Game Surveys of Lunda-Mkwambi Game Controlled Area and Adjacent Areas of Ruaha National Park: Sixth Aerial Survey, 14-25 October 2002

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM
WILDLIFE DIVISION & TANZANIA NATIONAL PARKS
in collaboration with IRINGA DISTRICT COUNCIL
MBOMIPA PROJECT
Matumizi Bora ya Malihai Idodi na Pawaga
Sustainable Use of Wild Resources in Idodi and Pawaga
GAME SURVEYS OF LUNDA-MKWAMBI

GAME CONTROLLED AREA AND
ADJACENT AREAS OF RUAHA
NATIONAL PARK
SIXTH AERIAL SURVEY,
14-25 OCTOBER 2002
and
FINAL REPORT
Report No.MCR14
November 2002
by
ECOSYTEMS CONSULTANTS
London and Nairobi
MBOMIPA Project
Iringa District Natural Resources Office
P.O.Box 398
IRINGA
Tel: 026-2702686; Fax: 026-2702807

E-mail: mbomipa@twiga.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1
2 Approach and methods..........................................................................................................1
3 Results .....................................................................................................................................7
3.1 General observations.......................................................................................................7
3.2 sample survey ..................................................................................................................7
3.2.1 Species of principal interest ....................................................................................7
3.2.2 Other species..........................................................................................................7
3.2.3 Surface Water .........................................................................................................8
3.3 Total Count of Buffalo.......................................................................................................8
4 Results of all sample surveys ............................................................................................ 12
4.1 Comparative analyses................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 12
5 Hunting quotas..................................................................................................................... 14
5.1 Buffalo ........................................................................................................................... 14
5.2 Other species ................................................................................................................ 16
6 Final conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................ 18
6.1 Diversification of quota.................................................................................................. 18
6.2 Quota setting procedures.............................................................................................. 18
6.3 Ground monitoring ........................................................................................................ 18
6.4 Aerial monitoring ........................................................................................................... 19
7 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 19
8 References............................................................................................................................ 20
Appendix A: Population estimates and distribution maps................................................ 21
Appendix B: Comparative analysis of the MBOMIPA series of wildlife counts.............. 69

Sixth Aerial Game Survey 1

Wildlife is a critical resource for stakeholders in the MBOMIPA Project area (see Figure 1). At
present project villages derive a variety of financial and other benefits all of which depend on
the abundance of wildlife – especially large mammal and game1 populations - and its
sustainable utilisation, both consumptive and non-consumptive. In order to facilitate such
utilisation and its future development, project implementers and stakeholders need adequate
and up-to-date information about the distribution and status of key wildlife species in the project
and adjacent areas.
In late 1998, MBOMIPA commissioned a consultancy to plan and propose a programme of

game surveys and monitoring (Ecosystems 1999a), that would provide this information through
a combination of:
aerial surveys, to be conducted bi-annually from April 1999

ground surveys, based on stakeholder participation to ensure their continuation beyond the
lifetime of the project, and
technical assistance as necessary.
The present volume reports and discusses the results of the sixth in the proposed series of
aerial surveys. This took place towards the end of the 2002 dry season, between 14 and 25
October. The work consisted of a sample survey throughout the project area (16-22 October),
followed by a total count of buffalo in the southwestern sector of the Lunda Mkwambi Game
Controlled Area (23-24 October).
The survey took place after an interval of 18 months since the previous survey, because of
uncertainty surrounding the future of the Project and arrangements for management of its 14-
month extension (November 2001 to December 2002). Once resolved, a decision was reached
to make the survey reported here the last. Consequently this report includes a comparative
analysis of the entire series of six surveys, and as such serves also as a Final Report. It should
be read in conjunction with its five predecessors (Ecosystems 1999b, c; 2000a, c; and 2001b).

In 1994 and 1995, the Ruaha Ecosystem Wildlife Management Project (REWMP) flew three
wildlife surveys in a 6,250 km2 survey area comprising the Rift Valley section of Ruaha National
Park (RNP), and the adjacent parts of Lunda Mkwambi Game Controlled Area South (LMGCA-
South), according to a method called the Systematic Reconnaissance Flight (usually known by
its acronym, SRF), details of which may be found in Norton-Griffiths (1978).
Consequently the MBOMIPA project has an established baseline against which new data may
be compared in order to assess medium term trends in game status in the project area,
provided the same SRF method is used at the same sample intensity, following if possible, the
same flight transects. The nominal sampling parameters of the present survey (see Box
entitled “Survey Configuration”), therefore matched those of its predecessors as closely as
possible. The transect coordinates used during the REWMP surveys were found and mapped,
meaning it has been possible to follow the same flight lines in all subsequent surveys using a
Garmin 195 GPS navigation computer (Figures 2 and 3).
1
A term referring to those species commonly hunted under license for meat or trophies.
MBOMIPA Project Area
(
LMGCA North
Rungwa Game Reserve
Kisanga
Kinyika Mboliboli
Kimande
Mbuyuni Isele Itunundu
Mkombilenga
Ilolo
Mafuluto Magozi
Ruaha National Park Malinzanga Luganga
er
CA
iv
R
G
ha
LM
ua
R
at
re Nyamahana
Ma
G
po
Tu
go eng
ng
Makifu Idodi
am
ro
al
Mkupule
a
Usangu Game Reserve
Mahuninga
0 20 40
Kilometers
Rivers RNP/LMGCA boundaries Village boundaries Mtera Dam LMGCA Lunda-Mkwambi Game Controlled Area
FIGURE 2
Survey Area with UTM Grid

9,260,000
9,250,000
9,240,000
9,230,000
9,220,000
9,210,000
9,200,000
9,190,000
9,180,000
9,170,000
9,160,000
9,150,000
9,140,000
9,130,000
9,120,000
9,110,000
9,100,000
9,090,000
590,000
600,000
610,000
620,000
630,000
640,000
650,000
660,000
670,000
680,000
690,000
700,000
710,000
720,000
730,000
740,000
750,000
760,000
770,000
780,000
790,000
800,000
810,000
820,000
830,000
840,000
850,000
860,000
4 MBOMIPA Game Surveys and Participatory Monitoring Programme
FIGURE 3
Transects Flown in the Survey Area

16th to 22nd October 2002
0 20 40
Kilometers
The design for MBOMIPA’s aerial monitoring programme includes the entire REWMP survey
area, plus a new area which was added to enable coverage of the more northerly and
previously excluded parts of the Lunda Mkwambi GCA. These are referred to respectively as
the “Old” and “New” survey areas. For analytical purposes, the Old area is further broken down
into those parts within the Ruaha National Park, and those parts in the LMGCA2 (see Table 2.1
and Figure 4). All areas, old and new, amount to 8,325 km2.
In common with all MBOMIPA surveys to date (but not the REWMP series), the in-flight
records for cattle, sheep and goats (shoats) and some wildlife have been corrected from
oblique photos taken of all groups consisting of more than ten animals3. In the third survey and
subsequently, counts have been made of bomas in use, recently abandoned bomas, and
boma scars. These data are collected to help determine whether any changes in livestock
numbers noted are due to sampling error, or to movements in or out of the study area.
Buffalo is a species of particular importance to the MBOMIPA project. Unfortunately, estimates

of buffalo numbers derived from the SRF method typically have such wide confidence limits as
to be meaningless in terms of quota setting. This is a consequence of the species’ herding
behaviour which creates highly clumped distributions. In order to derive a better estimate of
buffalo numbers, a total count was carried out in part of LMGCA-South. This repeated those
carried out previously. The aircraft searched the relevant area following a basic framework of
north-south transects, at 2km spacing. Height above ground was between 500 and 600ft, and
ground speed 160kph. All buffalo sighted were overflown for counting and position fixing (using
the GPS autostore facility), before resuming the search pattern. Large groups were
photographed. The total count method is described fully in Norton-Griffiths (1978).
SRF Survey Configuration

Aircraft:
Cessna 206
Crew:
Pilot: Dr R. Olivier (Ecosystems)
FSO: Mr K. Ngomello (MBOMIPA/Game Division)
RSO(L): Mr B. Raburu (Ecosystems)
RSO(R): Mr P. Nguru (Ecosystems)
Data Manager:
Ms C. Geddes-Mathews (Ecosystems)
Sampling parameters (see also Figure 3):
Transect spacing: 2.5 km

Sub-unit length: 5.0 km
Nominal height above ground: 300 ft

Nominal ground speed: 160 kph
Nominal combined strip width: 250 m
Nominal sample fraction: 10%
Actual average height above ground: 301 ft

Actual average ground speed: 163 kph
Actual average combined strip width: 246 m
Actual sample fraction: 9.85%
2
Between the fifth survey in April 2001 and this one in October 2002, a dispute between Iringa and Mbarali Districts regarding the
Mkupule area was settled with both parties agreeing that the most southwesterly part, formerly known as “Mkupule Wilaya” is in fact
in the Usangu Game Reserve which is in Mbarali District. The maps generated for this report reflect this boundary change. However,
the total area surveyed remained exactly the same, and in order to enable robust comparisons for the “GCA stratum” between this
survey and the others, data for the “lost” portion are still treated as within the GCA for analytical purposes.
3
Taken on 400ASA colour slide film, for later interpretation under a binocular microscope.
FIGURE 4
Survey Area with Analytical Strata
OLD - Ruaha National Park OLD - LMGCA NEW - LMGCA

Table 2.1: Analytical Strata
Old Old Old New

(RNP) (LMGCA) (All) (LMGCA)
Area previously surveyed under REWMP New area
2 2 2 2
Total area 2475 km 3775 km 6250 km 2075 km
Surveyed
Number of 42 54 58 43
Transects

As is typical for the late dry season, tree foliage was generally absent, and all grass either burnt
or reduced to a trampled straw litter. Despite this animal condition appeared to be relatively
good, and the availability of surface water was greater than that recorded in a previous dry
season (Ecosystems 1999c). Several relatively minor tributaries of the Great Ruaha still held
pools (e.g. the Mdonya), the Little Ruaha was in full flow, and numerous springs were active in
the Mkupule area. Similarly, the level of the Mtera dam was higher than had been observed in
previous dry seasons. All this is attributed at least in part to the two consecutive wet seasons of
2001 and 2002, which apparently were both wetter than usual (for a description of conditions
during the former, see Ecosystems 2001b).
As in previous dry season surveys, the daily flights were commenced about an hour earlier
than in the wet season (at 0700h as opposed to 0800h).

!"!
The wildlife species of principal interest to project implementers and stakeholders are those
larger mammals that either can be hunted on license, or which form the basis to tourism, or
both. These include buffalo, eland, elephant, giraffe, hartebeest, impala, kudu4, reedbuck,
sable, warthog, waterbuck and zebra. Also of interest are the livestock which compete with
wildlife for habitat, food and water, namely cattle, sheep, goats and donkeys.
The distribution maps and population estimates for these species resulting from this latest dry
season survey are presented in Appendix A. For each species, the map of the latest
distribution is followed by all the distributions recorded so far shown on a single sheet for ease
of comparison. In the Old area, the recent estimates (for all six MBOMIPA surveys to date) are
listed with data collected under REWMP (Ecosystems 1999b, c; 2000a, c; and 2001b; and
REWMP 1994a,b and 1995).
#
It is normal practice during an SRF survey to record all species actually seen, irrespective of
whether they are of principal interest. Owing to their relative rarity, small size, cryptic nature or
all three however, the estimates of many of the species seen return very wide confidence limits
4
Both Lesser and Greater Kudu occur in the project area, but it is not possible to distinguish between these during an aerial
survey.
and so normally are not reported. For the record however, Table 3.1 summarises the numbers
of these other species counted in the sampling strip by area5.
Table 3.1: Other species observed in the sample
SPECIES NUMBERS COUNTED IN SAMPLE STRIP

Ruaha National Park Game Controlled Area
Bushbuck 2 2
Bushpig 0 13
Dik Dik 6 14
Elephant bones (old) 9 12
Hippo 3 3
Ostrich 6 6
As shown in Table 3.2, the records of elephant bones seen provide an interesting indicator of
the contrasting visibility conditions prevailing in the different seasons. No fresh elephant
carcasses were seen in any of the surveys.
Table 3.2: Elephant bones observed in the samples, by season and year
WET DRY
1999 7 30
2000 5 40
2001/2 3 21
"$"
As an aid to the interpretation of seasonal differences in species distributions, it is standard

procedure for the Front Seat Observer to note the presence or absence of surface water in
each transect sub-unit. In the present survey, surface water was noted as shown in Figure 5a.
As noted in 3.2.1 above and shown in Figure 5b, its availability was noticeably greater than in
the 1999 dry season6. Figure 5b also illustrates the expected, but nonetheless huge, seasonal
differences in surface water availability.
% &&&
As can be seen from Table 3.3 and Figure 6, the majority (86%) of the buffalo located during
the total count was in the National Park. The remainder was seen in the area previously known
as “Mkupule Wilaya”, but which is now acknowledged to be in Mbarali District and therefore
part of the Usangu Game Reserve and not part of Lunda Mkwambi. No buffalo were seen in
the LMGCA proper.
Table 3.3: Buffalo numbers by management area
AREA COUNT
National Park – North bank 5
National Park – South bank 631
Total RNP 636
Usangu Game Reserve 105
Total UGR 105
MBOMIPA village areas 0
Total LMGCA(S) 0
5
These are untransformed count data from both observers combined.
6
Early rain pre-empted a description of surface water distribution for the 2000 dry season (Ecosystems 2000c)
FIGURE 5a
MBOMIPA SRF Game Survey 6

October 2002, Dry Season
Surface Water
Water present
0 20 40
Kilometers
FIGURE 5b
MBOMIPA SRF Game Surveys

Water Coverage
Wet Season (April) 1999 Wet Season (May) 2000 Wet Season (April) 2001
No Window No Window No Window
Dry Season (October) 1999 Dry Season (November) 2000 Dry Season (October) 2002
FIGURE 6
Total Count of Buffalo

Total Count
1 - 50
0 10 20
51 - 150
Kilometers
151 - 250
> 250
Rivers RNP/LMGCA boundaries Village boundaries Area of buffalo count


As is the nature of the method, all the estimates obtained in the present series of six surveys
demonstrate considerable variation, both within each census (in terms of confidence limits) and
between censuses (marked variation within a set of population estimates for an individual
species). However, to all intents and purposes, the operational procedures adopted for each of
the six censuses were strictly comparable7. As intended, this validates certain statistical tests to
gauge the extent to which these two sources of variation could be ascribed to random
(sampling) error rather than to seasonal effects, or even to time trends. If sampling error can be
shown to explain most of the variation noted, this in turn validates a procedure in which the
separate estimates in a series are pooled to arrive at a single “merged” estimate with low
variance.
An independent analysis of the full data set in respect of species of principal interest was
carried out to this end (Appendix B). This focussed on the 6,250km2 “Old (All)” stratum (see
Table 2.1 and Figure 4), because this encompasses both the consumptive use zone (the GCA)
and its resource buffer (the RNP).
The conclusion reached is that the best model from a practical viewpoint is to treat the six
estimates for each species as independent samples from the same population, and pool the
results to obtain a more precise, single estimate. The procedure for merging estimates, which
involves weighting each individual result in inverse proportion to its variance, is detailed in
Norton-Griffiths (1978). The merged estimates and associated confidence limits so derived are
included in the tables of Appendix A.
!"
The seasonally consistent dry-to-wet increases noted for cattle and zebra in 1999 and 2000
have been upheld only for zebra (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Estimated numbers of cattle and zebra, by year and season
CATTLE ZEBRA
Wet Dry Wet Dry
1999 64,171 36,724 5,840 3,176
2000 56,633 26,756 6,304 3,100
2001/2 60,093 72,647 5,090 2,012
The latest cattle estimate, which is the largest in the series, effectively ends speculation that
cattle might move out of the study area during the dry season and back in the wet. Had this
been a real phenomenon, one would have expected the data for sheep and goats, donkeys,
bomas in use, and recently abandoned bomas to show a consistent pattern when in fact this
was never the case (Figure 7).
7
In terms of height, speed, strip width, observers and photo-interpreters etc
Figure 7: Seasonal numbers of livestock
Livestock by season
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Wet 99 Dry 99 Wet 00 Dry 00 Wet 01 Dry 02
Cattle Shoats Donkeys
Except for zebra, none of the seasonal differences summarised in Figure 8 are statistically
significant (Appendix B). Only two non-random explanations for the exception are possible.
Either zebra really are moving in and out, or some season-sensitive attribute of the
methodology is having an effect. As noted previously, there is no convincing evidence for the
first alternative (Ecosystems 2001b). However, the theory that zebra are simply harder to spot
and count in dry conditions is now even more plausible. Subjectively, the observers feel that
the extreme background contrast of the wet season makes zebra easier to spot, while in the
dry season they are much better camouflaged.
Figure 8: Seasonal numbers of principal wildlife species
Principal wildlife by season
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Wet 99 Dry 99 Wet 00 Dry 00 Wet 01 Dry 02
Zebra Giraffe Impala
Although seasonal effects are effectively absent, with wildlife overall there does appear to be a
weak but consistent time effect, with populations showing a general decrease over the 43
months of the survey programme (Appendix B). It is not easy to determine which species are
the most significant contributors to this overall trend but warthog is likely to be one, having
returned unusually low estimates in the sixth survey for which there is no ready explanation.
The general decrease is not particularly strong, but must be borne in mind when considering
management options (6.1.4).
The only species for which the data indicate a convincing positive trend over the study period,
is the elephant (Appendix B). The distributions recorded in all six surveys are remarkably
similar and, although there is significant usage of areas outside the National Park, the bulk of
the elephant population appears to be resident within the Old (All) stratum.
#$%&%'(
The consultants have been asked to review the quota recommendations made in their
previous reports in the light of the latest results and analyses, particularly for buffalo, with a
view to applying any revisions recommended to the 2003 hunting season.
#)"**
The SRF and total count data provide convincing evidence that buffalo use the GCA more in
the dry season than the wet (Figure 9), although some of the difference could be due to relative
“countability”. Either way, this does not invalidate the conclusion reached in previous reports
that there are few buffalo, if any, permanently resident in the LMGCA(S). As noted previously,
this has certain important implications regarding a sustainable offtake strategy for the species
in that area.
Even though it could only be exploited inside the GCA, one approach could be to treat the
population of the entire Old (All) stratum8 as the basic resource. Whilst in theory this might be
sustainable, such an approach is unlikely to find favour either with the principal proprietors of
the resource, TANAPA, or the Director of Wildlife. A less contentious approach would be to
base the quota on the data now available for the GCA itself which, for buffalo only, exists in two
sets.
The first consists of data from the total counts. Because buffalo hardly use the GCA in the wet
season (or are very hard to see there at that time), and because the wet season anyway does
not coincide with the hunting season, the wet season data are neither robust nor relevant and
can be ignored. The average for all three dry season total counts is 142 (see bold figures in
Table 5.1).
The second data set comes from the SRF surveys which yield a merged estimate for the GCA
of only 45 animals, but the 95% confidence limits are very wide, at plus or minus 250%. The
true number is likely to be closer to the upper confidence limit than the lower, as the latter is
unbelievable: even a simple average of the actual numbers seen in the sampling strip is
greater than 45, wet seasons included (Table 5.1). The upper limit of 157 animals however is
believable, because it is consistent with the dry season average for all total counts of 142.
Table 5.1: Buffalo seen and counted in LMGCA(S)
SEASON BUFFALO SOURCE

COUNTED
IN GCA
Wet 18 Strip count in April 1999 sample survey
Dry 361 Strip count in October 1999 sample survey
Dry 210 Total count in October 1999
Wet 4 Strip count in May 2000 sample survey
Wet 2 Total count in May 2000
Dry 46 Strip count in November 2000 sample survey
Dry 110 Total count in November 2000
Wet 0 Strip count in April 2001 sample survey
Wet 7 Total count in April 2001
Dry 0 Strip count in October 2002 sample survey
Dry 105 Total count in October 2002
8
which includes the National Park’s entire “Rift Valley” sector
FIGURE 9
MBOMIPA
The two data sets indicate that on any particular day in the dry season one may reasonably
expect there to be roughly 150 buffalo in the GCA. However, we know that on occasion
numbers can reach at least 361 (Table 5.1). This is because the buffalo population is not
resident and animals move in and out all the time.
The question is whether to base the quota on a hypothetical “average” or an actual “highest
recorded so far” number. At 9% per annum (Martin and Thomas 1991), the former would give
a quota of 14 and the latter 32. Two arguments favour the higher quota.
Firstly, the average number of buffalo actually killed in 2000 and 2001 was 14, despite
circumstances that were considered unhelpful to hunting success (Ngomello, personal
communication). This suggests a ceiling of 14 would be excessively conservative. However the
most compelling argument relates to the open nature of the system, meaning that even if every
single buffalo were shot they would soon be replaced through immigration from the Park.
Consequently, there can be little doubt that the higher quota would be sustainable.
However, now that its true boundary with the Usangu Game Reserve has been recognised,
the GCA has in effect lost the greater part of what hitherto had been its best buffalo area.
Whether such a quota is realisable within what remains is another matter, as this will depend
on actual occupance levels there during the hunting season. Since the hunting and dry
seasons overlap, the prospects are good, but only the ease or difficulty actually experienced in
trying to fulfil any quota will indicate its suitability within the concept of the GCA being an
independently managed buffalo range.
It is recommended therefore that in 2003 the overall buffalo quota should remain at 32.

Since there are no total count data for the other species on quota, the only objective basis on
which to revise quotas is to use the merged estimates now available. However, the buffalo
analysis above strongly suggests that the upper confidence limits should be used for the
following reasons. Firstly the total count data for buffalo provide a cross-check that indicates
these to be the more realistic, and secondly because the argument that the open nature of the
system provides a fail-safe buffer is applicable to all species not just buffalo. At the same time it
should be noted that the SRF method is known to yield conservative estimates, and that for
several of the species concerned an under-estimate is anyway unavoidable either due to body
size (dik dik), cryptic colouration (kudu), nocturnal behaviour (bushpig), or small populations
with clumped distributions (sable, eland, waterbuck).
Based on assumed populations calculated where possible from the upper confidence limits of
the merged estimates, revised quotas can be derived as shown in Table 5.2:
Table 5.2: Quotas recommended for the 2003 hunting season
Species AssumedMaximum Theoretically Trend apparent from Quota Quota Quota ceiling
population in
sustainable sustainable aerial sample data awarded awarded recommended
LMGCA South
offtake as quota in 2001 in 2002 for 2003
% (Note 1)
SPECIES AVAILABLE TO RESIDENT HUNTERS
Bushpig ? 20 ? Probably stable 20 20 (20) (Note 2)
Dik Dik ? 15 ? Probably stable 40 40 40(Note 3)
Hartebeest ? 10 ? Down 0 0 0 (Note 4)
Impala 652 20 130 Stable 130 130 130
Warthog 111 20 22 Stable/down 30 30 20
Eland 190 10 19 Stable 5 5 10
Guineafowl ? 25 ? n/a 125 125 125 (Note 5)

Waterfowl ? 25 ? n/a 32 32 32 (Note 6)
Spurfowl ? 25 ? n/a 125 125 65 (Note 7)
SPECIES NORMALLY RESERVED FOR TOURIST HUNTERS

Zebra 382 10 38 Stable 10 0 10 (Note 8)
Kudu 43 10 4 Stable 5 0 6 (Note 9)
Sable 116 10 12 Stable 5 0 6
Waterbuck 121 10 12 Stable 5 0 6
NOTES:
1. After Martin and Thomas (1991)

2. This quota requires a minimum population of 100 animals. This is on a par with warthog, and is considered acceptable. However, the bushpig quota is invariably never fulfilled. Accordingly it is suggested
that the species be removed from the packages sold, but remain available under one-off licenses (as is the case for hares and sandgrouse for example)
3. This quota requires a minimum population of 270 animals which is considered acceptable.
4. Too few (none seen in any sample survey except the first) – indefinite moratorium. One group of 7 seen in Mkupule Wilaya during the May 2000 buffalo total count
5. This quota requires a minimum population of 500 birds which is considered acceptable.
6. This quota requires a minimum population of 130 birds which is considered acceptable.
7. This quota requires a minimum population of 260 birds which is considered acceptable. The recommended quota for spurfowl is half that for guineafowl because the available ground monitoring data
indicate a difference in relative abundance of this order of magnitude.
8. The approval of a zebra quota for the 2000 season marked an important milestone both for the Project, and for CBNRM in Tanzania generally. It was repeated in 2001. Although the numbers taken (3 in
00, and 5 in 01) were disappointing, this was due to delays in finalising disposition of the hunting packages and inadequate marketing thereafter (00), and difficult stalking conditions due to widespread
burning (01), rather than an inability to find zebra. Although not renewed in 2002, a zebra quota should be maintained, and more and wider advertising undertaken (see 6.1.1 below).
9. This quota requires a minimum population of 60 animals. Kudu are notoriously difficult to spot, and the true population certainly exceeds this figure.

Although the Director of Wildlife refused to renew the special dispensation granted in 2001 to
hunt zebra, kudu, sable and waterbuck (species usually reserved for “tourist” hunters)9, there
are no biological grounds for this decision. The application therefore must be repeated if
revenues from the GCA, and for the communities, are to be maximised. Pressure must be
maintained for more traditional “tourist” species to be made available within CBNRM
programmes if the latter are to succeed. Ecologically, there are no grounds for refusing the
very conservative quotas recommended above. Zebra are abundant, and the other species
proposed are definitely widespread and, being hard to spot, certainly more numerous than the
SRF data indicate. The available ground monitoring data support this assertion (Ecosystems
2001a).
!"
As emphasised and explained elsewhere (Ecosystems 2000b and 2001a), a participatory
approach to quota setting must be adopted that “triangulates” all available relevant data. In this
way the implications of each data set can be reconciled, and a consensus reached among all
participants as to a suitable adjustment, if any, to the previous year’s quota for each species.
Despite two key officers having visited Zimbabwe to gain first hand experience of this process,
the concerned district and wildlife authorities have yet to inaugurate a participatory approach to
quota setting.
The primary data sets that will support this approach to quota setting are those provided by
aerial and ground monitoring programmes. Conclusions and recommendations regarding each
are given below.
#!$!
A dedicated consultancy to design and introduce a participatory ground monitoring system in
the study area was carried out in July 2000 (Ecosystems 2000b). Monitoring by Village Game
Scouts began soon after, but the standard of data collection was variable, and by March 2001
no data had yet been entered on computer. To ensure that the relevant baseline indices would
be set by April 2001, so that one year later it would be possible to derive trends that can inform
the quota setting process, a follow up consultancy was undertaken and certain revised
procedures recommended (Ecosystems 2001a).
As the previous aerial survey report in this series showed, even the limited ground data then
available proved useful to the quota setting process, which hitherto had relied exclusively on
aerial data (Ecosystems 2001b). Unfortunately data entry problems have continued to affect
the ground monitoring programme, and at the time of writing there is no new analysis of those
data available to inform the recommendations made above. Despite this, the potential value of
the ground monitoring programme remains great, and if possible it should be carried forward
indefinitely. A further “follow-up” consultancy is planned to try and put the programme into a
position that will facilitate this.
9
and in 2000, for zebra only
In addition to a continuation of the regular, patrol-based monitoring, there is a case for

replacing the annual aerial survey events of Phase I with an annual ground transect survey that
would sample a wider area more representative of the entire GCA than that covered hitherto. If
required, the present consultants are ready and willing to assist in the planning and conduct of
the first such survey10.
%&$!
The data analyses in this and the other reports in the series have proved the utility of
professionally conducted aerial surveys for assessing resource availability and sustainable
offtake levels in a managed hunting area. Some might argue that aerial surveys are a luxury
that few equivalent programmes will be able to afford, whereas in fact they simply must be
done if CBNRM programmes involving consumptive utilisation are to be managed objectively
and sustainably. This is because the ground methods that could return quantitative data of
comparable quality are technically and logistically prohibitive. The more “user-friendly”
approach recommended and discussed above can track trends, but cannot give any insight
into actual numbers of animals.
Aerial surveys are therefore essential for “calibrating” any ground-based effort in quantitative
terms. However, one important fact to be noted from the MBOMIPA experience is that even
with a 10% sample, the confidence limits for most of the relevant species are very wide. As a
result, the method proved too insensitive to pick up anything but “noise” when repeated at the
frequency applied in this series of surveys (Appendix B).
This suggests that an interval between surveys greater than the duration of the MBOMIPA
series (43 months) would be acceptable as long as the system being monitored remains
relatively stable. Clearly however, follow-ups cannot be too widely spaced because should a
significant upward or downward trend emerge, only knowledge of the fact would allow both the
ground monitoring effort and the quota setting process to be re-calibrated. The indications of an
incipient downward trend for wildlife overall (Appendix B), underlines the need for further aerial
surveys in the MBOMIPA area. Obviously, it is important to keep the population sizes assumed
for quota setting purposes as close to reality as possible, otherwise sustainability will be
compromised.
In conclusion, it is recommended that an SRF of the area be re-flown at 5-year intervals.

There are no advantages to flying in the wet season (zebra aside), meaning the next survey
would be due in October 2007. A complementary total count of buffalo would only escalate
costs that already will prove a challenge to meet. A total count instead of an SRF is not a
recommended option because, unlike the SRF, it returns data on only one species instead of
many, the accuracy and precision of which will not improve in proportion to the number of
repetitions.
'( )*

Ecosystems would like to thank the following for contributions and assistance towards the
successful execution of all six surveys: from MBOMIPA, Dr Martin Walsh, Mr K. Ngomello and
all their colleagues; and from TANAPA, Chief Warden Mtahiko and all his staff in the Ruaha
National Park. The assistance of Arif Salehmohamed, Twaha Nassoro and others at the British
High Commission in Dar-es-Salaam in obtaining flight clearances is gratefully acknowledged.
Dr M. Norton-Griffiths contributed the important inter-survey analyses presented in Appendix B.
10
The approach referred to is discussed more fully in Ecosystems 2000b and 2001a.
+,
Ecosystems Consultants (1999a) Game Surveys and Participatory Monitoring Programme: A proposal
for technical assistance. MBOMIPA Report No. MCR2, Iringa
Ecosystems Consultants (1999b) Game surveys of Lunda Mkwambi Game Controlled Area and
adjacent areas of Ruaha National Park: First Survey, 21-27 April 1999. MBOMIPA Report No. MCR5,
Iringa
Ecosystems Consultants (1999c) Game surveys of Lunda Mkwambi Game Controlled Area and adjacent
areas of Ruaha National Park: Second Survey, 17-29 October 1999. MBOMIPA Report No. MCR7,
Iringa
Ecosystems Consultants (2000a) Game surveys of Lunda Mkwambi Game Controlled Area and
adjacent areas of Ruaha National Park: Third Survey, 29 April - 9 May 2000. MBOMIPA Report No.
MCR8, Iringa
Ecosystems Consultants (2000b) Participatory Monitoring of Wildlife Resources for MBOMIPA Project
Villages. MBOMIPA Report No. MCR9, Iringa
Ecosystems Consultants (2000c) Game surveys of Lunda Mkwambi Game Controlled Area and adjacent
areas of Ruaha National Park: Fourth Survey, 13 – 23 November 2000. MBOMIPA Report No. MCR10,
Iringa
Ecosystems Consultants (2001a) Participatory Monitoring of Wildlife Resources for MBOMIPA Project
Villages: Data Analysis and Performance Review. MBOMIPA Report No. MCR11, Iringa
Ecosystems Consultants (2001b) Game surveys of Lunda Mkwambi Game Controlled Area and
adjacent areas of Ruaha National Park: Fifth Survey, 9 – 19 April 2001. MBOMIPA Report No. MCR10,
Iringa
Martin, R. and S. Thomas (1991) Quotas for sustainable wildlife utilisation in communal lands: manual for
district councils with appropriate authority. The Zimbabwe Trust and Department of National Parks and
Wildlife Management, Harare.
Norton-Griffiths, M. (1978) Counting Animals. Handbook No.1 in a series of handbooks on techniques

currently used in African wildlife ecology (Ed: J. Grimsdell). African Wildlife Foundation, Nairobi.
REWMP (1994a) Aerial Wildlife Survey in Rift Valley sectors of Ruaha National Park and Lunda
Mkwambi Game Controlled Area: 13-19 July 1994. Ruaha Ecosystem Wildlife Management Project.
REWMP (1994b) Aerial Wildlife Survey in Rift Valley sectors of Ruaha National Park and Lunda
Mkwambi Game Controlled Area: 8-14 November 1994. Ruaha Ecosystem Wildlife Management
Project.
REWMP (1995) Aerial Wildlife Survey in Rift Valley sectors of Ruaha National Park and Lunda Mkwambi
Game Controlled Area: 1-6 June 1995. Ruaha Ecosystem Wildlife Management Project.
Taylor, R.D. (1995) Consultancy to assess the potential for community management of wildlife resources
in the Lunda-Mkwambi Game Controlled Area adjacent to the south eastern border of the Ruaha
National Park. Report to the British Development Division in Eastern Africa.
--." -
/

-, - ,- -
Tables and maps are presented by species in alphabetical order

BOMAS in use
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94
REWMP 2 - Nov 94
REWMP 3 - Jun 95
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99
MBOMIPA3 - May00 1,072 44
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 881 47
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 730 42
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 874 41
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99
MBOMIPA3 - May00 48 157
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 0
Old Area (LMGCA

only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99
New Area
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99

Bomas - New
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Bomas - New
BOMAS recently abandoned

Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94
REWMP 2 - Nov 94
REWMP 3 - Jun 95
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
Old Area (LMGCA

only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99
New Area
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99

Bomas - Old
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
> 25
Kilometers

Bomas - Old
No Window
BUFFALO
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 3,306 91

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 4,283 63
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 4,573 82
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 4,180 121
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 7,856 70
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 3,039 75
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 1,099 121
Merged estimate 1,187 64
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 4,582

MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 4,062 124
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 5,086 85
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 2,568 79
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 1,080 122
Old Area (LMGCA

only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 63
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 80 332
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 1,865 249
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0
Merged estimate 45 250
New Area
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 0
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 31 181
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0

Total Count
1 - 50
0 10 20
51 - 150
Kilometers
151 - 250
> 250
Rivers RNP/LMGCA boundaries Village boundaries Area of buffalo count

MBOMIPA
CATTLE
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 24,881 32

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 49,985 21
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 31,431 24
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 64,171 37
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 36,724 47
MBOMIPA3 - May00 56,633 48
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 26,756 44
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 60,093 46
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 72,647 45
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 750

MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 1,481 187
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0
Old Area (LMGCA

only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 28,359

MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 43,217 58
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 23,736 80
MBOMIPA3 - May00 56,595 43
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 26,792 37
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 60,572 41
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 72,650 40
New Area
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 17,357 61

MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 13,349 47
MBOMIPA3 - May00 15,447 61
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 11,829 39
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 12,178 61
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 13,519 54

Cattle
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Cattle
DONKEY
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 380 67

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 73 172
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 83 129
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 1,056 53
MBOMIPA3 - May 00 319 111
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 1,478 48
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 0
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 0
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0
Old Area (LMGCA

only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 83
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 315 132
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 1,402 45
New Area

MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 246 127

Dry Season, October 2002
Donkey
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Donkey
ELAND
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 536 85

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 724 71
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 199 75
Old Area (RNP only)

Old Area (LMGCA

only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 58
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
New Area
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0

Eland
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Eland
ELEPHANT
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 1,307 44

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 1,248 55
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 3,014 39
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 3,189 61
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 3,191 45
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 1,773 47
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 1,413 72
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 4,582 101
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 2,113

MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 2,823 65
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 1,826 46
MBOMIPA3 - May00 1,892 108
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 1,395 51
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 1,117 84
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 1,727 49
Old Area (LMGCA

only)

MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 247 287
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 920 139
MBOMIPA3 - May00 3,785 117
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 2,855 162
New Area

MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 499 104
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0

Elephant
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Elephant
GIRAFFE
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 2,636 11

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 2,338 12
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 1,735 10
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 5,085 32
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 3,299 27
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 2,249 27
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 3,353 27
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 2,387 25
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 1,380

MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 3,997 33
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 2,700 23
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 1,941 22
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 2,587 26
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 1,930 21
Old Area (LMGCA

only)

MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 732 117
New Area
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 474 100


Giraffe
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Giraffe
HARTEBEEST
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 43 169

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 108 105
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 47 116
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 47
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0
Old Area (LMGCA

only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 0
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0
New Area
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0
IMPALA
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 4,340 22

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 3,592 34
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 2,909 35
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 3,027 35
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 4,196 40
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 2,553 46
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 5,367 33
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 2,093 52
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 1,957

MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 2,338 42
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 3,575 42
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 2,103 52
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 4,276 34
MBOMIPA6 – Oct 02 1,859 53
Old Area (LMGCA

only)

MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 419 154
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 1,028 60
New Area
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 280 138

MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 376 124
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0

Impala
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Impala
KUDU
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 596 35

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 342 45
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 362 42
Old Area (RNP only)

Old Area (LMGCA

only)

MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 116 124
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 119 185
New Area
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 151 112


Kudu
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Kudu
REEDBUCK
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 0
REWMP 2 - Nov 94 0
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 0
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 0
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 0
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 0
Old Area (LMGCA

only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 0
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 0
New Area

MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 0
SABLE
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94
REWMP 2 - Nov 94
REWMP 3 - Jun 95
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 261 104
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 264 115
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 153 159
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
Old Area (LMGCA

only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
New Area
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 0

Sable
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Sable
SHOATS
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 19,700 36

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 16,426 43
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 13,963 33
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 21,721 85
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 18,918 50
MBOMIPA3 - May00 21,800 53
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 27,131 53
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 26,440 49
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 21,598 60
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 20
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 2,230 191
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 2,569 189
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 0
Old Area (LMGCA

only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 11,828

MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 13,126 66
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 12,741 85
MBOMIPA3 - May00 21,800 49
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 27,168 48
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 24,107 45
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 21,599 56
New Area
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 6,971 74

MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 921 104
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 6,076 66
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 5,803 76
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 5,932 97

Shoats
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Shoats
WARTHOG
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 594 44

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 294 55
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 463 48
Old Area (RNP only)

Old Area (LMGCA

only)

New Area


Warthog
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Warthog
WATERBUCK
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 132 84

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 310 92
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 239 134
Old Area (RNP only)

Old Area (LMGCA

only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 0
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
New Area
MBOMIPA3 - May00 0
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 0
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 0
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 0

Waterbuck
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Waterbuck
ZEBRA
Numbers 95% C.L.
Old Area (All)
REWMP 1 - Jul 94 3,424 28

REWMP 2 - Nov 94 3,191 26
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 2,391 28
MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 5,840 40
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 3,176 38
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 3,100 43
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 5,090 34
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 2,012 50
Old Area (RNP only)
REWMP 3 - Jun 95 2,166

MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 5,689 37
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 2,862 36
MBOMIPA4 - Nov 00 2,639 40
MBOMIPA5 - Apr 01 4,575 32
MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 1,768 53
Old Area (LMGCA

only)

MBOMIPA 1 - Apr 99 102 209
MBOMIPA 2 - Oct 99 212 156
New Area

MBOMIPA6 - Oct 02 0

Zebra
Sample Count
1-5
6 - 15
16 - 25
0 20 40
Kilometers > 25

Zebra

Between April 1999 and October 2002, a series of six aerial surveys was carried out within the
MBOMIPA study area (Main Report). To all intents and purposes, the operational procedures
adopted for each of the six censuses were strictly comparable. The most important outputs
were population estimates for individual species of wildlife and domestic stock. However, as is
the nature of the method, these estimates demonstrate considerable variation, both within
each census (in terms of confidence limits) and between censuses (marked variation within a
set of population estimates for an individual species) 11. This analysis was therefore undertaken
to gauge the extent to which these two sources of variation could be ascribed to random
(sampling) error rather than to seasonal effects or even to time trends.
1. Random (sampling) Effects

Successive samples (of roughly the same size) drawn from the same population will differ from
one another and each estimate will itself have an error term associated with it. However, the
ratio (F ratio) of the mean of the sample variances to the variance of the sample means will be
very small.
Turned around, this F ratio provides a diagnostic tool to test if a series of samples has indeed
been drawn from “the same” population (Table B1). In this Ruaha data set, none of the
calculated F ratios is greater than the critical value of 5.05 (for n-1 = 5 df). This suggests that
sampling error alone is enough to explain the observed variation in population estimates both
within and between surveys.
Table B1: Mean variance (F) ratios for all six surveys
SPECIES Number of A. Variance of B. Mean F Ratio: [B/A]

Counts Population Population
Estimates Variance
Eland 6 64805 43115 0.67
Elephant 6 2642050 2197534 0.83
Giraffe 6 1030992 255463 0.25
Impala 6 1448328 551130 0.38
Kudu 6 6105 9172 1.50
Buffalo 6 7506243 2749441 0.37
Warthog 6 54552 27491 0.50
Zebra 6 2987431 941050 0.32
Donkey 6 194130 69947 0.36

Cattle 6 305563330 151477298 0.50
Shoats 6 10115464 37034594 3.66
11
Because animals are never distributed evenly within a census zone each sample unit (transect) will vary in the number of animals
that it contains, so that some units will have many animals in them while others will have but few, or perhaps none at all. This means
that the estimate of the population total will depend on the particular distribution of animals that the transects happen to overlay at the
time of survey, for different distributions of the same population will give different results. In other words, for any given population of
animals, the number of alternative estimates that can be obtained from samples of the same size is large. It is this that is known as
“sampling error”, and in spite of the contrary implications of the word “error”, this is not something that can be corrected through better
practice, as it is a fundamental attribute of sampling methodology.
As a practical consequence, the six estimates of population size for each species can be
merged together to give a single, more precise, estimate (it is best practice here to weight each
individual estimate inversely proportional to its variance).
2. Seasonal effects
Despite the results in (1) above, it is still worthwhile to investigate any seasonal effects on the
population estimates. Certain species may move into or out of the area on a seasonal basis,
and this may contribute towards the between-survey variation even though the individual
estimates are, statistically speaking, drawn from “the same” populations.
A simple one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is the appropriate test here, in which the six
estimates for each species are tested for a seasonal (“dry” or “wet”) effect (Table B2). Although
in general the dry season estimates are less than the wet season estimates, only with zebra is
the difference statistically significant. Any seasonal effect is accordingly quite weak, and even
pooling all wildlife and all livestock together fails to show anything of significance.
Table B2: ANOVA for seasonal effects
ANOVA Results 3 WET Seasons 3 Dry Seasons

SPECIES Number F ratio p value Df Mean SE Mean SE
of
Counts
Eland 6 2.339 0.201 1,4 710 133 428 128
Elephant 6 0.027 0.877 1,4 3426 1237 3182 811
Giraffe 6 4.114 0.112 1,4 3965 561 2645 329
Impala 6 1.537 0.283 1,4 4105 682 2947 638
Kudu 6 1.455 0.294 1,4 277 52 350 32
Buffalo 6 0.569 0.493 1,4 2110 1035 3875 2199
Warthog 6 3.703 0.127 1,4 721 106 426 111
Zebra 6 33.374 0.004 1,4 5744 354 2762 376
All Wildlife 21058 na 16615 na

season 2.126 0.155 1,7,7
species 8.721 0 1,7,7
species*season 1.582 0.177 1,7,7
Donkey 6 0.721 0.444 1,4 951 339 637 150

Cattle 6 1.119 0.351 1,4 60299 2178 45375 13936
Shoats 6 0.072 0.493 1,4 23320 1560 22549 2418
All Livestock 84570 na 68561 na

season 1.236 0.288 1,2,2
species 39.474 0 1,2,2
species*season 0.998 0.397 1,2,2
3. Time Trends
It is equally worthwhile to investigate whether a time effect within the survey programme is
contributing towards the between-survey variation in population estimates. Species might be
drifting out of the area due to decreasing rainfall, or through increasing human activity, or
perhaps into the area in response to good rainfall or to avoid human activity.
OLS (ordinary least squares) regression is the appropriate diagnostic tool here, at least in the
first instance to see if there is anything of interest going on (Table B3). The results are
intriguing. Looking at wildlife first, seven of the eight species demonstrate a consistent
decrease in their population estimates over the 43 months of the survey programme (negative t
values on the time variable), elephant being the sole exception. Although none of the individual
trends is statistically significant, the t values for giraffe, buffalo and zebra are interestingly large.
Something is definitely going on, and when all wildlife are pooled together (using dummy
variables to control for different species effects) the time trend is statistically significant
(p<=0.02). Transforming the population estimates to log10 values intensifies the influence of the
time trend (p<=0.002). Overall, the populations of wildlife in the study area seem to be
decreasing by some 0.7% per month.
Table B3: OLS regression analysis
SPECIES Number of Constant Time t value p value

Counts
Eland 6 671 -5.6 -0.689 0.529
Elephant 6 3149 8.48 0.155 0.884
Giraffe 6 4228 -50.34 -2.177 0.095
Impala 6 3948 -22.99 -0.592 0.586
Kudu 6 338 -1.32 -0.519 0.631
Buffalo 6 5246 -122.9 -1.788 0.148
Warthog 6 675 -5.54 -0.753 0.493
Zebra 6 5513 -68.71 -1.463 0.217
All Wildlife 3609 -33.62 -2.379 0.022

All Wildlife (Log10) 3.452 -0.007 -3.363 0.002
Donkey 6 648 7.95 0.556 0.608

Cattle 6 45140 419.88 0.764 0.487
Shoats 6 21790 62.42 0.611 0.575
All Livestock 48941 163.42 0.911 0.378

All Livestock (Log10) 4.642 0.003 0.997 0.336
However, the time trend is not particularly strong (Table B4). By pooling all the wildlife data into
the first three surveys versus the second three, it is seen that the time variable (TIMEONE)
accounts for at most 6% of the total between-survey variation.
In contrast, the livestock data show no such time effect. Although the t values of all the time
variables are positive, the effect is weak and cannot even be shown by pooling all livestock
together.
4. Summary
In conclusion, the best model from a practical viewpoint is to treat the six estimates for each
species as independent samples from the same population, and pool the results to obtain a
more precise, single estimate (weighting each individual result appropriately). Seasonal effects
are effectively absent (apart from zebra) and may indeed reflect nothing more than changing
visibility bias. However, with wildlife, there does appear to be a weak but consistent time effect,
with populations showing a general decrease over the 43 months of the survey programme.
The decrease is not particularly strong, but must be borne in mind when considering
management options.
Table B4: Analysis of variance of two census time periods
Data for the following results were selected according to:

(DOM= 0) – all wildlife species pooled together
Effects coding used for categorical variables in model.
Categorical values encountered during processing are:

TIMEONE (2 levels)
1,(first three surveys) 2 (second three surveys)
SPP (8 levels)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11
Dep Var: POP N: 48 Multiple R: 0.831 Squared multiple R: 0.690
Analysis of Variance
Source Sum-of-Squares df Mean-Square F-ratio P
TIMEONE 1.09539E+07 1 1.09539E+07 6.117 0.019

SPP 1.06297E+08 7 1.51852E+07 8.479 0.000
TIMEONE*SPP 1.04410E+07 7 1491569.940 0.833 0.568
Error 5.73077E+07 32 1790865.104

Game Surveys of Lunda-Mkwambi Game Controlled Area and Adjacent Areas of Ruaha National Park: Sixth Aerial Survey, 14-25 October 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Game Surveys of Lunda-Mkwambi Game Controlled Area and Adjacent Areas of Ruaha National Park: Sixth Aerial Survey, 14-25 October 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM

WILDLIFE DIVISION & TANZANIA NATIONAL PARKS

in collaboration with IRINGA DISTRICT COUNCIL

GAME SURVEYS OF LUNDA-MKWAMBI

Tel: 026-2702686; Fax: 026-2702807

2 Approach and methods..........................................................................................................1

Appendix A: Population estimates and distribution maps................................................ 21

Appendix B: Comparative analysis of the MBOMIPA series of wildlife counts.............. 69

In late 1998, MBOMIPA commissioned a consultancy to plan and propose a programme of

aerial surveys, to be conducted bi-annually from April 1999

Survey Area with UTM Grid

Transects Flown in the Survey Area

Buffalo is a species of particular importance to the MBOMIPA project. Unfortunately, estimates

SRF Survey Configuration

Sampling parameters (see also Figure 3):

Transect spacing: 2.5 km

Nominal height above ground: 300 ft

Actual average height above ground: 301 ft

Survey Area with Analytical Strata

OLD - Ruaha National Park OLD - LMGCA NEW - LMGCA

Table 2.1: Analytical Strata

Old Old Old New

Table 3.1: Other species observed in the sample

SPECIES NUMBERS COUNTED IN SAMPLE STRIP

As an aid to the interpretation of seasonal differences in species distributions, it is standard

Table 3.3: Buffalo numbers by management area

MBOMIPA SRF Game Survey 6

MBOMIPA SRF Game Surveys

No Window No Window No Window

Total Count of Buffalo

Rivers RNP/LMGCA boundaries Village boundaries Area of buffalo count

Figure 7: Seasonal numbers of livestock

Cattle Shoats Donkeys

Figure 8: Seasonal numbers of principal wildlife species

Principal wildlife by season

Zebra Giraffe Impala

Table 5.1: Buffalo seen and counted in LMGCA(S)

SEASON BUFFALO SOURCE

No Window No Window No Window

Table 5.2: Quotas recommended for the 2003 hunting season

Guineafowl ? 25 ? n/a 125 125 125 (Note 5)

SPECIES NORMALLY RESERVED FOR TOURIST HUNTERS

1. After Martin and Thomas (1991)

In addition to a continuation of the regular, patrol-based monitoring, there is a case for

In conclusion, it is recommended that an SRF of the area be re-flown at 5-year intervals.

'( ) *

Norton-Griffiths, M. (1978) Counting Animals. Handbook No.1 in a series of handbooks on techniques

Tables and maps are presented by species in alphabetical order

Old Area (RNP only)

Old Area (LMGCA

MBOMIPA SRF Game Survey 6

MBOMIPA SRF Game Surveys

No Window No Window No Window

BOMAS recently abandoned

Old Area (RNP only)

Old Area (LMGCA

MBOMIPA SRF Game Survey 6

MBOMIPA SRF Game Surveys

REWMP 1 - Jul 94 3,306 91

Old Area (RNP only)

REWMP 3 - Jun 95 4,582

Old Area (LMGCA

Total Count of Buffalo

Rivers RNP/LMGCA boundaries Village boundaries Area of buffalo count

'( )*