> three forest dependent species from the Nymphalidae<br />

family: the Silver striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti), the Flame bordered charaxes (C.<br />

protoclea azota) <strong>and</strong> the Gold b<strong>and</strong>ed forester (Euphaedra neophron littoralis). Charaxes<br />

lasti lasti is particularly important as it is endemic to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Congdon <strong>and</strong> Bampton, 2005). This<br />

indicates the importance <strong>of</strong> the Riverine forest for butterflies <strong>and</strong> the vulnerability <strong>of</strong> forest<br />

dependent species if habitat degradation is not halted. Butterfly species recorded in the<br />

remaining patches <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest on the steep sides <strong>of</strong> the scarp are non-forest<br />

dwellers, reflecting the sparse understory found in this vegetation type (see Flora section).<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Although disturbance transects on the slopes <strong>of</strong> the escarpment indicated a low level <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance, in fact the valleys cutting through the escarpment have been largely transformed<br />

into cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale) plantations. The steep aspect <strong>of</strong> the scarp slopes,<br />

<strong>and</strong> hence its unsuitability for agriculture, may be the reason behind the persistence <strong>of</strong> the<br />

forest on them.<br />

Village committees were found to spend time educating the local inhabitants about the<br />

importance <strong>of</strong> the water source for the supply <strong>of</strong> fresh water to the nearby town <strong>of</strong> Newala<br />

<strong>and</strong> the surrounding villages, so promoting the conservation <strong>of</strong> the reserve. However, high<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> pole cutting <strong>and</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> active <strong>and</strong> old pit sawing sites on the slope <strong>of</strong> the<br />

escarpment suggest that this is ineffective.<br />

115


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

16. MTINIKO PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE<br />

Status<br />

Management body<br />

Location<br />

Area<br />

Altitude<br />

Topography<br />

Temperature<br />

Rainfall<br />

Soil type<br />

Vegetation type<br />

L<strong>and</strong> Use<br />

History <strong>and</strong> Status<br />

Proposed Forest Reserve<br />

Central Government<br />

Mtwara Rural district. The proposed reserve lies directly southwest<br />

<strong>of</strong> Mtimiko village <strong>and</strong> just before Newata village, alongside the<br />

main road from Mtwara to Newala, <strong>and</strong> is known to local people as<br />

‘Shamba ya Bibi’. It is bordered along its northern edge by the valley<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Mutumnudi River.<br />

1,736ha<br />

170-210m asl<br />

Lowl<strong>and</strong> plain<br />

Min: 17 o C, Max: 34 o C (recorded 11-15 June, dry season)<br />

Average 0mm (recorded 11-15 June, dry season)<br />

S<strong>and</strong>y-loam<br />

Eastern African coastal Mixed dry forest<br />

The reserve was proposed to protect timber resources <strong>and</strong><br />

biodiversity. Fuel wood <strong>and</strong> pole harvesting occur on a subsistence<br />

level. Timber is extracted on a commercial basis. Parts <strong>of</strong> the reserve<br />

boundaries have been used for agriculture <strong>and</strong> hunting takes place.<br />

The area was first proposed to be a forest reserve in 1976 but has not<br />

yet been fully gazetted. There is no effective capacity, resources or<br />

field staff to enforce protected areas legislation <strong>and</strong> regulations.<br />

116


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Maps Topographical map: Nanyamba sheet 307/2, East Africa 1:50 000,<br />

1968. From the Institute <strong>of</strong> Mapping, Dar es Salaam (from Series<br />

Y742, Edition 1-TSD).<br />

METHODS<br />

Survey work was conducted over seven days (9-15 June 2005). Twelve vegetation plots<br />

(4800m 2 ), 12 regeneration plots (48m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> one zoosites were carried out, incorporating 200<br />

sherman trapping nights, 50 bucket trapping nights, six man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna<br />

searches, 31.5 bat mist net/hours, 37.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> bird mist-netting, 14 man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed<br />

bird searches, 15 canopy trapping days, six butterfly sweep net/hours, four animal sign<br />

transects (totalling 16,000m 2 ), four disturbance transects (totalling 40,000m 2 ), <strong>and</strong><br />

opportunistic observations (see Appendices 2 to 8 for GPS coordinates <strong>and</strong> work site<br />

descriptions). Habitat notes were taken for vegetation plots (Appendices 4 <strong>and</strong> 5) <strong>and</strong><br />

zoological trap sites (Appendix 6). Structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussion were conducted<br />

with seven elders from the villages <strong>of</strong> Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Mivata. For a detailed break down <strong>of</strong><br />

survey effort see Table 10-a.<br />

RESULTS<br />

In Mtiniko proposed FR 111 plant species were recorded from 27 families. Nine percent <strong>of</strong><br />

the total number <strong>of</strong> floral species are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> 9% are<br />

listed as threatened (IUCN) or potentially threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006) (Table 16-a;<br />

Appendices 9 <strong>and</strong> 10).<br />

Eighty-eight faunal species representing 44 families were recorded. Of these species 16% are<br />

forest dependent, 2% are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc<br />

Mountains <strong>and</strong> 3% are listed as threatened by IUCN (2004) <strong>and</strong>/or CITES (2005) (Table 16-a;<br />

Appendices 13-17).<br />

117


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 16-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

Taxa No. <strong>of</strong><br />

families<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

species c<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

forest<br />

dependent<br />

species d<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

widespread<br />

species<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

strictly<br />

endemic<br />

species:<br />

e <strong>and</strong> f<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

threatened<br />

species:<br />

g <strong>and</strong> h<br />

Mammals 9 12 2 10 0 1 -<br />

Birds a 28 56 6 50 1 2 -<br />

Reptiles 2 2 0 2 0 0 -<br />

Amphibians 1 1 0 1 0 0 -<br />

Butterflies 4 17 6 11 1 0 -<br />

Total for 44 88 14 74 2 3 -<br />

animals<br />

Flora b 27 111 0 101 10 1 9<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> PT<br />

species i<br />

Combined<br />

Total<br />

71 194 14 175 12 4 9<br />

a - Includes birds seen on the forest boundary edge<br />

b - All trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses <strong>and</strong> ferns<br />

c - Includes information collected from all systematic survey work, opportunistic observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions<br />

d - Species dependent on <strong>and</strong> associated with primary or closed-canopy forest, not forest edge or secondary forest<br />

e - Faunal species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone or the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a), sometimes being found also in other habitats in a few adjacent locations (e.g.<br />

Masasi District in S Tanzania, N Mozambique etc.)<br />

f - Floral species restricted to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

g - Species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable (VU) in the IUCN Red List<br />

(IUCN, 2004)<br />

h - Species listed in CITES Appendix I as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade<br />

(CITES, 2005)<br />

i - Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

*The identification <strong>of</strong> Crocidura sp. may increase this number. We await verification<br />

FLORA<br />

In Mtiniko proposed FR one single homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong> was observed, which was<br />

recognised to be coastal Mixed dry forest at various levels <strong>of</strong> degradation.<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> diversity<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 111 species were recorded; <strong>of</strong> these 54 species were found in 12 vegetation plots<br />

<strong>and</strong> 18 species were recorded in 12 regeneration plots. Thirty-nine other species were<br />

recorded from opportunistic collection/observation made within the reserve. More specifically<br />

47 trees, 48 shrubs, five herbs, five lianas <strong>and</strong> six grasses were recorded (Appendix 9). A<br />

value <strong>of</strong> 2.78 was calculated for the Shannon diversity index.<br />

• Species dominance<br />

Within the canopy layer Hymenocardia ulmoides was dominant, occurring in 83% <strong>of</strong> the plots<br />

<strong>and</strong> therefore ranking as the most dominant species. Other species frequent in the canopy<br />

layer included Pteleopsis myrtifolia (50%) <strong>and</strong> Hymenaea verrucosa (42%) (Table 16-b).<br />

118


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 16-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy<br />

layer in Mixed dry forest in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF<br />

(Domina<br />

nce)<br />

Rank No.<br />

dominance indv.<br />

in all<br />

plots<br />

%RA Rank<br />

RA<br />

HYMENOCARDIACEAE Hymenocardia ulmoides 10 83 1 24 10 1<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis myrtifolia 6 50 2 13 5 2<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Hymenaea verrucosa 5 42 3 11 5 3<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia spiciformis 1 8 4 3 1 4<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia microphylla 1 8 4 1 1 5<br />

Total 1 3 4 5 52 22<br />

Total 2 23 35 41 241 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

The sub canopy layer was dominated by Grewia mollis, which occurred in 100% <strong>of</strong> the plots,<br />

<strong>and</strong> Markhamia obtusifolia <strong>and</strong> Cola greenwayi, both occurring in 60% <strong>of</strong> the plots.<br />

Tetracera boiviniana was a frequent species, occurring in 50% <strong>of</strong> the plots (Table 16-c).<br />

Table 16-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy<br />

layer in Mixed dry forest in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF<br />

(Dominan<br />

ce)<br />

Rank No.<br />

dominance indv. in<br />

all plots<br />

TILIACEAE Grewia mollis 12 100 1 63 26 1<br />

BIGNONIACEAE Markhamia obtusifolia 7 60 2 12 5 4<br />

STERCULIACEAE Cola greenwayi 7 60 2 16 7 3<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana 6 50 3 33 14 2<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Afzelia quanzensis 4 33 4 4 2 5<br />

Total 1 5 5 5 128 54<br />

Total 2 2 35 41 241 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

%R.A Rank<br />

abundance<br />

• Species relative abundance<br />

In the canopy layer about 20% <strong>of</strong> the trees recorded were individuals from Hymenocardia<br />

ulmoides, Pteleopsis myrtifolia <strong>and</strong> Hymenaea verrucosa. In the sub canopy layer Grewia<br />

mollis, Tetracera boiviniana, Cola greenwayi <strong>and</strong> Markhamia obtusifolia were the most<br />

abundant species, together making up 52%.<br />

When looking at the overall number <strong>of</strong> trees recorded in both the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy<br />

layers, the sub canopy layer contributed a higher number <strong>of</strong> individuals (71%) than the<br />

canopy layer (29%) to the overall number <strong>of</strong> adult trees in this reserve.<br />

119


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Species composition <strong>and</strong> vegetation types<br />

Mtiniko proposed FR is comprised <strong>of</strong> one single homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>, whose<br />

species composition <strong>and</strong> relative abundance confirmed to be eastern African coastal Mixed<br />

dry forest (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000; Lowe <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000).<br />

The species composition <strong>of</strong> the canopy layer was characterised by Hymenocardia ulmoides as<br />

the dominant <strong>and</strong> most abundant species, contributing 10% <strong>of</strong> all species recorded in this<br />

layer, followed by Pteleopsis myrtifolia <strong>and</strong> Hymenaea verrucosa as frequent species. Other<br />

species occurring in the canopy layer included Brachystegia spiciformis, Albizia gummifera,<br />

<strong>and</strong> Bombax rhodognaphalon.<br />

In the sub canopy layer Grewia mollis, Markhamia obtusifolia <strong>and</strong> Cola greenwayi were the<br />

most dominant species, while Grewia mollis, Tetracera boiviniana <strong>and</strong> Cola greenwayi were<br />

the most abundant, constituting up to 47% <strong>of</strong> all individuals. Other species found in this layer<br />

included Afzelia quanzensis, Diospyros kirkii, Lonchocarpus bussei, Sclerocarya birrea <strong>and</strong><br />

Commiphora africana.<br />

The shrub layer was dense with shrub <strong>and</strong> liana species forming an impenetrable tangle.<br />

Shrubs species from various genera were observed, the most common being Cleistanthus<br />

schlechteri, Drypetes usambarica, Cola clavata, Octolobus spectabilis, Mesogyne insignis,<br />

Suregada zanzibarensis, Rinorea sp., Antidesma venosum, Antidesma membranaceum,<br />

Drypetes gerrardii, Memecylon sp., Rytigynia sp., Salacia madagascariensis, Ochna holstii,<br />

Strychnos madagascariensis, Strychnos usambarensis, Flacourtia indica, <strong>and</strong> Croton<br />

pseudopulchellus. Lianas were well represented with species such as Dalbergia armata,<br />

Grewia sp., Acacia brevispica, Dioscorea hirtiflora <strong>and</strong> an unidentified species <strong>of</strong> Dioscorea,<br />

Albizia amara <strong>and</strong> Harrisonia abyssinica.<br />

Herbs were few to absent with only Asparagus africanus, Dicoma tomentosa <strong>and</strong> occasionally<br />

Hypoestes sp. being recorded. In more open areas grasses such as Sporobolus sp., Panicum<br />

maximum, Digitaria sp., Themeda tri<strong>and</strong>ra <strong>and</strong> Heteropogon contortus were present.<br />

• Endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Ten <strong>of</strong> the species found are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato, including Monodora<br />

gr<strong>and</strong>idieri, Bombax rhodognaphalon, Tetracera boiviniana, Cleistanthus schlechteri,<br />

Erythrina schliebenii, Rytigynia decussata, Cola clavata, Grewia lepidopetala, Rinorea<br />

elliptica <strong>and</strong> Vitex mossambicensis (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000) (Appendix 10). This<br />

amounts to 9% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (Figure 10).<br />

9%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

91%<br />

Figure 10 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

120


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Ten among the species recorded are threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially threatened<br />

(Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006), amounting to 9% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (Table 16-<br />

d).<br />

Table 16-d Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

Family Species name Conservation Habit<br />

status<br />

BOMBACACEAE Bombax rhodognaphalon PT T<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana PT S/T<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Drypetes natalensis PT S/T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Erythrina schliebenii PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia impressa PT C<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Craibia brevicaudata PT T<br />

MORACEAE Mesogyne insignis VU S/T<br />

RUBIACEAE Rytigynia decussata PT S<br />

STERCULIACEAE Cola clavata PT S/T<br />

VIOLACEAE Rinorea angustifolia PT S/T<br />

PT = Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

T= Tree, S= Shrub, B= Bamboo, C= Climber, H= Herb<br />

FAUNA<br />

Although the identification <strong>of</strong> about 90% <strong>of</strong> the species recorded is certain, the identification<br />

<strong>of</strong> a few specimens remains tentative whilst awaiting taxonomic verification.<br />

Mammals<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 12 mammals representing nine families were recorded (Appendix 13).<br />

For the small mammals five species representing three families were recorded from five<br />

captures that took place during 200 sherman trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 50 bucket pitfall trapping<br />

nights. The Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei) was the sole species captured (Appendix 18).<br />

No bats were recorded during 31.5 bat mist net/hours.<br />

For the larger mammals, seven species representing six families were recorded during sign<br />

transects totalling 4km, through one sherman trap capture (Paraxerus palliatus) <strong>and</strong><br />

opportunistic observations, <strong>and</strong> from local knowledge. Species included the Chequered<br />

elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei), the Red-bellied coastal squirrel (Paraxerus palliatus),<br />

the Moloney’s monkey (Cercopithecus mitis sub sp.) <strong>and</strong> the South African galago (Galago<br />

moholi) 15 . Apart from Rhynchocyon cirnei, which was recorded at least twice every day for<br />

the duration <strong>of</strong> the survey, all other mammals were recorded only on one or two occasions.<br />

From structured interviews with local communities it was also learnt that Lion (Panthera leo)<br />

frequently passes through the forest. Lion vocalisations were also heard by the game guard<br />

one evening during the survey.<br />

15 The field identification <strong>of</strong> Galago moholi was undertaken by Frontier-Tanzania research team.<br />

121


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Two species were found to be forest dependent. None <strong>of</strong> the species recorded are strictly<br />

endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains, yet one species has a restricted<br />

distribution in eastern Africa. One species is listed as threatened (Table 16-e, Appendix 13).<br />

Table 16-e Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

Species Common name Forest Endemic<br />

Threatened<br />

dependent<br />

Cercopithecus mitis (sub sp.) Moloney’s monkey F - -<br />

Rhynchocyon cirnei<br />

Chequered - - VU<br />

elephant shrew<br />

Paraxerus palliatus<br />

Red bellied coastal F - -<br />

squirrel<br />

Beamys hindei Lesser pouched rat - EACF, a few other -<br />

forest types in <strong>Kenya</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong> Tanzania<br />

F= Forest dependent or specialist (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CF= species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF= species with limited ranges in the Eastern<br />

Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

Birds<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

This study detected 56 species from 28 different families. Mist netting (37.5 hours) yielded 15<br />

species from a total <strong>of</strong> 34 captures <strong>and</strong> the remaining 41 species were recorded from timed<br />

searches (14 hours). Among the species recorded were the African broadbill (Smithornis<br />

capensis), the Livingstone’s flycatcher (Erythrocercus livingstonei), the Reichenow’s batis<br />

(Batis reichenowi), the Yellow streaked greenbul (Phyllastrephus flavostriatus), the Fischer’s<br />

greenbul (P. fischeri) <strong>and</strong> the East coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi) (Appendix 14). A<br />

relatively large population <strong>of</strong> S. gunningi was found (five individuals).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

In this reserve five forest dependent species were found, including the Reichenow’s batis<br />

(Batis reichenowi), the East coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi), the Yellow streaked greenbul<br />

(Phyllastrephus flavostriatus), the Fischer’s greenbul (P. fischeri), the Blue-mantled crested<br />

flycatcher (Trochocercus cyanomelas) <strong>and</strong> the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis).<br />

Among the bird species recorded only Batis reichenowi is strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong>, while Sheppardia gunningi has a restricted distribution in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> a<br />

few other forest types in Tanzania, <strong>Kenya</strong>, Malawi, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> Mozambique. S. gunningi<br />

also appears as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List (2004). The Peregrine falcon (Falco<br />

peregrinus) is listed on CITES Appendix I (2005) as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> therefore<br />

excluded from international trade.<br />

Reptiles<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Two species <strong>of</strong> reptiles representing two families were recorded from 2 captures that took<br />

place during 50 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> six man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological searches.<br />

Species were identified as the Mozambique agama (Agama mossambica) <strong>and</strong> the Specklelipped<br />

skink (Trachylepis maculilabris) 16 (Appendices 15 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

16 The Afro-magalasian mabuyas have been recognised to constitute a separate genus <strong>and</strong> have been renamed<br />

Trachylepis sp. For the partitioning <strong>of</strong> the genus Mabuya see Mausfeld et al. (2002); for the taxonomy <strong>and</strong><br />

nomenclature <strong>of</strong> Traxhyletis sp. see Honda et al. (2003) <strong>and</strong> Whiting et al. (2003).<br />

122


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent, strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Amphibians<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

One species <strong>of</strong> amphibian, the Grey tree frog (Chiromantis xerampelina), was recorded from<br />

a single capture that took place during 50 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> six man/hours <strong>of</strong><br />

herpetological searches (Appendices 16 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent, strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Butterflies<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Seventeen species <strong>of</strong> butterflies representing four families were recorded from 183 captures<br />

that took place during 15 canopy trapping days <strong>and</strong> six sweep net/hours. The Golden piper<br />

(Eurytela dryope angulata) accounted for a substantial percentage <strong>of</strong> the captures (62%)<br />

(Appendix 17).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Three species from the family Nymphalidae are forest dependent: the Silver striped charaxes<br />

(Charaxes lasti lasti), the Gold b<strong>and</strong>ed forester (Euphaedra neophron littoralis) <strong>and</strong> a Glider<br />

species (Harma theobene blassi). One species, Charaxes lasti lasti, is endemic to the closedcanopy<br />

lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania. No<br />

butterfly species were found to be threatened.<br />

Fauna’s strict endemism<br />

Of the total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded in Mtiniko Proposed FR 99% are widespread <strong>and</strong> 1%<br />

are endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains (Figure 11).<br />

1%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

99%<br />

Figure 11 Percentage <strong>of</strong> strictly endemic <strong>and</strong> widespread faunal species in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Disturbance transects were used to record the level <strong>of</strong> disturbance from encroachment, pole<br />

cutting, bark ringing, fire damage <strong>and</strong> paths. Of the eighty 50m sections that comprised the<br />

disturbance transects, 32 (40%) were found to be unaffected by disturbance. Thirty-one (39%)<br />

sections contained evidence <strong>of</strong> pole cutting, 12 (15%) contained one or more bisecting paths,<br />

six (8%) had been affected by fire, <strong>and</strong> snare ‘duiker’ traps were found in four (5%) sections.<br />

No evidence <strong>of</strong> bark ringing or cultivation was found (Figure 12). Information on resource<br />

use is summarised in Table 16-g.<br />

123


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections affected<br />

35<br />

30<br />

25<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

Cutting Fire Paths Traps<br />

Disturbance category<br />

Figure 12 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 48) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

Agricultural encroachment<br />

On the eastern, western <strong>and</strong> northern sides <strong>of</strong> the reserve the boundary was not demarcated.<br />

The residents stated that the size <strong>of</strong> the proposed reserve has increased since the boundary<br />

was demarcated. Our field observations did not support this view. Farms appeared to have<br />

been extended inside the proposed reserve.<br />

Poles <strong>and</strong> timbers<br />

Residents stated that timber obtained from Albizia gummifera, Bombax rhodognaphalon, <strong>and</strong><br />

Hymenaea verrucosa is used for house building. Two species, Afzelia quanzensis <strong>and</strong> Bombax<br />

rhodognaphalon were also said to be harvested for commercial use. Disturbance transects<br />

showed that poles are obtained from a range <strong>of</strong> different species (Table 16-g). Four separate<br />

pit sawing sites, at least one <strong>of</strong> which had been recently active (Appendix 8), were observed.<br />

In addition, three youths were encountered sawing timber for payment.<br />

• Relative abundance <strong>and</strong> average no. <strong>of</strong> live, dead <strong>and</strong> cut individuals per ha<br />

The survey found that 2% <strong>of</strong> all poles <strong>and</strong> 1% <strong>of</strong> all timbers are cut. Eleven (12%) cut poles<br />

were fresh, <strong>and</strong> one (25%) fresh cut timber was observed. No cut large timbers were detected<br />

(Table 16-f).<br />

Table 16-f Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

Total Total no. Total no. Average Total no. Average Total no. Average<br />

transect <strong>of</strong> indiv. (<strong>and</strong> % RA) live indiv. (<strong>and</strong> % RA) dead indiv. (<strong>and</strong> % RA) cut<br />

length<br />

in m<br />

sampled <strong>of</strong> live indiv. per ha <strong>of</strong> dead indiv. per ha <strong>of</strong> cut indiv. indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Poles 4,000 5015 4362 (87) 1091 561 (11) 187 92 (2) 23<br />

Timbers 4,000 534 490 (92) 122 40 (8) 10 4 (1) 1<br />

Large<br />

timbers<br />

4,000 6 5 (83) 1 1 (17) 0.25 0 (0) 0<br />

Fuel wood<br />

Residents stated that fuel wood comes from dead trees. Species are listed in Table 16-g.<br />

124


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Tools <strong>and</strong> utensils<br />

Observations <strong>and</strong> discussions revealed that tree cutting takes place to make cooking utensils<br />

<strong>and</strong> tool h<strong>and</strong>les. Bark from several tree species was said to be used to make ropes, although<br />

no actual evidence <strong>of</strong> bark ringing was observed (Figure 12) (Table 16-g).<br />

Edible non-timber forest products<br />

Through discussions six species were found to be commonly used as food sources by the local<br />

community (Table 16-g). Digging for the roots <strong>of</strong> Dioscorea hirtiflora was extensive in<br />

Mtiniko as observed along disturbance transects.<br />

Medicinal plants<br />

Ten plant species were said to be <strong>of</strong> medicinal value (Table 16-g, Appendix 11).<br />

Table 16-g Plant species utilised in Mtiniko proposed FR as identified by field observations,<br />

structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussion. Local names, where known, are presented in<br />

Appendix 9<br />

Family Species Poles Timber Fuel Tools Ropes Food Medicine<br />

wood<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Sclerocarya birrea X<br />

ANNONACEAE Annona<br />

X X X X<br />

senegalensis<br />

APOCYNACEAE L<strong>and</strong>olphia<br />

X<br />

buchananii<br />

BIGNONIACEAE Markhamia X X X<br />

obtusifolia<br />

BOMBACACEAE Bombax<br />

X<br />

rhodognaphalon<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis<br />

X<br />

myrtifolia<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera<br />

X<br />

boiviniana<br />

DIOSCOREACEAE Dioscorea<br />

X<br />

hirtiflora<br />

EBENACEAE Diospyros kirkii X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Afzelia quanzensis X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia X X X<br />

spiciformis<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia abbreviata X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Hymenaea<br />

X<br />

verrucosa<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia gummifera X X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Dalbergia<br />

X<br />

melanoxylon<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus<br />

X X X<br />

capassa<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia dura X<br />

FLACOURTIACEA Flacourtia indica<br />

X<br />

E<br />

HYMENOCARDIAC Hymenocardia X X X X<br />

EAE<br />

ulmoides<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

X<br />

X<br />

cocculoides<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

madagascariensis<br />

X<br />

125


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Species Poles Timber Fuel Tools Ropes Food Medicine<br />

wood<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

X<br />

usambarensis<br />

MORACEAE Milicia excelsa X X<br />

MORACEAE Mesogyne insignis X X X<br />

POLYGALACEAE Securidaca<br />

X<br />

longipedunculata<br />

RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum sp. X X<br />

SAPOTACEAE Bequaertiodendron<br />

X<br />

natalense<br />

STERCULIACEAE Cola greenwayi X X X<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex doniana X<br />

Hunting<br />

Residents stated that no hunting takes place in the proposed reserve, yet traps for small<br />

mammal were detected in four (5%) <strong>of</strong> all transect sections (Figure 12).<br />

Management<br />

The present environmental committee does not have the capacity to be effective. Funds are<br />

not available for patrols <strong>and</strong> law enforcement. Forest <strong>of</strong>ficers from the District <strong>of</strong> Natural<br />

Resources were said to visit very infrequently.<br />

DISCUSSION<br />

FLORA<br />

Mtiniko proposed FR is mainly covered by Mixed dry forest <strong>and</strong> experiences a relatively low<br />

degree <strong>of</strong> encroachment. The Mixed dry forest is characterised by a dense understory with the<br />

highest number <strong>of</strong> shrub <strong>and</strong> lianas species <strong>and</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> all forest surveyed. Valuable<br />

species such as Bombax rhodognaphalon (Potentially Threatened), Antiaris toxicaria <strong>and</strong><br />

Milicia excelsa (near threatened) commonly present in the canopy layer have been cut for<br />

timber <strong>and</strong> were represented by less than 25% individuals. Removal <strong>of</strong> canopy species has<br />

given way to sub canopy species to dominate in terms <strong>of</strong> relative abundance, the sub canopy<br />

layer contributing a higher number <strong>of</strong> individuals (71%) than the canopy layer (29%) to the<br />

overall number <strong>of</strong> adult trees in this reserve.<br />

Mtiniko proposed FR was found to have one <strong>of</strong> the highest plant species richness (111<br />

species). This reflects the relatively low degree <strong>of</strong> encroachment observed here <strong>and</strong> the<br />

natural character <strong>of</strong> Mixed dry forest (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000). The Shannon diversity<br />

index for this forest reserve (H¹=2.78) was moderately high reflecting a community in<br />

succession (Magurran, 1988), where a relatively high number <strong>of</strong> species, <strong>and</strong> particularly<br />

understory species, can colonise the area <strong>and</strong> access enough resources for growth following<br />

the removal <strong>of</strong> more competitive canopy trees (Ndangalasi, 1997). If this forest could be<br />

allowed to fully regenerate, <strong>and</strong> canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy species to achieve their potential<br />

population size, then the species diversity would be expected to decline. However, human<br />

activities (particularly timber cutting) have continued to interrupt the regeneration <strong>of</strong> this<br />

forest from degraded to fully developed Mixed dry forest (Welch, 1960). These activities also<br />

threaten some important plant species present here, such as Mesogyne insignis (Vulnerable).<br />

The hard <strong>and</strong> heavy wood <strong>of</strong> this tree is <strong>of</strong>ten selected <strong>and</strong> used by local inhabitants for<br />

building poles <strong>and</strong> tool h<strong>and</strong>les (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management section). If<br />

the extraction <strong>of</strong> timber from Mtiniko proposed FR is not regulated this <strong>and</strong> other species may<br />

become locally rare.<br />

126


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

FAUNA<br />

Mtiniko proposed FR supports an important animal community characteristic <strong>of</strong> a relatively<br />

stable forest habitat, with twelve species between birds, mammals <strong>and</strong> butterflies being forest<br />

dependent. This reserve also has relatively high numbers <strong>of</strong> endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened species.<br />

Despite this the overall number <strong>of</strong> species recorded was low (88) when related to the size <strong>of</strong><br />

the reserve <strong>and</strong> the sampling intensity. This suggests that the level <strong>of</strong> disturbance occurring in<br />

this reserve may be higher than recorded, as reported by local people during interviews <strong>and</strong><br />

discussions.<br />

Small mammals<br />

Of the small mammals the Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei - near threatened) appeared to<br />

be dominant, being the only species recorded. This is a relic species endemic to a few forest<br />

types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania, including the coastal <strong>and</strong> montane forests <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot.<br />

Until very recently it was regarded as one <strong>of</strong> the rarest rodents in Africa (Groombridge, 1994)<br />

but it is now known to be more widespread. Findings from Mtiniko proposed FR seem to<br />

support this evidence, since this reserve holds a relatively large population <strong>of</strong> this species (see<br />

Results section <strong>and</strong> Appendix 18). Although not found during our survey it is likely that other<br />

species known to live along with Beamys in most habitats, such as the Multimammate rat<br />

(Mastomys natalensis) (Kingdon, 1974), are also present.<br />

Large mammals<br />

The low number <strong>of</strong> species (7) <strong>and</strong> individuals recorded in this reserve may be a consequence<br />

<strong>of</strong> a higher degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance than actually recorded (see Human-Resources Use <strong>and</strong><br />

Local Management), a factor that may have decreased the extent <strong>of</strong> suitable habitat <strong>and</strong><br />

ecological requirements (e.g. prey, shelter) necessary to support larger populations. The<br />

elephant shrew species (Rhynchocyon sp.) observed in this reserve is characterised by dark<br />

grey <strong>and</strong> rufous fur with very indistinct chequers, <strong>and</strong> is likely to represent a sub-species <strong>of</strong><br />

the Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei macrurus) rather than a range extension<br />

for the similar looking Black <strong>and</strong> rufous elephant shrew (R. petersi) (Rathbun, 2005; Corbet,<br />

1970). 17 The finding <strong>of</strong> R. cirnei, a species listed as Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004), confirms the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> to be a globally important area for this genus, closely followed by the Eastern<br />

Arc Mountains (Burgess et al., 2000a). Rhynchocyon species are forest-dwellers that rely on<br />

dense vegetation cover to produce the thick leaf litter they require for foraging <strong>and</strong> nest<br />

construction (Rathbun, 2005). R. cirnei may therefore become locally threatened should<br />

further habitat destruction ensue. According to Kingdon (1974), the forest dependent Redbellied<br />

coastal squirrel (Paraxerus palliatus) observed here is likely to be the result <strong>of</strong><br />

hybridization with the Smith’s bush squirrel (Paraxerus cepapi). More research would be<br />

needed to ascertain the levels <strong>of</strong> hybridization <strong>of</strong> these species. The Lesser bushbaby (Galago<br />

moholi - CITES II) is an arboreal species usually found in the semiarid scrub woodl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong><br />

savanna grassl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> central southern Africa (Alvarado, 2000). The finding <strong>of</strong> this species in<br />

the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic <strong>of</strong> southern Tanzania therefore represents a range extension.<br />

Birds<br />

Mtiniko proposed FR is unique among the reserves studied because <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong><br />

avifauna <strong>of</strong> ecological <strong>and</strong> conservation importance. This is the only reserve where forest<br />

dependent species were recorded in large numbers, including the Reichenow’s batis (Batis<br />

reichenowi - <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> Endemic), the Yellow streaked greenbul (Phyllastrephus<br />

flavostriatus), the Fischer’s greenbul (Phyllastrephus fischeri), the African broadbill<br />

(Smithornis capensis), the Blue-mantled crested flycatcher (Trochocercus cyanomelas) <strong>and</strong><br />

the East coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi - Vulnerable). The dense understory <strong>of</strong> Mixed dry<br />

17 At present R. petersei has been recorded to occur only in the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

as far as the Rufiji River. South <strong>of</strong> the Rufiji River <strong>and</strong> further down into Mozambique, R. cirnei has been recorded<br />

instead (Rathbun <strong>and</strong> Butinski, 2005; Corbet, 1970).<br />

127


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

forest, characterised by numerous lianas <strong>and</strong> shrubs, <strong>and</strong> the absence <strong>of</strong> severe disturbance<br />

from fire explain the presence <strong>of</strong> these forest dependent species <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> a large number <strong>of</strong><br />

understory species in general (15) (Sinclair <strong>and</strong> Ryan, 2003). Sheppardia gunningi has a<br />

restricted distribution in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> a few other forest types in Tanzania, <strong>Kenya</strong>,<br />

Malawi, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> Mozambique. This species also appears as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red<br />

List (2004), <strong>and</strong> the relatively high number <strong>of</strong> individuals captured indicates that Mtiniko<br />

proposed FR is an important area for this threatened species. Batis reichenowi also highlights<br />

the importance <strong>of</strong> Mtiniko proposed FR for birds, being the only <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> endemic bird<br />

species recorded in this study. B. reichenowi has been recognised as a separate species from<br />

the Forest batis (Batis mixta) by Mlingwa et al. (2000) <strong>and</strong> Baker <strong>and</strong> Baker (2002).<br />

However, IUCN (2004) <strong>and</strong> BirdLife International (2005) classify both species as B. mixta,<br />

<strong>and</strong> under this classification this bird is considered to be more widespread than if it was a<br />

separate species, <strong>and</strong> therefore <strong>of</strong> less interest. Mtiniko proposed FR constitutes the Mtwara<br />

District <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> IBA (TZ052 - category A1) (BirdLife International, 2005) because <strong>of</strong><br />

the previously recorded presence <strong>of</strong> more than a threshold population <strong>of</strong> the Southern b<strong>and</strong>ed<br />

snake eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus), a species categorized as near threatened by the IUCN Red<br />

List (2004). Circaetus fasciolatus was recorded in Mtiniko proposed FR during this study,<br />

along with another IUCN threatened species (S. gunningi - Vulnerable) <strong>and</strong> a species listed by<br />

in CITES Appendix I (Falco peregrinus), confirming the classification <strong>of</strong> this reserve. If Batis<br />

reichenowi was to be confirmed as a separate species from B. mixta, then this IBA would<br />

become part <strong>of</strong> a Secondary or Full Endemic Bird Area (EBA) (Baker <strong>and</strong> Baker, 2002).<br />

Reptiles<br />

Despite the relatively extensive <strong>and</strong> dense Mixed dry forest found in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

(see Flora section), the reptile species richness was very low (2 captured species). This figure<br />

may be a consequence <strong>of</strong> the rapid nature <strong>of</strong> this study, which did not permit comprehensive<br />

collection <strong>of</strong> data during the wet season <strong>and</strong> the study <strong>of</strong> fossorial species (Broadley <strong>and</strong><br />

Howell, 2000). Further studies during the wet season would be likely to yield a higher number<br />

<strong>of</strong> species. The species captured were the Mozambique agama (Agama mossambica) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Speckle-lipped skink (Trachylepis maculilabris), which are known to be widespread in southeastern<br />

Tanzania <strong>and</strong> adapted to various types <strong>of</strong> habitat (Spawls et al., 2002).<br />

Amphibians<br />

For the amphibians only one individual <strong>of</strong> the Grey tree frog (Chiromantis xerampelina) was<br />

collected, which is typical <strong>of</strong> wooded grassl<strong>and</strong> (Channing 2001). Again, the low number <strong>of</strong><br />

species recorded may reflect the hot <strong>and</strong> dry climate at the time <strong>of</strong> this study, <strong>and</strong> a survey<br />

during the wet season would probably yield more results.<br />

Butterflies<br />

For the butterflies the number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (17) was moderate when compared to the<br />

high number <strong>of</strong> individuals captured (183). This is a consequence <strong>of</strong> the fact that two thirds <strong>of</strong><br />

the total number <strong>of</strong> individuals captured was represented by the Golden piper (Eurytela<br />

dryope angulata). This species is particularly attracted to banana bait used by this study<br />

(Larsen, 1996) so the number <strong>of</strong> captures may misrepresent its dominance within the butterfly<br />

community. The Mixed dry forest found in this reserve is characterised by a dense understory<br />

(see section on Flora), so constituting a good habitat for forest dependent species (Kiell<strong>and</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong> Cordeiro, 2000). Three forest dependent species were consequently observed: the Silver<br />

striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti), the Gold b<strong>and</strong>ed forester (Euphaedra neophron<br />

littoralis) <strong>and</strong> a Glider species (Harma theobene blassi). Charaxes lasti lasti is particularly<br />

important as it is endemic to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Congdon <strong>and</strong> Bampton, 2005).<br />

128


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Results suggest that disturbance in Mtiniko proposed FR is negligible, with one <strong>of</strong> the lowest<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> encroachment found among the reserves surveyed <strong>and</strong> only 2% <strong>of</strong> poles <strong>and</strong> 1% <strong>of</strong><br />

timbers being cut. However, residents stated that boundary demarcation has not taken place in<br />

the past 20 years <strong>and</strong> therefore it is difficult to determine the real extent <strong>of</strong> encroachment into<br />

the reserve. Moreover, several recently active <strong>and</strong> old pit sawing sites were witnessed<br />

(Appendix 8) <strong>and</strong> 12% <strong>of</strong> the cut poles were freshly cut, suggesting that illegal <strong>of</strong>f-take <strong>of</strong><br />

timber may be ongoing <strong>and</strong> higher than the study indicates. Local people were also found to<br />

be paid to cut timber inside the proposed reserve, suggesting that timber extraction is an<br />

organised business. Further studies would be required to ascertain the level <strong>of</strong> timber cutting<br />

<strong>and</strong> the market destination <strong>of</strong> the timber. The most common species used for timber in the<br />

study area (Swartzia madagascariensis, Afzelia quanzensis, Dalbergia melanoxylon, Milicia<br />

excelsa) are either uncommon in this reserve or too small in size to yield timber. Thus<br />

different species, such as the potentially threatened Bombax rhodognaphalon, are currently<br />

exploited.<br />

From meetings with village representatives it transpired that the local attitude towards the<br />

protection <strong>of</strong> the forest is largely negative. This stems from the fact that no information has<br />

been forthcoming about why the government is protecting this forest — no water source is<br />

present here <strong>and</strong> the inhabitants feel that its size should be halved to increase the amount <strong>of</strong><br />

farml<strong>and</strong> available to them. The high levels <strong>of</strong> pit sawing <strong>and</strong> a lack <strong>of</strong> value attached to the<br />

forest indicates that action to protect this reserve is more urgently needed than the low level <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance detected by this study suggests.<br />

129


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

17. MTULI HINJU PROPOSED FOREST RESERVE<br />

Status<br />

Management Body<br />

Location<br />

Area<br />

Altitude<br />

Topography<br />

Temperature<br />

Rainfall<br />

Soil type<br />

Vegetation type<br />

L<strong>and</strong> Use<br />

History <strong>and</strong> Status<br />

Proposed Forest Reserve<br />

Central Government<br />

Mtwara Rural District. Between the villages <strong>of</strong> Mtuli Mjengua <strong>and</strong><br />

Hinju, on the main road between Newala <strong>and</strong> Mtwara.<br />

296ha<br />

215-260m asl<br />

Lowl<strong>and</strong> plain<br />

Min: 17 o C, Max: 31 o C (recorded 17-19 June, dry season)<br />

Average 0mm (recorded 17-19 June, dry season)<br />

S<strong>and</strong>y-loam<br />

Eastern African coastal Legume-dominated dry forest<br />

The area was proposed as a reserve to preserve a water source <strong>and</strong> to<br />

protect timber resources. Encroachment <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong>, pole<br />

extraction <strong>and</strong> hunting take place.<br />

The area was first planned to be a forest reserve in 1976 <strong>and</strong> is still<br />

yet to be fully gazetted. There is no effective capacity, in terms <strong>of</strong><br />

staff or resources available, to enforce protected area legislation <strong>and</strong><br />

regulations<br />

Maps Topographical map: Nd<strong>and</strong>a South sheet 306/1, East Africa 1:50 000,<br />

1968. From the Institute <strong>of</strong> Mapping, Dar es Salaam (from Series<br />

Y742, Edition 1-TSD).<br />

METHODS<br />

Survey work was conducted over five days (17-19 June 2005). Five vegetation plots<br />

(2000m 2 ), five regeneration plots (20m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> one zoosite were carried out, incorporating 120<br />

130


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

sherman trapping nights, 30 bucket trapping nights, four man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna<br />

searches, 15 bat mist net/hours, 24.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> bird mist netting, seven man/hours <strong>of</strong><br />

timed bird searches, nine canopy trapping days, two butterfly sweep net/hours, two animal<br />

sign transects <strong>of</strong> 1km <strong>and</strong> 900m respectively (totalling 7600m 2 ), two disturbance transects <strong>of</strong><br />

1km <strong>and</strong> 900m respectively (totalling 19,000m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> opportunistic observations (see<br />

Appendices 2 to 8 for GPS coordinates <strong>and</strong> work site descriptions). Habitat notes were taken<br />

for vegetation plots (Appendices 4 <strong>and</strong> 5) <strong>and</strong> zoological trap sites (Appendix 6). Structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions were conducted with three elders from the village <strong>of</strong> Hinju.<br />

For a detailed break down <strong>of</strong> survey effort see Table 10-a.<br />

RESULTS<br />

In Mtuli Hinju proposed FR 122 plant species were recorded from 12 families. Six percent <strong>of</strong><br />

the total number <strong>of</strong> floral species are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> 8% are<br />

listed as threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006) (Table<br />

17-a; Appendices 9 <strong>and</strong> 10).<br />

Eighty-five faunal species were found representing 49 families. Of these species 6% are forest<br />

dependent, 1% are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong><br />

1% are listed as threatened by IUCN (2004) <strong>and</strong>/or CITES (2005) (Table 17-a; Appendices<br />

13-17).<br />

Table 17-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Mtuli Hinju Proposed FR<br />

Taxa No. <strong>of</strong><br />

families<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

species c<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

forest<br />

dependent<br />

species d<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

widespread<br />

species<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> strictly<br />

endemic<br />

species:<br />

e <strong>and</strong> f<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

threatened<br />

species:<br />

g <strong>and</strong> h<br />

Mammals 8 11 1 10 0 1 -<br />

Birds a 32 56 2 54 0 0 -<br />

Reptiles 1 1 0 1 0 0 -<br />

Amphibians 3 6 0 6 0 0 -<br />

Butterflies 5 11 2 11 1 0 -<br />

Total for 49 85 5 82 1 1 -<br />

animals<br />

Flora b 12 122 0 115 7 1 9<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

PT<br />

species i<br />

Combined 61 207 5 197 8 2 9<br />

Total<br />

a - Includes birds seen on the forest boundary edge<br />

b - All trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses <strong>and</strong> ferns<br />

c - Includes information collected from all systematic survey work, opportunistic observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions<br />

d - Species dependent on <strong>and</strong> associated with primary or closed-canopy forest, not forest edge or secondary forest<br />

e - Faunal species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone or the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a), sometimes being found also in other habitats in a few adjacent locations (e.g.<br />

Masasi District in S Tanzania, N Mozambique etc.)<br />

f - Floral species restricted to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

g - Species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable (VU) in the IUCN Red List<br />

(IUCN, 2004)<br />

h - Species listed in CITES Appendix I as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade<br />

(CITES, 2005)<br />

i - Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

*The identification <strong>of</strong> Crocidura sp. may increase this number. We await verification<br />

131


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

FLORA<br />

In Mtuli Hinju proposed FR one single homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong> was observed, which<br />

was identified as Legume-dominated dry forest interspersed by cultivated <strong>and</strong> fallow<br />

farml<strong>and</strong>.<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> diversity<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 122 species were recorded. Of these, 47 species were found in five vegetation plots<br />

<strong>and</strong> 18 species were recorded in five regeneration plots. The other 57 species were recorded<br />

from opportunistic collection made within the reserve. More specifically, 53 trees, 45 shrubs,<br />

ten herbs, seven lianas <strong>and</strong> seven grasses <strong>and</strong> sedges were recorded (Appendix 9). A value <strong>of</strong><br />

2.21 was calculated for the Shannon diversity index.<br />

• Species dominance<br />

Pterocarpus angolensis <strong>and</strong> Albizia gummifera were dominant in the canopy layer, occurring<br />

in 100% <strong>and</strong> 75% <strong>of</strong> the plots respectively <strong>and</strong> ranking as the most dominant species.<br />

Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia was frequent, occurring in 50% <strong>of</strong> the plots (Table 17-b).<br />

Table 17-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy<br />

layer in Legume-dominated dry forest in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF<br />

(Domina<br />

nce)<br />

Rank No.<br />

dominance indv.<br />

in all<br />

plots<br />

%RA Rank<br />

RA<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus angolensis 4 100 1 12 27 1<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia versicolor 3 75 2 5 11 2<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia 2 50 3 4 9 3<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis myrtifolia 1 25 4 1 2 4<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pericopsis angolensis 1 25 4 1 2 4<br />

Total 1 4 5 5 23 51<br />

Total 2 8 13 13 44 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

The sub canopy layer was dominated by Combretum molle occurring in 75% <strong>of</strong> the plots.<br />

Other frequent species were Cassia petersiana <strong>and</strong> Crossopteryx febrifuga, both occurring in<br />

50% <strong>of</strong> the plots (Table 17-c).<br />

132


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 17-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy<br />

layer in Legume-dominated dry forest in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF Rank No.<br />

(Domina dominance indv.<br />

nce)<br />

in all<br />

plots<br />

%RA Rank<br />

RA<br />

COMBRETACEAE Combretum molle 3 75 1 7 16 1<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia petersiana 2 50 2 5 11 2<br />

RUBIACEAE Crossopteryx febrifuga 2 50 2 2 5 3<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Swartzia madagascariensis 1 25 3 1 2 4<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus bussei 1 25 3 1 2 4<br />

Total 1 4 5 5 16 36<br />

Total 2 8 13 13 44 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

• Species relative abundance<br />

In the canopy layer about 27% <strong>of</strong> the trees recorded were individuals from Pterocarpus<br />

angolensis, while Albizia versicolor contributed up to 11% <strong>and</strong> Pseudolachnostylis<br />

maprouneifolia about 9% (Table 17-b). In the sub canopy layer, Combretum molle, Cassia<br />

petersiana <strong>and</strong> Crossopteryx febrifuga were the top three species, together making up 32%<br />

(Table 17-c).<br />

When looking at the overall number <strong>of</strong> trees recorded in both the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy<br />

layers, the canopy layer (59%) contributes a slightly higher number <strong>of</strong> individuals than the<br />

sub canopy layer (41%) to the overall number <strong>of</strong> adult trees in this reserve.<br />

• Species composition <strong>and</strong> vegetation types<br />

Mtuli Hinju proposed FR is comprised <strong>of</strong> one single homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>; the<br />

species composition <strong>and</strong> relative abundance indicated this to be eastern African coastal<br />

legume-dominated dry forest (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000).<br />

The species composition was dominated in the canopy layer by species from the Legume<br />

family, such as Pterocarpus angolensis (subfamily Papilionideae) <strong>and</strong> Albizia versicolor,<br />

(subfamily Mimosoideae). Other species occurring in the canopy layer included<br />

Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia, which ranked as frequent, Pteleopsis myrtifolia,<br />

Pericopsis angolensis, Bombax rhodognaphalon, Hymenaea verrucosa <strong>and</strong> Hymenocardia<br />

ulmoides. The sub canopy layer was characterised by the presence <strong>of</strong> legume species such as<br />

Cassia petersiana, which ranked as frequent, <strong>and</strong> other species such as Swartzia<br />

madagascariensis, Lonchocarpus bussei, Sclerocarya birrea, Afzelia quanzensis <strong>and</strong><br />

Combretum molle, a species <strong>of</strong>ten associated with legume species.<br />

In the shrub layer the most frequently encountered species were Mesogyne insignis, Suregada<br />

zanzibarensis, Rinorea elliptica, Antidesma venosum, Antidesma membranaceum, Memecylon<br />

sp. <strong>and</strong> Grewia lepidopetala. In more open areas species from the genus Combretum, <strong>and</strong><br />

species such as Salacia madagascariensis, Ochna kirkii, Strychnos spinosa, S.<br />

madascariensis, S. mosambicensis, Cleistanthus schlechteri, Markhamia obtusifolia,<br />

Tetracera boiviniana, Flacourtia indica <strong>and</strong> Croton pseudopulchellus were observed. Lianas<br />

from various species were recorded, <strong>and</strong> the most common climbers encountered included<br />

Dalbergia armata, Grewia sp., Acacia brevispica, Capparis tomentosa, Dioscorea hirtiflora<br />

<strong>and</strong> a species <strong>of</strong> Dioscorea for which we are awaiting identification.<br />

133


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

The herbaceous layer was formed by grasses such as Sporobolus sp. <strong>and</strong> Themeda tri<strong>and</strong>ra,<br />

together with herbs such as Dicoma tomentosa, Jussiaea repens, Hypoestes sp., Asparagus<br />

africanus, Asparagus sp., Hibiscus sp., Vernonia sp., Commelina sp. <strong>and</strong> Jasminum sp.<br />

• Endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Seven <strong>of</strong> the species recorded were found to be endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato,<br />

including Tetracera boiviniana, Cleistanthus schlechteri, Erythrina schliebenii, Xylotheca<br />

tettensis, Rytigynia decussata, Cola clavata <strong>and</strong> Grewia lepidopetala (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson,<br />

2000) (Appendix 10) <strong>and</strong> this accounts for 6% <strong>of</strong> all species recorded (Figure 13).<br />

6%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

94%<br />

Figure 13 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR<br />

Ten among the species recorded are threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially threatened<br />

(Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006), amounting to 8% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (Table<br />

17-d).<br />

Table 17-d Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR<br />

Family Species name Conservation Habit<br />

status<br />

CELASTRACEAE Maytenus mossambicensis PT S/T<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia abbreviata PT T<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia nilotica PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Craibia brevicaudata PT T<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Erythrina schliebenii PT T<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Xylotheca tettensis PT S<br />

MORACEAE Mesogyne insignis VU S/T<br />

RUBIACEAE Lasianthus kilim<strong>and</strong>scharicus PT S/T<br />

RUBIACEAE Rytigynia decussata PT S<br />

STERCULIACEAE Cola clavata PT S/T<br />

PT = Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

T= Tree, S= Shrub, B= Bamboo, C= Climber, H= Herb<br />

134


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

FAUNA<br />

Although the identification <strong>of</strong> about 90% <strong>of</strong> the species recorded is certain, the identification<br />

<strong>of</strong> a few specimens remains tentative whilst awaiting taxonomic verification.<br />

Mammals<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 11 mammals representing eight families were recorded (Appendix 13).<br />

For the small mammals five species representing three families were recorded from nine<br />

captures (excluding four recaptures) that took place during 120 sherman trapping nights <strong>and</strong><br />

30 bucket pitfall trapping nights (Appendix 18). Species included the Spiny mouse (Acomys<br />

spinosissimus) <strong>and</strong> the Multimammate rat (Mastomys natalensis). Acomys spinosissimus<br />

made up 77% <strong>of</strong> all captures.<br />

No bats were recorded during 15 bat mist net/hours.<br />

For the larger mammals, six species representing six families were recorded during sign<br />

transects totalling 1.9km, opportunistic observations <strong>and</strong> from local knowledge. Species<br />

found included the Blue duiker (Cephalophus monticola) <strong>and</strong> the Chequered elephant shrews<br />

(Rhynchocyon cirnei). The South African galago (Galago moholi) 18 was found in patches <strong>of</strong><br />

close-canopy forest in the valleys. No one species was recorded on more than two separate<br />

occasions. From interviews with local communities it was also learnt that the Lion (Panthera<br />

leo) occasionally passes through the forest.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

One species was found to be forest dependent <strong>and</strong> one is listed as threatened by the IUCN<br />

Red List (2004) (Table 17-e). No species were found to be strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains. One species is listed as threatened.<br />

Table 17-e Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Mtuli Hinju proposed<br />

FR<br />

Species Common name Forest Endemic Threatened<br />

dependent<br />

Rhynchocyon cirnei Chequered elephant shrew - - VU<br />

Cephalophus monticola Blue duiker F - -<br />

F= Forest dependent or specialist (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CF= species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF= species with limited ranges in the Eastern<br />

Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

Birds<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Fifty-six species from 32 families were recorded from 24.5 hours <strong>of</strong> mist netting <strong>and</strong> seven<br />

hours <strong>of</strong> timed bird searches. Mist netting yielded seven species from a total <strong>of</strong> 15 captures<br />

<strong>and</strong> opportunistic observations yielded 49 species. The White-faced whistling-duck<br />

(Dendrocygna viduata), the African pygmy-goose (Nettapus auritus), the African jacana<br />

(Actophilornis africanus) <strong>and</strong> the Black crake (Amaurornis flavirostris) were recorded on a<br />

large body <strong>of</strong> water. Other species found were the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis) <strong>and</strong><br />

the Livingstone’s flycatcher (Erythrocercus livingstonei) (Appendix 14).<br />

18 The field identification <strong>of</strong> Galago moholi was undertaken by Frontier-Tanzania research team.<br />

135


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Two forest dependent species, the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis) <strong>and</strong> the Bluemantled<br />

crested flycatcher (Trochocercus cyanomelas), were found. None <strong>of</strong> the species<br />

found are strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Reptiles<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

One species <strong>of</strong> reptile was recorded from one sighting that took place during 30 bucket pitfall<br />

trapping nights <strong>and</strong> six man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological searches. The sole species recorded was<br />

the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus) (Appendices 15 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent, strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Amphibians<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Six species <strong>of</strong> amphibian representing three families were recorded from 10 captures that took<br />

place during 30 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> six man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological searches.<br />

Species recorded included the Spotted reed frog (Hyperolius punticulatus), Fornasini’s spiny<br />

reed frog (Afrixalus fornasinii), the Yellow-spotted tree frog (Leptopelis flavomaculatus) <strong>and</strong><br />

the Mozambique ridged frog (Ptychadena mossambica) (Appendices 16 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent, strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Butterflies<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Eleven species <strong>of</strong> butterfly representing five families were recorded from 52 captures that<br />

took place during nine canopy trapping days <strong>and</strong> two sweep net/hours (Appendix 17). The<br />

Golden piper (Eurytela dryope angulata) accounted for 38% <strong>and</strong> the Common bush brown<br />

(Bicyclus safitza safitza) for 17% <strong>of</strong> these captures.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Two species from the family Nymphalidae, the Silver striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti)<br />

<strong>and</strong> the Common sailor (Neptis alta), are forest dependent. One species, C. lasti lasti, is<br />

restricted to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania.<br />

Fauna’s strict endemism<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the faunal species recorded in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR is endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains.<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Disturbance transects were used to record the level <strong>of</strong> disturbance from encroachment, pole<br />

cutting, bark ringing, fire damage <strong>and</strong> paths. Of forty 50m sections that were conducted, 17<br />

(43%) were free <strong>of</strong> disturbance. This was the highest percentage <strong>of</strong> undisturbed sections <strong>of</strong><br />

any reserve. Seventeen (43%) contained evidence <strong>of</strong> pole cutting, six (15%) showed signs <strong>of</strong><br />

fire, three (8%) contained one or more paths, two (5%) contained cultivated crops<br />

(predominantly maize) <strong>and</strong> one (3%) contained a trap (Figure 14). Resource use is<br />

summarised in Table 17-g.<br />

136


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections affected<br />

18<br />

16<br />

14<br />

12<br />

10<br />

8<br />

6<br />

4<br />

2<br />

0<br />

Cutting Fire Paths Cultivation Traps<br />

Disturbance category<br />

Figure 14 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 23) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR<br />

Agricultural encroachment<br />

Only two 50m sections were found to contain signs <strong>of</strong> cultivation (Figure 14).<br />

Poles <strong>and</strong> timbers<br />

Disturbance transects revealed that three main species (Afzelia quanzensis, Milicia excelsa<br />

<strong>and</strong> Pterocarpus angolensis) are harvested for timber. Four other species are also used as<br />

identified by both disturbance transects <strong>and</strong> structured interviews. Transects indicated that<br />

poles are commonly obtained from 11 different species (Table 17-g). One example <strong>of</strong> recently<br />

active pit sawing was detected which targeted a large side branch from Afzelia quanzensis,<br />

therefore not causing the death <strong>of</strong> the tree (Appendix 8). Previously, Pterocarpus angolensis<br />

was harvested for sale but the village elders say that this practice has been discontinued.<br />

• Relative abundance <strong>and</strong> average no. <strong>of</strong> live, dead <strong>and</strong> cut individuals per ha<br />

Approximately 6% <strong>of</strong> poles <strong>and</strong> 4% <strong>of</strong> timbers were found to have been cut, while no cut<br />

large timbers were detected. One fresh cut pole was detected (Table 17-f).<br />

Table 17-f Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR<br />

Total Total no. Total no. Average Total no. Average Total no. Average<br />

transect <strong>of</strong> indiv. (<strong>and</strong> % live indiv. (<strong>and</strong> % RA) dead (<strong>and</strong> % cut indiv.<br />

length sampled RA) <strong>of</strong> per ha <strong>of</strong> dead indiv. per RA) <strong>of</strong> cut per ha<br />

in m<br />

live indiv.<br />

indiv. ha indiv.<br />

Poles 1,900 1176 1007 (86) 530 98 (8) 5 71 (6) 37<br />

Timbers 1,900 292 238 (81) 125 43 (15) 23 11 (4) 6<br />

Large<br />

timbers<br />

1,900 6 6 (100) 3 0 (0) 0 0 (0) 0<br />

Fuel wood<br />

Interviews revealed that fuel wood is usually collected from dead trees <strong>and</strong> cashew nut<br />

(Anacardium occidentale) trees. From transects there appeared to be much potential fuel<br />

wood in the area (15% <strong>of</strong> all timbers were found to be dead) (Table 17-g).<br />

Tools <strong>and</strong> utensils<br />

Through discussion, several species were identified to be used for tool h<strong>and</strong>les <strong>and</strong> ropes<br />

(Table 17-g). We did not observe any evidence <strong>of</strong> bark ringing throughout the reserve.<br />

137


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Edible non-timber forest products<br />

Interviewees reported nine species as sources <strong>of</strong> food for the local communities (Table 17-g).<br />

Medicinal plants<br />

Thirteen plant species were identified by the residents as commonly utilised for medicinal<br />

purposes (Table 17-g, Appendix 11).<br />

Table 17-g Plant species utilised in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR as identified by field observations,<br />

structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussion. Local names, where known, are presented in<br />

Appendix 9<br />

Family Species Poles Timber Fuel Tools Ropes Food Medicine<br />

wood<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Sclerocarya birrea X X X<br />

ANNONACEAE Annona senegalensis X X X X<br />

APOCYNACEAE L<strong>and</strong>olphia buchananii X<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis myrtifolia<br />

X<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana X<br />

DIOSCOREACEAE Dioscorea hirtiflora<br />

X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Afzelia quanzensis X X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia microphylla X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia petersiana X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Swartzia madagascariensis X X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia gummifera X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia versicolor X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Dalbergia melanoxylon X X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus bussei X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus angolensis X X X X<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Flacourtia indica X X X X<br />

HYMENOCARDIA Hymenocardia ulmoides X X X X<br />

CEAE<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos cocculoides X X X X X<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos madagascariensis X<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos usambarensis X<br />

MORACEAE Ficus sur X X<br />

MORACEAE Milicia excelsa X X X<br />

MORACEAE Mesogyne insignis X X X<br />

RUBIACEAE Vangueria infausta X<br />

RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum chalybeum X<br />

SAPOTACEAE Bequaertiodendron natalense X X X<br />

STERCULIACEAE Cola greenwayi<br />

X<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex doniana X X X<br />

Hunting<br />

The people interviewed stated that no hunting takes place in the area. Our study located only<br />

one trap in the proposed reserve suggesting that hunting pressure is low.<br />

Management<br />

The local inhabitants <strong>of</strong> the area have an environmental committee that patrol the forest. A<br />

Forestry Officer visits the reserve once a month. It was not clear from structured interviews<br />

<strong>and</strong> open discussions why Mtuli Hinju proposed FR is regularly visited by a Forestry Officer<br />

while other studied reserves are not.<br />

138


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

DISCUSSION<br />

FLORA<br />

Mtuli Hinju proposed FR is mainly comprised <strong>of</strong> eastern African coastal Legume-dominated<br />

dry forest <strong>and</strong> affected from a relatively low degree <strong>of</strong> encroachment <strong>and</strong> timber extraction.<br />

The canopy layer is dominated by species from the Legume family such as Pterocarpus<br />

angolensis (subfamily Papilionideae) <strong>and</strong> Albizia versicolor, (subfamily Mimosoideae). A<br />

variation can be observed within this vegetation type according to the topography <strong>and</strong> edaphic<br />

conditions occurring within the reserve. In the valley, where moisture content is relatively<br />

high <strong>and</strong> deeper soils have developed, the forest looks comparatively denser, with a high<br />

number <strong>of</strong> shrubs <strong>and</strong> large trees from the Fabaceae family. On the slopes <strong>of</strong> the ridge, where<br />

soils are thinner, the forest is less dense <strong>and</strong> species from the Papilionaceae family appear,<br />

particularly Pterocarpus angolensis.<br />

Mtuli Hinju proposed FR was found to have the highest floral species richness (122 species)<br />

encountered in this study, with important species such as Mesogyne insignis (Vulnerable),<br />

Tetracera boiviniana, Erythrina schliebenii, Xylotheca tettensis, Rytigynia decussata <strong>and</strong><br />

Cola clavata (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Potentially Threatened), which is remarkable when considering<br />

the small size <strong>of</strong> this reserve (296ha). This species rich plant community probably reflects the<br />

relatively low levels <strong>of</strong> encroachment <strong>and</strong> timber extraction occurring in this reserve. The<br />

Shannon diversity index for this forest reserve (H¹=2.21) is relatively low in relation to the<br />

total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded. This reflects a stable community where the more<br />

competitive <strong>and</strong> productive species, particularly from the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layer, have<br />

reached high rates <strong>of</strong> population growth <strong>and</strong> have come to dominate (Magurran, 1988; Begon<br />

et al., 1996).<br />

Even though human disturbance was low when compared to other reserves studied, some<br />

degree <strong>of</strong> timber extraction <strong>and</strong> agricultural encroachment was observed. The small size <strong>of</strong><br />

this reserve (296ha) <strong>and</strong> the low regeneration capacity <strong>of</strong> Legume-dominated forest mean that<br />

the continuity <strong>of</strong> this forest is particularly threatened by human disturbance (Ndangalasi,<br />

1997). The seeds <strong>of</strong> the Fabaceae trees are heavy <strong>and</strong> not dispersed by wind or animal.<br />

Moreover, these seeds do not remain viable in the seed bank for long, do not tolerate<br />

desiccation, require a forest microclimate (shade <strong>and</strong> high-humidity) to germinate <strong>and</strong> are<br />

pyrophobic (Clarke, 2000). Therefore, the complete clearance <strong>of</strong> this forest type drastically<br />

lowers the chances <strong>of</strong> its regeneration on the same sites, which then can become dominated by<br />

more easily dispersed pioneer tree species characteristic <strong>of</strong> mixed dry forest <strong>and</strong> mixed scrub<br />

forest (Clarke, 2000). It is therefore important to protect this vulnerable <strong>and</strong> unique plant<br />

community.<br />

FAUNA<br />

The major importance <strong>of</strong> Mtuli Hinju proposed FR lies in its wetl<strong>and</strong>. This is a year-round<br />

source <strong>of</strong> water for many people in the surrounding area <strong>and</strong> hosts a number <strong>of</strong> bird,<br />

amphibian <strong>and</strong> reptile species. The overall low number <strong>of</strong> species (85) recorded was<br />

unexpected when considering that disturbance was amongst the lowest here, but may be<br />

reflective <strong>of</strong> the small size <strong>of</strong> this reserve (296ha) <strong>and</strong> low sampling intensity applied to it<br />

(Table 10-a).<br />

Small mammals<br />

For the small mammals the overall number <strong>of</strong> species captured was low (2), reflecting the<br />

small size <strong>of</strong> the reserve <strong>and</strong> the low sampling intensity applied to this reserve. The Spiny<br />

mouse (Acomys spinosissimus), a species that inhabits open <strong>and</strong> dry areas (Kingdon, 2006),<br />

was found to be dominant in areas <strong>of</strong> open grassl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> at the edges <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong> in <strong>and</strong><br />

139


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

around the reserve. Mastomys natalensis is known to frequent a variety <strong>of</strong> habitats <strong>and</strong> in<br />

Southern Tanzania is a recurrent member <strong>of</strong> the rodent community (Kingdon, 1974).<br />

Large mammals<br />

The small size <strong>of</strong> this reserve may limit its ability to support viable large mammal<br />

populations, <strong>and</strong> explains the low number <strong>of</strong> large mammal species (6) <strong>and</strong> individuals<br />

recorded (no one species was recorded on more than two separate occasions). The finding <strong>of</strong><br />

the Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei), a species listed as Vulnerable (IUCN,<br />

2004), confirms the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> to be a globally important area for this genus, closely<br />

followed by the Eastern Arc Mountains (Burgess et al., 2000a). Rhynchocyon species are<br />

forest-dwellers that rely on dense vegetation cover to produce the thick leaf litter they require<br />

for foraging <strong>and</strong> nest construction (Rathbun, 2005). R. cirnei may therefore become locally<br />

threatened should further habitat destruction ensue. The South African bushbaby (Galago<br />

moholi - CITES II) is an arboreal species usually found in the semiarid scrub woodl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong><br />

savanna grassl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> central southern Africa (Alvarado, 2000). In Mtuli Hinju G. moholi was<br />

found in patches <strong>of</strong> closed-canopy forest, especially in the valleys, therefore indicating a<br />

range extension <strong>of</strong> this species in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> southern Tanzania. The Striped bush<br />

squirrel (Paraxerus flavovittis) <strong>and</strong> the Mutable sun squirrel (Heliosciurus mutabilis) were<br />

found in their preferred habitat, i.e. in areas <strong>of</strong> open grassl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> at the edges <strong>of</strong> cultivated<br />

l<strong>and</strong> in <strong>and</strong> around the reserve. The Lion (Panthera leo - Vulnerable, CITES II) occasionally<br />

pass through the forest but its presence has allegedly reduced in recent years. This may be due<br />

to an increase in human population <strong>and</strong> disturbance in the area. Populations <strong>of</strong> the Blue<br />

Duiker (Cephalophus monticola - CITES II) will be the most adversely affected if further<br />

human disturbance ensues, given the dependency <strong>of</strong> this species on a closed-canopy forest<br />

habitat.<br />

Birds<br />

The number <strong>of</strong> species recorded was relatively low (56), <strong>and</strong> only two forest dependent<br />

species, the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis) <strong>and</strong> the Blue-mantled crested flycatcher<br />

(Trochocercus cyanomelas), were found. These findings may reflect the small size <strong>of</strong> this<br />

reserve (296ha) as well as the low sampling intensity <strong>of</strong> the study in this reserve (Table 10-a).<br />

However, the importance <strong>of</strong> Mtuli Hinju proposed FR for birds lies in its large wetl<strong>and</strong>, on<br />

which four species were detected that were not found elsewhere during this study: the Whitefaced<br />

whistling-duck (Dendrocygna viduata), the African pygmy-goose (Nettapus auritus),<br />

the African jacana (Actophilornis africanus) <strong>and</strong> the Black crake (Amaurornis flavirostris).<br />

Reptiles<br />

Mtuli Hinju proposed FR hosts a water body, is largely covered by forest <strong>and</strong> is relatively free<br />

from disturbance; consequently, it would be expected to host a significant number <strong>of</strong> species<br />

<strong>and</strong> individuals. Instead, only the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus - CITES II) was recorded,<br />

which is a common species known to frequent any suitable water source (Spawls et al., 2002).<br />

The very low species richness recorded may be reflective <strong>of</strong> the low sampling intensity<br />

applied to this reserve (Table 10-a), as well as a consequence <strong>of</strong> the continuous disturbance by<br />

people collecting water from the spring.<br />

Amphibians<br />

For the amphibians the number <strong>of</strong> species (6) <strong>and</strong> individuals (10) captured was low. All<br />

species, with the exception <strong>of</strong> Leptopelis flavomaculatus, occurred around the water source,<br />

where dense vegetation <strong>and</strong> moist humus soil create an ideal breeding ground (Howell, 1993).<br />

Apart from the Yellow-spotted tree frog (Leptopelis flavomaculatus) <strong>and</strong> the Spotted reed<br />

frog (Hyperolius punticulatus), the majority <strong>of</strong> the species captured are non-forest dwelling<br />

(e.g. Afrixalus fornasinii <strong>and</strong> Ptychadena mossambica) (Schiotz, 1999; Channing, 2001). The<br />

intrusion into forested areas by species that normally inhabit transient open habitats is known<br />

140


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

to be a recurrent characteristic encouraged by the heterogeneous pattern <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest<br />

Mosaic, whereby such species continue breeding in their open habitat but enter the enclosed<br />

habitat for refuge, especially during dry periods (Poynton, 2000). Many species recorded are<br />

water dependent, therefore the quality <strong>of</strong> the water source <strong>and</strong> the forest cover protecting it<br />

are vital to their continued presence.<br />

Butterflies<br />

For the butterflies there was a low number <strong>of</strong> species (11) recorded from an average number<br />

<strong>of</strong> individuals (52) captured. The low species richness observed cannot be linked to the<br />

structure <strong>of</strong> the plant community found here, since the Legume-dominated dry forest<br />

dominant in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR is characterised by a relatively dense understory,<br />

especially in the valleys, <strong>and</strong> affected by a relatively low degree <strong>of</strong> deforestation (see Flora<br />

section). The low species richness observed is therefore probably a consequence <strong>of</strong> the small<br />

size <strong>of</strong> this reserve <strong>and</strong> short period <strong>of</strong> time spent studying it (Kiell<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Cordeiro, 2000)<br />

(Table 10-a). These factors may also explain why only two forest dependent species were<br />

recorded the Silver striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti) <strong>and</strong> the Common sailor (Neptis<br />

alta). Over 50% <strong>of</strong> the total numbers <strong>of</strong> individuals were represented by the Golden piper<br />

(Eurytela dryope angulata). This species is particularly attracted to banana bait used by this<br />

study (Larsen, 1996) so the number caught may actually misrepresent its dominance within<br />

the butterfly community found here. Charaxes lasti lasti is particularly worth <strong>of</strong> notice as it is<br />

endemic to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Congdon <strong>and</strong> Bampton, 2005).<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Overall, human disturbance was relatively low in Mtuli Hinju with respect to encroachment,<br />

timber extraction <strong>and</strong> hunting, <strong>and</strong> this reserve was one <strong>of</strong> the few where efforts were made<br />

by local inhabitants to manage it in a sustainable way. The inhabitants <strong>of</strong> the areas viewed the<br />

protection <strong>of</strong> the forest positively as its presence is vital for the persistence <strong>of</strong> the water<br />

supply, relied upon by a large number <strong>of</strong> villagers. However, some degree <strong>of</strong> timber<br />

extraction <strong>and</strong> agricultural encroachment was observed in areas in <strong>and</strong> around the reserve.<br />

The small size <strong>of</strong> this reserve (296ha) <strong>and</strong> the low regeneration capacity <strong>of</strong> its Legumedominated<br />

forest mean that this forest <strong>and</strong> its water source are particularly vulnerable to<br />

human disturbance. Therefore, conservation efforts to protect them need to be sustained <strong>and</strong><br />

supported.<br />

141


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

18. MAKONDE SCARP III PROPOSED FOREST<br />

RESERVE<br />

Status<br />

Management body<br />

Location<br />

Area<br />

Altitude<br />

Topography<br />

Temperature<br />

Rainfall<br />

Soil type<br />

Vegetation type<br />

L<strong>and</strong> Use<br />

History <strong>and</strong> Status<br />

Proposed Forest Reserve<br />

Central Government<br />

T<strong>and</strong>ahimba district. West <strong>of</strong> Lidumbe <strong>and</strong> Mcholi villages.<br />

1,434.7ha<br />

340-435m asl<br />

Lowl<strong>and</strong> plain <strong>and</strong> gentle lower slope<br />

Min: 18 o C, Max: 28 o C (recorded 25-29 June, dry season)<br />

Average 1.6mm (recorded 25-29 June, dry season)<br />

S<strong>and</strong>y-loam<br />

Eastern African Brachystegia coastal forest <strong>and</strong> Thicket<br />

The reserve was proposed to prevent soil erosion on the plateau <strong>and</strong><br />

scarp <strong>and</strong> to protect the water source <strong>and</strong> catchment. Crops are grown<br />

in the reserve, fuel wood <strong>and</strong> poles are extracted on a subsistence<br />

level <strong>and</strong> hunting occurs.<br />

Signs <strong>of</strong> destruction on the escarpment were noticed <strong>and</strong> documented<br />

in the 1940’s (Maganga, 2004). Makonde Scarp III was agreed to be<br />

a proposed forest reserve in 1976, the same year as funding for<br />

boundary beacons was made available. In 1977 some residents were<br />

moved from the escarpment <strong>and</strong> relocated. In 1980 complaints by<br />

people who had been moved <strong>of</strong>f their original properties were<br />

acknowledged, concluding that Tsh 40 million was needed for<br />

compensation. Compensation <strong>of</strong> Tsh 1.7 million was made available<br />

to Masasi District in 1983 <strong>and</strong> 1984 but no subsidies were made<br />

available to Newala <strong>and</strong> T<strong>and</strong>ahimba districts. Presently the site is<br />

not yet fully gazetted <strong>and</strong> there are no boundary markers. There is no<br />

142


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

staff, effective capacity or resources to enforce protected area<br />

legislation <strong>and</strong> regulations.<br />

Maps Topographical map: Newala sheet 306/4, East Africa 1:50 000, 1968.<br />

From the Institute <strong>of</strong> Mapping, Dar es Salaam (from Series Y742,<br />

Edition 1-TSD).<br />

METHODS<br />

Survey work was conducted over seven days (23-29 June 2005). Nine vegetation plots<br />

(3600m 2 ), nine regeneration plots (36m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> one zoosite were carried out, incorporating 200<br />

sherman trapping nights, 50 bucket trapping nights, 4.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna<br />

searches, 18 man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed bird searches, 15 canopy trapping days, 4.5 butterfly sweep<br />

net/hours, three animal sign transects (totalling 12,000m 2 ), three disturbance transects<br />

(totalling 30,000m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> opportunistic observations (see Appendices 2 to 8 for GPS<br />

coordinates <strong>and</strong> work site descriptions). Ornithological work was conducted on separate days<br />

(28-30 June 2005). Bird mist netting was not conducted in this reserve as the camp was<br />

located some distance from the escarpment <strong>and</strong> in order to avoid theft nets could not be left<br />

unattended. No bat mist netting was conducted due to the alleged presence <strong>of</strong> large predators.<br />

Habitat notes were taken for vegetation plots (Appendices 4 <strong>and</strong> 5) <strong>and</strong> zoological trap sites<br />

(Appendix 6). Structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions were arranged with three elders<br />

from Lidumbe village but they failed to attend. For a detailed break down <strong>of</strong> survey effort see<br />

Table 10-a.<br />

RESULTS<br />

In Makonde Scarp III proposed FR 90 plant species were recorded from 17 families. Nine<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> floral species are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato<br />

<strong>and</strong> 12% are listed as threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke,<br />

2006) (Table 18-a; Appendices 9 <strong>and</strong> 10).<br />

Ninety-three faunal species belonging to 46 families were recorded. Of these species 10% are<br />

forest dependent, 1% are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc<br />

Mountains <strong>and</strong> none are listed as threatened by IUCN (2004) <strong>and</strong>/or CITES (2005) (Table 18-<br />

a; Appendices 13-17).<br />

143


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 18-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Makonde Scarp III Proposed FR<br />

Taxa No. <strong>of</strong><br />

families<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

species c<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

forest<br />

dependent<br />

species d<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

widespread<br />

species<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> strictly<br />

endemic<br />

species:<br />

e <strong>and</strong> f<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

threatened<br />

species:<br />

g <strong>and</strong> h<br />

Mammals 10 13 1 12 0* 0 -<br />

Birds a 27 49 2 47 0 0 -<br />

Reptiles 3 5 0 5 0 0 -<br />

Amphibians 2 3 0 3 0 0 -<br />

Butterflies 4 23 6 17 1 0 -<br />

Total for 46 93 9 84 1 0 -<br />

animals<br />

Flora b 17 90 0 72 8 2 9<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

PT<br />

species i<br />

Combined<br />

Total<br />

63 183 9 156 9 2 9<br />

a - Includes birds seen on the forest boundary edge<br />

b - All trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses <strong>and</strong> ferns<br />

c - Includes information collected from all systematic survey work, opportunistic observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions<br />

d - Species dependent on <strong>and</strong> associated with primary or closed-canopy forest, not forest edge or secondary forest<br />

e - Faunal species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone or the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a), sometimes being found also in other habitats in a few adjacent locations (e.g.<br />

Masasi District in S Tanzania, N Mozambique etc.)<br />

f - Floral species restricted to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

g - Species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable (VU) in the IUCN Red List<br />

(IUCN, 2004)<br />

h - Species listed in CITES Appendix I as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade<br />

(CITES, 2005)<br />

i - Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

*The identification <strong>of</strong> Crocidura sp. may increase this number. We await verification<br />

FLORA<br />

In Makonde scarp III proposed FR two homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>s were observed, which<br />

were recognised as Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong> Thicket <strong>and</strong> interspersed by cultivated <strong>and</strong> fallow<br />

farml<strong>and</strong>.<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> diversity<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 90 species were recorded. Out <strong>of</strong> these, 23 species were found in nine vegetation<br />

plots <strong>and</strong> 28 species were recorded in nine regeneration plots. The other 39 species were<br />

recorded from opportunistic collection made within the reserve. More specifically, 35 trees,<br />

36 shrubs, 12 herbs <strong>and</strong> seven grasses were recorded (Appendix 9). A value <strong>of</strong> 2.75 was<br />

calculated for the Shannon diversity index.<br />

• Species dominance<br />

Within the eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest Brachystegia microphylla was the<br />

dominant species at the canopy level, occurring in 57% <strong>of</strong> the plots. Other frequent species<br />

included Julbernardia globiflora, Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia <strong>and</strong> Pteleopsis<br />

myrtifolia, all occurring in about 43% <strong>of</strong> the plots (Table 18-b).<br />

144


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 18-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy<br />

layer in Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF<br />

(Domina<br />

nce)<br />

Rank No.<br />

dominance indv.<br />

in all<br />

plots<br />

%RA Rank<br />

RA<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia microphylla 4 57 1 15 21 1<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Julbernardia globiflora 3 43 2 5 7 2<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia 3 43 2 4 6 3<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis myrtifolia 3 43 2 4 6 3<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Hymenaea verrucosa 2 29 3 4 6 3<br />

Total 1 3 5 5 32 46<br />

Total 2 5 8 11 39 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

The sub canopy layer was dominated by Diplorhynchus condylocarpon, occurring in 57% <strong>of</strong><br />

the plots (Table 18-c).<br />

Table 18-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy<br />

layer in Brachystegia forest in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF Rank No.<br />

(Domina dominance indv.<br />

nce)<br />

In all<br />

plots<br />

%R.A Rank<br />

RA<br />

APOCYNACEAE Diplorhynchus condylocarpon 4 57 1 6 29 1<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Sorindeia madagascariensis 2 29 2 4 19 2<br />

RUBIACEAE Crossopteryx febrifuga 2 29 2 2 9 3<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Afzelia quanzensis 1 14 3 1 5 4<br />

BIGNONIACEAE Markhamia obtusifolia 1 14 3 1 5 4<br />

Total 1 5 5 5 14 67<br />

Total 2 13 19 21 21 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

Dominance was not analysed for Thicket, as thickets do not comprise canopy <strong>and</strong> sub-canopy<br />

layers.<br />

• Species relative abundance<br />

In the canopy layer 21% <strong>of</strong> the trees recorded were individuals from Brachystegia<br />

microphylla, 7% were individuals from Julbernardia globiflora, while Pseudolachnostylis<br />

maprouneifolia, Pteleopsis myrtifolia <strong>and</strong> Hymenaea verrucosa made 6% each (Table 18-b).<br />

In the sub canopy layer Diplorhynchus condylocarpon contributed 29% <strong>of</strong> all individuals,<br />

Sorindeia madagascariensis 19%, Crossopteryx febrifuga 9%, <strong>and</strong> Afzelia quanzensis <strong>and</strong><br />

Markhamia obtusifolia about 5% each (Table 18-c).<br />

145


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

When looking at the overall number <strong>of</strong> trees recorded in both the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy<br />

layers, the canopy layer contributed a slightly higher number <strong>of</strong> individuals (54%) than the<br />

sub canopy layer (46%) to the overall number <strong>of</strong> adult trees in this reserve.<br />

• Species composition <strong>and</strong> vegetation types<br />

Makonde scarp III is comprised <strong>of</strong> two homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>s, whose species<br />

composition <strong>and</strong> relative abundance confirmed to be eastern African coastal Brachystegia<br />

forest (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000) <strong>and</strong> Thicket.<br />

The species composition <strong>of</strong> the coastal Brachystegia forest was characterised by Brachystegia<br />

microphylla from the canopy layer <strong>and</strong> Diplorhynchus condylocarpon from the sub canopy<br />

layer as dominant species, making 15% <strong>and</strong> 29% <strong>of</strong> their respective layers. Other species<br />

occurring in the canopy layer included Julbernardia globiflora, Pseudolachnostylis<br />

maprouneifolia <strong>and</strong> Pteleopsis myrtifolia, which ranked as frequent, <strong>and</strong> Albizia amara,<br />

Sterculia appendiculata, Milicia excelsa, Pterocarpus angolensis <strong>and</strong> Hymenaea verrucosa.<br />

The sub canopy layer also included Sorindeia madagascariensis, Crossopteryx febrifuga,<br />

Afzelia quanzensis, Markhamia obtusifolia, Vangueria infausta, Markhamia acuminata,<br />

Commiphora africana, Sclerocarya birrea <strong>and</strong> Bauhinia petersiana.<br />

The shrub layer was observed to be comprised <strong>of</strong> shrub species such as Combretum<br />

hereroense, Combretum zeyheri, Securidaca longipedunculata, Salacia madagascariensis,<br />

Antiaris toxicaria, Monotes africanus, Monodora junodii, Antidesma venosum, Grewia<br />

lepidopetala, Ochna holstii, Strychnos madagascariensis, Flacourtia indica <strong>and</strong> Croton<br />

pseudopulchellus.<br />

The herbaceous layer was comprised <strong>of</strong> grasses, particularly Sporobolus sp., Themeda<br />

tri<strong>and</strong>ra, together with herbs such as Dicoma tomentosa, Jussiaea repens, Crotalaria sp.,<br />

Maerua sp., Tephrosia sp., Hypoestes sp. <strong>and</strong> Jasminum sp.<br />

In Thicket shrubs such as Securidaca longipedunculata, Antiaris toxicaria <strong>and</strong> Monotes<br />

africanus were recorded.<br />

• Endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Eight <strong>of</strong> the species found were endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato, including<br />

Cussonia zimmermannii, Bombax rhodognaphalon, Tetracera boiviniana, Scorodophloeus<br />

fischeri, Xylotheca tettensis, Sterculia appendiculata, Grewia lepidopetala <strong>and</strong> Aframomum<br />

orientale (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000) (Appendix 10) <strong>and</strong> this amounted to 9% <strong>of</strong> the total<br />

number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (Figure 15).<br />

9%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

91%<br />

Figure 15 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR<br />

146


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Eleven among the species recorded are threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially threatened<br />

(Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006), amounting to 12% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (Table<br />

18-d).<br />

Table 18-d Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Makonde Scarp III proposed<br />

FR<br />

Family Species name Conservation Habit<br />

status<br />

ARALIACEAE Cussonia zimmermannii PT T<br />

BOMBACACEAE Bombax rhodognaphalon PT T<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana PT S/T<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Drypetes natalensis PT S/T<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia abbreviata PT S<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Scorodophloeus fischeri PT T<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Xylotheca tettensis PT S<br />

MELIACEAE Khaya anthotheca VU T<br />

MORACEAE Mesogyne insignis VU S/T<br />

RUBIACEAE Lasianthus kilim<strong>and</strong>scharicus PT S/T<br />

ZINGIBERACEAE Aframomum orientale PT H<br />

PT = Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

T= Tree, S= Shrub, B= Bamboo, C= Climber, H= Herb<br />

FAUNA<br />

Although the identification <strong>of</strong> about 90% <strong>of</strong> the species recorded is certain, the identification<br />

<strong>of</strong> a few specimens remains tentative whilst awaiting taxonomic verification.<br />

Mammals<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 13 mammals representing 10 families were recorded (Appendix 13).<br />

For the small mammals five species representing three families were recorded from 24<br />

captures (not counting three recaptures) that took place during 200 sherman trapping nights<br />

<strong>and</strong> 50 bucket pitfall trapping nights. Species commonly found were the Spiny mouse<br />

(Acomys spinosissimus), making up 67% <strong>of</strong> the total capture, the Multimammate rat<br />

(Mastomys natalensis) <strong>and</strong> the Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei). Beamys hindei was<br />

recorded in traps located in relatively undisturbed forest. Two species <strong>of</strong> the White-toothed<br />

shrew (Crocidura sp.) were also recorded (Appendix 18).<br />

No bat mist netting was conducted in this proposed reserve as the game guard was unwilling<br />

to work at night due to the alleged presence <strong>of</strong> the Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Leopard (Panthera pardus).<br />

For the larger mammals, eight species representing seven families were recorded during sign<br />

transects totalling 3km, through opportunistic observations <strong>and</strong> local knowledge. Species<br />

included the Greater galago (Otolemur crassicaudatus) <strong>and</strong> the Moloney’s monkey<br />

(Cercopithecus mitis sub sp.). Vocalisations <strong>and</strong> signs <strong>of</strong> the Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta)<br />

were recorded every day during the survey.<br />

147


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

One species was found to be forest dependent, although many others <strong>of</strong>ten frequent <strong>and</strong> some<br />

favour a forested habitat. None <strong>of</strong> the species recorded are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains, yet one species has a restricted distribution in eastern<br />

Africa. None <strong>of</strong> the species found is listed as threatened (Table 18-e).<br />

Table 18-e Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Makonde Scarp III<br />

proposed FR<br />

Species<br />

Common Forest dependent Endemic Threatened<br />

name<br />

Cercopithecus mitis Moloney’s F - -<br />

(sub sp.)<br />

Beamys hindei<br />

monkey<br />

Lesser pouched<br />

rat<br />

- EACF, a few other<br />

forest types in<br />

<strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania<br />

F= Forest dependent or specialist (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CF= species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF= species with limited ranges in the Eastern<br />

Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

-<br />

Birds<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

All 49 species, representing 27 families, were recorded from 18 man/hours <strong>of</strong> bird searches.<br />

Mist netting was not conducted in this reserve as the camp had to be located at a distance<br />

from the reserve <strong>and</strong> in order to avoid theft nets could be left unattended. Among the species<br />

found were the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis), the Livingstone’s flycatcher<br />

(Erythrocercus livingstonei) <strong>and</strong> the Pale batis (Batis soror) (Appendix 14).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Two forest dependent species, the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis) <strong>and</strong> the Bluemantled<br />

crested flycatcher (Trochocercus cyanomelas) were recorded. No strictly endemic or<br />

threatened species were found.<br />

Reptiles<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Five species <strong>of</strong> reptiles representing three families were recorded from six captures that took<br />

place during 50 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 4.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological searches.<br />

Species recorded included the Mozambique vine snake (Thelotornis mossambicanus), two<br />

species <strong>of</strong> S<strong>and</strong> snake (Psammophis orientalis <strong>and</strong> P. mossambicus) <strong>and</strong> the Mozambique<br />

agama (Agama mossambica) (Appendices 15 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No species were found to be forest dependent, strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Amphibians<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Three species <strong>of</strong> amphibians representing two families were recorded from 20 captures that<br />

took place during 50 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 4.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological<br />

searches. Species were identified as Arthroleptis xenodactyloides (accounting for 80% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

capture), Arthroleptis stenodactylus <strong>and</strong> Bufo maculatus (Appendices 16 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

148


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Even though Arthroleptis sp. favour forest habitats, no forest dependent species were<br />

observed. None <strong>of</strong> the species recorded are strictly endemic. Arthroleptis xenodactyloides is<br />

listed as Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004).<br />

Butterflies<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Twenty-three species <strong>of</strong> butterfly representing four families were recorded from 27 captures<br />

that took place during 30 canopy trapping days <strong>and</strong> 4.5 sweep net/hours (Appendix 17). The<br />

Silver striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti) was the most common species accounting for<br />

15% <strong>of</strong> all captures.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Eight species from the family Nymphalidae are forest dependent: the Silver striped charaxes<br />

(Charaxes lasti lasti), the Flame bordered charaxes (C. protoclea azota), Cymothoe herminia,<br />

the Gold b<strong>and</strong>ed forester (Euphaedra neophron littoralis), the Forest queen (Euxanthe<br />

wakefieldi), a Glider species (Harma theobene blassi), the Common sailor (Neptis alta) <strong>and</strong><br />

the B<strong>and</strong>ed evening brown (Gnophodes betsimena diversa). One species, Charaxes lasti lasti,<br />

is endemic to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania. No butterfly species were found to be threatened.<br />

Fauna’s strict endemism<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the faunal species recorded in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR is endemic to the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains.<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Through disturbance transects the levels <strong>of</strong> pole cutting, fire damage, path densities <strong>and</strong> other<br />

forms <strong>of</strong> disturbance were recorded. Of the sixty 50m sections carried out none were found to<br />

be free <strong>of</strong> disturbance. Fifty-two (87%) showed evidence <strong>of</strong> pole cutting, 13 (22%) contained<br />

paths, 18 (30%) showed signs <strong>of</strong> fire damage <strong>and</strong> 26 (43%) contained cultivated l<strong>and</strong>. No<br />

traps were located (Figure 16). In Makonde Scarp III it was not possible to meet with village<br />

elders <strong>and</strong> therefore no conclusive evidence on medicinal or food plants was obtained, nor on<br />

what species are used for fuel wood or for making utensils. Our field data allowed us to infer<br />

which species are used for timber extraction <strong>and</strong> rope making (Table 18-g).<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections affected<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

Cutting Fire Paths Cultivation<br />

Disturbance category<br />

Figure 16 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 60) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR<br />

149


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Agricultural encroachment<br />

A large number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (43%) contained cultivated l<strong>and</strong> (Figure 16). Cattle <strong>and</strong> goats<br />

were seen to be grazing within the reserve on a number <strong>of</strong> occasions <strong>and</strong> some inhabitants<br />

were observed in the process <strong>of</strong> felling trees to create arable l<strong>and</strong>.<br />

Poles <strong>and</strong> timbers<br />

Disturbance transects revealed that 16 species are used for poles <strong>and</strong> timbers in Makonde<br />

Scarp III (Table 18-g). No currently active or old pit sawing sites were recorded.<br />

• Relative abundance <strong>and</strong> average no. <strong>of</strong> live, dead <strong>and</strong> cut individuals per ha<br />

The level <strong>of</strong> pole cutting (37%) is the highest <strong>of</strong> any reserve surveyed in this study.<br />

Approximately 15% <strong>of</strong> both timbers <strong>and</strong> large timbers recorded were cut. Furthermore, the<br />

study detected the largest number <strong>of</strong> fresh cut poles <strong>of</strong> any study site (6% <strong>of</strong> all cuts). No<br />

fresh cut timbers or large timbers were detected (Table 18-f).<br />

Table 18-f Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR<br />

Total<br />

transect<br />

length<br />

in m<br />

Total no.<br />

<strong>of</strong> indiv.<br />

sampled<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> %<br />

RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> live<br />

indiv.<br />

Average<br />

live indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> %<br />

RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> dead<br />

indiv.<br />

Average<br />

dead<br />

indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Total no.<br />

(<strong>and</strong> %<br />

RA)<br />

<strong>of</strong> cut<br />

indiv.<br />

Poles 3,000 1245 679 (55) 226 104 (8) 5 462 (37) 12<br />

Timbers 3,000 396 261 (66) 87 77 (19) 26 58 (15) 3<br />

Large<br />

timbers<br />

3,000 7 6 (86) 2 0 (0) 0 1 (14) 0.3<br />

Average<br />

cut indiv.<br />

per ha<br />

Fuel wood<br />

Due to the lack <strong>of</strong> a meeting with village representatives, definitive information on which<br />

species are used for fuel wood is not available. It is likely that the patterns <strong>of</strong> use here are<br />

similar to those <strong>of</strong> other sites in this study.<br />

Tools <strong>and</strong> utensils<br />

Due to the lack <strong>of</strong> a meeting with village representatives, definitive information on which<br />

species are used for making utensils is not available. It is likely that the patterns <strong>of</strong> use here<br />

are similar to those <strong>of</strong> other sites in this study. Although no ringed trees were detected along<br />

the transects some were observed through opportunistic observations, showing that ropes are<br />

made from several different tree species (Table 18-g).<br />

Edible non-timber forest products<br />

See Fuel wood.<br />

Medicinal plants<br />

Again, the lack <strong>of</strong> a meeting with the village elders means that information on the use <strong>of</strong><br />

species for medicinal purposes is not available. It is likely that the species used here are<br />

similar to those in other sites in this study (Appendix 11).<br />

150


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 18-g Plant species utilised in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR as identified by field<br />

observations only. Local names, where known, are presented in Appendix 9<br />

Family Species Poles Timber Fuel Tools Ropes Food Medicine<br />

wood<br />

ANNONACEAE Annona senegalensis X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Afzelia quanzensis X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia X<br />

microphylla<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia petersiana X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Hymenaea<br />

X<br />

verrucosa<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia gummifera X X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Albizia versicolor X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP)<br />

FABACEAE (PAP)<br />

Dalbergia<br />

melanoxylon<br />

Lonchocarpus bussei X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus<br />

angolensis<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Flacourtia indica<br />

HYMENOCARDIACE Hymenocardia<br />

AE<br />

ulmoides<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos cocculoidesX<br />

MELIACEAE Khaya anthotheca X X<br />

MORACEAE Mesogyne insignis X X X<br />

MORACEAE Milicia excelsa X<br />

RUBIACEAE Vangueria infausta X<br />

SAPOTACEAE<br />

Bequaertiodendron<br />

natalense<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

Hunting<br />

No traps were detected in the disturbance transects, but three traps for small birds were<br />

observed on an opportunistic basis, although it is unclear as to which species they were being<br />

targeted.<br />

Management<br />

Makonde Scarp III proposed FR is only proposed therefore no <strong>of</strong>ficial management plan is in<br />

place <strong>and</strong> no policing <strong>of</strong> the reserve boundaries is conducted.<br />

DISCUSSION<br />

FLORA<br />

In Makonde Scarp III proposed FR a large proportion <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong> has been converted into<br />

cultivated <strong>and</strong> fallow farml<strong>and</strong> or has turned into Thicket. Only small pockets <strong>of</strong> relatively<br />

undisturbed eastern African coastal Brachystegia forest are left. These are characterised by a<br />

closed-canopy <strong>and</strong> relatively dense understory; one <strong>of</strong> these pockets <strong>of</strong> forest (approx. 50 x<br />

50m) is concentrated around a spring in the interior <strong>of</strong> the reserve, <strong>and</strong> the others are nestled<br />

in small valleys. Thicket has resulted from the practice <strong>of</strong> shifting cultivation, where farml<strong>and</strong><br />

151


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

is left fallow for at least seven years <strong>and</strong> gets covered by woody Thicket that is then cleared<br />

again (Gillman, 1954).<br />

In Makonde Scarp III proposed FR the high proportion <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong> comprising the<br />

reserve <strong>and</strong> the high degree <strong>of</strong> timber extraction account for the relatively low number <strong>of</strong><br />

species found (90). The Shannon diversity index for this forest reserve is moderate (H¹=2.75),<br />

reflecting a community in succession (Magurran, 1988) where a relatively high number <strong>of</strong><br />

species, <strong>and</strong> particularly understory species, can colonise the area <strong>and</strong> reach high rates <strong>of</strong><br />

population growth following the removal <strong>of</strong> more competitive canopy trees (Ndangalasi,<br />

1997). If this forest could be allowed to fully regenerate, <strong>and</strong> canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy species<br />

to achieve their potential population size, then the species diversity would be expected to<br />

decline.<br />

However, human activities, such as the cultivation <strong>of</strong> maize <strong>and</strong> the cutting <strong>of</strong> poles, have<br />

continued to interrupt the regeneration <strong>of</strong> this forest from degraded to fully developed Eastern<br />

African coastal Brachystegia forest. These activities also threaten some important plant<br />

species present here, such as Khaya anthotheca <strong>and</strong> Mesogyne insignis (Vulnerable).<br />

FAUNA<br />

Overall low numbers <strong>of</strong> faunal species (93), including forest dependent <strong>and</strong> endemic species,<br />

were recorded, reflecting the fact that large sections <strong>of</strong> the reserve have been converted into<br />

farml<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> are disturbed by timber extraction <strong>and</strong> fire, factors that have decreased the<br />

extent <strong>of</strong> suitable habitat <strong>and</strong> ecological requirements (e.g. prey, shelter) available to animal<br />

species (Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996) (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management<br />

section).<br />

Small mammals<br />

For the small mammals the overall number <strong>of</strong> species captured was low (5), reflecting the<br />

high incidence <strong>of</strong> deforestation for timber <strong>and</strong> agriculture in this reserve (see Human<br />

Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management section) <strong>and</strong> the open <strong>and</strong> dry habitat resulting from it<br />

(Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996). The dominance <strong>of</strong> the Spiny mouse (Acomys<br />

spinosissimus), which made up over two-thirds <strong>of</strong> the captures, reflects this open <strong>and</strong> dry<br />

habitat. The Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei - near threatened) captured here is a relic<br />

species endemic to a few forest types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania, including the coastal <strong>and</strong><br />

montane forests <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot. Until very recently it was regarded as one <strong>of</strong> the rarest<br />

rodents in Africa (Groombridge, 1994) but it is now known to be more widespread (Burgess<br />

& Clark 2000). In Makonde Scarp III this species was found only in small pockets <strong>of</strong><br />

Brachystegia forest, <strong>and</strong> this emphasises its vulnerability to further habitat degradation<br />

(Kingdon 1993). Two species <strong>of</strong> the White-toothed shrew (Crocidura sp.) were found. The<br />

shrews <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania are poorly known <strong>and</strong> already there are five<br />

unidentified species that have been collected from the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, each from<br />

a separate forest (Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000). It is likely that shrews collected from this survey<br />

will yield interesting results once taxonomic verification is accomplished.<br />

Large mammals<br />

For the large mammals a low number <strong>of</strong> species (8) was recorded <strong>and</strong> no one species was<br />

recorded more than twice. The low number <strong>of</strong> individuals for all species recorded is probably<br />

caused by a significant degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance in this reserve (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong><br />

Local Management), a factor that has decreased the extent <strong>of</strong> suitable habitat <strong>and</strong> ecological<br />

requirements (e.g. prey, shelter) necessary to support larger populations. The Moloney’s<br />

monkey (Cercopithecus mitis sub sp. - CITES II) is forest dependent, <strong>and</strong> given the small size<br />

<strong>of</strong> suitable habitat remaining in this reserve this primate may be locally threatened. The<br />

152


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Greater galago (Otolemur crassicaudatus - CITES II) was found to frequent cultivated l<strong>and</strong>;<br />

however, this species generally favours denser vegetation, so populations <strong>of</strong> this species may<br />

also be affected by encroachment <strong>and</strong> degradation. The Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta -<br />

conservation dependent) appeared to frequent the steep rocky parts <strong>of</strong> the escarpment close to<br />

cultivated l<strong>and</strong>. Being an opportunist, this species was observed to have adapted well to<br />

changes in its environment, e.g. by preying on goats from nearby villages. Nevertheless, any<br />

further reduction in habitat will reduce the presence <strong>of</strong> this species in this reserve, as<br />

populations <strong>of</strong> predated wild animals decrease <strong>and</strong> conflict with man increases.<br />

Birds<br />

Makonde Scarp III proposed FR constitutes part <strong>of</strong> the Newala District <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> IBA<br />

(TZ053 - category A1) (BirdLife International, 2005) because <strong>of</strong> the previously recorded<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> more than a threshold population <strong>of</strong> the Southern b<strong>and</strong>ed snake eagle (Circaetus<br />

fasciolatus), a species categorized by the IUCN Red List (2004) as near threatened. C.<br />

fasciolatus was not recorded in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR during this study, nor were<br />

other IUCN threatened species. However, C. fasciolatus was recorded in adjacent Makonde<br />

Scarp II proposed FR <strong>and</strong> is therefore likely to occur in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR. This<br />

reserve has been extensively transformed by timber extraction <strong>and</strong> encroachment from<br />

agricultural l<strong>and</strong> (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management section), which may be<br />

responsible for the lowest number <strong>of</strong> bird species recorded in all forest reserves (49), while<br />

the sparse understory in the small patches <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest remaining (see Flora section)<br />

is responsible for the low number <strong>of</strong> forest dependent species found (Mlingwa et al., 2000).<br />

Only the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis) <strong>and</strong> the Blue-mantled crested flycatcher<br />

(Trochocercus cyanomelas) were found to be forest dependant.<br />

Reptiles<br />

The low numbers <strong>of</strong> species (5) <strong>and</strong> individuals (6) captured may be a consequence <strong>of</strong> the<br />

rapid nature <strong>of</strong> this study, which did not permit comprehensive collection <strong>of</strong> data during the<br />

wet season <strong>and</strong> on fossorial species (Broadley <strong>and</strong> Howell, 2000). Conducting further<br />

research in the wet season may reveal more comprehensive results. However, low numbers<br />

may also reflect the largely open <strong>and</strong> dry environment that has resulted from high levels <strong>of</strong><br />

encroachment, timber extraction <strong>and</strong> burning in this reserve (Zullini, 2003; Begon et al.,<br />

1996) (See Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management section). All snakes were recorded<br />

along the banks <strong>of</strong> dry river beds throughout the reserve. A species <strong>of</strong> skink sighted in this<br />

reserve was recognised to resemble either the Rainbow Skink (Trachylepis margaritifer) or<br />

the Five-lined skink (Trachylepis quinquetaeniata). T. margaritifer is known to occur in<br />

central <strong>and</strong> south-eastern Tanzania (Spawls et al., 2002). T. quinquetaeniata has not been<br />

recorded south <strong>of</strong> the border with <strong>Kenya</strong>, apart from a record in Kwa Mtoro (north <strong>of</strong><br />

Dodoma) (Spawls et al., 2002), <strong>and</strong> its record in the Mtwara Region would therefore<br />

represent a range extension. Further research is needed to ascertain this.<br />

Amphibians<br />

For the amphibians a high number <strong>of</strong> individuals (20) representing three species were<br />

captured near to a spring where dense vegetation <strong>and</strong> moist humus soil create an ideal<br />

breeding ground (Howell, 1993). However, areas such as these are small <strong>and</strong> infrequent,<br />

which makes the species inhabiting them vulnerable to forest degradation. The Squeakers<br />

(Arthroleptis stenodactylus <strong>and</strong> A. xenodactyloides) accounted for over 80% <strong>of</strong> the captures.<br />

These species favour a forested habitat as they rely on the presence <strong>of</strong> damp soil <strong>and</strong> loose<br />

leaf mould protected from shrub <strong>and</strong> canopy cover to lay their eggs (Howell, 1993).<br />

Consequently, the Dwarf squeaker (Arthroleptis xenodactyloides) is listed as Vulnevable<br />

(IUCN, 2004) <strong>and</strong> both species may become locally threatened by further loss <strong>of</strong> forest<br />

habitat.<br />

153


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Butterflies<br />

There was a high number <strong>of</strong> butterfly species (23) relative to the number <strong>of</strong> individuals<br />

captured (27). Most butterfly species recorded are non-forest dwellers <strong>and</strong> this reflects the<br />

high degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance that has converted many parts <strong>of</strong> the forest into farml<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

Thicket. However, a number <strong>of</strong> forest dependent butterflies were recorded in the small<br />

patches <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest remaining, including the B<strong>and</strong>ed evening brown (Gnophodes<br />

betsimena diversa), the Silver striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti), the Flame bordered<br />

charaxes (C. protoclea azota), Cymothoe herminia, the Gold b<strong>and</strong>ed forester (Euphaedra<br />

neophron littoralis), the Forest queen (Euxanthe wakefieldi), a Glider species (Harma<br />

theobene blassi) <strong>and</strong> the Common sailor (Neptis alta). Charaxes lasti lasti is particularly<br />

important as it is endemic to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Congdon <strong>and</strong> Bampton, 2005). The dependence <strong>of</strong> these<br />

species on fragmented patches <strong>of</strong> forest makes them particularly vulnerable to the high level<br />

<strong>of</strong> disturbance occurring here.<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Makonde Scarp III was the most disturbed area surveyed during this study.<br />

The encroachment <strong>of</strong> agriculture within the reserve boundaries was the most severe form <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance recorded; it is not possible to walk far in the proposed reserve without crossing<br />

cultivated l<strong>and</strong>. Most <strong>of</strong> the farmers that were moved out when the area was proposed to be a<br />

reserve are now going back to their shambas (cultivated l<strong>and</strong>), in part because <strong>of</strong> the failure <strong>of</strong><br />

the government to fully compensate their relocation in new houses <strong>and</strong> farms (Baldus et al.,<br />

2004). The top <strong>of</strong> the escarpment has been largely transformed from Brachystegia forest into<br />

cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale) plantations, while rice <strong>and</strong> maize are grown on the<br />

slopes <strong>and</strong> the plain at the foot <strong>of</strong> the escarpment. Large areas <strong>of</strong> the slopes are also covered<br />

by Thicket, indicating that shifting agriculture is common practice <strong>and</strong> that undisturbed areas<br />

are likely to become threatened in the future.<br />

Notable about the disturbance patterns in Makonde Scarp III proposed FR was the high level<br />

<strong>of</strong> pole <strong>and</strong> timber cutting (37% <strong>and</strong> 15% <strong>of</strong> sections respectively). The extensive exploitation<br />

<strong>of</strong> certain preferred species, such as the African teak (Pterocarpus angolensis), the Snake<br />

bean tree (Swartzia madagascariensis), the Pod mahogany (Afzelia quanzensis) <strong>and</strong> Milicia<br />

excelsa (near threatened) has resulted in the complete absence <strong>of</strong> large individuals <strong>of</strong> these<br />

species from the proposed reserve.<br />

Residents were found to be unconcerned about the reduction in the size <strong>of</strong> the forest <strong>and</strong> the<br />

potential that this has for increasing erosion rates <strong>and</strong> the risk <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong>slides.<br />

154


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

19. NDECHELA FOREST RESERVE<br />

Status<br />

Management body<br />

Location<br />

Area<br />

Altitude<br />

Topography<br />

Temperature<br />

Rainfall<br />

Soil type<br />

Vegetation type<br />

L<strong>and</strong> Use<br />

History <strong>and</strong> Status<br />

Gazetted Forest Reserve<br />

Central Government<br />

Masasi district. Directly above the Lukwika-Lumesale Game<br />

Reserve, south <strong>of</strong> Nakopi (where the Natural Resources Office is<br />

situated) <strong>and</strong> east <strong>of</strong> Nihale. The Lukwimba River borders the west<br />

side <strong>of</strong> the reserve. Ndechela town is situated in a large recess in the<br />

reserve, next to Lukwimba River.<br />

6,216ha<br />

250-340m asl<br />

Lowl<strong>and</strong> plain<br />

Min: 15.5 o C, Max: 39 o C (recorded 7-11 <strong>and</strong> 13-17 July, dry season)<br />

0mm (recorded 7-11 <strong>and</strong> 13-17 July, dry season)<br />

S<strong>and</strong>y-loam<br />

Eastern African coastal Legume-dominated dry forest<br />

The reserve was gazetted to protect timber resources <strong>and</strong><br />

biodiversity. Pit sawing <strong>and</strong> hunting take place.<br />

The forest was given protected status in 1958. Presently there are no<br />

effective methods for controlling illegal resources use. An<br />

Environmental committee was set up in 1991 but no longer functions;<br />

a part-time forest <strong>of</strong>ficer was employed from 1993 to 1997 as a<br />

replacement to patrol for illegal fires. Future plans include a possible<br />

link with the Lukwika-Lumesale Game Reserve.<br />

155


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Maps Topographical map: Nd<strong>and</strong>a South sheet 306/1, East Africa 1:50 000,<br />

1968. From the Institute <strong>of</strong> Mapping, Dar es Salaam (from Series<br />

Y742, Edition 1-TSD).<br />

L<strong>and</strong> use <strong>and</strong> cover map: Masasi sheet SC-37-10/11, 1996. From the<br />

Institute <strong>of</strong> Resource Planning, UDSM.<br />

METHODS<br />

Survey work was conducted over 14 days (5-11 <strong>and</strong> 11-17 July 2005) incorporating two study<br />

sites <strong>of</strong> equal duration. Twenty-one vegetation plots (8400m 2 ), 21 regeneration plots (84m 2 ),<br />

<strong>and</strong> two zoosites were carried out, incorporating 400 sherman trapping nights, 100 bucket<br />

trapping nights, seven man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna searches, 86 bat mist net/hours, 13<br />

man/hours <strong>of</strong> bird mist netting, 16 man/hours <strong>of</strong> timed bird searches, 30 canopy trapping<br />

days, four butterfly sweep net/hours, seven animal sign transects (totalling 28,000m 2 ), seven<br />

disturbance transects (totalling 70,000m 2 ), <strong>and</strong> opportunistic observations (see Appendices 2<br />

to 8 for GPS coordinates <strong>and</strong> work site descriptions). Habitat notes were taken for vegetation<br />

plots (Appendices 4 <strong>and</strong> 5) <strong>and</strong> zoological trap sites (Appendix 6). Structured interviews <strong>and</strong><br />

open discussions were conducted with five elders from the village <strong>of</strong> Ndechela. For a detailed<br />

break down <strong>of</strong> survey effort see Table 10-a.<br />

RESULTS<br />

In Ndechela FR 78 plant species were recorded from 21 families. Thirteen percent <strong>of</strong> the total<br />

number <strong>of</strong> floral species are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> 12% are listed as<br />

threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006) (Table 19-a;<br />

Appendices 9 <strong>and</strong> 10).<br />

One-hundred <strong>and</strong> seventy-four faunal species were found representing 81 families. Of these<br />

species 4% are forest dependent, less than 1% are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> 2% are listed as threatened by IUCN (2004) <strong>and</strong>/or CITES<br />

(2005) (Table 19-a; Appendices 13-17).<br />

156


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 19-a Summary <strong>of</strong> fauna <strong>and</strong> flora recorded in Ndechela FR<br />

Taxa No. <strong>of</strong><br />

families<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

species c<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

forest<br />

dependent<br />

species d<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

widespread<br />

species<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

strictly<br />

endemic<br />

species:<br />

e <strong>and</strong> f<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

threatened<br />

species:<br />

g <strong>and</strong> h<br />

Mammals 24 38 2 36 0* 3 -<br />

Birds a 41 97 0 97 0 0 -<br />

Reptiles 8 10 0 10 1 0 -<br />

Amphibians 4 8 0 8 0 0 -<br />

Butterflies 4 21 4 17 0 0 -<br />

Total for 81 174 6 168 1 3 -<br />

animals<br />

Flora b 21 78 0 68 10 1 8<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

PT<br />

species i<br />

Combined<br />

Total<br />

102 252 6 236 11 4 8<br />

a - Includes birds seen on the forest boundary edge<br />

b - All trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses <strong>and</strong> ferns<br />

c - Includes information collected from all systematic survey work, opportunistic observations, structured<br />

interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions<br />

d - Species dependent on <strong>and</strong> associated with primary or closed-canopy forest, not forest edge or secondary forest<br />

e - Faunal species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone or the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a), sometimes being found also in other habitats in a few adjacent locations (e.g.<br />

Masasi District in S Tanzania, N Mozambique etc.)<br />

f - Floral species restricted to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

g - Species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable (VU) in the IUCN Red List<br />

(IUCN, 2004)<br />

h - Species listed in CITES Appendix I as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade<br />

(CITES, 2005)<br />

i - Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

*The identification <strong>of</strong> Crocidura sp. may increase this number. We await verification<br />

FLORA<br />

In Ndechela FR one homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong> was identified as dry Legume-dominated<br />

forest.<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> diversity<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 78 species were recorded. Out <strong>of</strong> these, 41 species were found in 21 vegetation<br />

plots <strong>and</strong> 21 species were recorded in 21 regeneration plots. The other 16 species were<br />

recorded from opportunistic collection <strong>and</strong> observation made within the reserve. More<br />

specifically, 48 trees, 21 shrubs, five herbs, <strong>and</strong> four grasses were recorded (Appendix 9). A<br />

value <strong>of</strong> 3.46 was calculated for the Shannon diversity index.<br />

• Species dominance<br />

Within the Legume-dominated dry forest Brachystegia spiciformis <strong>and</strong> Millettia stuhlmannii<br />

are the most frequent in the canopy layer, occurring in 45% <strong>and</strong> 40% <strong>of</strong> the plots respectively<br />

(Table 19-b).<br />

157


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 19-b Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the canopy<br />

layer in Legume-dominated dry forest in Ndechela FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF<br />

(Domin<br />

ance)<br />

Rank No.<br />

dominance indv.<br />

in all<br />

plots<br />

%RA Rank<br />

RA<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia spiciformis 9 45 1 25 31 1<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia stuhlmannii 8 40 2 22 27 2<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia 5 25 3 18 22 3<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia longifolia 2 10 4 10 12 4<br />

STERCULIACEAE Sterculia appendiculata 1 5 5 2 2 5<br />

Total 1 3 5 5 77 94<br />

Total 2 17 19 23 81 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

In the sub canopy layer no species were found to be either dominant or frequent, all occurring<br />

in no more than 30% <strong>of</strong> the plots (Mueller-Dombois <strong>and</strong> Ellenberg, 1974) (Table 19-c).<br />

Table 19-c Species frequency, dominance, rank dominance, no. <strong>of</strong> individuals, % relative<br />

abundance <strong>and</strong> rank relative abundance for the top five most abundant species <strong>of</strong> the sub canopy<br />

layer in Legume-dominated dry forest in Ndechela FR<br />

Family Genus Species F % RF<br />

(Domina<br />

nce)<br />

Rank No.<br />

dominance indv.<br />

in all<br />

plots<br />

%RA Rank<br />

RA<br />

APOCYNACEAE Diplorhynchus condylocarpon 7 35 1 21 13 1<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia petersiana 6 30 2 10 6 3<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus bussei 6 30 2 7 4 4<br />

COMBRETACEAE Terminalia sambesiaca 5 25 3 10 6 3<br />

BURSERACEAE Commiphora sp. 4 20 4 19 12 2<br />

Total 1 5 5 5 67 41<br />

Total 2 13 21 25 157 100<br />

F= Frequency; %RF= Relative frequency; %RA= Percentage relative abundance<br />

Total 1 = Total for top five species; Total 2 = Total for all canopy layer species in the reserve<br />

• Species relative abundance<br />

In the canopy layer 92% <strong>of</strong> the trees recorded were individuals from Brachystegia spiciformis<br />

(31%), Millettia stuhlmannii (27%), Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia (22%) <strong>and</strong><br />

Brachystegia longifolia (12%) (Table 19-b). In the sub canopy layer 41% <strong>of</strong> the trees<br />

recorded were individuals from Diplorhynchus condylocarpon (13%), Commiphora sp.<br />

(12%), Bauhinia petersianaa (6%), Terminalia sambesiaca (6%), <strong>and</strong> Lonchocarpus bussei<br />

(4%) (Table 19-c).<br />

When looking at the overall number <strong>of</strong> trees recorded in both the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy<br />

layers, the canopy layer (53%) contributed a slightly higher number <strong>of</strong> individuals than the<br />

sub canopy layer (46%) to the overall number <strong>of</strong> adult trees in this reserve.<br />

158


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

• Species composition <strong>and</strong> vegetation types<br />

Ndechela FR is comprised <strong>of</strong> one homogeneous vegetation st<strong>and</strong>, whose species composition<br />

<strong>and</strong> relative abundance confirmed to be eastern African Legume-dominated coastal dry<br />

forest (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000).<br />

The species composition <strong>of</strong> this forest type is characterised by Brachystegia spiciformis, B.<br />

longifolia <strong>and</strong> Millettia stuhlmannii from the family Fabaceae as the most frequent <strong>and</strong><br />

abundant species in the canopy layer, together contributing up to about 70% <strong>of</strong> all trees<br />

recorded. Other species occurring in the canopy layer included Pseudolachnostylis<br />

maprouneifolia, Bombax rhodognaphalon, Brachystegia longifolia, Sterculia appendiculata,<br />

Millettia impressa <strong>and</strong> Acacia xanthophloea. The sub canopy layer was characterised by the<br />

absence <strong>of</strong> dominant or frequent species. Species recorded in this layer included<br />

Diplorhynchus condylocarpon, Bauhinia petersiana, Lonchocarpus bussei, Terminalia<br />

sambesiaca, Commiphora sp., Afzelia quanensis, Schrebera trichoclada, Markhamia<br />

obtusifolia, Terminalia brownii, Tamarindus indica <strong>and</strong> Cussonia zimmermannii.<br />

The shrub layer was observed to be comprised <strong>of</strong> saplings <strong>of</strong> the dominant species from the<br />

canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layer, <strong>and</strong> shrub species such as Combretum hereroense, Flacourtia<br />

indica, Croton pseudopulchellus, Salacia madagascariensis, Strychnos usambarensis,<br />

Strychnos madagascariensis, Ochna holstii, Catunaregam spinosa <strong>and</strong> Vangueria infausta.<br />

The herbaceous layer was composed <strong>of</strong> grasses, particularly Olyra sp. <strong>and</strong> Themeda tri<strong>and</strong>ra,<br />

together with herbs such as Dicoma tomentosa, Hypoestes sp., Crotalaria sp., Tephrosia sp.<br />

<strong>and</strong> Jasminum sp.<br />

• Endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Ten <strong>of</strong> the species found are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu latu, including Cussonia<br />

zimmermannii, Commiphora zanzibarica, Tetracera boiviniana, Scorodophloeus fischeri,<br />

Entada stuhlmannii, Gardenia transvenulosa, Sterculia appendiculata, Grewia lepidopetala<br />

<strong>and</strong> Vitex mossambicensis (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000) (Appendix 10), <strong>and</strong> amounting to<br />

12% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (Figure 17).<br />

12%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

88%<br />

Figure 17 Percentage floral species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato <strong>and</strong> those that are<br />

widespread in Ndechela FR<br />

Nine among the species recorded are recognised to be threatened (IUCN, 2004) or potentially<br />

threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006), amounting to 12% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species<br />

recorded (Table 19-d).<br />

159


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 19-d Threatened <strong>and</strong> potentially threatened plant species in Ndechela FR<br />

Family Species name Conservation Habit<br />

status<br />

ARALIACEAE Cussonia zimmermannii PT T<br />

BURSERACEAE Commiphora zanzibarica PT T<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana PT S/T<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia abbreviata PT T<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Scorodophloeus fischeri PT T<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Entada stuhlmannii PT C<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia impressa PT C<br />

RUBIACEAE Gardenia transvenulosa VU S/T<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex mossambicensis PT S<br />

PT = Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

Habit T= Tree, S= Shrub, B= Bamboo, C= Climber, H= Herb<br />

FAUNA<br />

Although the identification <strong>of</strong> about 90% <strong>of</strong> the species recorded is certain, the identification<br />

<strong>of</strong> a few specimens remains tentative whilst awaiting taxonomic verification.<br />

Mammals<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> 36 mammals representing 24 families were recorded (Appendix 13).<br />

Eight species <strong>of</strong> small mammal representing four families were recorded in total from 16<br />

captures (not counting two recaptures) that took place during 400 sherman trapping nights <strong>and</strong><br />

100 bucket pitfall trapping nights (Appendix 18). The most common species was the<br />

Multimammate rat (Mastomys natalensis) making up 50% <strong>of</strong> all captures. Other species<br />

recorded included the Spiny mouse (Acomys spinosissimus), the Narrow-footed woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

mouse (Grammomys dolichurus), the Tatera gerbil (Tatera robusta), the Black rat (Rattus<br />

rattus alex<strong>and</strong>rinus) <strong>and</strong> one species <strong>of</strong> White-toothed shrew (Crocidura sp.).<br />

Two species <strong>of</strong> bat, the Slit faced bat (Nycteris hispida) <strong>and</strong> the Horse-shoe bat (Rhinolophus<br />

hildebr<strong>and</strong>ti), were recorded from four captures during 86 bat mist net/hours.<br />

For the larger mammals, 28 species representing 18 families were recorded during sign<br />

transects totalling 7km, through opportunistic observations <strong>and</strong> from local knowledge. Few<br />

signs <strong>of</strong> the Leopard (Panthera pardus), Lion (Panthera leo), Moloney’s monkeys<br />

(Cercopithecus mitis sub sp.), Elephant (Loxodonta aficana), Buffalo (Syncerus caffer), Zebra<br />

(Equus quagga) <strong>and</strong> Warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) were found. These signs were <strong>of</strong>ten<br />

more than one month old. Other species recorded included the Blue duiker (Cephalophus<br />

monticola), the Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei) <strong>and</strong> the Greater galago<br />

(Otolemur crassicaudatus). Local knowledge also suggested the presence <strong>of</strong> the Klipspringer<br />

(Oreotragus oreotragus), the Sable antelope (Hippotragus niger) <strong>and</strong> the Hippopotamus<br />

(Hippopotamus amphibius). The occurrence <strong>of</strong> many large species within the FR is seasonal.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

Two <strong>of</strong> the species recorded are forest dependent, although many <strong>of</strong>ten frequent <strong>and</strong> some<br />

favour a forested habitat. Four species are listed as threatened in the IUCN Red List (2004)<br />

<strong>and</strong>/or CITES Appnedix I (2005) (Table 19-e). No species were recorded to be strictly<br />

endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains.<br />

160


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 19-e Forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened mammal species in Ndechela FR<br />

Species Common name Forest Endemic Threatened<br />

dependent<br />

Cercopithecus mitis (sub sp.) Moloney’s monkey F - -<br />

Rhynchocyon cirnei Chequered elephant shrew - - VU<br />

Panthera leo Lion - - VU<br />

Panthera pardus Leopard - - CITES I<br />

Loxodonta africana African Elephant - - VU<br />

Cephalophus monticola Blue duiker F - -<br />

F= Forest dependent or specialist (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CF= species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF= species with limited ranges in the Eastern<br />

Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

CITES I = Threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade;<br />

Birds<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Ninety-seven species from 41 families were observed. Thirteen hours <strong>of</strong> mist netting <strong>and</strong> 16<br />

hours <strong>of</strong> timed bird searches were carried out. Mist netting yielded three species (Dicrurus<br />

adsimilis, Tchagra australis <strong>and</strong> Terpsiphone viridis) from a total <strong>of</strong> three captures, <strong>and</strong> timed<br />

bird searches the remaining 94. Species found included the Grey-crested helmet shrike<br />

(Prionops poliolophus) 19 , the Livingstone’s flycatcher (Erythrocercus livingstonei) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Pale batis (Batis soror) (Appendix 14). Many species were observed along a seasonal river<br />

bed.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

No forest dependent, strictly endemic or threatened bird species were recorded in Ndechela<br />

FR.<br />

Reptiles<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Ten species <strong>of</strong> reptiles representing eight families were recorded from nine captures that took<br />

place during 100 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 17.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological searches.<br />

Species included the Spotted flat lizard (Platysaurus maculatus), which was found in<br />

abundance on rock outcrops, <strong>and</strong> a species <strong>of</strong> skink (Trachylepis sp.) 20 that has not been<br />

identified yet <strong>and</strong> that was also frequent on rock outcrops. The Striped skink (Trachylepis<br />

striata), the Snouted night adder (Causus defilippii) <strong>and</strong> the Mozambique agama (Agama<br />

mossambica) were each only sighted on one occasion. Shells <strong>of</strong> a Leopard tortoise<br />

(Geochelone pardalis) <strong>and</strong> the Helmeted terrapin (Pelomedusa subrufa) were recorded<br />

(Appendices 15 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

One <strong>of</strong> the species recorded, the Spotted flat-lizard (Platysaurus maculatus), is strictly<br />

endemic to northern Mozambique <strong>and</strong> the Masasi district in south-eastern Tanzania. No<br />

species were found to be forest dependent or threatened.<br />

19 The field identification <strong>of</strong> Prionops poliolophus was undertaken by Jacob Kiure (Appendix 1).<br />

20 The Afro-magalasian mabuyas have been recognised to constitute a separate genus <strong>and</strong> have been renamed<br />

Trachylepis sp. For the partitioning <strong>of</strong> the genus Mabuya see Mausfeld et al. (2002); for the taxonomy <strong>and</strong><br />

nomenclature <strong>of</strong> Traxhyletis sp. see Honda et al. (2003) <strong>and</strong> Whiting et al. (2003).<br />

161


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Amphibians<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Eight species <strong>of</strong> amphibians representing four families were recorded from 10 captures that<br />

took place during 100 bucket pitfall trapping nights <strong>and</strong> 17.5 man/hours <strong>of</strong> herpetological<br />

searches. Species recorded included a squeaker (Arthroleptis stenodactylus), Kassina sp., the<br />

Grey tree frog (Chiromantis xerampelina), two species <strong>of</strong> Ptychadena <strong>and</strong> two species <strong>of</strong><br />

Phrynobatrachus (Appendices 16 <strong>and</strong> 18).<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the species found are forest dependent, even though Arthroleptis stenodactylus is<br />

known to favour a forested habitat (Howell, 1993). No strictly endemic or threatened species<br />

were recorded.<br />

Butterflies<br />

• Species richness <strong>and</strong> composition<br />

Twenty-one species <strong>of</strong> butterfly representing four families were recorded from 48 captures<br />

that took place during 30 canopy trapping days <strong>and</strong> four sweep net/hours (Appendix 17). The<br />

Jordan’s Sailor (Neptis jordani) accounted for 23% <strong>and</strong> the Common joker (Byblia anvatara<br />

acheloia) for 19% <strong>of</strong> all captures.<br />

• Forest dependence, endemism <strong>and</strong> conservation status<br />

One species from the family Nymphalidae, the Gold b<strong>and</strong>ed forester (Euphaedra neophron<br />

littoralis), is forest dependent. No species were found to be strictly endemic or threatened.<br />

Fauna’s strict endemism<br />

Of the total number <strong>of</strong> faunal species recorded in Ndechela FR 99% are widespread <strong>and</strong> 1%<br />

are endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains (Figure 18).<br />

1%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

99%<br />

Figure 18 Percentage <strong>of</strong> strictly endemic <strong>and</strong> widespread faunal species in Ndechela FR<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

Disturbance transects were used to record the level <strong>of</strong> disturbance from pole cutting, fire<br />

damage, paths <strong>and</strong> other forms <strong>of</strong> disturbance within the reserve. Of one-hundred <strong>and</strong> forty<br />

50m transects, 36 (26%) were free <strong>of</strong> disturbance. Fire was the most common form <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance in Ndechela, with 101 (72%) sections showing fire damage. Pole cutting was<br />

detected in 21 (18%) sections, 13 (9%) sections had one or more paths bisecting them <strong>and</strong> one<br />

(1%) section contained a drift fence to trap large ungulates (Figure 19). Information on<br />

resource use is summarised in Table 19-g below.<br />

162


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections affected<br />

120<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

40<br />

20<br />

0<br />

Cutting Fire Paths Traps<br />

Disturbance category<br />

Figure 19 Number <strong>of</strong> 50m sections (from a total <strong>of</strong> 104) affected by different forms <strong>of</strong> human<br />

disturbance along transects in Ndechela FR<br />

Agricultural encroachment<br />

Disturbance transects did not reveal any encroachment in Ndechela. Some local farmers grow<br />

tomatoes in the dry riverbed that marks the boundary <strong>of</strong> the reserve, but they may be unable to<br />

extend this water-dem<strong>and</strong>ing crop into the drier soil <strong>of</strong> the reserve.<br />

Poles <strong>and</strong> timbers<br />

Disturbance transects showed that six main species (Afzelia quanzensis, Milicia excelsa,<br />

Millettia dura, M. impressa, M. stuhlmannii <strong>and</strong> Pterocarpus angolensis) are harvested to<br />

provide timber <strong>and</strong> a wide variety <strong>of</strong> species are harvested to obtain poles (Table 19-g). Pit<br />

sawing was found to be common, with three recently active sites detected.<br />

• Relative abundance <strong>and</strong> average no. <strong>of</strong> live, dead <strong>and</strong> cut individuals per ha<br />

One percent <strong>of</strong> both poles <strong>and</strong> timbers were cut, but no cut large timbers were detected. Two<br />

fresh cut poles <strong>and</strong> one fresh cut timber were observed (Table 19-f).<br />

Table 19-f Summary <strong>of</strong> pole, timber <strong>and</strong> large timber cutting in Ndechela FR<br />

Total Total no. Total no. Average Total no. Average Total no. Average<br />

transect <strong>of</strong> indiv. (<strong>and</strong> % RA) live indiv. (<strong>and</strong> % RA) dead indiv. (<strong>and</strong> % RA) cut indiv.<br />

length sampled <strong>of</strong> live per ha <strong>of</strong> dead indiv. per ha <strong>of</strong> cut indiv. per ha<br />

in m<br />

indiv.<br />

Poles 7,000 3009 2599 (86) 371 394 (13) 56 16 (1) 2<br />

Timbers 7,000 1129 1024 (91) 146 95 (8) 14 10 (1) 1<br />

Large<br />

timbers<br />

7,000 33 31 (94) 5 2 (6) 0.3 0 (0) 0<br />

Fuel wood<br />

Most fuel wood was said by the local residents to be extracted from wooded vegetation<br />

outside the FR.<br />

Tools <strong>and</strong> utensils<br />

Besides ropes <strong>and</strong> tool h<strong>and</strong>les beehives are commonly constructed, with Brachystegia<br />

longifolia <strong>and</strong> Brachystegia spiciformis being the species most commonly targeted for this<br />

production, as it resulted from structured interviews (Table 19-g).<br />

163


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Edible non-timber forest products<br />

A wide range <strong>of</strong> species was found to provide food to the local inhabitants (Table 19-g).<br />

Honey is produced <strong>and</strong> sold locally.<br />

Medicinal plants<br />

Sixteen different species were said to be used for medicinal purposes within the reserve<br />

(Table 19-g, Appendix 11).<br />

Table 19-g List <strong>of</strong> plant species utilised in Ndechela FR as identified by field observations,<br />

structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions. Local names, where known, are presented in<br />

Appendix 9<br />

Family Species Poles Timber Fuel Tools Ropes Hives Food Medicine<br />

wood<br />

Aloeaceae Aloe macrosiphon X<br />

ALOEACEAE Aloe secundiflora X<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Sclerocarya birrea X X X<br />

ANNONACEAE<br />

Annona<br />

senegalensis<br />

X X X X<br />

APOCYNACEAE L<strong>and</strong>olphia<br />

X<br />

buchananii<br />

BIGNONIACEAE Markhamia X X X<br />

obtusifolia<br />

COMBRETACEAE Pteleopsis<br />

X<br />

myrtifolia<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera<br />

X<br />

boiviniana<br />

DIOSCOREACEAE Dioscorea<br />

X<br />

hirtiflora<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Afzelia quanzensis X X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia X X X<br />

longifolia<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia X X X X X<br />

spiciformis<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia singueana X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia nigrescens X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia<br />

xanthophloea<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia impressa X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia<br />

X<br />

X<br />

stuhlmannii<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Swartzia X X X X<br />

madagascariensis<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Flacourtia indica X<br />

HYMENOCARDIACEAE Hymenocardia<br />

ulmoides<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

madagascariensis<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos<br />

usambarensis<br />

X X X X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

164


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Hunting<br />

Many (>10) traps for small birds were found in the riverbed. A drift fence designed to trap<br />

large ungulates was also observed, but the trap was not in use at the time <strong>of</strong> this study. Two<br />

dead baboons (Papio cynocephalus) were observed in the riverbed that had been killed<br />

because they had raided crops. Among the species hunted the Sable antelope (Hippotragus<br />

niger) is listed as conservation dependant in the IUCN Red List (2004).<br />

Management<br />

Minimal management takes place in Ndechela FR. The last management action was boundary<br />

clearance in 1997, but the boundary is no longer evident. A ‘fire committee’ was set up in<br />

1997 to control fires but is no longer effective. Regular patrols <strong>of</strong> the reserve are conducted<br />

by game <strong>of</strong>ficers from Lukwika-Lumesule game reserve.<br />

DISCUSSION<br />

FLORA<br />

Ndechela FR is comprised <strong>of</strong> Legume-dominated coastal dry forest largely affected by<br />

frequent fires. No species appeared to be dominant in the canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy layers;<br />

instead an assemblage <strong>of</strong> various species from the family Fabaceae comprised this vegetation<br />

type, including Brachystegia spiciformis, B. longifolia <strong>and</strong> Millettia stuhlmannii in the canopy<br />

layer, <strong>and</strong> Bauhinia petersiana <strong>and</strong> Lonchocarpus bussei in the sub canopy layer. Legumedominated<br />

dry forest is usually characterised by the dominance <strong>of</strong> one or few species,<br />

therefore the lack <strong>of</strong> any dominant species in Ndechela FR is quite unusual; further research<br />

would be required to determine the factors responsible for the observed species composition.<br />

The shrub layer was mainly comprised <strong>of</strong> saplings <strong>of</strong> the canopy species, indicating a climax<br />

community, while herbs <strong>and</strong> lianas were scarce.<br />

The species richness recorded in this reserve is relatively low (78 species) <strong>and</strong> may be<br />

attributed to the high level <strong>of</strong> fire disturbance recorded, which can prevent the regeneration <strong>of</strong><br />

fire tolerant species (Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000). Nevertheless, the Shannon diversity index<br />

for this forest reserve (H¹=3.46) is the highest recorded during this study. This is associated<br />

with the high number <strong>of</strong> individual mature trees (314 in total) recorded in the reserve, which<br />

is linked to a relatively low level <strong>of</strong> timber <strong>and</strong> pole extraction, <strong>and</strong> the lack <strong>of</strong> one or few<br />

dominant species, whereby the total number <strong>of</strong> individual trees is evenly distributed between<br />

a number <strong>of</strong> species (Magurran, 1988).<br />

Ndechela FR represents the least disturbed forest surveyed in this study in terms <strong>of</strong> timber <strong>and</strong><br />

pole extraction, as demonstrated by the relatively high number <strong>of</strong> large <strong>and</strong> old trees recorded<br />

here. However, throughout the survey extensive <strong>and</strong> frequent burning was recorded to have<br />

removed an otherwise conspicuous understory, constituting a threat to the continuity <strong>of</strong> this<br />

particularly vulnerable forest type. The seeds <strong>of</strong> the Fabaceae trees are heavy <strong>and</strong> not<br />

dispersed by wind or animal. Moreover, these seeds do not remain viable in the seed bank for<br />

long, do not tolerate desiccation, require a forest microclimate (shade <strong>and</strong> high-humidity) to<br />

germinate <strong>and</strong> are pyrophobic (Clarke, 2000). Therefore, the complete clearance <strong>of</strong> this forest<br />

type drastically lowers the chances <strong>of</strong> its regeneration on the same sites, which then can<br />

become dominated by more easily dispersed pioneer tree species characteristic <strong>of</strong> mixed dry<br />

forest <strong>and</strong> mixed scrub forest (Clarke, 2000). The vulnerability <strong>of</strong> this forest is highlighted<br />

also by the presence <strong>of</strong> various endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened plants, such as Gardenia<br />

transvenulosa (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable), Cussonia zimmermannii, Commiphora zanzibarica,<br />

Tetracera boiviniana, Scorodophloeus fischeri, Entada stuhlmannii <strong>and</strong> Vitex mossambicensis<br />

(Endemic <strong>and</strong> Potentially Threatened), <strong>and</strong> it is therefore important to protect its threatened<br />

<strong>and</strong> unique plant community.<br />

165


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Ndechela FR is also singular for the presence <strong>of</strong> granite kopjes dramatically protruding from<br />

the plain <strong>and</strong> reaching up to 800m, which contribute to the scenic beauty <strong>of</strong> this site, <strong>and</strong> for<br />

having a relatively small human population living around its boundaries. As a result, much<br />

forest that lies outside the borders <strong>of</strong> the reserve is not appreciably different from that inside<br />

the reserve. This represents an excellent opportunity to extend the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the reserve to<br />

create <strong>and</strong> protect more habitats for plants <strong>and</strong> animals.<br />

FAUNA<br />

In Ndechela FR a high number <strong>of</strong> species were recorded (172), including various endemic <strong>and</strong><br />

threatened species. However, the species composition within most taxa is characteristic <strong>of</strong> an<br />

open <strong>and</strong> dry understory habitat that has been created by the removal <strong>of</strong> this layer by frequent<br />

burning.<br />

Small mammals<br />

A species poor rodent community (8 captured species) reflects the high incidence <strong>of</strong> fire<br />

damage (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management section) <strong>and</strong> the sparse <strong>and</strong> dry<br />

understory resulting from it (Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996). The most common species<br />

recorded, the Multimammate rat (Mastomys natalensis) <strong>and</strong> the Spiny mouse (Acomys<br />

spinosissimus), are in fact known to prefer dry areas (Kingdon, 2003). The Narrow-footed<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong> mouse (Grammomys dolichurus) <strong>and</strong> the Tatera gerbil (Tatera robusta) are known<br />

to inhabit tall grasses <strong>and</strong> secondary growth (Kingdon, 1974), <strong>and</strong> were recorded in areas<br />

where grasses dominated as a result <strong>of</strong> frequent fire disturbance. The Black rat (Rattus rattus<br />

alex<strong>and</strong>rinus) was found scavenging amongst food supplies at the base camp. This species is<br />

thought to have originated in the Middle-east <strong>and</strong> to have been introduced into Tanzania<br />

through the shipping <strong>of</strong> goods, <strong>and</strong> now appears to have returned to a predominantly feral<br />

state (Kingdon, 2003). More research is needed to assess the level <strong>of</strong> invasion by Rattus rattus<br />

alex<strong>and</strong>rinus <strong>and</strong> its implications on the ecology <strong>of</strong> this region.<br />

Bats<br />

The Slit-faced bat (Nycteris hispida) <strong>and</strong> the Horse-shoe bat (Rhinolophus hildebr<strong>and</strong>ti) were<br />

caught in open woodl<strong>and</strong> areas at the edge <strong>of</strong> the forest. Both species are non-forest dwellers<br />

(Kingdon, 1974) commonly found in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> eastern Africa (Cockle et al.,<br />

1998).<br />

Large mammals<br />

Of the larger mammals a high number <strong>of</strong> species (26) were recorded, but no one species was<br />

recorded more than twice. This suggests that large mammal populations are suppressed by<br />

extensive fires <strong>and</strong> hunting occurring in this reserve (see Human-Resources Use <strong>and</strong> Local<br />

Management), factors that have decreased the extent <strong>of</strong> suitable habitat <strong>and</strong> ecological<br />

requirements (e.g. prey, shelter) necessary to support larger populations. Species recorded<br />

included the Buffalo (Syncerus caffer - conservation dependent), the Zebra (Equus quagga)<br />

<strong>and</strong> the Warthog (Phacochoerus africanus). Forest dependent species found here were the<br />

Blue duiker (Cephalophus monticola - CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the Moloney’s monkey (Cercopithecus<br />

mitis sub sp. - CITES II), together with species such as the Greater galago (Otolemur<br />

crassicaudatus - CITES II) which, although not forest dependent, <strong>of</strong>ten favours a forest<br />

environment. The Yellow baboon (Papio cynocephalus) is regarded as a pest here <strong>and</strong> is<br />

being killed by villagers. The elephant shrew species (Rhynchocyon sp.) observed in this<br />

reserve is characterised by dark grey <strong>and</strong> rufous fur with very indistinct chequers, <strong>and</strong> is likely<br />

to represent a sub-species <strong>of</strong> the Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei macrurus)<br />

rather than a range extension for the similar looking Black <strong>and</strong> rufous elephant shrew (R.<br />

166


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

petersi) (Rathbun, 2005; Corbet, 1970) 21 . The finding <strong>of</strong> R. cirnei, a species listed as<br />

Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004), confirms the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> to be a globally important area for<br />

this genus, closely followed by the Eastern Arc Mountains (Burgess et al., 2000a).<br />

Rhynchocyon species are forest-dwellers that rely on dense vegetation cover to produce the<br />

thick leaf litter they require for foraging <strong>and</strong> nest construction (Rathbun, 2005). R. cirnei may<br />

therefore become locally threatened should further habitat destruction ensue. Ndechela FR is<br />

contiguous with Lukwika-Lumesale Game Reserve <strong>and</strong> was consequently found to contain<br />

the highest number <strong>of</strong> large mammal species <strong>of</strong> conservation status (10), among which the<br />

Leopard (Panthera pardus - CITES I), the Lion (Panthera leo - Vulnerable, CITES II) <strong>and</strong><br />

the Elephant (Loxodonta africana - Vulnerable, CITES I). The presence <strong>of</strong> many species <strong>of</strong><br />

conservation status makes Ndechela FR an important conservation site, <strong>and</strong> the Masasi<br />

District Natural Resources Office mentioned future plans to link this reserve with the<br />

Lukwika-Lumesale Game Reserve.<br />

Birds<br />

In Ndechela FR a high number <strong>of</strong> species were recorded (97). This figure may be linked to the<br />

large size <strong>of</strong> the reserve (6,216ha) <strong>and</strong> the long period <strong>of</strong> time spent surveying it (Table 10-a),<br />

which compensated for the evident absence <strong>of</strong> a dense shrub layer following extensive fire<br />

disturbance. Nevertheless, the removal <strong>of</strong> undergrowth vegetation is responsible for the<br />

absence <strong>of</strong> forest dependent species <strong>and</strong> the low number <strong>of</strong> captures in the mist nets. Many<br />

species were observed along a seasonal river bed where fruiting trees from the genus Ficus<br />

provide a substantial food source. The Grey-crested helmet shrike (Prionops poliolophus -<br />

near threatened) has been previously recorded to inhabit open woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> wooded<br />

grassl<strong>and</strong>, including Acacia/Tarchonanthus vegetation (1,200-2,200m), in a restricted area<br />

encompassing south-western <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> northern Tanzania (BirdLife International, 2005).<br />

Records <strong>of</strong> this bird in Ndechela FR therefore indicate a range extension for this species.<br />

Reptiles<br />

For the reptiles the number <strong>of</strong> species (9) <strong>and</strong> individuals (9) captured was moderate. Yet, the<br />

rocky nature <strong>of</strong> Ndechela creates microhabitats for more reptiles than it was possible to<br />

capture, <strong>and</strong> individuals were frequently observed basking in the sun on rock outcrops.<br />

Conversely, the extensive <strong>and</strong> frequent fires occurring in this reserve are probably responsible<br />

for the lack <strong>of</strong> forest dependent species. The Spotted flat-lizard (Platysaurus maculatus)<br />

found here is strictly endemic to northern Mozambique <strong>and</strong> the Masasi district in southeastern<br />

Tanzania. This species has a specific habitat requirement: it only inhabits rock<br />

outcrops <strong>of</strong> granite, gneiss <strong>and</strong> s<strong>and</strong>stone that weather to produce thin fissures where it seeks<br />

refuge (Spawls et al., 2002). In Ndechela FR this lizard was found in abundance due to the<br />

large quantity <strong>of</strong> rocky microhabitats present. The Helmeted terrapin (Pelomedusa subrufa)<br />

has been previously thought to occur in this south-eastern region <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, but its presence<br />

was yet to be confirmed (Spawls et al. 2002). During this study the only record <strong>of</strong> this species<br />

was a shell in a dried up rock pool. This species is adapted to arid environments, emerging<br />

from underground during the wet season, <strong>and</strong> therefore more comprehensive results could be<br />

unleashed by conducting research during the wet season. A species <strong>of</strong> skink sighted in this<br />

reserve was recognised to resemble either the Rainbow Skink (Trachylepis margaritifer) or<br />

the Five-lined skink (Trachylepis quinquetaeniata). T. margaritifer is known to occur in<br />

central <strong>and</strong> south-eastern Tanzania (Spawls et al., 2002). T. quinquetaeniata has not been<br />

recorded south <strong>of</strong> the border with <strong>Kenya</strong>, apart from a record in Kwa Mtoro (north <strong>of</strong><br />

Dodoma) (Spawls et al., 2002), <strong>and</strong> its record in the Mtwara Region would therefore<br />

represent a range extension. Further research is needed to ascertain this.<br />

21 At present R. petersei has been recorded to occur only in the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

as far as the Rufiji River. South <strong>of</strong> the Rufiji River <strong>and</strong> further down into Mozambique, R. cirnei has been recorded<br />

to occur (Rathbun <strong>and</strong> Butinski, 2005; Corbet, 1970).<br />

167


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Amphibians<br />

For the amphibians a low number <strong>of</strong> individuals (10) representing seven species were<br />

captured along seasonal river beds where a few stagnant pools surrounded by dense<br />

vegetation <strong>and</strong> moist humus soil create an ideal breeding ground (Howell, 1993). Large<br />

breeding populations <strong>of</strong> Phrynobatrachus sp. <strong>and</strong> Ptychadena sp. were recorded around these<br />

pools. All species recorded are non-forest dwellers, including the Grey tree frog (Chiromantis<br />

xerampelina), which is typical <strong>of</strong> dry wooded grassl<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Kassina sp. 22 (Channing, 2001).<br />

The intrusion into forested areas by species that normally inhabit transient open situations is<br />

known to be a recurrent characteristic encouraged by the mosaic pattern <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest<br />

Mosaic, whereby such species continue breeding in their open habitat but enter the enclosed<br />

habitat for refuge, especially during dry periods (Poynton, 2000).<br />

Butterflies<br />

Only one <strong>of</strong> the 21 species recorded, the Gold b<strong>and</strong>ed forester (Euphaedra neophron<br />

littoralis), is strictly forest dependent, while the Jordan’s Sailor (Neptis jordani), which was<br />

the most frequently captured species (23%), has been previously found in the drier <strong>and</strong> hotter<br />

zones <strong>of</strong> Africa (Condamin, 1966). This is indicative <strong>of</strong> the extensive fire disturbance<br />

occurring in this reserve <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> the sparse <strong>and</strong> dry understory that has resulted (Kiell<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

Cordeiro, 2000).<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

The lighting <strong>of</strong> fires was the largest form <strong>of</strong> disturbance in Ndechela FR. Fires are probably<br />

started deliberately to corner animals for hunting (Burgess et al., 2000b). Conversely, levels<br />

<strong>of</strong> other forms <strong>of</strong> disturbance were among the lowest in this study, <strong>and</strong> a possible reason may<br />

be the low human population density <strong>of</strong> the area surrounding the reserve. It also transpired<br />

from structured interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussion that the villagers obtains forest resources from<br />

nearby wooded areas that function as a buffer zone to the reserve, <strong>and</strong> that regular patrols by<br />

game <strong>of</strong>ficers from Lukwika-Lumesule game reserve keep the reserve under a certain degree<br />

<strong>of</strong> protection.<br />

However, some recently active <strong>and</strong> old pit sawing sites were observed, together with several<br />

traps for small birds <strong>and</strong> a drift fence to trap large ungulates. Two dead baboons (Papio<br />

cynocephalus) were found in the river bed, killed by a farmer for raiding his crops, <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Sable antelope (Hippotragus niger), a species listed as conservation dependant in the IUCN<br />

Red List (2004), was reported to be hunted. These findings emphasised the local people’s<br />

largely negative attitudes towards the reserve, as it transpired from structured interviews:<br />

inhabitants see no reason for the presence <strong>of</strong> this reserve since they feel that they do not<br />

benefit from it.<br />

Bee farming was common here. When material for the construction <strong>of</strong> beehives is obtained in<br />

a sustainable way, apiculture has been found to be ecologically preferable to harvesting <strong>of</strong><br />

wild honey, as the latter <strong>of</strong>ten results in the cutting <strong>of</strong> the tree to access the hive (Wegner,<br />

2003). However, bee farming in Ndechela FR may also result in tree death, as bark is here<br />

used for the construction <strong>of</strong> beehives <strong>and</strong> is extracted by ringing <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten killing the trees.<br />

Since the most desirable piece <strong>of</strong> bark is a complete circle <strong>and</strong> as larger pieces <strong>of</strong> bark result<br />

in larger hives, large trees are targeted.<br />

Enquiries at the Department <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources revealed that minimal management takes<br />

place in Ndechela FR. The last management action was boundary clearance in 1997, but<br />

village representatives stated that the boundary is no longer evident. The <strong>of</strong>fice would like to<br />

22 The identification <strong>of</strong> the Kassina to species level was undertaken by Frontier-Tanzania field staff <strong>and</strong> is yet to be<br />

verified. This frog was found in a state <strong>of</strong> aestivation, sedentary <strong>and</strong> with closed eyes. When disturbed the<br />

individual shed a layer <strong>of</strong> skin <strong>and</strong> slowly became active.<br />

168


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

make an estimate <strong>of</strong> the volume <strong>of</strong> timber contained in Ndechela, but little money is available<br />

for any management. A ‘village fire committee’ had been set up in 1997 to control fires set<br />

deliberately within the forest, but this is no longer effective. While there are no by-laws<br />

enacted by the villages, regular patrols <strong>of</strong> the reserve by game <strong>of</strong>ficers from Lukwika-<br />

Lumesule game reserve provide some level <strong>of</strong> protection, <strong>and</strong> future plans include a possible<br />

link with the Lukwika-Lumesale Game Reserve.<br />

169


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

20. DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON FOR ALL<br />

FOREST RESERVES<br />

G. WEGNER AND O. SWEENEY<br />

This section serves to summarise <strong>and</strong> further discuss results for all flora, fauna <strong>and</strong> human<br />

resources-use from the eight forest reserves surveyed, <strong>and</strong> to compare their biological<br />

importance by assessing values <strong>of</strong> species richness, diversity, forest dependency, endemism<br />

<strong>and</strong> extinction threat. These comparisons will aid in establishing priorities for future<br />

conservation initiatives in the reserves studied.<br />

FLORA<br />

VEGETATION TYPES<br />

The vegetation found in the study area is distinctive <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic, being<br />

comprised <strong>of</strong> an assemblage <strong>of</strong> closed-forest types unique to the Swahilian region sensu lato,<br />

as well as savanna woodl<strong>and</strong>, thicket, grassl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> farml<strong>and</strong> under cultivation or fallow.<br />

This mosaic pattern <strong>of</strong> vegetation types is a consequence <strong>of</strong> both the heterogeneous set <strong>of</strong><br />

abiotic factors (climate, geology, topography, soils etc.) characterising different sites within<br />

the study area (see Study Site section), <strong>and</strong> the various levels <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic disturbance<br />

<strong>and</strong> management occurring within the reserves (Robertson <strong>and</strong> Clark, 2000) (see Human<br />

Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management sections).<br />

Various types <strong>of</strong> eastern African closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> were identified in the study<br />

area: Brachystegia forest, Legume-dominated dry forest, Mixed dry forest, Mixed scrub forest<br />

<strong>and</strong> Riverine forest (Table 20-a).<br />

Brachystegia forest was the most dominant vegetation type, occurring extensively on the<br />

well-drained, nutrient poor <strong>and</strong> heavily leached soils typical <strong>of</strong> the Makonde escarpment, a<br />

l<strong>and</strong>form that encompasses Kambona FR <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III proposed FRs, <strong>and</strong><br />

the northern edge <strong>of</strong> Mkunya River proposed FR. Here Brachystegia forest appears to<br />

constitute a non-fire generated climax community, occurring over soils that have become too<br />

degraded to support the coastal dry forest vegetation climax original to the eastern African<br />

coastal strip (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000). The cause <strong>of</strong> this soil erosion is both<br />

anthropogenic (clearance <strong>and</strong> shifting cultivation) <strong>and</strong> natural (the rapid erosion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

s<strong>and</strong>stone plateaux <strong>and</strong> hills). In the study area Brachystegia trees generally form a closedcanopy<br />

over a dense to sparse shrub layer, while grasses are thinly distributed or absent. In<br />

some <strong>of</strong> the reserves (Kambona FR, Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> II, Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Mtiniko<br />

proposed FRs), the removal <strong>of</strong> canopy trees for timber has changed the physiognomy <strong>of</strong> the<br />

canopy layer into a more open configuration, <strong>and</strong> in some cases (Kambona FR, <strong>and</strong> Mkunya<br />

River <strong>and</strong> Mtiniko proposed FRs) has given way to sub canopy species to dominate in terms<br />

<strong>of</strong> relative abundance. However, the presence <strong>of</strong> Swahilian endemic species <strong>and</strong> the sparse<br />

character <strong>of</strong> the grass layer still distinguish this vegetation type from the Brachystegia or<br />

‘miombo’ woodl<strong>and</strong> that constitutes the fire-generated climax <strong>of</strong> the Zambezian regional<br />

centre <strong>of</strong> endemism 23 (Clarke, 2000). The shrub layer that characterises Brachystegia forest in<br />

the study area varies from sparse (Kambona FR, <strong>and</strong> Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp III<br />

proposed FRs) to dense (Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> II proposed FRs). On the slopes <strong>of</strong> the<br />

23 The Brachystegia or ‘miombo’ woodl<strong>and</strong> formations <strong>of</strong> the Zambezian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism are also<br />

dominated by Brachystegia sp. (B. microphylla or B. spiciformis), but they differ from the coastal Brachystegia<br />

forest <strong>of</strong> the Swahilian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism in both ecological <strong>and</strong> physiognomic terms. They are fireclimax<br />

vegetations characterised by an open canopy <strong>and</strong> a dense grass layer, <strong>and</strong> composed <strong>of</strong> tree <strong>and</strong> shrub<br />

species restricted in distribution to the Zambezian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism (Clarke, 2000).<br />

170


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Makonde escarpment in Mkunya River proposed FR thin understory vegetation is probably<br />

caused by the steepness <strong>of</strong> the ground, whereby deep soils fail to develop <strong>and</strong> support dense<br />

vegetation. In the other reserves further study will be needed to determine whether the<br />

sparcity <strong>of</strong> the shrub layer is a natural incidence (Robertson <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000) or a<br />

consequence <strong>of</strong> disturbance.<br />

Legume-dominated dry forest was found to still occur in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR <strong>and</strong><br />

Ndechela FR. This forest type grows on well-drained soils but appears not to be limited by<br />

other edaphic conditions (Robertson <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000). In Mtuli Hinju proposed FR it grows<br />

on deep, well drained s<strong>and</strong>y soils <strong>of</strong> low fertility <strong>and</strong> moisture holding capacity that have<br />

developed from the coastal s<strong>and</strong>stone sediments <strong>of</strong> the eastern African coastal strip. In<br />

Ndechela it occurs on coarse grained s<strong>and</strong>y soils that have developed from the pre-Cambrian<br />

gneisses <strong>and</strong> granulites extending west <strong>of</strong> the coastal sediments <strong>and</strong> south <strong>of</strong> Masasi. While in<br />

Mtuli Hinju the canopy layer is typically dominated by few species from the Fabaceae family,<br />

i.e. Pterocarpus angolensis (subfamily Papilionideae) <strong>and</strong> Albizia versicolor (subfamily<br />

Mimosoideae), in Ndechela no particular Fabaceae species appear to dominate the canopy <strong>and</strong><br />

sub canopy layers. Legume-dominated dry forest probably represents a relict <strong>of</strong> the pre-<br />

Miocene pan-African lowl<strong>and</strong> forest that once comprised the now separated blocks <strong>of</strong> West<br />

African Guineo-Congolian Forest <strong>and</strong> East African Swahilian <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest. As such, it is<br />

possible that prior to human intervention Legume-dominated dry forest covered much <strong>of</strong> the<br />

eastern African coastal strip, constituting the climatic vegetation climax for this ecoregion<br />

(Robertson <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000). This plant community is very vulnerable. The seeds <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Fabaceae trees are heavy <strong>and</strong> not dispersed by wind or animal. Moreover, these seeds do not<br />

remain viable in the seed bank for long, do not tolerate desiccation, require a forest<br />

microclimate (shade <strong>and</strong> high-humidity) to germinate <strong>and</strong> are pyrophobic (Clarke, 2000).<br />

Therefore, the complete clearance <strong>of</strong> this forest type drastically lowers the chances <strong>of</strong> its<br />

regeneration on the same sites. These sites can then become dominated by more easily<br />

dispersed pioneer tree species characteristic <strong>of</strong> mixed dry forest <strong>and</strong> mixed scrub forest, at the<br />

expense <strong>of</strong> endemic species <strong>and</strong> plant associations that may be relicts <strong>of</strong> the ancient Pan-<br />

African lowl<strong>and</strong> forest (Clarke, 2000). In both Mtuli Hinju proposed FR <strong>and</strong> Ndechela FR<br />

human disturbance constitutes a threat to the continuity <strong>of</strong> Legume-dominated dry forest, <strong>and</strong><br />

it is therefore important to implement conservation measures to protect this vulnerable plant<br />

community.<br />

Mixed non-legume-dominated dry forest was found on deep, well-drained s<strong>and</strong>y soils <strong>of</strong> low<br />

fertility <strong>and</strong> moisture holding capacity that developed from the coastal s<strong>and</strong>stone sediments in<br />

Mtiniko proposed FR. Here this community may constitute a regeneration climax that has<br />

developed in the absence <strong>of</strong> slower dispersing legume seeds (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000).<br />

Mixed dry forest is generally characterised by a relatively high degree <strong>of</strong> species richness <strong>and</strong><br />

a dense understory, as found in Mtiniko proposed FR.<br />

In Makonde Scarp II proposed FR, Mixed scrub forest constitutes a seral stage that resulted<br />

from the clearance <strong>of</strong> climax forest <strong>and</strong> the practice <strong>of</strong> shifting cultivation, whereby farml<strong>and</strong><br />

is left fallow for at least seven years, allowing grassl<strong>and</strong> first, then Thicket <strong>and</strong> finally Mixed<br />

scrub forest to regenerate. If the clearing cycle was not perpetuated this vegetation type could<br />

complete its succession to climax forest (Gillman, 1954).<br />

Finally, small patches <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest were recorded in Kambona FR <strong>and</strong> Mkunya River<br />

proposed FR. In both cases big canopy trees characteristic <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest have been<br />

removed for use as timber <strong>and</strong> sub canopy trees have taken over to cover the gaps; what is left<br />

is a regenerating stage <strong>of</strong> this vegetation type.<br />

Thicket, cultivated <strong>and</strong> fallow farml<strong>and</strong> were found in all reserves to varying degrees.<br />

171


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Table 20-a Forest types, total number <strong>of</strong> floral species, diversity index, <strong>and</strong> number <strong>of</strong> endemic<br />

<strong>and</strong> threatened floral species found in the eight forest reserves surveyed<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Vegetation classification<br />

Kambona Eastern African coastal<br />

Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong><br />

Riverine forest<br />

Makonde Eastern African coastal<br />

Scarp I<br />

Makonde<br />

Scarp II<br />

Brachystegia forest<br />

Eastern African coastal<br />

Brachystegia forest, Mixed<br />

scrub forest <strong>and</strong> Thicket<br />

Mkunya River Eastern African coastal<br />

Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong><br />

Riverine forest<br />

Mtiniko Eastern African coastal<br />

mixed dry forest<br />

Mtuli Hinju Eastern African coastal<br />

Legume-dominated dry forest<br />

Makonde Eastern African coastal<br />

Scarp III Brachystegia forest <strong>and</strong><br />

Total<br />

no. <strong>of</strong><br />

species<br />

Shannon<br />

diversity<br />

index<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> species<br />

endemic to<br />

the Swahilian<br />

region sensu<br />

lato<br />

79 3.37 7 1 VU<br />

7 PT<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

threatened<br />

species<br />

73 2.95 9 1 VU<br />

7 PT<br />

76 3.01 7 3 VU<br />

7 PT<br />

102 2.80 11 1 CR<br />

3 VU<br />

8 PT<br />

111 2.78 10 1 VU<br />

9 PT<br />

122 2.21 7 1 VU<br />

9 PT<br />

90 2.75 8 2 VU<br />

9 PT<br />

Thicket<br />

Ndechela Eastern African coastal 78 3.46 10 1 VU<br />

Legume-dominated dry forest<br />

8 PT<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

PT = Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

SPECIES RICHNESS AND DIVERSITY<br />

The floral species richness <strong>and</strong> diversity observed in the studied sites were assessed by taking<br />

in consideration a combination <strong>of</strong> factors, including the size <strong>of</strong> the reserve, the types <strong>of</strong> plant<br />

communities present, the level <strong>of</strong> habitat fragmentation <strong>and</strong> the degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance. In this<br />

study the sampling intensity was chosen to be proportional to the size <strong>of</strong> each reserve, <strong>and</strong><br />

therefore dissimilar sampling intensities were also responsible for the variations recorded<br />

(Table 10-a).<br />

In total 265 plant species were recorded by this study. Mtuli Hinju <strong>and</strong> Mtiniko proposed FRs<br />

were found to have the highest floral species richness (122 <strong>and</strong> 111 species respectively)<br />

while Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> II had the lowest number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (73 <strong>and</strong> 76 species<br />

respectively) (Table 20-a). Mixed dry forest is generally characterised by a high number <strong>of</strong><br />

species (Robertson <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000), which may explain the findings from Mtiniko proposed<br />

FR. The divergence in species richness between the Legume-dominated forests <strong>of</strong> Mtuli Hinju<br />

proposed FR (122) <strong>and</strong> Ndechela FR (78) may be attributed to the high level <strong>of</strong> fire<br />

disturbance affecting Ndechela FR, which may be preventing the regeneration <strong>of</strong> fire<br />

intolerant species (Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000). In Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> II proposed FRs the<br />

high proportion <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong> comprising the reserves <strong>and</strong> the conspicuous extraction <strong>of</strong><br />

timber taking place accounted for the low number <strong>of</strong> species found.<br />

The highest Shannon diversity index (H¹=3.46) was recorded in Ndechela FR. This is<br />

associated with the high number <strong>of</strong> individual trees found here (314 in total) <strong>and</strong> the lack <strong>of</strong> a<br />

single or few dominant species, whereby individual trees are evenly distributed among a<br />

172


#REF!<br />

Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

number <strong>of</strong> species (Magurran, 1988; Begon et al., 1996). The high number <strong>of</strong> trees in<br />

Ndechela FR is a consequence <strong>of</strong> the relatively low level <strong>of</strong> timber extraction affecting this<br />

reserve. Shannon diversity indexes for other forest reserves ranged from 2.75 in Mtiniko<br />

proposed FR to 3.37 in Kambona FR (Table 20-a). These relatively high values reflected plant<br />

communities in succession (Magurran, 1988), where a comparatively high number <strong>of</strong> species,<br />

particularly understory species, can colonise the area <strong>and</strong> achieve high population densities<br />

following the removal <strong>of</strong> more competitive canopy trees (Ndangalasi, 1997). If these forests<br />

were allowed to fully regenerate, <strong>and</strong> canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy species to achieve their<br />

potential population size, then the species diversity would be expected to decline. In Mtuli<br />

Hinju proposed FR the Shannon diversity index was relatively low (H¹=2.21) in relation to<br />

the total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (116), <strong>and</strong> this reflected a stable community where<br />

competitive <strong>and</strong> productive species have achieved high population densities <strong>and</strong> have come to<br />

dominate (Magurran, 1988; Begon et al., 1996). This forest reserve may have reached a<br />

climatic stage because <strong>of</strong> the low level <strong>of</strong> human disturbance occurring with respect to<br />

encroachment <strong>and</strong> timber extraction (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management<br />

sections).<br />

All forest reserves were subject to some degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance <strong>and</strong> this has had a significant<br />

impact on the vegetation found. In general, there seems to be a relationship between the<br />

degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance <strong>and</strong> the species richness occurring in an area (Figure 20). Mtuli Hinju<br />

proposed FR was the reserve affected by one <strong>of</strong> the lowest degrees <strong>of</strong> disturbance <strong>and</strong> the one<br />

with the highest number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (122). Encroachment <strong>and</strong> clearance for<br />

cultivation were most severe in Mkunya River, Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III proposed FRs,<br />

where they have noticeably reduced the area covered by forest <strong>and</strong> consequently the number<br />

<strong>of</strong> species present (Table 20-a, Figure 20). Where timber extraction was most severe<br />

(Kambona FR <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III proposed FRs) the selective removal <strong>of</strong> canopy<br />

<strong>and</strong> sub canopy trees has noticeably reduced the species richness: only 73 species were<br />

recorded in Makonde Scarp I, 76 in Makonde Scarp II, 79 in Kambona <strong>and</strong> 90 in Makonde<br />

Scarp III (Figure 20, Table 20-a). In Mtiniko proposed FR the illegal <strong>of</strong>f take <strong>of</strong> timber may<br />

be higher than the study shows, but the intrinsic species richness characteristic <strong>of</strong> its Mixed<br />

dry forest may be compensating for this degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance <strong>and</strong> may explain the high<br />

number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (111). In Ndechela FR levels <strong>of</strong> encroachment, timber extraction<br />

<strong>and</strong> hunting were among the lowest recorded in this study, however, extensive <strong>and</strong> frequent<br />

fires may be responsible for the low species richness observed (78 species), since fire inhibits<br />

the regeneration <strong>of</strong> fire intolerant species.<br />

Percentage <strong>of</strong> 50m sections affected<br />

100<br />

90<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde Scarp I<br />

Makonde Scarp II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde Scarp III<br />

Ndechela<br />

140<br />

120<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

40<br />

20<br />

0<br />

Floral species richness<br />

Cutting<br />

Fire<br />

Encroachment<br />

Species richness<br />

Figure 20 Graph showing the relationship between floral species richness <strong>and</strong> levels <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance<br />

173


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

ENDEMISM<br />

In the whole study area 26 <strong>of</strong> the species found are endemic to the Swahilian region sensu<br />

lato, being geographically restricted to the coastal strip <strong>of</strong> eastern tropical Africa, between the<br />

equator in Somalia <strong>and</strong> the Limpopo River in Mozambique (Clarke, 2000) (Table 20-b).<br />

These endemic species constitute 6% to 12% <strong>of</strong> the floral species recorded in each forest<br />

reserve <strong>and</strong> make up 12% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded throughout the study (265)<br />

(Figure 21; Appendix 10). These figures constitute a third <strong>of</strong> the overall degree <strong>of</strong> endemism<br />

recorded by previous studies in other <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, where 33% <strong>of</strong> vascular<br />

plant species were found to be endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke, 2000). The<br />

relatively low level <strong>of</strong> endemism found in the surveyed <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region<br />

is likely to be a consequence <strong>of</strong> the high degree <strong>of</strong> habitat destruction taking place in the area.<br />

12%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

88%<br />

Figure 21 Percentage <strong>of</strong> endemic (to the Swahilian Region sensu lato) <strong>and</strong> widespread floral<br />

species for the whole study site<br />

EXTINCTION THREAT<br />

Five <strong>of</strong> the species found are listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List (2004), <strong>and</strong> another<br />

25 are recognised to be potentially threatened (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006), together constituting<br />

13% <strong>of</strong> all species recorded (Table 20-b).<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the species listed as threatened by IUCN (2004) <strong>and</strong> recorded during this study are<br />

timber trees used by the local communities for a variety <strong>of</strong> purposes. Cynometra gillmanii<br />

(Endemic <strong>and</strong> Critically Endangered) is characterised by a hard wood that is used in<br />

construction <strong>and</strong> for making various tool h<strong>and</strong>les. The wood <strong>of</strong> Mesogyne insignis<br />

(Vulnerable) is hard <strong>and</strong> heavy, <strong>and</strong> is used for building poles <strong>and</strong> tool h<strong>and</strong>les <strong>and</strong> for<br />

firewood. The African mahogany (Khaya anthotheca - Vulnerable) yields a very valuable,<br />

termite resistant timber that resembles that <strong>of</strong> the South American true Mahogany (Swietenia<br />

macrophylla), <strong>and</strong> is dem<strong>and</strong>ed on global markets for joinery <strong>and</strong> cabinet work <strong>and</strong> for<br />

making veneer (Schulman et. al, 1998).<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the plant species recorded by this study are classified as Rare by Knox (2000), i.e.<br />

none <strong>of</strong> them are present in less than two out <strong>of</strong> the eight FTEA vegetation regions <strong>of</strong><br />

Tanzania (Polhill, 1988). Such apparent widespread distribution within the Swahilian region<br />

sensu lato may seem to imply that none <strong>of</strong> the endemic species recorded are particularly<br />

threatened by extinction. However, considering the relatively small area <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest<br />

Mosaic, the high degree <strong>of</strong> habitat loss <strong>and</strong> fragmentation it suffers (Brooks et al., 2002), <strong>and</strong><br />

the current criteria for inclusion in the Red List (IUCN, 2004), most endemic species can<br />

actually be regarded as ‘threatened species’ (CEPF, 2005). In fact, 17 (65%) <strong>of</strong> the endemic<br />

plant species occurring in the surveyed reserves are already listed as threatened or potentially<br />

threatened (Table 20-b). This highlights the importance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> studied as<br />

habitats for the endemic plants still found here, <strong>and</strong> emphasises the urgent need for<br />

174


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

conservation measures to protect them. Unfortunately, even if the remaining forest patches<br />

were to be left intact, their endemic species richness may already not be sustainable in the<br />

long-term: fragmentation <strong>and</strong> habitat loss may have caused populations <strong>of</strong> long-lived endemic<br />

species (e.g. trees) to become genetically unviable (Cronk, 1997; Clarke et al., 2000).<br />

Table 20-b Endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened floral species found in the eight forest reserves surveyed<br />

Family Species Endemic Threat Reserve<br />

status status<br />

ACANTHACEAE Barleria holstii E Kambona, Mtiniko<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Ozoroa obovata E Makonde Scarp I<br />

ANNONACEAE Monodora gr<strong>and</strong>idieri E Makonde II, Mtiniko<br />

ANNONACEAE Monanthotaxis fornicata E PT Makonde II<br />

ANNONACEAE<br />

Monanthotaxis<br />

PT Makonde II<br />

trichocarpa<br />

ARALIACEAE Cussonia zimmermannii E PT Makonde III, Ndechela<br />

BOMBACACEAE Bombax rhodognaphalon E PT Mtiniko, Makonde III<br />

BURSERACEAE Commiphora zanzibarica E PT Makonde I, Mkunya River,<br />

Ndechela<br />

CELASTRACEAE Maytenus mossambicensis PT Mtuli Hinju<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana E PT Kambona, Makonde II <strong>and</strong><br />

III, Mtiniko, Mtuli Hinju,<br />

Ndechela<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Cleistanthus schlechteri E Kambona, Mkunya River,<br />

Mtiniko, Mtuli Hinju<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Drypetes natalensis PT Kambona, Makonde I <strong>and</strong><br />

III, Mkunya River, Mtiniko<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia abbreviata PT Makonde II <strong>and</strong> III, Mtuli<br />

Hinju, Ndechela<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cynometra gillmanii E CR Mkunya River<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Scorodophloeus fischeri E PT Mkunya River, Makonde<br />

III, Ndechela<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia nilotica PT Mtuli Hinju<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Entada stuhlmannii E PT Ndechela<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Baphia punctulata PT Kambona<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Craibia brevicaudata PT Kambona, Makonde II,<br />

Mtiniko, Mtuli Hinju<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Erythrina schliebenii E PT Kambona, Makonde I,<br />

Mkunya River, Mtiniko,<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia impressa PT Makonde I <strong>and</strong> II, Mkunya<br />

River, Ndechela<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Xylotheca tettensis E PT Mkunya River, Mtuli Hinju,<br />

Makonde III<br />

MELIACEAE Khaya anthotheca VU Kambona, Makonde II <strong>and</strong><br />

III<br />

MORACEAE Mesogyne insignis VU Mkunya River, Mtiniko,<br />

Mtuli Hinju, Makonde III<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cordatum PT Kambona<br />

RUBIACEAE Gardenia transvenulosa E VU Makonde II, Ndechela<br />

RUBIACEAE Lamprothamnus<br />

E PT Makonde I <strong>and</strong> II, Mkunya<br />

RUBIACEAE<br />

zanguebaricus<br />

Lasianthus<br />

kilim<strong>and</strong>scharicus<br />

PT<br />

River<br />

Mtuli Hinju, Makonde III<br />

175


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Species Endemic Threat Reserve<br />

status status<br />

RUBIACEAE Rytigynia decussata E PT Kambona, Makonde I,<br />

Mkunya River, Mtiniko,<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

SAPOTACEAE Mimusops schliebenii E Kambona, Makonde I,<br />

Mkunya River<br />

STERCULIACEAE Cola clavata E PT Mtiniko, Mtuli Hinju<br />

STERCULIACEAE Sterculia appendiculata E Makonde I <strong>and</strong> III, Mkunya<br />

River, Ndechela<br />

TILIACEAE Grewia forbesii E Mkunya River<br />

TILIACEAE Grewia lepidopetala E Kambona, Makonde II <strong>and</strong><br />

III, Mtiniko, Mtuli Hinju,<br />

Ndechela<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex mossambicensis E PT Makonde I, Mtiniko,<br />

Ndechela<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex zanzibarensis E VU Makonde I <strong>and</strong> II, Mkunya<br />

River<br />

VIOLACEAE Rinorea angustifolia PT Mtiniko<br />

VIOLACEAE Rinorea elliptica E Mtiniko<br />

ZINGIBERACEAE Aframomum orientale E PT Makonde III<br />

E = Species endemic to the Swahilian region sensu lato (Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

PT = Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF Hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

When comparing the forest reserves in terms <strong>of</strong> percentage endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened species,<br />

Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> III proposed FRs <strong>and</strong> Ndechela FR contain the highest ratio <strong>of</strong> endemic<br />

species (12%), while Mtuli Hinju proposed FR is characterised by the lowest ratio (6%). The<br />

percentage <strong>of</strong> threatened species in all reserves ranges between 8-12%. However, no pattern<br />

could be identified when relating the relative proportion <strong>of</strong> threatened <strong>and</strong> endemic species<br />

recorded in each forest reserve to either the vegetation type where the species occur or the<br />

degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance affecting the reserves (Figure 22).<br />

12<br />

10<br />

Percentage<br />

<strong>of</strong> total<br />

8<br />

6<br />

4<br />

2<br />

% Endemic<br />

% Threatened<br />

0<br />

Kambona Makonde<br />

I<br />

Makonde<br />

II<br />

Mkunya<br />

River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli<br />

Hinju<br />

Makonde<br />

III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Figure 22 Percentage <strong>of</strong> endemic (to the Swahilian Region sensu lato) <strong>and</strong> threatened floral<br />

species for each forest reserve<br />

176


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

FAUNA<br />

SPECIES RICHNESS<br />

The faunal species richness observed in the studied sites was determined by taking in<br />

consideration a combination <strong>of</strong> factors, including the size <strong>of</strong> the reserve (Figure 23), the<br />

structure <strong>of</strong> the plant communities present, the level <strong>of</strong> habitat fragmentation <strong>and</strong> the degree<br />

<strong>of</strong> disturbance (Figure 24). In this study the sampling intensity was chosen to be proportional<br />

to the size <strong>of</strong> each reserve, <strong>and</strong> therefore dissimilar sampling intensities were also responsible<br />

for the variations recorded (Table 10-a).<br />

Table 20-c Total number <strong>of</strong> faunal species found in each forest reserve for all studied taxa <strong>and</strong>, in<br />

brackets, their percentage contribution to the number <strong>of</strong> species recorded as a whole in each<br />

forest reserve<br />

Taxa<br />

Large<br />

mammals<br />

Kambona<br />

14<br />

(13)<br />

Makonde I<br />

19<br />

(14)<br />

Makonde II<br />

11<br />

(11)<br />

Mkunya River<br />

17<br />

(10)<br />

Mtiniko<br />

7<br />

(8)<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

6<br />

(7)<br />

Makonde III<br />

8<br />

(9)<br />

Ndechela<br />

28<br />

(16)<br />

Total<br />

number<br />

<strong>of</strong> species<br />

for all<br />

reserves<br />

38<br />

Small<br />

mammals<br />

8<br />

(7)<br />

6<br />

(4)<br />

7<br />

(7)<br />

10<br />

(6)<br />

5<br />

(6)<br />

5<br />

(6)<br />

5<br />

(5)<br />

8<br />

(5)<br />

16<br />

Bats 0 1<br />

(1)<br />

0 2<br />

(1)<br />

0 0 0 2<br />

(1)<br />

5<br />

Birds 57<br />

(53)<br />

78<br />

(57)<br />

64<br />

(65)<br />

103<br />

(59)<br />

56<br />

(64)<br />

56<br />

(66)<br />

49<br />

(53)<br />

97<br />

(56)<br />

159<br />

Reptiles 4<br />

(4)<br />

9<br />

(7)<br />

7<br />

(8)<br />

12<br />

(7)<br />

2<br />

(2)<br />

1<br />

(1)<br />

5<br />

(5)<br />

10<br />

(6)<br />

30<br />

Amphibians 5<br />

(5)<br />

5<br />

(4)<br />

2<br />

(2)<br />

8<br />

(5)<br />

1<br />

(1)<br />

6<br />

(7)<br />

3<br />

(3)<br />

8<br />

(5)<br />

21<br />

Butterflies 19<br />

(17)<br />

20<br />

(14)<br />

8<br />

(8)<br />

24<br />

(14)<br />

17<br />

(19)<br />

11<br />

(13)<br />

23<br />

(25)<br />

21<br />

(12)<br />

71<br />

TOTAL 107 138 99 176 88 85 93 174 340<br />

The highest numbers <strong>of</strong> species were recorded in Mkunya River proposed FR <strong>and</strong> Ndechela<br />

FR (176 <strong>and</strong> 174 respectively); while Mtiniko, Mtuli Hinju <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp III proposed<br />

FRs had the lowest number <strong>of</strong> species (88, 85 <strong>and</strong> 93 respectively). The high numbers<br />

recorded for Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Ndechela reflect the fact that they were the largest reserves<br />

surveyed, that they were among the least disturbed by agricultural encroachment, <strong>and</strong> that a<br />

high sampling intensity had been applied to them (Table 10-a, Figure 23 <strong>and</strong> Figure 24). The<br />

low number <strong>of</strong> species recorded in Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp III proposed FRs is mainly a<br />

consequence <strong>of</strong> the high level <strong>of</strong> human disturbance that affects both (Figure 24). In Mtiniko<br />

FR, results from structured interviews suggested that encroachment <strong>and</strong> illegal <strong>of</strong>f take <strong>of</strong><br />

timber may be higher than the study shows (see Results <strong>and</strong> Discussion sections). The low<br />

177


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

species richness recorded in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR is likely to mainly reflect its small size,<br />

as the level <strong>of</strong> disturbance was relatively low in this reserve (Figure 23 <strong>and</strong> Figure 24).<br />

7000<br />

200<br />

Reserve size (ha.)<br />

6000<br />

5000<br />

4000<br />

3000<br />

2000<br />

1000<br />

0<br />

Kambona FR<br />

Mtuli Hinju FR<br />

Makonde Scarp III FR<br />

Makonde Scarp II FR<br />

Mtiniko FR<br />

Makonde Scarp I FR<br />

Mkunya River FR<br />

Ndechela FR<br />

180<br />

160<br />

140<br />

120<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

40<br />

20<br />

0<br />

No. species recorded<br />

Size <strong>of</strong> forest<br />

reserve (ha.)<br />

No. species<br />

Figure 23 Graph showing the relationship between faunal species richness <strong>and</strong> forest reserve size<br />

100<br />

90<br />

Percentage <strong>of</strong> 50m sections affected<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

Cutting<br />

Fire<br />

Encroachment<br />

Hunting<br />

Faunal species<br />

richness<br />

200<br />

180<br />

160<br />

140<br />

Faunal species richness<br />

120<br />

50<br />

100<br />

40<br />

80<br />

30<br />

60<br />

20<br />

40<br />

10<br />

20<br />

0<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde<br />

scarp I<br />

Makonde<br />

scarp II<br />

Mkunya<br />

River<br />

Mtiniko Mtuli Hinju Makonde<br />

scarp III<br />

Ndechela<br />

0<br />

Figure 24 Graph showing the relationship between faunal species richness <strong>and</strong> levels <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance<br />

Birds<br />

For all forest reserves, birds accounted for the highest proportion <strong>of</strong> species recorded, ranging<br />

from 53% to 66% <strong>of</strong> all records (Table 20-c). This study confirms the direct link between bird<br />

species richness <strong>and</strong> the size <strong>of</strong> the study site observed by Mlingwa et al (2000): the highest<br />

numbers <strong>of</strong> birds were recorded in Mkunya River proposed FR (103) <strong>and</strong> Ndechela FR (97),<br />

which were the largest reserves in the study area (Table 9-a). Accordingly, Kambona FR <strong>and</strong><br />

178


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Mtuli Hinju proposed FR were the smallest reserves surveyed <strong>and</strong> had low numbers <strong>of</strong> bird<br />

species recorded (57 <strong>and</strong> 56 respectively). It has been considered that vegetation structure is<br />

more important than habitat continuity in determining the composition <strong>of</strong> bird communities<br />

(Waiyaki, 1995 in Mlingwa et al., 2000): a relatively closed-canopy with a shaded <strong>and</strong> dense<br />

understory tends to host a higher number <strong>of</strong> species than a more open canopy with a sparse<br />

understory. This may explain why in some <strong>of</strong> the forest reserves that have disjunct patches <strong>of</strong><br />

dense understory forest (Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> II proposed FRs), the number <strong>of</strong> bird species<br />

recorded was relatively high (78 <strong>and</strong> 64 respectively). Where the vegetation was instead<br />

characterised by a sparse shrub layer (Kambona FR <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp III proposed FR), a<br />

lower number <strong>of</strong> species seemed to occur (57 <strong>and</strong> 49 respectively). In Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

the number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (56) was surprisingly low considering the dense understory <strong>of</strong><br />

the Mixed dry forest found here (see Flora section). However, this figure may not be<br />

indicative <strong>of</strong> the real level <strong>of</strong> species richness <strong>and</strong> instead it may reflect the fact that a<br />

particularly closed-canopy <strong>and</strong> dense understory made sightings more difficult than in other<br />

reserves. In Ndechela FR the large size <strong>of</strong> the reserve (6,216ha) appeared to compensate for<br />

the evident absence <strong>of</strong> a dense shrub layer following extensive fire disturbance, <strong>and</strong> may<br />

therefore explain the high number <strong>of</strong> bird species found (97). Another factor responsible for<br />

variations in bird species richness among the reserves is their proximity to the ridges <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Makonde Scarp, where the topographic variation <strong>of</strong> the escarpment creates an array <strong>of</strong><br />

habitats <strong>and</strong> nesting sites for birds. Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> II proposed FRs<br />

are all located along the ridges <strong>of</strong> the Makonde scarp <strong>and</strong> have high levels <strong>of</strong> species richness<br />

(103, 78 <strong>and</strong> 64 respectively).<br />

Butterflies<br />

Butterflies contributed the second highest number <strong>of</strong> species within almost all <strong>of</strong> the reserves<br />

surveyed, ranging from 8-24% <strong>of</strong> all records (Table 20-c). Butterfly species richness seemed<br />

to be mainly determined by the size <strong>of</strong> the reserve <strong>and</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> dense <strong>and</strong> moisture rich<br />

vegetation (Kiell<strong>and</strong>, 2000). Mkunya River proposed FR, which was one <strong>of</strong> the largest<br />

reserves (Table 9-a), had the highest numbers <strong>of</strong> butterfly species recorded (24). Accordingly,<br />

Mtuli Hinju proposed FR was one <strong>of</strong> the smallest reserves in this study <strong>and</strong> had one <strong>of</strong> the<br />

lowest numbers recorded (11). Where a dense understory was present in at least some patches<br />

<strong>of</strong> forest (Makonde scarp I <strong>and</strong> III, Mtiniko, Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Kambona FRs), a high<br />

number <strong>of</strong> species was recorded, ranging between 17 <strong>and</strong> 27. For the same reason, the low<br />

species richness found in Makonde Scarp II (8 species) may be a consequence <strong>of</strong> the open <strong>and</strong><br />

dry nature <strong>of</strong> the vegetation covering most <strong>of</strong> this reserve (see Flora section). A high<br />

proportion <strong>of</strong> species were recorded in small pockets <strong>of</strong> Riverine forest in Kambona FR <strong>and</strong><br />

Mkunya River proposed FR, confirming a preference for a shaded <strong>and</strong> moisture rich<br />

environment by many species. In Ndechela FR extensive fire disturbance has created a sparse<br />

<strong>and</strong> dry understory, <strong>and</strong> the relatively high number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (21) can therefore be<br />

attributed to the size <strong>of</strong> the reserve more than to the structure <strong>of</strong> the vegetation.<br />

Large mammals<br />

Large mammals contributed the third highest number <strong>of</strong> species within each reserve, ranging<br />

from 8% to 16% <strong>of</strong> all records. Most large mammals have extensive home ranges, so the size<br />

<strong>of</strong> suitable habitat available is the main factor affecting both the number <strong>of</strong> species present<br />

<strong>and</strong> the size <strong>of</strong> the populations that can be supported (Begon et al., 1996). Ndechela FR was<br />

found to contain the highest number <strong>of</strong> large mammal species (28), a consequence <strong>of</strong> both the<br />

continuity <strong>of</strong> suitable habitat sites within this reserve <strong>and</strong> its contiguity to the Lukwika-<br />

Lumesale Game Reserve. On the contrary, Makonde Scarp III <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju proposed FRs<br />

had the lowest species richness (8 <strong>and</strong> 6 species respectively), reflecting their high level <strong>of</strong><br />

fragmentation <strong>and</strong> the small size <strong>of</strong> forest habitat remaining. Considering that Mtuli Hinju<br />

was the least disturbed <strong>and</strong> fragmented <strong>of</strong> all the reserves surveyed, the number <strong>of</strong> large<br />

mammals recorded was unexpectedly low, though it may be reflective <strong>of</strong> the small size <strong>of</strong> the<br />

179


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

reserve <strong>and</strong> the low sampling intensity applied to it (Table 10-a). The number <strong>of</strong> individuals<br />

detected for each species was low in most <strong>of</strong> the reserves. This suggests that the populations<br />

<strong>of</strong> most species are suppressed due to a significant degree <strong>of</strong> disturbance recorded in most <strong>of</strong><br />

the reserves (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management sections), a factor that has<br />

decreased the extent <strong>of</strong> suitable habitat <strong>and</strong> ecological requirements (e.g. prey, shelter)<br />

necessary to support larger populations.<br />

Bats<br />

Bats were recorded only in three reserves (Makonde Scarp I, Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Ndechela),<br />

<strong>and</strong> only five species in total were recorded. However, the sampling intensity applied to this<br />

study was not sufficient to effectively assess the much wider cross section <strong>of</strong> species known<br />

to inhabit the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (up to 58 species) (Burgess et al., 2000a).<br />

Small mammals<br />

Small mammal species richness ranged from five to eight species in all reserves. These<br />

figures are particularly low, considering that a minimum <strong>of</strong> 12 <strong>and</strong> a maximum <strong>of</strong> 36 species<br />

have been previously recorded in individual forests <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic (Burgess et<br />

al., 2000a). Such a poor small mammal community in the study sites probably reflects the<br />

generally open <strong>and</strong> dry habitat (Zullini, 2003; Begon et al., 1996) that has resulted from the<br />

various degrees <strong>of</strong> agricultural encroachment, timber extraction <strong>and</strong> fire occurring in the<br />

reserves (see Human Resource-Use <strong>and</strong> Local Management sections).<br />

Reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians<br />

Reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians made up the lowest proportion <strong>of</strong> all species captured, ranging<br />

between 1–8% <strong>and</strong> 1–7 % <strong>of</strong> all records respectively (Table 20-c). The number <strong>of</strong> species<br />

recorded from these taxa was generally low in all survey sites. This is in part a consequence<br />

<strong>of</strong> the rapid nature <strong>of</strong> this study, which did not permit comprehensive collection <strong>of</strong> data during<br />

the wet season <strong>and</strong> the study <strong>of</strong> fossorial species (Broadley <strong>and</strong> Howell, 2000). Higher<br />

numbers <strong>of</strong> individuals were generally found in small patches <strong>of</strong> vegetation surrounding a<br />

water body (in Kambona <strong>and</strong> Ndechela FRs, <strong>and</strong> in Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju proposed<br />

FRs), where dense vegetation <strong>and</strong> moist humus soil create an ideal breeding ground for these<br />

species (Howell, 1993). Of the reserves containing a water body, the highest species richness<br />

was recorded along the Mkunya River (12 for reptiles <strong>and</strong> 8 for amphibians), reflecting the<br />

high sampling intensity applied to this reserve. In Kambona FR <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju proposed FR<br />

the overall number <strong>of</strong> species was lower than expected (4 reptiles <strong>and</strong> 5 for amphibians in<br />

Kambona FR; 1 for reptiles <strong>and</strong> 6 for amphibians in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR) <strong>and</strong> may<br />

reflect the low sampling intensity chosen (Table 10-a). Lower numbers were recorded in those<br />

reserves not endowed with a sufficiently large water source <strong>and</strong> where severe levels <strong>of</strong><br />

encroachment, timber extraction <strong>and</strong> burning have created a largely open <strong>and</strong> dry<br />

environment (Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III proposed FRs) (Table 20-c) (Zullini, 2003; Begon<br />

et al., 1996). In Ndechela FR the reptile species composition <strong>and</strong> species richness (10 species)<br />

were typically determined by the presence <strong>of</strong> numerous rocky microhabitats, which may have<br />

compensated for the absence <strong>of</strong> moisture rich habitats. However, the amphibian community in<br />

this reserve remains characterised by a low number <strong>of</strong> species (8) mainly captured from a few<br />

stagnant pools along seasonal river beds.<br />

FOREST DEPENDENCE<br />

The number <strong>of</strong> forest dependent faunal species found in any given reserve was generally low,<br />

indicating that large portions <strong>of</strong> the study sites have been converted into a more open <strong>and</strong> dry<br />

habitat, leaving only a few, <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten small, patches <strong>of</strong> suitable forest habitat.<br />

Forest dependent species were mainly recorded in the dense understory <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest<br />

(in Makonde scarp I <strong>and</strong> III proposed FR), Mixed dry forest (in Mtiniko) <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest<br />

180


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

(in Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Kambona). The highest number <strong>of</strong> forest dependent species (14) <strong>and</strong><br />

individuals were recorded in Mtiniko proposed FR, reflecting the extensive area <strong>of</strong><br />

undisturbed forest occurring in this reserve. A high number <strong>of</strong> forest dependent species was<br />

expected in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR, as relatively dense <strong>and</strong> undisturbed Legume-dominated<br />

dry forest covers most <strong>of</strong> this reserve. However, only five forest dependent species were<br />

recorded here (Table 20-d), which may be explained by the small size <strong>of</strong> this reserve (296ha)<br />

<strong>and</strong>/or the low sampling intensity applied to it (Table 10-a).<br />

In general, in most <strong>of</strong> the reserves studied forest dependent species rely on fragmented<br />

patches <strong>of</strong> remaining forest <strong>and</strong> are therefore locally threatened by further degradation <strong>of</strong> their<br />

habitat.<br />

Mammals<br />

When compared to the West African Guineo-Congolian forests, the proportion <strong>of</strong> forest<br />

dependent mammals in the East African Swahilian <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> is low: on average, only<br />

20% <strong>of</strong> mammal species are forest dependent (compared to 70% in the Guineo-Congolean<br />

Forest), 42% are forest dwelling <strong>and</strong> 37% are habitat generalists or not known (Burgess et al.,<br />

2000a). The dominance <strong>of</strong> non-forest species may be due to the fact that the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

are naturally fragmented, surrounded by open habitats <strong>and</strong> dry for part <strong>of</strong> the year. In the<br />

Mtwara Region these characteristics are further accentuated by high levels <strong>of</strong> encroachment<br />

<strong>and</strong> disturbance, <strong>and</strong> this explains the even lower proportion <strong>of</strong> mammal forest dependent<br />

species recorded here. None <strong>of</strong> the small mammal species recorded are forest dependent, one<br />

bat species (Epomophorus wahlbergi) is forest dwelling but not forest dependent, <strong>and</strong> only<br />

five <strong>of</strong> the large mammals are forest dependent, constituting 13% <strong>of</strong> all large mammal species<br />

recorded <strong>and</strong> including the Moloney’s monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis sub sp.), the Red-bellied<br />

coastal squirrel (Paraxerus palliates), the Blue duiker (Cephalophus monticola), the Natal<br />

duiker (Cephalophus natalensis) <strong>and</strong> the Suni (Neotragus moschatus) (Table 20-d). Many <strong>of</strong><br />

these forest dependent species were recorded in small pockets <strong>of</strong> forest amidst large areas <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbed habitat <strong>and</strong> are therefore locally threatened by the limited size <strong>of</strong> suitable forest<br />

habitat available <strong>and</strong> the scarcity <strong>of</strong> ecological requirements (e.g. food, shelter) necessary to<br />

support viable populations.<br />

Most other large mammals recorded only occasionally frequent the forest <strong>and</strong> are therefore<br />

less affected by degradation <strong>of</strong> the forest habitat. Nonetheless, these species may need the<br />

forest reserves as a corridor between suitable patches <strong>of</strong> habitat or for alternative sources <strong>of</strong><br />

food <strong>and</strong> shelter. Predators such as the Lion (Panthera leo - Vulnerable, CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta - conservation dependent) are able to utilise different habitats<br />

<strong>and</strong> to adapt well to changes in their environment, <strong>and</strong> so are likely to be less threatened by<br />

further forest degradation. Nevertheless, any reduction in habitat will reduce the visits <strong>of</strong><br />

these animals as shelter <strong>and</strong> populations <strong>of</strong> predated animals are likely to decrease. Further<br />

research needs to be conducted to assess the extent <strong>of</strong> reliance <strong>of</strong> large mammals <strong>and</strong><br />

predators on the eight forest reserves studied.<br />

Birds<br />

Forest dependent bird species rely on a canopy-shaded <strong>and</strong> dense understory (Mlingwa et al.,<br />

2000). This explains why forest dependent species were observed to occur only among the<br />

dense lianas <strong>and</strong> shrubs <strong>of</strong> the Mixed dry forest in Mtiniko proposed FR <strong>and</strong> in small but<br />

dense patches <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia, Legume-dominated <strong>and</strong>/or Riverine forest in Mkunya River,<br />

Mtuli Hinju, <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> III proposed FRs. These species include the African<br />

crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus), the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis), the<br />

Yellow streaked greenbul (Phyllastrephus flavostriatus), the Fischer’s greenbul (P. fischeri),<br />

the East coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi), the Blue-mantled crested flycatcher<br />

(Trochocercus cyanomelas) <strong>and</strong> the Reichenow’s batis (Batis reichenowi) (Table 20-d). The<br />

181


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

total number <strong>of</strong> forest dependent species (7) is surprisingly low when considering that 33 bird<br />

species in total have been recognised as forest dependent by previous studies in the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> (Mlingwa, 2000). This low number <strong>of</strong> forest dependent species is a consequence <strong>of</strong><br />

the largely disturbed nature <strong>of</strong> the forests in the study area, whereby the few patches <strong>of</strong><br />

suitable forest habitat remaining are <strong>of</strong>ten too small to sustain viable populations <strong>of</strong> forest<br />

bird species.<br />

Reptiles<br />

For the reptiles, <strong>of</strong> all the species recorded only the Tropical plated lizard (Cordylus<br />

tropidosternum) <strong>and</strong> the Rufus egg-eater (Dasypeltis medici) are known to favour a forested<br />

habitat, <strong>and</strong> even these species were only found in one forest reserve each (Makonde Scarp I<br />

<strong>and</strong> Kambona respectively). This paucity <strong>of</strong> forest dwelling <strong>and</strong> forest dependent reptile<br />

species in the studied sites is striking when considering that 50% <strong>of</strong> reptile species recorded<br />

by previous studies in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> are forest dependent (Broadley <strong>and</strong> Howell, 2000).<br />

Amphibians<br />

For the amphibians, only the Yellow-spotted tree frog (Leptopelis flavomaculatus), the<br />

Spotted reed frog (Hyperolius punticulatus) <strong>and</strong> the Squeakers (Arthroleptis sp.) are known to<br />

favour a forested habitat (Schiotz, 1999; Channing, 2001). The paucity <strong>of</strong> forest dwelling <strong>and</strong><br />

forest dependent amphibian species is a recurrent characteristic <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>, as the<br />

majority <strong>of</strong> species recorded by previous studies are open-site breeders rather than strictly<br />

forest-limited species. The intrusion into forested areas by species that normally inhabit<br />

transient open situations is known to be a recurrent characteristic encouraged by the<br />

heterogeneous pattern <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic, whereby such species breed in their open<br />

habitat but enter the enclosed habitat for refuge, especially during dry periods (Poynton,<br />

2000). The Squeakers recorded by this study (Arthroleptis stenodactylus <strong>and</strong> A.<br />

xenodactyloides) are common species that were found in all reserves studied. However, these<br />

species favour a forested habitat as they rely on the presence <strong>of</strong> damp soil <strong>and</strong> loose leaf<br />

mould protected from shrub <strong>and</strong> canopy cover to lay their eggs (Howell, 1993), so they may<br />

become locally threatened by further loss <strong>of</strong> forest habitat.<br />

Butterflies<br />

For the butterflies, nine species are thought to be forest dependent (Larsen, 1996), <strong>and</strong> were<br />

mainly recorded in the dense understory <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia forest (in Makonde scarp I <strong>and</strong> III<br />

proposed FR), Mixed dry forest (in Mtiniko) <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest (in Mkunya River <strong>and</strong><br />

Kambona) (Table 20-d).<br />

Table 20-d Forest dependent faunal species found in the eight forest reserves surveyed<br />

Taxon Species Common name Forest Reserve found<br />

Mammals Cercopithecus mitis (sub sp.) Moloney’s monkey Mkunya River, Mtiniko,<br />

Makonde Scarp III, Ndechela<br />

Paraxerus palliatus Red bellied coastal squirrel Kambona, Mkunya River,<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Cephalophus monticola Blue duiker Makonde Scarp I, Mtuli Hinju,<br />

Ndechela<br />

Cephalophus natalensis Natal duiker Makonde Scarp II,<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Neotragus moschatus Suni Kambona, Makonde Scarp I<br />

Birds Stephanoaetus coronatus African crowned eagle Makonde Scarp I<br />

Smithornis capensis African broadbill Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> III,<br />

Mkunya River, Mtiniko <strong>and</strong><br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Phyllastrephus flavostriatus Yellow streaked greenbul Mtiniko<br />

182


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Taxon Species Common name Forest Reserve found<br />

Phyllastrephus fischeri Fischer’s greenbul Mtiniko<br />

Sheppardia gunningi East coast akalat Mtiniko<br />

Butterflies<br />

Trochocercus cyanomelas<br />

Blue-mantled crested<br />

flycatcher<br />

Kambona, Mkunya River,<br />

Mtiniko, Mtuli Hinju <strong>and</strong><br />

Makonde Scarp III<br />

Batis reichenowi Reichenow’s batis Mtiniko<br />

Gnophodes betsimena diversa B<strong>and</strong>ed evening brown Makonde Scarp III<br />

Bematistes epaea epitellus - Kambona<br />

Charaxes lasti lasti Silver striped charaxes Mkunya River, Mtiniko, Mtuli<br />

Hinju, Makonde Scarp III<br />

Charaxes protoclea azota Flame bordered charaxes Kambona, Mkunya River <strong>and</strong><br />

Makonde Scarp III<br />

Cymothoe herminia - Makonde Scarp III<br />

Euphaedra neophron littoralis Gold b<strong>and</strong>ed forester Mkunya River, Mtiniko,<br />

Makonde Scarp III, Ndechela<br />

Euxanthe wakefieldi Forest queen Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> III<br />

Harma theobene blassi Glider Mtiniko, Makonde Scarp III<br />

Neptis alta Common sailor Mtuli Hinju <strong>and</strong> Makonde<br />

Scarp III<br />

ENDEMISM<br />

A total <strong>of</strong> four species recorded, including one bird (Batis reichenowi), one reptile<br />

(Platysaurus maculatus), one amphibian (Mertensophryne micranotis) <strong>and</strong> one butterfly<br />

(Charaxes lasti lasti) are recognised to be strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone or the<br />

Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Table 20-e). These species constitute only 1-2%<br />

<strong>of</strong> all species recorded in each forest reserve, no reserve containing more than two strictly<br />

endemic species, <strong>and</strong> make up less than 2% <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> species recorded (340)<br />

(Figure 25, Table 20-e). This values are low when compared to those recorded by previous<br />

studies in the Swahilian region sensu lato, according to which up to 7% <strong>of</strong> the mammals, 10%<br />

<strong>of</strong> the birds, 57% <strong>of</strong> the reptiles, 36% <strong>of</strong> the amphibians <strong>and</strong> 19% <strong>of</strong> the butterflies are Eastern<br />

Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong>/or <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> endemics (Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000; CEPF, 2005).<br />

This discrepancy between our <strong>and</strong> previous findings in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> reflects the small<br />

size <strong>of</strong> forest habitat remaining within the reserves studied, which is a consequence <strong>of</strong> the<br />

high degree <strong>of</strong> agricultural encroachment <strong>and</strong> human disturbance occurring here.<br />

2%<br />

% widespread<br />

% endemic<br />

98<br />

Figure 25 Percentage <strong>of</strong> strictly endemic <strong>and</strong> widespread faunal species for the whole study site<br />

No major differences can be observed when comparing the forest reserves in terms <strong>of</strong> their<br />

faunal endemism, all reserves being characterised by a low proportion <strong>of</strong> such species. The<br />

highest number <strong>of</strong> endemic species was found in Mtiniko proposed FR (2) (Table 20-e)<br />

(Figure 27).<br />

183


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Birds<br />

The Reichenow’s batis (Batis reichenowi) was recorded only in Mtiniko proposed FR. This<br />

species has been recognised as a separate species from the Forest batis (Batis mixta) by<br />

Mlingwa et al. (2000) <strong>and</strong> Baker <strong>and</strong> Baker (2002). According to this classification, B.<br />

reichenowi is strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>, representing the only example <strong>of</strong> such<br />

strict endemism for this study. On the contrary, IUCN (2004) <strong>and</strong> BirdLife International<br />

(2005) have classified both species <strong>of</strong> batis as B. mixta, <strong>and</strong> under this classification this bird<br />

is considered to be more widespread than if it was a separate species, <strong>and</strong> therefore <strong>of</strong> less<br />

interest. The East coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi - Vulnerable) is not a strictly endemic<br />

species, but it has a restricted distribution in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> a few other forest types<br />

in Tanzania, <strong>Kenya</strong>, Malawi, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> Mozambique. Another eight <strong>of</strong> the birds recorded<br />

are broadly endemic, being restricted to eastern Africa (Lybius melanopterus), or southeastern<br />

Africa (Erythrocercus livingstonei, Batis soror, Ploceus subareus, Nicator gularis <strong>and</strong><br />

Phyllastrephus flavostriatus).<br />

Reptiles<br />

The Spotted flat-lizard (Platysaurus maculatus) is strictly endemic to northern Mozambique<br />

<strong>and</strong> the Masasi district in south-eastern Tanzania. This species has a specific habitat<br />

requirement: it only inhabits rock outcrops <strong>of</strong> granite, gneiss <strong>and</strong> s<strong>and</strong>stone that weather to<br />

produce thin fissures where it seeks refuge (Spawls et al., 2002). During this study, this lizard<br />

was only recorded in Ndechela FR, but here it was found to be abundant due to the presence<br />

<strong>of</strong> granite kopjes protruding from the plain up to 800m <strong>and</strong> creating a large quantity <strong>of</strong> rocky<br />

microhabitats.<br />

Amphibians<br />

The ‘true’ toad Mertensophryne micranotis is a strictly endemic species restricted in its<br />

habitat range to the Eastern Arc lowl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic <strong>of</strong> south-eastern<br />

<strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> eastern Tanzania, occurring mainly in closed-canopy forest, but also in thicket <strong>and</strong><br />

miombo woodl<strong>and</strong> within the mosaic (Conservation International, 2005; IUCN et al., 2004).<br />

This bufonidae species was found in an area <strong>of</strong> regenerating Brachystegia forest,<br />

demonstrating that this species can also survive in modified secondary habitats, as long as<br />

there is good cover necessary to provide moisture rich crevices where eggs are laid <strong>and</strong> larvae<br />

develop (Howell et al., 2000).<br />

Mammals<br />

None <strong>of</strong> the mammal species recorded by this study are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

alone or the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>. However, it is likely that shrews<br />

(Crocidura sp.) collected from this survey will yield interesting results once taxonomic<br />

verification is accomplished. The shrews <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania are poorly known<br />

<strong>and</strong> already there are five unidentified species that have been collected from these forests,<br />

each from a separate site (Burgess <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2000). Two <strong>of</strong> the mammals found, the Smalleared<br />

bushbaby (Otolemur garnetti - CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the Lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei -<br />

near threatened) are not strictly endemic species, but are rare species with restricted<br />

distribution in eastern Africa. Otolemur garnetti is a forest dwelling species endemic to the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> a few other habitats in coastal eastern Africa (Burgess et al., 2000). This<br />

galagonidae species was only recorded in small pockets <strong>of</strong> riverine forest in Kambona FR <strong>and</strong><br />

Makonde Scarp I proposed FR, suggesting that the local persistence <strong>of</strong> this species may be<br />

threatened. Beamys hindei is a relic species endemic to a few forest types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

Tanzania, including the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>. Until recently it was<br />

regarded as one <strong>of</strong> the rarest rodents in Africa (Groombridge, 1994) but it is now known to be<br />

more widespread (Burgess et al., 2000). Our survey in the Mtwara Region seems to support<br />

this evidence, with most <strong>of</strong> the surveyed reserves holding relatively abundant populations.<br />

The highest abundance for Beamys was however found in Kambona FR <strong>and</strong> Mtiniko<br />

184


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

proposed FR, where the quality <strong>of</strong> the forest was better than in most other reserves (see<br />

Results sections).<br />

Butterflies<br />

Only one endemic species was found, the Silver striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti), which<br />

is restricted to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Congdon <strong>and</strong> Bampton, 2005) (Appendix 17). Consequently, even<br />

though the relatively high species richness <strong>of</strong> the butterfly communities observed accounts for<br />

the biological importance <strong>of</strong> the studied sites, these sites are not characterised by the unique<br />

butterfly fauna found in other <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (Kiell<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Cordeiro, 2000).<br />

Table 20-e Endemic faunal species found in the eight forest reserves surveyed<br />

Taxon<br />

Species <strong>and</strong> their region <strong>of</strong> Common name Forest Reserve found<br />

endemism<br />

Small mammals Beamys hindei<br />

(EACF <strong>and</strong> a few other forest<br />

types in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania)<br />

Lesser pouched rat Kambona, Makonde<br />

Scarp I <strong>and</strong> III,<br />

Mkunya River,<br />

Large mammals<br />

Otolemur garnetti<br />

(CF <strong>and</strong> a few other habitats in<br />

coastal E Africa)<br />

Small-eared galago<br />

Birds Batis reichenowi (CF) Reichenow’s batis Mtiniko<br />

Sheppardia gunningi<br />

(CF <strong>and</strong> a few other forest types<br />

in Tanzania, <strong>Kenya</strong>, Malawi,<br />

<strong>and</strong> coastal Mozambique)<br />

East coast akalat Mtiniko<br />

Reptiles<br />

Amphibians<br />

Butterflies<br />

Platysaurus maculatus<br />

(N Mozambique <strong>and</strong> Masasi<br />

district in SE Tanzania)<br />

Mertensophryne micranotis<br />

(EAC lowl<strong>and</strong>)<br />

Charaxes lasti lasti<br />

(EAC lowl<strong>and</strong>)<br />

Spotted flat lizard<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Kambona, Makonde<br />

Scarp I<br />

Ndechela<br />

Mkunya River,<br />

Mtiniko, Mtuli Hinju,<br />

Makonde Scarp III<br />

CF= species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF= species with limited ranges in the Eastern<br />

Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

E Africa = eastern Africa; SE Tanzania = south-eastern Tanzania<br />

EXTINCTION THREAT<br />

The proportion <strong>of</strong> threatened faunal species (i.e. listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered<br />

or Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List <strong>and</strong>/or in CITES Appendix I) recorded by this study was<br />

low. Only seven threatened species were found, including four large mammals (Rhynchocyon<br />

cirnei, Loxodonta africana, Panthera leo <strong>and</strong> Panthera pardus), two birds (Sheppardia<br />

gunningi <strong>and</strong> Falco peregrinus), <strong>and</strong> one amphibian (Arthroleptis xenodactyloides) which<br />

together constitute 2% <strong>of</strong> all fauna recorded by this study (Figure 25). However, according to<br />

IUCN’s current (2004) criteria for classification <strong>of</strong> threatened species, the small area <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic <strong>and</strong> the high degree <strong>of</strong> threat it faces imply that the few endemic<br />

species recorded (Batis reichenowi, Platysaurus maculatus, Mertensophryne micranotis <strong>and</strong><br />

Charaxes lasti lasti) can also be considered ‘threatened species’ (CEPF Portfolio, 2005).<br />

No major differences can be observed when comparing the forest reserves in terms <strong>of</strong> their<br />

richness <strong>of</strong> threatened species, all reserves being characterised by a generally low proportion<br />

<strong>of</strong> such species. The largest number <strong>of</strong> threatened species was found in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

185


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

(3) <strong>and</strong> Ndechela FR (3) (Table 20-f). When including species with a lower degree <strong>of</strong> threat<br />

(i.e. near threatened <strong>and</strong> conservation dependent) in the comparative analysis, Ndechela still<br />

scores as the reserve hosting the highest number <strong>of</strong> species <strong>of</strong> conservation status (four<br />

mammals <strong>and</strong> two birds), followed by Mkunya River (three mammals <strong>and</strong> one bird) <strong>and</strong><br />

Kambona (two mammals <strong>and</strong> one bird).<br />

Mammals<br />

Among the threatened mammals recorded, the Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon<br />

cirnei - Vulnerable) was the most frequently recorded, being sighted in Kambona <strong>and</strong><br />

Ndechela FRs <strong>and</strong> Mkunya River, Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju proposed FRs. The elephant<br />

shrews (Rhynchocyon sp.) observed in this study range in colour from light grey with white<br />

marks to dark grey <strong>and</strong> rufous with very indistinct chequers, with intermediate variations<br />

between these. These colour variations match those described for several subspecies <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei). The particularly dark elephant shrew<br />

observed in Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Mtiniko proposed FRs is likely to represent a sub-species <strong>of</strong><br />

the Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei macrurus) rather than a range extension<br />

for the similar looking Black <strong>and</strong> rufous elephant shrew (R. petersi) (Rathbun, 2005; Corbet,<br />

1970). 24 The finding <strong>of</strong> Rhynchocyon cirnei in these reserves confirms the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> to<br />

be a globally important area for the elephant shrews, closely followed by the Eastern Arc<br />

Mountains (Rathbun, 2005; Burgess et al., 2000a). Rhynchocyon species are forest-dwellers<br />

that rely on dense vegetation cover to produce the thick leaf litter they require for foraging<br />

<strong>and</strong> nest construction (Rathbun, 2005). R. cirnei may therefore become locally threatened<br />

should further habitat destruction ensue.<br />

The Elephant (Loxodonta Africana - Vulnerable, CITES I) was only recorded in Ndechela<br />

from an old footprint <strong>and</strong> the extent <strong>of</strong> its occurrence in the studied area needs further<br />

clarification.<br />

The Leopard (Panthera pardus) was found to inhabit sheltered areas near the cliff face in<br />

Makonde Scarp II proposed FR <strong>and</strong> was reported by local residents to occur in the adjacent<br />

Makonde Scarp I proposed Fr <strong>and</strong> Kambona FR. This species is listed on CITES Appendix I<br />

(2005) as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> therefore excluded from international trade. If its<br />

presence in these sites will be confirmed then its protection will be necessary.<br />

Mammal species Red listed with a lower degree <strong>of</strong> threat were also recorded in various<br />

reserves. These included one near threatened mammal species - the Lesser pouched rat<br />

(Beamys hindei), <strong>and</strong> seven conservation dependent mammal species - the Spotted hyena<br />

(Crocuta crocuta), the Buffalo (Syncerus caffer), the Greater kudu (Tragelaphus<br />

strepsiceros), the Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis), the Sable antelope (Hippotragus<br />

niger), the Suni (Neotragus moschatus) <strong>and</strong> the Klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus).<br />

Birds<br />

The East coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi - Vulnerable) was only recorded in Mtiniko<br />

proposed FR (Figure 26). S. gunningi has a restricted distribution in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> a<br />

few other forest types in Tanzania, <strong>Kenya</strong>, Malawi, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> Mozambique, <strong>and</strong> therefore<br />

the relatively high number <strong>of</strong> individuals captured (five during 37.5 hours <strong>of</strong> mist netting)<br />

indicates that Mtiniko proposed FR is an important area for this threatened species. The<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> more than a threshold population <strong>of</strong> this bird would also confirm the designation<br />

<strong>of</strong> Mtiniko proposed FR as a Bird Important Area (Baker <strong>and</strong> Baker, 2002).<br />

24 At present R. petersei has been recorded to occur only in the Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

as far as the Rufiji River. South <strong>of</strong> the Rufiji River <strong>and</strong> further down into Mozambique, R. cirnei has been recorded<br />

to occur (Rathbun <strong>and</strong> Butinski, 2005; Corbet, 1970).<br />

186


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Figure 26 The East coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi) photographed in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

The Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) was observed on cliffs in Makonde Scarp II<br />

proposed FR <strong>and</strong> in Mtiniko proposed FR. This bird is listed on CITES Appendix I (2005) as<br />

a species threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> further endangered by international trade, from which<br />

is therefore excluded. Three near threatened bird species were also recorded in various<br />

reserves: the Southern B<strong>and</strong>ed snake eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus), a Lovebird (Agapornis<br />

lilianae), <strong>and</strong> the Grey-crested helmet shrike (Prionops poliolophus).<br />

Amphibians<br />

The Dwarf squeaker (Arthroleptis xenodactyloides) is a forest dwelling species that was<br />

commonly captured in Brachystegia forest in Kambona FR, Mkunya River proposed FR, <strong>and</strong><br />

Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> II proposed FRs. This species favours a forested habitat as it relies on<br />

the presence <strong>of</strong> damp soil <strong>and</strong> loose leaf mould protected from shrub <strong>and</strong> canopy cover to lay<br />

their eggs (Howell, 1993), <strong>and</strong> it is consequently threatened by further loss <strong>of</strong> forest habitat.<br />

Table 20-f Threatened faunal species found in the eight forest reserves surveyed<br />

Taxon Species Common name IUCN Forest Reserve found<br />

Large<br />

mammals<br />

Rhynchocyon cirnei Chequered<br />

Elephant shrew<br />

VU Kambona, Mkunya River,<br />

Mtiniko, Mtuli Hinju, Ndechela<br />

Loxodonta Africana African elephant VU Ndechela<br />

Panthera leo Lion VU Ndechela<br />

Panthera pardus Leopard CITES I Makonde II, Ndechela<br />

Birds Sheppardia East coast akalat VU Mtiniko<br />

gunningi<br />

Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon CITES I Makonde Scarp II, Mtiniko<br />

Amphibians Arthroleptis<br />

xenodactyloides<br />

Dwarf squeaker VU Kambona, Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong><br />

III, Mkunya River<br />

CR= Critically Endangered; EN= Endangered; VU= Vulnerable (IUCN, 2004)<br />

CITES I = Threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade; CITES II = Not yet threatened with<br />

extinction, but may be so if trade is not regulated, thus export permits are required (CITES, 2005)<br />

187


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

3<br />

2.5<br />

Species<br />

number<br />

2<br />

1.5<br />

1<br />

Endemic<br />

Threatened<br />

0.5<br />

0<br />

Kambona Makonde<br />

I<br />

Makonde<br />

II<br />

Mkunya<br />

River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli<br />

Hinju<br />

Makonde<br />

III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Figure 27 Number <strong>of</strong> strictly endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened faunal species for each forest reserve<br />

IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS (IBA)<br />

Five <strong>of</strong> the forests reserves studied (Mtiniko, Mkunya River, <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III<br />

proposed FRs) have been designated as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (BirdLife<br />

International, 2005; Baker <strong>and</strong> Baker, 2002). Our findings for the avifauna <strong>of</strong> these reserves<br />

seem to confirm their designations.<br />

Mtiniko proposed FR has been selected to constitute the Mtwara District <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> IBA<br />

(TZ052 - category A1) (BirdLife International, 2005) because <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> more than a<br />

threshold population <strong>of</strong> the Southern b<strong>and</strong>ed snake eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus), a species<br />

categorized by the IUCN Red List (2004) as near threatened. Currently, Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

is recognised as the only forest comprising the TZ052 IBA. Circaetus fasciolatus was<br />

recorded in Mtiniko proposed FR during this study, along with another IUCN threatened<br />

species (Sheppardia gunningi - Vulnerable), confirming the classification <strong>of</strong> this reserve as an<br />

IBA. Mtiniko proposed FR is also where the highest number <strong>of</strong> forest dependent bird species<br />

(6) was recorded during this study, reflecting the extensive area <strong>of</strong> undisturbed forest<br />

occurring in this reserve. Moreover, if the Reichenow’s batis (Batis reichenowi - <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> Endemic) found here was to be confirmed as a separate species from the Forest batis<br />

(B. mixta), then this IBA would become part <strong>of</strong> a Secondary or Full Endemic Bird Area<br />

(EBA) (Baker <strong>and</strong> Baker, 2002).<br />

Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III proposed FRs constitute the Newala District<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> IBA (TZ053 - category A1) (BirdLife International, 2005). They were also<br />

selected because <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> more than a threshold population <strong>of</strong> C. fasciolatus, <strong>and</strong><br />

findings <strong>of</strong> this bird in Makonde Scarp II seem to confirm this designation. C. fasciolatus was<br />

not recorded in Mkunya River proposed FR during this study, nor were other IUCN<br />

threatened species. Nevertheless, the importance <strong>of</strong> Mkunya River proposed FR for birds is<br />

highlighted by the fact that it contains the highest species richness recorded during this study<br />

(103 species).<br />

Circaetus fasciolatus was also recorded in Kambona FR, which is adjacent to the Makonde<br />

escarpment. If more than a threshold population <strong>of</strong> this species was found to be present in<br />

188


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Kambona FR than this reserve could be designated as a component <strong>of</strong> the Newala District<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> IBA. Further research is required to confirm this.<br />

RANGE EXTENSIONS AND NEW RECORDS<br />

The study revealed some interesting range extensions (Table 20-g), i.e. species found to occur<br />

outside their previously documented habitat <strong>and</strong>/or geographical range (see Methods section).<br />

These include the Lesser bushbaby (Galago moholi), the Grey-crested helmet shrike<br />

(Prionops poliolophus - near threatened), the Red-headed bluebill (Spermophaga ruficapilla)<br />

<strong>and</strong> one sub-species <strong>of</strong> the Savanna vine snake (Thelotornis capensis oatesi).<br />

The Lesser bushbaby (Galago moholi - CITES II) 25 is an arboreal species usually found in the<br />

semiarid scrub woodl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> savanna grassl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> central southern Africa (Alvarado,<br />

2000). The finding <strong>of</strong> this species in the closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> southern Tanzania<br />

(in Makonde Scarp I, Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju proposed FRs) therefore represents an<br />

extension <strong>of</strong> both the habitat range <strong>and</strong> the geographical range documented for this species.<br />

The Grey-crested helmet shrike (Prionops poliolophus - near threatened) 26 has been<br />

previously recorded to inhabit open woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> wooded grassl<strong>and</strong>, including<br />

Acacia/Tarchonanthus vegetation (1,200-2,200m), in a restricted area <strong>of</strong> south-western <strong>Kenya</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong> adjacent areas <strong>of</strong> northern Tanzania (BirdLife International, 2005). The Red-headed<br />

bluebill (Spermophaga ruficapilla) has been formerly reported to be a fairly common resident<br />

<strong>of</strong> primary forest <strong>and</strong> secondary growth in western <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> a scarcer one in north-eastern<br />

Tanzania. Records <strong>of</strong> these species in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> southern Tanzania (in Mkunya<br />

River proposed FR <strong>and</strong> Ndechela FR) therefore indicate a range extension.<br />

A species <strong>of</strong> Vine snake (Thelotornis sp.) characterised by high ventral counts <strong>and</strong> a black <strong>and</strong><br />

pink Y-shape on the head was recorded in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR <strong>and</strong> was recognised<br />

to be a sub-species <strong>of</strong> the Savanna vine snake (Thelotornis capensis oatesi) 27 . This species has<br />

been previously recorded to occur across the Tanzanian border at Mbala, Zambia (Spawls et<br />

al., 2002). If the identification is confirmed then this record represents a range extension <strong>of</strong><br />

this specie into Tanzania.<br />

A species <strong>of</strong> skink sighted in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR <strong>and</strong> Ndechela FR was<br />

recognised to resemble either the Rainbow Skink (Trachylepis margaritifer) or the Five-lined<br />

skink (Trachylepis quinquetaeniata). T. margaritifer is already known to occur in central <strong>and</strong><br />

south-eastern Tanzania. T. quinquetaeniata, on the contrary, has not been recorded to occur<br />

south <strong>of</strong> the border with <strong>Kenya</strong>, apart from a record in Kwa Mtoro (north <strong>of</strong> Dodoma)<br />

(Spawls et al., 2002), <strong>and</strong> its record in the Mtwara Region would therefore represent a range<br />

extension. Further research is needed to ascertain this.<br />

Finally, some <strong>of</strong> the widespread <strong>and</strong> common bird species observed during this study are<br />

likely to constitute new records in the studied area, among which the Verreaux’s eagle<br />

(Aquila verreauxii - CITES II), the White-naped raven (Corvus albicollis), the White-browed<br />

sparrow-weaver (Plocepasser mahali), the Black saw-wing (Psalidoprocne holomelas), the<br />

Lesser seedcracker (Pyrenestes minor), the African wood owl (Strix woodfordii - CITES II)<br />

<strong>and</strong> the Red-faced crombec (Sylvietta whytii) (Jacob Kiure’s personal comms, 2005).<br />

Some <strong>of</strong> the butterflies were also recorded in the Mtwara Region for the first time. Such<br />

species include the Constantine’s swallowtail (Papilio constantinus constantinus), the<br />

25 The field identification <strong>of</strong> Galago moholi was undertaken by Frontier-Tanzania research team.<br />

26 The field identification <strong>of</strong> Prionops poliolophus was undertaken by Jacob Kiure (Appendix 1).<br />

27 The field identification <strong>of</strong> Thelotornis capensis oatesi was undertaken by Michele Menegon (Appendix 1). We<br />

are awaiting taxonomic confirmation.<br />

189


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Cambridge vagrant (Nepheronia thalassina), the <strong>Coastal</strong> hairstreak (Hypolycaena pachalica),<br />

a Novice species (Amauris ochlea ochlea), Coenyropsis carcassoni, the Savannah charaxes<br />

(Charaxes etesipe), the Silver striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti), Cymothoe herminia, the<br />

Gold b<strong>and</strong>ed forester (Euphaedra neophron littoralis), the Golden piper (Eurytela dryope<br />

angulata), Neptidopsis fulgurata platyptera, the Lilac tree nymph (Sallya amulia rosa) <strong>and</strong><br />

the Black tipped acraea (Acraea equatorialis anaemia) (Davenport, 2001; Larsen, 1996;<br />

Kiell<strong>and</strong>, 1990).<br />

Table 20-g Species found to occur outside their documented range. See Appendix 2 for the GPS<br />

co-ordinates <strong>of</strong> the base camps in each reserve<br />

Taxon Genus Species<br />

Mammals Galago moholi 0 0 0<br />

Bird<br />

Kambona<br />

Prionops Poliolophus s s<br />

Spermophaga ruficapilla X<br />

Makonde I<br />

Reptiles Thelotornis capensis oatesi X<br />

X = Confirmed by specimen, s = sight records, 0 = calls or signs<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

HUMAN RESOURCE-USE AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT<br />

The level <strong>of</strong> disturbance was found to be high throughout the eight forest reserves surveyed.<br />

Table 20-h displays <strong>and</strong> compares the percentage <strong>of</strong> 50m sections that were subject to<br />

disturbance <strong>and</strong>, more specifically, the incidence <strong>of</strong> different forms <strong>of</strong> disturbance. In four<br />

forest reserves over 90% <strong>of</strong> sections showed some sign <strong>of</strong> disturbance (Makonde Scarp III -<br />

100%, Makonde Scarp II - 96%, Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Kambona - 95%). Lower percentages<br />

were recorded for Mtuli Hinju (57%) <strong>and</strong> Mtiniko (60%). However, different types <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance affect the forest reserves with varying degrees.<br />

Table 20-h Percentage <strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> disturbance found in the eight forest reserves<br />

surveyed, recorded as occurring in 50m sections along transect lines<br />

%<br />

disturbance<br />

% <strong>of</strong><br />

cultivation<br />

% <strong>of</strong><br />

cutting<br />

% <strong>of</strong><br />

fire<br />

% <strong>of</strong><br />

paths<br />

% <strong>of</strong><br />

bark<br />

ringing<br />

Kambona 95 0 95 9 27 9 0<br />

Makonde Scarp I 87 29 78 70 8 2 0<br />

Makonde Scarp II 96 41 87 73 19 3 1<br />

Mkunya River 95 2 94 41 8 0 0<br />

Mtiniko 60 0 39 8 15 0 5<br />

Mtuli Hinju 57 5 43 15 8 0 3<br />

Makonde Scarp III 100 43 87 30 22 0 0<br />

Ndechela 74 0 18 72 9 0 1<br />

% <strong>of</strong><br />

traps<br />

190


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Agricultural encroachment<br />

Burgess et al. (2000b) cite conversion to agriculture as the most destructive use <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> eastern Africa, since it involves the complete removal <strong>of</strong> the native flora <strong>and</strong> the<br />

fauna it hosts, <strong>and</strong> their replacement with a monoculture. This problem is exacerbated by the<br />

common practice <strong>of</strong> shifting cultivation, where people clear new l<strong>and</strong> after exhausting the<br />

fertility <strong>of</strong> the previously cultivated l<strong>and</strong>. This is a traditional cultivation practice that has<br />

become unsustainable due to population growth <strong>and</strong> an increase <strong>of</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> on l<strong>and</strong> that<br />

exceeds the regeneration capacity <strong>of</strong> the forest.<br />

The reserves most affected by agricultural encroachment are Makonde Scarp I (29%), II<br />

(42%) <strong>and</strong> III (43%) proposed FRs. Here even the cultivation <strong>of</strong> slopes that are unsuitable for<br />

agriculture was attempted (Figure 28). In fact,<br />

the soils <strong>of</strong> the escarpment are infertile <strong>and</strong><br />

vulnerable to erosion by heavy seasonal rains<br />

characteristic <strong>of</strong> this part <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (Clarke,<br />

2000). Although our study indicated a low<br />

level <strong>of</strong> encroachment in Mkunya River<br />

proposed FR (2% <strong>of</strong> sections), in fact the<br />

valleys cutting through the escarpment have<br />

been largely transformed into cashew nut<br />

(Anacardium occidentale) plantations. On the<br />

contrary, in Kambona, Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Ndechela<br />

FRs encroachment was negligible or absent,<br />

but it occurs right up to the reserve<br />

boundaries. It was observed that encroachment<br />

into reserves occurs more extensively where<br />

the forest boundaries are not clearly<br />

demarcated, <strong>and</strong> farmers seem to be more<br />

reluctant to encroach into an area if it is<br />

clearly marked as being a reserve.<br />

Figure 28 Cultivation on steep slopes in<br />

Makonde Scarp III Proposed FR<br />

Pole <strong>and</strong> timber extraction<br />

Timber extraction was calculated by Burgess <strong>and</strong> Mbwana (2000) by looking at logging<br />

volumes <strong>and</strong> commercial value. This type <strong>of</strong> analysis was not in the scope <strong>of</strong> this study,<br />

therefore stringent comparisons with our findings cannot be carried out <strong>and</strong> further study will<br />

be needed to monitor levels <strong>of</strong> extraction in the future.<br />

Five <strong>of</strong> the eight reserves had overall levels <strong>of</strong> pole cutting above the 7% average value<br />

reported by Burgess et al. (2000b) from previous studies <strong>of</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>. Furthermore,<br />

pole cutting in all <strong>of</strong> these five reserves was above the upper limit <strong>of</strong> 16% found by Burgess et<br />

al. (2000b). This suggests that levels <strong>of</strong> pole cutting in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara<br />

Region are high relative to other <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest regions. Kambona <strong>and</strong> Mkunya River FRs<br />

were found to be severely affected by pole <strong>and</strong> timber cutting (>90% <strong>of</strong> sections), followed<br />

by Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III (78-87%), whereas Ndechela, Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju FRs<br />

were relatively less affected (18, 39 <strong>and</strong> 43% respectively).<br />

191


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

In all studied sites, pole cutting <strong>and</strong> timber harvesting were selective. As this study <strong>and</strong><br />

previous evidence illustrate, the most desirable species are utilised first until supplies for<br />

commercial use are exhausted, at which point a different species is targeted (Milledge <strong>and</strong><br />

Kaale, 2005; Burgess <strong>and</strong> Mbwana, 2000). Findings from this study seem to match those<br />

obtained by TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa in the regions south <strong>of</strong> the Rufiji River in 2001-<br />

2, with the Gum copal (Hymenaea verrucosa), the African teak (Pterocarpus angolensis), the<br />

Snake bean tree (Swartzia madagascariensis) <strong>and</strong> the Pod mahogany (Afzelia quanzensis)<br />

being reported by local inhabitants as popular hard wood timber species, followed by Millettia<br />

stuhlmannii, Milicia excelsa (near threatened) <strong>and</strong> Dalbergia melanoxylon (near threatened).<br />

Selective pole <strong>and</strong> timber harvesting is ecologically destructive as it alters the plant species<br />

composition <strong>of</strong> an area (Mremi, 1998), which can in turn affect the faunal species utilising<br />

that area (Vallan et al., 2004). Selective timber extraction has been shown to affect such<br />

diverse taxa as amphibians (Vallan et al., 2004) <strong>and</strong> birds (Robinson <strong>and</strong> Robinson, 1999).<br />

Furthermore, because tree species differ greatly in their dispersal abilities (Russo 2003;<br />

Cordeiro et al. 2004; McEuan <strong>and</strong> Curran, 2004; White et al., 2004) the ability <strong>of</strong> species to<br />

recolonise an area after local extinction is far from certain.<br />

The degree <strong>of</strong> pole <strong>and</strong> timber cutting was observed to be linked to the density <strong>of</strong> the<br />

population living nearby the reserves. The high population growth rate <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region<br />

(Lu<strong>and</strong>a, 1998), especially around Kambona FR <strong>and</strong> the Makonde Scarp as a whole,<br />

combined with the fact that approximately 300 poles are required per house (Burgess et al.,<br />

2000b), implies that levels <strong>of</strong> pole cutting will increase in the future. This harvesting is<br />

destructive <strong>and</strong> mitigation measures need to be put in place (see Conservation<br />

Recommendations section).<br />

In addition to timber <strong>and</strong> pole cutting, pit sawing was found to be widespread, with five <strong>of</strong> the<br />

eight studied reserves containing at least one recently active or old pit-sawing site (Figure 29).<br />

Burgess <strong>and</strong> Mbwana (2000) state that pit sawing is usually carried out by individuals from<br />

outside the area where it occurs, with the result that local inhabitants do not benefit from the<br />

activity. Hence, they lose their natural resources with no gain. Milledge <strong>and</strong> Elibariki (2005)<br />

also highlighted the discrepancy in levels <strong>of</strong> income earned by local people <strong>and</strong> those who<br />

export the timber – the price is 100<br />

times lower at the village level.<br />

Their study also illustrates that<br />

districts in the Mtwara Region<br />

accounted for a low proportion <strong>of</strong><br />

those timber licences that were<br />

issued in 2001-2002. This implies<br />

that either commercial timber<br />

harvesting is lower here than in<br />

other regions (Rufiji district<br />

accounts for the majority <strong>of</strong><br />

licenses) or it is taking place<br />

illegally.<br />

Figure 29 Pit sawing site in Mtiniko proposed FR<br />

192


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Fuelwood<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the fuelwood collected from the eight forest reserves surveyed was said to be<br />

obtained from dead trees <strong>and</strong> branches, including those from cashew nut (Anacardium<br />

occidentale) plantations. This supports findings from previous studies on fuel use in the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000b). Consequently, at present fuelwood collection is not<br />

the major threat to the forests <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region. However, as population grows (Milledge<br />

<strong>and</strong> Kaale, 2005; Lu<strong>and</strong>a, 1998) the dem<strong>and</strong> for fuelwood is set to increase <strong>and</strong> natural death<br />

<strong>of</strong> trees may become insufficient to satisfy an additional dem<strong>and</strong>. Milledge <strong>and</strong> Kaale (2005)<br />

have estimated that 2.1 million m 3 <strong>of</strong> wood is burnt every year in seven districts <strong>of</strong> the Coast<br />

Region, Lindi Region <strong>and</strong> Mtwara Region, Tanzania. Further studies aimed at determining<br />

sustainable levels <strong>of</strong> firewood extraction in the Mtwara Region will be needed.<br />

Tools <strong>and</strong> utensils<br />

Results from this study add to the list <strong>of</strong> species used for the construction <strong>of</strong> tool h<strong>and</strong>les <strong>and</strong><br />

cooking utensils presented in Burgess et al. (2000b). Four <strong>of</strong> the eight studied forests were<br />

found to contain ringed trees, but anecdotal evidence from interviews <strong>and</strong> discussions<br />

suggested that bark ringing also takes place in the other forest reserves. Kambona had the<br />

highest intensity <strong>of</strong> bark ringing, with 9% <strong>of</strong> 50m sections being affected. Discussion with<br />

local people indicated that bark ringing occurs in order to remove bark, which is then used for<br />

ropes, beehives <strong>and</strong> medicine. Many <strong>of</strong> the species that were said to be used for firewood<br />

overlap with those used for bark removal, indicating that trees die from the removal <strong>of</strong> bark<br />

<strong>and</strong> are then used for firewood. However, people who carry out the exploitation appeared to<br />

be unaware <strong>of</strong> the lethal impact that this activity has upon trees. As population in the Mtwara<br />

Region grows (Milledge <strong>and</strong> Kaale, 2005; Lu<strong>and</strong>a, 1998), the dem<strong>and</strong> for bark <strong>and</strong> wood is<br />

set to increase <strong>and</strong> may exceed the trees regeneration capacity. Further research to determine<br />

the sustainable level <strong>of</strong> bark <strong>and</strong> wood extraction in the studied area is needed.<br />

Edible non-timber forest products<br />

The extraction <strong>of</strong> fruits (such as those from Sclerocarya birrea <strong>and</strong> Strychnos sp.) was found<br />

to occur within all forest reserves on a small scale. Harvesting <strong>of</strong> fruit in the study area was<br />

not observed to result in the death <strong>of</strong> trees <strong>and</strong> is therefore likely to have minimal impact on<br />

the species utilised. It is uncertain whether the commercial exploitation <strong>of</strong> Dioscorea<br />

hirtiflora has a negative impact on the species. Although not witnessed in this study, food<br />

harvesting has been previously shown to cause damage to plant species (Wegner, 2003).<br />

Damage can result from felling high trees to access fruits, or from harvesting fruit before it<br />

has fully ripened, thus decreasing the reproductive success <strong>of</strong> the individual. Similarly, root<br />

harvesting can cause the death <strong>of</strong> individuals should removal be too extensive. A follow-on<br />

study to determine the impact <strong>of</strong> food harvesting would be necessary in the studied area.<br />

Apiculture<br />

Honey was found to be produced <strong>and</strong> sold locally in Makonde Scarp II proposed FR <strong>and</strong><br />

Ndechela FR. When material for the construction <strong>of</strong> beehives is obtained in a sustainable way,<br />

apiculture has been found to be ecologically preferable to harvesting <strong>of</strong> wild honey, as the<br />

latter <strong>of</strong>ten results in the cutting <strong>of</strong> the tree to access the hive (Wegner, 2003). However,<br />

results from this study show that bee farming in the Mtwara Region may also result in tree<br />

death, as bark is used for the construction <strong>of</strong> beehives <strong>and</strong> is extracted by ringing <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten<br />

killing the trees. Since the most desirable piece <strong>of</strong> bark is a complete circle <strong>and</strong> as larger<br />

pieces <strong>of</strong> bark result in larger hives, large trees are targeted.<br />

Medicinal plants<br />

Extraction <strong>of</strong> medicinal plants takes place in all forest reserves but at a level that does not<br />

appear to have a significant impact on their ecology. Nevertheless, it is a possibility that trees<br />

are ringed to obtain bark for the production <strong>of</strong> medicinal compounds. Roots are also used to<br />

193


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

extract medicinal compounds, <strong>and</strong> extensive root removal can have a negative impact on<br />

individual trees. Moreover, interviews <strong>and</strong> open discussions illustrate that the extraction <strong>of</strong><br />

bark <strong>and</strong> roots for medicines is selective <strong>and</strong> therefore has potential to damage populations <strong>of</strong><br />

particular species should it not occur in a sustainable manner.<br />

Hunting<br />

Hunting takes place in most <strong>of</strong> the studied areas to different degrees. Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju<br />

proposed FRs had the highest density <strong>of</strong> traps recorded (in 5% <strong>and</strong> 3% <strong>of</strong> 50m sections<br />

respectively). In most cases the traps recorded were snares targeting ungulate species <strong>and</strong><br />

traps placed in the riverbed to catch small birds, while a drift fence was detected in Ndechela.<br />

It is possible that fire is also employed as a hunting tool in this reserve, as it has been<br />

observed in other <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000b). This study did not reveal that meat<br />

from animals is sold on the market, as it has been found to be the case in other <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

(Burgess et al. 2000a). Observation <strong>of</strong> baboons (Papio cynocephalus) being killed due to crop<br />

raiding supports other findings in the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> (Burgess et al., 2000b)<br />

(Figure 30). Hunting in Kambona,<br />

Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> Ndechela involves the<br />

Chequered elephant shrews (Rhynchocyon<br />

cirnei), a species listed as Vulnerable, <strong>and</strong><br />

the Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis)<br />

<strong>and</strong> the Sable antelope (Hippotragus niger),<br />

two species listed as conservation<br />

dependent in the IUCN Red List (2004).<br />

Figure 30 Baboons killed by local farmers<br />

because raiding crops adjacent to Ndechela FR<br />

Fires<br />

Another particularly destructive form <strong>of</strong> disturbance is extensive <strong>and</strong> recurring burning, since<br />

it destroys the soil top layer <strong>and</strong> the micro-fauna that lives within it, therefore reducing the<br />

availability <strong>of</strong> nutrients for plants <strong>and</strong> other animals in the food-web. Moreover, severe fires<br />

can destroy the forest’s understorey, which constitutes the main habitat for many forest<br />

dwelling <strong>and</strong> forest dependent species. The forest reserves most affected by burning were<br />

Ndechela <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp I <strong>and</strong> II (≥70% <strong>of</strong> sections), whereas in Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Kambona<br />

FRs only 8 <strong>and</strong> 9% <strong>of</strong> sections respectively were subject to this form <strong>of</strong> disturbance.<br />

Paths<br />

The density <strong>of</strong> paths observed in all reserves emphasises the high level <strong>of</strong> human presence in<br />

these areas. No one forest reserve had less than 8% <strong>of</strong> sections bisected by paths, <strong>and</strong> the<br />

largest number was observed in Kambona FR (27%) <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp II (19%) <strong>and</strong> III<br />

(22%) proposed FRs.<br />

Local management<br />

Local management was defined as action taken by local residents (i.e. inhabitants <strong>of</strong> adjacent<br />

<strong>and</strong> nearby villages) to regulate resource use <strong>and</strong> exploitation in their area. Management<br />

ranged from absent to ineffective among forest reserves. An attempt at local management is in<br />

place in Mtuli Hinju proposed FR, where an Environmental Committee has been formed to<br />

patrol the boundaries. In Mkunya River proposed FR village committees were observed to<br />

spend time educating the local inhabitants about the importance <strong>of</strong> the water source, <strong>and</strong><br />

194


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

anyone found to be encroaching on the reserve boundary or harvesting poles or timbers was<br />

said to be fined by the village committee. In those reserves where management has been<br />

discontinued or has not been initiated yet the reasons appeared to be tw<strong>of</strong>old: lack <strong>of</strong> will or<br />

lack <strong>of</strong> funds. The inhabitants <strong>of</strong> some areas (e.g. Makonde Scarp II, Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Ndechela)<br />

do not view their reserve positively because they see no benefits coming from them. This<br />

translates into lack <strong>of</strong> an incentive to protect them. In areas where the reserves are instead<br />

viewed positively, for example Mkunya River proposed FR <strong>and</strong> Kambona FR because <strong>of</strong> their<br />

water supplies, no money is currently available to enforce any local bylaw that may be in<br />

place or to conduct patrols <strong>of</strong> the boundaries. The lack <strong>of</strong> enforcement <strong>of</strong> national forest<br />

legislation in the study site <strong>and</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> local by-laws constitute another problem that<br />

hampers the management <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong> the reserves.<br />

195


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

21. CONCLUSION AND PRIORITISATION<br />

G. WEGNER<br />

Findings from this study <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Masasi, Mtwara Rural, Newala <strong>and</strong><br />

T<strong>and</strong>ahimba districts, Mtwara Region, show that the eight forest reserves studied are <strong>of</strong><br />

important environmental value to the surrounding human population, providing it with<br />

precious water, abundant forest resources <strong>and</strong> protection from soil erosion. However, the very<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> conditions that make the area favourable for human settlement may have<br />

indirectly contributed, by encouraging human population growth, to the severe curtailment <strong>of</strong><br />

its biological value. High population growth rate, accompanied by severe poverty <strong>and</strong> lack <strong>of</strong><br />

environmental awareness, have resulted in the extensive conversion <strong>of</strong> these <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

into farml<strong>and</strong>, the unsustainable exploitation <strong>of</strong> their natural resources, <strong>and</strong> the conspicuous<br />

decrease <strong>of</strong> their biodiversity <strong>and</strong> endemism.<br />

The <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> are a naturally vulnerable ecosystem. Much <strong>of</strong> their habitat heterogeneity<br />

<strong>and</strong> fragmentation, <strong>and</strong> the biological endemism resulting from these characteristics, are<br />

primarily natural <strong>and</strong> relictual, being the result <strong>of</strong> a highly heterogeneous set <strong>of</strong> abiotic factors<br />

(climate, geology, topography, soils etc.). The level <strong>of</strong> encroachment <strong>and</strong> natural resources<br />

extraction recorded in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region has contributed to further<br />

accentuate their small size <strong>and</strong> fragmented character, reducing their capability to sustain<br />

viable populations <strong>of</strong> forest dependent <strong>and</strong> endemic plants <strong>and</strong> animals.<br />

As a consequence <strong>of</strong> the high degree <strong>of</strong> habitat destruction taking place in the area, only small<br />

patches <strong>of</strong> closed-canopy <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> remain in the study area. Brachystegia forest was<br />

the most dominant forest type, while the more vulnerable Legume-dominated dry forest was<br />

found to be rarer, the clearance <strong>of</strong> this forest drastically lowering its chances <strong>of</strong> regeneration<br />

on the same sites.<br />

The loss <strong>of</strong> suitable forest habitat explains the low proportion <strong>of</strong> forest dependent <strong>and</strong><br />

endemic faunal species in the study. On average, less than 2% <strong>of</strong> the animal species recorded<br />

are strictly endemic to the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Eastern Arc Mountains, against 26% <strong>of</strong><br />

animal species from the same taxa being found to be endemic in other <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>. The<br />

proportion <strong>of</strong> Red List threatened faunal species is also low, constituting about 2% <strong>of</strong> all<br />

fauna recorded. Therefore, within the context <strong>of</strong> the EACF hotspot <strong>and</strong> on a global level these<br />

forests are <strong>of</strong> modest faunal biological importance.<br />

For the flora, the discrepancy <strong>of</strong> endemism between the surveyed forests <strong>and</strong> other <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> is less accentuated, with up to 12% <strong>of</strong> the plant species recorded being endemic to the<br />

Swahilian region sensu lato against 33% recorded by other studies. This figure is not<br />

negligible, especially if considering that most <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> endemics are likely to face a<br />

degree <strong>of</strong> threat: given the relatively small area <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic <strong>and</strong> the high<br />

degree <strong>of</strong> habitat loss <strong>and</strong> fragmentation it suffers, endemic species here are <strong>of</strong>ten regarded as<br />

‘threatened species’. This highlights the importance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> studied as habitats<br />

for the endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened plants still found here, <strong>and</strong> emphasises the urgent need for<br />

conservation measures to protect them. Unfortunately, even if the remaining forest patches<br />

were to be left intact, their endemic species richness may already not be sustainable in the<br />

long-term: fragmentation <strong>and</strong> habitat loss may have caused populations <strong>of</strong> long-lived endemic<br />

species (e.g. trees) to become genetically unviable.<br />

Beyond their biological value, the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Masasi, Mtwara Rural, Newala <strong>and</strong><br />

T<strong>and</strong>ahimba districts are <strong>of</strong> vital environmental importance to the local populations. Their<br />

196


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

future capability to provide precious water, natural resources <strong>and</strong> protection from soil erosion<br />

<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>slides will depend on effective <strong>and</strong> sustained conservation action. The development<br />

<strong>and</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> a management plan for the safeguard <strong>of</strong> the reserves <strong>and</strong> sustainable<br />

use <strong>of</strong> their resources is therefore crucial.<br />

It is important that the conservation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> is not considered only on a reserveby-reserve<br />

basis. The <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> are part <strong>of</strong> a mosaic system <strong>and</strong> rely on the stability <strong>of</strong><br />

the whole system for the continuity <strong>of</strong> their floral <strong>and</strong> faunal communities. Adequate<br />

conservation measures need therefore to be taken in as many <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> as<br />

possible, <strong>and</strong> efforts should be made to restore <strong>and</strong> increase connectivity among fragmented<br />

forest patches.<br />

However, no conservation plan can be successful if a holistic approach aiming at reducing<br />

poverty <strong>and</strong> limiting population growth in the Mtwara Region is not developed. Within the<br />

context <strong>of</strong> a poorly developed national <strong>and</strong> regional economy, local inhabitants have limited<br />

access to viable sources <strong>of</strong> revenue <strong>and</strong> therefore <strong>of</strong>ten rely on the l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> natural resources<br />

<strong>of</strong> the forest for their livelihoods, posing unsustainable dem<strong>and</strong>s on it <strong>and</strong> overcoming its<br />

regeneration capacity. Only by complementing major efforts to improve the life st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>of</strong><br />

the local communities can national law enforcement <strong>and</strong> environmental awareness promotion<br />

succeed in preserving the highly threatened <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Region for present<br />

<strong>and</strong> future generations. Considering that the majority <strong>of</strong> the people in the Mtwara Region<br />

heavily depend on natural resources from the forest for their livelihoods, improved forest<br />

management <strong>and</strong> sustainable utilisation <strong>of</strong> natural resources constitute two fundamental<br />

elements <strong>of</strong> any strategy aiming at the mitigation <strong>of</strong> poverty.<br />

PRIORITY SITES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY<br />

All the forest reserves studied are worth <strong>of</strong> conservation for various reasons. Conservation<br />

efforts should concentrate on those sites that contain the highest concentration <strong>of</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> endemic <strong>and</strong> endangered species <strong>and</strong> communities, but also aim at preserving the<br />

capacity <strong>of</strong> the forests to provide local inhabitants with environmental services <strong>and</strong> natural<br />

resources. What follows is a prioritisation <strong>of</strong> the sites studied on the basis <strong>of</strong> their biodiversity<br />

value.<br />

1. Mtiniko Proposed Forest Reserve:<br />

This reserve is covered by Mixed dry forest <strong>and</strong> affected by a low degree <strong>of</strong><br />

encroachment (Figure 12). As a consequence, this reserve is one <strong>of</strong> the richest with<br />

floral species (Table 20-a; Figure 24) <strong>and</strong> contains among the highest numbers <strong>of</strong><br />

forest dependent, endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened faunal species for this study (Table 20-d,<br />

Table 20-e <strong>and</strong> Table 20-f; Figure 27). For the plants, Mesogyne insignis<br />

(Vulnerable), Bombax rhodognaphalon, Tetracera boiviniana, Erythrina schliebenii,<br />

Rytigynia decussata, Cola clavata <strong>and</strong> Vitex mossambicensis (Endemic <strong>and</strong><br />

Potentially Threatened) are among the most important. Mtiniko proposed FR is<br />

certainly the most important reserve in terms <strong>of</strong> avifauna, <strong>and</strong> it has been classified by<br />

BirdLife International (2005) as an Important Bird Area (TZ052 - category A1). It<br />

hosts the Reichenow’s batis (Batis reichenowi - <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> Endemic), the East<br />

coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi - Vulnerable) <strong>and</strong> the Peregrine falcon (Falco<br />

peregrinus), which are the only <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened birds<br />

recorded by this study. The highest number <strong>of</strong> forest dependent bird species (6) was<br />

also recorded here, including the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis), the<br />

Reichenow’s batis (Batis reichenowi), the East coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi),<br />

the Yellow streaked greenbul (Phyllastrephus flavostriatus), the Blue-mantled crested<br />

flycatcher (Trochocercus cyanomelas) <strong>and</strong> the Fischer’s greenbul (Phyllastrephus<br />

fischeri). Mtiniko also contains large populations <strong>of</strong> forest dependent butterfly<br />

197


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

species, including the Silver striped charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti), the Flame<br />

bordered charaxes (C. protoclea azota) <strong>and</strong> the Gold b<strong>and</strong>ed forester (Euphaedra<br />

neophron littoralis), <strong>and</strong> one butterfly (Charaxes lasti lasti) that is strictly endemic to<br />

the Eastern Arc lowl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>. Few threatened <strong>and</strong> forest dependent<br />

mammal species were also found to occur here, including the Chequered elephant<br />

shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei - Vulnerable), the Moloney’s monkey (Cercopithecus<br />

mitis - forest dependent) <strong>and</strong> the Red-bellied coastal squirrel (Paraxerus palliatus -<br />

forest dependent). Mtiniko proposed FR should be immediately gazetted in order to<br />

protect the Mixed dry forest unique to the EACF hotspot <strong>and</strong> the endemic <strong>and</strong><br />

threatened species it hosts. Conservation measures can follow those listed in the<br />

Conservation Recommendations section below.<br />

2. Ndechela Forest Reserve:<br />

The flora <strong>of</strong> Ndechela FR is particularly worth <strong>of</strong> notice. This reserve is comprised <strong>of</strong><br />

Legume-dominated dry forest, which is the most vulnerable plant community <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>. Even thought encroachment is among the lowest in this reserve<br />

(Table 20-h; Figure 19 <strong>and</strong> Figure 24), extensive <strong>and</strong> frequent fires constitute a threat<br />

to the continuity <strong>of</strong> this forest type, <strong>and</strong> it is therefore important to implement<br />

conservation measures to protect it. Among the most important plants found here are<br />

Gardenia transvenulosa (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable), Bombax rhodognaphalon,<br />

Commiphora zanzibarica, Entada stuhlmannii, <strong>and</strong> Scorodophloeus fischeri<br />

(Endemic <strong>and</strong> Potentially Threatened). Ndechela FR is also singular for the presence<br />

<strong>of</strong> granite kopjes dramatically protruding from the plain <strong>and</strong> reaching up to 800m,<br />

which contribute to the scenic beauty <strong>of</strong> this site <strong>and</strong> create a variety <strong>of</strong> rocky<br />

microhabitats for a rich reptile community. Among the reptiles found here, the<br />

Spotted flat lizard (Platysaurus maculatus) is the only example <strong>of</strong> strictly endemic<br />

reptile recorded during this study, being found only in northern Mozambique <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Masasi district in south-eastern Tanzania. Due to the close proximity <strong>of</strong> this reserve<br />

to the Lukwika-Lumesule Game Reserve the highest number <strong>of</strong> large mammal<br />

species was also found here (26) (Table 20-c), as well as the larger number <strong>of</strong><br />

threatened mammal species (4). These include the Elephant (Loxodonta africana -<br />

Vulnerable, CITES I), the Lion (Panthera leo - Vulnerable, CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Chequered elephant shrews (Rhynchocyon cirnei - Vulnerable), as well as two<br />

species (Loxodonta africana <strong>and</strong> Panthera pardus) listed on CITES Appendix I<br />

(2005) as threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> therefore excluded from international trade.<br />

Few forest dependent species were also recorded here, including the Moloney’s<br />

monkey (Cercopithecus mitis - CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the Blue duiker (Cephalophus<br />

monticola - CITES II). Ndechela FR is unique among the eight studied reserves for<br />

having a relatively small human population living around its boundaries. As a result,<br />

much forest that lies outside the borders is not appreciably different from that inside<br />

the reserve. This represents an excellent opportunity to extend the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the<br />

reserve to create <strong>and</strong> protect more habitat for the plants <strong>and</strong> animals. It would be<br />

highly beneficial to designate this area as a National Park incorporating Ndechela FR,<br />

the Lukwika-Lumesule Game Reserve <strong>and</strong> possibly a reserve across the river in<br />

Mozambique. Conservation measures can follow those listed in the Conservation<br />

Recommendations section below.<br />

198


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

3. Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III Proposed Forest Reserves<br />

Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III proposed FRs are the most affected by<br />

agricultural encroachment <strong>and</strong> the practice <strong>of</strong> shifting cultivation (Table 20-h; Figure<br />

5, Figure 7, Figure 9 <strong>and</strong> Figure 16), which have conspicuously reduced the area<br />

covered by forest <strong>and</strong> consequently the number <strong>of</strong> faunal species present (table 20-c;<br />

Figure 24). In Makonde Scarp I, II <strong>and</strong> III proposed FRs timber extraction was also<br />

most severe (Table 13-f, Table 14-h, Table 18-f <strong>and</strong> Table 20-h; Figure 24), <strong>and</strong> the<br />

selective removal <strong>of</strong> canopy <strong>and</strong> sub canopy trees has noticeably reduced the floral<br />

species richness <strong>of</strong> the Brachystegia forest found here (Table 20-a). Nevertheless,<br />

several endemic <strong>and</strong> a highly threatened plant species were recorded to still occur,<br />

including Cynometra gillmanii (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Critically Endangered), Gardenia<br />

transvenulosa <strong>and</strong> Vitex zanzibarensis (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Vulnerable), Khaya anthotheca<br />

<strong>and</strong> Mesogyne insignis (Vulnerable). Even thought these reserves are highly<br />

fragmented, yet the small patches <strong>of</strong> Brachystegia <strong>and</strong> Riverine forest remaining are<br />

characterised by a dense understory capable hosting several bird species, including<br />

forest dependent species such as the African broadbill (Smithornis capensis), the<br />

Blue-mantled crested flycatcher (Trochocercus cyanomelas) <strong>and</strong> the African crowned<br />

eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus - CITES II). Moreover, the topographic variation <strong>of</strong><br />

the Makonde escarpment creates an array <strong>of</strong> habitats <strong>and</strong> nesting sites that further<br />

promote a rich bird community. As a result, these four reserves have been classified<br />

by BirdLife International (2005) as an Important Bird Area (TZ053 - category A1).<br />

Mkunya River proposed FR is also important because <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> the Mkunya<br />

River, which creates a moist habitat most suitable for butterflies <strong>and</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna,<br />

which are both represented here by a relatively high number <strong>of</strong> species (Table 20-c).<br />

Important amphibian species found here are the ‘true’ toad Mertensophryne<br />

micranotis, a species strictly endemic to the Eastern Arc lowl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

Forest Mosaic, <strong>and</strong> the Dwarf squeaker (Arthroleptis xenodactyloides), a species<br />

listed as Vulnerable by IUCN (2004). Among the butterflies, the Silver striped<br />

charaxes (Charaxes lasti lasti) is endemic to the closed-canopy lowl<strong>and</strong> forest <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Eastern Arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania. On the contrary, the level <strong>of</strong><br />

fragmentation <strong>and</strong> the small size <strong>of</strong> forest habitat remaining mean that these reserves<br />

may not be capable <strong>of</strong> sustaining high numbers <strong>and</strong> viable populations <strong>of</strong> mammal<br />

species. Forest dependent species such as the Moloney’s monkey (Cercopithecus<br />

mitis - CITES II), the Suni (Neotragus moschatus - conservation dependent), the<br />

Natal duiker (Cephalophus natalensis - conservation dependent), the Blue duiker<br />

(Cephalophus monticola - CITES II) <strong>and</strong> the Red-bellied coastal squirrel (Paraxerus<br />

palliatus) are still found in very small patches <strong>of</strong> forest <strong>and</strong> are therefore locally<br />

threatened. The Leopard (Panthera pardus) <strong>and</strong> the Peregrine falcon (Falco<br />

peregrinus), species listed on CITES Appendix I (2005), were observed to occur on<br />

the Makonde scarp in sheltered areas near the cliff face. It would be advisable for the<br />

whole <strong>of</strong> the Makonde Scarp to be protected as one large reserve in order to connect<br />

highly fragmented <strong>and</strong> narrow patches <strong>of</strong> forest habitat that otherwise may not have<br />

the capacity to give refuge to viable populations <strong>of</strong> mammals. Conservation measures<br />

can follow those listed in the Conservation Recommendations section below.<br />

199


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

4. Mtuli Hinju<br />

The importance <strong>of</strong> this reserve resides in its Legume-dominated dry forest <strong>and</strong> its<br />

wetl<strong>and</strong>. Legume-dominated dry forest is the most vulnerable plant community <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>. In this reserve encroachment is among the lowest (Table 20-h; Figure<br />

14 <strong>and</strong> Figure 20) <strong>and</strong> a species rich <strong>and</strong> stable plant community has therefore<br />

developed, with important species such as Mesogyne insignis (Vulnerable), Tetracera<br />

boiviniana, Erythrina schliebenii, Xylotheca tettensis, Rytigynia decussata <strong>and</strong> Cola<br />

clavata (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Potentially Threatened). Nevertheless, the small size <strong>of</strong> this<br />

reserve constitutes a threat to the continuity <strong>of</strong> this forest type should disturbance<br />

ensue. Even thought the total number <strong>of</strong> faunal species, including endemic <strong>and</strong><br />

threatened species, was among the lowest recorded in this study (Table 20-c, Table<br />

20-e <strong>and</strong> Table 20-f; Figure 23 <strong>and</strong> Figure 27), the wetl<strong>and</strong> harbours important<br />

species <strong>of</strong> birds <strong>and</strong> amphibians, including some forest dependent birds such as the<br />

African broadbill (Smithornis capensis), the Blue-mantled crested flycatcher<br />

(Trochocercus cyanomelas) <strong>and</strong> the African crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus<br />

- CITES II). Few threatened <strong>and</strong> forest dependent mammals were also found to occur<br />

here, including the Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei - Vulnerable) <strong>and</strong><br />

the Suni (Neotragus moschatus - forest dependent). Conservation measures can<br />

follow those listed in the Conservation Recommendations section below.<br />

5. Kambona<br />

Kambona FR is a small reserve affected by severe timber extraction (Table 20-h;<br />

Figure 3) that has noticeably reduced the floral species richness (Table 20-a; Figure<br />

20). Nevertheless, this reserve harbours some important plant species, among which<br />

Khaya anthotheca (Vulnerable), Tetracera boiviniana, Erythrina schliebenii <strong>and</strong><br />

Rytigynia decussata (Endemic <strong>and</strong> Potentially Threatened). Moreover, a water source<br />

hosts relatively large populations <strong>of</strong> reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians. Few threatened <strong>and</strong><br />

forest dependent mammals were also observed, including the Chequered elephant<br />

shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei - Vulnerable), the Dwarf squeaker (Arthroleptis<br />

xenodactyloides - Vulnerable), the Suni (Neotragus moschatus - forest dependent)<br />

<strong>and</strong> the Red-bellied coastal squirrel (Paraxerus palliatus - forest dependent).<br />

Conservation measures can follow those listed in the Conservation Recommendations<br />

section below.<br />

PRIORITY SITES FOR THE PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES<br />

All <strong>of</strong> the forest reserves surveyed are important because they provide local communities with<br />

clean water, natural resources <strong>and</strong> protection from soil erosion. Some forest reserves are<br />

however more important in terms <strong>of</strong> the level <strong>of</strong> environmental services that they provide.<br />

CONSERVATION OF WATER SOURCES<br />

Priority sites for the conservation <strong>of</strong> water sources include:<br />

- Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp III Proposed Forest Reserves<br />

The rivers found in Mkunya River <strong>and</strong> Makonde Scarp III proposed FRs provide a<br />

vital water supply to two large towns: Newala <strong>and</strong> Mahuta respectively. The<br />

continued presence <strong>of</strong> undisturbed forest around these rivers is imperative if they are<br />

to supply water to these large settlements for many years to come. Conservation<br />

measures can follow those listed in the Conservation Recommendations section<br />

below.<br />

200


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

- Kambona Forest Reserve<br />

The small spring found here is the sole water supply for the villages <strong>of</strong> Chidya <strong>and</strong><br />

Chiwata. The dependence <strong>of</strong> these communities on this supply highlights the need<br />

for conservation action to be carried out as soon as possible. Conservation measures<br />

can follow those listed in the Conservation Recommendations section below.<br />

- Mtuli Hinju<br />

The pond found here is the sole water supply for the villages <strong>of</strong> Mtuli Hinju <strong>and</strong><br />

Njengwa. Another six villages (Chiwindi, Majengo, Migombani, Mtalala,<br />

Nang'awanga <strong>and</strong> Najenga) rely on it seasonally when alternative ponds <strong>and</strong> wells dry<br />

up. The dependence <strong>of</strong> these communities on this water source highlights the need<br />

for conservation action to be carried out as soon as possible. Conservation measures<br />

can follow those listed in the Conservation Recommendations section below.<br />

PROTECTION FROM SOIL EROSION<br />

Soil erosion is a significant threat to the livelihoods <strong>of</strong> thous<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> people because it both<br />

affects the fertility <strong>of</strong> farml<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> encourages l<strong>and</strong>slides <strong>and</strong> floods. The threat <strong>of</strong> soil<br />

erosion is particularly evident on <strong>and</strong> at the foot <strong>of</strong> the Makonde Scarp. The forest along the<br />

escarpment protects the l<strong>and</strong> from soil erosion <strong>and</strong> the people living there from catastrophic<br />

l<strong>and</strong>slides. All forest reserves located along the escarpment are therefore a priority. These<br />

include:<br />

- Makonde Scarp I proposed FR<br />

- Makonde Scarp II proposed FR<br />

- Makonde Scarp III proposed FR<br />

- Mkunya River proposed FR<br />

Makonde Scarp II <strong>and</strong> III have been subject to extensive cultivation <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> on the steep sides<br />

<strong>of</strong> the escarpment <strong>and</strong> therefore conservation efforts should be directed here primarily.<br />

Conservation measures can follow those listed in the Conservation Recommendations section<br />

below.<br />

201


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

22. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS<br />

R. SALTER AND O. SWEENEY<br />

The level <strong>of</strong> disturbance observed throughout the eight forest reserves surveyed poses a<br />

severe threat to the continued presence <strong>of</strong> plant <strong>and</strong> animal species <strong>and</strong> to the environmental<br />

functions <strong>of</strong> the forests. Effective <strong>and</strong> sustained conservation action is needed to promote the<br />

conservation <strong>of</strong> biodiversity in these areas <strong>and</strong> to make sure that essential environmental<br />

services are maintained.<br />

The major threat to the Mtwara <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> is the combination <strong>of</strong> a high population<br />

growth rate registered in the region, severe poverty affecting this population, <strong>and</strong> its heavy<br />

dependence on natural resources from the forest. Unfortunately, in many cases local<br />

inhabitants were found to be uninformed about issues <strong>of</strong> sustainability, <strong>and</strong> in some instances<br />

they were unaware <strong>of</strong> their reliance on the forest cover for the protection <strong>of</strong> water sources <strong>and</strong><br />

the soil. Also apparent was the lack <strong>of</strong> information about the reasons behind the potential or<br />

actual designation <strong>of</strong> the reserves, <strong>and</strong> about the biodiversity value <strong>of</strong> the forests. In fact,<br />

where the importance <strong>of</strong> a reserve to the local communities is not made evident by the<br />

presence <strong>of</strong> a water source, a negative or apathetic view <strong>of</strong> the forests has <strong>of</strong>ten developed<br />

(e.g. in Makonde Scarp II <strong>and</strong> Mtiniko proposed FRs <strong>and</strong> in Ndechela FR): inhabitants see no<br />

direct benefit in the preservation <strong>of</strong> the forests but rather a limit to the free use <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

resources.<br />

The conservation approach used should concentrate on developing an effective management<br />

plan for the safeguard <strong>of</strong> the reserves <strong>and</strong> the sustainable use <strong>of</strong> resources, <strong>and</strong> on promoting<br />

awareness <strong>of</strong> the values <strong>of</strong> the forests studied, including their provision <strong>of</strong> natural resources,<br />

their protection <strong>of</strong> water sources <strong>and</strong> soil, <strong>and</strong> their unique biodiversity.<br />

The <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mtwara: a Kiswahili layman’s report (Frontier-Tanzania, 2005) was<br />

produced during the FT MRP for distribution to district natural resources <strong>of</strong>fices, community<br />

groups <strong>and</strong> schools in close proximity to the forest reserves, to act as a tool for environmental<br />

education <strong>and</strong> awareness promotion. While this is the first step, further measures will need to<br />

be taken if these areas are to be protected effectively. A list <strong>of</strong> Conservation<br />

Recommendations based on the findings <strong>of</strong> the Mtwara Reconnaissance Project <strong>and</strong><br />

applicable to all forest reserves is given below.<br />

1. Full gazettement <strong>of</strong> proposed forest reserves (Makonde I, II <strong>and</strong> III, Mkunya River,<br />

Mtiniko <strong>and</strong> Mtuli Hinju proposed FRs) is imperative to regain the respect <strong>of</strong><br />

residents for boundaries <strong>and</strong> regulations. Inhabitants perceive the lack <strong>of</strong> gazettement,<br />

management <strong>and</strong> regulations as a lack <strong>of</strong> interest on behalf <strong>of</strong> the government, <strong>and</strong><br />

therefore they no longer appreciate the value <strong>of</strong> these sites.<br />

2. Boundary reassessment <strong>and</strong> demarcation are required to remove ambiguity over<br />

where the boundary lies <strong>and</strong> reduce encroachment. No boundaries have been<br />

demarcated properly for many years <strong>and</strong> at present the boundaries as perceived by<br />

local forest <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>and</strong> residents are very different to those defined on l<strong>and</strong> cover <strong>and</strong><br />

l<strong>and</strong> use maps (Institute <strong>of</strong> Resource Planning, UDSM).<br />

3. Capacity building needs to be intensified by the central government through the<br />

Forestry <strong>and</strong> Beekeeping Division (FBD), <strong>and</strong> through the development <strong>of</strong><br />

management plans <strong>and</strong> the allocation <strong>of</strong> adequate budgets for both gazetted <strong>and</strong><br />

proposed forest reserves.<br />

202


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

4. Compensation needs to be paid to people who were moved out <strong>of</strong> the reserve when<br />

the boundaries were first cleared. Because this was never done people have continued<br />

to cultivate within the reserves. This is particularly relevant for Makonde I, II <strong>and</strong> III<br />

proposed FRs.<br />

5. Environmental committees need to be formed in all villages in close proximity to<br />

the forest reserves to address <strong>and</strong> act on important conservation issues. Bylaws will<br />

need to be introduced <strong>and</strong> the committees empowered financially <strong>and</strong> organisationally<br />

to combat illegal <strong>and</strong> unsustainable exploitation <strong>of</strong> resources. In some areas (for<br />

example Ndechela) it may be possible to permit a sustainable level <strong>of</strong> timber <strong>and</strong> nontimber<br />

resources harvesting.<br />

6. Patrols need to be carried out on a regular basis to control <strong>and</strong> assess levels <strong>of</strong><br />

disturbance. In the knowledge that a reserve is being patrolled illegal pole <strong>and</strong> timber<br />

cutting <strong>and</strong> hunting are expected to decrease. Patrols need to be conducted by Forest<br />

Officers in collaboration with village committees.<br />

7. Fines need to be levied <strong>and</strong> enforced by Forest Officers <strong>and</strong>/or local committees to<br />

make practices such as pit sawing <strong>and</strong> hunting unpr<strong>of</strong>itable.<br />

8. Awareness promotion is necessary among local communities on the importance <strong>of</strong><br />

the forests for the protection <strong>of</strong> water sources <strong>and</strong> the soil, as well as on the<br />

biodiversity value <strong>of</strong> the reserves <strong>and</strong> the uniqueness <strong>of</strong> the species found within<br />

them. It should be the responsibility <strong>of</strong> local environmental committees to carry this<br />

out, but external financial <strong>and</strong> technical support will also be needed. The Kiswahili<br />

layman’s report (Frontier-Tanzania, 2005) produced during the Mtwara<br />

Reconnaissance Project 2005 can act as an educational tool.<br />

9. Tree planting is required to replace cultivated <strong>and</strong> fallow l<strong>and</strong> with native trees<br />

inside the reserves. A particular effort will have to be made to plant tree species that<br />

were formerly present, especially endemic species <strong>and</strong> plant associations, <strong>and</strong> to<br />

discourage encroachment by more easily dispersed pioneer species characteristic <strong>of</strong><br />

mixed dry <strong>and</strong> mixed scrub forest. Particular attention should be paid to steep slopes<br />

where the risk <strong>of</strong> soil erosion is high. Tree planting outside <strong>of</strong> the reserve is also<br />

important, since trees can act as a buffer zone to the reserves <strong>and</strong> provide residents<br />

with an alternative supply <strong>of</strong> resources (see below). Such initiatives should be<br />

coordinated by governmental <strong>and</strong> non-governmental bodies in collaboration with<br />

local environmental committees.<br />

10. Investment in rural development is necessary to establish essential services <strong>and</strong><br />

infrastructures (e.g. roads, access to credit etc.), <strong>and</strong> to help local inhabitants to make<br />

production <strong>and</strong> marketing <strong>of</strong> agricultural products more effective, in order to help<br />

alleviate the need to cultivate within forest reserves.<br />

11. Development <strong>of</strong> affordable alternative sources <strong>of</strong> energy needs to be prioritised at<br />

the national level <strong>and</strong> introduced at the regional level in order to reverse the current<br />

deforestation trends.<br />

12. Encouragement <strong>of</strong> sustainable resource use is <strong>of</strong> paramount importance. It may not<br />

be realistic or appropriate to put an outright ban on subsistence harvesting within<br />

forest reserves, but sustainable practices need to be promoted in order to limit the<br />

potential damage <strong>of</strong> high dem<strong>and</strong> for resources. The following measures should be<br />

encouraged:<br />

• Poles, timber <strong>and</strong> firewood<br />

- Regulation <strong>of</strong> timber harvesting through licenses issued by local<br />

environmental committees is crucial. This would require clear guidelines<br />

on sustainable harvesting levels, for which further research will be<br />

necessary.<br />

- Removal <strong>of</strong> large peripheral branches rather than killing <strong>of</strong> whole trees<br />

from the most commercially desirable species (Hymenaea verrucosa,<br />

203


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Pterocarpus angolensis, P. rotundifolius, Swartzia madagascariensis,<br />

Afzelia quanzensis, Dalbergia melanoxylon <strong>and</strong> Milicia excelsa) should<br />

be encouraged. However, it is unlikely that there are enough individuals<br />

for this practice to satisfy the dem<strong>and</strong> for commercial timber.<br />

- Pole cutting should be spread among a number <strong>of</strong> different trees to lower<br />

the impact on one particular individual or species; cutting single stemmed<br />

individuals should also be avoided.<br />

- Extensive tree planting in buffer zones is important. Rodgers <strong>and</strong> Burgess<br />

(2000b) suggest planting quick growing species (such as Eucalyptus,<br />

Casuarina <strong>and</strong> Cassia) on the borders <strong>of</strong> protected areas to meet the<br />

dem<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the local populations for timber <strong>and</strong> firewood. However, the<br />

introduction <strong>of</strong> alien species can also cause ecological problems if not<br />

carefully evaluated first (e.g. Acacia mearnsii in South Africa) (Van<br />

Wyk, 1997)<br />

• Edible <strong>and</strong> medicinal plants<br />

- Fruit harvesting should take place when fruit is ripe so that the plant has a<br />

chance to reproduce; hooks <strong>and</strong> sticks should be used to access high<br />

branches rather than felling trees (Wegner, 2003).<br />

- When root digging, only peripheral roots should be removed to ensure<br />

that the individual is able to regenerate lost roots <strong>and</strong> survive (Wegner,<br />

2003).<br />

- Planting species commonly used for food <strong>and</strong> medicine (e.g. Dioscorea<br />

hirtiflora <strong>and</strong> Strychnos sp.) in a buffer zone around the reserve may help<br />

to decrease reliance on the reserve itself.<br />

• Tools <strong>and</strong> utensils<br />

- Removal <strong>of</strong> bark should take place on peripheral branches <strong>and</strong> be spread<br />

between a number <strong>of</strong> different trees in order to decrease pressure on one<br />

particular individual or species.<br />

- The use <strong>of</strong> materials other than bark for the construction <strong>of</strong> tools, utensils<br />

<strong>and</strong> beehives should be explored.<br />

• Hunting<br />

- Government bodies should set either limits or an outright ban on hunting<br />

depending on the size <strong>of</strong> animal populations. Hunting <strong>of</strong> endemic <strong>and</strong><br />

endangered species should be severely forbidden <strong>and</strong> monitored.<br />

- Where hunting is allowed, an educational programme should promote its<br />

sustainability by discouraging the killing a species in large numbers, as<br />

well as the killing <strong>of</strong> the young, the females <strong>and</strong> those animals that are<br />

not used as food.<br />

- Destructive hunting practices, such as fire <strong>and</strong> drift fences that capture a<br />

large number <strong>of</strong> animals at once, should be discouraged <strong>and</strong> less invasive<br />

methods suggested.<br />

- Shooting <strong>of</strong> animals such as baboons (Papio cynocephalus) to defend<br />

crops from raiding should be discouraged <strong>and</strong> alternative methods<br />

introduced: fences could be erected or a rotation system put in place for<br />

inhabitants to guard crops.<br />

- Population levels <strong>of</strong> endemic <strong>and</strong> threatened species that are hunted (e.g.<br />

Rhynchocyon cirnei) need to be accurately assessed.<br />

204


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

23. BIBLIOGRAPHY<br />

Adkins, J. (2005). Personal Communication. RIPS <strong>project</strong>, Finnish International Development<br />

Agency.<br />

Alvarado, D. (2000). Galago moholi On-line. Animal diversity website. Available:<br />

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Galago_moholi.html.<br />

(accessed in December 2005).<br />

Bailey, J. (1999). Dictionary <strong>of</strong> Plant Sciences. Penguin Group, London, UK.<br />

Baker, N. E. <strong>and</strong> Baker E. M. (2002). Important Bird Areas in Tanzania: A first inventory.<br />

Wildlife Conservation Society <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.<br />

Baldus, R.D., Kaggi, D. Th. <strong>and</strong> Ngoti, P. M. (2004). Community Based Conservation<br />

(CBC): Where are now? Where are we going? Kakakuona 35: 20-22.<br />

Bauder, J. (2000). Effect <strong>of</strong> fire on soil <strong>and</strong> vegetation. MSU Extension Soil <strong>and</strong> Water<br />

Quality. Montana State University Communication Services.<br />

Begon, M., Harper, J. L. <strong>and</strong> Townsend, C. R. (1996). Ecology (Third Edition) Blackwell<br />

Science Ltd, Onsey Mead, Oxford, UK.<br />

BirdLife International (2005). BirdLife's online World Bird Database: the site for bird<br />

conservation. Version 2.0. Cambridge, UK. Available: www.birdlife.org (accessed in<br />

November 2005).<br />

Britton P. L. (1980). (ed.) Birds <strong>of</strong> East Africa. East African Natural History Society, Nairobi,<br />

<strong>Kenya</strong>.<br />

Broadley, D. G. <strong>and</strong> Howell, K. M. (2000). Reptiles. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa.<br />

Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds.) (2000). IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge,<br />

UK.<br />

Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., de Fonseca, G. A. B., Ryl<strong>and</strong>s, A. B.,<br />

Konstant, W. R., Flick, P., Pilgrim, J., Oldfield, S., Magin, G. <strong>and</strong> Hilton-Taylor, C. (2002)<br />

Habitat Loss <strong>and</strong> Extinction in the Hotspots <strong>of</strong> Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16: 909–<br />

923.<br />

Burgess, N. D. (2000). Global importance <strong>and</strong> patterns <strong>of</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest<br />

species. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa. Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds.) (2000).<br />

IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Burgess N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke G. P. (Eds.) (2000). <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa. IUCN<br />

Publications Services Unit, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Burgess, N. D., Kock, D., Cockle, A., FitzGibbon, C., Jenkins, P., <strong>and</strong> Honess, P. (2000a).<br />

Mammals. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa. Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds.)<br />

(2000). IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge, UK.<br />

205


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Burgess, N. D., Matthews, P., Evers, Y. <strong>and</strong> Woodcock, K. (2000b). Non timber uses, threats<br />

<strong>and</strong> local attitudes. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa. Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P.<br />

(Eds.) (2000). IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Mbwana, S. B. (2000c). Forestry. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa.<br />

Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds.) (2000). IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge,<br />

UK.<br />

Channing, A. (2001). Amphibians <strong>of</strong> Central <strong>and</strong> Southern Africa. Cornell University Press,<br />

USA.<br />

CITES, (2005). Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species <strong>of</strong> Wild Flora <strong>and</strong><br />

Fauna. Appendices I <strong>and</strong> II. Available: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html<br />

(accessed in November 2005).<br />

Clarke, G. P. (1998.). A new regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism in Africa. In: Chorology,<br />

Taxonomy <strong>and</strong> Ecology <strong>of</strong> the Floras <strong>of</strong> Africa <strong>and</strong> Madagascar. Huxley, C. R., Lock, J. M.,<br />

<strong>and</strong> Cutler, D. F. (Eds.) (1998). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.<br />

Clarke, G. P. (2000). Climate <strong>and</strong> climatic history. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa.<br />

Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds.) (2000). IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge,<br />

UK.<br />

Clarke, G. P. (2000a). Defining the eastern African coastal forests. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong><br />

Eastern Africa. Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds.) (2000). IUCN Publications Services<br />

Unit, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Clarke, G. P. <strong>and</strong> Robertson, S. A. (2000). Vegetation communities. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

Eastern Africa (2000). Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds). (2000). IUCN Publications<br />

Unit, Cambridge, U.K.<br />

Clarke, G. P., Volleyed, K. <strong>and</strong> Macomb, L. B. (2000). Vascular Plants. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong><br />

Eastern Africa. Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds.) (2000). IUCN Publications Services<br />

Unit, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Coates Pal grave, K. (1996). Trees <strong>of</strong> Southern Africa. Struck Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape<br />

Town, South Africa.<br />

Cockle, A., Kock, D., Stubblefield, L. K., Howell, K. M., <strong>and</strong> Burgess, N. D. (1998). Bat<br />

assemblages in Tanzanian <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong>. Mammalian 62: 53–68.<br />

Collar N. J., Crosby M. J. <strong>and</strong> Satterfield A. J. (1994). Birds to Watch 2. The world list <strong>of</strong><br />

threatened birds. Birdlife International, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Condamin, M. (1963). In: Kiell<strong>and</strong>, J. (1990). Butterflies <strong>of</strong> Tanzania. Hill House Publishers<br />

London, UK.<br />

Congdon T. C. E. <strong>and</strong> Bampton I. (2005). Some Endemic Butterflies <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa <strong>and</strong><br />

Malawi. Unpublished report.<br />

Conservation International (2005). Biodiversity Hotspots website: <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> East<br />

Africa. Available: http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/coastal_forests/<br />

biodiversity.xml (accessed in December 2005).<br />

206


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Corbet, G. B. (1970). Patterns <strong>of</strong> sub specific variation. In: Variation in Mammalian<br />

Populations. Berry, R. J. <strong>and</strong> Southern, H. (Eds.). Symposium <strong>of</strong> the Zoological Society <strong>of</strong><br />

London Number 26. Academic Press, London, UK.<br />

Cordeiro, N. J., Patrick D. A. G., Minis, B. <strong>and</strong> Gupta, V. (2004). Role <strong>of</strong> dispersal in the<br />

invasion <strong>of</strong> an exotic tree in an east African subroutine forest. Journal <strong>of</strong> Tropical Ecology<br />

20: 449–457.<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) (2005). Eastern Arc Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

<strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tanzania <strong>and</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong>. Ecosystem Pr<strong>of</strong>ile (updated in March 2005). Available:<br />

www.cepf.net/ImageCache/cepf/content/pdfs/cepf_2eeasternarcmountains_2eoverview_5f3_2<br />

e05_2epdf/v2/cepf.easternarcmountains.overview_5f3.05.pdf. (Accessed in November 2005).<br />

Cronk, Q. C. B. (1997). Isl<strong>and</strong>s: stability, diversity, conservation. Biodiversity <strong>and</strong><br />

Conservation 6: 447-495.<br />

Davenport T. R. B. (2001). An Annotated Catalogue <strong>of</strong> the Butterflies <strong>of</strong> Ug<strong>and</strong>a. The Forest<br />

Department & Makerere University. Kampala, Ug<strong>and</strong>a.<br />

Delaney <strong>and</strong> Scott (2002). Waterbird Population Estimates (3rd edition). Wetl<strong>and</strong>s<br />

International. Wakening, The Netherl<strong>and</strong>s.<br />

Fishpool, L. D. C. <strong>and</strong> Evans, M. I. (Eds.) (2001). Important Bird Areas in Africa <strong>and</strong><br />

associated isl<strong>and</strong>s: Priority sites for conservation. Pisces Publications <strong>and</strong> BirdLife<br />

International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 11), Newbury <strong>and</strong> Cambridge, UK.<br />

FOREST ACT (2002). Acts Supplement No. 14 (7 th June 2002). Gazette <strong>of</strong> the United<br />

Republic <strong>of</strong> Tanzania No. 23 Vol. 83. Printed by order <strong>of</strong> the Government <strong>of</strong> the United<br />

Republic <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.<br />

Frontier publication list (2005). Available: www.frontier.ac.uk<br />

Frontier-Tanzania (1997). Technical Report No. 34: Methodology Report. SEE, London, UK.<br />

Frontier-Tanzania (2005). The <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mtwara: a Kiswahili layman report. In<br />

press.<br />

FTEA. Flora <strong>of</strong> Tropical East Africa (published families). Published on behalf <strong>of</strong> the east<br />

African governments by the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, UK.<br />

Gauslaa, Y. (1989). Management <strong>and</strong> regeneration <strong>of</strong> tropical woodl<strong>and</strong>s with special<br />

reference to Tanzania conditions. A literature review. Lidia 2: 37–112.<br />

Gereau, R. <strong>and</strong> Q. L. Luke (2006). List <strong>of</strong> Potentially Threatened Plants in the Eastern Arc<br />

Mountains <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Biodiversity Hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania. Unpublished<br />

report.<br />

Gillman, H. (1954). Bush fallowing on the Makonde plateau. Tanganyika Notes <strong>and</strong> Records<br />

19: 34–44.<br />

Government <strong>of</strong> the United Republic <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (2005). Government website on Lindi <strong>and</strong><br />

Mtwara regions. Available: www.lindi-<strong>mtwara</strong>-region.com/eng (accessed in August 2005).<br />

207


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Groombridge, B. (Ed) (1994). 1994 IUCN Red List <strong>of</strong> Threatened Animals. IUCN/WCMC,<br />

Gl<strong>and</strong>, Switzerl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Cambridge, UK.<br />

Heywood, V. H. (1993). Flowering plants <strong>of</strong> the world. BT Batsford Ltd, London, UK.<br />

Holdridge, L. R., Grenke, W. C., Hatheway, W. H., Liang, T. <strong>and</strong> Tosi, T. (1971). Forest<br />

Environments in Tropical Life Zones. Pergamon, Oxford, UK.<br />

Honda, M., Ota, H., Kohler, G., Ineich, I., Chirio, L., Chen, S.-L. <strong>and</strong> Hikida, T. (2003)<br />

Phylogeny <strong>of</strong> the lizard subfamily lygosominae (Reptilia: Scincidae), with special reference to<br />

the origin <strong>of</strong> the New World taxa. Genes <strong>and</strong> Genetic Systems 78 (1): 71-80.<br />

Howell, K. M. (1993). Herpet<strong>of</strong>auna <strong>of</strong> the eastern-African forests. In: Lovett, J. C. <strong>and</strong><br />

Wasser, S. K. (Eds.). Biogeography <strong>and</strong> ecology <strong>of</strong> the rain forests <strong>of</strong> eastern Africa.<br />

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Howell, K.M., Msuya C.A. <strong>and</strong> Kihauke P.M. (2000). A preliminary biodiversity (fauna)<br />

assessment <strong>of</strong> the Rufiji floodplain <strong>and</strong> delta. Rufiji Environment Management <strong>project</strong><br />

(REMP/IUCN Technical Report no. 9, pp 64.<br />

IUCN (2004). 2004 Red List <strong>of</strong> Threatened Species. IUCN, Gl<strong>and</strong>, Switzerl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

Cambridge, UK. Available: www.iucn.org (last accessed on December 2005).<br />

IUCN, Conservation International <strong>and</strong> NatureServe (2004). Global Amphibian Assessment<br />

website. Available: www.globalamphibians.org (Accessed in December 2005).<br />

Iverson, S. T. (1991). The Usambara Mountains, N. E. Tanzania, Vegetation <strong>and</strong><br />

Composition. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.<br />

Kiell<strong>and</strong>, J. (1990). Butterflies <strong>of</strong> Tanzania. Hill House Publishers. London, UK.<br />

Kiell<strong>and</strong>, J. <strong>and</strong> Cordeiro, N. J. (2000). Butterflies. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa<br />

(2000). Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds.). (2000). IUCN Publications Unit, Cambridge,<br />

UK.<br />

Kingdon, J. (1974). East African Mammals. An atlas <strong>of</strong> evolution in Africa. Vol. 2B: Hares<br />

<strong>and</strong> rodents. University Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.<br />

Kingdon, J. (1989). East African mammals. An atlas <strong>of</strong> evolution in Africa. Vol. 2A:<br />

Insectivores <strong>and</strong> bats. University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.<br />

Kingdon, J. (2003). The Kingdon field guide to East African Mammals. Academic Press,<br />

London, UK.<br />

Knox, E. B. (2000). List <strong>of</strong> East African Plants (LEAP). East African Herbarium, Nairobi,<br />

<strong>Kenya</strong>. Database compiled largely from the Flora <strong>of</strong> Tropical East Africa (1949 –1994).<br />

Current Editor: Beentje H.J. Balkema <strong>and</strong> Bentham-Moxom Trust, Rotterdam, Holl<strong>and</strong>.<br />

Larsen, T. B. (1996). The butterflies <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> their natural history. Oxford University<br />

Press, Oxford, UK.<br />

Lind E. M. <strong>and</strong> Morrison, M. E. S. (1974). East African vegetation. Longman, London, UK.<br />

208


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Lowe, A. J. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (2000). Vegetation structure. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> Eastern<br />

Africa. Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds.) (2000). IUCN Publications Services Unit,<br />

Cambridge, UK.<br />

Lu<strong>and</strong>a, N. N. (1998). Donors <strong>and</strong> poverty in Lindi <strong>and</strong> Mtwara regions, Tanzania. FAD<br />

Working Paper 4/98, Finnish Aid in Development Research Project, Institute <strong>of</strong> Development<br />

Studies (IDS/KMI), University <strong>of</strong> Helsinki, Helsinki, Finl<strong>and</strong>.<br />

Mabberley, D. J. (1997). The Plant-book: a portable dictionary <strong>of</strong> the vascular plants.<br />

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Maganga, R. (2004). Hatima ya Miteremko ya Uw<strong>and</strong>a wa Makonde Mkoani Mtwara. Report<br />

on the Makonde Escarpment held at the Masasi District Office.<br />

Magurran, A. M. (1988). Ecological diversity <strong>and</strong> its measurements. Chapman <strong>and</strong> Hall,<br />

London, UK.<br />

Mausfeld P., Schmitz A., Böhme W., Mis<strong>of</strong> B., Vrcibradic D. <strong>and</strong> Rocha C. F. D. (2002).<br />

Phylogenetic affinities <strong>of</strong> Mabuya atlantica Schmidt, 1945, endemic to the Atlantic Ocean<br />

Archipelago <strong>of</strong> Fern<strong>and</strong>o de Noronha (Brazil): necessity <strong>of</strong> partitioning the genus Mabuya<br />

Fitzinger, 1826 (Scinidae: Lygosominae). Zoologischer Anzeiger 241: 281-293.<br />

McEuan, A. B. <strong>and</strong> Curran, L. M. (2004). Seed dispersal <strong>and</strong> recruitment limitation across<br />

spatial scales in temperate forest fragments. Ecology 85:507–518.<br />

Milledge, S. A. H. <strong>and</strong> Elibariki, R. (2005). The status <strong>of</strong> logging in Southern Tanzania.<br />

TRAFFIC Technical report for CEPF. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Dar es Salaam,<br />

Tanzania.<br />

Milledge, S. A. H. <strong>and</strong> Kaale, B. K. (2005). Bridging the gap – linking timber trade with<br />

infrastructure development in Southern Tanzania: Baseline data before completion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Mkapa bridge. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.<br />

Mlingwa, C. O. F., Waiyaki, E. M., Bennun, L. A. <strong>and</strong> Burgess, N. D. (2000). Birds. In:<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa. Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds.) 2000. IUCN<br />

Publications Services Unit, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Mlowe, E. (2005). Personal Communication. Ministry <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources <strong>and</strong> Tourism,<br />

Ivory Rooms, Tanzania.<br />

Mremi, J.D. (1998). The Relationship between tree species abundance, slope <strong>and</strong> soil<br />

properties in the Udzungwa Scarp Forest Reserve. Tanzania. MSc. Thesis, Botany<br />

Department, University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.<br />

Mueller-Dombois, D <strong>and</strong> Ellenberg, H. (1974). Aims <strong>and</strong> Methods <strong>of</strong> Vegetation Ecology<br />

International Edition. John Wiley <strong>and</strong> Sons, New York.<br />

Ndangalasi, H. J. (1997). Studies on canopy gap characteristics <strong>and</strong> regenerating species<br />

composition in Pugu Forest Reserve, Tanzania. MSc thesis, Botany Department, University<br />

<strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.<br />

209


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Passmore, N. I. <strong>and</strong> Carruthers, V. C. (1995). South African frogs: a complete guide. Southern<br />

Book Publishers, Johannesburg, South Africa.<br />

Poynton, J. C. (2002). Amphibians. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa. Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong><br />

Clarke, G. P. (Eds.) 2000. IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Polhill, D. (1988). Flora <strong>of</strong> Tropical East Africa. Index <strong>of</strong> collecting localities. Royal<br />

Botanical Gardens, Kew, UK.<br />

Robinson, D. W. <strong>and</strong> Robinson, S. K. (1999). Effects <strong>of</strong> selective logging on forest bird<br />

populations in a fragmented l<strong>and</strong>scape. Conservation Biology 13: 58–66.<br />

Rathbun, G. (2005). Afrotheria Specialist Group website. Available:<br />

www.calacademy.org/research/bmammals/afrotheria/ASG.html (accessed in November<br />

2005).<br />

Rodgers, W. A. <strong>and</strong> Burgess, N. D. (2000). Taking conservation action. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong><br />

Eastern Africa. Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P. (Eds.) 2000. IUCN Publications Services<br />

Unit, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Russo, S. E. (2003). Responses <strong>of</strong> dispersal agents to tree <strong>and</strong> fruit traits in Virola calophylla<br />

(Myristicaceae): implications for selection. Ecologia 136: 80–87.<br />

Schmidt, R. (1991). Ecology <strong>of</strong> a lowl<strong>and</strong> rain forest. Dissertationes Botanicoe 179: 1–213.<br />

Schiøtz, A. (1999). Treefrogs <strong>of</strong> Africa. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.<br />

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory <strong>of</strong> communication. Bell System Technological<br />

Journal 27: 379–423, 623–656.<br />

Schulman, L., Junikka L., Mndolwa A., Rajabu I. (1998). Trees <strong>of</strong> Amani Nature Reserve, NE<br />

Tanzania. The Ministry <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources <strong>and</strong> Tourism, Tanzania.<br />

Sinclair, I. <strong>and</strong> Ryan, P. (2003). Birds <strong>of</strong> Africa south <strong>of</strong> the Sahara. Struik Publishers, Cape<br />

Town, South Africa.<br />

Spawls S., Howell, K. M., Drewes R. <strong>and</strong> Ashe J. (2002). A Field Guide to the Reptiles <strong>of</strong><br />

East Africa. Academic Press, Hong Kong, Japan.<br />

Stevenson T. <strong>and</strong> Fanshawe J. (2002). Field guide to the birds <strong>of</strong> East Africa. T. <strong>and</strong> A. D.<br />

Poyser, London, UK.<br />

Spawls, S., Howell, K. M., Drewes, R. <strong>and</strong> Ashe, J. (2002). A Field Guide to the Reptiles <strong>of</strong><br />

East Africa. Academic Press, London, UK.<br />

Stattersfield, A. J., Crosby, M. J., Long, A. J. <strong>and</strong> Wege, D. C. (1998). Endemic Bird Areas <strong>of</strong><br />

the World. Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 7.<br />

BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Stuart, C. <strong>and</strong> Stuart, T. (1994). A field guide to the tracks <strong>and</strong> signs <strong>of</strong> Southern <strong>and</strong> East<br />

African wildlife. Southern Book Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, South Africa.<br />

Sutherl<strong>and</strong>, W. J. (2001). The conservation h<strong>and</strong>book: Research, Management <strong>and</strong> Policy.<br />

Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK.<br />

210


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Temu, R. P. C., Nsolomo, V. (2000). List <strong>of</strong> Uluguru Mountains endemic vascular plants.<br />

Uluguru Mountains Biodiversity Conservation Project. Available:<br />

www.africanconservation.com/uluguru/downloads.html (accessed in August 2005).<br />

Vallan, D., Andreone, F., Raherisoa, V. H. <strong>and</strong> Dolch, R. (2004). Does selective wood<br />

exploitation affect amphibian diversity? The case <strong>of</strong> An’Ala, a tropical rainforest in eastern<br />

Madagascar. Oryx 38: 410–417.<br />

Van Wyk, A. E. <strong>and</strong> Van Wyk, P. (1997). Field guide to trees <strong>of</strong> Southern Africa. Struik<br />

Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, South Africa.<br />

Waiyaki, E. M. (1995). In: Mlingwa, C. O. F., Waiyaki, E. M., Bennun, L. A. <strong>and</strong> Burgess, N.<br />

D. (2000). Birds. In: <strong>Coastal</strong> forests <strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa. Burgess, N. D. <strong>and</strong> Clarke, G. P.<br />

(Eds.) 2000. IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge, UK.<br />

Walker, C. (1996). Signs <strong>of</strong> the Wild. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, South Africa.<br />

Wegner, G. (2003). Edible Non-timber Forest Products <strong>of</strong> Zambia: sustainable harvesting<br />

<strong>and</strong> preservation. Kaloko Trust Local Press, Luansobe Valley, Zambia.<br />

Welch, J. R. (1960). Observations on deciduous woodl<strong>and</strong> in the Eastern Province <strong>of</strong><br />

Tanzania. Journal <strong>of</strong> Ecology 58: 557–573.<br />

White, F. (1983). The vegetation <strong>of</strong> Africa. A descriptive memoir to accompany the<br />

Unesco/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map <strong>of</strong> Africa. UNESCO, Paris, France.<br />

White, F. (1993). The AETFAT chorological classification <strong>of</strong> Africa: history methods <strong>and</strong><br />

applications. Bullitin National de Plantentium de Belgique 62: 225-281.<br />

White, E., Tucker, N., Meyers, N. <strong>and</strong> Wilson, J. (2004). Seed dispersal to revegetated<br />

isolated rainforest patches in North Queensl<strong>and</strong>. Forest Ecology <strong>and</strong> Management 192: 409–<br />

426.<br />

Whiting, A. S., Bauer A. M. <strong>and</strong> Sites J. W. Jr. (2003). Phylogenetic relationships <strong>and</strong> limb<br />

loss in sub-Saharan African scincine lizards (Squamata: Scincidae). Molecular Phylogenetics<br />

<strong>and</strong> Evolution 29 (3): 582-598.<br />

Whittacker, R. H. (1964). Dominance <strong>and</strong> diversity in plant communities. Brookhaven<br />

Symposium <strong>of</strong> Biology. 22: 178–196.<br />

WWF-EARPO (2002). Eastern African <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Programme, Regional Workshop<br />

Report. Nairobi, 4–7 th November 2002.<br />

WWF-US (2003). Schipper, J. <strong>and</strong> Burgess, N. (authors). Ecoregional reports: Northern<br />

Zanzibar-Inhambane <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic. Eastern <strong>and</strong> Southern Africa Bioregions.<br />

Zimmerman, D. A., Turner, D. A. <strong>and</strong> Pearson, D. J. (1996). Birds <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Northern<br />

Tanzania. Russel Friedman Books, Cape Town, South Africa.<br />

Zullini, A. (2003). La biodiversità e il concetto di specie. In: Biodiversità Estinzione e<br />

Conservazione. Massa, R <strong>and</strong> Ingegnoli, V. (Eds). UTET Libreria Srl, Torino, Italy.<br />

211


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDICES<br />

APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF TAXONOMISTS<br />

BOTANY<br />

Mr. G. Sangu Independent consultant Tanzania<br />

+255 (0)741 862582<br />

Mr F. Mbago University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam Department <strong>of</strong> Botany<br />

P.O. Box 35064, Dar es Salaam,<br />

Tanzania<br />

mbago@udsm.ac.tz<br />

Mr R. Gereau Missouri Botanical Garden P. O. Box 299, St. Louis,<br />

MO 63166-0299 USA<br />

roy.gereau@mobot.org<br />

ZOOLOGY<br />

Mammals:<br />

Pr<strong>of</strong>. K. M. Howell University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam Department <strong>of</strong> Zoology <strong>and</strong> Wildlife<br />

Conservation<br />

P.O. Box 35064, Dar es Salaam,<br />

Tanzania<br />

kmhowell@udsm.ac.tz<br />

Dr. B. Stanley Chicago Field Museum Mammal Section, Field Museum,<br />

1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago,<br />

Illinois 60605, USA<br />

stanley@fieldmuseum.org<br />

Birds:<br />

Mr. J. Kiure Independent consultant Tanzania<br />

k_kiure@yahoo.com<br />

Reptiles:<br />

Pr<strong>of</strong>. K. M. Howell University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam Department <strong>of</strong> Zoology <strong>and</strong> Wildlife<br />

Conservation<br />

P.O. Box 35064, Dar es Salaam,<br />

Tanzania<br />

kmhowell@udsm.ac.tz<br />

Dr. D. G. Broadley Zimbabwe Natural P.O. Box 240, Bulawayo,<br />

History Museum<br />

Zimbabwe<br />

broadley@gatorzw.co.uk<br />

Dr. R. C. Drewes California Academy <strong>of</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Herpetology,<br />

Sciences<br />

Golden Gate Park, San Francisco,<br />

California 94118, USA<br />

bdrewes@calacademy.org<br />

Mr. M. Menegon Museo Tridentino Di Scienze Trento, Italy<br />

Naturali<br />

menegon@mtsn.tn.it<br />

212


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Amphibians:<br />

Pr<strong>of</strong>. K. M. Howell University <strong>of</strong> Dar es Salaam Department <strong>of</strong> Zoology <strong>and</strong> Wildlife<br />

Conservation<br />

P.O. Box 35064, Dar es Salaam,<br />

Tanzania<br />

kmhowell@udsm.ac.tz<br />

Pr<strong>of</strong>. J. Poynton British Natural History Museum Cromwell Road, North Kensington,<br />

London, UK<br />

Mr. M. Menegon Museo Tridentino Di Scienze Trento, Italy<br />

Naturali<br />

menegon@mtsn.tn.it<br />

Butterflies:<br />

Dr. T. Davenport Southern Highl<strong>and</strong>s Mbeya, Tanzania<br />

Conservation Programme tdavenport@wcs.org<br />

213


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 2 - GPS CO-ORDINATES OF BASE CAMPS FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES<br />

FR code<br />

Site<br />

no.<br />

Waypoint Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Grid ref (E) Grid ref (N) Altitude<br />

(m)<br />

Kambona 1 BC-KAM 10º 37' 25.5'' 039º 01' 07.0'' 0502036 8825715 700<br />

Makonde Scarp I 2 BC-MS1 10º 38' 35.2'' 039º 02' 36.3'' 0504748 8823586 600<br />

Makonde Scarp II 3 BC-MS2 10º 50' 12.3'' 039º 10' 55.0'' 0519887 8802175 720<br />

Mkunya River site 1 4 BC-MR1 11º 00' 37.5'' 039º 23' 47.0'' 0543303 8782951 110<br />

Mkunya River site 2 5 BC-MR2 10º 59' 03.0'' 039º 26' 48.3'' 0548809 8785844 80<br />

Mtiniko 6 BC-MT 10º 35' 28.9'' 039º 56' 14.7'' 0602551 8829156 195<br />

Mtuli Hinju 7 BC-MH 10º 35' 25.9'' 039º 47' 06.7'' 0585899 8829294 215<br />

Makonde Scarp III 8 BC-MS3 10º 53' 11.4'' 039º 24' 13.6'' 0544128 8796650 500<br />

Ndechela site 1 9 BC-ND1 11º 06' 35.6'' 038º 09' 59.6'' 0408980 8771852 250<br />

Ndechela site 2 10 BC-ND2 11º 04' 21.1'' 038º 12' 33.0'' 0413623 8775997 280<br />

215


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 3 - GPS COORDINATES OF VEGETATION PLOTS FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES<br />

Forest Reserve Veg plot id. Waypoint Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Grid ref (E) Grid ref (N) Altitude (m)<br />

Kambona 1 T1-KAM 10º 37' 11.1'' 039º 01' 09.7'' 502117 8826170 680<br />

2 V2-KAM 10º 37' 11.1'' 039º 01' 26.1'' 502617 8826170 680<br />

3 T2-KAM 10º 37' 04.6'' 039º 01' 07.0'' 502035 8826370 680<br />

4 V4-KAM 10º 37' 04.6'' 039º 01' 18.5'' 502385 8826370 680<br />

Makonde I 1 V1-MK1 10º 39' 06.4'' 039º 02' 41.4'' 504903 8822629 600<br />

2 V2-MK1 10º 39' 14.5'' 039º 02' 49.6'' 505153 8822379 600<br />

3 T1E-MS1 10º 39' 24.4'' 039º 02' 15.3'' 504110 8822076 600<br />

4 T2-MS1 10º 39' 31.3'' 039º 02' 37.3'' 504778 8821866 600<br />

5 VS-MS1 10º 39' 46.6'' 039º 02' 39.2'' 504836 8821395 600<br />

6 V6-MS1 10º 40' 02.9'' 039º 02' 39.2'' 504836 8820895 600<br />

7 T3-MS1 10º 38' 15.5'' 039º 02' 51.0'' 502591 8822829 600<br />

8 V8-MS1 10º 38' 14.8'' 039º 03' 06.6'' 505670 8824214 600<br />

9 V9-MS1 10º 38' 14.2'' 039º 03' 22.7'' 506158 8824232 600<br />

Makonde II 1 T1-MS2 10º 50' 41.0'' 039º 10' 53.8'' 519850 8801291 550<br />

2 V2-MS2 10º 50' 24.8'' 039º 10' 53.7'' 519848 8801790 650<br />

3 BC-MS2 10º 50' 12.3'' 039º 10' 55.0'' 519887 8802175 720<br />

4 T2-MS2 10º 52' 55.2'' 039º 14' 01.8'' 525555 8797168 780<br />

5 V5-MS2 10º 52' 57.5'' 039º 13' 46.5'' 525091 8797098 765<br />

6 V6-MS2 10º 52' 58.6'' 039º 13' 31.1'' 524623 8797062 750<br />

7 T3-MS2 10º 49' 58.2'' 039º 10' 08.9'' 518487 8802607 730<br />

8 V8-MS2 10º 49' 58.9'' 039º 09' 52.9'' 518003 8802586 750<br />

9 V9-MS2 10º 50' 01.1'' 039º 09' 40.3'' 517620 8802518 590<br />

10 T4-MS2 10º 50' 31.5'' 039º 11' 58.4 '' 521813 8801582 750<br />

11 V11-MS2 10º 50' 35.7'' 039º 11' 43.8'' 521370 8801453 670<br />

12 V12-MS2 10º 50' 38.3'' 039º 11' 28.9'' 520916 8801375 615<br />

Mkunya River 1 1 T1-MR1 11º 01' 00.6'' 039º 22' 57.2'' 541791 8782242 250<br />

2 V2-MR1 11º 00' 50.9'' 039º 23' 09.4'' 542162 8782541 180<br />

3 V3-MR1 11º 00' 44.9'' 039º 23' 23.5'' 542590 878273 150<br />

216


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest Reserve Veg plot id. Waypoint Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Grid ref (E) Grid ref (N) Altitude (m)<br />

4 T2-MR1 11º 00' 46.9'' 039º 23' 40.6'' 543107 8782661 120<br />

5 V5-MR1 11º 00' 33.0'' 039º 23' 45.7'' 543263 8783088 130<br />

6 V6-MR1 10º 52' 58.6'' 039º 13' 31.3'' 543404 8783536 150<br />

7 T3-MR1 11º 00' 18.5'' 039º 24' 10.0'' 544001 8783534 130<br />

8 V8-MR1 11º 00' 10.4'' 039º 24' 23.9'' 545423 8783781 140<br />

9 V9-MR1 11º 00' 06.1'' 039º 24' 38.2'' 544858 8783913 195<br />

Mkunya River 2 1 T1-MR2 10º 58' 46.6'' 039º 26.5' 9.8'' 549158 8786347 110<br />

2 V2-MR2 10º 58' 31.3'' 039º 26' 56.5'' 549060 8786818 125<br />

3 V3-MR2 10º 58' 14.9'' 039º 26' 56.5'' 549060 8787320 130<br />

4 T2-MR2 10º 59' 34.8'' 039º 25' 35.9'' 546610 8784871 125<br />

5 V5-MR2 10º 59' 23.9'' 039º 25' 47.3'' 546957 8785207 130<br />

6 V6-MR2 10º 59' 13.5'' 039º 25' 59.5'' 547327 8785524 135<br />

7 T3-MR3 10º 58' 52.5'' 039º 26' 36.9'' 548462 8786168 100<br />

8 V8-MR2 10º 58' 46.8'' 039º 26' 22.3'' 548022 8786343 130<br />

9 V9-MR2 10º 58' 41.0'' 039º 26' 07.5'' 547571 8786522 130<br />

10 ND-BDR 10º 58' 36.1'' 039º 27' 52.7'' 550763 8786666 88<br />

11 V11-MR2 10º 58' 34.0'' 039º 27' 36.0'' 550259 8786734 120<br />

12 V12-MR2 10º 58' 30.5'' 039º 27' 22.0'' 549832 8786843 130<br />

Mtiniko 1 Z-MT 10º 35' 26.7'' 039º 56' 06.6'' 602306 8829222 195<br />

2 V2-MT 10º 35' 12.1'' 039º 56' 01.6'' 602155 8829222 195<br />

3 V3-MT 10º 34' 57.7'' 039º 55' 58.3'' 602056 8830116 185<br />

4 T2-MT 10º 34' 56.9'' 039º 56' 11.2'' 602449 8830138 195<br />

5 V5-MT 10º 34' 41.7'' 039º 56' 09.4'' 602395 8830604 155<br />

6 V6-MT 10º 34' 26.6'' 039º 56' 04.8'' 602257 8831069 170<br />

7 T3-MT 10º 35' 30.8'' 039º 55' 05.8'' 600459 8829103 210<br />

8 V8-MT 10º 35' 15.0'' 039º 55' 05.8'' 600459 8829103 210<br />

9 V9-MT 10º 35' 00.0'' 039º 55' 04.8'' 600431 8830050 185<br />

10 T4-MT 10º 34' 03.7'' 039º 56' 46.1'' 603514 8831768 200<br />

11 V11-MT 10º 34' 05.7'' 039º 56' 30.4'' 603037 8831709 200<br />

12 V12-MT 10º 34' 07.0'' 039º 56' 14.4'' 602550 8831671 180<br />

217


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest Reserve Veg plot id. Waypoint Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Grid ref (E) Grid ref (N) Altitude (m)<br />

Mtuli Hinju 1 T1-MH 10º 35' 29.5'' 039º 47' 17.5'' 586226 8829181 230<br />

2 V2-MH 10º 35' 27.0'' 039º 47' 32.6'' 586685 8829181 230<br />

3 V3-MH 10º 35' 29.4'' 039º 47' 03.4'' 585796 8829181 235<br />

4 T2-MH 10º 35' 32.2'' 039º 46' 49.1'' 585435 8829102 260<br />

5 V5-MH 10º 35' 16.2'' 039º 46' 48.0'' 585405 585405 260<br />

Makonde III 1 Z-MS3 10º 53' 34.6'' 039º 24' 24.2'' 544450 8795938 400<br />

2 V2-MS3 10º 53' 49.9'' 039º 24' 26.8'' 544526 8795468 370<br />

3 V3-MS3 10º 54 ' 05.2'' 039º 24' 30.1'' 544628 8794997 340<br />

4 T2-MS3 10º 53' 43.6'' 039º 24' 57.6'' 545463 8795658 455<br />

5 V5-MS3 10º 53' 59.5'' 039º 24' 58.8'' 545498 8795177 415<br />

6 V6-MS3 10º 54' 14.8'' 039º 25' 00.2'' 545540 8794701 375<br />

7 T3-MS3 10º 53' 33.1'' 039º 24' 06.4'' 543910 8795983 430<br />

8 V8-MS3 10º 53' 53.1'' 039º 24' 06.6'' 543913 8795370 440<br />

9 V9-MS3 10º 54' 01.0'' 039º 24' 07.9'' 543953 8795127 435<br />

Ndechela 1 1 T1-ND1 11º 06' 15.1'' 038º 09' 40.5'' 408401 8772482 250<br />

2 V2-ND1 11º 05' 59.9'' 038º 09' 45.8'' 408560 8772948 270<br />

3 V3-ND1 11º 05' 44.7'' 038º 09' 52.5'' 408760 8773417 250<br />

4 T2-ND1 11º 05' 23.9'' 038º 08' 57.5'' 407091 8774049 260<br />

5 V5-ND1 11º 05' 09.3'' 038º 08' 57.6'' 407091 8774500 280<br />

6 V6-ND1 11º 04' 55.1'' 038º 08' 46.1'' 406742 8773945 290<br />

7 T3-ND1 11º 04' 38.3'' 038º 0.8' 24.8'' 406094 8775549 260<br />

8 V8-ND1 11º 04' 21.8'' 038º 0.8' 24.4'' 406080 8775956 275<br />

9 V9-ND1 11º 04' 05.9'' 038º 08' 25.6'' 406117 8776445 275<br />

10 T4-ND1 11º 05' 38.1'' 038º 10' 58.1'' 410751 8773624 330<br />

11 V11-ND1 11º 05' 23.7'' 038º 10' 55.7'' 410677 8774066 315<br />

12 V12-ND1 11º 05' 07.9'' 038º 10' 53.6'' 410610 8774551 310<br />

Ndechela 2 1 T5-ND2 11º 03' 39.5'' 038º 12' 50.0'' 414135 8777275 330<br />

2 V14-N2 11º 03' 42.1'' 038º 12' 34.0'' 413649 8777196 310<br />

3 V15-N2 11º 03' 44.6'' 038º 12' 17.8'' 413159 8777115 290<br />

4 T6-ND2 11º 05' 53.3'' 038º 14' 08.8'' 416536 8773173 280<br />

218


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest Reserve<br />

Veg plot id. Waypoint Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Grid ref (E) Grid ref (N) Altitude (m)<br />

5 V17-N2 11º 05' 56.8'' 038º 13' 53.2'' 416063 8773064 290<br />

6 V18-N2 11º 06' 00.4'' 038º 13' 37.1'' 415575 8772953 295<br />

7 T7-ND2 11º 05' 09.4'' 038º 13' 39.4'' 415641 8774520 340<br />

8 V20-N2 11º 05' 05.8'' 038º 13' 56.4'' 416157 8774631 350<br />

9 V21-N2 11º 05' 03.6'' 038º 14' 11.9'' 416628 8774701 320<br />

219


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 4 - DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION PLOTS FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Plot ID<br />

Topography<br />

Altitude<br />

(masl)<br />

Slope (deg)<br />

Aspect<br />

Vegetation<br />

type<br />

Tree canopy<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Ground layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Shrub layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Dominant species<br />

1 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 690 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

10-50 10-50 10-50 10 -20 cutting roads/<br />

tracks<br />

16 5 Bauhinia petersiana <strong>and</strong><br />

Diplorhynchus<br />

condylocarpon<br />

2 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 650 0 0 open 50 >50 10 -20 cutting none 20 12 Combretum zeyheri<br />

4 gentle lower 670 0 0 open 10-50 10-50 10-50 10 -20 cutting none 18 14 Brachystegia spiciformis<br />

slope<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong> Bauhinia petersiana<br />

1 gentle upper 600 0 0 secondary 10-50 10-50 10-50 10 -20 cutting none 18 3 Brachystegia microphylla<br />

slope<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

2 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 600 0 0 secondary 10-50 10-50


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Makonde II<br />

Plot ID<br />

Topography<br />

7 gentle midslope<br />

8 gentle midslope<br />

9 gentle upper<br />

slope<br />

1 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

2 steep upper<br />

slope<br />

Altitude<br />

(masl)<br />

Slope (deg)<br />

Aspect<br />

Vegetation<br />

type<br />

640 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

610 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

Tree canopy<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Ground layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Shrub layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Canopy<br />

height (m)<br />

Disturbance<br />

category<br />

50 10 -50


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Mkunya<br />

River<br />

Plot ID<br />

Topography<br />

Altitude<br />

(masl)<br />

Slope (deg)<br />

Aspect<br />

Vegetation<br />

type<br />

Tree canopy<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Ground layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Dominant species<br />

7 top <strong>of</strong> the scarp 750 0 0 cultivation < 10 < 10 < 10 n/a fire cultivation 0 0 No tree recorded<br />

8 top <strong>of</strong> the scarp 730 0 0 wooded<br />

grassl<strong>and</strong><br />

9 scarp slope 590 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

Shrub layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Canopy<br />

height (m)<br />

Disturbance<br />

category<br />

10 top <strong>of</strong> the scarp 750 0 0 cultivation < 10 50 < 10 < 10 < 10 cultivation rocky 15 26 Diplorhynchus<br />

, fire outcrops<br />

condylocarpon <strong>and</strong><br />

Pteleopsis myrtifolia<br />

No. Indivs<br />

No. Species<br />

none 1 1 Brachystegia spiciformis,<br />

Brachystegia longifolia<br />

<strong>and</strong> Brachystegia utilis<br />

11 scarp slope 670 0 0 cultivation


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Plot ID<br />

Topography<br />

6 gentle midslope<br />

7 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

8 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

9 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

10 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

Altitude<br />

(masl)<br />

Slope (deg)<br />

150 20-<br />

25<br />

Aspect<br />

Vegetation<br />

type<br />

Tree canopy<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Ground layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Shrub layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Canopy<br />

height (m)<br />

Disturbance<br />

category<br />

Feature <strong>of</strong><br />

interest<br />

S woodl<strong>and</strong> 10-50 50 10-20 cutting rocky<br />

outcrops<br />

130 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

50 10-50 10-20 cutting rocky<br />

outcrops<br />

140 0 0 woodl<strong>and</strong> >50 10-50 10-50 10-20 cutting, rocky<br />

fire outcrops<br />

195 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

110 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

11 gentle midslope<br />

125 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

12 valley floor 130 0 0 scrub/<br />

thicket/<br />

bush<br />

13 valley floor 125 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

14 gentle mid- 130 0 0 open<br />

slope<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

15 gentle upper<br />

slope<br />

135 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

10-50 10-50 10-50 10-20 none rocky<br />

outcrops<br />

No. Indivs<br />

No. Species<br />

Dominant species<br />

13 24 Diplorhynchus<br />

condylocarpon <strong>and</strong><br />

Brachystegia spiciformis<br />

3 7 Diplorhynchus<br />

condylocarpon<br />

10 22 Diplorhynchus<br />

condylocarpon<br />

7 12 Pterocarpus angolensis<br />

<strong>and</strong> Strychnos<br />

madagascariensis<br />

10-50 >50 10-50 10-20 cutting none 3 11 Brachystegia spiciformis,<br />

Diplorhynchus<br />

condylocarpon <strong>and</strong><br />

Combretum paniculatum<br />


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Plot ID<br />

Topography<br />

16 gentle upper<br />

slope<br />

17 gentle midslope<br />

Altitude<br />

(masl)<br />

Slope (deg)<br />

Aspect<br />

Vegetation<br />

type<br />

100 15 W open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

130 15 W open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

Tree canopy<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Ground layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Shrub layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Canopy<br />

height (m)<br />

Disturbance<br />

category<br />

Feature <strong>of</strong><br />

interest<br />

10-50 >50 10-50 10-20 none rocky<br />

outcrops<br />

10-50 10-50 10-50 10-20 cutting rocky<br />

outcrops<br />

No. Indivs<br />

No. Species<br />

Dominant species<br />

3 8 Diplorhynchus<br />

condylocarpon<br />

7 12 Pterocarpus angolensis<br />

<strong>and</strong> Strychnos<br />

madagascariensis<br />

18 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 130 0 0 cultivation 50 10-20 cutting none 0 0 No tree recorded<br />

slope<br />

1 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 195 0 0 dry lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

forest<br />

10-50 >50 >50 10-20 traps roads/<br />

tracks<br />

11 19 Tetracera boiviniana <strong>and</strong><br />

Grewia mollis<br />

2 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 200 0 0 dry lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

forest<br />

50 10-20 cutting none 8 17 Hymanaea verrucosa<br />

10-50 10-50 10-50 10-20 cutting none 9 32 Grewia mollis <strong>and</strong><br />

Tetracera boiviniana<br />

224


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Plot ID<br />

Topography<br />

Altitude<br />

(masl)<br />

Slope (deg)<br />

Aspect<br />

Vegetation<br />

type<br />

7 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 210 0 0 dry lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

forest<br />

8 valley floor 160 0 0 dry lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

forest<br />

9 gentle midslope<br />

185 0 0 dry lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

forest<br />

10 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 200 0 0 dry lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

forest<br />

11 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 200 0 0 dry lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

forest<br />

12 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 180 0 0 dry lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

forest<br />

1 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

2 gentle midslope<br />

3 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

4 gentle midslope<br />

230 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

240 0 0 scrub/<br />

thicket/<br />

bush<br />

230 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

260 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

Tree canopy<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Ground layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Shrub layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Canopy<br />

height (m)<br />

Disturbance<br />

category<br />

10-50 10-50 10-50 10-20 cutting,<br />

fire<br />

>50 >50 >50 10-20 cutting,<br />

fire<br />

Feature <strong>of</strong><br />

interest<br />

roads/<br />

tracks<br />

10-50 10-50 10-50 10-20 cutting roads/<br />

tracks<br />

No. Indivs<br />

No. Species<br />

Dominant species<br />

10 28 Hymanaea verrucosa <strong>and</strong><br />

Grewia mollis<br />

none 7 16 Pteleopsis myrtifolia <strong>and</strong><br />

Tetracera boiviniana<br />

8 14 Hymanaea verrucosa <strong>and</strong><br />

Brachystegia microphylla<br />


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Makonde III<br />

Plot ID<br />

Topography<br />

5 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

1 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

2 gentle upper<br />

slope<br />

3 steep lower<br />

slope<br />

Altitude<br />

(masl)<br />

Slope (deg)<br />

Aspect<br />

Vegetation<br />

type<br />

235 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

400 0 S scrub/<br />

thicket/<br />

bush<br />

Tree canopy<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Ground layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Shrub layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Canopy<br />

height (m)<br />

Disturbance<br />

category<br />


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Ndechela<br />

Plot ID<br />

Topography<br />

1 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

Altitude<br />

(masl)<br />

Slope (deg)<br />

Aspect<br />

Vegetation<br />

type<br />

250 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

Tree canopy<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Ground layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Shrub layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Canopy<br />

height (m)<br />

Disturbance<br />

category<br />

Feature <strong>of</strong><br />

interest<br />

10-50 10-50 10-50 10-20 cutting rocky<br />

outcrops<br />

No. Indivs<br />

No. Species<br />

Dominant species<br />

5 19 Terminalia brownii <strong>and</strong><br />

Combretum molle<br />

2 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

270 0 0 woodl<strong>and</strong> >50 >50 10-50 10-20 fire rocky<br />

outcrops<br />

3 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 260 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

4 gentle lower 260 0 0 open<br />

slope<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

6 gentle lower 250 0 0 open<br />

slope<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

7 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

260 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

8 gentle lower 274 0 0 open<br />

slope<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

9 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 275 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

10 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 330 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

11 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

12 gentle lower<br />

slope<br />

315 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

310 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

10 26 Milletia stuhlmannii<br />

10-50 10-50 10-50 10-20 fire none 10 23 Milletia stuhlmannii<br />

>50 >50 10-50 10-20 none none 0 0 No tree recorded<br />


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Plot ID<br />

Topography<br />

Altitude<br />

(masl)<br />

Slope (deg)<br />

Aspect<br />

Vegetation<br />

type<br />

13 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 330 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

14 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 310 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

15 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 250 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

16 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 280 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

17 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 290 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

18 gentle lower 295 0 0 open<br />

slope<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

19 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 340 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

20 ridge/hill 350 0 0 scrub/<br />

top/peak<br />

thicket/<br />

bush<br />

21 lowl<strong>and</strong> plan 320 0 0 open<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

Tree canopy<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Ground layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Shrub layer<br />

(% cov.)<br />

Canopy<br />

height (m)<br />

Disturbance<br />

category<br />

Feature <strong>of</strong><br />

interest<br />

Dominant species<br />

10-50 10-50 10-50 10-20 fire none 6 19 Diplorhynchus<br />

condylocarpon <strong>and</strong><br />

Pteleopsis myrtifolia<br />

10-50 10-50


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 5 - DESCRIPTION OF REGENERATION PLOTS FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES<br />

Cover (%) Dominance (%)<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Herbs<br />

Bare soil<br />

Litter<br />

Rocks<br />

Grasses<br />

Forbs<br />

Mosses/lichens<br />

Regen.<br />

Plot ID<br />

Soil<br />

texture Soil colour<br />

No.<br />

Indiv.<br />

No.<br />

Species<br />

1 10 40 20 0 10 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam black 17 7<br />

2 5 20 5 0 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam black 15 4<br />

3 40 10 5 0 20 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam black 21 7<br />

4 30 50 5 0 10 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam black 10 5<br />

1 15 5 5 5 70 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 12 5<br />

2 20 10 10 0 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 16 6<br />

3 10 10 10 0 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 16 5<br />

4 20 10 10 0 50 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 8 5<br />

5 15 20 5 0 50 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 19 7<br />

6 15 20 15 0 30 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam dark grey 9 4<br />

7 20 25 10 0 30 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam red brown 17 6<br />

8 40 0 20 0 35 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 24 9<br />

9 20 20 5 0 40 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 13 5<br />

1 40 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 5 20<br />

2 2 10 5 10 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 9 27<br />

3 30 0 10 0 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 6 23<br />

4 20 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 8 25<br />

5 30 0 20 0 30 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 8 21<br />

6 5 10 10 2 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam red brown 7 19<br />

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 16<br />

8 30 0 20 0 40 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 8 22<br />

9 20 15 10 5 40 0 0 0 loam red brown 7 31<br />

Ferns<br />

229


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Cover (%) Dominance (%)<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Mkunya<br />

Herbs<br />

Bare soil<br />

Litter<br />

Rocks<br />

Grasses<br />

Forbs<br />

Mosses/lichens<br />

Regen.<br />

Plot ID<br />

Soil<br />

texture Soil colour<br />

No.<br />

Indiv.<br />

No.<br />

Species<br />

10 20 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 9 22<br />

11 20 0 40 20 5 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam red brown 7 28<br />

12 20 2 60 0 10 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 9 32<br />

1 10 0 30 20 40 0 0 0 rocky light grey 6 34<br />

2 20 0 15 0 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam dark grey 3 14<br />

3 0 0 15 5 70 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 4 23<br />

4 2 0 5 15 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 3 7<br />

5 20 0 60 0 2 0 0 0 loam black 9 19<br />

6 15 0 10 20 40 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 6 26<br />

7 10 0 20 20 50 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 23<br />

8 10 0 5 10 70 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 9 35<br />

9 10 0 5 10 70 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 5 13<br />

10 10 5 0 0 85 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y light grey 3 8<br />

11 20 0 5 0 70 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 4 23<br />

12 20 0 30 0 20 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam dark brown 5 19<br />

13 10 0 10 0 70 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 6 28<br />

14 5 0 0 30 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y light grey 5 30<br />

15 5 5 0 40 30 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 6 14<br />

16 5 0 0 10 80 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 21<br />

17 5 0 10 10 70 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 9 20<br />

18 20 0 20 0 40 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 8 16<br />

19 30 0 25 3 30 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 19<br />

20 10 0 10 40 30 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 20<br />

21 5 0 20 40 20 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 4 13<br />

Ferns<br />

230


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Cover (%) Dominance (%)<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Herbs<br />

Bare soil<br />

Litter<br />

Rocks<br />

Grasses<br />

Forbs<br />

Mosses/lichens<br />

Regen.<br />

Plot ID<br />

Soil<br />

texture Soil colour<br />

No.<br />

Indiv.<br />

No.<br />

Species<br />

1 35 0 50 0 10 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 11 46<br />

2 30 0 60 0 10 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 18<br />

3 40 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 4 30<br />

4 40 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 17<br />

5 60 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 18<br />

6 30 0 60 0 5 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 9 20<br />

7 30 0 60 0 2 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 16<br />

8 40 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam dark brown 8 22<br />

9 60 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 8 20<br />

10 0 0 30 0 70 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 5 16<br />

11 40 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 8 22<br />

12 20 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 6 25<br />

1 0 0 20 0 80 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 22<br />

2 25 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 5 41<br />

3 0 0 20 0 80 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 6 14<br />

4 30 10 30 0 10 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 8 36<br />

5 10 5 20 0 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 6 15<br />

1 5 0 30 10 30 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam dark brown 6 33<br />

2 15 15 15 0 50 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 33<br />

3 10 10 10 0 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 8 31<br />

4 30 0 20 0 40 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam dark brown 6 30<br />

5 15 5 30 0 40 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam dark grey 7 28<br />

6 3 20 15 0 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam dark grey 5 15<br />

7 40 0 30 0 10 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam dark brown 5 30<br />

Ferns<br />

231


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest<br />

Reserve<br />

Ndechela<br />

Herbs<br />

Cover (%) Dominance (%)<br />

Bare soil<br />

Litter<br />

Rocks<br />

Grasses<br />

Forbs<br />

Mosses/lichens<br />

Regen.<br />

Plot ID<br />

Soil<br />

texture Soil colour<br />

No.<br />

Indiv.<br />

No.<br />

Species<br />

8 10 30 20 10 20 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-clay light grey 6 18<br />

9 30 0 20 5 10 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 7 21<br />

1 15 0 50 25 25 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 3 30<br />

2 5 0 80 5 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 3 30<br />

3 20 0 30 0 30 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 5 25<br />

4 5 0 5 30 50 0 0 0 rocky dark brown 4 22<br />

5 30 5 40 0 20 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 5 19<br />

6 10 0 80 0 5 0 0 0 loam dark brown 0 0<br />

7 20 0 20 0 40 0 0 0 loam dark brown 4 14<br />

8 0 0 20 0 60 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam dark brown 4 12<br />

9 20 0 40 5 30 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 4 13<br />

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s<strong>and</strong>y-loam light grey 4 11<br />

11 20 0 30 0 40 0 0 0 loam dark brown 0 0<br />

12


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 6 - GPS CO-ORDINATES AND DESCRIPTION OF ZOOLOGICAL TRAP SITES FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES<br />

Forest Reserve Waypoint Description <strong>of</strong> location <strong>and</strong> habitat notes Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Grid ref (E) Grid ref (N) Altitude (m)<br />

Kambona<br />

Z-KAMB 200m from the forest boundary near Chidya Secondary 10º 37' 09.4'' 039º 01' 14.8'' 502271 8826223 670<br />

School, in open woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

Makonde I Z-MS1 On edge <strong>of</strong> regenerating woodl<strong>and</strong> 10º 38' 56.3'' 039º 02' 45.3'' 505023 8822940 600<br />

Makonde II Z1-MS2 At the base <strong>of</strong> the escarpment in a pocket <strong>of</strong> regenerating 10º 50' 25.3'' 039º 10' 46.2'' 519619 8801776 650<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

Makonde II Z2-MS2 On edge <strong>of</strong> escarpment in open woodl<strong>and</strong>/grassl<strong>and</strong> 10º 50' 19.9'' 039º 10' 51.0'' 519768 8801939 720<br />

Mkunya River site 1 Z-MR1 300m from water pumping station. One bucket line in 10º 50' 27.5'' 039º 23' 54.1'' 543518 8783258 130<br />

riverine forest, one in open woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

Mkunya River site 2 Z-MR2 Half way up the escarpment, 500m east <strong>of</strong> base camp, in 10º 58' 44.4'' 039º 26' 58.4'' 549115 8786416 120<br />

open woodl<strong>and</strong><br />

Mtiniko Z-MT 200m from the forest boundary/base camp, in coastal 10º 35' 26.7'' 039º 56' 06.6'' 602306 8829222 195<br />

forest/thicket<br />

Mtuli Hinju Z-MH 300m from base camp. One bucket line in open<br />

10º 35' 27.6'' 039º 47' 11.2'' 586035 8829241 215<br />

woodl<strong>and</strong>/grassl<strong>and</strong>, one in coastal forest/thicket<br />

Makonde III Z-MS3 At the base <strong>of</strong> the escarpment. One near the water source in 10º 53' 34.6'' 039º 24' 24.2'' 544450 8795938 400<br />

thicket, one in regenerating cultivated l<strong>and</strong>.<br />

Ndechela site 1 Z-ND1 By dry river bed in open woodl<strong>and</strong>/grassl<strong>and</strong>. Fire damage 11º 06' 16.8'' 038º 09' 43.1'' 408477 8772428 250<br />

evident.<br />

Ndechela site 2 Z-ND2 300m from base camp in open woodl<strong>and</strong>/grassl<strong>and</strong>. Fire<br />

damage evident.<br />

11º 04' 27.0'' 038º 12' 32.0'' 413593 8775816 280<br />

233


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 7 - GPS COORDINATES AND SITE DESCRIPTION OF TRANSECTS FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES<br />

FR code<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Site<br />

no.<br />

Transect<br />

number<br />

Waypoint Description <strong>of</strong><br />

location<br />

Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Grid ref (E) Grid ref (N) Altitude<br />

(m)<br />

1 1 T1-KAM FR edge 10º 37' 11.1'' 039º 01' 09.7'' 502117 8826170 700<br />

1 2 T2-KAM FR edge 10º 37' 04.6'' 039º 01' 18.5'' 502385 8826370 700<br />

2 1 V1-MS1 FR edge 10º 39' 06.4'' 039º 02' 41.4'' 504903 8822629 600<br />

2 2 T2-MS1 FR edge 10º 39' 31.3'' 039º 02' 37.3'' 504778 8821866 600<br />

2 3 T3-MS1 Edge <strong>of</strong> cultivated 10º 38' 15.5'' 039º 02' 51.0'' 505196 8824192 610<br />

l<strong>and</strong><br />

3 1 T1-MS2 FR edge 10º 50' 41.0'' 039º 10' 53.8'' 519850 8801291 550<br />

3 2 T2-MS2 FR edge 10º 52' 55.2'' 039º 14' 01.8 525555 8797168 780<br />

3 3 T3-MS2 FR edge 10º 49' 58.2'' 039º 10' 08.9'' 518487 8802607 730<br />

3 4 T4-MS2 FR edge 10º 50' 31.5'' 039º 11' 58.4 '' 521813 8801582 750<br />

4 1 V3-MR1 FR edge 11º 00' 44.9'' 039º 23' 23.5'' 542590 878273 150<br />

4 2 T2-MR1 FR edge 11º 00' 46.9'' 039º 23' 40.6'' 543107 8782661 120<br />

4 3 T3-MR1 FR edge 11º 00' 18.5'' 039º 24' 10.0'' 544001 8783534 130<br />

5 1 T1-MR2 FR edge 10º 58' 46.6'' 039º 26.5' 9.8'' 549158 8786347 110<br />

5 2 T2-MR2 FR edge 10º 59' 34.8'' 039º 25' 35.9'' 546610 8784871 125<br />

5 3 T3-MR3 FR edge 10º 58' 52.5'' 039º 26' 36.9'' 548462 8786168 100<br />

5 4 ND-BDR FR edge 10º 58' 36.1'' 039º 27' 52.7'' 550763 8786666 88<br />

6 1 Z-MT Near zoo site 10º 35' 26.7'' 039º 56' 06.6'' 602306 8829222 195<br />

6 2 T2-MT FR edge 10º 34' 56.9'' 039º 56' 11.2'' 602449 8830138 195<br />

6 3 T3-MT FR edge 10º 35' 30.8'' 039º 55' 05.8'' 600459 8829103 210<br />

6 4 T4-MT FR edge 10º 34' 03.7'' 039º 56' 46.1'' 603514 8831768 200<br />

234


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

FR code<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Site<br />

no.<br />

Transect<br />

number<br />

Waypoint Description <strong>of</strong><br />

location<br />

Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Grid ref (E) Grid ref (N) Altitude<br />

(m)<br />

7 1 T1-MH Near Zoo site 10º 35' 29.5'' 039º 47' 17.5'' 586226 8829181 230<br />

7 2 T2-MH FR edge 10º 35' 32.2'' 039º 46' 49.1'' 585435 8829102 260<br />

8 1 Z-MS3 Near zoo site 10º 53' 34.6'' 039º 24' 24.2'' 544450 8795938 400<br />

8 2 T2-MS3 FR edge 10º 53' 43.6'' 039º 24' 57.6'' 545463 8795658 455<br />

8 3 T3-MS3 Thicket in valley 10º 53' 33.1'' 039º 24' 06.4'' 543910 8795983 430<br />

9 1 T1-ND1 FR edge 11º 06' 15.1'' 038º 09' 40.5'' 408401 8772482 250<br />

9 2 T2-ND1 FR edge 11º 05' 23.9'' 038º 08' 57.5'' 407091 8774049 260<br />

9 3 T3-ND1 FR edge 11º 04' 38.3'' 038º 08' 24.8'' 406094 8775549 260<br />

9 4 T4-ND1 By old road 11º 05' 38.1'' 038º 10' 58.1'' 410751 8773624 330<br />

10 1 T5-ND2 Near road to Nakopi 11º 03' 39.5'' 038º 12' 50.0'' 414135 8777275 330<br />

10 2 T6-ND2 FR edge 11º 05' 53.3'' 038º 14' 08.8'' 416536 8773173 280<br />

10 3 T7-ND2 Near road to Nakopi 11º 05' 09.4'' 038º 13' 39.4'' 415641 8774520 340<br />

235


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 8 - LIST OF PITSAWING SITES THAT WERE RECORDED WITH GPS<br />

Reserve Waypoint Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Grid ref (E) Grid ref (N)<br />

Makonde Scarp I PS-MS1 10º 39' 18.7" 039º 02' 39.3" 504838 8822254<br />

Makonde Scarp I P2-MS1 10º 38' 34.1" 039º 03' 05.6" 505641 8823621<br />

Mkunya River P1-MK 10º 58' 36.1" 039º 27' 52.7" 350763 8786666<br />

Mtiniko PS-MT 10º 35' 07.8" 039º 56' 03.9" 602225 8829803<br />

Mtiniko P2-MT 10º 35' 24.6" 039º 55' 04.8" 600428 8829293<br />

Mtiniko P3-MT 10º 34' 45.0" 039º 56' 47.1" 603542 8830502<br />

Mtiniko P4-MT 10º 35' 02.1" 039º 56' 50.7" 603650 8829974<br />

Mtuli Hinju PS-MH 10º 35' 27.3" 039º 46' 48.6" 585346 8829252<br />

236


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 9 - LIST OF PLANT SPECIES FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES. TAXONOMY BASED ON THE FLORA OF TROPICAL EAST<br />

AFRICA (PUBLISHED FAMILIES) AND THE LEAP DATABASE<br />

a) List <strong>of</strong> plant species recorded in vegetation plots<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

ANACARDIACEAE<br />

ANNONACEAE<br />

APOCYNACEAE<br />

Rhus natalensis Krauss 1-<br />

3000<br />

Sclerocarya birrea (A. Rich.) 100-<br />

Hochst 1600<br />

Sorindeia madagascariensis DC., Prodr. 1-<br />

1830<br />

Annona senegalensis Pers. 0-<br />

1800<br />

K1-7; T1-8,Z,P;<br />

Som<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

K1-4,6,7;T1-4,6 T Not<br />

listed<br />

K4,7; T2,3,5-<br />

8,P,Z; Moz<br />

K5,7; T1-<br />

4,6,8,Z,P;<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mng’ongo X X<br />

Mtopetope X X X X X X<br />

Monodora gr<strong>and</strong>idieri Baill. 0-900 K7; T3,6, Z; S/T E Not<br />

X X<br />

Som; Moz<br />

listed<br />

Monodora junodii Engl. & 1- T3,5,6,8; Moz S Not<br />

X<br />

Diels 1590<br />

listed<br />

Uvariodendron sp. - - - - - - X<br />

Xylopia aethiopica (Dunal) A.<br />

Rich.<br />

Diplorhynchus condylocarpon (Müell.<br />

Arg.) Pichon<br />

Holarrhena pubescens (Buch.-<br />

Ham.) G.<br />

Don<br />

800-<br />

1200<br />

500-<br />

1400<br />

0-<br />

1250<br />

T1,3,6,8; Moz S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

X<br />

T1,3-8; Moz S/T Not<br />

X X X X X X<br />

listed<br />

K7; T1,3-8; Moz S/T LC X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

237


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

ARALIACEAE<br />

Cussonia arborea A. Rich 300- K2-5; T1,2,4-8 T Not<br />

X X X<br />

2470<br />

listed<br />

Cussonia zimmermannii Harms 0-400 K7; T3,6,8; Moz T E PT X X<br />

Schefflera barteri Harms 900-<br />

2000<br />

T2,3,6,8 S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

ASTERACEAE Brachylaena sp. T Not<br />

listed<br />

BALANITACEAE Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Delile 1200-<br />

2500<br />

BIGNONIACEAE<br />

Markhamia acuminata (Klotzsch)<br />

K.Schum.<br />

Markhamia obtusifolia (Baker)<br />

Sprague<br />

K1-7 T3,5-8; T Not<br />

listed<br />

70 T3,6,7; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mt<strong>and</strong>avwala X<br />

X X<br />

X X X<br />

400 T1,3,5,6,7; Moz T Not Mt<strong>and</strong>avwala X X X X<br />

listed<br />

BOMBACACEAE Bombax rhodognaphalon K. Schum. 20- K7; T3,6,8,P; T E PT Msufipori X X<br />

700 Moz<br />

BORAGINACEAE Ehretia sp. - - - S/T - - X<br />

BURSERACEAE<br />

Commiphora africana (A. Rich.)<br />

Engl.<br />

5-<br />

1780<br />

K1,3,4,6,7;<br />

T2,3,6-8,Z,P;<br />

Som; Moz<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mng’orola X X X<br />

Commiphora ugogensis Engl. 800-<br />

1400<br />

T1,2,4,5,7 T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mng’orola X X<br />

Commiphora zanzibarica (Baill.) 2-510 K7; T6,8,Z; Moz T E PT Mng’orola X<br />

Engl.<br />

CAPPARIDACEAE Maerua angolensis DC. 0- K1,4-7; T1-8; T Not<br />

X<br />

1500 Som<br />

listed<br />

CELASTRACEAE Hippocratea sp. - - - - - - X<br />

Salacia madagascariensis (Lam.) DC. 600-<br />

1300<br />

K7; T3,6-8,Z,P;<br />

Som; Moz<br />

C/S Not<br />

listed<br />

X X X X X X<br />

X<br />

238


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

CHRYSOBALANACE<br />

AE<br />

Parinari curatellifolia Benth. 1700 K5; T1,4-7,Z,P;<br />

Moz<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

CLUSIACEAE Garcinia livingstonei T. Anderson 0-<br />

1650<br />

K4-7; T1-8,Z ;<br />

Som<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

COMBRETACEAE Combretum hereroense Schinz K3,4,7; T3,6,8; S Not<br />

Moz<br />

listed<br />

Combretum molle G. Don 30- K1-7; T1-8 T Not<br />

2300<br />

listed<br />

Combretum paniculatum Vent. 10-<br />

2000<br />

Combretum zeyheri Sond. 10-<br />

1600<br />

Pteleopsis myrtifolia (M. A. 0-<br />

Lawson) 1600<br />

Engl. & Di<br />

Terminalia sambesiaca Engl. & 70-<br />

Diels 830<br />

Terminalia sericea DC. 450-<br />

1300<br />

DICHAPETALACEAE Dichapetalum stuhlmannii Engl. 50-<br />

1600<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana Baill. 50-<br />

350<br />

EBENACEAE Diospyros Kirkii Hiern. 450-<br />

1350<br />

K3-5,7; T1-8,Z;<br />

Moz<br />

C Not<br />

listed<br />

K4; T1-8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

K; T2,3,6,8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

K7; T2,3,6-8;<br />

Moz<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

T1-8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mbula X X X<br />

X X X<br />

Chinama X X X X X<br />

Chinama X X X X X X X X<br />

Chinama X X X X X X<br />

Chinama X X<br />

Mmala X X X X X X X X<br />

X X<br />

X X<br />

T4,6,8; Moz S/T Not<br />

X<br />

listed<br />

K7; T3,6,8; Moz S/T E PT Namachili X X X X<br />

T1,4,6-8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

X<br />

239


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE<br />

FABACEAE (CAES)<br />

Bridelia cathartica Bertol. f. 0-<br />

2000<br />

Bridelia micrantha (Hochst) 50-<br />

Baill. 2300<br />

Croton pseudopulchellus Pax 0-<br />

1800<br />

Drypetes gerrardii Hutch. 1150-<br />

2300<br />

Drypetes natalensis (Harv.) 125-<br />

Hutch 1500<br />

Jatropha curcas L. see<br />

level-<br />

1700<br />

Maprounea africana Muell. Arg. 5-<br />

1130<br />

Pseudolachnosty maprouneifolia Pax 340-<br />

lis<br />

1600<br />

Spirostachys africana Sond. 15-<br />

900<br />

Suregada zanzibarensis Baill. 0-<br />

1600<br />

Afzelia quanzensis Welw. 0-<br />

1350<br />

Bauhinia petersiana Bolle 150-<br />

1830<br />

Bauhinia tomentosa L. 0-<br />

1520<br />

Brachystegia longifolia Benth. 275-<br />

2000<br />

K7; T1-8,Z,P;<br />

Som<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

K1-7; T1-8,Z,P S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K1,6,7; T3,6,Z;<br />

Som; Moz<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

X X X X X<br />

X X X X X X X<br />

Mnyao X<br />

K1,4-7; T1-4,7 S/T Not Mnyumbu X X X<br />

listed<br />

K4; T2-6,8; Moz S/T PT Mnyumbu X X X<br />

K4,5,7; T1,3-8,Z S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

T4-8,Z S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

T1,2,4-8; Moz S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K7; T2,3,6,8 S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K7; T3,6,8,Z,P; S Not<br />

Som; Moz<br />

listed<br />

K7; T1-8,Z,P; T Not<br />

Som, Moz<br />

listed<br />

T4-8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

K1,3,4,7;<br />

T2,3,6,8<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

T4,6-8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mhogopori X X<br />

X<br />

X X X X X<br />

X X<br />

Mbambak<strong>of</strong>i X X X<br />

X X<br />

X X X<br />

Mchinji X X X X X<br />

X<br />

240


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Brachystegia microphylla Harms 300- T1-8; Moz T Not Mchenga X X X X X X<br />

2200<br />

listed<br />

Brachystegia sp. - - - T - - X<br />

Brachystegia spiciformis Benth. 2350 K7; T1-8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

Brachystegia utilis Burtt. Davy 300- T4,5,7,8; Moz T Not<br />

& Hutch. 1830<br />

listed<br />

Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth) 880- K4,5; T1-3,6,7 S Not<br />

Alston 2130<br />

listed<br />

Cassia abbreviata Oliv. 220-<br />

1520<br />

Cassia didymobotrya Fresen. 900-<br />

2440<br />

Mchenga X X X X X X X X<br />

Mchengavwala X<br />

X X<br />

T1,4,5,7,8; Moz T PT Mjohoro X<br />

K3-7; T1-8; Moz S Not<br />

listed<br />

Cassia petersiana Bolle 12-<br />

2130<br />

K3-5; T1,4,6-8,Z S Not<br />

listed<br />

Cassia singueana Delile 0- K1,3-5,7; T1-8 T Not<br />

2130<br />

listed<br />

Cordyla africana Lour. 10- K7,T2,3,6,8,Z, T Not<br />

900 Moz<br />

listed<br />

Cynometra gillmanii J. Léon T8 T E CR<br />

B1+2a<br />

bcde,c<br />

2b<br />

Hymenaea verrucosa Gaertner Not<br />

listed<br />

Julbernardia globiflora (Benth.) 490- T1,3-8; Moz T Not<br />

Troupin 1830<br />

listed<br />

Piliostigma thonningii (Schumach)<br />

Milne-Redh<br />

0-<br />

1830<br />

K2-7; T1-8,P T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mjohoro X<br />

Mjohoromaji X X X<br />

Mjohoro X<br />

Mwembepori X X<br />

Mtondo X X X<br />

Mchinji X X X X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

241


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

FABACEAE (MIM)<br />

FABACEAE (PAP)<br />

Swartzia madagascariensis Desv. 450-<br />

1260<br />

T1,4-8; Moz S Not<br />

listed<br />

Acacia polycantha Willd. 0- K2,4-7; T1-8 T Not<br />

1830<br />

listed<br />

Acacia xanthophloea Benth. 600- K1,3,4,6,7; T2- T Not<br />

1980 5,7; Moz<br />

listed<br />

Albizia amara (Roxb.) 820 K1; T8 T Not<br />

Boivin<br />

listed<br />

Albizia gummifera (J.F. Gmel.) 0- K3-7; T2-8,Z T Not<br />

C.A. Sm. 2440<br />

listed<br />

Albizia petersiana (Bolle) Oliv. 380- K6,7; T1-8; Moz T Not<br />

1700<br />

listed<br />

Albizia versicolor Welw. ex 0- K7; T1,3-8 T Not<br />

Oliv.<br />

Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight<br />

& Arn.<br />

Entada stuhlmannii (Taub.)<br />

Harms<br />

Craibia brevicaudata (Vatke)<br />

Dunn<br />

1680<br />

300-<br />

1625<br />

Dalbergia armata E. Mey. 240-<br />

660<br />

Dalbergia nitidula Baker 350-<br />

1650<br />

Dalbergia obovata E. Mey. 0-<br />

1050<br />

Lonchocarpus bussei Harms 0-<br />

1350<br />

listed<br />

K4; T1,4-8 S Not<br />

listed<br />

Msekeseke X X X<br />

Mtalala X<br />

Mtangambuzi X<br />

Mtangadume X X X X X X<br />

Mtanga X X<br />

Mtanga X X X<br />

15- T6,8; Moz C E PT X<br />

1600<br />

1500 T4,7,8 T PT X<br />

T8; Moz S Not<br />

listed<br />

T1,3-8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

T3,5,6; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

K1,7; T3,5-8;<br />

Moz<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mpingo kamba X<br />

Mpingo X X X<br />

X X<br />

Mlungulungu X X X X X X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

242


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE<br />

Lonchocarpus capassa Rolfe 150-<br />

1650<br />

Millettia impressa Harms 10-<br />

200<br />

Millettia stuhlmannii Taub. 10-<br />

900<br />

Pericopsis angolensis (Baker)<br />

Meeuwen<br />

900-<br />

1650<br />

Pterocarpus angolensis DC 300-<br />

1650<br />

Pterocarpus rotundifolius (Sond.)<br />

Druce<br />

300-<br />

900<br />

T1,4-8 T Not Mlungulungu X X X<br />

listed<br />

T6,8; Moz C PT Mpangapanga X X X<br />

T6,8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

T1,4-8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

T1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8<br />

S.Afr, Ang, Zai<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

T6,8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mpangapanga X X X<br />

Muwanga X<br />

Mtumbati X X X X X X X<br />

Mtumbatimaji X X X X<br />

Tephrosia sp. - - - S - - X<br />

Xeroderris stuhlmannii (Taub.)<br />

Mendonça<br />

& E.C.Sousa<br />

Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.)<br />

Merr<br />

Xylotheca tettensis (Klotzsch)<br />

Gilg<br />

100-<br />

1650<br />

0-<br />

2400<br />

200-<br />

600<br />

GUTTIFERAE Psorospermum febrifugum Spac 50-<br />

1950<br />

HYMENOCARDIACE<br />

AE<br />

LOGANIACEAE<br />

Hymenocardia ulmoides Oliv. 50-<br />

1550<br />

Strychnos cocculoides Baker 400-<br />

2000<br />

Strychnos madagascariensis Poir. 900-<br />

1500<br />

K7; T1-8 T Not<br />

listed<br />

K2-5,7; T1-8,Z S Not<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

Mkung’u X X X<br />

T6-8; Moz S E PT X<br />

K5; T1,4,6-8 S Not<br />

listed<br />

T3,5,6,8 T Not<br />

listed<br />

T1,4-8 S Not<br />

listed<br />

T4-6,9; Moz S Not<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

Mhindi X X X<br />

X<br />

X X X X X<br />

243


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Strychnos spinosa Lam. 400-<br />

2200<br />

Strychnos usambarensis Gilg 75-<br />

2000<br />

MELIACEAE Khaya anthotheca (Welw.) 120-<br />

1525<br />

MORACEAE<br />

Ficus natalensis Hochst. 10-<br />

2200<br />

Ficus sur Forssk. 0-<br />

2300<br />

Milicia excelsa (Welw.) 0-<br />

1350<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cordatum Krauss. 900-<br />

2400<br />

OCHNACEAE Ochna holstii Engl. 900-<br />

2350<br />

OLEACEAE Schrebera trichoclada Welw. 810-<br />

1350<br />

PITTOSPORACEAE Pittosporum viridiflorum Sims 900-<br />

1200<br />

POACEAE Arundinaria alpina K. Schum. 2400-<br />

3000<br />

POLYGALACEAE Securidaca longipedunculata Fresen. 1500-<br />

2000<br />

RHIZOPHORACEAE Cassipourea malosana (Baker) 1100-<br />

Alston 2600<br />

RUBIACEAE Catunaregam spinosa (Thunb)<br />

Tirvengadu<br />

m<br />

70-<br />

290<br />

K2,4; T1,3-8 S Not<br />

listed<br />

K4,6; T3,5; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

T3-8; Moz T VU<br />

A1cd<br />

K1,4-7; T1-3,5- S/T Not<br />

8,Z,P<br />

listed<br />

K1,3-7; T1-8,Z,P T Not<br />

listed<br />

X X X X<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

Mkuyu X X<br />

Mkuyudume X X<br />

K4,5,7; T1-4,6- T LR/nt Mvule X X X X<br />

8,Z,P; Moz<br />

K3-5; T1,4,6-8; T/S PT Mzambarau X<br />

K1,3-7; T2-8;<br />

Moz<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mnyale X X X X X<br />

T1,4-6 S/T X<br />

T3,8; Som S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K1,3-6; T2,4,6,7 B Not<br />

listed<br />

K3,4,6; T4,5,7,8; T Not<br />

Moz<br />

listed<br />

K1,3-6; T2,3,7; T Not<br />

Som<br />

listed<br />

K7; T6,7; Moz S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

Mianzi X<br />

Chiguruka X X<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

244


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Crossopteryx febrifuga (G.Don)<br />

Benth<br />

Keetia gueinzii (Sond.)<br />

Bridson<br />

0-<br />

1350<br />

90-<br />

2450<br />

K7; T1-8 S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K2/3,3-5,7; T1-<br />

8,Z<br />

C/S Not<br />

listed<br />

X X X<br />

X X X<br />

Pentas longiflora Oliv. 1050- K2-6,7; T2-4,7 H Not<br />

X X<br />

2450<br />

listed<br />

Rothmannia urcelliformis (Hiern) 850- K3/5,4-6; T1- S/T Not<br />

X X<br />

Robyns 2400 4,6,7; Moz<br />

listed<br />

Rytigynia decussata (K. Schum.) 75- K7; T3,6,8; Moz S E PT X X X<br />

Robyns 1000<br />

Rytigynia sp. - - - S - - X<br />

Vangueria infausta Burchell 500-<br />

2500<br />

Vangueria madagascariensis Gmelin 0-<br />

2130<br />

T4-7; Moz S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

U1-4; K1,3,4,6;<br />

T1-8; Z; P; Gha;<br />

Nig; Cam; Zai; C<br />

Afr; Sud; Eth;<br />

Mal; S Afr<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

RUTACEAE<br />

Vepris lanceolata (Lam.)<br />

G.Don<br />

0-30 K7; T3,6; Moz S Not<br />

listed<br />

Zanthoxylum chalybeum Engl. 5- K1-5; T1-8; Som S/T Not<br />

1550<br />

listed<br />

SAPINDACEAE Allophylus africanus P. Beauv. 30- K3-6; T1-8; T Not<br />

2400<br />

listed<br />

SAPOTACEAE Bequaertiodendr natalense<br />

S.Moore) 900- K5 S Not<br />

on<br />

Heine & 1700<br />

listed<br />

J.H.Hemsl.<br />

STERCULIACEAE Cola greenwayi Brenan 1000-<br />

2000<br />

K7; T3,4; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

Namavwele X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

X<br />

245


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Dombeya kirkii Mast. 1500 K1-5,7; T2,3 T Not<br />

listed<br />

Octolobus spectabilis Not in LEAP T Not<br />

listed<br />

Sterculia appendiculata K. Schum ex 450 K7; T7,8,Z T E Not<br />

Engl.<br />

listed<br />

Sterculia sp. T Not<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

X X<br />

Mparatanyani X X X<br />

Mparatanyani X<br />

TILIACEAE Grewia mollis Juss. 700- K5,6; T1,2,4; S/T Not Mbobo X X<br />

1550 Som<br />

listed<br />

VELLOZIACEAE Xerophyta sp. - - - S - X<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex mombassae Vatke 20- K7; T1-8; Moz S/T Not<br />

X<br />

1580<br />

listed<br />

X = presence/absence<br />

T1 = Kagera, Mwanza, <strong>and</strong> Mara regions, T2 = Arusha <strong>and</strong> Manyara regions, T3 = Tanga <strong>and</strong> Kilimanjaro regions, T4 = Kigoma <strong>and</strong> Rukwa regions, T5 = Dodoma <strong>and</strong> Singida regions, T6<br />

= Dar es Salaam, <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>and</strong> Morogoro regions, T7 = Mbeya <strong>and</strong> Iringa regions, T8 = Lindi, Mtwara <strong>and</strong> Ruvuma regions, K7 = <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> regions (Polhill, 1988); R = Rare species:<br />

plants present in less than two out <strong>of</strong> the eight FTEA vegetation regions <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (Knox, 2000)<br />

T = Tree, S = Shrub, B = Bamboo, C = Climber, H = Herb/Grass/Sedge<br />

E = Endemic – plant species with limited ranges in the Swahilian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism sensu lato (based on Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

PT= Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF Hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; LR cd = Lower risk, conservation dependent; LR nt = Lower risk, near threatened; LR lc = Lower risk, least concerned;<br />

DD = Data Deficient (IUCN, 2004)<br />

246


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

b) List <strong>of</strong> plant species recorded in regeneration plots<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

ACANTHACEAE Hypoestes sp. H Not<br />

listed<br />

ALOEACEAE<br />

Aloe macrosiphon Bak. 1125- K5,6; T1,4 H Not<br />

1585<br />

listed<br />

Aloe secundiflora Engl. 750- K1,3-7; T1- H Not<br />

1980 3,5<br />

listed<br />

ANNONACEAE<br />

Annona senegalensis Pers. 0- K5,7; T1- S/T Not<br />

1800 4,6,8,Z,P;<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

Mtopetope X<br />

Monodora gr<strong>and</strong>idieri Baill. 0-900 K7; T3,6, Z; S/T E Not<br />

X<br />

Som; Moz<br />

listed<br />

Monodora junodii Engl. & 1- T3,5,6,8; Moz S Not<br />

X<br />

Diels 1590<br />

listed<br />

Uvaria sp.1 - - - - - - X<br />

Uvaria sp.2 - - - - - - X<br />

Uvaria sp.3 - - - - - X<br />

APOCYNACEAE L<strong>and</strong>olphia buchananii (Hallier f.) 450- K1,3-7;T1- C Not Ms<strong>of</strong>u X X<br />

Stapf 2400 5,7; Som;<br />

listed<br />

Moz<br />

ASTERACEAE<br />

Aspilia mossambicensis (Oliv.) Wild 45- K1-7; T1-8; H/S Not<br />

X<br />

2300 Som<br />

listed<br />

Vernonia chloropappa Baker Not<br />

X X<br />

listed<br />

Vernonia glabra (Steetz)<br />

K5; T1-8,Z H Not<br />

X X<br />

Vatke<br />

listed<br />

Vernonia sp. - - - H/S - - X X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

247


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

BIGNONIACEAE<br />

Markhamia acuminata (Klotzsch)<br />

K.Schum.<br />

Markhamia obtusifolia (Baker)<br />

Sprague<br />

70 T3,6,7; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mt<strong>and</strong>avwala X X X<br />

400 T1,3,5,6,7; T Not Mt<strong>and</strong>avwala X<br />

Moz<br />

listed<br />

BORAGINACEAE Ehretia sp. - - - S - - Namap<strong>and</strong>e X<br />

CELASTRACEAE Salacia madagascariensis (Lam.) DC. 600-<br />

1300<br />

CHRYSOBALANACEAE Parinari curatellifolia Blenth. 0-<br />

2070<br />

CLUSIACEAE Garcinia livingstonei T. Anderson 0-<br />

1650<br />

COMBRETACEAE<br />

K7; T3,6-<br />

8,Z,P; Som;<br />

Moz<br />

K5; T1,4-<br />

7,Z,P<br />

K4-7; T1-<br />

8,Z ; Som<br />

C/S Not<br />

listed<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

Combretum hereroense Schinz K3,4,7;<br />

T3,6,8; Moz<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

Combretum molle G. Don 30- K1-7; T1-8 T Not<br />

2300<br />

listed<br />

Pteleopsis myrtifolia (M. A.<br />

Lawson)<br />

Engl. & Di<br />

0-<br />

1600<br />

Terminalia brownii Fresen. 730-<br />

2000<br />

CONVOLVULACEAE Bonamia mossambicensis (Klotzsch)<br />

Hall. f.<br />

120-<br />

450<br />

K ; T2,3,6,8 ;<br />

Moz<br />

K1-7; T2,5,6;<br />

Som<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

T6,8; Moz C Not<br />

listed<br />

Mbula X<br />

X X<br />

X X X<br />

Chinama X<br />

Chinama X X<br />

Mmalala X<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

248


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Ipomoea crassipes Hook. 750-<br />

1230<br />

DICHAPETALACEAE Dichapetalum stuhlmannii Engl. 50-<br />

1600<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana Baill. 50-<br />

350<br />

DIOSCOREACEAE Dioscorea hirtiflora Benth. 770-<br />

1200<br />

DIPTEROCARPACEAE<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE<br />

Monotes elagans Gilg. 810-<br />

1740<br />

Monotes africanus A. DC. 350-<br />

1800<br />

Antidesma membranaceum Müell. Arg. 10-<br />

1530<br />

Antidesma venosum E. Mey. ex<br />

Tul.<br />

0-<br />

1830<br />

K4-6;<br />

T1,2,4,6-8;<br />

Moz<br />

H Not<br />

listed<br />

T4,6,8; Moz S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

K7; T3,6,8;<br />

Moz<br />

S/T E PT Namachili X X X<br />

T4 C Not<br />

X X<br />

listed<br />

T1,4-6 T Not<br />

listed<br />

T4-8 ; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

K4-7; T Not<br />

T1,3,4,6-<br />

listed<br />

8,Z,P; Moz<br />

K4,5,7; T1-<br />

8,Z,P<br />

Bridelia cathartica Bertol. f. 0-<br />

2000<br />

K7; T1-8,Z,P;<br />

Som<br />

Cleistanthus schlechteri (Pax) Hutch. 0-50 K7; T3,6,8;<br />

Moz<br />

Croton pseudopulchellus Pax 0-<br />

1800<br />

K1,6,7;<br />

T3,6,Z; Som;<br />

Moz<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

S/T E Not<br />

listed<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

X<br />

X X X X<br />

X X X X<br />

X X<br />

X X X<br />

Mnyao X X<br />

249


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

FABACEAE (CAES)<br />

FABACEAE (MIM)<br />

Drypetes gerrardii Hutch. 1150-<br />

2300<br />

K1,4-7; T1-<br />

4,7<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

Drypetes sp. T Not<br />

listed<br />

Drypetes natalensis (Harv.)<br />

Hutch<br />

125-<br />

1500<br />

K4; T2-6,8;<br />

Moz<br />

Spirostachys africana Sond. 15-<br />

900<br />

Suregada zanzibarensis Baill. 0-<br />

1600<br />

Brachystegia spiciformis Benth. 2350 K7; T1-8;<br />

Moz<br />

Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth) 880- K4,5; T1-<br />

Alston 2130 3,6,7<br />

Mnyumbu X X X<br />

Mnyumbumawe X<br />

S/T PT Mnyumbu X X<br />

K7; T2,3,6,8 S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K7;<br />

S Not<br />

T3,6,8,Z,P;<br />

listed<br />

Som; Moz<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

Mchenga X<br />

Cassia abbreviata Oliv. 220- T1,4,5,7,8; T PT Mjohoro X X<br />

1520 Moz<br />

Cassia alata L. 0-460 T3,6,Z,P S Not<br />

X X<br />

listed<br />

Scorodophloeus fischeri (Taub.) J.<br />

Léon<br />

200-<br />

1350<br />

T4-8; Moz T E PT X X<br />

Tamarindus indica L. 0-<br />

1520<br />

Acacia brevispica Harms 170-<br />

1830<br />

Albizia gummifera (J.F. Gmel.) 0-<br />

C.A. Sm.<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Craibia brevicaudata (Vatke)<br />

Dunn<br />

K1,2,-7; T1-<br />

8,Z<br />

K1-7; T1-6;<br />

Som ; Moz<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

X<br />

Mkwaju X<br />

X X X<br />

K3-7; T2-8,Z T Not Mtangadume X X<br />

2440<br />

listed<br />

1500 T4,7,8 T PT X X X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

250


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Crotalaria sp. - - - S - - X X X<br />

Dalbergia melanoxylon Guill. &<br />

Perr.<br />

0-<br />

1350<br />

Dalbergia nitidula Baker 350-<br />

1650<br />

Dalbergia obovata E. Mey 0-<br />

1050<br />

K4-7; T1-6,8 S LR/nt Mpingo X X X<br />

T1,3-8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

T3,5,6; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mpingo X X<br />

Mpingokamba X X<br />

Indig<strong>of</strong>era sp. - - - S - - X<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE<br />

Indig<strong>of</strong>era vohemarensis Baill. 0-<br />

1800<br />

Lonchocarpus bussei Harms 0-<br />

1350<br />

Millettia impressa Harms 10-<br />

200<br />

Pterocarpus angolensis DC. 300-<br />

1650<br />

Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.) 0-<br />

Merr 2400<br />

Xylotheca tettensis (Klotzsch)<br />

Gilg<br />

200-<br />

600<br />

K1-7; T1-<br />

8,Z,P; Moz<br />

H Not<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

K1,7; T3,5-8; T Not Mlungulungu X X<br />

Moz<br />

listed<br />

T6,8; Moz C PT Mpangapanga X X X<br />

T1-8 T Not<br />

listed<br />

K2-5,7; T1- S Not<br />

8,Z<br />

listed<br />

Mtumbati X<br />

Mkung’u X<br />

T6-8; Moz S E PT X X<br />

HYMENOCARDIACEAE Hymenocardia ulmoides Oliv. 50-<br />

1550<br />

LOGANIACEAE<br />

Strychnos madagascariensis Poir. 900-<br />

1500<br />

Strychnos spinosa Lam. 400-<br />

2200<br />

T3,5,6,8 T Not<br />

listed<br />

T4-6,9; Moz S Not<br />

listed<br />

K2,4; T1,3-8 S Not<br />

listed<br />

Mhindi X X<br />

Mkulung’uru X<br />

Mkulung’uru X X<br />

251


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Strychnos usambarensis Gilg 75- K4,6; T3,5; T Not<br />

X<br />

2000 Moz<br />

listed<br />

MALPIGHIACEAE Acridocarpus sp. - - - S - - LC? X<br />

MALVACEAE Sida acuta Burm. f. 1500- K2-4,6,7; T1- H Not<br />

X<br />

2100 6,8<br />

listed<br />

MELASTOMATACEAE Memecylon sp. - - - S - - X<br />

MORACEAE<br />

Ficus sur Forssk. 0-<br />

2300<br />

K1,3-7; T1-<br />

8,Z,P<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mkuyumweupe X X<br />

Mesogyne insignis Engl. 500- T3,6 S/T VUb1<br />

X X X X<br />

1300<br />

+2b<br />

OCHNACEAE Ochna holstii Engl. 900-<br />

2350<br />

K1,3-7; T2-8;<br />

Moz<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mnyale X X X X<br />

POACEAE<br />

Arundinaria alpina K. Schum. 2400-<br />

3000<br />

Heteropogon contortus (L.) Roem. 0-<br />

& Schult. 2100<br />

RHAMNACEAE Ziziphus mucronata Willd. Sea<br />

level<br />

to<br />

2000<br />

RUBIACEAE<br />

Catunaregam spinosa (Thunb) 70-<br />

Tirvengadu 290<br />

m<br />

Gardenia transvenulosa Verdc. 10-<br />

700m<br />

K1,3-6;<br />

T2,4,6,7<br />

B Not<br />

listed<br />

K1-7; T1- H Not<br />

8,Z,P<br />

listed<br />

K1-7; T1-7 S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K7; T6,7;<br />

Moz<br />

K7;T3,6,8 not<br />

elsewhere<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

S/T E VUb1<br />

+2b<br />

Mwanzi/mianzi X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

X X<br />

252


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus Hiern 0-300 K1,7; T3,6,8;<br />

Som<br />

Pentas lanceolata (Forssk)<br />

Deflers<br />

1440-<br />

3000<br />

S/T E PT X X<br />

K1-4,6; T2 H Not<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

Rothmannia engleriana (K. Schum)<br />

Keay<br />

200-<br />

1850<br />

T1,2,4-8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

X X X X X<br />

Rothmannia urcelliformis (Hiern)<br />

Robyns<br />

Rytigynia decussata (K. Schum.)<br />

Robyns<br />

850-<br />

2400<br />

75-<br />

1000<br />

K3/5,4-6; T1-<br />

4,6,7; Moz<br />

K7; T3,6,8;<br />

Moz<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

X X X<br />

S E PT X X<br />

Rytigynia sp.1 - - - S - - X<br />

Rytigynia sp.2 - - - S - - X<br />

Tricalysia sp.1 - - - S - - X<br />

Tricalysia sp.2 - - - S - - X<br />

Vangueria infausta Burchell 500-<br />

2500<br />

Virectaria major (K. Schum.)<br />

Verdc.<br />

1100-<br />

2350<br />

RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum chalybeum Engl. 5-<br />

1550<br />

SAPINDACEAE<br />

Allophylus abyssinicus (Hochst.)<br />

Radlk.<br />

650-<br />

2550<br />

Allophylus africanus P. Beauv 30-<br />

2400<br />

SAPOTACEAE Mimusops schliebenii Mildbr. & 150-<br />

G.M. 300<br />

Schulze<br />

T4-7; Moz S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

T1,4,7 H Not<br />

listed<br />

K1-5; T1-8; S/T Not<br />

Som<br />

listed<br />

K1,3-5;<br />

T2,3,6,7; Moz<br />

T/S Not<br />

listed<br />

K3-6; T1-8 T Not<br />

listed<br />

K7; T3,8 T E Not<br />

listed<br />

X<br />

Namavwele X X X X<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

253


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

SIMAROUBACEAE Harrisonia abyssinica Oliv. 0-<br />

1550<br />

K1-7; T1-8,Z,<br />

P; Som; Moz<br />

T/S Not<br />

listed<br />

STERCULIACEAE Cola clavata Mast. 500 K5,6; T3,6,8 S/T E DD;<br />

PT<br />

Cola greenwayi Brenan 1000- K7; T3,4; T Not<br />

2000 Moz<br />

listed<br />

TILIACEAE<br />

UMBELLIFERAE<br />

Grewia bicolor Juss. 650-<br />

1650<br />

Grewia forbesii Mast. 0-<br />

1250<br />

Grewia lepidopetala Garcke 50-<br />

700<br />

Grewia mollis Juss. 700-<br />

1550<br />

Grewia similis K. Schum 600-<br />

2250<br />

Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq. 0-<br />

2750<br />

Heteromorpha trifoliata (Wendl.)<br />

Eckl. &<br />

Zeyh.<br />

455-<br />

2730<br />

Steganotaenia araliacea Hochst. 150-<br />

2200<br />

T1,2,4,5,7 S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K4, 6,7; S/T E Not<br />

T2,3,6,8,Z,P;<br />

listed<br />

Moz<br />

T3,6-8; Moz S/T E Not<br />

K5,6; T1,2,4;<br />

Som<br />

K1-6,7; T1-<br />

3,5-7<br />

listed<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K1-7; T1-8,Z H Not<br />

listed<br />

K1-6; T1-8<br />

H/S/<br />

T<br />

Not<br />

listed<br />

K1-7; T1-8 T Not<br />

listed<br />

X X X<br />

X X<br />

X<br />

Mbobomweupe X X<br />

X<br />

Mbobo X<br />

Mbobo X X X X<br />

Mbobo X X X<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

X<br />

254


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

VERBENACEAE<br />

VIOLACEAE<br />

Vitex doniana Sweet 0-<br />

1950<br />

Vitex mombassae Vatke 20-<br />

1580<br />

Vitex mossambicensis Gürke 400-<br />

800<br />

Rinorea angustifolia (Thouars) 100-<br />

Baill. 2200<br />

Rinorea elliptica (Oliv.)<br />

Kuntze<br />

50-<br />

600<br />

K2,3-7; T1-<br />

8,Z,P; Moz<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

K7; T1-8; S/T Not<br />

X X X X<br />

Moz<br />

listed<br />

T8; Moz S/T E PT X X X<br />

K7; T6-8;<br />

Moz<br />

K7; T2,3,6,8;<br />

Moz<br />

S/T PT X<br />

S/T E Not<br />

listed<br />

X = presence/absence<br />

T1 = Kagera, Mwanza, <strong>and</strong> Mara regions, T2 = Arusha <strong>and</strong> Manyara regions, T3 = Tanga <strong>and</strong> Kilimanjaro regions, T4 = Kigoma <strong>and</strong> Rukwa regions, T5 = Dodoma <strong>and</strong> Singida regions, T6<br />

= Dar es Salaam, <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>and</strong> Morogoro regions, T7 = Mbeya <strong>and</strong> Iringa regions, T8 = Lindi, Mtwara <strong>and</strong> Ruvuma regions, K7 = <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> regions (Polhill, 1988); R = Rare species:<br />

plants present in less than two out <strong>of</strong> the eight FTEA vegetation regions <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (Knox, 2000)<br />

T = Tree, S = Shrub, B = Bamboo, C = Climber, H = Herb/Grass/Sedge<br />

E = Endemic – plant species with limited ranges in the Swahilian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism sensu lato (based on Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

PT= Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF Hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; LR cd = Lower risk, conservation dependent; LR nt = Lower risk, near threatened; LR lc = Lower risk, least concerned;<br />

DD = Data Deficient (IUCN, 2004)<br />

X<br />

X<br />

255


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

c) List <strong>of</strong> species recorded opportunistically<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

ACANTHACEAE<br />

ANACARDIACEAE<br />

ANNONACEAE<br />

Barleria holstii Lindau 900 T6 H E Not<br />

X X<br />

listed<br />

Blepharis ciliaris (L.) B. L. 1000- T3,6,7,8; H Not<br />

X X<br />

Burtt. 1500 Som, Arab,<br />

Eth<br />

listed<br />

Hypoestes sp. H Not<br />

listed<br />

X<br />

Ruellia sp. - - - H - - X<br />

Ozoroa sp. S Not<br />

X X X X<br />

listed<br />

Ozoroa obovata (Oliv.) 1-330 K7; T3,6,8,Z; S/T E Not<br />

X<br />

Moz<br />

listed<br />

Rhus sp. S Not<br />

X X<br />

Rhus natalensis Krauss 1-<br />

3000<br />

Sclerocarya birrea (A. Rich.)<br />

Hochst<br />

100-<br />

1600<br />

Sorindeia madagascariensis DC., Prodr. 1-<br />

1830<br />

Monanthotaxis buchananii (Engl.)<br />

Verdc.<br />

Monanthotaxis fornicata (Baill.)<br />

Verdc.<br />

Monanthotaxis trichocarpa (Engl. &<br />

Diels) Verds.<br />

K1-7; T1-<br />

8,Z,P; Som<br />

K1-4,6,7; T1-<br />

4,6<br />

K4,7; T2,3,5-<br />

8,P,Z; Moz<br />

listed<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

100-<br />

1290<br />

K5,7;<br />

T1,3,6,8; Moz<br />

C/S/<br />

T<br />

Not<br />

listed<br />

0-450 K7; T3,6; Z S E Not<br />

listed<br />

30-<br />

1000<br />

K7; T3,6,Z;<br />

Moz<br />

X X<br />

Mng’ongo X<br />

C/S PT X<br />

X<br />

X X X X<br />

Uvariodendron sp. - - - S - - X<br />

X<br />

256


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

APOCYNACEAE<br />

Tabernaemonta<br />

na<br />

sp. T Not<br />

listed<br />

ARALIACEAE<br />

Cussonia arborea A. Rich. 300-<br />

2470<br />

Schefflera barteri Harms 900-<br />

2000<br />

ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus africanus Lam. 450-<br />

2120<br />

ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium nidus L. 40-<br />

1200<br />

ASTERACEAE<br />

Bidens pilosa L. 0-60;<br />

750-<br />

2500<br />

BIGNONIACEAE<br />

BURSERACEAE<br />

K2-5; T1,2,4-<br />

8<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

T2,3,6,8 S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K1-3,5,6; H Not<br />

T7,8<br />

listed<br />

T3,6,Z,P Not<br />

listed<br />

K1-6; H Not<br />

T1-8,Z,P<br />

listed<br />

Lukangalang’ope<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

X X<br />

X X X X<br />

Dicoma sp. H Not<br />

X<br />

listed<br />

Dicoma tomentosa Cass. 100-<br />

2250<br />

K1-4,6,7; T1-<br />

3;5-7<br />

H Not<br />

listed<br />

X X X X<br />

Vernonia sp. - - - H/S - - X<br />

Kigelia africana (Lam.) 1000- K1-3,5-7; T4- T Not<br />

X X<br />

Benth. 2600 8<br />

listed<br />

Markhamia acuminata (Klotzsch)<br />

K. Schum.<br />

Commiphora africana (A. Rich.)<br />

Engl.<br />

70 T3,6,7; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

5-<br />

1780<br />

K1,3,4,6,7;<br />

T2,3,6-8,Z,P;<br />

Som ; Moz<br />

Commiphora ugogensis Engl. 800-<br />

1400<br />

Commiphora zanzibarica (Baill.) Engl. 2-510 K7; T6,8,Z;<br />

Moz<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mt<strong>and</strong>avwala<br />

X X<br />

Mng’orola X X X<br />

T1,2,4,5,7 T Not Mng’orola X X<br />

listed<br />

T E PT Mng’orola X X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

257


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

CAPPARIDACEAE<br />

CELASTRACEAE<br />

Boscia angustifolia A. Rich. 0-<br />

1850<br />

Capparis tomentosa Lam. 0-<br />

2500<br />

Maytenus mossambicensis (Klotzsch) 640-<br />

Blakelock 2900<br />

Maytenus undata (Thunb.)<br />

Blakelock<br />

0-<br />

3150<br />

K1,3,4,6,7;<br />

T1-5; Som<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

K1-7; T1-8 S/T Not<br />

X<br />

listed<br />

K7; T2,3,6-8; S/T PT X<br />

Moz<br />

K1-4,3/5,6,7;<br />

T1-4,6,Z; Som<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

CHRYSOBALANACEAE Parinari curatellifolia Benth. 1700 K5; T1,4- T Not Mbula X<br />

7,Z,P; Moz<br />

listed<br />

COMBRETACEAE Combretum hereroense Schinz K3,4,7;<br />

T3,6,8; Moz<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

Chinama X X<br />

Combretum paniculatum Vent. 10- K3-5,7; T1- C Not Chinama X<br />

2000 8,Z; Moz<br />

listed<br />

COMMELINACEAE Commelina benghalensis Wall. 100- K1-7; T1-3,5- H Not<br />

X<br />

2600 8<br />

listed<br />

CUCURBITACEAE Momordica sp. - - - C/H - - X<br />

CYPERACEAE<br />

Cyperus sp. - - - H - - X<br />

Papyrus sp. - - - H - - X<br />

Papyrus sp. - - - H - - X<br />

DICHAPETALACEAE Dichapetalum stuhlmannii Engl. 50-<br />

1600<br />

DILLENIACEAE<br />

Tetracera boiviniana Baill. 50-<br />

350<br />

Monotes africanus A. DC. 350-<br />

1800<br />

T4,6,8; Moz S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K7; T3,6,8;<br />

Moz<br />

S/T E PT Namachili X<br />

T4-8; Moz T Not Mnyatile X<br />

listed<br />

X<br />

258


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

DIPTEROCARPACEAE Monotes elagans Gilg. 810-<br />

1740<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE<br />

FABACEAE (CAES)<br />

Croton pseudopulchellus Pax 0-<br />

1800<br />

T1,4-6 T Not<br />

listed<br />

K1,6,7;<br />

T3,6,Z; Som;<br />

Moz<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

Euphorbia sp. T Not<br />

listed<br />

Cleistanthus schlechteri (Pax) Hutch. 0-50 K7; T3,6,8; S E Not<br />

Moz<br />

listed<br />

Margaritaria discoidea (Baill.)<br />

Webster<br />

850-<br />

1220<br />

Suregada zanzibarensis Baill. 0-<br />

1600<br />

Afzelia quanzensis Welw. 0-<br />

1350<br />

Bauhinia tomentosa L. 0-<br />

1520<br />

Cassia abbreviata Oliv. 220-<br />

1520<br />

Cassia didymobotrya Fresen. 900-<br />

2440<br />

Cassia singueana Delile 0-<br />

2130<br />

Julbernardia globiflora (Benth.) 490-<br />

Troupin 1830<br />

Scorodophloeus fischeri (Taub.) J. 200-<br />

Léon 1350<br />

T1 S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K7;<br />

T3,6,8,Z,P;<br />

Som; Moz<br />

K7; T1-8,Z,P;<br />

Som, Moz<br />

K1,3,4,7;<br />

T2,3,6,8<br />

T1,4,5,7,8;<br />

Moz<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

Mnyao X X X<br />

X X X<br />

X X<br />

X X<br />

Mbambako X X X<br />

fi<br />

Mnyekechi X<br />

T PT Mjohoro X X X<br />

K3-7; T1-8;<br />

Moz<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

Mjohoro X<br />

K1,3-5,7; T1- T Not Mjohoro X<br />

8<br />

listed<br />

T1,3-8; Moz T Not Mchinji X<br />

listed<br />

T4-8; Moz T E PT X X X<br />

X<br />

259


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

FABACEAE (MIM)<br />

FABACEAE (PAP)<br />

Swartzia madagascariensis Desv. 450-<br />

1260<br />

Acacia brevispica Harms 170-<br />

1830<br />

Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd.<br />

ex Delile<br />

Albizia gummifera (J.F. Gmel.)<br />

C.A. Sm.<br />

Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight &<br />

Arn.<br />

0-<br />

2440<br />

300-<br />

1625<br />

T1,4-8; Moz S Not<br />

listed<br />

Msekeseke X X X<br />

K1-7; T1-6; T Not<br />

Som; Moz<br />

listed<br />

T4,6,8; Moz T PT X<br />

K3-7; T2-8,Z T Not<br />

listed<br />

K4; T1,4-8 S Not<br />

listed<br />

Mtangadu<br />

me<br />

Baphia punctulata Harms 250 T8; Moz T PT X<br />

Craibia brevicaudata (Vatke) 1500 T4,7,8 T PT X<br />

Dunn<br />

Crotalaria retusa L. 0-150 K7; T3,6,8,Z; S Not<br />

X X<br />

Som, Moz<br />

listed<br />

Dalbergia armata E. Mey. 240- T8; Moz S Not<br />

X<br />

660<br />

listed<br />

Dalbergia melanoxylon Guill. & 0- K4-7; T1-6,8 S LR/nt Mpingo X<br />

Perr. 1350<br />

Dalbergia obovata E. Mey. 0- T3,5,6; Moz T Not Mpingoka X X X X<br />

1050<br />

listed mba<br />

Erythrina abyssinica DC. 200- K3-7; T1-8; T Not<br />

X X X X X<br />

2100 Moz<br />

listed<br />

Erythrina schliebenii Harms 240 T8 T E PT X X X X X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

Lonchocarpus capassa Rolfe 150-<br />

1650<br />

Pericopsis angolensis (Baker) 900-<br />

Meeuwen 1650<br />

T1,4-8 T Not<br />

listed<br />

T1,4-8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mlungulun<br />

gu<br />

X X<br />

Muwanga X<br />

260


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE<br />

Pterocarpus rotundifolius (Sond.)<br />

Druce<br />

300-<br />

900<br />

Xeroderris stuhlmannii (Taub.) 100-<br />

Mendonça & 1650<br />

E.C.Sousa<br />

Dovyalis zenkeri Gilg 1500-<br />

1675<br />

Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.) 0-<br />

Merr 2400<br />

T6,8; Moz T Not<br />

listed<br />

K7; T1-8 T Not<br />

listed<br />

Not in LEAP S Not<br />

listed<br />

K2-5,7; T1- S Not<br />

8,Z<br />

listed<br />

Mtumbatim<br />

aji<br />

X X X<br />

X X<br />

X X<br />

Mkung’u X X X X<br />

Oncoba spinosa Forssk. 1800 K1-5,7; S Not Mdudung’<br />

X<br />

T1,2,4-7,Z<br />

listed orora<br />

ICACINACEAE Apodytes dimidiata Arn. 1000- K3-5; T1,2,4- S/T Not<br />

X<br />

2500 8<br />

listed<br />

LAMIACEAE Plectranthus sp. - - H - - X<br />

LECYTHIDACEAE Barringtonia racemosa (L.) Spreng. 0-450 K7;<br />

T3,6,8,Z,P;<br />

Som; Moz<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

X<br />

LOGANIACEAE<br />

Nuxia congesta Fresen. 1800-<br />

2700<br />

Strychnos cocculoides Baker 400-<br />

2000<br />

K1,3,4,6; T2-<br />

4,6,7<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

T1,4-8 S Not<br />

listed<br />

Strychnos madagascariensis Poir. 900-<br />

1500<br />

T4-6,9; Moz S Not<br />

listed<br />

Strychnos sp. S Not<br />

listed<br />

Strychnos spinosa Lam. 400- K2,4; T1,3-8 S Not<br />

2200<br />

listed<br />

Strychnos usambarensis Gilg 75-<br />

2000<br />

K4,6; T3,5;<br />

Moz<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mkulung’u<br />

ru<br />

Mkulung’u<br />

ru<br />

X<br />

X X X X X<br />

X<br />

X X X X<br />

X X<br />

X X X<br />

261


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

MALVACEAE<br />

Hibiscus sp. - - - H - - X X<br />

MELASTOMATACEAE<br />

MELIACEAE<br />

MORACEAE<br />

Hibiscus surattensis L. 0-<br />

1450<br />

K3,7;<br />

T1,3,4,6,8;<br />

Moz<br />

H Not<br />

listed<br />

Memecylon sp.1 - - - S - - X<br />

Memecylon sp.2 - - - S - - X<br />

Khaya anthotheca (Welw.) 120- T3-8; Moz T VU<br />

X<br />

1525<br />

A1cd<br />

Turraea floribunda Hochst. 100- K3,5-7; S/T Not<br />

X X<br />

2150 T2,3,6-8; Moz<br />

listed<br />

Antiaris toxicaria (sub?) Lschen. S Not<br />

X<br />

listed<br />

Ficus natalensis Hochst. 10- K1,4-7; T1- S/T Not Mkuyudum X X X X<br />

2200 3,5-8,Z,P<br />

listed e<br />

Ficus sur Forssk. 0- K1,3-7; T1- T Not Mkuyu<br />

2300 8,Z,P<br />

listed<br />

Trilepsium madagascariense DC. 1800 K3-5,7; T1-<br />

3,6-8,Z<br />

OCHNACEAE Ochna holstii Engl. 900- K1,3-7; T2-8;<br />

2350 Moz<br />

ONAGRACEAE Jussiaea repens L. 10-<br />

1830<br />

PALMAE Hyphaene compressa H. Wendl. 0-<br />

1400<br />

K3,4,7; T1-<br />

8,P<br />

K1,2,4,7;<br />

T2,3,6,8;<br />

Som; Moz<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

H Not<br />

listed<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mnyale X<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

POACEAE Cenchrus sp. X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

262


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Heteropogon contortus (L.) Roem.<br />

& Schult.<br />

0-<br />

2100<br />

K1-7; T1-<br />

8,Z,P<br />

H Not<br />

listed<br />

Olyra latifolia L. 300- K4,7; S Not<br />

1300 T1,3,4,6,7,Z,P<br />

listed<br />

Panicum trichocladum K. Schum 0- K1,4-7; T1- H Not<br />

2300 4,6-8,Z,P;<br />

listed<br />

Moz<br />

Phragmites mauritianus Kunth 0- K4-7; T1-7,Z H Not<br />

1500<br />

listed<br />

Themeda tri<strong>and</strong>ra Forsk. 3200 K1,3-7; T1- H Not<br />

8,Z<br />

listed<br />

POLYGALACEAE Securidaca longipedunculata Fresen. 1500- K3,4,6; T Not<br />

2000 T4,5,7,8; Moz<br />

listed<br />

ROSACEAE Hagenia abyssinica (Bruce)<br />

J.F. Gmel.<br />

RUBIACEAE<br />

Catunaregam spinosa (Thunb)<br />

Tirvengadu<br />

m<br />

Crossopteryx febrifuga (G.Don)<br />

Benth<br />

2400-<br />

3600<br />

70-<br />

290<br />

0-<br />

1350<br />

K3-5; T2,3,7 T Not<br />

listed<br />

K7; T6,7; S/T Not<br />

Moz<br />

listed<br />

K7; T1-8 S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

Chiguruka X X X<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

Mchengele X<br />

Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus Hiern 0-300 K1,7; T3,6,8; S/T E PT X<br />

Som<br />

Lasianthus kilim<strong>and</strong>scharicus K. Schum. 1710- K1,3-5,7; S/T PT X X<br />

2400 T2,3,5-7; Moz<br />

Lasianthus sp. - - - S - - X<br />

Leptactina sp. S Not<br />

X<br />

Leptactina platyphylla (Hiern)<br />

Wernham<br />

45-<br />

1650<br />

K5,7;<br />

T3,4,6,7<br />

listed<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

263


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Pentas bussei K. Krause 0-<br />

1800<br />

Pentas longiflora Oliv. 1050-<br />

2450<br />

K2,4,7; T1-<br />

8,Z; Som<br />

K2-6,7; T2-<br />

4,7<br />

H/S Not<br />

listed<br />

H Not<br />

listed<br />

X X<br />

X X<br />

Psychotria sp.1 - - - S - - X<br />

Psychotria sp.2 - - - S - - X<br />

Psychotria sp.3 - - - S - - X<br />

Rytigynia sp.1 - - - S - - X<br />

Rytigynia sp.2 - - - S - - X<br />

Tricalysia sp. - - - S - - X<br />

Vangueria infausta Burchell 500-<br />

2500<br />

RUTACEAE Vepris lanceolata (Lam.)<br />

G.Don<br />

SAPINDACEAE<br />

Allophylus abyssinicus (Hochst.)<br />

Radlk.<br />

0-30 K7; T3,6;<br />

Moz<br />

650-<br />

2550<br />

K3-7; T1-4,6-<br />

8,Z,P<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

K7; T3,8 T E Not<br />

listed<br />

Paullinia pinnata L. 0-<br />

1600<br />

SAPOTACEAE Mimusops schliebenii Mildbr. & 150-<br />

G.M. 300<br />

Schulze<br />

SIMAROUBACEAE Harrisonia abyssinica Oliv. 0-<br />

1550<br />

STERCULIACEAE Cola greenwayi Brenan 1000-<br />

2000<br />

T4-7; Moz S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

K1,3-5;<br />

T2,3,6,7; Moz<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

T/S Not<br />

listed<br />

K1-7; T1-8,Z,<br />

P; Som; Moz<br />

K7; T3,4;<br />

Moz<br />

T/S Not<br />

listed<br />

T Not<br />

listed<br />

Mkolong’<br />

ombe<br />

X X<br />

X X<br />

X X X X<br />

X<br />

X X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

264


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range (m)<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

TILIACEAE<br />

VERBENACEAE<br />

Dombeya kirkii Mast. 1500 K1-5,7; T2,3 T Not<br />

listed<br />

Sterculia appendiculata K. Schum ex<br />

Engl.<br />

Grewia bicolor Juss. 650-<br />

1650<br />

Grewia lepidopetala Garcke 50-<br />

700<br />

Grewia mollis Juss. 780-<br />

2700<br />

Grewia similis K. Schum 600-<br />

2250<br />

Vitex mombassae Vatke 20-<br />

1580<br />

Vitex zanzibarensis Vatke 0-10<br />

&<br />

360-<br />

600<br />

ZINGIBERACEAE Aframomum orientale Lock 100-<br />

400<br />

450 K7; T7,8,Z T E Not<br />

listed<br />

T1,2,4,5,7; S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

T3,6-8; Moz S/T E Not<br />

listed<br />

T1,2,4 S Not<br />

Zai,Bur,Rwa<br />

listed<br />

K1-6,7; T1-<br />

3,5-7<br />

T1,2,3,4,5,6,7<br />

,8;<br />

Zai,Bur,Moz,<br />

Zim, Ang<br />

K7; T3,6,8;<br />

Moz<br />

K7; T6; not<br />

known<br />

elsewhere<br />

S/T Not<br />

listed<br />

S Not<br />

listed<br />

S E VU<br />

B1+2c<br />

Mparatanya<br />

ni<br />

X X X X<br />

Mbobo<br />

X<br />

mweupe<br />

Mbobo X X X X X X<br />

Mbobo X<br />

Mbobo X<br />

X X X<br />

X X X<br />

H E PT X<br />

X = presence/absence<br />

T1 = Kagera, Mwanza, <strong>and</strong> Mara regions, T2 = Arusha <strong>and</strong> Manyara regions, T3 = Tanga <strong>and</strong> Kilimanjaro regions, T4 = Kigoma <strong>and</strong> Rukwa regions, T5 = Dodoma <strong>and</strong> Singida regions, T6<br />

= Dar es Salaam, <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>and</strong> Morogoro regions, T7 = Mbeya <strong>and</strong> Iringa regions, T8 = Lindi, Mtwara <strong>and</strong> Ruvuma regions, K7 = <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> regions (Polhill, 1988); R = Rare species:<br />

plants present in less than two out <strong>of</strong> the eight FTEA vegetation regions <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (Knox, 2000)<br />

T = Tree, S = Shrub, B = Bamboo, C = Climber, H = Herb/Grass/Sedge<br />

E = Endemic – plant species with limited ranges in the Swahilian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism sensu lato (based on Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000); PT= Potentially Threatened plants in the<br />

EACF Hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006); CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; LR cd = Lower risk, conservation dependent; LR nt =<br />

Lower risk, near threatened; LR lc = Lower risk, least concerned; DD = Data Deficient (IUCN, 2004)<br />

X<br />

265


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 10 - LIST OF ENDEMIC & THREATENED PLANT SPECIES FOUND IN THE SWAHILIAN REGIONAL CENTRE OF<br />

ENDEMISM SENSU LATU FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Family Genus species<br />

ACANTHACEAE Barleria holstii Lindau 900 T6 H E Not<br />

X X<br />

listed<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Ozoroa obovata (Oliv.) 1-330 K7; T3,6,8,Z; S/T E Not<br />

X<br />

Moz<br />

listed<br />

ANNONACEAE Monodora gr<strong>and</strong>idieri Baill. 0-900 K7; T3,6, Z; S/T E Not<br />

X X<br />

Som; Moz<br />

listed<br />

ARALIACEAE Cussonia zimmermannii Harms 0-400 K7; T3,6,8; T E PT X X<br />

Moz<br />

BOMBACACEAE Bombax rhodognaphalon K. Schum. 20- K7; T3,6,8,P; T E PT Msufipori X X<br />

700 Moz<br />

BURSERACEAE Commiphora zanzibarica (Baill.) Engl. 2-510 K7; T6,8,Z; T E PT Mng’orola X X X<br />

Moz<br />

CELASTRACEAE Maytenus mossambicensis (Klotzsch) 640- K7; T2,3,6-8; S/T PT X<br />

Blakelock 2900 Moz<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana Baill. 50- K7; T3,6,8; S/T E PT Namachili X X X X X X<br />

350 Moz<br />

EUPHORBIACEAE Cleistanthus schlechteri (Pax) Hutch. 0-50 K7 ; T3,6,8; S E Not<br />

X X X X<br />

Moz<br />

listed<br />

Drypetes natalensis (Harv.) Hutch 125- K4; T2-6,8; S/T PT Mnyumbu X X X X X<br />

1500 Moz<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia abbreviata Oliv. 220- T1,4,5,7,8; T PT Mjohoro X X X X<br />

1520 Moz<br />

Cynometra gillmanii J. Léon T8 T E CR<br />

X<br />

B1+2a<br />

bcde,c<br />

2b<br />

266


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Family Genus species<br />

Scorodophloeus fischeri (Taub.) J. 200- T4-8; Moz T E PT X X X<br />

Léon 1350<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex<br />

T4,6,8; Moz T PT X<br />

Delile<br />

Entada stuhlmannii (Taub.) 15- T6,8; Moz C E PT X<br />

Harms 1600<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Baphia punctulata Harms 250 T8; Moz T PT X<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Cleistanthus schlechteri (Pax) Hutch. 0-50 K7 ; T3,6,8; S E Not<br />

X X X<br />

Moz<br />

listed<br />

Craibia brevicaudata (Vatke) Dunn 1500 T4,7,8 T PT X X X X<br />

Erythrina schliebenii Harms 240 T8 T E PT X X X X X<br />

Millettia impressa Harms 10- T6,8 ; Moz C PT Mpangapan X X X X<br />

200<br />

ga<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Xylotheca tettensis (Klotzsch)<br />

Gilg<br />

200-<br />

600<br />

MYRTACEAE Syzygium cordatum Krauss. 900-<br />

2400<br />

RUBIACEAE<br />

T6-8; Moz S E PT X X X<br />

K3-5; T1,4,6-<br />

8;<br />

Gardenia transvenulosa Verdc. 10-<br />

700m<br />

K7;T3,6,8 not<br />

elsewhere<br />

Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus Hiern 0-300 K1,7; T3,6,8;<br />

Som<br />

Lasianthus kilim<strong>and</strong>scharicus K. Schum. 1710- K1,3-5,7;<br />

2400 T2,3,5-7; Moz<br />

Rytigynia decussata (K. Schum.) 75- K7; T3,6,8;<br />

Robyns 1000 Moz<br />

150-<br />

300<br />

SAPOTACEAE Mimusops schliebenii Mildbr. &<br />

G.M. Schulze<br />

T/S PT Mzambarau X<br />

S/T E VUb1<br />

+2b<br />

X X<br />

S/T E PT X X X<br />

S/T PT X X<br />

S E PT X X X X X<br />

K7; T3,8 T E Not<br />

listed<br />

X X X<br />

267


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Author<br />

Altitudinal<br />

range<br />

Dist. (FTEA)<br />

within the<br />

Swahilian<br />

region<br />

Family Genus species<br />

STERCULIACEAE Cola clavata Mast. 500 K5,6; T3,6,8 S/T E DD;<br />

PT<br />

Sterculia appendiculata K. Schum ex 450 K7; T7,8,Z T E Not<br />

Engl.<br />

listed<br />

TILIACEAE<br />

Grewia forbesii Mast. 0- K4, 6,7; S/T E Not<br />

1250 T2,3,6,8,Z,P;<br />

listed<br />

Grewia lepidopetala Garcke 50-<br />

700<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex mossambicensis Gürke 400-<br />

800<br />

Vitex zanzibarensis Vatke 0-10<br />

&<br />

360-<br />

600<br />

VIOLACEAE<br />

Rinorea angustifolia (Thouars) 100-<br />

Baill. 2200<br />

Rinorea elliptica (Oliv.) 50-<br />

Kuntze 600<br />

ZINGIBERACEAE Aframomum orientale Lock 100-<br />

400<br />

Habit<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Conservation<br />

Status<br />

Local names<br />

used in the<br />

Mtwara Region<br />

Mparatanya<br />

ni<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

X X<br />

X X X X<br />

Moz<br />

T3,6-8; Moz S/T E Not Mbobo X X X X X X<br />

listed<br />

T8; Moz S/T E PT X X X<br />

K7; T3,6,8;<br />

Moz<br />

K7; T6-8;<br />

Moz<br />

K7; T2,3,6,8;<br />

Moz<br />

K7; T6; not<br />

known<br />

elsewhere<br />

S E VU<br />

B1+2c<br />

X<br />

X X X<br />

S/T PT X<br />

S/T E Not<br />

X<br />

listed<br />

H E PT X<br />

X = presence/absence<br />

T1 = Kagera, Mwanza, <strong>and</strong> Mara regions, T2 = Arusha <strong>and</strong> Manyara regions, T3 = Tanga <strong>and</strong> Kilimanjaro regions, T4 = Kigoma <strong>and</strong> Rukwa regions, T5 = Dodoma <strong>and</strong> Singida regions, T6<br />

= Dar es Salaam, <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>and</strong> Morogoro regions, T7 = Mbeya <strong>and</strong> Iringa regions, T8 = Lindi, Mtwara <strong>and</strong> Ruvuma regions, K7 = <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong> regions (Polhill, 1988); R = Rare species:<br />

plants present in less than two out <strong>of</strong> the eight FTEA vegetation regions <strong>of</strong> Tanzania (Knox, 2000)<br />

T = Tree, S = Shrub, B = Bamboo, C = Climber, H = Herb/Grass/Sedge<br />

E = Endemic – plant species with limited ranges in the Swahilian regional centre <strong>of</strong> endemism sensu lato (based on Clarke <strong>and</strong> Robertson, 2000)<br />

PT= Potentially Threatened plants in the EACF Hotspot <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> Tanzania (Gereau <strong>and</strong> Luke, 2006)<br />

CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; LR cd = Lower risk, conservation dependent; LR nt = Lower risk, near threatened; LR lc = Lower risk, least concerned;<br />

DD = Data Deficient (IUCN, 2004)<br />

268


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 11 - MEDICINAL PLANT SPECIES, THEIR GROWTH HABIT, THE AILMENTS THEY ARE USED TO CURE, THE PART<br />

OF THE PLANT THAT IS UTILISED AND THE STUDY AREA IN WHICH THEY WERE FOUND TO BE USED<br />

Family Species name Habit Ailments <strong>and</strong> part <strong>of</strong> the plant used<br />

ALOACEAE Aloe macrosiphon H Stomach, diarrhoea (sap from leaves) X<br />

ALOACEAE Aloe secundiflora H Stomach, & chicken diseases (leaves) X<br />

ANACARDIACEAE Sclerocarya birrea T Anti inflammatory (roots) X X X X X X<br />

ANNONACEAE Annona senegalensis S/T Stomach, (bark, roots) X X X X<br />

ARALIACEAE Cussonia arborea T Urinary infection, headache (roots, leaves) X<br />

ARALIACEAE Cussonia zimmermannii T Urinary infection, headache (roots, leaves) X X<br />

DILLENIACEAE Tetracera boiviniana S Stomach, headache (roots) X X X X X X X<br />

EBENACEAE Diospyros kirkii T Fever, headache (roots) X X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Afzelia quanzensis S/T Coughing, stomach headache (root, bark) X X X X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia petersiana T Coughing, stomach, (leaves & seedpods) X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Bauhinia tomentosa T Stomach, headache (leaves, bark, pods) X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Brachystegia spiciformis T Stomach (roots <strong>and</strong> bark) X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia abbreviata S Urinary infection, headache (roots, leaves) X X X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia petersiana T Stomach, Fever (root, bark) X<br />

FABACEAE (CAES) Cassia singueana T Urinary infection, headache (roots, leaves) X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia brevispica T Stomach, headache (bark, roots) X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia nigrescens T Fever, diarrhoea, stomach (roots, bark) X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (MIM) Acacia xanthophloea T Fever, urinary infection (roots, bark) X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Dalbergia melanoxylon T Fever (roots) X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus bussei T Stomach, headache (roots <strong>and</strong> leaves) X X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Lonchocarpus capassa T Stomach, headache (roots & bark) X X X X X X<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Millettia stuhlmannii C ? X<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

269


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Family Species name Habit Ailments <strong>and</strong> part <strong>of</strong> the plant used<br />

FABACEAE (PAP) Pterocarpus angolensis T Teeth, ringworm (sap from the bark) X X X X X X<br />

FLACOURTIACEAE Flacourtia indica T Stomach, fever (leaves, roots) X X X X X<br />

HYMENOCARDIACEAE Hymenocardia ulmoides T Stomach (roots <strong>and</strong> bark) X X X<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos cocculoides T Stomach, diarrhoea (roots, leaves) X X X X X X<br />

LOGANIACEAE Strychnos madagascariensis S Eyes problems, fever (leaves <strong>and</strong> roots) X X X X<br />

MORACEAE Milicia excelsa T Stomach, headache (bark, roots) X X X X<br />

OCHNACEAE Ochna holstii S Stomach (roots <strong>and</strong> bark) X X X X<br />

POLYGALACEAE Securidaca longipedunculata T Stomach, headache (roots) X X X<br />

RUBIACEAE Crossopteryx febrifuga S/T ? X<br />

RUBIACEAE Vangueria infausta S Stomach (roots <strong>and</strong> bark) X X X X<br />

RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum chalybeum T Urinary infection, stomach, headache (roots) X X X X X X X<br />

SAPOTACEAE Bequaertiodendron natalense T Stomach, diarrhoea (roots) X X X X X X<br />

VERBENACEAE Vitex doniana T Stomach (roots) X X<br />

T = Tree, S = Shrub, B = Bamboo, C = Climber, H = Herb/Grass/Sedge<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

270


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 12 - LIST OF FAUNAL SPECIES REPORTED TO BE HUNTED IN THE FOREST RESERVES<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

End. Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN +<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

GALLIFORMES NUMIDIDAE –<br />

Guttera pucherani F W LC X X<br />

Guineafowl<br />

PASSERIFORMES PLOCEIDAE – Weavers Quelea erythrops O W LC;<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

STRIGIFORMES TYTONIDAE – Barn owls Tyto alba O W LC; X X<br />

CITES II<br />

PRIMATES – GALAGONIDAE – Otolemur garnetti f CF <strong>and</strong> a few LR/lc; X X<br />

Primates<br />

Bushbabies or galagos<br />

other habitats CITES II<br />

in coastal E<br />

Africa<br />

INSECTIVORA – SORICIDAE – Shrews Crocidura sp. O - - X X<br />

Insectivores<br />

MACROSCELIDEA<br />

– Elephant-shrews or<br />

Sengi<br />

MACROSCELIDIDAE<br />

Rhynchocyoninae<br />

Rhynchocyon cirnei f W VU<br />

B1+2c<br />

RODENTIA – SCIURIDAE – Squirrels Paraxerus flavovittis O W DD X X<br />

Rodents THRYONOMYIDAE – Thryonomys swinderianus O W LC X X<br />

Cane-rats<br />

CARNIVORA – VIVERRIDAE – Genets & Civettictis civetta f W LR/lc X X<br />

Carnivores<br />

Civets Genetta genetta O W LR/lc X X<br />

X X<br />

X<br />

HYRACOIDEA –<br />

Hyraxes<br />

ARTIODACTYLA –<br />

Even-toed ungulates<br />

PROCAVIDAE Dendrohyrax sp. - - - X<br />

SUIDAE – Pigs Potamochoerus larvatus f W LR/lc X X X X<br />

271


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

End. Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN +<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

BOVIDAE<br />

Antilopinae – Antilopes,<br />

Goats & sheep<br />

Cephalophus monticola F W LR/lc; X X<br />

CITES II<br />

Cephalophus natalensis F W LR/cd X X<br />

Hippotragus niger O W LR/cd X<br />

TESTUDINES -<br />

Chelonians<br />

SAURIA - Lizards<br />

TESTUDINIDAE – L<strong>and</strong> Geochelone pardalis O W CITES II X X<br />

tortoises<br />

VARANIDAE – Plated<br />

Lizards<br />

Varanus albigularis O W CITES II X X<br />

LACERTIDAE – Lacertid Latastia sp. - - - X X<br />

lizards or Typical lizards<br />

BOIDAE – Boas & pythons Python natalensis O W CITES II X X<br />

SERPENTES -<br />

Snakes<br />

X = reported to be hunted<br />

F = Forest dependent or specialist; f = Forest dwelling or generalist; O = Non-forest or forest visitor (Iverson, 1991b; Mlingwa et al., 2000)<br />

CF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> Eastern Arc Mountains (Burgess et al., 2000a); SE Tanzania =<br />

species with limited ranges in SE Tanzania; SE Africa = species with limited ranges in SE Africa; E Africa = species with limited ranges in E Africa<br />

CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; LR cd = Lower risk, conservation dependent; LR nt = Lower risk, near threatened; LR lc = Lower risk, least concerned<br />

(IUCN, 2004)<br />

CITES I = Threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade; CITES II = Not yet threatened with extinction, but may be so if trade is not regulated, thus export permits are<br />

required (CITES, 2005)<br />

272


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 13 - MAMMAL SPECIES LIST FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES. TAXONOMY BASED ON KINGDON (2003)<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

PRIMATES<br />

CHIROPTERA<br />

CERCOPITHECIDAE<br />

Papioninae – Baboons<br />

Cercopithecinae – Guenons<br />

& allies<br />

GALAGONIDAE –<br />

Bushbabies<br />

End. Status<br />

Cons.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN +<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Papio cynocephalus O W LR/lc * s s<br />

Cercopithecus mitis (sub sp.) F W LR/lc;<br />

CITES II<br />

s s s s<br />

Cercopithecus pygerythrus f W Not listed * * s s s s s<br />

rufovidris<br />

Otolemur crassicaudatus f W LR/lc; * 0 s 0 0<br />

CITES II<br />

Otolemur garnetti f CF <strong>and</strong> a few LR/lc; 0 0<br />

other habitats in CITES II<br />

coastal E Africa<br />

Galago moholi f Central S<br />

Africa (first<br />

record for the<br />

<strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong><br />

<strong>of</strong> Tanzania)<br />

LR/lc;<br />

CITES II<br />

0 0 0<br />

PTEROPODIDAE – Fruit Epomophorus wahlbergi f W Not listed X<br />

bats<br />

NYCTERIDAE – Slitfaced<br />

Nycteris gr<strong>and</strong>is O W LC X<br />

bats<br />

RHINOLOPHIDAE Rhinolophus hildebr<strong>and</strong>ti O W LC X<br />

Rhinolophinae – Horseshoe<br />

bats<br />

VESPERTILIONIDAE – Scotoecus hirundo O W DD X<br />

Vesper bats Nycteris hispida O W LC X<br />

273


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

INSECTIVORA<br />

MACROSCELIDEA<br />

LAGOMORPHA<br />

RODENTIA<br />

SORICIDAE – Shrews<br />

MACROSCELIDIDAE<br />

Rhynchocyoninae –<br />

Elephant-shrews or Sengi<br />

LEPORIDAE – Hares<br />

SCIURIDAE – Squirrels<br />

HYSTRICIDAE –<br />

Porcupines<br />

MUROIDEA<br />

Gerbillinae – Gerbils<br />

Cricetomyinae – Pouched<br />

rats & mice<br />

MURIDAE – Murid rats &<br />

Mice<br />

THRYONOMYIDAE –<br />

Cane-rats<br />

End. Status<br />

Cons.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN +<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Crocidura sp.1 - - - X X X X<br />

Crocidura sp.2 - - - X X X X X 0<br />

Rhynchocyon cirnei f W VU<br />

B1+2c<br />

s * s s s s<br />

Lepus saxatilis O W LR/lc 0 * 0 s 0 0 0<br />

Pronolagus rupestris O W LR/lc 0<br />

Heliosciurus mutabilis f W LC * s s<br />

Paraxerus flavovittis O W DD s s<br />

Paraxerus palliatus F W LC s * s s<br />

Hystrix cristata O W LC; * * 0 0 0<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Tatera robusta f O LC;<br />

X<br />

Not listed<br />

Beamys hindei f EACF <strong>and</strong> a NT X X X X X<br />

few other forest<br />

types in <strong>Kenya</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong> Tanzania<br />

Acomys spinosissimus O W LC X X X X X<br />

Grammomys dolichurus f W LC X X X<br />

Mastomys natalensis O W LC X X X X X X X<br />

Mus minutoides O W LC X<br />

Mus sp. - - - X<br />

Praomys sp. - - - X<br />

Rattus alex<strong>and</strong>rinus O W Not listed X<br />

Thryonomys swinderianus O W LC 0 * 0<br />

274


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

CARNIVORA<br />

End. Status<br />

Cons.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN +<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

CANIDAE – Wild dogs, Canis adustus O W LC * * * *<br />

Foxes & Jackals<br />

MUSTELIDAE<br />

Aonyx capensis O W LC;<br />

0 0<br />

Latrinae – Otters<br />

CITES II<br />

HERPESTIDAE – Atilax paludinosus O W LR/lc 0 0 0<br />

Mongooses<br />

Helogale parvula O W LR/lc 0<br />

Herpestes sanguinea O W Not listed 0<br />

Mungos mungo O W LR/lc s<br />

HYAENIDAE – Hyaenas Crocuta crocuta O W LR/cd * * 0 0 0 0<br />

VIVERRIDAE – Genets &<br />

Civets<br />

Civettictis civetta f W LR/lc;<br />

CITES III<br />

BW<br />

* * 0 0 0 0<br />

FELIDAE – Cats<br />

Genetta genetta O W LR/lc * * 0<br />

Felis caracal O W CITES II 0<br />

Panthera leo O W VU A2<br />

abcd<br />

CITES II<br />

* * * * * * 0<br />

Panthera pardus ssp. O W LC; * * 0 * 0<br />

panthera<br />

CITES I<br />

PHOLIDOTA MANIDAE – Pangolins Smutsia temminckii O W Not listed * *<br />

TUBULIDENTATA ORYCTEROPODIDAE – Orycteropus afer O W LC s<br />

Aardvark<br />

HYRACOIDEA PROCAVIDAE – Hyraxes Heterohyrax sp. - - - * * 0<br />

PROBOSICIDEA ELEPHANTIDAE – Loxodonta africana O W VU A2a,<br />

0<br />

Elephants<br />

CITES I<br />

PERISSODACTYLA EQUIDAE – Horses Equus quagga O W Not listed 0<br />

275


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

ARTIODACTYLA<br />

HIPPOPOTAMIDAE –<br />

Hippopotamuses<br />

End. Status<br />

Cons.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN +<br />

CITES)<br />

Hippopotamus amphibius O W LR/lc;<br />

CITES II<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

*<br />

SUIDAE – Pigs<br />

Phacochoerus africanus O W LR/lc 0<br />

Potamochoerus larvatus f W LR/lc * * * 0 0 0 0<br />

BOVIDAE<br />

Syncerus caffer O W LR/cd 0<br />

Bovinae – Bovines Tragelaphus scriptus O W LR/lc *<br />

Tragelaphus strepsiceros f W LR/cd s<br />

Antilopinae – Antilopes, Cephalophus monticola F W LR/lc; 0 * 0 0<br />

Goats & sheep<br />

CITES II<br />

Cephalophus natalensis F W LR/cd * 0 0<br />

Hippotragus niger O W LR/cd *<br />

Madoqua kirkii f W LR/lc 0 0<br />

Neotragus moschatus F W LR/cd 0 0<br />

Oreotragus oreotragus O W LR/cd 0 *<br />

X = Confirmed by specimen (awaiting verification <strong>of</strong> some), s = sight records, 0 = calls or signs, * = reports <strong>of</strong> local people,<br />

F = Forest dependent or specialist; f = Forest dwelling or generalist; O = Non-forest or forest visitor (Iverson, 1991b; Mlingwa et al., 2000)<br />

CF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> Eastern Arc Mountains (Burgess et al., 2000a); SE Tanzania =<br />

species with limited ranges in SE Tanzania; SE Africa = species with limited ranges in SE Africa; E Africa = species with limited ranges in E Africa<br />

CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; LR cd = Lower risk, conservation dependent; LR nt = Lower risk, near threatened; LR lc = Lower risk, least concerned;<br />

DD = Data Deficient (IUCN, 2004)<br />

CITES I = Threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade; CITES II = Not yet threatened with extinction, but may be so if trade is not regulated, thus export permits are<br />

required (CITES, 2005)<br />

276


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 14 - BIRD SPECIES LIST FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES. TAXONOMY BASED ON SINCLAIR & RYAN (2003),<br />

STEVENSON AND FANSHAWE (2002) AND ZIMMERMAN ET AL. (1996)<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

CICONIIFORMES SCOPIDAE – Hamerkop Scopus umbretta O W LC X X X<br />

ANSERIFORMES ANATIDAE – Ducks & Geese Dendrocygna viduata O W LC;<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

X<br />

FALCONIFORMES<br />

ACCIPITRIDAE – Eagles,<br />

Vultures, Kites, Hawks,<br />

Buzzards & Osprey<br />

Nettapus auritus O W LC;<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Accipiter tachiro f W LC; X X<br />

CITES II<br />

Aquila verreauxii O W LC;<br />

X<br />

CITES II<br />

Aviceda cuculoides f W LC;<br />

X<br />

CITES II<br />

Circaetus cinereus O W LC;<br />

X X<br />

CITES II<br />

Circaetus fasciolatus f W NT; X X X<br />

CITES II<br />

Circaetus pectoralis O W CITES II X X X X X X X X<br />

Elanus caeruleus O W LC;<br />

X X<br />

CITES II<br />

Gypohierax angolensis f W LC;<br />

CITES II<br />

X X<br />

Hieraaetus spilogaster O W LC;<br />

X<br />

CITES II<br />

X<br />

277


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

GALLIFORMES<br />

GRUIFORMES<br />

CHARADRIIFORM<br />

ES<br />

COLUMBIFORMES<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Kaupifalco monogrammicus O W LC; X X X X X X X X<br />

CITES II<br />

Lophaetus occipitalis f W LC;<br />

X<br />

CITES II<br />

Macheiramphus alcinus f W LC;<br />

X<br />

CITES II<br />

Polyboroides typus f W LC; X X X X<br />

CITES II<br />

Stephanoaetus coronatus F W LC;<br />

X<br />

CITES II<br />

Terathopius ecaudatus O W LC; X X X X X X X X<br />

CITES II<br />

FALCONIDAE – Falcons Falco dickinsoni O W LC;<br />

CITES II<br />

X<br />

Falco peregrinus O W LC;<br />

X X<br />

CITES I<br />

PHASIANIDAE – Francolins<br />

(spurfowl) & Quail<br />

Pternistes<br />

(or Francolinus)<br />

afer O W LC X<br />

Pternistes<br />

(or Francolinus)<br />

hildebr<strong>and</strong>ti f W LC X X X X<br />

NUMIDIDAE – Guineafowl Numida meleagris O W LC X X X<br />

RALLIDAE – Rails, Coots & Amaurornis flavirostris O W LC X<br />

Gallinules<br />

JACANIDAE – Jacanas Actophilornis africanus O W LC X<br />

COLUMBIDAE – Doves &<br />

Pigeons<br />

Streptopelia capicola O W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

278


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

PSITTACIFORMES<br />

MUSOPHAGI<br />

FORMES<br />

CUCULIFORMES<br />

STRIGIFORMES<br />

PSITTACIDAE – Parrots &<br />

Lovebirds<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Streptopelia semitorquata f W LC;<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Streptopelia senegalensis O W LC;<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Treron calva f W LC;<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Turtur chalcospilos f W LC; Not<br />

listed<br />

Turtur tympanistria f W LC;<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Agapornis lilianae O W NT;<br />

CITES II<br />

Poicephalus cryptoxanthus f SE Africa LC;<br />

CITES II<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

X X X X X X X X<br />

X<br />

X X X X<br />

X X X X X X X X<br />

X X X X X<br />

X<br />

X X X X X<br />

MUSOPHAGIDAE – Turacos Tauraco porphyreolophus f W LC X<br />

CUCULIDAE – Cuckoos &<br />

Coucals<br />

STRIGIDAE – Owls<br />

Centropus burchelii f W Not listed X X X X X X X X<br />

Ceuthmochares australis f W Not listed X X<br />

Chrysococcyx cupreus f W LC X X<br />

Chrysococcyx klass f W LC X X<br />

Bubo africanus O W LC;<br />

X X X<br />

CITES II<br />

Glaucidium capense f W LC;<br />

X<br />

CITES II<br />

279


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

CAPRIMULGI<br />

FORMES<br />

APODIFORMES<br />

CAPRIMULGIDAE –<br />

Nightjars<br />

APODIDAE – Swifts &<br />

Spinetails<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Strix woodfordii f W LC;<br />

X X X X X<br />

CITES II<br />

Caprimulgus pectoralis f W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Apus affinis O W LC X X<br />

Apus caffer O W LC X X X<br />

Cypiurus parvus f W Not listed X<br />

Neafrapus boehmi f W LC X X<br />

TROGONIORMES TROGONIDAE – Trogons Apaloderma narina f W LC X X X<br />

CORACIIFORMES ALCEDINIDAE – Kingfishers Halcyon albiventris f W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Halcyon chelicuti O W LC X X X X<br />

Ispidina picta f W Not listed X X X X<br />

Megaceryle maxima O W LC X<br />

MEROPIDAE – Bee-eaters Merops boehmi f W LC X X X<br />

Merops pusillus O W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

CORACIIDAE – Rollers Coracias caudata O W LC X<br />

Coracias spatulata O W LC X<br />

Phoeniculus purpureus f W LC X X X X<br />

PHOENICULIDAE – Woodhoopoes<br />

& Scimitarbills<br />

BUCEROTIDAE – Hornbills<br />

Rhinopomastus cyanomelas O W LC X X X<br />

Bucorvus leadbeateri O W Not listed X X X X<br />

Bycanistes bucinator f W LC X<br />

Tockus alboterminatus f W LC X X X X X<br />

Tockus nasutus O W LC X<br />

280


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

PICIFORMES<br />

PASSERIFORMES<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

CAPITONIDAE – Barbets & Lybius melanopterus f E Africa LC X X<br />

Tinkerbirds Pogoniulus bilineatus f W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

INDICATORIDAE – Indicator indicator O W LC X X X<br />

Honeyguides<br />

PICIDAE – Wrynecks & Campethera abingoni f W LC X X X<br />

Woodpeckers<br />

Dendropicos fuscescens f W LC X X X<br />

Dendropicos namaquus f W Not listed X X<br />

EURYLAIMIDAE –<br />

Smithornis capensis F W LC X X X X X<br />

Broadbills<br />

MOTACILLIDAE –<br />

Anthus cinnamomeus O W Not listed X<br />

Wagtails, Longclaws & Pipits Motacilla aguimp O W LC X<br />

HIRUNDINIDAE – Swallows Hirundo abyssinica O W LC X X X<br />

& Martins<br />

Hirundo smithii O W LC X X X X<br />

Psalidoprocne holomelas f W Not listed X X X X X<br />

PYCNONOTIDAE – Nicators<br />

& Greenbuls<br />

TIMALIIDAE – Babblers,<br />

Chatterers & Illadopses<br />

TURDIDAE – Thrushes,<br />

Robins, Chats & relatives<br />

Psalidoprocne orientalis O W Not listed X<br />

Andropadus importunus f W LC X X X X X X<br />

Chlorocichla flaviventris f W LC X X X X X X X<br />

Nicator gularis f SE Africa LC X X X X X X X<br />

Phyllastrephus flavostriatus F SE Africa LC X<br />

Phyllastrephus fischeri F W LC X<br />

Pycnonotus barbatus O W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Turdoides jardinei O W LC X X<br />

Cercomela familiaris O W LC X<br />

Cercotrichas quadrivirgata f W Not listed X X X X X X X X<br />

Cossypha heuglini O W LC X X X X<br />

281


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

MUSCICAPIDAE –<br />

Flycatchers<br />

SYLVIIDAE – Warblers<br />

ZOSTEROPIDAE – Whiteeyes<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Cossypha natalensis f W LC X X<br />

Myrmecocichla cinnamomeiventris O W LC X X<br />

Sheppardia gunningi F CF <strong>and</strong> a few<br />

other forest types<br />

in Tanzania,<br />

<strong>Kenya</strong>, Malawi<br />

<strong>and</strong> <strong>Coastal</strong><br />

Mozambique<br />

VU B2ab<br />

(i,ii,iii,v)<br />

X<br />

Turdus libonyanus O W LC X X<br />

Bias musicus f W LC X<br />

Erythrocercus livingstonei f SE Africa Not listed X X X X X X X<br />

Muscicapa caerulescens f W LC X X X X X<br />

Muscicapa striata O W LC X<br />

Terpsiphone viridis f W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Trochocercus cyanomelas F W LC X X X X X<br />

Apalis flavida f W LC X X X X X<br />

Camaroptera brachyura f W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Cisticola erythrops O W LC X X<br />

Heliolais erythroptera O W LC X<br />

Prinia subflava O W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Sylvietta whytii f W LC X X X<br />

Zosterops senegalensis f W LC X X<br />

282


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

PLATYSTEIRIDAE – Batises<br />

& Wattle-eyes<br />

PRIONOPIDAE – Helmetshrikes<br />

MALACONOTIDAE – Bushshrikes<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Batis reichenowi F CF Not listed X<br />

Batis soror f SE Africa LC X X X X X X<br />

Platysteira peltata f W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Prionops poliolophus O Previously NT X X<br />

restricted to SW<br />

<strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> N<br />

Tanzania (first<br />

record for S<br />

Tanzania)<br />

Prionops retzii f W LC X X X X X<br />

Dryoscopus cubla f W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Laniarius aethiopicus f W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Malaconotus blanchoti f W LC X X<br />

Malaconotus quadricolor f W Not listed X X X<br />

Malaconotus sulfureopectus f W LC X X X X X<br />

Tchagra australis f W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Tchagra senegala O W LC X X X X<br />

CAMPEPHAGIDAE – Campephaga flava f W LC X X X X X<br />

Cuckoo-shrikes Coracina pectoralis O W Not listed X X X<br />

DICRURIDAE – Drongos Dicrurus adsimilis O W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Dicrurus ludwigii f W LC X X X X<br />

ORIOLIDAE – Orioles Oriolus auratus f W LC X X X X X<br />

Oriolus larvatus f W LC X X X X X<br />

283


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

CORVIDAE – Crows, Ravens Corvus albicollis O W LC X X<br />

& Piapiac Corvus albus O W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

STURNIDAE – Starlings & Cinnyricinclus leucogaster O W LC X<br />

Oxpeckers<br />

Lamprotornis elisabeth f W LC X X<br />

Onychognathus morio O W LC X X<br />

NECTARINIIDAE – Sunbirds Chalcomitra amethystina f W Not listed X X X<br />

Chalcomitra senegalensis O W Not listed X<br />

Cinnyris talatala f W Not listed X X<br />

Cyanomitra olivacea f W Not listed X X X X X X X X<br />

Hedydipna collaris f W Not listed X X X X X X X X<br />

PASSERIDAE – Sparrows & Petronia superciliaris O W LC X X X<br />

Petronias Plocepasser mahali O W LC X<br />

PLOCEIDAE – Weavers Amblyospiza albifrons f W LC;<br />

X<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Anaplectes rubriceps O W LC;<br />

X X<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Euplectes afer O W LC;<br />

X<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Euplectes hordeaceus O W LC;<br />

X X<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Euplectes orix O W LC X<br />

Ploceus bicolor f W LC X X X X X<br />

284


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

ESTRILDIDAE<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Ploceus cucullatus O W LC;<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Ploceus intermedius O W LC X X<br />

Ploceus ocularis f W LC X X<br />

Ploceus subaureus O SE Africa LC X<br />

Quelea erythrops O W LC;<br />

X<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

Estrilda astrild O W LC X X<br />

Hypargos niveoguttatus f W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Lagonosticta rubricata O W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

M<strong>and</strong>ingoa nitidula f W LC X X X X<br />

Pyrenestes minor f W LC X<br />

Pytilia afra O W LC X X X<br />

Pytilia melba O W LC X X X X X X X X<br />

Spermestes bicolor O W Not listed X X X X<br />

Spermestes cucullata O W Not listed X X X X<br />

Spermophaga ruficapilla f Previously LC X<br />

restricted to W<br />

<strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> N<br />

Tanzania (first<br />

record for S<br />

Tanzania)<br />

Uraeginthus angolensis O W LC X X X X<br />

Vidua chalybeata O W LC X<br />

X<br />

285


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

FRINGILLIDAE – Canaries<br />

& Seedeaters<br />

EMBERIZIDAE – Old-world<br />

buntings, Waxbills, Whydahs<br />

& Indigobirds<br />

Endemic Status<br />

Conserv.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Vidua obtusa O W LC X X X<br />

Serinus mozambicus O W LC;<br />

CITES III<br />

GH<br />

X X X X X X X X<br />

Serinus reichardi f W LC X X<br />

Emberiza cabanisi O W LC X X<br />

Emberiza tahapisi O W LC X X X X<br />

X = species identified by sight<br />

F = Forest dependent or specialist; f = Forest dwelling or generalist; O = Non-forest or forest visitor (Iverson, 1991b; Mlingwa et al., 2000)<br />

CF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> Eastern Arc Mountains Africa (Burgess et al., 2000a); SE<br />

Tanzania = species with limited ranges in SE Tanzania; SE Africa = species with limited ranges in SE Africa; E Africa = species with limited ranges in E<br />

CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; LR cd = Lower risk, conservation dependent; LR nt = Lower risk, near threatened; LR lc = Lower risk, least concerned;<br />

DD = Data Deficient (IUCN, 2004)<br />

CITES I = Threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade; CITES II = Not yet threatened with extinction, but may be so if trade is not regulated, thus export permits are<br />

required (CITES, 2005)<br />

286


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 15 - REPTILE SPECIES LIST FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES. TAXONOMY BASED ON SPAWLS ET AL. (2002)<br />

Order/ suborder<br />

TESTUDINES<br />

- Chelonians<br />

SAURIA –<br />

Lizards<br />

Family Genus species Ecol<br />

Type<br />

TESTUDINIDAE – L<strong>and</strong><br />

tortoises<br />

PELOMEDUSIDAE – African<br />

side-necked terrapins<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Cons.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Geochelone pardalis O W CITES II 0 0<br />

?<br />

Pelomedusa subrufa O W CITES III<br />

GH<br />

GEKKONIDAE – Geckoes Hemidactylus mabouia O W Not listed X<br />

AGAMIDAE – Agamas Agama agama O W Not listed X<br />

Agama mossambica O W Not listed X X X X X<br />

VARANIDAE – Monitor Varanus albigularis O W CITES II 0 *<br />

lizards Varanus niloticus O W CITES II s s<br />

SCINCIDAE – Skinks Panaspis sp. - - Not listed X<br />

Trachylepis maculilabris O W Not listed X<br />

Trachylepis megalura O W Not listed X X<br />

Trachylepis sp. 1 - - Not listed s s s s<br />

Trachylepis striata O W Not listed X<br />

Trachylepis varia O W Not listed X<br />

LACERTIDAE – Lacertid Ichnotropis squamulosa O W Not listed X<br />

Lizards<br />

GERRHOSAURIDAE Gerrhosaurus nigrolineatus O W Not listed X X<br />

CORDYLIDAE – Girdled Cordylus tropidosternum f W CITES II X<br />

lizards & relatives Platysaurus maculatus O N<br />

Not listed X<br />

Mozambique<br />

<strong>and</strong> Masasi<br />

district in SE<br />

Tanzania<br />

X<br />

287


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order/ suborder<br />

SERPENTES –<br />

Snakes<br />

Family Genus species Ecol<br />

Type<br />

Endemic<br />

Status<br />

Cons.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

BOIDAE – Boas & Pythons Python natalensis O W CITES II 0 *<br />

COLUBRIDAE – Typical Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia O W Not listed X<br />

snakes<br />

Dasypeltis medici f W Not listed X<br />

Lamprophis capensis O W Not listed X X<br />

Lycophidion capense O W X<br />

Mehelya nyassae (juv.) O W Not listed X<br />

Philothamnus semivariegatus O W Not listed X<br />

Psammophis mossambicus O W Not listed s<br />

Psammophis orientalis O W Not listed X X s<br />

Thelotornis capensis oatesi O W (first record<br />

for Tanzania;<br />

awaiting ID<br />

confirmation)<br />

Not listed X<br />

Thelotornis mossambicanus O W Not listed X X s<br />

VIPERIDAE – Vipers<br />

Bitis arietans O W Not listed X<br />

Causus defilippii O W Not listed X X<br />

X = Confirmed by specimen (awaiting verification <strong>of</strong> some), s = sight records, 0 = calls or signs, * = reports <strong>of</strong> local people,<br />

F = Forest dependent or specialist; f = Forest dwelling or generalist; O = Non-forest or forest visitor (Iverson, 1991b; Mlingwa et al., 2000)<br />

CF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> Eastern Arc Mountains (Burgess et al., 2000a); SE Tanzania =<br />

species with limited ranges in SE Tanzania; SE Africa = species with limited ranges in SE Africa; E Africa = species with limited ranges in E Africa<br />

CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; LR cd = Lower risk, conservation dependent; LR nt = Lower risk, near threatened; LR lc = Lower risk, least concerned;<br />

DD = Data Deficient (IUCN, 2004)<br />

CITES I = Threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade; CITES II = Not yet threatened with extinction, but may be so if trade is not regulated, thus export permits are<br />

required (CITES, 2005)<br />

288


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 16 - AMPHIBIAN SPECIES LIST FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES. TAXONOMY BASED ON CHANNING (2001) AND<br />

PASSMORE & CARRUTHERS (1995)<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

ANURA –<br />

Amphibians<br />

ARTHROLEPTIDAE –<br />

Squeakers<br />

BUFONIDAE – 'True' Toads<br />

End.<br />

Status<br />

Cons.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

Arthroleptis stenodactylus f W LC X X X X X X<br />

Arthroleptis xenodactyloides f W VU X X X X<br />

B1ab(iii)<br />

Bufo maculatus O W Not listed X<br />

HEMISOTIDAE – Shovelnosed<br />

frogs or Snoutburrowers<br />

HYPEROLIIDAE – Tree,<br />

Leaf-folding, Reed, Lily, <strong>and</strong><br />

Rattling Frogs & Kassinas<br />

MICROHYLIDAE –<br />

Rain frogs & Rubber frogs<br />

Bufo sp. - - - X<br />

Mertensophryne micranotis f EAC LC X<br />

lowl<strong>and</strong><br />

Hemisus marmoratus O W LC X<br />

Afrixalus fornasinii O W LC X X X<br />

Afrixalus sp. - - - X<br />

Hyperolius punticulatus f EA DD X X<br />

Hyperolius sp. - - - X<br />

Kassina sp. - - - X<br />

Leptopelis flavomaculatus (juv) f W LC X X<br />

Breviceps mossambicus O W LC X<br />

289


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

End.<br />

Status<br />

Cons.<br />

Status<br />

(IUCN &<br />

CITES)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

PIPIDAE – Platannas Xenopus muelleri O W LC X X X<br />

RHACOPHORIDAE – Chiromantis xerampelina O W LC X X<br />

Foam-nest frogs<br />

RANIDAE – Common or<br />

‘True’ frogs<br />

Ptychadena anchietae O W LC X<br />

Ptychadena mossambica O W LC X X<br />

Ptychadena oxyrhynchus O W Not listed X<br />

Phrynobatrachus mababiensis O W LC X<br />

Phrynobatrachus natalensis O W LC X X<br />

Phrynobatrachus sp. - - - X<br />

X = Confirmed by specimen (awaiting verification <strong>of</strong> some)<br />

F = Forest dependent or specialist; f = Forest dwelling or generalist; O = Non-forest or forest visitor (Iverson, 1991b; Mlingwa et al., 2000)<br />

CF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> Eastern Arc Mountains (Burgess et al., 2000a); SE Tanzania =<br />

species with limited ranges in SE Tanzania; SE Africa = species with limited ranges in SE Africa; E Africa= species with limited ranges in E Africa<br />

CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; LR cd = Lower risk, conservation dependent; LR nt = Lower risk, near threatened; LR lc = Lower risk, least concerned;<br />

DD = Data Deficient (IUCN, 2004)<br />

CITES I = Threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade; CITES II = Not yet threatened with extinction, but may be so if trade is not regulated, thus export permits are<br />

required (CITES, 2005)<br />

290


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 17 - BUTTERFLY SPECIES LIST FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES. TAXONOMY BASED ON DAVENPORT (2001),<br />

LARSEN (1996) AND KIELLAND (1990)<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

PAPILIONOIDEA<br />

PAPILIONIDAE –<br />

Swallowtails<br />

PIERIDAE –<br />

Yellows & Whites<br />

End. Status<br />

IUCN<br />

Papilio constantinus f W - first Not listed X<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Papilio demodocus O W Not listed s<br />

Papilio ophidicephalus O W Not listed s s<br />

Belenois thysa thysa f W Not listed X X<br />

Catopsilia florella O W Not listed X<br />

Colotis amata calais O W Not listed X<br />

Colotis euippe omphale O W Not listed X X X X X<br />

Colotis ione O W Not listed X<br />

Eurema desjardinsi marshalli O W Not listed X X<br />

Eurema hapale O W Not listed X<br />

Eurema hecabe solifera O W Not listed X X X<br />

Eurema regularis O W Not listed X<br />

Leptosia alcesta inalcesta f W Not listed X X X X<br />

Nepheronia thalassina f W - first Not listed X<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Alaena sp. - - - X<br />

Anthene lunulata O W Not listed X X<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

291


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

NYMPHALOIDEA<br />

DANAIDAE –<br />

Milkweed butterflies<br />

SATYRIDAE –<br />

Browns & Ringlets<br />

NYMPHALIDAE –<br />

Brush-footed<br />

butterflies<br />

End. Status<br />

IUCN<br />

Baliochila lipara O W Not listed X<br />

Euchrysops malathana O W Not listed X<br />

Hypolycaena pachalica O W - first Not listed X X<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Pentila pauli nyassana f W Not listed X X<br />

Zizeeria knysna O W Not listed X<br />

Amauris ochlea ochlea O W - first Not listed X<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Bicyclus safitza O W Not listed X X X X X X<br />

Coenyropsis carcassoni O W - first Not listed X<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Gnophodes betsimena diversa F W Not listed X<br />

Melanitis leda f W Not listed X X<br />

Ypthima asterope O W Not listed X<br />

Byblia anvatara acheloia O W Not listed X X X<br />

Chacaxes<br />

achaemenes<br />

O W Not listed X<br />

achaemenes<br />

Charaxes bohemani f W Not listed X<br />

Charaxes brutus alcyone f W Not listed X<br />

Charaxes castor flavifasciatus f W Not listed X<br />

Charaxes citherion kennethi f W Not listed X X X X X X X<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

292


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

End. Status<br />

Charaxes etesipe f W - first Not listed X<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Charaxes ethalion O W Not listed X<br />

Charaxes guderiana f W Not listed X X X X<br />

Charaxes howarthi f W Not listed X X X X X<br />

Charaxes jasius saturnus O W Not listed X<br />

Charaxes lasti lasti F EACF - first Not listed X X X X<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Charaxes macclounii O W Not listed X X<br />

Charaxes protoclea azota F W Not listed X X X<br />

Charaxes sp.1 - - - X X X X<br />

Charaxes sp.2 - - - X X<br />

Charaxes sp.3 - - - X X<br />

Charaxes sp.4 - - - X<br />

Charaxes varanes vologeses O W Not listed X X X X X<br />

Cymothoe herminia F W - first Not listed s<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Danaus chrysippus chrysippus O W Not listed X<br />

IUCN<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

293


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

End. Status<br />

Euphaedra neophron littoralis F W - first Not listed s s s s<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Eurytela dryope angulata f W - first Not listed X X X<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Euxanthe wakefieldi F W Not listed X X<br />

Hamanumida daedalus O W Not listed s s s s s s<br />

Harma theobene blassi F W Not listed X X<br />

Junonia hierta cebrene O W Not listed X<br />

Junonia natalica f W Not listed X<br />

Junonia oenone oenone O W Not listed X X<br />

Junonia<br />

orithya<br />

O W Not listed X<br />

madagascariensis<br />

Junonia terea elgiva f W Not listed X X<br />

Neptidopsis fulgurata platyptera f W - first Not listed X<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Neptis alta F W Not listed X X<br />

Neptis jordani O W Not listed X X X<br />

Precis antilope O W Not listed X<br />

Salamis parhassus f W Not listed s<br />

IUCN<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

294


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Order Family Genus species Ecol.<br />

Type<br />

HESPEROIDEA HESPERIIDAE –<br />

Skippers<br />

End. Status<br />

IUCN<br />

Sallya amulia rosa f W - first Not listed X X X<br />

record for<br />

Mtwara<br />

Region<br />

Acraea anacreon bomba f W Not listed X<br />

Kedestes sp. - - - X<br />

X = Confirmed by specimen, s = sight records, 0 = calls or signs, * = reports <strong>of</strong> local people,<br />

F = Forest dependent or specialist; f = Forest dwelling or generalist; O = Non-forest or forest visitor (Iverson, 1991b; Mlingwa et al., 2000)<br />

CF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> alone; EACF = species with limited ranges in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>and</strong> Eastern Arc Mountains; SE Tanzania = species with limited<br />

ranges in SE Tanzania; SE Africa= species with limited ranges in SE Africa; E Africa= species with limited ranges in E Africa (Burgess et al., 2000a)<br />

CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; LR cd = Lower risk, conservation dependent; LR nt = Lower risk, near threatened; LR lc = Lower risk, least concerned;<br />

DD = Data Deficient (IUCN, 2004)<br />

CITES I = Threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> excluded from international trade; CITES II = Not yet threatened with extinction, but may be so if trade is not regulated, thus export permits are<br />

required (CITES, 2005)<br />

Kambona<br />

Makonde I<br />

Makonde II<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Mtiniko<br />

Mtuli Hinju<br />

Makonde III<br />

Ndechela<br />

295


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 18 - NUMBER OF CAPTURES AND RECAPTURES AND SPECIMEN RECORD NUMBERS OF SMALL MAMMALS,<br />

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES FOR ALL FOREST RESERVES<br />

Forest Reserve Location Order Family Genus Species<br />

Sherman<br />

traps<br />

(bucket<br />

pitfalls)<br />

No.<br />

recaptured<br />

Record no.<br />

(KMH)<br />

Kambona Zoo site 1 INSECTIVORA SORICIDAE Crocidura sp. 1(2) 0 26662 (26663)<br />

RODENTIA<br />

CRICETOMYINAE Beamys hindei 7(1) 3 26793 (26792)<br />

MURIDAE Grammomys dolichurus 1 0 26794<br />

MURIDAE Mastomys natalensis 1 0 26796<br />

MURIDAE Mus minutoides (1) 0 (26797)<br />

ANURA<br />

ARTHROLEPTIDAE Arthroleptis stenodactylus (13) 0 26856, 26855<br />

BUFONIDAE Bufo sp. (6) 0 26858<br />

Makonde I Zoo site 2<br />

INSECTIVORA SORICIDAE Crocidura sp. 2 0 26664<br />

RODENTIA<br />

CRICETOMYINAE Beamys hindei 2 4<br />

MURIDAE Mastomys natalensis 2 4<br />

SAURIA LACERTIDAE Ichnotropis squamulosa (1) 0 26737<br />

ANURA<br />

ARTHROLEPTIDAE Arthroleptis xenodactyloides (36) 0 26868<br />

ARTHROLEPTIDAE Arthroleptis stenodactylus (4) 0 26869, 26870<br />

MICROHYLIDAE Breviceps mossambicus (2) 0 26867<br />

296


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Forest Reserve Location Taxon Family Genus Species<br />

Sherman<br />

traps<br />

(bucket<br />

pitfalls)<br />

No.<br />

recaptured<br />

Record no.<br />

(KMH)<br />

Makonde II Zoo site 3/1 INSECTIVORA SORICIDAE Crocidura sp. (1) 0 26668<br />

Zoo site 3/2 RODENTIA<br />

MURIDAE Mastomys natalensis 3 1 26795<br />

MURIDAE Acomys spinosissimus 2 0 26799<br />

MURIDAE Mus sp. (1) 0 26798<br />

Mkunya River Zoo site 4<br />

SORICADAE Crocidura sp. 2(1) 0 26665, 26666,<br />

26667<br />

INSECTIVORA SORICIDAE Crocidura sp. (2) 0 26669, 26670<br />

RODENTIA<br />

CRICETOMYINAE Beamys hindei 1 (1) 0 26801<br />

MURIDAE Grammomys dolichurus 1 0 26802<br />

MURIDAE Mastomys natalensis 1 0<br />

SERPENTES VIPERIDAE Causus defilippii (1) 0 26742<br />

ANURA<br />

ARTHROLEPTIDAE Arthroleptis stenodactylus (5) 0 26875<br />

Mkunya River<br />

Zoo site 5 INSECTIVORA<br />

ARTHROLEPTIDAE Arthroleptis xenodactyloides (1) 0 26880<br />

HEMISOTIDAE Hemisus marmoratus (3) 26873<br />

SORICIDAE Crocidura sp. 1(1) 0 26671, 26672<br />

MURIDAE Acomys spinosissimus 3 0 26804<br />

MURIDAE Mastomys natalensis 3 1 26803<br />

297


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Sherman<br />

traps<br />

Forest Reserve Location Taxon Family Genus Species<br />

(bucket<br />

pitfalls)<br />

No.<br />

recaptured<br />

Mtiniko Zoo site 6 RODENTIA SCIURIDAE Paraxerus palliatus 1 (0) 0<br />

Record no.<br />

(KMH)<br />

CRICETOMYINAE Beamys hindei 5 (0) 4<br />

SAURIA SCINCIDAE Trachylepis maculilabris 0 (1) 0 26745<br />

Mtuli Hinju Zoo site 7<br />

RODENTIA SCIURIDAE Paraxerus flavovittis 1 (0) 0<br />

RODENTIA<br />

MURIDAE Acomys spinosissimus 7(0) 4 26805<br />

MURIDAE Mastomys natalensis 1 (0) 0 26806<br />

Makonde III Zoo site 8<br />

INSECTIVORA SORICIDAE Crocidura sp. 2(3) 0 26673, 26674,<br />

26675<br />

RODENTIA MURIDAE Acomys spinosissimus 16 10 26807<br />

MURIDAE Mastomys natalensis 3 26808<br />

CRICETOMYINAE Beamys hindei 3 0<br />

ANURA<br />

ARTHROLEPTIDAE Arthroleptis stenodactylus (3) 0<br />

ARTHROLEPTIDAE Arthroleptis xenodactyloides (16) 0<br />

Ndechela Zoo site 9<br />

INSECTIVORA SORICIDAE Crocidura sp. 1 0 26676<br />

MUROIDEA GERBILLINAE Tatera robusta 1 0 26811<br />

RODENTIA<br />

MURIDAE Acomys spinosissimus 1 2<br />

MURIDAE Grammomys dolichurus 1 0 26812<br />

MURIDAE Mastomys natalensis 8 1 26810, 26809<br />

298


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

Sherman<br />

traps<br />

Forest Reserve Location Taxon Family Genus Species<br />

(bucket<br />

pitfalls)<br />

No.<br />

recaptured<br />

SAURIA SCINCIDAE Trachylepis megalura 1 0<br />

Record no.<br />

(KMH)<br />

Ndechela Zoo site 10<br />

MUROIDEA GERBILLINAE Tatera robusta 1 0 26815<br />

RODENTIA<br />

MURIDAE Acomys spinosissimus 1 1<br />

MURIDAE Grammomys dolichurus 1 0 26814<br />

SAURIA SCINCIDAE Trachylepis varia (1) 0<br />

299


Frontier-Tanzania Mtwara Reconnaissance Project – FT MRP<br />

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – CEPF<br />

APPENDIX 19 - STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SHEET<br />

DATE<br />

NAME OF INTERVIEWEE<br />

VILLAGE & STUDY SITE<br />

TRIBE<br />

RELIGION<br />

SOURCE OF INCOME<br />

WATER SUPPLY<br />

FUEL SOURCE<br />

BUILDING POLES / FURNITURE<br />

SOURCE/SPECIES/QUANTITY<br />

SOURCE/SPECIES/QUANTITY<br />

VILLAGE WOOD LOT / PLANTATION<br />

MEDICINAL PLANTS<br />

FOREST PRODUCTS EXPORTED<br />

SOURCE/SPECIES/QUANTITY<br />

SOURCE/SPECIES/QUANTITY<br />

- BY WHOM<br />

- WHEN<br />

- WHERE SOLD<br />

OTHER FOREST PRODUCTS<br />

(MUSHROOMS/GUM/HONEY etc.)<br />

- GATHERING METHODS<br />

ANIMALS HUNTED<br />

- HUNTING METHOD<br />

ATTITUDE TO FOREST<br />

HISTORICAL EXTENT OF FOREST<br />

LARGE FOREST MAMMALS FOUND<br />

OTHER NOTES<br />

RELIABILITY OF ANSWERS<br />

COMPLETED BY<br />

Frontier-Tanzania 301

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!